&EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Community Involvement Plan Burnham Canal - Miller Compressing Company City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin May 2010 ------- Contents 1 Introduction 1-1 2 What is Superfund? 2-1 3 Site Background 3-1 3.1 Site Description 3-1 3.1.1 Location and Site Features 3-1 3.1.2 History and Cleanup Progress 3-2 4 Community Background 4-1 4.1 Milwaukee Facts 4-1 5 Environmental Justice 5-1 6 Community Issues and Concerns 6-1 6.1 Summary of Community Interviews 6-1 7 Community Involvement Goals 7-1 7.1 Community Involvement Tools and Activities 7-1 7.2 Public Availability Sessions 7-1 7.3 Public Forums 7-2 7.4 Public Meetings 7-2 8 EPA's Input Tools and Activities 8-1 8.1 EPA'S Toll-Free Phone Number 8-1 8.2 E-mail 8-1 8.3 Mailing List Expansion 8-1 8.4 Public Comment Period 8-2 8.5 Public Input 8-2 8.6 Stakeholder Group Interaction 8-2 8.7 Surveys 8-3 9 EPA's Output Tools and Activities 9-1 9.1 EPA's Web Sites 9-1 9.2 Fact Sheets 9-1 9.3 Infield Notification 9-2 9.4 Information Repositories 9-2 9.5 Listserv 9-2 9.6 Maps and Visual Aids 9-3 9.7 Media Distribution / Media Events 9-3 9.8 Project Roadmap 9-3 9.9 Public Notices 9-3 9.10 Reports / Concept Documents / Work Plans 9-4 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN 10 EPA's Outreach Tools and Activities 10-1 10.1 Community Events 10-1 10.2 Environmental Justice Activities 10-1 10.3 Project Site Visits / Tours 10-1 10.4 Public Television / Public Access Television Shows 10-1 10.5 School / Education Outreach Activities 10-2 10.6 Workshops / Seminars 10-2 11 Involvement Tools and Activities 11-1 11.1 Coordination with Local Government and Agencies 11-1 11.2 Technical Assistance Provision (TAP) 11-1 12 Community Involvement Plan and Activities 12-1 13 Updates to the Community Involvement Plan 13-1 Appendices Appendix A- Burnham Canal Miller Compressing Company Contact List A-l Appendix B - List of Abbreviations and Acronyms B-l Appendix C - Glossary C-l Figures 2-1 The Superfund Process 2-2 3-1 Burnham Canal and Miller Compressing Company property 3-1 3-2 Burnham Canal Site Location 3-2 5-1 United Community Center 6-4 5-2 Forest Home Library 6-4 12-1 Community Involvement Issues and Tools 12-1 ------- 1 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared this Community Involvement Plan (CIP) for the Burnham Canal site in the Menomonee River Valley of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The CIP: Provides the public with accurate, timely and understandable information and access to the information needed to understand the project as it moves forward Allows the public to provide informed and meaningful input Ensures adequate time and opportunity for the public to provide input and for that input to be considered Respects and fully considers community input Assists the public in understanding the project decision-making process during project design and cleanup and the community's role in that process EPA Environmental Protection Agency CIP Community Involvement Plan This CIP provides background information on the site, describes activities EPA will perform to keep the public and local officials informed about progress at the site, and encourages community involvement during site cleanup. This CIP also discusses the concerns of nearby residents and local officials regarding the site and ways for EPA to address those concerns. The information in this CIP is based primarily on discussions with residents, business owners and government officials that occurred on August 5 and 6, 2009. This draft CIP is being released to the public by EPA for review and comment. If you are interested in submitting comments or have questions about this draft CIP, please contact: Ginny Narsete Community Involvement Coordinator EPA Region 5 (SI-7J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Phone: 312-886-4359 or (800) 621-8431 x 64359 narsete.virginia@epa.gov For more information on the Burnham Canal Superfund Alternative Site, visit http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/burnham/ or request information by contacting Community Involvement Coordinators Ginny Narsete (see address above). ------- 2 What is Superfund? Superfund is the nickname for the environmental cleanup program legally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a federal law enacted in 1980. CERCLA provides the authority through which the federal government can compel people or companies responsible for creating hazardous waste sites to clean them up. CERCLA also created a public trust fund, known as the Superfund, to assist with the cleanup of inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites or accidentally spilled or illegally dumped hazardous materials. See also EPA's Superfund Internet Resources Superfund Process: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/sfprocess.htm General Superfund: ttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.h The Superfund program is overseen by EPA, and has four basic goals: It establishes a system for identifying hazardous substances and listing contaminated sites on EPA's National Priorities List. Sites are placed on this list when they are found to contain contaminants that have the potential to affect residential areas or impact the environment. It gives the federal government the authority to clean up a site if the owner or operator cannot be found or does not do the work themselves. It sets up a trust fund to pay for cleanup activities by imposing a tax on chemical and petroleum companies and other polluting industries. It makes persons or parties responsible for hazardous releases liable for costs and damages resulting from those releases. The flowchart on Page 2-4 provides an overview of the Superfund process. The Superfund cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous substances. Sites are discovered by various parties, including citizens, state agencies, and EPA regional offices. 2.1.1 Hazard Ranking System Once discovered, sites are entered into the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, EPA's computerized inventory of potential hazardous substance release sites. A site is added to the National Priorities List and is called a Superfund Site if it has a score of 28.5 under the Hazard Ranking System. The Hazard Ranking System considers the relative threat to public health and the environment, using data from site investigations, to assign a score ranging from zero to 100. The score is based on the likelihood that contaminants have been or will be released from the site; the types of 2-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN contaminants present; and the human population or sensitive environmental areas that could be impacted by a release. Contrary to popular belief, there is no "most polluted site" on the list, and a site with a higher hazard ranking is not necessarily more contaminated than one with a lower score. While it is a measure of relative threat, the hazard ranking is based on a formula that allows the score to be high even if just one pathway (air, underlying ground water, surface water or soil) score is high. As a result, a moderately contaminated site that impacts air, soil and ground water pathways could have a score similar to an extremely dangerous site that poses a threat through only one pathway (e.g., deeply buried, leaking hazardous waste storage drums that threaten drinking wells but have no impact on other pathways). In addition, the Hazard Ranking System takes into account requirements established by CERCLA, EPA policy decisions, and risk assessment principles. Because these relationships are complex, hazard rankings do not imply, for example, that a site with a score of 70 is a greater threat than a site with a score of 50, or that two sites with equal scores should have equal priorities for cleanup action. Following placement on the National Priorities List, the lead agency, whether it be EPA or a state agency, conducts an investigation at the site to collect data and determine the nature and extent of contamination. This investigation includes sampling and monitoring of air, water and soil, and also evaluates current risks to public health and the environment. Since the investigation and cleanup process takes several years, sites are evaluated early in the process to determine if any short-term actions or cleanup actions need to be taken. Details are provided in comments associated with certain steps in the flowchart shown on Page 2-4. As displayed in this flowchart, after the site investigation is completed or underway, several cleanup options are developed. These options are then evaluated against nine EPA criteria to determine which will be most protective of human health and the environment. This process and an explanation of the preferred alternative are described in detail in the proposed cleanup plan. 2.1.2 EPA's Nine Criteria Threshold Criteria 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state laws Balancing Criteria 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment 5. Short-term effectiveness 6. Implementability 7. Cost 2-2 ------- Modifying Criteria 8. State acceptance 9. Community acceptance 2.1.3 The Community's Role While public participation is encouraged throughout the process, the release of the proposed cleanup plan is a key point in time for public input. Area residents and the general public are encouraged to ask questions and express concerns during a public comment period and at a public meeting. These comments, as well as EPA's response to them, are included in a report called the Responsiveness Summary. At this point, EPA and other regulatory agencies overseeing the process select what they believe is the most appropriate cleanup option, taking into account public concerns, which are finalized in a legally-binding document known as the Record of Decision. The next step is the cleanup design, which sets out the detailed plans and specifications for the cleanup. The final step is the cleanup action, or actual construction and implementation of the selected option. Under Superfund law, all of the documents listed above, once each is completed, become part of the Administrative Record for the site. This Administrative Record is available for public review at information repositories (See Section 9.2). 2-3 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FIGURE 2-1 SUPERFUND PROCESS Site Discovery Superfund Process Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Hazard Ranking System Is Immediate action needed? Yes No Removal Action EPA has three categories of removal actions, emergency, time-critical, and non- time-critical. Removal actions are taken to eliminate extreme hazards at a site (I.e., chemical tanker fire) and/or provide short-term solutions such as providing drinking water while the site is more thoroughly investigated and evaluated, and more permanent solutions are developed in the RI/FS and cleanup occurs after a Record of Decision is finalized. Action Memorandum Remedial Investigation Report Presents the nature and extent of contamination, evaluates human health and ecological risk rt Feasibility Study Presents cleanup alternatives where each is evaluated using EPA's nine criteria (i.e., protection of human health and environment, cost, implementability, etc.^ Proposed Plan Presents the preferred cleanup alternative and is issued for a 30-day public comment period Record of Decision Contains the selected remedy for a site and the Responsiveness Summary which provides responses to all comments received during the public comment period y Remedial Action, Long-term Monitoring, and Operation & Maintenance Five-Year Review Report Site Deletion After all sites on a Superfund Site are investigated and cleanup levels have been achieved, the Site can begin the process to delete it from the NPL Site Reuse/ Redevelopment The Superfund program works with communities and other partners to return hazardous waste sites to safe and productive use without adversely affecting the remedy ------- 3 Site Background In 2008, Miller Compressing Company entered into a formal agreement with EPA to study the Burnham Canal site under EPA's Superfund Alternative Sites Program. The Superfund Alternative Sites Program takes sites that might otherwise be eligible for the National Priorities List (described in Section 2, What is Superfund), but which will be investigated and cleaned up by a cooperative responsible party (in this case Miller Compressing Company), without formally listing the site on the National Priorities List. Miller Compressing Company and EPA, in consultation with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the City of Milwaukee and area residents, will determine the extent of contamination on the site as well as final cleanup remedies. PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (motor oil compounds) Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling facility on the site for iron and non-iron metals. Sediment in the Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, or compounds commonly found in motor oils). A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of the canal, which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s for copper wire recycling. Miller Compressing Company has volunteered to address contamination from its facilities in the Canal. 3.1 Site Description 3.1.1 Location and Site Features The Burnham Canal used to be a federally authorized navigation channel. The site, shown in Figure 2-1, is bounded on the west by S. 17th Street, on the east by S. 16th Street, on the south by Bruce Street and on the north by a rail yard. The site is located 0.4 miles south of the Menomonee River (Figure 2-2). FIGURE 3-1 Burnham Canal and Miller Compressing Company property 3-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FIGURE 3-2 Burnham Canal Site Location 3.1.2 History and Cleanup Progress Prior to getting involved with EPA's Superfund Program, Miller Compressing Company conducted its own investigations of the Burnham Canal, including the western end. In July 2008, Miller Compressing Company signed an agreement with EPA to investigate the site contamination and to determine possible cleanup methods. The investigation is currently in progress and will be completed by December 2010. 3-2 ------- 4 Community Background Milwaukee is the county seat of Milwaukee County and is the largest city in Wisconsin. Milwaukee is located on the southwestern corner of Lake Michigan and at the confluence of the Menomonee, the Kinnickinnic and the Milwaukee Rivers. The Menomonee Valley was once the industrial heart of the city of Milwaukee, employing thousands of people in heavy industry and railroading. Despite decades of decline, the Valley is still home to several manufacturers, the Potawatomi Casino, the Harley-Davidson Museum, which opened in July 2008, and Miller Park, the home field of the Milwaukee Brewers. Redevelopment in the Menomonee Valley has added thousands of jobs and transformed once- blighted former industrial land into a parkland and community gathering space. In 2007, the Sierra Club recognized the Menomonee Valley as a national example of environmentally-friendly urban renewal. 4.1 Milwaukee Facts Milwaukee is approximately 97 square miles. As of the 2000 census, the city had a population of 596,974. Its estimated 2008 population was 604,447. Other census data: The median household income in 2000 was $32,216, with 21.3 percent of the population and 17.4 percent of families living below the poverty line Out of the total population, 31.6 percent of those under the age of 18 and 11 percent of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line As of the 2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau: White Americans made up 45.2 percent of Milwaukee's population Blacks or African Americans made up 38.7 percent of Milwaukee's population American Indians made up 0.7 percent of the city's population Asian Americans made up 3.3 percent of the city's population Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1 percent of the city's population Individuals from other races made up 10.0 percent of the city's population Individuals from two or more races made up 2 percent of the city's population Hispanics and Latinos made up 15.1 percent of Milwaukee's population.1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2007 American Community Survey. 4-1 ------- 5 Environmental Justice The Environmental Justice Act 1992 obligates federal agencies to make "environmental justice" part of its overall mission by "identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." Following this order, the Office of Environmental Equity within EPA became the Office of Environmental Justice. EPA's Office of Environmental Justice ensures that all people, regardless of race, color, national original, or income, enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process for a healthy living, learning, and working environment. When making decisions about a cleanup and planning their community involvement initiative for a community, EPA must take environmental justice issues into account. As part of this effort, EPA is working to improve collaboration between federal agencies and communities, and addressing environmental challenges in more effective, efficient, and sustainable ways. EPA is currently working to further the redevelopment of the 30th Street Industrial Corridor relatively near the area. The corridor, a former rail line in the north-central part of Milwaukee, is home to low income minority communities. Using environmental justice goals, this project seeks to improve the human, environmental and economic health of these neighborhoods by redeveloping brownfields sites along the corridor. This project also includes goals for implementing sustainable stormwater management practices, and developing urban agriculture, such as community gardens. These are high-priority goals shared by EPA and the community, as demonstrated by the discussion, comments and questions received by residents, business owners and government officials that occurred on August 5 and 6, 2009. A summary of this discussion follows. 5-1 ------- 6 Community Issues and Concerns 6.1 Summary of Community Interviews To learn about resident and community concerns regarding the site, EPA held several community interviews on August 5 and 6, 2009. EPA talked with local officials and residents living and working in the vicinity of the Burnham Canal and asked them about various issues related to the contamination and cleanup at the site, the community involvement process, the communication process to date and how the community involvement process could be improved. Below are the specific questions EPA asked and a summary of the answers that were provided at the August 2009 community interviews. Note to the reader: This summary is intended to faithfully record and reflect the issues and concerns expressed to EPA by residents, officials and others on the days of the community interviews. By necessity, this is a collection of opinions, thoughts and feelings. Therefore, please be cautioned that the statements contained in this section may, or may not, be factual and the opinions and concerns expressed may, or may not, be valid. Where questions are asked, EPA 's responses are provided in italics. 1. Are you aware of contamination at the Burnham Canal site near the former Miller Compressing Company located on Bruce Street? Most people interviewed were not aware of the contamination and EPA's involvement in the cleanup at the Burnham Canal site, although most were familiar with Miller Compressing Company's recycling operations on the site. Some public officials were aware of contamination on the site, but were unsure of the extent and nature of the contamination. Only a few residents were aware of contamination at the site and had seen oil and white dust in the area. 2. If so, what do you know about the Burnham Canal site? The most frequently asked question among residents was where the Burnham Canal is located. Except for those living immediately adjacent to the Miller Compressing Company, most residents didn't know about the Burnham Canal. 6-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Most of those interviewed were not familiar with the Burnham Canal site. They were however, generally aware of the recycling operations on the Miller Compressing Company's property and some referred to the site as a junk yard. Most residents are unhappy with Miller Compressing Company's operations, siting noise and air contamination, as well as debris in the river and fires on the site due to oil and grease. Public officials however, consider Miller Compressing Company as a progressive company, providing jobs while meeting its environmental responsibilities. Officials consider the site a brownfield, ready for cleanup and redevelopment. Other residents knew of efforts to clean up the site and plans for improvement through the Menomonee River Valley Partners. 3. How long have you been aware of the site? Most of those interviewed were not aware that the Burnham Canal was an official Superfund Alternative Site, or that EPA was managing the cleanup of the site. However, most were familiar with the recycling operations at the site, and some also knew of the Kinnickinnic River cleanup going on in the area. 4. Are you interested in receiving more information about the site? If yes, what's the best wav to provide that information to you (e-mail, regular mail) ? All of those interviewed would like to receive more information about the site that is simple and easy to understand. Most prefer to receive e-mails, but a few people prefer regular mail. Other suggested forms of information include fact sheets (written in both Spanish and English), radio, direct calls, and face-to-face meetings. Several organizations also volunteered to forward information from EPA to their member lists. 5. Do you feel the site has received adequate coverage by the local/regional media? Nobody interviewed had heard or seen the Burnham Canal site mentioned on the radio, on television or in the newspaper. However, a fire at the Miller Compressing Company was seen mentioned on the news about a year prior to the Burnham Canal community interviews. 6-2 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS 6. Where do you get your information about the site? Are there particular newspapers, radio or TV stations or Internet sites that you prefer? Although nobody interviewed had heard or seen anything in the media about the site, the preferred sources of information in the community (listed in order of popularity) are: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Dan Egan is the environmental reporter) Word of mouth Online websites WITI, Fox News, Channel 6 TMJ4, NBC Channel 4 (on TV and the Internet) WISN, ABC Channel 12 RiverWest Community Papers Milwaukee Magazine Bay View Compass Milwaukee Business Journal Menomonee Valley Partners Aldermadic Newsletters County Supervisor Newsletters Southside Post Southsider Southside Organizing Committee Newsletters WQBW 97.3 FM WTMJ 620 AM WUWM 89.7FM WISN, 88.9 FM WYMS 89.9 FM WHAD 90.7 FM WMSE91.7FM Spanish Media listed included: El Conquistador (top paper on the Southside) Spanish Journal ACJUI! Milwaukee Spanish Times TeleMundo, WYTU-LP (Channel 63) La Grand, 104 7 FM El Nuevo Ritmo, 1460 AM Other sources of information included the Menomonee Valley Business Association through its e-mail list and through its monthly meetings. Also, signage was suggested to indicate fishing is not recommended for the Hmong population that fishes along the canal, as well as other communication through the Hmong American Friendship Association. EPA was told that main post offices and libraries, particularly at 11th and Greenfield, are used by the Hispanic community and are good places to disseminate information. 7. How frequently do you think public meetings about the site should be held? Where is a eood location for the meetings? Would you attend? The majority of the people said they would attend meetings about the site to hear about the cleanup progress. They suggested an open house format that allows for interaction with EPA, with Spanish translation available. They listed the following possible meeting locations (in order of popularity): 6-3 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN United Community Center (recommended as a good place for a site repository - Figure 5-1) Forest Home Library (could hold up to 50 people Figure 5-2) Longfellow Elementary School (21" & Scott) FIGURE 6-1 Mitchell Park United Community Center Rice Palace Restaurant (has a community room) Prince of Peace Church Victory Church Koczwisco Park The Domes Senior Center on Greenfield Community Warehouse (920 W. Bruce) but, not Americans with Disabilities Act accessible The former Manitoba Bowling Lanes, which are now used for banquets Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Esperanza Unita Harley Davidson Museum Miller Park Downtown Library Marquette University - Ron Altenburs is the community outreach director Menomonee Valley Business Association luncheons FIGURE 6-2 Forest Home Library ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS 8. Are there any other people or groups you think we should talk to about the Burnham Canal site? The following were mentioned as people or groups to talk to: Esparanza Unito - Robert Miranda (6th/14th & National) 16th Street Community Health Center United Community Center The Alderman for Area 3 Layton Boulevard Neighborhood Association Menomonee Valley Partners Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Will Wawrzyn) State Representative Pedro Colon Aldermen Witt Kowiak and Donovan County Supervisor Peggy West Menomonee Valley Business Association Marsha Bzinski from the Kinnickinnic River list River Revitalization Association Hispanic and Hmong communities (possibly through the schools) Hmong American Friendship Association Neighbors Fishing groups/boaters in the area IULC - seniors (9th & Washington) Department of City Development (Jose Perez) Former Alderman, Mary Ann McNulty 16th Street Business Improvement District Mitchell Street Organization Southside Landlord Association (Bruce/Canal Streets) Council for Spanish Speakers Milwaukee Christian Center 2 Southside Organizing Committee (Steve Fendt) Community Shares - John, Jenson, Executive Director Journey House Casa Esperanza City of Milwaukee Community Partners - Maria Sandoval Local journalists with the Spanish press Georgia Papps - journalist Fongs Garden Temple - Buddhist Temple (19th & National) Historic 3rd Ward Miller Park director Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District 6-5 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN 9. When possible, site information is posted on EPA's Web site. Have you used the EPA Region 5 Web site? Most of those interviewed had not visited EPA's Web site prior to being contacted for an interview. Those who had used the site were generally not been looking for information about the Burnham Canal site. EPA was told that the Internet is not a good source of information for the community; radio announcements would be better. Radio Sol (WJTI, 1460 AM) and WMSE, 91.7 FM (Felix Rodriguez) were suggested for announcements. 10. How interested are you in environmental issues in general? Most of those interviewed were either generally or very interested in environmental issues. Issues of concern include: Health Urban sprawl Urban gardens Farming and the use of pesticides Water Lake Michigan - sewer system failures Air quality Green space Going green Recycling Pollution Contaminated grounds Trash Concern that plastics are putting estrogen/ hormones into the drinking water Lead-based paint 11. Have you had contact with government officials about the site? Do you feel these officials have been responsive to vour concerns? The majority of residents and local officials who were interviewed had not had contact with government officials concerning the site. Some officials had discussed the site with the Wisconsin EPA and Department of Health and Family Services. One family near the site had spoken with an alderman but did not feel their concerns were addressed. 6-6 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS 12. What are your concerns about the contamination at the site (if yes to #1)? Most of those interviewed said they didn't have any concerns about the site. Most just want to see the cleanup finished. Residents expressed the following ideas regarding potential cleanup options: Damming and dredging is the best cleanup idea. The deeper the canal is left, the better off the water will be. If the site is going to be cleaned up, people want it done properly. Sediment needs to be disposed of properly. It would be unfortunate if there is not a thorough characterization of the site. It should all be addressed up front. If dredging sediment, need to make sure it is contained. The less disturbed in the water, the better. Dewatering the area is a better idea. EPA oversight of the cleanup is appreciated. EPA received several questions about potential cleanup options. These questions and EPA's response to them follow: Is EPA locked into a few cleanup options? No. Currently Miller Compressing Company is investigating the extent of the contamination at the site and reasonable cleanup alternatives. The results of this investigation and study respectively will be released in a report called a remedial investigation/feasibility study, expected to be completed in December 2010. EPA is required to consider the "no action" cleanup option and will also evaluate an array of cleanup alternatives. Remedial technologies likely to be considered include dredging, capping and treatment. The selected cleanup action must protect people and the environment; comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental regulations (or establish grounds for a waiver); use permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and be cost effective. We will also consider long-term effectiveness, short-term effectiveness, and implementability; as well as community and state acceptance of evaluated remedial actions before the final remedial action is selected. EPA welcomes ideas from the public and the public will have a chance to comment on the cleanup plan EPA proposes before it is selected by EPA. What will the cleanup consist of? When the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete (December 2010), EPA will have a better understanding of the extent of the contamination on the site and potential realistic cleanup alternatives. It is possible that the contamination will be excavated. Before any cleanup remedy is selected, a proposed plan will be presented to the public and you will have an opportunity to comment on the various cleanup alternatives. 6-7 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN If the cleanup involves dredging, how much contamination would get stirred up and where would the contamination be taken? The array of potential site remedial options has not yet been determined or evaluated. If dredging is evaluated as part of a potential remedial action, there will be an evaluation conducted regarding the volume of material to be dredged and that will be stirred up, and well as where the contaminated materials will be disposed. If developed, this dredging evaluation will be available to the public for its review and comment before the final remedy is selected by EPA. Will the site be capped? If the site is capped, what does that include; what kind of capping would be done? The array of potential site cleanup options has not yet been determined or evaluated. If capping is the preferred cleanup approach, there will be an evaluation and description of this option available to the public for its review and comment before the final remedy is selected by EPA. How deep is the water where the sediment is contaminated? The water is deepest nearest the llth Street Bridge. The canal ranges from 10 to 22 feet deep. Could the canal be dammed and then dug out without spreading the contamination? EPA does not know yet. If this approach will be considered as a potential remedial action, it will be evaluated. Will the site be excavated? When the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete (in approximately December 2010), EPA will have a better understanding of the extent of the contamination and potential cleanup alternatives. It is possible that the contamination will be excavated. Before any cleanup remedy is selected, a proposed plan will be presented to the public and you will have an opportunity to comment on the various cleanup alternatives. Will the cleanup involve dredging? Will dredging disturb any buried contamination? It is possible that the proposed cleanup options will involve dredging; however, that will not be determined until the remedial investigation/feasibility study is completed in December 2010. A dredging option will likely disturb some buried contamination. Will contaminated sediment be taken off site? Out of the community? How the contamination will be disposed of and whether it will remain onsite or be taken out of the community will be determined when the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete and the community and state have an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. Are federal regulations less stringent than state regulations? It depends on the regulation. The selected remedy is required to comply with all federal and more stringent state environmental regulations, or invoke grounds for a waiver. What contamination is there and what has happened historically there? Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling facility on the site for iron and non-iron metals. Sediment in the Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and PAHs. A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of the canal, 6-8 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s for copper wire recycling. Non-site related contaminants exist in the canal that may be attributed to other industrial practices along canal; those contaminants will be indirectly addressed by the canal cleanup. Is EPA planning to do a Phase 1 study? And if the results show a need then a Phase 2? A phased approach for studying site contamination will be used if appropriate. Residents asked the following questions about funding and timing of the cleanup, as well as the possibility of a federal match with Great Lakes Legacy Act funds. When did this project start? On May 30, 2008, Miller Compressing Company entered into a formal agreement with EPA to study the nature and extent of the contamination at the Burnham Canal site and to evaluate potential cleanup options under EPA's Superfund Alternative Sites Program. How much will the cleanup cost? Cleanup cost will be determined when the remedial investigation/feasibility study is complete and a cleanup plan is selected. Certain remedies take longer and cost more than others. The feasibility study will evaluate the estimated cleanup time frame and cost for all proposed options. Who is financing the study and cleanup? The Miller Compressing Company is the potentially responsible party. It has agreed to fund the remedial investigation/feasibility study. EPA will also attempt to reach an agreement with the company for implementation of the cleanup and future monitoring. What's the timeframe? How long will it take to clean it up? The remedial investigation/feasibility study is currently scheduled for completion by December 2010. Shortly after approval of the study, EPA will, in consultation with the State of Wisconsin, recommend a proposed final remedial action at the site. The proposed final remedial action, and EPA's rationale for this recommendation, will be presented to the public. The public will be invited to comment on the proposed remedial action. After comments are received and evaluated, EPA will select the final site cleanup plan. Once the cleanup alternative is selected, the timeframe for the cleanup will be determined. The following questions about the contamination were asked: Is there contamination on the property lines? There is contamination on the Miller Compressing Company property - a small area of soil at the west end of the canal. Will it spread through air? There is no evidence that site contamination is spread through the air. Precautions will be taken to ensure that the contamination will not be spread through the air during the cleanup. 6-9 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Are there mutated frogs? Mutated frogs have not been identified in the area; EPA is unaware of reports of mutations to living organisms in the canal. Was the contamination caused by a manufacturing process? What was the process of metal reclamation? Yes, Miller Compressing Company currently operates a recycling facility on the site for iron and non-iron metals. Sediment in the Burnham Canal shows high levels of metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and PAHs. A wire reclamation furnace, approximately 100 feet west of the canal, which has contributed to the contamination in the area, was used from the early 1970s to the mid 1990s for copper wire recycling. Several people asked about the characterization of the site; that is, what the nature of the contamination is. What are the contaminants? The contaminants of concern include metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, silver and zinc) and PAHs. What chemicals are involved? What's the contamination? What's the particulate matter? The contaminants are thought to include six heavy metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc) and PAHs. Is copper the issue? Copper is one of the contaminants of concern. What is in the water? What's in the ground? The contaminants of concern are copper, PAHs, lead, and other metals. The levels of contamination that are likely to present a concern to people or the environment are in the sediment and soil. No significant amount of contamination is present in the surface water. How far down did the contamination get? According to a previous study completed in 2007, the contamination concentrations significantly drop and stabilize a little over halfway down the canal. The copper contamination tends to increase with sediment depth, while lead and PAHs are highest in the first 5 feet of sediment. What do you mean by cleaning it up? By cleanup, we reduce exposure of harmful contaminants to people and the environment. Cleanup does not necessarily mean that we will remove all contamination from the area. If the exposure can be reduced by installation of a cap or implementation of a specific treatment, it will be considered. Is the contamination airborne? Is the slurry powder spread through air rather than water? Is it known? The contamination is not airborne; it is confined to the surface water, soil and sediment. There is no evidence of airborne contamination. 6-10 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS If more contamination is found downstream, could Miller Compressing Company still be held liable for the cleanup? Yes. If contamination above environmental or health-based limits that can reasonably attributed to Miller Compressing Company operations is found past the llth Street Bridge, the company may be held liable. Has the contamination migrated? The contamination is highest near the western terminus of the canal and it decreases as it goes east. Therefore, the contamination most likely originated from the western terminus and migrated east in the canal. Is Miller Compressing Company responsible for all the contamination? Miller Compressing Company is the only party currently identified as potentially responsible for site contamination. Although contaminants not attributable to Miller Compressing operations exist in the canal, no other companies have been identified as potentially responsible parties. EPA was given several comments and questions about the potential impacts the contamination could have on the health of the community, including estrogen levels in Lake Michigan, further contamination past the 11th Street Bridge due to tide effects, and fishing activities off the bridge. Additional questions included: Except for fish, does it affect the community in any other way? An assessment of site risks is currently under development. The known contamination in canal sediment and soil on the site property currently poses a risk to organisms that fish eat (benthic organisms), outdoor workers, construction workers and trespassers on the site whose skin may come in contact with the contamination or who accidentally ingest it. Will there ever be a time when the fish can be eaten? We do not know. Because contaminants from other sources affect fish in the canal, it is likely that the Burnham Canal cleanup will not affect the safety of eating fish from the canal. Risks from site - are there health issues? The Wisconsin Department of Health Services conducted a health consultation for the Burnham Canal Site. The Department concluded that there is no harm to public health associated with the site, aside from fish consumption, because access to highly contaminated areas is restricted. Further investigation of risks to trespassers and onsite workers is being conducted as part of the remedial investigation. Do you have any idea how many people are using the area for fishing and boating? EPA does not know how many people are using the area for fishing. Hmong have been reported subsistence fishing off the bridge near the canal. No boating is occurring in the canal. Should activities take place in the water if it is contaminated? There is no evidence that the water itself is contaminated from the Miller Compressing Company operations. There are concentrations of contaminants in the sediments that may be of concern. There 6-11 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN is a fish advisory in the area due to contamination from other sources in the site area. Contamination in the fish has not been shown to be associated with the site, but with the watershed. What kind of fish are people catching? EPA is not sure what kind of sport fish are being caught in the canal. Is the canal a fish habitat? A 2008 report, compiling all existing data, states that no areas where aquatic vegetation or habitat are present are in the canal. Pish are in the water but the canal ecosystem does not provide a suitable fish habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources studies show that sport fish freely roam throughout the Milwaukee River Estuary, including the Burnham Canal. Is there a danger to people living near the site? Risks posed from the site are currently under evaluation. EPA recommends that people do not trespass on the site property, and do not come into contact with the sediment in the canal. There is a watershed fish advisory recommending that fish caught in the Menominee River Watershed not be consumed. Some of the comments EPA heard had more to do with the activities of the Miller Compressing Company than the contamination at the Burnham Canal site, including: Because the contamination is their fault, Miller Compressing Company should want to clean it up. Something is not right with Miller's volunteering to do the cleanup. Miller Compressing Company is not trustworthy and is not a good environmental steward. Recycling activities at the site, like car grinding, are very loud. Most people don't know what goes on at the site. Questions that EPA was asked about Miller Compressing Company include: Why does Miller Compressing Company want to do this right now? What's going on? Does Miller Compressing Company still own the site? Miller Compressing does not own the canal; however, it does own the north bank and western terminus. The company is potentially responsible for the contamination on the property and in the canal. Miller Compressing Company has agreed to study the nature and extent of site contamination, and to evaluate potential cleanup alternatives for the site. EPA will ask Miller Compressing Company to implement the final site property and canal remedial action that we select in the future. EPA cannot speak for the reasons that Miller Compressing is currently cooperating with us; however, parties potentially liable for contamination often agree to studies and to cleanup measures at Superfimd sites. Is Miller Compressing Company going to stay? EPA is not aware of Miller Compressing Company's plans to remain operating on the site. 6-12 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS What areas would be covered by a "covenant not to sue" Miller Compressing Company? Currently EPA has given Miller Compressing a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. งง 9606 and 9607 (a), for performance of the remedial investigation and feasibility study and for recovery of future response costs. This covenant not to sue is conditioned upon the complete and satisfactory performance by Miller Compressing of all obligations under the agreement. Additional potential covenants from the EPA will depend on additional work the company agrees to conduct. The following additional thoughts were shared about the site: There is limited fish spawning in the area. Burnham Canal is a good place for that. Some would like the site to be used for that. The river needs to be cleaned up. Cleaning it up would be a good thing. The following additional questions were asked about the site: What is the Burnham Canal site and what's going on with it? The Burnham Canal Site is a Super fund Alternative Site. The Burnham Canal used to be a federally authorized navigation channel. The site is located in an industrial area, in the southern portion of the Menomonee River Valley of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Miller Compressing Company, the potentially responsible part, operates a copper wire reclamation and non-iron recycling facility located adjacent to the Burnham Canal. Copper reclamation operations were performed on the site from late 1970s through the mid 1980s. Miller Compressing Company has agreed to study the nature and extent of contaminant on its property and in the canal; and evaluate cleanup alternatives for the contamination caused by its operations. The canal has high levels of copper and PAHs in the sediment. EPA is overseeing the investigation. Is this site in the Menomonee Valley? Yes, the site is in the Menomonee Valley. Will the canal issue affect the lake? There is little to no flow in the canal. It is not likely that contamination in the canal will affect Lake Michigan. Will the canal be opened up to be freer flowing for activities? It is unclear at this time how the cleanup will affect water flow in the canal. Because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has ceased dredging the canal, it is not anticipated that the canal will be opened up for recreational activities or navigational use. The anticipated use of the site is industrial. What is the air quality? The air quality in the area has not been tested. There is no indication that site contamination has adversely affected air quality. 6-13 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Why is EPA looking for public participation? EPA is required by law to include the community when deciding how best to clean up a Superfund Site. The community may have important information about the site or its history or about how a particular remedy would affect the community's future plans. Who is using the canal? Since the canal is no longer being dredged, it is not accessible for recreational use. There are reports that people have been seen fishing off the bridge over the canal. How is Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources involved in the project? Where is the Department in all of this? The Department is the support agency for the project; and EPA is the lead agency the Department provides consultation to throughout the remedial investigation/feasibility study process. The Department is invited to comment on all site-related documents; it identifies state environmental regulations for proposed remedial actions, and its input is carefully considered by EPA before the final site cleanup action is selected. How might the cleanup affect businesses in the area? The remedy has not yet been selected; therefore, the affect it will have on the business community is unknown. 13. What risks do you think the site, in its current state, poses to you or your children? Most of those interviewed did not feel the site posed risks to them or children. Those who had concerns discussed risks to boats due to debris; risks to those fishing in the canal; and noise, dust and dirt from Miller Compressing Company operations and possible health effects such as headaches. Some officials didn't think the site posed a risk because of restricted public access to the area. However, EPA was told of potential environmental justice issues, particularly for homeless people in the area. EPA was also told that "Superfund" frightens people, and needs to be explained to those living near the area. 14. Would you like to see the site redeveloped? How? Most of those interviewed would like to see the site redeveloped for recreational or industrial, purposes, but not for residential use. Most would like to see the area reused as a park or kept as green space with a walking area and bike trail, to improve water quality for water sports, fish habitat and fishing. Those interviewed also suggested the area would be 6-14 ------- 5 5BCOMMUNITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS useful for bringing in jobs, especially for green technology projects, in keeping with the site's current use for recycling. The concerns that were expressed regarding site redevelopment included potential flooding and potential capping as a cleanup option, since capping had not worked at an upstream site. 6-15 ------- 7 Community Involvement Goals EPA is committed to involving the public in the cleanup of the Burnham Canal site in a substantial and significant manner and established the following goals for the overall community involvement program. EPA will: Provide the public with accurate, timely, and understandable information and/or access to the information needed to understand the project as it moves forward. Provide the public with the opportunity to give informed and meaningful input. Ensure adequate time and opportunity for the public to provide input. Give full consideration to community input. Assist the public in understanding the project decision-making process during project design and cleanup and the community's role in that process. Community involvement goals and needs must be considered and balanced with the project's technical and scientific requirements. To date, EPA has focused its community involvement efforts on getting public input on the issues that are most important to community members and organizations through the community interview process. 7.1 Community Involvement Tools and Activities EPA has identified and developed a wide variety of community involvement tools and activities that can be used to implement this program. The objectives of these tools and activities generally fall into one or more of four categories: Input - How EPA receives information from the public. Output - How EPA shares information with the public. Outreach - How EPA promotes education and awareness about the project. Involvement - How EPA encourages public participation in the project. Some tools and activities cross many categories. These include public availability sessions, public forums and public meetings. 7.2 Public Availability Sessions Description: Public availability sessions are effective, informal sessions open to the general public. They feature posters, displays and interaction between EPA staff and the public. These sessions present detailed information in understandable terms, allow individuals to inquire about issues that most concern them, and give each citizen a chance to speak freely to EPA personnel and contractors on a 7-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN one-to-one basis. Public availability sessions do not require the use of court reporters and transcripts, although meeting summaries may be prepared. Goal: The goal of these sessions is to educate the public on important project issues and to enable community members to ask questions in a comfortable and informal setting. Public availability sessions also provide EPA with feedback from the community and can uncover issues not fully understood by the community. Method: Sessions are conducted as needed at convenient times and places. Whenever possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public availability sessions. 7.3 Public Forums Description: Public forums are semi-formal public sessions that are characterized by a presentation, a question-and-answer session, and/or a less formal poster/ display session. This format allows members of the public to participate in both large and small group settings. Public forums do not require the use of court reporters and transcripts, although meeting summaries may be prepared. Goal: Public forums are opportunities to update the community on site developments and address community questions, concerns, ideas and comments. Method: Sessions are conducted as needed at convenient times and places. Whenever possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public forums. 7.4 Public Meetings Description: Public meetings are structured, formal meetings open to the general public, featuring a presentation and interaction with the public. Formal public meetings may involve the use of a court reporter and the issuance of transcripts. Formal public meetings are required only for a proposed cleanup plan, called a record of decision (ROD), and ROD amendments. Goal: Public meetings are opportunities to update the community on site developments and address community questions, concerns, ideas and comments. Method: EPA schedules, prepares for, and attends all announced meetings. Whenever possible, public notice is given at least 2 weeks before scheduled public meetings. EPA will hold public availability sessions, participate in public forums and schedule public meetings at key cleanup milestones. The meetings will be announced via newspaper notices, e-mail messages and fact sheets. The preferred location for meetings is the United Community Center or the Forest Home Library. See Appendix A for details on suggested meeting locations. 7-2 ------- 8 EPA's Input Tools and Activities 8.1 EPA'S Toil-Free Phone Number Description: EPA has established toll-free service to improve access to project information. Goal: Extending toll-free access to community members improves the flow of information between EPA and the community. Method: EPA routinely publicizes the toll-free number through announcements, events and publications. Toll-Free: 1-800-621-8431 8.2 E-mail Description: E-mail can be used to contact EPA representatives for information or to ask questions about this site. Goal: This provides another method for citizens to provide input or request information. Method: E-mail EPA's site community involvement coordinator, Ginny Narsete, at narsete. virginia@epa. gov. For full EPA contact information, see Appendix A. 8.3 Mailing List Expansion Description: EPA has an extensive mailing list of individuals and organizations. Using several methods, EPA has solicited additional mailing addresses from community members interested in the Burnham Canal cleanup. EPA is not required, nor does it intend to prepare responsiveness summaries for each comment submitted during design. However, EPA will summarize how comments were used or considered in the decision- making process. Goal: Mailings effectively communicate project and event information to a wide and diverse audience and provide information to community members who do not purchase newspapers, use computers, or have access to the Internet. The Burnham Canal Superfund Alternative Site public mailing list is expressly intended for distributing project-related information. The mailing list is not public information and is not available for public viewing. While EPA may identify recipients to other agencies for project information distribution, EPA will not release this list to outside parties. Method: Methods for increasing the mailing list will include coordination with elected officials using constituent mailing lists, sign-up sheets at public meetings, availability sessions and festivals, and contact with community-based organizations to invite their members to sign up. Community members on the mailing list should notify the community involvement coordinator of any changes to their mailing address. ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN 8.4 Public Comment Period Description: This is a formal opportunity for community members to review and contribute comments on various EPA documents or actions. Comment periods are legally required for, among other things, proposed cleanup plans, cleanup agreements (known as consent decrees), and the addition or deletion of a site to the National Priorities List (NPL). For the Burnham Canal Superfund Site, EPA has gone well beyond these minimum requirements by holding comment periods on key design issues. Goal: Comment periods allow the public to provide meaningful input in the process and provide EPA with valuable information for use in making decisions. Method: EPA announces comment periods with newspaper postings, listserv notifications, and EPA fact sheets to ensure the public understands what is being presented, when comments will be accepted, how long the comment period will be open, and how to submit comments. See Appendix A for a list of regional newspapers. 8.5 Public Input Description: Letters and informal discussions with EPA staff allow the public and EPA to communicate about the project. EPA wants to understand the public's concerns so they can be addressed. Goal: Verbal comments and letters allow continued opportunity for the public to give input and, consequently, allow EPA to recognize trends in issues of public concern and identify areas that require more information or clarification. Method: Informal comments can be offered at any time, such as during availability sessions, open houses, community visits, and workshops. Written comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail. See Appendix A for EPA contact information. 8.6 Stakeholder Group Interaction Description: EPA will coordinate with and, upon request, attend meetings of stakeholder groups. Goal: Such interaction helps ensure that members of these organizations receive the information that they need and that EPA receives their input and understands their concerns. Interaction with stakeholder groups also can extend EPA's outreach by sharing EPA notices of events, site updates and other information with their members and constituents. Method: EPA regularly coordinates with and, upon request, will attend meetings of stakeholder groups that have identified the Burnham Canal cleanup project as a focus of their organization. 8-2 ------- 7 /BEPA'S INPUT TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES See Appendix A for stakeholders and interested party contact information. 8.7 Surveys Description: EPA will consider print or telephone surveys to solicit feedback about the site. Goal: Surveys allow EPA to identify and update community concerns and issues. Method: Random surveys may be used as necessary, particularly in communities that have questions and concerns about the project but that have not necessarily had much access to other community involvement activities. 8-3 ------- 9 EPA's Output Tools and Activities 9.1 EPA's Web Sites Description: Major technical reports and updates on the Burnham Canal can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/bur BBBBBJBIBJBJBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIBBBBBBB nham/ or >-ซ http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/sfd/npl/ sas_sites/WIN000510222.htm. Many other sources of information are available through the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov. Goal: EPA's web sites provide key resources for accessing both general and site-specific information about the site and the Superfund Alternative Process. Access to EPA's web sites is available through home and public computers and libraries in the Milwaukee area. Method: EPA posts updates and major technical reports, generally within 2 business days of their release. Notice of all public meetings, forums and availability sessions and announcements related to the project are posted. Items will be posted in languages consistent with the affected communities, including Spanish, Hmong, etc). The Web site will continue to be updated and enhanced regularly so that users can easily search for information. EPA will provide links to important project- related information posted on other sites. 9.2 Fact Sheets Description: Fact sheets, sometimes called site or project updates, are brief documents written in plain language, often containing user-friendly graphics (pictures and maps), to help residents understand highly technical reports, concepts and information, and inform the public about upcoming meetings and community involvement opportunities. Goal: Fact sheets provide site-related information and notice of community involvement opportunities in an easy to understand format. Method: Fact sheets will be produced throughout the project design and cleanup process to promote understanding of the cleanup. Fact sheets will be posted on EPA's Web site, made available at public forums and will be mailed to individuals and organizations on the site mailing list. Fact sheets will also be produced in languages other than English when http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/burnham/ or www. epa.gov/reg5sfu n/sfd/npl/sas_sites/WIN000510222. htm 9-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN community demographics indicate such languages (Spanish, Hmong, etc) are commonly used. In addition to sending fact sheets via first class mail, EPA will distribute fact sheets at locations in the neighborhood where they can be conveniently picked up by residents, including the United Community Center, 16th Street Community Health Center, post offices and libraries. EPA will also develop an e-mail distribution list for interested parties who prefer e-mail. Each fact sheet will be sent to e-mail recipients as a ".pdf" file at the same time the fact sheet is mailed. 9.3 Infield Notification Description: This type of information consists of advisories, restrictions and explanatory signs posted to clearly mark project work areas and river access restrictions. Goal: Advisories, restrictions and explanatory signs are intended to keep the public informed and maintain safety. Method: All advisories, explanatory signs and restrictions on river access or to project work areas will be clearly posted, including on locks and buoys. Signs will be posted in Spanish, Hmong and English. 9.4 Information Repositories Description: Information repositories are local public buildings such as libraries, community centers or government offices where site-related and supporting documents are available for review. There are a total of three information repositories for the Burnham Canal site. All repositories have printed copies of major documents. Information repositories, as well as most public libraries throughout the site, have public-use computers that provide access to additional information. Two repositories house all project-related documents for the Burnham Canal site. Goal: Information repositories provide accessible public locations where residents can read and copy official documents and other pertinent information about the site, EPA activities, and the Superfund process. Method: EPA maintains three information repositories, two near the project area, and will continue to add documents as they become available. See Appendix A for a listing of all information repositories. 9.5 Listserv Description: The EPA-Burnham Canal listserv is a free, subscription-based electronic news distribution system used by EPA to distribute updates, notifications and progress reports via e-mail; this is the fastest way to get the latest information. The listserv cannot be used to transmit graphics and photos. All information conveyed via the listserv is text only. EPA will make graphics-rich documents available on the Burnham Canal Web site in .pdf format. Goal: The goal of listserv is to disseminate information as quickly and effectively as possible to large numbers of interested parties. 9-2 ------- 8 SBEPA'S OUTPUT TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES Method: Information about how to subscribe to the listserv is available at www.epa.gov/burnham/listserv.htm. 9.6 Maps and Visual Aids Description: Maps and visual aids help people understand the geography of the site and the locations of activities and resources. Goal: The visual aids communicate complex issues effectively. Method: EPA regularly uses maps, photographs, and other visual aids in documents and fact sheets, at public sessions, and on the Web site. 9.7 Media Distribution / Media Events Description: EPA provides updates and information to key local newspapers and radio and television stations and encourages them to further distribute this information on a regular basis. EPA representatives provide information and are accessible to the news media. Goal: News releases and other types of information distribution to the media help EPA to reach large audience quickly and to reinforce and distribute information further. Media stories help explain technical information and track sequences of events for the public. Method: Common methods of providing information to the media include the distribution of press releases on developing issues related to the project, individual interviews with project staff, or statements made by EPA representatives during public. Media briefings before public sessions may be used by EPA to summarize the purpose and main points of the event and to enhance accuracy of media coverage. See Appendix A for a list of media contacts. 9.8 Project Roadmap Description: EPA will map the project schedule to illustrate the general sequence of events during the design period leading up to, and including, the cleanup activities. The roadmap will describe the interrelationship of major project elements, discuss technical reports and documents and identify opportunities for public input. Goal: Project roadmaps help the public see the big picture. Method: A timeline that uses graphics to identify elements and their relationships is displayed in fact sheet form and is available on the project Web site. The project roadmap may also be presented at meetings and events. 9.9 Public Notices Description: Public notices can be advertisements published in local newspapers or mailings, including postcards that announce public comment periods for EPA decisions, public meetings, and major project milestones. 9-3 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Goal: The goal of public notices is to communicate an important announcement to as many community members as possible. Method: EPA uses public notices to announce public comment periods and public meetings. In certain cases, EPA will supplement published notices with radio announcements. The most widely read English newspaper by local residents is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; the most widely read Spanish publication is the El Conquistador; however, local community groups newsletters are also a source of local information for the residents. It is expected that EPA would publish all notices in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as well as El Conquistador as appropriate. Fact sheets and other information will be sent to the media contact list, including community group newsletter contacts for their use. See Appendix A for a list of newspapers and other media outlets. 9.10 Reports / Concept Documents / Work Plans Description: These reports detail the investigations, studies, findings and decisions about the site and have been made available at the repositories and, in most cases, on EPA's Burnham Canal Web site for public access. Goal: To allow the public access to detailed information on the decision-making process. Method: EPA will continue to make these documents public. However, the complexities of these reports can make them difficult to understand for those without technical or scientific expertise. EPA recognizes that these reports need to be supported with other community involvement activities to give the public a clear understanding of the material presented in these documents. Fact sheets and various types of public meetings will be prepared and conducted to ensure that the public is educated about project activities and afforded an opportunity to provide input. Reports are available at the site repositories. ------- 10 EPA's Outreach Tools and Activities 10.1 Community Events Description: EPA will attend community events, such as fairs and festivals, to distribute information and provide answers to questions. Goal: Community events provide EPA with the opportunity to build and maintain good relationships with residents. Community events also allow EPA to understand and appreciate the daily lives of community members and the events and activities that are important and enjoyed by them. Method: EPA will supply and staff an information booth at appropriate events. 10.2 Environmental Justice Activities Description: Environmental justice activities encourage participation from communities that may not have direct access to project information due to language and cultural barriers. This is especially important because members of low-income and non-English speaking communities near the site continue to catch and consume fish from the Burnham Canal. Goal: The primary goal is to increase awareness and information about the project, especially in communities that may not know how to access information or that may not have many opportunities or methods to do so. Method: EPA will seek assistance from agencies who work with immigrant, low-income, and non-English speaking communities to distribute materials that describe the project and explain the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services fish consumption advisories. 10.3 Project Site Visits/Tours Description: Small groups can be given guided tours to view site activities when such tours are feasible, appropriate and safe. Goal: Site visits give the public a better understanding of the project work. Method: EPA staff will lead tours of the sites and explain what is occurring. Field demonstrations are based on interest and safety considerations. 10.4 Public Television / Public Access Television Shows Description: EPA will consider using community-oriented public access and public television shows to disseminate project information. Goal: The goal of using television shows is similar to the use of other media: to increase awareness and understanding of the project and project issues. 10-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Method: EPA may contact show producers about featuring the Burnham Canal cleanup project. 10.5 School / Education Outreach Activities Description: EPA will provide project information to interested schools and will assist them in developing educational projects related to the Burnham Canal site. Goal: Educational activities expand awareness and understanding of the project and strengthen ties to the community. Method: Educators and students can visit or call the community involvement coordinator for information, request a visit to their school from an EPA representative, or visit any of these pages on these EPA Web sites: www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/sfd/npl/sas_sites/WIN000510222.htm vyvyyy.epa.gov/kids, www.epa.gov/students www.epa.gov/teachers 10.6 Workshops / Seminars Description: Workshops and seminars are classroom-style sessions that provide more detailed technical information for interested citizens. Workshops can explore project-specific topics, such as how dredging or capping operations occur, or more general scientific topics, such as how statistics are used in the project. Goal: Workshops can be used to educate small groups of citizens on the chosen topics and address issues identified in the CIP. Method: If there is sufficient interest, EPA will conduct targeted workshops to educate the public on the basics of cleanup operations and related project topics. 10-2 ------- 11 Involvement Tools and Activities 11.1 Coordination with Local Government and Agencies Description: EPA coordinates with local governments and agencies to keep them informed and to get feedback on their concerns. EPA will continue to communicate with these representatives and agencies through all project phases. Goal: EPA's goal is to ensure that local government officials and agencies are informed of project activities that may occur in their jurisdiction and to help minimize the impacts of project activities. Method: EPA will continue to foster relationships with local representatives and agencies through meetings and dialogue. 11.2 Technical Assistance Provision (TAP)2 Description: An important element of a Superfund response action is the availability of technical assistance to the local community. EPA is authorized to provide technical assistance grants (TAGs) to qualified community groups only at sites listed on the NPL and sites proposed for listing on the NPL and at which response action has begun (40 C.F.R. ง 35.4025). TAGs are grants of up to $50,000 issued by EPA to a qualified group that lives near and is affected by an NPL site. The TAG can be used to hire a technical advisor, an expert who can explain technical information and help articulate the community's concerns about it. At Superfund sites that are not proposed for the NPL, such as the Burnham Canal site, TAPs are available. If a qualified/interested community group comes forward, the potentially responsible party, with EPA oversight, would be required to administer and fund a TAP, under which a qualified community group can receive funds to hire an independent technical advisor. The TAP ensures that the opportunity for technical assistance at Superfund sites is comparable to the opportunity at sites listed on the NPL. Goal: TAPs enable a representative group of the community to understand technical aspects of cleanup projects. Method: Only one TAP is awarded per Superfund site. So far, no qualified community group has come forward to request a TAP for the Burnham Canal site. 2 Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites, EPA Memorandum, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/rev-sas- 04.pdf. June 17, 2004. ------- 12 Community Involvement Plan and Activities The community action plan (see Figure 11-1) matches the community concerns identified in Section 5 (Community Issues and Concerns) with the community involvement tools and activities identified in Sections 6-10. EPA recognizes the public's need for two-way communication about decisions made regarding the Burnham Canal site and the public's opportunities to be involved in that process. EPA is currently addressing these issues and will continue to do so throughout the project. FIGURE 11-1 Community Involvement Issues and Tools Community Involvement Issues Concerns about the Process Community Involvement Tools The community wants a clear explanation of its role and responsibilities in EPA's decision-making process. Project Roadmap Technical Assistance Provision The community wants a process that is transparent. Fact Sheets Newsletters Project Roadmap Public Availability Sessions Public Forums Reports/Concept Documents/Work Plans Technical Assistance Provision The community wants a process that is meaningful. Fact Sheets Project Roadmap Public Availability Sessions Public Forums Public Comment or Input on some Documents Technical Assistance Provision Community involvement must be adequately supported, especially with key information. EPA's Web Site Fact Sheets Infield Notification Information Repositories Listserv Maps, Visual Aids, Displays and Events Outreach Materials Media Distribution/Media Events Newsletters Project Roadmap Project Site Visits/Tours Public Availability Sessions Public Forums Public Meetings Public Notices Public Television/Public Access Television Shows Public Service Announcements Reports/Concept Documents/Work Plans School/Education Outreach Activities Toll-free Number Video Productions Workshops/Seminars 12-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FIGURE 11-1 Community Involvement Issues and Tools Community Involvement Issues The community involvement process must be responsive to the needs of stakeholders. Community Involvement Tools Progress Reports/ Newsletters Technical Assistance Provision Community involvement must be broad-based and representative. Community Events Community Poster Environmental Justice Activities Mailing List Expansion Public Availability Sessions Public Forums School/Education Outreach Activities Technical Assistance Provision Concerns about the Remedy Effects on Human Health Fact Sheets Information Repositories Public Availability Sessions Public Input Public Forums Technical Assistance Plan Effects on Quality of Life Fact Sheets Information Repositories Public Availability Sessions Public Input Public Forums Technical Assistance Plan Economic Effects Coordination with Local Government and Agencies Infield Notification Information Repositories Public Input Stakeholder Group Meetings Effects on Fish Coordination with Local Government and Agencies Fact Sheets Information Repositories Public Availability Sessions Public Input Public Forums Technical Assistance Plan Effects on River Recreation/Navigation Coordination with Local Government and Agencies Infield Notification Information Repositories Public Input Public Service Announcements 12-2 ------- 13 Updates to the Community Involvement Plan As additions, changes and improvements to the CIP are identified, EPA will continue to update it, notify the public of changes via the listserv and other communication tools, and post the revised version of the document on the Web site and in the information repositories. 13-1 ------- Appendix A Burnham Canal Miller Compressing Company Contact List Federal Elected Officials Senator Russ Feingold 506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-5323 Fax: 202-224-2725 Russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov District Office: 517 East Wisconsin Ave, Room 408 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-276-7282 Fax: 414-276-7284 Senator Herb Kohl 330 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-5653 Fax: 202-224-9787 senator_kohl@kohl. senate, go v District Office: 310 W. Wisconsin Ave, Suite 950 Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-297-4451 Fax: 414-297-4455 Congresswoman Gwen Moore 219 N. Milwaukee St, Suite 3A Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-297-1140 Fax: 414-297-1086 Congressman Dave Obey 401 5th St, Suite 406A Wausau, WI 54403 Phone: 715-842-5606 Congressman Steve Kagen, M.D. 700 E. Walnut St. Green Bay, WI 54301 Phone: 920-437-1954 Fax: 920-437-1978 State Elected Officials Governor James Doyle 115 E. State Capitol Madison, WI 53702 Phone: 608-266-1212 District Office: Room 560 819 N. 6* St Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-227-4344 Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton 19 E, State Capitol P.O. Box 2043 Madison, WI 53702 Phone: 608-266-3516 Fax: 608-267-3571 Senator Tim Carpenter Room 306 South State Capitol P.O. Box 7882 Madison, WI 53707 Phone: 608-266-8535 Fax: 608-282-3543 Sen.Carpenter@legis.wisconsin.gov A-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Representative David Cullen Wisconsin State Legislature, District 13 Room 216 North State Capitol P.O. Box 8952 Madison, WI 53708 Phone: 608-267-9836 Fax: 608-282-3613 Rep. Cullen@legis .wise onsin. go v Representative Pedro Colon Wisconsin State Legislature, District 8 Room 306 East State Capitol P.O. Box 8952 Madison, WI 53708 Phone: 608-267-7669 Fax: 608-282-3608 Rep.Colon@legis.wisconsin.gov County and Local Officials City of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett Office of the Mayor 200 E. Wells St. City Hall Room 201 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2200 Fax: 414-286-3191 mayor@milwaukee. go v Jim Bohl 5th District Alderman City Hall, Room 205 200 E. Wells St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2221 jbohl@milwaukee.gov Alderman Robert Puente 9th District Alderman City Hall, Room 205 200 E. Wells St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2221 rpuent@milwaukee. go v Alderman Robert Donovan 8th District Alderman City Hall, Room 205 200 E. Wells St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2221 rdonov@milwaukee.gov Alderman Jim Witkowiak 12th District Alderman City Hall, Room 205 200 E. Wells St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2221 j witko@milwaukee. go v Alderman Willie Hines 15th District Alderman City Hall, Room 205 200 E. Wells St Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-2221 whines@milwaukee.gov Health Department Disease Control and Environmental Health Terri Linder, Environmental & Disease Control Specialist Frank P. Zeidler Municipal Building 841 N. Broadway, 3rd Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202-3653 Phone: 414-286-5789 Fax: 414-286-5164 tlinde@milwakee. go v Department of City Development Karen C. Dettmer, P.E., Senior Environmental Project Coordinator 809 N. Broadway Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-286-5642 Fax: 414-286-5778 kdettm@milwaukee.gov A-2 ------- APPENDIX A - BURNHAM CANAL MILLER COMPRESSING COMPANY CONTACT LIST Redevelopment Authority David P. Pisky, Assistant Executive Director- Secretary 809 N. Broadway P.O. Box 324 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Phone: 414-286-8682 Fax: 414-286-0395 dmisky@milwaukee.gov Milwaukee County Scott Walker County Executive 901 N. 9th Street Courthouse, Room 306 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-278-4211 Fax: 414-223-1375 countyexec@milwcnty.com Peggy West County Supervisor, District 12 901 N. 9* st Courthouse, Room 201 Milwaukee, WI 60604 Phone: 278-4269 peggy.west@milwcnty.com Joseph Czarnezki County Clerk 901 N. 9* st. County Courthouse, Room 105 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-278-4067 countyclerk@milwcnty.com John Chrisholm District Attorney Safety Building 821 W. State Street, Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-278-4646 Fax: 414-223-1955 da.milwaukee@da.wi.gov EPA Virginia (Ginny) Narsete Community Involvement Coordinator EPA Region 5 (SI-7J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Phone: 312-886-4359 or (800) 621-8431 x 64359 narsete.virginia@epa.gov Nefertiti Simmons Remedial Project Manager Office of Superfund (SR-6J) EPA Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 Phone: 312-886-6148 simmons.nefertiti@epa.gov Peter Felitti EPA Region 5 (C-14J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Phone: 312-886-5114 felitti.peter@epa.gov Information Repository Forest Home Library 1432 W Forest Home Ave Milwaukee, WI 53204-3228 Phone: 414-286-3083 16th Street Community Center Fernando Campos Neighborhood Development Coordinator 1028 S. 9th Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-384-3100 Fax: 414-649-4411 EPA Region 5 Record Center Ralph Metcalfe Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard Room 711 Chicago, IL 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday - Friday A-3 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Stakeholders and Interested Parties Milwaukee Riverkeeper Cheryl Nenn, M.S. 1845 N. Farwell Ave., #100 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-287-0207 x29 Fax: 414-273-7293 Cheryl_nenn@milwaukeeriverkeeper.org Sixteenth Street Community Health Center Peter McAvoy, Vice President, Environmental Health 1337 S. Cesar Chavez Drive Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-385-3746 Fax: 414-385-3790 peter.mcavoy@sschc.org Sixteenth Street Community Health Center Ben Gramling, Director of Environmental Health Programs 1337 S. Cesar Chavez Drive Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-385-3577 Fax: 414-385-3790 ben.gramling@sschc.org Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc. Corey Zetts, Program Director 301 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 400B Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-274-4655 Coreyฎ RenewTheValley. org Menomonee Valley Business Association Robert F. Peschel, P.E., Chairman 1300 West Canal Street Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-643-4150 Fax: 414-643-4210 rpechel@thesigmagroup.com Journey House Manni Marquez, Director 1900 W. Washington Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-647-0548 Ext. 2226 Fax: 414-647-0266 mmarquez@journeyhouse. org Journey House Gina Gomez, Community Organizer 1900 W. Washington Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-647-0548 Ext. 2232 Fax: 414-647-0266 ggomez@journeyhouse.org Walker Square Neighborhood Association Jason T. Cleereman, President 1039 South 5rh Street Milwaukee, WI 53204-1734 Phone: 414-276-3345 Fax: 414-383-3933 Jason.Cleerman@gmail.com Southside Organizing Committee Steve Fendt, Executive Director/Lead Community Organizer 1300 South Layton Boulevard Milwaukee, WI 53215 Phone: 414-672-8090 Fax: 414-672-8358 sfendt@socmilwaukee.org Layton Boulevard West Neighbors Charlotte John-Gomez, Executive Director Sacred Heart Center 1545 S. Layton Blvd., Suite 506 Milwaukee, WI 53215 Phone: 414-383-9038, ext 2513 Fax: 414-647-4886 charlotte@lb wn. org Public Meeting Locations Forest Home Library 1432 W Forest Home Ave Milwaukee, WI 53204-3228 Phone: 414-286-3083 16th Street Community Center Fernando Campos Neighborhood Development Coordinator 1028 S. 9th Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-384-3100 Fax: 414-649-4411 A-4 ------- APPENDIX A - BURNHAM CANAL MILLER COMPRESSING COMPANY CONTACT LIST Media -Newspapers Milwaukee Journal Sentinel P.O. Box 371 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Phone: 414-224-2000 CM Newspapers 1741 Dolphin Court, Suite A Waukesha, WI 53186 Phone: 414-224-2100 Fax: 262-446-6646 Wisconsin State Journal P.O. Box 8058 Madison, WI 53708 Phone: 608-252-6200 Milwaukee Magazine Inc. 417 E. Chicago St. Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 404-273-1101 Fax: 414-273-0016 Milwaukee Community Journal Mikel Holt, Editor-in-Chief 3612 N Martin Luther King Dr. Milwaukee, WI 53212 Phone: 414-265-5300 The Daily Reporter 225 E. Michigan St., Ste 540 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-225-1821 South Milwaukee Voice Journal 723 Milwaukee Ave. South Milwaukee, WI 53172 Milwaukee Times Newspaper 1936 N. Dr Martin Luther King Milwaukee, WI 53212 On Milwaukee 1930 E. North Ave, 2"d Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-272-0557 El Concjistador Latino Newspaper Victor Huyke, Editor 3206 W National Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53215 Phone: 414-383-1000 editor@SpanishElConquistador.com AQUI Milwaukee 4101 W. Burnham W. Milwaukee, WI 53215 Phone: 414-647-4721 Fax: 414-467-4723 Spanish Journal Robert F. Miranda, Editor-in-Chief 611 W. National Ave. Ste. 316 Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-643-5683 Fax: 414-643-8025 Spanish Times Tony Kalil, Editor and Publisher 425 West National Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-672-0929 Fax: 414-672-9900 Media - Television WITI - FOX 9001 N. Green Bay Rd. Brown Deer, WI 53209 Phone: 414-355-6666 WMVS - PBS 700 W. State St. Milwaukee, WI 53233 Phone: 414-271-1036 Fax: 414-297-7536 WISN - ABC 759 N. 19th St. Milwaukee, WI 53201 Phone: 414-342-8812 WVTV - CW 18 4041 N. 35* St. Milwaukee, WI 53216 Phone: 414-442-7050 Fax: 414-203-2300 A-5 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN WDJT - CBS WNOV Radio, 860 AM 809 S. 60* St. 2003 W. Capitol Dr. Milwaukee, WI 53214 Milwaukee, WI 53206 Phone: 414-777-5800 Phone: 414-449-9668 Fax:414-777-5802 WKT, Rad.o, 94.5-FM WCGV - My 24 720 E Capitol Dr 4041 N. 35th St. Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee, WI 53216 Phone: 414-332-9611 Phone: 414-442-7050 Fax: 414-967-5266 Fax: 414-203-2300 Media - Radio WUWM Radio, 89.7 FM (NPR) University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee P.O. Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Phone: 414-227-3355 Fax: 414-270-1297 WYMS Radio, 88.9 FM 5312 W. Vliet St. Milwaukee, WI 53201 Phone: 414-475-8979 Fax: 414-475-8413 WHQG Radio, 102.9 FM 5407 W. McKinley Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53208 Phone: 414-978-9000 Fax: 414-978-9001 WKLH Radio, 96.5 FM 5407 W McKinley Ave Milwaukee, WI Phone: 414-978-9000 Fax: 414-978-9001 WEMP Radio, 1250 AM 11800 W. Grange Ave. Hales Corner, WI 53130 Phone: 414-529-1250 WLUM Radio, 10 2.1 FM N72 W12922 Good Hope Rd. Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 Phone: 414-771-1021 Fax: 414-771-3036 A-6 ------- Appendix B List of Abbreviations and Acronyms CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 CIP Community Involvement Plan EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility Study NPL National Priorities List PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (motor oil compounds) PCB polychlorinated biphenyl RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision TAG Technical Assistance Grant TAP Technical Advisory Provision ------- Appendix C Administrative Order on Consent Administrative Record Advisory Air Quality Standards Cleanup Community Community Involvement Glossary A legal agreement signed by the EPA and an individual, business or other entity through which the entity agrees to take an action, refrain from an activity, or pay certain costs. It describes the actions to be taken, applies to civil actions, and can be enforced in court. In limited instances it may be subject to a public comment period. The body of documents that forms the basis for the selection of a particular response at a site. For example, the Administrative Record for remedy selection includes all documents that were considered or relied upon to select the remedy through the record of decision. State-generated health warning regarding the consumption of contaminated animals (e.g., fish, waterfowl). These advisories include advice on how to reduce exposures to chemical contaminants in fish and game by avoiding or reducing consumption and by the use of filleting/trimming and cooking techniques to further reduce contaminant levels. In Wisconsin, these advisories are issued by the Wisconsin Division of Public Health. The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that are not to be exceeded during a given time in a defined area. Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance that could affect humans and/or the environment. The term "cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms "remedial action," "remediation," "removal action," "response action," or "corrective action." An interacting population of various types of individuals (or species) in a common location; a neighborhood or specific area where people live. The term used by the EPA to identify its process for engaging in dialogue and collaboration with communities affected by Superfund sites. EPA community involvement is founded in the belief that C-1 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN people have a right to know what the Agency is doing in their community 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 decisions that are made. Community Involvement Coordinator The EPA official whose lead responsibility is to involve and inform the public about the Superfund process and response actions in accordance with the interactive community involvement requirements set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Community Involvement Plan (CIP) A management and planning tool outlining the specific community involvement activities to be undertaken during the course of a site investigation and cleanup. It is designed to: 1) provide for two- way communication between the affected community and the EPA; and 2) ensure public input into the decision-making process related to the affected communities. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA is intended to protect human health and the environment by investigating and cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program, the EPA either can pay for a site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work, or take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or repay the federal government for the cleanup cost. Consent Decree A legal document, approved by a judge, that formalizes an agreement reached between the EPA and potentially responsible parties through which the potentially responsible parties will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund site; cease or correct actions or processes that are polluting the environment; or otherwise comply with the EPA- initiated regulatory enforcement actions to resolve the contamination at the Superfund site involved. C-2 ------- GLOSSARY Contaminant Contamination Drinking Water Supply Ecosystem Emission Endangered Species Environment Environmental/Ecological Risk Environmental Justice The consent decree describes the actions the potentially responsible parties will take, is subject to a public comment period prior to its approval by a judge, and is enforceable as a final judgment by a court. Any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air, water, or soil. Introduction into water, air, and soil of microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes or wastewater in a concentration that makes the medium unfit for its next intended use. Also applies to surfaces of objects, buildings and various household use products. Any raw or unfinished water source that is or may be used by a public water system, as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act or as drinking water by one or more individuals. The complex of a community and its environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature. Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities, from residential chimneys, and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts. Any native species in imminent danger of extinction. The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development and survival of an organism. The potential for adverse effects on living organisms associated with pollution of the environment by effluents, emissions, wastes or accidental chemical releases; by energy use; or by the depletion of natural resources. The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Implies that no population of people should be forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts of pollution or environmental C-3 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Feasibility Study Habitat Hazardous Substance Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Landfill Health Assessment Information Repository Lead Agency hazard due to a lack of political or economic strength levels. Analysis of the practicality of a proposal (such as a description and analysis of potential cleanup alternatives for a site such as one on the National Priorities List). The feasibility study usually recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative. It usually starts as soon as the remedial investigation is under way; together, they are commonly referred to as the remedial investigation/feasibility study. A place where a plant or animal species naturally exists. Any material that poses a threat to human health and/or the environment. Typical hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive or chemically reactive. 2. Any substance designated by the EPA to be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is spilled in the waters of the United States or is otherwise released into the environment. Byproducts that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Hazardous wastes usually possess at least one of four characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) or appear on special EPA lists. An excavated or engineered site where hazardous waste is deposited and covered. An evaluation of available data on existing or potential risks to human health posed by a Superfund site. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the Department of Health and Human Services is required to perform such an assessment at every site on the National Priorities List. A file containing current information, technical reports and reference documents regarding a site. The information repository usually is located in a public building convenient for local residents such as a public school, town hall or library. An agency such as the EPA or other federal agencies and state agencies that plan and implement response actions (for example, the agency that has the primary C-4 ------- GLOSSARY Listserv Mitigation Monitoring National Priorities List (NPL) Natural Resources Pollutant Potentially Responsible Party responsibility for coordinating a CERCLA response action). The EPA-Burnham Canal listserv is a free, subscription-based electronic news distribution system used by the EPA to distribute updates, notifications, and progress reports via email and is the fastest way to get the latest information. Listserv cannot be used to transmit graphics and photos. All information conveyed via Listserv will be text only. The EPA will make graphics-rich documents available on the Agency's Burnham Canal Web site in .pdf format. Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. Periodic or continuous surveillance or testing to determine the level of compliance with statutory requirements and/or pollutant levels in various media or in humans, plants, and animals. The EPA's list of serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long- term cleanup under Superfund. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking System. The EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year. Land, fish, wildlife, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies and other such resources belonging to, managed by, or controlled by the United States, a state or local government, any foreign government, any Indian tribe or any member of an Indian tribe. Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals or ecosystems. An individual, company, or other entity (such as owners, operators, transporters or generators of hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. When possible, the EPA requires a potentially responsible party, through administrative and legal actions, to clean up hazardous waste sites that it has contaminated. C-5 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Proposed Plan Public Public Availability Session Public Comment Period Public Forum Public Meeting Record of Decision Remedial Investigation A plan for a site cleanup that is available to the public for comment. The community or people in general or a part or section of the community grouped because of a common interest or activity. Informal public sessions that often use poster displays and fact sheets and that include EPA personnel and contractors who are available to discuss issues and answer questions. Public availability sessions offer the public the opportunity to learn about project-related issues and to interact with the EPA on a one-to-one basis. Public availability sessions do not require the use of court reporters and transcripts, although meeting summaries may be issued through newsletters and progress reports. A formal opportunity for community members to review and contribute written comments on various EPA documents or actions. Semi-formal public sessions that are characterized by a presentation, question-and-answer session and a less formal poster/display session. This format allows members of the public to participate in both large and small group settings. Public forums do not require the use of court reporters and transcripts, although meeting summaries may be issued through newsletters and progress reports. Formal public sessions that are characterized by a presentation to the public followed by a question- and-answer session. Formal public meetings may involve the use of a court reporter and the issuance of transcripts. Formal public meetings are required only for the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision amendments. A public document that explains the cleanup method that will be used at a Superfund site based on EPA studies, public comments and community concerns. An in-depth study designed to gather data needed to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site, establish site cleanup criteria, identify preliminary alternatives for remedial action, and support technical and cost analyses of alternatives. The remedial investigation is usually C-6 ------- GLOSSARY Remediation Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Stakeholder Standards Superfund Superfund Alternative Approach Superfund Alternative Site concurrent with the feasibility study. Together they are usually referred to as the remedial investigation/feasibility study. Cleanup or other methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill or hazardous materials from a Superfund site. The law that ensures that water that comes from the tap in the United States is fit to drink (according to EPA national drinking water standards); this law also addresses the contamination of groundwater. Any organization, governmental entity or individual that has a stake in or may be affected by the Superfund program. Norms that impose limits on the amount of pollutants or emissions produced. The EPA establishes minimum standards, but states are allowed to promulgate more stringent standards. The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA that funds and carries out EPA solid waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activities include establishing the National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determining their priority, and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial actions. The Superfund alternative approach uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL. The approach is really an alternative to listing a site on the NPL; it is not an alternative Superfund process. The approach can save the time and resources associated with listing a site on the NPL. As long as a PRP enters into a Superfund alternative approach agreement with EPA, there is no need for EPA to list the site on the NPL (although the site qualifies for listing on the NPL). A site that qualifies for listing on the NPL but that is being cleaned up under the Superfund alternative approach. C-7 ------- COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Technical Assistance Provision (TAP) Treatment Water Quality Standards Work Plan A TAG provides money for activities that help communities participate in decision-making at eligible Superfund sites. An initial grant up to $50,000 is available for any Superfund site that is on the EPA's NPL or proposed for listing on the NPL and where a response action has begun. An additional $50,000 may be provided by the EPA at complex sites. In Superfund approach agreements at sites not proposed to be listed on the NPL, EPA negotiates a TAP for the potentially responsible party to provide funds should a qualified community group apply. (1) Any method, technique, or process designed to remove solids and/or pollutants from solid waste, waste-streams, effluents and air emissions. (2) Methods used to change the biological character or composition of any regulated medical waste so as to substantially reduce or eliminate its potential for causing disease. State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies. The standards prescribe the use of the water body and establish the water quality criteria that must be met to protect designated uses. Defines both data needs and the methods needed for the analysis phase. It includes project objectives, data requirements, assessment and measurement endpoints, sampling and analysis procedures, quality assurance objectives and procedures, and a work schedule. ------- |