United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Superfund Division (SR-6J)
Chicago, II 60604
Illinios, Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio, Wisconsin
October 1998
&EPA A Review of Community
Advisory Groups
in Region 5:
Lessons Learned
-------
A Review of
Community Advisory Groups
in Region 5:
Lessons Learned
Superfund Division (SR-6J)
Region 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
October 1998
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Participants 2
Lessons Learned 3
CAG Formation 3
CAG Operations 6
Overall Community Advisory Group
Effectiveness 8
-------
A Review of Community Advisory Groups
in Region 5:
Lessons Learned
Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed
to early, direct, and meaningful public involvement in the Superfund
process. One of the ways communities are participating in cleanup
decisions at hazardous waste sites around the country is through
Community Advisory Groups (CAGs). A Community Advisory Group is
comprised up of representatives of diverse community interests and
provides a public forum that allows people in the community to express
their views and actively participate in the decision-making process at
Superfund and other hazardous waste sites.
As part of its commitment to promoting community involvement at
hazardous waste sites, EPA Region 5 conducted an informal review and
evaluation of its support to Community Advisory Groups. This document
summarizes lessons learned in the course of this review.
Information was gathered via interviews with leaders of six selected
Community Advisory Groups in order to learn more about how they are
working and to determine what EPA can do to better support these
groups. Interviewees were asked a series of questions that allowed them to
share their insights and experiences forming and operating a Community
Advisory Group and to suggest ways EPA can assist local groups in their
efforts.
-------
Participants
Leaders of the following Community Advisory Groups were interviewed
between June 30 and August 31, 1998:
! The Cam-Or Community Advisory Group was formed in May 1997
by residents concerned about the spread of ground-water contamination
from the Cam-Or site in Westville, Indiana. The site was remediated under
the RCRA program during the 1980s, but subsequent testing showed that
some contamination remained, and that some drinking water from wells
was contaminated. The group's chairperson was interviewed for the
evaluation.
! The DePue Superfund Citizens Advisory Committee is the
Community Advisory Group for the New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Site
in DePue, Illinois. The Citizens Advisory Committee was formed in June
1997 by citizens interested in cleanup and restoration of the site, and
clarifying and communicating potential health concerns to Village of
DePue residents. The group's chairperson provided information for the
evaluation.
! The Dutch Boy Site Community Advisory Group was formed in
1997 by residents of two neighborhoods near the Dutch Boy/International
Harvester site in Chicago. The CAG has two co-chairs, who represent
homeowners' associations for separate, affected neighborhoods on either
side of the site. Telephone interviews were conducted with the CAG's co-
chairs and another community leader who serves on the group.
! The Geneva City Dump/True Temper Sports Site Community
Advisory Group was formed approximately two and one-half years ago
by residents living near two hazardous waste sites in Geneva, Ohio: the
Geneva City Dump site, a municipal landfill; and the True Temper Sports
site, a former industrial site used primarily for the production of tools and
sports equipment. Remediation of the True Temper Sports Site was
nearing completion at the time of the interview, but plans for cleanup of
the Geneva City Dump Site still were not finalized. The CAG chairperson
and the group's co-founder discussed their group's activities during a June
30, 1998 meeting at EPA's offices in Arlington, Virginia.
-------
! The North Bronson Industrial Site Community Advisory Group
was formed in the autumn of 1996 to address community concerns about
cleanup of the North Bronson Industrial Site in Bronson, Michigan. The
community is concerned about the potential economic effects of the
cleanup on Bronson and its small business community. There are concerns
because the city is a potentially responsible party (PRP), as are three of the
community's industrial businesses. The state of Michigan had the lead for
the site during the RI/FS stage, and, at the time of the interview, a Record
of Decision (ROD) had recently been approved. The CAG chairman was
interviewed by telephone for the evaluation.
! The Pine River Task Force is the Community Advisory Group for the
Velsicol Chemical site in St. Louis, Michigan. Velsicol was an early
Superfund site that already had been remediated in the early 1980s. The
Community Advisory Group was formed in January 1998 following a
somewhat contentious October 1997 public meeting attended by about 150
residents, at which EPA talked about residual river contamination and
further cleanup plans at the Velsicol site. The chairman of the task force
was interviewed by telephone for this evaluation.
Lessons Learned
CAG Formation
\ EPA's most important and useful role in support of these
Region 5 Community Advisory Groups has been that of
motivator — recognizing when formation of a CAG is
appropriate, encouraging the community to take the necessary
steps, supporting the group's efforts, and providing necessary
information and resources.
In most cases, EPA introduced the Community Advisory Group concept
and provided each community with organizational information and
administrative assistance for forming a Community Advisory Group, but
left it up to the community to organize itself. None of the Community
Advisory Group leaders interviewed felt EPA overstepped its bounds or
tried to unduly influence whether or how a community should form a
group. At the Dutch Boy/International Harvester site, community advisory
-------
group leaders applauded EPA's proactive role in introducing affected
community groups to each other and asking the community to form a
group. Even those CAG leaders who indicated they and other members of
their group were somewhat distrustful of the federal government said EPA
assistance was helpful.
! Organizational information provided by EPA has been well-
received and widely used.
Virtually all of the CAG leaders interviewed said they read and used many
of the organizational materials provided to them by EPA. They said the
Community Advisory Group Guidance document, fact sheets, and the
Community Advisory Group Toolkit all were helpful. Most said that they
adapted the sample mission statements and other organizational materials
EPA provided to structure their respective groups.
One CAG leader said the Toolkit made forming a group seem easy by
outlining a process for structuring a group and provided many necessary
tools and materials. In fact, most Community Advisory Group leaders said
they liked the Community Advisory Group Toolkit. CAGs that received a
copy of the draft Toolkit during their organizational phase said they made
good use of the materials. Groups that already were well-established
generally did not, but most also commented that they wished the Toolkit
had been available to them when their CAGs were forming. The chair of
the DePue Citizens Advisory Committee said his group used the
Community Advisory Group Toolkit and other materials provided to them,
but he thought some of the organizational materials were targeted to
groups in larger, more urban communities.
! These Region 5 communities clearly understood that a
Community Advisory Group should be broadly representative
of the community. CAGs in areas with environmental justice
populations recognize the continuing importance of making
special efforts to conduct outreach to these groups.
The DePue Superfund Community Advisory Committee identified
diversified membership as a goal at its first meeting, and the Community
Involvement Coordinator from Illinois EPA (which has the lead for the
-------
site) secured translations and helped with active outreach to the area's
growing Mexican-American population. The group now has one Mexican-
American member.
The chairman of the Pine River Task Force, encouraged the group to focus
on outreach to environmental justice groups and to include all segments of
the community. He said including all groups can strengthen a Community
Advisory Group, even though outreach sometimes can seem burdensome
at
first. The task force's membership includes a representative of a nearby
Indian reservation, and the group has made special efforts to bring site-
related information to Hispanic migrant workers.
At the Dutch Boy site, CAG leaders said that almost everyone in the
affected neighborhoods is African-American. As a result, they saw no
need to conduct outreach for environmental justice purposes. They did,
however, make efforts to ensure that the CAG includes a broad cross-
section of community residents and grassroots organizations.
At the Geneva/True Temper site, the community does not have a
significant environmental justice population, but the CAG did make some
effort to involve a small, somewhat transient Hispanic population, which
CAG leaders said was not directly affected by the site.
! Taking time to build trust has been important.
The community leaders recognized the importance of building mutual trust
among themselves before tackling problems. The chairman of the Cam-Or
CAG said that he would advise other communities interested in forming a
Community Advisory Group to start off slowly, in order to give members a
chance to get acquainted and build trust before formalizing the group's
structure. He said it was important to members of the Cam-Or CAG that
no EPA representatives were invited to attend initial meetings.
At the Dutch Boy site, leaders also emphasized the importance of building
trust among groups. They said the key was to focus on common interests,
but only after acknowledging that each group has its own agenda and
interests.
-------
! Encouraging participation by non-experts has been key.
The chairman of the Pine River Task Force emphasized the need to
consciously encourage participation by members of the group and
community residents who are not experts, rather than letting leaders and
experts dominate the group. He said the experience has helped him
understand the need to run meetings in a way that empowers all
community members.
CAG Operations
\ Region 5 Community Advisory Groups have received
technical assistance from a variety of sources, but not all
communities have been able to obtain it.
The Pine River Task Force at the Velsicol site, is in the process of
applying for an EPA Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). Community
Advisory Groups at the Geneva/True Temper Sports Site and the Dutch
Boy/International Harvester sites received technical assistance through
EPA's Technical Outreach Services to Communities (TOSC) program. The
chairmen of the Community Advisory Groups at the North Bronson
Industrial Site and the DePue site both said their group's need for technical
advice was met by the state, and they saw no need to seek further technical
assistance from EPA.
The chairman of the Cam-Or Community Advisory Group, however,
indicated that the group has not received adequate technical information or
advice. He said the group probably cannot qualify for an EPA Technical
Assistance Grant under existing TAG program guidelines prohibiting
public officials from serving as officers and requiring the group to provide
matching funds.
-------
! Communities have been satisfied with technical assistance
provided through EPA's TOSC program, but not with all
TOSC contractors.
Co-chairs of the Dutch Boy Site Community Advisory Group said
assistance provided through EPA's TOSC program has been invaluable,
and said the group has a good rapport with their TOSC representative.
Leaders of the Geneva/True Temper CAG said TOSC support has been
extremely useful to the group, but they perceived their initial TOSC
contact to be biased and opinionated. They subsequently contacted the
TOSC representative at another university, who provided technical advice,
and also advised the group on the cleanup process and how to work
effectively with various stakeholders.
! Community Advisory Group leaders have been satisfied with
the types and amounts of administrative assistance EPA
provided to their groups.
The types and amount of administrative support EPA provided to the six
CAGs under review varied significantly from group to group. Some
groups received significant amounts of administrative support, while others
declined the Agency's offer to help in the interest of maintaining their
group's independence. EPA provided a range of support
services—including organizing meetings, maintaining mailing lists,
duplicating documents, preparing and distributing information and
announcements, and keeping meeting minutes. Providing mailing services
and keeping meeting minutes were the services CAG leaders said were
most valuable to them.
Although CAG leaders said EPA's administrative assistance to them was
extremely helpful, they agreed that EPA's encouragement and day-to-day
accessibility was the most important form of assistance the Agency
provided to them.
When asked what other forms of support they would like EPA to provide,
no one interviewed indicated that they needed monetary support from EPA
to support the group's operations.
-------
Overall Community Advisory Group Effectiveness
! The Community Advisory Groups at these Region 5 sites have
been an effective way of getting everyone with an interest in
site decisions to talk with each other.
All those interviewed agreed that having a Community Advisory Group
has been beneficial. At the Dutch Boy/International Harvester site, EPA
introduced affected community groups to each other. Once the two
homeowners associations near the site got to know and trust each other,
they not only worked together on site issues, but also have begun
addressing other common concerns.
The chairman of the Cam-Or Community Advisory Group said the group
has given the community a forum for airing complaints and concerns about
the cleanup. He noted that people who never would have spoken up at an
EPA meeting have voiced their opinions at CAG meetings.
! Community Advisory Groups have allowed residents a these
Region 5 sites to be much better informed about site issues and
often have increased the community's voice in the hazardous
waste site decision-making process.
Community Advisory Group leaders from all six sites agreed that
formation of their groups has benefitted the community as a whole by
allowing citizens to be better informed about site issues and more involved
in site-related activities and decisions. CAG leaders at the Geneva/True
Temper site reported that the group has had a major impact on the cleanup
of the True Temper Sports site, and cited the CAG's success in expanding
the scope of the original cleanup plan to include removal of contaminated
sludge from a lagoon. They said EPA listened and responded to
community concerns by doubling the size of the cleanup and incorporating
citizen comments into the work plan. The chairman of the Pine River Task
Force also reported that the CAG had influenced cleanup plans for the
Velsicol site.
The chair of the Cam-Or CAG said the community never was asked for
input before the CAG was established and now has much more influence
over site decisions than in the past. He said he is sure that the Community
Advisory Group is responsible for a significant increase in activity at the
site, after ten years of inaction.
-------
The Community Advisory Group at the North Bronson Industrial Site has
been able to provide input directly to the decision-maker, the site project
manager from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ). The CAG chairman said the group has been satisfied with the
decisions that were made in the ROD for the site.
The chairman of the DePue CAG said he thinks the community is gaining
trust and has a greater voice in the decision-making process because of the
Community Advisory Group.
! Formation of a Community Advisory Group has improved the
relationship between EPA and these Region 5 communities,
even where residents generally distrust the federal
government.
All nine Community Advisory Group leaders interviewed agreed that
formation of the CAG had improved the relationship between the
community and EPA. One CAG leader noted that having a relationship
with EPA representatives through the CAG helped "put a face" on the
Agency. At the Dutch Boy site, for example, CAG leaders explained that
early meetings were confrontational. In fact, meetings often still are
contentious, but CAG leaders said a partnership is beginning to form.
The community at the Geneva/True Temper site had an excellent, non-
adversarial relationship with EPA from the beginning. Leaders of the
Community Advisory Group said that early trust has continued to grow as
a result of the formation of the group.
CAG leaders had no complaints about EPA's support to their Community
Advisory Groups. They reported that Community Involvement
Coordinators listened to their concerns and were responsive to their needs.
One CAG leader said it was good to know that there was someone he
could call at EPA who always returned calls promptly and could be relied
upon to get timely answers to questions that arise. Another stressed the
importance of having a Community Involvement Coordinator who could
answer technical questions about site issues. Some did express frustration.
The leader of one CAG, who was frustrated with delays in getting
technical information from the Agency, said formation of the CAG
nonetheless helped re-establish a relationship between the community and
EPA. He reported that the relationship has improved tremendously over
the past two years.
-------
! High turnover in EPA regional staff, especially among RPMs
and Community Involvement Coordinators, has been a
concern for Region 5 Community Advisory Groups.
It was not unusual to hear that a CAG had worked with several EPA
Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs) or RPMs in a relatively
short period of time. Several CAG leaders expressed concern about
frequent changes in EPA staff, which can make it difficult to maintain close
ongoing relationships necessary to build trust and encourage cooperation.
! Some Region 5 Community Advisory Groups have been
catalysts for community participation in environmental
concerns that go beyond site-related issues.
Leaders of the Geneva/True Temper CAG said the group is interested in
continuing its efforts even after cleanup is completed and promoting a
"holistic" approach to other environmental and land-use issues. The Pine
River Task Force is looking at a variety of environmental concerns, and
leaders of the Dutch Boy Site Community Advisory Group now meet
regularly to discuss issues of common concern to residents of the two
nearby neighborhoods represented on the group.
10
------- |