vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Superfund
Community Involvement
Handbook
-------
Solid Waste and EPA 540-K-05-003
Emergency Response April 2005
(5204G) www.epa.gov/superfund
Errata/Revisions to Pre-Publication Versions
Pre-publication versions of this document have been available in print since June 2001 and
online since October 2001. The following revisions to the pre-publication versions appear in this
document:
Revision 1 (June 2001): Chapter 5 (Implementing Community Involvement in Remedial
Actions), section 12 (Operation and Maintenance), rewritten.
Revision 2 (December 2001): Name of original Appendix was changed to Appendix A: Superfund
Community Involvement Requirements. Added Appendix B: Superfund Community Involvement
Directives. Revised Chapter 2 to include an explanation of the Directives.
Revision 3 (April 2002): References to "SARA" in Appendix A were changed to "CERCLA".
"Notice and Comment Period on Consent Decrees" was changed to "Notice and Comment Period on
SettlementAgreements."
Revision 4 (April 2005): Added Appendix C: Community Involvement During Enforcement
Actions, a revision of a chapter from the 1992 publication Community Relations in Superfund: A
Handbook. Appendix C provides additional detail on Superfund community involvement activities and
requirements during enforcement activities at Superfund remedial and removal sites. Also, eight
OSWER Directives were added to Appendix B.
-------
EPA 540-K-05-003
April 2005
Superfund
Community Involvement
Handbook
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
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 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 reserves the right to change
this guidance at any time without public notice.
Acknowledgments
This handbook was developed by the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation and
other EPA community involvement staff. Environmental Management Support, Inc., 8601 Georgia
Avenue, Suite 500, Silver Spring, Maryland, provided assistance with final preparation of this document
under Contract Number 68-W6-0046 and has continued to assist with revisions under Contract
Number 68-W-02-03 3.
For More Information
For more information, please contact:
Leslie Leahy
Community Involvement and Outreach Branch
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mail Code 5204G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-9929
leahy.leslie@epa.gov
-------
Contents
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
How to Use the Handbook 1
CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN SUPERFUND 3
Mission Statement 3
The Concept 3
The Letter of the Law versus the Intent of the Law 3
The Site Team 3
Big Ideas in Community Involvement 5
Community Involvement Objectives 5
Core Values for Public Participation 7
Summary 7
CHAPTER 3 RISK COMMUNICATION 9
Introduction 9
Principles of Risk Communication 9
The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication 10
Addressing Technical and Non-Technical Concerns 11
Non-Technical Public Concerns 11
Explaining Technical Issues 12
Risk Comparisons 14
Involving the Public 14
Techniques 16
Summary 17
CHAPTER 4 EARLY PLANNING FOR MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT 19
When to Start 19
Preliminary Assessment 19
Site Inspection 19
CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMEDIAL ACTIONS 23
About the Superfund Remedial Process 23
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMEDIAL ACTIONS (continued)
1. Discovery 23
2. Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection 24
Outreach Activities During PA/SI 24
3. Proposed Listing on the NPL 25
Community Involvement Outreach Activities During Listing on the NPL 26
4. Final Listing on the NPL in the Federal Register 26
Community Involvement Activities After Final Listing on the NPL 26
More About the Community Interviews 27
More About Community Involvement Plans 28
More About Communication Strategies 29
More About the Information Repository 29
More About Public Notice 30
More About Technical Assistance Grants 30
5. RI/FS Begins 31
Recommended Outreach Activities During RI/FS 31
More About the Community Advisory Groups 33
6. Feasibility Study Completion and Proposed Plan 34
Community Involvement Activities Related to FS Completion and the Proposed Plan 34
More About the Proposed Plan 35
More About the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet 36
More About Public Notice of the Proposed Plan 36
More About the Public Comment Period and Public Meeting 37
7. Notice and Comment on Consent Decree 38
Community Involvement Activities for Consent Decrees 38
More About Community Involvement Activities for Enforcement Actions 39
8. Pre-ROD Significant Changes 41
Pre-ROD Community Involvement Activities 41
9. Record of Decision 42
Community Involvement Requirements During the ROD 42
II
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMEDIAL ACTIONS (continued)
More About Public Notice of ROD 42
ROD Outreach Activities 42
10. Post-ROD Significant Changes 43
Post-ROD Outreach Activities 44
11. Remedial Design/Remedial Action 44
Community Involvement Activities During RD/RA 45
12. Operation and Maintenance 46
13. Proposed NPL Deletion and Final NPL Deletion in the Federal Register 46
More About the Notice of Intent to Delete 47
Additional Outreach Activities During NPL Deletions 47
Community Involvement on Prospective Purchaser Agreements 48
Community Involvement Activities for EPA Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of
Contaminated Property 48
Summary 48
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMOVAL ACTIONS 49
Introduction 49
About Superfund Removal Actions 49
Roles and Responsibilities 50
Planning for Communications/Outreach During Removal Actions 50
How to Conduct Community Involvement/Outreach During Removal Actions 51
Community Involvement/Outreach During Emergency Responses 53
Outreach Activities During Emergency Response 54
Community Involvement/Outreach During Time Critical and Non-Time Critical
Removal Actions 56
Time-Critical Removals 57
Non-Time-Critical Removals 5 7
Outreach During for Time-Critical and Non-Time-Critical Removals 58
Additional Required Activities for Time-Critical Removals Extending Beyond 120 Days- 58
Additional Outreach Activities for Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions 59
III
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMOVAL ACTIONS (continued)
Recommended Outreach Activities for Non-Time-Critical Removals 60
Summary 62
CHAPTER 7 DEALING WITH THE MEDIA 63
In General 63
Be a Resource 64
Build the Relationship 64
Use the Media Tools 64
Working with the Media in Emergency Situations 64
Media Contact 65
Establish Boundaries and Structure 65
The News Cycle 65
Local Media versus National Media 66
Think Visuals 66
"No Comment," "Off the Record," and "Not for Attribution" 66
Closure/Critique 66
Summary 66
CHAPTER 8 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AT FEDERAL FACILITIES 67
The Federal Government as Owner of Superfund Sites 67
Interagency Agreements 67
Cooperation and Communication 68
EPA as Advisor at Federal Facilities 69
Federal Facility Advisory Boards 69
CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES DURING
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION 71
When Residential Relocation is Part of the Response Action 71
EPA Interim Policy/Federal Uniform Relocation Act 71
Special Commuity Needs at Relocation Sites 72
TAGs and CAGs at Relocation Sites 73
IV
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
APPENDICES 75
Appendix A: Superfund Community Involvement Requirements 75
Removal Actions 77
Remedial Actions 80
Appendix B: Superfund Community Involvement Directives 87
Early and Meaningful Community Involvement 89
Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-Making 93
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries 96
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 99
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund 106
Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover 109
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program for
Remedial Response 112
Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup Process 114
Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations 121
Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community Relations 126
Appendix C: Community Involvement Activities During Enforcement Activities 131
Overview of the CERCLA Enforcement Program 133
Community Involvement Related to Enforcement Activities and Administrative Records ~ 134
Enforcement Actions and Community Involvement at Remedial Sites 136
Community Involvement During Removal Actions 140
Community Involvement During Specific Enforcement Actions and Settlements 141
The Administrative Record as Part of Community Involvement 143
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
VI
-------
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) applies the term community involvement
to its commitment to early and meaningful
community participation during Superfund
cleanup. The foundation of Superfund's commu-
nity involvement program is the belief that
members of the the public affected by a Super-
fund site have a right to know what the Agency
is doing in their community and to have a say in
the decision-making process. This Handbook
presents legal and policy requirements for
Superfund community involvement and addi-
tional suggestions for involving the community
in the Superfund process. These suggestions are
based on experience and are intended to enact
EPA's commitment to providing the public with
every opportunity to become meaningfully
involved in the Superfund process.
Background
When Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as
Superfund, in 1980, it incorporated public
involvement into the Superfund process. Con-
gress intended to ensure that the people whose
lives were affected by abandoned hazardous
wastes and EPA's actions to clean them up would
have a say in what happened in their community.
Since then, Congress, through passage of the
Superfund Amendments and Re authorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), and EPA, through administra-
tive reforms, have further strengthened the role
of community members in the Superfund pro-
cess. While EPA retains the final responsibility
and authority to decide what will happen at a
Superfund site, the Agency values and seriously
considers community input.
Over the years, EPA's Superfund program has
learned a lot about working with people affected
by hazardous waste cleanups. Initially, "commu-
nity involvement" was called "community
relations," and although the wording may not
seem significant, the concept of public partici-
pation was new, even in the private sector. The
idea of imparting information to citizens was
understood, but the idea of involving citizens
and using their advice in making decisions was
novel. Consequently, early community relations
activities mostly focused on information
dissemination rather than on exchange of
information and ideas with the community.
As the Agency learned more about hazardous
wastes and cleaning them up, so did the general
public. Now people in every community have
an opportunity to be as informed about
Superfund issues as the EPA experts. People
who live near Superfund sites should play a
meaningful role in the decisions that affect their
community. Many people have made a substan-
tive contribution to the site assessment and
cleanup process when they have taken the time
to become involved.
How to Use The Handbook
This Handbook contains guidance on how to
implement an effective community involvement
program:
Chapter 2, The Role of Community Involve-
ment in Superfund, describes the mission
statement of the Superfund Community
Involvement Program, community involvement
legal requirements and policy guidelines, the
big ideas in community involvement, and the
shared community involvement responsibilities
of the members of the Site Team.
Chapter 3, Risk Communication, focuses
on the fundamentals of risk communication
to promote informed public participation in
Superfund risk assessment and risk manage-
ment decisions.
Chapter 4, Early Planning for Meaningful
Community Involvement, explains the
importance of conducting community
interviews and accepting community ideas.
This chapter also discusses steps necessary
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
for drafting a Community Involvement Plan
that encourages collaboration and sharing
information with the public.
Chapter 5, Implementing Community
Involvement in Remedial Actions, outlines
the steps in the Superfund process and ex-
plains required and recommended outreach
activities that should occur at each step. This
chapter starts with Site Assessment and
finishes with deletion from the National
Priority List.
Chapter 6, Implementing Community
Involvement in Removal Actions, discusses
required and recommended community
involvement procedures for Superfund re-
moval actions. This chapter covers emergency
removals, time-critical removals, and non-
time-critical removals.
Chapter 7, Dealing with the Media, dis-
cusses how the Site Team can improve its
relationship with the media by becoming a
valuable resource. This chapter addresses how
to establish a media perimeter, conduct brief-
ings, provide visuals, understand and work
within different news cycles, use carefully
defined messages, and obtain feedback.
Chapter 8, Community Involvement at
Federal Facilities, addresses the differences
between responses managed by EPA and those
led by Federal facilities or States. The chapter
emphasizes the Site Team's interaction with
other lead agencies to improve outreach and
community involvement at these sites.
Chapter 9, Community Involvement Activi-
ties During Residential Relocation, presents
suggestions for conducting community in-
volvement and outreach activities at sites
where residents are being either temporarily or
permanently relocated.
Appendix A presents a comprehensive list of
statutory and regulatory community involve-
ment requirements in the Superfund program.
This list represents the minimum requirements
for community involvement under the law.
However, be aware that truly successful
community involvement typically requires
actions beyond the basic requirements.
Appendix B presents ten OSWER Directives
related to Superfund community involvement.
Appendix C presents additional detail on
Superfund community involvement activities
and requirements during enforcement activities
at remedial and removal sites.
This Handbook cross-references many of the tools
and resources found in the Superfund Community
Involvement Toolkit, referred to hereafter as the
Toolkit.
-------
CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
SUPERFUND
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
MissioN STATEMENT
The mission of the Superfund Community
Involvement Program is to advocate and
strengthen early and meaningful community
participation during Superfund cleanups.
The CONCEPT
"Community involvement" is the name EPA uses
to identify its process for engaging in dialogue
and collaboration with communities affected by
Superfund sites. EPA community involvement is
founded on the belief that people have a right to
know what the Agency is doing in their commu-
nity and to have a say in it. Its purpose is to give
people the opportunity to become involved in the
Agency's activities and to help shape the deci-
sions that are made.
Superfund community involvement is not a
public relations effort to sell the Agency or its
plans to the community, nor is it just the commu-
nication of information. Remedies that have
community concerns and interests factored into
them are less controversial and more likely to be
accepted. Community involvement is the vehicle
EPA uses to get community concerns and inter-
ests to the decision-making table.
LETTER of rhe LAW VERSUS rhe INTENT of
LAW
CERCLA, as implemented by the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), requires specific
community involvement activities that must
occur at certain points throughout the Superfund
process. The Appendix to this document lists
these activities according to the steps in the
cleanup process. EPA policy, however, goes
beyond the letter of the law and recommends the
implementation of additional community involve-
ment activities not required by the NCP.
In CERCLA, Congress was clear about its intent
for the Agency to provide every opportunity for
residents of affected communities to become
active participants in the process and to have a
say in the decisions that affect their community.
Congress, in establishing the Superfund program,
wanted the Agency to be guided by the people
whose lives are impacted by Superfund sites. The
intent of the law is restated in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.430(c)(2)(ii): "(A) Ensure the public appro-
priate opportunities for involvement in a wide
variety of site-related decisions, including site
analysis and characterization, alternatives analy-
sis, and selection of remedy; and (B) Determine,
based on community interviews, appropriate
activities to ensure such public involvement."
"You will be most successful when you
regularly interact with the community
andproactively share information in an
understandable way."
Paul Groubc, OSC, Region 1
Satisfying the intent of the lawensuring that the
public has appropriate opportunities for involve-
mentmay include implementing the formal and
informal outreach activities listed in the Super-
fiind Community Involvement Toolkit, which
complements this document. This Handbook
cross-references many of the tools and resources in
the Toolkit. The Toolkit includes a number of
standard and innovative outreach activities that
EPA can use to satisfy the intent of the law. EPA
has learned that making the extra effort to listen
to and involve people leads to a smoother and
more timely cleanup. Most communities can
accept a remedy, even if they are not completely
satisfied with it, provided they understand how
the decision was reached and had a meaningful
part in reaching the decision.
ThE SJTE TEAM
Integrating community involvement into every
phase of cleanup requires the commitment of all
members of a Superfund Site Team. Team
members typically include: a Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
or both; the Community Involvement Coordinator
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
(CIC); a Site Assessment Manager (SAM); an
attorney; and other technical staff.
The RPM or OSC is the overall project manager
and is responsible for all site activities, including
public outreach and community involvement. The
role of the project manager is vitally important in
public participation and outreach. The active
involvement of the project manager promotes
public participation among all team members and
ensures the integration of community involvement
in the cleanup process. Furthermore, the commu-
nity sees that the entire Site Team is involved in
public participation, which encourages the com-
munity to become interested and involved in the
Superfund process. This ultimately helps to
establish EPA's credibility in the community and to
build trust between EPA and the community.
The CIC is responsible for advising the project
manager and the Site Team on required commu-
nity involvement activities and on activities that
are recommended to ensure the community has
every opportunity to be involved. The CIC often is
delegated responsibility for planning community
A site in Region 2 provides an example of
how early and meaningful public involvement
can lead to a better cleanup. The community
at this site played a substantive role in plan-
ning for the cleanup. A community task force
was organized prior to the initiation of the
Remedial Investigation (RI) to test the effec-
tiveness of early community involvement in
the Superfund cleanup process. The task force
provided assistance and valuable input to
EPA on the best approach for dealing with
soils, sediments, and ground-water contami-
nation. The Remedial Project Manager
reported that the task force contributed
significantly to the cleanup effort, primarily
through early scoping of issues and dissemi-
nation of information to the community.
At a site in Region 5, EPA developed a
partnership with a community group, the
Minority Health Coalition. This partner-
ship was pivotal in overcoming years of
mistrust and community dissatisfaction
about a former municipal landfill. EPA
solicited community input on the remedy
and changed the plans for dealing with
groundwater issues as a result of commu-
nity concerns. The community also came
up with useful suggestions for removing
an underground storage tank and design-
ing a cap for the landfill.
involvement and public outreach activities and for
implementing most of these activities. However,
an activity is most effective when it is imple-
mented by the entire Site Team.
A good example of how a community involvement
activity is planned and implemented is community
interviews, which are conducted to obtain infor-
mation for the Community Involvement Plan
(CIP). The CIC can plan the interviews and make
the necessary arrangements. Then, the CIC and
the project manager (and other team members, if
possible) can conduct the interviews. Through
this approach, citizens see that there is broader
interest in what they have to say, and the project
manager starts establishing trust with the commu-
nity. The project manager also will obtain a
firsthand understanding of community interests
and sentiments.
All Site Team members should participate in
community involvement activities whenever
possible. Team members should contact key
people in the community periodically and also take
time during site visits to meet informally with
community members. Although project managers
may not be able to participate in all community
involvement activities, they should be briefed after
key activities and maintain contact with the CIC,
other team members, and the community.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
An RPM at a State-led site worked directly
with community residents. He listened to
community input but made it clear that the
final decision rested with the regulatory
agency. Citizens formed a community group
and felt empowered because the group
could give input directly to the decision
maker. They felt that the RPM was sensitive
to the community's concerns about the
potential economic impact of the cleanup.
The community was very satisfied with the
remedy selected, which takes an innovative
approach and will be much less costly than
other options that were considered.
Biq MEAS IN COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ObJEcrivES
On January 21, 1991, EPA issued Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Directive 9230.0-18, based upon Superfund
Management Review Recommendation #43B.
Among other things, the directive states that "it is
important that we demonstrate to citizens that
they are involved in the decision-making process."
The directive emphasizes the objective that EPA
should make every effort to fully incorporate the
public's concern into site decision making. The
Superfund Management Review listed four steps
necessary to satisfactorily accomplish this incor-
poration: "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."
The recommendations of the Superfund Manage-
ment Review have been restated in the general
community involvement objectives listed below:
Keep the public well informed of ongoing
and planned activities. Most communities,
including those that appear unconcerned, want
to be informed of EPA's activities even when
there appears to be nothing going on at the site.
It is a mistake to believe that if there is nothing
significant to share with the community, there is
no need to talk to the community.
Encourage and enable the public to get
involved. People should be able to talk to the
RPM and other members of the Site Team at
regularly scheduled meetings or teleconfer-
ences, and should be able to easily get in touch
at other times.
Listen carefully to what the public is saying.
Superfund managers and staff should listen
carefully to the concerns and comments of
citizens throughout the Superfund cleanup
process. It is in the interest of Superfund staff
to listen to what people are saying not only
during the comment period after the Proposed
Plan is issued, but during the entire process.
The long-term success of the project is en-
hanced by involving the public early and often.
Carefully considering the public's concerns
throughout the process leads to better decision
making. Some Site Teams have successfully
adopted innovative techniques for soliciting
citizen input. These include community
workgroups, open houses, and informal discus-
sions. Site Teams are encouraged to try as
many of these techniques as possible to
communicate with the community. (See the
After several years of community hostility
and distrust at a Superfund smelter site,
EPA organized a Coordinating Forum that
included community members and other
key stakeholders. The forum assisted in the
development and selection of a remedy for
residential cleanup that all participants
could support. That remedy was imple-
mented without any major problems, and
the forum has continued to work on plans
for cleaning up the smelter site.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Community Involvement Tools in the Toolkit
for a detailed list and description of how and
when to use different outreach techniques).
Identify and deal responsibly with public
concerns. Incorporating public concerns into
site decisions need not be a cause for delay or
excessive cost. By allocating sufficient time
and resources for community involvement at
the outset, the Site Team can successfully
address community concerns in site decisions.
For example, 30 days may not be enough time
for an interested public to read and comment
on a proposed plan. The Site Team will engen-
der more trust and support if it works with the
community to establish a realistic review period
from the outset. OSWER Directive #9230.0-08
of March 8, 1990, titled "Planning for Sufficient
Community Relations," provides additional
guidance and instructs Regions to dedicate
adequate resources to support additional
community involvement needs. The directive
recommends that Regions "...establish a
discretionary fund that they could use to fund
additional work necessary to respond to citizen
concerns."
Change planned actions where public com-
ments or concerns have merit. It is crucial that
EPA remain flexible and be willing to alter
plans when a local community presents valid
concerns. In recent years, EPA has demon-
strated an increased willingness to change or
significantly alter its preferred remedy. In
some instances, public input has saved EPA
from mistakes and unnecessary costs. It is
more cost-effective to spend time, energy, and
money working with the public regularly than to
deal with resistance created when a commu-
nity believes it has been left out of the process.
EPA may remain unpersuaded after hearing
from the public, but it is EPA's responsibility to
seriously consider suggestions and provide
feedback demonstrating that community
comments were carefully and thoughtfully
considered. The measure of success should not
be whether the community applauds the
An On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) at a
New England site encouraged community
members to form a task force to guide
decision making at the site. The OSC took
the position that he "workedfor the
community. " He saw it as his job to keep
people informed and get their buy-in. He
listened and built a foundation based on
communication. The OSC acknowledges
that it took a lot of effort up front to give
residents a stake in the effort. "I empow-
ered the community without giving the
store away, " he said.
Once the task force was formed, the OSC
listened to what they had to say. EPA's
initial plan called for demolition and on-
site burial of waste under a cap. The task
force found it would be more prudent to
remove everything to avoid land use
restrictions and monitoring requirements.
EPA and the State worked hard to make
the recommendation work. The Site Team
had an ambitious yet realistic plan and a
battle cry of "ahead of schedule and
under budget, " and they did it.
remedy because EPA did what the community
asked, but whether or not EPA honestly
listened to people who participated and genu-
inely responded to their concerns.
Explain to citizens how EPA considered their
comments, what EPA plans to do, and why EPA
reached its decision. Regardless of the out-
come of site decisions, EPA must fully com-
municate those decisions to the public. The
most thorough vehicle for such communica-
tions is the "responsiveness summary," EPA's
written response to comments received from
the public. It is imperative that the public be
able to see EPA's response to their concerns
and comments in writing. Responses should be
clear and candid, not loaded with technical and
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
legal jargon, and provide reasons and justifica-
tions explaining EPA's decision. Although the
responsiveness summary is the most visible
and comprehensive explanation of EPA
decisions, it is only one component of the
process. EPA should explain site decisions
throughout the entire cleanup, rather than only
at a few key stages. EPA must establish and
maintain a dialogue through which site deci-
sions are discussed as they are made, as well
as make Superfund documents more available
to the public throughout the cleanup process.
CORE VALUES FOR Public
PARTJcipATJON
The Superfund program endorses the core values
for public participation developed by the Interna-
tional Association for Public Participation. These
core values are also incorporated into the Model
Plan for Public Participation developed by the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
and are the foundation upon which EPA should
base its interactions with communities:
People should have a say in decisions about
actions that affect their lives.
Public participation includes the promise that
the public's contribution will influence the
decision.
The public participation process communicates
the interests and meets the needs of all partici-
pants.
The public participation process seeks out and
facilitates the involvement of those who are
potentially affected.
The public participation process involves
citizens in defining how they participate.
The public participation process communicates
to participants how their input was or was not
used.
The public participation process provides
participants with the information they need to
participate in a meaningful way.
SUMMARY
The purpose of Superfund's Community Involve-
ment Program is to provide the mechanism
through which EPA and a community can work
collaboratively on a good solution to the hazard-
ous waste problem confronting that community.
As practiced by EPA, community involvement
fulfills the statutory and regulatory requirements
of CERCLA, as well as the intent of the law. At
most sites, the success of community involve-
ment has a direct impact on the success of the
overall cleanup. For this reason, EPA's preferred
cleanup remedy, as presented in the Proposed
Plan, should reflect community concerns as much
as possible. When it does, the community usually
is more willing to accept the Proposed Plan. This
will eliminate potential delays in the implementa-
tion of cleanup plans.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
8
-------
CHAPTER 5 RISK COMMUNICATION
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
iNTRoduCTJON
This chapter discusses the principles underlying
effective risk communication and focuses on the
need for the Superfund Site Team and all others
involved in communication and decision-making
activities at a Superfund site to understand and
implement these principles (see the Risk Com-
munication tool in the Toolkit for additional tips
on effective risk communication and references to
useful resources). Communication of risk will be
effective only if the Agency's overall communica-
tion effort 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
communication 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.
"Significant community involvement in the
risk assessment led to a better product and
increased public confidence in the project. "
Fred MacMillan, RPM, Region 3
Risk communication activities are an integral part
of the Community Involvement Plan (CIP; see
also the Community Involvement Plan tool in
the Toolkit). Basic objectives and criteria for
successful risk communication 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 understanding 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, rather than achieving zero-
risk or to return waste sites to their best use.
Risk assessment is used in the Superfund process
to help answer questions regarding: 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 it has been
involved in 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 decisions.
Risk communication allows the public to feel that,
although it may not be in total agreement with
agency actions, EPA should be allowed to pro-
ceed as long as the public can hold the Agency
accountable and verify its activities.
This chapter reviews the basic principles underly-
ing effective risk communication. It also provides
practical guidance on how to discuss technical
issues with the public and address their concerns.
PmNciplEs of Risk
COMMUNICATION
The "public" is not a single entity. Rather, it is
made up 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 public sectors. For
purposes of this chapter, we simply refer to the
"public," while recognizing its many sub-groups.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The SEVEN CARC^NA!. Rules of
Risk COMMUNICATION
The goal of risk communication is to promote
public involvement that is informed, reasonable,
thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative.
EPA plays a pivotal role in shaping these atti-
tudes. The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication are the principles for effective
risk communication developed by EPA. They are
recommendations, not hard and fast rules.
1) Accept and involve the public as a legiti-
mate 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.
2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
Successful risk communication planning and
evaluation entails: (1) clear, explicit objectives;
(2) assessment of strengths and weaknesses of
risk data; (3) attention to the needs and inter-
ests of various groups; (4) staff training
(including technical staff) in communication
skills; (5) message rehearsal and testing; and
(6) evaluation and "lessons learned."
3) Listen to the public's specific concerns.
Do not make assumptions about what people
know, think, or want. Instead, take the time to
find these out by listening to parties with an
interest in the issue and and recognizing their
feelings. 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
credentials, but do not ask or expect to be
trusted. If you do not know an answer or are
uncertain, acknowledge it and respond with the
answer as soon as possible. Do not hesitate to
admit mistakes or disclose risk information. Try
to share more information, not less; otherwise,
people may think you are hiding something.
5) Coordinate and collaborate with other
credible sources. Take the time to coordinate
with other organizations. Try to issue communi-
cations jointly with other credible sources. Few
things make risk communication more difficult
than conflicts or public disagreements with
such sources.
6) Meet the needs of the media. Be open with
and accessible to reporters. Realize that
reporters must meet their deadlines. Provide
risk information 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. Establish long-term relationships of
trust with specific editors and reporters. Keep
in mind that the media are usually more
interested in reporting politics rather than risk,
simplicity rather than complexity, and danger
rather than safety (see the Media tool in the
Toolkit and Chapter 7 in this Handbook).
7) Speak clearly and with compassion. Be
sensitive to norms, such as speech and dress.
Whether addressing large groups or individuals,
use simple, non-technical language. Communi-
cate on a personal level by using vivid, con-
crete images or examples and anecdotes that
make technical risk data come alive. Use
comparisons to help put risks in perspective,
but avoid comparisons that do not include
distinctions that people consider important.
Acknowledge and respond with words and
actions to emotions that people express
anxiety, 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 these appear to be basic, common-sense
rules for communication, they are frequently
ignored. The Site Team must make special efforts
to incorporate these communication rules into all
projects.
10
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Risk COMMUNICATION Is...
A two-way process that:
Discusses risk and other concerns to
identify mutual solutions;
Responds effectively to public outrage;
and
Is genuine and sincere, and conducted
with people's interests in mind.
Risk COMMUNICATION Is NOT...
A public relations scheme to steer the
public into seeing it EPA's way; or
Another way of better explaining EPA's
point of view.
AddRESsJNq
CONCERNS
Individuals are often much more concerned with
non-technical issues, such as fairness and control,
than with the technical details of risk assessment.
The risk communicator needs to address both
technical risk assessment and non-technical
concerns. Agency representatives have a ten-
dency to focus on the technical issues, often to
the exclusion of the public's other concerns.
When this occurs, the Agency representative 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 (e.g., injury from a Superfund site), then most
of their concerns could be dispelled. That as-
sumption is not realistic. The public's perception
of risk can be driven by non-technical concerns
and no amount of explanation of the technical
data will address non-technical fears.
This is not to say that the technical aspects of risk
assessment are not important. On the contrary,
the technical aspects of the risk assessment are
usually the basis for risk management decisions.
The Site Team should be prepared to respond to
both technical questions from the public regarding
the scientific underpinnings of site management
decisions and any non-technical issues raised by
the public. In turn, a good risk communication
strategy prepares the Site Team to deal with non-
technical public concerns about risk and provides
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." - P. Slovic, "Percep-
tions of Risk," Science, 236:285,1987
The "bottom line" is to establish trust and cred-
ibility between EPA and the public. The following
sections identify some general guidelines to help
explain risk to a lay audience, describe technical
issues, and respond to the public's non-technical
concerns.
Public
CONCERNS
Any explanation of the risk around a Superfund
site must be coupled with a recognition of the
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
11
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
public perceives something as a risk then it is a
risk, no matter how minimal technical experts
consider the risk to be. Researchers have identi-
fied factors that contribute to the way the public
perceives a risk. Given the same technical risk
assessment, these factors will affect whether
individuals view a problem as more or less risky.
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 would probably be prohibited.
Because the risks from smoking are chronic,
rather than catastrophic, they are perceived as
less serious.
The public will generally consider the hazards of a
Superfund site to be 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. In the Superfund
context, 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 the sense
of control and lower the perceived risk. When the
factor itself cannot be changed, acknowledging its
presence and the legitimacy 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 its concerns
seriously, it 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 differ-
ently. 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 Super-
fund site. The public will often view these as non-
comparable and will respond negatively to at-
tempts to link them.
ExpUiiMJNq
ISSUES
Early explaining of the risk assessment process
for a Superfund site to the public is a critical
component of the risk communication strategy;
the earlier the Agency provides explanations, the
better the outcome. The public needs to under-
stand how EPA arrives at the determination of
risk, what information is used, how the informa-
tion is used, the uncertainties inherent in the
process, and how uncertainties are addressed.
Site Team members should familiarize themselves
with the Superfund risk assessment process and
how it is used in site decision-making regarding
risk management, which will prepare them to
Community residents near a Superfund site
were angry with EPA. The Community
Involvement Coordinator (CIC) asked key
residents to invite their neighbors and
friends for an informal session with him,
the toxicologist, and the hydrogeologist.
He also invited the strongest opponent to
attend each session so that critics knew
that the Agency was dispensing consistent
and correct information. The CIC held as
many as three sessions per week over
several weeks. The sessions helped citizens
understand site risks and helped the com-
munity to trust EPA.
12
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
answer technical questions from the public more
effectively.
The public needs to understand that for a risk to
exist, the following three factors must be present:
1) site contamination; 2) contaminant pathways
that reach surrounding populations; and 3) popula-
tions that may be exposed to site hazards. If any
of these factors are missing, little or no risk is
present. Other important technical issues for the
public to understand include:
The four steps of risk assessmentdata
collection and analysis, exposure assessment,
toxicity assessment, and risk characterization;
The use of Reasonable Maximum Exposure
(RME) as the highest exposure that is reason-
ably expected to occur at a site, considering
land use, intake variables, and pathway
combinations;
The methods used by the agency to calculate
risk from carcinogens and risk from non-
carcinogens;
The fact that there is always some risk of
exposure to carcinogens at a site;
Potential health and ecological effects associ-
ated with the chemicals of concern; and
Other site-specific issues that should be
brought to the public's attention.
Problems often arise when either too much or too
little information is provided. 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 meet
the public's needs or the Agency's objectives.
After carefully selecting information to provide to
the public, other sources of information should be
acknowledged to avoid perceptions that informa-
tion is being withheld.
Communicating technical information to the public
can be accomplished using the following general
guidelines (adapted from C. Chess, B.J. Hance,
and P. Sandman, Improving Dialogue with
Communities, NJ Department of Environmental
Protection, 1987):
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 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 determination
means the spokesperson should take the time
to "know his/her audience." Be willing to
summarize information that the audience needs,
rather than present everything the communica-
tor 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.
Be prepared to provide information in foreign
languages as needed.
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 jargon and words that
may mean one thing to one group and some-
thing else to another. For example, 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 (the steps in the Superfund
risk assessment process). Be willing to discuss
uncertainties. Reviewing this process with the
public will demonstrate that the risk numbers
are not derived from a "black box."
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Use graphics and visual aids.
Collaborate with other credible experts.
Be careful when comparing environmental risk
to other risks.
Risk COMPARISONS
One of the best ways to communicate technical
issues is to use comparisons that provide context
for a situation. However, inappropriate com-
parisons 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 communicator 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
comparison may be technically true, but it is
irrelevant and may anger the general public.
As with any technical discussion, be careful to
document 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:
A risk comparison should not address accept-
ability of risk, since "acceptability" is a value
question rather than a technical one. Use
comparisons that put risks in perspective. This
can help individuals determine the acceptability
of the risk for themselves.
Compare the risks associated with your
proposed solution or action to that of alternative
solutions.
Quantitative comparisons usually 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,
if the standard for cleanup at a Superfund site
is a risk level of one in a million, the remedial
action seeks to reduce the risk to that level).
Compare different estimates of the same risk
(e.g. , estimates from communities, industry,
and your own). If someone else has a higher or
lower risk estimate, note the difference.
When explaining risk comparisons to the public,
keep the overall communication goal in mind: to
provide the public with useful information so that
it can understand and participate in the process.
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 expo-
sure at this or any site. Again, do not try to imply
that the risk at the site is acceptable, but rather
provide information to help the public put the risk
into perspective. Point out, without sounding glib
or condescending, that individuals have to make
their own determinations about what they con-
sider safe. For example, a 10~6 level chosen by
EPA at a site is not risk-free. It is the level
determined by EPA at which the risk posed to
human health and the environment is low enough
to warrant no further action.
liMvolvJNq The Public
Ideally, the public should be involved as early as
possible in decisions affecting a Superfund site.
Early involvement is important not only from a
community involvement standpoint, but also
because the public can provide valuable informa-
tion and input into the risk assessment, including
pathways of exposure, historical activity, and
potential future use of the site. Such information
can be collected from the public during the site
inspection phase, but most certainly should be by
the initiation of the remedial investigation.
14
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Involving the community in risk assessment
activities is not always easy, even if the proper
groundwork has been laid. 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 scheduling meetings that
are convenient for both Agency officials and
community residents. High staff turnover found in
many federal and state agencies may be frustrat-
ing for both the agency and the community as the
two try to establish a working relationship based
on familiarity and trust. Despite these difficulties,
early community involvement in risk assessment
activities should be undertaken at all sites.
Community involvement is best coordinated
through a risk communication strategy, which is
incorporated into the Community Involvement
Plan (CIP). In developing the strategy, Agency
staff should anticipate the kinds of questions the
public will have at each stage of the process and
the plan for suitable information to be distributed
at each step. For example, during the period
leading up to the risk assessmentpreliminary
assessment, site inspection, and listingthe public
likely will be most concerned about immediate
risks from the site, such as effects on 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 once immediate concerns
have been addressed. The Site Team may hear
questions such as: "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
people who grow vegetables?" The best opportu-
nity for community involvement in the risk assess-
ment process is during 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 gather exposure information.
After the risk assessment is completed, concerns
often will turn to the overall effectiveness of the
remedial action. The public may ask questions
such as: "If wastes are left on site, how can the
remedy's effectiveness be guaranteed?" or
At a very controversial Region 3 site, EPA
invited stakeholders to provide input into
what became one of the most complicated
risk assessments the Agency had ever under-
taken. Community members responded with
ideas on approaches to the risk assessment
and information about things such as house-
cleaning practices, resident longevity, and
land use practices.
When a PRP-funded community group
offered to conduct the risk assessment, EPA
invited the group to participate as a partner
in the assessment process. Data, methods,
issues, and concerns were shared anddis-
cussed. Despite varying agendas, the risk
assessment was collegial. EPA shared a
preliminary draft of the risk assessment with
the community group, which provided valu-
able data corrections.
By involving members of the community in the
assessment itself, EPA gained helpful infor-
mation and established a high level of public
confidence. Although not everyone was
pleased with the conclusions of the risk
assessment, no one felt left out of the process.
EPA gained a better understanding of people's
misgivings about a very technical process, and
the community gained a greater respect for
EPA's risk assessment process. Most impor-
tantly, each gained a better sense of other's
priorities, in the process overcoming much
distrust and many preconceptions.
15
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
"What guarantees are there that no effects from
exposure will occur in 20 years?" or "What are
the risks from conducting the cleanup?" Staff
should use a variety of community involvement
techniques to answer these questions.
Staff should not selectively involve the public in
the risk assessment process. For example, staff
should not gather exposure information at a public
meeting without explaining the risk assessment
process. Nor should they release risk assessment
information without explaining it. Selective
involvement can create false expectations and
damage trust and credibility.
TEchlMJQUES
Several techniques are available to establish an
effective communication network.
One-to-One or Small Group: This is an
effective method to communicate with 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 effec-
tive early to explain the Superfund process to the
community 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 commu-
nity 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 discussed above
for communicating technical issues.
Workshop and Less Formal Interaction:
Depending on its relationship with the community,
the Agency may choose a less formal, more
interactive community involvement technique,
such as workshops, to describe Superfund's risk
assessment process and how it will be used. A
workshop early in the RI/FS process is a good
A teacher from a school near a Superfund
site with lead and mercury contamination
asked a Community Involvement Coordi-
nator (CIC) about educating children and
their parents about the site risks in a
manner appropriate for their age groups.
The CIC organized an exhibit in the school
auditorium with a variety of information
on lead and mercury. There were pam-
phlets for parents and school staff on what
to do in case of emergencies. For the
children, the CIC showed two short films
on the dangers of lead and mercury poi-
soning. Parents and children asked ques-
tions relating to the movies. Afterwards,
many adults said that the movies delivered
a clear message about the hazardous
substances. Many said it was a great way
to show the students, parents, and teachers
what mercury looked like in "real life, "
without the danger of having it present.
Visualization of toxic effects also strength-
ened the message.
opportunity to present Superfund procedures and
timeframes and discuss the public's expectations
of the Agency at the site. A workshop also may
be useful just before the completed risk assess-
ment is released to the public.
Focus groups: Focus groups are in-depth
interactive discussions led by a facilitator. They
are designed to obtain information from selected
participants and test ideas or techniques. Potential
uses for focus groups in risk communication
include:
Explaining risk perceptions;
Evaluating perceptual uses and information
processing;
Testing risk communication materials;
Selecting risk communication channels;
16
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Designing risk-mitigating polices; and
Assessing risk communication effectiveness.
SUMMARY
An effective risk communication strategy pro-
motes meaningful community involvement early in
the cleanup process. The goals of risk communi-
cations are to help individuals understand risk
assessment and help technical staff understand
community perceptions and concerns. Under-
standing risk assessment enables individuals in the
community to better understand agency actions,
allowing them to participate fully in the decision-
making process. Trust between the community
and EPA helps prevent conflicts and facilitates
resolution of conflicts that arise. If staff follow the
seven cardinal rules and the guidelines established
in this chapter, trust and credibility in the commu-
nity have a better chance to develop.
17
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
18
-------
CHAPTER 4 EARLY PLANNING FOR
MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
WHEN TO START
The first question to answer in community
involvement is: "when to start?" Planning for
community involvement should begin during the
site assessment phase. Site assessment is the
initial phase of a Superfund response to a hazard-
ous waste release or threat of release. Site assess-
ments consist of a preliminary assessment and a
site inspection (PA/SI).
If no immediate threat is present that requires
emergency response, then, during the site assess-
ment, EPA and the State evaluate the severity of
reported hazardous waste releases. The Site Team
should plan for community involvement if the
response action is expected to last more than 120
days. The plan should include:
Designating a Community Involvement
Coordinator (CIC);
Contacting key local officials;
Assembling community profiles; and
Explaining site assessment activities to the
community.
ASSESSMENT
Preliminary assessments are limited in scope,
generally involving a review of site records,
permits, pathway data, target data, and land titles
to establish past activities at the site (e.g., waste
produced or disposed) and the need for further
investigation. A preliminary assessment is typically
a "desk-top review," and usually does not require a
site visit or sampling. As a result, there is little need
for organized community involvement during the
preliminary assessment beyond designating a CIC
and possibly calling key local officials.
If it is likely that the site will be placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) or is a long-term
removal, it may be wise to contact key local
officials, such as the mayor, city council members,
public health and works officials, and members of
local planning boards. Staff should keep informed
about the results of the preliminary assessment to
plan any follow up contacts with the community. If
the preliminary assessment indicates that a site
inspection is not needed, the same key community
officials should be informed. If a site inspection is
needed, local officials should be advised that the
site is slated for further government investigation
and given an approximate schedule. Providing
information to interested officials and residents,
especially when they request it, can improve future
relations and communication efforts.
SJTE iNSpECTJON
The purpose of the site inspection is to gather
information to determine whether the site should
be placed on the NPL or will require a removal
action. A site inspection may involve one or more
visits by State or EPA field teams to evaluate site
hazards. Because a site inspection involves teams
working in protective clothing, community interest
in the site will likely increase. Consequently, the
Site Team should obtain the schedule for all field
activities, including work by the Field Investiga-
tion Team, the Technical Assistance Team, and the
Technical Enforcement Support Team.
Although it is not required, the Site Team may
want to prepare the community beforehand for any
on-site visits by technical work teams. The indi-
viduals 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. Consider placing a
display advertisement in a local newspaper or
request the newspaper to include an article about
19
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
planned site activities. The more open EPA is
with the community, the more likely the Agency
will be trusted. Not informing the community
(passively) can be interpreted as withholding
information (actively).
During the site inspection, the Site Team should
identify key community leaders and organizations
to interview. This identification can be accom-
"The sooner you reach out the better. You
will be more successful with early, humble
coordination."
Rita Engblom, RPM, Region 6
plished by assembling a community profile and
updating it as often as necessary. A community
profile outlines local issues, events, and players
(see the Community Profiles tool in the Toolkit).
Assembling a profile helps the Site Team to
understand local issues and people, and may help
the Site Team determine whether any preliminary
community involvement should be conducted.
Furthermore, a community profile helps the Site
Team to develop a communication strategy and a
Community Involvement Plan (CIP).
To assemble the community profile, the Site
Team should:
Acquire information about the site by confer-
ring with the Site Assessment Manager and
other Regional and State staff;
Conduct research on the Internet;
Confer with local resources and contacts; and
Identify interested officials, citizens, and
organized groups.
When acquiring information about the site,
consider some of the following characteristics:
Demographics;
Ethnic backgrounds;
Languages;
Sensitive populations;
Media interest and contacts;
Previous cleanup activity;
Interest in obtaining a Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG);
Interest in forming a Community Advisory
Group (CAG);
Popular activities; and
Accessible resources.
By accessing the U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD) web
page, an EPA CIC learned that Step-Up
(HUD's Worker Training program) was
active in a community near a Superfund site.
He met with the local Step-Up contact to
learn more. Then, using HUD's geographic
information systems, he gathered local
demographic data that improved the commu-
nication strategy for the site.
Conducting research on the Internet is a great
way to assemble information for a community
profile. WasteLAN (formerly called CERCLIS3)
is a national database with extensive information
on hazardous waste sites, including site history,
cleanup progress, and milestones (see the
WasteLAN resource in the Toolkit}. Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) contain demographic
information regarding environmental and socio-
economic characteristics. For instance, both the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's 20/20 GIS program and EPA's
LandView GIS program track population by:
race; population per square mile; population by
age; percentage of minority households in the
surrounding area; numbers of households living
in poverty; and community support programs.
The Site Team also should take advantage of the
multimedia facet of LandView, which identifies
other hazardous waste sites or permitted facilities.
It is critical that information on other local EPA
facilities or environmental activities in other media
be thoroughly noted in the community profiles,
20
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
addressed in the community interviews, and
included in the CIP so that the Site Team is
familiar with other local EPA activities and will be
able to maintain credibility with the community
when questioned about the impact of those activi-
ties. In addition, knowledge of multimedia issues
at a site can help to set the proper level and
methods for community involvement. For in-
stance, if EPA has already been active in the
community, fact sheets may be sufficient. Con-
versely, if a community has never dealt with EPA,
more community involvement activities may be
necessary.
Local contacts (e.g., community leaders, store
owners, activists, and long-time residents) should
be consulted to identify stakeholders and begin
creating a mailing list. Conferring with local
resources and contacts also will help you to see
local issues from an insider's perspective. Re-
search the site's history by visiting the public
library and searching local publications for
information. These documents can convey a lot of
information about site contamination, EPA's
previous involvement, and the risk that site
contaminants pose to residents.
The Site Team should explain to the community
that a site inspection is not evidence of a con-
firmed problem. To help explain this, the Site
Team should develop a brief communication
strategy to determine the message, the audience,
and the vehicle to communicate the message (see
the Communication Strategies tool in the
Toolkit). Possible vehicles to communicate the
message include public advertisements, flyers,
telephone hot lines, and fact sheets. Although
there are a variety of vehicles to choose from, the
fact sheet is used most frequently (see the Fact
Sheets tool in the Toolkit). Whatever vehicle is
used, it 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 category, or referral of the site to another
program to address hazardous waste problems).
In addition, a contact name and phone number
should be included for members of the public
seeking further information.
21
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
22
-------
CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
AbouT THE SupERfuNd
PROCESS
This chapter provides a comprehensive discus-
sion of how a Site Team should advocate and
strengthen early and meaningful community
participation during a Superfund remedial action.
Remedial actions are long-term actions taken by
EPA to study and clean up sites listed on the
NPL. These actions have a number of distinct
phases, each with its own set of community
involvement activities.
In this chapter, each phase in the remedial
process is discussed in sequence:
1. Discovery
2. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
3 . Proposed Listing on the NPL
4. Final Listing on the NPL
5. RI/FS Begins
6. FS Completion and Proposed Plan
7. Notice and Comment on Consent Decree
(if necessary)
8. Pre-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)
9. Record of Decision
10. Post-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)
11. Remedial Design/Remedial Action
12. Operation and Maintenance
13. Proposed NPL Deletion and Final NPL
Deletion in the Federal Register
Some of these phases may run concurrently.
The section for each phase includes an introduc-
tion followed by a discussion of the phase's
required community involvement activities and
additional recommended community involvement
activities. Discussions of specific community
involvement activities (e.g., public comment
periods, fact sheets, etc) in this chapter are brief,
and the reader is referred to the Community
Involvement Toolkit for further details. The
chapter discusses community involvement
requirements for certain phasesincluding Final
Listing on the NPL and FS Completion and
Proposed Planin more detail due to their
greater complexity and importance. References to
community involvement tools and resources in
the Toolkit are denoted with bold typeface.
Integrating community involvement into every
"Frequent open and honest communication
fosters a high level of trust and cooperation. "
Mark Doolan, RPM, Region 7
phase of a remedial action requires the commit-
ment of all members of a Superfund Site Team.
Team members at a remedial action site typically
include: the Community Involvement Coordina-
tor (CIC), the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
(plus possibly an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) if
the site includes a removal action), a Site Assess-
ment Manager (SAM), an attorney, and other
technical staff.
The RPM is the overall project manager with
responsibility for everything that occurs at the
site. The CIC is responsible for advising the
project manager on required community involve-
ment activities and recommending activities that
will ensure the community has every opportunity
to be involved. Involvement by all members of
the Site Team in community involvement plan-
ning and implemenation activities ensures
integration of community involvement in the
cleanup process and furthers public participation.
1 . DISCOVERY
Discovery is the first phase of the Superfund
remedial process. Sites may be discovered in a
number of ways. A person may report a hazard-
ous substance release to the National Response
Center, citizens may petition EPA to investigate
potential releases, or state and local governments
may request that EPA investigate a potential
release. Once discovered, a site is added to
WasteLan, EPA's database of reported hazardous
waste sites (formerly known as CERCLIS3, see
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
the WasteLan resource in the Toolkit). Once a
site is included in WasteLan, EPA schedules it for
site assessment.
2.
ASSESSMENT/
SJTE INSPECTION
After discovery, EPA conducts a site assessment,
consisting of a preliminary assessment and a site
inspection (PA/SI), to determine whether hazard-
ous materials are present at the site. The site
assessment phase may be the community's
introduction to EPA and and the first time citi-
zens hear about the possible presence of hazard-
ous wastes near their homes. This phase can be
very frightening for residents. They may feel
threatened or uncomfortable about having limited
control over the hazardous waste problem in their
community. This fear and concern is why it is
important to design an effective community
involvement plan during this phase.
Preliminary Assessment. During the prelimi-
nary assessment, EPA searches permits, titles,
and other records to gather data about past
activities, exposure pathways, and human and
other biological targets at the site. Record
searches and other data gathering will involve or
affect citizens. Consequently, the community will
learn that EPA is investigating the site for danger-
ous substances. If the site is a likely candidate for
listing on the NPL, the Site Team should obtain
the schedule of all field activities to be conducted
by EPA contractors. The Site Team may want to
prepare the community before any on-site visits
by technical work teams and alleviate any
concerns about the presence of government
officials and contractor teams working at the site.
Site Inspection. During the site inspection, field
work begins. Workers wear protective equipment
in case hazardous substances are present. Under-
standably, these protective measures frighten
some people. Because of this fear, it is recom-
mended that EPA conduct community outreach to
explain what EPA is doing at the site. Although
the field work that occurs during the site assess-
ment is limited, the Site Team can still use this
time to brief the community on the Superfund
process, imminent and long-term risk, and what
to expect. Early briefings can help the Site Team
build trust in the community.
OuTREAch AcriviTiES DimJNq PA/SI
Although community involvement is not required
during either the preliminary assessment or the
site investigation phases of site assessment, EPA
does involve the community at sites that garner
public interest and sites with a high probability of
being placed on the NPL. Regions should con-
sider the following factors when deciding
whether a site should receive more extensive
community involvement efforts during site
assessment:
The likelihood that the site will be included on
the NPL;
The site's proximity to other NPL sites and the
level of public interest at those sites;
Sometimes the community can provide
valuable information about a site's history
that may not be available elsewhere.
Community members at a Region 4 site
were not satisfied with EPA's site investiga-
tion because it relied on aerial photo-
graphs. They thought EPA had not done
enough to seek out information about past
practices from people who live near the
site. Working with EPA, members of a
Community Advisory Group (CAG)for the
site helped by talking with local media to
raise awareness and encourage people to
step forward. The CAG group hoped to
solicit information from long-time residents
with knowledge of site history or other past
practices who may have been reluctant to
talk with "outsiders "from EPA.
24
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The site's location with respect to the popula-
tion centers; and
The amount of current interest in the site, as
measured by attention from citizens' groups,
local residents, and the media.
During the site assessment phase, the people most
likely to be aware of potential site problems and
interested in government response are local
officials, including 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 contact state and local officials,
the congressional delegation, and key citizens
who can provide information about the scope and
history of the problem.
Other individuals to contact include:
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.
Some recommended outreach activities to
conduct at this point are:
Designating a CIC who can advise the Site
Team on community involvement and field the
community's questions.
Distributing Fact Sheets to let residents know
EPA is conducting site assessment activities
(see the Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit).
Holding informal Public Availabilities/Poster
Sessions (see the Public Availabilities/Poster
Sessions tool in the Toolkit).
Distributing flyers throughout the community
(in schools, grocery stores, and churches).
Using news releases (see the Media tool in the
Toolkit).
Creating a Mailing List of concerned citizens
(see the Mailing List tool in the Toolkit).
Establishing a toll-free telephone hotline and
publicizing its availability (see the Telephone
tool in the Toolkit).
EPA should follow up with the community after a
PA/SI has been completed to explain the results
and the evaluation and scoring that will happen
during the next phase. Site sampling and scoring
often take many months to perform, and the time
lag between the SI and the decision to proceed
with a remedial investigation (RI) may lead to
considerable frustration. The Site Team should
issue a fact sheet describing the preliminary
findings to reassure the community that EPA is
actively addressing the site.
EPA should always notify the community when a
decision is made about the site. Local officials
and the public should hear such news directly
from the Site Team, rather than from the news
media or other sources.
7. PROposed LisTJNq ON
rhE NPL
The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is the screen-
ing tool used by EPA to evaluate risks to public
health and the environment associated with a site.
Using the HRS, EPA assigns a score between 0
and 100 to indicate the relative seriousness of the
risks posed by the site. The factors reflected in the
HRS score include the level of contamination at
the site in air, soil, and water (including surface,
ground, and drinking water); the size of the
population at risk; the ecological area at risk; and
the likelihood that people will come into direct
contact with contaminants at the site. The HRS
score accounts for the potential for ecosystem
destruction, effects on the human food chain, and
actual or potential contamination of ambient air.
The HRS score is one way to determine whether
a site is placed on the NPL, and, if so, its priority
ranking on the list. Once a site is scored, it may
be placed on the NPL for any of three reasons:
The site scores 28.5 or higher using the HRS;
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The state in which the site is located desig-
nates the site as its highest priority; or
The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) issues a health
advisory for the site, and EPA believes that a
remedial action is the best response.
If a site does not qualify for the NPL, it may be
addressed by other Superfund response programs,
such as removal and emergency response. Sites
not meeting Superfund removal or remedial
response criteria may be handled under other
environmental laws, such as the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act or the Clean Water
Act. Sites also may be referred to other federal
programs, such as the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative, or may be handled by
state hazardous substance response programs,
including voluntary cleanup programs.
If a site is placed on the NPL, several community
involvement activities are required.
COMMUNITY liMvoLvEMENT/OuTREAch AcTivmES
DimJNq LisTJNq ON rhE NPL
Once EPA decides to propose a site for listing on
the NPL, the Agency is required to conduct
several community involvement activities.
During the listing phase, EPA is required to:
Publish notice in the Federal Register. EPA
must publish its proposal to list the site on the
NPL and its request for public comments in
the Federal Register (see the Public Com-
ment Periods tool in the Toolkit).
Publish a public notice of EPA's Federal
Register proposal. The Site Team must
publish a notice in a major local newspaper of
general circulation to announce the Federal
Register proposal and initiation of a public
comment period.
Hold a public comment period. The Site
Team must hold a public comment period of at
least 60 days.
Prepare a written response. EPA must
consider all public comments and publish a
responsiveness summary that addresses
significant comments and any significant
new data received during the public comment
period (see the Responsiveness Summary
tool in the Toolkit}.
Publish final listing on the NPL. EPA must
revise and publish the final rule in the
Federal Register no less than 30 days prior to
the effective date of the site listing.
The Site Team should anticipate increased
community concern or interest when a site is
proposed for the NPL. During the NPL listing
process, EPA recommends that the Site Team
distribute a fact sheet that describes the site,
outlines the NPL process, explains the
timeframe for NPL listing, and describes how
the public can submit comments. The fact sheet
also presents a good opportunity for introducing
the availability of Technical Assistance Grants
(TAGs). This fact sheet should be placed in the
information repository when it is established.
Listing attracts media attention. Preparing a
press release to accompany the fact sheet may
be useful, (see the Media tool in the Toolkit}.
4. FJNAl LisTJNq ON ihe NPL
iivi The Ff
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Prepare a formal Community Involvement
Plan (CIP). The Site Team must prepare a CIP
based on community interviews and other
relevant information. The CIP must specify
outreach activities that the Agency expects to
undertake (see the Communication Strategies
and Community Involvement Plan tools in
the Toolkit).
Establish and maintain an information
repository. The site team must establish at
least one information repository at or near the
location of the response action (see the Infor-
mation Repository tool in the Toolkit).
Establish the administrative record. The
Site Team must establish and place the admin-
istrative record in the information repository.
Issue public notice of information reposi-
tory. The Site Team must publish a notice in a
major local newspaper informing the public of
the establishment of the information repository
and the availability of the administrative
record (see the Public Notice tool in the
Toolkit).
Publish notice of Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs). The Site Team must inform
the community of the availability of technical
assistance grants (see the Technical Assis-
tance for Communities tool in the Toolkit).
MORE AbouT CoMMUNrry INTERVIEWS
The success of community involvement planning
depends on community interviews with state and
local officials, community leaders, media repre-
sentatives, potentially responsible parties, and
interested residents. The Site Team should use
community interviews as a tool to construct the
CIP. Typically, these interviews are conducted
one-on-one in the person's home or office.
However, phone interviews or focus groups
occasionally may be appropriate. The most
successful interviews are face-to-face discussions
that allow the Site Team to determine public
concerns and learn how and when local residents
want to be involved. The information gathered
A member of a community group at a
Colorado site suggests that the role of the
community and the procedures it must
follow should be clearly stated by EPA at
the beginning. EPA should have informa-
tion on resources available to a community
ready to go out as soon as a hazardous
waste response situation is discovered.
EPA should identify the players in the
process early and determine the informa-
tion necessary for the community to make
informed decisions and provide meaningful
input into any response actions, including
to whom the participants should direct
their input. EPA also should identify
available financial and/or technical assis-
tance resources, including the availability
of Technical Assistance Grants.
from 15-25 community interviews provides the
basis for development of the CIP. Community
interviews also can help to establish a positive
relationship with the community.
Community interviews usually are scheduled
over two to three days, and often are supple-
mented with additional unplanned interviews
and follow up conversations. When contacting
individuals to schedule interviews, the Site
Team should explain briefly and clearly the
purpose of the interviews. Specifically, staff
should explain that they will be talking with
area residents and local officials about commu-
nity concerns regarding the site, and that
community interviews are held so EPA can
prepare a meaningful community involvement
plan. Staff should convey to the interviewees
that detailed technical information about site
problems or future site actions is not yet avail-
able. While some community members may not
be willing to be interviewed, generally most
citizens, including PRPs, will realize that the
discussions are a significant opportunity to
27
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
A CIC attended a basketball game at a
local high school. By introducing herself
to local citizens, she built trust and showed
that she was making an effort to get to
know them. The people she met that day
were more candid in their interviews, and
later became advocates for EPA.
express their concerns. Staff should speak first
with state and local officials to obtain back-
ground information and to let them know that
area residents will be interviewed. Officials have
an understandable interest in Agency activities
that affect their constituents.
For remedial actions, community interviews
should be conducted after the site is formally
listed on the NPL and before the RI/FS begins. If
the situation warrants (this can be determined by
using the Hot Sites Template resource in the
Toolkit), consider conducting community inter-
views before the site is listed on the NPL.
MORE AbouT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PlvNS
Once the Site Team has conducted the commu-
nity interviews, it should develop a Community
Involvement Plan (CIP). Previously known as the
Community Relations Plan (CRP), the CIP is
central to Superfund community involvement. It
specifies the outreach activities that EPA will
undertake to address community concerns and
expectations. The CIP is a public document that
should be placed in the information repository.
The CIP format should include a cover page that
identifies the CIP as an EPA document, and also
include information specifying what EPA will do,
not what EPA should do.
The CIP should explain how the Site Team will
involve the community in site cleanup, rather
than provide information about the site itself. It
should identify the community's issues, needs,
and concerns, and identify specific activities,
outreach products, or programs EPA will use to
address the community's concerns. For example,
if groundwater contamination is an issue, the CIP
should identify it as such, and state that "EPA
will conduct a series of workshops with a
hydrogeologist to explain groundwater." If the
health effects of the substances are an issue, then
the CIP should propose an activity featuring a
toxicologist to talk about the site-specific con-
taminants, their known effects on people, and
how they move through groundwater.
As part of an overall community involve-
ment strategy at a controversial site, a
Region 8 CIC determined that formation of
a CAG was an appropriate way to involve
the community, and took steps to help
citizens organize themselves. She invited a
diverse group of community leaders to an
informational meeting and asked them to
suggest other leaders who should be
involved in forming a CAG. They partici-
pated in a second organizational meeting.
Because of her prior research and knowl-
edge of the community, the CIC knew the
emotional nature of the subject matter and
the potential for internal conflict, given the
fact that the group included people with
very different perspectivesincluding
individuals whose family members had
suffered site-related health effects and
others who were employees of the PRP.
That's why, when the CAG held its first
"official" meeting, it was led by an outside
facilitator. Neutral third-party facilitation
was necessary because of the potential for
future problems. Even though members
suggested that she continue to facilitate
meetings herself, the CIC didn 't want to put
EPA in the "middle, " where the trust and
credibility the Agency had built in the
community could be threatened.
28
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The CIP also should establish a time line for
activities (e.g., "As the Site Team receives
sampling results, we will hold a series of ground
water workshops"). While the CIP is a public
document, remember that the CIP is written for
the Site Team.
In general, the CIP should include:
An overview of the CIP;
A capsule site description;
Community background information;
Community issues and concerns;
Highlights of the CIP;
Community involvement activities and timing
(including the communication strategy);
A copy of the interview questions;
An official contact list (do not include names
of private citizens interviewed or the site
mailing list);
The location for public meetings;
The location of the information repository; and
Local media contacts.
Interviews are strictly confidential. Names,
addresses, and phone numbers of private citizens
interviewed should not appear in the CIP, and
there should be no way to trace information or
comments to any private citizen. However, local
officials and representatives of PRPs interviewed
in their official capacity should be identified in
the list of contacts.
CIP preparation should begin with information
about interested officials, citizens, and organized
groups. This information should be collected in
the community interviews. Also consult the
community profile assembled during the planning
phase for the following information:
Multimedia aspects of the site (any other EPA
or state activity regarding the environment or
other permitted facilities at or near the site);
Any past news articles, editorials, or letters to the
editor that give insight into local perceptions;
An overview of the demographics; and
Any need for translating documents (see the
Translation Services tool in the Toolkit);
The Community Involvement Plan tool in the
Toolkit contains a sample Community Involve-
ment Plan and a Community Involvement Activi-
ties Template.
MORE AbouT COMMUNICATION
The CIP is the comprehensive strategy for all
community involvement and outreach at the site.
A communication strategy for each element of
the overall CIP should guide the development and
become part of the CIP. Communication strate-
gies saves time and money by helping the Site
Team plan site-related communication with the
public and other stakeholders. They also can be
used to expedite the flow of information for
sudden, unfolding events. A good communication
strategy provides the "why, what, who, when,
where, and how" of relaying information.
Specifically, a communication strategy provides a
structure for identifying issues, problems, and
actions that require outreach. A communication
strategy is a list of messages, audiences, potential
message vehicles, required resources, and feed-
back mechanisms to meet the unique communica-
tion needs of each Superfund site. For help in
developing communication strategies, see the
Communication Strategies tool in the Toolkit.
MORE AbouT rhE INFORMATION REposiroRy
An information repository is a record maintained
at or near a Superfund site that contains all corre-
spondence, reports, and documents pertaining to
the site as well as general Superfund program
information. At an information repository, people
can research the site, review the law pertaining to
the cleanup, and learn how to participate in the
cleanup. The information repository should be
established early and be well publicized. At least
one repository must be established at or near a
remedial site before the RI/FS begins. The Agency
must inform the public of the information reposi-
29
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
tory. The availability of the administrative record
must be announced through the publication of
notices in a local newspaper of general circulation.
The two most significant decisions relating to the
information repository are location(s) and choos-
ing the materials to be included. The number of
repositories established depends on the remoteness
of the site to surrounding communities. Specific
locations often are determined during community
interviews. Repositories should be convenient to
the public where photocopying equipment is
available. Common locations include public
libraries, city halls, or public health offices. Other
locations include fire stations and religious
buildings. If a photocopying machine is not
available, one may be purchased with site funds.
Repository contents should be organized and
indexed. Multiple copies should be made in case
documents are lost or misplaced. Repository
documents should be updated regularly. If pos-
sible, Site Team members should visit the informa-
tion repository at least once a year to ensure that
its contents are current. A sample information
repository index is provided in the Information
Repository tool in the Toolkit.
MORE AbouT Public NOTJCE
Public notices are advertisements published in
local newspapers, broadcast on local radio, or
sent as mailings to announce public comment
periods for EPA decisions, major project mile-
stones, and the establishment of information
repositories. The public notice is one of the
I One Region makes a regular practice of
putting a Resource Book at its site informa-
tion repositories, since the mounds of paper
in the Repository can be overwhelming for
citizens. The Region finds that the Resource
Book helps citizens understand the Super-
fund process better and provides the
site-specific information they want.
One CIC saved a lot of time by transmit-
ting public notices to a local newspaper
via an e-mail message specifying the dates
the notice should appear and attaching the
public notice. The CIC also faxed the
public notice to the newspaper to ensure
that the newspaper had a hard copy from
which to proof the attached document. This
exchange took only a few minutes, instead
of the hours or days a request by mail or in
person might have taken.
methods that EPA uses to solicit community
participation. The goal of a public notice is to
communicate an important announcement to as
many people as possible in the affected commu-
nity. To that end, public notices should be attrac-
tive and located in main sections of the paper.
Notices should not be placed with legal notices.
For more information about public notices, see
the Public Notice tool in the Toolkit.
MORE AbouT TEchNicAl ASSISTANCE GRANTS
EPA provides technical assistance to communi-
ties to help citizens understand site-related
information. By law, EPA must inform communi-
ties about the availability of Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs) and assist them in applying for
these grants. EPA also informs citizens about
obtaining assistance through other programs,
such as the university-based Technical Outreach
Services for Communities (TOSC) program and
the Department of Defense's Technical Assistance
for Public Participation (TAPP) program.
Under the TAG program, initial grants of up to
$50,000 are available to qualified groups affected
by a response action. Additional funding is
available for sites that meet certain criteria. TAGs
can be used to hire a technical advisor, who is an
independent expert that can explain technical
information and help articulate the community's
concerns (see the Technical Information for
Communities tool in the Toolkit).
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Community members at a Region 6 site
agree that the TAG they received from EPA
enabled the community to participate more
effectively in decision making at the site.
"Our ability to respond intelligently [to
information from EPA and the PRPs] in the
language they understand depends on
having a good technical advisor, and we
had one of the best" said one member of the
community group that received the TAG.
. RI/FS BeqiNS
After a site is listed on the NPL, the Agency
performs a remedial investigation (RI) to gather
data needed to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at a site, establish site cleanup
criteria, identify preliminary alternatives for
remedial action, and support technical and cost
analyses of alternatives. After the RI has com-
menced, EPA conducts the feasibility study (FS),
which considers different alternatives for clean-
ing up the site and recommends selection of a
cost-effective alternative. Together, these studies
usually are referred to as the RI/FS.
The RI/FS is the most critical phase of the
Superfund process, and is the time when it is
easiest to lose the community. From the time that
a work plan is prepared through the completion
of the RI/FS, the Site Team should obtain infor-
mation from the community and learn the
community's perspective on site hazards. The
Site Team should ensure that the community is
informed about what to expect from the RI/FS, is
aware of current activities, can track progress at
the site, and has every opportunity to participate
in deciding upon the Proposed Plan. The specific
outreach activities the Site Team is responsible
for are discussed below.
Although the RI/FS usually takes 18 to 24 months
to complete, actual on-site work usually lasts no
more than several weeks to several months. The
rest of the time, analytical work is performed at
the office or in a laboratory. EPA presence at the
site is rare and limited to periodic monitoring or
additional sampling. During this period, the Site
Team focuses on receiving, reviewing, and
analyzing data, and identifying remedy options.
RECOMMENded OuTREAch AcrivmES DumNq
RI/FS
Although community involvement activities are
not required during the RI/FS, EPA recommends
that at least one community involvement activity
be held each year during the RI/FS.
This is the period during which the community
hears the least from EPA. From a purely technical
perspective, many Site Teams conclude there is
nothing occurring that is of interest to the commu-
nity. Since there is nothing unusual or alarming
happening and the Site Team does not want to raise
false hopes or fears, it may believe that nothing
needs to be shared with the community. However,
the community often wants information about the
While EPA held regular public meetings
prior to issuing its first cleanup plan at
one Region 1 site, community interest in
the site seemed limited until the Agency
announced the proposed remedy. EPA's
Proposed Plan for the site was met with
strong and widespread opposition from
community stakeholders and PRPs. EPA
extended the public comment period on
the Proposed Plan, and, in response to
those comments, decided to withdraw it.
EPA helped stakeholders form a coordi-
nating committee to facilitate active
community involvement in decision-
making. Eventually, these coordination
efforts led to development and acceptance
of a far less costly and less intrusive
alternative that won support from all
stakeholder groups in the community.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
site and ongoing EPA activities, even when there
may be nothing significant to report. A lack of
communication or information typically results in
one of two community responses: either people's
fears, anxieties, anger, and frustration intensify, or
they may adopt a false sense of security by becom-
ing complacent. Either response can be problem-
atic for meaningful community involvement.
When EPA does not provide official information,
residents sometimes turn to other experts who seem
more willing to talk to them. These experts may
include people or groups with their own agendas.
Intentionally or not, these experts can stir up fears
and other concerns that would not have otherwise
arisen had EPA maintained contact. The end result
is usually a significant delay in the process while
the Agency responds to misinformation and calms
resulting fears and anxieties. Sometimes in these
situations, there is a perception that the delay was
caused by too much community involvement, when
in actuality, too little community involvement was
to blame.
The other response to a lack of information from
EPA is community complacency. The community
may perceive EPA's seeming lack of concern as
an indication that the site is harmless. The
community may come to the conclusion that
things are not as serious as EPA portrayed, that
EPA may have overreacted, and that there is
really nothing to worry about. Consequently, the
site becomes an afterthought and community life
returns to normal. At the same time, the Site
Team sees a quiet community and concludes the
residents either are unconcerned or uninterested.
In this case, the Site Team also can be lulled into
a false sense of security, which validates reasons
for not issuing information.
These attitudes can result in a contentious
response to the announcement of the Proposed
Plan. Because of this lack of communication
comes as a complete surprise to the community,
and the community's reaction is just as surprising
to the Site Team. Citizens balk at the proposed
remedy, they wonder how EPA came up with the
idea, they complain that EPA's decision had no
local input, and they believe EPA's request for
comment is simply a meaningless exercise. The
end result is that the Agency needs to delay the
process to conduct community involvement work
that should have been done all along.
Recent research conducted at active sites indi-
cates that citizens need to hear from EPA on a
continuing basis. People are reassured and feel
more empowered by simple communication from
EPA, even if nothing more is said than "we still
have not received the test results from the lab."
Therefore, the Agency recommends that regular
outreach activities continue throughout the RI/FS,
with the Site Team organizing at least one
community involvement activity per year.
Community involvement activities that have
proven useful during this phase include Commu-
nity Visioning. Fact Sheets. Focus Groups, and
Informal Activities such as community visits.
Other helpful activities include On-Site Activi-
ties, such as site tours, Presentations to local
officials, civic groups, and school groups, Public
Availabilities/Poster Sessions, site-update
Telephone hotlines, and Workshops. See the
Toolkit Table of Contents for more information
about these outreach tools.
The purpose of these activities is to prepare the
community for the publication of the Proposed
Plan.The Site Team needs to decide which of
these or other suggested activities are appropriate
during the RI/FS process. These community
involvement tools are described in detail in Part
II of the Community Involvement Handbook and
Toolkit. The tools included in Part II are guides,
not rules. However, the Agency expects the Site
Team to draft CIPs that use these tools. They can
be used as presented, modified, or combined to
address the unique situation at each site.
Person-to-person interaction is necessary for the
community to get to know Site Team members
and vice versa. Personal interactions, either by
telephone or in person, contribute more to the
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
development of trust and cooperative working
relationships than any other form of outreach.
Availability sessions, public meetings, work-
shops, and TV or radio appearances work well.
Some EPA Regions schedule an information
public meeting at the beginning of RI field work.
Here, the RPM and CIC introduce themselves
and the role of EPA, and describe what is and is
not known about the site and the implications of
this information. The Site Team explains the RI
work plan, the type of work anticipated, what
they hope to learn, what they expect to find, and
safety precautions. Some Site Teams demonstrate
protective gear and monitoring equipment at the
meeting so that people can become familiar with
it. This optional public meeting is an excellent
opportunity to educate both the community and
the Site Team. Whether it is a public meeting or
availability session, some form of person-to-
person outreach or community involvement
activity during this phase is important to the
community and beneficial to the Site Team.
Other Regions take community outreach into the
local schools. Site Team members make presenta-
tions, either to a large assembly or to specific
classes. Team members show students the safety
equipment and protective gear and even let some
students try on the gear. Educating children also
can be a way of educating adults, since children
talk to their parents. Furthermore, information
brought from school may carry a level of credibil-
ity unavailable through other means. Recent
studies show that such efforts have positive, long-
term effects in the community.
MORE AbouT CoMMUNrry AdvisoRy GROUPS
A Community Advisory Group (CAG) is a com-
mittee, task force, or board made up of residents
In Chattanooga, TN, citizens addressed
environmental problems through a visioning
process by setting goals to achieve a shared
vision, designing action plans, and imple-
menting projects throughout the community.
The high level of commitment generated
through an inclusive, open process enabled
the community to finance and implement
projects without the opposition often seen in
community change projects.
affected by a Superfund or other hazardous waste
site. A CAG provides a public forum where
representatives of diverse community interests can
present and discuss their needs and concerns
related to the site and the site cleanup process.
CAGs are a community initiative and responsibil-
ity. They function independently of EPA, but they
can be a very effective community outreach and
participation tool. The Agency encourages CAG
development, and EPA Regions provide adminis-
trative support for CAGs at many Superfund sites.
Experience indicates that CAG involvement in
the process results in better decisions on how to
clean up sites.
CAGs may not be appropriate at every Superfund
site. The Site Team should consider several
factors when evaluating whether a CAG would be
appropriate. For example, they should consider
"Providing the community with early drafts
of technical documents is worthwhile in the
long run."
Mark Doolan, RPM, Region 7
The Site Team at one site found public meet-
ings were never well-attended. They found it
was better to invite community members to
come by the site. The RPM was in the trailer
the same hours every day. Wednesday night
was "Open Trailer Night, " with coffee and
cookies. Community members appreciated
the RPM's availability, interest and respon-
siveness. Among other things they said: "He
always made the time to answer questions
and listen to complaints;" "He never shied
away from face-to-face forums;" and "He
was devoted to the site. "
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
One Region that needed to distribute
bottled water to residents around a site
recognized the critical importance of
explaining why bottled water should be
used and how to avoid using tap water.
The CIC coordinated with a sixth grade
teacher, and gave a presentation to school
children. The students put on a play that
was a hit in the community.
the likelihood of long-term cleanup activity at the
site. CAGs usually can be beneficial at both
remedial sites and removal sites, particularly non-
time critical removals. However, the time re-
quired to organize and begin CAG operations,
which can vary from a few weeks to several
months, may preclude CAGs at time critical
removal sites and other removal sites where
cleanup activities will be brief.
The Site Team also should assess the level of
community concern and interest in site cleanup
decisions and consider whether there are any
environmental justice issues or concerns regarding
the site. Has the community expressed an interest
in forming a CAG? A community with a high level
of interest and concern about remedial activities or
significant environmental justice concerns related to
the site should be a strong candidate for a CAG.
Forming a CAG may not be feasible, however, if
there are too many competing interests at the site.
Community interviews or profiles from early in the
process are a good source of information when
considering whether to recommend formation of
a CAG. Once EPA determines that a CAG may be
appropriate at a site, the CIC, Site Manager, and
other members of the Site Team should explain the
CAG concept to the community, recommend it as a
vehicle for involvement in the decision-making
process, and offer the Agency's assistance in
forming and maintaining the CAG should the
community choose to form one. If EPA determines
that a CAG would not be appropriate at a site, it is
important to document the Agency's reasons in a
way that can be shared to community residents
who express interest. For more information, see the
Community Groups tool in the Toolkit.
6. FEAsibiliiy Siudy
CoMplETJON ANd PllOpOSEd
PUN
The RI/FS process ends with the release of the RI/
FS documents and the Proposed Plan for remedial
action. This should be a time of intensive commu-
nity involvement. The Site Team must inform the
public about, and receive comments on, all remedial
alternatives considered in the RI/FS, the Agency's
preferred alternative, the rationale for the prefer-
ence, and proposed waivers to cleanup standards.
Good technical work during this phase is crucial
to a good Proposed Plan. Good community
involvement is crucial to the community's
understanding and acceptance of that plan.
According to Stephen Covey, author of 7 Habits
of Highly Successful People, "People don't care
how much you know until they know how much
you care." This concept is paramount to effective
community involvement. It does not matter how
good the work or the plan is if the community
does not understand or accept it.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AcTJVmES REL\TEd
TO FS CoMplETloN ANd TliE PROpOSEd PLAN
At a minimum, the following activities must be
conducted:
Develop a Proposed Plan. The Site Team
must develop a Proposed Plan for public
comment. The plan must summarize the
remedial alternatives presented in the analysis
of the RI/FS and identify the preferred alterna-
tive, the rationale for that preferred alternative,
any proposed waivers to cleanup standards,
and documents that support EPA's decision.
Publish notice of the Proposed Plan. The
Site Team must publish a public notice of the
availability of the Proposed Plan and RI/FS, a
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
brief summary of the Proposed Plan, and an
announcement of the Public Comment
Period in a major local newspaper of general
circulation (see the Public Comment Periods
and Public Notices tools in the Toolkit}.
Place the Proposed Plan in the information
repository. The Site Team must make the
Proposed Plan and any supporting analysis and
information in the administrative record at the
Information Repository (see the Informa-
tion Repository tool in the Toolkit).
Hold a public comment period. The Site
Team must provide a reasonable opportunity
(not less than 30 days) for the submission of
comments. The Site Team must extend this
comment period by at least 30 days upon
timely request. Although notifying the public
of the extension is not required, the Site Team
should consider publishing a notice of the
extension, or at a minimum, mailing a copy of
the extension to those on the site mailing list.
Hold Proposed Plan public meeting. The
Site Team must hold a public meeting on the
Proposed Plan (see the Public Meetings tool
in the Toolkit). The Site Team must provide a
transcript of all formal public meetings held
during the public comment period. EPA must
make the transcripts available to the public via
the administrative record.
Prepare a written responsiveness summary.
The Site Team must prepare a responsiveness
summary that responds to significant public
comments, criticisms, and new relevant infor-
mation submitted during the public comment
period. The responsiveness summary becomes
part of the Record of Decision (see the Respon-
siveness Summaries tool in the Toolkit).
The community involvement activities required
for the Proposed Plan are largely impersonal. The
Site Team should conduct additional outreach
focusing on person-to-person contact during the
Proposed Plan phase. There are a number of tools
that can be used to personalize this phase. To help
explain the Proposed Plan, EPA recommends that
the Site Team use at least one of the following
outreach tools: Informal Activities. Presenta-
tions. Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions, and
Workshops (see the tools for all in the Toolkit).
While it is not required, distribution of the Pro-
posed Plan to the entire site mailing list and any
other interested parties is recommended. The site
team should place copies of the Proposed Plan in
information repositories at or near the site.
MORE AbouT rhe PuoposEd PLAN
The Proposed Plan reflects the decisions made by
the lead and support agencies and is a critical
part of remedy selection and the administrative
record. The Site Team should consult the ROD
guidance for information about how to develop
the Proposed Plan. The following section pro-
vides a brief summary of the discussion con-
tained in the ROD guidance.
The Proposed Plan must be presented at a public
meeting, usually referred to as the Proposed Plan
public meeting. In the past, Site Teams have put
considerable emphasis on this event. However,
experience has shown that community involve-
ment activities throughout the entire RI/FS
process are at least as important as the Proposed
Plan public meeting.
The Site Team can present the Proposed Plan in
either the expanded or fact sheet format dis-
cussed in the ROD guidance. Regardless of the
format, the Site Team should write the plan in a
clear and concise style and use illustrations and
figures to summarize the information in the RI/FS.
Preparation of the Proposed Plan should be a joint
effort of the Site Team. The RPM, CIC, and
Regional Counsel should ensure that the Proposed
Plan is technically accurate, satisfies statutory
requirements, and includes all the necessary
information in a clear and concise style that is
understandable to members of the community.
In addition to clearly summarizing the alterna-
tives from the detailed analysis of the RI/FS, the
Proposed Plan must specify the preferred alterna-
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
tive and the rationale for the preference, citing
the evaluation criteria identified in the ROD
Guidance. The Proposed Plan should notify the
public about 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 presentation of the preferred alternative
should emphasize that the Agency has not made a
final decision 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 Pro-
posed Plan should clearly indicate that the
Agency encourages public comments on all
alternatives, 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.
MORE AbouT rhe PuoposEd P\AN FACT ShEET
The Proposed Plan is a concise, easy-to-read
synopsis of the action EPA proposes to take.
Unlike the ROD, it is not a legal document that
binds EPA to an action, and it should not read
like a legal document. Instead, the Proposed Plan
is a communications tool required by the NCP as
a means of informing the general public about all
of the alternatives considered and EPA's preferred
remedy. It also notifies the community that it will
have an opportunity to comment. The Proposed
Plan should be released as a fact sheet, preferably
no more than eight pages long, and distributed to
all stakeholders. A more formal Proposed Plan
may be prepared and placed in the information
repository. In this case, summarize it in a Pro-
posed Plan fact sheet, and use the fact sheet to
direct readers to copies of the formal plan.
The primary message to convey in the fact sheet
is the proposed remedy for the site. Provide this
information first, rather than starting with back-
ground on the site, other remedies considered, or
any other information. Explain that the fact sheet
"Learning what the citizens are thinking far
in advance of the development of the pro-
posed plan is a tremendous advantage. "
Tony Able, RPM, Region 4
briefly summarizes the formal plan for the
remedy. Include why the remedy was chosen over
other proposals, then list the other remedies that
were considered. Explain in a few sentences what
each remedy would entail and why EPA proposed
to eliminate it. After that, offer a more detailed
explanation of the proposed remedy. Provide
general information on the findings of the RI/FS.
Explain in more detail what will be done to clean
up the site, the impact it will have on the commu-
nity, the cost, and the duration of construction.
If applicable, be sure to announce that the formal
plan is available for review and comment in the
information repository. Include the address and
hours of the repository and a phone number for
requesting copies. Include instructions on how
and when to submit public comments.
MORE AbouT Public NOTJCE of rhE
PROpOSEd PLAN
The advertisement published in the newspaper
should provide a brief summary of the Proposed
Plan and inform the public of the opportunity to
comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The
notice should summarize the alternatives and
identify the preferred alternative. It should also:
explain how to submit oral and written com-
ments;
identify the location of the information reposi-
tories 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 com-
ment period so that the public has sufficient time
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
One CIC scheduled regular talks at a
bookstore, similar to those given by visiting
authors. The presenter spoke about very
specific site-related topics and kept the
speech to about half an hour. The first ten
minutes always were devoted to giving a
quick summary of events that had occurred
at the site, the next 15 minutes covered the
topic, and the last five minutes summarized
the main points. After the presentation, the
presenter fielded questions.
to obtain and read the document. In order to reach
as broad an audience as possible, the advertise-
ment should be designed to attract attention and
engage the reader. The Site Team should consider
purchasing ad space in the most widely read
section of the newspaper.
MORE AbouT rhe Public COMMENT PERiod
ANd Public MEETJNq
The public comment period offers special com-
munity involvement challenges and opportunities.
If implemented properly, it can also contribute to
the quality of the selected remedial alternative.
The Site Team should maintain communication
with local officials and interested community
members, explain the remedial alternatives in
understandable terms, and solicit public input. If
this communication is done effectively, con-
cerned groups and individuals can see that their
interests are receiving serious consideration.
Effective communication should make a signifi-
cant difference in the acceptability 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
extended, staff should publish a public notice to
announce the extension of the comment period.
CERCLA and the NCP require EPA to provide
an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the
site regarding the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The
Site Team also may choose to conduct a formal
public hearing, although this alternative is neither
required nor always encouraged. Public hearings,
at 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 engage in a 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
need often can be met in a more informal,
productive, and less resource-intensive manner. If
a hearing is needed, the preferred approach is to
hold it in conjunction with small informal
meetings or other communications techniques.
One CIC decided to inform local stake-
holders about an opportunity for review
and comment on the proposed cleanup
plan by holding a public meeting to
announce the opportunity and invite
interested parties to a public participa-
tion workshop. The meeting was held at a
library on a Saturday afternoon, and
attracted a large and diverse audience.
The workshop took place on the following
Saturday and provided information
about: (1) requirements for public review
of and comment on site activities; (2) pros
and cons of the process; and (3) how
citizens can maximize their contributions.
A workshop hand-out offered step-by-step
guidance for reviewing the site informa-
tion and filing comments. As a result of
his actions, more than half of the work-
shop attendees submitted comments on
the proposed cleanup plan.
J7
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The Site Team also must provide an opportunity
for submission of written and oral comments on
the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The Site Team
must keep a transcript of the public meeting
conducted during the comment period and make
the transcripts available to the public as part of
the administrative record and information reposi-
tory. Such transcripts are used by EPA to consider
oral comments made during meetings. Other
substantive 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 documen-
tation may be done through a record of communi-
cation, tapes, or notes that must be placed in the
administrative record. Agency staff should
encourage written comments to ensure they are
fully reflected in the record.
7. NOTJCE ANd COMMENT ON
CONSENT DECREE (if NECESSARY)
Sometimes after the Proposed Plan is developed,
the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) will
negotiate and enter into settlement agreements or
consent decrees with EPA to do the cleanup. To
conclude such negotiations, EPA enforcement
staff and the PRPs may make modifications to the
Proposed Plan. Therefore, EPA must inform the
community of the consent decree and allow the
community to provide input.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AcrriviTiES FOR
CONSENT DECREES
In the event that there is an enforcement agree-
ment, the following requirements apply:
Publish a notice of the proposed agreement in
the Federal Register at least 30 days before
the agreement becomes final, identifying the
name of the facility and the parties to the
proposed agreement.
* Provide an opportunity for comments and for
consideration of comments (see the Public
Comment Periods and Responsiveness
Summaries tools in the Toolkit).
Under the law, consent decree negotiations are
not open to the public. Therefore, once a consent
decree emerges, the community may feel victimized.
Closed discussions between EPA and PRPs often
result in reduced trust and increased resistance on the
part of the community.
Fortunately, there are a few things that the Site Team
can do to prevent a community from feeling victim-
ized by a consent decree. During consent decree
negotiations, the Site Team can use focus groups and
informal activities as tools to involve the community.
Focus groups are facilitated discussions about
the site and the community's concerns voiced
by small groups of stakeholders. Focus groups
are a useful tool for understanding stakehold-
ers' opinions on site activities, why they feel
as they do, and their needs and expectations.
By holding separate focus group sessions with
different groups, the Site Team can find out
how the community will react to different
proposals being considered in negotiations
(For more information on using focus groups,
see the Focus Groups tool in the Toolkit).
Informal activities are unstructured visits to
the community to give people a chance to get
to know members of the Site Team and to
discuss the site in a relaxed atmosphere.
Informal activities can include visiting a
resident's home, hosting an information booth
at a local festival, or going door-to-door in a
neighborhood close to the site. Such activities
allow the Site Team to inform the community
about the consent decree. Be aware that any
such communication should be cleared with
Regional Counsel well in advance of the
activity. Typically, the most the Site Team will
be able to tell a community is that negotiations
may or may not occur and may or may not
result in a consent decree. These efforts may
not seem like much, but such communication
can go a long way in preventing unpleasant
surprises once a consent decree is signed. Such
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
activities allow the Site Team to identify
community concerns regarding the consent
decree and direct those concerns to EPA's
representative at the negotiation table (see the
Informal Activities tool in the Toolkit).
MORE AbouT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
AcrriviTiES FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTJONS
CERCLA created two complementary methods to
clean up hazardous waste sites. The first created
a trust fund to pay for site clean up. The second
provides EPA with authority to identify PRPs
linked to the site and negotiate settlements with
PRPs for site cleanup work or to issue adminis-
trative orders directing them to do so. EPA may
also recover the costs of such actions from PRPS
when the trust fund has been used.
Since the passage of CERCLA in 1980, several
states have enacted similar laws under which
they may undertake site cleanup and recover
costs from PRPs. Citing their own authority, they
may issue orders or enter into settlement agree-
ments with PRPs. The enforcement process is
essentially the same as that followed by EPA.
Agency staff should try to help citizens under-
stand Superfund program goals and activities,
including enforcement actions. If community
concerns are fully identified early in the remedial
process, the agency is better able to address these
concerns in the proposed plan.
Community Involvement Plan. In fostering
community involvement during enforcement
actions, CICs should follow the same steps as for
fund-financed projects. The steps critical to
community involvement are conducting inter-
views of local citizens and formulating a CIP.
Once the CIP has been developed, the CIC and
other members of the Site Team should ensure
that community involvement activities outlined
in the CIP take place. The administrative record
is one method to ensure that the public can access
information about site activities. This and other
methods should be considered and used to inform
and involve the public.
The agency in charge of response actions will
develop and carry out community involvement
activities at enforcement-lead sites. PRPs may
participate in community involvement activities
only at the discretion of the Regional Office.
PRPs do not develop the CIP. The Regional
Office will oversee any PRP community involve-
ment activities. PRPs may participate in commu-
nity involvement activities at sites where they are
conducting a removal, RI/FS, remedial design,
remedial action, or operation and maintenance.
The CIP should cover any PRP participation in
community involvement activities. 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,
are not negotiated with PRPs.
The completed CIP should be provided to all
interested parties and placed in the administrative
record and information repository. If the CIP is
revised, the final revised copy should be made
available to the public and placed in the adminis-
trative record and information repository.
Community involvement activities outlined in a CIP
for a PRP-lead site should not compromise the
settlement process and the likely schedule of
enforcement actions. Technical discussions may be
identified in the CIP as community involvement
activities. The CIP should document the Agency's
approach to coordinating and sharing information
with PRPs. Special conditions on Agency interac-
tion with PRPs should be spelled out in the adminis-
trative order or consent decree, not in the CIP.
The public must be informed early when PRPs
are participating in community involvement
activities identified in the CIP. When this hap-
pens, the public should be informed that the site
response team prepared the plan. Staff should
communicate this by preparing a fact sheet and
stating clearly at a public meeting that EPA, and
not the PRPs, prepared the CIP, retains all
decision-making authority, and directs all com-
munity involvement activities.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
The CIP also should describe how the litigation
process affects community involvement activi-
ties. Litigation generally does not occur until
after the remedy is selected, but community
involvement staff should explain early in the
process that legal constraints on community
involvement activities may apply during negotia-
tions or litigation. Community involvement staff
may choose to describe EPA interaction with the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). If litigation is
pursued, the CIP will be amended to reflect the
potential effects of litigation on community
involvement activities. When referral for litiga-
tion is the initial enforcement action, the CIP
The mayor of a town with a Superfund
site held a series of meetings with com-
munity leaders to encourage community
participation in discussions with EPA and
PRPs on site cleanup plans. The process
continued after the ROD was signed, but
broke down prior to the consent decree
when the community came out opposed to
the selected remedy, incineration. The
community had little confidence in the
process leading to the RI and the selected
remedy, and felt that EPA had "let the fox
into the henhouse. " When the consent
decree was approved, incinerator con-
struction began and residents asked
EPA's ombudsman to intervene when
fumes generated by construction over-
whelmed the PRPs' control apparatus.
EPA stopped work on the site. The com-
munity asked for an alternative remedy,
and the PRPs agreed to develop one. To
help various interest groups at the site
work out the problems, EPA proposed
formation of a Community Advisory
Group, which ultimately helped interests
work together by improving relations
between EPA and the community.
should specify activities that are to be conducted
during litigation to the extent known at that time.
Enforcement Actions and Community Involve-
ment at Remedial Sites. Community involve-
ment and outreach activities should be planned as
early in the enforcement process as possible.
Generally, this outreach 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. Also,
the information repository and administrative
record are sources from which the public may
obtain specific information about the site, general
Superfund process, and other Agency materials.
Negotiations about private party response actions
or payment of cleanup costs are conducted in
confidential sessions between the PRPs and EPA
or the state. PRPs may be unwilling to negotiate
without a guarantee of confidentiality. This
expectation of confidentiality restricts the type and
amount of information that can be made public.
Special effort should be made prior to the negotia-
tion moratorium to warn the public that little
information will be available 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 those parties agree. Instead of direct
participation by the public in negotiations, commu-
nity involvement staff may wish to mail out a fact
sheet on the Superfund enforcement process and
the moratorium schedules for the specific site.
The public should be informed when agreements
are reached and when 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.
Once a case is in court, only information from
court files will be available to the public. Agency
40
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
A CIC and RPMpresented a site update to
a county's Grand Jury panel that included
graphics, maps, and slides of the former
mine site. Afterwards, the audience stated
an interest in seeing the site first hand. Two
weeks later, the RPM and CIC led a site
tour for 25 people that included a visit to
an adjacent site where EPA was completing
removal of contaminated soil. Fact sheets
and a chronology of EPA activities were
provided as handouts.
statements about the case must be cleared with
DOJ. 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 assessments,
and response work. The ORC is responsible for
informing staff about consultations with DOJ.
8. PRE'ROD SiqiMificANT
ChANqES (if NECESSARY)
If needed, the Site Team may have to address
significant changes to the Proposed Plan prior to
selection of the final remedy. If new information
significantly changes the basic features of the
remedy in the Proposed Plan with respect to scope,
performance, or cost prior to adoption of the final
remedy proposed in the ROD, the Site Team is
required to do different community involvement
activities. These activities will depend upon
whether the significant changes could or could not
be reasonably anticipated by the public based on
information in the Proposed Plan, supporting
analysis, and administrative record.
PRE'ROD CoMMUNJTy INVOLVEMENT AcTJVmES
If new information that significantly changes the
basic features or cost of the remedy becomes
available after the publication of the Proposed
Plan, and if these changes could be reasonably
anticipated by the public based on information in
the Proposed Plan, supporting analysis, and
administrative record, then the Site Team must
include a discussion of the significant changes
and reasons for such changes in the ROD.
However, if EPA determines that the significant
change could not have been reasonably antici-
pated by the public based on information in the
Proposed Plan, supporting analysis, and adminis-
trative record, then the Site Team must:
Issue a revised Proposed Plan. Prior to the
selection of the remedy, the Site Team must
issue a revised Proposed Plan that includes a
discussion of the significant changes and the
reasons for such changes.
Hold a public comment period. The Site
Team must seek additional public comment on
the revised Proposed Plan (see the Public
Comment Periods tool in the Toolkit).
Prepare a written response. The Site Team
must respond to significant comments (see the
Responsiveness Summaries tool in the
Toolkit).
When revisions to the Proposed Plan necessiate a
a new round of public comment, public under-
standing of those significant changes is crucial.
EPA recommends that the Site Team use some of
the following community involvement tools:
Revised fact sheet. Distribute a revised
Proposed Plan fact sheet explaining significant
changes and the process for holding a new
round of public comments (see the Fact
Sheets tool in the Toolkit).
Public availability/poster session. The Site
Team should host a public availability/poster
session to explain significant changes and the
need for a new round of public comment.
Public availabilities and poster sessions are
less structured than public meetings; they are
preferred in situations in which public meet-
ings are not required (see the Public Avail-
ability/Poster Session tool in the Toolkit).
Informal activities. The Site Team should
engage in some informal outreach activities,
such as setting up an exhibit booth at a com-
41
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
munity event or going door-to-door, to explain
the significant changes and the new round of
public comments (see the Informal Activities
tool in the Toolkit).
On-Site activities. Depending upon the nature
of the significant changes, this point in the
process might present a good opportunity for
the Site Team to host a site tour, during which
the team can explain the site, the nature and
extent of contamination, and the significant
changes to the revised Proposed Plan (see the
On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).
Telephone hot lines. If the Site Team has not
already set up a toll-free telephone hot line,
this would be a good time to do so. If the hot
line is already operating, it should be updated
to explain the revised Proposed Plan and the
new round of public comments (see the
Telephone tool in the Toolkit).
9. RECORC! of DECJSJON
After EPA considers comments on the Proposed
Plan, it selects a final remedy, which is published
in the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is
the official documentation of how EPA consid-
ered the remedial alternatives and why EPA
selected the final remedy.
CoMMUNJTy INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
ROD
During selection of the final remedy in the ROD,
the Site Team must:
Publish a notice of the availability of the
ROD in a major local newspaper. The Site
Team must notify the public of the availability
of the ROD through publication of a notice in
a major local newspaper (see the Public
Notices tool in the Toolkit).
Review the CIP for needed changes. After
the signing of the ROD and prior to the
initiation of the Remedial Design, the Site
Team shall review the CIP to determine
whether it should be revised to include addi-
tional public involvement activities during the
RD/RA phase (see the Community Involve-
ment Plans tool in the Toolkit).
MORE AbouT Public NOTICE of ROD
EPA is required to publish a newspaper notice,
preferably a display ad, which informs the public
that the ROD has been signed and announces the
availability of the final remedial action plan
selected by EPA. The advertisement should
provide a brief summary of the selected remedy
and explain where a copy of the ROD can be
obtained or reviewed.
ROD OuTREAch AcTivmES
When the ROD is issued, the Site Team should
make a concerted effort to inform the community
that EPA has made a decision about the site
remedy. This information needs to be dissemi-
nated as widely as possible. Although placing a
notice in a newspaper is required, it probably is
the least effective way of notifying the commu-
nity. Other more effective approaches for notify-
ing the community about the ROD include:
Fact sheets. Distribute a fact sheet explaining
the remedy in the ROD. (see the Fact Sheets
tool in the Toolkit, which includes sample fact
sheets and fact sheet templates).
Public availability/poster session. The Site
Team can host a public availability/poster
session to explain the ROD (see the Public
Availabilities/Poster Sessions tool in the
Toolkit).
Informal activities. The Site Team can
engage in informal outreach activities, such as
setting up an exhibit booth at a community
event, to announce the ROD (see the Informal
Activities tool in the Toolkit).
On-site activities. The ROD announcement
might present a good opportunity for the Site
Team to host a site tour, (see the On-Site
Activities tool in the Toolkit).
Press briefings and news releases. Most local
television and radio stations will broadcast
public service announcements related to sites.
42
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
At a controversial site, a CIC held regular
conference calls with EPA representatives,
reporters, editors, local officials, and inter-
ested residents. Twelve lines were dedicated
for each call. The date and time of the call
were announced in advance. The calls were
conducted on a quarterly basis at first, but as
work intensified, they were held monthly,
then bi-weekly, and weekly.
The CIC also placed weekly updates on a
toll-free hot line that citizens could call at
their convenience. This information an-
swered the basic questions of affected resi-
dents and saved the CIC time responding to
individual messages. In the end, the ROD
was not contested.
Site Team members may appear on a live radio
or cable television call-in shows. The Site
Team can respond to questions and also
explain the selected remedy. When participat-
ing on this type of show, develop messages and
repeat them frequently to ensure the key
mesages are conveyed to the public (see the
Media tool in the Toolkit and Chapter 7,
"Dealing with the Media," in this Handbook).
Postcard or flyer. Prepare a post card or flyer
to announce the ROD and distribute it to
people on the site mail list. Place the flyer or
post card in various locations throughout the
community, such as schools, libraries, or
grocery stores.
10. PosT-ROD SiqiMificANT
After a ROD is signed, the PRP sometimes will
settle with EPA and agree to perform the remedy
selected in the ROD. If any post-ROD remedial
action or enforcement action under CERCLA § 106
is taken, or if any settlement or consent decree
under CERCLA §106 or §122 is entered into, and
if such action, settlement, or decree differs signifi-
cantly from the ROD, then EPA must take one of
the following actions:
If the differences in the settlement or consent
decree 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 informa-
tion available to the public in the administra-
tive record and information repository. Addi-
tionally, 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.
If the differences in the settlement or consent
decree fundamentally alter the basic features
of the selected remedy with respect to scope,
performance, or cost, EPA must propose an
amendment to the ROD.
To amend the ROD, EPA must:
Publish a notice of availability of the
proposed amendment. The Site Team must
publish a notice of availability and a brief
description of the proposed amendment in a
major local newspaper of general circulation.
Provide time for comments. The Site Team
must provide at least 30 days for the submis-
sion of written and oral comments on the
proposed amendment (the comment period
must be extended by a minimum of 30 days,
upon timely request).
Provide public meeting opportunity. The
Site Team must provide the opportunity for a
public meeting during the comment period.
Keep a transcript of comments. The Site
Team must keep a transcript of comments
received at the public meeting.
Include an explanation of the amendment.
The Site Team must include a brief explana-
tion of the amendment and a response to each
of the significant comments, criticisms, and
new relevant information received during the
comment period in the amended ROD.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Once the ROD has been amended, EPA must:
Publish a notice of availability of the
amended ROD. The Site Team must publish a
notice of availability of the amended ROD in a
major local newspaper of general circulation.
Place the amended ROD in the information
repository. The amended ROD and supporting
information must be placed in the administra-
tive record and information repository before
commencement of the remedial action.
PosT'ROD OuTREAch AcTivmES
When a settlement agreement or consent decree has
caused EPA to propose an amendment to the ROD,
EPA must perform the community involvement
requirements outlined above. Because settlement
negotiations are closed to the public, the settlement
and the resulting proposed ROD amendments may
come as an unpleasant surprise to the community,
and significantly undermine community trust and
cooperation. To avoid this result, EPA recommends
that the following additional community outreach
activities be undertaken:
Fact sheets. Distribute a fact sheet explaining
how EPA proposes to amend the ROD and any
changes to the scope, performance, and cost of
the remedy. The fact sheet should remind the
public of its opportunity to comment on the
proposed amendments to the ROD (see the
Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit, which includes
sample fact sheets and fact sheet templates).
Public availability/poster session. The Site
Team should host a public availability/poster
session to explain the proposed amendments to
the ROD and the need for a new round of
public comment. Public availabilities and
poster sessions are preferred in situations in
which public meetings are not required (see
the Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions tool
in the Toolkit}.
Informal activities. The Site Team should
engage in informal outreach activities, such as
setting up an exhibit booth at a community
"Engage in meaningful dialogue and you
will minimize delays from public misunder-
standing and criticism."
Ed Ah, RPM, Region 2
event or going door-to-door to explain the
proposed amendments to the ROD and the new
round of public comments (see the Informal
Activities tool in the Toolkit).
On-site activities. Depending upon how
tangibly the amendments proposed for the
ROD can be demonstrated on site, this time
might present a good opportunity for the Site
Team to host a site tour. During the tour, the
Site Team can provide a history of the site and
describe the nature and extent of contamina-
tion and the changes to the remedy contem-
plated by the settlement or consent decree (see
the On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).
Telephone hot lines. If the Site Team has not set
up a toll-free telephone hot line, this would be a
good time to do so. Alternatively, if the hot line
was established earlier in the process, it should
be updated to explain the proposed amendments
to the ROD and the new round of public com-
ments (see the Telephone tool in the Toolkit).
11. REMEdJAL Desiqivi/
REMEdJAL ACTJON
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) is
the phase during which EPA designs and imple-
ments the cleanup remedy selected in the ROD.
As with the other phases, RD/RA has its own set
of community involvement opportunities and
potential problems. The disruption imposed on
communities during the construction phase can
cause communities to become agitated and vocal.
While the remedial design phase usually is
uneventful since little or no field work is con-
ducted, the remedial action phase can be very
disruptive to the community, with extensive
construction, dust, noise, and heavy truck traffic
44
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
that carries on for months or years. Members of
the public may express anger and surprise when
construction begins. Moreover, regardless of the
success of community involvement efforts prior
to construction, there always will be newcomers
to the community or people who recently started
paying attention who may be especially bothered
by the impact of construction on their lives.
The Site Team should continue any ongoing
communications and outreach efforts and engage
in further efforts. At least one community in-
volvement or outreach activity should be per-
formed each year during the design phase of the
remedy. These activities should emphasize that
EPA is making progress with the design and,
whenever possible, advise the community when
construction may begin. Fact sheets or flyers
work well to inform the community about the
progress of the design. Some Regions require the
site team to hold a public meeting at the 75 per-
cent design completion point to educate the
community about the project and the potential
impact on residents.
CoMMUNJTy INVOLVEMENT AcTJVmES DlJRJNq
RD/RA
The NCP requires EPA to do the following after
the remedial design is approved and before
construction begins:
Issue a fact sheet. After completion of the
final design, the Site Team must issue a fact
sheet (see the Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit).
Provide a public briefing. The Site Team
must provide a public briefing about the final
engineering design prior to the initiation of
remedial action (see the Presentations and
Public Meetings tools in the Toolkit).
The community should be informed about the
work to be done, planned work hours, truck
traffic, health and safety precautions, and moni-
toring to confirm that there are no releases. The
community also should be informed about issues
such as whether and how the remedial action will
Sometimes a previously "sleepy" site can
become a community involvement chal-
lenge when new issues arise late in the
Superfund cleanup process. A last-minute
challenge occurred at a Region 4 site
where the community became aware during
the design phase that EPA was considering
allowing the PRPs to discharge untreated
groundwater into a sewer line. The dis-
charge issue galvanized the community.
EPA scheduled a public meeting to hear
residents'concerns on this and other site-
related issues and helped the community
form a Community Advisory Group (CAG).
EPA organized site visits and worked
closely with the CAG to address community
concerns. The Agency agreed to continue
investigating the site. While those involved
agree that the CAG should have been
formed much earlier in the process before
major site decisions were made, they also
agree that the group has played a signifi-
cant role at the site and has helped build
trust between the community and EPA.
affect school bus routes and schedules, local
traffic patterns, noise, and health and safety
issues. Procedures for notifying nearby residents
in the event of a release or other emergency also
should be established.
The required activities should be supplemented
with activities such as public availabilities/poster
sessions, site tours, radio show appearances, or
something similar on a local TV news show or
local cable TV station. These activities should
educate the community about what can be
expected to occur during the construction phase.
The Site Team also may want to consider special
events and facilities at the site that allow resi-
dents to see the progress first hand, such as
observation decks, special site tours, and other
45
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
methods that will eduacate and inform the public.
Again, the more the residents know, the better the
chances of avoiding controversy.
12. OpERATJON &
MAINTENANCE
During the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
phase, EPA must conduct a review of the remedy
every five years. The project manager forms a
Site Team for the five-year review, which may
consist of a CIC, scientists, engineers, and other
technical personnel. The review includes: exam-
ining site data; visiting the site; taking new
samples; and talking with affected residents.
EPA is required to notify the community and
other potentially-interested parties that a five-
year review will be conducted at their site. The
Site Team may interview community members to
get their views about current site conditions,
problems, and concerns. If there is a site CAG or
TAG, representatives of these groups should be
briefed at appropriate stages of the five-year
review. The Site Team also may conduct addi-
tional community involvement activities, such as
issuing fact sheets or holding a public meeting.
Upon completion of the five-year review, the Site
Team is required to write a review report which
includes background on the site and cleanup
activities, a description of what was done during
the five-year review, and an explanation of the
results. The explanation of results must include a
protectiveness statement for each remedy under
review indicating whether the remedy is protect-
ing human health and the environment. While it
is not required, the Site Team may choose to ask
for public comment on the report.
Upon completion of this report, the Site Team
will write a summary of the review report and
place the report and its summary in the site
repository. The Site Team then will announce that
the review is complete, and that the report and
summary are available for the public to review.
For more information about community involve-
ment strategies during a five-year review, read
Appendix A of the Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance.
17. PitoposEd NPL
ANd FJNAl NPL
iivi The Ff
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Respond to public comments. The Site Team
must respond to each significant comment and
any new data submitted during the comment
period and include this responsiveness sum-
mary document in the final deletion package
(see the Responsiveness Summary tool in the
Toolkit).
Place the deletion package in the Informa-
tion Repository. The Site Team must place the
final deletion package in the local information
repository once the notice of the final deletion
has been published in the Federal Register.
MORE AbouT rhe NOTJCE of INTENT TO DELETE
The Site Team must prepare the "Notice of Intent
to Delete" to appear in the Federal Register and
appropriate local publications. Additional infor-
mation in the notice should include:
A summary of EPA deletion criteria and how
the site meets the criteria;
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, contaminants, and date added to the NPL;
A description of all response actions taken at
the site (including the scope of the RI, if
applicable, the results, and the conclusions);
One CIC organized a celebration around
the demolition of four smokestacks at a
Super fund site. The stacks had been an
eyesore in the community. The media was
involved, as well as the Regional Adminis-
trator and a local Congressman. Local
residents printed programs for the demoli-
tion and organized a fair with a helicopter
ride. The CIC distributed a fact sheet and
media package about the stack demolition.
Another CIC held a ceremony when work at
a site was completed. The occasion was the
completion ofon-site revegetation to create
a bird sanctuary. Since the site appeared to
be nothing more than a grassy field, the
celebration focused on the removal of EPA's
Superfund sign and the unveiling of a new
sign designating the site as a sanctuary.
A summary of cleanup standards and criteria
and results of all confirmatory sampling;
A summary of Superfund community involve-
ment activities;
A description of EPA's close-out plan for the
site that explains operation and maintenance
procedures, the monitoring program that will
be implemented, and any institutional controls
that will be used at the site;
An acknowledgment 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 and take action at
a deleted site if future conditions warrant such
actions.
AddmoNAl OuTREAch AcrivmES dimJNq NPL
DELETIONS
The last important activity is a special event to
commemorate completion and recognize citizens
who have helped (see the Citizen Recognition
and Special Events tools in the Toolkit). Regions
have tried a variety of activities intended to bring
closure to the site for the community, as well as
for the Site Team. In most cases, the complete
process has taken longer than anyone expected or
wanted, and a special event signals success or
finality for all involved. In some cases, it can also
serve to formally return land to the community.
Grand openings, dedications, and naming cer-
emonies are all appropriate. The purpose of such
special events is to involve the community and
47
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
demonstrate to them in a dramatic fashion that
the project is complete.
CoMMUIMJTy INVOLVEMENT ON
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS
AqREEMEIMTS
Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) are
agreements between EPA and prospective pur-
chasers of contaminated properties that contain
covenants not to sue. These covenants release
purchasers from liability for past contamination.
The covenants not to sue are intended to encour-
age safe reuse or redevelopment of contaminated
property that would have substantial benefits to
the community (e.g., through job creation or
productive use of abandoned property).
EPA issued a "Guidance on Agreements with
Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Prop-
erty" in May 1995, which expanded the circum-
stances under which the Agency will consider
entering into PPAs. Previous guidance limited use
of these covenants to certain situations. The 1995
guidance allows EPA to consider "indirect public
benefit" as one of the considerations. A model
PPA was issued in October 1999. A PPA tracking
system also has been developed within the
WasteLAN database.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AcTJVmES FOR EPA
AqREEMENTS wljh PROSpECTJVE PURCHASERS of
CONTAINJNATEd PROPERTY
Because settlements with prospective purchasers
are not expressly governed by CERCLA, there is
no legal requirement for public notice and
comment. However, in light of EPA's May 1995
policy of accepting "indirect public benefit" as a
partial consideration, and the fact that the PPAs
will provide contribution protection to the
purchaser, the surrounding community and other
members of the public should be afforded an
opportunity to provide comments on the settle-
ment, wherever feasible. This is particularly
important in urban communities and at facilities
where environmental justice is an issue.
At these sites, the Site Team should disseminate
information and facilitate public input. Seeking
cooperation with state and local government
agencies also may facilitate public awareness and
involvement. Additionally, the Site Team should
make a case-by-case determination of the need
and level of measures needed to ensure meaning-
ful community involvement with respect to the
agreement. Some PPAs may be subject to rela-
tively short deadlines. In these circumstances, the
Site Team should allow sufficient time for
appropriate approvals and public comment prior
to the deadline.
SUMMARY
The Superfund remedial process can be traumatic
for a community, and it is incumbent upon the
Agency to help citizens deal with it. It is in EPA's
best interest to involve citizens in every aspect of
the cleanup. The more they feel involved in the
decision-making process, the greater their sense
of ownership and buy-in, and the more readily
they will accept the proposed remedy.
48
-------
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
REMOVAL ACTIONS
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
llMTRoduCTJON
This chapter presents a comprehensive discussion
of how a Site Team should implement early and
meaningful community involvement during
removal actions. Removals are short-term re-
sponses to immediate threats to human health or
the environment. Since removals vary in their
duration, they present unique community involve-
ment challenges and opportunities. The type and
frequency of community involvement activities
will vary with the length and urgency of the
removal action. Consequently, the community
involvement approach for a removal action
should be flexible and responsive to changing site
conditions and to the needs of the surrounding
community.
"Be visible and available. Seek out oppor-
tunities to meet with community members
during their normal activities. Always find
the time to answer questions and listen to
concerns."
Paul Groulx, OSC, Region 1
In this chapter, community involvement ap-
proaches and methods are discussed for three
types of removal actions: emergency responses,
time-critical removals, and non-time-critical
removals. The unique community involvement
approach for each type of removal action is
discussed in detail. Required community involve-
ment activities, as well as recommended activities,
are presented, as is a discussion of the community
involvement challenges and opportunities posed by
removal actions. The chapter begins with an
overview of Superfund removal actions and
planning tips for conducting community involve-
ment and outreach during removal actions. A
variety of community involvement activities and
suggestions and the rationale for conducting them
are presented throughout the chapter. Details
about each activity are provided in the Commu-
nity Involvement Toolkit.
AbouT
AcrrioNS
REMOVAL
Removal actions are characterized by their
urgency and duration. There are three basic types
of removals:
1) Emergency Responses are short-term (one-day
to three months) actions requiring the immedi-
ate removal of hazardous materials to protect
human health and the environment. Typical
emergency responses address imminent
threats, such as fires, explosions, or toxic
spills. Communications focus on quickly
disseminating information to warn of the
potential threats and explain the protective
measures EPA is taking.
2) Time-Critical Removals are situations where
EPA must begin cleanup activities within six
months of discovery of hazardous materials to
protect public health and safety. Community
involvement and outreach activities are similar
to emergency responses, although more time
usually is available to plan outreach activities.
3) Non-Time-Critical Removals occur when EPA
determines that a removal action is appropriate
and the situation allows EPA a planning period
of six months or more prior to the beginning of
removal activities at the site. These sites do not
present an immediate threat to public health or
safety. In non-time-critical removals, EPA must
complete an Engineering Evaluation and Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) that describes the cleanup
and approach. Because of the longer time
frame, the community involvement and out-
reach activities are similar to those performed
for remedial actions.
Even though the response time varies according
to the type of removal, the key is developing a
successful outreach plan for the situation. Early
and continued community involvement and
outreach particularly for non-time-critical
removal actions will help promote community
acceptance of the cleanup solution and may
49
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
prevent or substantially reduce conflict with the
community or other stakeholders as the process
proceeds.
Roles ANd RESpoNsibilmES
The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is responsible
for all response activities conducted during a
removal action, including non-technical activities
such as communications, public outreach, and
community involvement. The OSC can delegate
these responsibilities to another OSC, a Commu-
nity Involvement Coordinator (CIC), or other
response agency personnel. Regardless of who
performs these functions, outreach, media rela-
tions, and community involvement activities are
important and necessary elements of a successful
cleanup conducted under removal authority.
Since the OSC is responsible for all site activi-
ties, he or she must decide early in the response
whether additional communications support and
expertise are needed. This decision should be
based upon the complexity and expected duration
of the removal action and the interest of the
community and the media. The OSC also relies
on advice and support from the CIC or Regional
press office when making decisions concerning
media relations and public outreach.
The CIC plays an important role in a removal
action. The role of the CIC in any type of re-
moval action is to support the OSC and serve as a
communications and outreach advisor. The OSC
depends on the CIC's expertise and capabilities
for developing and implementing a communica-
tion strategy for the removal action. This reliance
on the CIC by the OSC requires the CIC to
quickly gain an understanding of community
concerns and the media's needs during a removal
action and to develop a strategic plan to address
the communication/outreach needs. The CIC
advises the OSC of the communication/outreach
issues and the proposed communications plan.
After this consultation, the CIC coordinates with
the OSC to implement the communications plan.
Communications and outreach work best when
the OSC and the CIC work as a team to manage
all community involvement activities, including
community outreach, media relations, coordina-
tion with stakeholders, and information dissemi-
nation. A teaming arrangement allows the OSC to
focus on the technical issues concerning the
response while the CIC focuses on the communi-
cation and outreach issues. In this arrangement,
the OSC coordinates with the CIC to identify key
messages or technical issues that need to be
disseminated to the media or the surrounding
community. The OSC also keeps the CIC in-
formed of technical cleanup activities so that the
CIC can knowledgeably respond to questions
from the media or the community. The CIC
advises the OSC of key concerns of the media
and community and suggests approaches for
addressing those concerns.
PlANNJNq FOR
CoMMUIMicATioNS/OuTREAch
DimJNq REMOVAL ACTJONS
Once a removal action begins, the OSC and the
support team helping with communications
should be prepared to implement a variety of
communication and outreach activities quickly to
meet the needs of the community and other
stakeholders. To improve this capability, the EPA
removal Site Team should plan and prepare for
communications prior to removal actions. Pro-
vided below are several suggestions for planning
and preparing for a removal action:
Develop a "Response Communications
Toolkit" for emergency and time-critical
responses. The Toolkit should include: elec-
tronic templates of press releases and fact
sheets that explain EPA's role in responding to
the situation; checklists of activities to perform
at the incident; tips for dealing with the media;
and lists of contacts in the media and other
response organizations. The Toolkit also should
include a list of equipment and materials
50
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
needed for a field office, such as a laptop
computer, portable printer, printing paper,
notepads, pens, tape, stapler, folders, telephone
equipment, fax machine, and other basic office
equipment and materials.
Establish a network of contacts in the response
community at the local, state, and federal
level. In medium and large emergency re-
sponse situations, all three governmental levels
will be involved in the response.
Develop templates of communication strate-
gies to facilitate identification of key audi-
ences, messages, and communication ap-
proaches and methods.
Define roles and responsibilities of all re-
sponse personnel who will conduct communi-
cation and outreach activities. Understanding
the roles of each individual prior to the inci-
dent will improve teamwork and coordination
during the incident.
Participate in training and desktop exercises to
improve coordination pertaining to communi-
cations and outreach.
Become familiar with the Joint Information
Center (JIC) model for coordinating communi-
cations during multi-agency responses (See the
text box on page 54).
Develop fact sheets for each type of removal
action and fact sheet templates that can be
modified to address site-specific and commu-
nity needs.
HOW TO CoNduCT CoMMUIMJTy
llMVoLvEMEIMT/OuTREAch
DimJNq REMOVAL ACTJONS
The approach for conducting community involve-
ment and outreach at removal actions depends on
the severity and the duration of the particular
response. In all removal actions, certain activities
are required by the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). The number of required activities in-
creases with the duration of the response action
(see the summary of the required activities in the
Appendix). Experience has shown that meeting
the minimum requirements often is insufficient to
adequately meet the community's needs and
concerns. Performing the minimum communica-
tion/outreach activities can be sufficient at some
sites; however, at most sites much more needs to
be done. The OSC, with advice from the Site
Team, determines the extent of community
outreach and involvement needed for the particu-
lar response. This determination is best made by
conducting an analysis of the communication
needs for the specific removal action. Such a
determination can be accomplished through a
communications strategy.
A communication strategy is critical to a success-
ful outreach effort during removals (see the
Communication Strategy tool in the Toolkit). A
communication strategy answers four key ques-
tions: 1) Who are the individuals and organizations
impacted by the removal action (i.e., the audi-
ence)? 2) What are the key communication
issues, such as a community's needs and con-
cerns? 3) What are the key messages EPA needs
to convey to the public? and 4) Which techniques
or activities are most appropriate to meet the
community's needs or to convey EPA's message?
These questions need to be answered before any
communications or outreach activity is conducted.
These answers can be derived informally through
a discussion among Site Team members or
formally in a written document. For an emergency
response, a discussion typically suffices, given the
time constraints.
For time-critical and non-time-critical responses,
a formal document, such as a Community In-
volvement Plan (CIP), is more appropriate. A
Community Involvement Plan is required for
removals that require more than six months.
No single approach works for all sites or situa-
tions. The Site Team should be flexible and
willing to adjust the communication approach
and strategy. Regardless of the general communi-
cation strategy and the particular outreach
51
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Most removal actions are relatively small
in scope and limited to EPA or one other
state or federal agency. In these cases, the
OSC can manage the coordination of
communications and outreach. However,
some removal actions involve multiple
public or private agencies and organiza-
tions. For these occasions, the OSC
should consider establishing a Joint
Information Center (JIC).
A JIC is a centralized communications
hub designed to coordinate communica-
tions so that timely, useful, and accurate
information can be provided to the public
and media. The purpose of the JIC is to
gather incident data, analyze public
perceptions of the response, and inform
the public. Representatives from response
agencies are assigned specific functions
and tasks to manage information flow and
outreach during the incident. The JIC
structure works equally well for large or
small situations andean expand or con-
tract in size to meet the specific needs of
the incident.
Through a JIC, response agencies can
work together and speak with a single
voice. By maintaining a centralized
communication facility, resources are
better managed, the issuance of mixed
messages is reduced, and duplication of
effort is minimized. Use of a JIC allows
for tracking and maintaining records and
information more accurately.
Additional information on establishing a
JIC is available in a National Response
Team (NRT) document, Joint Information
Center Model: Collaborative Communica-
tions During Emergency Response.
activity, there are simple principles that make an
outreach program successful. These include:
Be available and accessible. Accessibility to
the community is critical to establishing EPA
as the leader of a removal action. The OSC or
the Site Team must anticipate and respond to
the fear, confusion, and concerns of the
community. Being available to answer ques-
tions or listen to concerns helps to address the
immediate insecurities and fears felt by many
community members. Accessibility also
increases the community's familiarity with
EPA and the Site Team, which ultimately
increases comfort level and reduces fear.
Respond quickly to community questions,
concerns, and needs. Responding quickly
increases the community's trust and confi-
dence in EPA and the Site Team. Conversely,
responding slowly, or not at all, increases the
community's fear and leads to mistrust. If time
is needed to respond to a request from a
stakeholder, explain when an answer will be
provided. Always follow up by explaining
what has or has not been done to address the
person's concern, even if the news is bad. A
person that does not hear back from EPA will
assume that he or she is being ignored.
Be honest and open. Never lie or be mislead-
ing. A community that learns that EPA staff
has been misleading will not believe EPA in
the future and will question every decision
EPA makes. If an answer is not known, say, "I
don't know but will find out." Once an answer
is in hand, follow up should be immediate.
Educate the impacted community about the
Superfund program, both in terms of what is
possible and not possible. This education will
help to manage expectations. If people under-
stand that EPA is prohibited legally from doing
something, they will not expect EPA to do it.
Conversely, if they do not understand what
cannot be done under the Superfund program,
they will wonder why it is not being done.
52
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Empathize with community members or other
stakeholders. Listen to people, be concerned,
and treat people as you would like to be treated
if you found yourself in similar circumstances.
Be creative and imaginative, particularly when
designing or implementing outreach activities.
Design activities to meet community needs.
Recognize that impacted citizens can be a
source of help to EPA. Local residents/busi-
ness owners often know what has occurred at a
site and can share this information with EPA.
However, EPA needs to ask questions or
encourage people to provide the information.
Also, local residents can help disseminate
information throughout the community.
Adopting these attitudes and principles helps to
establish a relationship of mutual respect and trust
with the community. Although stakeholders may
disagree with specific EPA decisions, they are
more likely to understand and accept the decisions
if they trust EPA and believe the decision-making
process is fair and considers their input.
When an OSC does an initial site assessment at a
potential removal site and determines the site
probably will require a removal action of more
than six months, the OSC or CIC should consider
canvassing the area and coordinating meetings
with local public officials and the media. This
can be an opportunity to gain a better understand-
ing of community concerns and to explain EPA's
emergency response and removal program. This
early involvement helps to build a relationship
with the community, and is particularly important
if the site becomes a non-time-critical removal or
a remedial action after a time-critical removal. A
well-informed community familiar with EPA and
its programs will be less skeptical of EPA deci-
sions made during for the longer-term cleanup.
"Take the time to anticipate public con-
cerns and likely reactions and develop
effective involvement strategies."
Andy Bain, CIC, Region 9
CoMMUIMJTy INVOLVEMENT/
OuTREAch DuRJNq ElMERqENCy
RESPONSES
By definition, an emergency is an unforeseen
event that requires immediate action. For EPA
and the OSC, the initial focus of a response
action is to eliminate the immediate threat or
potential threat. Equally important is communi-
cating with the impacted community to inform
them of events and to respond to questions.
During an emergency response, EPA needs to
give the public prompt, accurate information on
the nature of the release or threat of release and
the actions to mitigate the threat.
Emergency responses are designed to address
imminent threats such as fires, explosions, toxic
spills or any other immediate threat to public
health and the environment. They typically
involve:
Evacuating or temporarily relocating people to
remove them from direct harm;
Stabilizing or detonating flammable or explo-
sive hazardous materials;
Providing site security by posting signs,
erecting fences, or posting guards;
Providing an alternative water supply, such as
bottled water; and
Treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous
substances, such as controlling drainage,
stabilizing berms, draining lagoons, capping
soils or sludge, excavating and removing
contaminated soil, removing drums and other
containers, or using chemical stabilizers.
The OSC is authorized to take whatever steps are
necessary to protect the surrounding community.
This authority includes informing the media and
the community of the emergency and the re-
sponse plans. The NCP requires EPA to inform
the community and to designate a spokesperson
during an emergency response. The OSC can
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
serve as the spokesperson or that responsibility
can be delegated to a CIC or other qualified field
personnel. This decision should be made early in
the response, as soon as the OSC has determined
the potential communication needs for the
response. For multi-agency or complicated
responses, the OSC should consider establishing
a Joint Information Center (JIC) to handle
communications and outreach.
Community involvement and public outreach
during an emergency present many challenges
because of the time constraints and hectic nature
of the response, the potential involvement of
multiple agencies and organizations, and the
limited availability of resources. There is often
no pre-planning period. Regardless, successful
community involvement and public outreach can
be planned and implemented during emergencies.
See the section below entitled, "Community
Involvement During Time-Critical and Non-
Time-Critical Removal Actions," for planning
ideas and approaches that can be applied to
emergency response.
From the perspectives of surrounding residents
and business owners, an emergency response is a
potential threat to their health, family, and
property, and a significant disruption to their
daily routine and life. Consequently, local
residents and others impacted by the emergency
will be fearful, feel powerless, and possibly be
outraged. These concerns and feelings must be
addressed by the OSC or the Site Team. Provid-
ing frequent and timely information about the
emergency response and how it will impact
residents helps to alleviate some of these con-
cerns. In most cases, information about individual
sample results and health issues should be
disseminated directly to individuals. General
information can be disseminated through public
meetings, telephone calls, door-to-door visits, or
leaflets. In rare cases, critical information can be
disseminated quickly through the media. The
more personal the approach, the more comfort-
able people will become with the situation and
with EPA. The exception to this rule is if people
are in immediate danger. In such cases, all
communication avenues should be used, includ-
ing the media, door-to-door notification, radio
announcements, or any emergency response
notification procedures used by local authorities.
Provided below are specific activities and ap-
proaches that can be used to plan or conduct
community involvement and outreach activities
during an emergency response.
OuTREAch AcTivmES DimJNq EwERqENcy
RESPONSE
At a minimum, the Site Team needs to perform
three activities required by the NCP:
1) Designate an Agency 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.
2) Notify affected citizens. The spokesperson
must promptly notify the citizens immediately
affected by the release, as well as state and
local officials, and when appropriate, civil
defense or emergency management agencies.
3) Establish an administrative record. Staff
must establish an administrative record
containing documents that form the basis for
selecting the response action. The administra-
tive record must be available for public review.
Staff must notify the public of the availability
of the administrative record by publishing an
announcement in a major newspaper of
general circulation. For emergency responses
lasting less than 30 days, placement of the
administrative record file in one central
location fulfills statutory requirements.
The role of the agency spokesperson can be filled
by the lead OSC, a CIC, another OSC, or any
qualified field staff (see the Spokesperson tool in
the Toolkit). During complex, multi-agency
responses, the OSC should consider establishing
a JIC to coordinate the release of information to
54
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
the public through the media (see the Media tool
in the Toolkit).
The activities required by the NCP typically are
insufficient for informing the media, the public,
and interested stakeholders during an emergency
response. Many other options should be consid-
ered by the Site Team. Some of these options are:
Designate a communications lead, such as a
CIC, to advise the OSC on community involve-
ment issues and assist the OSC with the media.
Canvass the neighborhood to identify residents'
needs, fears, and concerns.
Formulate a quick communication strategy and
implement the approach and activities accord-
ingly.
Coordinate with Regional EPA staff to brief
them about the response and to ask for assis-
tance, if necessary. Specifically, contact the
Regional Press Office, Office of Congressional
Liaison, other OSCs and CICs, public affairs,
and state contacts.
Disseminate information to the media through
interviews, press briefings, and news releases.
Also see Chapter 7, "Dealing with the Media,"
in this Handbook. Prepare key messages for
interactions with the media. If no information
is available, tell the media that information
will be disseminated as soon as accurate
information becomes available. For press
briefings and interviews, identify a facility
(tent, office, trailer), schedule the briefing/
interview, and notify the press of the time and
location (see the Media tool in the Toolkit).
Distribute photographs. Take photographs or
use available photographs, maps, or aerial
photographs. These images can be distributed
to the media and the public, used to document
the response, or placed in fact sheets. This will
help satisfy the media's and public's need for
official information about the emergency (see
the Maps, and Aerial Photographs tool in the
Toolkit).
CoMMUNJTy INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERqENCy RESPONSES ANd REMOVAL ACTJONS
TypE of AciioN
AcriviTy -^^^
Designate an Agency spokesperson
Notify affected citizens
Establish an administrative record
Publish a notice of availability of the
administrative record
Hold a public comment period
Respond to public comments (prepare
a responsiveness summary)
Establish an information repository
Publish a notice of availability of the
information repository
Conduct community interviews
Prepare a Community Involvement
Plan
Publish a notice of availability and
a brief description of the EE/C A
Emergency Response
(On-site activity lasts
less than 30 days)
Time Critical Removal
(On-site activity lasts
less than 120 days)
*
"
Time Critical Removal
(On-site activity lasts
more than 120 days)
*
*
*
S
*
Non-Time
Critical Removal
*
*
S
"
S
"
*
55
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Distribute regular Facts Sheets to let residents
know about EPA's emergency response
activities. Use existing fact sheets on the
removal program, toxic spills, EPA's emer-
gency response program and other topics.
Develop new site-specific fact sheets using
templates developed for emergency response
situations (see the Fact Sheets tool in the
Toolkit).
Publicize and host Public Meetings to deliver
information to a large group of people, to let
community members voice their concerns, and
to foster interaction between the Site Team and
the community (see the Public Meetings tool
in the Toolkit).
Establish a local or toll-free Telephone hotline
and publicize its availability. The hotline can
be constantly manned to respond immediately
to questions, play taped announcements that
provide current updates on site activities, or
permit callers to leave messages or ask ques-
tions (see the Telephone tool in the Toolkit).
Be prepared to expand the community involve-
ment and outreach program when local resi-
dents need to be temporarily evacuated or
relocated to protect them from potential harm.
(see the Residential Relocation tool in the
Toolkit and Chapter 9, "Community Involve-
ment Activities During Residential Reloca-
tion," in this Handbook).
Determine community demographics and, if
necessary, translate documents or radio public
service announcements into appropriate
languages (see the Translation Services tool
in the Toolkit).
Develop a risk communication approach that
meets the needs of the community (see the
Risk Communication tool in the Toolkit and
Chapter 3, "Risk Communication," in this
Handbook). Emergency responses require
skilled risk communication and a willingness to
work with frightened residents and the media.
CoMMUIMJTy INVOLVEMENT/
OuTREAch DuRJNq TilME-
"Ask for help. If you sincerely seek informa-
tion or support from a community, you will
almost always get something worthwhile. "
Donn Walters, CIC, Region 6
REMOVAL ACTJONS
Since both time-critical and non-time-critical
removals have longer planning periods than
emergency response actions, more planning may
be devoted to community involvement and out-
reach activities. Additional activities are required
by the NCP, and supplemental activities may be
needed to adequately address community concerns
and needs. Although there are differences between
community involvement and outreach approaches
and activities for time-critical and non-time-critical
removals, the differences are due primarily to
regulatory requirements. Supplemental activities
and the rationale for conducting these activities at
each type of removal action are identical. The
specific requirements for each type of removal
action are listed in the chart on page 55.
In time-critical and non-time-critical removal
actions, EPA should perform outreach and other
community involvement activities as early as
possible. For example, the OSC, preferably with
a CIC, could meet with local officials, media, and
residents during the initial site assessment to
explain EPA's removal program. Early involve-
ment builds trust with the community and pro-
vides an opportunity for EPA to explain the
removal process. If the site is subject to a non-
time-critical removal or remedial action, a well-
informed community will be more supportive of
EPA's role as longer-term work continues.
The longer the removal action takes, the more
important it is to communicate and involve the
community. This communication can be done
through many different activities. The important
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
thing is to match the method with the situation so
that the purpose of the activity is met, whether it
is conveying information about the incident,
soliciting information about the site, or providing
training/educational materials about the Super-
fund program and process.
REMOVALS
A removal is time -critical when EPA has deter-
mined that there is no immediate emergency and
a removal must begin in less than six months to
prevent the situation at the site from becoming an
emergency. Although time-critical removals are
almost as urgent as emergency responses, they
provide more time for planning and conducting
removal activities. The NCP requires specific
community involvement activities during time-
critical removals.
The NCP (at 40 CFR 300.415(n)(2) and (3))
divides time-critical removals into two sets of
community involvement requirements (see the
table on page 55). The first set of applies when
less than six months exist before the removal
must begin. When less than six months exist
before removal initiation, the NCP lists commu-
nity involvement requirements that are similar to
those implemented during emergency response.
The second set applies when EPA determines that
the time-critical removal action will extend
beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site
response activities. Because there is more time,
the NCP adds more community involvement
requirements. The community involvement
requirements and recommendations for both sets
of time-critical removals are described below.
INoN'TiME'CRmcAl REMOVALS
A non-time-critical removal occurs when EPA
determines that a removal action is appropriate
and there is time for at least a six month planning
period prior to when the removal must start. The
Site Team must complete an Engineering Evalua-
tion and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for non-time-
critical removals. The EE/CA is similar to a
At a site where an emergency response was
underway, EPA discovered a corroded tank of
anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (HF) releasing
vapors. This discovery required evacuation
of about 400 residents while the HF was
transferred from the storage tank. The Site
Team agreed that early and frequent coordi-
nation with local officials and citizens was
essential. Their proactive coordination efforts
were richly rewarded: EPA gained added
information about the plant from people who
had worked there when it was active, and the
local government coordinated much of the
support for the HF transfer.
A coordination and planning group that
included staff from EPA, local government,
the state and other federal agencies, met
regularly to plan the evacuation. The OSC
reported that the group coordinated much
of the time-consuming logistical work re-
quired for the evacuation.
The group did not rely on newspaper notices
and fact sheets to keep the community in-
formed. Instead, local fire and police person-
nel went door-to-door in the evacuation area,
handing out flyers, explaining the situation,
reassuring residents, and delivering details
about safety plans. Local ministers kept their
congregations updated on the situation.
EPA and state and local agencies conducted a
public meeting two weeks before the evacua-
tion. Turnout was large, but residents were
not anxious or upset. The meeting pro-
ceeded in an orderly, cooperative manner,
andwas broadcast by a local TV station.
Although the evacuation itself was stress-
ful, it proceeded smoothly, with the com-
munity coming together in support of EPA.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
"Tremendous gains can be achieved by
partnering with community leaders to
engage the public."
Noemi Enteric, CIC, Region 5
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, except
that it is shorter and less formal. The EE/CA is an
important milestone for community outreach
activities because several of the NCP's commu-
nity involvement requirements hinge upon the
timing of the EE/CA. The next section provides a
complete description of these requirements.
OuTREAch AcTivmES FOR TiME'CRmcAL AN<|
REMOVALS
The initial communication/outreach activities
conducted during time-critical and non-time-
critical removal actions vary according to the
urgency of the response and the needs of the
impacted community. The NCP requires EPA to
perform several activities for time-critical and
non-time-critical removal actions.
The NCP lists the following required activities
for all time-critical and non-time-critical re-
sponses:
Designate an Agency 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.
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. The Site
Team must establish an administrative record
containing documents that support the selec-
tion of the response action. For time -critical
and non-time-critical removals, the administra-
tive record must be available at both a central
location and at or near the site (see the Infor-
mation Repository tool in the Toolkit).
Publish a notice of availability of the
administrative record. The Site Team must
notify the public of the availability of the
administrative record within 60 days of the
initiation of on-site removal activity by
publishing an announcement in a major local
newspaper of general circulation (see the
Public Notices tool in the Toolkit). The Site
Team also must inform the public when
information repositories, which may house the
administrative record, are created.
Hold a public comment period. If appropri-
ate, the Site Team shall provide a public
comment period of no less than 30 days from
the time that the administrative record file is
made available for public inspection. A
comment period is appropriate if cleanup
activity is ongoing at the time the administra-
tive record is made available for public
inspection and if the comments received from
the public are expected to affect future action
at the site (see the Public Comment Periods
tool in the Toolkit).
Prepare a responsiveness summary. The Site
Team must prepare a written response to
significant comments and new data submitted
during the public comment period. The respon-
siveness summary should be placed in the
administrative record (see the Responsiveness
Summaries tool in the Toolkit).
The role of the Agency spokesperson can be
filled by the lead OSC, a CIC, another OSC, or
any qualified field staff (see the Spokesperson
tool in the Toolkit). Staff must coordinate with the
OSC about all news releases or statements made
by participating agencies.
AddmoNAl AcTivmES FOR TiME'CRmcAL
REMOVALS ExTENdiNq BEyoNd 1 20 DAys
The NCP requires more community involvement
and outreach activities during time-critical
removals that are expected to extend beyond 120
days from the initiation of the removal. When the
Site Team becomes aware that the removal action
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
will extend beyond 120 days, the NCP requires
the Site Team to perform the following activities.
These activities must be completed within 120
days of the initiation of the removal action:
Conduct community interviews. The Site
Team must conduct interviews with local
officials, community residents, public interest
groups, or other interested or affected parties
to solicit their information needs and concerns,
and determine how or when citizens would
like to become involved in the Superfund
process (see the Community Interviews tool
in the Toolkit).
Prepare a Community Involvement Plan.
The Site Team must prepare a Community
Involvement Plan (referred to as a "Commu-
nity Relations Plan" in the NCP and previous
guidance documents) based on the community
interviews and other relevant information. The
plan specifies the community involvement
activities that the agency expects to undertake
during the response (see the Community
Involvement Plan tool in the Toolkit).
Establish an information repository. The
Site Team must establish at least one local
information repository at or near the location
of the response action. The information
repository must contain the administrative
record and other documents (see the Informa-
tion Repository tool in the Toolkit). The
information repository is meant to provide the
public easier access to site-related documents.
All items in the repository must be made
available for copying.
Publish a notice of availability of the infor-
mation repository. The Site Team must
inform the public of the information reposi-
tory. If the Site Team knows that site work will
extend beyond 120 days, it can publish a single
public notice to announce the availability of
both the information repository and the
administrative record, (see the Public Notices
tool in the Toolkit).
AddmoNAl OuTREAch AcTivmES FOR
REMOVALS
For non-time-critical removal actions, the NCP
requires activities similar to those required for
time-critical removals extending beyond 120
days, but they occur on a different schedule. The
timing of community involvement and outreach
events for non-time-critical removals depends
upon the schedule for development and approval
of the EE/CA. Activities must be performed prior
to completion of the EE/CA, when it is approved,
and after it is announced.
By the time the EE/CA approval memorandum is
signed, the Site Team must:
Establish an information repository. Estab-
lish at least one local information repository at
or near the site so the public will have easy
access to site-related information and docu-
ments. The information repository must
contain the administrative record and other
appropriate items, and these items must be
available for copying (see the Information
Repository tool in the Toolkit).
Publish a notice of availability of the infor-
mation repository and administrative
record. The Site Team must notify the public
of the availability of the administrative record
and the information repository within 60 days
of the initiation of on-site removal activity by
publishing an announcement in a major local
newspaper of general circulation (see the
Public Notices tool in the Toolkit).
Prior to completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team
must:
Conduct community interviews. The Site
Team must conduct interviews with local
officials, community residents, public interest
groups, or other interested or affected parties
to solicit their concerns, information needs,
and elicit how or when citizens would like to
be involved in the Superfund process (see the
Community Interviews tool in the Toolkit).
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Prepare a Community Involvement Plan.
The Site Team must prepare a formal Commu-
nity Involvement Plan based on the community
interviews and other relevant information. The
plan must specify the community involvement
activities that EPA expects to undertake during
the response (see the Community Involve-
ment Plans tool in the Toolkit}.
After completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team
must:
Publish a notice of availability of the EE/
CA. The Site Team must publish a public
notice of the availability and a brief descrip-
tion of the EE/CA in a major local newspaper
(see the Public Notices tool in the Toolkit).
Hold a public comment period. After the
completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team must
provide a public comment period of no less
than 30 days for the submission of written and
oral comments on the EE/CA. Upon timely
request (defined as those the Agency receives
approximately two weeks before the close of
the comment period), the Site Team should
extend the public comment period by a mini-
mum of 15 days (see the Public Comment
Periods tool in the Toolkit).
Prepare a responsiveness summary. The Site
Team must prepare a written response to
significant written and oral public comments
submitted during the public comment period.
The responsiveness summary must be placed
in the information repository (see the Respon-
siveness Summaries tool in the Toolkit).
RECOMMENdEd OuTREAch AcTJVmES FOR INON'
REMOVALS
While conducting time-critical and non-time-critical
removals, the Site Team may determine that
additional community involvement and outreach
activities should be performed to adequately meet
the needs of the community. The OSC or the Site
Team should consider:
Designating a communications leader, such
as a CIC, to advise the OSC on community
involvement activities and relieve the OSC of
the responsibility of dealing with the media.
Preparing a communication strategy. For
time-critical removals extending beyond 120
days and for non-time-critical removals, the
Community Involvement Plan serves as the
communication strategy and plan for the
response. For a shorter duration time-critical
removal, the Site Team must develop an infor-
mal communications strategy to plan community
involvement and outreach activities. A communi-
cation strategy can be as simple as a checklist.
Developing a checklist to track community
involvement activities and ensure activities are
completed within the often chaotic schedule of a
removal action. The checklist typically consists
of three components:
1. People to contact, including U.S. Senators
and Representatives, mayors, newspapers,
TV and radio stations, concerned citizens,
and impacted residents.
2. Major site events and background infor-
mation that, at a minimum, includes infor-
mation about the location of the release and
how it was identified, what caused the
release of hazardous substances, what
hazardous substances are or are suspected to
be present, the nature of the threat posed by
the release, what action is planned, and what
actions already have been conducted.
3. Community involvement activities that
EPA will conduct. These activities should
be related to various target audiences (e.g.,
public officials, the media, and community
residents) at a removal scene. This list
should correspond to the CIP for the site.
Distributing regular Fact Sheets to let resi-
dents know about EPA's response activities.
These fact sheets should be site specific and
brief, typically no more than two pages long. It
is better to issue multiple fact sheets, each
concerned with a single subject or message,
than to issue a lengthy fact sheet with too
many messages or too much information. Brief
60
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
fact sheets are read; longer ones usually are
not (see the Facts Sheets tool in the Toolkit) .
Producing site-specific Videos. Videos allow
residents to see what is happening and
progress made at the site. They give residents a
clear picture of site activity in ways that
written materials cannot. These can be pro-
duced by a contractor and distributed to local
news or cable stations. They also should be
placed in the information repository (see the
Videos tool in the Toolkit).
Publicizing and hosting Public Meetings to
deliver information to a large group of people,
to let community members voice their con-
cerns, and to foster interaction between the
Site Team and the community. Be aware,
however, that public meetings can be the least
effective way of soliciting or distributing
information. To ensure a public meeting is
useful to both EPA and the community, consult
the community when planning the meeting. If
possible, let local residents plan the agenda
and determine the time and location (see the
Public Meetings tool in the Toolkit) .
Hosting Public Availability/Poster Sessions
where EPA staff or other experts can discuss
cleanup activities with residents. Another
option is to display posters that describe
cleanup activities and to have EPA staff
available to answer questions. Posters also can
be displayed in public areas, such as libraries
or grocery stores (see the Public Availability/
Poster Sessions tool in the Toolkit).
Using Informal Activities such as unstruc-
tured community visits to give people a chance
to meet EPA staff and to discuss the site in a
relaxed atmosphere. This can be a very effec-
tive method for distributing information
quickly, and sends the message that EPA
wants to keep the community informed. One
approach is to go to every home in a given area
and talk with residents or distribute materials.
Possible materials include fact sheets, updates,
meeting notices, work schedules, and notices of
road closings or changes in traffic patterns.
Since placing materials in mail boxes is against
federal law, use door hangers to leave informa-
tion (see the Informal Activities tool in the
Toolkit).
Making Presentations to brief local officials
about the threat remaining at the site and the
progress being made by EPA to address it (see
the Presentations tool in the Toolkit).
At a removal site in California, EPA over-
came considerable community resistance
caused by a history of problems with state
regulators and earlier missteps caused by
inadequate development of its risk commu-
nication messages.
The Site Team mounted a proactive, ener-
getic, and focused effort to reach out to the
community, beginning with a strategy to
engage the community. They offered work-
shops and poster sessions, made door-to-
door visits, engaged in dialogue with focus
groups, distributed easy to understand fact
sheets, and established an Internet-based
database of resources. Eventually, EPA
facilitated a successful private buy-out deal
between the site's PRPs and 65 residents.
Because of the attention and persistence,
the Site Team's relationship with the com-
munity finally began to improve. The same
community organizer who earlier criticized
the Agency called the Community Involve-
ment Coordinator "a genuine partner, " and
praised the commitment and motivation of
the Site Team. Eventually, the community
accepted compromise solutions based on an
increasing trust in EPA. A Community
Advisory Panel, organized by both EPA and
the PRPs, is now focusing on land reuse
options to be funded by the PRPs.
61
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Building an observation deck. Removals are
especially conducive to the use of observation
decks. These structures, built high and within
exclusion zones, enable people to get a
clear view of activities as they occur. An
observation deck also can be used for site tours
(see the On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).
Using press briefings, and news releases. Most
local stations will broadcast public service
announcements related to sites. Many radio or
TV stations also have live call-in shows on
which the Site Team can appear. These outlets
allow residents to speak with the Site Team
and ask questions, and the Site Team can
describe cleanup plans and progress. When
working with the media, the Site Team needs
to develop messages and repeat them fre-
quently to ensure that important information is
conveyed to the public (see the Media tool in
the Toolkit and Chapter 7, "Dealing with the
Media," in this Handbook).
Producing and distributing Maps and Aerial
Photographs. Use existing photographs or
maps, or take photographs. Use a digital
camera if possible because the pictures can be
printed immediately if a color printer is
available. Digital pictures are easy to include
in press briefings and fact sheets. Maps and
photographs can be distributed to the media
and the public or included in site fact sheets or
other educational materials (see the Maps and
Aerial Photographs tool in the Toolkit).
Being prepared to expand the community
involvement program if impacted residents and
businesses have to be temporarily or perma-
nently relocated. During relocations, the
community involvement program needs to be
expanded significantly to adequately inform
and advise residents about relocation as well as
to identify and address their unique needs and
concerns (see the Residential Relocation
tool in the Toolkit and Chapter 9, "Community
Involvement Activities During Residential
Relocation," in this Handbook).
Establishing on-site information offices to
collect and distribute information and interact
with the public. These offices are a necessity
at complex sites, especially those involving
relocation of residents.
Establishing a local or toll-free Telephone
Hotline and publicizing its availability. The
hotline can be staffed continually to respond
immediately to questions, it can play taped
announcements that provide updates on site
activities, or it can permit callers to leave
messages (see the Telephone tool in the
Toolkit).
Translating documents or providing transla-
tors, if a portion of the impacted residents are
non-English speaking (see the Translation
Services tool in the Toolkit for suggestions and
approaches for obtaining translation services).
Developing a risk communication approach
that meets the needs of the community. Long-
term removals require skilled risk communica-
tion and a willingness to work with frightened
residents (see the Risk Communication tool
in the Toolkit and Chapter 3 in this Handbook.
SUMMARY
Removal actions can be frightening to communi-
ties because they happen quickly. The key is to
remember that removal actions are faster and
more fluid than remedial actions. They allow less
time for planning and require the Site Team to be
flexible and responsive. It is in EPA's best interest
to involve citizens in every aspect of the action.
Involving citizens early and sharing information
can help ensure a safe and quick response action.
62
-------
CHAPTER 7 DEALING WITH THE
MEDIA
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
IN GENERAL
The media is the best means of reaching a large
audience quickly. However, unless an advertise-
ment is being purchased, the media decides what
they will cover and how. The Site Team can
influence the media's decisions by fostering a
relationship with them and by using and repeating
carefully defined messages.
"Be willing to shed your own preconcep-
tions and to listen to and learn from your
critics. Share ownership, responsibility,
work, and credit."
Fred MacMillan, RPM, Region 3
The Site Team usually work with the media under
two circumstances:
1) When EPA wants to use the media: EPA has
something it wants the media to disseminate to
the public; and
2) When the media wants to use EPA: someone is
covering a story that directly or indirectly
relates to the site.
In reality, news issued by the Site Team is a
publicity release rather than "news,"/?er se.
Although the Site Team may believe an an-
nouncement is news, the media often defines
news as something that is different, unexpected,
or controversial. Information about a local
Superfund site can be newsworthy, but it must be
immediate in nature to be considered news.
Information generally is not considered news if it
happened days ago, or will happen in the future.
Most citizens consider developments related to
local Superfund sites to be news and look for this
information in local media outlets. It is appropri-
ate to use the media to publicize a site-related
decision, an upcoming meeting, changes in
schedule, or changes in activities or expectations.
However, the decision about what is "news" rests
with the editor, so unless information is placed in
a paid advertisement, little control can be exerted
over what reporters or editors do with a news
release.
For this reason, the Site Team should deliver the
message to affected residents and local officials
first. Deliver the message directly to them, and
then use the media to reinforce it and distribute it
further. Remember that people would rather learn
about important issues that affect them from
someone directly rather than by reading about it
in the newspaper. However, in an emergency, it is
imperative to reach the media first to alert the
public of any dangers.
Work on presenting a well-defined message and
building a good relationship with the reporters
and editors. A positive relationship will improve
the odds that the media will pick up and use your
message with as little alteration as possible. To
do this effectively, learn how each medium
gathers and presents news and understand the
different needs of radio, television, and print
media. News releases should be tailored to each
medium (see the Media tool and its attachments,
especially Attachment 1: "Guidelines for Work-
ing with the Media," in the Toolkit).
The Site Team should always be aware of media
deadlines, especially it is a resource for a story. If
a deadline is not met, another source will be used,
and the missed deadline will be remembered.
At a Superfund site where the cleanup was
completed, enabling site deletion from the
NPL, the Community Involvement Coordi-
nator crafted a final message-specific
strategy. The key message she wanted to
convey was that the successful site cleanup
resulted from two factors: community
partnerships and an important technologi-
cal advancement developed at the site that
cut cleanup time by 50%. By crafting a
well-defined and newsworthy angle, (the
technological breakthrough), her message
received Regional front-page coverage.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
It is best to use a combination of the following
two approaches to media coverage:
Paid media. Media space or time is purchased
from a media outlet. This media is advertising,
and it is the only way to guarantee total control
of the message.
Unpaid media. The media chooses to cover
site news as a story. The Agency has less
control over how the story is reported, but, in
return, the Agency can benefit from the
increased credibility of the story stemming
from the independence of the reporter. The
Agency can improve the chances that a mes-
sage in such a story will be clearly communi-
cated by anticipating the hard questions,
repeating the carefully designed messages, and
earning the media's trust as a resource.
BE A RESOURCE
Becoming a resourse is the first step in building
good media relations. To be an effective resource,
the Site Team must be an accessible and credible
source of information, whether the news is good
or bad. Working as an effective resource in-
creases the likelihood that the media will work
cooperatively with the Site Team when needed.
Do not fear working with the media, which is
rarely out to "get" anyone. Good reporters are
unbiased and do not give preferential treatment.
Remember that the media's job is to smell out a
good story. Never evade and never lie, because
the lie will become the story. Likewise, remember
that good reporters are never "off duty." Thus,
avoid making glib or "off the record" comments.
Build The RElvrioNship
Building a good working relationship with the
media is as important as getting the facts to the
media. Becoming a reliable source of credible
information is key. Here are some other sugges-
tions for building a relationship with the media:
Stop by reporters' offices whenever possible,
bring them up to date, and ask if they need
anything.
While visiting the reporter, occasionally visit
the editor (print), assignment editor (TV), or
news director (radio) for the same purpose.
Invite reporters to the site and give them a tour.
Whenever something interesting is occurring,
invite the media to cover it.
If a reporter calls you on a slow news day to
solicit some "news," seize the opportunity and
do your best to find something.
If a story is inaccurate, call the reporter and
explain what's wrong, but never complain.
Learn and remember the different styles and
needs of each media outlet with which you
work, and attend to them as much as possible.
Have current information packets available for
new reporters assigned to the Superfund site.
Be patient with reporters. They cover many
stories and may need to be reminded about the
site, even though you recently visited or talked
with them.
USE The MedJA Tools
The news release and the media log are important
tools for working with the media. Both are
discussed in the Media tool in the Toolkit. The
Media tool also has the following nine attach-
ments: Guidelines for Working with the Media;
How to Choose a Medium; Guidelines for
Picking a Media Event; How to Reach the Media;
How to Prepare a News Release; Sample News
Release; Other Media Tools; Media Log; and
Message Template.
WoRkJNq wiih ihe MedJA IN
ElMERqENCy SJTUATJONS
In emergency situations, it is often more effective
to deal with the media first rather than directly
with affected residents, since broadcast media can
provide a "real time" means of reaching the most
64
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
people in an emergency. Plus, hazardous material
emergencies tend to be news, and the media will
almost certainly cover the story.
Depending on the situation, it may be necessary
to have officials, possibly local authorities, go
door-to-door to alert people of the incident and
actions to take. Public meetings, availabilities,
and site tours are not typically appropriate until
the site has emerged from emergency status. Until
that time, the attention of the responding team
must be focused on stabilizing the emergency.
CONTACT
One of the key goals is to make the response
team's job easier by assigning a member of the
Site Team, such as an On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) or Community Involvement Coordinator
(CIC), to handle the media and the nontechnical
aspects of the response. The best way to view this
goal is by thinking in terms of information. The
more information the media contact provides to
the media and the public, the less the Site Team
members will be distracted by information
seekers. Make it known that this person is the
first point of contact for anyone wanting or
needing information.
EsTAblish BouNdARJES ANd STRUCTURE
If possible, establish a media perimeter. Depend-
ing on the situation, this perimeter may be out of
the Agency's hands. When establishing bound-
aries, remember the media's need for "visuals."
Placing them too far away will frustrate the
media. Do what is possible within the parameters
of safety and good sense to accommodate them.
Establish a place for media briefings based on
factors such as the perimeter of the site, the
terrain, the number of media present, and the type
of media present (TV, radio, or print). Each type
of media has different needs. The place selected
may range from a nearby hotel conference room
to a spot in front of a fence or in a field. Consider
the backdrop for the visuals.
Identify and work with other on-scene media
relations specialists as needed. In particular, bear
in mind that other interested parties, including
PRPs, will have public relations workers on the
ground and in contact with the media. Use the
Joint Information Center (JIC) approach when-
ever possible (see Chapter 6).
Identify the time for the first media briefing. Try
to schedule this time within the first half-hour of
the spokesperson's arrival on scene. The spokes-
person should inform the media and the Site
Team about when and where the first briefing
will be held. Decide who among the Site Team
will give a statement at the first media briefing.
Find a place to prepare for media briefings. Time
is needed to prepare key messages and set the
guidelines for the scene, including a schedule for
daily media briefings and other interviews with
the Site Team members. Consider forming a
media pool to limit access to the site. A pool
consists of one TV crew, a radio reporter, and a
print reporter and photographer, all of whom
agree to share their material with the other
interested media outlets. Members of a pool
should be chosen by their colleagues, not by EPA.
The NEWS CycU
News has a life cycle. The initial cycle begins
when the media first learn of the situation and
decides to cover it and lasts until the next dead-
line. Each subsequent cycle is about 24 hours.
However, new technology used by the electronic
media is making this less predictable. The first
news cycle is the critical one because this is when
EPA must deliver its message, establish the
Agency as competent and caring, and designate
the Site Team spokesperson as the point of
contact.
Be aware of subsequent news cycles. After the
first day, unless things continue to happen, the
event becomes less newsworthy. Subsequent
cycles provide opportunities to keep the media
informed and to provide updates. Continue to
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
hold briefings as long as necessary and appropri-
ate. As long as pertinent information is presented,
the media will keep coming. If briefings are held
just to hold briefings, the media will stop attend-
ing. Always answer questions that were left
unanswered in the previous briefing.
LOCAL MediA VERSUS NATJONA!.
Do not succumb to the perceived importance of
the national media at the expense of the local
media. Local media should have priority in most
cases. The national media eventually will leave,
but the local media will remain interested long
after the site has been stabilized. For formal
briefings in a room, set aside the front row of
seats for the local media. During question ses-
sions, make it a point to pick a local person for
the first question and, if possible, the last.
ThJNk VisuAls
Select visual aids to be shown to the media. If
none are available, determine when some may
become available. Get a map and distribute it to
the media as soon as possible (include in the map
the location of the media area and the location of
future media briefings). Try to have one addi-
tional visual aid in each of the first few briefings.
Visual aids can be an updated map, a tour of a
small part of the affected area, a graph of accept-
able levels, a fact sheet on the contaminant with a
picture, a clear jar filled with some of the con-
taminant, or anything else that is appropriate.
"No COMMENT," "OFF ThE REtond/'ANd "Nor
FOR
Never lie or evade. Never say "no comment"
without explaining the policy behind why you
cannot comment (e.g., "It is EPA policy to not
speculate on such matters"). Do not make "off the
record" comments. Determine whether you need
to coordinate with a public affairs or press office
or can deal directly with the media (see the
Media tool in the Toolkit).
CLosuRE/CRmouE
Do not leave the media "in the lurch." Space
briefings out when new information is slow. The
media will sense this winding down as closure.
The Site Team should continue to help the media
meet their deadlines and ensure they know the
spokesperson can be reached. The media should
know that one or more members of the Site Team
is available for other issues and can become a
valuable resource for them.
Keep media contacts on the mailing list as the
cleanup continues. Most of the media will
continue to update the story, but may not have a
crew on site. Be honest with them about time
frames regarding new information.
Before they leave, ask for feedback on what went
well and what could be improved. Most journal-
ists will offer feedback. If they are unable to do
so because of a deadline, ask if you can call them
at a more convenient time. After the media have
departed, the Site Team should review notes and
do a self-critique. What went well? Was it
planned or did it just happen that way? What
could have been done to make it better?
SUMMARY
The media can be a strong asset for Superfund
outreach efforts, but do not assume the media can
be controlled or used at will. Appoint a media
contact to be a ready, accessible, and credible
source of information. Understand that news is
what the editor says it is. The Site Team can
influence the media's decisions about what is
news by fostering its relationship with the media,
by using carefully defined messages, and by
repeating those messages frequently. Pay atten-
tion to media deadlines. Unless there is an
emergency situation, go to your primary audience
before you go to the media.
66
-------
CHAPTER 8 COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT AT FEDERAL
FACILITIES
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
THE FedeRAl GOVERNMENT AS
OWNER of SupERPuNd SJTES
This chapter describes community involvement at
Superfund sites that are owned or operated by the
federal government. While the basic steps in the
Superfund process are the same for federal
facilities as for other sites, there are important
differences in the way community involvement is
conducted at these sites and the role of EPA's Site
Team. This chapter highlights the relationship
between EPA and the federal agency responsible
for the cleanup of a facility and special concerns
that should be addressed in community involve-
ment strategies at federal facilities. Roles for the
Site Team members at these sites may range from
oversight of the process, to advising the federal
site owner, to cooperative management of day-to-
day community involvement activities. This
chapter also describes Superfund community
involvement policies and practices of the Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) and Department of
Defense (DoD)the two largest owners of
federal facilitiesand discusses the roles of
DOE's Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs)
and DoD's Restoration Advisory Board (RABs).
The roles and responsibilities for the Site Team
involved in Superfund cleanups at federal facilities
differ from those at non-federal sites in a
number of ways. The regulatory enforcement tools
available to EPA, the community involvement
policies of the federal Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP), and public perceptions all may vary
somewhat from non-federal facility cleanups. As
at all Superfund sites, there are three categories of
stakeholders with an interest in the outcome at
federal facility sites: the regulators (EPA and state
agencies), the regulated (federal site owners), and
the public. The key difference at federal facilities
is the relationship between the regulator and
regulated party as parts of the same government
and the effect of this relationship on the percep-
tions of the public. It may not seem this way to
personnel within a particular agency or depart-
ment, but as far as the public is concerned, the
federal government is a single entity that "speaks
with a single voice," as reflected in the conduct
and outcome of a federal action.
"Getting the public more involved is the
right thing to do and will usually lead to
better decisions."
David Page, RPM, Department of Energy
Given this perceived conflict of interest, the
federal government should avoid adopting the
"DAD" (Decide, Announce, and Defend) ap-
proach in its interactions with the public for
federal facility cleanups. The most important
thing to remember is that regardless of the roles,
perspectives, and outlooks of the various federal
agencies involved in the cleanup of the site, the
public generally sees the federal government as a
monolith that should be taking care of a problem
that it never should have created in the first place.
According to government estimates, federal
facilities account for approximately half of the
liability for Superfund cleanups across the U.S.,
including the largest single sites and the sites
with the widest varieties of contamination. These
sites pose the greatest cleanup challenges. Long-
term cleanup time and cost estimates for federal
facilities range up to 75 years and $400 billion.
llMTERAqENCy AqREEMENTS
EPA's CERCLA enforcement responsibilities
extend to federal facilities. The consequence of
this authority, coupled with the liability owner-
ship circumstances described above, is that the
federal government must enforce CERCLA as
much against itself as against any other group of
responsible parties. Normally, the federal govern-
ment can not sue itself. Conflicts between a
federal regulatory agency (such as EPA) and a
regulated federal agency (such as DoD and DOE)
may occur, but, within Superfund, these conflicts
are not resolved as at other NPL sites, where EPA
67
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
is able to compel PRP activities through consent
decrees, administrative orders, and cost recovery
actions. Rather, Superfund cleanups at federal
facilities depend on the ability of federal regula-
tors and responsible parties to agree on and carry
out a remedy. The negotiated agreement reached
by EPA and the federal party responsible for the
cleanup of a federal facility is embodied in the
interagency agreement (IAG). lAGs cover the
post-RI/FS steps in the remedial process for the
site, including remedy selection, design, imple-
mentation, operation, and maintenance. The IAG
also should cover community involvement
requirements for the facility, including the
framework for community involvement.
While the regulatory framework and implementa-
tion tools for federal facility cleanups differ from
those at other remedial sites, the steps in the
Superfund process and the basic tenets and
requirements of CERCLA, including community
involvement requirements, apply equally at
federal facilities. Equal application means that
any and all public notice, comment, and meeting
requirements, administrative record requirements,
and other community involvement requirements
must be followed at federal facilities. Similarly,
the community involvement strategies discussed
in Chapter 5 should form the basis for a sound
Community Involvement Plan at federal facilities.
Bear in mind, the only thing that distinguishes
federal facilities from other NPL sites is the
relationship of EPA as regulator to the regulated
federal site owner; the same rules apply to all
sites, as do the same strategies for effective
community involvement.
CoOpERATJON ANd
COMMUNICATION
The keys to successful community involvement at
federal facilities are cooperation between EPA
and the responsible federal agency and prompt,
effective communication between these agencies
and the local community. Cooperation between
federal agencies and communication with the
public are especially important given the conflict
of interest and accountability issues that appear
whenever the federal government enforces a law
against itself. The public will not be interested in
the particulars of any conflicts between EPA and
the federal site owner, and may cast a suspicious
eye on any delays in the cleanup process caused
by such conflicts as part of a pattern of the
government "going easy" on itself.
With regard to effective communication, a 1993
report by the Federal Facility Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC)
identified three weaknesses in the ways that
federal agencies disseminate information on
federal facilities cleanups:
Stakeholder opinions are often solicited late in
the process after site investigations are com-
pleted;
The extent and effectiveness of information
dissemination and exchange are inconsistent
among agencies; and
Stakeholders perceive that their requests for
information are treated by federal agencies as
burdensome rather than as a right of citizen-
ship.
In response, FFERDC recommended three
principles to guide information dissemination
during federal facilities cleanups:
Federal agencies have an obligation to ensure
that information is provided to interested
parties within regulatory and resource con-
straints;
Information dissemination and exchange
processes should ensure the timely release of
information to public stakeholders and provide
the basis for informed involvement in decision
making; and
Information dissemination and exchange
processes must be consistent with the Freedom
of Information Act.
68
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
EPA AS AdvisoR AT Fed ERA!.
FAci lilies
At most federal facility sites, the role of EPA's
Site Team is best described as an advisor to the
federal agency leading the cleanup. The basic
strategies for effective community involvement
(early involvement, a meaningful role for local
stakeholders in decision making, attention to the
special needs of the community) are the same at
federal facilities as they are at other sites. The
difference is that the Site Team, as an advisor to
the process, is one step removed from ensuring
that effective strategies are implemented, increas-
ing the need for prompt and effective communi-
cation and coordination with the federal PRP in
the development of the Community Involvement
Plan for the site. The Site Team should do more
than simply make themselves available to the
federal PRP as needed. EPA is the expert among
federal agencies on Superfund community
involvement and should do all it can to guide
community involvement at federal facilities to
ensure success, even if it is not the lead agency at
the site.
FAciliiy AdvisoRy
BoARds
In its interim and final reports, the FFERDC
recommended that responsible federal agencies
establish advisory boards at federal facilities to
provide stakeholders with a formal mechanism
for sharing information and participating in
decisions that affect the health and environment
of their communities. In response, DOE estab-
lished SSABs, while DoD formed RABs. These
advisory boards are established either upon the
initiative of the federal agency or in response to
stakeholder interest. As of June 1998, more than
200 SSABs and RABs have been established.
These boards serve as valuable conduits between
the federal government and the public by provid-
ing opportunities for regular contact between the
agencies and public stakeholders. Through these
boards, the parties are able to discuss their
concerns and better understand the competing
needs and requirements of the government and
local citizens. The boards augment citizen
evaluations of site plans for technical adequacy.
The boards also broaden the scope of decision
making to account for local stakeholder issues in
addition to consideration of technical data
required under CERCLA's public comment rules.
SSABs and RABs are intended to complement
and facilitate existing community involvement
activities rather than supplant broader community
involvement, since not everyone with an interest
in the facility may have the time, ability, or
inclination to serve on a board. EPA Site Teams
and their federal agency counterparts should
ensure that all stakeholder concerns have an
opportunity to be heard and that these advisory
boards do not become the only means of commu-
nity involvement at federal facilities.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
70
-------
CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES DURING
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
WhEN RESJdENTJAl RELOCATJON
is PART of The RESPONSE
ACTJON
This chapter describes community involvement at
Superfund sites where temporary or permanent
relocation of residents on or near the site is part
of the remedy. While the basic guidelines for
effective community involvement are the same
for relocation sites as for other sites, there are
special challenges facing the Site Team in these
communities. In general, community involvement
and other staff should be prepared to go the extra
mile in these communities, where residents must
deal with both threats of real and perceived
contamination prior to the relocation, and the
prospect and reality of being moved out of their
homes and communities.
Close management of the situation and constant
communication among all stakeholders in the
relocation process are the keys to effective
community involvement at these sites, and these
requirements will be invoked repeatedly in this
chapter. This chapter also explains EPA's interim
policy on Superfund-related relocations, the
Uniform Relocation Act, administered by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and the use of
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) and Commu-
nity Advisory Groups (CAGs) at relocation sites.
The roles and responsibilities for the Site Team at
relocation sites can be seen as "Community
Involvement Plus." Everything in the previous
chapters in this Handbook applies to relocation
sites before consideration of the special needs of
communities that will be relocated as part of a
remedy. Relocation settlements can take years to
negotiate and complete. In the meantime, resi-
dents are living on or near contaminated sites.
These residents share the same concerns regard-
ing the threat of contamination posed by the site,
and the plans for dealing with those threats, as
residents at other Superfund sites. Added to these
concerns is the relocation itself and the special
concerns it raises, such as a fair appraisal,
adequate compensation, and the stress of finding
a new home. These difficulties can be compli-
cated by the hard feelings that can arise at the
perceived injustice of the situation, by the lack of
trust of the government, and by other apprehen-
sions that arise from being uprooted. The Site
Team must have a thorough understanding of the
relocation process and sensitivity to the needs of
the residents. This understanding will help
residents get through this very difficult transition.
"Community involvement [at relocation
sites] is most effective when it commences
as soon as the first article appears in the
local newspaper."
Anna Gabahki, NY State Dept. of Health
Given the added stress placed on residents who
will be relocated, trust-building is of paramount
importance for the Site Team at relocation sites.
As always, building trust depends on open,
honest communication and attention to the
concerns of residents. This is paticularly impor-
tant in relocation communities, where the govern-
ment not only is already suspect but will be a
party negotiating property settlements and
compensation. The situation is best served when
the Site Team employs all of the communication
management strategies and practices described in
this Handbook and the Toolkit to their fullest
extent (see the Residential Relocation tool in
ther Toolkit).
EPA INTERJM Policy/FedERAl
UiNiiFoRM RELOCATJON ACT
Permanent relocation is considered a remedial
action under the NCP EPA issued its Interim
Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as
Part of Superfund Remedial Actions (OSWER
Directive 9355.0-7IP) on June 30, 1999. The
policy provides direction to EPA Regional
71
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
decision makers on when to consider permanent
relocation as part of a Superfund remedial action,
and stresses four major points surrounding the
consideration of relocation:
EPA's preference is to address the risks posed
by contamination by using well designed
cleanup methods that allow people to remain
safely in their homes and communities;
EPA may consider a permanent relocation
alternative as part of the feasibility study if
certain site conditions (found in the policy) are
encountered;
EPA should involve the community early in
the process and keep residents informed of
activities at the site;
EPA cannot conduct a permanent relocation of
tribal members without tribal government
approval.
Permanent relocations are selected as part of the
overall remedy for a site as embodied in a Record
of Decision (ROD). The decision-making criteria
that apply to other parts of a remedy, including
application of the nine criteria found in the NCP,
also apply to the decision to relocate residents
permanently.
The interim policy specifically discusses the
importance of community involvement in the
relocation process, and covers the role of TAGs
and CAGs at relocation sites. The interim policy
states: "Community involvement activities at a
particular site should be tailored to meet the
various needs and concerns of individual citizens
within the affected community. EPA should also
explore opportunities to partner with other
federal, state, and local agencies, non-govern-
mental organizations, and non-profit organiza-
tions to help identify other potential assistance
that may be available to the relocated residents or
to those in the community left behind."
The interim policy restates the applicability of the
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisi-
tion Policies Act (URA) to the implementation of
the decision to relocate residents. The URA
includes requirements and procedures to be
followed by the federal government when acquir-
ing properties and compensating displaced
residents and sets standards for the habitability of
new housing for displaced residents. The URA
requires the federal government to provide
relocation services to reduce the burden on
relocated residents, which is the responsibility of
the Site Team at Superfund relocation sites. The
Site Team should be familiar with the URA and
the applicable property acquisition regulations
and be ready to explain the formalities of the
process to residents and extend the services
required under the URA.
SpECJAl COMMUNITY Needs AT
RelocAiioN SJTES
The keys to successful community involvement at
relocation sites are close management of the
situation and prompt, effective communication
among EPA, community residents, and others. As
mentioned above, community involvement can
not begin early enough at relocation sites. In
addition, nothing may contribute more to the
quality of the community involvement services
rendered than the regular presence in the commu-
nity of experienced and highly qualified commu-
nity involvement professionals who are available
to assist community members in making the
transition to a new community. The Site Team
should consider establishing a community
resource center with a full-time staff dedicated to
providing assistance to residents facing relocation
and providing the close management of the
process needed to reach a successful conclusion.
Building trust in the community is critical. For
the Site Team, this is an everyday part of their
job, and there is no substitute for open, effective
communication and dealing fairly and respon-
sively with the community. This need for open-
ness is especially high in communities where the
government has not only delivered the news of
potential contamination risks, but also is dealing
72
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
directly with individuals in the property acquisi-
tion process. Similar to the special challenges at
federal facilities, the government must make an
extra effort to build trust at relocation sites.
The Site Team should take a customer service
approach in implementing its community involve-
ment plan at relocation sites. Though the reloca-
tion process involves a transaction, as properties
are acquired and owners are compensated, the
activities of the Site Team should never be
perceived as transaction-oriented. Rather, it
should be clear to all members of the community
that community involvement personnel are there
to help them get through the process and safely
into a new home. Relocation is usually a very
stressful event for residents, and the strain felt by
people can often spill over into their dealings
with others, including EPA staff.
"EPA must have experienced people on the
ground in relocation communities to
provide direct services and deal with
problems before they get a chance to
snowball."
Pat Seppi, CIC, EPA Region 2
The Site Team should be prepared to provide
technical and legal assistance related to the
appraisal, negotiation, settlement, and property
transfer process, as well as assistance in obtain-
ing new housing, with an emphasis on encourag-
ing home ownership. This assistance will require
knowledge of the URA and other relocation
programs, knowledge of the technical require-
ments of appraisals, and familiarity with working
with real estate agents and lenders and the tax
consequences of property acquisition. All of
these are in addition to the regular needs of a
community located near a Superfund site. In
other words, take everything in Chapters 2
through 8 of this Handbook and add to it the
special needs of residents being relocated.
At all times and in all technical and community
assistance areas, the Site Team must be prepared
to provide one-on-one services. Unlike many
other communities, residents subject to relocation
will require individual attention, as each has an
individual relationship with the government
under the circumstances. In addition, the added
pressures felt by families subject to relocation
should be remembered at all times.
TACs ANd CACs AT
RelocATioN SJTES
The interim relocation policy encourages the use
of TAGs for the hiring of relocation experts by
communities. Relocation experts hired with TAG
funds can provide independent assistance to
communities. The Site Team should ensure that
the community is aware of the TAG program and
given whatever assistance is needed in the TAG
application process.
The interim policy also encourages the use of
CAGs or similar bodies that engage the commu-
nity in the relocation process by providing a
public forum for stakeholders to present and
discuss needs and concerns related to the site and
the relocation process in a meaningful way.
CAGs can be very valuable mechanisms for
facilitating open, active participation by stake-
holders in the relocation process. The Site Team
should ensure that the CAG is truly representa-
tive of the variety of interests in the community.
A CAG that is perceived as "stacked" against any
community stakeholder interest ultimately may
do more harm than good. Whenever possible, the
Site Team should work with community leaders
in establishing a CAG or other forum.
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
74
-------
AppENdix A
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Appendix A: Superfund Community Involvement Requirements
Removal Actions
Remedial Actions
77
80
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
-------
AppENdix A
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Community involvement requirements are
presented below in a table that lists the require-
ments by site activity. The legislative citation is
provided for each of the site activities. For a
graphical presentation of the requirements, refer
to the maps, "Community Involvement Activities
Throughout the Superfund Removal Process" and
"Community Involvement Throughout the
Superfund Remedial Process," found in the
preface of this Handbook. These maps combine
the list of required activities described below
with a list of recommended activities to involve
the community effectively.
The Site Team is responsible for ensuring that the
Agency meets all of the legal and policy require-
ments relative to community involvement and for
ensuring that the community has been given an
opportunity to participate in the process. This
table lists and describes the minimum commu-
nity involvement requirements that EPA must
conduct at a Superfund site. Simply fulfilling
these requirements will not necessarily result in
effective community involvement at a site.
Rather, these requirements are intended to be the
foundation for more comprehensive activities at
sites.
"Don't be afraid to go beyond the traditional community relations approach. Adapt your
style and activities to the community. "
Mike Holmes, RPM, Region 8
Site Activity
Removal Actions
Agency Spokesperson
Administrative Record
Minimum Requirement(s)
In the case of all CERCLA removal
actions taken pursuant to 300.415 or
CERCLA enforcement actions to compel
removal response, a spokesperson shall be
designated by the lead agency. The
spokesperson shall inform the community
of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and
provide information concerning news
releases. All news releases or statements
made by participating agencies shall be
coordinated with the project manager. The
spokesperson shall notify, at a minimum,
immediately affected people, State and
local officials and, when appropriate, civil
defense or emergency management agencies.
The lead agency must establish an admin-
istrative record and make the administra-
tive record available to the public at a
central location at or near the site.
Source(s)
The National Oil and
Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(l)
CERCLA 113(k); NCP 40
C.F.R. 300.820
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Source(s)
Removal Actions (continued)
For Removal Actions With A Planning Period of Less Than Six Months
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 avail-
ability in a major local newspaper.
The lead agency must provide a public
comment period, if appropriate, of not
less than 30 days from the time the
administrative record is made available.
The lead agency must prepare a written
response to significant comments.
For Removal Actions Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days
Community Interviews
Community
Involvement Plan (CIP)
Information Repository
Establishment and
Notification/Notice of
Availability of
Administrative Record
By the end of the 120-day period, the
lead 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.
The lead agency must prepare a formal
CIP, based on community interviews and
other relevant information, specifying the
community involvement activities the
lead agency expects to undertake during
the response period. The lead agency
must complete this CIP within 120 days
of the start of on-site removal activity.
Within 120 days of the start of on-site
removal activity, the lead agency must
establish at least one information reposi-
tory at or near the location of the removal
action that contains items available for
public inspection and copying. The lead
agency must inform the public of the
establishment of the information reposi-
tory and provide notice of the administra-
tive record in this repository.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(2)(i) and
300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(2)(ii)
300.820(b)(2)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(2)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(3)(ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(3)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(3)(iii)
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Source(s)
Removal Actions (continued)
For Removal Actions With a Planning Period Of At Least Six Months
Community Interviews
and Community
Involvement Plan (CIP)
Information Repository/
Administrative Record
Establishment and
Notification
Notice of Availability/
Description of the
EE/CA
Public Comment Period
Responsiveness
Summary
The lead agency shall at a minimum
comply with the requirements set forth in
paragraphs (n)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this
section prior to completion of the
Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis
(EE/CA), or its equivalent, except that the
information repository and the administrative
record file will be established no later than
when the EE/CA approval memorandum is
signed. (Essentially, EPA must conduct
community interviews and prepare a CIP
prior to the completion of the EE/CA.)
The lead agency 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.
Upon completion of the EE/CA, the lead
agency must provide at least 30 days for
the submission of written and oral com-
ments. The lead agency must extend this
comment period by at least 15 days upon
timely request.
The Agency must prepare a written re-
sponse to significant comments and make
this responsiveness summary available to
the public in the information repository.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(4)(ii)
300.820(a)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(4)(iii)
300.820(a)(2)
3 00.825 (b) and (c)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.415(n)(iv)
79
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Remedial Actions
NPL Additions
Publication of Proposed
Rule and Public
Comment Period
Publication of Final
Rule and Response to
Comments
Minimum Requirement(s)
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 signifi-
cant comments and significant new data
submitted during the comment period.
Prior to Remedial Investigation (RI):
Community Interviews
Community
Involvement Plan (CIP)
Information Repository
The lead agency must conduct interviews
with local officials, public interest groups,
and community members to solicit their
concerns and information needs and to
learn how and when people would like to
be involved in the Superfund process.
Before commencing field work for the
remedial investigation, the lead agency
must develop and approve a complete
CIP, based on community interviews and
other relevant information, specifying the
community involvement activities that the
lead agency expects to undertake during
the remedial response.
The lead agency must establish at least
one information repository at or near the
location of the response action. Each
information repository should contain a
copy of items developed, received,
published, or made available to the public,
including information that describes the
Technical Assistance Grant application
process. The lead agency must make these
items available for public inspection and
copying and must inform interested
citizens of the establishment of the infor-
mation repository.
Source(s)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(d)(5)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(d)(5)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(c)(2)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(c)(2)(ii)
(A-C)
CERCLA 117(d)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(c)(2)(iii)
80
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Requirement(s)
Remedial Actions (continued)
Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG)
Notification
The lead agency must inform the public of
the availability of Technical Assistance
Grants and include in the information
repository material that describes the
Technical Assistance Grant application
process.
Upon Commencement of Remedial Investigation:
Administrative Record
Administrative Record
Notification
The lead agency must establish an adminis-
trative record, make it available for public
inspection, and publish a notice of its
availability. The lead agency must comply
with the public participation procedures
required in 300.430(f)(3) and shall
document such compliance in the adminis-
trative record.
The lead agency must publish a notice of
availability of the administrative record in a
major local newspaper of general
circulation.
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
The lead agency must publish a notice of
the availability of the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan, including a brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan, in a major local newspaper
of general circulation. The notice also must
announce a comment period.
The lead agency must provide at least 30
days for the submission of written and oral
comments on the Proposed Plan and sup-
porting information located in the informa-
tion repository, including the RI/FS. This
comment period will be extended by a
minimum of 30 additional days upon timely
request.
Source(s)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(c)(2)(iv)
CERCLA113(k);NCP40
C.F.R. 300.815 (a-c)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.815(a)
CERCLA117(a)and(d);
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)
CERCLA117(a)(2);NCP
40 C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(c)
81
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Remedial Actions (continued)
Public Meeting
Meeting Transcript
Notice and Comment
Period for Settlement
Agreements
The lead agency must provide an opportu-
nity for a public meeting regarding the
Proposed Plan and supporting information
to be held at or near the site during the
comment period.
The lead agency must have a court re-
porter prepare a meeting transcript that is
made available to the public.
A notice of a proposed settlement must
be published in the Federal Register at
least 30 days before the agreement be-
comes 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.
Pre-Record of Decision Significant Changes:
Responsiveness
Summary
Discussion of Significant
Changes
The lead 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 Record
of Decision (ROD).
The lead agency must include in the ROD
a discussion of significant changes and
the reasons for such changes, if new
information is made available that signifi-
cantly changes the basic features of the
remedy and the lead agency determines
that the changes could be reasonably
anticipated by the public.
Source(s)
CERCLA 113 and
NCP 40C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)
CERCLA 117(a)(2);
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)
CERCLA 122;
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(c)(5)(i)
and (ii)
CERCLAlOand
NCP 40C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(ii)(A)
82
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Remedial Actions (continued)
Revised Proposed Plan
and Public Comment
Upon the lead agency's determination that
such changes could not have been reason-
ably 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.
Source(s)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)
After the ROD is signed:
ROD Availability and
Notification
The lead agency must make the ROD NCP 40 C.F.R.
available for public inspection and copying 300,430(f)(6)
at or near the site prior to the commence-
ment of any remedial action. Also, the lead
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 lead agency NCP 40 C.F.R.
should revise the CIP, if necessary, to reflect 300.435(c)(l)
community concern, as discovered during
interviews and other activities, that pertain
to the remedial design and construction
phase.
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:
Revision of the CIP
Site Activity
Notice and Availability
of Explanation of
Significant Differences
The lead agency must publish a notice that
briefly summarizes the explanation of
significant differences (ESD) 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.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.435(c)(2)(i)
(A) and (B)
300.825(a)(2)
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Source(s)
Remedial Actions (continued)
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:
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
Remedial Design:
Fact Sheet and Public
Briefing
The lead agency must propose an NCP 40 C.F.R.
amendment to the ROD and issue a 300.435(c)(2)
notice of the proposed amendment in a
major local newspaper of general
circulation.
The lead agency must follow the same
procedures for notice and comment as
those required for completion of the
feasibility study (FS) and Proposed Plan.
The lead agency must publish a notice of
availability of the amended ROD in a
major local newspaper and make the
amended ROD and supporting informa-
tion available for public inspection and
copying in the administrative record and
information repository prior to com-
mencement of the remedial action af-
fected by the amendment.
Upon completion of the final engineering NCP 40 C.F.R.
design, the lead agency must issue a fact 300.435(c)(3)
sheet and provide a public briefing, as
appropriate, prior to beginning remedial
action.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.435(c)(2)(ii)
(B)-(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.435(c)(2)(ii)
(G) and (H)
300.825(b)
84
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Site Activity
Minimum Requirement(s)
Remedial Actions (continued)
NPL Deletions:
Public Notice and
Public Comment
Period
Public Access to
Information
Response to
Significant
Comments
Availability of
Final Deletion
Package
EPA is required to publish a notice of
intent to delete in the Federal Register and
provide notice of the availability of this
announcement 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 inspec-
tion 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 dele-
tion 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.
Source(s)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(e)(4)
(i) and (ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(e)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(e)(iv)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
300.425(e)(5)
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
-------
AppENdix B
SUPERFUND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
DIRECTIVES
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Appendix B: Superfund Community Involvement Directives 87
Early and Meaningful Community Involvement 89
Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-making 93
Superfund Responsiveness Summaries 96
Planning for Sufficient Community Relations 99
Community Relations: Use of Senior Environmental Employees in Superfund 106
Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover 109
Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program
for Remedial Response 112
Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup Process 114
Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations 121
Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community Relations 126
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
:;
\, ' ' j' OFFICE OF
"v _ N ,, ' SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER 9230.0-99
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Early and Meaningful Community Involvement
»^\
»^ t , ?(H
FROM: Elaine F. Davies, Acting Directior -vw«i ? ,:*'l"tJ*i
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1-10
PURPOSE
To improve early and meaningful community involvement in Superfund
site decision-making.
BACKGROUND
In an April 10, 2001, memo on EPA's Regulatory Decision Process,
Administrator Whitman endorsed "vigorous public outreach and
involvement" in working toward environmental goals. Her support for
effective public participation is consistent with the Agency's draft
Public Involvement Policy (65 Fed. Reg. 82335, December 12, 2000).
Among other things, the draft Policy emphasizes that Agency programs,
when implementing their responsibilities, should:
1. Plan and budget for public involvement.
2. Identify interested parties.
3. Consider technical or financial assistance.
4. Provide timely and useful information and outreach.
5. Conduct meaningful involvement activites.
6. Assimilate public input and provide good feedback.
Superfund has a long-standing commitment to community involvement
(also known as public participation) that incorporates these functions.
In a 1991 memo (OSWER Directive 9230.0-18), one of my predecessors,
Henry Longest, encouraged site responders to "demonstrate to citizens
that they are involved in the decision-making process." That memo
identified four key practices:
- Listen carefully to what community members are saying.
- Take the time needed to deal with community concerns.
- Change planned actions where community input has merit.
- Explain to the community what EPA has done and why.
This memo builds on the 1991 memo and encourages more substantive
involvement of communities from the very outset of a cleanup. The
involvement should begin prior to any on-site work and continue
throughout the cleanup process, including during any 5-year reviews.
This memo focuses on six practices that you should be implementing
during Superfund responses.
89
-------
PRACTICES FOR EARLY AND MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT
1) Energize the community involvement plan (CIP). The CIP should be a
living vision that is focused, current and helpful. Ideally, a draft of the
CIP should be reviewed by the community to ensure that the CIP is on target
and meaningful. Making the involvement plan an actual partnership plan,
endorsed by the community, is a best practice. All site team members should
contribute to early development and implementation of the CIP.
2) Provide early, proactive community support. You should do more to
promote and give assistance to communities from the very outset of the work at
a site. Superfund has a variety of community assistance mechanisms: Technical
Assistance Grants, Community Advisory Groups, Technical Outreach Services to
Communities, and the Superfund Job Training Initiative. You should make sure
community groups know about these opportunities by the end of the site
investigation and you should encourage them throughout the cleanup process to
take advantage of what is available. You should also be creative in
identifying site-specific ways to enhance the ability of a community to
participate (e.g., arranging for educational activities or facilitation
services).
3) Get the community more involved in the risk assessment. You should
assume the community will be able to understand risk assessments and provide
useful input. If the right questions are posed, the community can make
important contributions from tHE outset. In particular, you should ask
community members about patterns and practices of chemical usage, exposure
pathways, and health concerns. At big or controversial sites, you should
share a draft of the scope of work with the community and answer questions
that are raised about it. You should also provide regular and clear feedback
on the progress of the risk assessment and its results. For more ideas, see
OSWER Directive 9285.7-01E- P, Community Inovlvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments.
4) Seek early community input on the scope of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). Soliciting input before the start of
the RI/FS on its scope and approach is a concrete demonstration that you take
early involvement seriously. In particular, you need to ask the community
what cleanup alternatives should be evaluated during the FS and then consider
thoughtfully the input you get. This does not mean you have to do or include
exactly what the community wants. It does mean you should listen carefully to
identify and understand significant concerns that have merit and should be
addressed.
5) Encourage community involvement in identification of future land use.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative focuses on helping communities
participate in identifying future land use and Superfund sites. Early during
removal and remedial site planning, you should work with the community to
develop a process for exploring future use. This should inlude providing the
information and tools to make this exploration a success. The community
should have the lead in assessing its social, economic and recreational needs
and in giving us its perspective of the most likely future use. You should
encourage this effort, while not advocating particular views or opinions.
6) Do more to involve communities during removals. Early and meaningful
community involvement at removals is important. Whether it is an emergency
response or a non-time critical action, community involvement should not be
neglected or postponed. While initial calls should be to state and local
authorities, soon thereafter you should reach out to the entire community,
which may have a high level of anxiety and concern about health and safety.
You need to demonstrate our sincere concern and credibility in order to set
the stage for the community cooperation that may be critical during the
response (e.g., during an evacuation or relocation). You should not wait to
share important information. If you proceed in a spirit of "early, humble
coordination," as one On-Scene-Coordinator once put it, you will be suprised
at how much good input and help you get.
90
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
The practices described above are good ways to help achieve early and
meaningful community involvement (see attachment for a handy checklist).
They are by no means the only effective approaches. Indeed, they may not
even be appropriate in certain circumstances. Each community is different
and deserves its own, well-thought-out involvement plan. As you conduct
removal and remedial actions, you should be creative and proactive in
looking for opportunities that meet the needs and interests of the
community, while making sound cleanup decisions. You should always be clear
about the respective roles of the participants to avoid creating unrealistic
expectations about how decisions will be made.
The responsibility for community involvement is a team effort. You
achieve the best results when all the key players -- the remedial project
manager, the on scene coordinator, the risk assessor, the legal advisor, the
site assessment manager and the community involvement coordinator --
cooperate to effectively involve the community. Also, all program managers
should look for ways to encourage community involvement and to recognize
staff members who successfully practice it.
CONCLUSION
Public involvement is an integral part of both removal and remedial
actions. Involvement should occur early and be sustained in a meaningful way
throughout all stages of our work. This is strongly encouraged by EPA's
Public Envolvement Policy and should lead to better cleanups and more
satisfied communities.
Copies of this document are available on our web site at http://
3a.gov/superfund/pubs.htm. General questioi
be referred to the Call Center at 1-800-424-9346
Attachment
cc: Jeff Josephson, Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 2
NARPM Co-Chairs
On-Scene Coordinators
Community Involvement Managers
OERR Records Manager, IMC 5202G
OERR Documents Coordinator, HOSC 5202G
91
-------
Key Practices for Early and Meaningful
Community Involvement at Superfund Sites
From OSWER Directive 9230.0-18
Listen carefully to what community members are saying.
Take the time needed to deal with community concerns.
Change plans where community suggestions have merit.
Explain to the community what EPA has done and why.
From OSWER Directive 9230.0-99
Energize the community involvement plan.
Provide early, proactive community support.
Get the community more involved in the risk assessment.
Seek early community input on the scope of the remedial
investigation/feasibility study.
Encourage community involvement in identification of
future land use.
Do more to involve communities during removals.
Useful Resources
EPA Draft Policy on Public Involvement:
http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/policy.htm
Model Plan for Public Participation:
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nej ac/pdf/modelbk.pdf
Lessons Learned about Superfund Community Involvement:
http://intranet.epa.gov/oerrinet/topics/cioc/lessons/index/htm
Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments:
www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/risk/ragsa/ci-ra.htm
Superfund Community Involvement Website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/index.htm
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/recycle.htm
EPA Stakeholder Website:
http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/intro.htm
International Assoc. of Public Participation Practitioner Tools:
http://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/index.html
Community Partnering for Environmental Results: A computerized
learning program for developing community involvement skills
(see Regional Training Officer or Community Involvement
Manager for access)
92
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OSWER 9230.0-18
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund
Decision-making (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43B)
FROM: Henry 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, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Community Involvement Coordinators, Regions I-X
PURPOSE
To ensure the incorporation of citizen concerns into Superfund site
dec is ion -making.
BACKGROUND
In 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 f9r 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 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 saying 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 solic-
iting citizen input. These include community workgroups, open houses, and
informal "roundtable" discussions. Regions are encpuraged 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 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 Slit, site managers should announce a thirtyday 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 C9ptroversial sitep 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 rela-
tions needs. The guidance included the SIR 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 when 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 citi-
zens 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 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 vas the only possible one.
94
-------
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 never-
theless needs to better incorporate citizen concerns into site deci-
sions. 'The recommendations outlined above will move Superfund closer to
that goal. For more information regarding Community Relations in Super-
fund, contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff Langholz of my staff at FTS 398-
8340 or FTS 3988341, respectively.
95
-------
so)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUN
1990
OSWER Directive No. 9203.0-06
OFticf or
SOLID WASTi AND f MtNdlNCV HIS'ONSt
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Superfund Responsiveness Summaries
(Superfund Management Review: Recj
FROM:
Henry L.*Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
dation I43E)
nse
TO:
Bruce M. Diamond, Director^
Office of Haste Programs Enforcement
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions ill, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE;
to improve responsiveness summaries so that they are more
responsive to local communities' concerns.
BACKGROOHP;
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
96
-------
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 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.
97
-------
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.
Interimversion, OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, and in Community
Relations During Enforcement Activities and Developmentof 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
98
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
MAR 71990
MEMORANDUM OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
SUBJECT: Planning for Sufficient community Relati
(Superfund Management Review: ~
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Director, Haste 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.
99
-------
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. Integra^ COBOTFli'tY 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 co 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
100
-------
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 CRC 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 Coanunitv 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, EFA should do the following:
o Prepara 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.
101
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
Although EPA La 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 tiaely. 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, mm well as respond to specific community needs,
adequate resources must be available.
III. Dedicate Adequate Resources to Support comnunifcv Halations
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
102
-------
OSWSR 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 Suoarfund Site
Community Kaedfl
Community relations activities are part of the Superfund
process and need to b* 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.
105
-------
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
need*. 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.
104
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9230.0-08
By considering the community relations needs at all stages
of the Superfund process, RPMs 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.
105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
***3i 1990
SOU) WASTE AND EMEMENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-09
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
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, vn, viil
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region IZ
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 frequency 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 X97'6,-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.
m Rityelt* faptr
106
-------
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'1 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 subagreeraents 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 coma 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 1ob descriptions. No Agency-wide
definition of th* SEE's role exists. Although tha positions
filled by SEEs are similar in many ways, their responsibilities
will vary from Region to Region. Regions ar* frs« to tailor the
107
-------
OSWER Oiractiva No. 9230.0-09
reaponsibilitiea of a SEE to suit specific programmatic needa.
Whatever the SEE'a role may be, he or she and EPA should both b«
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 oth*r
Regions to exchange position descriptions and ideas regarding the
role of SSEs.
3) 7** sees *« \t fchsv ar» Eqancv 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 then 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) Bremen SEJ roiaa 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.
108
-------
m)
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
MEMQRAHDUM
SUBJECT! Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover
(Superfund Management Review: Recommendation
143 M,N,0)
raox*
TOt
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
iponse
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
Purposes 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:
109
-------
OSWER Directive #9230.0-13
om ***** ghanaftB to «» comiqnitY as g°°n as
Sharing stiff changes with the public is without a
Bflase.. ar
doubt the most effective way to minimize the problems caused by
turnover. BfA should inform the community of staff changes
ither before they occur or as soon after as possible. The
f oSSinS technique- 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
orofile 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
clan 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) Mtieafca new staff about the site's, history,
mitvi* involvement and concerns, and t.h« importance fft those
Mrns. Regions should establish a close working relationship
between community Relations Coordinators (CRCs) and Remedial
110
-------
OSWER Directive 19230.0-13
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 aite 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.
4J 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.
Conclusioni 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)
111
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
MBMORANDOH
SUBJECT:
PROM:
TO:
5 1990
OSWER Directive 19230.0-15
SOUO WASTE ANOtM«OfNCV «(S»ONI(
Role of community interviews in the Development of a
Community Relations Program for Remedial Response
Henry L. Longest II, Director, ^U.VV^
Office of Emergency and Remedial inifponse
Director, waste Management Division
Regions I, iv, v, vn, viu
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous waste Management Division
Regions ill, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region 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) Thegap shouldbe based goon 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)(ilof the NCP
is "...preparing a formal community relations plan (CRP), based on
the community interviews and other relevant information..."
112
-------
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 in. suoerfund -- 4 Handbook. OSWER Directive
19230.0-3B, 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 tbe
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 Rcilly 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 i& Suoerfund A. Handbook. and
Section 300.430(c)(2)(i) and accompanying* preamble of the NCP. if
you have additional questions, please contact Melissa Shapiro of my
staff at PTS 382-2350 or Jeff Langholz at PTS 3S2-246Q.
Attachment
cc: public Affairs Directors
Regional community Relations coordinators
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
mi
OFFICE or
SOLID WASTE ANO EMEftGENCV RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 19230.0-16
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public
Throughout the Cleanup Process, and Discussing Site
Findings and Decisions as They are Developed (Superfund
Management Review: 143 G,H,Q,R,T)
FROXs Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
/
TOt 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
Purposes 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:
114
-------
. Discuss site findings and decisions as they are
developed {43.6}
. 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 then 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 citiaensDuring the PR/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.
115
-------
OSWER Directive 19230.0-16
however, because resources cannot support a full-scale community
participation program for all discovared 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.
116
-------
OSWER Directive 19230.0-16
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 Flan
(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."}
117
-------
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 S&Q be
shared with the public.
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 Hear 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.
118
-------
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.
d sita 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, SPA 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 U3er- 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
119
-------
OSWER Directive 19230.0-16
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.
120
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
SEP 2 8 1990
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCV RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 19230.0-17
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community
Relations (Super fund Management Ray lew: ^Recommendation
143. K,L)
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Res
TOi Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, v, VTI, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Haste 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
Revjew, 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
121
-------
OSWER Directive #9230.0-17
comfortable communicating with an official who is a member of
their community, and who nay 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.
Objective: TO discuss specific methods for using State and
local officials to increase Superfund's communication with the
public.
Implementations 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
pubj.J.g 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.
122
-------
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 tq maintain an4
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
125
-------
OSWER Directive f9230.0-17
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.
Conclusiont 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 site*. In order for it to be effective, Regions
must solicit assistance from the officials early in the community
124
-------
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.
125
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MOV 'Sfl ifnr> OFFICE OF
Oil .Wi/ SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in
Superfund Community Relations (Superfund Management
Review Recommendation 143.A) Jf 1/1
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director '4***?'$%' T^^-*^*'^'
Office of Emergency and Remedial Resgjense
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.
126
-------
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 Groupsi since the aid 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 (RPH) 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 group* should contain a wid* representation
of the community and develop ground rules for the meetings that
allow all groups to participate equally.
127
-------
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 aunerfund Workshop s 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 communicationt 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
128
-------
OWSER Directive 19230.0-20
providing translators at public meetings and hearings. These
techniques give non-English speaking citizens access to more
information about Superfund sites and enable then to participate
more broadly and affectively 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.
S) 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.
129
-------
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
6) Open Houaes/Availabilitv 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.
150
-------
Appendix C
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT DURING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
Note: Appendix C is an edited reprint of Chapter 6 of Community Relations in Superfund: A
Handbook (EPA 540-R-92-009, dated January 1992) titled Conducting Community Rela-
tions During Enforcement Activities and Development of the Administrative Record.
This Appendix expands on the information found in Chapters 5 and 6 of the current Hand-
book and provides more detail on Superfund community involvement activities and re-
quirements during enforcement activities at Superfund remedial and removal sites. All
references in this Appendix are to the current Handbook.
Appendix C: Community Involvement During Enforcement Activities 131
Overview of the CERCLA Enforcement Program 133
Community Involvement Related to Enforcement Activities and Administrative Records 134
Enforcement Actions and Community Involvement at Remedial Sites 136
Community Involvement During Removal Actions 140
Community Involvement During Specific Enforcement Actions and Settlements 141
The Administrative Record as Part of Community Involvement 143
131
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
132
-------
Appendix C
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT DURING
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
This Appendix reviews the CERCLA enforce-
ment program and discusses enforcement actions,
community involvement, and the administrative
record. It provides specific discussions on:
Community interview planning and develop-
ment of Community Involvement Plans (CIPs)
for enforcement-lead sites;
Enforcement activities requiring public partici-
pation;
Community involvement during specific
enforcement actions and settlements; and
The relationship between community involve-
ment and the administrative record for remedy
selection.
The chapter discusses how enforcement actions
may affect overall community involvement
planning and activities. Enforcement-lead sites
occasionally are more complex because there
may be a degree of mistrust between the af-
fected 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.
C.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,
transported, 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 enforcement 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 enforce-
ment agreement with them. The settlement
document for conducting agreed upon removals
or remedial investigations and feasibility studies
(RI/FS) is generally an administrative 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 oversee the work per-
formed 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 remedial actions at a site. If the PRPs do not
respond to an administrative order, the agency
has the option of filing suit to compel perfor-
mance.
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 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 under-
stand Superfund program goals and activities,
133
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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.
C.2 COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT RELATED
TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS
In fostering community involvement during
enforcement actions, community involvement
coordinators (CICs) should follow the same steps
as for fund-financed projects. The steps critical to
community involvement are conducting interviews
of local citizens and formulating a Community
Involvement Plan (CIP). Once the CIP has been
developed, the CIC and other members of the site
team should ensure that community involvement
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.
C.2.1 Community Interviews
In addition to general preparation for community
interviews (see Handbook Section 5.4 and Toolkit
Tab 5). community involvement staff should work
with technical and legal staff to identify special
precautions that should be taken during commu-
nity 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 involve-
ment staff can be better prepared to address local
concerns.
The community involvement staff, with the RPM
and legal staff, should interview different local
groups before developing the CIP. Some inter-
views 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 replace community
interviews held during development of a CIP. The
information sought covers specific areas that are
not necessarily discussed during the listing
process.
Community involvement coordinators are not
investigators of PRP actions at the site. If this
type of information is volunteered during inter-
views, the CIC should advise the resident that
civil investigators will follow-up on this informa-
tion. The CIC should inform 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 circum-
stances 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 deter-
mine whom to interview. This team is composed
of the CIC, On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) or
RPM, Regional Counsel, and equivalents at the
State level when the State has the lead.
C.2.2 Community Involvement Plans
Using information obtained during the community
interviews, the agency develops a CIP that
reflects consideration of local concerns and styles
of communication preferred by the community.
The CIP format is described in Handbook Section
5.4 and Toolkit Tab 7.
The CIP is a critical planning tool for agency staff
and the public, as it will likely affect many people.
CIPs for sites with viable PRPs should receive
input from all members of the site response team
directly affected by activities scheduled in the
134
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
plan. These team members will jointly develop the
CIP at PRP-lead sites. For example, attorneys
should approve the accuracy of legal information
and technical staff should verify physical descrip-
tions and contaminants at the site.
The community involvement staff should insert
methods to enhance public participation into the
CIP, citing characteristics of the community. The
CICs may also wish to consider that some sites
will take years to clean up. A long-term response
action may require creative planning to keep the
public informed at various points along the way.
The CIP may be used to reflect such a strategy.
The CIC is ultimately responsible for ensuring
that the community involvement requirements of
CERCLA are fulfilled. Therefore, the CIC is
responsible for approving the CIP with concur-
rence on specific sections 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 involve-
ment 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 coordina-
tion 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 involvement activities outlined in a
CIP for a PRP-lead site should not compromise
the settlement process and the likely schedule of
enforcement actions. Technical discussions may
be identified in the CIP as community involve-
ment activities. The CIP 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 CIP.
The public must be informed early when PRPs
are willing to participate in community involve-
ment activities identified in the CIP, 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 involvement activitiesnot the
responsible parties.
The CIP also should describe the litigation
process. Community involvement staff may
choose to describe EPA interaction with DOJ and
potential effects that litigation may have on the
scope of community involvement activities. If
litigation is pursued, the CIP will be amended to
reflect the potential effects of litigation on com-
munity involvement activities. When referral for
litigation is the initial enforcement action, the CIP
should specify activities that are to be conducted
during litigation to the extent known at that time.
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 assessments, and response
work. The ORC is responsible for informing staff
about consultations with DOJ.
C.2.3 Potentially Responsible Party
Involvement
The agency in charge of response actions will
develop and carry out community involvement
activities at enforcement-lead sites. PRPs may
participate in community involvement activities
only at the discretion of the Regional Office.
PRPs do not develop the CIP. The Regional
Office will oversee any PRP community involve-
135
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
ment activities. PRPs may be involved in commu-
nity involvement activities at sites where they are
conducting a removal, RI/FS, RD/RA, or opera-
tion and maintenance. If a PRP will be involved in
community involvement activities, the CIP 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 CIP should be provided to all
interested parties and placed in the administrative
record file and information repository. If the CIP
is revised, the final revised copy should be made
available to the public and placed in the adminis-
trative record file and information repository.
C.3 ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS AND
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT AT
REMEDIAL SITES
C.3.1 Introduction
Community involvement activities should be
planned as early in the enforcement process as
possible. Generally, 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 ques-
tions. These meetings may also serve to provide
information on the agency's general enforcement
process. The information repository and adminis-
trative record are sources from which the public
may obtain information about the site, general
Superfund process, and other agency materials. A
detailed discussion of the relationship between the
administrative record and information repositories
can be found below in Section C.6.5 of this
Appendix.
Litigation generally does not occur until after the
remedy is selected. However, community involve-
ment staff may need to explain early in the
process that legal constraints on community
involvement activities may apply during negotia-
tions or litigation.
C.3.2 Notice to Potentially Responsible
Parties
Notice letters are used to inform PRPs of their
potential 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 Administrator and a second 30-day
extension by the Assistant Administrator for
OSWER. In total, RI/FS negotiations 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
(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 deci-
sion. The justification for not issuing the special
notice must state why it was not appropriate to
136
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
enter into formal negotiations. This justification
should be provided to all identified PRPs and to
Administrative Record Coordinators (ARCs) for
placement in the administrative record.
C.3.3 Negotiations
The confidentiality of statements made during
negotiations 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
confidential 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 involvement
staff may wish to mail out a fact sheet on the
Superfund enforcement process and the morato-
rium schedules for the specific site.
PRPs may be unwilling to negotiate without a
guarantee of confidentiality. They may fear public
disclosure regarding their personal liability and
other sensitive issues that may damage their
litigation position or standing in the community.
This expectation of confidentiality restricts the
type and amount of information that can be made
public.
ORC staff should consult with and obtain the
approval of other members of the technical and
Regional Counsel team before releasing any
information regarding 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.
C.3.4 Community Involvement 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 en-
forcement 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 perfor-
mance and slow the site cleanup. 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 involvement, 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
Handbook Section 5.4 and Toolkit Tab 21). The
administrative record will include the detailed
analysis of alternatives and all RI/FS information
137
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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, CICs can
involve 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
Handbook Section 5.4 and Toolkit Tab 41).
When the RI/FS is completed, the agency will
issue a proposed plan and publish a notice an-
nouncing 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" advertisement 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 submit 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 avail-
able to the public in the administrative record file,
and may be distributed through the information
repositories or upon request. See Handbook
Appendix A for a complete outline of these
specific public participation requirements and
Toolkit Tab 32 for more on public meetings.
After the public comment period on the proposed
plan has closed, a responsiveness summary is
prepared. It provides lead agency decision-
makers with information about community
preferences on remedial alternatives and general
concerns about the site. It also demonstrates to
members of the public how their comments were
considered during the decision-making process. A
Record of Decision (ROD) is then issued as the
final proposed plan for a particular site or oper-
able 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 charac-
teristics 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
responsiveness summary may be distributed to
commenters and those on the site mailing list. See
Handbook Appendix A and Toolkit Tabs 33 and
36 for further information on requirements for
public notices and availability of the ROD and
responsiveness summary.
C.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 negotiation deadlines. PRPs often prefer to
reach a negotiated settlement rather than be
subject to the terms of a UAO.
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 agreement, 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-settlers to the
agreement usually take this opportunity to raise
138
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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
calendar days in length and may be extended
upon request. The proposed consent decree may
be withdrawn or modified if comments demon-
strate that it is inappropriate, improper, or inad-
equate.
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 involvement
staff are informed of this.
Community involvement 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 agree-
ment. 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 OSWERDirective 9835.17, U.S.
EPA Model CERCLA RD/RA Consent Decree,
provides specific language about responsible
party participation in community involvement:
"Settling Defendants shall propose to EPA
(and the State) their participation in the Com-
munity Involvement Plan to be developed by
EPA. EPA will determine the appropriate role
for the Settling Defendants under the 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 com-
ments received during the meeting addressed in a
response to comments document on the consent
decree.
Based on new information or because of techni-
cal 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 fundamen-
tally alter the remedy selected in the ROD, the
agency must issue an explanation of significant
differences and make the explanation and sup-
porting information available to the public in the
administrative record and information 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
139
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
with the comment period for the consent decree.
See Handbook Section 5.10 for further discussion
ofpost-ROD significant changes.
Once the public comment period on the proposed
consent decree has closed, DOJ staff (in coop-
eration with EPA and State staff) will consider
each significant 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.
C.3.6 Community Involvement During PRP
Remediation
The lead agency retains responsibility for commu-
nity involvement during a PRP-lead remediation
that conforms with a consent decree or any
enforcement order. The scope and nature of
community involvement activities will be the same
as for fund-lead response actions. When PRPs
participate in community involvement 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 CIP, 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 involvement
and a new CIP may be developed. PRP involve-
ment in community involvement activities also
may be addressed in the consent decree or other
enforcement orders.
C.3.7 Technical Discussions
Technical meetings are used to share technical
information 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) address 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
participate 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. Techni-
cal or factual information discussed during RI/FS
negotiations also should be included in the admin-
istrative record file. Issues of liability, however,
are not included in the administrative record file
unless that liability information was relied upon
for selecting the remedy.
Community groups may need assistance inter-
preting technical information on the nature of the
contaminants, their relative risk, and alternatives
for investigation and cleanup. EPA can provide
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) to communi-
ties to hire their own consultants. See Handbook
Section 5.4 and Toolkit Tab 41 for further discus-
sion of these grants.
C.4 COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT 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
involvement and administrative record require-
ments for removal actions.
The enforcement program encourages PRPs to
conduct 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
140
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
absence of a negotiated agreement, EPA or the
State (where they have the authority) 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
involvement. Adjustments to the community
involvement process must be made to accommo-
date time constraints. Community involvement
requirements for removal actions are outlined in
Handbook Chapter 6 and Appendix A. In general,
the longer the planning period prior to on-site
removal activities, the more extensive the com-
munity involvement requirements.
UAOs and AOCs are public documents available
to the affected community through the adminis-
trative record file. In addition, community involve-
ment 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 involvement activities during remov-
als conducted by PRPs should be the same as for
fund-financed removals. PRPs may participate in
community involvement, subject to the consider-
ations described in Section C.2.3 above.
C.5 COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT DURING
SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS AND
SETTLEMENTS
C.5.1 Mixed Funding, De Minimisand 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 ap-
proaches 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
themselves to mixed funding settlements. In
general, the 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 of CERCLA
§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 contrib-
ute to the release of contamination at the site or
had any knowledge of the generation, transporta-
141
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
tion, storage, treatment, or disposal of any hazard-
ous 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
response. 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 supplement 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
modification where comments demonstrate that
the proposed agreement is inappropriate, im-
proper, or inadequate. The final settlement and
response to comments must be released at the
same time to the public. This can be accom-
plished by placing both documents in the adminis-
trative 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 ob-
tained from the administrative record file or upon
request should be added to this notice.
C.5.2 Injunctive Litigation
An injunctive case may be referred to DOJ for
litigation at any point in the enforcement process,
which may change the scope of community
involvement activities. Community involvement
activities at the site should be re-evaluated by the
site team, and changes to accommodate confi-
dentiality should be agreed upon by the site team,
including DOJ. While consideration should be
given to implementing the existing Community
Involvement Plan, litigation may require changes
in public disclosures. For example, the court may
impose a gag order or place restrictions on
information released during negotiations or at
public meetings that address the site remedy.
Under these circumstances, the DOJ attorney
will advise the site team on how to proceed.
C.5.3 Cost Recovery
Where a fund-financed cleanup is conducted,
EPA may sue PRPs to recover costs. Cost
recovery generally 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.
A spokesperson chosen by the site team, in
coordination 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 prepare a response, subject to
the concurrence of DOJ.
C.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
142
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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 imple-
mentation 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 involve-
ment program. Thus, coordination is useful
between Superfund and RCRA staff at sites
where actions under both CERCLA and RCRA
are anticipated. Superfund CICs 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, for specific informa-
tion on RCRA actions taken under §3008(h).
Familiarity with other Federal or State laws, such
as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, generally
makes the role of the community involvement
coordinator 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.
C.6 THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD AS PART OF
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
C.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 outline 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, maintained, 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
remedial investigation to selection of remedy, the
administrative record file must be available for
public inspection. 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 selecting a final remedy. Commu-
nity involvement 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, includ-
ing residents and PRPs, should be invited.
Documents that contain confidential or privileged
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 CIP should be
made available to the public no later than the
initiation of the remedial investigation phase,
which is usually when the RI/FS work plan is
approved. The timing for establishing the adminis-
trative record file for a removal action depends
143
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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.
C.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, informa-
tion is reviewed and made available in the publicly
accessible administrative record file. Second, if
the lead agency is challenged 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 review is based
upon the same information that was before 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.
C.6.3 Community Involvement 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 responsible for its compila-
tion and maintenance. The Regional Administra-
tor or his designate is responsible for certification
of the record for litigation. Community involve-
ment staff will have some general duties in
developing the record file, but every Region has
defined different roles. In general, community
involvement staff should focus on the relationship
of the administrative record file to information
repositories, public notices, and public comments.
Community involvement staff and administrative
record staff should coordinate the location of the
administrative record file and information reposi-
tory. 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 newspa-
per of general circulation. A copy of that public
notice is to be placed in the record file and may
also be made available to the public through the
community involvement mailing list (see Section
C.6.1 for a discussion of when the administrative
record file must be made available to the public).
This notice may be combined 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 commu-
nity involvement and administrative record staffs
to use resources most efficiently. For a more
complete discussion of the notice of availability,
consult OSWERDirective 9833.3A-1, Final
Guidance on Administrative Records for
Selecting CERCLA Response Actions.
The completed CIP is to be placed in the adminis-
trative record file. Community involvement staff
should advise the Administrative Record Coordi-
nator that the CIP is final and provide a copy.
Information in records of communication gener-
ated by the community involvement staff that are
considered or relied on in selecting the response
action should be included in the record file. In
addition, community involvement staff should take
appropriate steps to ensure that community
involvement documents required to be placed in
the administrative record file are provided to the
Regional official responsible for the record file.
144
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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 com-
ments submitted prior to a formal public comment
period must be resubmitted or specifically identi-
fied 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 comment in a responsiveness
summary prepared at a later date. The agency,
however, has no duty to respond to any com-
ments 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 addi-
tional information in this regard.
C.6.4 Other Community Involvement
Coordinator Responsibilities
Because of Regional differences, community
involvement staff may have other responsibilities,
including:
Assessing the impact of the administrative
record file on local information repositories
(e.g., because of its volume) by consulting with
officials at the repositories. This should be
done with the Administrative Record Coordina-
tor. CICs and ARCs will need to cooperate on
space issues, shelving, microfilming, and
housekeeping chores.
Providing the ARC with information on meth-
ods used to notify the public of the availability
of the record file. Such methods include
announcements in public meetings, workshops,
small group discussions, fact sheets sent to the
site mailing list, and local newspapers announc-
ing 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
documents 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.
C. 6.5 Re I ati onsh i p 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
145
-------
The most current version
of this publication is
available at
www.epa.gov/superfund
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. 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 involvement purposes.
The information repository, maintained by com-
munity involvement 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 infor-
mation 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 involvement and adminis-
trative record purposes may be larger than the
capacity of these facilities. Where space for the
information repository is inadequate for support-
ing the administrative record file, an alternate
location for the record file may be established.
ARCs and CICs should also consider converting
documents to microfilm to reduce space prob-
lems.
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
established, ARCs and CICs should ensure
uniformity of the documents. In this context,
CICs should carefully review their responsibilities
for the administrative record (see Sections C.6.3
and C.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
administrative record file should be well orga-
nized. Following 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 involvement and administrative
record staff should coordinate with the State in
closing information 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 historical 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.
146
------- |