UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
5 1990
sc:'0
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
Managenent Review: #43 G,H,Q,R,T)
PROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia/LVKesponse
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.
BacXground: 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 th« SMR and our own experience continue to point to thisx as
among the most important, and potentially most frustrating,
problems in our attempts to deal openly with the communities at
Superfund sites. Citizens1 beliefs even where unfounded
that we are slow or unwilling to share information compromise cur
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:
-------
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 docu-ents 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 reconnendations
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 During the PA/31Stage. 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,
-------
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/SI 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.
-------
OSKER Directive 89230.0-16
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 Corununity 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.")
-------
OSWER Directive 49230.0-16
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 enforcenent-
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 teams11 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 fora. 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.
-------
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~friendlv. 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
-------
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 39S-8341,
respectively.
------- |