-------
Directive 9230.0-03C
January, 1992
COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND:
A HANDBOOK
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
The policy and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of Government
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party
in litigation with the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials may decide to follow
the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of site
circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public
notice.
Additional copies of this document can be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Dear Colleague:
Superfund is committed to involving citizens in the
hazardous waste cleanup process. Our community relations effort
is based on two-way communication designed not only to keep
citizens informed about site progress, but also to give them
opportunity to provide input into site decisions.
Our experience has shown that when citizens are involved
early and often in the process, cleanup is enhanced rather than
impeded. Just as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure, we've learned that developing relationships with the local
community from the outset is considerably more effective than
trying to work at the last minute with a hostile community who
feels left out of the decision-making process.
I am proud of our accomplishments thus far, and am pleased
with the excellent communication skills displayed among Superfund
managers and staff. This handbook draws heavily from the proven
techniques and approaches you and your predecessors have
developed over the years. With publication of Community
Relations In Superfund; A Handbookr let us renew our commitment
to communication, and to working with citizens to form effective
partnerships based on mutual trust and respect.
Henr^y Longest/II
Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Community Relations Handbook Contents
CONTENTS
NOTICE "
EXHIBITS «
PREFACE xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND 1
1.1 THE PROGRAM AND ITS OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 BACKGROUND 2
1.3 HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK 2
CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES 5
2.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS 6
2.1.1 All Removal Actions 6
2.1.2 Actions With Planning Period of Less Than Six Months 6
2.1.3 Actions Extending Beyond 120 Days 6
2.1.4 Actions With Planning Period of At Least Six Months 6
2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSES 7
2.2.1 Community Interviews 7
2.2.2 Community Relations Plan 7
2.2.3 Information Repository and Administrative Record 7
2.2.4 Technical Assistance Grants Notification 8
2.2.5 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan Notification 8
2.2.6 Public Comment Period and Public Meeting 8
2.2.7 Public Comment Period on the Administrative Order on Consent or
Consent Decree 8
2.2.8 Responsiveness Summary 9
2.2.9 Addressing Significant Changes Prior to the ROD 9
2.2.10 Public Notice 9
2.2.11 Revision of the Community Relations Plan 9
2.2.12 Addressing Post-ROD Significant Changes (Explanation of Differences) 10
2.2.13 Fact Sheet and Opportunity for a Public Briefing on the Final Engineering Design 10
2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONS OF SITES TO THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 10
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DELETION OF SITES FROM THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 11
2.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
PROGRAM 11
-------
Contents Community Relations Handbook
CHAPTER 3: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS AND DESIGNING
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSES 19
3.1 PLANNING AND CONDUCTING COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS 19
3.1.1 Background Review Prior to Community Interviews 20
3.1.2 Developing a Contact List for Community Interviews 20
3.1.3 Scheduling Community Interviews 21
3.1.4 Conducting Community Interviews 21
3.2 DESIGNING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS 23
3.2.1 Identifying Citizen Concerns 23
3.2.2 Selecting Techniques and Approaches 24
3.2.3 Community Relations Plans 25
3.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS FOR SITE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 27
CHAPTER 4: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS DURING
REMEDIAL RESPONSES 29
4.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS BEFORE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 29
4.1.1 Community Relations During Preliminary Assessment 30
4.1.2 Community Relations During Site Inspection 31
4.1.3 Community Relations During the NPL Listing Process 31
4.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
STUDY 32
4.2.1 Community Relations During Remedial Investigation 32
4.2.2 Community Relations During the Feasibility Study 33
4.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AT THE COMPLETION OF REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY 33
4.3.1 Proposed Plan 34
4.3.2 Newspaper Notice 35
4.3.3 Public Comment Period 35
4.3.4 Addressing Significant Changes Prior to Adoption of the Final Remedial Action Plan 36
4.3.5 Addressing Post-ROD Significant Changes 36
4.3.6 Responsiveness Summary 37
4.4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS BEFORE AND DURING REMEDIAL DESIGN 38
4.5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMEDIAL ACTION 39
4.6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 40
4.7 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
DELETION PROCESS 40
4.8 COPING WITH UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENTS 41
4.9 SUMMARY 42
CHAPTER 5: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS 45
5.1 THE REMOVAL PROCESS 45
VI
-------
Community Relations Handbook Contents
5.2 PREPARING FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS 46
5.2.1 Measures for Community Relations Preparedness 46
5.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS 47
5.3.1 Requirements for All Removal Actions 47
5.3.2 Requirements for Removal Actions with a Planning Period of Less than Six Months 48
5.3.3 Requirements for Removal Actions Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days 48
5.3.4 Requirements for Removal Actions with a Planning Period of at Least Six Months 48
5.4 SUGGESTED COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES 50
CHAPTER 6: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 55
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CERCLA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 55
6.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 56
6.2.1 Community Interviews 56
6.2.2 Community Relations Plans 56
6.2.3 Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Involvement 57
6.3 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS AT REMEDIAL SITES 58
6.3.1 Introduction 58
6.3.2 Notice to Potentially Responsible Parties 58
6.3.3 Negotiations 58
6.3.4 Community Relations Following a RI/FS Order 59
6.3.5 Public Notice and Comment on Consent Decrees for RD/RA 60
6.3.6 Community Relations During PRP Remediation 61
6.3.7 Technical Discussions 61
6.4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS 62
6.5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AND SETTLEMENTS 62
6.5.1 Mixed Funding, De Minimis and Cost Recovery Settlements 62
6.5.2 Injunctive Litigation 63
6.5.3 Cost Recovery 63
6.5.4 Interaction with RCRA and other Federal and State Laws 64
6.6 THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AS PART OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS 64
6.6.1 Overview 64
6.6.2 Purpose of the Administrative Record 65
6.6.3 Community Relations Coordinator Responsibilities for the Administrative Record 65
6.6.4 Other Community Relations Coordinator Responsibilities 66
6.6.5 Relationship Between the Administrative Record and Information Repositories 66
CHAPTER 7: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS DURING
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION 69
7.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMEDIAL DESIGN 69
7.1.1 Required Community Relations Activities During Remedial Design 69
vii
-------
Contents Community Relations Handbook
7.1.2 Suggested Community Relations Activities During Remedial Design 71
7.1.3 Enforcement Activities and Community Relations at Remedial Sites 72
7.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMEDIAL ACTION 73
7.2.1 Suggested Community Relations Activities 73
7.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES INVOLVING STATES, USAGE, USER, AND
RPs DURING RD/RA 75
7.3.1 Community Relations Activities Involving the State 75
7.3.2 Community Relations Activities Involving USAGE or USER 76
7.3.3 Community Relations under PRP-Lead RD/RA 77
CHAPTER 8: THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM 79
8.1 HOW DOES THE PROGRAM WORK? 79
8.2 WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR A TAG? 79
8.3 IMPORTANT PROGRAM PROVISIONS 80
8.3.1 Budgeting and Exceeding the $50,000 Cap 80
8.3.2 Matching Funds Requirement 80
8.4 TAG APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 80
8.5 SELECTING A TECHNICAL ADVISOR 81
8.6 HOW GROUPS MANAGE THEIR TAGS 81
8.7 TAG PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 81
8.8 TAG OUTREACH 82
CHAPTER 9: RISK COMMUNICATION 83
9.1 PRINCIPLES OF RISK COMMUNICATION 83
9.1.1 The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication 84
9.2 ADDRESSING TECHNICAL AND NON-TECHNICAL CONCERNS 85
9.2.1 Non-Technical Public Concerns 85
9.2.2 Explaining Technical Issues 86
9.2.3 General Guidelines for Communicating Technical Issues 87
9.3 RISK COMPARISONS 87
9.4 INVOLVING THE PUBLIC 88
9.5 TECHNIQUES 89
9.6 SUMMARY 89
CHAPTER 10: INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 91
10.1 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCY ROLES IN SUPERFUND 91
10.2 FEDERALLY OWNED FACILITIES 93
10.3 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AT FEDERAL-LEAD SITES 94
10.4 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AT STATE-LEAD SITES 94
10.5 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AT ENFORCEMENT SITES 95
viu
-------
Community Relations Handbook Contents
CHAPTER 11: ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS 97
11.1 THE ROLE OF HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL OFFICES 97
11.2 TASKS FOR CONTRACTORS 97
11.3 MANAGING CONTRACTOR SUPPORT 97
APPENDICES 101
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES A-l
A.1 Briefings A-2
A.2 Community Interviews A-3
A.3 Contact Person A-6
A.4 Door-To-Door Canvassing A-7
A.5 Exhibits A-8
A.6 Fact Sheets A-9
A.7 Formal Public Hearings A-10
A.8 Information Repository A-12
A.9 News Conferences A-14
A.10 News Releases A-15
A.I 1 Observation Deck A-17
A.12 On-Scene Information Office A-18
A.13 Open Houses/Availability Sessions A-19
A. 14 Presentations A-20
A.15 Public Comment Period A-21
A.16 Public Meetings A-22
A.17 Public Notices A-24
A.18 Responsiveness Summaries A-26
A.19 Revision Of Community Relations Plans A-27
A.20 Site Tours A-28
A.21 Small Group Meetings A-29
A.22 Superfund Briefing Book A-31
A.23 Technical Advisor A-32
A.24 Telephone Contacts A-33
A.25 Telephone Hotline A-35
A.26 Telephone Network/Phone Tree A-36
A.27 Translations A-37
A.28 Using Existing Groups/Publications A-39
A.29 Workshops A-40
APPENDIX B: SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR COMMUNITY
RELATIONS PLAN B-l
I. Suggested Format B-l
II. Sample Plan B-3
IX
-------
Contents Community Relations Handbook
APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR PROPOSED PLAN C-l
I. Suggested Format C-l
II. Sample Proposed Plan C-3
APPENDIX D: SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR AND SAMPLE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY . . . D-l
I. Suggested Format D-l
II. Sample Responsiveness Summary D-3
APPENDIX E: SUPERFUND GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS E-l
Glossary E-l
Acronyms E-7
APPENDIX F: REFERENCES F-l
APPENDIX G: KEY CONTACTS FOR SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM . . . G-l
APPENDIX H: COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTIVES RESULTING FROM THE
SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW H-l
HI. Superfund Responsiveness Summaries, OSWER Dir. No. 9203.0-06 H-2
H2. Planning for Sufficient Community Relations, OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-08 H-5
H3. Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund,
OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-09 H-12
H4. Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover, OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-13 H-15
H5. Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations
Program for Remedial Response, OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-15 H-18
H6. Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup Process,
and Discussing Site Findings and Decisions as They are Developed, OSWER
Dir. No. 9230.0-16 H-20
H7. Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations, OSWER
Dir. No. 9230.0-17 H-27
H8. Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-making, OSWER
Dir. No. 9230.0-18 H-32
H9. Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community Relations,
OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-20 H-36
APPENDIX I: FACT SHEETS 1-1
II. The Superfund Enforcement Process: How it WorksEnvironmental Fact Sheet 1-2
12. ATSDR Fact Sheet 1-7
13. ATSDR Public Health Assessments Fact Sheet 1-9
14. Information Repository Fact Sheet 1-11
15. Administrative Record Fact Sheet 1-12
-------
Community Relations Handbook Exhibits
EXHIBITS
2-1: CERCLA Community Relations Requirements 12
4-1: Suggested Community Relations Activities During Remedial Response 43
5-1: Community Relations and Administrative Record Requirements For Removals 49
5-2: Suggested Community Relations Activities During Removal Actions 51
11-1: Sample Tasks For Contractors in a Community Relations Program 99
XI
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Preface
PREFACE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
issuing this Handbook as policy and guidance for
community relations in the Superfund program. It is
applicable to all response actions conducted under the
authority of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), whether conducted by EPA, other Federal
agencies, or State governments. The objective of
community relations is to involve the public in
activities and decisions related to the cleanup of
Superfund sites. EPA also has developed a public
involvement program for community residents living
near facilities that currently treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes and, therefore, are regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. These two
programsSuperfund community relations and RCRA
public involvementshare similar objectives in
keeping communities informed about, and involved in,
hazardous waste issues. Despite these similar
objectives, this Handbook is intended solely for staff
involved in managing and implementing Superfund
community relations activities and programs. RCRA
staff may be able to use the community relations
concepts described in this Handbook; however, the
Handbook is designed to address community relations
issues unique to Superfund sites.
The purposes of the Handbook are to provide:
(1) policy requirements for conducting community
relations activities at Superfund sites, and
(2) additional techniques and guidance that can be
used to supplement the basic community relations
requirements. This Handbook revises and supersedes
interim versions issued in September, 1983, and June,
1988. This Handbook incorporates public partici-
pation requirements of SARA, EPA policies issued
since 1983, EPA Administrator William Reilly's
Management Review of the Superfund Program (the
90-Day Study), and the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) issued in February 1990. Appendix H contains
a listing and the text of the nine key community
relations directives that were issued as a result of the
90-Day Study. This Handbook also incorporates
lessons gained from over ten years of experience in
conducting community relations activities at
Superfund sites throughout the nation. This
experience has confirmed the value of the Superfund
community relations program and has provided
considerable insight, often based on trial-and-error,
about which approaches and activities are more useful
and which may be less so.
The Handbook continues to emphasize two-way
communication between the public and Superfund
staff in planning and implementing community
relations programs. It also stresses the importance of
internal communication between technical, community
relations, and legal staff in carrying out coordinated
community relations activities. This approach has
consistently demonstrated the value of incorporating
public input into the decision-making process.
Since publication of the September, 1983, interim
version, community relations efforts have increasingly
become standard for EPA and State agencies
responsible for Superfund actions. Regional and State
staff conducting effective community relations efforts
are growing in number, and necessary resources are
increasingly available. The primary emphasis of this
revised Handbook, therefore, is on practical guidance
for planning and implementing community relations
activities, with secondary emphasis on the rationale
for such activities.
This Handbook is supplemented by EPA guidance on
contract management for community relations, as well
as by EPA policy and guidance on community
relations during particular phases of Superfund
response actions. As new issues and concerns arise,
other guidance will be developed to supplement this
information.
Although prepared by EPA, this Handbook is intended
to be equally useful to staff in other Federal and State
agencies who are responsible for implementing
community relations programs during Superfund
xm
-------
Preface
Community Relations Handbook
responses. The term "agency" is used in this
document to refer to either EPA, another Federal
agency, or a State agency with lead responsibility for
Superfund actions.
Community relations is a team effort involving the
collaboration of technical staff, enforcement staff, and
staff with special expertise in community relations or
public affairs. Therefore, this Handbook is intended
for a broad audience of all those individuals involved
in any way in community relations activities. The
term "staff," applies to anyone involved in a
community relations program, not just staff whose
sole or principal responsibility is to plan and
administer community relations programs. One point
stressed throughout this Handbook is that an effective
community relations program requires the
attention and commitment of everyone involved in
a Superfund response, regardless of job title. This
requires that technical and enforcement staff
familiarize themselves with community relations
requirements and issues of community concern at a
site while community relations staff become aware of
the technical and legal issues at a site. This guidance
can help to coordinate the contributions of staff
throughout an agency and ensure an effective
community relations program.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Handbook serves as guidance for conducting
community relations activities in the Superfund
program. Comments on drafts of this Handbook were
sought from:
EPA Regional and Headquarters Superfund staff;
State environmental agencies;
Other Federal agencies;
Environmental groups;
Government associations; and
Industry representatives.
The Superfund Community Relations staff would like
to thank those who submitted comments. Many
valuable suggestions for improving and expanding this
Handbook were received and have been incorporated
in this edition.
Questions and comments concerning this Handbook
should be directed to:
Melissa Shapiro or Jeff Langholz
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OS-220W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(703) 308-8380
xiv
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND
The Superfund community relations program
promotes two-way communication between members
of the public,1 including potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), and the lead government agency in charge of
response actions. The community relations activities
discussed in this Handbook provide the opportunity
for interested persons to comment on, and provide
input to, decisions about response actions. These
activities promote public participation in the decision-
making process by ensuring that the local public is
provided with accurate and timely information about
response plans and progress, and that their concerns
about planned actions are heard by the lead agency.
A site-specific and well-planned community relations
effort is an integral part of every Superfund response.
This Handbook offers policy and guidance on
planning and conducting Superfund community
relations programs. It emphasizes proven approaches
and activities derived from years of experience in
conducting community relations in Superfund. This
introductory chapter describes the Superfund
community relations program and its objectives,
presents some background on the program, and
explains how staff should use this Handbook.
1.1 THE PROGRAM AND ITS
OBJECTIVES
The Superfund community relations program consists
of activities conducted throughout the planning and
implementation of Superfund responses to encourage
communication between government staff and the
local public as well as the planning, coordination, and
administration of such activities. The overall
objectives of Superfund community relations are to:
Provide the public the opportunity to express
comments on and provide input to technical
decisions. An ongoing community relations
effort encourages and helps local citizens
contribute to Agency decisions that will have
long-term effects on their community.
Inform the public of planned or ongoing
actions. Community relations activities inform
the local public of the nature of the environ-
mental problem, the threat it may pose, the
responses under consideration, and the progress
being made.
Identify and resolve conflict. Conflict may be
unavoidable in some circumstances, but it can be
constructive if it brings alternative viewpoints
based upon sound, factual reasons into the open.
An effective community relations effort channels
conflict into a forum where it can serve a useful
purpose.
These objectives guide the planning and implement-
ation of community relations efforts in each
Superfund response.
1 This guidance is oriented primarily to the local public in the vicinity of a Superfund site. It recognizes that
members of the local public other than PRPs and State officials may have concerns and interests. The guidance
helps EPA and State staff coordinate with these special groups and individuals. The guidance is not intended to
describe our relationships with other members of the local public (e.g., PRPs and State officials). However, because
this guidance is a comprehensive statement of EPA's public participation program, it will necessarily include outreach
to PRPs. Finally, the terms "local public," "communities," "citizens," and "interested parties" are used inter-
changeably. They all represent the universe of affected and interested individuals, including PRPs.
-1-
-------
Chapter 1
Community Relations Handbook
1.2 BACKGROUND
Experience with the Superfund program has yielded
some general conclusions about the nature of public
involvement in hazardous waste problems and, in
turn, about the most useful approaches to community
relations in Superfund. These conclusions form the
basis for the objectives listed above and underlie the
specific recommendations in the following chapters of
this Handbook.
EPA has learned that its decision-making ability is
enhanced by actively soliciting comments and
information from the public. Public input can be
useful in two ways:
(1) Communities are able to provide valuable infor-
mation on local history, citizen involvement, and
site conditions; and
(2) The agency, by identifying the public's concerns,
is able to fashion a response that more effectively
addresses the community's needs.
The people who are the most concerned about a site
or release are usually those who consider themselves
to be directly affected, believing their health to be
endangered or perceiving possible economic loss.
Community relations efforts must focus on these
people.
EPA has also learned there can be no universal
approach for community relations. Each com-
munity is different. The issues of importance to the
public, the level of concern, the history of public
involvement, and the social structure of the com-
munity will vary from site to site. Therefore, staff
must tailor community relations efforts to the dis-
tinctive needs of each community, as indicated by that
community. Staff also must tie such efforts to the
technical response schedule.
Nonetheless, the best way to reach concerned
citizens is usually through informal activities
initiated early in the response and continued until
completion. Informal interviews in a resident's home,
face-to-face discussions, or frequent telephone calls
are the preferred means of ensuring open and candid
communication. When large public meetings are
needed, they must be very carefully planned to en-
hance productive communication.
Finally, there are no guaranteed results, even from
the most carefully planned community relations effort.
Keeping the community well-informed and actively
soliciting information and ideas from the community
are critical to the decision-making process. However,
this process will not guarantee that the community
will be entirely satisfied with the remedial or removal
action selected for the site. Occasionally, despite
every effort to involve the community in the
Superfund process, people will still disagree with, and
may even be angry about, the selected remedial action
or other site-related decisions. Nevertheless, the level
of anger and frustration is almost certain to be higher
in a community that has been "shut out" or ignored
than in a community that has participated in the
process. Therefore, staff should not try to quell dis-
sent, but strive to anticipate, identify, and acknowl-
edge areas of conflict so that decisions can be made
with full understanding of community views.
1.3 HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
This Handbook has been organized to be as useful as
possible to the staff responsible for planning and
implementing Superfund community relations pro-
grams and activities. It contains eleven chapters.
Chapter 1: Introduction:
in Superfund.
Community Relations
Chapter 2: Community Relations Requirements
and Policies is a concise summary of all requirements
for community relations in Superfund. Certain re-
quirements for a community relations program are
specified in the National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (13),2 the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
Bold face numbers appearing in parentheses refer to the bibliographical entries in Appendix F, References.
-2-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 1
1986 (52), and EPA policies. This chapter clearly
identifies required community relations activities for
each response, as distinguished from supplemental
activities recommended in this Handbook and other
EPA guidance.
Chapter 3: Conducting Community Interviews
and Designing Community Relations Programs for
Remedial Responses explains in detail the two
critical steps in planning a community relations
program for a Superfund remedial action:
(1) Conducting the community interviews (or on-site
discussions) used to identify key members of the
affected public, their concerns, and the best
means to involve and communicate with the
public; and
(2) Developing a site-specific Community Relations
Plan (CRP), based on the needs expressed by the
community during community interviews, that
specifies the types of community relations
activities to be conducted in the remedial action.
Additionally, this chapter describes community
relations activities for the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) (35) demonstration
program.
Chapter 4: Conducting Community Relations
Programs During Remedial Responses provides
guidance for conducting community relations
activities during particularly critical points in a
remedial response: before NPL listing; during the
remedial investigation and feasibility study; during the
remedial design and remedial action stages; and
during operation and maintenance. It also discusses
how to adapt community relations activities to
unanticipated developments.
Chapter 5: Conducting Community Relations
During Removal Actions describes the removal pro-
cess itself, the preparation for community relations
during removal actions, and community relations
requirements for removal actions. The chapter also
offers a number of suggested community relations
activities that are appropriate for removal actions.
Chapter 6: Conducting Community Relations
During Enforcement Activities and Development of
the Administrative Record provides an overview of
the CERCLA enforcement program and a discussion
of community relations activities as they relate to the
enforcement process and administrative record
development.
Chapter 7: Conducting Community Relations
During Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)
provides guidance on conducting community relations
activities during remedial design and remedial action.
Specific topics addressed by this chapter include:
community relations activities when there are
significant changes in the selected remedy after the
ROD is signed; suggestions on how to address the
community during PRP negotiations; and coor-
dination of community relations with the State, the
U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USER), and responsible
parties (RPs) during RD/RA.
Chapter 8: The Technical Assistance Grant
(TAG) Program discusses various aspects of the
TAG program, including: community groups' use of
a TAG; groups eligible to receive a TAG; TAG
application requirements, evaluation criteria, and
program provisions; group selection of a technical
advisor; and group management of their technical
advisor. This chapter also briefly addresses imple-
mentation and outreach for the TAG program.
Chapter 9: Risk Communication provides guidance
on communicating risk to Superfund communities.
This chapter discusses what risk communication is,
why it is difficult, and how to develop an effective
risk communication strategy.
Chapter 10: Interagency Coordination is an
overview of the respective roles and responsibilities
for community relations of the various government
agencies that may be involved in managing a
Superfund response including EPA, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Energy, other Federal
agencies, and State agencies.
-3-
-------
Chapter 1
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 11: Administration of Community
Relations Programs focuses on roles and respon-
sibilities for administering community relations and,
in particular, the functions that may be handled by
contractors.
In addition to these eleven chapters, this Handbook
includes nine appendices. The first four appendices
relate to specific community relations program
elements. Appendix A briefly discusses a number of
activities that may be used in a community relations
program. Appendix B presents a format for Com-
munity Relations Plans and a model plan illustrating
that format. Appendix C presents a format for pro-
posed plans and a model plan. Appendix D presents
a format for responsiveness summaries and a model
responsiveness summary exemplifying that format.
The remaining appendices contain helpful reference
and resource information. Appendix E provides a
glossary of, and acronyms for, key program and
technical terms commonly used in the Superfund
process. Appendix F provides an alphabetical list of
bibliographical information for EPA regulatory and
policy documents referenced in the Handbook.
Appendix G lists the EPA Headquarters Superfund
Community Relations staff, EPA Regional Superfund
Community Relations Coordinators, and Regional
Public Health Advisors from the Center for Disease
Control. Appendix H presents nine Superfund
community relations directives issued in response to
A Management Review of the Superfund Program (the
90-Day Study). Appendix I contains various fact
sheets on the Superfund enforcement process as well
a fact sheet on the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry.
This Handbook need not be read from cover to
cover. This Handbook is intended to serve as a
convenient and helpful reference to guide those
responsible for planning and implementing community
relations programs. Therefore, the Handbook has
been written to enable users to find the guidance they
need quickly and efficiently, without having to consult
several chapters at once. For example, a reader
interested in a specific community relations technique
could go directly to Appendix A for a full discussion
of the technique. Another reader interested in sug-
gested activities for remedial actions would refer to
Chapter 4. Consult the Table of Contents to find
guidance for a particular type of action or useful
background information. For an adequate under-
standing of all phases of the program, readers may
want to read this Handbook in its entirety.
-4-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES
This chapter summarizes the requirements for
community relations at Superfund sites. Its purpose
is to identify clearly, at the outset, community
relations activities that are required, in contrast to
those that are recommended, suggested, or otherwise
discretionary. These requirements are applicable to
all sitesEPA and State-leadat which a Superfund
response is being undertaken.
The requirements discussed in this chapter are set
forth in the 1990 National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), in the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA), and in EPA policy documents referred
to in this chapter. These documents are listed in
Appendix F, References.
EPA also recognizes that Federal agencies may have
their own community relations programs and
guidance. However, SARA §120(a)(2) states that
EPA guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are
applicable to Federal agencies. Moreover, SARA
§120(a)(2) specifies that Federal agencies may not
adopt or utilize any guidelines, rules, regulations, or
criteria inconsistent with those established by the EPA
Administrator under CERCLA. This Handbook pro-
vides Federal agencies with guidance to more closely
coordinate their community relations programs to be
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policies.
EPA Regional Offices should coordinate with other
Federal agencies that may have lead responsibility at
a Superfund site to ensure that guidance is offered on
a site-by-site basis.
This chapter first discusses community relations
requirements for removal actions. Section 2.2 then
addresses requirements pertaining to the following
activities during a remedial response:
Community interviews;
Community Relations Plan;
Information repository and administrative record;
Technical assistance grants (TAGs) notification;
Proposed plan3 and RI/FS notification and
analysis;
Public comment period and opportunity for
public meeting on proposed plan, administrative
order on consent, or consent decree;
Responsiveness summary;
Pre-ROD significant changes;
Public notice of selection of remedy;
Revision of the Community Relations Plan, if
necessary, for remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA);
Post-ROD significant changes; and
Fact sheet and opportunity for public briefing on
the final engineering design.
Sections 2.3 and 2.4 explain requirements and
procedures for adding and deleting sites from the
National Priorities List (NPL). Section 2.5 discusses
community relations activities in the SITE program.
Exhibit 2-1, located at the end of this chapter, is a
matrix summarizing these requirements, their source
in statute, regulation, and EPA policy documents, and
their applicability to various phases in a Superfund
response.
While this chapter addresses requirements, merely
fulfilling these requirements will not necessarily
result in adequate community relations efforts.
Rather, these requirements are the foundation for
more comprehensive and effective activities
described in the following chapters. The
requirements have been kept to a minimum to
allow for a flexible community relations approach
that can take into account the needs of different
communities.
3 "Proposed plan," as used in the Handbook, refers to a proposed remedial action plan.
-5-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
2.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR
REMOVAL ACTIONS
In defining removal actions, the NCP §300.415(b)(l)
stipulates that if a lead agency determines that "there
is a threat to public health or welfare or the envi-
ronment, the lead agency may take any appropriate
removal action to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize,
mitigate or eliminate the release or threat of release."
Such actions may last only a few days or may require
longer-term measures. Removal actions may be taken
at sites that have not been ranked on the NPL as well
as at NPL sites.
2.1.1 AH Removal Actions
The NCP stipulates that the agency must designate a
spokesperson at removal sites who will inform the
community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and
provide information concerning the release. SARA
§113 also states that, for all removal actions, the
agency must establish an administrative record file
and make it available to the public. Requirements
concerning the location of the administrative record
vary depending upon the urgency of the removal
activity. If the emergency removal activity lasts less
than 30 days, placement of the administrative record
at a central location (e.g., an EPA Regional Office) is
sufficient. However, for emergency removal actions
lasting longer than 30 days, and for all other time-
critical and non-time-critical removal actions, the
agency must make the administrative record available
to the public at both a central location and at or near
the site.
2.1.2 Actions With Planning Period of Less
Than Six Months
For actions where the agency determines that less
than six months will elapse prior to the beginning of
on-site removal actions, the NCP specifies that within
60 days of beginning on-site removal activity, the
agency must make the administrative record available
to the public and publish a notice of availability in a
major local newspaper. Moreover, the agency will
provide a public comment period, if appropriate, of
not less than 30 days from the time the administrative
record is made available for public viewing. A
comment period is considered appropriate for time-
critical removals if clean-up activity is ongoing at the
time the administrative record is made available to the
public and if the public's comments may have an
impact on future action at the site. Finally, the
agency must address significant public comments with
appropriate written responses. In all situations where
a public comment period is required, the agency may
find it beneficial to consider and respond, as appro-
priate, to significant comments submitted prior to the
public comment period.
2.1.3 Actions Extending Beyond 120 Days
As soon as it appears that on-site action may last
longer than 120 days, the agency must prepare a
Community Relations Plan (CRP). This plan must be
based on community interviews conducted with local
officials, community residents, public interest groups,
and other interested or affected parties. The Com-
munity Relations Plan must specify the com-
munication activities that will be undertaken during
the response. In addition, the agency must establish
an information repository at or near the location of
the response action. All items in the information
repository must be available for public viewing and
copying. The agency must place the Community
Relations Plan created for the site in the repository.
Additionally, the agency must make the administrative
record available for public inspection in at least one
of the repositories. The agency must inform the
public of the existence of the information repository
and provide notice of the availability of the admin-
istrative record. The NCP requires that the these
actions must occur within 120 days after on-site
removal activity begins.
2.1.4 Actions With Planning Period of At Least
Six Months
In those cases where at least six months pass before
on-site removal actions begin, the agency must follow
those rules promulgated for removal actions which are
expected to extend beyond 120 days, with a number
of exceptions. Staff must conduct community inter-
views and finalize the Community Relations Plan
prior to the completion of the engineering evaluation/
cost analysis (EE/CA) or its equivalent. Once the
-6-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
EE/CA approval memorandum has been signed, the
agency must establish the information repository and
make the administrative record available for public
inspection. The agency must publish a notice of
availability and a brief description of the EE/CA in a
major local newspaper of general circulation. Upon
completion of the EE/CA, the agency must provide an
opportunity of not less than 30 days for the sub-
mission of public comments and extend the comment
period by at least 15 days upon timely request.
Additionally, the agency must prepare a written re-
sponse to significant comments and make it available
to the public in the information repository.
2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR
REMEDIAL RESPONSES4
2.2.1 Community Interviews
EPA policy requires that a community relations effort
accompany any Superfund remedial investigation and
response, whether it be Federal-, State-5, or enforce-
ment-lead. Once the agency has set priorities and
evaluated a site for remedial response, community
relations efforts become an integral part of site
activities. At the beginning of the remedial investi-
gation and feasibility study (RI/FS) stage, before the
remedial investigation field work begins, EPA or
State staff must conduct interviews with affected
residents and community leaders to determine their
level of interest in the site, major concerns and issues,
and information needs. Chapter 3 provides additional
information on conducting interviews.
2.2.2 Community Relations Plan
Based upon the community interviews, the agency
must prepare a Community Relations Plan which
includes a description of the site background, history
of community involvement at the site, community
relations strategies, a schedule of community relations
activities, and a list of contacts, local officials, and
interested parties. The agency must complete this
plan prior to remedial investigation field activities.
See Chapter 3 and Appendix B for more information
about preparation of the CRP.
2.2.3 Information Repository and
Administrative Record
Prior to remedial investigation, the agency must
establish an information repository at or near the site.
According to §117(d) of SARA, each item developed,
received, published, or made available to the public
must be accessible for public inspection at or near the
facility or site. The NCP further specifies that the
repository must include information describing the
technical assistance grants application process. The
lead agency must inform interested parties of the
establishment of the information repository.
SARA also requires that the agency establish an
administrative record for the selection of a response
action at or near the facility or site. The agency must
establish the administrative record when the remedial
investigation phase begins (i.e., when the final RI/FS
work plan or CRP is available). The administrative
record must include documents EPA relied on when
selecting a response action. The agency must publish
a notice of availability of the administrative record in
a local general circulation newspaper.
The agency may house the information repository and
administrative record in the same location and
establish them at approximately the same time.
Materials in the information repository may overlap
with those of the administrative record. The infor-
mation repository maintained by the Community
Relations Coordinator may contain additional infor-
mation that is of interest to the public but does not
form the basis for the response selection decision.
Examples of such information include newspaper
articles, press releases, and fact sheets.
4 These requirements also apply to operable units (See the Glossary, Appendix E).
5 Only State-lead sites funded by CERCLA must comply with these requirements. State-lead sites funded
by States do not need to comply with the Federal Superfund requirements.
-7-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
2.2.4 Technical Assistance Grants Notification
The NCP requires the agency to inform the
community of the availability of technical assistance
grants prior to the remedial investigation. Chapter 8
provides additional information on technical assistance
grants.
2.2.5 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
and Proposed Plan Notification
SARA §117(a) and (d) require that the agency notify
the public of the availability of the RI/FS and the
proposed plan. The public notice must identify the
lead agency's preferred remedy, the other alternatives
analyzed, the location where the public can review
and copy the administrative record, community
involvement opportunities, and the name of an agency
contact. Pursuant to SARA, at a minimum, the
agency must publish this notice in a major local
newspaper of general circulation.
Staff can prepare the proposed plan in the form of a
fact sheet or a separate document. The plan must
clearly summarize:
The environmental conditions at the site;
The alternatives analyzed in the detailed analysis
of the feasibility study;
The preferred remedy and rationale for that
preference;
Any proposed waivers to §121(d)(4) cleanup
standards or identified under NCP §300.430
(f)(l)(ii)(c); and
Any formal comments received from the support
agency.
The agency must solicit public comment on all
alternatives, not just the preferred alternative, and the
information that supports the alternatives. The
proposed plan should clearly state that it is not the
sole document on which the public should rely for
information on the alternatives, referring the reader to
the RI/FS report in the administrative record and
repositories.
2.2.6 Public Comment Period and Public
Meeting
SARA §117(a)(2) requires that the agency provide a
"reasonable opportunity for submission of written and
oral comments and an opportunity for a public
meeting at or near the facility." The NCP specifies
that the agency must provide at least 30 calendar days
for the submission of written and oral comments on
the proposed plan and the supporting analysis and
information located in the information repository,
including the RI/FS. The agency must extend the
comment period by at least 30 additional days upon
timely request. Additionally, the NCP states that the
agency must hold the public meeting during the
comment period and discuss the proposed plan and
supporting analysis and information at this meeting.
A transcript of the meeting conducted during the
public comment period (pursuant to §117(a)) must be
made available to the public and included as part of
the administrative record. The agency should also
place the transcript in the information repositories.
2.2.7 Public Comment Period on the
Administrative Order on Consent or
Consent Decree (AOC/CD)
All consent decrees, whether for removal actions,
RI/FS work, or RD/RA, require public notice in the
Federal Register and public comment opportunities.
This is pursuant to SARA §122(d) and follows U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) policy established under
28 CFR 50.7. A notice of the consent decree must
appear in the Federal Register 30 days prior to filing
in court as a final judgment. DOJ must consider
comments received during the public comment period
and file them with the court. At the conclusion of the
public comment period, DOJ will recommend that the
decree either go unchanged or be modified, based
upon consideration of the public's comments.
Administrative orders may be used for removal
actions, RI/FS work, or settlements under SARA
§122(g) or (h). Administrative orders used for
removal actions and for RI/FS work do not normally
require public comment opportunities. However, once
-8-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
these documents become final, the lead agency should
make them available for public review. Administrative
orders on consent for settlements under §122(g) and
(h) require a notice of the proposed agreement in the
Federal Register at least 30 days before the
agreement becomes final, in accordance with §122(i).
The NCP further specifies that the notice must
identify the name of the facility and the parties to the
proposed agreement, and provide an opportunity for
public comment. The agency must consider any
comments when making a determination whether to
approve, withhold, or modify the agreement.
2.2.8 Responsiveness Summary
At the conclusion of the comment period, SARA
§113 and §117(b) and NCP §300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)
require that the agency prepare a response to
significant comments, criticisms, and new data sub-
mitted in written or oral form during the comment
period. This response document must accompany the
final remedial action plan or other decision document.
This has routinely been accomplished in the form of
a responsiveness summary. For further guidance on
preparing responsiveness summaries, see Chapter 4
and Appendices A and D.
2.2.9 Addressing Significant Changes Prior to
the ROD
Before preparing the ROD, SARA §117(b) requires
the agency to compare the final selected remedy to
the alternatives described in the Rl/FS and proposed
plan in order to determine whether any "significant
changes" have been made to the selected alternative
as it was presented for public review and comment.
What constitutes a "significant change" is a site-
specific determination based on the contents of the
Rl/FS and proposed plan. The NCP specifies that if
the information significantly changes the basic scope,
performance, or cost of the remedy such that the
remedy significantly differs from the solution outlined
in the proposed plan, the agency must do one of the
following:
(1) Discuss the significant changes and the reasons
for such changes in the ROD if the agency
determines that the public could have reasonably
anticipated such changes based on the alternatives
and other information available in the proposed
plan or in the supporting analysis and information
in the administrative record.
(2) Solicit additional public comment on a revised
proposed plan when the agency determines that
the public could not have reasonably anticipated
the changes based on the information available in
the proposed plan or in the supporting analysis
and information in the administrative record. In
accordance with the public participation require-
ments described in §300.430(f)(3)(i) of the NCP,
the agency must issue a revised proposed plan
that includes a discussion of the significant
changes and the reasons for such changes prior to
adoption of the selected remedy in the ROD.
See Section 4.3.4 of this Handbook and Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: the
Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation
of Significant Differences, the Record of Decision
Amendment (34) for additional guidance on required
public participation activities.
2.2.10 Public Notice
SARA §117(b) and (d) require the agency to inform
the public through a public notice in a major local
newspaper of general circulation when the final
remedial action plan is adopted. The agency must
make the final plan available for public inspection and
copying at or near the facility before remedial action
begins. Refer to Chapter 4 and Appendix A for
further information on preparing public notices.
2.2.11 Revision of the Community Relations Plan
Prior to remedial design, the agency must revise the
Community Relations Plan, if necessary, to account
for the needs and concerns of the community during
remedial design and remedial action that are not
already provided for in the CRP. Staff may conduct
community interviews or other activities to identify
these concerns. Chapter 3 provides additional infor-
mation about conducting interviews and developing a
Community Relations Plan.
-9-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
2.2.12 Addressing Post-ROD Significant Changes
(Explanation of Differences)
SARA §117(c) requires an explanation of significant
differences after the adoption of a final remedial
action plan if:
A remedial action is conducted;
An enforcement action under §106 is performed;
A settlement or consent decree under §106 or
§112 is entered into; and
An action, settlement, or decree differs in any
significant respects from the final plan.
In such cases, the NCP specifies that the lead agency
must consult with the support agency, as appropriate,
and follow one of two procedures. The first
procedure is appropriate if the previously mentioned
differences significantly change but do not fun-
damentally alter the remedy selected with respect to
scope, performance, or cost. In this event, the agency
must publish an explanation of significant differences
and make this explanation and supporting information
available to the public in the administrative record
and the information repository. Additionally, the
agency must publish in a major local newspaper of
general circulation a brief summary of the significant
differences, including the reasons for such differences.
The second procedure must be adopted when the
differences fundamentally alter the basic features of
the remedy with respect to scope, performance, or
cost. In this case, the agency must propose an
amendment to the ROD. To amend the ROD, the
agency must take the following steps:
Issue a notice of availability and brief description
of the proposed amendment to the ROD in a
major local newspaper of general circulation.
Make the proposed amendment to the ROD and
information supporting the decision available for
public comment.
Provide an opportunity of not less than 30
calendar days for the submission of written or
oral comments on the amendment. Upon timely
request, the agency must extend this public
comment period by at least 30 additional days.
Provide an opportunity for a public meeting to be
held at or near the site during the public com-
ment period and keep a transcript of comments
received at the public meeting.
Include in the amended ROD a brief explanation
of the amendment and the response to each of the
significant comments, criticisms, and new
relevant information submitted during the public
comment period.
Publish a notice of availability of the amended
ROD in a major local newspaper of general
circulation.
Make the amended ROD and supporting
information available to the public in the admin-
istrative record and information repository before
the remedial action affected by the amendment
begins.
Refer to Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents: the Proposed Plan, the Record of
Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, the
Record of Decision Amendment (34) for further
guidance.
2.2.13 Fact Sheet and Opportunity for a Public
Briefing on the Final Engineering Design
As required by NCP §300.435(c)(3), the agency must
issue a fact sheet and provide, as appropriate, a public
briefing prior to the initiation of remedial action.
This briefing should provide the community with
information about construction schedules, traffic
pattern changes, locations of monitors, and the man-
ner in which information will be provided throughout
the remedial action.
2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR
ADDITIONS OF SITES TO THE
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Under the NCP, EPA is required to revise the NPL at
least annually. The NCP sets forth three mechanisms
for establishing and amending the NPL: the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS); designation by States of their
top priority releases; and determination that a site
poses a significant threat to public health, welfare, or
-10-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
the environment. When proposing amendments to the
NPL, EPA considers the action as rule-making and,
consequently, uses rule-making procedures specified
in the Administrative Procedure Act. Under this Act,
EPA is required to publish the proposed NPL in the
Federal Register and seek comments through a public
comment period. EPA must then consider these
comments in making revisions to the NPL and
provide responses to significant comments and
significant new data submitted during the comment
period. EPA must publish the final NPL in the
Federal Register.
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR
DELETION OF SITES FROM
THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES
LIST (NPL)
A site can be deleted from the NPL when the Agency
has determined that no further response is appropriate.
EPA makes this determination based on the following
three factors:
(1) Responsible parties have completed all of the
appropriate response actions.
(2) The appropriate Fund-financed response has been
completed and no further cleanup by responsible
parties is needed.
(3) A remedial investigation indicates the site poses
no significant threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment, and, therefore, construction of
remedial measures is not appropriate.
Procedures for deleting sites from the NPL are similar
to the rule-making procedures described in Section
2.3 for adding sites to the NPL. To delete a site from
the NPL, according to Sections 553(b) and (c) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, EPA must:
Publish the notice of Intent to Delete prepared by
Regional staff in the Federal Register and
appropriate local publications;
Include notification of a 30-day comment period
on the proposed rule in the Notice of Intent to
Delete; and
Publish the final rule not less than 30 days before
the effective date.
Regional staff must prepare all public notification
statements concerning site deletions from the NPL.
The NCP further requires EPA to publish a notice of
availability of the notice of intent to delete in a major
local newspaper of general circulation.
Additionally, EPA is required to place copies of
information supporting the proposed deletion in the
information repository at or near the site proposed for
deletion to provide an opportunity for public in-
spection and copying. Moreover, EPA must respond
to significant comments and significant new data
submitted during the comment period and include this
response document in the final deletion package.
According to NCP §300.425(e)(5), EPA must place
the final deletion package in the local information
repository upon publication of the notice of final
deletion in the Federal Register.
2.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
(SITE) PROGRAM
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program is designed to enhance the
development and use of innovative technologies for
hazardous waste remedial and removal actions.
Under this program, a wide range of waste types are
screened and specific sites are selected as candidates
for a demonstration project. SARA §311(b)(5)(E)
requires publishing a public notice and establishing a
public comment period prior to the final selection of
a demonstration site. Community Relations Coor-
dinators and Remedial Project Managers should
coordinate closely to ensure this public comment
opportunity is implemented. Section 3.3 provides
important additional guidance on community relations
during SITE projects.
-11-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS
Site Activity
Agency Spokesperson
Requirements)
FOR ALL REMOVAL ACTIONS
Requirement Source(s)
The National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) §300.415(m)(l)
The agency must designate a spokes-
person to inform the public about the
release and actions taken, to respond to
questions, and to notify immediately
affected citizens, State and local officials,
and, when appropriate, civil defense or
emergency management agencies.
The agency must establish an
administrative record and make the
administrative record available to the
public at a central location and at or near
the site, if applicable.
FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS WITH PLANNING PERIOD OF LESS THAN SIX MONTHS
Administrative Record
SARA §113(k); NCP §300.820
Notice and Availability
of Administrative
Record
Public Comment Period
Response to Significant
Comments
Within 60 days of the start of on-site
removal activity, the lead agency must
make the administrative record available
to the public and issue a notice of
availability in a major local newspaper of
general circulation.
The agency must provide a public
comment period, if appropriate, of not
less than 30 days from the time the
administrative record is made available
for public inspection.
The agency must prepare a written
response to significant comments.
NCP §300.415(m)(2)(i) and
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP §300.415(m)(2)(ii)
NCP §300.415(m)(2)(iii)
FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS EXPECTED TO EXTEND BEYOND 120 DAYS
Community Interviews
By the end of the 120-day period, the
agency must conduct interviews with
local officials, public interest groups, or
other interested parties to determine their
concerns and information needs, and to
learn how citizens would like to be
involved in the Superfund process.
NCP §300.415(m)(3)(i)
-12-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Community Relations
Plan (CRP)
Requirement(s)
Requirement Source(s)
NCP §300.415(m)(3)(ii)
Information Repository
Establishment and
Notification/ Notice of
Availability of
Administrative Record
NCP §300.415(m)(3)(iii)
The agency must prepare a formal CRP,
based on community interviews and other
relevant information, that specifies the
community relations activities the agency
plans to undertake during the response.
The agency must complete this CRP
within 120 days of the start of on-site
removal activity.
Within 120 days of the start of on-site
removal activity, the agency must
establish at least one information
repository at or near the location of the
removal action that contains items
available for public inspection and
copying. The agency must inform the
public of the establishment of the
information repository and provide notice
of the availability of the administrative
record in this repository.
FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS WITH A PLANNING PERIOD OF AT LEAST SIX MONTHS
Community Interviews
and Community
Relations Plan (CRP)
Information Repository/
Administrative Record
Establishment and
Notification
Notice of Availability/
Description of the
EE/CA
The agency must follow the same
procedures as outlined in the previous
section, except that staff must conduct
interviews and prepare a CRP prior to
completion of the engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA).
The agency must follow the same
procedures as outlined in the previous
section, except that staff must establish
the information repository and make the
administrative record available no later
than the signing of the EE/CA approval
memorandum.
The agency must publish a notice of
availability and a brief description of the
EE/CA in a major local newspaper of
general circulation.
NCP §300.415(m)(4)(i)
NCP §300.415(m)(4)(i)
NCP §300.415(m)(4)(ii)
-13-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Public Comment Period
Requirement(s)
Responsiveness
Summary
Upon completion of the EE/CA, the
agency must provide at least 30 days for
the submission of written and oral
comments. The agency must extend this
comment period by at least 15 days upon
timely request.
The agency must prepare a written
response to significant comments and
make this responsiveness summary
available to the public in the information
repository.
Requirement Source(s)
NCP §300.415(m)(4)(iii)
NCP §300.415(m)(iv)
REMEDIAL RESPONSES
Prior to Remedial Investigation (RI):
Community Interviews
Community Relations
Plan (CRP)
Information Repository
Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG)
Notification
The agency must hold on-site discussions NCP §300.430(c)(2)(i)
with local officials and community
members to assess their concerns and
determine appropriate community
relations activities.
The agency must develop and approve a
complete CRP based on community
interviews before remedial investigation
field activities start.
The agency must establish an information
repository to contain items developed,
received, published, or made available
pursuant to §117. The agency must make
these items available for public inspection
and copying and inform interested
citizens of the establishment of the
information repository.
The agency must inform the public of the
availability of TAGs and include in the
information repository material that
describes the TAG application process.
NCP §300.430(c)(2)(ii)(A-C)
SARA §117(d); NCP
§300.430(c)(2)(iii)
NCP §300.430(c)(2)(iv)
-14-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Requirement(s)
Requirement Source(s)
Upon Commencement of Remedial Investigation:
Administrative Record
The agency must establish an SARA §113(k); NCP §300.815
administrative record. The agency must
consider the participation of interested
persons when developing the admin-
istrative record.
Administrative Record
Notification
The agency must publish a notice of
availability of the administrative record in
a major local newspaper of general
circulation.
NCP §300.815
Upon Completion of the Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan:
RI/FS and Proposed
Plan Notification and
Analysis
Public Comment Period
on RI/FS and Proposed
Plan
Public Meeting
Meeting Transcript
Notice and Comment
Period on the
Administrative Order
on Consent or Consent
Decree
The agency must publish a notice of the
availability of the RI/FS and proposed
plan, including a brief summary of the
proposed plan, in a major local news-
paper of general circulation. The notice
also must announce a comment period.
The agency must provide at least 30 days
for the submission of written and oral
comments on the RI/FS and proposed
plan. This comment period will be
extended by a minimum of 30 additional
days upon timely request.
The agency must provide an opportunity
for a public meeting to be held at or near
the site during the comment period.
The agency must prepare a meeting
transcript and make it available to the
public
A notice of the proposed settlement must
be published in the Federal Register at
least 30 days before the agreement
becomes final. This notice must state the
name of the facility and the parties to the
proposed agreement. Those persons who
are not parties to the agreement must be
provided an opportunity to file written
comments for a period of 30 days.
SARA §117(a) and (d); NCP
§300.430(0(3)(i)(A)
SARA§117(a)(2);NCP
§300.430(f)(3)(c)
SARA §113 and §117(a)(2); NCP
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)
SARA §117(a)(2); NCP
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)
SARA §122(i); NCP §300.430(c)(5)(i)
-15-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Responsiveness
Summary
Requirement(s)
The agency must prepare a response to
significant comments, criticisms, and new
data submitted on the proposed plan and
RI/FS, and ensure that this response
document accompanies the ROD.
Pre-ROD Significant Changes:
Discussion of
Significant Changes
Revised Proposed Plan
and Public Comment
Upon determination that such changes
could be reasonably anticipated by the
public, the agency must include in the
ROD a discussion of significant changes
and the reasons for such changes.
Upon determination that such changes
could not have been reasonably
anticipated by the public, the agency must
issue a revised proposed plan that
includes a discussion of the significant
changes and the reasons for such changes.
The agency must seek additional public
comment on the revised proposed plan.
After the ROD is Signed:
ROD Availability and
Notification
Revision of the CRP
The agency must make the ROD
available for public inspection and
copying at or near the site prior to the
commencement of any remedial action.
Also, the agency must publish a notice of
the ROD's availability in a major local
newspaper of general circulation. The
notice must state the basis and purpose of
the selected action.
Prior to remedial design, the agency
should revise the CRP, if necessary, to
reflect community concern, as discovered
during interviews and other activities, that
pertains to the remedial design and
construction phase.
Requirement Source(s)
SARA §113 and §117(b); NCP
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)
NCP §300.430(f)(3)(ii)(A)
NCP §300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)
NCP §300.430(f)(6)
NCP §300.435(c)(l)
-16-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 2
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Requirement(s)
Requirement Source(s)
Post-ROD Significant Changes:
When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree, differs significantly from the
remedy selected in the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or cost:
Notice and Availability The agency must publish a notice that NCP §300.435(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B)
of Explanation of
Significant Differences
briefly summarizes the explanation of
significant differences and the reasons for
such differences in a major local
newspaper, and make the explanation of
significant differences and supporting
information available to the public in the
administrative record and information
repository.
When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree, fundamentally alters the basic
features of the selected remedy with respect to scope, performance, or cost:
Notice of Availability/
Brief Description of
Proposed ROD
Amendment
Public Comment
Period, Public Meeting,
Meeting Transcript, and
Responsiveness
Summary
Notice and Availability
of Amended ROD
The agency must propose an amendment
to the ROD and issue a notice of
availability and a brief description of the
proposed amendment in a major local
newspaper of general circulation.
The agency must follow the same pro-
cedures as that required for completion of
the feasibility study (FS) and proposed
plan.
The agency must publish a notice of
availability of the amended ROD in a
major local newspaper and make the
amended ROD and supporting infor-
mation available for public inspection and
copying in the administrative record and
information repository prior to com-
mencement of the remedial action
affected by the amendment
NCP §300.435(c)(2)(ii)(A)
NCP §300.435(c)(2)(ii)(B)-(F)
NCP §300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G) and (H)
-17-
-------
Chapter 2
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 2-1: CERCLA COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
Site Activity
Remedial Design:
Fact Sheet and Public
Briefing
NPL Additions:
Publication of Proposed
Rule and Public
Comment Period
Publication of Final
Rule and Response to
Comments
NPL Deletions:
Public Notice and
Public Comment Period
Requirement(s)
Public Access to
Information
Response to Significant
Comments
Availability of Final
Deletion Package
Upon completion of the final engineering
design, the agency must issue a fact sheet
and provide a public briefing, as
appropriate, prior to beginning remedial
action.
EPA must publish the proposed rule in
the Federal Register and seek comments
through a public comment period.
EPA must publish the final rule in the
Federal Register and respond to
significant comments and significant new
data submitted during the comment
period.
EPA is required to publish a notice of
intent to delete in the Federal Register
and provide notice of the availability of
this notice of intent to delete in a major
local newspaper. EPA must also provide
a comment period of at least 30 days on
the proposed deletion.
Copies of information supporting the
proposed deletion must be placed in the
information repository for public
inspection and copying.
EPA must respond to each significant
comment and any significant new data
submitted during the comment period and
include these responses in the final
deletion package.
The final deletion package must be
placed in the local information repository
once the notice of final deletion has been
published in the Federal Register.
Requirement Source(s)
NCP §300.435(c)(3)
NCP §300.425(d)(5)(i)
NCP §300.425(d)(5)(ii)
NCP §300.425(e)(4)(i) and (ii)
NCP §300.425(e)(4)(iii)
NCP §300.425(e)(4)(iv)
NCP §300.425(e)(5)
-18-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3
CONDUCTING COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS AND DESIGNING COMMUNITY
RELATIONS PROGRAMS FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSES
This chapter presents guidance for planning and
designing community relations programs for remedial
responses. Planning and designing a community
relations program requires:
Conducting community interviews; and
Developing a Community Relations Plan.
The information gathered during 15-25 community
interviews provides the basis for the development of
site-specific Community Relations Plans (CRPs). By
designing a plan targeted to a particular community
and offering regular opportunities for public
involvement in response decisions, EPA and State
agencies can obtain valuable information and
encourage those most affected by the decision to
participate in the process. Often, remedial investi-
gation workplans have been changed based on infor-
mation gathered during community interviews.
This chapter is divided into three major sections.
Section 3.1 provides guidance for community
relations planning, including recommendations for
conducting community interviews. Section 3.2 dis-
cusses the design of a community relations program,
with guidance on how to select activities, structure a
program, and prepare Community Relations Plans.
Section 3.3 describes community relations activities
for SITE demonstration projects. Guidance for
implementing the community relations efforts is
presented in Chapter 4, which provides details on
selecting the types of activities most appropriate for
different phases of a remedial response.
3.1 PLANNING AND CONDUCTING
COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS
The success of community relations planning depends,
first and foremost, on community interviews, which
are discussions with State and local officials, com-
munity leaders, media representatives, potentially
responsible parties, and interested citizens. The
interviews typically occur in informal settings, such as
homes and offices in the community. The most
successful interviews are face-to-face discussions that
allow staff to determine public concerns and learn
how and when local residents want to be involved in
site response activities. If individuals conducting the
community interviews actively seek information about
public concerns and information requirements, the
communication activities will be better targeted to the
specific needs of the people in the community. Prior
to conducting community interviews, staff need to:
Confer with the Remedial Project Manager and
other Regional and State staff to acquire infor-
mation about the site;
Identify interested officials, citizens, and orga-
nized groups; and
Schedule interviews with interested individuals.
Once these preparatory tasks have been completed,
agency staff can conduct the interviews. Generally,
interviews ought to be conducted by a combination of
the Community Relations Coordinator, Remedial
Project Manager, enforcement staff (if necessary), and
possibly contractors. Contractor personnel should
never conduct community interviews unless they
are accompanied by agency staff.
In some situations, agency staff may need to conduct
only a few selected interviews or informal discussions
to obtain the information necessary to develop a
successful CRP. This may occur when revising the
CRP to address the public's concerns during RD/RA,
especially if there has been a great deal of interaction
with the community through the ROD process. In
such cases, only a few informal discussions, by
telephone or in person with selected, well-informed
individuals who clearly represent the community, may
be sufficient to provide a basis for the development of
a revised CRP. Site-specific approaches such as these
must be determined by the lead agency. The lead
-19-
-------
Chapter 3
Community Relations Handbook
agency with input from the support agency must
decide which discussions and how many are appro-
priate to develop a CRP that will address the public's
concerns and enhance the response action.
Community interviews frequently set the tone for the
agency's future contacts with the public. Those
conducting the community interviews should ask local
residents what type of communication (e.g., news-
letters, meetings) will enhance the resident's ability to
make their opinions and questions known. This initial
exchange of information should take place through
individual discussions, rather than through large
public meetings or the news media.
3.1.1 Background Review Prior to Community
Interviews
Staff preparing for community interviews should first
become familiar with the technical and legal issues at
the site and attempt to identify those aspects of the
contamination problem that are of relevance to the
local community. To acquire the necessary back-
ground information, including names, maps, and
documents, staff should:
Meet with EPA or State technical, legal, and
enforcement staff;
Review agency files; and
Research local newspaper articles.
During the review of background information, staff
should remember that numerous factors can influence
the public's perception of the site's problem, such as:
Proximity of area residences;
Proximity of schools or playgrounds;
Visibility of the site;
Presence of livestock, crops, or other vegetation
near the site;
Location of a public water supply;
Location of nearby recreational lakes, ponds,
rivers, streams, and parks;
Measures to control or limit site access;
Presence of other hazardous waste or Superfund
sites in the area;
Activity of local interest groups or press;
Past experience with government officials; and
Role of responsible parties within the community
(e.g., Are responsible parties major employers in
the area?).
This kind of technical review does not establish the
level or focus of public concern; rather, it provides an
initial opportunity for staff to become familiar with
technical issues associated with the site and to
understand the site from the community's perspective.
3.1.2 Developing a Contact List for Community
Interviews
Next, staff should consult with local community
officials to identify interested citizens who should be
contacted during the community interviews. In
addition, staff should review agency files to identify
individuals who have expressed concern about the
site, and research local newspaper articles for the
names of community leaders. Additional names also
may be collected during the interview process,
particularly those of individuals whose knowledge of
the community may not be obvious to the nonresident
(e.g., a visiting nurse who comes once a month, but
who knows the community well). Individuals and
groups that typically are interviewed include:
State agency staff, such as officials from health,
environmental, or natural resources departments;
Local agency staff and elected officials, such as
county health department officials, county
commissioners, mayor or township administrator,
and officials serving on environmental com-
missions, local advisory committees, and plan-
ning boards;
Representatives of citizens groups organized to
address site issues;
Area residents and individuals not affiliated with
any group, both those living near, and those a
little more distant from the site;
Local business representatives (e.g., the Chamber
of Commerce or the Council of Governments);
Local civic groups or neighborhood associations;
Local chapters of public interest groups (e.g.,
Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, League of
Women Voters);
Local school principals; and
Potentially responsible parties.
-20-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 3
At sites where community interest is high, meeting
with all interested parties may not be possible. In
these situations, staff should determine which
individuals are likely to provide the widest variety of
perspectives about the site. Interviews with local
residents not affiliated with any group are essential.
Residents need to feel that the agency is interested in
the opinions of all affected parties, not just the most
visible groups. Interviews with PRPs are also crucial
to the information-gathering process, as they provide
another valuable perspective on site-related issues. A
broad range of interviewees is particularly important
at sites where citizens' groups or other ad hoc
organizations have formed. Staff should always speak
with more than one group representative, since
different viewpoints and constituencies may be
represented within a group. Agency staff should
conduct interviews with at least 15-25 residents to
obtain input from a variety of community residents.
See OSWER Directive #9230.0-15 (22) provided in
Appendix H for additional information.
3.1.3 Scheduling Community Interviews
Community interviews typically can be scheduled
over 2 to 3 days, although at some sites extra time
may be necessary for additional unplanned interviews
and follow-up conversations. The most successful
meetings are those where the number of individuals
interviewed at any one meeting is limited to one or
two persons and is arranged at a time and place
convenient to the interviewee. Some individuals may
feel most comfortable being interviewed at home,
while others may prefer to meet at a local meeting
hall, library, or restaurant.
When contacting individuals to schedule
interviews, community relations staff should
explain briefly and clearly the purpose of the
interviews. Specifically, staff should state that they
will be talking with area residents and local officials
about community concerns regarding the site.
Explain that community interviews are a planning
activity held before the RI begins so that a
Community Relations Plan relevant to community
needs can be prepared. During these interviews, staff
should convey to the interviewees that detailed
technical information about site problems or future
site actions are not yet available. While some com-
munity members may be more or less willing to parti-
cipate in the interviews, generally most citizens,
including PRPs, will realize that the discussions are a
significant opportunity to express their concerns in a
productive manner. Staff should speak first with
State and local officials to obtain background
information and to let these people know that area
residents will also be interviewed. Officials have an
understandable interest in agency activities that affect
their constituents. However, these discussions with
elected officials cannot generate sufficient information
to develop an adequate Community Relations Plan.
Special efforts must be made to interview local
residents, particularly those who are not affiliated
with any group. As a matter of simple courtesy, staff
might send letters to each of the individuals that will
be interviewed to confirm the date and time of the
interview, as well as the location of the interview.
Staff should also restate that the interview is for
agency planning purposes.
3.1.4 Conducting Community Interviews
Staff should begin community interviews by
reiterating the purpose of the discussions and
providing general information about community
relations and the Superfund process. Officials and
community members usually appreciate brief and
simple explanations about what happens during the
Superfund response as well as when public input will
be sought. Staff should refer public requests for
site-specific information to appropriate technical staff
and, alternatively, provide community members with
the information they have requested, or have
specialists contact the community members directly.
Community relations staff should encourage Remedial
Project Managers to participate in community inter-
views. Technical staff involvement in these
interviews promotes the integration of community
relations into the remedial process. While the
Remedial Project Manager may not take the lead in
the interviews or assist in the preparation of the CRP,
his or her presence during these sessions accomplishes
several things: (1) citizens see agency-wide interest
in community input; (2) the Remedial Project
Manager is introduced to members of the community,
thus establishing some degree of trust within, or
-21-
-------
Chapter 3
Community Relations Handbook
rapport with, the community; and (3) the Remedial
Project Manager gains insight about community
interests and sentiments. However, discussions about
specific technical or enforcement issues at the site
should not dominate the community interviews. Staff
conducting the interviews should clearly state that
while the purpose of these interviews is to identify
community attitudes and concerns, the plan based on
the interviews will not use direct quotations without
approval from the appropriate individual. Even the
use of indirect quotation, or attribution of attitudes or
ideas to individuals, should be used with discretion.
Some staff may be more comfortable if they prepare
questions in advance of community interviews. The
following questions are appropriate for most sites:
When did you first become aware of problems at
the site?
What is your understanding of the site history?
Have you had any problems on your property
that you think are attributable to the site?
What contacts have you had with government
officials about the site? Do you feel these
officials have been responsive to your concerns?
Are you aware of the history of site operations?
Do you know of any parties who were involved
with these site operations? If residents volunteer
this type of information, they should be advised
that civil investigators may contact them for
additional information.
What are your current concerns about the site?
Have you participated in activities concerning the
site?
How would you like to be involved in future
activities?
How can EPA or the State best provide you
information concerning response activities?
What kinds of information do you need?
How do you want to receive information and
how frequently?
Can you suggest other individuals or groups that
should be contacted for additional information?
Developing a list of questions frequently helps
identify those viewpoints that are most widely held in
the community. Conflicting responses can be as
revealing as consensus because they indicate which
issues are likely to be most controversial during
cleanup activities. Staff should investigate differing
interpretations of a situation, particularly when
officials and residents disagree about the seriousness
of a problem. At the same time, anticipate what
kinds of information are to be sought from which
individuals and pose different questions accordingly.
For example, while a local health department official
would be a good source of information about response
actions at a site, he or she might not be able to
discuss objectively how the local community has
perceived health department efforts. Similarly, the
leader of a citizens' group may comment extensively
on the group's concerns, but might not be able to
discuss area-wide environmental issues and concerns.
The best questions usually arise spontaneously during
a discussion. Anticipating the response or questions
of local officials and residents is never fully possible.
Some community members may discuss their
concerns fully and openly, without any focused
questioning. Others may be more reserved.
Similarly, many officials will welcome the agency's
presence at the site and even offer to help provide
information to the local community, while other
officials will resent the intrusion of agency officials.
If citizens or officials appear uninterested, ask
questions that address why concern is limited and
where any emerging concern is likely to focus. In
these situations, asking questions about the
community at large often can be helpful. For
instance, asking the following questions can be useful:
How sensitive is the public in the area to
environmental issues?
How does the public typically perceive the
presence of Federal or State officials in the area?
What kinds of issues have attracted the most
public attention?
At all times, interviewers should listen carefully,
realizing that they represent their agency and are
establishing the basis for later meetings between the
agency and community members. This is especially
true if officials or community members are
antagonistic towards or critical of the agency. In such
cases, understanding why these individuals hold these
attitudes is important. Perhaps previous response
efforts have fallen short of their expectations.
Perhaps people think their concerns have been
-22-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 3
ignored. Citizen displeasure or hostility should not
be viewed as a personal affront; frequently, angry
individuals are a valuable source of information
about what has gone wrong in the past and which
issues are most sensitive. In such situations, staff
should acknowledge the individual's complaint and
thank him or her for the contribution, without either
endorsing, contesting, or rejecting the basis for the
complaint.
Another potentially difficult situation is the
appearance of reporters during community interviews.
If possible, discourage their attendance beforehand, as
it might inhibit a frank and open conversation.
Reporters should be asked, instead, to meet separately
with staff. If reporters, nevertheless, appear during
community interviews, ensure that they understand
that the purpose of the discussion is to gather
information about the community and not to answer
questions about the problems at the site or the
government's plan for remedial response. Reporters
should also be asked for their views and comments.
At the end of each community interview, staff
should ask if the citizen or official knows of other
people who have expressed interest or concerns
about the site. Staff should encourage citizens and
officials to contact them to discuss any current or
future concerns or problems. Staff should provide the
names and telephone numbers of the agency's
Community Relations Coordinator and Remedial
Project Manager. Finally, as a suggested follow-up to
community interviews, the Community Relations
Coordinator responsible for the site might send a brief
letter to all interviewees, thanking them for their time
and contribution and explaining when the CRP will be
completed and how a copy may be obtained.
3.2 DESIGNING COMMUNITY
RELATIONS PROGRAMS
The design of a community relations program for a
remedial action depends substantially on the extent
and quality of information obtained during the
community interviews. Design largely involves
formalizing the analysis conducted during the
planning stages and incorporating the analysis into a
planning document. Activities and approaches
recommended for the community relations program
should always be based on specific findings from the
community interviews and supplemented with findings
from file searches.
3.2.1 Identifying Citizen Concerns
In designing a community relations program, staff
should first focus on distinctive features of the site
and community in question. Think about how the
community could be described best to a person
unfamiliar with the area. What constitutes the
affected community? What makes the site unique?
What are the key characteristics of the community?
What issues are of most concern to the community
and officials? Does the level of public concern reflect
the technical complexity of the problems at the site?
The interviewed individuals should be asked what
community relations activities and approaches will be
most appropriate for their community. Staff should
also identify how the government communicates with
the local public and determine which officials are
regarded as useful sources of information within the
community. This kind of information contributes
substantially to determining appropriate community
relations activities and approaches for a site. If local
officials are uncomfortable about the presence of the
agency in the community, staff should indicate their
willingness to cooperate with local officials by
including them in community relations activities. In
communities undergoing substantial development
activity or economic growth, community relations
staff should be sensitive to the fears of local officials
that the notoriety associated with being on the NPL
may adversely affect growth in the area.
The design of the program depends greatly on the
level and nature of community concern, as expressed
by residents during community interviews. The
following questions may indicate the extent of com-
munity involvement:
Do residents in the community believe their
health, or their children's health, may be affected
by hazardous substances?
Do residents consider the site contamination as
part of a larger area-wide hazardous waste
problem?
-23-
-------
Chapter 3
Community Relations Handbook
Do homeowners and businesses believe the site
has caused or will cause them economic loss?
Are agency officials perceived as credible and
responsive to public problems?
Have site problems and events been covered by
local, State, Regional, or national media?
Has an active, vocal group leader (or leaders)
emerged in the community?
If the answer to several of these questions is "yes,"
community involvement at the site is likely to be
high. Remember, however, that a seemingly quiet
community may also demand staff attention. Silence
should not automatically be equated with lack of
interest. It is entirely possible that a silent com-
munity is unaware of how to voice its concerns or is
unsure if its concerns may be legitimately raised.
Limited community concern at the time of the com-
munity interviews does not eliminate the need for
monitoring community concerns, because numerous
factors can increase concern at any point during the
remedial process. Experience has shown that com-
munity interest generally peaks when a decision is
made concerning the remedial action for a site.
Another event that commonly triggers community
concern is the arrival of technical field crews at the
site when the Rl/FS begins. The knowledge and
experience of those conducting community relations
will, therefore, be very important in determining the
level of effort required to monitor a community where
there is little apparent interest in site activities.
3.2.2 Selecting Techniques and Approaches
Staff should select community relations techniques
and approaches primarily on the basis of information
gathered during community interviews. To the extent
possible, staff should consider the public's preferences
for how they would like to be involved. The number
and complexity of community relations activities
should reflect stated community needs. For example,
while news releases are typically issued to announce
site findings, community relations staff might also
consider preparing statements that can be included in
State environmental agency newsletters, area environ-
mental group publications, and citizen group bulletins
if interest in the site is widespread. Similarly, while
public meetings are most commonly held when the
draft FS and proposed plan are completed, meetings,
workshops, or informal sessions with community
members may be scheduled at other points in the
response process.
At sites where the contamination problem is
technically complex and will, in all likelihood, require
a complicated response, staff might provide infor-
mation more frequently about the site and eventual
cleanup efforts. These activities also may be
desirable in some cases where the contamination
problem is not technically complex, but where the
community members are eager to educate themselves
about hazardous waste issues. Workshops, seminars,
or panel discussions on hazardous waste treatment and
disposal, ground-water issues, and the Superfund
program also may be appropriate at these sites.
Alternatively, staff should consider activities to
monitor community concern at sites where interest
appears limited. Periodic telephone calls to local
officials and key citizen leaders, reviews of local
newspapers, and informal contacts with community
residents, particularly those neighboring the site, are
efficient ways to find out about shifts in the level of
community concern during the Rl/FS. Keeping in
touch is particularly important when activity is intense
at a site, especially when site workers and remedial
staff use heavy equipment or protective clothing
during site activities.
Technical, community relations, and enforcement staff
are strongly encouraged to seek public input
throughout the remedial process, not just during the
required public comment period. Studies conducted
by the agency during the RI are frequently of great
interest, particularly because the data gathered are
later used to identify cleanup alternatives for the site.
Staff also may find it beneficial to provide
information to local residents for their review during
the development of a workplan for the RI and
planning stages of the FS. For example, occasionally,
members of the local community have actually
witnessed the dumping of hazardous materials and
have made suggestions as to where samples should be
collected. This is another reason why the agency
should be willing to hold informal meetings and
workshops throughout the remedial process.
When selecting techniques and approaches for the
community relations program at a site, staff should
-24-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 3
always consider the overall context of remedial
activities. Are there other hazardous waste sites or
facilities in the area? Is the site regulated under other
environmental regulatory programs (e.g., the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (46) or the
Clean Water Act (9))? The community relations
program at a site that is one of several sites in a town
or county might include a presentation on hazardous
waste problems. For example, in some communities,
information sessions on toxicology have been con-
ducted with the help of local university experts. In
areas where environmental issues are particularly
visible, community relations staff should anticipate
increased media attention concerning site develop-
ments and the possibility that Regional or national
environmental groups may become interested in the
site. At all sites, community relations efforts will be
more effective if community-specific strategies are
incorporated during program design.
Finally, community relations activities should be
scheduled to correspond to site activities and mile-
stones of a Fund-financed response and/or enforce-
ment action. Chapter 4 provides guidance on se-
lecting activities for key points in the remedial
process. Chapter 6 provides guidance on selecting
activities for key points in the enforcement process.
Appendix A provides descriptions of these activities,
as well as their purpose, benefits, and limitations.
3.2.3 Community Relations Plans
The NCP requires a Community Relations Plan for all
remedial response actions and for all removals longer
than 120 days. For remedial actions, the plan must be
prepared before the RI/FS begins and outline com-
munity relations activities to be held during the
RI/FS. The plan also should identify anticipated
activities that are required during remedial design and
remedial action (such as the preparation of a fact
sheet after the engineering design is complete). A
revised plan that identifies additional activities during
remedial design and remedial construction should be
prepared before remedial design begins. If prepared
by an EPA Regional Office, the initial Community
Relations Plan should be submitted with the RI/FS
workplan. For State-lead sites, the State may request
funds for the development of the CRP through a
cooperative agreement. If the CRP is not part of the
cooperative agreement application, it must be
incorporated into the State's annual workplan. Also,
in this case, the final CRP must be submitted with the
RI/FS workplan. An informational copy should be
sent by the Regional Office or the State to the
Superfund community relations staff at EPA
Headquarters. If the plan is given to an individual
outside of EPA for review, it also should be made
available to all others who wish to review it.
Community Relations Plans document concerns
identified during community interviews and provide
a detailed description of the community relations
activities planned on the basis of these interviews.
Community Relations Plans should focus on
site-specific community relations techniques and
approaches, not generic program goals.
The best Community Relations Plans generally are
those that convey a working knowledge of the local
community and its concerns, while providing a
framework for addressing community concerns during
the remedial response. The community relations
program should include sufficient flexibility to adjust
to changes either in community attitudes or in the
schedule for technical activities at a site. While the
agency is not required to revise the CRP until after
the Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed, staff
do not have to wait until this technical milestone has
been reached to update the document. The Com-
munity Relations Coordinator, in coordination with
the Remedial Project Manager, should revise and
update the document as changes occur at the site.
Periodic updates ensure an accurate and timely
document, promote additional opportunities for
interaction with the public, and strengthen the
relationship between agency staff and the local
community.
While the plan format can be varied to reflect the
unique characteristics of a specific program, the
recommended format consists of five sections and two
appendices:
Section 1: Overview of Community Relations
Plan;
Section 2: Capsule Site Description;
Section 3: Community Background;
-25-
-------
Chapter 3
Community Relations Handbook
Section 4: Highlights of the Community Re-
lations Program;
Section 5: Community Relations Activities and
Timing;
Appendix A: Contact List of Key Community
Leaders and Interested Parties (Note: names and
addresses of private citizens should not be
included in the copy of the Community Relations
Plan that is made available to the public.); and
Appendix B: Suggested Locations for Meetings
and Information Repositories.
These sections and appendices are described in greater
detail below. Appendix B to this Handbook provides
a sample plan in this format.
Section 1. Overview of Community Relations
Plan. This section outlines the purpose of the CRP
and the distinctive or central features of the
community relations effort for the site. It also should
include special characteristics of the community and
the site. This overview, which should be only a few
paragraphs in length, should not merely repeat the
general goals of community relations in Superfund.
Rather, it should identify objectives specific to
community relations during this remedial response
and special circumstances the plan will address.
Section 2. Capsule Site Description. This brief
section should describe the basic historical,
geographical, and technical details so that readers
unfamiliar with the site will understand why the site
is listed on the NPL. Specific topics include:
Site location and relationship to homes, schools,
playgrounds, businesses, lakes, streams, and
parks;
History of site use and ownership;
Type of hazardous substances at the site, if
known;
Nature of threat and potential threat to public
health, welfare, and the environment, if known;
History of inspections and studies conducted at
the site; and
Lead agency responsible for the site.
Maps showing the location of the site within the State
and locality also are helpful.
Section 3. Community Background. This section
is usually divided into three parts:
(1) Community Profile, which describes the com-
munity and analyzes key local issues and
interests.
(2) Chronology of Community Involvement, which
should identify how the community has reacted
to the site in the past. Specifically, the following
questions need to be addressed in this section.
What actions, if any, has the public taken to
resolve problems at the site? How did the public
view previous response efforts at the site? How
does the public perceive various levels of the
government's involvement at the site? Are PRPs
associated with the site or past site operations?
(3) Key Community Concerns, which should analyze
the major public concerns regarding the site, as
well as the remedial process proposed to deal
with those concerns.
Throughout the Community Background Section, but
especially in the analysis of community concerns, the
focus should be on community perceptions of the
events and problems at the site, not on the technical
history of the site. This section, which varies from
three to seven pages, will contain much of the infor-
mation obtained during the community interviews.
Section 4. Highlights of the Community Relations
Program. This section summarizes the design for the
community relations program at the site. The
approaches described should be site-specific and
follow directly and logically from the preceding
discussion of the community, including PRPs, and the
analysis of the problems posed by the site. Topics
covered in this section, which is usually two to four
pages, include:
Site-specific methods of communication, or
activities and techniques;
Resources available for the community relations
program (e.g., local organizations, meeting
places);
Key individuals or organizations that are
expected to play a role in community relations
activities; and
-26-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 3
Areas of special sensitivity that must be
considered during community relations and
remedial activities.
Section 5. Community Relations Activities and
Timing. This section describes the types of
community relations activities, both required and
recommended, to be conducted at the site and
specifies when they should be conducted. This
section also should identify additional activities that
might be appropriate at the site if concern increases
or shifts, or if PRPs are present and the site is
classified as a Federal enforcement site. This section
could include a matrix that relates the timing of
community relations activities to technical and
enforcement milestones for the site. Another useful
planning tool, particularly where several agencies are
involved, is a budget and staffing plan.
Appendix A: Contact List of Key Community
Leaders and Interested Parties. The names,
addresses, and telephone numbers of all officials and
group representatives contacted during the community
interviews, along with others who will receive infor-
mation about site developments, are listed in this
section. However, the names, addresses, and tele-
phone numbers of private citizens contacted for
interviews should not be included as a part of the plan
that is made public. These names, addresses, and
telephone numbers; however, should be included in
the mailing list compiled for the site. The contacts
identified in Appendix A should include:
Federal elected officials;
State elected officials;
Local elected officials (e.g., county and city or
township);
Potentially Responsible Parties;
Environmental groups and citizens' groups;
EPA Regional officials (e.g., Community
Relations Coordinator, Remedial Project
Manager);
State environmental and health department
officials;
Local health department, safety officials (e.g.,
fire, police), and township officials; and
Press contacts (e.g., television, radio,
newspapers).
Some Regional Offices also include a list of local
business that are willing to post notices or distribute
flyers as well as a list of local court reporters who
can be contacted to document public meetings.
Appendix B: Suggested Locations of Meetings and
Information Repositories. The Community Rela-
tions Plan should identify locations for the infor-
mation repository and for public meetings. Facilities
recommended for holding public meetings include
school gyms, town halls, and library meeting rooms.
The locations selected for public meetings should be
accessible to handicapped individuals. Typical loca-
tions of information repositories include local
libraries, town or city halls, and county offices.
Hours that the information repositories will be
accessible should be included in this section, along
with the names of contacts for getting into the
buildings. The size or capacity of meeting rooms is
a particularly helpful detail for later planning.
3.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
FOR SITE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program is designed to enhance the develop-
ment and use of innovative technologies for Super-
fund remedial and removal actions. The SITE
program is a joint effort being administered by the
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) in Washington, D.C.
Under the SITE program, EPA solicits applications
from technology developers to demonstrate the
capability of their technology to successfully process
and remediate wastes at Superfund sites. Demon-
stration locations can be EPA testing and evaluation
facilities, a selected NPL site, a removal action site,
a State hazardous waste site, or a privately-owned
treatment facility. EPA's criteria for selecting sites
for demonstration is based on several considerations:
the developer's waste and location preferences;
relevance of the technology to the site cleanup; and
Regional needs. According to SARA §311(b)(5)(E),
EPA must prepare a public notice and provide an
-27-
-------
Chapter 3
Community Relations Handbook
opportunity for a public comment period prior to se-
lecting a final demonstration site.
Once a site has been selected, the developer or vendor
of the new technology conducts the demonstration.
The duration and scale of the demonstration is
decided by EPA on a case-by-case basis. The results
of the demonstration are evaluated by EPA using a set
of predetermined criteria, including performance, cost,
and reliability relative to conventional technologies.
Community relations activities typically will be
conducted during all phases of a SITE demonstration
project. Demonstration projects will usually take
place at locations where the Community Relations
Coordinator has already conducted community
interviews, completed a site-specific CRP, and
established an information repository in the local
community.
When a site is being screened for a SITE technology
demonstration, but before a tentative selection has
been made, the Community Relations Coordinator
should assess the likely community concerns to help
the Remedial Project Manager determine the potential
feasibility. Based on experience at other SITE
locations, discussion with members of the community
should not occur prior to tentative site selection.
Discussing a tentative site selection prior to actual
selection may be a waste of staff time and community
time if the site is not selected for a technology
demonstration.
Once a tentative match has been made between a site
and a technology, the agency should solicit public
comment on the match. The requirements for this are
identical to public comment opportunities on the
remedial action, feasibility study and proposed plan.
A site-specific demonstration fact sheet should be
placed in the information repository and distributed to
the site mailing list, and a notice should be published
in a major local newspaper of general circulation. At
least one information briefing or public meeting for
the community is strongly suggested after tentative
site selection and/or during the comment period. If
such a meeting occurs during the comment period,
transcripts of comments submitted at the meeting
should be made. After comments have been received,
the Community Relations Coordinator and On-Scene
Coordinator/Remedial Project Manager (OSC/RPM)
should prepare a responsiveness summary addressing
each comment and the agency's response. On the
basis of the responsiveness summary and the Region's
recommendations, OSWER and RREL will make a
decision on whether to proceed with the
demonstration.
A demonstration plan addressing all aspects of the
demonstration will be prepared for each site. Once
this plan is completed, the Community Relations
Coordinator should coordinate with the OSC/RPM to
determine whether a second public notice and an
opportunity for a meeting and public comment period
should be held. This step is optional but should be
considered in cases with mixed community
acceptance.
During the demonstration itself, staff should be
prepared for a likely increase in community interest.
Activities such as workshops, briefings, community
meetings, site tours, observation deck, on-scene
information office, or an open house may be useful.
Once the demonstration at the site has been completed
in accordance with the plan and schedule for the
individual project, EPA will conduct a complete
evaluation of the innovative technology. EPA will
then prepare a final report and summary of the
demonstration results. The appropriate Regional
Office will prepare a public notice or a fact sheet, or
both, announcing the completion of the evaluation
report and its availability in the information repos-
itory. Additionally, the Regional Office will publish
this notice in a local newspaper and mail it to
individuals on the local site mailing list. The
Regional Office must place copies of the public
notice, a summary of the demonstration results, and
the final evaluation report in the information
repository.
Sometimes, EPA may use alternative technologies at
sites that are not part of the formal SITE program. A
SITE demonstration project could occur as part of the
regular RI/FS process. In such cases, community
relations requirements for remedial responses, as
defined in the NCP, must be employed (see Chapter
2, Section 2.2).
-28-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4
CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PROGRAMS DURING REMEDIAL RESPONSES
This chapter provides guidance on conducting
community relations programs during remedial re-
sponses. It covers all phases of a Superfund remedial
response, from the preliminary assessment and site
inspection at a site to the post-cleanup phase, the
operation and maintenance of the remedial tech-
nology. By explaining how to select activities for key
points during remedial planning and remedial action,
this chapter also serves as additional guidance for
program design, as discussed in Chapter 3.
The remedial response can be a long and sometimes
complex process, particularly as the roles and
responsibilities of various government agencies
change throughout the response. As such, open and
consistent communication with the community is
important, especially when site responsibilities are
transferred from one agency or work team to another.
Generally, both the community and the agency will
encounter fewer "surprises" in a well-conducted
community relations program as compared to a site
where the agency and the community are not freely
and frequently exchanging information.
This chapter is organized according to the following
phases or milestones of a remedial action:
Site Assessment activities: Preliminary Assess-
ment, Site Inspection, and the NPL Process;
Remedial Investigation;
Feasibility Study;
End of Feasibility Study;
Remedial Design;
Remedial Action;
Operation and Maintenance; and
Deletion from NPL.
The chapter concludes with a discussion about
adjusting plans for community relations in response to
unanticipated developments. The chapter presents
issues and concerns likely to arise and suggests ap-
proaches or activities that may be useful for each
phase of the remedial action. The various types of
community relations activities recommended in this
chapter are described in detail in Appendix A. Sug-
gestions for community relations programs during
enforcement actions are presented in Chapter 6.
4.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
BEFORE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
Community concern about a hazardous waste site may
exist long before the nature and extent of con-
tamination are known and the site is added to the
NPL (and hence becomes eligible for a remedial
action). In some cases, the community may initiate
the response process by alerting local, State, or
Federal officials to problems at a nearby site. In
other cases, the community may be unaware of the
potential risks posed by a site or the reasons why the
State or EPA is gathering information about the site.
Community relations activities that are conducted at
sites before a remedial investigation will depend on
the nature of the site problem, available resources,
and other competing claims for these resources. Staff
should, therefore, consider carefully whether orga-
nized community relations activities are warranted at
a site. Conducting such activities may create false
expectations among the community about agency
involvement at the site or unnecessary alarm about
site risks. As a general rule, resources should be
directed to sites where risk to the population is
suspected to be high and where public interest is al-
ready demonstrated. At some sites, community inter-
est may increase, sometimes quickly and unexpect-
edly, when site activities begin. Calls or letters from
local officials may be another indication that com-
munity relations resources may be productively
directed to the site.
-29-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
4.1.1 Community Relations During Preliminary
Assessment
EPA, often with contractor assistance, or the State
conducts the preliminary assessment of a site. Pre-
liminary assessments are limited in scope, generally
involving a review of site records, permits, pathway
and target data, or titles to establish past activities at
the site (e.g., wastes produced or disposed) and the
need for further investigation. A preliminary assess-
ment does not usually require an on-site visit or
sampling. As a result, usually there is little need for
organized community relations activities or large-scale
efforts to inform the community of the government's
interest in the site. Formal activities are not, in fact,
routinely recommended at this stage, because they can
generate unrealistic expectations in the community
about the government's future involvement at the site.
Additionally, available resources do not allow full-
scale community involvement programs at all sites.
According to OSWER Directive, Making Superfund
Documents Available to the Public Throughout the
Cleanup Process, and Discussing Site Findings and
Decisions as They Are Developed (23) (see Appendix
H), Regions should select sites to receive more
extensive community relations efforts during pre-
liminary assessment based on the following factors:
The likelihood that the site will be included on
the National Priorities List (NPL). Community
relations staff, in coordination with technical
staff, should determine the potential for site
listing. Sites that have limited potential for NPL
listing should not receive extensive community
relations resources.
The site's location with respect to other NPL
sites (and the level of public interest at those
sites).
The site's location with respect to population
centers.
The amount of current interest in the site, as
measured by attention from citizens' groups,
local residents, and the media.
During this phase, staff should become aware of
community attitudes toward the site. At this stage in
the process, the people most likely to be aware of
potential site problems and interested in eventual
government response actions are local officials, such
as the mayor, city council members, the public health
chief, the public works chief, and members of local
planning boards. Therefore, one of the first actions
staff should take is to telephone State and local
officials, the office of the area Congressman, and key
citizens who can provide information about the scope
and history of the problem. If technical staff will be
gathering information directly from local officials or
the community, they should be familiar with com-
munity relation techniques to be able to respond to
questions about agency activities at the site.
Community relations staff may assist in these initial
contacts by informing the officials beforehand of the
purpose of any calls or visits from government
officials. Community relations staff also should
advise technical staff on how best to obtain the most
pertinent information from these initial contacts with
the community. If the preliminary assessment in-
volves an on-site visit, a community relations special-
ist may want to accompany the field investigator to
the site. In all cases, staff should ensure that any
local individuals contacted understand the purpose and
possible outcomes of the preliminary assessment.
Such explanations are best provided informally and
directly, through telephone calls to the appropriate
individuals.
Staff should also keep informed about the results of
the preliminary assessment to plan any follow-up
contacts with the community. If the results of the
preliminary assessment indicate that there is no need
for a site inspection, key community officials should
be informed. If, on the other hand, a site inspection
is planned, local officials should be advised that the
site is slated for further government investigation and
the approximate schedule.
At this stage of the process, providing information to
interested officials or residents, especially when they
request information, may improve future communi-
cation efforts during the remedial action. Conversely,
withholding information may later handicap the
remedial program.
-30-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
4.1.2 Community Relations During Site
Inspection
Site inspections, by definition, involve one or more
visits to a site by State or EPA field teams to evaluate
the hazards posed by the site. The purpose of the site
inspection is to gather further information to deter-
mine if the site should be placed on the NPL or a
removal action performed.
Because a site receiving an inspection is one step
closer to a possible NPL rulemaking and remedial
investigation, community interest in the site may
increase. Consequently, staff should increase com-
munity relations efforts accordingly or initiate com-
munity relations activities if not yet begun. Staff
responsible for community relations should obtain the
schedule of all field activities to be conducted by
EPA contractors (e.g., the Field Investigation Team,
the Technical Assistance Team, and the Technical
Enforcement Support Team). The site team, includ-
ing the Community Relations Coordinator, may want
to prepare the community beforehand for any on-site
visits by technical work teams. The individuals to
contact include:
Local officials;
Heads of community organizations;
Citizens who have expressed concerns to local,
State or Federal officials;
People who live closest to, or on, the site;
Principals of schools near the site;
Local businesses near the site; and
Potentially responsible parties.
Advance notice can help to prevent alarm about the
appearance of government officials and contractor
teams at the site.
Communications with the community should be
low-key and direct during the site inspection. Staff
should help the local community and officials under-
stand that the site inspection is not evidence of a con-
firmed problem but is, rather, an information-gather-
ing effort. A brief generic fact sheet is one way staff
can provide the community with this information.
The fact sheet should explain the purpose of the site
inspection and its possible outcomes (e.g., proposal of
the site for the NPL, placement of the site in a "no
further remedial action planned" category, or referral
of the site to another program to address hazardous
waste problems).
Without raising the community's expectations of
long-term government action at the site, staff might
consider ways to lay the groundwork for later site
activities. A few simple steps taken during the site
inspection can go a long way in building community
trust and save considerable time in developing a
community relations program for the site, should an
RI/FS be scheduled. Such steps might include:
Identifying key community leaders and
organizations that staff should contact during
community interviews;
Briefing local officials and key community
leaders on progress at the site;
Setting up a site hotline that residents can use to
report information and ask questions;
Creating a mailing list of concerned citizens; and
Designating an agency contact person who can
answer the community's questions.
Staff should follow-up with the community after the
site inspection has been completed to explain the
results of the site inspection. Site sampling and
scoring often take many months to perform; the time
lag between the site inspection and the decision to
proceed with an RI may lead to considerable uncer-
tainty and frustration. Letters or periodic phone calls
may help reassure local officials and the public that
the site has not been lost in bureaucratic processing.
Staff also may wish to issue a fact sheet describing
the preliminary findings. Staff also should establish
a local information repository and place a copy of the
fact sheet in the repository. In all situations, the
agency should notify the community when a decision
is made about the site. Local officials and the public
should hear such news directly from the agency,
rather than through the news media.
4.1.3 Community Relations During the NPL
Listing Process
The NCP establishes three mechanisms for adding
sites to the NPL: the HRS; designation by the States
of their top priority releases; and determination that a
site poses a significant threat to public health, welfare,
-31-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
or the environment. Once EPA has identified a site
to be included on the NPL, the Agency proposes in
the Federal Register to place the site on the NPL and
requests public comment for a period of 60 days.
After considering all public comments, staff must
prepare and make available to the public a re-
sponsiveness summary which addresses significant
comments and any significant new data received
during the public comment period. Agency staff also
must make revisions and publish the final rule in the
Federal Register not less than 30 days prior to the
effective date of the site listing.
Staff should anticipate increased community concern
or interest when a site is proposed for the NPL. To
meet this increased need, staff might distribute a fact
sheet that describes the site, outlines the NPL process,
and explains the time-frame for a proposed site to be
added to the NPL. The fact sheet also should de-
scribe how the public can submit comments on the
proposed listing. In addition, staff might hold a
public meeting to solicit oral comments. Formal
rule-making also attracts media attention; thus,
preparing a press release to accompany fact sheets to
distribute to the news media may be useful.
4.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
STUDY (RI/FS)
Community relations efforts become even more
critical once a site is scheduled for a RI/FS. During
the time that a workplan is prepared for the RI/FS to
its completion, staff should:
Obtain information from the community and
learn its perspective on site problems and
hazards;
Ensure the community is informed about current
activities, progress, and results of the RI/FS; and
Provide the community with any background
information or technical explanations necessary to
understand the significance of the RI results and
FS analysis.
4.2.1 Community Relations During Remedial
Investigation
Once the agency schedules RI/FS work at a site, staff
should prepare a site mailing list and designate an
agency contact, assuming this has not already been
done during the pre-remedial phase. Community
interviews should be conducted, as described in
Chapter 3. These interviews are held primarily to
gather information on the public's past and current
interest in the site, so that Regional staff may prepare
a CRP. Assure interviewees that they will hear of
future site activities as soon as agency plans are made
and ask them how they would like to be involved in
the process.
During community interviews, staff should establish
the administrative record and identify locations for
information repositories and places to hold public
meetings. Upon establishing an administrative record,
staff must place a public notiee in a major, local
newspaper of general circulation. Upon establishing
an information repository, the agency must inform the
public of the location and availability of the docu-
ments. These notifications may be done together.
Staff should hold meetings and set up information
repositories in centrally-located public buildings;
libraries, schools, community centers, or municipal
buildings are often convenient and accessible loca-
tions. Staff must consider the accessibility and con-
venience of these locations to the physically-handi-
capped: Are there ramps for wheelchairs? Are the
rooms well-lighted for the visually impaired? Staff
should solicit public input regarding preferred
locations of public meetings, information repositories,
and the administrative record. Public input will help
to ensure that the selected locations serve each
community's specific needs.
Depending upon the needs of the local citizens, staff
may want to set up other information repository
locations. One possibility is to designate the office of
a TAG recipient as one of the information reposi-
tories, thus providing convenient access to a group
that is likely to reference the information often.
When the draft RI workplan and CRP are completed,
staff often schedule a public briefing or other forum
-32-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
to explain the plans. At sites where interest is limit-
ed, staff could issue a press release that includes
information on where citizens can obtain copies of the
workplan and subsequent site documents. "Kick-off
fact sheets can be distributed early in the RI to
describe technical activities planned during the RI/FS,
announce the location of the information repositories,
and inform the public of the CRP. If planned site
activities change or schedules are delayed during RI,
staff should inform local officials and the community.
Throughout the RI/FS process, staff should seek and
use public input. Staff might want to hold small
workshops during the RI/FS to solicit public opinion
on technical issues. When the RI is completed and
placed in the administrative record file, staff should
arrange informal meetings with community members
and local officials to discuss RI findings and progress
on the FS. Staff should schedule briefings and
workshops if high levels of concern are anticipated.
Staff should also involve citizens in technical discus-
sions, wherever practical. Such interaction provides
citizens with access to technical, site-specific infor-
mation. Furthermore, citizen involvement in these
discussions ensures that site managers remain aware
of citizen concerns.
Generally, the structure of a community relations
program (e.g. the timing and schedule for activities)
will be dictated by the technical progress at the site,
because information becomes available, and oppor-
tunities for public input are often greatest, when the
various technical phases have been completed.
Nevertheless, staff should base the community re-
lations program on the nature of community concerns.
Community interest does not necessarily proceed in
step with technical progress. Often, the need for
discussion and information occur before all the
technical issues are resolved.
4.2.2 Community Relations During the
Feasibility Study
Public concern commonly intensifies during the
feasibility study. The public will be anxious to
review the alternatives for cleaning up the site and
will generally have strong opinions about the
technical adequacy of the various alternatives.
Estimating the extent of their interest often is not
possible based on their earlier involvement at the site.
Due to the increased potential for conflict at this time,
a strong community relations effort that accompanies
the development of cleanup alternatives during the
RI/FS and the selection of alternatives is imperative.
Some suggested community relations activities and
techniques to employ during the development of the
RI/FS include:
Holding informal meetings with the public, local
officials, or PRPs before and during the
development of the RI/FS, along with briefings
and workshops;
Issuing news releases, fact sheets, and publicly
available progress reports that explain the
progress and conclusions of the RI/FS;
Maintaining and updating materials in the
information repository and/or administrative
record, which is an on-going activity, but is
especially critical at this stage; and
Holding open houses to listen informally to
public concerns and answer individual questions.
Staff will need to decide which of these or other
suggested activities are appropriate during the RI/FS.
4.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AT
THE COMPLETION OF
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The decision-making process following the release of
the remedial investigation/feasibility study and pro-
posed plan is a time of intensive community relations
activity. Preceding community relations efforts will
prepare a community for their involvement in this
step. The agency must actively inform the local
public about, and receive comments on, all remedial
alternatives considered in the detailed analysis of the
RI/FS, the agency's preferred alternative, the rationale
for that preference, and any proposed waivers to
cleanup standards. These activities should occur
throughout the public comment period.
SARA §113 and §117 have specific public partici-
pation requirements at this point. These requirements
-33-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
are further defined in §300.430(c) of the NCP. Refer
to Guidance on Preparing Superfimd Decision Docu-
ments: the Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision,
Explanation of Significant Differences, the Record of
Decision Amendment (ROD Guidance) (34) for
additional guidance. At a minimum, the following
activities must be conducted:
Develop a proposed plan, a document the
agency prepares for public comment which
summarizes the remedial alternatives presented in
the detailed analysis of the RI/FS, identifies the
preferred alternative, provides the rationale for
that preferred alternative, identifies any proposed
waivers to cleanup standards, and documents the
support agency's comments.
Publish a notice of the availability of the
proposed plan and remedial investigation/
feasibility study, a brief summary of the
proposed plan, and an announcement of the
comment period. Staff should publish this
notice in the form of a display advertisement that
the agency has purchased in a major local news-
paper of general circulation.
Make the proposed plan and supporting
analysis and information available in the
administrative record. Staff should make the
administrative record file available to the public
at or near the site and at a central location.
Provide the opportunity for submission of
both oral and written comments. The NCP
requires a formal comment period of not less
than 30 days. Furthermore, the agency must
extend this comment period by at least 30 days
upon timely request. Although notifying the
public of the extension is not required, staff
should consider publishing a notice of the
extension of the public comment period, or at a
minimum, mailing a copy of the extension to
those on the site mailing list.
Provide the opportunity for a public meeting.
The agency must provide a transcript of all
formal public meetings held during the public
comment period, pursuant to §117(a) of SARA.
The agency must keep the transcripts and make
them available to the public via the admini-
strative record. Staff also may distribute these
documents in repositories and on request.
Prepare a responsiveness summary, which
summarizes significant public comments and
the agency's response to such comments. This
document will become part of the ROD.
Publish a newspaper notice which informs the
public that the ROD is signed and announces
the availability of the final remedial action
plan selected by the agency. The agency must
publish this notice, preferably a display ad, in a
major local newspaper of general circulation after
selecting the remedy and signing the ROD but
before commencing any remedial action.
4.3.1 Proposed Plan
The proposed plan, as required in SARA §117(a), is
a critical part of remedy selection and the
administrative record, and reflects the decision-
making by the lead and support agencies. Staff
should consult the ROD Guidance for information
concerning the proper development of proposed plans.
The following section provides a brief summary of
the discussion contained in the ROD Guidance.
Staff can present the proposed plan in either an
expanded format or fact sheet format. The ROD
Guidance discusses these formats and Appendix C
provides a model plan in the expanded format.
Whatever format is used, staff should remember that
the proposed plan is a document whose purpose is to
inform the public. Thus, staff should write the plan
in a clear and concise style and use illustrations and
figures where appropriate to better summarize the
information in the RI/FS.
Preparation of the proposed plan should be a joint
effort of the site team. The Remedial Project
Manager, Community Relations Coordinator, and
Regional Counsel should coordinate to ensure that the
proposed plan is technically accurate, satisfies
statutory requirements, and provides the public with
all necessary information in a clear and concise style
understandable to the lay reader.
In addition to clearly summarizing the alternatives
from the detailed analysis of the RI/FS, the proposed
plan must specify the preferred alternative. The
rationale for the preference should be clearly
discussed by using the evaluation criteria identified in
-34-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
the ROD Guidance. The proposed plan should notify
the public how to obtain additional information (e.g.
information repositories/administrative record, RI/FS
report, public meetings, contact person) as well as
when to submit comments.
The proposed plan is a key part of remedial selection
and reflects the decision-making by the lead and
support agencies. The lead agency will seek the
support agency's comments on the proposed plan
prior to it being made available to the public (SARA
§121(f)(l)(G)). The proposed plan should include a
discussion of the support agency's agreement or
disagreement with the proposed plan. In the case of
disagreements, staff should summarize the support
agency's comments on the preferred alternative.
Another requirement of the proposed plan is to
present a discussion of any waivers (SARA
§121(d)(4)) of applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements that would be invoked if the preferred
alternative (or other alternative) was implemented.
The presentation of the preferred alternative should
emphasize that the agency has not made a decision in
regard to the preferred alternative and is open to
suggestions on how the preferred alternative or the
other alternatives might be modified to better satisfy
the remedial objectives of the site. In other words,
the proposed plan should clearly indicate that the
agency encourages public comments on all alter-
natives, not just the preferred alternative. The agency
may alter the preferred alternative or shift from the
preferred alternative to another if public comments or
additional data indicate that these modifications are
warranted.
While it is not required, distribution of the proposed
plan to the entire site mailing list and any other
interested parties is highly recommended. The agency
should also place copies of the proposed plan in
information repositories at or near the site.
4.3.2 Newspaper Notice
The advertisement published in the newspaper should
provide a brief summary of the proposed plan and
inform the public of their opportunity to comment on
the RI/FS and proposed plan. The notice should
summarize the alternatives analyzed and identify the
preferred alternative. It should also:
Explain how to submit oral and written
comments;
Identify the location of the information
repositories and administrative record;
Name a contact person and how to reach him or
her; and
Provide the opportunity for a public meeting, or
state the time and place of a public meeting if
one has been scheduled.
The announcement should be made at least two weeks
prior to the beginning of the public comment period
so that the public has sufficient time to obtain and
read the document (See ROD Guidance for more
information and a sample notice).
In keeping with the objectives of SARA and to reach
as broad an audience as possible, the advertisement
should be a display ad that is designed to attract
attention and engage the reader. The agency should
consider purchasing ad space in the most widely read
section of the newspaper.
4.3.3 Public Comment Period
The public comment period offers special community
relations challenges and opportunities. It can also
contribute to the quality of the selected remedial
alternative. Community relations staff, in coordi-
nation with technical and enforcement personnel,
should maintain communication with local officials
and interested community members, explain the
remedial alternatives in understandable terms, and
solicit public input. If this is effectively done, con-
cerned groups and individuals can see that their
interests are receiving serious consideration. This
should make a significant difference in the accepta-
bility of the final remedy. The public comment
period, beyond the 30-day minimum, must be
extended by at least 30 additional days upon receipt
of a "timely" citizen request. Although "timely" is
considered to be within the first two weeks of the
comment period, staff should make every reasonable
effort to accept requests received at any time during
the comment period. If the comment period is
-35-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
extended, staff should publish a public notice to
announce the extension of the comment period.
The agency is required to provide an opportunity for
a public meeting at or near the site regarding the
RI/FS and proposed plan. Staff also may choose to
conduct a formal public hearing, although this is
neither required nor always encouraged. Public
hearings, in which concerned individuals formally
state their comments but no agency response is given,
are primarily a vehicle for the public to get comments
into the record, rather than a means for the agency to
establish dialogue with the community. If the agency
receives a request for a hearing, staff should explain
the distinction between public meetings and hearings
and verify that a hearing is what is desired. The
public's needs often can be met in a more informal,
productive, and less resource-intensive manner. The
preferred approach is to hold hearings, in conjunction
with small informal meetings or other communi-
cations techniques.
The agency also must provide an opportunity for
submission of written and oral comments on the
RI/FS and proposed plan. The agency must keep a
transcript of the public meeting conducted during the
comment period, pursuant to §117(a), and make the
transcripts available to the public as part of the
administrative record and information repository.
Such transcripts are used by the agency to consider
oral comments made during meetings. Other sub-
stantive discussions regarding the RI/FS, proposed
plan, or proposed waivers received by other means,
such as telephone calls or meetings with individuals
during the public comment period, must also be
documented. This may be done through a record of
communication, tapes, or notes, which must be placed
in the administrative record. Agency staff should also
urge commenters to express their thoughts in writing
to ensure they are fully reflected in the record.
4.3.4 Addressing Significant Changes Prior to
Adoption of the Final Remedial Action
Plan
If new information significantly changes the basic
features of the remedy as originally presented in the
RI/FS and proposed plan with respect to scope,
performance, or cost after issuance of the proposed
plan and prior to adoption of the final remedy in the
ROD, the agency is required to document those
changes in the ROD. SARA §117(a) requires addi-
tional public comment if those changes are not
reasonable extensions of the information presented in
the RI/FS and proposed plan. Furthermore, the
agency must issue a revised proposed plan which in-
cludes a discussion of the significant changes and the
reasons for such changes. Consult the ROD Guidance
for information on community relations requirements
and recommendations in this circumstance.
4.3.5 Addressing Post-ROD Significant Changes
After adoption of a final remedial action plan or
ROD, if any remedial action is taken, or any
enforcement action under §106 is taken, or if any
settlement or consent decree under §106 or §122 is
entered into, and if such action, settlement, or decree
differs in any significant respects from the final plan
with respect to scope, performance, or cost, the
agency must take one of the following two actions:
(1) If the changes do not fundamentally alter the
remedy selected in the ROD with respect to
scope, performance, or cost, the agency must
issue an explanation of significant differences and
make the explanation and supporting information
available to the public in the administrative
record and information repository. Additionally,
a notice that briefly summarizes the significant
differences and states the reasons for such
differences must be published in a major local
newspaper of general circulation.
(2) If the changes fundamentally alter the basic
features of the selected remedy with respect to
scope, performance, or cost, the agency must
propose an amendment to the ROD. To amend
the ROD, the lead agency, in conjunction with
the support agency, must:
Publish a notice of availability and a brief
description of the proposed amendment in a
major local newspaper of general circulation;
-36-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
Provide at least 30 days for the submission of
written and oral comments on the proposed
amendment (the comment period must be ex-
tended by a minimum of 30 days, upon timely
request);
Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to
be held during the comment period;
Keep a transcript of comments received at the
public meeting;
Include in the amended ROD a brief explanation
of the amendment and a response to each of the
significant comments, criticisms, and new
relevant information received during the comment
period;
Publish a notice of availability of the amended
ROD in a major local newspaper of general
circulation; and
Make the amended ROD and supporting
information available to the public in the
administrative record and information repository
before commencement of the remedial action.
Refer to the ROD Guidance for additional guidance
on the community relations activities that will be
required and recommended in such circumstances.
4.3.6 Responsiveness Summary
At the end of the public comment period, the
agency's staff must prepare a responsiveness sum-
mary. The responsiveness summary is submitted as
part of the ROD package that is reviewed and signed
by EPA. Once the ROD has been signed, the re-
sponsiveness summary is made available to the public
as part of the ROD.
The responsiveness summary serves two functions.
First, it provides the decision-maker with information
about the views of the community and potentially
responsible parties regarding the proposed remedial
action and any alternatives. Secondly, it documents
how the agency has considered public comments
during the decision-making process and provides
answers to major comments.
A responsiveness summary, in order to serve these
purposes, should be a concise and complete summary
of significant comments from the public and the
potentially responsible parties, and of the agency's
response to the comments. It should be simple,
straightforward and readable. It should include refer-
ences to all significant comments, criticisms, and new
data received, as well as the agency's position on
each issue. Responsiveness summaries are divided
into two parts; Part I is a brief summary of the local
community's concerns; and Part II is an in-depth
response to all commenters' concerns and is com-
prised of the specific legal and technical PRP
questions and answers not covered in Part I.
As discussed in the ROD guidance and OSWER
Directive, Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (18)
(see Appendix H), and as outlined in Appendix D, the
responsiveness summary should include four sections.
1. Overview. The first section describes the selected
remedy, any changes in the remedy presented in the
proposed plan and feasibility study, and any new
alternatives suggested by the public which the agency
had not previously considered. The level of com-
munity support for the agency's preferred alternative
should be discussed and compared with the level of
support for other alternatives.
2. Background on Community Involvement. The
second section provides a brief history of community
interest in the site and identifies key public issues.
Major modifications in the preceding investigation,
operable units, or removal actions which were the
result of public comment and concern should be
noted. A listing of community relations activities
conducted to date may be included as an attachment
to the responsiveness summary.
3. Summary of Comments Received and Agency
Responses. This section includes a summary of
comments received from all interested parties,
including citizens' groups or individuals in the
community, the community's technical advisors,
potentially responsible parties, and local officials.
This section is generally divided into two parts. Part
I provides a summary of the community's concerns
and Part II provides an in-depth response to all
commenters, including those from potentially
responsible parties. The agency's response to com-
munity concerns are included within each category of
comments. Possible categories or subsections might
-37-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
include technical comments, concerns regarding
alternative remedies, public participation process, and
cost. This section includes comments received during
the public comment period, as well as significant con-
cerns raised over the course of the site history relating
to the remedy selection. It also includes substantive
comments received after the close of the comment
period, to the extent practicable. Additionally, this
section notes significant community concerns which
the agency will not address due to a lack of
jurisdiction or other reasons which makes agency
action inappropriate. In this case, staff should include
an explanation of why no agency action is needed.
4. Remedial Design/Remedial Action Concerns.
This section describes public concerns raised during
the RI/FS and public comment period (e.g., air moni-
toring during construction) regarding the remedial
action. This will keep the agency alert to community
concerns once the remedial action has begun.
The responsiveness summary is part of the ROD.
However, it should be written as an independent
section which can stand alone to document public
concerns and how they are addressed. The respon-
siveness summary will be submitted to the lead and
support agency for consideration and, after ROD
approval, to the public. The ROD (with the respon-
siveness summary) is placed in the administrative
record file and information repositories. In addition,
the responsiveness summary may be distributed to all
who commented and to the entire site mailing list.
The agency receives comments from the public
throughout the remedial process. Although the
agency has no obligation to respond to comments
received before the official public comment period on
the RI/FS and proposed plan, EPA encourages
agencies to consider all significant comments, regard-
less of when they are received, and respond to them
as quickly as possible. Staff should document these
comments in some way, such as a record of com-
munication, and place them in the administrative
record file. The agency should also incorporate
significant comments into the responsiveness sum-
mary on the RI/FS and proposed plan.
Because of the wide-ranging nature of comments,
some of which address technical, legal, financial, and
public or private due process concerns, preparation of
the responsiveness summary is a team effort under the
direction of the Remedial Project Manager. The com-
munity relations staff is usually given responsibility
for coordinating this effort because the responsive-
ness summary is the primary means of documenting
community involvement in the decision-making
process. Therefore, contractor support for the respon-
siveness summary is normally a community relations
activity of the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplish-
ments Plan (SCAP). However, due to the technical
sophistication of comments by the community, techni-
cal advisors, and PRPs, preparing the responsiveness
summary may also require substantial additional fund-
ing in the SCAP for the technical support contractor
and may require further involvement of the agency's'
technical and legal staff to respond to questions.
4.4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
BEFORE AND DURING
REMEDIAL DESIGN
Moving from the feasibility study to remedial design
is a major step in remedial actions. As site activity
shifts from remedial planning to actual cleanup, the
roles and responsibilities at the site also change, as
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, or PRPs may take the lead on actual
site work. Furthermore, responsibility for the site
may shift from EPA to the State. Given these major
changes, the community may need assurance that its
concerns will continue to be addressed in the
subsequent phases of the remedial action.
Prior to the initiation of remedial design, staff should
revise the CRP, if necessary, to address any new or
changing community concerns since the RI/FS and to
describe additional community relations activities
during RD/RA that are not already in the CRP. If
local concerns have remained relatively unchanged,
the revision may be limited to providing a new
section on future community relations activities and
schedules, with minor changes or updates in other
sections. These additions may be based on a few
informal discussions, either by telephone or in person,
with selected, informed individuals who clearly
represent the community. If community attitudes
-38-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
towards the remedial action have changed
considerably, staff may need to revise the CRP
substantially. In such cases, staff should hold
community interviews prior to the revision of the
plan. Interviews may range from formal question and
answer sessions conducted with several citizens to
informal discussions. The lead agency, with input by
the support agency needs to determine what types and
number of discus-sions are appropriate to develop a
CRP that will enhance the response action.
One objective of revising the CRP is to evaluate com-
munity relations efforts to that point. Staff should
review all community relations activities held during
the RI/FS and consider which activities were effective
and which were not. Based on this evaluation, the
revised plan should identify community relations
activities for remedial action and remedial design that
have already been demonstrated as being successful.
In revising the plan, staff also should be alert to
particular issues that might emerge during the
remedial design and remedial action. Even though
the public has had the opportunity to comment on the
FS, some members of the public may not agree with
the selected remedial action. Staff should be sensitive
to such disagreements and identify ways in which
these and other public concerns can best be addressed
during the remedial design. Community involvement
at this stage also can help staff develop site plans,
such as the estabh'shment of traffic routes and work
schedules, to minimize impact on the community.
During the RI/FS, many community changes may
occur, such as resignations, local elections, and resi-
dent arrivals and departures. Therefore, staff should
update all lists of names, addresses, and telephone
numbers of local citizens, officials, and institutions
when revising the plan.
After completing the final engineering design, the
agency must issue a fact sheet explaining the engi-
neering design. Staff may notify citizens of the fact
sheet by publishing a notice in a local newspaper,
mailing the fact sheet to those on the mailing list, or
pursuing some other techniques better suited to the
affected community and interested parties. Addition-
ally, the agency must provide, as appropriate, a public
briefing prior to the initiation of remedial action.
At this stage, the public will probably be surprised to
learn how long the cleanup will take. Moreover, after
a lengthy RI/FS and the promise of an extended
cleanup process, the public may have unrealistic
expectations, such as anticipating that the agency's
actions will restore the site to its original condition.
Some may expect that the remedial action will elimi-
nate all risks at the site. Staff can help the public
appreciate that, while full cleanup is the exception
rather than the rule, the remedial action will clean up
the site to levels that are considered safe for the site's
planned use, and are consistent with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal
and State environmental laws (29). A review of
Superfund objectives and constraints at this stage
could be very useful.
4.5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMEDIAL ACTION
With the remedial action, site activity increases as
construction of the selected remedy begins. Although
staff have explained the engineering design in a fact
sheet distributed to the community before the reme-
dial action, residents may still have questions about
the actual construction. If site conditions permit, staff
can conduct site tours to enable community members
to better understand the nature of the problem at the
site and the response action under construction. If
site access is restricted, a display posted at a local
library or in the information repository allows the
community to view the progress at the site.
While there are no formal community relations
requirements during the remedial action, staff should
ensure that the community is kept informed of the
schedule of site activities, changes in the remedial
action schedule, and any new findings at the site.
Effective tools for keeping the public and local
officials informed include periodic updates to describe
progress at the site, press releases announcing site
developments or changes in the schedule of events,
and informal meetings or public availability sessions
to allow the community to meet with agency staff to
discuss site issues.
-39-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
4.6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
Under CERCLA, States are responsible for operating
and maintaining Fund-financed sites once the remedial
action has been completed. Thus, at this point in the
remedial process, all Fund-lead sites effectively be-
come State-lead sites. However, according to EPA
guidance, State participation in the Superfund
Remedial Program (8), the State may obtain EPA
funding and assistance, through a cooperative agree-
ment, for up to one year after remedial action to
ensure that the remedy is operational and functional.
These agreements also establish lead responsibility for
community relations activities. After this one-year
period, States have responsibility for community
relations activities for Fund-lead sites for the duration
of operation and maintenance (O&M).
Community relations efforts during the O&M phase
are likely to be less intense than in the earlier phases
of a remedial response when the public felt and
expressed its concerns more strongly. However,
public concerns do not necessarily vanish with the
signing of the ROD. The public may continue to
have health concerns, or questions about site safety or
long-term use of the site. Hence, those responsible
for community relations at the site should continue
efforts to monitor community concerns, exchange
information, and, where appropriate, meet with com-
munity residents to discuss their concerns.
When remedial response shifts from remedial action
to O&M, staff can anticipate the following events:
Planned and unplanned shutdowns. Planned
shutdowns will occur to clean and adjust
equipment. To prevent the public from becoming
alarmed that a new danger has been discovered at
the site, they should be informed well in advance
concerning shutdown schedules for maintenance.
Unplanned shut-downs, due to equipment failure
and external events, such as a labor strike, may
be disconcerting to those living near the site; they
may fear a new danger at the site. Again, the
agency should inform the public immediately of
what is happening.
Changes in the appearance of the work site
due to weather conditions. If, for example, the
weather suddenly becomes much cooler, the
water vapor above an air stripping tower may
condense into a visible plume. Some citizens
may fear that an explosion has occurred. To
prevent or address these fears, staff should tell
people in advance what to expect.
Increased civic awareness that the site will not
always be a Superfund site, but may be
restored to other uses within the community.
To some citizens, the departure of agency staff
and contractors from the site may be as upsetting
as their arrival. Therefore, staff should ensure
that the community understands the long-term
plans for the site and knows which State and
local officials will be ultimately responsible.
4.7 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING THE NATIONAL
PRIORITIES LIST (NPL)
DELETION PROCESS
Section 2.4. discussed how a site can be deleted from
the NPL when EPA determines that further response
is not appropriate. Procedures for site deletion from
the NPL are similar to rule-making for NPL site
additions. According to Draft Guidance on Deletion
of Sites from the National Priority Listing (NPL) (57),
Regional staff should prepare a deletion docket, con-
taining all pertinent information supporting the
deletion recommendation, before transmitting this
information to EPA Headquarters for review and
consultation. The Regional public docket and local
information repositories should contain complete
copies of all supporting information prior to publi-
cation of public notification statements announcing
EPA's intent to propose a site deletion.
Regional staff must prepare public notification
statements. The Notice of Intent to Delete must
appear in the Federal Register and appropriate local
publications. Additional information provided in the
notice should include:
A summary of EPA deletion criteria and how the
site meets the criteria;
-40-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
The locations of Regional dockets;
The locations of local information repositories
containing relevant documents;
The name and address of a Regional contact
where comments may be sent;
A brief site history, including, location, former
use, type of contaminants, and date added to the
NPL;
A description of all response actions taken at the
site (including scope of RI, if applicable, general
results, and conclusions);
A summary of cleanup standards and criteria and
results of all confirmatory sampling;
A summary of Superfund community relations
activities;
A description of EPA's close-out plan for the
site, explaining operation and maintenance
procedures, the monitoring program that will be
implemented, and any institutional controls that
will be used at the site;
An acknowledgement of State concurrence to
delete the site;
A description of procedures for deleting a site
from the NPL; and
A statement indicating that EPA retains the
authority to spend money on a deleted site if
future conditions warrant such actions.
EPA must solicit comments on the proposed deletion
through a public comment period of at least 30 days.
EPA must prepare a responsiveness summary that
documents comments received on the Notice of Intent
to Delete and EPA responses to the comments to
support a deletion recommendation. This responsive-
ness summary should describe:
Community relations activities conducted during
the remedial planning and action stages of the
cleanup;
Comments received during the comment periods;
Comments received during public meetings (if
held);
Comments from settlement-related comment
periods (if appropriate);
EPA responses to national and local public
comments; and
Justification for proceeding with the deletion (if
public comments indicate strong disagreement
with the recommendation).
Following approval of the EPA Regional Adminis-
trator, staff should include a copy of the respons-
iveness summary in the Regional docket and publish
this document as part of the final rule. Staff also
must make a copy of the final deletion package
available in the local information repository.
4.8 COPING WITH
UNANTICIPATED
DEVELOPMENTS
Ideally, community relations programs should
anticipate all likely community concerns and identify
appropriate community relations activities accordingly.
In reality, unanticipated developments commonly
occur. The effectiveness of the community relations
program at each site will depend on how well such
unforeseen occurrences are managed. While planning
directly for unanticipated developments is not
possible, each community relations program should
have sufficient resources and flexibility to respond to
these situations. For example, if a group suddenly
begins picketing at a site where there has been no
prior community involvement, agency officials may
want to meet with representatives of the group and
demonstrate the agency's willingness to consider
community concerns. Similarly, if agency officials
discover significantly greater contamination than
anticipated at a site, community relations or technical
staff should meet with affected citizens, prepare
statements, hold informal meetings concerning the
new findings, and conduct press briefings.
One way to minimize unanticipated developments is
to establish realistic schedules to meet site-specific
community relations needs. Controversial situations
and delays in the remedial process are less likely
when adequate time is allotted to meet community
needs.
ROD deadlines should be based on both technical and
community relations milestones. Remedial Project
-41-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
Managers, working closely with Community Relations
Coordinators, can familiarize themselves with the
community involvement needs of local residents and
plan the technical schedule accordingly. The fol-
lowing suggestions will enable agency staff to
adequately address community involvement needs and
thus avoid many unanticipated developments:
Anticipate community relations needs throughout
all phases of remedial response. Monitor the
level of public interest in the site and plan
community relations activities accordingly. For
example, before the public comment period
begins, assess whether previous community
interest indicates that the community will require
only a standard 30-day comment period, or
whether an additional 30 days will be needed.
Substantial citizen concern will most likely
dictate an extension of the comment period; this
additional time must be factored into the remedial
response schedule early enough to ensure that
realistic deadlines are set.
Allow at least one month of planning for each
public meeting. Planning involves: contacting
community leaders; providing public notice of the
meeting (to be completed two weeks before the
meeting is held); preparing fact sheets and
graphics for the presentation; securing logistical
support for the meeting; reserving meeting space
(to be completed at least four weeks in advance
of the meeting); organizing a planning meeting
(to be held at least three weeks before the public
meeting occurs); and organizing a rehearsal
meeting (to be held at least one week before the
public meeting occurs).
Coordinate upcoming technical milestones with
community relations efforts. Computer-based
tracking systems are useful in this regard.
Manual tracking systems and bi-monthly or
monthly coordination meetings between Remedial
Project Managers and Community Relations
Coordinators are also valuable. The regular
tracking and coordination of efforts among staff
ensures that the agency addresses the public
involvement needs of the local community
throughout all phases of the remedial response.
Agency efforts to address unanticipated developments
will be most effective if community relations and
technical staff respond as soon as possible. Good
crisis management is crucial to the effectiveness of
any community relations program. Staff confronted
with unanticipated developments should seek
vigorously to pursue general community relations
program goals, listen to and consider community
concerns, and keep citizens and local officials
accurately informed about site activities.
4.9 SUMMARY
Exhibit 4-1 summarizes community relations activities
that are suggested for each stage of a remedial
response (Exhibit 2-1 in Chapter 2 displays required
activities during a remedial response). These
activities may be useful at selected sites. Ultimately,
the decision whether to conduct any, some, or all of
these activities will depend on site-specific factors
such as the level of technical activity or the perceived
or real degree of risk present at the site. Some sites
may not require extensive briefings or numerous
public meetings, while others may require regular
consultation with community members and frequent
releases of information. Each community relations
program should be site-specific and reflect the needs
and suggestions of individual communities. Appendix
A describes in more detail the activities recommended
in this chapter.
-42-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 4
EXHIBIT 4-1: SUGGESTED COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
DURING REMEDIAL RESPONSE6
Technical Phase
Suggested Activities
1) Preliminary
Assessment
2) Site Inspection
3) NPL Listing
4) Before RI
5) During the RI
6) During the FS
7) Completion of the FS
and Proposed Plan
Technical staff brief community relations staff on the site
Community relations staff brief technical staff on community issues
Telephone local officials and concerned community members
Telephone local officials and concerned community members
Hold small, informal meetings with community members
Distribute fact sheet describing site inspection procedures and possible
outcomes
Prepare mailing list
Designate an agency contact
Telephone local officials and concerned community members
Distribute fact sheet describing the site, the NPL process, and the time-
frame for adding a site to the NPL
Hold public meetings with community members to solicit their comments
Prepare and distribute a press release, accompanied by the fact sheet, to
the news media
Technical staff brief community relations staff on scope of RI work plan
Hold public meeting to present the Superfund process and the final RI/FS
work plan
Community relations staff brief technical staff on information gathered
during community interviews
Distribute a "kickoff' fact sheet
Maintain telephone contact with key community representatives
Conduct workshop on the Superfund program
Notify interested parties of delays or lags in site activity
Hold meetings with the community to discuss RI findings
Maintain telephone contact with key community representatives
Solicit public comments on criteria for evaluating and screening FS
alternatives
Distribute fact sheet and letters to the community on the CRP mailing list
Issue news releases
Inform those on mailing list that the RI/FS and proposed plan are available
for public review and comment
6 Suggested activities should be undertaken in conjunction with requirements specified in Exhibit 2-1.
-43-
-------
Chapter 4
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 4-1: SUGGESTED COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING
REMEDIAL RESPONSE (continued)
Technical Phase
8) Remedial Design
9) Remedial Action
10) Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
Suggested Activities
Evaluate effectiveness of past community relations activities
Brief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, or
others on community relations
Hold small meetings or open houses to explain the remedial technology
Conduct site tours
Prepare an exhibit showing a pictorial history of the site
Publish maintenance schedules
Prepare fact sheets explaining O&M procedures
Hold meetings with the interested public to encourage local responsibility
for the site
-44-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5
CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS
Removal actions are emergency or short-term
responses to immediate threats to public health,
welfare, and the environment, which require special
community relations needs. Removal actions may
take place at Superfund remedial sites or in response
to spills of hazardous substances, such as train derail-
ments or tanker truck accidents. Examples of
removal actions at remedial sites include: removing
drums, barrels, or tanks; draining lagoons and ponds;
treating contaminated liquids and sludge; and con-
taining or stabilizing hazardous substances temporarily
to prevent releases. Removal actions differ from
remedial actions in that removals are generally more
limited in scope and cost; removals usually last no
longer than one year and cost no more than two
million dollars. At remedial sites, removals are not
necessarily final solutions but, to the extent practi-
cable, "contribute to the efficient performance of any
long-term remedial action with respect to the release
or threatened release" (CERCLA §104(a)(l)). The
agency may grant waivers to these limitations if it
determines that an emergency situation still exists
(e.g., continued removal action is required to prevent,
limit, or mitigate an emergency).
This chapter presents guidance on conducting com-
munity relations activities during removal actions.
Section 5.1 provides a general overview of the
removal program and the decision-making process.
Section 5.2 discusses preparing for community
relations activities during removal actions. Section
5.3, describes the specific community relations
activities required for different kinds of removal
actions. Section 5.4 provides suggestions about other
community relations activities that staff may find
appropriate to conduct for a removal action.
5.1 THE REMOVAL PROCESS
The NCP establishes general requirements for all
removal actions as well as specific requirements for
three types of removal actions: removals with a
planning period of less than six months; removals
expected to extend beyond 120 days; and removals
with a planning period of at least six months. These
categories denote distinct types of removal actions,
ranging from an emergency response needed within
several hours or days (e.g., a truck accident involving
chemicals) to a response that is less time critical.
Each category refers to the number of calendar days
elapsed from commencement of on-site activity by the
agency, not to business days or days on which actual
site work occurred.
Response actions are usually initiated upon notifica-
tion of the need for a removal from a State agency,
private individual, the National Response Center, or
other source. Once EPA is notified, it conducts a
preliminary assessment (PA) to evaluate the nature
and extent of the potential hazard at the site. The PA,
which EPA conducts to determine whether Federal
action is necessary, may include reviewing site
management practices and gathering information from
generators, photographs, literature searches, and
personal interviews. Based on the PA, the On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) or the agency, determines whether
a Federal removal action is necessary to prevent or
mitigate an imminent threat to public health. If so,
the OSC prepares an action memo. The action memo
is the first key document in the removal process. It
includes background information on the site, the types
of wastes present, the nature of the threat to public
health, and a description of the proposed removal
action. Removal actions usually do not begin until
the action memo is approved. However, some
Regions give the OSC authority to initiate an emer-
gency removal action if site conditions warrant. For
purposes of this chapter, a removal action begins
when on-site activity commences, not when the action
memo is signed.
If the planning period for on-site activity exceeds six
months, the next step in the removal program is to
prepare an engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA). The purpose of an EE/CA is to balance
-45-
-------
Chapter 5
Community Relations Handbook
cost with technical concerns for each removal
alternative under consideration. The EE/CA reviews
removal alternatives and documents why a particular
alternative was selected; it is somewhat analogous to
a feasibility study for a remedial action.
Once on-site activity is underway, the OSC prepares
pollution reports, called POLREPS, that summarize
the events occurring at a site. The OSC produces
POLREPS periodicallyeither daily, weekly, or
monthlydepending on the extent of site work. The
more active a site, the more often the OSC prepares
these reports.
Following completion of the removal action, the
agency prepares an OSC report. The report includes:
A summary of events that occurred at the site,
such as the cause of the release, the response
actions taken, and the resources committed;
The effectiveness of the removal actions taken;
The problems encountered; and
Recommendations on how to prevent recurrence
of the release and improve response actions.
5.2 PREPARING FOR
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS
When there is advance time to plan for a removal
action, much of the guidance for planning, designing,
and conducting community relations programs for
remedial actions (Chapters 3 and 4) is equally appli-
cable to removal actions. For emergency removals
(i.e., removals with no planning period and involving
on-site activity of less than 30 days) staff will not
have time to prepare or implement an extensive com-
munity relations effort. While community relations
can still be important to the success of the action, the
urgency with which the agency must act means that
the community relations measures best suited to such
situations are usually somewhat different from those
appropriate for a planned removal or remedial action.
However, the NCP and CERCLA require some com-
munity relations activities for all removal actions.
This section offers practical guidance on preparing for
community relations during removal actions.
5.2.1 Measures for Community Relations
Preparedness
Because removal actions generally proceed quickly,
little time is available to plan or conduct the kinds of
community relations approaches taken during a reme-
dial response. Therefore, removal and community
relations staff should take steps to enhance their
preparedness and ability to conduct community rela-
tions on very short notice. They should attempt to:
Demonstrate sensitivity to individual concerns or
needs within the community; and
Reach as large an audience as quickly as possible
with precise and accurate information.
To meet these objectives, staff should identify and
organize resources before site-specific action starts.
Since the OSC is the lead official responsible for all
on-site activity, staff will need to work directly with
the OSC. Staff also will need to coordinate with, and
create communication strategies to include EPA
contractors working with the OSCs (Technical Assis-
tance Team (TAT) personnel), Regional Response
Teams (RRTs), and other government agencies in-
volved in removal actions,
The OSC and the TAT. Staff responsible for
community relations should maintain cooperative
working relationships with OSCs and TAT personnel.
When a removal becomes necessary or appropriate,
the first responsibility of technical personnel is to
protect public health and safety. Their task is
complex and sometimes dangerous; they may not
have the time or resources to handle persistent
questions and comments from the news media or the
general public. In order to concentrate on technical
activities, the OSC may direct, or request assistance
from, community relations staff to handle questions.
Community relations staff may want to review the
POLREPS to obtain information about the site and the
nature of the release to be able to anticipate com-
munity concerns.
A community relations specialist can enhance the
relationship between EPA and the community by
accompanying the OSC to the scene of the removal
action. At the request of the OSC, the specialist can
assist the OSC in handling contacts with the public.
-46-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 5
This is also an opportunity for the specialist to learn
about the site and community circumstances at the
same time. Agency staff should coordinate these
visits, as well as other community relations activities,
with the OSC.
Regional Response Teams. RRTs are efficient and
accessible means for fostering interagency com-
munication during removal actions. The NCP defines
two components of the RRT mechanism: "a standing
team, which consists of designated representatives
from participating Federal agencies, State govern-
ments, and local governments (as agreed upon by the
States); and incident-specific teams, where partici-
pation will relate to the technical nature of the
incident and its geographic location." Staff should
coordinate with the OSC in contacting either the
incident-specific or standing RRT.
The incident-specific RRT may be an especially
useful resource in a community relations program for
a removal site. Because local and Regional officials
may participate in the RRT, an approach for respond-
ing to community concerns at a particular site might
be discussed at meetings of the incident-specific team.
The RRT standing team also can be valuable.
Members of the standing RRT may have resources
and facilities available (e.g., meeting places,
duplicating and graphics capabilities, and video
equipment) to enhance the quality of community
relations work. In addition, standing team members
could work together to produce a common inter-
agency format for information sheets and press
releases.
Other Government Agencies. The public often may
not know which government agency to contact with
questions or comments about activities at a removal
site. Given that jurisdictions among agencies often
overlap and that the public often does not distinguish
between different Federal agencies, this confusion is
understandable. Therefore, staff should maintain a
current file that identifies other agencies that typically
receive citizen calls, including the Title III Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). This file
also should contain the names of agency contacts who
may be responsible for any community relations activ-
ities. Then, if a removal action becomes necessary,
a network of individuals is already in place to address
community concerns adequately and consistently.
5.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
REQUIREMENTS FOR
REMOVAL ACTIONS
To ensure that communities have access to infor-
mation about agency actions at removal sites, the
NCP and CERCLA outline several different com-
munity relations requirements for removal actions,
depending on the expected duration and time
sensitivity of the removal action. This section
describes the community relations activities required
for different types of removal actions. Exhibit 5-1
presents a summary of community relations and
administrative record requirements for the various
types of removal actions.
5.3.1 Requirements for All Removal Actions
Several requirements apply to all removal actions.
Advance organization and preparation will be critical
for the timely completion of these community rela-
tions activities within the schedule imposed by
removal actions. Even in situations where there is a
release of hazardous substances that imminently
threatens public health, welfare, and the environment,
staff must conduct community relations to provide
citizens with an opportunity to learn about and
express then" concerns regarding site-related activities.
The assistance provided by community relations staff
to OSCs during such situations may be especially use-
ful. As the lead agency official, the OSC will direct,
and seek assistance from, community relations staff in
order to accomplish the following requirements:
Designate a Spokesperson. In a timely manner,
this representative must inform the community of
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide
information concerning the release of hazardous
substances.
Coordinate All News Releases. Staff must
coordinate with the OSC about all Federal news
releases or statements made by participating
agencies.
-47-
-------
Chapter 5
Community Relations Handbook
Notify Affected Citizens. The spokesperson
must notify promptly the citizens immediately
affected by the release, as well as State and local
officials, and when appropriate, civil defense or
emergency management agencies.
Establish an Administrative Record. Staff
must establish an administrative record containing
documents that form the basis for selecting the
response action. For emergency removal actions
lasting less than 30 days, placement of the
administrative record file in one central location
fulfills statutory requirements. For all other
removal actions, staff must place the adminis-
trative record at both a central location and at or
near the site.
Notify Public of the Administrative Record.
Staff must notify the public of the availability of
the administrative record by publishing an
announcement in a major local newspaper of
general circulation. Staff also must inform the
public when information repositories, which may
house the administrative record, are created.
5.3.2 Requirements for Removal Actions with a
Planning Period of Less than Six Months
NCP §300.415(m)(2) stipulates that for removal
actions with a planning period of less than six
months, the agency must perform the following
community relations activities:
Administrative Record Availability and
Notification. Within 60 days of initiating on-site
removal activity, the agency must make the
administrative record available for public inspec-
tion and publish a notice of availability in a
major local newspaper of general circulation.
Public Comment Period. If appropriate, the
agency shall provide a public comment period of
at least 30 days from the time the administrative
record is made available for public inspection. A
comment period is considered appropriate for
removal actions with a planning period of less
than six months if clean-up activity is ongoing at
the time the administrative record is made
available for public inspection and if the
comments received from the public are expected
to affect future action at the site.
Responsiveness Summary. The agency must
prepare responses to significant comments and
new data submitted during the public comment
period. The responsiveness summary should be
placed in the administrative record for public
review.
5.3.3 Requirements for Removal Actions
Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days
NCP §300.415(m)(3) requires additional community
relations activities for removals expected to extend
beyond 120 days. The agency must complete the
following requirements within the 120-day period:
Community Interviews and Community'
Relations Plan. The agency must interview
local officials, community residents, public
interest groups, and other interested parties to
identify the community's specific information
needs and concerns and to determine the ways in
which residents would like to become involved in
the Superfund process. The agency must use
information obtained during community inter-
views to develop a formal Community Relations
Plan. The CRP specifies the community relations
activities that the agency expects to undertake
during a response action.
Information Repository Establishment and
Notification. The agency must establish at least
one information repository at or near the site to
contain the administrative record. The purpose
of the information repository is to provide
members of the community easier access to site-
related documents. The agency must notify the
public of the establishment of the information
repository and note that the administrative record
is available for public inspection and copying in
the repository.
5.3.4 Requirements for Removal Actions with a
Planning Period of at Least Six Months
The following additional requirements apply to
removal actions with a planning period of at least six
months:
-48-
-------
TABLE 5-1:
ACTIVITY
Designate spokesperson
Notify affected citizens
Establish Administrative Record (AR)
file
Notify public of AR
Establish information repository
Provide 30 day comment period
COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVALS
TYPE OF REMOVAL
EMERGENCY1 TIME CRITICAL2 TIME CRITICAL2
Onsite activity lasts Onsite activity lasts Onsite activity lasts
less than 30 days less than 120 days more than 120 days
NON-TIME
CRITICAL3
-
Publish notice and description of EE/CA
Prepare Responsiveness Summary
Conduct community interviews
Prepare Community Relations Plan
1 Those releases or 2 Including emergencies lasting longer than 30
threats of releases days, those releases requiring cleanup activities
requiring cleanup to begin onsite within 6 months of the lead
activities to begin agency's determination, based on the site
onsite within hours of evaluation, that a removal action is appropriate.
the lead agency's
determination that a
removal action is
appropriate.
3 Those releases or
threats of releases not
requiring cleanup
activities to begin
onsite within 6
months after the lead
agency's deter-
mination, based on
the site evaluation,
that a removal action
is appropriate.
g
3
c
3
3
a
-------
Chapter 5
Community Relations Handbook
Community Interviews and Community Rela-
tions Plan. The requirements for community
interviews and a CRP outlined in the previous
subsection apply here, with the following
exception: staff must conduct interviews and
prepare a CRP prior to the completion of the
engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA).
Information Repository/Administrative Record
File Establishment and Notification. Similarly,
the agency must follow the procedures outlined
in the previous subsection regarding the
information repository and administrative record,
with the following exception: staff must estab-
lish the information repository and make the
administrative record available no later than the
signing of the EE/CA approval memorandum.
Notice of Availability/Description of the
EE/CA. The agency is required to issue a notice
of availability and a brief description of the
EE/CA in a major local newspaper of general
circulation.
Public Comment Period. Upon completion of
the EE/CA, the agency must provide a minimum
of 30 days for the submission of written and oral
comments regarding site-related activities. The
agency must extend this comment period by at
least 15 days upon timely request. Timely
requests are those that the agency receives
approximately two weeks before the close of the
comment period.
Responsiveness Summary. The agency must
prepare a written response to significant written
or oral comments submitted during the public
comment period and make this document
available to the public in the information
repository.
5.4 SUGGESTED COMMUNITY
RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
As with remedial actions, the choice of specific
community relations techniques beyond those required
by the NCP depend on the nature of the response and
the level and nature of community concern. This
section describes some activities which are especially
appropriate for removal actions. Exhibit 5-2 sum-
marizes suggested community relations techniques.
For illustrative purposes, many different activities are
discussed in this section, including meeting with
removal staff, developing project checklists, estab-
lishing contact with local leaders at the start of a
removal action, providing information to the media,
organizing small group meetings, establishing hot-
lines, canvassing neighborhoods, and others. These
suggestions are based, in part, on discussions with
experienced OSCs about community relations activ-
ities especially useful in the context of removal
actions.
Before the removal action begins, staff should meet
with the OSC responsible for the site. This meeting'
fulfills two purposes: (1) staff can learn about the
site from the OSC; and (2) staff can recommend to
the OSC community relations techniques that may be
desirable at the site. The OSC works closely with
TAT personnel, so staff also may want to develop a
working relationship with this contractor. At this
time staff should work with the OSC to identify their
role and responsibility for planning and conducting
community relations activities at the removal site.
The OSC may want staff to begin to identify key
persons at other government agencies as well as key
RRT members.
Staff should develop a checklist in order to track
community relations tasks and ensure that these tasks
are completed within the often frenetic schedule of a
removal action. The checklist will generally consist
of three components:
(1) A list of all the people to be contacted, including
U.S. Senators and Representatives, mayors, news-
papers, TV and radio stations, and concerned
citizens.
(2) A list of major site events. This list should
provide background information on the release.
It should include (but not be limited to)
information about:
The location of the release and how it was
identified;
-50-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 5
EXHIBIT 5-2: SUGGESTED COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS
Technical Phase
Before a Site-Specific Action, General
Activities as Necessary
When Removal Action Begins, Additional
General Activities
During Removal Action, Further Activities
if Time and Resources Permit
Suggested Activities
Meet with the OSC and TAT; establish a working
relationship
Identify key persons at other government agencies,
including RRTs
Prepare checklists
Contact local officials
Release information to media
Establish telephone hotline
Use checklists of necessary activities
Maintain accurate list of concerned citizens
Reply as quickly as possible to individual comments
and questions
Prepare a fact sheet
Appear at local meetings
Hold small group meetings
Hold a press conference
Conduct site tours
Set up an observation deck
Maintain information bulletin board
Establish information center
What caused the release of hazardous substances;
What hazardous substances have been identified
or are suspected to be present;
What is the nature of the threat posed by the
release (i.e., threats to human health, welfare, or
the environment); and
What immediate action is planned and what
actions already have been conducted.
(3) A list of all the community relations activities the
agency will conduct, relating the activities to
various groups, individuals, or organizations (e.g.,
public officials, the media, and community
residents) at a removal scene.
The checklist may be thought of as an abbreviated
CRP for activities undertaken during a removal
action. However, if the action lasts more than 120
days and the agency must develop a CRP, staff can
incorporate information provided by the checklist into
the plan.
When the removal action commences and before
communicating with the general public, a removal
staff person and a community relations staff member
should apprise public officials of exactly what is
happening. As with all remedial responses, local
officials need accurate information to answer the
many questions they may be asked by constituents.
-51-
-------
Chapter 5
Community Relations Handbook
Quite often, local leaders view a hazardous substance
incident as a "black eye" for the community. They
also have unique political concerns which removal
staff must consider, even during crisis situations, if
the agency is going to foster a positive relationship
with local officials. Experienced removal staff have
learned to avoid making apparent promises to local
leaders because of the potential for misunderstanding
and conflict created when the "unexpected" occurs.
After informing public officials, staff should
coordinate with the OSC in preparing material for the
media. The OSC must approve all media releases and
is responsible for designating a media spokesperson.
In deciding how to broadcast information to the
community, staff should consider the opportunities
and limitations of different media. Newspapers are
useful sources for releasing details about the project,
yet there may be difficulties if a newspaper hopes to
sensationalize or "play up" the removal activities.
The emergency nature of removals makes this an
important consideration, and when possible, staff
should advise the OSC about when to use and when
not to use newspapers as an information dissemination
technique.
On the other hand, radio is designed to communicate
news items quickly and simply. The staff person
issuing a radio press release or preparing for a radio
interview should plan to be less technical and more
succinct than that required of newspaper materials.
Radio stations in larger cities often have regular call-
in programs. Staff might seek to participate in these
programs so that concerned citizens could ask direct
questions and have the answers broadcast to the larger
community.
For television coverage, the staff person should
employ visual aids, such as charts that depict the
effects of the most common types of releases and
describe the methods used to respond to releases.
Television coverage of cleanup operations can help
citizens visualize what is happening at the site.
Similarly, site tours, including television coverage, are
good community relations techniques at the end of the
cleanup. As with other activities, staff should arrange
site tours with the approval of the OSC. Both
television and radio can be especially useful if the
agency needs to issue public warnings.
While disseminating information to a broad audience
has obvious advantages at the very beginning of a
removal action, focusing on a carefully selected
audience may also be an important community
relations tool during removal actions. This technique
involves visiting some homes or making a few phone
calls to concerned citizens as soon as possible. A
visit to even one home can communicate the agency's
concern and interest to an entire neighborhood.
Although often time-consuming, staff also can
conduct door-to-door canvassing in adjacent neighbor-
hoods before and during the removal action.
Community relations staff can speak briefly to
residents at the door or give them flyers with basic
information about the response. Staff may also
publicize a telephone number (a "hotline" or toll-free
number) which citizens can use to ask questions or
voice their concerns. However, allocating staff time
to answering the telephone in the very early stages of
a removal action may be counterproductive to
removal efforts. Gathering information, visiting
public officials, preparing press releases, and giving
interviews may be more important activities. If a
hotline is established, staff might consider hiring an
answering service for the first day or two or installing
an answering machine since an understaffed hotline
will reflect poorly on the agency.
Staff should keep a careful record of all telephone
calls to ensure an adequate response to all citizens'
concerns. Specifically, staff should record the
following items: caller's name, address, telephone
number, and nature of the conversation (whether
question or comment). Since some people may be
reluctant to provide this information, staff should
explain that this information is collected to be able to
keep interested residents informed about site
activities. Staff should emphasize that providing a
name and address are not a prerequisite to accepting
comments or answering questions. The community
relations spokesperson can contact each caller as more
information becomes available.
If it appears that the removal site will warrant
extensive community relations efforts (i.e., the site
-52-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 5
will eventually receive NPL listing, the site is located
near other high-interest NPL sites, the site is located
near a population center, or the media and local
citizen groups are already focusing a lot of attention
on the site), staff might consider other options which
require more detailed preparation. For instance, staff
could:
Distribute fact sheets or periodic updates in the
neighborhood near the release;
Make presentations to local governmental bodies
and other organizations;
Set up an information bulletin board near the site,
where possible;
Establish an on-scene public information center,
especially if the site is in a residential area;
Schedule site tours for media representatives and
local officials during which staff can answer
questions; and
Set up an observation deck at the site to enable
interested citizens to observe cleanup activities.
Removal staff should listen carefully to the questions
asked about a removal site. When concerns are
expressed, they should be carefully noted and
sensitively explored with further questioning. Even
when a citizen is simply asking about the removal
action and its cause, the spokesperson should pay
attention for hints that would identify underlying
concerns and seek to clarify any issues disturbing
local residents. Depending on the extent of
community concerns, removal staff may want to meet
to discuss public inquiries and identify how these
inquiries have been addressed.
Whatever the length of the removal, personal contacts
with community members are very effective.
Experienced Superfund staff advise that, whenever
possible, agency staff make contacts in person, rather
than by telephone, because citizens can express their
views more clearly in face-to-face encounters.
-53-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
CHAPTER 6
CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
This chapter reviews the CERCLA enforcement pro-
gram and discusses enforcement actions, community
relations, and the administrative record. It provides
specific discussions on:
Community interview planning and development
of Community Relations Plans (CRPs) for enfor-
cement-lead sites;
Enforcement activities requiring public partici-
pation;
Community relations during specific enforcement
actions and settlements; and
The relationship between community relations
and the administrative record for remedy selec-
tion.
The chapter discusses how enforcement actions may
affect overall community relations planning and
activities. Enforcement-lead sites occasionally are
more complex because there may be a degree of
mistrust between the affected community and the
responsible parties. The process for negotiating a
fair, effective remedy and oversight of responsible
party work needs to be explained to the public. This
chapter provides some guidance on how this can be
done.
6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CERCLA
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
CERCLA created two complementary methods to
cleanup hazardous waste sites. The first program uses
a trust fund to clean up pollutants and contaminants
at these sites.
The second program provides EPA the authority to
identify potentially responsible parties (PRPs) linked
to the site. PRPs are those who may have owned or
operated hazardous waste sites, or generated, transpor-
ted, or disposed of hazardous substances. CERCLA
gives EPA the authority to negotiate settlements for
site cleanup work or to issue administrative orders
directing them to do so. EPA may also sue PRPs to
repay the costs of such actions when the trust fund
has been used.
Since the passage of CERCLA in 1980, several States
have written similar laws. They too may undertake
site cleanup and recover costs from PRPs. Citing
their own authority, they may issue orders or enter
into settlement agreements with PRPs. The enforce-
ment process is essentially the same as followed by
EPA.
The agency attempts to identify PRPs as early as
possible. Where practical, the agency notifies these
parties of their potential liability when the site is
scheduled for some action. The agency will then
encourage the PRPs to do the work. If the PRPs are
willing and capable of doing the work, the agency
will attempt to negotiate an enforcement agreement
with them. The settlement document for conducting
agreed upon removals or remedial investigations and
feasibility studies (RI/FS) is generally an administra-
tive order on consent (AOC), which is signed outside
of court.
On other occasions, a judicial consent decree may be
signed, which a judge reviews and approves. The
Department of Justice (DOJ) files the settlement
agreement with the court on behalf of EPA. Consent
decrees are primarily used for remedial design and
remedial action (RD/RA). The agency then will over-
see the work performed by the PRPs. Both AOCs
and consent decrees are enforceable in court.
If a settlement is not reached, the agency can use its
authority to issue a unilateral administrative order
(UAO) directing PRPs to perform removal or reme-
dial actions at a site. If the PRPs do not respond to
an administrative order, the agency has the option of
filing suit to compel performance.
-55-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
Finally, if the PRPs do not perform the work and the
agency undertakes it, a suit may be brought against
the PRPs. When there is good evidence tying them
to the pollution at the site, the agency will try to
recover site expenditures. This is known as "cost
recovery," and is an agency priority.
Agency staff should try to help citizens understand
Superfund program goals and activities, including
enforcement actions. In this effort, the agency needs
to consider the concerns of the local community. If
community concerns are fully identified early in the
remedial process, the agency is better able to address
these concerns in the proposed plan.
6.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
In fostering community relations during enforcement
actions. Community Relations Coordinators (CRCs)
should follow the same steps as for fund-financed
projects. The steps critical to community relations are
conducting interviews of local citizens and formula-
ting a Community Relations Plan (CRP). Once the
CRP has been developed, the CRC and other mem-
bers of the site team should ensure that community
relations activities outlined in the plan take place.
The administrative record file (the incomplete record
as it is being compiled) can be used to ensure that the
public is informed of site activities and how to get
involved in decisions made at the site.
6.2.1 Community Interviews
In addition to general preparation for community
interviews (see Chapter 3), community relations staff
should work with technical and legal staff to identify
special precautions that should be taken during
community interviews (e.g., where there is sensitivity
to pending litigation or the political climate of the
community). By discussing the site with the
Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and other staff in
advance of the interviews, community relations staff
can be better prepared to address local concerns.
The community relations staff, with the RPM and
legal staff, should interview different local groups
before developing the CRP. Some interviews may
already have been conducted in the community as part
of the ranking process for the National Priorities List
(NPL). These early discussions, however, do not re-
place community interviews held during development
of a CRP. The information sought covers specific
areas that are not necessarily discussed during the
listing process.
Community Relations Coordinators are not investiga-
tors of PRP actions at the site. If this type of
information is volunteered during interviews, the CRC
should advise the resident that civil investigators will
follow-up on this information. The CRC should in-
form civil investigators of such pertinent information.
To incorporate the full range of views, agency staff
may consider interviewing PRPs residing in the
community. In some cases, only the current owner or
operator is contacted. The circumstances and PRPs
vary at every site. Significant variables include PRP
contribution of hazardous wastes to the site and their
standing in the community. The site response team
will determine whom to interview. This team is
composed of the CRC, On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
or RPM, Regional Counsel, and equivalents at the
State level when the State has the lead.
6.2.2 Community Relations Plans
Using information obtained during the community in-
terviews, the agency develops a CRP that reflects
consideration of local concerns and styles of com-
munication preferred by the community. The CRP
format is described in Chapter 3 and Appendix B.
The CRP is a critical planning tool for agency staff
and the public, as it will likely affect many people.
CRPs for sites with viable PRPs should receive input
from all members of the site response team directly
affected by activities scheduled in the plan. These
team members will jointly develop the CRP at PRP-
lead sites. For example, attorneys should approve the
accuracy of legal information and technical staff
should verify physical descriptions and contaminants
at the site.
-56-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
The community relations staff should insert methods
to enhance public participation into the CRP, citing
characteristics of the community. The CRCs may
also wish to consider that some sites will take years
to clean up. A Long Term Response Action (LTRA)
may require creative planning to keep the public
informed at various points along the way. The CRP
may be used to reflect such a strategy.
The CRC is ultimately responsible for ensuring that
the community relations requirements of CERCLA are
fulfilled. Therefore, the CRC is responsible for
approving the CRP with concurrence on specific sec-
tions by members of the team.
Internal discussions with all team members during
project planning is a useful mechanism for guarding
against releases of information that might be
detrimental to the enforcement process. Coordination
activities among community relations staff, technical
staff, and legal counsel depend on the site-specific
situation. The key is to plan activities and then agree
upon procedures for reviewing information. This
need for coordination is perhaps the most crucial
message of this chapter. Although the agency must
share information about a site with those directly
affected by the site, this information exchange should
be technical and not legal, and must be coordinated so
as not to jeopardize negotiations with PRPs.
Community relations activities outlined in a CRP for
a PRP-lead site should not compromise the settlement
process and the likely schedule of enforcement
actions. Technical discussions (section 6.3.7) may be
identified in the CRP as community relations
activities. The CRP should document the agency's
approach to coordinating and sharing information with
PRPs. Special conditions on agency interaction with
PRPs should be spelled out in the administrative order
or consent decree, not in the CRP.
The public must be informed early when PRPs are
willing to participate in community relations activities
identified in the CRP, but they should know that the
site response team prepared the plan. Staff should do
this by preparing a fact sheet and stating this at a
public meeting. EPA retains all decision-making
authority and directs all community relations activi-
tiesnot the responsible parties.
The CRP also should describe the litigation process.
Community relations staff may choose to describe
EPA interaction with DOJ and potential effects that
litigation may have on the scope of community rela-
tions activities. If litigation is pursued, the CRP will
be amended to reflect the potential effects of litigation
on community relations activities. When referral for
litigation is the initial enforcement action, the CRP
should specify activities that are to be conducted
during litigation to the extent known at that time.
Section 6.5.2 discusses the litigation process.
Once a case is in court, only information that can be
ascertained from court files will be available to the
public. Agency statements about the case must be
cleared with DOJ before issuance. The Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC) team member will arrange
for that clearance and consult with DOJ on statements
concerning site status, such as investigations, risk as-
sessments, and response work. The ORC is responsi-
ble for informing staff about consultations with DOJ.
6.2.3 Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
Involvement
The agency in charge of response actions will develop
and carry out community relations activities at
enforcement-lead sites. PRPs may participate in com-
munity relations activities only at the discretion of the
Regional Office. PRPs do not develop the CRP. The
Regional Office will oversee any PRP community
relations activities. PRPs may be involved in commu-
nity relations activities at sites where they are conduc-
ting a removal, RI/FS, RD/RA, or operation and
maintenance. If a PRP will be involved in com-
munity relations activities, the CRP should reflect that
involvement. In these cases, the PRPs may wish to
participate in public meetings or in the preparation of
fact sheets that the agency must review before release
to the public. The contents of press releases,
however, will not be "negotiated" with PRPs.
The completed CRP should be provided to all inter-
ested parties and placed in the administrative record
file and information repository. If the CRP is revised,
the final revised copy should be made available to the
public and placed in the administrative record file and
information repository.
-57-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
6.3 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AND COMMUNITY
RELATIONS AT REMEDIAL
SITES
6.3.1 Introduction
Community relations activities should be planned as
early in the enforcement process as possible. Gener-
ally, this should occur before the issuance of a RI/FS
special notice. Meetings with small groups of
citizens, local officials and other interested parties are
extremely helpful for sharing general information and
resolving questions. These meetings may also serve
to provide information on the agency's general
enforcement process. The information repository and
administrative record are sources from which the
public may obtain information about the site, general
Superfund process, and other agency materials. The
information repository is discussed in Appendix I and
an extensive discussion of the administrative record
appears at the end of this chapter.
Litigation generally does not occur until after the
remedy is selected. However, community relations
staff may need to explain early in the process that
legal constraints on community relations activities
may apply during negotiations or litigation.
6.3.2 Notice to Potentially Responsible Parties
Notice letters are used to inform PRPs of their poten-
tial liability and provide an opportunity for them to
enter into negotiations. The list of PRPs should be
provided to staff for inclusion on the site mailing list.
Well before the RI/FS starts, EPA usually sends an
information request letter to PRPs about their activity
at the site. "General notice" letters are then sent to
PRPs advising them of possible liability. A "special
notice" letter (SNL) will be sent to PRPs prior to the
initiation of a RI/FS or RD/RA. The SNL begins a
60-day moratorium for the PRPs to submit a good
faith offer stating that they are willing to do the work.
After the close of the moratorium, the agency can
choose to initiate work if it determines PRPs are
acting in bad faith or are incapable of doing the work.
If a good faith offer is received, an additional 30 days
are available for negotiating the RI/FS and 60 days
for the RD/RA. A 30-day extension to the RD/RA
moratorium can be granted by the Regional Adminis-
trator and a second 30-day extension by the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER. In total, RI/FS negotia-
tions may last 90 days and RD/RA can take 180 days.
Detailed guidance on issuance of notice letters is
discussed fully in the Interim Guidance on Notice
Letters, Negotiations, and Information Exchange (41)
(OSWER Directive 9834.10).
In cases where EPA decides it is inappropriate to
issue special notice letters, CERCLA §122(a) requires
PRP notification in writing of this decision. The
justification for not issuing the special notice must
state why it was not appropriate to enter into formal
negotiations. This justification should be provided to
all identified PRPs and to Administrative Record Coor-
dinators (ARCs) for placement in the administrative
record.
6.3.3 Negotiations
The confidentiality of statements made during negoti-
ations is a well-established principle of our legal
system. Its purpose is to promote a thorough and
frank discussion of the issues between the parties to
resolve differences. Confidentiality not only limits
what may be revealed publicly, but also ensures that
offers and counter-offers made in the course of
negotiations will not be used by one party against the
other in ensuing litigation.
Negotiations about private party response actions or
payment of cleanup costs are conducted in confiden-
tial sessions between the PRPs and EPA or the State.
Special educational efforts should be made prior to
the negotiation moratorium to warn the public that
little information will be available to them during
negotiations. Neither the public nor the technical
advisor (if one has been hired by a community) may
participate in negotiations between EPA, DOJ, and the
PRPs unless all parties agree. Otherwise, the ability
of the parties to assert confidentiality at some later
date may be affected. Instead of direct participation
by the public in negotiations, community relations
staff may wish to mail out a fact sheet on the
-58-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
Superfund enforcement process and the moratorium
schedules for the specific site.
PRPs may be unwilling to negotiate without a guaran-
tee of confidentiality. They may fear public dis-
closure regarding their personal liability and other
sensitive issues that may damage their litigation
position or standing in the community. This expecta-
tion of confidentiality restricts the type and amount of
information that can be made public.
ORC staff should consult with and obtain the appro-
val of other members of the technical and Regional
Counsel team before releasing any information regar-
ding negotiations. If the site has been referred or is
in litigation, DOJ approval also should be obtained.
The public should be informed when agreements are
reached (when AOCs are signed, UAOs are issued,
and consent decrees are referred to DOJ, lodged, and
entered by the court). A press release may be issued
if a site mailing list has not yet been established. If
a mailing list exists, notices can be sent at the time of
the press release.
6.3.4 Community Relations Following a RI/FS
Order
RI/FS settlements usually take the form of an AOC.
When PRPs are not willing to cooperate, EPA (or a
State that has its own legal authority) may issue a
UAO. UAOs are a powerful enforcement tool to help
facilitate settlement. Their most apparent use is to
order PRPs to do the work.
EPA rarely issues UAOs for a RI/FS. This is because
ordering a recalcitrant PRP to conduct studies that
assess the nature and extent of contamination at a site
can result in bad performance and slow the site clean-
up. In cases where PRPs do not sign an AOC, EPA
will normally fund the work and pursue cost recovery.
When the PRPs are conducting a RI/FS, the
settlement triggers a "kick-off meeting with the
public to explain the AOC and outline the next steps.
Community relations, technical and legal staff should
attend this meeting. Issues that should be clarified
include EPA approval of the PRP's work plan, PRPs
performance of the RI/FS, and agency oversight of
the PRP's work. A fact sheet on the RI/FS process
should be distributed at this meeting and sent to those
on the site mailing list, including local officials. An
announcement should be made about where the
administrative record file will be located (see section
6.6). The administrative record will include the
detailed analysis of alternatives and all RI/FS
information the agency considered in selecting a final
remedy. It should be used as a tool to facilitate
public involvement in that selection.
While the RI/FS is being performed, CRCs can in-
volve the public in a number of ways. For example,
small group discussions or workshops can be held to
discuss the RI/FS. Fact sheets can be developed with
the assistance of the RPM about progress at the site
and sent to those on the site mailing list. The
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program can be
discussed, and interested groups encouraged to fill out
applications (see Chapter 8).
When the RI/FS is completed, the agency will issue
a proposed plan and publish a notice announcing a
public comment period. At a minimum, the notice is
to be published in a major local newspaper of general
circulation. The notice should be a "display" adver-
tisement rather than buried in the "legal notices"
section. A formal comment period of at least 30
calendar days is to be provided for the public to sub-
mit oral and written comments. This comment period
can be extended to 60 days upon request by the
public.
An opportunity for a public meeting is required
during the public comment period. A transcript of the
meeting on the proposed plan is to be available to the
public in the administrative record file, and may be
distributed through the information repositories or
upon request. See Chapter 4 for a complete outline
of these specific public participation requirements.
After the public comment period on the proposed plan
has closed, a responsiveness summary is prepared. It
provides lead agency decision-makers with informa-
tion about community preferences on remedial alter-
natives and general concerns about the site. It also
demonstrates to members of the public how their com-
ments were considered during the decision-making
process. A Record of Decision (ROD) is then issued
-59-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
as the final proposed plan for a particular site or
operable unit at the site. Most NPL sites are divided
into distinct areas, depending on the work to be
conducted at each area and the physical characteristics
of the overall site. For example, operable unit #1
may refer to soil cleanup, while operable unit #2 may
be for groundwater cleanup.
Both the ROD and the responsiveness summary will
be placed in the administrative record file and other
information repositories. In addition, the responsive-
ness summary may be distributed to commenters and
those on the site mailing list. See Chapter 4 for
further information on requirements for public notice
and availability of the ROD and responsiveness
summary.
6.3.5 Public Notice and Comment on Consent
Decrees for RD/RA
After publication of the ROD, the agency will attempt
to reach agreement on a RD/RA under strict negotia-
tion deadlines. PRPs often prefer to reach a nego-
tiated settlement rather than be subject to the terms of
aUAO.
When a negotiated settlement is reached, the proposed
consent decree will be submitted to the U.S. District
Court for approval, as required under CERCLA
§ 122(d)(l). It is a legally binding agreement between
the agency and the PRPs. In some cases, the State
signs as a third party to the agreement The delay
between the time the consent decree is referred to
DOJ and lodged with the court may be as long as
several months. To let the public know of the agree-
ment, a press release may be issued at this time
announcing the settlement and its terms.
At the time DOJ lodges the consent decree with the
court, a notice of the proposed agreement must be
published in the Federal Register. There must also
be a notice of a public comment period on the
proposed consent decree before its entry by the court
as a final judgment.
Responsible parties who are non-settlors to the agree-
ment usually take this opportunity to raise their own
concerns. They may go so far as to file a court case
to block entry of the consent decree. States may do
likewise if they believe a consent decree does not
protect their interests.
The public comment period must be at least 30 calen-
dar days in length and may be extended upon request.
The proposed consent decree may be withdrawn or
modified if comments demonstrate that it is inappro-
priate, improper, or inadequate.
To ensure that public comment opportunities are
extended to interested parties, agency staff may issue
a second press release after the consent decree has
been lodged as a proposed judgment with the court.
For PRP-lead sites, DOJ should notify the Regional
Counsel for the particular site and provide a copy of
the Federal Register notice of the decree. Regional
Counsel should ensure that technical and community
relations staff are informed of this.
Community relations staff can then mail copies of the
press release or copies of the Federal Register notice
to persons on the site mailing list. The press release
should indicate how copies of the consent decree
document may be obtained, including its location and
that of other relevant documents. The procedures for
public comment on the consent decree and a contact
name for obtaining further information also should be
announced. The public notice and press release for
the consent decree may be combined.
Communications with the public should focus on the
remedial provisions of the settlement agreement.
Details of the negotiations, such as the behavior,
attitudes, or legal positions of PRPs, any compromises
incorporated in the settlement agreement, evidence, or
attorney work-products, must remain confidential.
Section 102 of OSWER Directive 9835.17, U.S. EPA
Model CERCLA RDIRA Consent Decree (43), pro-
vides specific language about responsible party par-
ticipation in community relations:
"Settling Defendants shall propose to EPA
(and the State) their participation in the
Community Relations Plan to be developed
by EPA. EPA will determine the appropriate
role for the Settling Defendants under the
-60-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
plan. Settling Defendants shall also
cooperate with EPA (and the State) in
providing information regarding the Work to
the public. As requested by EPA (or the
State), Settling Defendants shall participate
in the preparation of such information by
dissemination to the public and in public
meetings which may be held or sponsored by
EPA (or the State) to explain activities at or
relating to the Site."
During the formal comment period, a public meeting
may be held. Agency staff must offer the opportunity
for a public meeting when there are significant
community issues or concerns or the site team thinks
a meeting is prudent. If held during the public
comment period, these meetings should be
documented and significant oral comments received
during the meeting addressed in a response to
comments document on the consent decree.
Based on new information or because of technical
difficulties in implementing a remedy, it may be
necessary to amend the original ROD to justify a
change in scope, performance, or cost of the final
plan. If the changes do not fundamentally alter the
remedy selected in the ROD, the agency must issue
an explanation of significant differences and make the
explanation and supporting information available to
the public in the administrative record and informa-
tion repository. A notice that briefly summarizes the
significant differences and the reasons for them must
be published in a major local newspaper of general
circulation.
On rare occasions, a selected remedy may be found
ineffective during the implementation phase. The
agency will then propose a different remedy and
amend the ROD. An amendment to a ROD requires
a public comment period that should, if possible,
coincide and be held jointly with the comment period
for the consent decree. See section 4.3.5 for further
discussion of Post-ROD significant changes.
Once the public comment period on the proposed
consent decree has closed, DOJ staff (in cooperation
with EPA and State staff) will consider each signif-
icant comment and write a response. DOJ will then
file a "Motion to Enter" the consent decree, response
to comments, and comments received. The Motion to
Enter the consent decree and response to comments
are released to the public at the same time. The
agency should use information repositories to make
these documents available to the public. A third press
release may be issued at this time announcing entry of
the consent decree.
6.3.6 Community Relations During PRP
Remediation
The lead agency retains responsibility for community
relations during a PRP-lead remediation that conforms
with a consent decree or any enforcement order. The
scope and nature of community relations activities
will be the same as for fund-lead response actions.
When PRPs participate in community relations
activities at the site, EPA, State, and PRP roles need
to be explicitly defined. A PRP may not have been
involved in the initial stages of the CRP, but later
may show sufficient interest, commitment, and
capability to warrant some level of participation. The
lead agency should then re-evaluate the PRP's role in
conducting community relations and a new CRP may
be developed. PRP involvement in community rela-
tions activities also may be addressed in the consent
decree or other enforcement orders.
6.3.7 Technical Discussions
Technical meetings are used to share technical infor-
mation and provide an orientation to the enforcement
process. One of the objectives in holding technical
meetings is to explain how the remedy may or will
(depending on whether a ROD has been signed) ad-
dress the conditions of the site. Workshops exploring
the approach to the site and project status can occur
at any point up to and beyond remedy selection. If
held during RI/FS or RD/RA negotiations, they
should be separate from legal discussions. The RPM
may host a technical discussion without PRP concur-
rence. However, willingness of the PRPs to partici-
pate may facilitate a more open and honest dialogue
with the community.
Technical information must be documented and made
available to the public in the administrative record file
up to the signing of the ROD. Technical or factual
information discussed during RI/FS negotiations also
-61-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
should be included in the administrative record file.
Issues of liability, however, are not included in the
administrative record file unless that liability infor-
mation was relied upon for selecting the remedy.
Community groups may need assistance interpreting
technical information on the nature of the contami-
nants, their relative risk, and alternatives for inves-
tigation and cleanup. EPA can provide Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs) to communities to hire
their own consultants. See Chapter 8 for further
discussion of these grants.
6.4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS
Public participation during removal actions should be
encouraged to the extent possible. However, there
will be times when this participation may need to be
constrained. The NCP, this Handbook, and removal
guidance establish the community relations and ad-
ministrative record requirements for removal actions.
The enforcement program encourages PRPs to con-
duct or pay for removal actions where appropriate.
The lead agency may arrive at an agreement with the
PRPs to conduct a removal at any time, typically
using an AOC. In the absence of a negotiated agree-
ment, EPA or the State (where they have the author-
ity) may issue a UAO to a PRP to undertake a
removal.
By their nature, situations that require emergency
removals do not allow for extensive public involve-
ment. Adjustments to the community relations pro-
cess must be made to accommodate time constraints.
Community relations requirements for removal actions
are outlined in Chapters 2 and 5. In general, the
longer the planning period prior to on-site removal
activities, the more extensive the community relations
requirements.
UAOs and AOCs are public documents available to
the affected community through the administrative
record file. In addition, community relations staff
should discuss the terms of the order and describe the
removal action to citizens, local officials, and the
media. If the PRP subsequently fails to respond to
the order, public statements regarding future actions
at the site should be cleared with appropriate technical
and legal staff.
Community relations activities during removals
conducted by PRPs should be the same as for fund-
financed removals. PRPs may participate in com-
munity relations, subject to the considerations
described in section 6.2.3.
6.5 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING SPECIFIC
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AND SETTLEMENTS
6.5.1 Mixed Funding, De Minimis and Cost
Recovery Settlements
EPA is advocating an enforcement-first policy that
maximizes the use of various settlement tools to
increase the number of sites remediated using private
resources. The use of mixed funding and de minimis
agreements offer innovative approaches to the
settlement process.
Mixed funding agreements are settlements whereby
EPA settles with some of the PRPs for less than 100
percent of the response costs. The three types of
mixed funding settlements are:
Preauthorization: Settling PRPs agree to
conduct the response action and EPA agrees to
pay for part of the costs by approving, in
advance, the basic elements of a claim for
reimbursement. After completion of an agreed-
upon amount of work, the PRPs may file their
claim against the Fund.
Mixed Work: PRPs conduct discrete portions of
the response activity while the agency conducts
the remainder.
Cash Outs: Settling PRPs pay a portion of the
response costs and the agency conducts the
response action.
Characteristics of the site and PRPs may lend them-
selves to mixed funding settlements. In general, the
-62-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
best candidates for mixed funding are cases in which
the PRPs offer a substantial portion of the total
response costs and the agency has a strong case
against financially viable non-settling PRPs.
In general, a PRP may be considered a de minimis
contributor if the contribution of waste, by amount
and toxicity, is minimal in comparison to other
hazardous substances present at the site. Volume and
toxicity information must be well-documented, and
the settlement should involve a minor portion of the
response costs. De minimis settlements may be
reached with PRPs who meet the basic requirements
ofCERCLA§122(g)(l).
A PRP also can be a de minimis landowner if he did
not conduct or permit the generation or handling of
any hazardous substances on his property. He could
assert that he did not contribute to the release of
contamination at the site. He may not have had any
knowledge of the generation, transportation, storage,
treatment, or disposal of any hazardous substances at
the time he purchased the property. This could
ultimately be proven as a valid third-party innocent
landowner defense.
De minimis settlements can be finalized through an
administrative order on consent or consent decree.
The first de minimis contributor and the first de
minimis landowner settlements in each Region require
Headquarters concurrence. Subsequent settlements
require Headquarters consultation. DOJ concurrence
is required for de minimis settlements at sites where
total response costs exceed $500,000.
Cost recovery settlements or arbitration under
CERCLA §122(h) are pursued to return revenues to
the Trust Fund and encourage voluntary PRP res-
ponse. The lead agency is required to publish a
notice of the proposed mixed funding, de minimis, or
cost recovery agreements in the Federal Register.
The notices must identify the facilities concerned and
the parties to the proposed settlements.
A public comment period of at least 30 days is
required for all Federal consent decrees. Agency staff
should provide notice, such as a press release, notice
to persons on the site mailing list or an advertisement
in a local newspaper of general circulation, to supple-
ment the Federal Register notice. A press release
should provide a contact for further information.
The agency must consider all comments filed and
determine if the proposed settlement requires modifi-
cation where comments demonstrate that the proposed
agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
The final settlement and response to comments must
be released at the same time and made available to
the public. This can be accomplished by placing both
documents in the administrative record file. The
responsiveness summary also should be sent to those
who commented.
Settling PRPs will receive notice from the agency that
the agreement will go into effect unchanged or that
modifications are required. A statement that the
responsiveness summary may be obtained from the
administrative record file or upon request should be
added to this notice.
6.5.2 Injunctive Litigation
An injunctive case may be referred to DOJ for litiga-
tion at any point in the enforcement process, which
may change the scope of community relations activi-
ties. Community relations activities at the site should
be re-evaluated by the site team, and changes to
accommodate confidentiality should be agreed upon
by the site team, including DOJ. While consideration
should be given to implementing the Community Rela-
tions Plan as previously approved, litigation may
require changes in public disclosures. For example,
the court may impose a gag order or place restric-
tions on information released during negotiations or at
public meetings that address potential site remedy.
Under these circumstances, the DOJ attorney will
advise the site team on how to proceed.
6.5.3 Cost Recovery
Where a fund-financed cleanup is conducted, EPA
may sue PRPs to recover costs. Cost recovery gener-
ally follows removal actions or the start of remedy
construction. Community interest in the site may
have lessened by this time unless other operable units
remain to be addressed.
-63-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
A spokesperson chosen by the site team, in coordina-
tion with DOJ, should take the lead in responding to
inquiries regarding current site conditions. All
inquiries regarding litigation should be forwarded to
the lead agency cost-recovery team, which will pre-
pare a response, subject to the concurrence of DOJ.
6.5.4 Interaction with RCRA and other
Federal and State Laws
RCRA §3008(h), the interim status corrective action
authority, allows EPA to take enforcement action to
require cleanup at a RCRA interim status facility
when the agency has information that there has been
a release of hazardous waste or other contaminants.
Two orders are frequently used to implement the
cleanup program. The first order requires the facility
owner or operator to conduct a RCRA Facility
Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS),
similar to the RI/FS. Once the remedy has been
selected, a second order requires design, construction,
and implementation of that remedy.
RCRA guidance outlines minimum public involve-
ment requirements and suggestions on how to expand
that involvement. In many ways the RCRA guidance
uses procedures and ideas drawn from the Superfund
community relations program. Thus, coordination is
useful between Superfund and RCRA staff at sites
where actions under both CERCLA and RCRA are
anticipated. Superfund CRCs may want to become
familiar with this guidance and with RCRA Public
Involvement Coordinators to ensure that the agency
presents a coordinated approach. Refer to OSWER
Directive 9901.3, Guidance for Public Involvement in
RCRA Section 3008(h) Actions (45), for specific
information on RCRA actions taken under §3008(h).
Familiarity with other Federal or State laws, such as
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, generally
makes the role of the Community Relations Coordina-
tor easier because many media often are represented
at a hazardous waste site. A general knowledge of
Federal or State requirements helps in conversing with
the public.
6.6 THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD AS PART OF
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
6.6.1 Overview
CERCLA §113(k)(l) requires the establishment of an
administrative record, which serves as the basis for
selecting a remedy at a Superfund site. It also
requires that a copy of the administrative record be
made available to the public at a central location and
a location at or near the site. §113(k)(2) requires
EPA to promulgate regulations outlining procedures
for interested persons to participate in developing the
administrative record. Subpart I of the NCP details
how the administrative record file (the incomplete
record as it is being compiled) is assembled, main-
tained, and made available to the public. After the
signing of the ROD, referencing the "file" is no
longer necessary.
Throughout the decision-making process, from reme-
dial investigation to selection of remedy, the adminis-
trative record file must be available for public inspec-
tion. The information in the record file is crucial to
the public since it contains the information upon
which the lead agency bases its decisions when selec-
ting a final remedy. Community relations staff should
use the record file as a tool to facilitate public
involvement.
Publicly-available documents concerning remedy
selection have to be available to all interested parties
at the same time. Lead agency staff are required to
provide opportunities to the public to review and
comment on site information. For example, if the
lead agency requests PRPs to review a plan, other
local residents should review the plan as well. When
a kick-off meeting is scheduled to explain the final
work plan and obtain opinions, all members of the
public, including residents and PRPs, should be
invited.
Documents that contain confidential or privileged
-64-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
information that is considered or relied upon for
selecting a response action should be placed only in
the confidential portion of the administrative record
file. To the extent feasible, the documents should be
summarized in such a way as to be disclosable and
the summary placed in the publicly available portion.
The administrative record file and CRP should be
made available to the public no later than the initia-
tion of the remedial investigation phase, which is
usually when the RI/FS work plan is approved. The
timing for establishing the administrative record file
for a removal action depends on the nature of the
removal. According to NCP §300.820(a)(l), for
removals with a planning period of at least six months
before the start of on-site activities, the record file
must be made available to the public when the
engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) or its
equivalent is available for public comment. For
removals with a planning period of less than six
months, the record file must be available to the public
no later than 60 days after the start of on-site cleanup.
6.6.2 Purpose of the Administrative Record
The administrative record has two purposes. First,
the record provides an opportunity for the public to be
involved in the process of selecting a remedy for the
site. During this process, information is reviewed and
made available in the publicly accessible administra-
tive record file. Second, if the lead agency is chal-
lenged concerning the adequacy of a response action,
judicial review of that selection will be limited to the
administrative record. This means that a court's re-
view is based upon the same information that was be-
fore the lead agency at the time of its decision. The
public should be advised that their comments have to
be submitted in a timely manner to be considered.
6.6.3 Community Relations Coordinator
Responsibilities for the Administrative
Record
The OSC or RPM, in consultation with the Regional
Counsel, is responsible for deciding which documents
are to be included in the administrative record. The
Administrative Record Coordinator (ARC) is respon-
sible for its compilation and maintenance. The
Regional Administrator or his designate is responsible
for certification of the record for litigation. Com-
munity relations staff will have some general duties in
developing the record file, but every Region has
defined different roles. In general, community rela-
tions staff should focus on the relationship of the
administrative record file to information repositories,
public notices, and public comments.
Community relations staff and administrative record
staff should coordinate the location of the administra-
tive record file and information repository. CERCLA
requires that the administrative record be available to
the public at or near the facility for public inspection
and copying. If the information repository does not
contain a copying facility, the Region or State may
want to arrange for copying the record file. EPA is
not required to copy the information for interested
parties.
The notice of availability for the administrative record
is to be published in a major local newspaper of gen-
eral circulation. A copy of that public notice is to be
placed in the record file and may also be made avail-
able to the public through the community relations
mailing list (see Section 6.6.1 for a discussion of
when the administrative record file must be made
available to the public). This notice may be com-
bined with other notices of availability depending on
the timing of activity at a site. Note that the public
is not notified each time a document is added to the
record file.
Notices should be coordinated between community
relations and administrative record staffs to use
resources most efficiently. For a more complete
discussion of the notice of availability, consult
OSWER Directive 9833.3A-1, Final Guidance on
Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA
Response Actions (39).
The completed CRP is to be placed in the administra-
tive record file. Community relations staff should
advise the Administrative Record Coordinator that the
CRP is final and provide a copy.
Information in records of communication generated by
the community relations staff that are considered or
relied on in selecting the response action should be
-65-
-------
Chapter 6
Community Relations Handbook
included in the record file. In addition, community
relations staff should take appropriate steps to ensure
that community relations documents requked to be
placed in the administrative record file are provided
to the Regional official responsible for the record file.
The text of all comments submitted during the public
comment period by the public, including PRPs, should
be included in the record file. Responses to all
significant comments (in the responsiveness summary)
must also be placed in the administrative record file.
The responses may be combined by subject or other
category.
The record file should reflect the agency's
consideration of all significant public comments. The
agency may notify commenters that comments sub-
mitted prior to a formal public comment period must
be resubmitted or specifically identified during the
public comment period to receive formal response by
the agency. Alternatively, the agency may notify a
commenter that the agency will respond to the com-
ment in a responsiveness summary prepared at a later
date. The agency, however, has no duty to respond
to any comments received before the formal comment
period or to respond to comments received during the
public comment period until the close of the public
comment period.
Comments received after the formal comment period
closes but before the ROD is signed should be
included in the record file and labeled as a "late
comment." Since a responsiveness summary may
already have been prepared at this point, the agency
will respond to late comments only if they contain
significant new information that could not have been
submitted during the public comment period. This
new information would have to substantially support
a need to significantly alter the remedy selected.
Comments received after the ROD is signed should be
placed in a post-decision document file. They may be
added to the administrative record if the documents
are relevant to the selection of the remedy that the
ROD does not address. In addition, these comments
may be added to the administrative record if there is
a significant change in a remedy selection that is
addressed by an explanation of significant differences
or in an amended decision document. The guidance
on administrative records cited above gives additional
information in this regard.
6.6.4 Other Community Relations
Coordinator Responsibilities
Because of Regional differences, community relations
staff may have other responsibilities, including:
Assessing the impact of the administrative record
file on local information repositories (e.g., be-
cause of its volume) by consulting with officials
at the repositories. This should be done with the
Administrative Record Coordinator. CRCs and
ARCs will need to cooperate on space issues,
shelving, microfilming, and housekeeping chores.
Providing the ARC with information on methods
used to notify the public of the availability of the
record file. Such methods include announce-
ments in public meetings, workshops, small
group discussions, fact sheets sent to the site
mailing list, and local newspapers announcing
public comment periods and other public notices.
Making the transcript of the local meeting on the
proposed plan available, as required under
CERCLA §117(a).
Providing assistance to the ARC to ensure that
final comments made by EPA on important docu-
ments generated by the State or a Federal facility
are documented in writing and included in the
administrative record file. States and Federal
facility staff will compile and maintain the record
files for their own sites.
All staff involved in Superfund activities should
acquaint themselves with the administrative record
requirements.
6.6.5 Relationship Between the Administrative
Record and Information Repositories
SARA §113(k)(l) requires that the administrative
record be made available to the public at or near the
facility. Duplicates of the administrative record may
be placed at any other location. The original files
concerning remedy selection should be located at the
EPA Regional Office. A copy of these files must be
located at or near the site except in the case of
emergency removal actions lasting less than 30 days.
-66-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 6
In those situations the record may be at a central
location such as the EPA Regional Office.
SARA §117(d) requires that each item developed,
received, published, or made available to the public
be accessible for viewing and copying at or near the
facility. These items are generally included in the
information repository.
The administrative record file should be located at
one of the information repositories that already may
exist for community relations purposes. The informa-
tion repository, maintained by community relations
staff, may contain additional information of interest to
the public that is not part of the record file, such as
press releases and newspaper articles. Documents in
the record file should be separated from materials in
the information repository.
Local libraries, town halls, and public schools are
typically used for repositories and administrative
record files because they are publicly accessible. In
some instances, the volume of information available
for community relations and administrative record
purposes may be larger than the capacity of these
facilities. Where space for the information repository
is inadequate for supporting the administrative record
file, an alternate location for the record file may be
established. ARCs and CRCs should also consider
converting documents to microfilm to reduce space
problems.
ARCs should estimate the volume of information
expected to be included in the repository and meet
with appropriate local officials to discuss space
requirements. When separate locations are estab-
lished, ARCs and CRCs should ensure uniformity of
the documents. In this context, CRCs should
carefully review their responsibilities for the adminis-
trative record (sections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4).
Each administrative record file must be indexed. This
index identifies all the documents that comprise the
record file and lists those documents that do not have
to be present in the record file because of their
voluminous nature (raw data for example), but which
are considered part of the record. The index will give
the location of such documents. Since the index is
part of the record file, it must be available at each
location.
Finally, interested parties should be able to easily find
the documents they need. Documents in the adminis-
trative record file should be well organized. Fol-
lowing initiation of the response action, public interest
in background information other than the ROD or RI/
FS may wane. However, the statutory provisions for
judicial review and deadlines for filing cost recovery
actions are reasons to keep the record file publicly
available.
Where there is ongoing or possible litigation, the
record file in the Regional Office or other central
location should be available at least until the litigation
is over.
Community relations and administrative record staff
should coordinate with the State in closing infor-
mation repositories and record files at the end of
operation and maintenance and following a five-year
review. The record file continues to serve as a histor-
ical record of the response selection, even after the
statute of limitations for cost recovery action has
passed. Where there is considerable public interest,
making the record file available for public viewing in
the local repository is advisable.
-67-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 7
CHAPTER 7
CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS DURING
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION (RD/RA)
This chapter provides guidance on conducting
community relations programs during the RD/RA
phase of the Superfund remedial response. The
RD/RA phase presents a new set of technical issues
which may be accompanied by a new set of public
concerns. Thus, the lead and support agency will
need to plan and implement community relations
programs that are responsive to the particular issues
that might arise during RD/RA.
The RD/RA phase of a remedial response presents its
own set of community relations issues. Not only do
roles and responsibilities change and expand, but
additional Federal agencies may become involved.
The community's concerns may also change. During
the RtyFS, concerns focus primarily on the remedy
selection process, while during RD/RA concerns will
focus on the design and implementation of the
cleanup, and such issues as the presence of truck
traffic and heavy machinery. Staff should consider
community relations requirements for remedial action
early in the remedial design phase to allow adequate
planning time for those activities. The agency should
also coordinate with other Federal, State, and local
government agencies, as well as with potentially
responsible parties, to ensure that community relations
remain an integral part of the remedial process.
This chapter is divided into three major sections.
Section 7.1 discusses community relations activities
during the remedial design phase. This section
includes a discussion of community relations activities
that occur if there are significant changes in remedy
selection after the ROD is signed. Section 7.2
describes community relations activities for all stages
of the remedial action, including several suggestions
on how to handle the period during negotiations with
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Section 7.3
describes the coordination of community relations
with Federal, State, and local government, and
responsible parties (RPs), during RD/RA.
7.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMEDIAL DESIGN
Moving from the ROD to the remedial design phase
is a major step in the remedial response. The focus
in site activity shifts from remedial planning to actual
cleanup. Roles and responsibilities at the site may
also change if the State, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the U.S. Bureau of Recla-
mation (USBR), Federal facility, or RP, rather than
EPA, takes the lead on actual site work. The USACE
and USBR are referenced as "USACE or USBR"
throughout most of this chapter because their site
responsibilities are the same.
7.1.1 Required Community Relations Activities
During Remedial Design
Once a ROD is signed, staff must issue a public
notice in a major local newspaper of general
circulation announcing the decision and the avail-
ability of the ROD (NCP §300.430(f)(6)(l)). The
ROD must be made available to the public in the site
administrative record before initiation of any remedial
action. The agency should also include the ROD in
all site information repositories.
NCP §300.435(c)(l) specifies that, prior to the
initiation of the remedial design, the agency must
review the site-specific Community Relations Plan
(CRP) and determine if the existing plan should be
revised to more adequately describe public involve-
ment activities during RD/RA that are not already
addressed or provided for in the CRP. If local
concerns have remained relatively unaltered, the
agency may limit the revisions to a new section on
community relations activities and schedules during
RD/RA, with minor changes or updates in other
sections. If community attitudes toward the lead
agency, support agency or the overall remedial
process have changed considerably, the agency may
have to rewrite a large part of the CRP.
-69-
-------
Chapter 7
Community Relations Handbook
In all cases, community interviews should be held
prior to the revision of the CRP. The agency should
interview:
State agency staff;
Local agency staff and elected officials;
PRP(s);
Representatives of citizens groups;
Area residents and local business representatives;
Civic groups and neighborhood associations; and
Local chapters of public interest groups.
When interviewing people in the community, staff
should talk to new members of the community to gain
new insights or fresh perspectives. RPMs should
participate in the community interviews to encourage
coordination between the community relations and
technical staff. Staff also should update the list of
key contacts and the site mailing list when the CRP
is revised. For information about conducting
community interviews, refer to Chapter 3.
One purpose of revising the CRP is to evaluate the
effectiveness of the agency's site-specific community
relations program. Staff should review all community
relations activities conducted during the RI/FS and the
signing of the ROD to evaluate which techniques
were effective. The revised CRP should recommend
the continuation of community relations activities that
have been successful at the site, as well as the
initiation of other activities designed to address new
and emerging community concerns specific to
RD/RA. In addition, staff should be alert to particular
issues that may be unresolved from the ROD public
comment period, such as a significant increase in
truck traffic, or health concerns. Some citizens still
may not agree with the selected remedial alternative.
Staff should be sensitive to such disagreements and
identify ways to acknowledge these and other
citizens' concerns during RD/RA.
Additional community relations activities are required
if the remedial action or enforcement action taken, or
settlement or consent decree entered into, differs
significantly from the selected remedy in the ROD
with respect to scope, performance, or cost The lead
agency must consult with the support agency, as
appropriate, and do one of the following:
(1) Publish an explanation of significant differences
if the differences in the remedial or enforcement
action, settlement, or consent decree significantly
change but do not fundamentally alter the remedy
selected in the ROD with respect to scope,
performance, or cost; or
(2) Propose an amendment to the ROD if the
differences fundamentally alter the basic features
of the selected remedy with respect to scope,
performance, or cost.
If significant changes in the remedial or enforcement
action, settlement, or consent decree do not
fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the ROD,
the agency is required to issue an "explanation of
significant differences." NCP §300.435(c)(2)(i)(A)
requires the agency to make the explanation of
significant differences available to the public, as
either a fact sheet or a decision document, in the
administrative record and information repository. The
agency also must publish a notice briefly summarizing
the explanation of significant differences, including
the reasons for such differences, in a major local
newspaper of general circulation.
If changes in the remedial or enforcement action,
settlement, or consent decree fundamentally alter the
basic features of the selected remedy, the agency is
required to propose an amendment to the ROD. To
amend the ROD, in accordance with NCP §300.435(c)
(2)(ii) (A-F), the lead agency, with the support
agency, must meet the following requirements:
Issue a notice of availability and brief description
of the proposed amendment to the ROD in a
major local newspaper of general circulation.
Make the proposed amendment to the ROD and
information supporting the decision available for
public comment and provide a reasonable period
of not less than 30 calendar days for the
submission of written or oral comments on the
amendments to the ROD. Upon timely request,
the agency must extend the public comment
period by at least 30 additional days.
Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to
be held during the public comment period at or
near the facility and keep a transcript of
comments received at this public meeting.
-70-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 7
Other requirements include: adding to the ROD a
brief explanation of the amendment as well as the
response to each of the significant comments,
criticisms, and new relevant information submitted
during the public comment period; publishing a notice
of the availability of the amended ROD in a major
local newspaper of general circulation; and making
the amended ROD and supporting information
available to the public in the administrative record
and information repository prior to the com-
mencement of the remedial action.
For additional guidance on significant changes after
the ROD is signed, refer to Chapter 8 of the
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Docu-
ments: the Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision,
Explanation of Significant Differences, the Record of
Decision Amendment (34).
Finally, upon completion of the final engineering
design, the agency must issue a fact sheet and
provide, as appropriate, a public briefing prior to the
initiation of remedial action.
7.1.2 Suggested Community Relations Activities
During Remedial Design
Some sites will warrant expanded community
relations efforts. The agency can conduct a broad
array of community relations activities beyond those
required by the NCP to respond to the needs of a
particular site during the remedial design phase.
In general, additional community relations activities
should anticipate a community's response to site-
related activities. Staff should recognize that the
community may view the project as dormant during
the RD. Hence, preparatory community relations
activities during this phase are often prudent if a high
level of community interest is expected once the RA
begins. Conversely, during the RD, some community
members, such as Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
recipients and their advisor, may take an active
interest in the specific plans for site remediation
during review of the pre-final remedial design.
Community relations activities may be necessary to
address the requests for information and the various
concerns community members may have about the
proposed remedial action. Moreover, some citizens
may be surprised to learn the projected time frame for
RD/RA. The public often expects that cleanup
activities will commence soon after the ROD is
signed. Staff should provide timely and accurate
information about the schedule for RD/RA.
Residents may anticipate that the remedial action will
restore the site to its original condition or eliminate
all health risks at the site. Staff will need to explain
to residents that full cleanup is the exception rather
than the rule. Just as important is the assurance that
remedial action will clean up the site to levels that are
considered safe and are consistent with the Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
of other Federal and State environmental laws. At
this time, staff should define ARARs for the public
and describe how they may affect the project. If any
waivers from ARARs are involved, the agency will be
responsible for ensuring that the waiver conditions are
met. In this case, the agency also should inform the
public, usually by issuing a fact sheet or press release.
Prior to the RD, the agency should notify the public
of all aspects of this phase, including:
The length of the remedial design phase;
The bid solicitation process from engineering and
implementation firms to conduct the remedial
action;
The development of the implementation plans;
The roles of the different parties involved; and
The value of public participation in the review of
the pre-final remedial design.
At the beginning of the remedial design process, staff
should determine the level of public involvement in
commenting on the design. The following activities
are ways to provide information and encourage public
participation during a site's remedial design phase:
Produce a brief information update at the
beginning of the remedial design stage to inform
the community about site-specific post-ROD
activities and to provide general information
about RD/RA, including an explanation of, and
update on, the enforcement program as well as
the name, address, and telephone number of an
agency contact.
-71-
-------
Chapter 7
Community Relations Handbook
Produce regular information updates to report any
new developments at a site to the public (e.g., a
monthly column in a local paper of general
circulation, or a periodic mailing to those on the
site mailing list).
Identify and contact local emergency response
personnel (e.g., fire, police, ambulance services,
hospitals) to evaluate their ability to respond to
an emergency at the site, and to arrange for
training and support as needed. These tasks can
be accomplished jointly by the Community
Relations Coordinator and RPM.
Release a fact sheet to explain the engineering
design when the RD is at an intermediate stage.
The fact sheet should include: a review of the
selected remedy; a schedule for design comple-
tion and implementation of the remedy; a
description of what the site will look like during
the operation of the selected remedy; an explana-
tion of all design components; and a description
of different agency roles. The agency also
should explain site health and safety plans, and
emergency procedures. Additional fact sheets
can provide more information on specific topics.
Hold public meetings when the remedial design
is 60 percent complete if there is significant
interest in the affected community and if the
agency can provide enough information about
anticipated accomplishments at the site. These
meetings allow agency personnel to: assist the
public in fully understanding the design process
and schedule; provide local officials and citizens
with an opportunity to make comments and voice
concerns; receive feedback for possible remedial
design revision; and address appropriate concerns
about, and suggestions for, the remedial design
and subsequent actions.
Conduct workshops and present three-dimen-
sional models or displays to facilitate discussion
of the remedial design. Slides and video footage
of similar cleanup actions may provide a useful
demonstration of site activities.
Provide a toll-free telephone hotline to help
ensure the agency has immediate public input on
site activities and can efficiently respond to
public questions and concerns.
Issue press briefings and press releases to ensure
that the media has accurate and timely informa-
tion for dissemination to the general public.
Suggested community relations activities during this
stage also include establishing contact with local
officials to discuss: compliance of the remedial
action with local regulations and ordinances;
community access to the site and the surrounding
area; and the results of monitoring/pilot test data.
Members of the local community may be interested in
forming a citizens' group to discuss their concerns
with the agency. At some sites, community work
groups, including groups who have been awarded a
TAG, will have formed and been active throughout
the RI/FS. Community relations activities for these
sites should provide informational materials to these
groups on the RD as it progresses and through
regularly scheduled meetings with EPA, Federal,
State, and local participants.
Operable units or the use of SITE technology at a
Superfund site creates special circumstances for
community relations during the RD phase. If a site is
complex, the agency may organize it into operable
units (OUs), each of which may be at a different
phase in the cleanup process. For example, one OU
may be in the RI phase, one in the FS phase, and a
third in the ROD phase. The CRP must recognize
and plan for this type of situation to avoid
misunderstanding by the community. Community
relations materials should explain the operable unit
concept and purposes, the impacts OUs may have on
one another, and how agency staff coordinate
activities at Superfund sites with OUs.
At sites where the agency is using a SITE technology,
the community relations program during the remedial
design may require a higher level of staff work in the
community to ensure that the public remains well-
informed of site activities (see Chapter 3). Staff may
need to explain to residents the various technologies
being used and the types of safety measures being
employed at a site. The agency may need to develop
fact sheets on the technologies and provide public
presentations by technical personnel skilled in
community relations.
7.1.3 Enforcement Activities and Community
Relations at Remedial Sites
EPA policy and Superfund law define a strong
program of public participation in the decision-making
-72-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 7
process at all Superfund sites. This section discusses
the specific differences in community relations when
the agency is negotiating or litigating with potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).
Community relations activities at enforcement-lead
sites may differ from community relations activities
at Fund- or State-lead sites because negotiations
between EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
PRPs generally focus on the issue of liability. PRPs
may be unwilling to negotiate without the guarantee
of confidentiality. They may fear that public
disclosure of liability and other sensitive issues may
damage their litigation position or their standing with
the public. The requirement for confidentiality
necessarily restricts the type and amount of
information that the agency can publicize during the
negotiation process.
When these discussions deal with new technical
information that changes or modifies remedial
decisions, the agency will document this information
and place it in the administrative record. This process
provides the public with information and enables the
agency to move quickly towards settlement. Informa-
tion on enforcement strategy, details of the
negotiations, such as the behavior, attitudes, or legal
positions of responsible parties, and evidence and
attorney work product material related to negotiations
must remain confidential.
Community relations activities are extremely
important and extremely delicate during the
negotiation period. Although the agency is not in the
position to share information resulting from the
negotiation at this time, the community will expect
some sort of communication from EPA on the status
of cleanup. However, agency staff should consult
with members of the technical enforcement and
Regional Counsel teams before releasing any
information regarding negotiations. If the site has
been referred for, or is in, litigation, staff should
obtain DOJ approval.
During enforcement negotiations, community relations
documents that describe the negotiation process and
the confidentiality rules are keys to a successful
community relations effort. There may be rising
concern in the community about the economic impact
of the settlement on the viability of an RP that may
be a major employer in the area. Others may feel
that the confidentiality of the negotiations cuts them
out of the decision-making process, and that the RPs
may "cut a deal" that is not in the community's
interest. Meetings with small groups of citizens, local
officials, and other interested parties are extremely
helpful for sharing general information and resolving
questions. A discussion of the agency's settlements
policy may be appropriate at this time. Agency staff
may need to explain early in the process that legal
constraints on community relations activities may
apply during negotiations or litigation. For further
information regarding this subject, refer to Chapter 6.
7.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
DURING REMEDIAL ACTION
The remedial action phase begins with the implemen-
tation of the selected remedy at the site. As site
activity increases, the agency should respond with an
effective community relations program. Although
there are no formal community relations activities
required during remedial action, the agency should
consider various community relations activities at this
time. Community relations activities during the RA
should be based on the nature of the cleanup
technology, the proximity of residences and busi-
nesses to cleanup activities, and the level of com-
munity interest. This is particularly important if the
agency is using a SITE technology. This section
discusses activities the agency can conduct at the
beginning of, during, and after implementation of the
remedial action.
7.2.1 Suggested Community Relations Activities
The public is likely to have many concerns and
questions regarding the new site activity and its
effects. They may have questions about traffic,
equipment, noise, and dust in the air. They may also
have concerns about the need to temporarily relocate
and the impact of property easements and acquisi-
tions. Also, the agency may have to ask area
residents to take safety precautions for short periods
of time, such as keeping their windows closed or
using alternative driving routes. The agency can
-73-
-------
Chapter 7
Community Relations Handbook
address these concerns and questions through the
activities described below:
Establish a community relations contact person at
the site to help ensure that the agency addresses
community concerns in a timely and accurate
manner. This also provides the community with
an on-site contact who is knowledgeable about
the project. The presence of a community rela-
tions contact on-site is especially important
during the first week of remedial action, since
reporters and citizens will have many questions
and concerns.
Send letters to adjacent residences and businesses
before remedial work begins to notify them of
the status of site activities. In addition, if agency
staff need access to the property of an adjacent
residence for a site-related activity, contact the
resident directly.
Conduct a public site tour before implementation
of the selected remedy begins to involve the
public in this important step of the cleanup
process. The site tour might include a demon-
stration of the equipment to be used.
Conduct a series of workshops to explain highly
technical or complex information to the
community.
Conduct public meetings and small group
meetings to explain the scope and impact of
activities, and to answer residents' and local
officials' questions. Specifically, before the
remedial action begins, staff should hold a public
meeting to explain visual changes that will occur
at the site. Staff should inform the residents
about increased truck traffic, new structures that
will appear on-site, such as buildings and
airstrippers, and the type of equipment that will
be used at the site.
Provide the public with access to monitoring data
during the remedial action, especially if a
controversial technology, such as incineration is
being used.
Videotape cleanup activities to show to the public
during the RA to inform them of site activities.
Produce a fact sheet in question and answer
format for distribution to residents and the media
to provide timely responses to questions the
public is likely to ask, even if these questions
have not been voiced.
Establish a toll-free telephone hotline to ensure
that the agency has immediate public input on
site activities and can efficiently respond to
public questions and concerns.
Update the information repository to guarantee
that the public has access to up-to-date informa-
tion about the site.
Conduct press briefings and prepare press
releases to ensure that the media has accurate and
timely information for dissemination to the
general public.
Maintain mailing lists to ensure that all local
residents concerned about the site can receive
information and remain informed about site
activities.
Coordinate with TAG recipients to provide them
support and information they might need.
During implementation of the selected remedy, staff
should ensure that the community remains well-
informed about the status of implementation and any
new findings at the site. Staff should also prepare the
community for the increase of technical staff upon
commencement of actual implementation activity.
Technical staff can number from 5 to 100 at a site 8
hours a day, 5 days a week. Implementation can last
several years, and community relations activities
should account for the long-term presence of the
technical staff in the community. During this time,
staff should perform the following activities:
Conduct site tours, when site conditions permit,
to show community members and the media the
nature of the site activities and the remedial
action under implementation. The agency should
distribute information explaining site activities to
those participating in the tours.
Construct viewing platforms, if site access is
restricted, to allow members of the community
and the media to monitor the progress at the site
and better understand the work being done.
Organize pictorial exhibits in convenient public
locations, such as local libraries and the town
hall, to allow the community to follow the
activities and progress occurring at the site.
Produce fact sheets or newsletters that give
periodic updates describing site developments or
changes in the schedule of activities to inform the
community about current site activities.
-74-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 7
Conduct briefings or produce fact sheets to keep
the community apprised of any significant
changes in plans, such as delays due to weather
conditions or updated technical decisions
resulting from new developments.
Hold public availability sessions at a local public
building to allow citizens to discuss questions
and concerns they have about the site and site-
related issues directly with the agency (i.e., EPA,
State, RPs, other party) in a private forum.
Develop informational films for local broadcast
on cable television stations to inform a large
number of community residents of site activities
and to show the site.
After the selected remedy has been implemented, staff
can conduct a number of community relations
activities. At this point, the objectives of community
relations activities include educating members of the
community about the State's role at a site after
completion of the remedial action, informing the
community about what has been accomplished during
the remedial action, and discussing upcoming
operation and maintenance (O&M) activities. These
objectives can be met through the following activities:
Conduct a public ceremony and site tour to
highlight agency accomplishments and to show
site technology to members of the community.
Produce a fact sheet that discusses the completion
of remedial action, upcoming O&M activities,
local or State contacts or RPs who will be
responsible for O&M, and emergency contacts
for unexpected events or health emergencies.
The purpose of this fact sheet is to ensure that
the community remains well-informed and the
agency addresses the community's concerns
regarding health and public safety.
Conduct a public meeting and produce a fact
sheet on the final technical report to ensure that
the community understands what has been
accomplished during the remedial action phase.
Hold a public availability session at a local
public building to allow citizens to discuss any
concerns they have about the site and site-related
issues and to describe to them what will happen
next at the site. The agency (i.e., EPA, the State,
the RPs, or other party) should offer these
discussion opportunities in a private forum.
Some special circumstances during remedial action,
such as operable units or SITE technology, require
additional community relations support. Suggestions
for community relations activities in such cases are
similar to those described previously in Section 7.1.
However, during remedial action, the community will
focus primarily on visible site activities, and com-
munity relations activities will need to respond to the
broad scope of community concerns and questions.
Remedial actions can take up to 30 years at some
sites. When implementation of the selected alter-
native is completed, EPA transfers responsibility for
O&M of the project to the State or RPs. The State
can request funding and assistance from EPA for
fund-lead sites only for a period of up to one year to
ensure that the remedy is operational and functional.
Thereafter, EPA's funding obligations cease. How-
ever, EPA must review the remedy every five years
at sites where the remedial action leaves hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants on-site. Thus,
although O&M is the State's responsibility, EPA may
remain involved at a site during O&M through the
five year review process.
7.3 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
ACTIVITIES INVOLVING
STATES, USACE, USER, AND
RPs DURING RD/RA
When more than one party (i.e., EPA, States, RPs,
USACE, USBR) is involved in community relations
activities during RD/RA at a Superfund site, extensive
coordination among all of the involved parties is
essential to ensure that the community relations
program is both efficient and effective. The agency
should clearly define the roles of the various parties
and inform the community of them to avoid confusion
and unnecessary concern.
7.3.1 Community Relations Activities Involving
the State
CERCLA requires formal State participation at
Superfund-lead sites, including participation in
RD/RA. Prior to the initiation of the remedial action,
the State must provide assurance it will assume
-75-
-------
Chapter 7
Community Relations Handbook
responsibility for O&M of implemented remedial
actions for the expected life of such actions, in
accordance with CERCLA §104(c). The State is
responsible for at least 10 percent of the total cleanup
cost and is fully responsible for O&M. The State
also must make available an acceptable off-site
disposal facility, if required.
The State may work with EPA to conduct a remedial
action through a site-specific Cooperative Agreement
(CA). Through such an agreement, EPA may dele-
gate lead responsibility for remedial action at a partic-
ular site to a State but still retain final authority over
the response at that site. Other CERCLA §104(c)
assurances also may be required before a remedial
action can begin.
The State is also formally involved in the settlement
process between EPA and the PRPs. If the State
disagrees with EPA's settlement decision not to
require compliance with certain State standards, the
State legally may challenge EPA's decision. If the
State is successful, the remedial action must be
modified to conform to the State request If the State
is unsuccessful, the remedial action still may be
modified to conform to the State's request if the State
agrees to assume the additional costs attributable to
the modifications to the remedy. This may place
EPA and the State in adversarial roles at a site.
For these reasons, EPA should design all community
relations activities to include and coordinate with the
State, particularly as the State takes on more
responsibility at the site during RD/RA. This coordi-
nation is especially challenging if EPA and the State
play adversarial roles at the site. There is a risk that
on-going community relations activities may be
severely disrupted if EPA coordination with the State
breaks down. Moreover, prolonged EPA and State
disagreements could impair the credibility of both
parties with the public; thus, achieving an effective
working relationship with the State is vitally impor-
tant. Specifically, the State should attend public
meetings, answer questions pertaining to its activities,
and, where appropriate, review EPA community rela-
tions deliverables. Early and consistent involvement
by the State will help to make the transition of
responsibility from EPA to the State smoother after
the remedial action is complete.
7.3.2 Community Relations Activities Involving
USACE or USBR
As branches of the Federal government offering
valuable technical expertise, USACE's and USBR's
major role during RD/RA is contract administration
and management. If the RPs at a site refuse to
participate in the cleanup process, or if EPA has not
yet identified any PRPs, USACE or USBR can act as
EPA's agent and assume lead responsibility for the
site. Under these circumstances, USACE or USBR
may contract with an Architectural/Engineering (A/E)
firm to perform the design work necessary to
implement the selected remedy. Responsibility for
review of the remedial design is divided among EPA,
USACE, USBR, and the State, and varies according"
to whether the remedial design is Federal- or State-
lead. However, EPA retains responsibility for com-
munity relations and for interagency coordination at
sites involving the USACE, USBR and the States.
No mandatory community relations activities require
the involvement of USACE or USBR; however, sug-
gested activities will help these agencies remain
informed about site activities, community attitudes,
and, in general, how the project has progressed. A
briefing for USACE or USBR personnel on past
community relations activities at the site will ensure
that USACE or USBR is informed of the site's
background. Including USACE or USBR, with the
State and EPA, at meetings with the community will
enable USACE or USBR to impart valuable informa-
tion to the community and establish USACE or USBR
as an active participant in the cleanup. On-going
community relations activities, such as holding small
group meetings with USACE or USBR personnel,
EPA, and the most active, interested community
members, should be conducted to maintain com-
munication between all parties at all times.
The agency should prepare a press release or fact
sheet when USACE or USBR becomes involved.
Issuing a fact sheet defining the roles of USACE or
USBR and other parties at the start of remedial design
or at some point during remedial design is also
helpful.
-76-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 7
7.3.3 Community Relations under PRP(s)-Lead
RD/RA
If PRPs are involved in site community relations
activities, EPA and the State will closely monitor
their involvement by carefully overseeing and
reviewing all of their community relations work and
community relations activities. The PRPs at each
Superfund site have the opportunity to carry out
RD/RA. If EPA and the PRPs reach an agreement
regarding the PRPs' role during RD/RA, staff should
prepare and distribute a press release announcing the
agreement. If negotiations for a site cleanup result in
an agreement that the PRPs will carry out appropriate
cleanup actions, EPA usually obtains the agreement
with the PRPs in the form of a consent decree (CD)
issued by a court or an administrative order on
consent (AOC) issued by EPA. The NCP requires
that parties not subject to the agreement must be
provided an opportunity to submit written comments
for a period of 30 days for either a proposed AOC or
CD for a cleanup. EPA is also authorized to pursue
legal action against the PRPs if an agreement is not
reached prior to commencement of RD/RA.
The involvement of PRPs during RD/RA requires
additional coordination to manage community rela-
tions activities. For example, PRPs and their contrac-
tors may need to attend and make presentations at
public meetings. EPA staff should prepare the PRPs
for public meetings and forums, review the PRPs'
presentations, and reach agreement regarding what the
PRPs should and should not say. Staff should work
closely with the PRPs to be sure that the latter under-
stand community concerns and will address, rather
than aggravate, these concerns. Also, if the PRPs and
their contractors are conducting the site technical
work, citizens may be more skeptical of the work and
may need more assurance things are going smoothly
and that PRPs are complying with Superfund regula-
tions and the specific details of the site ROD. For
more information regarding enforcement activities,
refer to Chapter 6.
-77-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 8
CHAPTER 8
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
In recognition of the need for people living near
Superfund sites to be well-informed and involved with
decisions concerning the site, Congress authorized the
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) program in
CERCLA §117(e). In March, 1988, EPA issued an
Interim Final Rule (IFR) establishing the initial
policies and procedures for the program. In Decem-
ber, 1989, EPA published amendments to the IFR and
has conducted the program under the amended IFR.
The Final Rule is expected to be issued in late 1991.
The TAG program plays an important role in Super-
fund community relations. The program provides
grants with which local groups affected by Superfund
sites can obtain independent assistance in under-
standing cleanup activities at the site. TAGs help
people affected by Superfund sites understand techni-
cal issues and data about the site. This will enable
those people to better articulate their concerns in the
decision-making process.
This chapter provides a broad description of the TAG
program and discusses use of TAGs, eligibility for
TAGs, important program provisions, TAG applica-
tion requirements, evaluation criteria, selection of a
Technical Advisor, and TAG management. The
chapter concludes with a brief discussion of outreach
for the TAG program.
This chapter does not provide detailed information on
the TAG program nor does it provide guidance on
implementing it. Detailed program information and
guidance is available through the Regional Offices.
The Superfund Technical Assistance Grant Handbook
(27), written for the public, is also a good source for
more detailed information on the TAG program.
8.1 HOW DOES THE PROGRAM
WORK?
Under the TAG program, an initial grant of up to
$50,000 is available for any site that is on the NPL or
proposed for listing where EPA has begun a response
action. Groups may use grant funds to hire a
technical advisor to help them understand information
that already exists about the site or develops during
the Superfund cleanup process. This information may
include, but is not limited to, analytical profiles of
conditions at the site, the nature of the wastes
involved, and the kinds of technology available to
clean up the site. Some specific uses of TAGs
include payments to technical advisors for services
such as:
Reviewing site-related documents produced by
EPA or anyone else;
Meeting with the group to explain technical
information;
Providing assistance to the grant recipient in
communicating site-related concerns;
Disseminating interpretations of technical infor-
mation to the community;
Participating in site visits, when possible, to gain
a better understanding of cleanup activities; and
Attending meetings and hearings directly related
to the situation at the site.
Groups cannot use TAGs to develop new information
(for example, additional sampling) or to underwrite
legal actions, such as preparing testimony or hiring
expert witnesses. This provision is not meant to in-
hibit people from disagreeing with EPA. Its purpose
is to prevent groups from using the grant to contest a
cost EPA has deemed unallowable or to challenge a
Record of Decision.
8.2 WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR A
TAG?
Groups eligible to receive grants under the TAG pro-
gram are those whose members may be affected by a
release or threatened release of toxic wastes from any
facility listed on the NPL or proposed for listing
where site work has begun. In general, groups of
-79-
-------
Chapter 8
Community Relations Handbook
individuals who live near the site and whose health,
economic well-being, or enjoyment of the environ-
ment are directly threatened are eligible.
Any group applying for a TAG must be nonprofit and
incorporated or working towards incorporation under
applicable State laws. Existing incorporated groups
generally are required to reincorporate for the specific
purpose of the TAG. Such groups may include exis-
ting community associations, environmental or health
advocacy groups, or coalitions of groups formed to
address community concerns about the waste site.
Groups that are not eligible for grant funds are:
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs);
Academic institutions;
Political parties; and
Groups established or presently sustained by
governmental entities (including emergency plan-
ning committees and citizen advisory boards).
8.3 IMPORTANT PROGRAM
PROVISIONS
8.3.1 Budgeting and Exceeding the $50,000 Cap
The TAG program is intended to provide grants to
groups for up to a three-year period. When the
period is over, groups who have grant monies
remaining (and work at the site is still underway) may
apply for a continuation of the grant.
EPA advises groups to budget grant monies to cover
the entire cleanup period. However, because cleanup
of a hazardous waste site is complex and may take
seven years or longer, groups sometimes spend their
monies before cleanup is complete. In this case,
groups can obtain an additional $50,000 by applying
for and receiving a waiver. For any funds sought in
addition to the second $50,000, the group must
request a deviation. EPA bases both the waiver and
deviation awards on several factors, including site
complexity, changes at the site after the initial grant,
or unusual amounts of data or documents that must be
reviewed. In addition, three or more of the following
circumstances must be present for EPA to approve a
waiver or deviation:
The RI/FS costs over $2 million;
The ROD calls for innovative technologies or
treatability studies;
EPA re-opens the ROD;
The site's health assessment results in an epide-
miological study;
EPA identifies additional operable units after
awarding a TAG;
There is a change in a law or regulation after
EPA has awarded a TAG that results in new site-
related information;
The cleanup lasts more than eight years after the
start of the RI/FS;
There is significant public concern (for example,
large groups of people requiring many meetings
and many copies of documents); and
Any other factor that, in the view of the EPA
Regional Office, indicates that the site is
unusually complex.
8.3.2 Matching Funds Requirement
Under the TAG program, groups also must contribute,
or match with in-kind contributions, some of the total
project costs for technical assistance. The December,
1989, amendments to the IFR lowered this matching
funds requirement from 35 percent to 20 percent. For
example, to get a $50,000 grant, which would be 80
percent of a total project cost of $62,500, groups must
contribute the remaining 20 percent of the project
costs, or $12,500. In unusual circumstances, EPA can
waive all or part of the matching fund requirement if
a group demonstrates financial need after a good faith
effort to obtain funds or if EPA determines that such
a waiver is necessary to facilitate public participation
at the site.
8.4 TAG APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS AND
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Applying for a TAG is often difficult for groups who
have little or no experience applying for a government
-80-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 8
grant. Consequently, many Regional Offices assist
groups complete the TAG application. A TAG appli-
cation requires a group to demonstrate that it meets
specific administrative and management requirements
and that it is aware of the time, resources, and dedica-
tion needed to manage a TAG.
To evaluate TAG applications, Regions establish TAG
Review Teams generally made up of the TAG Coor-
dinator, Grants Management Specialist, Community
Relations Coordinator, Remedial Project Manager, and
a representative of the Office of Regional Counsel.
In evaluating TAG applications, the Review Team
considers the criteria mandated by TAG regulation:
The group's ability to manage the grant in com-
pliance with EPA grant and procurement regula-
tions;
The degree to which the group members' health,
economic well-being, and enjoyment of the envi-
ronment are adversely affected by a hazardous
waste site;
The group's commitment and ability to share the
information provided by the technical advisor
with others in the community;
Broad representation of affected groups and indi-
viduals in the community; and
Whether the applicant group is nonprofit and
incorporated for TAG purposes.
8.5 SELECTING A TECHNICAL
ADVISOR
The first step in selecting a technical advisor is for
the group to estimate the cost and level of effort
needed. The group should then solicit bids for the
technical advisor and evaluate bids received. One
way to evaluate the bids is by using the requirements
in 40 CFR §35.4065 of the TAG regulations:
(1) A technical advisor must possess the following
credentials:
Demonstrated knowledge of hazardous or toxic
waste issues;
Ability to translate technical information into
terms understandable to lay persons; and
Academic training in a relevant discipline (e.g.,
biochemistry, toxicology, environmental sciences,
engineering).
(2) A technical advisor should possess the following
credentials:
Experience in working on hazardous or toxic
waste problems;
Experience in making technical presentations;
Demonstrated writing skills; and
Experience in working with affected individuals,
community groups, or other groups.
Once a group selects its technical advisor, it develops
a contract for signature by both parties. The contract
must include:
The nature, scope, and extent of work to be per-
formed;
The time-frame for the project;
The total cost of the work to be preformed;
Payment provisions; and
Model clauses.
8.6 HOW GROUPS MANAGE
THEIR TAGS
Groups must routinely record expenditures of grant
money. Generally, groups must:
Establish an accounting system and keep approp-
riate records;
Submit payment forms to EPA for the money to
pay the technical advisor (each form must show
that the group met the matching funds require-
ment); and
Prepare progress reports.
8.7 TAG PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
The Regions take different approaches to implemen-
ting the TAG program. Many Regions designate one
person as the "TAG Coordinator" to oversee TAG-
related activities in the Region. More commonly,
-81-
-------
Chapter 8
Community Relations Handbook
Regions use a "combined" approach where the TAG
Coordinator oversees the program with support from
the TAG Review Team, whose members have specific
roles in implementing TAG programs.
8.8 TAG OUTREACH
The success of the TAG program depends largely on
EPA's ability to inform the public about the TAG
program and allow eligible members of the commu-
nity an opportunity to participate. NCP §300.430(c)
requires the lead agency at a Superfund site to inform
the members of the community of the availability of
TAGs. The public should be notified about the
availability of a TAG as soon as possible. At sites
where EPA expects response activities to begin within
the next fiscal year, Regions should give formal
notice about the TAG as soon as funding is allocated.
Staff should discuss the TAG program during the
initial community interviews. At sites where work is
underway, Regions should notify other interested
parties upon receipt of the first letter of intent from a
group announcing the group plans to apply for a
TAG. This public notice should contain information
about the group that submitted the letter of intent.
EPA encourages other groups interested in applying
for a TAG to contact the first group and consolidate
rather than compete for the grant.
In addition to the guidelines above, Regions employ
other techniques for informing the public about
TAGs. Many Regions combine TAG outreach with
their community relations activities. For instance,
some Regional staff mention the availability of TAGs
during community interviews, at public meetings, and'
in fact sheets. They also place copies of the TAG
Handbook at information repositories or produce
public service announcements or press releases about
the TAG program.
-82-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 9
CHAPTER 9
RISK COMMUNICATION
This chapter discusses the principles underlying
effective risk communication and focuses on the need
for the Community Relations Coordinator and all
others involved in communication and decision-
making activities at a Superfund site to understand
and implement these principles. Communication of
risk will be effective only if the agency's overall
communications at a site is effective. This means
establishing early communication networks that build
trust and credibility. While there is a need to explain
the technical basis for EPA's decisions and their
effects on the risk facing the public, risk com-
munication involves much more than merely
"informing" the public. It is an on-going, two-way
process between the government and the public. The
government must provide information to the public in
an understandable and useful manner. As former
Administrator Lee Thomas noted in describing the
development of Community Relations Plans:
"We are not going to go into a community
and tell people what we intend to do. We
are going to listen to local concerns and
ideas. It is true that many of the issues
involved in a site cleanup are highly techni-
cal, but we can no longer use that as an
excuse for discounting what a community
has to say about risk. We must empower the
community to discuss risk in a rational and
technically competent way" (55).
Risk communication activities should be an integral
part of the Community Relations Plan. Basic
objectives and criteria for a successful risk com-
munication program should increase:
Agency awareness of the public's perception of
risks at a site;
Public understanding of the chemicals of concern
and corresponding potential effects on human
health and the environment;
Public understanding of the risks of remedial
actions; and
Public understanding of how the agency uses risk
assessment in decision-making at a site.
Even an effective risk communication process does
not guarantee consensus on the proper remediation
activity among all affected parties. The goal of the
risk communication strategy is to increase the under-
standing and involvement of interested parties in the
process rather than reach unanimity. To that end, the
public needs to be informed of Superfund's mandate
to address public health and environmental threats
from hazardous waste sites, not to achieve zero-risk
or to return waste sites to their best use. Risk assess-
ment is used in the Superfund process to help answer
questions on determining the risks of doing nothing to
clean up a site, exposure and cleanup levels, and risks
from undertaking cleanup activities. The public is
much more likely to accept an agency decision if they
feel that they have been a part of the decision-making
process and helped to establish exposure levels. In
some ways, effective risk communication gains the
agency the "benefit of the doubt" when making deci-
sions. Risk communication allows the public to feel
that, although it may not be in total agreement with
agency actions, EPA should be allowed to proceed as
long as the public can hold EPA accountable and can
verify EPA's activities.
This chapter reviews the basic principles underlying
effective risk communication. It also provides practi-
cal guidance on how to discuss technical issues with
the public and address their concerns.
9.1 PRINCIPLES OF RISK
COMMUNICATION
The "public" is not a single entity. It is comprised of
a wide range of individuals including, but not limited
to, potentially responsible parties, individuals living
near a site, members of special interest groups, and
State and local politicians. Any communication effort
must be directed to the specific needs of targeted
-83-
-------
Chapter 9
Community Relations Handbook
components of the public. For purposes of this
chapter, we simply refer to the "public," while
recognizing its many sub-groups.
9.1.1 The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication
The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication
comprise the basic principles of effective communica-
tion as developed by EPA (3). They are suggested
guidelines, not hard and fast rules.
(1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate
partner. This can be accomplished by involving
the community and all other parties that have an
interest in the issue early. Keep in mind that you
work for the public.
The goal of risk communication should be to
promote an informed public that is involved,
interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-
oriented, and collaborative. EPA plays a pivotal
role in shaping these attitudes.
(2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
Successful planning and evaluation entails the
following six elements: (1) begin with clear, ex-
plicit objectives; (2) evaluate the information you
have about risks by assessing the strengths and
weaknesses of the data; (3) identify and address
the particular interests of different groups you
work with; (4) train your staff, including techni-
cal staff, in communication skills; (5) practice
and test your messages; and (6) evaluate your
efforts and learn from your mistakes.
(3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. Do
not make assumptions about what people know,
think, or want done. Take the time to find out
what people are thinking by letting all parties
with an interest in the issue be heard. Identify
with your audience. Put yourself in their place.
Recognize and sympathize with their emotions.
People often are more concerned about trust,
credibility, competence, control, fairness, caring,
and compassion than mortality statistics or
quantitative risk assessments.
(4) Be honest, frank, and open. State your creden-
tials, but do not ask or expect to be trusted. If
you do not know an answer or are uncertain,
acknowledge that but get back to people with
answers as soon as possible. Do not hesitate to
admit mistakes. Disclose risk information as
soon as possible and do not minimize or exag-
gerate the level of risk. Try to share more
information, not less, or people may think you
are hiding something.
Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once
lost, they are difficult to regain completely.
(5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible
sources. Take the time to coordinate with other
organizations or groups. Devote the required
effort and resources to the slow, hard work of
building bridges with other organizations. Try to
issue communications jointly with other credible
sources. Few things make risk communication
more difficult than conflicts or public disagree-
ments with other credible sources.
(6) Meet the needs of the media. Be open with and
accessible to reporters. Realize that reporters
must meet their deadlines. Provide risk informa-
tion tailored to the needs of each type of media.
Prepare in advance and provide background
material on complex issues. Do not hesitate to
follow-up on stories with praise or criticism. Try
to establish long-term relationships of trust with
specific editors and reporters.
Keep in mind that the media are frequently more
interested in politics than risk; simplicity than
complexity; and danger than safety.
(7) Speak clearly and with compassion. Be sensi-
tive to norms, such as speech and dress. When
addressing large groups or individuals, use
simple, non-technical language. Communicate on
a personal level by using vivid, concrete images
or examples and anecdotes that make technical
risk data come alive. Whenever possible, use
comparisons to help put risks in perspective, but
avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions that
people consider important.
-84-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 9
Acknowledge and respond with words and
actions to emotions that people expressanxiety,
fear, anger, outrage, and helplessness. Always
try to include a discussion of actions that are
underway or can be taken. Tell people what you
cannot do. Promise only what you can do, and
be sure to do what you promise.
Although this list appears to describe basic, common-
sense communication rules, they are neither com-
monly nor universally adhered to, and their adherence
would dramatically improve the agency's efforts in
communicating with the public. The Community
Relations Coordinator must make special efforts to
empower other agency staff to incorporate them into
all projects.
9.2 ADDRESSING TECHNICAL
AND NON-TECHNICAL
CONCERNS
Individuals are often much more concerned with non-
technical issues, such as fairness and control, than in
the details of technical risk assessment. The risk
communicator needs to address both technical risk
assessment and non-technical concerns. Agency rep-
resentatives have a tendency to focus on the technical
issues, often to the exclusion of the public's other
concerns. When this occurs, the agency representa-
tive is not communicating with the public, especially
since the public often views risk differently than do
the technical experts.
Too often, experts in government or industry
complain that the public is being irrational or
emotional by failing to see the wisdom of the
technical assessment. These experts feel that if they
could just educate the public to the "real" risk (i.e.,
being injured from a Superfund site), then the public's
irrational fears could be nullified. That is simply not
the case. The public's perception of risk is most
often driven by non-technical concerns and no
amount of clever packaging or explanation of the
technical data will address non-technical fears.
This is not to say that the technical aspects of risk
assessment are irrelevant. On the contrary, risk as-
sessment often forms the basis for a management
decision. Community relations staff should keep in
mind that, while the technical staff involved in
cleanup at Superfund sites (RPMs, OSCs, risk
assessors) have a responsibility to understand the
public, technical staff may feel that the public has an
equal responsibility to understand the scientific
underpinnings of the risk assessment process. There-
fore, a good risk communication strategy involves not
only raising non-technical public concerns about risk
to agency technical staff but also providing
opportunities for the public to understand the
technical aspects of risk assessment.
"Lay people sometimes lack certain informa-
tion about hazards. However, their basic
conceptualization of risk is much richer than
that of the experts and reflects legitimate
concerns that are typically omitted from
expert risk assessment. As a result, risk
communication and risk management efforts
are destined to fail unless they are structured
as a two-way process. Each side, expert and
public, has something valid to contribute.
Each side must respect the insights and
intelligence of the other" (50).
The goal and "bottom line" is to establish trust and
credibility between EPA and the public. The follow-
ing sections identify some general guidelines to help
explain risk, describe technical issues, and address the
public's non-technical concerns.
9.2.1 Non-Technical Public Concerns
Any explanation of the risk around a Superfund site
must be coupled with a recognition of those issues
that are driving the public's perception of risk at the
site. Public perceptions of risk are very important.
Agency staff need to realize that, if the public
perceives something as a risk, no matter how minimal
technical experts find the risk, then for the public it is
a risk. Researchers have identified factors that
contribute to the way the public perceives a risk.
Given the same technical risk assessment, these
-85-
-------
Chapter 9
Community Relations Handbook
factors will affect whether individuals view the
problem as more or less risky (51).
Less Risky
Voluntary
Familiar
Natural
Fair
Controlled by Self
Chronic
Not Memorable
More Risky
Involuntary
Unfamiliar
Man Made
Unfair
Controlled by Others
Catastrophic
Memorable
An example is the perception of the risk of smoking.
If the 350,000 Americans who die of cancer from
smoking every year all died on the same day,
smoking most probably would be prohibited. Because
the risks from smoking are chronic, rather than
catastrophic, they are perceived as less risky.
The public will generally consider the hazards of a
Superfund site as being more risky for each of the
above factors (with the exception of chronic versus
catastrophic). For example, fairness is usually judged
by whether there is an equitable distribution of risks
and benefits. With Superfund sites, the public living
near the site bears the risk while someone else has
benefitted.
The communicator can use this insight into how the
public perceives risk by addressing factors that can be
changed, whenever possible. For example, the
community's involvement in the decision-making
process will increase their sense of control and lower
the perceived risk. When the factor itself cannot be
changed, acknowledging its presence and the legiti-
macy of those in the community who are "outraged"
by it will help assuage concerns raised by the public.
If the public does not believe that you take them
and their concerns seriously, they may be less
willing to listen to your technical explanations.
When using risk comparisons to explain the risk
assessment or to put risks into perspective, do not
compare risks that affect risk perception differently.
For example, it is usually inappropriate to compare a
voluntary risk, such as driving a car, to an involuntary
one, such as living near a Superfund site. The public
will often view these as non-comparable and will
respond negatively to attempts to link them.
9.2.2 Explaining Technical Issues
Explaining the risk assessment process at a Superfund
site to the public is a critical component of the risk
communication strategy; the earlier in the process the
better. The public needs to understand how EPA
arrives at the determination of risk, what information
is used, how the information is used, what un-
certainties are inherent in the process, and how these
uncertainties are addressed. Community Relations
staff should familiarize themselves with the Superfund
risk assessment process and how it is used in site
decision-making regarding risk management. In
doing so they will be better able to assist technical
staff in answering technical queries from the public.
The public needs to understand that for a risk to
exist, the following three factors must all be
present: 1) site contamination; 2) contaminant
pathways to reach surrounding populations; and
3) populations near the site that may be exposed to
site hazards. If any of these factors are missing,
little or no risk is present. Other important techni-
cal issues for the public to understand include:
The four steps of risk assessmentdata collec-
tion and analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity
assessment, and risk characterization;
The use of Reasonable Maximum Exposure
(RME) as the highest exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at a site, considering land use,
intake variables, and pathway combinations;
The different methods used by the agency to
calculate risk from carcinogens and risk from
non-carcinogens;
The fact that there will always be some risk
associated with exposure to carcinogens at a site;
Potential health and ecological effects associated
with the chemicals of concern; and
Other site-specific issues that should be brought
to the public's attention.
Problems often arise when too much information is
provided rather than when too little is distributed.
The spokesperson often fails to determine precisely
what information the public needs and in what form.
Consequently, the tendency is to provide too much
information, which muddles the message and does not
-86-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 9
meet the public's needs or the agency's objectives
(47). After carefully selecting information to provide
to the public, other sources of information should be
acknowledged to avoid perceptions that information is
being withheld.
9.2.3 General Guidelines for Communicating
Technical Issues
Communicating technical information to the public
can be accomplished by using the following general
guidelines (3):
Do not underestimate the ability of the public to
assimilate technical information. Keep in mind
that if there is a compelling reason for people to
learn new information they generally will make
an effort to acquire an understanding of a new
subject, even if it is technical.
Try to determine what risk information people
need and in what form. This means the spokes-
person should take the time to "know his/her
audience." Be willing to summarize information
that the audience needs, rather than present
everything the communicator knows.
Anticipate and respond to people's concerns
about their personal risk. Remember the factors
driving the public's concern.
Be sure to provide adequate background when
explaining risk numbers. Use non-technical
language as much as possible.
Provide information responsive to public
concerns that is neither too complex nor
patronizing.
Put data in perspective and try to express the risk
in different ways.
Use language consistent with the expertise of
your audience and avoid the temptation to use
jargon. Jargon includes more than technical
language. Jargon is those words that mean one
thing to one group but may have another
meaning for other groups. For example, some
agency personnel often say they use a
"conservative" model to estimate risk, meaning
that the model tends to overestimate the likely
risk. The public, however, may likely think of
"conservative" in its political sense as favoring
the preservation of existing conditions.
Explain the process (i.e., Superfund's four steps
of risk assessment by which the numbers are
derived). Be willing to discuss uncertainties.
Reviewing this process with the public is
important in order to demonstrate that the risk
numbers are not derived from a "black box."
Use graphics and visual aids to make your points.
Collaborate with other credible experts.
Be careful when comparing environmental risk to
other risks (see the next section).
9.3 RISK COMPARISONS
One of the best ways to communicate technical issues
is to use comparisons. Appropriate comparisons can
put a situation in perspective. However, inappropriate
comparisons can have disastrous results for the
credibility and efforts of the communicator.
Staff should use comparisons only in conjunction with
factors that affect the way the public perceives risks
associated with the site. Do not use comparisons that
ignore these factors. For example, do not compare an
involuntary risk, such as groundwater contamination,
to a voluntary risk, such as smoking. The communi-
cator should avoid comparisons that trivialize the risk,
such as indicating that one has a greater chance of
developing cancer from a contaminant in peanut
butter than from living near a Superfund site. This
may be technically true, but it is irrelevant and may
anger the general public.
In addition, as with any technical discussion, be
careful in documenting the accuracy of risk estimates
used in comparisons. An inappropriate or inaccurate
comparison can lower audience interest and
participation to the point that they no longer hear the
message being communicated. The following are
guidelines for using risk comparisons (6):
A risk comparison will not be successful if it
appears to address acceptability of risk, since
"acceptability" is a value question, not a technical
one. Use comparisons to put risks in perspective
to help individuals determine the acceptability of
the risk. The acceptability of risk is their
decision.
-87-
-------
Chapter 9
Community Relations Handbook
Quantity comparisons are more useful than
probability comparisons.
Use comparisons of the same risk at different
times (i.e., before and after remediation).
Use comparisons with a standard (for example,
the standard for cleanup at a Superfund site is a
level of one in a million and remediation will set
the risk to that level).
Compare different estimates of the same risk:
environmentalists, industry, and your own. If
someone else has a higher or lower risk estimate,
be sure to note the difference.
Compare the risks associated with your proposed
solution or action to that of alternative solutions.
When explaining risk comparisons to the public, keep
the overall communication goal in mind; to provide
the public with useful information so that they can
understand and participate in the process, thereby
permitting them to make personal choices. The
public may only want to know "Is it safe?" It might
be useful when explaining estimated excess cancers to
point out that 25-33 percent of the population will
likely contract some form of cancer during their
lifetime, regardless of exposure at this or any site.
Again, do not try to infer that the risk at the site is
acceptable, but rather provide information to help the
public put the risk into perspective. Point out, with-
out sounding glib or condescending, that individuals
have to make their own determinations about what
they consider safe. For example, a 10'6 level chosen
by EPA at a site is not risk free. It is the level where
the risk posed to human health and the environment
is low enough to warrant no further action.
9.4 INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
Ideally, staff should involve the public as early as
possible in decisions affecting a Superfund site. This
is important not only from a community relations
standpoint, but also because the public will often have
valuable information for development of the risk
assessment, including pathways of exposure, historical
activity, and potential future use of the site. Ideally,
this information will be collected from the public
during the site inspection phase but most certainly at
the initiation of the remedial investigation.
Involving the community in risk assessment activities
is not always simple, even if the proper groundwork
has been established. Initially, establishing a conver-
sational rapport with citizens who are not familiar
with the Superfund risk assessment process may be
difficult. At sites where the community is actively
involved in the risk assessment process, staff may
have difficulty developing a meeting schedule con-
venient to both agency officials and community
residents. High staff turnover typical of Federal and
State agencies may be frustrating for both the agency
and the community as the two try to establish a
working rapport, that relies on familiarity and trust.
In spite of these difficulties, early inclusion of the
community in risk assessment activities will help
create an open dialogue that can prove useful to both
the agency and the community. The TAG program is
one way of fostering community involvement (see
Chapter 8 for a detailed discussion).
Community involvement is best coordinated
through a risk communication strategy, which is
incorporated into the Community Relations Plan.
In developing the strategy, agency staff should
anticipate the kinds of questions the public will have
at each stage of the Superfund process and the
appropriate information to be distributed at each
stage. For example, during the pre-risk assessment
periodpreliminary assessment, site inspection, and
listingthe public will likely be most concerned
about immediate risks from the site, such as any
effects on the drinking water from their wells.
During the risk assessment period, the public may
focus on their future well-being and the progress of
the risk assessment if they feel that their immediate
concerns have been addressed. They may pose ques-
tions similar to: "Will the agency find out how much
contamination there is and where it will go?" or "Is
the agency considering children's exposure?" or "Is
the agency taking into account those of us who grow
vegetables?" The greatest potential for community
involvement in the risk assessment process is in the
exposure assessment step. Exposure information may
be gathered from the public during community
interviews or through a workshop designed to explain
risk assessment and to gather exposure information.
After the risk assessment is conducted, a community's
-88-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 9
concern will often turn to questioning the overall
effectiveness of the remedial action in reducing risk.
The public may pose questions such as: "If wastes
are left on site, how can the remedy's effectiveness be
guaranteed?" or "What guarantees are there that no
effects from exposure will occur in 20 years?" or
"What are the risks from conducting the cleanup?"
To answer these questions, staff may want to use a
variety of community relations techniques to involve
the public throughout the risk assessment process.
Although site circumstances vary, staff should not just
partially involve the public in the risk assessment
process. For example, staff should not gather
exposure information at a public meeting without also
explaining the risk assessment process or release draft
risk assessment information without explaining the
meaning of the risk information. Involving the public
in this manner may build false expectations and
damage trust and credibility.
9.5 TECHNIQUES
In establishing an effective communication network,
several techniques can be employed.
One-to-One or Small Group: This is an effective
method to communicate to interested individuals or
groups. It is low-key and non-threatening, and can
facilitate a useful one-to-one exchange of information.
Public Meeting: This technique may be effective
early to explain the Superfund process to the commu-
nity, and later to focus on risk assessment and the
RI/FS. A public meeting in the early stages of
Superfund is a clear sign to the community that the
agency wants to establish an open rapport from the
beginning, even if it does not have complete
information to answer all of the public's questions.
Later, meetings can be used to answer more specific
questions and inform the public about precisely what
is occurring at the site. Remember the guidelines for
communicating technical issues discussed above.
Workshop or Less Formal Interaction: Depending
on the community, and the agency's relationship with
it, the agency may choose a less formal, more
interactive community relations technique, such as a
workshop to describe Superfund's risk assessment
process and to share information on the agency's risk
assessment approach and how it will be used at this
site. Since this workshop may occur early in the
RI/FS process, this is the ideal time to present
realistic time-frames and Superfund procedures to
address the public's expectations of the agency at this
site. Workshops have also been used just before the
completed risk assessment is released to the public.
Focus groups: Focus groups are in-depth interactive
discussions lead by a facilitator. They are designed
to obtain information from selected participants and
test ideas or techniques on participants. Potential uses
for focus groups in risk communication include (7):
Explaining risk perceptions;
Evaluating perceptual uses and information
processing;
Testing risk communication materials;
Selecting risk communication channels;
Designing risk-mitigating polices; and
Assessing risk communication effectiveness;
Refer to Chapter 3 for more information on these
techniques.
9.6 SUMMARY
An effective risk communication strategy involves the
public in a meaningful way early in the cleanup
process and promotes community involvement. A
risk communication strategy obviously cannot resolve
all or even most of the problems. The goals of risk
communications in Superfund are to help individuals
understand risk assessment and help staff comprehend
community perceptions and concerns about that same
risk. Understanding risk assessment enables individ-
uals in the community to better understand agency
actions, thereby allowing local citizens to fully
participate in the decision-making process. If staff
follow the seven cardinal rules and the guidelines
established in this chapter, trust and credibility in the
community may have a better chance to develop.
This trust between the community and EPA facilitates
the resolution of conflict.
-89-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 10
CHAPTER 10
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Superfund response actions usually require the partic-
ipation of several government agencies at the Federal,
State, and local levels. Depending on site-specific
factors, EPA, another Federal agency, or a designated
State environmental agency may be responsible for
managing the response. Other Federal agencies, such
as the Department of Health and Human Services,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, or Department of Justice, and
their State counterparts also may provide vital legal,
technical, and engineering support. An important
community relations task at any Superfund site is the
lead agency's coordination of the community relations
activities of these various agencies. The lead agency,
as defined in §300.5 of the NCP, is responsible for
conducting community relations activities and
ensuring that the requirements specified in Chapter 2
of this Handbook are met. Effective coordination of
community relations activities is necessary to ensure:
Public input is properly channeled to the approp-
riate government decision-makers; and
The community receives accurate, timely, and
consistent information, even when that informa-
tion must come from a variety of sources.
This chapter discusses the roles and responsibilities of
Federal, State, and local agencies for community rela-
tions at Superfund sites. These roles and responsibil-
ities vary depending on site ownership and response
status. This chapter focuses on the assignment of
lead responsibility for community relations activities
and on contributing roles. The recommended com-
munity relations activities for remedial and removal
actions described in earlier chapters are generally
applicable, regardless of which agency has lead res-
ponsibility for community relations.
Lead responsibility for Superfund response efforts
resides primarily with EPA. EPA may, however,
work with another Federal agency through an Inter-
agency Agreement (IAG), or with a State through a
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA), to
conduct a remedial action. Through such agreements,
EPA may assign lead responsibility for a response at
a particular site to a State or another agency but still
retain final authority over remedial action at that site.
CERCLA establishes a process by which States may
enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with
EPA and authorizes EPA to prescribe the terms and
conditions of such agreements. CERCLA §120(e)(6)
also authorizes EPA to enter into agreements with
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at sites they
leased on Federal facilities and use consent decrees
for the PRPs to conduct RI/FSs or remedial actions if
EPA determines that such actions will be done
properly and within the required deadlines.
10.1 FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL AGENCY ROLES IN
SUPERFUND
Many Federal agencies can provide valuable scien-
tific, technical, and managerial assistance to the lead
agency in undertaking response efforts. For example:
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) can
provide expertise in managing agricultural, forest,
and wilderness areas. Through the Soil
Conservation Service, USDA can predict the
effects of pollutants on soil and their movements
over and through soil.
The Department of Commerce (DOC), through
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), can provide scientific
expertise on marine resources and habitats for
which it is responsible; information on actual and
predicted meteorologic, hydrologic, ice, and
oceanographic conditions for marine, coastal, and
inland waters; and prediction of movement and
dispersion of atmospheric pollutants through tra-
jectory modeling. NOAA is also the lead agency
under the Endangered Species Act for marine and
intertidal species.
-91-
-------
Chapter 10
Community Relations Handbook
The Department of Defense (DOD) provides
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) for removal ac-
tions and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) for
remedial actions resulting from releases of hazar-
dous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from
DOD vessels and facilities. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) helps EPA manage
the remedial design and action phases of Fund-
lead remedial actions. In addition, DOD provides
technical assistance in responses to releases from
DOD vessels or facilities.
The Department of Energy (DOE) can help iden-
tify the source and extent of radioactive and
mixed-waste releases and remove and dispose of
radioactive contaminants.
The Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) is responsible for providing assistance
on all matters related to the assessment of health
hazards at a response and the protection of
response worker and public health.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) provides assistance on civil emergency
planning and may assume the lead in managing
a response when evacuation or relocation of
residents and businesses is required.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) offers
expertise on the impacts of hazardous releases on
wildlife, soils, vegetation, surface water, and
groundwater. Most Federal lands are adminis-
tered by DOI bureaus. The U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service issues overall responsibility for pro-
tecting endangered species on private as well as
public lands. In addition, the Bureau of Recla-
mation helps EPA manage the remedial design
and action phases of Fund-lead remedial actions.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) represents Fed-
eral agencies in litigation.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) pro-
vides expertise on all modes of transporting oil
and hazardous substances. Through the United
States Coast Guard (USCG), DOT offers support
in responding to releases into coastal navigable
waters of the United States.
The Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration (OSHA) provides technical support in the
areas of occupational safety and health during
remediation. They also inspect Superfund sites
for compliance with existing Federal occupa-
tional, health, and safety regulations.
At both State- and Federal-lead sites, the State
counterparts of many of these Federal agencies also
may provide valuable technical and managerial exper-
tise, such as providing information on ARARs as re-
quired by CERCLA. According to EPA guidance on
State Participation in the Superfund Remedial
Program (8), coordination of the various State partici-
pants in a response action is a State responsibility.
Therefore, a State is expected to identify those
agencies or entities that will participate in the
response action, briefly describe the role of each, and
agree to oversee their participation in close coordina-
tion with EPA.
Federal and State agencies have an additional role in
the Superfund process as trustees of natural resources.
For purposes of CERCLA, trustees are Federal or
State governmental agencies and native American
nations with authority over natural resources. Exam-
ples of trustees include DOI, USDA, DOC, and State
natural resource agencies. CERCLA requires EPA to
notify trustees of the potential for natural resource
damages resulting from releases and to coordinate
with such trustees in performing assessments, inves-
tigations, and planning (see Subpart G of the NCP for
further information). Staff should be alert to potential
active involvement of trustee agencies in the response
process so they can accurately explain the extent and
purpose of such involvement to community residents.
Regional staff are encouraged to use State and local
officials as liaisons between the public and EPA.
These officials can provide a wealth of information
about a site, its history, and the local community, and
can often lend credibility to site decisions because
communities are usually more likely to trust State and
local officials than Federal officials perceived as out-
siders. They are especially suited to serve as infor-
mation contacts for local residents and as liaisons bet-
ween the public and EPA personnel. State and local
officials can relay questions from the public to appro-
priate Regional staff members. Additionally, as these
officials become more familiar with information con-
cerning the site and the Superfund process in general,
they will be able to answer citizens' questions direct-
ly, without having to refer them to EPA personnel.
Thus, State and local officials can save Regional staff
valuable time and resources.
-92-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 10
The liaison approach also increases the frequency of
communication of site activities to the public. Often,
the location of the Regional Office precludes frequent,
direct contact with community residents. State and
local officials generally live closer to the affected
community and can provide citizens with accessible
contacts. Additionally, these officials often are
willing to establish and maintain the site's information
repositories. Their firsthand knowledge of the com-
munity can provide insight regarding the most appro-
priate place for the repository.
Regions can benefit from communication tools set up
by State and local officials and already in place
within a community. Existing communication sys-
tems, such as mailing lists and key contact lists, allow
Regional staff to save time and resources and avoid
duplicating information. Many agencies operate elec-
tronic bulletin boards that afford rapid information
exchange with others.
State and local officials also can assist in public
meetings. Such participation demonstrates a strong
relationship between Regional, State, and local staff.
Additionally, it illustrates the Region's willingness to
include as many community members as possible in
the remedial process. Other duties that State and
local officials can perform include receiving infor-
mation from Federal or State agencies and distributing
fact sheets and other community relations documents
for public review. Finally, State and local officials
are expected to provide input during the decision-
making process.
Regional staff must educate State and local officials
about the Superfund process and keep them informed
about site developments so they can adequately per-
form their role as liaisons. Regional staff must
provide the most up-to-date information concerning
site-related activities to these individuals so that they
may relay accurate, timely information to the public.
While assistance from State and local officials is often
extremely helpful, it may not always be necessary or
appropriate in every Region. EPA should consider
using such assistance on a case-by-case basis. EPA
personnel should evaluate the relationship between
Regional staff and State and local officials, as well as
the relationship between community residents and
State and local officials. In those instances where
State and local officials serve as liaisons, EPA staff
should retain control over the release of information
concerning the site. Community relations efforts of
State and local officials should support, but not
replace, the efforts of Regional staff. EPA personnel
should continue to make regular visits to the site and
the community. Direct communication between EPA
staff and the community remains an essential part of
the Superfund process.
10.2 FEDERALLY OWNED
FACILITIES
Several Federal agencies own or operate facilities at
which hazardous wastes are, or were, disposed. Many
Federally owned facilities have been proposed for,
and placed on, the NPL. Responses at these facilities
are subject to CERCLA and NCP requirements, and
CERCLA defines the process by which Federal agen-
cies are to undertake remedial actions and provides
for joint selection of remedies by EPA and other Fed-
eral agencies. If there is disagreement, EPA must
make the determination. CERCLA §120(a)(2) further
states that "no department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States may adopt or utilize any such
guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are
inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and
criteria established by the Administrator under this
Act." While Federal facilities may offer alternative
methods for meeting community relations require-
ments, EPA must determine whether these alternatives
are consistent with the appropriate rules, regulations,
guidelines, and criteria.
Response actions at Federal facilities are to be
conducted according to site-specific lAGs between
EPA and the department, agency, or instrumentality
that owns or operates the facility. In addition, the
State is often involved in site-specific lAGs. The
content and scope of such lAGs will be determined
on a site-specific basis, and the agreements will
designate responsibility for community relations
activities. Accordingly, it is possible that Federal
agencies other than EPA will conduct community
relations activities for response actions at Federal
facilities. For non-NPL Federal facilities, State law
-93-
-------
Chapter 10
Community Relations Handbook
applies to response actions; community relations
activities must be conducted according to State law.
EPA's Office of Enforcement will issue guidance on
Federal facility issues.
EPA recognizes that Federal agencies may have their
own community relations programs and guidance.
However, CERCLA §120(a)(2) states that EPA rules,
guidelines, regulations, and criteria are applicable to
Federal agencies and that Federal agencies may not
adopt or utilize any guidelines, rules, regulations, or
criteria that are inconsistent with those established by
the EPA Administrator under CERCLA. This Hand-
book provides Federal agencies with guidance to more
closely coordinate the planning and implementation of
their community relations programs with CERCLA,
the NCP, and EPA policies. EPA Regional Offices
should interact closely with other Federal agencies
and provide guidance on a site-by-site basis.
10.3 INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION AT
FEDERAL-LEAD SITES
Other Federal and State agency staff may participate
in community relations activities during a Federal-lead
response. States may receive funds under a coopera-
tive agreement for certain coordinating activities at
Federal-lead sites, including community relations.
The EPA Community Relations Coordinator is respon-
sible for coordination and oversight of community
relations activities conducted by State or other
agencies. Section 300.155 of the NCP also states that
Federal or other agencies should clear all news
releases or statements through the OSC/RPM. Two
Federal agencies that may frequently contribute to
Federal-lead responses and, therefore, merit special
attention in this context are the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) and the Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of DHHS.
USAGE is usually responsible for managing the RD/
RA phases of a Federal-lead remedial response and
also may provide technical assistance to EPA during
the RI/FS. However, under the Inter agency Agree-
ment Between the U.S. Department of Defense and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
Implementation of CERCLA (11), EPA retains lead
responsibility for community relations and interagency
coordination at sites where USAGE is involved.
SARA requires ATSDR to perform a health assess-
ment at every site on the NPL. ATSDR also may
perform health assessments at non-NPL sites in
response to citizen petitions or under other
circumstances. A health assessment combines site-
specific risk assessment information developed by
EPA during the RI/FS with health data on people
possibly affected by the site. In addition, ATSDR
may issue health advisories at sites where ATSDR has
determined that a significant threat to public health
exists and may provide health-related assistance and
technical advice to EPA, if requested. ATSDR may
jointly conduct some of its activities with the Public
Health Service and State health departments. EPA
retains the lead in conducting community relations
activities at Superfund sites, but ATSDR may, at
EPA's request, help conduct these activities.
10.4 INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION AT STATE-
LEAD SITES
The procedures for coordinating community relations
activities at State-lead sites are analogous to those at
Federal-lead sites. The State and its designated agen-
cies have lead responsibility for planning and imple-
menting the required community relations activities.
EPA maintains oversight of State activities and may
provide assistance, including actually conducting
community relations activities. The State may submit
a final CRP to EPA for review and approval. The
State also may request funds for the development of
a CRP in its cooperative agreement application. The
State must prepare and obtain EPA approval of the
CRP before remedial investigation work begins.
CERCLA assigns States the responsibility of opera-
ting and maintaining site remedies after fund-financed
remedial action is completed. Thus, all fund-finan-
ced, Federal-lead sites effectively become State-lead
sites upon completion of remedial action (on ground-
water issues, see CERCLA §104(c)(6)). However,
EPA's directive entitled State Participation in the
-94-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 10
Superfund Remedial Program (8) allows for the State
to request EPA funding and assistance through a
cooperative agreement for the first year of O&M.
During this initial period, the cooperative agreement
designates lead responsibility for community relations
activities at Federal-lead sites.
10.5 INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION AT
ENFORCEMENT SITES
EPA and the State also may establish cooperative
agreements at enforcement-lead sites. In general, if
EPA negotiates the order with responsible parties,
then EPA is designated as the lead agency for commu-
nity relations. If the State negotiates the order, then
the State will have the lead for community relations
if there is an IAG. In this situation, EPA will provide
oversight and States must follow EPA community
relations requirements outlined in Chapters 2 and 6.
See CERCLA Funding of State Oversight of Poten-
tially Responsible Parties (PRPs) (36) and Draft
Addendum to January 17,1986, Guidance, CERCLA
Funding of Stale Oversight of Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) (37).
-95-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Chapter 11
CHAPTER 11
ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS
This chapter identifies the respective roles and
responsibilities of EPA Headquarters, Regional
Offices, and contractors in community relations
activities. The suggestions in this chapter also will
help staff in other Federal and State agencies deter-
mine responsibilities and identify areas where con-
tractor support is appropriate. Staff are encouraged to
call EPA community relations offices (see Appendix
G) with questions on contractor management
11.1 THE ROLE OF
HEADQUARTERS AND
REGIONAL OFFICES
EPA Headquarters and Regional Office staff have
distinct responsibilities in the planning and implemen-
tation of a community relations program at a site.
Headquarters is responsible for developing policy,
guidance, and training programs, overseeing com-
munity relations implementation, evaluating programs,
and analyzing resources. Further, Headquarters
provides general informational materials on the Super-
fund program, national contract management, and
other field support services.
For EPA-lead responses, the Regional Offices are res-
ponsible for developing Community Relations Plans
and programs, conducting community interviews,
developing site-specific public information materials,
soliciting citizen input, issuing press releases,
managing and supervising contractor support, and
implementing community relations programs. The
roles of EPA and the State for community relations in
State-lead responses are specified in the cooperative
agreement for a site or in a Superfund Memorandum
of Agreement (SMOA). Where a cooperative agree-
ment or an Interagency Agreement (IAG) exists,
Regional Offices may play an advisory or oversight
role in the development and implementation of the
community relations program or they may take full
responsibility for the program.
11.2 TASKS FOR CONTRACTORS
Community relations contractors can provide support
services for program activities in a number of situa-
tions. However, one principle must be maintained
throughout the program: contractors must never
represent, or appear to speak for, the Agency on
policy issues before the public, other government
officials, or the media.
The community relations programs at individual sites
will include many activities for which contractors can
provide support. Some activities involve routine
assistance in ongoing site work; others involve
behind-the-scenes preparation; and still others may
require specific expertise, such as presenting sampling
results or discussing engineering plans. Contractors
have been used widely for conducting community
interviews and preparing Community Relations Plans.
Contractors are very useful for ensuring that technical
information is accurate and understandable.
The amount of contractor assistance that the agency
requires and the division of responsibility between
agency and contractor staff will vary significantly
from site to site. Staff should work closely with the
contracting officer in delegating tasks to contractors
regardless of the particular type or level of contractor
support at a given site. Exhibit 11-1 illustrates
appropriate responsibilities of contractor staff for
several community relations activities.
11.3 MANAGING CONTRACTOR
SUPPORT
For the community relations program at each site, the
agency must determine the level of contractor support,
as well as the corresponding financial resources
needed to implement such an effort. Factors used to
determine the level of contractor support include site
priority, available resources of the contractor, CRC
workload, and schedule for all community relations
-97-
-------
Chapter 11
Community Relations Handbook
site activities. Accordingly, the extent of contractor
support at a site will depend on the resources avail-
able, level of community interest, and the response
action that the agency has chosen.
Some factors to consider in determining contractor
resource needs are:
The number of contractor hours necessary to
complete a task (including internal review);
The extent of contractor administrative and
management tasks (e.g., contract management,
monthly reporting);
Whether the task involves travel (i.e., airfare,
local transport, and per diem); and
Other direct costs, such as typesetting and prin-
ting of fact sheets and other reports; meeting
transcripts; newspaper advertisements; graphics;
mailings to interested community members; ex-
press mailing costs; telephone services; and
temporary staff support.
These factors will vary from site to site. The
Community Relations Coordinator and technical staff
should meet early in the planning process to deter-
mine the appropriate level of contractor support for
the particular site.
The contracting agency evaluates contractors based on
their performance. The evaluations assess the con-
tractor's ability to identify and address issues critical
to the site, the innovativeness of their technical ap-
proach, the quality and timeliness of their work, and
whether the work was completed within the estab-
lished budget.
-98-
-------
EXHIBIT 11-1: SAMPLE TASKS FOR CONTRACTORS IN A COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM7
o
o
I
3
3)
i
O
0)
0)
a.
I
3T
Activity
Community interviews
Community Relations
Plan
Telephone contacts
Mailing list
News releases
Public meetings
Fact sheets
News conferences
Contractor Responsibilities
Arrange interview dates and logistics; participate in
interviews; analyze social and political environment;
prepare report on site history; brief agency; take notes
Develop and draft plan
Agency Responsibilities
Identify individuals for interviews; conduct interviews;
follow up with the community; answer questions raised
by citizens during interviews
Review and approve plan
Make initial calls to all elected, appointed, and citizen
leaders
Review mailing list; add names
Make follow-urj calls when appropriate
Compile names, addresses, and phone numbers of
appropriate Federal, State, and local officials,
interested groups, and individuals
Research text of releases
Provide logistical support for small meetings with
citizens and agency staff; prepare agenda; prepare
summary of meeting; secure court reporter; provide
audio-visual graphics support; assist EPA staff with
presentation practice or "dry run"
Research, draft, reproduce, and distribute fact sheets Review and approve fact sheets
Draft, edit, and distribute releases
Approve agenda; prepare and deliver presentations;
conduct meeting
Arrange conference time and location; provide
suggestions to agency staff on how to answer difficult
questions; prepare any written handouts
Invite officials or reporters; practice answers; review
and approve handouts; prepare statements; provide
answers to all questions (contractors do not answer
questions)
7 EPA Regional Office or State response agency directs all contractor work. Support activities listed are performed at the discretion of the staff with
responsibility for the community relations program.
to
T>
-------
EXHIBIT 11-1: SAMPLE TASKS FOR CONTRACTORS IN A COMMUNITY
RELATIONS PROGRAM (continued)
o
to
I
Activity
Contractor Responsibilities
Agency Responsibilities
Workshops
Public inquiry responses Prepare draft responses to public technical inquiries.
Design and, if requested, conduct workshops; arrange
all logistics and support
Proposed plan
Responsiveness
summary
Revised Community
Relations Plan
Telephone hotlines
Exhibits
Presentations
Site tours
Develop and draft plan
Compile and summarize major issues; prepare draft
responses; draft responsiveness summary
After ROD for a site is completed, arrange further
interviews or analysis; draft revised Community Rela-
tions Plan for remedial design/remedial action phases
Assess the level of community concern and site
activities; recommend if a telephone hotline is
appropriate; arrange logistics to receive and record
calls; incorporate inquiries and responses into
responsiveness summary for the site
Conduct research; prepare exhibits
Advise agency speakers; provide audio-visual support
Arrange time and meeting place of site tour; contact
tour participants; arrange protective gear; provide
handouts (maps, test results, fact sheets)
Provide technical staff to discuss subject areas for
workshop; conduct workshop
Coordinate with technical and legal staff to prepare
responses to inquiries on policy issues; review and
approve technical responses
Review and approve plan
Provide contractor with comments received and EPA
or State responses to comments and inquiries; review
and approve responsiveness summary
Review, revise, and approve revised Community
Relations Plan
Receive and respond to calls; provide agency staff
members to serve as contact
Develop general design; review and approve exhibits
Design and deliver presentations
Approve tour arrangements and handouts; act as tour
guide; answer questions
O
o
3
c
3J
D
5"
to
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendices
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX I:
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR PROPOSED PLAN
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GLOSSARY AND SUPERFUND ACRONYMS
REFERENCES
KEY CONTACTS FOR THE SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PROGRAM
COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTIVES RESULTING FROM THE SUPERFUND
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
FACT SHEETS
-101-
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
This appendix discusses many of the community rela-
tions activities mentioned in the preceding chapters.
It is intended as a reference to be consulted when a
decision must be made on whether and when to con-
duct a certain type of community relations activity.
The discussion of each activity includes:
A description of the activity;
The purpose of the activity;
Techniques for conducting the activity (key
points to remember);
When to conduct such an activity in a Superfund
response;
Other activities that can be conducted in
conjunction with this activity;
Benefits of the activity; and
Limitations to its effectiveness.
The following activities are discussed (those followed
by a reference number are also discussed in the
OSWER Directives in Appendix H):
A.I Briefings (23)
A.2 Community Interviews (19, 22, 26)
A.3 Contact Person (24)
A.4 Door-to-Door Canvassing
A.5 Exhibits
A.6 Fact Sheets (19, 21, 23, 24)
A.7 Formal Public Hearings
A.8 Information Repositories (23, 24)
A.9 News Conferences
A. 10 News Releases (23)
A. 11 Observation Decks
A. 12 On-Scene Information Offices
A. 13 Open Houses/Availability Sessions (23, 25,
26)
A. 14 Presentations
A. 15 Public Comment Periods (19, 25)
A. 16 Public Meetings (19, 21, 24)
A. 17 Public Notices
A. 18 Responsiveness Summaries (18, 25)
A. 19 Revision of Community Relations Plans (19)
A.20 Site Tours
A.21 Small Group Meetings (23)
A.22 Superfund Briefing Books
A.23 Technical Advisors
A.24 Telephone Contacts (19, 23)
A.25 Telephone Hotlines (19, 23)
A.26 Telephone Networks/Phone Trees
A.27 Translations (26)
A.28 Using Existing Groups/Publications
A.29 Workshops (26)
As emphasized in Chapters 3 and 4, the key to a
successful community relations program is targeting
activities to the distinctive needs of the community.
Therefore, not all of the activities described in this
appendix are appropriate for every response action.
All activities discussed in this appendix could be
conducted during the RI/FS phase of a remedial
action. Most could also be conducted during the
remedial design, remedial action, and operation and
maintenance phases. Several may even be appropriate
during the preliminary assessment/site investigation
phases. This appendix identifies the specific types
and phases of a response action when a specific com-
munity relations activity may be appropriate. The
applicability of specific activities will depend on the
characteristics and needs of the community and the
availability of agency resources.
This appendix does not exhaustively describe tech-
niques for conducting public participation activities.
Instead, it calls attention to key points to remember in
conducting such activities in the context of a Super-
fund response action. Readers should consult public
participation manuals, such as those listed in Appen-
dix F, for additional information.
A-l
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.1 BRIEFINGS
DESCRIPTION
Brief sessions held with key State and local officials,
media representatives, and citizens to inform them of
the status of site activities. Agency staff conduct
these sessions in person,and the briefings usually pre-
cede releasing information to the media.
PURPOSE
Removal Action: Notify key officials, media repre-
sentatives, and citizens of the nature and reasons for
the action, and inform them of recent developments at
the site.
Remedial Action: Inform key officials, media rep-
resentatives, and citizens about recent developments
at the site; provide them with background material on
technical studies, results of field investigations, and
engineering designs; and report to them on remedial
action planning and progress.
TECHNIQUE
To schedule and hold briefings:
Inform key State and local officials, newspaper
editorial boards, radio and television news editors,
citizens, and other interested parties ahead of time
of a briefing on recent activities at the site or related
topics. It is usually best to hold the initial briefing in
a small public room, such as a hotel meeting room or
a conference room. Where relationships are antagonis-
tic, it may be best to hold die briefing in a neutral
location.
Present a short, official statement about the
response plans or preliminary findings from the site
activities (such as inspections, investigations, and
engineering design). Describe the EPA or State
decision process, and announce future steps in the
process.
Answer questions about the statement. Anticipate
questions and be prepared to answer them simply and
directly.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Briefings are appropriate when State or local officials,
the media, or citizens have expressed a moderate to
high level of concern about the site.
Briefings are recommended at any point during the
RI/FS, remedial design, remedial action, and O&M
phases of a remedial action. If local officials, the
media, or citizens have expressed concern during the
preliminary assessment or site investigation phases, a
briefing may be appropriate to explain the Superfund
program and the technical activities that are scheduled.
for the site. Briefings are also useful when
unexpected events or delays occur at the site.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Briefings usually precede news conferences, news
releases, small group meetings, or public meetings.
BENEFITS
Briefings allow State and local officials, the media
and citizens to question the agency directly about any
activity before public release of information regarding
that activity. Briefings prepare officials and citizen
leaders to answer questions from their constituents
when the information becomes public. Briefings also
allow for the exchange of information and concerns.
LIMITATIONS
Bad feelings or bad publicity could result if some
individuals who believe they should be invited to the
briefings are not. Care must be taken not to exclude
such persons or otherwise convey an impression of
favoritism towards certain interested parties.
Although briefings can be effective, they should not
be the only means of communicating with Superfund
site communities. Briefings for State and local
officials and citizens should always be complemented
by activities to inform the general public, such as
small group meetings or public meetings.
A-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.2 COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS
DESCRIPTION
Informal face-to-face interviews with selected local
residents, government officials, community groups,
media representatives, potentially responsible parties,
and other individuals interested in site activities (this
activity was called "on-site discussions" in earlier
versions of the Handbook).
PURPOSE
Obtain first-hand information about the community
near a Superfund site. Gain an understanding of the
site's history, the community's involvement with the
site, and the political climate in the area. Identify
credible sources and disseminators of information.
Learn how the community would like to be involved
in the Superfund process. Lay the groundwork for
developing an effective Community Relations Plan for
the site.
TECHNIQUE
Conduct community interviews before the Community
Relations Plan (CRP) is prepared.
Identify contact people: Begin by contacting the
project officer for the site, and staff from appropriate
State or local environmental agencies. These people
should be able to provide some background
information about the site and the names of key
people to contact.
Prepare for the interviews: Before conducting the
interviews, learn as much as possible about
community concerns regarding the site. Review any
available agency files that contain news clippings,
documents, letters, and other sources of information
relevant to the site. Identify local residents, key State
and local officials, and citizen organizations that have
been involved with, or expressed concern about, the
site. While it may not be possible to meet with all
interested parties, staff should determine which
individuals are most likely to provide the greatest
variety of perspectives about the site. Plan to conduct
interviews with 15-25 residents to obtain input from
a broad cross-section of the community. Prepare a
list of questions that can serve as a general guide
when speaking with residents and local officials.
Arrange the interviews: Telephone the contact
people and arrange a convenient time and place to
meet. Ideally, the meeting place should promote
candid discussions. While government and media
representatives are likely to prefer meeting in their
offices during business hours, local residents and
community groups may be available only during non-
business hours. Meetings at their homes may be most
convenient.
Meet with local government officials: Interview
government officials. Include a brief introduction
explaining why they are being interviewed and what
kind of information is needed.
Meet with residents and community groups: Be
sensitive to residents' needs and remind them that the
purpose of the interview is to gather preliminary
information for planning an appropriate program for
citizen participation. This reminder should prevent
raising unrealistic expectations (for instance, about
how quickly a site will be cleaned up).
With adequate preparation, the interviewer can
acquire information useful for developing the CRP, as
well as respond to initial citizen concerns about the
site. It must be emphasized, however, that the
primary purpose of community interviews is to
collect, rather than disseminate, information.
Assure interviewees that their statements will
remain confidential: At the beginning of each
interview, explain that the CRP will be presented to
agency officials and other interested persons and will
be placed in an information repository established at
the site. Explain that the information will be used to
understand community concerns and that a record of
the contact will be made, but the agency will not
attribute any specific statements or information to any
individual without his or her permission. Names and
addresses of private citizens should not appear in the
Community Relations Plan that is released to the
A-3
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
public. However, these names should be placed on a
mailing list that is compiled for the site. To protect
the privacy of individuals, this mailing list is
compiled for the sole use of the lead agency.
Identify other possible contacts: During the
discussions, ask for names and phone numbers of
persons who could provide additional information on
the site, such as district health officials or local
ministers. Add these names to the list of interested
citizens.
Gather information on past citizen participation
activities: Ask the interviewees how they perceive
the agency's past efforts in providing the community
with information about the site, and whether they
would like to receive any fact sheets or other printed
information as the response action continues. Keep a
list of persons who wish to be kept informed.
Assess how citizens would like to be involved in
the Superfund process: Briefly explain the
Superfund process and ask the interviewees how they
would like to be involved in, and informed of, site
activities.
Identify citizens' concerns: When identifying
concerns, consider the following factors:
Threat to health. Do community residents
believe their health is or has been affected by the
hazardous substances at the site?
Economic loss. Do local homeowners or busi-
nesses believe that the site has or will cause them
economic loss?
Agency credibility. Does the public have
confidence in the performance of the agency
responsible for the remedial or removal action?
Involvement. Has a group leader been vocal in
the community? Has this group leader gained a
substantial local following? What has been the
working relationship between the group leader
and agency officials? What has been the
working relationship between the group leader
and other groups?
Media. Have site events received substantial
coverage by local, State, or national media? Do
local residents believe that media coverage
accurately reflects the nature and intensity of
their concerns?
Number affected. How many households or
businesses perceive themselves to be affected by
the site?
For additional information, such as who conducts the
interviews and how many to conduct, see Role of
Community Interviews in the Development of a Com-
munity Relations Program for Remedial Response
(22), OSWER Directive 9230.015, in Appendix H.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
The Superfund community relations program requires
community interviews before a CRP is developed.
Ideally, community interviews should also be conduc-
ted before revising a CRP. Months, or perhaps years,
may have elapsed since the first round of interviews
and community sentiment may have changed. If there
has been much interaction with the community and
interested parties, agency information on citizen
concerns may be current and active. In such situa-
tions, it may be necessary to conduct only a few
informal discussions in person or by telephone with
selected, informed individuals who clearly represent
community opinion. This small amount of input
would verify, update, or round out the information
already available to the lead agency and provide suf-
ficient basis for the development of a CRP. The lead
agency, with the input of the support agency, will
decide which interviews and how many are appropri-
ate for obtaining sufficient information about com-
munity needs and concerns to develop an effective
CRP. The revised CRP is prepared prior to the reme-
dial design stage.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Because community interviews are held to determine
an appropriate community relations strategy for the
site, these interviews will generally precede, rather
than be accompanied by, other community relations
activities. Nevertheless, community interviews will
involve making some initial telephone contacts and
identifying appropriate locations for information
repositories and public meetings.
A-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
BENEFITS
Community interviews are excellent sources of opin-
ions, concerns, and expectations regarding a response
action. In addition, these interviews may lead to
additional information sources. Furthermore, face-to-
face interviews can lay the groundwork for building
an open, honest, and positive relationship between the
community and officials responsible for the response.
LIMITATIONS
Individuals may legitimately differ in their perceptions
of the same set of events. As a result, each inter-
viewee may have a different story to tell. Those res-
ponsible for conducting the interviews should be sen-
sitive to various points of view and not dismiss one
account as being less factual or accurate than another.
A-5
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.3 CONTACT PERSON
DESCRIPTION
Designation of one staff member as a contact person
who assumes responsibility for addressing citizens'
concerns, answering their questions individually, and
responding to inquiries from the media.
PURPOSE
Help build trust between the agency and citizens.
TECHNIQUE
Designate a contact person for each removal or
remedial action to respond to citizens' requests for
information, answer their questions, and address their
concerns on any aspect of the cleanup process. If
citizens are able to interact with the same staff person
throughout the response action, they may gradually
develop more trust and confidence in agency actions.
When a contact person is assigned to a site:
Send out a news release announcing the contact
person to all local newspapers, radio stations, and
television stations. Include the contact person's
telephone number and mailing address in all news
releases, fact sheets, and mailings.
Inform all agency staff members who may be
involved with the site and may be approached by the
contact person for information of the new contact.
Specify the role of the contact person at the site.
Keep a log book of all citizen requests and com-
ments received by the contact person and how each
was handled. This will help to ensure that incoming
requests are not filed and forgotten.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
A contact person should be designated for each site
when the response action begins; before the RI for
remedial actions and any field activity for removals.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Designation of the contact person should be announ-
ced in news releases and fact sheets. If a contact
person has been designated during the RI/FS process,
the record of citizen requests and comments received
by the contact can later be incorporated into the
responsiveness summary.
The contact person should also be responsible for
making sure that all relevant material is filed in the
site's information repository.
BENEFITS
A contact person can assure citizens that the agency
is actively listening to their concerns and can provide
the community with consistent information.
LIMITATIONS
The contact person may not have the authority to
resolve all of the concerns raised by citizens; his or
her role may be limited to providing information and
facilitating communication between agency staff and
citizens. If, for any reason, the identity of the contact
person changes, it is important to ensure that the com-
munity is well-informed about this change.
A-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.4 DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSING
DESCRIPTION
Gathering information by calling on individuals door-
to-door.
PURPOSE
Meet with community members individually and
directly to discuss site problems or gather needed
information.
TECHNIQUE
A door-to-door canvass involves training staff to
gather information, answer questions, and deal with a
possibly irate or suspicious public. Procedures to
follow in preparing a door-to-door canvass include:
Identify the area where canvassing is necessary or
desirable. Determine the area where special infor-
mation must be given or collected. This area may
range from just a few streets to several neighbor-
hoods.
Send a letter to the residents in the designated
area announcing that staff members will be calling
door-to-door in the area and explaining the purpose of
the canvassing program. Advance notice will reduce
the suspicions of residents and encourage their coop-
eration.
Provide canvassers with the information they will
need to know to respond to questions. Residents will
want to know what is happening at the site and may
have many questions about, for example, possible
health effects of various contaminants. Distinguish
between the types of questions that a canvasser may
answer (e.g., questions concerning soil or water
testing) and the types of questions that should be
referred to an agency specialist (e.g., highly technical
questions concerning the site or agency policies).
Canvass the designated area. Note the name,
address, and telephone number of residents requesting
more information. Note also the names of those
who were especially helpful in giving information.
Be prepared to tell residents how and when they will
next be contacted.
Send a thank-you letter after the canvass to all
residents in the canvassed area. If possible, provide
information concerning recent site developments and
any results or pertinent information gathered by the
canvass. Respond to special requests for information
either in the thank-you letter or by telephone.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
This activity is best used when information is needed
from a specific group of individuals. For example,
canvassing can be used to gather signatures to gain
access to residential property for soil and water
testing. Where the goal is to convey rather than to
collect information, a more appropriate approach may
be to send a letter with the relevant information and
the name of the staff contact person. This letter
should be followed by a telephone call.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Telephone contacts and community interviews may
help to identify appropriate areas for canvassing ef-
forts. Canvassers should add the names of individuals
who either requested additional information or pro-
vided particularly useful information to the mailing
list.
BENEFITS
Citizens' questions can be directly and individually
answered.
LIMITATIONS
This technique is very costly and time-consuming,
even in a small area. Furthermore, trained people that
can answer questions at the necessary level of detail
are not typically available for this activity. Thus, this
activity is not recommended for the dissemination of
information except in an emergency.
A-7
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.5 EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
Setting up visual displays of maps, charts, diagrams,
or photographs. These may be accompanied by a
brief text explaining the displays and the purpose of
the exhibit.
PURPOSE
Illustrate issues and proposed cleanup actions associ-
ated with hazardous substance problems in a creative
and informative display. Make technical information
accessible and understandable.
TECHNIQUE
To develop and display an exhibit:
Identify the target audience and the message. Pos-
sible audiences include:
General public;
Concerned citizens;
Environmental groups;
Media representatives; and
Public officials.
Possible messages include:
Description of the site;
Historical background;
Community relations activities;
Proposed remedies; and
Health and safety effects associated with the site.
Determine where the exhibit will be set up. If the
general public is the target audience, for example,
assemble the exhibit in a highly visible location, such
as a public library, convention hall, or a shopping
center. If concerned citizens are the target audience,
set up a temporary exhibit at a public meeting. An
exhibit could even be as simple as a bulletin board at
the site or staff trailer.
Design the exhibit and its scale according to the
message to be transmitted. Include photos or illustra-
tions. Use text sparingly.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
This activity can be used during any phase of a res-
ponse action.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Exhibits are useful at public meetings or public hear-
ings. If an observation deck is installed at a site, a
nearby exhibit could explain response activities under-
way.
BENEFITS
Exhibits tend to stimulate public interest and under-
standing. While a news clipping may be glanced at
and easily forgotten, exhibits have a visual impact and
leave a lasting impression.
LIMITATIONS
Although exhibits inform the public, they are a one-
way communication tool. One solution to this draw-
back is to attach blank postcards to the exhibit,
encouraging viewers to comment or submit inquiries
by mail to the agency. Another approach is to leave
the phone number of the contact who can answer
questions during working hours. These requests must
be answered, however, or citizens may perceive the
agency as unresponsive to their concerns.
A-8
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.6 FACT SHEETS
DESCRIPTION
A brief report summarizing current or proposed activ-
ities of the cleanup program. The fact sheet presents
technical and enforcement information in a clear and
understandable format.
PURPOSE
Help inform the public of the status and findings of
cleanup actions and ensure that citizens understand
the issues associated with the response program.
TECHNIQUE
To develop fact sheets:
Identify phases during the cleanup program where
fact sheets would be useful. For instance, fact sheets
have proven helpful:
At the beginning of the RI;
At the end of the RI;
When the FS is released; and
When the ROD is released.
Fact sheets may also be appropriate during the prelim-
inary assessment/site inspection, remedial design,
remedial action, and O&M phases of a cleanup action.
For each fact sheet, identify the information to be
transmitted. Types of information might include:
A brief background of the site;
The legal justification or triggering event;
A timetable for the proposed actions;
A description of the issues or problems associ-
ated with the site;
A description of the remedial alternatives;
A description of public participation opportunities
during the cleanup process;
The name, address, and phone number of an
agency contact person who will provide addition-
al information on request; and
The location of information repositories where
material is available to the public for review.
Select a simple format for presenting the informa-
tion. Avoid using bureaucratic jargon or highly
technical language in the text. Be concise. Fact
sheets should look professional. People will be less
likely to read fact sheets consisting of a solid sheet of
typed text than one that has been typeset with clear,
easy-to-read illustrations. Moreover, a well-designed
fact sheet suggests that the agency is taking its
community relations program seriously.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Fact sheets are appropriate whenever new information
is available, and whenever a public comment period
is required during the response action. Additionally,
a fact sheet is required after completion of the final
engineering design.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Community relations staff at Superfund sites have
found that fact sheets are particularly useful if dis-
tributed at a public meeting or public hearing. Fact
sheets can provide background information on topics
to be discussed at the public meeting or hearing. A
public notice should be provided whenever a fact
sheet becomes available. Fact sheets should always
include the name of a contact person who can provide
further information. If a general fact sheet is
available when community interviews are conducted,
it may be distributed to community members inter-
viewed for the Community Relations Plan.
BENEFITS
Fact sheets are effective in briefly summarizing facts
and issues involved in the cleanup process.
LIMITATIONS
Fact sheets take time and require careful coordination
between technical and community relations staff. A
poorly written fact sheet can be misleading or con-
fusing. Fact sheets are also a one-way communica-
tion tool, and therefore, should always provide the
name and number of a contact person.
A-9
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.7 FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS
DESCRIPTION
Formal hearings organized by the agency that are
open to the public.
PURPOSE
Provide an opportunity for formal comment and tes-
timony on proposed actions without necessarily
answering questions or engaging in dialogue with the
audience. All testimony received becomes part of the
public record.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct public hearings:
Anticipate the audience and the issues of concern.
The public may not become actively involved in haz-
ardous substance issues until a cleanup alternative is
proposed or selected. Meet citizens' needs for infor-
mation before a formal hearing with, for example,
fact sheets, small-group meetings, and briefings.
Schedule the hearing location and time so that citi-
zens (including handicapped individuals) have easy
access. Identify and follow any procedures estab-
lished by the State and local governments for public
hearings. Ensure the availability of sufficient seating,
microphones, lighting, and recorders. Consider
holding the hearing in the evening or on a weekend to
accommodate the majority of concerned citizens.
Announce the public hearing at least two weeks
before the hearing date. Provide notice of the hearing
in local newspapers and mailings to interested citi-
zens. Make follow-up phone calls to major partici-
pants to ensure that the notice has been received.
Provide an opportunity for local officials and citi-
zens to submit written comments. Not all individ-
uals will want to provide oral testimony. Publicize
where written comments can be submitted and how
they will be reviewed.
Provide a transcript of all oral and written
comments. Announce where the transcript will be
available for public review.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
The most appropriate time to hold a public hearing is
when the draft FS report is released. Schedule the
hearing some time during the public comment period.
Public hearings may also be appropriate during the
remedial design.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Fact sheets providing background information and an
update of site activities can be distributed at public
hearings. If held to solicit comments on the proposed
plan, the hearing should shortly be followed by a res-
ponsiveness summary, which documents all public
comments submitted and agency responses to these
comments.
For Superfund sites where residents have exhibited
high levels of concern or where citizens are not very
familiar with the Superfund program, an educational
workshop may be helpful one or two weeks before
the public hearing. The workshop could provide de-
tailed information on the Superfund program, explain
the technical aspects of the issues at the site, and
describe how citizens' input will be incorporated into
the remedial action. Transcripts of all public hearings
should be placed in the information repository and
administrative record.
BENEFITS
The major benefits of a formal public hearing are that
it allows citizens a formal opportunity to present their
concerns and ideas to the agency and provides clear
documentation of community concerns.
LIMITATIONS
Communication during the hearing tends to be formal
and one-way, flowing from the public to the agency,
A-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
and often creates an "us versus them" atmosphere.
Citizens usually have little opportunity to have their
questions answered, which may be frustrating. Hold-
ing a question-and-answer session at the end of the
presentations may help solve this problem.
A high level of citizen concern may precipitate a
disorderly public hearing, where citizen groups
attempt to gain support for their positions. The
hearing can easily become an adversarial con-
frontation. One way to avoid confrontation or
hostility is to make sure residents have had an
opportunity to express their concerns in a less formal
setting (for instance, in small meetings or open
houses). Frequent contact with concerned citizens
before a formal public meeting decreases the chance
of confrontations.
A-ll
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.8 INFORMATION REPOSITORY
DESCRIPTION
The information repository is a project file or repos-
itory containing site information, documents on site
activities, and general information about the Super-
fund program. EPA now requires an information
repository at all remedial action sites and any removal
action sites likely to extend beyond 120 days.
PURPOSE
Allow open and convenient public access to all site-
related documents approved by the agency for public
disclosure.
TECHNIQUE
To establish an information repository:
Determine a location early in the response action.
With remedial actions, one or more locations could be
identified during community interviews. Typical
locations are local public libraries, town halls, or
public health offices. Ensure that there are copying
facilities available.
Depending on the level of community concern or the
location of the site relative to the surrounding
communities, more than one repository may be desir-
able. For example, if a county government seat is
several miles from the Superfund site and county offi-
cials have expressed a strong interest in the site, two
repositories may be advisable: one in the community
closest to the site, and the other in the town where the
county government seat is based. At least one reposi-
tory should be open during evening hours and on
weekends.
Select and deposit the materials to be included in
the file. At a minimum, the repository for a remedial
site should include copies of the:
CRP;
Technical Assistance Grant application process
information;
RI/FS work plan;
RI report;
Draft and final FS report;
Responsiveness summary;
Signed ROD;
Administrative order on consent or consent dec-
ree; and
Remedial design workplan.
The following materials also are strongly recommen-
ded for the repository.
Copies of CERCLA and RCRA;
A copy of the NCP;
A copy of the cooperative agreement, if a State-
lead site;
Documentation of site sampling results;
Brochures, fact sheets, and other information
about the Superfund program and the specific
site;
Copies of press releases and newspaper clippings
that refer to the site; and
Any other relevant material (for instance, pub-
lished studies on the potential risks associated
with specific chemicals found at the site).
Clearly indicate how individuals can comment on
documents in the information repository. Place a
cover note on documents (e.g., the CRP) indicating
who is to receive comments on the document and
when.
Publicize the existence of the repository. Notify
local government officials, citizen groups, and the
local media of the location of the information reposi-
tory and hours of operation. Newsletters of local
community organizations and church groups are an-
other means of notifying the public.
Keep the file up to date. Timely replacement of
dated information helps avoid unnecessary misunder-
standings.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
At least one repository must be established near each
remedial site before the RI/FS begins. Since
A-12
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
repository locations are frequently identified during
community interviews, the repository should be estab-
lished as soon as the CRP has been approved. It
should be maintained throughout the remedial action,
including O&M. An information repository must also
be established for removal actions where on-site
activity is expected to extend beyond 120 days.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
The contact person should be responsible for ensur-
ing that all relevant materials have been filed in the
repository.
The administrative record, which is required by
CERCLA, may be included in the same location as a
repository at or near the site. The administrative
record is the legal file of documents upon which the
lead agency bases the selection of a response action
and on which judicial review of response actions will
be based. It must be available to the public at or
near the facility. Duplicates may also be located at a
central docket, such as a Regional or State office.
Refer to Final Guidance on Administrative Records
for Selecting CERCLA Response Action (39) for fur-
ther information.
BENEFITS
An information repository provides local officials,
citizens, and the media with easy access to accurate,
detailed, and current data about the site. It demon-
strates that officials are responsive to citizens' needs
for comprehensive site information.
LIMITATIONS
A repository requires continual maintenance to avoid
misunderstandings based on outdated information.
Agency staff must check the repository regularly to
ensure that all essential materials are available.
A-13
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.9 NEWS CONFERENCES
DESCRIPTION
Information sessions or briefings held for the news
media and open to the general public.
PURPOSE
Provide the media with accurate information concer-
ning important developments during or after the
action. Announce plans for future actions at the site.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct news conferences:
Evaluate the need for a news conference. Use this
technique carefully; statements made during a news
conference may be misinterpreted by the media.
Notify members of the local and regional media of
the time, location, and topic of the news conference.
Local officials may also be invited to attend as obser-
vers or participants. A news conference that includes
local officials underscores the agency's responsiveness
and commitment to their interests and concerns.
Plan exactly what to say ahead of time. Live con-
ferences leave no room for mistakes.
Anticipate reporters' questions and have your an-
swers ready.
Present a short, official statement, both written and
spoken, about developments and findings. In addi-
tion, explain agency decisions to proceed with a re-
moval or remedial action and identify the next steps.
Open the conference to questions to be answered by
agency officials, local officials, and any other experts
present. Have technical staff on hand to answer any
technical questions. Decide ahead of time who will
answer what types of questions.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
News conferences should be used primarily to
announce significant findings at the site. Other
community relations techniques such as fact sheets,
news releases, and public meetings may be more ap-
propriate for reporting the results of site inspections,
sampling results, or other preliminary information. A
news conference announcing preliminary results of
technical studies may unnecessarily fuel public appre-
hensions about the site.
News conferences can be used during any phase of an
action, including preliminary assessment, site inspec-
tion, RI/FS, remedial design, remedial action, and
O&M.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
News conferences can be conducted before or after
formal public hearings or public meetings. They
are accompanied by news releases.
BENEFITS
News conferences provide a public forum for the
agency to announce plans and developments. They
are also an efficient way to reach a large audience.
A written news release can help ensure that the facts
are presented accurately to the media. During the
question period, the agency spokesperson can demon-
strate knowledge of the site and may be able to
improve media relations by providing thorough, infor-
mative answers to all questions.
LIMITATIONS
A news conference can focus considerable attention
on the situation and may cause unnecessary local con-
cern. Residents may not welcome the increased atten-
tion that such media coverage is apt to bring. News
releases or other lower-profile means of disseminating
information should be considered as alternatives.
A risk inherent in news conferences is that the media
can take comments out of context and create false
impressions. This risk is heightened when staff are
unprepared, the conference is not properly structured,
or unanticipated questions are asked.
A-14
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.10 NEWS RELEASES
DESCRIPTION
Statements released to the news media that discuss
on-site actions proposed by the lead agency.
PURPOSE
Make an official statement at milestones in the res-
ponse program, such as selection of a remedial alter-
native, key project dates, and completion of contain-
ment or cleanup actions.
TECHNIQUE
News releases can quickly and effectively disseminate
information to large numbers of people. They may
also be used to announce public meetings, report the
results of public meetings, and describe how citizen
concerns were considered in the response action.
To prepare news releases:
Identify the relevant regional and local newspapers
and broadcast media, and learn their deadlines. Get
to know the editors and environmental reporters who
might cover the issue.
Contact other involved agencies at the Federal,
State, and local level to ensure that all facts and
procedures are coordinated and correct before
releasing any statement.
Select the information to be communicated. Place
the most important elements up front and present
additional information in descending order of impor-
tance. Enlist the aid of a public affairs specialist in
writing the release. When a draft FS is issued, for
example, the news release should contain the follow-
ing facts:
The findings of the investigation;
A statement of what needs to be done;
A statement of what will be accomplished by the
alternatives under consideration;
Their costs and benefits; and
The next steps.
Use supporting paragraphs to elaborate upon findings,
alternatives, and other pertinent information. Mention
any opportunities for citizen input (public consulta-
tions, public meetings, etc.) and cite factors that might
contribute to earlier implementation of, or delays, in
the remedial action. Note the location of the informa-
tion repository (or other sources of relevant docu-
ments).
Be brief. Limit the news release to essential facts
and issues.
Use simple language. Avoid the use of professional
jargon and overly technical words.
Identify the agency issuing the news release. The
top of the sheet should include:
Name and address of the issuing agency;
Release time ("For Immediate Release" or
"Please Observe Embargo Until") and date;
Name and phone number of the contact person;
and
A headline summarizing the action taken.
Send copies of the release to local officials and
citizen group leaders before the release is given to the
press.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
News releases can be used when significant findings
are discovered at the site, when program milestones
are reached, or when schedules are delayed.
Avoid issuing a news release at times when it may be
difficult for citizens to get in touch with responsible
officials, such as Friday afternoons or the day before
a holiday.
A-15
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
News releases can accompany any formal public
hearings or public meetings held by EPA or a State.
They commonly accompany news conferences.
BENEFITS
A news release to the local media can reach a large
audience quickly and inexpensively. If the name,
address, and phone number of a contact person are
included, reporters (and possibly interested citizens)
can raise questions about the information in the
release.
LIMITATIONS
Because news releases must be brief, they often
exclude details in which the public may be interested.
A news release should therefore be used in conjunc-
tion with other methods of communication that permit
more attention to detail. A news release is not an
appropriate vehicle for transmitting sensitive infor-
mation. In some cases, a news release can call
unwarranted attention to a situation; a mailing to
selected individuals should be considered instead.
A-16
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.11 OBSERVATION DECK
DESCRIPTION
An elevated deck on the site, near the area where
remedial or removal activities are in progress.
PURPOSE
Enable interested citizens to observe cleanup activities
directly and remove some of the mystique that may
surround cleanup actions.
TECHNIQUE
The decision to establish an observation deck should
be based on the following criteria:
The community's understanding of site activities
will be enhanced by direct observation;
There will be sufficient activity at the site to
promote community interest;
Staff are available to supervise, during all hours
of operation, public use of the observation deck;
and
It is physically possible to set up an observation
deck in a place where there is no danger to the
public.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
An observation deck could be used at any point in the
remedial process, but is most appropriate during the
construction phase of a remedial action.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
An observation deck could complement periodic site
tours. Citizens can initially be educated about
cleanup actions during the tours, then can monitor the
progress of these activities at their convenience from
the observation deck. Fact sheets or an informative
exhibit placed near the deck could also explain site
activities.
BENEFITS
An observation deck allows citizens and media rep-
resentatives to observe site activities without
hindering the activities or endangering themselves.
LIMITATIONS
An observation deck needs to be supplemented with
an informational and interpretive program, so that citi-
zens understand what they see.
A-17
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.12 ON-SCENE INFORMATION OFFICE
DESCRIPTION
A trailer (or small building) near the site staffed by a
full-time or part-time person who responds to inquir-
ies and prepares information releases.
PURPOSE
Respond immediately to local questions and concerns.
TECHNIQUE
To provide an on-scene information office:
Rent a trailer or designate space in a trailer used
for other purposes;
Install a telephone to respond to inquiries and
publicize the number in local newspapers;
Assign staff to the office. Establish regular
hours, including some during the weekend and
weekday evenings. Publicize the office's hours
and the services it offers; and
Equip the office with the same materials normal-
ly contained in an information repository.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
This activity is especially useful during removal
actions and site cleanups that involve particularly
complex technologies or processes, very high levels
of risk to human health or the environment (particu-
larly when evacuation or longer term relocation of
residents is necessary), and a significant amount of
interaction between EPA and community members.
An agency staff person should remain on site until the
removal or other appropriate action is completed.
However, where resources are limited, staff members
may be on site only at critical points in the cleanup
process or during an emergency. In this case, staff
can collect information requests from a telephone
answering machine or by having calls forwarded to
the EPA Regional Office. All such inquiries must be
responded to promptly (within 24 hours).
An on-scene information office can also be used
during remedial actions where there is a continuous
stream of citizen inquiries or for short periods of time
when important developments occur (e.g., the release
of long-awaited sampling results).
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
The on-site staff person can conduct meetings to
inform citizens about the status of the cleanup actions
and prepare and distribute fact sheets and weekly
news updates to local residents.
Individuals staffing a community relations on-scene
information office for an extended period of time will
have a special role in the community. Involvement in
other community relations activities may be a large
part of their function. In addition to distributing
information to local residents, on-site staff will be res-
ponsible for maintaining databases of residents' add-
resses, status of access to property, daily technical
reports, and a daily log of citizen inquiries. It is
important that on-site staff monitor public perceptions
and concerns daily. A "five-phone-calls-a-day" prac-
tice can help to ensure the consistency of such per-
ceptions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, on-
site staff members will frequently serve as a liaison
between the public and other agencies at the Federal,
State, and county levels, as well as contractors. Staff
members may be able to provide sampling results
over the telephone, if such information is available, to
concerned residents who are waiting for written re-
sults from another agency or contractor.
BENEFITS
An on-scene information office can be an effective
activity for ensuring that citizens are adequately
informed about the agency's actions and that their
concerns are addressed immediately.
LIMITATIONS
An information office can be expensive, since it re-
quires at least a part-time staff person, trailer or office
space rental, and telephone. It should be used only
when community concerns are high or may be high in
the future.
A-18
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.13 OPEN HOUSES/AVAILABILITY SESSIONS
DESCRIPTION
An informal meeting in a public location where
people can talk to agency officials on a one-to-one
basis.
PURPOSE
Allow citizens to ask questions and express their
concerns directly to community relations and technical
staff.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct an open house:
Select a date, time, and location for the open house
that encourages attendance. Evening hours or week-
ends are preferable. The location should be in an
easily accessible building familiar to residents (such
as a public library or local meeting room).
Anticipate the number of attendees and plan ac-
cordingly. If a large number of people is expected,
consider the possibility of holding two open houses to
enable staff to greet and talk with each attendee.
Alternatively, increase (if possible) the number of
staff who will host the open house. As a general rule,
one staff member per 15-20 attendees should foster an
informal atmosphere for conversation and avoid the
situation where a staff member has to speak to a
"crowd."
Publicize the open house at least two weeks prior to
the open house, if possible. Send announcements to
newspapers, television and radio stations, citizens on
the mailing list, and any interested community
organizations that publish newsletters.
Ensure that appropriate agency staff attend so that
citizens can meet those who will be responsible for
site activities. The staff present should be able to
answer both technical and policy questions.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
An open house is most appropriate when key mile-
stones have been reached or major decisions made.
For example, release of sampling results or draft
studies are appropriate times to hold open houses.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Exhibits and fact sheets can provide background
information that enables citizens to ask more informed
questions about the site during the open house.
BENEFITS
The one-to-one conversations during an open house
can help build trust and establish a rapport between
citizens and agency staff.
LIMITATIONS
Planning and conducting an open house can require a
significant amount of staff time. A low turnout may
not justify the effort. Community interest in the
site should be determined before an open house is
planned.
A-19
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.14 PRESENTATIONS
DESCRIPTION
Speeches to clubs, civic or church organizations,
school classes, or similar local audiences.
PURPOSE
Improve public understanding of the problems asso-
ciated with a site and explain how the agency will
address them.
TECHNIQUE
Develop procedures that can easily be changed to suit
different audiences:
Select a standard format such as the following:
Describe the problems;
Describe how the problems affect the public;
Discuss what is being done about the problem;
and
Discuss how citizens can assist the agency in
response efforts and obtain additional informa-
tion.
Adjust the tone and technical complexity to suit the
audience's needs.
Set a time limit of 20 minutes. Consider having
several staff members deliver short segments of the
presentation. Allow time for a question-and-answer
period.
Schedule presentation at convenient times, possibly
evenings or weekends.
Select supporting materials (slides, graphics, exhib-
its, etc.) that will hold the audience's attention but not
distract from the speaker's message. Conduct a trial
presentation in front of colleagues and rehearse the
presentation as much as possible.
Contact groups that may be interested in learning
about hazardous substance problems. Announce the
program through the media and other communica-
tions.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Presentations are more effective if they focus on
major milestones in the response action, such as re-
commendation of a site for the NPL or release of the
draft FS report. In addition, there should be at least
moderate public interest in the site.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Fact sheets should be distributed, if available.
BENEFITS
Because the presentation is delivered in person, the
audience has a chance to ask questions and the agen-
cy can gauge citizens' concerns. Also, many people
can be reached at one time, reducing individual
inquiries.
LIMITATIONS
Presentations require substantial effort to be effective.
A poorly-planned presentation can distort residents'
views of the situation.
Because the presentation is rehearsed, accommodating
different or unanticipated concerns of the audience
can be difficult. Handle these concerns during a
question-and-answer period after the presentation.
If substantive issues or technical details cannot be
handled in the time allowed for the presentation,
name a contact for further information.
A-20
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.15 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
DESCRIPTION
A designated time period where comments from citi-
zens are formally accepted by the agency responsible
for the Superfund response.
PURPOSE
Allow citizens to review and comment on the agen-
cy's proposed course of action.
TECHNIQUE
To hold a public comment period:
Announce the public comment period at least two
weeks in advance and again just before the event.
This announcement must be made in a major local
newspaper of general circulation and may be included
with notice of the proposed plan or other action.
Identify where copies of pertinent documents can be
found and where written comments should be sent.
Identify a contact person within the agency who
will answer citizens' questions regarding the public
comment period. Publicize the name and telephone
number of this contact person.
Prepare a transcript of any public meetings that
occur during the public comment period on the
proposed plan and RI/FS report. Insert the trans-
cript in the administrative record.
Document with a memo to the Hie or Record of
Communication any other comments not in written
form that are of significance to alternative evaluation.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
A 30-day public comment period must be held for
removal actions scheduled to begin within six months
of site evaluation. This comment period must begin
when the administrative record file is made available
to the public. A 30-day public comment period must
also be held upon completion of the engineering
evaluation/cost analysis for removal actions requiring
at least a six month planning period before initiation
of removal activity. This comment period must be
extended by at least 15 days upon timely request.
For remedial actions, a minimum 30-day public com-
ment period must be held when the RI/FS and pro-
posed plan have been released to the public. This
comment period must be extended by at least 30 days
upon timely request. When a negotiated settlement is
reached at an enforcement site and embodied in either
an administrative order on consent or a consent
decree, a public comment period of at least 30 days
(except under special circumstances) is required. A
30-day comment period is also required to amend the
ROD (this may be extended by at least 30 days upon
timely request) and before submitting a recommenda-
tion to EPA Headquarters to delete a site from the
NPL. Although the NCP defines "timely" as being
within the first two weeks of the comment period,
staff are encouraged to accept later extension requests.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
A public notice and opportunity for a public meeting
must be provided when a public comment period is
held on the RI/FS and proposed plan. It is recom-
mended that public notices and an opportunity for a
public meeting be offered to the public during other
comment periods. Comments received during the pub-
lic comment period must be addressed in a respon-
siveness summary.
BENEFITS
Public comment periods allow citizens to comment
for the public record on agency proposals.
LIMITATIONS
Public comment periods only allow indirect communi-
cation between citizens and agency officials. In some
cases, the formal responses to the comments may not
be provided for some time and comments may not be
responded to individually. A community relations
program should provide other activities that allow
dialogue between agency officials and the community.
A-21
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.16 PUBLIC MEETINGS
DESCRIPTION
A large meeting open to the public. Experts are
available to present information and answer questions.
Citizens may ask questions and offer comments.
PURPOSE
Inform citizens of ongoing response activities, and to
discuss and receive citizen feedback on the proposed
course of action.
TECHNIQUE
To hold public meetings:
Identify participants. In addition to agency staff,
consider asking informed local officials to make a
short presentation and respond to questions.
Draw up an agenda detailing specific issues to be
considered or specific tasks that must be accom-
plished at the meeting. If possible, involve citizens in
developing the agenda.
Be sensitive to special needs of community mem-
bers. For a foreign-speaking community, consider
the use of simultaneous translation during the public
meeting. For deaf participants, consider providing a
sign language translation.
Rehearse presentations in advance. Staff unac-
customed to speaking before large audiences should
practice their presentations, obtain criticism, and
improve their speaking style or content.
Announce the meeting in local newspapers and
broadcast media two weeks in advance of the
scheduled date. Distribute flyers to citizens and
groups interested in attending. Before the meeting
begins, review the agenda with participants. Clarify
that the meeting is not a formal public hearing where
testimony is received. Instead, it is a meeting to
exchange information and comments.
Hold a meeting in a comfortable setting. Make
sure the location is easily accessible and well-lighted
with adequate parking and seating, especially for the
handicapped.
Consider holding the meeting under the sponsor-
ship of an existing organization. For example, con-
duct the meeting as a portion of a regularly scheduled
city council meeting or as a special presentation to a
group such as the Rotary Club or the League of
Women Voters (if sessions are open to the general
public).
Begin the meeting by stating the purpose, then
outline the agenda and the procedures for making
statements.
Present the issues concerning the site, preliminary
findings, and proposed course of action. Keep agency
presentations short (20 minutes) to allow plenty of
time for citizen testimony and a question-and-answer
session. Allocate a time period for citizens to express
their concerns and ask questions. Meetings typically
last from one to three hours.
Consider different formats for the meeting to
encourage information exchange. Not all meetings
need to be run formally from a platform in front of
the room. Alternative formats, such as a moderator
circulating through the audience to solicit comments,
may encourage greater participation in the meeting.
Prepare a transcript of the meeting that will be pub-
licly available. Announce at the end of the meeting
how the transcript can be obtained.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
The agency must convene a public meeting before
adopting a plan for remedial action or ROD. Gener-
ally, this meeting should take place during the public
comment period on the RI/FS and proposed plan. In
addition, the agency must convene a public meeting
when, after adoption of the ROD, an amendment to
the ROD is proposed. Other suitable times for a
public meeting include when a site has been placed
on the NPL, when the remedial design has been
A-22
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
completed, or just before construction. Public
meetings may also be used to present the technical
workplan to the community.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
A public notice may be used to announce public
meetings. Fact sheets should be distributed at public
meetings, if possible. A transcript of the public
meeting held during the public comment period on
the proposed plan and RI/FS report must be made
available to the public in the administrative record.
BENEFITS
Public meetings allow the public to express concerns
to the agency and local government officials.
Meetings also allow the agency to present information
on a proposed course of action. Public meetings can
provide a setting for the agency and community to
resolve their differences.
LIMITATIONS
Public meetings may not be the best way to obtain
citizen input. If controversy surrounding the site has
escalated, a public meeting can intensify conflicts
rather than resolve them. Evaluate the usefulness of
a public meeting by reviewing the site's history and
level of citizen involvement in this and similar
controversies. If public meetings have been failures
in the past, then use an alternative method, such as
small group meetings or a formal public hearing, to
transmit information and obtain feedback.
A-23
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.17 PUBLIC NOTICES
DESCRIPTION
Advertisements published in major local newspapers,
broadcast via local radio stations, or sent as individual
mailings to announce agency decisions, major project
milestones, or public meetings or to solicit public
comment on agency actions.
PURPOSE
Provide an official announcement of agency activities
and plans, and encourage public involvement in agen-
cy decisions.
TECHNIQUE
To prepare a public notice:
Identify the community to be reached by the no-
tice. In some cases, there may be only a small group
of people adjacent to the site that will need to be
informed of site activities. In such cases, a display ad
in a local or community newspaper or a mailing may
be more appropriate than a city-wide radio broadcast.
Identify the major media contacts. While there
may be many newspapers, newsletters, local radio sta-
tions, or even television stations serving a particular
area, use only one or two for the public notice. In
general, the newspaper with the widest circulation and
greatest visibility will reach the most people and elicit
the greatest response.
Take into account publication schedules. Many
local or community newspapers are published on a
weekly or bi-weekly basis. This may make it difficult
to coordinate the publication of the notice with the
event. In such a case, consider using a city-wide
newspaper that is published more frequently.
Announce dates, times, and locations clearly in the
public notice. When scheduling an event, make sure
that the date and time do not conflict with other
public meetings or holidays.
Provide ample notice. Provide at least a one-week
notice to ensure the greatest level of participation.
Two weeks notice is recommended for public com-
ment periods. Be sure to state the opening and
closing dates for the comment period.
Provide the name, address, and telephone number
of the contact person for more information. For
notices that announce the beginning of an RI/FS,
include the location of the information repository. A
clip-out coupon may be added, allowing interested
parties to send their names and addresses to the
agency to obtain a fact sheet or be placed on the
mailing list.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
A public notice must be provided:
When the engineering evaluation/cost analysis
becomes available;
When the administrative record file and informa-
tion repository become available;
When the RI/FS and proposed plan become avail-
able;
When a public comment period is held on the RI/
FS and proposed plan;
When the response action has been selected and
the ROD signed;
When an enforcement agreement is embodied in
a consent decree;
Whenever remedial action is taken or a settle-
ment or consent decree entered into that differs
significantly from the final remedial plan adopted
by the agency; and
When the notice of intent to delete a site from
the NPL becomes available.
In addition, a public notice may be used to announce:
The beginning of the RI;
Emergency response actions;
The beginning of an operable unit;
A-24
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix A
An RI/FS "kickoff' public meeting; BENEFITS
The availability of an engineering design fact
sheet; and Public notices are an efficient, simple means of
Other public meetings. alerting the public to important events.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES LIMITATIONS
Public notices should announce the availability of fact Public notices should never substitute for other activi-
sheets, as well as the scheduling of public comment ties that involve direct communication with the public.
periods and public meetings.
A-25
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.18 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARIES
DESCRIPTION
A summary of the written or oral comments made by
the public, including PRPs, on key agency documents
and agency responses to those comments. The res-
ponsiveness summary is required as a component of
the ROD.
PURPOSE
Document any public concerns and issues and how
the agency responded.
TECHNIQUE
Refer to Chapters 2 and 4 of this handbook for discus-
sion of a responsiveness summary and to Appendix C
for a model summary.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
EPA policy requires preparing a responsiveness sum-
mary for any response action where a public comment
period is required.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Responsiveness summaries should document oral or
written citizen input submitted at public meetings,
public hearings, or during public comment periods,
as well as major issues and concerns raised during a
response action.
BENEFITS
The agency responsible for the site response should
have a clear record of community concerns about the
site so that this information can be considered in
selecting the appropriate response. The summary is
also an aid to evaluating past community relations
efforts and planning for subsequent activities during
remedial design and remedial action.
LIMITATIONS
The responsiveness summary should not be viewed as
a substitute for other community relations techniques.
In addition, it should not be a point-by-point recitation
of each comment. Refer to Chapter 4 of this hand-
book for further information.
A-26
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.19 REVISION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS
DESCRIPTION
Revisions of all or parts of the CRP for a site to
incorporate new information, reflect changes in
community concern, or prepare for community activi-
ties during remedial design and remedial action.
PURPOSE
Ensure that the CRP remains sensitive to citizens'
concerns through final phases of the remedial action.
Evaluate which community relations activities were
effective and which were not
TECHNIQUE
A CRP initially outlines the community relations
program techniques for the RI/FS phase of the reme-
dial action. Once the ROD for a site is completed, it
is appropriate to re-assess the nature and extent of
community concerns and develop a new schedule of
community relations activities for the design and
construction phases of the remedial action. Revisions
needed will vary from site to site.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
CRPs should be revised before the remedial design
to describe any public involvement activities during
RD/RA that are not already addressed in the CRP. If,
after the plan has been prepared, community concerns
change focus or increase in intensity, the plan should
be revised accordingly.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
The responsiveness summary will provide some
information to assess the nature and extent of citizens'
concerns after the RI/FS is completed. Additional
community interviews can provide further informa-
tion for revising the CRP. Chapter 3 provides addi-
tional, detailed information on conducting interviews
and developing plans.
BENEFITS
Revising the CRP will help to ensure that the agency
continues to respond to citizens' concerns during
remedial design and action.
LIMITATIONS
Agency staff should make certain that resources are
available to implement all activities identified in the
revised plan.
A-27
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.20 SITE TOURS
DESCRIPTION
Scheduled trips to the site for media representatives,
local officials, and citizens during which technical and
community relations staff answer questions.
PURPOSE
Increase local public understanding of the nature of
the problems at a site and the response action
proposed or underway.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct site tours:
Draw up a list of individuals that might be inter-
ested in participating in a tour, including:
Individual citizens or nearby residents who have
expressed concern about the site;
Representatives of public interest or environ-
mental groups that have expressed interest in the
site;
Interested local officials;
Representatives of local citizen or service groups;
and
Representatives of local newspapers, television
stations, and radio stations.
Determine the maximum number that can be
taken on site safely. Keep the group small so that
all who wish to ask questions may do so. Schedule
additional tours as needed.
Think of ways to involve tour participants. A
"hands-on" demonstration of how to read monitoring
devices is one example.
Anticipate questions. Have someone available to
answer technical questions in non-technical terms.
Ensure that the tour complies with the safety plan
for the site.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Conditions permitting, tours can be conducted at any
site where citizens or local officials have expressed an
interest. Site tours may be particularly appropriate
during or after the construction phase, so that citizens
can see a response action in progress.
If possible, arrange tours at nearby Superfund sites.
Residents may benefit from touring a site that has
similar contamination problems or where similar
cleanup technologies have been applied. Touring a
nearby Superfund site can give residents a clearer
perception of what to expect at their own site.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Fact sheets complementing presentations given on
site tours can be distributed to all tour participants.
An observation deck near the site would allow them
to watch the progress of the cleanup activities on their
own.
BENEFITS
Site tours familiarize the media, local officials, and
citizens with the site and the individuals involved in
cleanup operations. Unfounded fears about the risks
of the site and suspicion of remedial crews working
at the site may be dispelled. The result could be
better understanding between the community and the
agency.
LIMITATIONS
Site tours require considerable staff time to prepare
the explanation of site activities and to escort citizens
through the site. Staff may have difficulty gaining
site access for non-agency people.
A-28
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.21 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS
DESCRIPTION
Meetings of small groups held in private homes or in
local meeting places at which agency staff responsible
for the site get first-hand information from interested
citizens and State and local officials.
PURPOSE
Inform citizens and State and local officials of site
activities, answer questions, and clear up any miscon-
ceptions or misunderstandings. Develop agency sen-
sitivity to citizen concerns and establish rapport and
a good working relationship with residents.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct small group meetings:
Identify interested citizens and officials. Contact
each citizen group and local agency that is directly
affected by site activities, or contact individuals who
have expressed great concern regarding site activities.
Offer to discuss cleanup plans at a convenient time.
For a removal action, schedule the meeting after
emergency actions are completed or after the agency
has accurate information to share with the citizens.
For a remedial action, determine first when communi-
ty concerns may be highest and schedule meetings ac-
cordingly. For instance, release of the draft FS report
may be an appropriate time to hold a small group.
Limit attendance. Restrict attendance to between
five and 20 individuals. The larger the group, the less
likely that some people will candidly express their
concerns. Establishing rapport with individuals in a
large group is also more difficult. If a greater number
of citizens and officials are interested, schedule
additional small meetings.
Select a meeting date, time, and place conducive to
two-way interaction. The meeting place should have
chairs that can be arranged in a circle or some other
informal setting. If citizens will not be able to meet
during working hours, schedule meetings in the
evening. A private home or public library meeting
room may be more conducive to an exchange of ideas
than a large or formal public hall. When scheduling
the meeting, make sure that the date and time do not
conflict with other public meetings that citizens may
want to attend (for example, town council meetings),
or with holidays or other special occasions. Be sure
that the meeting location does not conflict with State
"sunshine laws." (For instance, a State may require
holding all meetings between agency officials and the
public in a public location.) In selecting a public
meeting place, be attentive to the special needs of
handicapped individuals (e.g., access ramps or
elevators).
Begin with an overview of current and future site
activities. Keep it brief (no more than a few minutes)
and informal to promote open discussion. Cover such
issues as:
Extent of cleanup;
Safety and health implications;
Factors that might speed up or delay the cleanup;
and
How community concerns are considered in
making decisions on response actions.
Identify the major agencies and individuals res-
ponsible for the site cleanup. Citizens will then
know where to direct further questions or voice new
ideas or suggestions.
Gear the discussion to the audience. Discuss prob-
lems in technical terms only if citizens are know-
ledgeable.
Find out what the citizens want done. Some con-
cerns may be met by making minor changes in the
agency's proposed action. Discuss the possibility for
compromise or explain the reasons why citizen
requests appear to be unworkable or conflict with
program or legal requirements.
Follow-up on major concerns. Stay in touch with
the groups and contact any new groups that have
formed so that new or increasing concerns can be
dealt with before problems develop.
A-29
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Small group meetings can be used effectively during
virtually all phases of a Superfund remedial response:
the RI/FS, remedial design, remedial action, and
O&M phases. (Community awareness or concern
during preliminary assessment and site investigation
phases may not warrant holding small group meet-
ings. If community interest is expressed, however,
hold small group meetings.) These meetings can pro-
vide a forum for explaining how unexpected events
may affect the project schedule.
Small group meetings are also appropriate during
removal actions.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Community interviews usually precede these
meetings, since it is during these on-site interviews
that concerned citizens and groups are identified and
contacted. Possible meeting locations are also
identified during the community interviews.
Distributing fact sheets at these meetings may also be
appropriate, depending on when they are held.
BENEFITS
The primary benefit of small group meetings is that
they allow two-way interaction between citizens, local
officials, and the agency. Not only will citizens be
informed about the proposed response, but officials
responsible for the site can learn how citizens view
the site.
Small group meetings also add a personal dimension
to what could otherwise be treated as a purely tech-
nical problem. Familiarity with how the remedy is
selected can assist citizens in understanding the
Superfund process and promote their participation.
LIMITATIONS
Small group meetings may require a day or more of
staff time to reach a limited number of citizens.
One pitfall is that some citizens or environmental
groups may perceive the agency's efforts to restrict'
the number of attendees as a "divide and conquer"
tactic to prevent large groups from exerting influence
on potential actions and to exclude certain individuals
or groups. One way to prevent this perception is to
hold additional small group meetings with those
organizations who express concern about being left
out of the process.
Irate groups or individuals may also accuse agency
staff of telling different stories to different groups at
these small meetings. The agency can avoid this
criticism by inviting a cross-section of interests to
each small meeting. Alternatively, agency staff can
keep a written record of the small group discussions
and make it available upon request. A record of dis-
cussions is required for meetings during the public
comment period.
A-30
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.22 SUPERFUND BRIEFING BOOK
DESCRIPTION
A notebook of information about a site and the
Superfund program that is distributed to the media.
Included in the notebook might be a site history, RI
report, FS report, and Superfund fact sheets.
PURPOSE
Ensure that complete and accurate information about
a Superfund site and the Superfund program is avail-
able to the press. Minimize inaccurate statements in
the media.
TECHNIQUE
To prepare a Superfund briefing book:
Compile site-specific information that could be used
by reporters in their stories about a site, including site
history, extent of community concern and involve-
ment, and an up-to-date accounting of all site
samples, analyses conducted, and actions proposed.
Compile generic information including descriptions
of CERCLA, the NPL, and all steps in a Superfund
cleanup process (from preliminary assessment/site in-
spection through O&M). Include a separate discus-
sion of public participation opportunities throughout
the Superfund cleanup process.
Much of this information will already be available in
other public documents, for example, the CRP and
technical workplans. To present other information in
a concise format (for instance, results of key sampling
studies), brief fact sheets may be appropriate.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Superfund briefing books should be compiled at the
beginning of the RI/FS and updated throughout the
life of the project. It is a good idea to compile
briefing books for all sites, even if community
concern seems low.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Media representatives can be invited to review
briefing books at the end of news conferences. An-
nouncements about the briefing books can be included
in news releases. A briefing book could be placed
on reserve at the information repository.
BENEFITS
A Superfund briefing book will help to ensure that
consistent and accurate information is presented to the
media. The briefing book can also show willingness
to cooperate, fostering good relations with the media.
LIMITATIONS
To be useful, the briefing book should be up to date
and accurate. This will require periodic reviews of
the briefing book by agency staff.
A-31
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.23 TECHNICAL ADVISOR
DESCRIPTION:
Under the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Pro-
gram, a group of individuals affected by a Superfund
site that is listed or proposed for listing on the
National Priorities List, or where response action has
already begun, may receive a grant of up to $50,000
to hire a technical advisor to interpret site-related
data.
PURPOSE:
Ensure that independent and complete interpretation
of site-related data is available to individuals affected
by a Superfund site so that they may contribute to the
decision-making process at a site.
TECHNIQUE:
TAG recipients use their grant money to hire a tech-
nical advisor to:
Review site-related documents, whether produced
by EPA or .not;
Meet with the recipient group to explain technical
information;
Provide assistance to the grant recipient in com-
municating the group's site-related concerns;
Disseminate interpretations of technical informa-
tion to the community;
Participate in site visits, when possible, to gain a
better understanding of cleanup activities; and,
Travel to meetings and hearings directly related
to the situation at the site.
WHEN TO CONDUCT:
Notice of the availability of TAGs should be an-
nounced by the Regions as soon as funding for the
grant is allocated or when the first letter of intent
from a group is received. Once the TAG application
process is complete, which can take many months,
and the grant recipient has signed a contract with its
technical advisor, the advisor may begin work. When
and what activities the advisor undertakes for the
grant recipient is at the discretion of the recipient
within the boundaries of the TAG regulations.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES:
Technical advisors are used, to the extent practical,
throughout cleanup activities at a Superfund site..
Their work is accompanied by, and dependent upon,
cleanup activity at a Superfund site and the sub-
sequent creation of site-related data.
BENEFITS:
A technical advisor helps ensure that independent,
complete, and accurate information about site-related
data is available to individuals affected by a Super-
fund site so that the individuals may contribute to the
decision-making process at a site.
LIMITATIONS:
The TAG program has been criticized for having a
difficult application process that may deter citizens
from applying for TAGs. It has also been criticized
for its complex procurement and matching fund
requirements. (The matching fund requirement was
lowered in the December, 1990, amendments to the
program's Interim Final Rule.)
Another limitation to the TAG program is the burden
placed on Regional staff to assist groups through the
application process and comply with grant manage-
ment requirements throughout the life of the grant.
A-32
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.24 TELEPHONE CONTACTS
DESCRIPTION
Initial telephone calls to State and local officials and
concerned citizens, informing them of the agency's
interest in the site, finding out which individuals or
groups are involved with the site, and possibly setting
up personal interviews for a later date. Once site
activities are underway, follow-up telephone calls
should be made to State and local officials and key
community groups and individuals to inform them of
any major findings and the progress of site activities.
Telephone contacts supplement, but do not replace,
community interviews as a way of gathering infor-
mation about the community.
PURPOSE
Understand community concerns about a response ac-
tion and gather information for planning the response.
Inform key officials and community groups promptly
about site activities.
TECHNIQUE
In making telephone contacts:
Know exactly what information to request (e.g.,
additional references, site specifics, background
information) and tailor questions accordingly. In-
formation to solicit from these contacts might include:
Background on the site and the problem;
Recent government activities at the site;
Nature and extent of citizen involvement;
Names and telephone numbers of other possible
contacts; and
Addresses for compiling mailing lists.
Identify concerned citizens in the affected com-
munities. State and local government agencies are
one source of such information. The media and local
chapters of environmental groups are another source.
Organizations that may be contacted to obtain names
and phone numbers of concerned citizens and groups
include:
State and local health departments: Officials
may have received complaints from citizens con-
cerning the safety of a site. They may also know
about community groups involved in hazardous
substance problems in the State.
State and local environmental or pollution
control agencies: Often, local residents and
community groups will have contacted these of-
fices seeking answers to questions about potential
health and safety effects of contaminants found at
the site. These officials can also assess citizen
expectations.
Local Congressional office: Staff may have
received letters or phone calls from concerned
citizens regarding the site.
State elected officials: Some may have been
contacted by concerned constituents.
Local elected officials (mayors, city managers,
etc.): These officials can identify concerned
citizens and what steps, if any, have been taken
to satisfy their needs.
Media: Local TV, radio station, and newspaper
reporters can frequently identify community
organizations or individuals interested in the site.
Environmental groups: Local chapters of envi-
ronmental organizations may have members mon-
itoring site activities.
Once concerned citizens have been identified, they
should be telephoned. If possible, agency staff should
also arrange a personal interview to discuss their
concerns in detail.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Initial telephone contacts should be used in the
earliest phases of both removal and remedial actions
to identify key officials and citizens who have a high
interest in the site. After these initial contacts are
made, EPA may make telephone calls throughout the
response action to inform these individuals and to
monitor the extent of community concerns.
Telephone contacts are also an appropriate activity for
gathering information during the preliminary
assessment and site investigation phases.
A-33
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Telephone contacts are usually made to arrange on-
site community interviews.
BENEFITS
Telephone calls can be an inexpensive and expedient
method of acquiring initial information about the site.
During removals, the telephone contacts can help the
OSC identify and deal with community concern when
time is not available for more thorough community
relations activities. In remedial response actions,
telephone interviews will often be useful for
establishing a network of contacts to be used later
during community interviews. Once the initial
information has been gathered, telephone contacts are
a quick means of informing key people about site
activities and monitoring any shifts in community
concerns.
LIMITATIONS
Residents may initially feel uncomfortable discussing
their concerns and perceptions over the phone with a
"faceless" questioner. Once residents have met EPA
staff in person, however, they may be more open and
willing to discuss their concerns during follow-up
telephone calls.
A-34
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.25 TELEPHONE HOTLINE
DESCRIPTION
A toll-free telephone number in an agency office.
PURPOSE
Provide citizens with an opportunity to ask questions
and obtain information promptly about site activities.
TECHNIQUE
To install a telephone hotline at the time of major
project milestones, either as a "permanent" fixture
available throughout the cleanup action or as a tem-
porary measure:
Assign one or more staff members to handle the
hotline calls. Consider installing more than one line
to minimize citizens reaching a busy signal when they
call. If staff are not available throughout the day,
install an answering machine directing citizens to
leave their name, number, and brief statement of con-
cern, and informing them that an agency official will
return their call promptly. Check the answering
machine for messages at least once a day. If the level
of concern is high, check for messages more often.
Announce the telephone hotline in news releases to
local newspapers, and radio and television stations.
Keep a written record of each question, when it
was received, and how and when it was answered.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
A telephone hotline would be useful during the RI
if concern is high about contaminant levels at the site.
A hotline is particularly useful if any unexpected
event, such as a fire or explosion, occurs at a site. A
hotline can also be effective during the construction
phase, when citizens may have complaints regarding
environmental impacts such as excessive dust or
noise.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
One of the functions of the contact person might be
to respond to inquiries on the hotline.
BENEFITS
A hotline can provide citizens with a relatively quick
means of expressing their concerns directly to the
agency and getting their questions answered. This
quick response can help to reassure citizens that the
agency is listening to their concerns. A telephone
hotline can also help to monitor community concerns.
A sudden increase in calls could indicate that
additional community relations efforts may be
warranted.
LIMITATIONS
Citizens calling the hotline must receive responses to
their questions or concerns quickly, or they may
become frustrated with the agency. If the number of
calls is large, responding quickly to each inquiry
could prove burdensome to agency staff. Further-
more, hearing a recorded message on the hotline
could irritate or alienate some callers.
A-35
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.26 TELEPHONE NETWORK/PHONE TREE
DESCRIPTION
A list of individuals responsible for calling a specified
number of people who, in turn, call an additional
number of people to inform them of site activities. A
telephone network or "phone tree" may be a formal,
tiered system of contacting individuals about an up-
coming event or a more informal system of "spread-
ing the word."
PURPOSE
Provide back-up information or reminder of plans
already announced. Reduce the number of calls made
by individual staff members.
TECHNIQUE
To set up a telephone tree:
Identify members of key groups or organizations
willing to make telephone calls (no more than ten
calls per person) or, where there are no such organ-
izations, develop a list of independent individuals.
Assign each caller a specified number of names
that he or she will be responsible for calling.
Prepare a short written message that includes the
necessary information (date, time, place, etc.) and
distribute it to the first tier of callers. Be sure to
include the name and telephone number of the staff
contact person available to answer questions.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
This activity is best used to provide follow-up infor-
mation or to reinforce information presented in a
mailing or public announcement. Calls should be
made one week to two days before the event to re-
mind participants of an event or estimate the level of
attendance.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Because this activity is intended to provide follow-up
information, a mailing list might be used to identify.
individuals who should be called. Telephone net-
works generally should be used to reiterate announce-
ments made by a public notice or news release.
BENEFITS
This activity is an inexpensive and personal way to
reach a large number of people.
LIMITATIONS
This activity may be time-consuming to coordinate
and unreliable if there are too many tiers in the
network. Information may become distorted or
confused, thus creating distrust of lead agency efforts
in general and staff members in particular. A tele-
phone network of this type is recommended only as
a back-up activity following a mailing, advertisement
(i.e., public notice), or other type of announcement.
This activity is not recommended as a general method
of disseminating information.
A-36
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.27 TRANSLATIONS
DESCRIPTION
Providing written or verbal information in a foreign
language to a predominantly non-English speaking
community. There are three types of translations:
A written translation of materials originally
written in English;
A verbal translation of a public meeting or news
conference by translating each sentence after it is
spoken (i.e., sentence by sentence); and
A simultaneous translation (i.e., word by word)
of a public meeting or news conference, usually
with small headsets and a radio transmitter.
PURPOSE
Ensure that all community members are informed
about site activities and have the opportunity to
participate in the decision-making process.
TECHNIQUE
To develop a successful translation:
Evaluate the need for a translation. Evaluate the
demographic characteristics of the community as well
as the type of community relations activities being
planned. Consider whether citizens' ability to take
part in a community relations activity is limited by
their inability to speak or understand English.
Identify and evaluate translation services. A suc-
cessful translation depends on the skill of the trans-
lator. More problems may be created than solved if
inaccurate or imprecise information is given. Many
translators will not be familiar with the technical
terms associated with hazardous waste cleanup and
few, if any, will be familiar with the Superfund
process. This problem may be further compounded in
the case of verbal translations (especially simul-
taneous translations) as there is no time for review or
quality control. Thus, it is necessary to contract
someone with experience in translating technical
information. If possible, arrange to have another
person, preferably a staff member who can speak or
read the appropriate foreign language, check the trans-
lator's work to ensure that the content and tone are in
keeping with the agency's intent.
Avoid the use of jargon or highly technical terms.
As a matter of standard practice, a staff member
should go over all technical and Superfund terms that
may cause the translator problems in advance.
For verbal presentations, public meetings, and
news conferences, plan what to say ahead of time.
If the translator has a prepared written speech to work
with in advance, there is more time to work out any
vocabulary "bugs" and thereby reduce the chances of
faltering over unfamiliar material or making inaccu-
rate word choices. If possible, practice with the
translator before the actual meeting or presentation.
Anticipate questions from the audience and repor-
ters, and have at least the technical aspects (e.g.,
chemical names, statistics) of the answers translated
in advance.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
A translation is desirable where a large percentage of
the community is non-English speaking. A written
translation should be provided for fact sheets or
letters, unless a presentation or public meeting would
be more appropriate (e.g., the literacy rate among the
foreign-speaking community is low). Verbal trans-
lations are recommended when there is considerable
concern over the site, extreme hostility, or suspicion
of the lead agency's communication efforts.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
In predominantly non-English speaking communities,
translations may accompany fact sheets, public
notices, presentations, public meetings, public
hearings, and news conferences.
BENEFITS
Written translations and use of translators ensure that
a greater number of community members can partici-
A-37
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
pate effectively in site activities and therefore provide
input to decisions concerning the cleanup process.
This effort assures the community of EPA's sincerity
in providing opportunity for public involvement
LIMITATIONS
Translations are very costly, especially simultaneous
translations of public meetings. Sentence-by-sentence
verbal translations frequently double the length of
public meetings, and may make information more dif-
ficult to present effectively and smoothly. In
addition, very few translators are familiar with, much
less trained in, the Superfund process. For sites
having highly volatile or sensitive problems, it may
be difficult to communicate the lead agency's position
or involve community members in a constructive
dialogue.
A-38
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix A
A.28 USING EXISTING GROUPS/PUBLICATIONS
DESCRIPTION
Using the publications and mailing lists of established,
local civic or community organizations as vehicles to
inform a community of site activities.
PURPOSE
Communicate with the public about site activities
through existing communication networks.
TECHNIQUE
To use existing groups/publications:
Identify existing groups and publications. Groups
that may help to publish information to the com-
munity or organize meetings include:
Local civic or environmental groups;
Rotary clubs;
Church organizations;
Local trade associations, farmers' associations,
and cooperatives;
The League of Woman Voters; and
Local water companies or other independent
agencies or utilities.
Some types of appropriate publications may include:
Newsletters, newspapers, magazines, or bulletins;
Newsletters of homeowners' associations; and
Local/community independent or commercial
newspapers.
Contact groups/editors to determine if they are
willing to provide mailing lists, publish site infor-
mation, or organize meetings. Determine whether
such groups are appropriate for communicating
agency information. By publishing information
through a group that has a specific political interest or
bias, the agency may be perceived as endorsing these
views. Groups that are "friendly" may also be inap-
propriate if they appear to represent the agency's
interests.
Make sure that the relationship between the agency
and any group is clearly understood by the group and
the public.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
While this activity is most useful in the early stages
of site activity as a means of developing contacts
within the community, it may also be useful through-
out the site cleanup process. Using existing organiza-
tions and their publications ensures a regular and
attentive audience.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Existing groups and their publications may be useful
for identifying individuals for purposes of community
interviews, mailing lists, and door-to-door canvas-
sing efforts.
BENEFITS
The principal benefit of using the mailing lists or
publications of existing organizations is that the
agency has access to an established communication
network. Less time and expense will be needed to
develop mailing lists and organize meetings.
LIMITATIONS
Working too closely with existing groups, or working
exclusively with just one group, may be
misinterpreted by other groups within the community.
A-39
-------
Appendix A
Community Relations Handbook
A.29 WORKSHOPS
DESCRIPTION
Seminars or a series of meetings to discuss hazardous
substance issues, allow citizens to comment on pro-
posed response actions, and provide information on
the technical issues associated with the site and the
Superfund program in general. Experts may be in-
vited to explain the problems associated with releases
of hazardous substances and possible remedies for
these problems.
PURPOSE
Improve the public's understanding of the hazardous
substance problem at the site, and prevent or correct
misconceptions. Enable agency staff to identify citi-
zen concerns and receive citizen comments.
TECHNIQUE
To conduct a workshop:
Plan the workshop. Decide on a minimum and max-
imum number of participants. If there are too few,
consider holding an informal meeting and postpone
the workshop until additional interest develops.
Identify a convenient location and time for the
workshop, and set a date that does not conflict with
other important meetings or interests (for example,
town council meetings, high school basketball games).
Announce the workshop by publishing a notice well
in advance (at least three weeks) in the local news-
papers. Send notice of workshops with mailings to
all citizens on site mailing list and distribute posters
around town. Send out invitations and registration
forms to concerned citizens. Provide for multiple
registrations on each form to accommodate friends
who might also be interested in the workshop. Em-
phasize that the number of participants is limited, and
provide a deadline for registration.
Cover the following topics:
Nature of release problems;
Methods of containing and cleaning up releases
and monitoring the cleanup;
Identification of health or environmental prob-
lems; and
Method and format for receiving citizen
comments on the proposed or ongoing response.
WHEN TO CONDUCT
Workshops are appropriate for presenting technical
information to citizens, such as the draft FS. Work-
shops could also be useful when a site is first pro-
posed for the NPL to inform citizens about the Super-
fund cleanup process and increase their understanding'
of potential risks associated with the site.
ACCOMPANYING ACTIVITIES
Workshops can be conducted before formal public
hearings or during public comment periods to give
citizens some ideas on developing and presenting tes-
timony. Fact sheets and exhibits can be used at
workshops.
BENEFITS
Workshops provide more information to the public
than is possible through fact sheets or other written
materials. Workshops have proven successful in
familiarizing citizens with key technical terms and
concepts before a public meeting. Workshops also
allow two-way communication. They are particularly
effective for reaching opinion leaders, interest group
leaders, and the affected public.
LIMITATIONS
Workshops can reach only a small segment of the
affected population if only a limited number are held.
When planning a workshop, agency staff should make
sure that it is announced in local newspapers to help
ensure that it will be well-attended. In addition, it
may be helpful to specifically invite all residents who
have expressed an interest in the site.
A-40
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
APPENDIX B
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
I. SUGGESTED FORMAT
A. Overview of Community Relations Plan
Purpose: Provide a general introduction by briefly stating the purpose of the Community Relations Plan and
the distinctive or central features of the community relations program planned for this specific site. Note any
special circumstances that the plan has been designed to address. Do not repeat general program goals (e.g.,
"Keep the community informed").
Length: One paragraph to several pages.
B. Capsule Site Description
Purpose: Provide the historical, geographical, and technical details necessary to show why the site was put on
theNPL.
Suggested topics:
Site location and proximity to other landmarks;
History of site use and ownership;
Date and type of release;
Nature of threat to public health and environment; and
Responsibility for site (e.g., State- or Federal-lead).
Length: One page.
C. Community Background
Purpose: Describe the community and its involvement with the site. Cover three topics:
(1) Community Profile: the economic and political structure of the community, and key community issues and
interests.
(2) Chronology of Community Involvement: how the community has reacted to the site in the past, actions
taken by citizens, and attitudes toward government roles and responsibilities. Discuss actions taken by any
government agencies or government officials, such as public meetings or news releases.
(3) Key Community Concerns: how the community regards the risks posed by the site or the remedial process
used to address those risks. One approach: break down the analysis by community group or segment (e.g.,
public environmental interest groups; nearby residents; and elected officials).
In all three sections, but particularly in the last, focus on the community's perceptions of the events and
problems at the site rather than the technical history of the site.
B-l
-------
Appendix B Community Relations Handbook
Length: From three to seven pages, depending on the history and level of community involvement in the site.
D. Highlights of Program
Purpose: Provide concrete details on community relations approaches to be taken. This should follow directly
and logically from the discussion in Section C of the community and its perceptions of the problems posed by
the site. Do not restate the goals or objectives of conducting community relations at Superfund sites. Instead,
develop a strategy for communicating with a specific community.
Suggested topics:
Resources to be used in the community relations program (e.g., local organizations, meeting places);
Key individuals or organizations that will play a role in community relations activities;
Areas of sensitivity that must be considered in conducting community relations.
Length: One page.
E. Techniques and Timing
Purpose: State what community relations activities will be conducted at the site and specify when they will
occur. Suggest additional techniques that might be used at the site as the response action proceeds, as well as
when these techniques are likely to be most effective.
Length: Two to three pages. Matrix format may be suitable.
Attachments
List of Contacts and Interested Parties1
Locations for Information Repository and Meetings
1 (Names and addresses of individuals should not be included in the Community Relations Plan made available
in the information repository for public review. Names and addresses should, however, be compiled for a mailing
list as part of the Community Relations Coordinator's files.)
B-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
II. SAMPLE PLAN
The following Community Relations Plan for the Sludge Pond site in Woodbury, Connecticut is intended to illustrate
the suggested format and content of Community Relations Plans, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this Handbook. While
the plan is based on actual community interviews conducted for a Superfund remedial site, names, locations, and
technical details have been changed. The plan should be viewed as an illustration only.
SLUDGE POND SITE, WOODBURY, CONNECTICUT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
A. OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN
This Community Relations Plan identifies issues of community concern regarding the Sludge Pond Superfund site
in Woodbury, Connecticut, and outlines community relations activities to be conducted during the site remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS). In general, community concern about the site is low. Having known for
almost 40 years that the site was a source of contamination, residents appear more or less resigned to its presence
in their community. The start of remedial activity at the site, however, is likely to reawaken the community's
concern. An effective community relations program for this site should prepare for this potential revival of
community interest and attempt to educate, without alarming, residents so that they can better understand the Super-
fund remedial process. In particular, the community relations program for Sludge Pond should enlist the support
and cooperation of the town and county officials of Woodbury. These individuals have a long-standing familiarity
with the area and its residents and hold visible positions of responsibility within the community. They should be
considered as a key resource in the effort to communicate openly and effectively with the people of Woodbury.
This draft Community Relations Plan has been prepared to aid EPA in developing a community relations program
tailored to the needs of the community affected by the Sludge Pond site. EPA conducts community relations
activities to ensure that the local public has input to decisions about Superfund actions and is well-informed about
the progress of those actions. These sections follow:
Capsule Site Description
Community Background
Highlights of Program
Techniques and Timing
Attachments: List of Contacts and Interested Parties, and Locations for Information Repository and Public
Meeting
The information in this plan is based primarily on discussions conducted in Litchfield County, Connecticut in August,
1990. Participants in these discussions included individuals from the District Health Department, officials from the
Litchfield County Office of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the first selectman of
Woodbury Township, a Litchfield County Commissioner, and residents of Woodbury and Watertown Townships.
B-3
-------
Appendix B Community Relations Handbook
The Preliminary Investigation Report/Lewis Iron Works Site prepared by contractors to Eastern Manufacturing Co.
also provided valuable information.2
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 Office has lead responsibility for managing this RI/FS.
The EPA Region 1 Office of Public Affairs will oversee all community relations activities at the site. The Office
of Community Involvement in the Ground Water Quality Division at DEP will play a major role in implementing
community relations activities.
B. CAPSULE SITE DESCRIPTION
The Sludge Pond site is located on a 40-acre tract of land in Litchfield County, Connecticut, one mile south of
Woodbury Township on Route 6. (Exhibits 1 and 2 illustrate the location of the site within the State and surrounding
geographical landmarks.) To the north is Tanner Lake, used for fishing and swimming. The closest residences are
approximately one-quarter mile to the northwest and west across Route 6.
From 1886 to 1945, the site was used by Lewis Iron Works, a major producer of charcoal, pig iron, and organic'
chemicals. Liquid tar residues from chemical processing were discharged into a two-acre depression on site, giving
the area its current name of "Sludge Pond." Lewis Iron Works shut down its chemical operations in early 1944 and
ceased operations entirely in 1945. Among the current owners of the site property are Eastern Manufacturing Co.,
whose nearby plant produces automotive parts; the Wilson Lumber Co.; and the township of Woodbury, which
operated an eight-acre municipal landfill adjacent to Sludge Pond from 1961 to 1969.
In the late 1940s, shortly after the closing of the Iron Works, residents as far away as three miles from the site
reported that their well water had "a chemical taste and a bad odor." Samples taken by the Connecticut Geological
Study in 1949 indicated that phenol had contaminated eight private wells to the west and northwest of Sludge Pond.
In the 1960s, the surface sludges on site caught fire and burned out of control for several weeks.
Limited water sampling conducted since 1980 has confirmed the 1949 findings of phenol in the groundwater. In
addition, DEP found evidence of heavy metals in Sludge Pond in 1980. Heavy metals, however, were not confirmed
by monitoring samples taken by EPA's Field Investigation Team in 1982 or by on-site testing conducted by Eastern
Manufacturing in 1983. After private wells were tested by DEP and the District Health Department in 1980,
residents were told that their water was drinkable.
Sludge Pond was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in December, 1982. The site has recently been
designated a Fund-lead site for the RI/FS, although enforcement proceedings are underway against Eastern
Manufacturing.
C. COMMUNITY BACKGROUND
(1) Community Profile
The Township of Woodbury, named for the abundance of trees in the area, developed in the 1820s as settlers
journeyed to western Connecticut in search of farmland. However, because of the town's fairly remote location,
2 This and other technical reports (such as the RI/FS workplan) will be made available at the information
repository to be established in Woodbury. These reports will give full details of the type and extent of the problems
at Sludge Pond.
B-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix B
EXHIBIT 1: SITE LOCATION MAP, SLUDGE POND SITE
LJTCHFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT
HARTFORD TOLLAND WINDHAM
B-5
-------
Appendix B
Community Relations Handbook
EXHIBIT 2: SLUDGE POND SITE VICINITY MAP
TAPAWINGO SKI AREA
TOWN OF
WOODBURY
SCALE IN MILES
B-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
industry did not begin to develop in the area until about a half-century later. In 1882, George Lewis, an area
entrepreneur, erected a blast furnace to manufacture charcoals, and the Lewis Iron Works soon became the area's
largest employer.
Several Woodbury residents interviewed for this plan recalled the days when their relatives or neighbors worked at
the Iron Works, and old photographs of the company's vast lumber stocks and furnace can still be seen in the local
library and on the walls of the town office building.
Since the closing of the Iron Works, major sources of employment in the area have included light industry and
farming. Local craft industries dating from the early nineteenth century continue to flourish in the area, as do antique
stores and clock shops. Dairy and poultry farms occupy a significant portion of the land in Litchfield County and
nearby Hartford county.
In general, Woodbury Township remains a quiet, rural area, somewhat insulated from the industrial development to
the south and east. Judging from individuals interviewed for this plan, many town members have been long-time
residents in the area, and the township's small population (7,000 reported in the 1980 Census) has meant that local
officials know, and are known by, most of the area's residents. A significant number of senior citizens live in the
community. Aging issues and facilities for the elderly have been prominent concerns in the community, and
according to the township clerk, a central meeting place in the area is the Litchfield County Senior Center.
(2) Chronology of Community Involvement
Local officials have described community reactions to the proximity of an NPL site as "quiet," particularly in the
past year. The District Health Department receives only infrequent inquiries about the safety of private well water
which according to users, is a brownish-orange color and stains bathroom fixtures and laundry. The last call was
received at the beginning of the summer of 1985 from a prospective home builder who was concerned about the
condition of the groundwater directly south of Sludge Pond. Because groundwater flows west from the site, and in
the opinion of some local officials, is confined to a narrow finger of an aquifer, the Health Department assured the
caller that his property was not threatened by contamination from the site.
The level of community concern, while never high, reached a peak in the early 1980s, when DEP analyzed sludges
from Sludge Pond and water from a number of private wells. Early in 1980, a local farmer with contaminated well
water wrote to the District Health Department after reading an article in the Waterbury Republican about the
suspected hazards at the site. She was concerned because guests could not drink her water, though she herself was
accustomed to its distinctive taste. When interviewed, this same resident stated that she and her husband knew about
the problems with their well when they purchased their house and farm and, in fact, were able to buy the property
at a reduced price because of the discolored water.
Also in 1980, the Township of Woodbury took over and began rebuilding a town water system from an independent
water company. A major part of this project, which was financed through loans and grants from the Farmers' Home
Administration, was the replacement of leaking wooden main pipes. Some community members also attempted to
obtain a Health Department grant to have the water mains extended to the residents with private wells who had bad
well water. According to a County Commissioner, obtaining funds from the Health Department for this extension
required demonstrating that the water was not fit for drinking. Because this was never done, the Township was
unable to finance an extended water system. While affected citizens conceivably could put in their own pipes to
connect to the town water system, this option appears to be well beyond the means of individual residents.
Shortly after the site was listed on the NPL in December, 1982, the Litchfield County Herald ran an article
B-7
-------
Appendix B Community Relations Handbook
identifying Sludge Pond as one of "EPA's 400 Worst." Though several residents could recall the article, the
classification of Sludge Pond as a Superfund site did not particularly alarm residents or motivate them to take
organized action. No community groups have been formed to participate in the investigation of the site or to voice
an opinion as to how the site should or could be addressed. In general, affected residents have dealt with the
problem of contaminated well water in fairly quiet and individual ways: some carry bottles of municipal water home
for drinking and take extra measures (e.g., filtering and bleaching) to prevent staining of laundry. From the point
of view of local officials, a far more urgent issue is the potential closure of the Litchfield-Berkshire municipal landfill
after DEP found contamination in monitoring wells at the landfill. Because closure would mean that area waste
would have to be transported further away, local officials are particularly concerned that some citizens will resort
to dumping refuse on back roads rather than paying the higher transporting fees.
(3) Key Community Concerns
Currently, as throughout the past 10 years, community concern about contamination from Sludge Pond is fairly low,
possibly because:
Citizens have lived with the knowledge that Sludge Pond was contaminated for a long period of time.
Citizens view the contamination primarily as a nuisance but not as a public health hazard. Residents rely on
the fact that DEP and the Health Department have never declared the water undrinkable.
Only a few residents are affected, and their houses are scattered over farmland about two miles northwest of
the site. In conversations with community members, about six families were mentioned as having had problems
with their private wells. At least two families have moved to homes on the municipal water supply. Another
family had problems only when it installed a well before being connected to the municipal water system.
Current low level of community concern about Sludge Pond should not be construed as lack of interest. Citizens
are not indifferent to the environmental problem posed by Sludge Pond; their attitude might be more accurately
characterized as resigned. In their view, the problem is intractable. According to one resident, because such large
quantities of sludge were once deposited on the site, it literally would take moving a small mountain to eliminate
the years' accumulation of waste. Furthermore, many residents consider their community too rural and economically
insignificant to command Federal attention or funds for a cleanup.
The start of the Sludge Pond RI/FS is bound to change this attitude of resignation. The arrival on site of
investigation teams, as well as the discussion of alternatives during the FS, may cause people to consider that perhaps
the problems at Sludge Pond can be solved and are worthy of being addressed. In developing a community relations
program for this site, it is important to anticipate this potential for renewed community interest. The following kinds
of concern, voiced individually and in a low-key manner during community interviews, are likely to become more
visible and pressing during the RI/FS:
Property Values: Some residents have suffered losses in the market value of their property as a result of
groundwater contamination in the area. When one resident put his property up for sale, he was told by the realtor
that the listing had to carry a statement that his well water was contaminated. He has been unable to sell his
property despite a substantial decrease in his asking price, and he has had to go into debt to purchase a new home.
Inconvenience: Contaminated well water has inconvenienced residents in a number of ways. They must carry
bottled water to their homes from the homes of friends or relatives on municipal water and take extra measures with
their laundry. There is also the problem of the water having a bad odor. One resident claims her plumbing has been
affected by the contaminants in her water. Another resident complained of a rash that did not heal while she was
using private well water, but in general, it appears that citizens regard the contamination of groundwater as a
nuisance rather than a health hazard.
B-8
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
Follow-up with community after site work: Over the past 10 years, technical teams from EPA, DEP, the District
Health Department, and Eastern Manufacturing have been in the area to sample monitoring and private wells and
fence the site. Some residents complained that there was no adequate follow-up to these visits and no explanation
as to the purpose or results of testing. Owners of private wells that were sampled did receive copies of laboratory
slips listing the levels of various contaminants. However, they were not familiar with the types of contaminants
being tested, nor did they understand how to interpret the levels detected. Local officials were also irritated that they
had not been informed of the results of sampling activities.
Financing and conducting remedial work: At least one local official and one resident wondered how the investiga-
tion and possible cleanup of Sludge Pond would be financed. The official's concern was that the township could
not afford remedial action at the site. At the same time, he did not consider it fair that Eastern Manufacturing, as
a potentially responsible party, might be liable for remedial costs since the company had not created Sludge Pond.
In general, community members do not appear to be knowledgeable about the Superfund remedial or enforcement
process or its technical and legal requirements. For example, one elected official who had witnessed a technical crew
on site found it difficult to understand why sampling had to be delayed until EPA-approved bottles were obtained.
He was also somewhat impatient that EPA would be starting an RI of the site, when it had already been investigated
a number of times.
D. HIGHLIGHTS OF PROGRAM
The community relations program at the Sludge Pond site should be designed to allow the community to learn about,
and participate in, the Superfund remedial process without disrupting the community's confidence that the site poses
no new or immediate hazards. To be effective, the community relations program must be gauged according to the
community's need for information and its interest and willingness to participate in the remedial process.
The community relations program at the Sludge Pond site should take the following approaches:
Enlist the support and participation of local officials in coordinating community relations activities. Approp-
riate officials to involve in a community relations program include the Town First Selectman; the County Com-
missioner for Litchfield, and District Health Department officials. These officials are visible and trusted leaders in
the community and are a valuable resource in EPA's effort to understand and monitor community concern. To gain
the support of local officials, inform them regularly and fully of site activities, plans, findings, and developments.
Provide follow-up explanations about sampling and test results to area residents. Concise and easily-understood
information should be available to all residents on the schedule of technical activities, their purpose, and their
outcome. Where information cannot be released to the public, either because of quality assurance requirements or
the sensitivity of enforcement proceedings, explain clearly and simply why the information must be withheld.
However, community relations staff also should attempt to identify special situations or concerns where more
specialized information may be required or where certain types of information are needed by single individuals or
groups. In particular, owners of property where samples are taken should receive follow-up explanations of what
was done and found on their land. Finally, to ensure that inquiries from the community are handled efficiently and
consistently, a single EPA contact should be established for the site.
Educate area residents and local officials about the procedures, policies, and requirements of the Superfund
program. To dispel some of the current confusion about EPA's purpose and responsibilities at the site, make an
effort to circulate basic information to the community describing the Superfund process. Questions asked by
community members during on-site discussions indicate that the following areas could receive special emphasis:
scoring and ranking of NPL sites, schedule and stages of an RI/FS, and criteria used to select a cleanup alternative.
B-9
-------
Appendix B Community Relations Handbook
Let the people "set the pace" for the community relations program. Be aware that Federal involvement in local
issues is not always well regarded by townspeople. Federal, and even State, programs are seen as excessively
bureaucratic and insensitive to the realities of local government budgets and planning. Therefore, do not "overdo"
or overplan community relations activities in a way that might discourage community participation. Large, formal
meetings will almost certainly be inappropriate for this community, as will activities that are planned without
consulting key local officials.
5. TECHNIQUES AND TIMING
The following activities are required for the Sludge Pond site community relations program. Exhibit 3 illustrates
the timing of each activity during the remedial schedule for the site.
Information Repositories/Administrative Record and Notification. Fact sheets, technical summaries, site reports
(including the Community Relations Plan), and information on the Superfund program will be placed in the
information repositories. An information repository will be located at the Woodbury Public Library. Details about
the technical assistance grants application process will be included in the information repository. Upon commence-
ment of remedial investigation, an administrative record file must be made available for public inspection. This file
will contain information that forms the basis for the selection of a response action, including verified sampling data,
quality control and quality assurance documentation, chain of custody forms, site inspection and evaluation reports,
and ATSDR health assessments. It will also contain the proposed plan, as well as the Record of Decision (ROD)
and supporting information. A notice of the availability of the administrative record file will be published in a major
local newspaper of general circulation.
RI/FS and Proposed Plan Notification and Analysis. A notice of the availability of the RI/FS and proposed plan,
including a brief summary of the proposed plan, must be published in a major local newspaper of general circulation.
Public Comment Period on Draft FS Report and Proposed Plan. A minimum 30-day public comment period
must be held to allow citizens to express their opinions on EPA's preferred alternative for remedial action at the
Sludge Pond. Community input should be encouraged at this point by informing citizens that EPA will consider their
opinions in the ultimate decision on remedial design and remedial action.
Public Meeting/Meeting Transcript. A public meeting held during the public comment period will provide an
opportunity for EPA to answer questions directly and to discuss the recommended remedial alternative. According
to community residents, as few as 20 or as many as 200 community residents might attend such a meeting.
Therefore, planning should be flexible. This meeting might be held in the auditorium of one of Woodbury's public
schools (Elementary, Middle or High School). The meeting should be coordinated with the Woodbury and
Watertown Township Officers. A meeting transcript must be prepared and made available to the public.
Responsiveness Summary. This document is required as part of the ROD for the site. It should summarize public
concerns and issues raised during the public comment period on the draft FS and proposed plan. In addition, the
responsiveness summary should document EPA and State responses to these concerns. The ROD and responsiveness
summary shall be available for public inspection and copying at or near the site prior to the commencement of
remedial action. A notice of the availability of the ROD and responsiveness summary will be published in a major
local newspaper of general circulation.
Revision of the CRP. This Community Relations Plan should be revised when the ROD has been issued for Sludge
Pond to outline community relations activities appropriate to the remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) phase.
The revision of the CRP should:
B-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
Update facts and verify information in the Community Relations Plan prepared for the RI/FS.
Assess the community relations program to date and indicate if the same or different approaches will be taken
during RD/RA.
Develop a strategy to prepare the community for future roles during RD/RA and operation and maintenance.
Community interviews should be held before the Sludge Pond Community Relations Plan is revised.
Fact Sheet/Public Briefing. A detailed fact sheet describing the final engineering design must be issued, and as
appropriate, a public briefing must be held prior to the initiation of remedial action.
In addition to these basic requirements for a community relations program at Sludge Pond, a number of activities
will be undertaken to ensure that the community is well informed about site activities and has the opportunity to
express its concerns. Activities, and their approximate timing, are as follows:
Establish an information contact: A technical or community relations staff person will be designated to respond
directly to public inquiries regarding site activities. This person should coordinate with EPA Community Relations
staff and the DEP Community Involvement staff in contacts with the press.
Meet with local officials and telephone them periodically: The County Commissioner and the town's First
Selectman have indicated that they want to be informed about site plans and findings. Meetings with local officials
should include both EPA and DEP officials and should be held at the following technical milestones:
Completion of the final work plan;
Completion of the draft RI/FS report; and
Before remedial action starts.
Conduct informal meetings with residents: A meeting with residents is advisable prior to the RI and before any
on-site activities involving use of earth-moving devices or other heavy machinery. The meeting should include
interested citizens, the EPA Remedial Project Manager, the DEP Community Involvement Coordinator, and technical
and community relations contractor assistance as necessary.
Prepare fact sheets and technical summaries: One fact sheet might be released at the beginning of the RI to
inform area residents and other interested citizens about EPA's site plans and the procedures of the Superfund
program. Another fact sheet (including a technical summary) might be prepared to explain the findings of the RI
and to outline each of the remedial alternatives considered for the Sludge Pond site. A detailed description of EPA's
preferred remedial alternative(s) should also be provided. In addition, each fact sheet should list the location of
information repositories where information is available for public review.
Provide news releases to local media: Prepared statements might be released to local papers, such as the Litchfield
County Herald and the Waterbury Republication and to local radio and television stations to announce discovery of
any significant findings at the site during the RI/FS or to notify the community of any public meetings. Additional
news releases are advisable at the following milestones:
When the draft FS report is completed; and
Before remedial action starts.
Addresses and phone numbers of local newspapers are included in Attachment A.
B-ll
-------
w
to
EXHIBIT 3: TIMING
Community Relations Technique Completion During Completion During FS Completion Completion Start of
of the RI ofRI of Draft FS of Final FS Remedial
Work Plan Report Action
1) Information Repository/ upuaie A> n^wiou
Administrative Record
2) Naming of Information upuaie <& IKAAIOU
Contact
3) Meetings with Local "
Officials
4) Telephone Contact with mmue IIWHIWI
Local Officials
5) Informal Discussion with
Residents
6) Fact Sheets/Technical "
Summaries
7) News Releases mwae as mccoca
8) 3U-Day mblic Comment * *
Period
9) Public Meeting/Transcript *
10) Responsiveness Summary *
11) Revision of CRP "
12) Fact Sheet/Public Briefing *
o
1
a
X
CD
2
mmunlty Relations Handbook
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix B
ATTACHMENT A
LIST OF CONTACTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
A. Federal Elected Officials
(names and addresses) (phone)
B. State Elected Officials
(names and addresses) (phone)
C. Local Officials
(names and addresses) (phone)
D. U.S. EPA Region 1 Officials
(names and addresses) (phone)
E. State and Local Agencies
(names and addresses) (phone)
F. Community Organizations, Environmental Groups, and
Citizens' Groups3
(names and addresses) (phone)
G. Media
(name and addresses) (phone)
3 Names and addresses of private citizens should not appear in the Community Relations Plan that is released
to the public. However, these names should be placed on a mailing list that is compiled for the site. To protect the
privacy of individuals, this mailing list is compiled for the sole use of the lead agency. However, where a federal
facility is the lead agency, EPA may wish to see the mailing list.
B-13
-------
Appendix B Community Relations Handbook
ATTACHMENT B
LOCATIONS FOR INFORMATION
REPOSITORY AND PUBLIC MEETING
Information Repository:
Woodbury Public Library (203) 246-4567
202 W. State Street
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798
Hours:
Mon-Fri: 9:00 am to 9:00 pm
Sat: 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Sun: 12:00 noon to 5:00 pm
Meeting:
Woodbury Public Schools (203) 246-1234
Elementary School
231 Chapel Street
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798
Middle School (203) 246-2468
105 E. Main Street
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798
High School (203) 246-1359
414 W. Main Street
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798
Woodbury Township Office (203) 246-4568
(basement of Woodbury Public Library)
202 W. State Street
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798
B-14
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
APPENDIX C
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND SAMPLE FOR PROPOSED PLAN
I. SUGGESTED FORMAT
A. Introduction
To briefly introduce the site and outline the goals of the proposed plan. The introduction should
include the site name and location and should identify the lead and support agencies. It should also describe
the goals of the plan, which are to: fulfill the requirements of CERCLA §117(a); describe all the alternatives
analyzed; identify the preferred alternative and explain the rationale for that alternative; serve as a companion
to the RI/FS and administrative record; and solicit public involvement in the selection of a remedy. The
introduction should explain that the proposed plan highlights key information from, but is not designed to serve
as a replacement to, the RI/FS report. Additionally, the introduction must stress the importance of public input
on all alternatives. It should clearly state that the final remedial action plan may be very different from the
initial proposed plan based on the lead agency's consideration of public comments.
Length: One to two pages.
B. Site Background
Purpose: To provide a brief overview of the site and describe the site history, including information about the
current extent and nature of site contamination.
Length: One to two pages.
C. Summary of Site Risks
Purpose: To summarize the extent of site contamination and provide an overview of the baseline risk assessment
conducted during the RI. This section should identify:
Contaminated media;
Contaminants of concern;
Exposure pathways (i.e. groundwater, surface water, air, and soil);
Potentially exposed populations;
Environmental risks, as appropriate (i.e. ecological receptors, potential exposures, or potential effects of
exposures); and
Current risks as compared to remediation goals (including both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic threats).
Length: Three to four pages.
D. Summary of Alternatives
Purpose: To provide a narrative description of the alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis phase of the
RI/FS report. This section should indicate: treatment technologies; engineering controls; institutional controls;
quantities of waste handled; implementation requirements; estimated construction, operation, and maintenance
C-l
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
costs; and estimated implementation time frame associated with each remedy. The significant ARARs associated
with each alternative should also be included in the description.
Length: Varies depending on the number of alternatives considered.
E. Evaluation of Alternatives and the Preferred Alternative
Purpose: To identify the preferred alternative and explain the rationale for selecting this alternative over other
options. The nine criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in the detailed analysis section of the RI/FS should
be identified and their role in the Superfund process should be explained. State/support agency and community
acceptance should be discussed, provided such information is available. The lead agency's expectation that the
preferred alternative will satisfy statutory findings, including the preference for treatment as a principal element,
should be addressed. Finally, the support agency's recommendation that the alternative meets the statutory
findings should be included where the support agency concurs with the preferred alternative.
Length: Two to three pages.
F. Upcoming Site-Related Activities/Community Participation
Purpose: To announce upcoming events in the remedial process (e.g., public comment period, signing of the
ROD, public meeting, and on-going informational updates). This section should encourage the submission of
written comments during the public comment period and emphasize that the final remedial action plan may be
very different from the proposed plan, depending on comments received from the community. Additionally,
this section should include: the dates of the public comment period; the location and time of the public meeting;
the location of the administrative record and information repository; the name, address, and telephone number
of the EPA staff member (i.e., the Regional Community Relations Coordinator) whom citizens should contact
to receive further information on the site; and instructions for citizens who wish to be added to the site mailing
list.
Length: Two to three pages.
G. Glossary
Purpose: To define those terms used throughout the proposed plan that concern the remedial process. Words
included in the glossary should be highlighted when they first appear in the text of the proposed plan.
Leneth: Varies.
C-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
H. SAMPLE PROPOSED PLAN
The following proposed plan for the Fairview Dump Superfund site in Rossville Township, Oakwood County, New
Hampshire, is intended to illustrate the suggested format and content of proposed plans, as discussed in Chapter 3
of this Handbook. This example was based on an actual proposed plan prepared for a Superfund site. Names, loca-
tions, and some technical details have been changed. This proposed plan should be viewed as an illustration only.
********
FAIRVIEW DUMP, ROSSVILLE TOWNSHIP, OAKWOOD COUNTY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PROPOSED PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION
This proposed plan1 presents the preferred cleanup method, or alternative, developed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for protecting human health and the environment from contamination
problems at the Fairview Dump Superfund site located in Rossville Township, Oakwood County, New Hampshire.
U.S. EPA's proposed plan, based on two recently completed studies known as a Remedial Investigation (RI) and
a Feasibility Study (FS), calls for treating contaminated groundwater and incinerating drums and contaminated soil
found on the site (the preferred alternative is described in more detail on page C-ll). U.S. EPA conducted the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to characterize the nature and extent of environmental contamination
problems related to the site and develop the best alternative for addressing those problems.
U.S. EPA will finalize its decision on the recommended alternative after evaluating comments received from the local
community and other interested parties. Members of the Oakwood County community are asked to submit their
comments on all the alternatives developed in the FS, including U.S. EPA's preferred alternative, during a public
comment period from July 9 to August 7,1990. In addition, U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting at Rossville Town
Hall on July 23, 1990, to further explain the proposed plan and to accept any public comments offered orally (see
Upcoming Site-Related Activities/Opportunities for Public Involvement on page C-ll). The final remedial action plan
may be very different from the proposed plan, based on EPA's consideration of public comments. Thus, citizens
are strongly encouraged to use the comment period to relate any comments they may have on the proposed plan or
RI/FS report. When the comment period ends, U.S. EPA will summarize and respond to any public comments in
a document called a responsiveness summary and a Record of Decision will be signed.
This proposed plan also summarizes background information on the site, including the results of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study. Thus, the document is designed to serve as a companion document to the RI/FS
report, as well as the administrative record. However, it must be emphasized that the proposed plan does not replace,
but only highlights, key information from the RI/FS report. For information on locations where site-related
documents are available for public review, see Available Information on page C-12.
1 Words that first appear in bold print are defined in the Glossary starting on page C-13.
C-3
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
This document fulfills the public participation requirements of CERCLA §117(a), which specifies that the lead
agency must publish a proposed plan outlining the alternatives, including the preferred alternative, developed in the
FS.
B. SITE BACKGROUND
The Fairview Dump Superfund site was a sand and gravel quarry that was used between 1965 and 1977 for disposal
of a variety of hazardous and nonhazardous industrial wastes. The ten-acre site, located just south of Route 60 about
one and one-half miles northeast of Rossville, is named after Fairview Town Park which forms the eastern border
of the site property. Other land features near the site include Indigo Creek, which lies immediately south of the site,
open land located west of the site, and residences to the north. Some residences within one-half mile north of the
site use private wells for obtaining drinking water. U.S. EPA has not found site-related contamination in drinking-
water wells near the site.
The northern portion of the Fairview Dump site, where the landfill is located, is relatively flat or gently rolling land.
The southern portion is steeply sloped southward toward Indigo Creek.
The specific waste disposal activities that took place at the site, including the types and amounts of wastes dumped
there, are not well documented. The Phillips Chemical Company (Phillips), a primary generator of site-related
wastes, estimates that 30,000 cubic yards of wastes were disposed at the site. Of this amount, Phillips believes that
ten percent was of a hazardous nature. According to an individual who transported waste materials to the site, the
wastes generally were contained in metal and plastic drums. However, bulk wastes also were reportedly dumped
at the site. This individual also indicated that the waste disposal practices at the site involved dumping the drums
into sand and gravel excavation pits and covering the pits with soil.
In December, 1979, Phillips voluntarily began an investigation into possible environmental contamination problems
at the site. Their investigation involved installing two groundwater monitoring wells on the north side of Indigo
Creek and collecting water samples from the wells. In addition, Phillips collected water samples from four drinking-
water wells in Fairview Town Park and from Indigo Creek. The results of these sampling efforts indicated the
presence of low levels of organic compounds in the groundwater. Phillips reported the findings of this investigation
to U.S. EPA, and in April, 1983, U.S. EPA conducted groundwater sampling activities at the site to confirm the
presence of groundwater contamination. U.S. EPA detected organic compounds in the groundwater, and found levels
of two compounds, chlorobenzene and vinyl chloride, to be above Federal water-quality standards.
Also in 1983, the New Hampshire Environmental Protection Agency asked U.S. EPA to assess whether the Fairview
Dump site was qualified for the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a roster of uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites nationwide that pose an actual or potential threat to human health or the environment and are
eligible for investigation and cleanup under the Federal Superfund program. In May, 1987, after further on-site
inspections and sampling were conducted and a thorough review of site-related information was completed, U.S. EPA
placed the site on the NPL.
In 1984, when erosion of the landfill cover soil exposed buried drums, Phillips placed a clay cap on the surface of
the landfilled area and took steps to control further erosion of soil from the base of the slope into Indigo Creek.
Phillips also installed a rain-water collection trench on the northern side of the capped area to remove runoff from
the cap, and drilled 11 new groundwater monitoring wells on the site to expand its groundwater monitoring program.
C. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
From November, 1987, to October, 1989, U.S. EPA conducted field testing activities as part of the RI of the
C-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
Fairview Dump site. The investigation involved extensive sampling of groundwater, soil, and drinking water. U.S.
EPA also collected surface water and sediment samples from Indigo Creek and studied aquatic animals living in the
creek. Samples of the environmental media were analyzed to:
Determine the nature and extent of site-related contamination;
Identify the ways that contaminants could migrate off the site;
Assess how contaminants might affect human health or the environment; and
Gather the information needed to conduct a Feasibility Study.
Based on the results of the RI, U.S. EPA's primary concern pertains to the presence of organic compounds and
metals in groundwater near the site. U.S. EPA also is concerned about soil contamination in the landfill, and
believes that leaking buried drums could further contaminate the environment. The results of U.S. EPA's
investigation are described in more detail below.
Source Area
U.S. EPA dug two 20-foot deep pits into the surface of the landfilled area to determine what materials were buried
at the site and sample subsurface soil and liquid contained in buried drums. U.S. EPA found 55-gallon drums buried
at the site, and estimates that 2,500 to 5,000 drums may be buried within the landfilled area. U.S. EPA estimates
that the total volume of waste material in the landfill (bulk waste, drums, and soil) is about 30,000 cubic yards.
Groundwater
U.S. EPA's investigation of groundwater involved installing 18 groundwater monitoring wells around the site and
collecting samples of water from the wells. To assess hydrogeologic characteristics near the site, U.S. EPA took
soil samples as the monitoring wells were installed and measured the elevation of water in the wells. U.S. EPA
determined that three water-bearing layers of earth, called aquifers, exist underneath the Fairview Dump site. Two
of the aquifers lie beneath the northern portion of the site, while the third aquifer is found beneath die southern
portion of the site. Groundwater in the two aquifers beneath the northern portion of the site flows in two directions,
northward toward a swampy area one-half mile from the site, and southward to Indigo Creek.
U.S. EPA collected groundwater samples during two rounds of testing. A number of metals and organic compounds
were detected in samples from each of the three aquifers. Several of those compounds were found at levels above
Federal water-quality standards. Listed below are some of the metals and organic compounds found to be exceeding
their respective standard:
Metals Organic Compounds
Barium Chlorobenzene
Chromium Tetrachloroethene
Nickel Vinyl Chloride
Toluene-2,4-diamine
Trichloroethene
Using data on hydrogeology and groundwater quality, U.S. EPA determined that a plume containing 40 to 70 million
gallons of contaminated groundwater is near the site, extending from Indigo Creek to north of Route 60.
Drinking-Water Wells
Water samples were collected from six drinking-water wells located near the Fairview Dump site. U.S. EPA found
C-5
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
contamination in a well located at Fairview Town Park, but does not believe the contamination is related to the site.
Rather, U.S. EPA believes that this well was contaminated when bleach was poured into the well shortly before
sampling activities to chlorinate the well water.
Soil
As the groundwater monitoring wells were installed, U.S. EPA collected dozens of soil samples to a depth of about
30 feet. Numerous metals and organic compounds were detected in the soil samples at levels above those found in
background samples.
Surface Water, Sediment, and Aquatic Life
U.S. EPA collected samples of surface water from nine locations in Indigo Creek to determine whether it has been
affected by contamination. Sediment samples also were collected from seven locations. At five locations, U.S. EPA
collected samples of animals such as insects, worms, and crayfish living in the creek. In surface-water samples
downstream of the site, U.S. EPA detected five metals and four organic compounds at levels that were slightly higher
than the levels found in upstream samples. However, the levels of these contaminants decreased with increased
distance downstream of the site. U.S. EPA believes that natural dilution is responsible for the decrease in
contaminant levels further downstream of the site.
Concentrations of metals and organic compounds detected in downstream sediment samples also were slightly higher
than those found in upstream samples, but U.S. EPA was not able to link their presence in the sediment to site-
related activities. Compared to upstream locations, U.S. EPA found slightly fewer animals living in the downstream
portion of the creek, indicating that the site may be affecting the quality of the environment in this part of the creek.
Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment
Using information gathered during the RI on the nature and extent of site-related contamination, U.S. EPA conducted
a Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment to determine how contamination from the site could affect
either human health or the environment. The assessment compared contaminant levels found at the site with State
and Federal health and environmental standards; considered how people, animals, or plants could be exposed to the
contamination; and evaluated whether the site-related contaminants pose a threat to human health or the environment.
At the conclusion of the risk assessment, U.S. EPA determined that contaminants in groundwater and source-area
soil may threaten human health. However, most residents living along Route 60 receive drinking water from
municipal water supply systems, and private wells near the site are not contaminated. In addition, potential exposure
to contaminated source-area soil is limited by the clay cap and vegetation covering the landfilled area.
Although the potential for exposure to contaminants is currently limited, U.S. EPA is concerned about the potential
for future exposures. If the area near the site is developed into a residential neighborhood, U.S. EPA believes that
exposures could take place during construction activities, installation of groundwater supply wells, or children playing
in the contaminated source-area soil. In addition, existing wells could become contaminated if the plume migrates
further northward.
D. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the RI, U.S. EPA conducted a FS to identify, develop, and evaluate appropriate alternatives
for minimizing or eliminating risks to human health caused by the presence of contaminants in groundwater and
source-area soil, and for controlling any further contaminant releases. U.S. EPA developed six alternatives in the
C-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
FS. Each alternative is described below, and the criteria used to evaluate the alternatives are presented on page C-10.
Alternative 1
No Action
Under this alternative, U.S. EPA would take no action to address groundwater or soil contamination problems or to
minimize further contaminant releases from the site. U.S. EPA policy and regulations require consideration of a no-
action alternative to serve as a basis against which other alternatives can be compared. Because no further action
would be taken and the site would remain in its present condition, there are no costs associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2
Install a vertical barrier around the contaminant source area and the northern portion of the groundwater plume;
Install a multi-layer cap over the area bounded by the vertical barrier;
Relocate ten residences; and
Monitor groundwater and surface water.
Alternative 2 would involve installing an impermeable vertical barrier called a slurry wall around a 30-acre area that
includes the contaminant source and the contaminated upper aquifer lying beneath the northern portion of the site.
The slurry wall would consist of a three- to five-foot thick barrier of soil and bentonite, and would be constructed
25 feet below the surface of the ground. The flow of groundwater into or away from the contaminant source area
would be reduced by the slurry wall.
This alternative also would involve installing a multi-layer cap over the area bounded by the slurry wall to minimize
rainfall seepage into the ground and prevent direct contact with wastes in the source area. The cap would consist
of a two-foot clay layer placed directly over the existing land surface, an impermeable synthetic liner, a one-foot sand
and gravel drainage layer, two feet of soil, and one-foot of cover soil with vegetation. Construction and installation
of the cap would require relocation of approximately ten residences. The Federal Emergency Management Adminis-
tration would be responsible for coordinating, with U.S. EPA, the relocation of any residents away from the Fairview
Dump site and fairly compensating affected property owners.
To restrict site access and minimize the potential for damage to the cap, U.S. EPA would install a six-foot high fence
around the capped area. U.S. EPA also would seek deed restrictions for the properties covered by the cap to prevent
any construction or excavation activities in the capped area. The deed restrictions also would prohibit the use or
installation of any groundwater supply wells within the capped area.
Groundwater and surface-water monitoring also would take place at the site. The groundwater monitoring would
consist of quarterly sampling of 12 existing and five new groundwater monitoring wells for 30 years. If the
contaminated groundwater plume is found to be migrating away from the site, U.S. EPA would prohibit uses of
contaminated groundwater and secure an alternate water supply for any affected residences. Surface-water sampling
activities would take place every six months for 30 years, and would consist of collecting and analyzing water
samples from three locations in Indigo Creek. If U.S. EPA were to find contaminants in the surface water at levels
that may threaten human health or the environment, additional remedial action would be taken to address surface-
water contamination problems.
U.S. EPA estimates that Alternative 2 would cost approximately $21,000,000 and take two and one-half to four years
to implement.
C-7
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
Alternative 3
Excavate drums from the source area and incinerate on-site;
Vitrify incinerator ash and contaminated source-area soil;
Extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and
Monitor groundwater and surface water.
Alternative 3 would involve excavating the estimated 2,500 to 5,000 buried drums and incinerating the drums and
their contents on-site using a mobile incinerator. In the incinerator, temperatures of up to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit
would destroy any contaminants. The incinerator would be equipped with the air pollution control equipment
necessary for meeting State and local air quality requirements. Up to 500 cubic yards of ash would be generated
by the incineration process.
Using a process known as vitrification, U.S. EPA would immobilize the incinerator ash and contaminants contained
in source-area soil. Vitrification involves placing electrodes in the soil and passing an electric current between the
electrodes. The electric current would generate temperatures high enough to melt the sandy soils. Some organic
compounds would migrate to the surface of the ground during the vitrification process. These compounds would
be captured at the surface by a hood or cover placed over the vitrified area, and would be treated prior to discharging
them to the atmosphere. When the vitrified mass cools, it would form a glass-like material that would encapsulate
and immobilize metals and any remaining organic compounds. U.S. EPA would cover the vitrified area with one
foot of top soil and would plant vegetation in the soil.
This alternative also would involve extracting and treating contaminated groundwater. The groundwater extraction
system would consist of two groundwater extraction trenches and 33 groundwater extraction wells installed on and
near the site. Water extracted by the trenches and wells would be piped to an on-site carbon adsorption treatment
unit. Treating water by carbon adsorption involves passing the water through a chamber that is packed with carbon
particles. The carbon adsorption process takes place in this chamber when carbon particles attract and bind to any
organic compounds in the water. After the water is treated, it would meet State and Federal water-quality standards,
and would be discharged to Indigo Creek. While the groundwater treatment process is underway, U.S. EPA would
prohibit the use or installation of groundwater supply wells near the site.
This alternative also involves groundwater and surface-water monitoring activities to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedial action. For 30 years, on a quarterly basis, U.S. EPA would collect groundwater samples from 18 existing
and one new groundwater monitoring wells. Surface-water samples would be collected from three locations in Indigo
Creek semi-annually for 30 years.
U.S. EPA would install a six-foot high fence around the contaminant source and on-site incineration areas to restrict
site access. In addition, U.S. EPA would use deed restrictions for those properties located in the area of the
contaminated groundwater plume to prohibit the use or installation of groundwater supply wells.
U.S. EPA estimates that Alternative 3 would cost $39,000,000 and take about three years to implement.
Alternative 4
Install vertical barrier around contaminant source area;
Install multi-layer cap over the contaminant source area;
Extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and
Monitor groundwater and surface water.
C-8
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
Alternative 4 would involve installing a soil-bentonite slurry wall around the three-acre contaminant source area and
constructing a multi-layer cap over the source area. To prevent disturbance of the slurry wall and cap, a fence would
be constructed around the capped area and any construction, excavation, or well installation activities on the property
underlying the cap would be restricted.
This alternative also would involve installing two groundwater extraction trenches and 33 groundwater extraction
wells on and near the site to withdraw contaminated groundwater for treatment. A carbon adsorption process would
be used to treat the groundwater and remove organic compounds, and treated water would be discharged to Indigo
Creek. U.S. EPA would restrict the use or installation of groundwater supply wells near the site during the water
treatment process.
U.S. EPA would install nine groundwater monitoring wells outside of the groundwater extraction trenches to monitor
any contaminated groundwater flow through the trenches. U.S. EPA would use existing wells along Indigo Geek
to monitor the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction wells. To monitor the quality of water in the creek, U.S.
EPA would collect samples of the creek water on a semi-annual basis for 30 years.
U.S. EPA believes that Alternative 4 would cost $8,000,000 and take up to three years to implement.
Alternative 5
Excavate drums and contaminated soil from source area and incinerate off-site;
Extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and
Monitor groundwater and surface water.
Alternative 5 would involve excavating the buried drums and contaminated soil from the source area, and
transporting the excavated materials to a Federally licensed incineration facility 90 miles from the Fairview Dump
site. U.S. EPA would fill the excavated area with soil, and vegetation would be planted in the soil. In addition, a
fence would be constructed around the excavated area to prevent access to the site.
Alternative 5 also would involve extracting contaminated groundwater and treating it by carbon adsorption to remove
contaminants. U.S. EPA would use two trenches and 33 wells to withdraw contaminated groundwater and pump
it to the on-site water treatment unit. Water treated by the unit would meet State and Federal water-quality standards
before it would be discharged to Indigo Creek. U.S. EPA would monitor any groundwater flow through the
extraction trenches and wells, and would monitor groundwater and surface-water quality to assess the effectiveness
of the remedial action. U.S. EPA also would prohibit the use or installation of groundwater supply wells near the
site while the remedial action is underway.
U.S. EPA believes that Alternative 5 would cost $67,000,000 and take two and one-half to three years to implement.
Alternative 6
Excavate drums and contaminated soils from source area and incinerate on-site;
Extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and
Monitor groundwater and surface water.
Under this alternative, U.S. EPA would excavate buried drum and contaminated soils from the source area, and
incinerate the excavated materials on-site using a mobile incinerator. Ash produced by the incinerator would be
placed back into the excavated areas, and U.S. EPA would fill the area with clean soil and plant vegetation. In
C-9
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
addition, U.S. EPA would construct a six-foot high fence around the excavation and on-site incinerator areas to
control site access.
Alternative 6 also would involve extracting contaminated groundwater with two trenches and 33 wells, and treating
the water by carbon adsorption to remove contaminants. Groundwater withdrawn by the trenches and wells would
be pumped to an on-site carbon adsorption treatment unit where carbon particles would remove organic compounds
by binding to the compounds. After treatment, the water would be discharged to Indigo Creek. U.S. EPA would
monitor any groundwater flow through the extraction trenches and wells, and would monitor groundwater and
surface-water quality to assess the effectiveness of the remedial action. While the groundwater is being treated, U.S.
EPA would prevent the use or installation of groundwater supply wells in the area of the site.
U.S. EPA estimates that Alternative 6 would cost $39,000,000 and take two and one-half years to implement.
E. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In selecting its preferred alternative, U.S. EPA uses the following criteria to evaluate the alternatives developed in
the FS for the Fairview Dump Superfund site. Seven of the criteria are used to evaluate all the alternatives, based
on environmental protection, cost, and engineering feasibility issues. U.S. EPA's preferred alternative is further
evaluated based on the final two criteria: State acceptance and community acceptance.
(1) Overall protection of human health and the environment. U.S. EPA assesses the degree to which each
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and the environment through treatment,
engineering methods (e.g., multi-layer cap), or institutional controls (e.g., access restrictions).
(2) Compliance with State and Federal regulations. The alternatives are evaluated for compliance with environ-
mental protection regulations determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to the site conditions.
(3) Cost. The benefits of implementing a particular alternative are weighed against the cost of implementation.
(4) Implementability. U.S. EPA considers the technical feasibility (e.g., the difficulty of the alternative to construct
and operate) and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of coordination with other government agencies that is
needed) of a remedy, including the availability of necessary goods and services.
(5) Short-term effectiveness. The length of time needed to implement each alternative is considered, and U.S. EPA
assesses the risks that implementation of a particular alternative may pose to workers and nearby residents (e.g.,
would contaminated dust be produced during soil excavation?).
(6) Long-term effectiveness. The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment after implementation.
(7) Reduction of contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume. U.S. EPA evaluates each alternative based on how
it reduces the harmful nature of the contaminants, their ability to move through the environment, and the amount
of contamination.
(8) State acceptance. U.S. EPA requests State comments on the RI/FS report and the proposed plan and considers
whether the State concurs with or opposes U.S. EPA's preferred alternative.
C-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
(9) Community acceptance. U.S. EPA assesses community acceptance of the preferred alternative by giving the
public an opportunity to comment on the remedy selection process. A public comment period is held, and U.S.
EPA considers and responds to comments received from the community prior to the final selection of a remedial
action.
U.S EPA's Preferred Alternative
U.S. EPA recommends Alternative 6 as its preferred alternative for protecting human health and the environment
from contaminated groundwater and source-area soil and for eliminating the source of contamination at the Fairview
Dump Superfund site. The preferred alternative would involve:
Excavating drums and contaminated soils from source area;
Incinerating excavated materials on-site using a mobile incinerator;
Disposing of incinerator ash in the excavated area;
Filling the excavation area with soil and planting vegetation;
Constructing a fence around the excavation area;
Installing two groundwater extraction trenches and 33 groundwater extraction wells near the site for withdrawing
contaminated groundwater;
Monitoring the possible flow of contaminated groundwater through the extraction trenches and wells;
Treating contaminated groundwater by carbon adsorption to remove contaminants;
Discharging treated water to Indigo Creek; and
Monitoring groundwater and surface-water quality to assess the effectiveness of the remedial action.
U.S. EPA estimates that its preferred alternative would cost $39,000,000 and take two and one-half years to
implement.
F. UPCOMING SITE-RELATED ACTIVITIES/OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public Comment Period
The public comment period on the FS and proposed plan is the next step in selecting a final remedial action for the
Fairview Dump Superfund site. U.S. EPA will hold a public comment period from July 9 to August 7, 1990, to
accept comments from the Oakwood County community and other interested parties on the proposed plan (including
all the alternatives considered for the site) and FS. During the public comment period, interested residents may
submit written comments to Mary Smith, the U.S. EPA Community Relations Coordinator for the Fairview Dump
site, at the address below. Comments must be postmarked no later than August 7,1990. Based on public comments
or new information, U.S. EPA may considerably modify the preferred alternative or choose another of the alternatives
developed in the FS.
Public Meeting
Oakwood County residents are encouraged to attend a public meeting to learn more about the alternatives developed
for the site. The public meeting also will provide an opportunity for interested individuals to submit comments on
the FS and proposed plan to U.S. EPA. The meeting will be held on:
Date: July 23, 1990
Time: 7:30 pm
Location: Rossville Town Hall
C-ll
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
Signing of the ROD
Following the public comment period, U.S. EPA will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. The ROD will
detail the remedial action chosen for the site and include U.S. EPA's responses to comments received during the
public comment period. After the ROD is signed, a design plan for implementing the remedial action will be
prepared. Once the design is complete, construction of the remedial action can begin.
Ongoing Informational Updates
U.S. EPA will keep the Oakwood County community informed about new developments at the site by preparing
informational updates and distributing them to individuals on the mailing list (see Mailing List Additions below).
Available Information
Copies of the documents U.S. EPA prepared during its investigation and study of the Fairview Dump site, including
the RI/FS report and the proposed plan, are available for review at the following information repository:
Peterson Public Library
315 McHenry Blvd.
Rossville, New Hampshire 08976
For further information on the Fairview Dump site, please contact the following U.S. EPA personnel:
Mary Smith or Robert Jones
Community Relations Coordinator Remedial Project Manager
(617) 565-8865 (617) 565-3965
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Toll-free Number: 1-800-621-8745 (9:00 am to 4:30 pm EST)
Mailing List Additions
If you would like to be added to U.S. EPA's mailing list for the Fairview Dump site, please fill out this form and
mail it to Mary Smith at the address above.
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Affiliation:
C-12
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix C
G. GLOSSARY
Alternative: A combination of technical and administrative methods, developed and evaluated in a Feasibility Study,
that can be used to address contamination at a Superfund site.
Aquifer: An underground rock or soil formation that is capable of supplying water to wells and springs.
Background Sample: A sample collected at a distance from a hazardous waste site for analysis to determine the
chemical levels that occur naturally in the environment U.S. EPA compares chemical concentrations in background
samples with those found in samples collected from a Superfund site during a Remedial Investigation to determine
if a contamination problem exists.
Bentonite: A clay formed by the decomposition of volcanic ash. Bentonite can absorb large amounts of water,
making it useful for inhibiting groundwater flow.
Chlorobenzene: An organic compound that is used as a solvent and pesticide. Breathing or coming into contact
with chlorobenzene can cause a toxic effect on the body.
Feasibility Study: The second part of a two-part study called a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The
Feasibility Study involves identifying and evaluating the most appropriate technical approaches for addressing
contamination problems at a Superfund site. The alternatives are evaluated for their effectiveness in protecting
human health and the environment.
Groundwater: Water that fills spaces between sand, soil, rock, and gravel particles beneath the surface of the earth.
Rain water that does not evaporate or drain to streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes slowly seeps into the ground forming
a groundwater reservoir. Groundwater flows much more slowly than surface water, often along routes that lead to
streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes.
Hydrogeologic: A word used in reference to the science of hydrogeology, which studies the interactions among
surface water, groundwater, and the earth.
Metals: A group of chemical elements characterized by their luster and ability to conduct heat and electricity.
Barium, beryllium, chromium, lead, and nickel are examples of metals. Exposure to some metals, such as lead, can
have a toxic effect on tissues, while other metals such as iron and zinc are essential to the metabolism of animals
and humans.
National Priorities List: U.S. EPA's nationwide list of hazardous waste sites that pose the greatest actual or
potential risk to public health or the environment. Each site on the list qualifies for an in-depth investigation and
possible cleanup action.
Organic Compounds: One of the two classes of chemical compounds: organic and inorganic. Organic compounds
are distinct from inorganic compounds because they contain carbon. Examples of materials composed of organic
compounds includes petroleum products, solvents, and pesticides. Exposure to some organic compounds can produce
a toxic effect on tissues.
Plume: A defined area of groundwater contamination believed to have originated from a known source.
Proposed Plan: A document that describes all the alternatives considered by U.S. EPA for addressing contamination
at a Superfund site, including the alternative U.S. EPA prefers to use at the site.
C-13
-------
Appendix C Community Relations Handbook
Record of Decision: A document prepared by U.S. EPA that outlines the remedial action to be implemented at a
Superfund site, including U.S. EPA's responses to public comments on the proposed plan and Feasibility Study.
Remedial Action: A series of steps taken to monitor, control, reduce, or eliminate risks to human health or the
environment caused by the release or threatened release of contaminants from a Superfund site.
Remedial Investigation: The first part of a two-part Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Remedial
Investigation involves collecting and analyzing information about a Superfund site to determine the nature and extent
of contamination that may be present. The investigation also determines how conditions at the site may affect human
health or the environment.
Responsiveness Summary: A section within the Record of Decision that presents U.S. EPA's responses to public
comments on the proposed plan and Feasibility Study.
Sediment: Mud, sand, gravel, and decomposing animals and plants that settle to the bottom of a stream, lake, river,
or pond.
Superfund: The common name for the Federal program established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended in 1986. The Superfund law authorizes U.S. EPA to
investigate and clean up the nation's most serious hazardous waste sites.
Toxicity: A relative measure of a substance's ability to damage living tissue or impair normal biological functions.
Vinyl Chloride: An organic compound used in industrial processes to make plastic. It is extremely toxic and is
known to cause cancer.
C-14
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix D
APPENDIX D
SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR AND SAMPLE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
I. SUGGESTED FORMAT
A. Overview
Purpose: To briefly state the public's reaction to the agency's preferred alternative.
Length: One to two paragraphs.
B. Background on Community Involvement
Purpose: To briefly summarize major community concerns identified in the Community Relations Plan and
public comment period on the RI/FS and proposed plan. To describe how the agency addressed these concerns.
Length: Two to three pages.
C. Summary of Public Comments Received During Public Comment Period and Agency Responses
Part I - Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
Purpose: To briefly summarize and expressly respond to major issues and concerns raised by the local
community. The "local community" is defined as individuals who live in the immediate vicinity of a Superfund
site and are threatened from a health or environmental standpoint. Such persons may include individual citizens,
citizen groups, local officials and PRPs. Part I should be organized by subject and written in a clear, concise,
easy-to-understand manner.
Length: Varies with the number and types of comments received.
Part II - Comprehensive Response to Specific Legal and Technical Questions
pse: To comprehensively respond to all significant comments and concerns raised by the community,
including PRPs. This part should be comprised of specific legal and technical questions and their corresponding
responses. If necessary, this part should elaborate on responses covered in Part I with greater technical detail.
Like Part I, this part should be presented by subject.
Length: Varies with the number and types of comments received.
D. Remaining Concerns
Purpose: To identify any public concerns that the agency did not address directly during the RI/FS and how
it proposes to handle these concerns during remedial design and remedial action.
Length: One paragraph to one page.
D-l
-------
Appendix D Community Relations Handbook
Attachment
List of community relations activities conducted at the site before and during the public comment period.
D-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix D
II. SAMPLE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The following responsiveness summary for the Mitchell Dump site in Napoli, Maryland, is intended to illustrate the
suggested format and content of responsiveness summaries. This example is based on an actual responsiveness
summary prepared for a Superfund remedial site. Names, locations, and some technical details have been changed.
This responsiveness summary should be viewed as an illustration only.
********
MITCHELL DUMP, NAPOLI, MARYLAND
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
A. OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, EPA had already selected a preferred alternative for the Mitchell Dump
in Napoli, Maryland. EPA's recommended alternative addressed the soil and groundwater contamination problems
at the site. The preferred alternative specified in the record of decision (ROD) involved aeration to reduce soil
contamination and pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater. Treatment of the groundwater would involve
air stripping and carbon filtration. The treated groundwater would then be returned to the aquifer.
Judging from the comments received during the public comment period, the residents and town council of Napoli
and the Maryland Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would strongly support the pumping and air-
stripping alternative for the groundwater contamination. The community, in general, preferred soil treatment methods
other than aeration (e.g., Citizens for a Safe Environment preferred incineration, local officials preferred capping,
and DEP preferred excavation and removal of "hot spots"). The PRPs, however, would not support any alternative
that involved pumping and treatment of groundwater.
These sections follow:
Background on Community Involvement
Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency Responses
- Part I: Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
- Part II: Comprehensive Response to Specific Legal and Technical Questions
Remaining Concerns
Attachment: Community Relations Activities at Mitchell Dump
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community interest in the Mitchell Dump site dates to 1982 when residents of Napoh' reported odors in their well
water and discoloration of laundry. Since 1982, community concern and involvement have remained strong. Two
women, Jane Bethel and Karen Sweeney, have been particularly vocal in expressing the concerns of the community
to the Napoli Town Council, DEP, and EPA. They have been successful in focusing considerable media attention
D-3
-------
Appendix D Community Relations Handbook
on the site. The major concerns expressed during the remedial planning activities at the Mitchell Dump focused on
the possible health effects from contamination at the site and apparent delays in getting the site cleaned up. These
concerns and how EPA addressed them are described below:
(1) Citizens for a Safe Environment and several residents expressed concern that wells not originally included in
the site's sampling plan were contaminated.
EPA Response: EPA agreed to expand the sampling plan to include wells identified by the residents.
(2) At two points during the RI, local officials and a few residents complained that there was not adequate follow-
up. Specifically, they complained that sampling results and the status of negotiations with PRPs were not made
available.
EPA Response: Concerning the lack of sampling information, EPA contacted local officials and interested
residents to explain the sampling results as they became available.
EPA was unable to provide the community with information on the status of PRP negotiations since this
information is considered confidential. EPA did acknowledge that PRP negotiations were underway.
(3) Citizens for a Safe Environment expressed a great deal of concern about health effects from the site shortly after
the groundwater contamination was first discovered.
EPA Response: To provide the community with accurate, up-to-date information on possible health effects form
the Mitchell Dump, EPA prepared and distributed a fact sheet.
(4) One of the major concerns expressed by local officials and residents regarded the perceived delays in the cleanup
schedule.
EPA Response: EPA distributed a generic information pamphlet describing the remedial process and the time
required for remedial activities.
C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
AGENCY RESPONSES
The public comment period on the draft FS and proposed plan for the Mitchell Dump site was held from February
27 to April 13, 1990. Comments received during this time are summarized below. Part I of this section addresses
those community concerns and comments that are non-technical in nature. Responses to specific legal and technical
questions are provided in Part II. Comments in each Part are categorized by relevant topics.
Part I - Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
Remedial Alternative Preferences
(1) DEP recommended controlling the source of contamination, possibly by on-site aeration if first tested on a small
scale. DEP also recommended that EPA excavate the top few feet of soil in the "hot spots" and dispose of soil
off-site. DEP supports groundwater pumping and treatment, but disagrees with EPA proposals. DEP suggests
that groundwater be treated at the point of discharge rather than at the point of origin.
D-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix D
EPA Response: After considering the tradeoffs between the solutions, EPA decided on the on-site remedial
action described in the record of decision (ROD). This remedial action will involve soil aeration on-site,
covering the site with a synthetic cap, and pumping and air stripping/carbon filtration of groundwater. For a
further explanation of the process for selecting the remedial alternative, refer to the ROD. The ROD considers
both the on-site aeration alternative and treatment of groundwater at the point of discharge, and documents
EPA's choice of cleanup method.
(2) Citizens for a Safe Environment (speaking for a number of citizens at the public hearing) recommended that
groundwater be pumped and treated. However, they also expressed concern as to whether air-stripping would
remove heavy metals. The Citizens for a Safe Environment and State Representative Bob Carter preferred
source control by incineration rather than soil aeration or capping the site.
EPA Response: EPA seriously considered the preference of local residents for pumping and treatment of
groundwater and eventually selected it as the preferred alternative. EPA selected aeration over incineration
because of the potential for air pollution from incineration. Air-stripping is an effective treatment for volatile
organics, but not for heavy metals. To date, heavy metal contamination in off-site groundwater has not been
identified as an environmental health concern. If this situation changes, the proposed treatment system will be
modified to ensure that levels of heavy metals in the treated water will not adversely affect public health or the
environment.
(3) The Napoli Town Council agreed that groundwater extraction and treatment were critical. The town council,
however, was split on capping versus incineration. The council preferred a clay cap rather than a synthetic cap.
The council opposed on-site aeration. Other local officials, including the Napoli Planning Board and the
Mitchell Dumping Site Evaluation Committee, endorsed capping as the preferred method of source control.
EPA Response: EPA appreciates the efforts made to consider seriously the tradeoffs involved in the source
control options. EPA has considered the advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties associated with each
alternative considered in the FS. After considering the effectiveness and cost of each alternative, EPA decided
on the aeration and air-stripping/carbon filtration alternative described in the ROD. For a further explanation
of the process for selecting the remedial alternative, refer to the ROD.
(4) All PRPs and their representatives recommended that the source of contamination be controlled and that the
groundwater be allowed to cleanse itself naturally. They opposed pumping and treating groundwater due to
possible technical problems and questioned the cost-effectiveness, since the water is not presently used to supply
drinking water.
EPA Response: As EPA explained to the PRPs, EPA's policy is that applicable and relevant Federal laws be
applied to Superfund remedies to ensure adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the environment.
In this case, EPA applied Federal standards from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to reach
the decision to pump and treat off-site contaminated groundwater by air-stripping and carbon filtration methods.
This cleanup will be accomplished to levels adequate to protect human health and the environment based on
drinking water standards.
(5) DEP recommended that air monitoring be developed prior to on-site work that may result in emissions to the
atmosphere.
EPA Response: Air quality will be monitored both on and off the site during the soil aeration. If monitoring
reveals air releases in excess of EPA standards, aeration will be halted and one of the other remedial alternatives
will be substituted.
D-5
-------
Appendix D Community Relations Handbook
(6) Most of the PRPs and several individuals questioned the effectiveness and technical feasibility of the
pumping/treating alternative for groundwater.
EPA Response: EPA considered state-of-the-art groundwater restoration techniques in the RI/FS. Field tests
during the pre-design stage will be conducted to ensure that pumping/treating is effective.
(7) PRPs expressed concern that because the pumping alternative necessitated construction on the site, an unattended
structure would be left on-site for many years and would attract vandals.
EPA Response: The treatment facility for the Mitchell Dump will be designed to minimize the potential for
vandalism.
Remedial Alternative Safety Concerns
(1) Citizens for a Safe Environment and a local union leader expressed concern that soil aeration may pose an
unacceptable risk to workers and the community, including children wandering onto the site.
EPA Response: Soil aeration will be completed as efficiently as possible and in accordance with a procedure
that will not allow airborne contaminants to exceed the safe limits established by EPA for both workers and the
public. EPA will require air monitoring during soil aeration. If this monitoring reveals air releases in excess
of EPA standards, aeration will be halted and one of the other remedial alternatives will be substituted.
Measures will be taken to prevent unauthorized people from entering the site.
(2) DEP, Citizens for a Safe Environment, Representative Carter, and a resident raised concerns regarding the long-
term integrity of the cap at the public hearing. They have argued that while a cap provides cover, it does not
eliminate contamination and eventually contaminants will emerge. Citizens for a Safe Environment had a
number of questions concerning the capping alternative, including: how long the cap will last; whether the cap
will be affected by chemical vapors from the soil; whether excessive water ponding on top of the cap or running
off the sides will get into the soil; whether excess water be drained; and die effects of thawing on the cap.
EPA Response: The use of synthetic caps is relatively new (10-15 years old); predicting the effective life is
difficult. Manufacturers of the synthetic cap material claim that it can withstand high concentrations of liquid
volatile organics for 50 years or more. The cap at Mitchell will not come into contact with liquids, but will
come into contact with lower concentrations of vapors. Therefore, EPA feels that a 50-year life span is realistic.
Tests of the cap have shown that the capping material will not be affected by thawing. As for ponding - the
cap will act as an umbrella over the contaminated soil. The site is naturally graded, so there should be no
ponding in the vicinity of the contaminated soils. Water will naturally drain off the site.
(3) At the public meeting, one resident asked how aeration is to be done.
EPA Response: As the Agency explained during the meeting, soil would be turned over periodically with a
rototiller to encourage evaporation of volatile organics and monitored until levels of contaminants in the soil are
below detectable levels.
(4) Citizens for a Safe Environment questioned the adequacy of the RI/FS in explaining the effects of seasonal
variation in the level and movement of groundwater. The group questioned whether testing done in March was
representative of the entire year.
D-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix D
EPA Response: The RI/FS provides sufficient information, including information on depth of groundwater, to
make a decision on a site remedy without further delays associated with additional studies.
Public Participation Process
(1) There were several complaints that not enough time was allowed between the public meeting on March 17, when
the RI/FS was explained, and the scheduled close of the public comment period on March 29. (The draft FS
was released on February 27). Specifically, the following parties requested to have the public comment period
extended: Citizens for a Safe Environment, Napoli Town Council, residents, PRPs, and Representative Carter.
EPA Response: The public comment period started with the release of the documents on February 27, 1990.
During the comment period, EPA held a meeting on March 17, 1990, to receive any questions on the FS. The
comment period initially allowed 30 days to comment, but was extended on one occasion to allow an additional
15 days. With the extension, the comment period ended on April 13, 1990.
Cost/Funding Issues
(1) Several comments were received from DEP, residents, and Representative Carter expressing concern that
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs could place a large burden on the State and taxpayers. DEP was
particularly concerned that O&M costs would be an excessive burden on the State. Citizens for a Safe
Environment and local residents suggested that PRPs should pay for O&M.
EPA Response: The Superfund law stipulates that, whenever possible, PRPs pay for remedial actions at a
Superfund site. PRPs can conduct the remedial action or EPA can take action following the cleanup to recover
monies for Superfund.
EPA will try to ensure that PRPs pay the costs of cleanup and O&M. In addition, further efforts will be made
to minimize the State's O&M costs without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the remedial action.
(2) Residents and Representative Carter stated that cost should not be a criterion in deciding how to clean up a site.
EPA Response: The National Contingency Plan (NCP) specifies the decision process for remedial actions at
Superfund sites. EPA does not compromise on the effectiveness of an alternative to meet the cost-effectiveness
criterion. However, among those alternatives considered effective, EPA selects the least costly. This preserves
monies for other Superfund sites.
(3) Representative Carter and the Citizens for a Safe Environment stated that, since the FY 1989, final Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) allocated $5 million for cleanup of the Mitchell Dump, EPA
should not be constrained by costs in selecting alternatives.
EPA Response: The $5 million listed in the SCAP was estimated in advance of the FS for budgeting purposes
nationwide. It is a gross estimate made before the appropriate actions could be determined. The cost-effective
criterion in the NCP has been used in making the decision for the Mitchell Dump. EPA believes this is a more
appropriate criterion than using an estimated figure regardless of the circumstances pertaining to the site.
(4) One resident questioned who would pay for the cleanup.
D-7
-------
Appendix D Community Relations Handbook
EPA Response: The remedial action at the site, if done by the government, would use 90 percent Superfund
money and 10 percent State funds. The O&M costs, in this case, would have to be borne by the State. The
other option that exists at any Superfund site is that PRPs with liabilities associated with the site may agree to
come forth and do the cleanup, or they may decline, in which case the government would pay and then seek
to recover the costs in court after the cleanup.
Decision Process
(1) During the public hearing, a reporter with the Napoli Journal asked who decides how to clean up the site
EPA? DEP? EPA and DEP in conjunction?
EPA Response: Under the Superfund law, EPA must make the decision in consultation with the State. The
law, however, also states that before EPA can spend the money for the remedial action, EPA must have a
contract with the State ensuring that the State will pay 10 percent of the cost and will assume O&M of the site.
In effect, that gives the State a veto, since it could refuse to sign a contract for cost-sharing.
Part II - Comprehensive Response to Specific Legal and Technical Questions
Cleanup Level
(1) PRPs asserted that the cleanup criteria proposed in EPA's proposed plan are inappropriate, since the soil and
groundwater at the site do not present a significant current or future threat to human health and the environment.
PRPs believe the health risks from contaminated soil and groundwater at the site have been overstated, since
opportunities for exposure to the site are extremely limited.
EPA Response: Based on the results of the RI and the risk assessment, EPA has determined that large volumes
of soil and groundwater are contaminated at levels significantly above EPA recommended action levels. Further,
EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the site, if not addressed
by implementing the response actions identified in the ROD, could result in imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Legal Applications
(1) PRPs questioned the application of RCRA, since RCRA requirements were not a stated objective in the FS.
EPA Response: To adequately protect human health and the environment, EPA policy is that applicable
regulations and relevant Federal laws be applied to Superfund remedies. In the case of the Mitchell Dump, the
applicable regulations are those found in RCRA that call for cleaning up off-site contamination caused by the
migration of contaminants from a hazardous waste facility.
Enforcement
(1) PRPs questioned why EPA had not pursued other users of the Mitchell Dump.
EPA Response: The question relates to EPA enforcement actions against PRPs at the Mitchell Dump. The
purpose of this responsiveness summary is not to comment on EPA enforcement strategy, but rather to respond
to comments on the RI/FS and its recommendations.
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix D
Public Participation
(1) PRPs requested that all their comments, including attachments, appendices, and other accompanying documents,
be fully considered and placed in the Administrative Record for the site.
EPA Response: EPA, as a matter of policy, incorporates all comments, attachments, appendices, and other
accompanying documents received during the public comment period into the Administrative Record subsequent
to signing the ROD.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(1) PRPs stated that they had hired a certified testing company to analyze the groundwater at the Mitchell Dump
site. Those results revealed contaminant levels which were significantly less than the analytical results obtained
by EPA. EPA values were inflated compared to the testing company values. The PRPs asked EPA to explain
the disparity between the results.
EPA Response: EPA implements a rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program to collect and
analyze groundwater samples at all Superfund sites. The samples were analyzed through a contract laboratory
program (CLP), which follows strict EPA regulations. Since EPA did not regulate or monitor the sampling of
the testing company, the results were not validated and cannot be used for Superfund purposes.
(2) PRPs asserted that EPA's approach to remediation of the site appears to be the desire to achieve "permanence."
Under CERCLA and existing EPA policy, however, the desire for "permanence" does not alone justify selection
of an extreme and costly treatment remedy.
The NCP requires that the Agency compare the cost differences of alternatives being considered to the
differences in effectiveness of the alternatives. (Fed. Reg. 8728-29, March, 1990). EPA's cleanup plan for the
site provides for an extremely costly and impracticable remedy.
EPA Response: EPA has balanced all of the remedial alternatives evaluated according to the nine criteria
defined in the NCP [300.430 (e)(a)(iii); 300.430 (f)(i)(i)], including balancing the incremental cost differences
in effectiveness, prior to selecting the remedy outlined in the ROD.
D. REMAINING CONCERNS
Issues and concerns that EPA was unable to address during remedial planning activities include the following:
How much of the cleanup will be paid by PRPs? EPA was unable to address this issue since negotiations
are still unresolved.
Will the pumping/treating alternative be 100 percent effective? EPA was unable to address this concern
because this information will not be available until details of the remedial design are established. EPA will
release this information as soon as it is available.
The Citizens for a Safe Environment specifically requested an opportunity to review and comment on the draft
remedial design study before it is approved by EPA. In response, EPA will hold a 30-day comment period and
public meeting after completion of the workplan for remedial design to allow the public to question EPA, DEP, and
contractor staff.
D-9
-------
Appendix D Community Relations Handbook
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
AT MITCHELL DUMP
Community relations activities conducted at the Mitchell Dump have included:
DEP conducted community interviews with local officials and interested residents (April, 1986).
DEP prepared Community Relations Plan (May, 1986).
DEP issued a press release announcing finalization of cooperative agreement (June, 1986).
EPA established an information repository at the Napoli Library (June, 1986).
EPA prepared and distributed a fact sheet on health-effects of site contaminants (July, 1986).
DEP and EPA jointly issued two press releases to announce the findings of RI (Summer and Fall, 1986).
DEP frequently telephoned the Napoli City Council, Mayor, and the press (ongoing throughout RI/FS).
EPA released the FS for public review and comment (February, 1990).
EPA held a public meeting at Stephenson Hall in Napoli to describe the RI/FS reports and respond to citizens'
questions. Approximately 60 people attended, including citizens, elected officials, and technical and legal
representatives of the PRPs (March 17, 1990). A transcript of this meeting is available at the Napoli Public
Library.
EPA held a public hearing at Stephenson Hall in Napoli to record comments by the public, including potentially
responsible parties (March 24, 1990). A transcript of this hearing is available at the Napoli Public Library.
EPA extended the public comment period. The comment period was held from February 27 to April 13, 1990.
D-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
SUPERFUND GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms often used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff when describing
activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly
called Superfund), as amended in 1986. The definitions apply specifically to the Superfund program and may have
other meanings when used in different circumstances. Bolded words are defined elsewhere in the glossary.
Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC)
Administrative Record
Air Stripping
Aquifer
Carcinogen
Carbon Adsorption
Cleanup
Comment Period
A legal agreement between EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
whereby PRPs agree to perform or pay the cost of a site cleanup. The agreement
describes actions to be taken at a site and may be subject to a public comment
period. Unlike a consent decree, an administrative order on consent does not
have to be approved by a judge.
A file that is maintained, and contains all information used, by the lead agency to
make its decision on the selection of a response action under CERCLA. This file
is to be available for public review and a copy established at or near the site,
usually at one of the information repositories. A duplicate file is held in a
central location, such as a Regional Office or State.
A treatment system that removes, or "strips," volatile organic compounds from
contaminated groundwater or surface water by forcing an airstream through the
water and causing the compounds to evaporate.
An underground rock formation composed of materials such as sand, soil, or
gravel that can store and supply groundwater to wells and springs. Most aquifers
used in the United States are within a thousand feet of the earth's surface.
A substance that causes cancer.
A treatment system where contaminants are removed from groundwater or
surface water when the water is forced through tanks containing activated carbon,
a treated material that attracts the contaminants.
Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances that could affect public health or the environment. The term is often
used broadly to describe various response actions or phases of remedial
responses, such as the remedial investigation/feasibility study.
A time period for the public to review and comment on various documents and
EPA actions. For example, a comment period is provided when EPA proposes to
add sites to the National Priorities List. A minimum 30-day comment period is
held to allow community members to review and comment on a draft RI/FS and
proposed plan; it must be extended an additional 30 days upon timely request. A
comment period is required to amend the ROD. Similarly, a 30-day comment
period is provided when EPA proposes to delete a site from the NPL.
E-l
-------
Appendix E
Community Relations Handbook
Community Relations
(CR)
Community Relations
Plan (CRP)
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Consent Decree (CD)
Contract Lab Program
Cost Recovery
Emergency
Enforcement
Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Environmental Response
Team (ERT)
Explanation of
Differences
EPA's program to inform and involve the public in the Superfund process and
respond to community concerns.
Formal plan for EPA community relations activities at a Superfund site. The
CRP is designed to ensure citizen opportunities for public involvement at the site,
determine activities that will provide for such involvement, and allow citizens the
opportunity to learn about the site.
A Federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The Acts created a special tax that goes
into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund, to investigate and clean up
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program, EPA can
either:
Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be
located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work; or
Take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean
up the site or pay back the Federal government for the cost of the cleanup.
A legal document approved and issued by a judge that formalizes an agreement
reached between EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) where PRPs
will perform all or part of a Superfund site cleanup. The consent decree
describes actions that PRPs are required to perform and is subject to a public
comment period.
Laboratories under contract to EPA that analyze soil, water, and waste samples
taken from areas at or near Superfund sites.
A legal process where potentially responsible parties can be required to pay
back the Federal government for money spent on cleanup actions.
Those releases or threats of releases requiring initiation of on-site activity within
hours of the lead agency's determination that a removal action is appropriate.
EPA's efforts, through legal action if necessary, to force potentially responsible
parties to perform or pay for a Superfund site cleanup.
An analysis of removal alternatives for a site, similar to a remedial program
feasibility study. Upon completion, the EE/CA must be made available for a 30-
calendar-day public comment period. This comment period must be extended by
at least 15 days upon timely request.
EPA hazardous waste experts who provide 24-hour technical assistance to EPA
Regional Offices and States during all types of emergencies involving releases at
hazardous waste sites and spills of hazardous substances.
Subsequent to adoption of a final remedial action plan, if any remedial action is
taken, any enforcement action under §106 is taken, or any settlement or consent
decree under §106 or §122 is entered into, and if such action, settlement, or de-
cree differs in any significant respects from the final remedial action plan, the lead
agency is required to publish an explanation of significant differences and reasons
the changes were made. See Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Docu-
ments: the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (34) for further information.
E-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix E
Feasibility Study (FS)
Groundwater
Hazard Ranking System
(HRS)
Hazardous Substance
Hydrology
Incineration
Information Repository
Leachate
Monitoring Wells
National Oil and
Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP)
National Priorities List
(NPL)
National Response
Center (NRC)
See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Water found beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between materials such as
sand, soil, or gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient quantities that
it can be used for drinking water, irrigation, and other purposes.
A scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public health and the
environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA
and States use the HRS to calculate a site score (0 to 100) based on the actual or
potential release of hazardous substances from a site through air, surface water,
or groundwater. This score is the primary factor used to decide if a hazardous
waste site should be placed on the National Priorities List.
Any material that poses a threat to public health and/or the environment. Typical
hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or
chemically reactive.
The science dealing with the properties, movement, and effects of water found on
the earth's surface, in the soil and rocks below, and in the atmosphere.
Burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or gaseous materials under controlled
conditions to destroy hazardous waste.
A file containing current information, technical reports, reference documents, and
TAG application information on a Superfund site. The information repository is
usually located in a public building that is convenient for local residents, such as a
public school, city hall, or library.
A contaminated liquid resulting when water percolates, or trickles, through waste
materials and collects components of those wastes. Leaching may occur at
landfills and may result in hazardous substances entering soil, surface water, or
groundwater.
Special wells drilled at specific locations on or off a hazardous waste site where
groundwater can be sampled at selected depths and studied to determine the di-
rection of groundwater flow and the types and amounts of contaminants present
The Federal regulation that guides the Superfund program. The NCP was revised
in February, 1990.
EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for possible long-term remedial response using money from the Trust
Fund. The list is based, primarily, on the score a site receives on the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.
The center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard that receives and evaluates reports of
oil and hazardous substance releases into the environment and notifies the
appropriate agency. The NRC can be contacted 24 hours a day, toll-free at (800)
424-8802.
E-3
-------
Appendix E
Community Relations Handbook
National Response Team
(NRT)
Non-Time-Critical
Removals
On-Scene Coordinator
Operable Unit
Representatives of twelve Federal agencies that coordinate Federal responses to
nationally significant pollution incidents and provide advice and technical
assistance to responding agencies.
Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
Parts per Billion (ppb)/
Parts per Million (ppm)
Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP)
Preliminary Assessment
Proposed Plan
Quality Assurance/
Quality Control
(QA/QC)
Record of
Communication
Those releases or threats of releases not requiring initiation of on-site activity
within six months after the lead agency's determination, based on the site
evaluation, that a removal action is appropriate.
The Federal official who coordinates and directs Superfund removal actions.
An action taken as one part of an overall site cleanup. For example, a carbon
absorption system could be installed to halt rapidly spreading groundwater
contaminants during the more comprehensive and long-term remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study. A number of operable units can be used in the course of a
site cleanup.
Activities conducted at a site after a response action occurs to ensure that the
cleanup or containment system is functioning properly.
Units commonly used to express low concentrations of contaminants. For
example, one ounce of trichloroethylene (TCE) in one million ounces of water is
one ppm; one ounce of TCE in one billion ounces of water is one ppb. If one
drop of TCE is mixed in a competition-size swimming pool, the water will contain
about one ppb of TCE.
An individual or company (such as owners, operators, transporters, or generators
of hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamina-
tion problems at a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs,
through administrative and legal actions, to clean up hazardous waste sites they
have contaminated.
The process of collecting and reviewing available information about a known or
suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA or States use this information to
determine if the site requires further study. If further study is needed, a site
inspection is undertaken.
A public participation requirement of CERCLA in which EPA summarizes for the
public the preferred cleanup strategy, rationale for the preference, alternatives
presented in the detailed analysis of the remedial investigation/feasibility study,
and waivers to cleanup standards of §121(d)(4) that may be proposed. This may
be prepared either as a fact sheet or a separate document. In either case, it must
actively solicit public review and comment on all alternatives under consideration.
A system of procedures, checks, audits, and corrective actions used to ensure that
field work and laboratory analysis during the investigation and cleanup of
Superfund sites meet established standards.
A register of all verbal communications between EPA and citizens regarding site
concerns.
E-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix E
Record of Decision
(ROD)
Regional Response Team
(RRT)
Remedial Action (RA)
Remedial Design (RD)
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Remedial Project
Manager (RPM)
Remedial Response
Removal Action
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
Response Action
A public document that explains which cleanup alternative will be used at
National Priorities List sites. The record of decision is based on information and
technical analysis generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study
and consideration of public comments and community concerns.
Representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies who may assist in
coordination of activities at the request of the On-Scene Coordinator or
Remedial Project Manager before and during response actions.
The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial design
of the selected cleanup alternative at a site on the National Priorities List.
An engineering phase that follows the record of decision when technical drawings
and specifications are developed for the subsequent remedial action at a site on
the National Priorities List.
Investigative and analytical studies usually performed at the same time in an
interactive, iterative process, and together referred to as the "RI/FS." They are
intended to:
Gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent of contamination at
a Superfund site;
Establish criteria for cleaning up the site;
Identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial action; and
Analyze in detail the technology and costs of the alternatives.
The EPA or State official responsible for overseeing remedial response activities.
A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances that is serious but does not pose an immediate
threat to public health and/or the environment.
An immediate action taken over the short-term to address a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances.
A Federal law that established a regulatory system to track hazardous substances
from their generation to disposal. The law requires safe and secure procedures to
be used in treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous substances.
RCRA is designed to prevent the creation of new, uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites.
A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund site involving either a short-term
removal action or a long-term remedial response that may include, but is not
limited to, the following activities:
Removing hazardous materials from a site to an EPA-approved, licensed
hazardous waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruction;
Containing the waste safely on-site to eliminate further problems;
Destroying or treating the waste on-site using incineration or other
technologies; and
Identifying and removing the source of groundwater contamination and
halting further movement of the contaminants.
E-5
-------
Appendix E
Community Relations Handbook
Responsiveness Summary
Selected Alternative
Site Inspection (SI)
Superfund
Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act
(SARA)
Surface Water
Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) Program
Time Critical Removals
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facility (TSD
Facility)
Trust Fund
Volatile Organic
Compound
Water Purveyor
A summary of oral and written public comments received by EPA during a
comment period on key EPA documents, and EPA's responses to those
comments. The responsiveness summary is a key part of the ROD, highlighting
community concerns for EPA decision-makers.
The cleanup alternative selected for a site on the National Priorities List based
on technical feasibility, permanence, reliability, and cost. The selected alternative
does not require EPA to choose the least expensive alternative. It requires that if
there are several cleanup alternatives available that deal effectively with the
problems at a site, EPA must choose the remedy on the basis of permanence,
reliability, and cost.
A technical phase that follows a preliminary assessment designed to collect more
extensive information on a hazardous waste site. The information is used to score
the site using the Hazard Ranking System to determine whether response action
is needed.
The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; also referred to as the Trust Fund.
Modifications to CERCLA enacted on October 17, 1986.
Bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams.
A grant program that provides funds for qualified citizens' groups to hire
independent technical advisors to help them understand and comment on technical
decisions relating to Superfund cleanup actions.
Including emergencies lasting longer than 30 calendar days, those releases
requiring initiation of on-site activity within six months of the lead agency's
determination, based on the site evaluation, that a removal action is appropriate.
Any building, structure, or installation where a hazardous substance has been
treated, stored, or disposed. TSD facilities are regulated by EPA and States under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
A Fund set up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act to help pay for cleanup of hazardous waste
sites and to take legal action to force those responsible for the sites to clean them
up.
An organic (carbon-containing) compound that evaporates (volatilizes) readily at
room temperature.
A public utility, municipal water company, county water district, or municipality
that delivers drinking water to customers.
E-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix E
ACRONYMS
AOC
ARARs
ATSDR
CD
CERCLA
CR
CRC
CRP
DOC
DOD
DOE
DOI
ERA
ERT
FEMA
FS
HHS
MRS
lAGs
NCP
NOAA
NPL
NRC
NRT
O&M
OSC
PA
ppm/ppb
PRP
QA/QC
RA
RCRA
RD
RI
ROD
RPM
RRT
SARA
SI
SMOA
TSD
USAGE
USBR
USCG
VOC
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
Consent Decree
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Community Relations
Community Relations Coordinator
Community Relations Plan
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Expedited Removal Actions
Environmental Response Team
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Feasibility Study
Department of Health and Human Services
Hazard Ranking System
Interagency Agreements
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
National Response Center
National Response Team
Operation and Maintenance
On-Scene Coordinator
Preliminary Assessment
parts per million/parts per billion
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Remedial Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Regional Response Team
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Site Inspection
Superfund Memoranda of Agreement
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Bureau of Reclamation
United States Coast Guard
Volatile Organic Compound
E-7
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix F
APPENDIX F
REFERENCES
(1) Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, (1986).
(2) Bean, M., Effective Risk Communication: Foundation for Making Difficult Choices (March 1987).
(3) Chess, C., Hance, B. J., and Sandman, P., Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for
Government Risk Communication (Division of Science and Research, N.J. Department of
Environmental Protection, 1987).
(4) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
(5) Covello, V., and Allen, F.W., Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication (U.S. EPA Office of Public
Affairs Doc. No. OPA-87-020, April 1988).
(6) Covello, V., Sandman, P., and Slovic, P., "Risk Comparisons" from Risk Communication, Risk Statistics,
Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers. As adapted and reprinted in the Risk
Communication Student Manual, (Chemical Manufacturers Association 1989).
(7) Desvousges, W., and Smith, K.V., "Focus Groups and Risk Communications: The Science of Listening
to Data," Risk Analysis 8: 480.
(8) EPAX 8603-0189, State Participation in the Superfund Remedial Program (February 1984, revised).
(9) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
(10) Memorandum of Understanding Between the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, May 28, 1985.
(11) Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection
Agency for the Implementation of 33 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), August 12, 1983.
(12) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
(13) National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Federal Register 55(46):
8813, March 8, 1990.
(14) National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Preamble), Federal Register
55(46): 8666, March 8, 1990.
(15) "Notice of Intent to Delete Sites from the National Priorities List," Federal Register 50(251):
53448-53449, December 31, 1985.
F-l
-------
Appendix F Community Relations Handbook
(16) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-02, Superfund Community Relations Policy (May 1983).
(17) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-05, Community Relations Requirements for Operable Units (1985).
(18) OSWER Dir. 9203.0-06, Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43E) (June 1990).
(19) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-08, Planning for Sufficient Community Relations (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43A) (March 1990).
(20) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-09, Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendations #43K, L) (August 1990).
(21) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-13, Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover (Superfund Management
Review: Recommendations #43M, N, 0) (December 1990).
(22) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-15, Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations
Program for Remedial Response (June 1990).
(23) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-16, Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup
Process, and Discussing Site Findings and Decisions as They are Developed (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendations #43G, H, Q, R, T) (November 1990).
(24) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-17, Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendations #43K, L) (September 1990).
(25) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-18, Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-Making (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation #43B) (January 1991).
(26) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-20, Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community
Relations {Superfund Management Review: Recommendation #43A) (November 1990).
(27) OSWER Dir. 9230.1-03, Superfund Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Handbook (April 1990).
(28) OSWER Dir. 9230.0-3B, Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Version June 1988).
(29) OSWER Dir. 9234.0-02, CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes (August 1985).
(30) OSWER Dir. 9234.0-05 Interim Guidance on Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (July 1987).
(31) OSWER Dir. 9295.2-03, Interagency Agreement Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Executing PL. 96-510 (CERCLA) (December 1984).
(32) OSWER Dir. 9340.2-01, Preparation of Decision Documents for Approving Fund-Financed and
Potentially Responsible Party Remedial Actions under CERCLA (February 1985).
F-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix F
(33) OSWER Dir. 9355.0-05C, Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (April 1985) supplemented
by OSWER Dirs. 9355.0-7A and 9380.03, see also OSWER Dir. 9375.1-04-E.
(34) OSWER Dir. 9355.3-02, Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan,
The Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of Decision Amendment
(July 1989).
(35) OSWER Dir. 9380.2-03 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Strategy and
Program Plan (December 1986).
(36) OSWER Dir. 9831.1, CERCLA Funding of State Oversight of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
(January 1986) superseded by OSWER Dirs. 9831.1-1A and 9834.10.
(37) OSWER Dir. 9831.1-A, Draft Addendum to January 17, 1986 Guidance, CERCLA Funding of State
Oversight of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) (March 1986) superseded by OSWER Dir.
9831.1-1A.
(38) OSWER Dir. 9831.4, Funding of State Enforcement Related Activities (January 1985).
(39) OSWER Dir. 9833.3A-1, Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA Response
Actions (December 1990).
(40) OSWER Dir. 9834.0, Releasing Identities of Potentially Responsible Parties in Response to FOIA
Requests (January 1984).
(41) OSWER Dir. 9834.10, Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and Information Exchange
(October 1987).
(42) OSWER Dir. 9835.02, Drafting Consent Decrees in Hazardous Waste Cases (May 1985) supplemented
by OSWER Dir. 9835.2B.
(43) OSWER Dir. 9835.17, U.S. EPA Model CERCLA RDIRA Consent Decree (June 1991).
(44) OSWER Dir. 9836.1, Community Relations Activities at Superfund Enforcement Sites (August 1985).
(45) OSWER Dir. 9901.3, Guidance for Public Involvement in RCRA Section 3008(h) Actions (May 1987).
(46) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
(47) Sandman, P., Explaining Environmental Risk (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1986).
(48) Sandman, P., "Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage," EPA Journal 13(9): 21-22
(November 1987).
(49) Slovic, P., "Informing and Educating the Public about Risk," Risk Analysis 6(4): 403-414 (1986).
(50) Slovic, P., "Perception of Risk," Science, 236: 285 (April 17, 1987).
F-3
-------
Appendix F Community Relations Handbook
(51) Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., "Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk," in
Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough (Schwing and Albers, eds.), pp. 181-216 (New
York: Plenum, 1980).
(52) Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), P.L. 99-499.
(53) "Superfund; CERCLA Arbitration Procedures," Federal Register 50(46): 9586-9593, March 8, 1985.
(54) "Superfund; CERCLA Natural Resource Claims Procedures," Federal Register 50(46): 9593-9608,
March 8, 1985.
(55) Thomas, L., Why We Must Talk About Risk: A Personal View, Remarks at National Conference on Risk
Communication, January 30, 1986.
(56) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Guidance on Preparation of a Superfund Memorandum of
Agreement (SMOA), Memorandum from Henry L. Longest, II, and Gene Lucero to Regional
Offices, date unknown.
(57) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Guidance on Deletion of Sites from the National Priorities
List (NPL), Hazardous Site Control Division (August 1986).
(58) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Partners in Remediation: Making a "Mess" of Community
Participation (written for Region VIII by Pamela A. Hillery and Brad Martin).
F-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix G
APPENDIX G
KEY CONTACTS FOR THE
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM
Headquarters Superfund Community Relations Staff
Murray Newton, Chief
State and Local Coordination Branch
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA Headquarters (OS-220W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 8-678-8380 or (703) 308-8380
Melissa Shapiro, Team Leader
TAGs and Community Relations
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA Headquarters (OS-220W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 8-678-8340 or (703) 308-8340
Jeff Langholz
Community Relations Coordinator
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA Headquarters (OS-220W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 8-678-8341 or (703) 308-8341
Diana Hammer
Technical Assistance Grant Program
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
EPA Headquarters (OS-220W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 8-678-8337 or (703) 308-8337
G-l
-------
Appendix G
Community Relations Handbook
Regional Superfund Community Relations Coordinators
Region 1
Diane Ready
Superfund Community Relations
Office of Public Affairs
EPA - Region 1 (RPA-74)
#1 Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
FTS: 8-835-3425 or (617) 565-3425
Region 2
Lillian Johnson, Chief
Community Relations Branch
External Programs Division
EPA - Region 2 (2-EPD)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
FTS 8-264-7054 or (212) 264-7054
Region 3
Harold Yates, Chief
Superfund Community Relations
Office of External Affairs
EPA - Region 3 (3EA21)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
FTS 8-597-9905 or (215) 597-9905
Region 4
Betty Winter
Superfund Community Relations
Waste Management Division
EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
FTS 8-257-2643 or (404) 347-2643
Region 5
Toni Lesser, Chief
Office of Public Affairs
EPA - Region 5
Metcalfe Federal Bldg.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
FTS 8-886-6685 or (312) 353-2073
Region 6
Verne McFarland
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA - Region 6 (6H-SS)
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75270
FTS 8-255-2240 or (214) 655-2240
Region 7
Rowena Michaels, Chief
Community Relations
Office of Public Affairs
EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
FTS 8-757-2803 or (913) 551-7003
Region 8
Wanda Taunton, Chief
Community Relations Branch
Office of External Affairs
EPA - Region 8 (80EA)
1 Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, Colorado 80202
FTS 8-330-1692 or (303) 294-1144
G-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix G
Region 9
Dianna Young, Chief
Superfund Community Relations
Hazardous Waste Management Division
EPA - Region 9 (T-l-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
FTS 8-484-2178 or (415) 744-2178
Region 10
Bub Loiselle, Chief
Community Relations Section
Hazardous Waste Division
EPA - Region 10 (HW117)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
FTS 8-399-6901 or (206) 553-6901
G-3
-------
Appendix G
Community Relations Handbook
ATSDR Senior Superfund Public Health Advisors
Assigned to EPA Regional Offices
Ms. Louise House
Superfund Office
EPA - Region 1
60 Westview Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173
FTS 828-6314 or (617) 860-4314
Arthur Block/Lisa Voyce (Acting Advisors)
Emergency and Remedial Response, Room 737
EPA - Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
FTS 264-7662 or (212) 264-7662
Mr. Charles J. Walters
Superfund Office
EPA - Region 3 (3HW02)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
FTS 597-7291 or (215) 597-7291
Mr. Casimer V. Pietrosewicz
Waste Management Division
EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
FTS 257-1586 or (404) 347-1586
Ms. Louise A. Fabinski
ATSDR
EPA - Region 5 (HSM)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
FTS 353-8228 or (312) 353-8228
Mr. Carl R. Hickam
Superfund Office
EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
FTS 255-2245 or (214) 655-6725
Mr. Dan Harper
Waste Management Branch
EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
FTS 276-7692 or (913) 551-7692
Mr. Glenn Tucker
ATSDR
EPA - Region 8 (8HWM-FF)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
FTS 330-1137 or (303) 294-1137
Mr. Bill Nelson
Toxics and Waste Management Division
EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94103
FTS 484-2194 or (415) 744-2194
Mr. Joel D. Mulder
Hazardous Waste
EPA - Region 10 (HW113)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
FTS 399-2711 or (206) 442-2711
G-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
APPENDIX H
COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTIVES RESULTING FROM
THE SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT REVIEW (SMR OR 90-DAY STUDY)
BACKGROUND
In the course of Senate hearings held to confirm the
appointment of William Reilly as Administrator of
EPA, Mr. Reilly was asked several questions about
the Superfund program's management and progress
and what improvements Mr. Reilly intended to imple-
ment. Mr. Reilly did not then have sufficient first-
hand knowledge to respond to the questions but
promised to immediately undertake a thorough review
of the program. That review, conducted by EPA staff
from across the nation and supporters and critics from
outside EPA was called A Management Review of the
Superfund Program, or more commonly, the 90-Day
Study. The Study was completed in June, 1989.
A chapter in the 90-Day Study was devoted to com-
munity relations. Entitled, An Aggressive Program of
Community Involvement, the chapter included several
recommendations on how Superfund should communi-
cate better with the public. Over approximately one
year, various policy guidance documents were devel-
oped and issued from the Director of Superfund in
response to recommendations in the 90-Day Study.
Those documents occur on the following pages.
It should be noted that the document, Role of Com-
munity Interviews in the Development of a Community
Relations Program for Remedial Response, was issued
after direct requests from CRCs rather than as a result
of the 90-Day Study. Also, the memorandum entitled
Proposed Method to Evaluate the Effectiveness of
Community Involvement in Superfund is not included.
DIRECTIVES INCLUDED IN THIS APPENDIX
(1) Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (18)
(Superfund Management Review: Recommenda-
tion #43E), June 4, 1990. OSWER Dir. No.
9203.0-06.
(2) Planning for Sufficient Community Relations (19)
(Superfund Management Review: Recommenda-
tion #43A), March 7, 1990. OSWER Dir. No.
9230.0-08.
(3) Community Relations: Use of Senior Environ-
mental Employees in Superfund (20) (Superfund
Management Review: Recommendations #43K,
L), August 31, 1990. OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-
09.
(4) Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover
(21) (Superfund Management Review: Recom-
mendations #43M, N, O), December 19, 1990.
OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-13.
(5) Role of Community Interviews in the Develop-
ment of a Community Relations Program for
Remedial Response (22), June 15, 1990.
OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-15.
(6) Making Superfund Documents Available to the
Public Throughout the Cleanup Process, and
Discussing Site Findings and Decisions as They
are Developed (23) (Superfund Management
Review: Recommendations #43G, H, Q, R, T),
November 5,1990. OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-16.
(7) Using State and Local Officials to Assist in
Community Relations (24) (Superfund Manage-
ment Review: Recommendations #43K, L), Sep-
tember 28, 1990. OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-17.
(8) Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund
Decision-Making (25) (Superfund Management
Review: Recommendation #43B), January 21,
1991. OSWER Dir. No. 9230.0-18.
(9) Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involve-
ment in Superfund Community Relations (26)
(Superfund Management Review: Recommenda-
tion #43A), November 30, 1990. OSWER Dir.
No. 9230.0-20.
H-l
-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN
4 1990
OSWER Directive No. 9203.0-06
OFFICE or
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries
(Superfund Management Review: Recg
Henry L.vLongest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Bruce M. Diamond, Director.^
Office of Waste Programs En
dation *43E)
sponse
rcement
TO:
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PORPOSE;
To improve responsiveness summaries so that they are more
responsive to local communities' concerns.
BACKGROUND;
The Administrator's Superfund Management Review (the "90-Day
Study") raised important questions about the structure and use of
responsiveness summaries in the selection of remedy process. As
the "90-Day Study" concluded:
"Whether EPA can do what citizens ask or not, we should
always provide them a clear explanation of the basis for
our decision. A responsiveness summary should reflect a
genuine attempt to come to grips with citizens' questions
and concerns; it should not appear to be an advocacy
brief piling up evidence for why EPA's original decision
was the only possible one."
The responsiveness summary serves two vital functions: first,
it provides the decision-maker with information about the views of
the public, government agencies, the support agency and potentially
H-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-06
responsible parties (PRPs) regarding the proposed remedial action
and other alternatives. Second, it documents how comments have
been considered during the decision-making process and provides
answers to all significant comments.
As the "90-Day study" notes, the public needs "clear, candid"
responses. They need simple, accessible information that may not
be provided by summaries aimed at PRPs. Many citizens do not see
the responsiveness summary as a valid vehicle through which their
concerns can be addressed. This perception by citizens frustrates
them and makes the Agency's job of meaningful response to citizens
much more difficult.
POLICY;
The new format described below addresses these problems, it
is intended to provide responsiveness summaries that can deal
thoroughly with complicated legal and technical issues while
maintaining true responsiveness to local communities. This will be
accomplished by dividing-the document into two parts. It will
satisfy the needs not only of the public, but also of the PRPs.
1) Responsiveness summaries should be divided into two
parts.
2) Part I will be a summary of commentors1 major issues and
concerns, and will expressly acknowledge and respond to those
raised by the local community. "Local community" here means
those individuals who have identified themselves as living in
the immediate vicinity of a Superfund site and are threatened
from a health or environmental standpoint. These may include
local homeowners, businesses, the municipality, and, not
infrequently, PRPs. Part I should be presented by subject,
and should be written in a clear, concise, easy to understand
manner.
3) Part II will be a comprehensive response to all
significant comments. It will be comprised mostly of the
specific legal and technical questions and, if necessary,
will elaborate with technical detail on answers covered in
Part I. This part shall be of such length and terminology as
deemed necessary by the authors. Like Part I, it will be
divided according to subjects.
4) Part I's importance is in the simplicity and
accessibility of both its language and presentation.
Because Parts I and II will inevitably deal with similar
or overlapping issues, the responsiveness summary
should state clearly that any points of conflict or
ambiguity between the two parts shall be resolved in
favor of the detailed technical and legal presentation in
Part II.
H-3
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-06
S) Ordinarily/ the Community Relations Coordinator and the
Remedial Project Manager should be responsible for preparing
the responsiveness summary, with Office of Regional counsel
acting in an advisory capacity.
6) Where possible, a response to a "yes oc no" question
should begin with a "yes" or "no," before launching into a
detailed explanation. If the question cannot be answered with
a "yes" or "no," then a statement to that effect should be
made at the beginning of that answer.
This approach will often lengthen the overall responsiveness
summary. However, the trade-off will be that local communities
will receive a much more "responsive" document, where the public
can easily retrieve and understand answers without compromising the
other statutory goals of the responsiveness summary.
Additional information on preparing a responsiveness summary
may be found in Community Relations in Sucerfund; A Handbook,
Interim Version. OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, and in community
Relations During Enforcement Activities and Development of the
Administrative Record, OSWER Directive 9836.0-1A. If you have any
questions about responsiveness summaries, or wish to make comments
please contact Jeff Langholz of the Community Relations staff at
FTS 382-2460.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum are intended
solely for the guidance of Government personnel. They are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the united states. EPA
officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based upon an
analysis of specific site circumstances. The Agency also reserves
the right to change this guidance at any time without public
notice.
cc: Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Regional counsel, Regions I - X
H-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MAR 7IS9D
MEMORANDUM
Of e'CE Or
SOLID WASTE AMD VHGE%C»
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
SUBJECT: Planning for Sufficient Community Relatio/is
(Superfund Management Review: #4^£r)
FROM:
TO:
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedi
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE
The purpose of this short sheet is to provide guidance to
Regional staff on planning for sufficient community relations
activities.
BACKGROUND
The Superfund Management Review (SMR) found that "limited
time and resources for Regional staff keep them from doing the
communication they think necessary and essential. Site managers
and community relations staff are concerned that EPA may be
letting some potentially serious conflicts develop with
communities because they cannot get out to the sites early enough
or frequently enough." This document has been prepared to help
Superfund managers promote earlier and more frequent citizen
involvement at Superfund site communities.
H-5
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
GUIDANCE
This guidance identifies specific planning activities that
have been used successfully in the Regions. These activities
encourage Superfund managers to take the following steps:
o integrate community relations into all technical phases,
o ensure responsive community relations activities,
o dedicate adequate resources to support community relations
needs, and
o establish realistic schedules to meet Superfund site
community needs.
I. Integrate Community Relations Into All Technical Phases
Integrating community relations into the remedial process
at sites is a team effort that takes the commitment of both the
Community Relations Coordinator (CRC) and the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM). To integrate community relations into the
remedial process, Regions should do the following:
o Train all technical staff in community relations. Because
technical staff are site managers, it is important for them
to understand community relations concepts and requirements.
RPMs have found the two-day Community Relations Skills
Training Course, sponsored by headquarters, to be extremely
useful. This free course is offered periodically in each
Region. Many Regions have also developed their own Regional
training programs that are very successful.
o Encourage RPMs to be active in community relations.
Community relations works best when the CRC and RPM~are a
team in which the RPM is an active player. While CRCs can
provide expert advice and guidance, RPMs should not divorce
themselves entirely from all community relations activities.
To do so alienates community relations from the overall
remedial process. Involvement by the RPM furthers public
participation and ensures integration of community
relations in the remedial process.
One way for RPMs to be involved is for them to participate
in the community interviews conducted as part of the
Community Relations Plan (CRP). Frequently, these
interviews can be scheduled to coincide with the RPM's trip
to the site on other matters. Even though the RPM may not
be active in the interviews or assist in the preparation of
the CRP, the RPM's presence has several positive effects.
Citizens see that there is real interest in what they have
H-6
-------
CommunHy Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
to say, the RPM begins to know individuals in the community
(which is a start to establishing trust) , and the RPM gets
first-hand understanding of community interests and
sentiments.
It is also effective for RPMs to participate in other
community relations activities. They can coordinate with
the ORC to attend community meetings, make periodic
telephone calls to key people in the community, or
informally visit with community members when they make site
visits. Although they will not be able to participate in
all community relations activities, they should request
briefings after key activities and keep a steady dialogue
with the CRC.
o Make CRCs integral members of the site team. _ CRCs have
expertise in planning and implementing community relations,
but they can only contribute if they are made members of the
site team. RPMs must recognize however, that just as their
own workloads preclude them from participating in all
community relations activities, CRCs have tremendous
workload requirements that result in their inability to
attend all site meetings. Therefore, the RPM and CRC need
to coordinate at critical points and keep each other up to
date at all times.
II. Ensure Responsive Community Relations Activities
The SMR found that about one-quarter to one-third of
Superfund sites were controversial enough to warrant extensive
community involvement. To respond to this critical finding, the
study recommended that "...EPA should inform citizens early at
all sites, and should then work most intensively at those sites
where there appear to be substantial citizen concerns and
incipient controversies." To ensure that community needs are
identified and appropriate community relations activities are
performed, EPA should do the following:
o Prepare community relations plans (CRPs) and keep them
current. The CRP is the main tool that identifies
community relations needs and CRC activities for a given
site. Because the CRP is developed prior to the beginning
of Remedial Investigation field work, it is an early
opportunity for EPA to assess the level and nature of
citizen concerns. It can be the basis of an initial
assessment to determine whether the site will require
extensive community involvement.
H-7
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
Although EPA is required to revise the CRP after the Record
of Decision (ROD) is signed, several Regions do not wait
until this technical milestone is reached. Instead, if
changes at the site occur, the RPM and CRC should update the
CRP so the document is accurate and timely. Periodic
updates also bring Regional staff into the community,
provide EPA additional opportunities to talk with the public
and continue fostering good relationships between the Agency
and the site community.
o Maintain regular communications with the community.
Communities want to know they are being heard. This can be
accomplished by making monthly telephone calls to key local
officials or citizen leaders. These telephone calls help
the RPM and CRC follow community interest in the site and
let the community know that EPA wants the community's input.
The RPM and CRC can also use this communication technique to
update the community on site progress and other site-related
activities. Regions have also set up toll-free numbers that
are advertised to residents in a site community. This
technique provides citizens with easy access to EPA and can
let EPA know if there are unresolved issues or problems in
the community.
Another way to maintain contact with the community is
through fact sheets. Some Regions have implemented a policy
of preparing bi-monthly fact sheets for all sites. A fact
sheet can include information that encourages public
participation by encouraging citizens with questions and/or
comments to write or call the RPM and CRC. It may also
include a blank mailing label where citizens who are not
already part of the mailing list are encouraged to add their
names. The letters or telephone calls that RPMs and CRCs
receive assist EPA in measuring the level and type of
interest that exists. This understanding is critical to
planning and scheduling responsive community relations
activities.
In order to perform these planning and communication
activities, as well as respond to specific community needs,
adequate resources must be available.
III. Dedicate Adequate Resources to Support Co'"""tini.tv Relations
Needs
The allocation of adequate resources is a vital step in
planning for sufficient community relations and requires
cooperation and coordination between EPA technical and community
H-8
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
relations staff. The following resource planning guidelines are
currently in use in many Regions to assist in allocating adequate
funds toward community relations activities.
o The more complex a site is, the greater the community
relations needs will be. The CRP identifies the community
relations activities required by a given site and serves as
a useful planning tool for preparing the community relations
budget. RPMs, in consultation with CRCs, should prepare a
budget with sufficient funds for staffing and financing
planned community relations activities. In addition, Regions
should do the following:
o Establish "...a discretionary fund that [can be used] to
fund additional work necessary to respond to citizen
concerns," as recommended by the SMR. Responding to the
public's request for more sampling activities is a possible
way to make use of the discretionary fund. The
discretionary fund may also be used to finance additional
community relations activities at a site where the level and
nature of community interest warrants additional activities
not included in the original budget. As described in the
SMR, the discretionary fund can enable RPMs and CRCs to
respond to the site community's needs, thereby enabling the
citizens to become "partners in the (decision-making)
process, rather than angry adversaries."
o Determine appropriate staffing. EPA Managers need to
consider the site's community relations needs in making
technical staff decisions. Whenever possible, EPA managers
need to staff the most controversial sites with more senior
personnel who are experienced in dealing with the public.
In the event that one team member must be replaced, an EPA
manager may be able to preserve some level of continuity by
keeping the second team member at the site. For example,
whenever possible, if the RPM is new, the CRC should not be
switched. As quickly as possible, new staff need to be
educated about the site's history and the community's
involvement and concerns.
IV. Establish Realistic Schedules To Meet Suoerfund Site
Community relations activities are part of the Super fund
process and need to be built into every remedial schedule. If
adequate time is not factored into the schedule to meet community
relations needs, delays imposed by citizens are more likely.
H-9
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
ROD deadlines should be based on remedial schedules that
reflect both technical and community relations milestones. By
working closely with CRCs, RPMs can become familiar with the
public involvement needs of a community and plan accordingly.
Many Regions use the following techniques to meet Superfund site
community needs:
o Anticipate public involvement needs throughout the remedial
process. For scheduling purposes, it is best to determine
well in advance which communities will request standard
30-day public comment periods and which will need
extensions, based on the level of community interest,
involvement, and other site-related activity. If a site
community shows little interest in a site, a 30-day public
comment period is generally required. If, however, there is
substantial interest in the site, the RPM should factor
adequate time (generally 60 days) for public comment and
response into the remedial schedule. Anticipating the
amount of time a community will need for a public comment
period is critical to scheduling realistic ROD deadlines.
o Plan for a public meeting to initiate each public comment
period. At least one month of planning is required. The
CRCs assist the RPM in coordinating a public meeting by
contacting the local community leaders, providing notice of
the meeting in local newspapers, preparing a fact sheet.,
preparing graphics for the presentation, and providing
overall meeting logistics support. It is best to reserve
the meeting space at least four weeks ahead of time. The
RPM, CRC, and other guest speakers at the meeting should
organize a planning meeting at least three weeks ahead of
the public meeting. The public notice should be placed in
the local newspapers two weeks in advance of the meeting.
The "dry run," or rehearsal, should take place one week
before the meeting. Advance planning and practice is key to
preparing an effective public meeting.
o Track upcoming technical milestones with, community relations
needs. Some Regions have established computer-based
tracking systems to assist RPMs and CRCs in closely
coordinating technical and community relations activities.
Other Regions use manual tracking systems or hold bi-weekly
or monthly coordination meetings between RPMs and CRCs.
Whether the Regions use computer-based manual tracking
systems to track both technical and community relations
milestones at each Superfund site is not important. What is
critical, however, is that regular tracking and coordination
of efforts is taking place between RPMs and CRCs.
H-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
By considering the community relations needs at all stages
of the Superfund process, RPHs can work with CRCs to prepare
remedial schedules that reflect realistic remedial goals and
deadlines, and provide sufficient lead time for planning
community relations activities.
H-ll
-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
OFFICE OF
SOLO WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-09
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental
Employees in Superfund (Superfupd Management Review:
Recommendation 43.K,L)
Henry Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, vili
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose: To report on the use of SEEs in the Superfund program
and to offer guidance on their future use.
Background: The Superfund Management Review (SMR) indicated the
need to improve the freo^iency and consistency of communication
with the public. A method suggested in the SMR to help
accomplish this goal is to expand Superfund's use of the Senior
Environmental Employee (SEE) program.
Established in 197'6,-the SEE program supplies valuable labor to
EPA through sixty-four non-profit senior citizens' associations.
Over the years, SEEs have made valuable contributions both to
Superfund and to EPA in general. The popularity of the program
rests not only in the diverse skills and experience that SEEs
bring to our organization, but also in the fact that their
employment does not count against full-time employee hiring
ceilings.
To arrange for SEE support, EPA program offices submit requests
to the Office of Research and Development, which then provides
funds for SEE salaries, overhead, and travel. The funds are in
the form of a grant that is awarded to one of the associations.
H-12
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-09
SEEs in Superfund work mostly within the Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) program. Within the TAG program the SEEs serve a
valuable role, engaging in a number of important activities
before, during and after the awarding of a grant. Prior to the
award of the grant, SEEs distribute TAG application packages to
interested groups, process "letters of intent" submitted by
citizens' groups, and conduct the formal notification process to
advise the public that letters of intent have been received and
that a grant has been awarded. During the awarding process, SEEs
advise citizens' groups on preparing the grant application, help
these groups establish efficient procurement and record keeping
systems, and assist groups in negotiating with prospective
technical advisors and preparing subagreements with these
advisors. After the grant award has been made, SEEs review grant
recipient requests for grant agreement modifications, help EPA
establish and maintain an official record of activities for the
grant, and analyze financial reports, progress reports and other
correspondence.
Although the SEE program has been beneficial to the
implementation of the TAG program, SEE staff, TAG coordinators,
and community relations staff members have identified a few
obstacles that prevent the program's full success. Among these
impediments are a lack to training provided to the SEEs, absence
of clear definition of the SEE's role, and EPA hesitancy to treat
SEEs as Agency colleagues. The following section addresses these
issues, and also makes a recommendation on expanding the role of
SEEs into the community relations program.
Objective: To improve and expand the role of SEEs in the
Superfund program.
Implementation: The following four recommendations are aimed at
improving the use of SEEs, while increasing their overall role in
Superfund.
1) Provide adequate training to SEEs. Regions should make every
effort to provide a comprehensive orientation to SEEs. Whether
accomplished through established formal training, or through
individual instruction, we must take the time to introduce SEEs
to the intricacies of EPA, Superfund, and their specific role.
SEEs come from a variety of backgrounds and bring to the EPA a
wealth of life experience tailor their orientation to fit
their individual needs.
2) Provide SEEs with clear lob descriptions. Mo Agency-wide
definition of the SEE's role exists. Although the positions
filled by SEEs are similar in many ways, their responsibilities
will vary from Region to Region. Regions are free to tailor the
H-13
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive Mo. 9230.0-09
responsibilities of a SEE to suit specific programmatic needs.
Whatever the SEE's role may be, he or she and EPA should both be
aware of the expectations of the position. Create a job
description that accurately reflects the role that the Region
needs filled by the SEE. Regions may wish to contact other
Regions to exchange position descriptions and ideas regarding the
role of SEEs.
3) Treat SEEs as if they are Aaencv colleagues. SEEs are not EPA
employees. They do, however, occupy a special undefined ground
between contractor and EPA employee. While we might not afford
to them all the privileges and responsibilities we extend to our
EPA employees, we still should treat them with the courtesy and
respect commensurate with their position and experience. Include
them in strategy meetings. Listen to their suggestions..-Make
them feel a part of the team. They are talented, experienced
colleagues, providing a valuable service to our program.
4) Broaden SEE roles to include activities other than TAG.
Regions are encouraged to expand the use of SEEs, where
appropriate. Although the majority of SEEs1 work has been within
the TAG program, they should not be limited to TAG. The
community relations program, in particular, can use SEEs in their
outreach efforts. For example, where a site is some distance
from an EPA office, Regions can hire a local person at the site
to answer questions and distribute information.
SEEs have shown themselves to be valuable assets to our program,
and Superfund management is committed to further improvement and
expansion of their role in clean-up activities. For more
information regarding the use of SEEs in Superfund please contact
Melissa Shapiro of my staff at FTS 382-3250 or Jeff Langholz at
FTS 382-2460.
H-14
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
DEC I 9 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive #9230.0-13
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Minimizing Problems Caused by staff Turnover
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation
#43 M,N,0)
FROM:
TO:
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
Response
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Purpose: To minimize community relations problems caused by
the frequent turnover of EPA Superfund staff.
Background: The Superfund Management Review (SMR) found
that staff turnover often hinders communication between EPA staff
and affected communities. The SMR suggests that many important
goals of the Superfund Community Relations Program, such as
maintaining consistent contact with citizens to secure their
trust and confidence in EPA, are not being met, and will not be
met, if EPA staff do not work together to maintain continuity
both within the Agency and with the community.
Problems resulting from staff turnover will likely occur if
community members are not aware that a staff change has been made
or why it has been made. The problems increase if the new staff
member is not familiar with the history of the site, past
community relations activities at the site, and/or the personal
relationship that his or her predecessor had with the community.
Implementation: The SMR offers the following
recommendations to Regional Superfund teams to help maintain
continuity throughout staff turnover:
H-15
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-13
1) Communicate staff changes to the community as soon as
possible. Sharing staff changes with the public is without a
doubt the most effective way to minimize the problems caused by
turnover. EPA should inform the community of staff changes
either before they occur or as soon after as possible. The
following techniques offer methods to maintain continuity with
communities despite inevitable complications caused by
geographical constraints, abrupt staff resignations, and lengthy
position vacancies.
o Send out notices and/or fact sheets to inform community
members of an approaching staff change. If the change
is sudden, and advance notice is not possible, send the
notices out as soon after the change as possible. If it is
not feasible to develop a written notice specifically for the
purpose of explaining the staff transition, include the
information in the next site mailing that is distributed,
regardless of its primary intent.
o Subject to approval by the particular employees involved,
include information about why the change is occurring,
where the departing employee will be working, and a
profile of the new employee including his or her credentials.
This is particularly important at sites where the community
has requested that an employee be replaced, and then for some
unrelated reason, that employee actually leaves the Agency.
o Introduce the new employee to local officials and community
leaders who are involved at the site. This provides an
opportunity, either by telephone or through direct contact,
to respond to questions and concerns they may have about the
change.
o "Pass the torch" during a public forum, such as a public
meeting, and have the outgoing staff member introduce his
or her replacement. Introductions should include a short
profile of the new staff member, and the outgoing staff
member should give a brief statement about his or her
destination. Although this is the most effective way to
introduce new staff to the community, a few constraints can
make this type of event difficult. For example, often an
outgoing employee does not give ample notice to allow time to
plan such a meeting, or leaves before the meeting takes
place, or the position does not get filled immediately,
leaving no one to whom the torch may be passed.
2) Educate new staff about the site's history, the
community's involvement and concerns, and the importance of those
concerns. Regions should establish a close working relationship
between Community Relations Coordinators (CRCs) and Remedial
H-16
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-13
Project Managers (RPMs) to ensure that new staff receive
community relations information immediately upon their arrival in
the Regional office or their assignment to a new site. If, for
example, an RPM is new to a site, the CRC should be responsible
for welcoming the RPM, handing over detailed site-related
information, and briefing them on any community concerns that
developed during the tenure of the previous RPM. This should
literally happen during the new RPM's first day on the job.
Regions also should utilize their experienced senior staff to
advise new RPMs and CRCs, and help them to "learn the ropes."
3) Maintain continuity on the site team. If one member of a
team leaves, the other should not leave soon, if possible. For
example, if the RPM is replaced, the CRC should remain, and vice
versa. Management should consider the continuity of the team
before reassigning staff. This will help mitigate the problems
associated with major personnel changes.
4) Provide communications training to all Superfund staff
who deal directly with the public. Provide community relations
skills training for new staff members as soon as they come on
board to prepare them for community relations activities.
If turnover is too frequent to hold training every time a new
person comes on board, at least insure that the new person is
given a community relations handbook and is briefed about basic
community relations skills until he or she can attend a training.
If possible, develop an abridged community relations training, or
mini-training, to prepare new staff members until they can attend
a more formal, comprehensive training.
Conclusion: Frequent staff turnover within the Superfund
program can be a detriment to community relations at Superfund
sites. The strong, positive rapport EPA strives to build with
citizens must not be undermined by poor continuity between
Superfund and the public, and within the Superfund staff. By
utilizing the simple, yet effective, techniques mentioned above,
Regions can minimize the disruption caused by staff turnover.
For more information regarding community relations in
Superfund, contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff Langholz of my staff
at FTS 398-8340 and FTS 398-8341, respectively.
cc: Regional Community Relations Coordinators (I-X)
H-17
-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
U«J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN I 5 1990
OSWER Directive »9230.0-15
SOLiO W&STE iNO EWEAGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
?ROM:
TO:
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a
Community Relations Program for Remedial Response
.^k. iff
Henry L. Longest II, Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, vil, vm
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous waste Management Division
Regions III, vi, ix
Director, Hazardous Waste Di'.'ision
Reaion X
PURPOSE;
To offer guidance in response to recent Regional Office
questions regarding the community relations interviews required by
the National Contingency Plan.
BACKGROUND;
Without a doubt, the interviews are the single most important
element in-the development of a site-specific community relations
plan (CRP). The CRP, in turn, serves as the backbone of the entire
community relations program during a remedial response. I hope you
find the following information useful in clarifying the role of
this crucial activity.
POLICY;
1) The CRP should be based upon interviews conducted with the
community. The National contingency Plan (NCP) requires interviews
and the development of a CRP based upon them. Among the community
relations activities required by section 300.430(c)(2)(i)of the NC?
is "...preparing a formal community relations plan (CRP), based on
the community interviews and other relevant information..."
a> ftcycM faftr
H-18
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive 19230.0-15
2) Interviews should be conducted among a variety of people.
Staff ordinarily speak first with state and local officials to
obtain background information and to let these people know that
area residents will also be interviewed. The group of interviewees
should not, however, be limited to these officials. "These
discussions with elected officials cannot in themselves generate
enough information to develop an adequate community relations plan.
Special efforts must be made to interview local residents,
particularly those who are not affiliated with any group."
(Community Relations iri Superfund A Handbook, OSWER Directive
#9230.0-38, p.3-4). Staff should interview a broad range of people
so as to gain the greatest variety of perspectives about the site,
including potentially responsible parties. Furthermore, the staff
should "...never limit conversations to the most visible groups or
individuals." (Community Relations Handbook, p.3-4)
3) Interviews should be conducted with at least 15 - 25
residents. It is imperative that staff interview a group that
represents a cross-section of the community. This number is
typically at least fifteen to twenty-five persons, depending on the
size and complexity of the site, but it can be more. At one
particularly complex site, for example, regional staff conducted
over two hundred Interviews.
4) Contractors should never conduct interviews without the
presence of EPA staff.EPA dependence on contractors has been a
particularly controversial issue and community relations was named
in a recent memorandum from Administrator Reilly as an area
potentially vulnerable to contractor misuse (See attached
memorandum), interviews are most often conducted by some
combination of the Remedial Project Manager, community relations
staff, enforcement staff and contractors. Remedial Project
Managers are especially encouraged to conduct community interviews
as a way of learning about a community and its issues, as well as
meeting community leaders early and fostering positive
relationships.
For more information regarding community interviews, refer to
Chapter 3 of Community Relations iri Superfund A Handbook, and
Section 300.430(c)(2)(i) and accompanying1 preamble of the NCP. if
you have additional questions, please contact Melissa Shapiro of my
staff at PTS 382-2350 or Jeff Langholz at FTS 382-2460.
Attachment
cc: Public Affairs Directors
Regional community Relations coordinators
H-19
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public
Throughout the Cleanup Process, and Discussing Site
Findings and Decisions as They are Developed (Superfund
Management Review: #43 G,H,Q,R,
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Reinedi
TO: Director, Waste Management Division,
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division,
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose: This directive presents recommendations for
improving Superfund efforts towards timely release of information
to the public during site cleanup activities.
Background: The Superfund Management Review (SMR)
emphasizes the importance of expanding the public's role in the
Superfund process, and identifies public access to information as
an indispensable element of meaningful citizen participation.
Both the SMR and our own experience continue to point to this as
among the most important, and potentially most frustrating,
problems in our attempts to deal openly with the communities at
Superfund sites. Citizens' beliefs even where unfounded
that we are slow or unwilling to share information compromise our
ability to convince them that site cleanups are being conducted
as well and as fast as they should be. The SMR makes five
recommendations on this crucial issue. The five specific
recommendations are:
H-20
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
Discuss site findings and decisions as they are
developed (43.G)
Make documents available throughout the process, not
just during the public comment period (43.H)
Be more aggressive in supplying information to citizens
and their technical advisors (43.Q)
Ensure access to information by establishing convenient
repositories, reviewing, and releasing documents and
placing them in repositories quickly, and notifying
citizens of the availability of information (43.R)
Identify ways to bring citizens into technical
discussions early (43.T)
A recent survey of Regional Community Relations Coordinators
with regard to implementation of these five SMR recommendations
found that, although Regions are making considerable progress in
fulfilling these recommendations, there still is room for
improvement. The following seven recommendations are designed to
foster such improvement.
Implementation: By drawing from existing Regional
practices, as well as suggesting new activities, we hope to
further improve the timing, amount, and type of information made
available to citizens. This sharing of ideas and experience is
particularly important in a program like Superfund community
relations, where there are limited resources and a high level of
public interest.
Regions should reassess their efforts to meet the five SMR
recommendations and consider adding the following techniques.
Many of these activities can be adapted successfully to meet a
particular Region's overall, as well as site specific, needs.
1. Involve Citizens Purina the PA/SI Stage. The SMR
stressed that neither citizens nor PRPs should have to wait until
the end of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study to
learn the results of Superfund site investigations. This means
that when citizens are interested, Regional Superfund staff
should make information about the site findings available as
early as the Preliminary Assessment (PA) and site Investigation
(SI) stages of the process. Regions should not routinely
initiate community relations activities at all PA/SI sites,
H-21
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
however, because resources cannot support a full-scale community
participation program for all discovered sites. Instead, Regions
should select PA/SX sites to receive the attention of the
community relations staff, based on a consideration of the
following factors:
the likelihood that the site eventually will be
included on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Community relations staff will work with technical
staff to determine a site's potential for being listed.
Regions should avoid raising public interest about PA
sites only to have to subsequently halt community
contact when the sites are not listed on the NPL;
the location of the site with regard to other existing
NPL sites, and the community interest level at those
sites;
the location of the site relative to population
centers;
the amount of media coverage, as well as direct
feedback from citizens' groups and local residents.
While we do not want to exacerbate community concerns
at sites that may prove to be relatively minor
problems, we do need to respond fully to known high
levels of community interest at sites we are
investigating.
Once a Region decides to initiate the community relations
process at a PA/SI site, they may conduct a variety of
activities, including the following:
contacting local officials for information;
briefing local officials and key community leaders on
progress at the site;
beginning to develop a site mailing list;
issuing a fact sheet on the preliminary findings and
the Hazardous Ranking System score;
setting up a site "hotline" a toll free number that
community members can use to report information and
direct questions to EPA staff.
H-22
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
When the site is proposed for the NPL, the Region should
issue a news release and contact local officials and key
citizens. The Regions may do this by telephone, through
briefings, or in meetings.
Addressing citizen concerns early provides valuable input
about the interests and concerns of the site community. This
information can be incorporated into the Community Relations Plan
(CRP). Early community relations also fosters trust between a
site community and EPA, and helps the community to have realistic
expectations regarding the frequency of EPA contact with them.
2. Increase Regularity of Site Contact. Recommendations
43.G, 43.H, and 43.Q all call attention to the importance of
establishing regular, frequent contact between EPA and the
public, particularly at sites where a great deal of community
interest exists. The citizens will feel EPA is being more
responsive to their concerns if they have regular meetings rather
than sporadic contact at key decision points. For instance, one
Region found that it was valuable to meet with citizens to obtain
their comments on the draft Community Relations Plan so that the
public is involved before the plan goes into effect. In
addition, open houses, telephone calls, availability sessions,
and frequent meetings with Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
holders and citizen groups will allow them to work more
effectively with EPA.
Although regularity of site contact is an important element
in the building of trust between EPA and the community, it is not
the only ingredient. Citizens must have contact with all key
staff, and such contact must be of high quality. Specifically,
it is vital for the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and other
technical staff to be heavily involved in direct communication
with the public. Such interaction not only will ensure that
citizens have access to the staff with the most technical and
site specific knowledge, but also will guarantee that the site
managers see firsthand and are aware of citizen concerns.
Furthermore, to ensure quality contact with the community, all
staff should be trained in interpersonal communication skills.
(See the "Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Training
Course Catalog" for a listing of courses available to increase
our proficiency in communication. Of special value are the
courses on "Answering Tough Questions," "Communicating with the
Media," and "Community Relations in Superfund: Concepts and
Skills for Response Staff.")
H-23
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
3. Bring Citizens into Technical Discussions. Regions
should try to have at least one community representative present
during all external technical discussions, except those involving
negotiations between EPA and Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs). When legal or logistical considerations preclude citizen
participation in technical discussions, some Regions have
discovered that a good compromise is to make minutes of the
meeting available to the public. For communities with high
interest, Regions also can hold availability sessions after
closed technical discussions.
Superfund managers should do everything possible to involve
the public in technical discussions, especially at enforcement-
lead sites where citizens may feel left out of the process. In
cases when information is "enforcement sensitive", the Regions
should make an extra effort to keep regular lines of
communication open by emphasizing the information that can be
shared with the public.
4. Increase Coordination Between Technical and Community
Relations staff. Many Regions have found that integrating
various EPA staff into "site teams" facilitates cooperative,
efficient and well coordinated cleanup activities. Managers
should value the roles of all team members and keep regular lines
of communication open between technical and community relations
staff. To facilitate this communication, some Regions have found
it helpful for RPMs and Community Relations Coordinators to
conduct on-site interviews and planning sessions together as team
members. In addition, Regional community relations staff are
encouraged to coordinate document distribution with Superfund
technical and legal staff. An organized team approach will
ensure that important documents are released as soon as possible.
5. Release Near Final Documents When Appropriate. Since
the EPA review process often can be quite extensive and time
consuming, the community may become impatient awaiting the
release of an important document. Therefore, in cases of high
community interest, EPA may choose to release "draft" documents
in near final form. Staff should make clear to the community the
"draft" status of the document. One Region has suggested that
draft documents should be:
Maintained in separate binders from final documents,
with extensive disclaimers and caveats, and;
Printed on paper that is pre-labelled with "DRAFT-
DRAFT-DRAFT" diagonally across each sheet in red ink.
H-24
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
Although the release of near final documents may speed the
dissemination of information to the public, Regions are strongly
urged to emphasize the non-final status of the document.
In addition to timely sharing of site documents with the
public, Superfund is committed to equal access to information for
both PRPs and citizens. Regions should routinely ensure that
PRPs and citizens can access the same documents at the same
stages of the cleanup, except where "enforcement sensitive"
information precludes such disclosure. Unless the information
clearly jeopardizes ongoing negotiations with PRPs, it should be
equally available to all parties.
6. Expand Site Mailing Lists. One of the most cost-
effective methods of providing Superfund site communities with
information is through mailings. The incremental cost of
distributing site fact sheets to a greater number of community
residents is extremely small, because the greatest portion of
costs is associated with writing and preparing a fact sheet.
Therefore, some Regions have pursued ways of expanding site
mailing lists, beyond just those citizens who have expressed an
interest in the site. Specifically, EPA has utilized community
groups and local agencies to send out EPA fact sheets as part of
their regular mailings. Also, these and other groups have
offered to include information on the Superfund site in their
regular newsletters.
7. Make Information Repositories User-friendly. Regions
should make the large quantities of information contained in
repositories as accessible as possible. For example, Regions can
conduct site visits and request public input regarding the
location of information repositories, as well as set up secondary
locations at the request of citizens. These can be done as part
of an ongoing effort to establish and maintain complete,
convenient information repositories. In addition, Regions also
can offer TAG recipients the convenience of being a secondary
location of a repository. This provides easy access to the
repository for a group that is likely to use it frequently.
Finally, Regions should monitor the repository periodically to
ensure that it is in order and complete, as well as label file
cabinets, book shelves and binders with "EPA" stickers to clearly
designate them as Superfund site documents.
Conclusion: Making documents available to the public
throughout the cleanup process and discussing site findings and
decisions as they are developed will more fully involve citizens
in the cleanup process and ensure two way communication between
Superfund staff and local communities. Using the recommendations
H-25
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-16
in this directive will enhance community relations efforts and
expand the public's role in the Superfund process.
For further information regarding Superfund community
relations activities, please contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff
Langholz of my staff at FTS 398-8340 and FTS 398-8341,
respectively.
H-26
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 2 8 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive #9230.0-17
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM!
TO:
Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community
Relations (Superfund Management Reyiew: Recommendation
#43.K,L)
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Resp
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose: To increase communication with the public by
involving State and local officials.
Background: The Superfund Management Review (SMR) found
that EPA's communication with citizens near Superfund sites is
not as frequent as site managers and community relations staff
believe necessary due to limited resources and the difficulties
encountered in accessing remote sites. The SMR suggested that,
as a "way of coping with resource and distance problems," EPA use
State and local officials to augment our own efforts in community
relations. The SMR also pointed out, however, that it may not be
appropriate to use State and local officials where we and they
disagree about the course of action. According to the SMR, "such
disagreements make it both difficult and inappropriate for a
State or local official to represent EPA." (Superfund Management
Review, p. 5-10)
Our experience tells us that, under certain circumstances,
State and local officials can be effective contributors to
community relations activities. Citizens often feel more
H-27
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive 19230.0-17
comfortable communicating with an official who is a member of
their community, and who may have first-hand knowledge about a
site. Many Regions already use State and local officials, and,
in some Regions, the State actually has the lead for community
relations.
Objeotive: To discuss specific methods for using State and
local officials to increase Superfund's communication with the
public.
Implementation: The following recommendations describe the
use of State and local officials to serve as liaisons, to provide
and maintain information, and to assist in public meetings.
1) Use State and local officials as a liaison between the
public and EPA. Because State and local officials often are very
well-informed about a site, its history, and the affected
community, they can serve as effective liaisons between the
public and EPA, channeling information and communications between
the interested parties quickly and aptly. For example, Regions
can designate an official as a point of contact. The official
could then field inquiries from the public and relay them to the
appropriate person in the Region or link a Regional staff member
with concerned citizens or community leaders. Furthermore, as
the local officials become familiar with both the Superfund
process in general and cleanup activities at the site, they will
be able to handle more of the routine questions themselves,
thereby helping EPA, as well as the public.
Using local officials as a liaison also helps increase the
frequency of communication with the community, particularly when
a site is far away from the Regional office. In some cases, this
may be the best or only way to ensure adequate communication.
Because local officials will ordinarily live nearer the site than
do Regional staff, the community has easier and more frequent
access to them than to EPA staff. However, Regional staff must
also visit the site and meet with the community on a regular
basis.
While using State or local officials as a liaison, there are
several points to consider before making that decision. First,
local officials frequently are not well-versed in Superfund
community relations. Local officials can be effective in this
role only where Regions educate them about the Superfund process
and, of course, keep them fully informed about site progress.
H-28
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-17
Also, State and local officials assisting with community
relations must still perform the role to which they were
appointed or elected. That role may require them to be involved
at the site in an official capacity in which they might have to
"wear two hats." This makes it especially important to define
the officials' roles when the community relations plan is being
drafted, or in the case of State officials, when the Community
Relations Coordinator first assesses the State's capability for
taking the lead for community relations.
Finally, even where State and local officials are assisting
EPA, the Region needs to retain control over the release of site
information. Our experience indicates that it is appropriate to
give state and local officials a significant but clearly
supporting role in community relations activities. This
assistance may not be appropriate in every Region, and should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Thus, Regions should
evaluate not only the relationship between EPA and such
officials, but also the relationship between the officials and
the community, before seeking their assistance. Furthermore,
although the involvement of State and local officials can
increase communication with the public, it cannot and should not
be a substitute for EPA's direct involvement with the community.
2) Use State and local officials to maintain and provide
information. As noted earlier, Regional offices are often
located far away from a site. Some Regions find it helpful to
use State, and more often local officials, to help establish and
maintain information repositories near the site. Because local
officials frequently have first-hand knowledge of the site, they
can help determine convenient places for the repository. Where
State or local officials are helping in this way, it is
especially important that Regions provide the officials with
documents for the repository as soon as they are available.
Some States have developed what have proven to be effective
communications tools and systems of their own for providing
information to the public. Regions often copy or borrow these
aids, such as mailing lists, and save time by not duplicating the
effort that went into creating them. Regions should learn what
communications tools and systems are available through their
States as early in the community relations process as possible.
State and local officials' knowledge of and experience with
a site and its history, and especially their understanding of the
community, provide a wealth of information for the Regions. EPA
H-29
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-17
can utilize State and local officials' knowledge and experience
to identify people to interview for the community relations plan,
to gather background information for fact sheets, and to review
press releases and other documents. Capitalizing on this first-
hand source of information allows Regions to begin the community
relations process faster and helps target the effort for the
particular community. Because of their ties to a community and
their history with a particular site, state and local officials
can be an extremely valuable group of effective communicators of
site information. These officials represent a resource whose
potential to contribute should not be underestimated.
3) Use State and local officials to assist in public
meetings. Having State or local officials introduce EPA Regional
staff or otherwise participate in a public meeting helps visibly
demonstrate a mutually supportive working relationship among the
Region, State and local officials, and the community. Both
the appearance of cooperation and the underlying relationship
require, of course, that Regions maintain frequent contact with
State and local officials to keep them informed of site progress
and the schedule for public meetings.
Regions also should include state and local officials in dry
runs of the meeting to confirm their role at the meeting. If the
officials' role includes speaking, the dry run will provide a
final opportunity to understand their view before it is aired to
the public. These dry runs may also help to resolve issues prior
to a public meeting where there are known differences of opinion
between the State or local official and EPA.
Some Regions also use community organizations, such as the
League of Women Voters, to assist in public meetings. Members of
the organization can provide introductions and even moderate the
meeting. Although not State or local "officials," organizations
like these are viewed as impartial parties, and consequently make
excellent third-party moderators. Using such organizations also
demonstrates to the community the Region's willingness to include
as many members of the community as possible in the community
relations process.
Conclusion: Using State and local officials to assist
Regions in community relations activities can be an effective way
to increase the frequency and consistency of community relations
at Superfund sites. In order for it to be effective, Regions
must solicit assistance from the officials early in the community
H-30
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-17
relations effort; ensure that the officials are educated about
how Superfund works; and maintain an avenue of communications
with the officials to keep all parties well-informed. State and
local officials will often have great credibility with citizens.
and their cooperation and participation can help greatly to build
public confidence around Superfund cleanup activities.
For further information regarding the involvement of State
and local officials in community relations, please contact
Melissa Shapiro of my staff at FTS 398-8340 / (703) 308-8340 or
Jeff Langholz at FTS 398-8341 / (703) 308-8341.
H-31
-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
.
? £%
USB
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN 2 I |99|
office of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9230.0-18
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund
Decision-making (Superfund Managemf
Recommendation #43B)
FROM
TO:
Henry L. Longest, II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial'Response
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose:
To ensure the incorporation of citizen concerns into
Superfund site decision-making.
Background:
EPA's capacity and willingness to incorporate community
concerns into site decision-making are among the most important
measures of Superfund's community relations program. Although
EPA has made significant progress in its promotion of mutually
satisfactory two-way communication with the public, room for
improvement exists in integrating the public's concerns into site
decisions.
EPA has established methods for soliciting citizen concerns,
but that represents only the first step. Citizens rightfully
expect that EPA will then carefully consider and fairly evaluate
the concerns the community has voiced, making it imperative that
EPA pay close attention to such input. It is not enough that we
H-32
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
solicit and read public comments. It is important that we
demonstrate to citizens that they are involved in the
decision-making process.
The impacts of citizen input will be more obvious at some
sites than at others, and will not always, of course, be the
principal determinant in site decisions. EPA must make every
effort, however, to fully incorporate those concerns into site
decision-making. The Superfund Management Review (SMR) mentions
four steps necessary to satisfactorily accomplish this:
"...listen carefully to what citizens are saying; take the time
necessary to deal with their concerns; change planned actions
where citizen suggestions have merit; and explain to citizens
what EPA has done and why." (p.5-7). The following
recommendations discuss in detail each of these steps.
Implementation:
1) Listen carefully to what citizens are saving. Superfund
managers and staff should listen carefully throughout the
technical process to the concerns and comments of local
communities. It is in the interest of Superfund to listen to
what citizens are saying not only during the comment period after
the Proposed Plan is issued, but during the entire process.
Although some may see only the short term view that a community's
involvement slows the decision-making process and causes costly
delays, it has been EPA's experience that the long term success
of the project is enhanced by involving the public early and
often. Carefully considering citizen concerns before selection
of a preferred remedy will lead to better decision-making.
Some Regions have successfully adopted innovative techniques
for soliciting citizen input. These include community
workgroups, open houses, and informal "roundtable" discussions.
Regions are encouraged to try as many of these techniques as
possible to communicate with citizens.
2) Take the time necessary to deal with citizens' concerns.
Incorporating citizen concerns into site decisions need not be a
cause for delay or, for that matter, excessive cost. By
allocating sufficient resources to community relations and
maintaining an awareness of citizen concerns throughout the
process, Regions can successfully assimilate citizen concerns
into site decisions.
The most effective way to provide time to deal with citizen
concerns is by building a schedule at the outset that allows
adequate time (and resources) for public involvement. Such
H-33
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
planning should include, among other things, the likelihood that
commentors may request an extension of the public comment period
following issuance of the Proposed Plan, as allowed by Section
300.425(f)(3)(i)(C) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). In
accordance with the SMR, site managers should announce a thirty-
day comment period, but anticipate the possibility of a sixty-day
period. Also, effective planning and early citizen involvement
will allow site managers to anticipate those particularly
controversial sites or proposed remedial actions which may
warrant an additional extension of the comment period.
OSWER Directive #9230.0-08 of March 8, 1990, entitled
"Planning for Sufficient Community Relations," provides
additional guidance and instructs Regions to dedicate adequate
resources to support additional community relations needs. The
guidance included the SMR recommendation that Regions
"... establish a discretionary fund that they could use to fund
additional work necessary to respond to citizen concerns."
(p.5-7).
3) Change planned actions where citizen suggestions have
merit. It is crucial that EPA remain flexible, and willing to
alter plans where a local community presents valid concerns. In
recent years, EPA has demonstrated an increased willingness to
change or significantly alter its preferred remedy. In some
instances, citizen input has saved EPA from mistakes and
unnecessary costs. It is obviously more cost effective to spend
time, energy and money working with the public on a regular
basis, than to deal with resistance created when a community
believes it has been left out of the process.
With regard to changing planned actions, EPA's measure of
success should not be whether or not the community applauds the
remedy because EPA did what it asked, but whether or not EPA
honestly listened to citizens, and genuinely took into account
their concerns. EPA may remain unpersuaded after hearing from
citizens, but it is EPA's responsibility to reinforce to citizens
that their comments were carefully and thoughtfully considered.
4) Explain to citizens what EPA has done and why.
Regardless of the outcome of site decisions, EPA must fully
communicate those decisions to the public. The most thorough
vehicle for such communication is the responsiveness summary. As
recommended by the SMR, EPA has revised the format of
responsiveness summaries to make them more easily understandable
to citizens without compromising the legal and technical goals of
the document. It is imperative that the public be able to see in
writing EPA's response to their concerns and comments. As the
H-34
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
SMR notes, "Whether EPA can do what citizens ask or not, we
should always provide them a clear explanation of the basis for
our decision." (p.5-7). The public needs clear, candid
responses, rather than volumes of technical and legal jargon
piling up evidence for why EPA's original decision was the only
possible one.
Although the responsiveness summary represents the most
visible and comprehensive vehicle for explaining EPA decisions to
the public, it is only one component of a process. EPA should
explain site decisions throughout the entire cleanup, rather than
only at few key stages. That is, EPA must establish and maintain
a dialogue through which we discuss site decisions as they
develop, as well as make Superfund documents more available to
the public throughout the cleanup process.
Conclusion:
Although Superfund has firmly established its ability to
share information with, and receive it from, the public, the
program nevertheless needs to better incorporate citizen concerns
into site decisions. The recommendations outlined above will
move Superfund closer to that goal. For more information
regarding Community Relations in Superfund, contact Melissa
Shapiro or Jeff Langholz of my staff at FTS 398-8340 or FTS 398-
8341, respectively.
H-35
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV 30 laqn OFF'CEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in
Superfund Community Relations (S/iperfund
Review Recommendation #43.A)
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Director, Waste Management Division,
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division,
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose: To discuss and present innovative techniques for
increasing public involvement in Superfund Community Relations.
Background: The Superfund Management Review found that
citizens question whether they actually influence EPA's decisions
regarding Superfund sites. Many citizens believe EPA's community
relations program is just "sophisticated public relations" and
not a program to involve citizens in the decision-making process.
Although Superfund is improving in its efforts to listen to
citizen concerns, and where applicable, to incorporate them into
site decisions, there still is room for more improvement. Rather
than merely acknowledge and occasionally utilize citizen input,
Superfund should actively encourage such participation.
Superfund must go beyond that which is required, and establish
new and creative methods of community outreach.
H-36
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
Implementation: The six techniques described below have
proven effective in increasing public involvement in the
Superfund process. While some are recent innovations, others
were developed many years ago, but new and better ways of using
them have bolstered their effectiveness. The list does not
pretend to be exhaustive. Instead, it shows some of the outreach
vehicles Regions have found to be particularly effective in
encouraging citizen participation. Regions should make every
effort to integrate as many as possible of these activities into
the cleanup process.
l) citizen Work Groups; since the mid 1980s, citizen work
groups also known as technical information committees, citizen
information committees, or community work groups have been
established at sites across the country. Widely recognized as
one of the best mechanisms for increasing public involvement in
the decision-making process, citizen work groups are structured
organizations for the discussion and exchange of information
between decision-makers and the affected public. Work groups
have become more widespread and sophisticated as people realize
their effectiveness.
Citizen work groups generally consist of State and local
officials, representatives from community groups, and EPA staff
including at least the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and the
Community Relations Coordinator (CRC). The size of the group and
the number of meetings it holds depends on the public's interest
in the site, activity at the site, and material to be reviewed.
A successful citizen group does not guarantee agreement
about technical issues, nor does it eliminate controversy between
citizens and EPA. Regions state that successful work groups help
EPA identify and understand community concerns that are important
to address during the cleanup process. The groups also give
citizens an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the
complexity of the cleanup process, as well as the technical
aspects of the remedial alternatives available. Armed with this
kind of technical knowledge and given a forum in which to discuss
their concerns, citizens provide relevant and valuable
information to aid in decision-making.
A few factors limit the effectiveness of a work group.
Occasionally, one or two well-organized community interests
dominate the group, squelching other important interests or
obscuring the community's real concerns. In other instances,
members of the group will fail to report back to their
constituents, limiting the dispersal of information. To avoid
these obstacles, work groups should contain a wide representation
of the community and develop ground rules for the meetings that
allow all groups to participate equally.
H-37
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OWSER Directive 19230.0-20
Work groups are highly labor-intensive and time-consuming.
Also, the additional information citizens receive through the
work group may occasionally result in EPA extending comment
periods to allow them time to understand the technical issues and
prepare comments. Most Regions agree, however, that the benefits
of having the group outweigh any negative aspects. Their
experience demonstrates that work groups are an effective way to
give the public a greater role in the decision-making process at
a Superfund site.
2) Citizen Superfund Workshop; Few citizens understand the
complexity of the Superfund process. This frustrates citizens
who want to be involved at the site and contributes to their
distrust of the Agency. One Region recently developed a six-hour
Citizen Superfund Workshop for all Regions that provides citizens
with an overview of the Superfund program. Through lecture,
discussion and case studies, the workshop provides participants
with a general summary of the cleanup process, as well as an
explanation of the various opportunities for public involvement.
The success of the pilot workshop held in Spring 1990
indicates that it could be a very effective way of increasing
public involvement at Superfund sites. Not only does it
familiarize citizens with the Superfund process, but it also
tells them when and how to become involved in the process. In
addition, the workshop itself gets citizens involved with EPA,
and it gives both parties a chance to meet one another and begin
developing rapport.
The workshop is especially effective if given early in the
Superfund process. An ideal time is during development of the
Community Relations Plan. Regions should convey to participants
that the workshop is not a debate on the merits of the Superfund
program or a precise indication of how work will be conducted at
their site, but a lesson on how the program operates in general.
The workshop is inexpensive and requires only one or two
instructors. Guidance materials necessary to conduct the
workshop have been developed and distributed to all Regions.
3) Bilingual Communication; Bilingual communication helps
break language barriers that prevent non-English speaking
citizens affected by a Superfund site from becoming involved or
aware of activities at the site. Regions have used bilingual
fact sheets for many years, most notably in the Spanish and
Portuguese languages. Recently, a few Regions have expanded
their bilingual services to include translating other
informational materials besides fact sheets, developing bilingual
summaries of publicly available technical documents, and
H-38
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix H
OWSER Directive t9230.0-20
providing translators at public meetings and hearings. These
techniques give non-English speaking citizens access to more
information about Superfund sites and enable them to participate
more broadly and effectively in community relations activities.
4) Citizen Awards for Participation; For a citizen to be
highly involved at a Superfund site organizing and running a
community group for instance requires a good deal of time and
dedication on the person's part, especially because activities at
sites span many years. This can deter some citizens from ever
becoming involved at a site and lead to "burn out" among those
that do. One Region is encouraging public involvement and
recognizing the dedication it takes by presenting the "Citizen
Participation Award." The award is bestowed on an individual,
usually representing a citizen group, who has significantly
contributed to public involvement at a Superfund site in the
Region. The Region states that the award demonstrates to the
community the value EPA places on public involvement, and thus
encourages further participation.
5) Increased Interviews; Increasing the number of
interviews with citizens is one of the most effective methods to
enhance citizen participation. Many Regions conduct, where
necessary, more than the required 15-25 interviews to be used
as a basis of the Community Relations Plan. Depending on the
site, Regions have conducted anywhere from dozens to hundreds of
interviews. Regions should not hesitate to increase the number
of interviews to reflect both the complexity and the level of
citizen interest at a site. Although this effort may require
substantial labor and resources at the outset of community
relations work, it helps ensure that the Region identifies and
focuses attention on those issues that are most important to the
community.
Regions should first determine the scope and history of any
problems at the Superfund site, using interviews with local
officials and key citizens, and an availability session or public
forum. If EPA determines, based on this evaluation, that the
site will likely require more aggressive community involvement,
the Agency should make plans to significantly expand its
interviewing efforts.
Regions have found interviews to be a particularly effective
way to gather information. Often issues emerge during the
interviews that some citizens would hesitate to air during a
public meeting. Increasing the number of interviews enables the
Region to develop a highly responsive program for addressing
citizens' concerns and involving the community in the decision-
making process.
H-39
-------
Appendix H Community Relations Handbook
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
6) Open Houses/Availability Sessions; Some citizens find
public meetings intimidating and may be afraid to voice their
concerns at them. Open houses or availability sessions
provide an informal, personal setting in which citizens can
discuss their concerns one-on-one with EPA officials. While open
houses are not new to public involvement, their use is steadily
increasing. Regions are beginning to move beyond only the
customary "ice-breaker" open house, toward a more consistent
offering of these valuable opportunities throughout the process.
Open houses usually take place at convenient public
locations where the Region can set up displays containing
information about the site, provide staff to discuss technical
information with citizens, or just meet with the community in an
informal manner. Regions say that the open houses help the
community learn more about the site and about the EPA officials
that will be working on it. It helps, one community relations
coordinator said, "to show the community that the RPM and other
EPA officials are just people." Another said it enabled the
Region to "hear from other citizens besides the vocal minority
that tends to dominate public meetings." Others use open houses
to mark strategic points in the cleanup process.
Open houses are relatively inexpensive, but require planning
and participation from a variety of EPA officials who are
knowledgeable about the site.
conclusion: The techniques discussed in this memorandum
require additional cost and effort. However, by taking a
proactive approach to community relations, and going a step
beyond the required activities, the Superfund program will better
avoid or resolve conflict with citizens. By encouraging mutually
satisfactory two-way communication and promoting increased public
involvement in site decision-making, the Superfund program will
move closer toward acceptance of citizens as legitimate partners
in the cleanup process. The techniques for increasing citizen
participation outlined in this memorandum will help achieve this
goal.
For further information regarding public involvement in
Superfund, please contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff Langholz of my
staff at FTS 398-8340 and FTS 398-8341, respectively.
H-40
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix I
APPENDIX I
FACT SHEETS
(1) The Superfund Enforcement Process: How It WorksEnvironmental Fact Sheet
(2) ATSDR Fact Sheet
(3) ATSDR Public Health Assessments Fact Sheet
(4) Information Repository Fact Sheet
(5) Administrative Record Fact Sheet
1-1
-------
Appendix I
Community Relations Handbook
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, D.C. 20460
SEPA
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Summer 1988
Environmental
Fact Sheet
The Superfund Enforcement
Process: How It Works
INTRODUCTION
In 1980, Congress passed ihe Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly called Superftind. This law pro-
vides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with the authority and necessary tools to respond directly or
to compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to respond
to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. CERCLA created two parallel
and complementary programs aimed at achieving this goal.
The first program involves the creation of a trust fund
financed through a special tax on the chemical and petro-
leum industries. This trust fund, known as the Superfund,
may be available for site remediation when no viable PRPs
arc found or when PRPs fail to take necessary response
actions. PRPs are defined as parties identified as having
owned or operated hazardous substance sites, or who have
transported or arranged for disposal or treatment of hazard-
ous substances, pollutants or contaminants at such sites. The
second program provides EPA with the authority to negoti-
ate settlements, to issue orders to PRPs directing them to
take necessary response actions, or to sue PRPs to repay the
costs of such actions when the Trust Fund has been used for
these purposes. The actions EPA takes to read) settlement
or to compel responsible parties to pay for or undertake the
remediation of sites arc referred to as the Superfund enforce-
ment process. CERCLA was reauthorized and amended on
October 17. 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and
Rcauthorization Act (SARA). SARA provides EPA with
new authorities and tools that strengthen the enforcement
program.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act oi 1980
IAG: Interagency Agreement
NBAR: Non-binding Allocation of Responsibility
NPL: National Priorities List
PRP: Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
as Amended
RD/RA: Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RW=S: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD: Record of Decision
SARA: Supertund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
This fact sheet describes the enforcement authorities and the
process that is followed under the Superfund program. It de-
scribes the options available to EPA for remediating hazard-
ous waste sites; the tools and mechanisms that EPA may use
in negotiating settlements with PRPs. and describes the
decision-making process at enforcement sites.
OVERVIEW OF THE ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM
A major goal of the Superfund program is to encourage PRPs
to remediate hazardous waste sites. The enforcement proc-
ess normally used by EPA to enlist PRP involvement may
include five major efforts.
1
1-2
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix I
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL/ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
To understand the enforcement process, it is necessary to under-
stand the Superfund remedial process. Under the remedial pro-
gram, EPA takes long-term actions to stop or substantially
reduce releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances
that arc serious but not immediately life-threatening. Removal
actions, which are shon-ierm, immediate actions intended to
stabilize a hazardous incident or remove contaminants from a
site that pose a threat to human health or welfare or the environ-
ment, may be taken at any point in the remedial process.
The Superfund process begins with a preliminary assessment/
site inspection (PA/SI). This usually is conducted by the State,
to determine whether the site poses a significant enough poten-
tial hazard to warrant further study and investigation.
The site is then ranked using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS),
a numerical ranking system used to identify the site's potential
hazard to the environment and public health. Sites assigned an
HRS score of 28.5 or above are added to the National Priorities
List(NPL).
Next, a remedial investigation (RI) is conducted to assess the
extent and nature of the contamination and the potential risks. A
feasibility study (FS) is then prepared to examine and evaluate
various remedial alternatives.
Following a public comment period on EPA's preferred alterna-
tive and the draft FS report. EPAchoosesa specific remedial plan
and outlines its selection in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Once the remedial design (RD) (which includes engineering
plans and specifications) is completed, the actual site work, or
remedial acuon (RA) can begin. After RD/RA activities have
been completed, the site is monitored to ensure the effectiveness
of the response. Certain measures require ongoing operation or
periodic maintenance.
First, EPA attempts to identify PRPs as early in the Super-
fund process as possible. Once identified, EPA will notify
these panics of their potential liability for response work
when the sue is scheduled for some action. Second, in the
course of identifying response work to be done. EPA will
encourage PRPs to do the work at a site.
Third, if EPA believes the PRP is willing and capable of
doing the work, EPA will attempt to negotiate an enforce-
ment agreement with the PRP(s). The enforcement agree-
ment may be an agreement entered in court (such as a
judicial consent decree) or it may be an administrative
order (where EPA and the PRP(s) sign an agreement
outside of court). Both of these agreements arc enforce-
able in a court of law. Under both agreements EPA
oversees the PRP.
Fourth, if a settlement is not reached, EPA can use its
authority to issue a unilateral administrative order or
directly file suit against the PRP(s). Under either course
of action. PRPs are directed to perform removal or reme-
dial actions at a site. If the PRPs do not respond to an ad-
ministrative order. EPA has the option of Tiling a law suit
to compel performance.
Fifth, if PRPs do not perform the response action and EPA
undertakes the work, EPA will file suit against PRPs.
when practicable, to recover money spent by EPA and
deposit it m the Superfund Trust Fund. This is called cost
recovery, and it is a major pnonty under the Superfund
program.
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS FOR
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
PRP Search and Notice
EPA is committed to strengthening efforts to reach settle-
ments with PRPs. EPA believes that settlements arc most
likely to occur when EPA interacts frequently with PRPs.
1-3
-------
Appendix I
Community Relations Handbook
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
The original Superfund program was reauthorized and expanded
on October 17.1986. when President Reagan signed into law the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzauon Act of 1986
(SARA). These amendments increased the Superfund Trust Fund
to S8.5 billion and clarified and expanded enforcement
authorities:
> Access and Information Gathering SARA strengthens
EPA's ability to obtain access to investigate sites and to
obtain information from parties with knowledge of the site.
Settlement Authorities - CERCLA authorizes EPA to
compel a PRP to undertake necessary actions to control the
threat of imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health or the environment. To accomplish this. EPA may
either issue an administrative order or bring a civil action
against the PRP in court. SARA outlines specific procedures
for negotiating settlements with PRPs to conduct voluntary
response actions at hazardous waste sites,
Cost Recovery - Once a Fund-financed response has been
undertaken. EPA can recover costs from the responsible
parlies. Past and present facility owners and operators, as well
as hazardous substance generators and transporters, can all be
liable under Superfund for response costs and for damage to
natural resources. EPA may recover Federal response costs
from any or all of the responsible parties involved in a
remedial action. The monies recovered go back into the Fund
for use in future response actions.
Criminal Authorities - SARA increases criminal penalties
for failure to provide notice of a release and makes submitting
false information a criminal offense.
QttzenSuits-SARAauthorizesaciuzeniosueanyperson.
the United States, or an individual State for any violation of
standards and requirements of the law. under certain
conditions.
Federal Faculties
SARA also addsaseciion dealing with releases of hazardous sub-
stances at Federal facilities. This provision clarifies thai Super-
fund applies to Federal agencies and that they must comply with
its requirements. SARA clearly defines the process Federal
agencies must follow in undertaking remedial responses. At
NPL sites, EPA makes the final selection of the remedy if the
Federal agency and EPA disagree. A Federal agency must
remediate a Federal facility through an interagency agreement
(IAG), except in emergency situations. lAGs are enforceable
agreements between Federal agencies that are subject to the
citizen suit provisions in SARA and to section 109 penalties, if
the responding agency does not comply with the terms of the
agreement.
SARA also provides a schedule for response actions at Federal
facilities, including a schedule for preliminary assessments.
listing on the National Priorities List, remedial investigations/
feasibility studies, and remedial actions. State and local officials
also must be given the opportunity to participate m the planning
and selection of any remedy, including the review of all data.
States are given a formal opportunity to review remedies to
ensure that they incorporate State standards. Public participa-
tion in addressing releases at Federal facilities is enhanced by
SARA, which establishes a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket. This docket functions as a repository of in-
formation for the public and is available for public inspection.
Every six months after establishment of the docket. EPA will
publish in the Federa) R^P W a list of the Federal facilities that
have been included in the docket during the proceeding six
month period.
This interaction is important because it provides the oppor-
tunity to share information about the site and may reduce
delays in conducting response actions.
The enforcement process begins with the search for PRPs,
concurrent with NPL listing.
Once identified. PRPs arc typically issued a general notice
letter. The general notice informs PRPs of their potential
liability. The general notice also may include a request for
and a release of information on PRPs and the substances at
the site. The overall purposes of the general notice are to
provide PRPs and the public with advance notice of possible
future negotiations with EPA. to open the lines of commu-
nication between EPA and PRPs, and to advise PRPs of
potential liability.
In addition to the general notices, EPA may issue a "special
notice," which invokes a temporary moratorium on certain
EPA remedial and enforcement activities. An RI/FS special
notice initiates a 90-day moratorium and an RD/RA special
notice initiates a 120-day moratorium. The moratorium
provides a period of time during which EPA and PRPs ne-
gotiate. The goal of negotiations is for EPA and PRPs to
reach a settlement where the PRPs agree to conduct and/or
finance response activities. Negotiations may be terminated
after 60 days for either the RI/FS or RD/RA i f PRPs do not
provide EPA with a "good faith" settlement offer.
1-4
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix I
Negotiations for the RI/FS
The PRP may conduct the RI/FS if EPA determines the PRP
is qualified to conduct the RI/FS and if the PRP agrees to
reimburse EPA for the cost of oversight. The terms of this
agreement to conduct the RI/FS are outlined in either an
Administrative Order on Consent or a Consent Decree, both
of which are enforceable in court. If negotiations do not
result in an order or a decree, EPA may use Trust Fund
monies to perform the RI/FS and seek reimbursement for its
costs.
Negotiations for the RD/RA
Where a special notice is used, the moratorium for RD/RA
may be extended to a total of 120 days. The terms of the
agreement to conduct the RD/RA are outlined in a Consent
Decree, which all panics sign and is entered in court. If ne-
gotiauons do not result in a settlement, EPA may conduct the
remedial activity using Trust Fund monies, and sue for reim-
bursement of its costs with the assistance of the Department
of Justice (DOJ). Or EPA may issue a unilateral administra-
tive order or directly file suit to force the PRPs to conduct the
remedial activity.
Administrative Record
The information used by EPA to select a remedy at a site
must be made available to the public. This information, in-
cluding public comments, is compiled and maintained in the
administrative record files. The administrative record
serves two main purposes. First, it ensures an opportunity
for public involvement in the selection of a remedy at a site.
Second, it provides a basis for judicial review of the
selection.
TOOLS FOR ENFORCEMENT
In addition to outlining the procedures for the enforcement
process. CERCLA provides tools that are designed to help
EPA achieve settlements. The CERCLA settlement authori-
ties may be used by EPA to foster negotiations with PRPs
instead of taking them to court. EPA believes that PRPs
should be involved early in the Superfund process at a site.
It is in the best interest of PRPs to negotiate with EPA and to
conduct the RI/FS. as this can keep the process smooth and
costs can be controlled. EPA actively promotes settlements
with PRPs using tools in SARA and is continuing to work
towards improvements in the settlement process itself.
These new SARA tools include, but are not limited to:
Mixed Funding
CERCLA authorizes the use of "mixed funding." In mixed
funding, settling PRPs and EPA share the costs or the re-
sponse action and EPA pursues viable non-settlers for the
costs EPA incurred. Through guidance, EPA discusses the
useofthreetypesof mixed funding arrangements. These arc
"preauthorization," where the PRPs conduct the remedial
action and EPA agrees to reimburse the PRPs for a ponion
of their response costs; "cash-cuts," where PRPs pay for a
portion of the remedial costs and EPA conducts the work:
and "mixed work," where EPA and PRPs both agree to
conduct and finance discrete portions of a remedial action.
EPA prefers a "preauthorized" mixed-funding agreement.
where PRPs conduct the work.
EPA encourages the use of mixed funding to promote
settlement and site remediation, but will continue to seek
100 percent of response costs from PRPs where possible.
Use of mixed funding does not change EPA's approach to de-
termining liability. PRPs may be held jointly and severally
liable and EPA will seek to recover EPA's mixed funding
share from non-settling PRPs whenever possible.
E£ Minimis Settlements
E£ mimmis settlements are smaller agreements separate
from the larger settlement for the chosen remedy. Under di
minimis settlements, relatively small contributors of waste
to a sue. or certain "innocent" landowners, may resolve their
liability. Innocent landowners are parties who bought prop-
erty without knowing that it was used for hazardous waste
handling. Or EPA may enter into d£ minimis settlement
agreements with a party where the settlement includes only
a minor portion of the response costs and when the amount
of waste represents a relatively minor amount and is not
highly toxic, compared to other hazardous substances at the
facility. De minimis settlements also may be used where the
PRP is a site owner who did not conduct or permit waste
management or contribute to the release of hazardous sub-
stances. E£ minimis settlements are typically used in con-
junction with covenant not to sue agreements. These agree-
ments generally will be in the form of administrative orders
on consent and are available for public comment.
Covenants Not To Sue
A covenant not to sue may be used to limit the present and
future liability of PRPs, thus encouraging them to reach a
settlement early. However, agreements generally include
"reopcners" that would allow EPA to hold parties liable for
1-5
-------
Appendix I
Community Relations Handbook
conditions unknown at the time of settlement or for new in-
formation indicating that the remedial action is not protec-
tive of human health and the environment. In some cases.
such as d£ minimis settlements, releases may be granted
without reopeners. Covenants not to sue are likely to be
used only in instances where the negotiating PRP is respon-
sible for only a very small portion of a site, and. therefore,
EPA is assured that any future problems with the site are not
likely to be the result of that PHP's contribution
Non-binding Allocations of Responsibility (NEAR)
NEAR is a process for EPA to propose a way for PRPs to
allocate costs among themselves. EPA may decide to
prepare an NEAR when the Agency determines this alloca-
tion is likely to promote settlement. Art NBAR does not bind
the government or PRPs and cannot be admitted as evidence
or reviewed in any judicial proceeding, including citizen
suits. Since each PRP may be held liable for the entire cost
of response, regardless of the size of its contribution to a site.
knowing EP A's proposed allocation scheme may encourage
the PRPs to settle out of court rather than run the risk of being
held fully responsible.
STATE PARTICIPATION
The Superfund program allows for and encourages State
participation in enforcement activities. First. EPA is re-
quired to notify the State of negotiations with PRPs and
provide the opportunity for the State to participate. States
may be a party to any settlement in which they participate.
In addition. EPA is authorized to provide funds to States to
allow State participation in enforcement activities and to
finance certain State-lead enforcement actions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
EPA policy and the Superfund law establish a strong pro-
gram of public participation in the decision-making process
at both Fund-lead and enforcement sites. The procedures
and policy for public participation at enforcement sites arc
basically the same as for non-enforcement sites. This fact
sheet is limited to those special differences in community
relations when the Agency is negotiating with or pursuing
litigation against PRPs. The contact listed below has nu-
merous fact sheets on the Superfund program, including a
fact sheet on Public Involvement.
Community relations at enforcement-lead sites may differ
from community relations activities at Fund-lead sites
because negotiations between EPA, DOJ and PRPs gener-
ally focus on the issue of liability. The negotiation process.
thus, requires that some information be kept confidential
and is not usually open to the public.
When these discussions deal with new technical informa-
tion that changes or modifies remedial decisions, this infor-
mation will be documented and placed in the administrative
record files. This process provides the public with critical
information and enables the Agency to move quickly to-
wards settlement. Information on enforcement strategy;
details of the negotiations, such as the behavior, attitudes, or
legal positions of responsible parties: and evidence or attor-
ney work product material developed during negotiatioas.
must remain confidential.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
1-6
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix I
TSDR
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is part of the Public Health Service (PHS) and
based in Atlanta, Georgia. It was created by Congress to implement the health-related sections of laws
that protect the public from hazardous wastes and environmental spills of hazardous substances. ATSDR
derives its authority from three separate acts of Congress.
1. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), commonly known as the "Superfund" Act, provided the Congressional mandate to
remove or clean up abandoned or inactive hazardous waste sites and to provide Federal
assistance in toxic emergencies. Congress made the environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the
lead agency in implementing CERCLA and created ATSDR to implement the health-related
sections of the Act.
2. In 1984, amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), which
provides for the management of legitimate hazardous waste storage or destruction facilities,
charged the ATSDR to conduct health assessments at these sites, when requested by EPA,
States, or individuals, and to assist EPA in determining which substances should be regulated
and the levels at which they may pose a threat to human health.
3. In 1986, amendments to CERCLA, known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), broadened ATSDR's responsibilities in the areas of health assessments,
lexicological data bases, information dissemination, and medical education.
ORGANIZATION
ATSDR's three offices are the Office of the Associate Administrator (OAA), the Office of External
Affairs (OEA), and the Office of Health Assessment (OHA). The OAA is responsible for the Agency's
planning and budget and develops overall policy. OEA is responsible for developing exposure and
disease registries, planning and conducting research, producing lexicological profiles, responding to
legislation, developing agreements and contracts, providing liaison with EPA and technical assistance to
State and local agencies, maintaining the list of areas closed or restricted because of contamination, and
coordinating the activities of ATSDR's regional staffthose persons responsible for coordinating ATSDR
programs within 10 regions across the United States. OHA provides emergency response to toxic and
1-7
-------
Appendix I Community Relations Handbook
environmental disasters, gives health consultations in public health emergencies, makes health assessments
of hazardous waste sites, provides technical assistance to agencies and organizations, and estimates health
risks to humans from exposure to hazardous substances.
The program areas in which ATSDR operates are as follows:
Program areas
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS to evaluate data and information on the release of hazardous
substances into the environment in order to: assess any current or future impact on public health,
develop health advisories or other health recommendations, and identify studies or actions needed to
evaluate and mitigate or prevent human health effects.
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES to summarize and interpret available data on the health effects of
hazardous substances and to initiate toxicological and health effects research, where needed.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE to provide health-related support in public health emergencies,
including public health advisories, involving exposure to hazardous substances.
EXPOSURE AND DISEASE REGISTRIES to establish and maintain a registry of serious
diseases and illnesses in persons exposed to toxic substances as a result of environmental exposure
and a registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances.
HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH to expand knowledge of the relationship between exposure to
hazardous substances and adverse human health effects, through epidemiological, toxicological,
laboratory, and other studies on hazardous substances.
HEALTH EDUCATION to develop and disseminate, to physicians and other health care
providers, materials on the health effects of toxic substances.
LITERATURE INVENTORY/DISSEMINATION to establish and maintain, through the National
Library of Medicine (NLM), a publicly accessible inventory on hazardous substances.
WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY to assist in occupational safety and health service and
research programs for protecting workers at Superfund sites and workers who respond to emergency
releases of hazardous substances.
LIST OF AREAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC to maintain a nationwide list of sites closed or
restricted to the public because of contamination by hazardous substances.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
For more information contact: ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop F-38, Atlanta, GA 30333
1-8
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix I
_ATSDR
Public Health Assessments
What is ATSDR?
ATSDR is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a fed-
eral public health agency. ATSDR is part of the Public Health Service
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Created by
Superfund legislation in 1980, ATSDR's mission is to prevent or mitigate
adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life resulting from
exposure to hazardous substances in the environment.
What is a Public Health Assessment?
An ATSDR Public Health Assessment gathers information about hazardous substances at a
site and evaluates whether exposure to those substances might cause any harm to people.
Public Health Assessments consider -
o what the levels (or "concentrations") of chemicals are at the site
o whether people on or near the site might be exposed to the substances and how
(through "exposure pathways" such as breathing air. drinking or contacting
water, contacting or eating soil, or eating contaminated food)
o what harm the substances at the site might cause to people (or the chemicals'
"toxicity")
o whether working or living near the site might affect people's health
To make those determinations, ATSDR looks at three primary sources of information -
o environmental data, such as information on the chemicals at the site and how
people could come in contact with the chemicals
o health data, including information on community-wide rates of illness, disease,
and death compared with national and state rates
o community concerns, such as citizen reports about how the site affects their
health or quality of life
How Are Public Health Assessments Used?
Public Health Assessments advise the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and states on
actions to reduce or prevent people's exposure to hazardous substances. They are used to
develop Public Health Advisories and other recommendations to protect the public's health.
They are also used to identify health studies or other actions - such as environmental health
education for the community and its health care providers - that might be needed.
Printed on Recycled Paper
1-9
-------
Appendix I Community Relations Handbook
What Is the Community's Role in a Public Health Assessment?
The community has a key role to play in a Public Health Assessment and any activity that may
follow. Throughout the Public Health Assessment. ATSDR talks with people living near the
sitecitizen groups, local leaders, and health professionals, among other community mem-
bers-about their knowledge of the site and their health concerns related to the site. Health
concerns are addressed in every Public Health Assessment for every site.
Two-way communication between the public and ATSDR is vital to a successful
Public Health Assessment. For that reason, ATSDR has several mechanisms to keep the
public involved and informed and to solicit information from the community, such as --
o Public Availability Meetings where community members can meet individually
with ATSDR staff.
o Public Meetings during which community members can express ideas in a larger
forum.
o Community Advisory Panels, which work to inform ATSDR about community
concerns and health information and, in turn, to inform the community about
ATSDR activities and the status of the Public Health Assessment.
o Other communication channels, such as contact with local citizen groups, politi-
cal leaders, and health professionals, as well as articles in local newspapers and
on television and radio stations.
o Before the Public Health Assessment is complete, it is available in the commu-
nity during the Public Comment Period. The Public Comment Period gives the
community the opportunity to tell ATSDR how well the Public Health Assessment
addresses concerns. To provide information back to the community, ATSDR
responds to public comments in the final Public Health Assessment.
To Get More Information:
s-o- , ,»-. -i.-i-;" ATSDR-DMsk^^HeatthAssessme^ttsanctConsuKattoa
:''%' rC: l'| ;'^-.;:i600Cnfton.Road;NE^^I- -Atlanta, Georgia:30333 -1 - ^^<^';: i-
'V- ''"rfr^v^;;--404/B3e^^ ,
L'rJ_v^t^S^r««a«^C»^ "' ''
1-10
-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix I
FACT SHEET: INFORMATION REPOSITORY
The Information Repository (IR) is a set of
documents relating to a Superfund site, including
documents on site activities, general information
about the Superfund program, and site-specific
information. The purpose of the IR is to allow
open and convenient public access to site-related
documents and to better inform the public of the
Superfund process. An IR is established at every
remedial site and at all removal sites where the
response is likely to extend beyond 120 days.
Locations for the IR are identified during commu-
nity interviews. Typical locations are local public
libraries, town halls, or public health offices.
EPA must ensure that copying facilities are avail-
able. As soon as it appears that a removal action
may last longer than 120 days, the IR should be
opened. At least one IR should be established
near each remedial site before the RI/FS begins.
The IR should be opened as soon as a standard set
of documents is assembled (see below). It should
be maintained throughout the remedial action, in-
cluding operation and maintenance.
More than one IR may be advisable, depending on
the level of community concern. At least one IR
should be open during evening hours and on
weekends.
The following Superfund documents are recom-
mended to be included when opening an IR. In
addition, an index should be prepared and regular-
ly updated to include all documents that follow in
time:
A basic primer on EPA's mission and respon-
sibilities;
Brochures, fact sheets, and other information
about Superfund and enforcement programs;
Copies of CERCLA and SARA; and
How to Use the Information Repository:
Guide for Librarians and Citizens.
The index and documents should be placed in a
binder. Once the public knows the location and
purpose of the IR, the following site-specific
materials should begin to appear in the IR:
The Community Relations Plan;
Maps of the site;
Newspaper notices of availability, meetings,
and public comment periods;
Documents sent to persons on the community
mailing list;
Documentation and summary of informal
public meetings; and
A copy of the signed cooperative agreement
if the site is State-lead or a copy of the
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) if the
site is a Federal Facility.
The Administrative Record (AR), which is a
subset of the IR, contains all information used by
the lead agency to select a remedy for a particular
site. Compilation of the AR file starts as soon as
the site is investigated, and normally remains open
through the signing of the ROD. The AR file is
usually housed at the same facility as the IR, so
indexes to both should be cross-referenced. The
AR closes following the ROD, but the IR remains
open for Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/
RA), negotiated settlements with Potentially Res-
ponsible Parties (PRPs), Long-Term Response
Actions (LTRAs), and Operation and Maintenance
(O&M). The IR, therefore, could very well be
open to the public for longer than ten years.
1-11
-------
Appendix I
Community Relations Handbook
FACT SHEET: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The Administrative Record (AR) is a file that con-
tains all information used by the lead agency to
make its decision on the selection of a response
action. Its purpose is to provide the public access
to site-related information so that they may make
informed comments on the selection of a remedy.
The record must be located at or near the site.
To avoid creating the perception that the record is
complete prior to selection of a response action,
documents compiled prior to this decision are re-
ferred to as the "administrative record file" (AR
file), rather than the AR.
The following have been excerpted from OWPE
Directive 9833.3A-1 (39), dated December, 1990.
To the extent a document is considered, or relied
on, in selecting the response action, the following
will be included in the AR:
Preliminary Assessment report;
Site Investigation report;
The RI/FS work plan, the RI report, and the
FS report;
Amendments to the RI/FS work plan;
Validated sampling data, including chain of
custody forms (usually referenced because it
tends to be large);
Inspection reports and data summary sheets;
Technical studies performed for the site (e.g.,
a groundwater study);
Risk assessments, health assessments, health
studies, and public health advisories issued by
ATSDR;
Data submitted by the public, including PRP
and public comments;
Memoranda of site-specific or issue-specific
policy decisions;
Transcripts of formal public hearings on the
RI/FS, proposed plans, and any waivers of
ARARs;
Responses to public comments on the selec-
tion of a remedy (responsiveness summary);
Responses to comments from the State or
other Federal agencies;
A signed copy of the Record of Decision;
Explanations of significant differences;
Amended ROD and supporting information;
Administrative orders, consent decrees, notice
letters to PRPs, responses to notice letters,
information request letters, subpoenas, res-
ponses to information request letters and sub-
poenas, affidavits containing relevant factual
information not contained elsewhere, and all
other enforcement documents;
Documentation of State involvement, inclu-
ding requests for waivers of ARARs, respon-
ses to waiver requests, a statement of the
State's position on the proposed plan, and a
statement of opportunities to concur on the
selected remedy or to be party to the settle-
ment;
Natural Resource Trustees notices and respon-
ses, findings of fact, final reports, and natural
resource damage assessments;
The proposed plan; and
The public notice placed in a local newspaper
of general circulation of a formal comment
period.
Other documents, as appropriate, may be included
in the AR, such as:
The Community Relations Plan;
Newspaper articles showing general commu-
nity awareness;
Copies of documents sent to persons on the
community relations mailing list;
Availability of information and opportunities
to comment; and
Information generated during meetings and
comments.
Normally, the AR closes when the Record of
Decision (ROD) is signed. If changes in the
scope, performance, or cost of the final plan do
1-12
-------
Community Relations Handbook Appendix I
not fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the An explanation of the amended ROD and response
ROD, an explanation of significant differences to comments will be placed in the AR and IR
will be placed in the AR and IR. On rare before the remedial action begins. See section
occasions, when the ROD is amended, a public 4.3.5 for further discussion of post-ROD signifi-
comment period and public meetings will be held. cant changes.
*U.S.G.P.O.: 1992-311-893:60658 1-13
------- |