. n •••,- ••.ia:f-.
t -V " .,•:'-.("•": A 0',-,TPl
ft**. f ,
S < --I A
x>EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER w-
TITLE: .-;>.::,:::' rf-p^^; v>r;t-
APPROVAL DATE: ' ' '
EFFECTIVE DATE 6/4/90
ORIGINATING OFFICE .r;
JIJ FINAL
ri DRAFT
STATUS
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER OSWER OSWER
fE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United
&EPA OSWER D I
Stiles Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
rective Initiation Request
1. D’IC IVS Nu
9230.0-06
2. Ov1 inator lriforwtatlon
Name of Contact Person
Melissa Shapiro
3. Title -
1 Mail Cods lON ce
05—220 HSCD -
} ePtt0 e Code -
‘ flR-P . 40
Superfund Respons
iveness Summareis
4. Summary of Directive (include bnef stateme
N of purpose)
Improve responsiveness summareis so that they are more specific to
total community concerns
5. Keywords
NCP; community relations
6 .. Does This Directive Supersede Pvwnous
NO Yes What directive (number, title)
b. Does it Supplement Previous De()
No Yes What dbectivs (numb.r, dde)
1 OmIt L.evd
A - Si9ned by &4J0*A
B - Signed by Office Director C - Foe Review & Coi wnent 00_ , Devc opment
las Document tobe dist
ributed to States by Headquarters? Y No
This Re usst Meets OSWER Directives Syc
tern Format Standard..
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Oat.
Betti C. VanEpps OERR
Directives Coordinator
6/4/90
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
oats
Henry L. ‘Longest II, Di
rector, Q IRR
6/4/90
EPA Penn 1315—17 (Rev. 5-17) Previous iditiorts are obs$sls.
OSWER OSWER OSWER 0
VE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
-------
O S7 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20460
c
iIbi 4 1990 OSWER Directive No. 9230.0—06
Or ICE D I-
SOLID WgSTE NO E\1ERGE CY RESPONSE
MEMORAND
SUBJECT: Superfund Responsiveness Summaries
(Superfund Management Review: Rec m dation #43E)
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial s onse
Bruce M. Diamond, Director
Office of Waste Programs En 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
PURPOSE :
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
Prutied oii Recycled Paper
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0—06
responsible parties (PRP5) 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 commentors’ 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.
-------
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-06
5) 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 or 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 Superfund: 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—lA. 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
------- |