&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
   Superfund Community
   Involvement Handbook
            January 2016
                         100000070

-------
                                          Notice

The policy and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of Government
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any
party in litigation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Officials may decide to follow
the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of
site circumstances. The Agency reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public
notice.
                                    Acknowledgments
This handbook was developed by the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI) and other EPA staff. Environmental Management Support Inc., 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite
500, Silver Spring, Maryland, provided assistance with the drafting and final preparation of this document
under Contract EP-W-07-037 and Contract EP-W-13-016 (Task Order #0007).
                                   For More Information

For more information, please contact:

Community Involvement and Program Initiatives Branch
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (5204P)
Washington, DC 20460
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                           Table of Contents
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations	Hi

Preface	vii
Audience for the CI Handbook	vii
How to Use the Superfund CI Handbook	viii
Other Resources	ix

Chapter 1:  Community Involvement in the Superfund Process	1
Introduction	1
CERCLA and the NCP	2
Evolution of Superfund Community Involvement	3

Chapter 2:  Building a Foundation for Successful Community Involvement	7
Promoting Trust and Constructive Dialogue	8
Teamwork and the Superfund Site Team	9
Planning for Successful Community Involvement	10
Key Considerations When Planning Community Involvement	13

Chapter 3:  Community Involvement During the Remedial Process	25
About the Superfund Remedial Process	25
1.   Discovery of Contamination	26
2.   Site Assessment	26
3.   Proposed and Final Listing on the NPL	30
4.   Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study	32
5.   RI/FS Completion and the Proposed Plan	39
6.   Pre-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)	43
7.   Record of Decision	45
8.   Post-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)	47
9.   Remedial Design/Remedial Action	50
10.  Operation and Maintenance/Five-Year Review	56
11.  NPL Site Deletion	61

Chapter 4:  Community Involvement During the Removal Process	69
Introduction	69
Overview: Community Involvement for  Superfund Removal Actions	69
Community Involvement and Outreach during Emergency Removals	71
Community Involvement and Outreach during Time-Critical Removal Actions	75
Community Involvement during Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions	81

Chapters:  Community Involvement During Enforcement Activities	87
Introduction	87
Overview of the Superfund Remedial Enforcement Program	89
Planning for Community Involvement during the Remedial Enforcement Process	91
Community Involvement with Enforcement for Removals	94
Community Involvement with Cost Recovery Enforcement	95
Community Involvement with Enforcement for Superfund Noncompliance	95
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
        Table of Contents
Chapter 6: Community Involvement at Federal Facilities	97
Federal Government Contaminated Sites	97
Cleanup Process at Federal Facility Sites on the NPL	98
Role of EPA's Site Team in Community Involvement at Federal Facility Sites on the NPL	100
Special Considerations for Community Involvement at Federal Facility Sites on the NPL	102

Appendix A: Superfund Community Involvement Requirements	105
Remedial Actions	106
Removal Actions	116

Appendix B: CERCLA and the NCP, Regulations, Policies and Guidance,  and Other
Useful References	121
CERCLA and the NCP	121
Superfund Community Involvement Directives	122
Environmental Justice and Tribal Consultation Documents	124
Community Engagement Initiative	127
Other Superfund Guidance, Policy, and Selected Documents	127

Appendix C: EPA Community Involvement Customer Satisfaction Survey	133
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                 Acronyms & Abbreviations
	ACRONYMS AND  ABBREVIATIONS
ADR         alternative dispute resolution
ARARs       applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ASAOC      administrative settlement agreement and order on consent
ATSDR      Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CEI          community engagement initiative
CAG         community advisory group
CDC         Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also
             referred to as Superfund
CERCLIS     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
             System
CI           community involvement
CIC          community involvement coordinator
CIP          community involvement plan
CIPIB        Community Involvement and Program Initiatives Branch
CIU          Community Involvement University
CPRC        Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center
CRN         Community Resource Network
DoD         Department of Defense
DOE         Department of Energy
DOI          Department of the Interior
DOJ          Department of Justice
EE/CA       engineering evaluation/cost analysis
EJ           environmental justice
EJ IWG      Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
EJSCREEN   EPA's screening tool for assessing whether a community may have environmental justice
             concerns
ESD          explanation of significant differences
Fed. Reg.     Federal Register
FFA          Federal Facility Agreement
FOIA        Freedom of Information Act
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
IV
Acronyms & Abbreviations
FS            feasibility study

GAO         General Accountability Office

HRS          Hazard Ranking System

HUD         U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

IAG          interagency agreement

1C            institutional control

ICR          Information Collection Request

JIC           joint information center

LUC          land use control

NCP          National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, or National
              Contingency Plan

NEJAC       National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

NPL          National Priorities List

NRC          Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRRB        National Remedy Review Board

O&M         operation and maintenance

OCR         Office of Civil Rights

OLEM        Office of Land and Emergency Management (successor to OSWER)

OMB         Office of Management and  Budget

ORSSAB      Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board

OSC          on-scene coordinator

OSWER      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (now OLEM)

OU           operable unit

PA           preliminary assessment

PEHSU       Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit

PII           personally identifiable information

PRP          potentially responsible party

PTAP         Partners in Technical Assistance Program

QR Code      Quick Response Code

RAB          Restoration Advisory Board (for DoD sites)

RD/RA       remedial design and remedial action

RI            remedial investigation
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                     Acronyms & Abbreviations
RI/FS         remedial investigation and feasibility study



ROD          Record of Decision



RPM          remedial project manager



SAA          Superfund alternative approach



SARA        Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act



SEMS        Superfund Enterprise Management System



SEP          supplemental environmental project



SI            site investigation



SMP          site management plan



SRI           Superfund Redevelopment Initiative



SSAB         Site-Specific Advisory Board (for DOE sites)



SuperJTI      Superfund Job Training Initiative



TAG          Technical Assistance Grant



TANA        Technical Assistance Needs Assessment



TAP          Technical Assistance Plan



TAPP         Technical Assistance for Public Participation



TASC        Technical Assistance Services for Communities



TRC          Technical Review Committee



UAO          unilateral administrative order



UDEQ        Utah Department of Environmental Quality
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
VI
Acronyms & Abbreviations
                    Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                        Preface
                              VII
                                                                            PREFACE
This document provides guidance to EPA staff on how EPA typically plans and implements community
involvement activities at Superfund sites. It is intended to help promote consistent implementation of
national policy on these issues. The activities identified as requirements are ones that are mandated by the
Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or addressed in the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which is EPA's regulatory
blueprint for implementation of the Superfund program. This guidance does not, however, substitute for
CERCLA or the NCP, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements
on EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances of each situation. EPA and other federal, state,
tribal, and local decision-makers retain the discretion to adopt
community involvement approaches that differ from this
guidance on a case-by-case basis, when appropriate. Any
decisions regarding a particular site will  be made based on the
applicable statutes and regulations.
Audience for the Cl  Handbook
The Community Involvement (CI) Handbook is intended
primarily for members of EPA Superfund site teams with a
role in community involvement. Superfund site team members
may include remedial project managers (RPMs), on-scene
coordinators (OSCs), community involvement coordinators
(CICs), site assessment managers, risk assessors, and
enforcement staff. EPA site team counterparts in other federal,
state, and tribal agencies also may find the handbook useful.
The handbook might be particularly useful to anyone who is
new to planning and conducting Superfund community
involvement activities.
   A Note about Broken Links
Please note that the 2016
Community Involvement Handbook
was issued while EPA's website was
undergoing a major overhaul, and a
major transition was underway in
the system for sharing Superfund-
related documents on the website.
While every effort was made to
ensure that links within this
document were working properly at
the time of release, readers may
encounter broken links. Periodic
updates of links in this document are
planned.
This 2016 version of the CI Handbook replaces the version published in 2005. It reflects current
regulations, policies and practices, and includes new information about technical assistance, site reuse,
environmental justice, new media technologies and social media, NCP amendments regarding
information repositories and public notices, and other topics that have come to the forefront since the
2005 edition. This update of the CI Handbook also includes expanded chapters about community
involvement during enforcement actions and at federal facilities.

Specifically, this handbook:

•   Outlines the minimum community involvement activities required by federal law or procedures
    outlined in the NCP. These provisions are mapped out in Appendix A.

•   Provides information about factors to consider when determining an appropriate mix of community
    involvement activities on a site-specific basis for each step in the remedial or removal process. These
    additional activities are  outlined in Chapter 3 (Community Involvement during the Remedial Process)
    and Chapter 4 (Community Involvement during the Removal Process). These chapters include useful
    charts that show minimum activities and suggestions for enhanced community involvement activities,
    if warranted.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
VIM
Preface
How to Use the Superfund Cl  Handbook

This CI Handbook provides general guidance about how to conduct community involvement at Superfund
remedial and removal sites, as well as at sites that are undergoing site assessment activities. While the
document may be read in its entirety, each chapter is a handy resource and may be referenced
independently. Information in various chapters describes appropriate activities for each stage of the
Superfund remedial or removal process. The information for all stages of the process also should be
carefully reviewed by the site team early on, when the community involvement plan is being prepared for
a site.

The CI Handbook is organized as follows:

•   Chapter 1, Community Involvement in the Superfund Process, provides an overview of the
    evolution of EPA's approach to Superfund community involvement from its beginnings in the early
    1980s to the present day.

•   Chapter 2, Building a Foundation for Successful Community Involvement, explains some of the
    principles that usually lead to successful community involvement approaches at Superfund sites.
    Topics include the Superfund site team, community involvement plans, communication strategies,
    risk communication, environmental justice, technical assistance, involving the community in
    consideration of reasonably anticipated future land use, working with traditional and new media,
    coordinating with other EPA programs, explaining to community members the collection and
    potential release of personally identifiable information, and evaluating community involvement
    activities.

•   Chapter 3, Community Involvement during the Remedial Process, discusses the community
    involvement activities for Superfund remedial sites that are required by statute or addressed in the
    NCP. The chapter includes several charts that site teams may find helpful in assessing when
    additional community involvement activities may be appropriate for sites in the Superfund remedial
    program.

•   Chapter 4, Community Involvement during the Removal Process, discusses the community
    involvement activities for Superfund removal actions required by statute or addressed in the NCP.
    This chapter covers emergency removals, time-critical removals, and non-time-critical removals.

•   Chapter 5, Community Involvement in Enforcement Actions, provides an overview of community
    involvement in the  Superfund enforcement program. This chapter discusses the opportunities and
    challenges associated with conducting community involvement during the cleanup process at
    enforcement-lead sites.

•   Chapter 6, Community Involvement at Federal Facilities, discusses the relationship between EPA
    and the lead federal agency at NPL federal facility sites. The chapter highlights special considerations
    for community involvement strategies at NPL federal facility sites.

•   Appendix A lists community involvement activities mandated in CERCLA or addressed in the NCP.
    These represent the minimum community involvement activities conducted under the Superfund
    program.

•   Appendix B is a reference to relevant policy and guidance documents used to complete the CI
    Handbook, plus additional documents that may be useful to the reader.

•   Appendix C contains a copy of EPA's Community Involvement Customer Satisfaction Survey,
    which was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Site teams may use questions
    from the survey to assess outreach and engagement activities.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Preface
IX
Other Resources

Readers are encouraged to consult the relevant statutes and policy and guidance documents in Appendix
B, which also includes links to the documents. Additional resources are highlighted throughout the text.
Readers also are encouraged to visit the Superfund Community Involvement website at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-involvement.

The Superfund Cl Handbook and the Superfund Cl Toolkit

There are many links in this Handbook to the Superfund Community Involvement Toolkit (the Cl
Toolkit). The Cl Toolkit is a comprehensive, complementary resource to the Cl Handbook that provides
detailed information and recommendations about specific aspects of the  community involvement process,
such as how to develop a community involvement plan, conduct community interviews, create a
community profile, prepare fact sheets, and perform many other activities.
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
Preface
             Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 1
                                   1
                                                                  CHAPTER  1
                                 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN
                                         THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
Introduction

Superfund community involvement is the term EPA uses to describe the process of engaging with
communities affected by Superfund sites. Congress made public involvement in decision-making an
important part of the cleanup process when the Superfund program was established by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The role of community
involvement in Superfund decision-making was strengthened in the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (National Contingency Plan, or NCP) describes EPA's process for conducting Superfund community
involvement.

The Superfund program established the following community involvement policy objectives:
   Conduct early, frequent and meaningful community
   involvement.

   Keep the public well-informed of ongoing and
   planned activities.

   Encourage and enable the public to get involved.

   Listen carefully to what the public is saying.

   Consider changing planned actions where public
   comments or concerns are considered by the site
   team.

   Explain to community members how EPA
   considered their comments, what the Agency plans
   to do, and why this decision was made.
 Key Goals of Superfund Community
           Involvement

To ensure that community members
affected by a Superfund remedial or
removal site:
•  Are aware of EPA's activities.
•  Have opportunities to influence site
   cleanup and reuse decisions.
•  Are aware that their concerns are
   considered in the site decision-making
   process.
Both the Agency and the community benefit from well-designed and executed Superfund community
involvement activities that fully engage the community.

Benefits of effective community involvement to communities affected by Superfund sites may
include:

•  A better understanding of the Superfund process.

•  Opportunities to be heard during the decision-making process.

•  Participation in a process that encourages the community to share its vision for current or future uses
   of the property.

•  Involvement in a process that builds cohesion and promotes inclusiveness within the community.

•  A cleanup approach that considers community members' needs and concerns and minimizes negative
   impacts to the community.
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                         Successful Community
                                        Involvement in Practice
                                 A site in Region 2 is an example of how
                                 early and meaningful public involvement
                                 can lead to a better cleanup. The
                                 community at this site played a substantive
                                 role in planning for the cleanup. A
                                 community task force that was organized
                                 prior to the initiation of the remedial
                                 investigation provided assistance and
                                 valuable input to EPA on the best approach
                                 for dealing with soils, sediments, and
                                 groundwater contamination. The RPM
                                 reported that the task force contributed
                                 significantly to the cleanup effort,
                                 primarily through early scoping of issues
                                 and dissemination of information to the
                                 community.
         Chapter 1


Benefits of effective community involvement to the
Agency often include:

•   Better understanding of community needs and concerns
    and increased awareness of whether certain segments of
    the community may bear a disproportionate burden of
    exposure or environmental health effects of the actual
    or potential release of hazardous substances.

•   A working relationship with the community based on
    trust and respect, which minimizes potential conflicts
    that may result in costly and unnecessary delays.

•   Improved quality of decisions and increased community
    acceptance and support of Agency decisions, resulting
    in time and cost savings that allow cleanup goals to be
    accomplished more quickly and efficiently.

•   Improved access to local and historical information that
    may lead to a more accurate characterization  of
    exposure pathways due to human behavior,
    identification of unique ways in which the community
    uses local resources, and development of appropriate
    exposure scenarios for reasonably anticipated future
    land uses.

•   Opportunities to engage responsible stewards (local
    government officials, community members and others)
    who may ensure the property is reused appropriately
    into the future and might also support institutional
    controls (ICs) and other operation and maintenance
    elements.

CERCLA and the NCR

In CERCLA, Congress was clear about its intent  for the
Agency to provide opportunities for members of affected
communities to become active participants in the Superfund
cleanup process and to have a say in the decisions that
affect their communities. In establishing the Superfund
program, Congress wanted EPA to be guided by the people
whose lives are affected by Superfund sites. The intent of
the law is restated in the NCP, in provisions such as 40 CFR
300.430(c)(2)(ii) for remedial actions: "(A) Ensure the
public appropriate opportunities for involvement  in a wide variety of site-related decisions, including site
analysis and characterization, alternatives analysis, and selection of remedy; (B) Determine, based on
community interviews, appropriate activities to ensure such public involvement; and (C) Provide
appropriate opportunities for the community to learn about the site."

CERCLA, as implemented by the NCP, requires specific community involvement activities be
undertaken at certain points throughout the Superfund process. (See Appendix A for a detailed description
of activities required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP.) Additionally, EPA Superfund community
involvement policies encourage the implementation of a wide range of community involvement activities
that fully engage the community in the Superfund decision-making process.
                                    What are Institutional Controls?

                                 EPA defines institutional controls (ICs) as
                                 non-engineered instruments, such as
                                 administrative and legal controls, that help
                                 to minimize the potential for exposure to
                                 contamination and/or protect the integrity
                                 of a response action. For more information,
                                 please see the December 2012 Institutional
                                 Controls: A Guide to Planning,
                                 Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing
                                 Institutional Controls at Contaminated
                                 Sites.

                                 Local government and community
                                 institutions may have to implement and
                                 monitor ICs. As a result, it is important that
                                 the site team ensure that local government
                                 and community institutions fully
                                 understand their role with ICs.
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 1
Evolution of Superfund Community Involvement
Over the years, EPA has continued to encourage Superfund site teams to fully engage communities in the
Superfund cleanup process. The evolution of the Superfund program's community involvement policies
and practices reflects EPA's recognition that when the community is involved in a meaningful way,
communities benefit, and the Agency makes better decisions. EPA's amendment to the NCP in  1982
reiterated the Agency's approach to involving the community in the Superfund process.

Throughout the decades following the 1982 revisions to the NCP, EPA learned the benefits of listening to
and engaging with communities at Superfund sites. In 1991, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) issued Directive 9230.0-18, Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund
Decision-making (SuperfundManagement Review: Recommendation #43B), which states that "it is
important that we demonstrate to citizens that they are involved in the decision-making process." The
directive emphasizes four key objectives: 1) listen carefully to what community members are saying; 2)
take the time necessary to deal with community members' concerns; 3) change planned actions  where
citizen suggestions have merit; and 4) explain to community members what EPA has done and why.

Addressing Environmental Justice in Community Involvement
EPA's approach to community involvement continued to evolve through an increased focus on
environmental justice. As a result, the Superfund program's approach to community involvement also
evolved.
                                                                EPA's Definition of
                                                              Environmental Justice
                                                       EPA defines environmental justice as "the
                                                       fair treatment and meaningful
                                                       involvement of all people regardless of
                                                       race, color, national origin, or income
                                                       with respect to the development,
                                                       implementation, and enforcement of
                                                       environmental laws, regulations, and
                                                       policies."
                                                       (See EPA's Environmental Justice
                                                       website and page 3 of Plan EJ 2014.)
In 1993, the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) was established by charter to provide
independent advice and recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on environmental justice concerns. The
Superfund program contributes to and carefully considers
NEJAC's advice and recommendations.

In 1994, Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low-Income Populations, was issued. Section 1-101
of Executive Order 12898 directed each federal agency to
"make achieving environmental justice part of its 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." Section 1-103 of Executive Order 12898
directed each federal agency to "develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy."

To implement Executive Order 12898, OSWER issued a memorandum in 1994 titled Integration of
Environmental Justice into OSWER Policy, Guidance, and Regulatory Development. This memo stated
that, ".. .to the extent practicable, staff should evaluate the ecological, human health (taking into account
subsistence patterns and sensitive populations) and socio-economic impacts of the proposed decision-
document in minority and low-income communities." This memorandum also emphasized that "at all
critical stages of development, there should be meaningful input from stakeholders, including members of
the environmental justice community and members of the regulated community."

In 1996, the NEJAC published the Model Plan for Public Participation. The 2013 update to the model
plan, Model Guidelines for Public Participation, recognizes barriers and challenges common to
communities with environmental justice concerns, such as:

•   Lack of availability and access to resources (specifically, funding and staff) to conduct the needed
    activities over the long term).
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
         Chapter 1


•   Poor or little coordination among and between various federal, state, tribal, and local government
    agencies and other entities.

•   Language and cultural differences.

•   Identification of and coalition-building among local leadership within a community.

•   Lack of cultural competency among agencies trying to cultivate community involvement.

•   Lack of recognition among  communities and individuals of their stakeholder status in environmental
    justice concerns.

•   Lack of trust between community members, regulatory agencies, and regulated industries.
In Model Guidelines for Public  Participation, the NEJAC concludes that conducting effective public
participation processes in an environmental justice context requires an approach that is "tailored to the
specific, unique needs of the particular community where activities are being implemented." Section 3 of
the document offers detailed recommendations on ways that EPA can work with stakeholders with
environmental justice concerns  to develop an effective community involvement approach. (See Appendix
C of the Model Guidelines for Public Participation , which includes a 34-step "Environmental Justice
Public Participation Checklist for Government Agencies.")

 Plan EJ 2014. which was issued in 2011, provides a road map to enable the Agency to better integrate
environmental justice and civil  rights into its programs, policies and daily work. The plan focuses on
agency-wide areas critical to advancing environmental justice, including rulemaking, permitting,
compliance and enforcement, community-based programs, and EPA's work with other federal agencies.
This plan also established specific milestones to help the Agency meet the needs of overburdened
neighborhoods through decision-making,  scientific analysis, and rulemaking. As of 2016 EPA is working
on the Draft EJ Plan 2020 Action Agenda, which builds on the foundation established through EPA's
Plan EJ 2014.

In 2014, the Agency issued the  Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized
Tribes and Indigenous Peoples.  This policy clarifies and integrates environmental justice in the Agency's
work with federally recognized  tribes, indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and others living
in Indian country.

EPA issued its final Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of
Regulatory Actions in May 2015. This guidance was created to ensure understanding and foster
consistency with efforts across EPA's programs and regions to consider environmental justice and to
make a visible difference in America's communities. The document is a step-by-step guide that helps
EPA staff ask questions and evaluate environmental justice considerations at key points in the rulemaking
process. This guidance also helps EPA staff determine whether actions raise possible environmental
justice concerns and encourages public participation in the rulemaking process. In 2015, EPA also
released the public version of its EJSCREEN environmental justice mapping and screening tool.

Superfund Land Reuse and  Community Involvement

While EPA was working to address environmental justice concerns, the Agency also started developing
community involvement policy regarding the consideration of reasonably anticipated future land use in
making remedy selection decisions for sites under the Superfund program. OSWER Directive 9355.7-04
(1995), Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, states that EPA "believes that early
community involvement, with a particular focus on the community's desired future uses of property
associated with the CERCLA site, should result in a more democratic decision making process; greater
community support for remedies selected as a result of this process; and more expedited, cost-effective
cleanups."
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 1


Subsequent initiatives and policy continued to structure the Superfund program's approach to address the
reuse of land after a Superfund cleanup is complete. In 1999, the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
(SRI) was launched. SRI's goal is to ensure ".. .that at every Superfund site, EPA and its partners have an
effective process and the necessary tools and information needed to return the country's most hazardous
sites to productive use." As part of SRI, Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Superfund Land Use
Directive was released in 2001 to help site teams apply the 1995 Land Use Directive. In 2010, a
memorandum, Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use and Reducing Barriers to Reuse at
EPA-lead Superfund Remedial Sites was issued "... to further EPA's policy supporting, whenever
practicable, reuse of all or a portion of National Priorities List (NPL) sites where EPA has lead
responsibility..."

EPA's Agency-wide Public Involvement Policy

In 2003, EPA adopted an agency-wide Public Involvement Policy that affirmed Superfund's approach to
involving communities in Agency actions that affect them. The policy outlines seven recommended steps:

1)  Plan and budget: Planning community involvement activities and adequately budgeting resources
    can help ensure an effective community involvement process. Early planning typically helps get these
    activities and processes moving in an orderly way, both within EPA and with the public.
2)  Identify whom to involve: Identifying the interested and affected public early is often the
    cornerstone of public involvement processes. This step is designed to enable EPA to have direct
    exchanges of information, feedback, and involvement with people affected by Agency decisions.
3)  Consider providing technical or financial assistance: Providing technical and financial assistance
    helps communities navigate complex scientific issues, data, and documents. Many individual
    stakeholders cannot effectively take part in a dialogue about difficult environmental decisions
    because they do not have enough suitable and timely technical or financial assistance or personal time
    to research the issues,  understand the effects and results of possible decisions, and feel comfortable
    expressing their opinions in a public forum.
4)  Provide information  and conduct outreach: Offering information and outreach opportunities early,
    often, and in accessible places normally helps enable communities to contribute effectively to EPA
    decision-making processes.
5)  Consult with  and involve the public early and often: Giving the public an opportunity to
    communicate their concerns, problems, and alternatives can improve the Agency's decisions and
    environmental outcomes. A community involvement practitioner should seek every opportunity to
    expand and diversify public consultation and involvement  processes.
6)  Review and use public input and provide feedback: Reviewing and using comments from the
    public and providing feedback generally supports the process and confirms  EPA's constructive use of
    feedback to those who contributed ideas.
7)  Evaluate public involvement activities: Getting feedback from the public on how well a specific
    involvement activity or overall involvement process (e.g., meetings, notice of action, rulemaking)
    worked can help the Agency change those processes and activities to make them more effective for
    EPA and participants.

OLEM's Community Engagement Initiative

In 2009, OSWER (now the Office of Land and Emergency Management, or OLEM) launched the
Community Engagement Initiative (CEI) to enhance OLEM and Regional offices' engagement with local
communities and stakeholders and to help them meaningfully participate in government decisions on land
cleanup, emergency preparedness and response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste.
The CEI provided an opportunity for the Superfund program to review its community involvement and
outreach processes and identify areas of potential improvement. A CEI Action Plan was issued in
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
         Chapter 1


December 2009, followed in May 2010 by the CEI Implementation Plan, which included 16 actions to
help integrate and coordinate community engagement principles and successful practices into OLEM's
work and decision-making processes. The CEI was among OSWER's contributions to Plan EJ 2014,
EPA's road map for integrating environmental justice into the Agency's programs, policies, and activities.

Community Resource Network

In 2014, EPA introduced the cross-Agency strategy called "Making a Visible Difference in Communities
across the Country." This initiative included the development of a Community Resource Network (CRN)1
for EPA employees to facilitate collaboration and information-sharing for community involvement work.
EPA staff may pose community involvement related questions to the broader CRN community, browse
and share materials, and more. The CRN highlights the importance of internal networking and leveraging
resources cross-programmatically. Lessons learned and shared through the CRN will be used to improve
the support EPA provides to communities.

Recent Amendments to the NCR

Superfund community involvement will continue to evolve. The NCP was amended on March 18, 2013,
to address the ever-changing advancements in information technologies as tools for sharing information
with members of the community at Superfund sites. The NCP now permits the use of CD-ROM, the
Internet, and other existing and future technologies for managing and distributing Superfund
administrative record files when these tools are determined by EPA to be acceptable to the community
and compatible with the resources of the public information repository. Another NCP amendment, which
broadens the mechanisms EPA can use to provide public notice to the affected community, became
effective May 4, 2015. (See  box on page 35)
Chapter 1 Endnote
1 The Community Resource Network (CRN) site is currently intended only for EPA employees. As a result, the link
to the CRN site is only accessible by EPA employees.
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 2
                                                                      CHAPTER  2
          BUILDING A  FOUNDATION FOR SUCCESSFUL
	COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
A successful approach to community involvement at Superfund sites usually involves:
•   Interacting with the community in ways that promote trust and constructive dialogue.
•   Modeling exceptional teamwork.

•   Carefully planning community
    involvement activities based on
    knowledge of the site and the needs of
    the affected community.

•   Addressing several overarching issues
    and considerations, such as: (1)
    communicating risk effectively so that
    the community may understand risk
    exposures; (2) assessing and
    addressing environmental justice
    concerns; (3) assessing and
    responding to technical assistance
    needs; (4) coordinating and
    collaborating with other EPA
    programs; (5) involving the
    community in considering reasonably
    anticipated future land use options;
    (6) using traditional and new media
    effectively; (7) planning for
    community involvement when
    resources are limited; (8) explaining
    the collection and potential release of
    personally identifiable information to
    community members; and (9)
    evaluating community involvement
    efforts.
Following this type of approach often
provides a firm foundation for community
involvement that is built on trust,
transparency, and a commitment to
addressing community concerns and
facilitating the community's participation
in the decision-making process at Superfund sites. Although stakeholders may disagree with specific
Agency decisions, they are more likely to understand and accept decisions if they trust EPA and believe
that the decision-making process is fair and their input is considered. Please note that EPA is not always
the lead agency for the remedial process. (See box titled "Lead and Support Agencies in the Superfund
Remedial Process".) This guidance document addresses sites for which EPA is the lead agency.
        Lead and Support Agencies in the
           Superfund Remedial Process
At or before the time a site is placed on the NPL,
interagency negotiations normally are initiated to determine
which government agency should act as the lead agency and
which should act as the support agency in the remedial
process, as those roles are described in  the NCP in 40 CFR
300.5. (See also "EPA's Listing Decision" box on page 27.)
These negotiations may include EPA, other federal
agencies, states, and Indian tribes. EPA, a state or tribal
environmental agency, or another federal agency can serve
as the lead agency. In general, the lead agency has the
primary responsibility for coordinating a response action.
The support agency or agencies generally play a review and
concurrence role in the remedial process. When EPA acts as
the lead agency, the state or tribal government for the area
where the site is located usually serves as the support
agency. When a state or tribe is the lead agency, EPA
usually serves as the support agency.
Generally, when an agency other than EPA is the lead
agency, that agency has the responsibility for ensuring that
statutory community involvement requirements and
community involvement provisions in the NCP are met. The
specific responsibilities of the lead  and support agencies
usually are identified in either a Superfund state contract or
a cooperative agreement, which are site-specific agreements
that establish federal and state roles and responsibilities for
a CERCLA remedial action. In addition, the state or tribe
and EPA may enter into a Superfund memorandum of
agreement, which is a general, non-site-specific agreement
that defines the roles and interaction between EPA and the
state or tribe for conducting response actions.
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
8       Chapter 2


Promoting Trust and Constructive Dialogue

Effective community involvement at Superfund remedial and removal sites often depends on interacting
with the community in ways that promote trust and constructive dialogue. Whether community
involvement is for the short term or long term, it should be based on an understanding that the community
can play an important and useful role throughout the Superfund process. It is a good idea to keep these
concepts in mind:

•   Be inclusive. Site teams should identify and invite all interested stakeholders to participate in the
    process. It is important to consider if there are "hard to reach" people in the community, such as
    people who may speak languages other than English or community members who may not trust the
    government because of legal status or other concerns. If the site is located in a community that is
    likely to have environmental justice concerns, additional efforts should be made to involve segments
    of the community that are not effectively reached by conventional approaches.

•   Consider the need for tribal consultation. If a site affects tribal lands or any tribal members, tribal
    consultation is essential.1 While EPA consults with tribal leaders on a government-to-government
    basis, it is also important to coordinate with tribal members at Superfund sites. Site teams should take
    care to keep tribal leaders and environmental officials aware of EPA's coordination and outreach
    activities with tribal members.

•   Be honest, open, and transparent. Honesty and transparency promote trust. Misleading or failing to
    divulge information can be costly: A community that learns that EPA staff has misled them or failed
    to divulge pertinent information may not believe EPA in the future and may question every EPA
    decision.

•   Be available, accessible, and quick to respond. The site team should be prepared to anticipate and
    respond to the community's concerns, fears, and potential areas of misunderstanding or confusion.
    The site team should  strive to respond to questions and concerns as quickly as possible. If time  is
    required to respond to a community member's request, explain when an answer will be provided and
    always  follow up as promised.

•   Empathize with community members, practice active listening, and promote open  and frequent
    two-way communication. Site teams should treat people with courtesy and respect and try to see
    each situation from the community member's point of view. Asking open-ended questions and
    listening carefully to  what members of the community say is critical. Site teams also should
    remember that members of the affected community may have knowledge that can help EPA,
    particularly information that might help with site characterization and risk assessment. Local
    community members and business owners may be willing to share what they know about the site,
    including current or historical patterns of use.

•   Educate the affected community about the Superfund program and processes. Explaining  EPA's
    authority and its limitations may help members of the community set reasonable expectations about
    what EPA can and cannot do. Providing a sense of the overall timeline for a cleanup also can help set
    reasonable expectations about cleanup and the community's role in it.

•   Keep site-specific information current. Keeping community members informed about site activities
    and future plans can build trust and help the site team stay abreast of community concerns.

•   Tailor community involvement approaches and activities to meet community needs. It is
    worthwhile to fully understand community needs before planning community involvement and
    outreach activities. Whenever possible,  the site team should be creative and imaginative when
    designing or implementing activities to  ensure that the community's needs are met.

•   Provide resources to help the community understand and participate meaningfully in the
    Superfund process. This may mean planning additional outreach activities, such as enabling
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 2
    community access to an independent facilitator or mediator to help resolve differences within a
    community or between EPA (see the box on page 11 that discusses EPA's Conflict Prevention and
    Resolution Center) and a community or providing technical assistance services to help the community
    better understand the process and interpret complex technical information. (See discussion of
    Technical Assistance on pages 14-16.) In some cases, it may be appropriate to convene discussions
    about potential future land-use options or to explore whether job training services can be offered
    through the Superfund Job Training Initiative (SuperJTI) so that community members might be hired
    to work on the cleanup.

Teamwork and the Superfund Site Team

The composition of the site team varies depending on the type of response (remedial action or removal
action) and complexity of the site. Site teams for remedial sites typically include a remedial project
manager (RPM); an on-scene coordinator (OSC) if a remedial site includes a removal action; a
community involvement coordinator (CIC); a site assessment manager; an Office of Regional Counsel
attorney; and sometimes other staff with specific expertise, such as risk assessors and hydrogeologists. A
regional environmental justice coordinator or a regional public affairs officer also might be assigned to
the team for some sites. A representative from  the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control
(ATSDR) sometimes serves on the site team. For remedial enforcement-lead sites, a civil investigator
might be part of the site team. The site team can include one or more state agency representatives when
the state is the support agency for the site, and  tribal representatives may be part of the site team
depending on their interest and expertise after tribal government consultation occurs. In many cases,
contractors may be on site to support the site team. It is important to clearly identify contractors as non-
EPA personnel and to be clear that only EPA personnel speak for the Agency.

At removal sites, the site team usually includes an OSC who serves as  a project manager; other OSCs
who serve in supporting roles, particularly at large removal or emergency removal sites; possibly a CIC;
possibly a regional environmental justice coordinator; some technical staff; and contractors responsible
for carrying out response actions. For emergency removals and some removal actions, the site team often
is considerably smaller and may include only the OSC and contractors. For a large or significant
emergency removal action or for large floods, many people may be on the site team, each with a different
function or responsibility.

The RPM or OSC generally is the overall project manager for a site cleanup and is responsible for all site
activities, including outreach and community involvement. As such, he or she typically is responsible for
ensuring that all community involvement requirements in the statute and provisions in the NCP are met.
The active involvement of the RPM  or OSC in planning and conducting community involvement
activities helps promote the role of community involvement among all team members and may help build
trust in the community and ensure the integration of community involvement in the cleanup process.
Although project managers may not  be able to  participate in all community involvement activities, they
should play a key role in planning these activities and should be briefed about community involvement
work. Project managers should try to maintain  contact with all team members and interested and affected
community members.

The CIC generally is responsible for advising the RPM or OSC and the site team on planning and
conducting community involvement and outreach activities. However, some site teams may not include a
CIC; the RPM or OSC usually assumes these duties.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 0     Chapter 2
                        Valuable Resources for Superfund Site Teams

The Superfund Community Involvement Toolkit: The CI Toolkit is a comprehensive compendium of
recommended community involvement tools and techniques for use at Superfund sites. Each tool
provides detailed information about each technique or resource, including what it is and when its use may
be most appropriate. Each tool also provides  step-by-step recommendations and links to other useful
resources. These methods can be adapted, combined, or reinvented as appropriate to address the specific
needs of each community. The toolkit is available on EPA's website at:
www2.epa.gov/superfund/communitv-involvement-tools-and-resources.

EPA's Community Involvement University: EPA's Community Involvement University (CIU) training
program offers a variety of courses and webinars for the  site team and other EPA and EPA-affiliated staff
to learn the necessary skills, techniques, and practices to engage community members in the Superfund
process. The CIU brochure and the CIU Trainex website provide more information.

EPA's Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC): Superfund site team members who are
working with communities need to understand that stressful or difficult situations may occur.  EPA's
CPRC provides a range of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to the Superfund program and
throughout EPA, including resources and training for communities and site team members to work
through these situations. One example of these ADR services is the Community Involvement as Conflict
Prevention Program. Through this program, CPRC and EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation provide contractor support to site teams to assist in the planning, development and
implementation of Superfund CIPs, community interviews, and community profiles.

Translation Services: In 2015 EPA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) launched an agency-wide translation
services contract to address translation needs for Limited English Proficiency communities. Currently,
funds are available for regions to use for translation needs, such as document translation, telephonic
interpretation, on-site interpretation and more. For more information please visit the following EPA
Intranet link (available only to EPA employees):
http://intranet.epa.gov/civilrights/lepaccess.htm#_ga=l.43837606.2062774527.1425480689 .

In addition, the Superfund Program's Community Involvement and Program Initiatives  Branch (CIPIB)
manages an Interagency Agreement with the  Office of Language Services at the U.S. Department of
State. CIPIB also can help fulfill service requests for document translations, and can provide access to
interpreters and translators. Contact CIPIB for more information.

The site team should work and speak as one group so that the community receives consistent, factual,
non-contradictory information from EPA. Each member should be aware of site issues and community
concerns and should be able to speak with authority on the EPA's positions and decisions. For this reason,
it is usually a good idea for members of the site team to share information about interactions with
community members, reach consensus on community involvement activities and approaches,  and discuss
issues as a team.


Planning for Successful  Community Involvement

Whether developing a formal Community Involvement Plan
(CIP)—called a Community Relations Plan in the NCP—or a
communication strategy for a specific situation, careful
planning generally is essential for effective community
involvement.                                               sample CIps
The Community Involvement
Plan tool in the CI Toolkit contains
a detailed discussion of CIPs, how
to prepare them, and links to
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
                                                                                           11
The Community Involvement Plan
The CIP discusses EPA's site-specific strategy for informing and engaging community members in the
Superfund process. Consistent with the NCP, a CIP should be prepared for all remedial actions. A CIP
also should be prepared for removals lasting 120 days or more, or with a planning period of at least six
months in which an engineering evaluation/cost analysis must be completed. Although there is no
requirement to prepare a CIP for removal actions that are shorter than  120 days, some regions prepare
"mini" CIPs when they recognize that such plans could help the site team address community needs.
                                       Constructive Interaction with Community Members
                                                   in Contentious Situations

                                  Sometimes tensions may be high when community members are
                                  dealing with upsetting site-related issues related to their community,
                                  property or the health and safety of their families. Site teams should
                                  anticipate that there will be times when community members faced
                                  with these difficult issues may be angry, emotional, and distrustful or
                                  even hostile to EPA. It is a good idea to develop specific strategies
                                  for anticipating and addressing these situations in a professional and
                                  appropriate manner. All members of the  site team should understand
                                  how to defuse potentially contentious and emotional situations and
                                  react in ways that are likely to lead to constructive dialogue that
                                  addresses community concerns.

                                  The CPRC offers numerous resources, including neutral third-party
                                  facilitation. In some cases, training for site teams may be warranted.
                                  (Please see box on page 10 on "Valuable Resources for Superfund
                                  Site Teams" for more information.)
Community interviews are an
essential element of the process
for developing the CIP. These
interviews are a way to meet
with community members and
learn about their site-related
needs, concerns, and
expectations, as well as how the
community gets information and
prefers to receive site-related
information from EPA.  It is
important for all members of the
site team, including the  RPM or
OSC, to help define the
objectives for your community
interviews, including what
information to seek from the
community. The community can
help the site team identify the
past uses, practices, or other
history of the site to inform the site investigation and risk assessment. For example, by asking community
members about their interaction with the site, the site team may learn valuable information, including
whether members of the community regularly traverse the site or use the site or potentially affected areas
for hunting, fishing, or recreation. Such information can help the site team identify unique exposure
pathways that may be considered when developing the risk assessment and the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) work plan. Once all of the community interviews are conducted, a
discussion with the RPM or OSC (and other members of the site team, as appropriate) to summarize what
was learned often is useful. The site team may consider revisiting these issues  with the community during
periodic updates to the CIP.
The CIP typically is both a document and the culmination of a planning process. The CIP generally
provides a road map for the site team's use throughout the cleanup process by  describing the outreach
activities EPA plans to undertake to address community needs and concerns during the cleanup process.
A well-written CIP should enable community members affected by a Superfund site to understand the
ways in which they can participate in decision-making throughout the process. The CIP also  should be a
"living" document and normally is most effective when it is updated or revised as site or community
conditions change. The  CIP document typically:

•   Describes the site, including relevant history,  type and extent of contamination, human health risks,
    environmental exposures and concerns, both directly related to the site and in a broader sense.

•   Describes the community in a comprehensive profile that includes demographic information, local
    government structure, and any relevant community characteristics, including communities or
    subgroups with potential environmental justice concerns as  well as tribal and cultural practices or
    characteristics.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 2     Chapter 2
•   Identifies key community needs, questions, and concerns as a result of interviews with
    community members as well as expectations and unique needs of the community (e.g., translation
    and disability services) or unique cultural behaviors, customs, and values. This information is also
    typically collected through community interviews and described in the community profile section of
    theCIP.

•   Discusses the need for technical assistance services and, if appropriate, identifies programs and
    mechanisms for providing access to technical assistance for communities.

•   Includes an Action Plan that specifies EPA's planned outreach activities and community
    involvement mechanisms, describes the objective and intention of the activity, outlines a projected
    sequence of project milestones tied to site activities (with projected time frames, whenever possible),
    and discusses the mechanisms that will be used to explain to the public how community feedback is
    considered during the cleanup process.

•   Identifies any additional special services or approaches that EPA may use to address unique needs
    of the community. These may include encouraging the formation of a Community Advisory Group
    (CAG), which is a committee, task force, or board composed of community members and other
    stakeholders affected by the site. Additionally, EPA may provide facilitation or dispute resolution
    services for community meetings or groups, translating documents into different languages,
    suggesting job training services  such as the SuperJTI program so that community members can be
    hired to work on the cleanup, or supporting an approach for the community to discuss  and consider
    site reuse options.

•   Allows for community comment on the draft CIP and discusses the mechanisms used to receive
    and consider feedback before issuing the final CIP (e.g., formal or informal public comments,
    community meetings, public meetings, etc.).

•   Discusses plans to evaluate accomplishments, including a schedule for updating or revising the
    CIP.

 Communication Strategies
While the CIP generally provides a road map for conveying and
receiving information throughout the entire Superfund process,
a communication strategy normally provides a plan for
communicating with specific audiences about a single event,      Strategies too1 m the CI Toolklt
issue, or concern, such as informing the community about an
emergency response to a release or addressing how to
communicate risk at a site. A communication strategy also can be used to expedite the flow of
information for sudden, unfolding events or when EPA requests  specific information from community
members.

A good communication strategy usually provides the "who, what, why, when, where, and how" for
relaying or collecting information. Generally, it also:

•   Outlines the objectives/goals of the communication.

•   Identifies and discusses key stakeholders and audiences and their concerns.

•   Defines key messages to convey or key information to collect.

•   Identifies potential communication methods and vehicles for communicating information for a
    specific purpose.

•   Specifies how feedback on the strategy will be obtained.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)
For help developing communication
strategies, see the Communication

-------
                                                                        Chapter 2
                                   13
Communication strategies do not have to be formal written documents. A simple communication strategy
typically involves determining the best approach for identifying and communicating the most important
messages or information to the people who need the information. A good communication strategy can be
based on what is learned by talking to community members about their concerns and information needs.
This simple approach normally is suitable for addressing specific issues at low-risk sites that have not
generated a high level of public concern. At sites with higher levels of public concern or site cleanup
issues that are expected to be controversial, one or more written communication strategies may be
appropriate to address specific issues or situations, or to reach individual audiences.

Key Considerations When Planning Community Involvement

Site teams should keep a few overarching themes in mind when planning and conducting community
involvement and outreach. These include:

•   Communicating risk effectively.

•   Assessing and addressing environmental justice and tribal concerns (please see the box titled "Using
    EPA's EJSCREEN tool" on page  15).

•   Assessing and responding to technical assistance needs.

•   Involving the community in considering reasonably anticipated future land use options, as
    appropriate.

•   Using traditional and new media (including social media) effectively.

•   Explaining the collection and potential release of personally identifiable information to community
    members.
•   Coordinating and collaborating with other EPA
    programs and other federal agencies.

•   Planning for community involvement when resources
    are limited.

•   Evaluating community involvement activities.

Communicating Risk Effectively

Community involvement activities usually involve
communicating risk in  some form, so the site team should
strive to ensure that the principles of effective risk
communication are considered in everything they do.
Effective risk communication generally involves a
dialogue between the site team and the community—an
interactive information exchange about the nature of risk
and other concerns. This dialogue should be a genuine
and sincere conversation that aims to convey important information, respond to public concerns and
identify mutual solutions. All members of the site team usually are involved in various aspects of risk
communication efforts.
           Superfund Risk
     Communication Resources

The Risk Communication tool in the CI
Toolkit contains detailed information on
risk communication, instructions for
developing risk messages, a list of
frequently asked questions, and other
useful tools.
Superfund Risk Assessment and How  You
Can Helv (Video)
This 40-minute video explains the
Superfund human health risk assessment
process in plain terms and describes how
communities can be involved.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
14
Chapter 2
Effective risk communication should:

•   Communicate risk- and exposure-related information by translating technical data into language that
    can be easily understood by members of the community

•   Help community members understand the Agency's risk assessment and risk management processes
    and decisions.

•   Help the Agency understand the community's concerns and the factors that affect their perception of
    risk related to the site.

•   Increase mutual trust and credibility in a way that provides community members an opportunity to
    participate meaningfully in decision-making about how risk should be managed in their community.

Effectively communicating information on site-related hazards and risks usually is a multistep process
that normally involves:
•   Identifying and understanding the audience.

•   Developing clear messages that convey important
    risk-related information—with an understanding of,
    and respect for, the audience's concerns and
    perception of site-related risks.

•   Selecting appropriate communication methods to
    deliver those messages.

•   Understanding that an effective risk communication
    process enables mutual understanding of risk-related
    concerns but does not guarantee consensus.

Assessing and Addressing Environmental Justice
and Tribal Concerns

EPA defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies."2
                                                     Considering Multiple and
                                                        Cumulative Effects

                                              Some communities are faced with the
                                              presence of numerous environmental burdens
                                              in addition to the Superfund site. Many times
                                              these communities also suffer disparities in
                                              health conditions compared to other
                                              communities. For example, according to the
                                              Jacksonville Integrated Planning Project, a
                                              December 2012 report written by an EPA
                                              contractor, the community of Jacksonville,
                                              Florida, "faces numerous environmental
                                              challenges including Superfund sites,
                                              brownfields and air and water-related
                                              contamination...The Superfund Program is
                                              often engaged with communities that are
                                              experiencing cumulative environmental and
                                              health impacts that can be beyond the scope of
                                              cleaning up a single Superfund site."
Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental
harms and risks, including those resulting from negative environmental consequences of industrial,
governmental, and commercial operation or program and policies.3

Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community members have a appropriate
opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or
health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all
participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision-makers seek
out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. In the Agency's implementation of
environmental justice, EPA has expanded the concept of fair treatment to include not only the
consideration of how burdens are  distributed across all populations, but also how benefits are distributed.4

To integrate EPA's definition of environmental justice into practice, the Superfund program incorporates
a few best practices, such as:
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
                                        15
•   Identifying communities with potential
    environmental justice concerns: Many
    communities affected by Superfund sites are
    lower income, higher minority or indigenous,
    and more burdened by other environmental
    stressors when compared to the general
    population. Site teams should consider assessing
    whether environmental justice concerns are
    present at a site because this may provide
    important information for cleanup and for
    community involvement purposes. EPA's
    Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice
    during the Development of Regulatory Actions.
    released in May 2015, outlines several factors to
    help site team members assess whether a
    community might have environmental justice
    concerns. The factors are: (1) proximity and
    exposure to emission sources; (2) unique
    exposure pathways; (3) physical infrastructure;
    (4) multiple stressors and cumulative impacts;
    (5) capacity to participate in decision-making;
    and (6) higher risk in response to exposure
    among minority populations, low-income
    populations, and/or indigenous peoples.5

•   Considering the collection of relevant data
    and using EPA's EJSCREEN tool to help
    identify communities that may have potential
    environmental justice concerns. (See box on
    previous page.)Relevant data that the site team
    should consider may include demographic data
    (e.g., ethnicity/race, education, languages spoken), relevant existing health information (e.g., asthma
    rates, nutritional status), and information about additional environmental burdens (e.g., toxic release
         Tribal EJ Policy and Policy
           on Tribal Consultation
It is important to note the difference between
meaningful involvement of indigenous peoples and
government-to-government consultation with
tribes. EPA's Policy for Environmental Justice for
Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples discusses meaningful
involvement of indigenous peoples throughout the
U.S. and others living in Indian country.
The federal government has a unique government-
to-government relationship with federally
recognized tribes, which arises from Indian treaties,
statutes, executive orders, and the historical
relations between the United States and Indian
Nations. The federal government has a trust
responsibility to federally recognized tribes. Part of
this responsibility includes consulting with tribes
and considering their interests when taking action
that may affect them or their resources. EPA's
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes discusses EPA's responsibilities to
work government-to-government with federally
recognized tribes.
(Visit EPA's Environmental Protection in  Indian
Country website and also consult Appendix B for
links to important documents related to working
with tribes and tribal consultation.)
                                  Using EPA's EJSCREEN Tool
EJSCREEN is the environmental justice screening and mapping tool EPA uses to identify areas that may
have environmental justice concerns as the Agency develops programs, policies and activities that may
affect communities. The EJSCREEN tool offers a variety of powerful mapping capabilities that enable
users to access environmental and demographic information at high geographic resolution displayed in
color-coded maps and standard reports. EJSCREEN provides consistent data and standardized summary
metrics that facilitate national, regional, or state-level environmental justice screening. EPA developed
EJSCREEN to assist in meeting environmental justice goals consistent with Executive Order 12898 and
the goals of Plan EJ 2014. EPA released the EJSCREEN tool for public use on June 10, 2015. It is
available at: www.epa.gov/ejscreen.

EJSCREEN can help site teams characterize communities by showing demographic information and
information on a variety of environmental factors that may contribute to a community's environmental
burden. Site teams are encouraged to use EJSCREEN to help identify and graphically represent
information that could indicate potential environmental justice concerns.  Site teams also should consider
information from other  sources. As is true for any screening-level analysis, use of EJSCREEN is
designed as only a first  step and not as the sole basis  of Agency decision-making. Local knowledge and
information also  are important for an accurate assessment of a location or community.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 6     Chapter 2
    facilities, air pollution data) in affected populations. The collection and consideration of this
    information should be discussed in the site's CIP.
    Site decisions should take into account sensitive subpopulations as well as unique exposure pathways
    from site contamination. For this reason, demographic information and information about potential
    environmental factors affecting the community should be shared among the site team in a timely
    manner, sometimes even before the CIP is final. This should help ensure that these factors can be
    considered appropriately during the risk assessment or during the preparation of other appropriate site
    analyses or decisions. For example, the risk assessment and development of cleanup levels may take
    into consideration exposure assumptions or other factors related to sensitive subpopulations. (For
    information about the risk assessment process, see the Risk Assessment Guidance for Super fund
    (RAGS) Part A, which provides guidance on the human health evaluation activities that are conducted
    during the baseline risk assessment.)

•   Planning and implementing enhanced community involvement opportunities: Relevant
    information about potential environmental justice concerns should be considered when developing the
    CIP and when planning and conducting  specific community involvement activities. For sites that
    affect indigenous peoples, special care should be taken to consult with tribal leaders and
    environmental officials whenever the site team works with tribal members.
    Site teams should consider tailoring community involvement approaches to reach out more
    effectively to specific populations. Some examples include using translation or interpretation
    services; partnering with local community groups or community leaders; employing nontraditional
    media outlets  for outreach; identifying nongovernment locations to hold public meetings; scheduling
    community involvement activities at times other than during subsistence fishing, hunting, or
    agriculture seasons; and continuing to distribute paper copies of outreach materials when members of
    the community lack access to electronic forms of communication.
Site teams also are encouraged to consult with their Regional Environmental Justice Coordinators and
EPA Tribal Contacts, as appropriate,  and to  work with state, local, or tribal governments to determine
whether they can offer assistance or insights into how to meet the special needs of a community with
environmental justice concerns.

Assessing and Responding to Technical Assistance Needs

Understanding the volume of technical information related to a site can be a daunting task for anyone. By
offering technical assistance to communities, EPA can help community members better understand
technical issues and options for remediation and reuse. This can help community members more
effectively articulate their concerns and preferences during the decision-making process.

A variety of technical assistance services may be available to help  communities with the following:

•   Reviewing, interpreting, and explaining Superfund cleanup decision documents.

•   Reviewing, interpreting, and explaining other site-related technical and scientific reports.

•   Providing information about site-related basic  science, environmental policy, and related resources.

•   Providing assistance to help communities understand health risks.

•   Helping the community identify reasonably anticipated future  land uses to inform remedial actions
    and understand how land use can impact remedies.

•   Preparing outreach materials.

•   Presenting educational programs  on site-related technical issues or subjects.

•   Helping to resolve conflicts among stakeholders.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
                                    17
These resources and services can be provided informally by the site team or through formal programs
available through EPA grants and contracts or by external partners.

Site team members should consider whether assistance available through other EPA programs or
resources can be offered to a community, especially if the community has environmental justice concerns.
Examples include technical assistance programs such as Technical Assistance Services for Communities
(TASC) or the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program. When offered by EPA, such technical
assistance should be beneficial to the broad community and inclusive of the diversity of concerns and
interests across the community. When reviewing a TAG application, EPA considers an applicant group's
"representation of groups and individuals affected by the site" and their "ability and plan to inform others
in the community of the information provided by the technical advisor" (40 CFR 35.4155  (a) and (c)).
Other types of assistance may be available through the SuperJTI program or the Superfund
Redevelopment Initiative. Facilitation, mediation and other specialized assistance available through the
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center also might be helpful in some situations. If any of these
programs appear to be applicable at a given site, the site team should consider meeting with the
appropriate EPA contacts to discuss opportunities to provide assistance and to coordinate outreach
opportunities.

Conducting a Technical Assistance Needs Assessment: For most sites, informal technical assistance
provided directly by the site team as part of the overall community involvement effort will be sufficient to
address the community's needs. However,  if a community seems to have unmet needs for technical
assistance, the site team might consider conducting a Technical Assistance Needs Assessment (TANA). A
TANA is a site-specific assessment to determine whether a community might benefit from additional
support to help community members understand site-
related technical information. The TANA process offers
a recommended blueprint for designing a coordinated
effort to meet the community's needs while minimizing
the overlap of technical assistance services provided by
the site team, external partners, and EPA grants and
contracts.
 Managing Community Expectations
     about Technical Assistance
              Resources
Preface any discussion of potential technical
assistance or other resources by explaining
that availability of these services is
contingent upon funding, and often also
upon eligibility or other factors.
The TANA process usually involves:

1)  Interviewing community members to obtain their
    views on the ways in which the community is
    receiving technical information about a site and
    whether community members can readily understand the information.
2)  Assessing whether additional forms of technical assistance may be appropriate to enable the
    community to understand and comment on site-related technical information.
3)  Identifying organizations in the community that are interested or involved in site-related issues and
    that might provide an appropriate conduit for technical assistance services to the affected community.
While a TANA may be appropriate at any time, conducting a TANA concurrently with the community
interviews for the CIP is ideal. A TANA may be conducted later if the technical assistance needs of the
community cannot be adequately defined at that time.6

Using the TANA to Identify Technical Assistance Services and Programs for Communities: In
addition to providing guidance for conducting interviews, the TANA tool in the CI Toolkit includes
detailed information about the types of technical assistance services that may be offered to a community
by EPA site teams or through the Agency's technical assistance programs and resources. Most times,
technical assistance is provided to the community by the site team as part of the site's overall community
involvement effort. This informal technical assistance may be provided through fact sheets, availability
sessions, workshops, and similar resources. EPA also may offer more formal technical assistance, which
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
18
Chapter 2
usually is provided by an independent technical expert (and sometimes a mediator or facilitator) working
with a community organization. Formal technical assistance generally is made available through an EPA
program or funding vehicle or via an external partner. These include a variety of programs that offer:

•   Access to independent experts through the TAG program. Technical Assistance Plans (TAP), or
    TASC contract.
•   Neutral facilitation, mediation, and dispute resolution services through the EPA Conflict Prevention
    and Resolution Services contract.
•   Partnering with universities, colleges, and nonprofit organizations for voluntary support to
    communities through EPA's new Partners in Technical Assistance  Program (PTAP).
•   A source of medical information and advice on environmental conditions that influence children's
    health. Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) are  a network of specialists who
    respond to questions from public health professionals, clinicians, policy makers, and the public about
    children's environmental health concerns,
    with funding from EPA's Superfund
    program. For example, children at the Navy
    Yard Mills site in Massachusetts were
    exposed to TCE in an indoor batting cage.
    PEHSU doctors came to a public meeting
    to answer community questions. It may
    have reassured some community members
    to hear from a nongovernment professional
    who was qualified to answer very specific
    questions about children's health.
Other Resources for Communities: It is a
good idea to be familiar with other resources
and information sources of potential interest to
members of the community. Some of these
resources, including information about forming
a CAG or initiating a SuperJTI project at a site,
are discussed in chapters 3 and 4. Please
consult the  Superfund Community Involvement
webpage for information about other resources
that may be useful to communities near
Superfund sites. It also is a good idea to stay
abreast of other EPA programs, services, and funding opportunities of potential  interest to communities
affected by Superfund sites. The Resources for Local Officials and Community  Members page on EPA's
website is a good place  to start.

Explaining the Collection and Potential Release of Personally Identifiable Information  to
Community Members

During community involvement activities, the collection of personally identifiable information is
inevitable. Sign-in sheets for community meetings and mailing lists are two common examples where
non-sensitive PII (such  as names and home addresses or home telephone numbers) is collected. General
EPA policy regarding the collection and release of PII consists of the following:
                                         Disclaimer Language for Explaining the
                                      Release of Personally Identifiable Information

                                     To clarify the collection and release of personally
                                     identifiable information (PII) for community
                                     members, please consider displaying the following
                                     disclaimer language on public sign-in sheets, public
                                     mailing lists, or any other time when PII is collected:
                                     The information you provide here is subject to EPA 's
                                     Privacy Policy*, and may be disclosed consistent with
                                     federal laws and regulations, including under the
                                     Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

                                     *EPA 's Privacy Policy should not be confused with
                                     the Privacy Act, which generally does not cover sign-
                                     in sheets  and mailing lists, but may cover other
                                     collected information. If collected information is
                                     subject to the Privacy Act, please follow the
                                     procedures outlined in the system of records notice,
                                     including any requisite disclaimer language.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
                                                                                           19
•   In general, sign-in sheets and mailing lists are subject to EPA's Privacy Policy.  As a result, EPA
    staff typically should consult with the Office of Regional Counsel or Office of General Counsel
    before determining whether to disclose or withhold the information. A Freedom of Information Act
    (FOIA) request may be required.

•   If a FOIA request is received, it is possible that some personal information could be released to the
    FOIA requestor (such as names). Oftentimes the personal privacy exemption under FOIA (exemption
    6) may apply, and after balancing the personal privacy interests against public interest, EPA may
    determine that some PII should not be released. Release of PII for FOIA requests is determined on a
    case-by-case basis, and EPA programs should consult with their FOIA office or counsel when making
    this determination.

Coordinating with Other EPA Programs and Other Federal Agencies
                                                           Coordinating with ATSDR
                                               Coordinating with other federal agencies also may be an
                                               important part of the cleanup process. The Agency for
                                               Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and
                                               the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
                                               have a strong partnership with EPA and the Superfund
                                               program. ATSDR conducts public health assessments,
                                               health consultations, and health education at Superfund
                                               sites. ATSDR personnel are located in each Region and
                                               in Washington, D.C., and can assist staff in defining
                                               ways to coordinate work to protect the health of
                                               communities affected by Superfund sites.
                                               In addition, CERCLA Section 104(i)(6)(B)  [42 U.S.C.
                                               9604(i)(6)(B)] allows individuals to petition ATSDR to
                                               conduct a health assessment by providing information
                                               that individuals have been exposed to a hazardous
                                               substance from a release or threatened release.
Superfund site teams benefit from acting as
"One EPA" in communities. A One EPA
approach can be achieved by coordinating with
other EPA programs and communicating
consistent community goals and messages.
Close coordination among EPA programs also
can enable communities at Superfund sites to
leverage all available resources that might
benefit them.

Site teams should be aware of the other
environmental issues that could affect how
community involvement at a Superfund site is
conducted or received by the
community—particularly environmental justice
considerations related to whether a community
might bear a disproportionate share of the
environmental burden. Regardless of whether a
site has environmental justice concerns, the site
team should be aware of other regulated
hazardous waste facilities or environmental programs in the community that are administered by EPA or a
state, tribe, or other federal agency. Knowledge about past and ongoing environmental activities nearby
also is useful, including those activities related to environmental enforcement, permitting, pollution,
pollution prevention, and emergency preparedness that might affect community attitudes toward EPA,
local/state/tribal regulatory agencies, and nearby facilities of concern.

Teamwork between the Superfund  and RCRA programs is very important. There are numerous sites that
may be addressed under either or both programs over time. Close coordination and cross-program
teamwork is particularly important in the transition period when a site previously addressed by a state or
federal lead agency under the RCRA program enters the Superfund program. RCRA programs often have
built up important relationships with the community as well as with the facility and its representatives,
such as public relations firms, environmental consultants, and attorneys. Superfund site teams should
carefully coordinate with their Agency, state, or tribal RCRA counterparts to ensure that existing
relationships are maintained and nurtured.
The site team also is encouraged to investigate other EPA programs or initiatives that could offer
opportunities for coordination or collaboration. For example, in February 2015, the Superfund program
made a new commitment to coordinate with the Agency's water program on contaminated sediments
issues.8 Through increased internal coordination, EPA site teams often can help communities access a
range of EPA resources, including relevant grant opportunities, technical assistance, and useful data.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
20     Chapter 2
These efforts can help to facilitate community dialogue and engagement and empower communities at
Superfund sites to take an active role in addressing site issues as well as other environmental issues that
affect them.

EPA also benefits from cross-program coordination in many ways. For one, individual programs and
regions learn from each other by sharing best practices, success stories, and useful contacts. They can
share new tools, such as the GeoPlatform and Region 1's Community Action Tracker. Coordination
encourages cross-pollination of best practices and promotes cross-program and cross-regional use of tools
and data. Sometimes this collaboration can lead to development of innovative multimedia strategies.
Cross-program coordination also helps the Agency "speak with one voice" at the local level, better
address community needs and goals, and effectively explain the environmental and public health benefits
of EPA's work to communities affected by Superfund sites.

Site team awareness of the programs and initiatives of other federal agencies might be useful to
communities at Superfund sites. For example, by accessing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)  webpage,  an EPA CIC learned that Step-Up (HUD's Worker Training program) was
active in a community near a Superfund site.  The EPA CIC met with the local Step-Up contact to learn
more and then used HUD's geographic information systems to gather local demographic data that
improved the CIP for the site. In another example, EPA Region 4 coordinated with other federal agencies
through an interagency working group to address environmental justice concerns in several communities,
including North Birmingham, Alabama, and Turkey Creek and North Gulfport, Mississippi.

The Federal  Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG) focuses resources from 17
federal agencies and White House offices to help meet economic, environmental, and community needs.
The EJ IWG was established in 1994 under Executive Order 12898 to guide, support, and enhance federal
environmental justice and community-based activities. The EJ IWG works to strengthen community
access to federal programs and expertise by eliminating barriers, making connections, and avoiding
duplication.  For more information about the EJ IWG, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/interagencv/.

Involving the  Community in Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use Options
Since 1995,  EPA has  had guidance that discusses how current and reasonably anticipated land use should
be considered in the remedy selection process for  Superfund sites.9 Today, as a result of cleanup, many
sites can be returned to long-term sustainable and  beneficial reuse. Communities affected by Superfund
sites can play a vital role in informing the cleanup process so that formerly contaminated lands may be
returned to productive and beneficial use, which sometimes can increase the economic viability of the
community.  Visit the  Superfund Redevelopment Initiative webpage for information about the SRI and
reuse planning  support. Additional information regarding community involvement as it relates to
considering reasonably anticipated future land use can be found in OSWER Directive 9355.7-19,
Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use and Reducing Barriers to Reuse at EPA-lead
Superfund Remedial Sites.

Using Traditional and New Media Technologies Effectively
Until relatively recently, working with news media at a Superfund site meant identifying the major print,
television and radio outlets serving the area and working with reporters to deliver site-related news and
information.  Today the media landscape is very different as new technologies continue to change the
ways in which people receive and share information. The rise of digital forms of communication—from
websites and social media (e.g., Facebook,  Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest) to blogs and even text
messaging and various phone applications (apps)—means that many people rely less  on traditional media
and often turn to these new media technologies and communication methods as primary or supplemental
information  sources.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
21
For Superfund site teams, working with traditional media (print, television and radio) remains important,
but often it is necessary to also use new media technologies to reach people affected by Superfund sites.
The importance of using diverse channels of communication is reflected throughout this handbook, with
references made to providing information electronically (e.g., by posting information on websites). Site-
specific websites are useful for keeping the community informed about site activities, sharing
information, and providing a mechanism for feedback. EPA introduced new Superfund Site Profile Pages
in late 2015. As a result, EPA now has a standard platform for conveying information to the public for
each NPL site. Similar pages for removal sites also may be on the horizon. Community members will be
able to access site information through links to the administrative record and other documents, and will be
able to provide comments to EPA online using the Regulations.gov site for offical public comments
during listing and de-listing.

However, the use  of social media may have the greatest effect on community involvement efforts at
Superfund sites. Regardless of whether the site team chooses to use social media as part of its community
involvement approach, the reality is that social media is an important communication mechanism within
communities. Monitoring local Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media sites is a good
approach to understand what is happening in the community, to stay abreast of site-related community
attitudes, and to become aware of misinformation, rumors, and community reactions to site issues that
could mislead the public regarding EPA's response actions.

Working with Traditional Media: Almost every Superfund site generates interest in the local news
media at some point, and EPA often turns to local media to help disseminate information about site issues
and activities. Therefore, it is important to understand how media outlets work and to carefully consider
the role of the news media in community involvement efforts.

To do this effectively, site team members are encouraged to learn how traditional media outlets gather
and present news. Site teams also  should understand the different needs of radio, television, and print
media, as well as how other media channels (including online media outlets and social media) work. EPA
news releases should contain well-crafted messages delivered in a way that is tailored to each medium
and to that medium's specific audiences (see the Media and the Risk Communication tools in the CI
Toolkit, especially the attachments).

In general, the site team usually works with the media when EPA wants the media to disseminate
information to the public and when the media covers a story that directly or indirectly relates  to the site.
Information about a local Superfund site can be newsworthy, but to be considered news and attract media
coverage, it must be immediate in nature and relevant to the local audience. The Agency is more likely to
attract media coverage by developing relationships with local reporters and editors, issuing timely news
releases and media advisories with well-crafted messages, making members of the site team available to
the media when events or issues may be newsworthy, and earning the media's trust as a resource by
anticipating and responding to questions in a timely fashion with reliable, up-to-date information.

Working with Social Media: EPA uses the term "social media" to refer to any online tool or application
(app) that goes beyond simply providing information to also provide collaboration, interaction, and
sharing. Examples of social media include blogs, microblogs, wikis, photo and video sharing, podcasts,
virtual worlds, social networking, social news and bookmarking, Web conferencing and webcasting. Such
tools provide another way for EPA to accomplish its mission of protecting human health and  the
environment. The implementation of EPA's agency-wide social media policy has evolved as  new tools
and technologies appear at an increasing rate. In addition, specific uses of approved social media products
vary among EPA Regions.

 Before using social media as part of EPA business, EPA  employees should consult the Agency's
guidance on social media within EPA's Web Guide. In addition to the general social media policy
referenced above, EPA  employees should consult three additional procedures documents that are
discussed within the Web Guide: (1) Using Social Mediate Communicate with the Public; (2)
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
22     Chapter 2
Representing EPA Online Using Social Media; and (3) Should I Respond or Not on EPA's Behalf. These
guidance documents apply to EPA employees representing the Agency on social media in their official
capacities. They outline the procedures to follow and the issues to consider when using social media to
communicate with the public. In particular, Using Social Media to Communicate with the Public explains
roles and responsibilities of those involved with using social media, how to obtain approval for its use,
how to ensure accessibility under Section 508, and how to moderate comments received through social
media channels.
Superfund site teams should consider applying appropriate social media technologies to community
involvement work whenever possible, in accordance with the social media policies and procedures
discussed above. However, it is important to keep the "digital divide" in mind: Easy access to the Internet,
smartphones, and other devices is not universal. This is particularly important to consider when the
affected community has environmental justice concerns and many community members might have lower
incomes or lack access to new technologies.

When considering the use of social media, it is a good idea to research and identify the most appropriate
mechanism to reach the community members with whom you want to communicate. Local government
and community organizations generally know which social media outreach tools they have used
successfully  to communicate with the community. Remembering that social media should not be used
instead of more traditional communication channels also is important; its use should be in addition to
traditional communication channels. Use of social media often represents an added opportunity for
engagement  with a growing audience of people expecting more transparency, faster communication, and
more access  to information than ever before. There are many examples of social media applications at
Superfund sites, such as the Facebook page for Coeur d'Alene Basin and the QR (Quick Response) code
project in EPA Region 3 (see Chapter 3). Another example is the Columbia River Watershed Twitter
Feed. While  the watershed is not a Superfund site, this Twitter Feed is a great example of how to use
social media to update community members on site activities.

Many things should be considered before a site team decides to use social media. Effective use of social
media is based on a good understanding of how each type of tool works and what it can and cannot
accomplish.  This usually means thinking carefully about what the site team wants to accomplish,
knowing the intended audience, and understanding the nature of social media communication. While
traditional news output is primarily a one-way process of disseminating information to an audience, social
media is more like a conversation between participants. Social media is immediate and interactive, which
means that its use often requires a commitment to monitoring the conversation overtime, acknowledging
and responding quickly to comments and questions, and providing information quickly and accurately in
real time. For more information, see a relevant presentation from the 2013 Community Involvement
Training Conference: Social Media: Is it Right for Your Community! Also consult the social media tool in
the CI Toolkit.

Planning for Community Involvement When Resources Are Limited

EPA site teams should carefully consider resource constraints when planning community involvement
activities. Think creatively, use the tools  and technologies available, and make the best possible use of
travel dollars when site trips are possible. In recent years, budgets have been cut and the availability of
funds for site travel has declined. This trend is likely to continue. At the same time, EPA's commitment to
effective Superfund community involvement remains strong.  To meet this commitment, Superfund site
teams are finding creative ways to build and maintain relationships with affected communities and share
information, even when unable to travel to sites.
For example, the use of collaborative technologies such as Adobe Connect10 provides the option for
virtual meetings, while Microsoft OneDrive and Microsoft SharePoint provide document-sharing services
"in the cloud," along with the ability to collaborate through discussion forums, news feeds, and more. All
of these tools can be applied to community involvement work, enabling site teams to interact with
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 2
23
community members when face-to-face meetings are not feasible. Using Adobe Connect to conduct a
virtual public meeting takes significant planning and preparation, but implementing collaborative
technology can be a viable alternative when face-to-face interactions are not an option. Also consider
planning conference-call meetings. Keep in mind that not all community members may have ready access
to the Internet connections that make use of these technologies feasible. A "Long Distance Engagement
Guide" has been developed as a living document. The guide includes checklists for deciding whether the
use of technology to connect with remote participants is advisable and then  considering all of the factors
necessary for a successful long distance engagement event. This guide also  contains best practices for
long distance engagement. Contact the Community Involvement and Program Initiatives Branch for more
information.

Evaluating Community Involvement Activities

Obtaining and responding to feedback from community members generally is an important aspect of
effective community involvement. Without concrete feedback, it might be difficult for the site team to
know whether their community involvement plans or activities are reaching their intended audience or
working as anticipated. For this reason, it may be useful to solicit feedback  and gather information that
will help the site team assess how well each approach or activity is meeting its intended objective.

In general, a key to evaluating short- or long-term community involvement  efforts is identifying
reasonable goals and objectives for the overall community involvement approach and defining objectives
for  each outreach or involvement activity. Some relevant questions may include: What do you want to
accomplish? Who is your target audience? What knowledge do you want members of the community to
acquire or what actions do you want them to take as a result? Is your message reaching its target
audience? Once the goals are set, the next steps generally include developing measures of success;
identifying, collecting, and analyzing measurement data; and implementing corrective actions.

Evaluation results can be used to make adjustments to specific activities or to the overall approach, if
necessary. Informal feedback can be used to make mid-course corrections or to address any issues or
shortcomings as they arise. Constant and consistent evaluation of community involvement efforts can
help the site team improve outreach and continuously improve its community involvement approach.

If possible, evaluation should be done both formally and informally throughout the entire Superfund
process. Informal feedback may be obtained through conversations after a community meeting or via
emails or phone calls from community members regarding outreach efforts. More formal evaluations are
conducted through interviews, surveys, and evaluation forms (paper or digital). However, the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) applies whenever identical  information from 10 or more
public respondents becomes necessary. An approved Customer Service Survey has been developed for
site teams to use when collecting information for evaluation purposes (see box on next page).
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
24      Chapter 2
                       Community Involvement Customer Satisfaction Survey

  To enhance the ability of site teams to evaluate community involvement efforts, an Information Collection
  Request was submitted and approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget. A copy of the
  "Customer Satisfaction Survey" (OMB Control # 2050-0179, expiration date 4/30/2016) is in Appendix C.
  This survey is an opportunity for community members to convey how well EPA is listening to their concerns
  about the cleanup and making it possible for them to participate in the planning and decision-making process.
  This survey is NOT intended to be given in its entirety. Instead, individual sections may be used as a specific
  situation dictates. In addition to paper copies, you may choose to provide the survey to participants online via
  commercially available software where EPA has signed a terms of service agreement.*
  Check with the Community Involvement and  Program Initiatives Branch to  ensure that you have the most
  recent and up-to-date version of this survey. Visit www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-communitv-
  involvement.
   * This link is available internally only to EPA staff.
Chapter 2 Endnotes

1 It is important to note the difference between how "meaningful involvement" of indigenous populations is used in
the environmental justice context and in EPA's policy on consultation with tribes, as discussed in EPA's May 4.
2011. Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. The federal government has a unique
government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes, which arises from Indian treaties, statutes,
Executive Orders, and the historical relations between the United States and Indian Nations. The federal government
has a trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes. Part of this responsibility includes consulting with tribes and
considering their interests when taking action that may affect them or their resources.
2 U.S. EPA. Plan EJ 2014, Office of Environmental Justice, September 2011, p. 3.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 U.S. EPA. Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions. May
2015,pp.l3-15.
6 Note that interviews with more than nine people that are conducted apart from the community interviews for
development of the CIP or for a PRP investigation may be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires
prior approval by  the Office of Management and Budget of an Information Collection Request (ICR) for this
purpose. (See box above.)
7 EPA's Privacy Policy should not be confused with the  Privacy Act, which generally doesn't cover sign-in sheets
and mailing lists.
8 See memorandum, "Promoting Water, Superfund and Enforcement Collaboration on Contaminated Sediments,"
February 12, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/promoting-water-sediments-
memo.pdf
9 U.S. EPA. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, May 25, 1995 (OSWER Directive 9355.7-04).
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174935
10 This link to EPA's Adobe Connect page is only accessible by EPA staff.
                          Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                    Chapter 3     25


                                                                    CHAPTER  3

                       COMMUNITY  INVOLVEMENT  DURING

	THE  REMEDIAL  PROCESS

About the Superfund Remedial Process
This chapter discusses how a site team should advocate for early and meaningful community participation
during the Superfund cleanup process. In general, remedial actions are long-term actions taken to clean up
sites. Generally, remedial actions may be performed by EPA, another designated lead agency (federal,
state or tribal agencies), or potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Remedial action site activities have
distinct phases, each with its own set of community involvement issues and activities.
In this chapter, the following phases are discussed in sequence:
1)  Discovery of Contamination.
2)  Site Assessment.
3)  Proposed and Final Listing on the NPL.
4)  Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
 Explaining the Superfund Remedial
      Process to Communities
The This is Superfund brochure is a great
tool that can help explain the Superfund
 ,x  „   •,-,•.  c.  ,  ^    ,  .•      ,n      , n,          remedial process to communities.
 5)  Feasibility Study Completion and Proposed Plan.
 6)  Pre-Record of Decision Significant Changes (if
    necessary).
 7)  Record of Decision.
 8)  Post-Record of Decision Significant Changes (if necessary).
 9)  Remedial Design/Remedial Action.
 10) Operation and Maintenance/Five-Year Review.
 11) NPL Site Deletion.
 Each section of this chapter begins with an introduction to a step in the Superfund cleanup process,
 followed by a discussion about assessing, planning, and implementing community involvement activities
 during that phase. A summary of community involvement procedures required by law or addressed in
 NCP provisions is provided to indicate the minimum community involvement activities that should be
 conducted. This is followed by a discussion of some of the recommended factors to consider when
 developing a community involvement approach for an individual site. Where appropriate, the discussion
 is summarized in a graphic figure that shows a sampling of community involvement activities to consider,
 depending on whether the assessment suggests that a low, moderate, or high level of community
 involvement may be appropriate.

 Discussions of specific community involvement activities are intentionally brief. Additional information
 about specific community involvement tools, methods and activities is included in the CI Toolkit.
 References to relevant guidance, websites, and community involvement tools and resources in the CI
 Toolkit are provided via hyperlinks. (Also see the additional information in Chapter 5, Community
 Involvement during Enforcement Activities, and Chapter 6, Community Involvement at Federal
 Facilities.)
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
26
Chapter 3
1.  Discovery of Contamination

The Superfund site assessment process often begins with EPA being notified of a release or potential
release of hazardous substances into the environment. Such notifications often come from the party
responsible for the release or from state, tribal or other environmental programs. They also may come
from individuals. For example, citizens have an explicit right under Section 105(d) of the CERCLA
statute to petition EPA to conduct a preliminary assessment of a particular release.1 After notification to
EPA, non-federal facility sites undergo a screening process to determine whether the CERCLA site
assessment process is appropriate. With federal facilities, the process typically starts when the facility has
been listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.

2.  Site Assessment

Once a site is identified as appropriate for site assessment, it receives a site discovery date and is added to
the active Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), the successor to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) site inventory.
Using criteria established under the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), EPA and/or its state and tribal
partners or the appropriate federal agency then conducts a Preliminary Assessment (PA). If warranted, a
Site Inspection (SI) or other more in-depth assessment is conducted to determine whether the site
warrants short- or long-term cleanup attention. The HRS is a numerically based screening system that
uses information from initial,  limited investigations to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat
to human health or the environment. The HRS  is the principal mechanism EPA uses to place sites on the
National Priorities List.

At the conclusion of an assessment, the HRS model is applied to derive a preliminary site HRS score.
Sites that do not warrant further interest are assigned a No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)
decision. While sites scoring over 28.5 or greater are eligible for NPL placement, the NFRAP decision
can also apply to these sites if EPA determines the site would receive a no-action Record of Decision
(ROD) if it was placed on the NPL. Sites that do warrant additional removal or remedial study but are not
placed on the NPL are referred to the appropriate cleanup programs for further work.  These cleanup
programs include EPA's removal program, the Resource Compensation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
program, state/tribal cleanup programs such as voluntary cleanup programs, and the Superfund
Alternative Approach (SAA), or a site may be referred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if
appropriate (see box on next page). Most of the sites assessed for potential NPL listing are screened out of
the Superfund program.

Planning for Community Involvement during  the Site Assessment

Although there are no formal  requirements in CERCLA or provisions in the NCP for community
involvement during the site assessment process, it  is important to consider community interests early,
when site activities commence. Community involvement does not start until the site inspection portion of
the process, when EPA and contractors are on the ground sampling. Because the site assessment process
often is the Agency's first contact with the community, it is an opportunity for EPA to develop trust and
credibility in the Agency's ability to deal fairly and effectively with site issues. Starting to understand
community dynamics and cultural, tribal and ecological practices at this stage is very useful. However,
this need for early outreach and understanding  is balanced by the fact that many sites are screened out of
the Superfund program and will have no continuing EPA involvement (see box on next page). At this
stage, it is important not to create false expectations in the community about future actions by EPA.

As is the case during each phase of the Superfund process, transparency and effective communication
with the community are important. Community members often are not familiar with the site assessment
process or its purpose. For this reason, it may be important to provide information to help community
members understand what is happening, why it is happening, and what site-related
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                            Chapter 3
27
                                     EPA's Listing Decision

In addition to determining whether the site should be placed on the National Priorities List, EPA evaluates
several other options for addressing site issues during the site assessment stage. Options considered
include:
National Priorities List: The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is
Appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), is required under CERCLA. The NPL must be revised
annually and is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA): When a liable PRP demonstrates it is viable and cooperative,
EPA Regional offices, at their discretion, may enter into a SAA agreement with the PRP to facilitate the
cleanup of a site. To view a list of all sites currently being managed under these agreements, visit EPA's
Compliance and Enforcement Office's Superfund Alternative Approach webpage.
EPA Removal Program: Removal actions tend to be swift responses to immediate threats from
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants in order to eliminate dangers to the public. Typical
situations requiring removal actions include chemical fires or explosions, threats to people from exposure
to hazardous substances, or contamination of drinking water supplies. Types of removal actions include
removing and disposing of hazardous substances, constructing a fence or taking security precautions to
limit human access to a site, providing a temporary alternative water supply to local residents when
drinking water is contaminated, and temporarily relocating area residents if necessary.
State or Tribal Cleanup: Sites completing the Superfund assessment process and determined to need
long-term cleanup attention may be addressed under a state or tribal environmental cleanup program.
Those that require no EPA financing, enforcement, or other substantial involvement are assigned a status
of "Other Cleanup Activity: State/Tribal Lead" in EPA's SEMS (formerly CERCLIS) database. EPA
periodically checks with state and tribal regulators on the status of cleanup work at these sites. Should
conditions change such that federal Superfund involvement becomes necessary, EPA will work with its
state and tribal partners to determine next steps and revise the site status accordingly. A 2012 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) study found that about 58 percent of sites that are determined to be eligible
for listing on the NPL are deferred to other cleanup programs. Nearly half of those (47 percent) are
deferrals to state programs.
Other Federal Agency: Federal facility sites completing the Superfund assessment process and
determined to need long-term cleanup attention may be addressed under another federal agency's
environmental cleanup program. Federal facilities that are tracked in EPA's SEMS database and are being
cleaned up but are not on the NPL are assigned a status of "Other Cleanup Activity: Federal Facility
Lead." EPA periodically checks with other federal agencies on the status of cleanup work at these sites.
Deferred to RCRA: It is EPA's policy to defer placing sites on the NPL that can be comparably
addressed under the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities. There are certain exceptions to this
policy, and sites not subject to Subtitle C will continue to be considered for NPL listing.
Deferred to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): It is EPA's policy not to list releases of source,
by-product, or special nuclear material from any facility with a current license issued by the NRC because
the NRC has full authority to require cleanup of releases from such facilities. If a facility is licensed by the
NRC, but the NRC does not have authority to require cleanup, the site will not be deferred from NPL
listing.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
28
         Chapter 3
         Finding New Ways to Provide Site
          Information to the Community
  Region 3 uses Quick Response (QR) codes to provide
  information at some of its sites. These symbols, which
  are akin to barcodes, allow smartphone users to scan a
  code using a free app. By scanning the code with the
  phone's camera, the user is directly linked to
  information on a webpage. There is no need to write
  down the URL, and the information is available
  immediately. QR codes can be put almost
  anywhere—on signs, fact sheets, even business cards.
  Region 3 used a QR code on a sign at a fence-enclosed
  site (see image below). The sign's QR code linked to
  the URL of a webpage with the latest site information.
  The sign also provided a shortened URL for people
  who did not have a smartphone. One important tip is
  to link to a webpage that can be easily read on a
  mobile device.
                                                    decisions may mean to them. This means
                                                    communicating clearly that EPA is gathering
                                                    and analyzing information during the site
                                                    assessment process to determine whether
                                                    further assessment or cleanup may be needed,
                                                    and explaining that if EPA determines a
                                                    response is necessary, the Agency will indicate
                                                    which cleanup program or approach is the most
                                                    appropriate.
                                                    In most cases, it may be a good idea for EPA to
                                                    conduct community outreach whenever there
                                                    are activities at a site or when the site team
                                                    wants to contact members of the community
                                                    during the site assessment stage. For example,
                                                    site staff may wish to contact state, tribal and
                                                    local officials, and key community members
                                                    for information about the scope and history of
                                                    the site's contamination. In some instances
                                                    EPA also may want to actively solicit
                                                    information from the public to help identify
                                                    PRPs and their waste-handling practices. Given
                                                    that the community might learn that EPA is
                                                    investigating the site for hazardous substances,
                                                    it often is wise to consider conducting
                                                    community outreach before these activities
                                                    commence. This was the case at the Leeds
                                                    Metal Superfund Site in Leeds, Maine. Early in
                                                    the PRP search and site listing process for the
                                                    site, former railroad employees,  local officials,
                                                    and nearby residents offered to be interviewed.
                                                    While the primary purpose for these interviews
                                                    was to seek evidence regarding a specific waste
                                                    disposal issue, EPA also was able to obtain
                                                    information about the previous use of the site.
                                                    During the site inspection, field work usually is
                                                    limited to a few weeks. However, the site team
                                                    should consider informing the community
                                                    about EPA's schedule of field activities
                                                    whenever on-site sampling or other activities
                                                    are planned and also should prepare the
                                                    community before any on-site visits by
technical work teams occur. Keeping the community informed and explaining upcoming work can help
alleviate concerns about the presence of government officials and contractor teams working at the site.
For example, members of the community sometimes are alarmed to see workers on-site, particularly when
they are using protective clothing and equipment. Consider conducting outreach in advance to explain
what EPA is doing at the site and the types of activities members of the community are likely to observe.
After a site assessment is completed, the site team may wish to inform the community about EPA's
decision and describe the next steps, including whether further site assessment might be necessary. If
there is sufficient community interest or concern, the site team may wish to issue a fact sheet describing
          What's happening
          beyond this fence?
           Scan this QR-Code
                 to  find out!
                        HOW TO USE
                  A QR-Code is a barcode that a Smart-
                  phone camera can scan to show specific
                  information. To use. download a free OR-
                £) Code Scanner Reader from your Smart-
                  >hone App Store. The above QR-Code is
                   the BoRit Asbestos Superfund Site.
                       The direct link Is
                    httpt m.epagov today sf.br'
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 3     29
the preliminary findings and next steps. If it is determined that no cleanup is necessary, it can be a good
idea to explain the basis for that decision.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities for Site Assessment
Neither CERCLA nor the NCP require any specific community involvement activities during the site
assessment phase of the Superfund cleanup process. If EPA decides to propose the site for listing on the
NPL, the opportunity for formal public comment comes when EPA proposes to list the site. Please note
that separate from working with the community, EPA's policy on consultation with Indian tribes provides
for government-to-government consultation when EPA's actions and decisions may affect tribal interests.

Assessing Whether Additional Outreach and Community Involvement Activities Might Be
Appropriate during Site Assessment

The need for early community involvement  should be assessed by balancing the likelihood of EPA's
continued involvement at the site with the level of interest or concern about the site in the community. If
it appears likely that the site will be found eligible for NPL listing, it may make sense to begin
community involvement activities during the site assessment process. In this situation, EPA, in
consultation with appropriate state and tribal officials, should consider conducting community
involvement activities. Start by assessing whether any of the  following factors are present:

•   The community may have  environmental justice or tribal concerns.

•   There is a health advisory by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

•   EPA has received a citizen petition (under CERCLA Section 105(d)) to investigate a release or
    potential release.

•   There is general community interest or an organized citizen group that focuses on site-related issues.

•   The community may be affected by the presence of another nearby NPL site, an EPA or state/tribal
    environmental assessment, or other significant environmental burdens.

•   There is congressional, state, tribal, or local governmental interest in the site.

•   The site has attracted media attention.

•   The site is close to residential areas or is near day care centers, schools, hospitals, etc., or to other
    potential releases of contamination.

•   The site may pose a significant potential for exposures to the human population.
Community involvement activities that may be appropriate during site assessment include:

•   When warranted, consulting with a CIC to decide whether to prepare a site- or situation-specific
    communication strategy for the site assessment.

•   Designating an EPA staff member (usually the CIC, if one is assigned) who can advise the  site
    assessment team on community involvement, implement community involvement activities, and field
    the community's questions.

•   Issuing news releases (see  the Media tool).

•   Distributing fact sheets or using other tools to let community members know that EPA is conducting
    site assessment activities and to explain  the site assessment process.

•   Distributing flyers throughout the community (e.g., in schools, grocery stores, and churches).

•   Creating a mailing list or email list of concerned community members if there are plans to distribute
    information to the community.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
30
Chapter 3
•   Making presentations to community organizations. (When resources are limited, consider making
    presentations via an Internet webinar or by using Agency meeting software tools, such as Adobe
    Connect.)

•   Holding informal public availability/poster sessions.

•   Establishing a toll-free telephone hotline, email list, or listserv and publicizing its availability.

•   Creating a website or using social media to provide information about the site and site assessment
    process.
In some cases, technical assistance may help communities understand the technical issues related to site
assessment (e.g., sampling strategies or sampling results for hazardous substances that may be present at
the site). At sites likely to be eligible for NPL listing and where there are environmental justice concerns
or strong community or media interest, the site team might consider conducting a Technical Assistance
Needs Assessment (TANA) to assess the community's need for technical assistance and to identify the
most appropriate programs or services that can be offered to help the community review the site-specific
information being gathered during the site assessment process.

3.  Proposed  and Final Listing on the NPL

Once the site assessment is completed and the site receives an HRS score of 28.50  or greater, EPA may
decide that the best way to clean up the site is to add it to the NPL. Adding a site to the NPL requires EPA
to follow established rulemaking procedures. EPA must first publish a notice in the Federal Register
proposing  to add a site to the NPL and requesting public comments. EPA must consider and address all
comments and make a final determination about whether to list the site. If the Agency decides to list the
site, it must publish a final rule in the Federal Register. Typically, EPA adds new sites to the NPL twice
each calendar year, usually in the spring and fall.

Planning  for Community Involvement during Proposed and Final NPL Listing

As an important first step, the site team should assess the situation to determine an  appropriate mix of
community involvement activities and plan an approach that addresses the needs of the community.

In most cases, the  site team should expect increased community concern or interest when a site is
proposed for the NPL. While informing the public through a Federal Register notice is required,
conducting additional activities to inform the community about the NPL listing process and how the
public can submit comments may also be appropriate. If appropriate, the site team should inform the
community at this time about the availability of Technical Assistance Grants (TAG). A TAG can be
awarded to an eligible organization that represents a community being affected by a Superfund site that is
on or proposed for the NPL, as long as a response action is underway or scheduled to begin.2 (More
detailed information about TAGs may be found in the EPA Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) tool.)

Listing a site on the NPL also may attract media attention. Preparing a press release or using social media
may be useful. The team should consider developing talking points for media interviews. Work with the
Regional public affairs office whenever the media are involved.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities during the NPL Listing Phase

During the NPL listing phase, the site team should conduct the following activities (see also Appendix
A).

•   Publish a proposed rule to  add a site to the NPL in the Federal Register and request public comments.

•   Hold a public  comment period of at least 30 days.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 3     31
•   Prepare and publish a response to comments support document (sometimes called a "responsiveness
    summary") that addresses significant comments and any significant new data received during the
    public comment period.

•   Publish a final NPL listing in the Federal Register.

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate during
NPL Listing
The site team should assess whether additional community involvement activities may be appropriate
during the NPL listing process by considering these or other key factors:

•   Complexity of the site. How large is the geographical area affected by the site? Is the site located in a
    rural or urban area? Do many people live near the site? Given the exposure pathways, are nearby
    community members directly impacted? Are homes, schools, day care centers, or hospitals nearby?

•   The level of community concern or interest before and during the listing process. How familiar is
    the community with the site and EPA's involvement at the site? Have people asked questions or
    expressed concerns to the site team? Did community members or organizations submit comments
    during the  public comment period?  Are residential properties contaminated? Will samples be taken
    from residential yards? Is the site being assessed in response to a Section 105(d) citizen petition?

•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by  the site? Does the site affect a
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation, or wildlife?  Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
    other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as municipal services  (sewer, drinking water, trash  collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?

•   The level of media interest before and during the listing process. Have news stories been published
    or broadcast about the site? Have news media outlets contacted EPA with questions about the
    proposed listing? (Be sure to work with the Regional public affairs  office whenever there is media
    attention at a site.) Have community members used social media to alert others about site activities?
If consideration of these factors suggests that the level of community or media interest is moderate or
high, the site team might consider conducting more than the minimum community involvement activities
required by CERCLA or addressed in the NPL. Enhancing the community involvement effort sometimes
enables EPA to begin developing a constructive relationship with the community. Even if community or
media interest  in the site is  relatively low, it sometimes is better not to rely solely on a Federal Register
notice to inform the community; the site team may wish to consider and use other techniques to notify the
community about the site and the NPL listing process.

This initial assessment of community interest typically is based on information derived from the site
assessment process; the site team's observations, interactions, and experiences with the community; and
other information. If the site team determines that the site might warrant additional community
involvement, they should consider preparing a communication strategy for the NPL listing phase. The
strategy can help the site team to clearly define the key issues, identify the primary audiences and
stakeholders, determine major information needs and key messages, and select the best methods and
timing for disseminating information during the NPL listing phase.

A graphic  similar to Figure 3 -1 is used throughout this chapter to show a range of possible community
outreach and involvement activities based on an analysis of possible factors at each phase of the remedial


                         Community  Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
32
Chapter 3
process. The minimum activities required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP are indicated with an
asterisk (*). As the degree of a community's concern and interest increases, the site team might wish to
consider enhancing community involvement by undertaking one or more additional activities, such as the
examples provided.
                 Figure 3-1: Recommendations for Planning and Conducting
                     Community Involvement during the NPL Listing Phase
    Complexity/Type of Site—EJ/Tribal—Community Interest/Concern—Media
               Low
    Conduct These Minimum
            Activities


    •   Publish a  Federal Register
       notice of  proposed NPL
       listing.*
    •   Hold a public comment
       period.*
    •   Prepare a responsiveness
       summary.*
    •   Publish a  Federal Register
       notice of  final NPL listing.*
    •   Prepare a fact sheet, flyer or
       postcard.
    •   Issue a press release.
                                  Moderate
                            Also Consider Adding
                           Some of These Activities
                            Develop a communication
                            strategy.
                            Issue additional fact sheets
                            on technical issues.
                            Create or update the website
                            or social media site.
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Conduct community
  interviews.
  Host an availability
  session/open house.
  Offer a workshop or
  webinar on the Superfund
  process.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix provides suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
4.  Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
After a site is listed on the NPL, the Agency (or the PRP, subject to EPA oversight) typically performs a
remedial investigation (RI) to gather data needed to characterize site conditions, determine the nature of
the waste, assess risk to human health and the environment, and conduct treatability testing to evaluate the
potential performance and cost of the treatment technologies that are being considered.

In general, EPA conducts risk assessments on a site-by-site basis because each Superfund site is unique in
terms of the contaminants present and their potential health effects. The baseline risk assessment is
designed to provide an analysis of the potential adverse health effects (current or future) caused by
hazardous substance releases from a site in the absence of any actions to control or mitigate these releases
(i.e., under an assumption of no action). The baseline risk assessment typically contributes to the site
characterization and subsequent development, evaluation, and selection of appropriate response
alternatives. The results of the baseline risk assessment normally are used to help determine whether
additional response action is necessary at the site, modify preliminary remediation goals, help support
selection of the "no-action" remedial alternative, where appropriate, and document the primary causes
and magnitude of risk at a site.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3      33
Because the risk assessment is designed to identify the primary health and environmental threats at the
site, it typically also provides valuable input to the development and evaluation of alternatives during the
feasibility study (FS).

The human health risk assessment is one part of the Superfund process that generally warrants early
community involvement. See the Risk Communication tool. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS) Part A, and Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments for
suggestions about how to help the community understand and accept the human health risk assessment,
and how Superfund staff and community members can work together during the early stages of Superfund
cleanup. These guidance documents also discuss where community input can be of value, recommend
questions the site team should consider asking the community, and illustrate why community involvement
generally is valuable during the human health risk assessment at Superfund sites.

In general, following or concurrent with the RI, EPA or the PRP prepares the FS, which is designed to
help in the development, screening, and detailed evaluation of alternative remedial actions. Consistent
with the NCP and EPA's RI/FS guidance, the FS typically applies the nine evaluation criteria specified in
the NCP to evaluate the cleanup alternatives3 and then presents a recommendation for the Agency's
preferred alternative. Together, these studies usually are referred to as the RI/FS, and they  help provide
administrative record support when the Agency publishes a Proposed Plan to clean up the site.

Although the RI/FS may take 18 to 24 months to complete, on-site work usually lasts no longer than
several weeks to several months. Additional analytical work often is performed at the office or in a
laboratory. EPA's presence at the site often may be limited to periodic monitoring or additional sampling.
During this period, the site team normally focuses on receiving, reviewing, and analyzing data and
identifying remedy options.

Planning for Community Involvement during the RI/FS
Community involvement during the RI/FS presents both opportunities and challenges. EPA has an
opportunity to build a strong foundation based on its responsiveness, honesty, and transparency. Building
this foundation may begin during the site assessment or the NPL listing stages, but it often is established
during the RI/FS. At many sites, EPA's first substantive engagement with the community occurs at the
beginning of the RI/FS phase. EPA's site team should  inform the public about the Superfund program and
process, site contaminants and health risks, and planned site activities. EPA also should explain how the
community can become involved in the decision-making process. Generally, a best practice is to share
information as frequently as possible through a  variety of methods  (e.g., mail, email, social media,
websites, and personal contact) and for members of the site team to be available to answer questions and
address community concerns.

The importance of informing and involving the  community at this stage in the Superfund process is
reflected in several community involvement requirements in CERCLA and specific provisions in the
NCP. This includes the development of the site  Community Involvement Plan, or CIP (the Community
Involvement Plan is called the Community Relations Plan in the  NCP).

This phase of the process often can present some challenges because of the time required to complete the
RI/FS and the Agency's schedule of activities and actions at the site. Typically, there is a significant
amount of work and EPA visibility at the site when RI activities begin. This stage often is followed by a
period of relative inactivity at the site between the completion of sampling and issuance of the FS.  While
there may be little new information to convey during this time, it may be a good idea to maintain close
contact with the community on a continuing basis. Doing  so may help to reassure the public, even if
EPA's message is that "we still have not received the test results from the lab." As a rule of thumb, it may
be a good idea to conduct at least two community involvement activities each year during periods of
relative inactivity.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
34
Chapter 3
Minimum Activities for RI/FS
Consistent with the NCP, EPA should conduct the following community involvement activities prior to
the initiation of RI field activities:
•   Conduct community interviews to solicit
    people's concerns and determine how and
    when people want to be involved.

•   Prepare a formal CIP to specify outreach
    activities that the Agency expects to
    undertake.

•   Establish and maintain a local information
    repository at or near the location of the site.
    (See box on page 35 for more information.)

•   Establish the administrative record file and
    make it available to the public as a part of
    the information repository.

•   Publish a public notice to announce the
    availability of the administrative record for
    the selection of a remedial action in a
    newspaper of major local circulation  or use
    one or more other mechanisms to give
    adequate notice to the public of the
    availability of the administrative record file.

•   Inform the community of the availability of
    a TAG.
                                            Conducting Community Interviews
                                              for the Development of the CIP
                                       Community interviews are conducted to gather
                                       information about community needs and concerns.
                                       The information from these interviews is used for a
                                       CIP or for a Technical Assistance Needs Assessment.
                                       Whenever possible, community interviews should be
                                       conducted by EPA's CIC, accompanied by the RPM
                                       or OSC. These interviews are one way to meet with
                                       community members and learn about their site-related
                                       needs and concerns,  as well as how the community
                                       gets information and prefers to receive site-related
                                       information from EPA. This information is
                                       particularly helpful as reliance on traditional forms of
                                       communication, including telephone land lines, no
                                       longer can be assumed. Community interviews also
                                       can provide a valuable opportunity for the site team to
                                       explore community concerns in depth and build
                                       positive relationships with community members.
                                       In addition, interviews often are an opportunity to
                                       learn about past and  current uses of the site that might
                                       impact sampling plans or other cleanup activities.
The CIP usually lays out the approach and rationale for community involvement efforts and activities
throughout the Superfund process, not just the RI/FS stage. Because the CIP is so important, it often is a
good idea to devote significant effort to its development. This involves interviewing community members
and local officials to learn of their concerns, knowledge of the site, and expectations about their
participation in the cleanup process.

Interviews conducted for the CIP can yield useful information for the RI/FS. For example, Region 3
found information useful to the RI/FS while interviewing local residents for the CIP for a former brass
and bronze foundry site. Community members told interviewers that after the foundry closed, used sand
casings were offered to the surrounding community. The inhabitants used this potentially contaminated
sand to fill holes in yards, sidewalks, and streets. EPA took this information into account when sampling
the area, which involved excavating up to six feet in some areas. Also, at the request of the PRP, EPA
"fingerprinted" the lead contamination to distinguish between lead from the site and lead from a nearby
incinerator. See the Community Involvement Plans and Community Interviews tools for more
information.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                             Chapter 3
35
        Changes in the NCR: Electronic Availability of the Administrative Record File &
                    Information Repository, and Public Notice Requirements

On March 18,2013, EPA promulgated a final rule to amend the NCP to address the electronic
availability of the administrative record file and locations for information repositories, as follows:
Electronic Availability of the Administrative Record File: On March 18, 2013, EPA promulgated a final rule
to amend 40 CFR § 300.805(c) of the NCP, "Location of the Administrative Record File" in Subpart I,
"Administrative Record for Selection of Response Action," to acknowledge advancements in technologies
used to manage and convey information to the public (78 Fed. Reg. 16612). This amendment to the NCP added
language to broaden the technology to include microform, computer telecommunications or other electronic
means that the lead agency is permitted to use to make the administrative record file available to the public
regarding documents that form the basis for the selection of a response action. Based on the preferences of the
community and the lead agency's assessment of the site-specific situation, the lead agency will determine
whether to provide the administrative record file to the public as: (1) traditional forms (e.g., paper copies;
microform), (2) electronic resources, or (3) both traditional forms and electronic resources.
Information Repository: Section II (Background) of this final rule amending the NCP indicates that the
contents of the physical information repository located at or near the site will depend on the lead agency's
assessment of the site-specific circumstances, including the preferences of the community and the capacity
and resources of the public to utilize and maintain an electronic- or computer telecommunications-based
repository. Just like the administrative record file, the lead agency will determine whether to provide: (1)
traditional forms (e.g., paper copies; microform), (2) electronic resources, or (3) both traditional forms and
electronic resources based on the preferences of the community and the lead agency's assessment of the site-
specific situation. (See Federal Register, March 18. 2013. for text of the final rule.)

In a second NCP amendment, effective May 4,2015, EPA added language to the NCP to broaden the
methods by which the EPA can notify the public about certain  Superfund activities.

Public Notices: The rule expands the public notice language in six sections  of the NCP to allow adequate
notice to a community via a major local newspaper of general circulation or_ by using one or more other
mechanisms for:
•   A notice of the availability of the administrative record file for CERCLA actions where, based on a site
    evaluation, the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate, and that less than six months
    exists before on-site removal action must begin.
•   Notification of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) where the lead agency determines that a
    CERCLA removal action is appropriate and that a planning period of at least six months exists prior to
    initiation of the on-site removal activities.
•   Notification of releases that may be deleted from the NPL.
•   Notification of the availability of the administrative record file for the selection of a remedial action at the
    commencement of the remedial investigation.
•   Notification of the availability of the administrative record file when an EE/CA is made available for
    public comment, if the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that a planning
    period of at least six months exists before on-site removal activities must be initiated.
•   Notification of the availability of the administrative record file for all other removal actions not included
    in § 300.820(a).

In other stages of the Superfund process where public notice occurs (as outlined by CERCLA and the NCP) it
is still necessary to publish a notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation. Other methods also may
be used, but these must be in addition to the public notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation.

(See Federal Register, May 4. 2015, for text of the final rule.)
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
36
Chapter 3
Assessing the Need for Additional Community Involvement Activities during RI/FS

When assessing community involvement efforts during the RI/FS, the site team may wish to consider
these factors:

•   Complexity of the site. How large of a geographical area does the site occupy? How many distinct
    communities are impacted by the site? Is the site located in a rural or urban area? Do many people
    live near the site? Are nearby community members directly impacted by site activities or potentially
    exposed to contaminants? Is drinking  water being provided, or has the state, tribe, or local
    government issued fishing or recreational use advisories? Are there homes, schools, day care centers,
    or hospitals nearby? Does the site have numerous operable units (OUs)?

•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
    other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as municipal services (sewer, drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?

•   Community concern or interest: Is the community aware of the site and potential hazards? Have
    community members contacted EPA about the site? Are community members worried about their
    health and other socio-economic impacts of the site? Have community members used a webpage or
    social media to disseminate information about the site? Is there  an organized community group
    interested in becoming involved in site issues?

•   Media interest. Is there media interest in the site? Have articles been written or news stories about the
    site been broadcast? If so, have the stories been accurate and balanced? Have reporters contacted the
    site team or Agency representatives to ask questions about the site? (Be sure to work with the
    Regional public affairs office whenever there is media interest in a site.)
All of these factors can directly influence the development of the CIP and decisions regarding the level of
community involvement activity that may be appropriate during the RI/FS. We recommend that Regions
use Figure 3-2 to help assess the situation and determine an appropriate level of community involvement
at this point in the process. If the level of community interest/concern and media interest is relatively low,
fulfilling community involvement requirements or adding a couple of additional activities may be all that
is appropriate.

Some EPA  Regions schedule an informational public meeting at the beginning of RI field work for the
RPM and CIC to introduce themselves, discuss EPA's role,  and describe what is and is not known about
the site. In this way, the site team is  able to explain the RI work plan, the type of work anticipated, what
they hope to learn, what they expect to find, and the safety precautions they follow. Some site teams bring
protective gear and monitoring equipment to the meeting so that people can become familiar with it. An
optional informational public meeting may provide an excellent opportunity to educate the community
and allow the site team to learn about the site from the community's perspective. Other Regions take
community outreach into the  local schools. Educating children also  can be a way of educating adults
because children talk to their parents. Furthermore, information brought from school may carry a level of
credibility unavailable through other means.

Person-to-person outreach is recommended during the RI/FS phase. Such interaction can help the
community and site team get to know each other.  Personal interactions, by telephone or in person,
sometimes can contribute more to the development of trust and cooperative working relationships than
other forms of outreach.

                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapters      37
In some cases, technical assistance may be appropriate to help communities understand the technical
issues related to the RI/FS (e.g., sampling strategies, sampling results for hazardous substances present at
the site, cleanup approaches or technologies). At sites with environmental justice concerns or strong
community interest, the site team might consider conducting a TANA to assess whether the community
could benefit from technical assistance and to identify the most appropriate programs or services that can
be offered to help the community review and understand site-related technical information.

Consistent with existing CERCLA guidance, Regions should consider current and reasonably anticipated
future land use throughout the remedy selection process for a site (e.g., when developing the proposed
plan). This may be an opportunity for community members to express their views to EPA regarding
potential reuses for the site after cleanup.

Considering reuse can help empower community members by focusing on future beneficial uses. For
example, the community of Fort Valley, Georgia, which surrounds the 31-acre Woolfolk Chemical site,
wrestled with the impacts of the Superfund cleanup process and how to return the site to reuse for many
years. Fort Valley is a community with environmental justice concerns because minorities and low-
income inhabitants form a large percentage of the population living near the site. The Woolfolk Chemical
site was contaminated with high levels of arsenic and other contaminants from decades of agricultural
pesticide production. In 1994, EPA awarded a TAG, part of which was used to help the community
understand potential options for future reuse of the site. The Agency learned that the community wanted
to redevelop a portion of the site (OU-2) into a public library, adult education center, and city government
office space. EPA took the  community's wishes into account when it developed the Proposed Plan for
OU-2, which was issued in June 1995. The proposed plan took into account the reasonably anticipated
future use  of this portion of the site after cleanup based on the community's redevelopment plan. This
portion of the cleanup was completed in 1998 and is now the site of the Peach County Public Library and
the Fort Valley Welcome Center.

EPA subsequently engaged in an extensive dialogue with community members about future reuse for a
different portion of the Woolfolk site (OU-3). Although this occurred after the Proposed Plan for OU-3
was issued in 1997, the dialogue was still  timely because the OU-3  cleanup was not yet completed. The
Agency worked with community members, land use planners, and local government officials to ensure that
the reasonably anticipated future land use reflected the community's vision and to ensure the cleanup
standards that EPA established in the 1998 ROD for this operable unit are protective of human health. The
CERCLA remedy selection process enabled community members to voice their views and concerns about
reuse of the site and their hopes about how the site would be reused  once the cleanup was complete. A
2007 final report described three potential  scenarios combining commercial, recreational, and public use
for this portion of the site. This cleanup was completed in 2009.

If institutional controls (ICs) are under consideration as an element of a remedial alternative being
evaluated in the FS, this may be an excellent time to educate the community about ICs. As discussed in
more detail in EPA's CERCLA guidance  (e.g., the PIME guidance) ICs may include non-engineered
instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that are designed to help minimize the potential
exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a response action.4 For example, local
government zoning restrictions may prohibit certain land uses for a site, such as residential use, and
consistent  with existing CERCLA guidance addressing consideration of current and reasonably
anticipated future land use, such restrictions should be considered in the CERCLA remedy selection
process.

Because rigorous periodic monitoring and reporting often are among the most useful approaches for
ensuring the long-term effectiveness of ICs and maintaining the integrity of the cleanup, community
involvement can be an important part of this process.5 Educating the public about ICs in community
involvement activities and information materials as early as possible in the cleanup process is very
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
38
Chapter 3
important. ICs should be publicized as soon as practicable and as early as the ROD or remedial
design/remedial action (RD/RA) stage, depending on when the specific type of 1C is identified.
                         Involving Community Members in 1C Planning
  During all stages of 1C planning and particularly early on, the site team should seek input (and evaluate the
  capacity for 1C involvement) from state, tribal, and local governments; responsible parties; affected
  communities; natural resource trustees; and other stakeholders. This will help ensure that the most
  appropriate ICs are selected as part of the response action. Early cooperation and coordination among
  these parties often can be critical to ensuring long-term 1C protectiveness at a site. Affected stakeholders
  should be made aware of ICs under consideration and have an opportunity to provide input. In developing
  informational devices, it normally is helpful to provide information about the ICs and appropriate contact
  information for reporting incidents that might result in unacceptable exposure to contamination.
                            Figure 3-2: Recommended Activities for
                Planning and Conducting Community Involvement during RI/FS
    Complexity/Type of Site—EJ/Tribal—Community Interest/Concern—Media Interest
               Low
    Conduct These Minimum
            Activities


    •   Conduct community
       interviews.*
    •   Prepare a CIP.*
    •   Establish the local
       information repository.*
    •   Establish the administrative
       record.*
    •   Issue a public notice about
       local information repository
       and administrative record.*
    •   Advertise availability of the
       TAG.*
    •   Distribute a fact sheet about
       the site and Superfund
       process.
    •   Create a website, Facebook
       page, or social media site.
                                   Moderate
                             Also Consider Adding
                            Some of These Activities
                             Prepare communication
                             strategies, as needed.
                             Conduct outreach to explain
                             risk assessment guidelines
                             and processes.
                             Make presentations to
                             community groups in person
                             or via conference call, Adobe
                             Connect, or other Agency
                             meeting or webinar tools.
                             Host an availability
                             session/open house.
                             Prepare fact sheets on
                             technical or enforcement
                             issues.
                             Offer a workshop or webinar
                             on the Superfund process.
                             Use telephone hotlines.
                             Host site tours.
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Work with the Community
  Advisory Group.
  Conduct a TANA and offer
  technical assistance, if
  appropriate.
  Offer community visioning
  for site reuse.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix lists only a few suggested activities and is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3
39
5.  RI/FS Completion and the Proposed Plan

As discussed in the RI/FS and ROD guidances6, the RI/FS process normally ends with the release of the
RI/FS documents and the development of the Proposed Plan for remedial action. The Proposed Plan
should lay out the remedial alternatives presented in the FS analysis, present the preferred alternative,
explain the rationale for selection of the preferred alternative, identify any proposed waivers to cleanup
standards that are based on ARARs (applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, such as
technical impracticability waivers), and list documents used to support EPA's decision. The Proposed
Plan is a critical part of the remedy selection and the administrative  record. The Proposed Plan also can
serve as an effective communication device for the Agency to present its preferred remedy and rationale
to the community.

As part of the RI/FS completion process, an EPA Region should determine whether its preferred remedy
is estimated to exceed $25 million.7 If the preferred remedy is estimated to exceed $25 million, the
Region should submit information to EPA's National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) about the
alternatives it is considering, along with an explanation of its preliminary decision on selection of the
preferred alternative.8 If the preferred remedy will be reviewed by the NRRB, the site team should alert
the community that the board is going to consider a particular remedy and provide community members
with an opportunity to submit information to the board before it meets (see box below). Following the
meeting, the board posts a memorandum online that sets forth its recommendations to the Region (see
www.epa.gov/superfund/national-remedy-review-board-nrrb). Although the board's recommendations are
carefully considered, the board does not change the Agency's findings or alter the public's role in site
decisions; the Region typically has the final decision-making authority.

The NRRB generally reviews cleanup strategies after the RI/FS and before the Region releases the
proposed plan for comment. The NRRB may review remedies at other phases of the cleanup process, but
this is not typical.
                               National Remedy Review Board

  The NRRB's meetings are not open to the public, but the board allows representatives of community
  groups to submit a written technical summary (usually 20 pages or less, or up to 40 pages for sites where
  the estimated remedial action costs exceed $100 million) of any technical issues they believe are pertinent
  to the cleanup decision, including their recommended approach and rationale for that approach. The site
  manager should attach this summary to the site information package submitted to the board four weeks
  before the meeting. Stakeholder position papers should be included in the administrative record.
  The NRRB's Q&A Manual provides a Community Guide that may be used to provide information to
  interested stakeholders. The Community Guide recommends that at sites where EPA has awarded a TAG
  or recognized a Community Advisory Group, the site manager should notify the community of the pending
  NRRB review. The Region should offer the TAG or CAG groups an opportunity to provide a technical
  summary. Where the site manager has established close working relationships with other stakeholder
  groups early in the RI/FS process, the site manager may also offer these groups the opportunity to submit
  written technical comments. The PRPs at a site also are offered an opportunity to submit written technical
  comments. The stakeholders' and PRPs' summaries are attached to the site information package submitted
  to the NRRB for review.
Planning for Community Involvement during RI/FS Completion and the Proposed Plan

EPA announces and explains its Proposed Plan for cleaning up contamination at a Superfund site and asks
the public to submit comments on the plan. A strong and well-executed program for community
involvement during this phase can help ensure that the community fully understands the Proposed Plan
and EPA's reasons for later selecting its preferred remedy in the ROD.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
40
Chapter 3
Guidance for writing the Proposed Plan is provided in A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans,
Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (EPA 540-R-98-031, July 1999),
which also is known as the ROD Guidance.

The goal of community involvement at this stage is to educate the community about the Agency's
analysis and its preferred solution, and to encourage the public to comment on the Agency's Proposed
Plan.  Generally, when the community understands the decision and rationale presented in the Proposed
Plan, the public can offer comments and suggestions to help the Agency make its decision.
              Tools Available to Help Explain Cleanup Technologies to the Public
  See the "Citizen's Guides" section on the Community Involvement Tools and Resources webpage. The
  Citizen Guides_are a set of more than 20 fact sheets that summarize cleanup methods used at Superfund
  and other sites. The series was updated in 2012 to include information about new technologies and
  techniques. Each fact sheet is two pages long and answers six questions about the cleanup method: (1)
  What is it? (2) How does it work? (3) How long will it take? (4) Is it safe? (5) How might it affect me?
  And (6) Why use it? The fact sheets also are available in Spanish.
  Also consult the CLU-IN.org website as a comprehensive source of information about innovative
  treatment and site characterization technologies, and for current and archived webinar training courses on
  a variety of topics.
It is a good idea to provide several opportunities for EPA to explain the Proposed Plan, educate the
community about the proposed remediation technologies and any ICs proposed as part of the remedy,
respond to questions from the public, and encourage the submission of comments. This is also a good
time to assess whether technical assistance might help the community interpret and understand technical
information related to the FS and Proposed Plan. If technical assistance was provided earlier in the
Superfund process, that assistance usually should be continued and enhanced during this stage. If a
community has requested or received technical assistance services, this often is an indication that the
community is interested and wants to be involved in the decision-making process; it also might be an
indication that additional outreach and involvement activities could be appropriate.
                       The Proposed Plan and Supplemental Fact Sheet

  The Proposed Plan is required by the statute as a means of informing the community about all of the
  alternatives considered and EPA's preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan also is intended to inform the
  community that they have an opportunity to comment. Although the Proposed Plan often presents highly
  technical information, it should be written so that the layperson can understand it.
  The Proposed Plan normally should be presented in a comprehensive document that is written in a clear
  and concise style and uses illustrations and figures to summarize information. The plan should summarize
  the alternatives from the analysis of the RI/FS and specify EPA's preferred alternative and the rationale for
  choosing this alternative. The presentation of the preferred alternative should emphasize that EPA has not
  made a final decision and will consider the community's views on all alternatives. EPA may modify the
  preferred alternative or shift to another alternative if public comment or new information indicates these
  modifications are warranted.
  Because the Proposed Plan often is lengthy, detailed and technical, it is recommended that the site team
  also prepare a brief, less technical, and easy-to-read fact sheet (no more than 8-10 pages) that summarizes
  the key findings  and conclusions contained in the Proposed Plan.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3
                                    41
Minimum Activities for the Proposed Plan

Consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, Regions should conduct the following community involvement
activities:

•   Prepare a Proposed Plan of the action EPA proposes to take to remediate the site. Publish a public
    notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation to publicize the availability of the Proposed
    Plan and RI/FS, provide a brief summary of the Proposed Plan, and announce a public comment
    period. The notice should be published at least two weeks before the beginning of the public comment
    period.

•   Make the Proposed Plan and any supporting analysis and information available to the public in the
    administrative record and information repository.

•   Provide an opportunity for a public comment period (not less than 30 days) for the public to submit
    comments, and extend the period by at least 30 days, if appropriate. Although EPA is not required to
    inform the community of an extension of the public comment period, the site team should consider
    announcing an extension through a variety of mechanisms (webpage, email, fact sheet, social media,
    etc.).
•   Hold a public meeting to present the Proposed Plan.
    Prepare a transcript of all formal public meetings
    held during the public comment period, and place
    the transcripts in the administrative record and
    information repository.

•   Prepare a written response to significant comments
    submitted during the public comment period. This
    "responsiveness summary" is included in the ROD.
During the Proposed Plan phase of the remedial
process, the site team is encouraged to maintain
communication with public officials and interested
community members, explain the remedial alternatives
in understandable terms, and solicit public input.
Effective community involvement and careful
consideration of suggestions and comments submitted
by concerned community groups and other inhabitants
will showcase that the Agency is serious about
considering the community's input.
     Recording Public Comments
          at Public Meetings
While the NCP does not state how the
transcript for a public meeting should be
prepared, using the services of a court
reporter is recommended.
Comments from the public usually are noted
in the record, but are not directly addressed or
answered during the meeting. Instead, EPA's
responses to these comments should be
provided, in writing, in the responsiveness
summary document that is included in the
Record of Decision. For this reason, the
members of the site team normally should
limit their responses to public comments
offered during the meeting to explaining or
clarifying technical or process issues.
Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate When
Issuing the Proposed Plan
The issuance of the Proposed Plan usually is a time of intense community involvement. The site team
should assess whether additional community involvement activities may be appropriate at this time by
considering these or other factors:

•   The level of community concern or trust. What has been the level of community interest in site
    issues to date? Has the community requested or received technical assistance services? Is there reason
    to believe that the community may not fully trust EPA's judgment or site-related actions? Have
    people asked questions, expressed concerns, or raised objections about EPA's actions at the site?
    Have news media outlets contacted EPA with questions about the Proposed Plan? Have community
    members used social media or a website to alert the community about the Proposed Plan?
•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there  low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
42
         Chapter 3
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
    other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?

•   Likelihood that the preferred remedy could be controversial.  Are there several reasonable remedy
    alternatives that could be considered for the site? Is the preferred remedy complex or difficult to
    understand? In the past, has the community indicated a preference for, or aversion to, the approach in
    the preferred alternative? Did the NRRB review this matter? If so, did the community group
    representatives submit comments to the board before its meeting?

•   Potential disruption to the community. Will the preferred alternative require substantial disruption in
    the community (e.g., temporary or permanent relocation, substantial truck traffic, or neighborhood
    disruption)? Are there many community members who could be affected or inconvenienced by site
    work? Will site work affect schools, playgrounds, parks, or other nearby public spaces? Does the
    remedy include restrictions on fishing, gardening, or recreational and other uses?
If more than one of these factors is present, it may indicate that the site team ought to consider conducting
additional community involvement activities. Doing so might enable EPA's site team to nurture a
constructive relationship with the community and increase community understanding and probable
acceptance of the Proposed Plan. As  shown in Figure 3-3, as community, environmental justice, and tribal
concerns increase, along with other disruptions and controversies,  additional community involvement
activities should be considered.

Informing the community of the availability of technical assistance services may be particularly important
in the period leading up to issuance of the Proposed Plan. The community might need help in
understanding the technical information in the RI/FS and Proposed Plan in order to provide comments
and participate in the decision-making process. This often is particularly important for communities with
potential environmental justice concerns, complex or numerous remedial alternatives, and strong
community interest. If the community requests technical assistance or the site team believes the
community might benefit from technical
assistance, the site team should consider
     ,  .        ,  .   ,              ,              The use of the Technical Assistance Services for
completing a technical assistance needs             _           ,_,   ,               .   .   .  .   .
             ,T, A -KT A                              Com mu a it i€s (TASC) p rag ra m at my site has helped
assessment or TANA.                             .           .'     " '    .   .  . .   .  .
                                                 the community focus ana prioritize their primary
                                                concerns, understand complex investigations and be
                                                more involved in the decision-making process."
                                                Jackie Lane, CIC Region 9
The site team may also consider helping the
community form or work with an existing CAG,
particularly at sites with high levels of
community concern or distrust. A CAG is a
committee, task force, or board composed of
community members and other stakeholders affected by the site. CAGs can enhance public participation
in the cleanup process by providing a public forum where representatives of diverse community interests
can discuss their concerns and learn from each other. CAGs also can help the community "speak with one
voice" on contentious issues, which can assist EPA's efforts to listen to and respond to community
concerns.

At sites where trust is an issue or where it may be difficult for all voices in the community to be heard, the
site team might consider offering mediation or neutral third-party facilitation services. The team can
consult with a Regional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) specialist for advice on handling difficult
situations and for more information about when to use facilitation or other ADR techniques. ADR
specialists can help the site team obtain third-party neutral facilitation to handle highly contentious

                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                           Chapter 3
                                                       43
situations. ADR specialists also can arrange for skilled mediation when there is a potential for serious
conflict. This was the case at a site where one Region's efforts to help a community with environmental
justice concerns form a CAG were unsuccessful. A neutral facilitator was brought in to work with
community groups. Instead of a formal CAG, the facilitator found that convening a series of roundtable
meetings was a better approach. This eventually resulted in a "workgroup approach" better suited to the
community's needs.
                  Figure 3-3: Recommendations for Community Involvement
                      during the RI/FS Completion and the Proposed Plan
         Community Concern—EJ/Tribal—Controversy—Disruption
               Low
     Conduct These Minimum
            Activities


    •  Prepare a Proposed Plan.*
    •  Post a notice of the
       Proposed Plan.*
    •  Hold a public meeting and
       prepare a meeting
       transcript.*
    •  Hold a public comment
       period.*
    •  Prepare a responsiveness
       summary.*
    •  Issue a press release.
    •  Distribute a flyer.
    •  Make the EPA citizen's
       guides to cleanup
       technologies available.
       Moderate
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
 Prepare a fact sheet
 summarizing the Proposed
 Plan.
 Conduct informal activities.
 Host an availability
 session/open house.
 Prepare additional fact sheets
 on technical issues.
 Make presentations to
 community groups in person
 or via conference call, Adobe
 Connect, or other Agency
 meeting or webinar tools.
 Offer a workshop or webinar
 on the Superfund process.
 Create or update the website
 or social media site.
 Prepare communication
 strategies as needed.
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Conduct focus groups.
  Form or work with an
  existing Community
  Advisory Group.
  Offer alternative dispute
  resolution services.
  Conduct a TANA and, if
  appropriate, provide
  technical assistance.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix provides suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
6.  Pre-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)
Consistent with the NCP, Regions should take certain steps after publication of the Proposed Plan and
before final selection of the remedial action if new information is made available during the comment
period that significantly changes the basic features of the preferred alternative identified in the Proposed
Plan with respect to scope, performance, or cost.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
44
Chapter 3
Planning for Community Involvement during Pre-ROD Significant Changes

The ROD Guidance discusses what can constitute a significant change and provides recommendations on
evaluating whether a change could be reasonably anticipated by the public based on information in the
Proposed Plan.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities for Pre-ROD Significant Changes

The ROD Guidance provides recommendations about what to do if new information is made available
that significantly changes the basic features of the remedy with respect to scope, performance or cost after
the Proposed Plan is published and prior to the adoption of the selected remedy in the ROD. Furthermore,
the ROD Guidance recommends that the ROD should include a discussion of the significant changes and
the reasons for such changes if these changes could have reasonably been anticipated by the public based
on the alternatives and other information available in the Proposed Plan or the supporting analysis and
information in the Administrative Record file.

If EPA determines that the significant change  could not have been reasonably anticipated by the public
based on information in the Proposed Plan, supporting analysis, and administrative record, prior to
adoption of the selected remedy in the ROD, a revised proposed plan is issued, and the same community
involvement procedures that were conducted for the original proposed plan are repeated. These include:

•   Issue a revised Proposed Plan, which must include  a discussion of the significant changes and the
    reasons for such changes.

•   Publish a public notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation to publicize the availability
    of the revised Proposed Plan and announce a public comment period. The notice should be published
    at least two weeks before the beginning of the public comment period.

•   Make the revised Proposed Plan and any supporting analysis and information available to the public
    in the administrative record and information repository.

•   Hold a public comment period (not less than 30 days) for the public to submit comments, and extend
    the period by at least 30 days, if appropriate. Although EPA is not required to inform the community
    of an extension of the public comment period, the site team should consider announcing an extension
    through diverse communication mechanisms (webpage, email, fact sheet, social media, etc.).

•   Hold a public meeting to present the revised Proposed Plan.  Prepare a transcript of all formal public
    meetings held during the public comment  period, and make the transcripts available to the public in
    the administrative record file and information repository.

•   Prepare a written responsiveness summary that  summarizes and responds to significant public
    comments, criticisms, and new relevant information submitted during the public comment period. The
    responsiveness summary becomes part of the ROD, which is added to the administrative record file.

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate for Pre-
ROD Changes

Additional community involvement activities  are recommended  in the NCP only in certain cases when a
significant change is made after publication of the Proposed Plan. Nevertheless, EPA site teams  are
encouraged to notify the community of significant changes even if such notification is not addressed in
the NCP. This may be a good idea when a new round of public comment is not necessarily required or
when EPA changes its preferred remedy by selecting one of the alternatives that was initially described in
the Proposed Plan but not identified as the preferred alternative.  Clearly explaining any changes using a
variety of outreach mechanisms often will reinforce the community's view that EPA is being transparent
and honest.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3     45
When revisions to the Proposed Plan lead to a new round of public comment, it is important to make the
community aware of the changes and help them understand the changes. To address significant changes,
EPA recommends that the site team consider whether one or more of the following activities might be
appropriate:

•   Develop a communication strategy for informing the community about the proposed changes, their
    significance, and any additional public comment period.

•   Distribute a revised fact sheet explaining significant changes and the process for a new public
    comment period.

•   Host a public availability/poster session to explain the significant changes and the need for a new
    round of public comments. Other possibilities to communicate with members of the community could
    include sponsoring a conference-call meeting or webinar using EPA meeting software, such as Adobe
    Connect, or other Agency meeting or webinar tools.

•   Undertake informal outreach activities, such as setting up an exhibit booth at a community event.

•   Depending on the nature of the significant changes, it can be an excellent opportunity for the site
    team to host a site tour during which the team can describe the site, the nature and extent of
    contamination, and the significant changes in the revised Proposed Plan.

•   If the site team has not already set up a toll-free telephone hotline and/or a website, Facebook page or
    other social media site, this might be a good time to do so. If the hotline and website already are in
    operation, it may be a good time to update them to explain the revised Proposed Plan and the new
    public comment period.

7.  Record of Decision

After EPA receives and considers comments on the Proposed Plan, the Agency normally selects and
documents a final remedy in a ROD. The ROD documents the remedial action selected for a site or
operable unit. In addition, the ROD:

•   Certifies that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with statutory and
    regulatory requirements.

•   Provides the public with a consolidated summary of information about the site, the chosen remedy
    (including the rationale behind the selection), and a response to significant comments.  This summary
    discusses the technical parameters of the remedy and specifies the methods selected to protect human
    health and the environment, including treatment, engineering,  and institutional control elements, as
    well as cleanup levels.

Planning for Community Involvement during the ROD Phase

As the ROD is issued, the site team should inform the community  that EPA has made a decision about the
site remedy. If the community involvement effort for a site with moderate  or high community interest or
concern has been successful to date, the community already should be familiar with the selected remedy
and engaged in the decision-making process. The community involvement effort for the ROD can build
on this foundation.

Minimum Activities for ROD Issuance

Once the ROD is signed and issued, the site team should:

•   Publish a public notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation that informs the public that
    the ROD has been signed, summarizes the selected remedy, and states where a copy of the ROD can
    be obtained or reviewed.


                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
46
Chapter 3
    Review the CIP before the initiation of the remedial design to determine whether it should be revised
    to include additional community involvement activities during the RD/RA phase.
                                Reviewing and Revising the CIP

  The CIP should be reviewed when the ROD is issued and revised when the site team believes that a change
  in the strategy for involving communities is warranted. Sometimes updating contact information, media and
  elected officials lists, and other reference materials may be sufficient, along with revising the list of
  activities planned for subsequent phases of the process.
  However, when a comprehensive revision of the CIP is appropriate, the site team should consider taking a
  fresh look at community needs and concerns (usually by conducting  another round of community
  interviews), reassessing EPA's community involvement approach, and revising EPA's site-specific action
  plan for community involvement accordingly.
  The decision to revise the CIP sometimes is based on a change in the level or nature of community interest.
  When there is a high level of interest at a site, the CIP should be revised regularly so that the document
  continues to reflect current conditions and community interests. On the other hand, it can be useful to do a
  comprehensive CIP revision when community interest has waned over a long period of time. Revising the
  CIP also may be appropriate after significant demographic, economic, or political changes in the community
  occur.
Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate for ROD
Issuance
As is true at each phase of the process, during the time in which the ROD is issued, the site team should
assess whether additional community involvement efforts should be undertaken to make the community
aware of site activities and provide opportunities for engaging in the process.

The site team should assess whether additional outreach, educational, and engagement activities ought to
be undertaken when the ROD is issued and before the RD/RA begins. This decision should be based on
prior experience with the community, particularly during the RI/FS and Proposed Plan phase, and by
considering these and other factors:

•   Community reactions to the selected remedy. Is the remedy in the ROD different from what was in
    the proposed plan? Were significant changes made since the proposed plan was issued? Does the site
    have numerous OUs? Is there reason to believe EPA's remedy decision could be controversial?
•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are
    there low-income, minority, or indigenous
    populations living near the site who are or may
    be more adversely impacted by the site? Does
    the site affect a tribe or Indian country? Are
    there cultural resources that might be impacted
    by site activities that are important to tribal
    members who may not live near the area? Are
    there populations who subsist on fish,
    vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language
    barriers among those impacted by the site? Are
    there other hazardous sites or sources of
    pollution that affect the community? Does the
    community lack benefits such as municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access
    to green space or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the
    community may bear a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations
    with greater vulnerability to environmental hazards?
                                           Community Involvement and Institutional
                                                            Controls
                                          Meeting with community members and local
                                          government representatives often is important
                                          throughout the 1C life cycle to ensure that the need
                                          for ICs is understood and accepted as necessary for
                                          ensuring protection of human health and the
                                          environment. Oftentimes, community members and
                                          local government representatives are responsible
                                          for maintaining ICs in the long term.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapters      47
•   Community concern or interest. Are community members worried about their health and other
    socio-economic impacts of the site or have they expressed concerns about the cleanup plan? Is the
    selected remedy likely to cause significant disruption or nuisance (traffic, dust, noise)? Are there
    homes, schools, day care centers, or hospitals nearby that will be impacted by the remedy? Is an
    organized community group or technical assistance recipient group involved in site issues? Have
    community members used social media to disseminate information about the site, such as through a
    blog or webpage?

•   Media interest. Have reporters contacted the site team or EPA representatives  to ask questions about
    the Proposed Plan or ROD? Have articles been written or news stories been broadcast? If so, have the
    stories been accurate and balanced?
At this stage of the process, the decision about whether to enhance community involvement usually is
predicated on the success of earlier efforts and the level of community interest and concern. If the
community has been kept fully informed about and involved in the remedy selection process, the ROD is
more likely to be accepted. In such cases, the minimum activities listed in Figure 3-4 usually will suffice.
If some community members appear to be unaware of the cleanup alternatives and remedy specified in
the ROD, it could indicate that additional community involvement efforts might be appropriate. Earlier
communications may not have reached all intended audiences, new people may have moved into the area,
or some community members may have only recently become aware of or concerned about the site.

Although a community's possible need for technical assistance should be defined as early as possible, it is
important to take a fresh look at this point. The site team may wish to conduct a TANA if it has not
already done so. If the community already is receiving technical assistance services, it is a good time to
follow up with community members to ensure that needs are being met.

When ICs are a component of the selected remedy, the ROD usually explains what 1C restrictions may be
necessary (e.g., restrict residential use of the property, prevent building on the landfill cap, or prevent
consumption of contaminated groundwater). This information should be communicated early and often
after the ROD is signed, even  if the specific type of 1C is not yet known.

As part of its outreach efforts for the ROD, the site team may want to consider setting the stage for
upcoming site activities during RD/RA. Advising the community about what to expect in the next phase
of the process might help the community prepare for remediation activities and understand how site
activities could affect them.

8.  Post-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)

As discussed in the ROD Guidance, information after a ROD is signed that is related to scope,
performance or cost may prompt a reassessment of the remedy. Generally, there are three types of ROD
changes, each potentially with its own type of documentation and community involvement steps:

Non-significant or minor changes may affect things such as the type or cost of materials, equipment,
facilities, services, and supplies used to implement the remedy. The change will not have a significant
impact on the scope, performance or cost of the remedy. These changes should be recorded in the project
file.

Significant changes generally involve a change to a component of a remedy that does not fundamentally
alter the overall cleanup approach. After adoption  of a ROD, CERCLA requires an explanation of
significant differences (ESD) if a remedial action,  enforcement action under CERCLA, or any settlement
or consent decree differs significantly from the ROD.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
48
Chapter 3
                 Figure 3-4: Recommendations for Planning and Conducting
                       Community Involvement When the ROD Is Issued
      Reactions to the Remedy—EJ/Tribal—Community/Media Interest
              Low
    Conduct These Minimum
            Activities


    •   Publish a notice of ROD
       availability.*
    •   Review the CIP, and if
       necessary revise it.*
    •   Make ROD available to the
       public in the information
       repository and
       administrative record.
    •   Issue press releases and hold
       press briefings.
    •   Make Citizen's Guide series
       to cleanup technologies
       available.
                                  Moderate
                            Also Consider Adding
                           Some of These Activities
                            Prepare communication
                            strategies, as needed.
                            Make presentations to
                            community groups in person
                            or via conference call, Adobe
                            Connect, or other Agency
                            meeting or webinar tools.
                            Conduct informal activities.
                            Offer an availability
                            session/open house.
                            Issue fact sheets.
                            Offer a workshop or webinar
                            on cleanup technology.
                            Host a conference call or
                            Web-based meeting.
                            Prepare a website or social
                            media site.
                            Offer site tours or other on-
                            site activities or a virtual site
                            tour online.
                            Establish/use telephone
                            hotlines.
          High
  Also Consider Adding
 Some of These Activities
•  Form or work with a CAG.
•  Conduct a TANA and
   possibly offer technical
   assistance.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix lists a few suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
Fundamental changes involve an appreciable change or changes in the scope, performance, and/or cost,
or multiple significant changes that together have the effect of a fundamental change to the ROD. An
example of a fundamental change is one that results in a reconsideration of the overall waste management
approach selected in the original ROD. When fundamental changes are made to the ROD, a Proposed
Plan for the amended ROD that highlights the proposed changes must be issued. An amended ROD that
documents the changes follows the Proposed Plan. When this occurs, the community involvement
requirements are similar to those required for the initial Proposed Plan (Section  5 of this chapter).

A detailed discussion of how to address post-ROD changes can be found in the ROD Guidance.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 3     49
Planning for Community Involvement during Post-ROD Significant Changes

Changes that significantly or fundamentally affect the remedy selected in the ROD typically involve more
explanation and enhanced community involvement. The community involvement steps summarized
below for various types of ROD changes reflect this need.

Minimum Activities for Post-ROD Changes
Non-significant or Minor Changes: There are no statutory requirements or NCP provisions addressing
community involvement when minor changes are made to the ROD.

Significant changes/ESD: Consistent with CERCLA, the NCP and existing CERCLA guidance, Regions
should:

•   Issue an ESD that describes to the public the nature of the significant changes, summarizes the
    information that led to making the changes, and affirms that the revised remedy complies with
    statutory and regulatory  requirements.

•   Make the ESD and  supporting information available to the public in the administrative record and
    information repository.

•   Publish a public notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation that briefly summarizes the
    significant differences and states the reasons for the changes.
Fundamental changes/ROD amendment: Consistent with CERCLA, the NCP and existing EPA
CERCLA guidance, Regions should:

•   Publish a notice of the availability of the ROD amendment and a brief description of the proposed
    amendment in a major local newspaper of general circulation.

•   Hold a public comment period of at least 30 days for the submission of comments on the Proposed
    Plan to amend the ROD, and extend the period by a minimum of 30 days upon timely request.

•   Provide the opportunity  for a public meeting during the comment period.

•   Keep a transcript of comments received during the public meeting.

•   Prepare a written response to comments (responsiveness summary) that includes a brief explanation
    of the Proposed ROD amendment and a response to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and
    new relevant information received during the comment period. Consistent with the NCP, this
    summary should be included in the amended ROD.
A final decision on whether to amend the ROD generally is made only after consideration of public
comments. If EPA decides to formally amend the ROD, the Agency should take the following steps
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and existing EPA CERCLA guidance:

•   Publish a notice of the availability of the amended ROD in a major local newspaper of general
    circulation.

•   Make the amended  ROD and supporting information available in the administrative record and
    information repository before the remedial action begins.


Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate for Post-
ROD Changes

The site team should ensure  that the community is aware of any pending ROD changes, particularly those
requiring an ESD or ROD amendment. Regions should inform the community about the proposed
changes as early as possible. The site team should assess the need for additional  community involvement
activities for  post-ROD changes by considering these or other relevant factors:

                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
50
Chapter 3
•  ROD amendment or potential controversy of proposed significant changes. Will ROD changes,
   especially those requiring an BSD or amendment, be unexpected by members of the community? Did
   the initial remedy in the ROD enjoy significant support? Do the changes include any elements that the
   community opposed or expressed concern about in the past? Will the changes or amendment
   potentially increase community disruption (e.g., more truck traffic or noise)?

•  The level of community and media concern. What has been the level of community interest in site
   issues to date? Has the community requested or received technical assistance services? Have news
   media outlets contacted EPA with questions about ROD changes? Have community members used
   social media to alert the community about site issues?

•  Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
   living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
   tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
   important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
   fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
   other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
   benefits such as municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
   or health services? Is there reason to believe that this community or segments of the community may
   bear a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
   vulnerability to environmental hazards? If the site has environmental justice concerns, have there
   been previous efforts to educate, inform, and involve these members of the community?
EPA recommends that the site team explain any changes to a ROD, even if the changes are relatively
minor. For changes that require an ESD or a ROD amendment, the site team should consider undertaking
additional community involvement activities, as suggested in Figure 3-5. Given the potential complexity
of explaining ROD changes, the site team may wish to develop a communication strategy for ESDs and
ROD amendments—particularly if there are environmental justice considerations or the potential for an
adverse  reaction to the ROD changes. The ROD Guidance recommends preparing a side-by-side
comparison and using a fact sheet to explain the changes.9 While a new public comment period is not
required for an ESD, the ROD Guidance notes that in some cases it may be a good idea to provide an
opportunity for public comment, especially when there is considerable public or PRP  interest. A public
comment period is required for a proposed ROD amendment.10

While EPA provides an opportunity for a public meeting for a proposed ROD amendment, the site team
may want to consider also offering other types of community involvement opportunities. Sometimes it is
a good idea to repeat some of the community involvement activities that have been effective in the past.
For example, if a public availability or poster session proved to be a successful outreach technique during
the RI/FS, this probably would be a good way to explain an amended ROD or a complicated ESD.
Offering a site tour or posting a virtual video tour on a website also can be an effective way to  explain
how changes will differ from what was initially documented in the ROD.

9. Remedial  Design/Remedial  Action

Remedial design (RD) is the phase in the Superfund site cleanup process in which the technical
specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies are developed. Remedial action  (RA) follows the
RD phase and involves the actual construction or implementation stage of the cleanup. (Detailed
information about the RD/RA process can be found in the RD/RA Handbook.)
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3
                                                       51
               Figure 3-5: Recommendations for Planning and Conducting
                      Community Involvement for Post-ROD Changes
   Community Concern—Media—EJ,Tribal—Potential Controversy/Disruption
             Low
   Conduct These Minimum
          Activities
       Moderate
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  For Minor Changes
  •  Issue a fact sheet.
  •  Issue an email or Web
     announcement.
  •  Update the website or social
     media site.
  For Significant Changes
  •  Issue an ESD.*
  •  Make the ESD available in
     the administrative
     record/information
     repository.*
  •  Publish a notice.*
  For ROD Amendment
  •  Publish a public notice.*
  •  Hold a public comment
     period.*
  •  Conduct a  public meeting
     and  prepare a transcript.*
  •  Publish a responsiveness
     summary.*
  After ROD Is Amended
  •  Publish a notice of amended
     ROD availability.*
  •  Make the amended ROD
     available to the public in the
     administrative record and
     information repository.*
  •  Prepare a fact sheet
     summarizing significant
     changes.
  •  Issue a press release.
 Prepare a communications
 strategy if necessary.
 Conduct informal activities.
 Host a conference-call
 meeting with members of the
 community.
 Hold an availability
 session/open house.
 Issue additional fact sheets
 on ROD changes.
 Make presentations to
 community groups in person
 or via conference call, Adobe
 Connect, or other Agency
 meeting or webinar tools.
 Offer a site tour or virtual site
 tour.
 Hold meetings in person or by
 teleconference or webinar to
 explain the ROD.
  Conduct or update the
  TANA and if appropriate
  provide or continue to
  provide technical assistance.
  Form or work with a CAG.
  Hold focus groups.
  Offer ADR services through
  CPRC, if appropriate.
* Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP (see Appendix A for more information).
Note: This matrix provides suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
52
Chapter 3
Planning for Community Involvement during RD/RA

During the RD/RA phase, the community usually will begin to see increased activity at the site. This
increased activity brings its own set of community involvement issues, opportunities, and potential
challenges. Community involvement activities during the RD/RA process typically are designed to keep
the community informed about site activities and to help EPA anticipate and respond to community
concerns about the RD/RA and potential impacts on the community.11

Generally, it is a good idea to explain to the community who is responsible for funding and conducting
the RD and RA. In many cases, EPA will fund and perform the RD and/or RA with Superfund monies
(Fund-lead sites). In most cases, EPA will negotiate with or direct a PRP to fund and perform the RD
and/or the RA (PRP-lead or enforcement-lead sites). There are potential communication issues unique to
Fund-lead and enforcement-lead sites.

Fund-lead: When EPA designs and implements the remedy through the Superfund program, funding is
derived directly from the program. Due to budget limitations, the Agency cannot fund RD and RA
activities at all Fund-lead sites every year. EPA directs remedial action funding to priority sites as
recommended by the National Risk-Based Priority Panel (see box). Sites that are characterized as "lower
priority" by the panel may have funding delayed.

When funds are limited, EPA may decide to defer the start of the RD or lengthen the time frame for the
design of the remedy. Site teams might have to explain to communities that RD/RA activities at their site
may be delayed. Once the design is completed, funds must be obtained to pay for construction of the
selected remedy. When Superfund program
resources are  sufficient, most sites will  receive
funding to initiate the RA. However, when
resources are  scarce, funding may be available
only for some sites, or the Agency may decide
to fund only specific activities at various sites.
When EPA's  funding decisions for a Fund-lead
site result in a postponement of the RD/RA, the
community may not understand the reasons for
this delay. The site team should anticipate the
potential need to explain EPA's decisions.
(This is the kind of issue for which a
communication strategy may be helpful.)
Enforcement or PRP-lead: If EPA determines
that a viable PRP is available to perform the
work, a PRP may be responsible for conducting
the RD and/or the RA. EPA may negotiate a
consent decree with the PRP, issue a unilateral
administrative order (UAO), or work with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to seek ajudicial
order for the PRP to conduct the RD and/or
RA. (See Chapter 5 for more information on
EPA's enforcement options and Chapter 6
regarding enforcement options for federal
facility sites.) In such cases, the PRP is
responsible for conducting the work with EPA
oversight.

When the PRP is involved in the RD/RA,
community involvement and outreach  is
                                            National Risk-Based Priority Panel
                                     In August 1995, EPA established a National Risk-
                                     Based Priority Panel of program experts to evaluate
                                     human health and environmental risks at NPL sites
                                     ready for remedial action funding. The panel uses five
                                     criteria to classify threats that contaminants may pose:
                                     1)
    Risks to human population exposed to the
    contaminant.
2)  Stability.
3)  Contaminant characteristics.
4)  Threat to a significant environment.
5)  Program management considerations (including
    innovative technologies, environmental justice,
    brownfields/economic development, etc.).
The Agency uses these evaluations to establish
funding priorities for remedial action projects in the
Superfund program. This national-level review is
intended to serve as a way for the Agency to  compare
projects across Regions, ensuring that scarce resources
are allocated to the projects addressing the greatest
risk to human health and the environment.
Meetings of the National Risk-Based Priority Panel
are not open to the public.
More information is available at:
www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-risk-
based-prioritv-panel
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 3
53
affected in many ways. The CIC and the site team will have to explain how and why the PRP will be
involved in the site cleanup and also explain EPA's oversight role. The community's familiarity with and
perception of the PRP (and its trust or distrust of the PRP) may affect the types and overall intensity of
the community involvement effort. Because low-income and communities of color often bear the burden
of environmental pollution, such communities may be particularly mistrustful or frustrated by the  PRP's
past actions. The site team may consider identifying and discussing these and other environmental justice
concerns.
                         Negotiations of Settlements for RD and/or RA
                and Public Comment Period Notice on Proposed Agreements
  After EPA issues the ROD, the Agency often will attempt to negotiate a settlement with PRPs to design
  and conduct the cleanup. As explained further in Chapter 5, such negotiations are not open to the public.
  The confidential nature of the EPA-PRP negotiations sometimes leads to increased mistrust and even
  resistance on the part of the community.
  The site team should consider whether to conduct additional community involvement activities during
  settlement negotiations. These activities may help the community better understand the negotiation
  process.
  Depending on the type of agreement reached, the public may have an opportunity to review and comment
  on the proposed agreement. If a public comment period is required, the federal government must:
  •  Publish  a notice of the proposed agreement in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the
     agreement becomes final. The notice identifies the facility covered by the proposed agreement, the
     nature of the proposed agreement, and the parties who have signed it.
  •  Provide an opportunity to anyone who is not a party to the agreement to file written comments for a
     period of 30 days.
  If the proposed agreement is in the form of a judicial consent decree (which generally is the case), it is
  DOJ's responsibility to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register.
  If the settlement is in the form of an administrative agreement (e.g., an administrative consent order with a
  cost-recovery component and an obligation to conduct only the RD), the responsibility belongs to EPA.
Minimum Community Involvement Activities during RD/RA

Consistent with the NCP, during the RD/RA phase, EPA should:

•   Issue a fact sheet after completion of the final design and prior to beginning the RA.

•   If appropriate, hold a public meeting at RD completion and prior to the initiation of the RA.
In addition, at sites where EPA and a PRP have negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement to
conduct the RA, DOJ must publish a notice of a proposed settlement in the Federal Register and
announce an opportunity for the submission of written comments (see box above).

Additional activities for other types of settlements are discussed in Chapter 5.

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate during
RD/RA
As is the case for other phases of the Superfund process, being proactive often leads to effective
community involvement during the RD/RA phase. This means seeking community input while the RD is
being developed. Because it often is too late to accommodate community concerns once the RD is
completed, it usually is a good idea for the site team to meet with community members and local groups
early and often during the RD phase to discuss the potential effects of the remedial action on the
community. These effects may include air emissions, traffic, noise, temporary or permanent relocation,
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
54
Chapter 3
and economic effects (see box on page 56). Consider discussing the remediation activities, including
contingency plans, with those who live or work closest to the site or along the travel route for off-site
waste disposal. This might entail visiting individual residences or businesses.

This is an excellent time to consider whether the site might be a candidate for a Superfund Job Training
Initiative (SuperJTI) project, particularly if the affected community has environmental justice concerns,
such as high unemployment. For example, the Diamond Alkali SuperJTI project provided career
development opportunities in environmental remediation for 15 trainees living near the Diamond Alkali
Superfund Site. The program provided local job-seekers with new skills and work experience linked to
the cleanup of the Passaic River, which is adjacent to the site. EPA's goal was to help the community
create job opportunities and partnerships that remain in place for the long term. For information about
other SuperJTI projects, visit the SuperJTI webpage.
While the RD phase often is uneventful because
little or no field work is conducted, the RA
phase can be very disruptive to the community.
During the RD phase, the site team should keep
the community informed about progress at the
site, and provide updates about site activities
and the disruptions they might encounter.

The community can be an important ally during
the RD/RA. For example, community members
may notice suspicious activities and report them
to EPA, thus reducing site vandalism. Keeping
communication lines open, responding quickly
to community inquiries, addressing complaints
as they arise, and if necessary, debunking
rumors and correcting misinformation before it
spreads are all best practices during the RD/RA
phase. Using social media also may be very
helpful. The site team can monitor comments
and correct misinformation quickly.

Failure to prepare the community adequately for the upcoming RA could lead to difficulties during
implementation. Community members may be angry or surprised when construction begins because they
have not fully grasped what will be happening at the site or within their community.
                                              Superfund Job Training Initiative

                                      The Superfund Job Training Initiative (SuperJTI) is a
                                      job readiness program that provides free training and
                                      employment opportunities for community members
                                      living in communities affected by Superfund sites.
                                      Many of these areas are communities with
                                      environmental justice concerns—historically under-
                                      represented minority and low-income neighborhoods
                                      and areas burdened with significant environmental
                                      challenges. EPA's goal is to help these communities
                                      develop job opportunities that remain long after a
                                      Superfund site has been cleaned up.
                                      EPA offers SuperJTI training through its Technical
                                      Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) contract,
                                      which provides independent educational and technical
                                      assistance to communities affected by Superfund sites.
The site team should consider taking these
factors into account when assessing the need
for and extent of community involvement
activities during the RD/RA phase:

•  Proximity of the site to residential areas,
   public facilities, and healthcare facilities:
   Is the site close to residential areas, schools,
   playgrounds, or recreational or public areas
   frequented by community members? Will
   any remediation activities be conducted on
   or near residential or commercial
   properties?

•  Environmental justice or tribal concerns.
   Are there low-income, minority, or
   indigenous populations living near the site
                                            Celebrating an Important Milestone
                                               and Thanking the Community

                                      When cleanup work was about to begin at a complicated
                                      site in a community with environmental justice
                                      concerns, Region 7 helped celebrate the milestone by
                                      saying "Thank You to the Community." A letter
                                      published in the local African American publication
                                      thanked the community for their patience and faith in
                                      the Agency. Region 7 also hosted a big event at the local
                                      Boys and Girls Club (which was across from the site)
                                      that featured local community leaders. After the event, a
                                      letter signed by the Regional Administrator was sent to
                                      the community neighborhood association chairs
                                      recognizing and thanking them for the work they had
                                      done.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                            Chapter 3
55
    who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a tribe or Indian country?
    Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are important to tribal
    members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on fish, vegetation, or
    wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there other hazardous
    sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack benefits such as
    municipal services (sewer, drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space or health
    services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear a
    disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater vulnerability
    to environmental hazards?

•   Potential disruption to community members, businesses, or community life. Does the remedy
    include either permanent or temporary relocation? (Note: Relocation will require the highest level of
    community involvement.) Will there be significant truck traffic, noise, dust, or detours during the
    RA? Will truck routes and construction affect community members or visitors? Are local businesses
    likely to be affected by noise, reduced accessibility, rerouted traffic, or other site-related factors that
    could reduce customer traffic or otherwise adversely affect the conduct of business?

•   Lead Entity for RD/RA. Is the site Fund-lead, state-lead, tribal-lead, or enforcement-lead? Or is the
    site being addressed by a federal facility? Is the lead entity for RD/RA trusted by the community? For
                      Potential Effects of RA Activities on the Community

 Air emissions: The provisions for air monitoring, potential for fugitive emissions, plan for suppression,
 warning systems for the community (i.e., to address concerns about playgrounds, school areas, etc.), and
 evacuation procedures are very real community concerns. Some site teams arrange to have real-time air
 monitoring data posted on a website, install video cameras to record site activities for local cable channels
 or for Internet streaming,  and work with the community to develop a warning system to notify the
 community of an emergency situation. The site team also should be aware of and monitor emissions from
 diesel and other vehicular traffic associated with site activities, as this could be a concern in a community
 that already experiences high pollution or has a prevalence of asthma. The site team could decide not to
 add to existing pollution on days when air quality is poor.
 Traffic: The RA often involves a substantial increase in vehicular traffic, particularly trucks around the
 site. The design will include recommended hauling routes (based on road weight restrictions, ease of
 transport, etc.), but community members who know the area may have their own suggestions, which also
 may be better options. The site team should consider the alternatives, which may include rerouting or
 restricting the time of day or days of the year (e.g., for a recurring community event or celebration) that
 trucks may operate.
 Noise: The RA may result in an increase in noise levels in the surrounding community. Although the RD
 needs to comply with local noise standards, the site team may want to consider additional sound
 suppression systems to accommodate the community.
 Relocation: The RA may result in temporary or permanent relocation of community structures or
 residents, which has a significant impact on affected residents. Relocation often involves extensive and
 frequent person-to-person interaction between the site team and impacted community members. Regions
 should prepare an intense, well-designed approach to informing and consulting with the community to
 ensure that all community concerns and  issues are adequately addressed (see Residential Relocation tool
 in the CI Toolkit).
 Economic effects: Community members may question the economic effect that the RA will have on the
 community. As a show of good faith for a Fund-lead site, EPA may decide to structure the remediation
 contract to allow more local business participation. The contract can be phased (e.g., site preparation
 work, site security)  and separated into nonhazardous and hazardous components that would allow smaller
 local firms to compete and participate in the cleanup. A SuperJTI  project can provide training and
 employment opportunities for affected community members.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
56
         Chapter 3
    Fund-lead sites, will limits on resources reduce funding for the RD or RA or result in delays? If so,
    will the community be upset or dismayed by the delay and the reason for it?

    The level of community concern. What has been the level of community interest in site issues to
    date? Has the community requested or received technical assistance services? Have news media
    outlets contacted EPA with questions about the remedy and design? Did the community or segments
    of the community oppose the selected remedy? Have community members used social media to alert
    the community about the cleanup design and potential impacts on the community during RA? Will
    the cleanup play an important role in the surrounding community or in the reuse of the site?
                                                      The Power of Information
                                         A Region 1 site team used a Twitter account and text
                                         messages to provide regular updates to the community
                                         living near a contaminated mill that was being demolished.
                                         Community members were concerned and needed
                                         assurance that the area around the site was safe. A
                                         green/yellow/red color-coding system was created to share
                                         information with community members based on real-time
                                         air monitoring data. Daily updates were sent via a daily
                                         "blast" text message to cell phones, which reached all
                                         interested community members, regardless of whether they
                                         had Twitter accounts.
                                         After the demolition was completed and the site was paved,
                                         the site's CIC learned that the city had not received a single
                                         call from concerned community members during  the eight-
                                         month process—a testament to the power of information
                                         when it is communicated effectively.
Assessing the situation can help the site
team determine an appropriate level of
community involvement activity during
RD/RA. It is a good idea to begin by
assessing experiences with the
community so far: Has the level of
community interest been high or low?
Has there been a need to conduct
additional community involvement
activities during the earlier phases of the
process? If so, additional community
involvement may be a good idea during
the RD/RA.

It usually is a good idea to keep
community involvement alive throughout
the remedial process. Maintaining
communication with the community
during lulls in activity can be important.
As a rule of thumb, it often makes sense
to conduct at least one community
involvement activity each year during the design phase of the remedy. These activities should emphasize
that EPA is making progress with the design and, whenever possible, advise the community when
construction might begin. A website, social media site, fact sheets, flyers, informal meetings, or briefings
work well to inform the community about the progress of the design. Scheduling events, hosting exhibits,
or offering site tours to celebrate important project milestones during the RA also can help nurture a good
relationship with the community and give them a sense that the cleanup is progressing.

Make good use of Agency meeting tools, such as Adobe Connect, to interact with community groups, or
schedule a couple of teleconference updates or Q&A sessions for interested members of the community.

10.  Operation and Maintenance/Five-Year Review
During the Operation  and Maintenance (O&M) phase and Five-Year Review, actions often are taken to
ensure that the remedy performs as intended. Depending on the remedial action, O&M may include
maintaining engineering containment structures (e.g., landfill covers) and operating groundwater
remediation systems. O&M also may involve planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing
institutional controls in order to ensure the long-term effectiveness of ICs and maintain the integrity of the
cleanup. Section 8.6 of Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and
Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites (OSWER 9355.0-89, EPA-540-R-09-001,
December 2012) notes that community involvement can be an important part of this process. Local
community members, community associations, and interested organizations can be valuable resources for
day-to-day monitoring of ICs and site conditions. Because community members who live  or work near
the site often have a vested interest in ensuring compliance with the ICs, they generally recognize changes
at the site. Community monitoring can be fostered through public outreach  activities to inform nearby
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                           Chapter 3
                                                       57
community members about the existence and purpose of the ICs and the types of activities that could
adversely affect the integrity of the response action. For these reasons, information about ICs should be
included in informational materials and community involvement activities, including site websites, public
meetings and notices, and mailings to nearby homeowner associations and property owners. These
materials should contain contact information for reporting an incident.

Remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances,  pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted  exposure are reviewed every five years. The
purpose of a five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.12 When the five-year review
is completed, a five-year review report is issued. The five-year review report presents findings,
conclusions and follow-up actions to address issues, and protectiveness statements. It also contains data
and information necessary to support all findings and conclusions.
      Figure 3-6: Recommendations for Planning Community Involvement during RD/RA
    Proximity—Lead Entity—EJ/Tribal—Community Concern—Potential Disruption
               Low
    Conduct These Minimum
            Activities
    For RD/RA
    •  Prepare a fact sheet on RD.*
    •  Provide public briefing, if
      appropriate.*
    •  Post on website or social
      media site.
    For Consent Decree with PRP
    for Remedial Action
    •  Publish Federal Register
      notice.*
    •  Hold public comment
      period.*
       Moderate
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
 Prepare a communication
 strategy.
 Conduct informal activities.
 Host an availability
 session/open house.
 Make presentations to
 community groups in person
 or via conference call, Adobe
 Connect, or other Agency
 meeting or webinar tools.
 Issue annual (or more
 frequent) fact sheets.
 Issue press releases/flyers.
 Set up a telephone hotline.
 Use social media to provide
 real-time information on site
 activities.
          High
  Also Consider Adding
 Some of These Activities
•  Visit individual
   homes/businesses.
•  Offer site tours or other on-
   site activities.
•  Plan a SuperJTI project.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCR (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix provides suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
58
         Chapter 3
Planning for Community Involvement during O&M/Five-Year Review

Community involvement activities during the O&M phase generally are concentrated around five-year
reviews. Among other things, the five-year review normally consists of examining site data, visiting the
site, sometimes taking new samples, and talking with affected community members about the site if
necessary. During the review process, members of the community may be interested in some or all of the
following information:

•  What the five-year review entails.

•  How community members or groups can contribute information about site activities, including the
   monitoring of institutional controls.

•  Where to find written documentation about the review.

•  What the protectiveness statements mean.

•  What happens after the review is complete, especially if the remedy is found to be not protective.
                                                            Informing the Community
                                                           about the Five-Year Review
                                                      One Region issues press releases to
                                                      announce five-year reviews for several
                                                      sites at the same time. These press releases
                                                      have been well-received.
The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance outlines
EPA's recommended approach and clarifies policy
related to five-year reviews, including community
involvement. It recommends notifying the community
that the five-year review will be conducted and when it
has been completed,  and making the results of the review
available to the public in the information repository.
These community notification activities  should be
sufficient for most sites. The guidance recommends
adopting a community involvement strategy that is tailored to the specific needs of each affected
community.

The CIC usually is a member of the site  team for the five-year review. The CIC works closely with the
site manager from the early stages of the planning process for the five-year review to ensure that the most
appropriate methods  are used to notify or involve the community in the process. Effective community
involvement during this time sometimes calls for managing community expectations. This can be
achieved by clearly communicating the purpose of the five-year review, which is to evaluate whether the
current remedy is making progress toward meeting cleanup goals, not to reopen debate about the remedy
decision.

Minimum Activities for O&M/Five-Year Review

No community involvement activities during O&M or the five-year review are mandated in CERCLA or
addressed in the NCP. For information on recommended community involvement activities during the
five-year review process, see the box above and Appendix A of the Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance, which recommends that, at a minimum, the site team should do the following:

•  Inform the community and other potentially interested parties that a five-year review will be
   conducted, using the most appropriate communication method or activity for the specific community.

•  Inform the community and other potentially interested parties that a five-year review was conducted
   at the site.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 3
59
•   Prepare a brief summary of the results, inform the community that the five-year review report is
    complete and available for review, post the report on a site webpage, and make the report and the
    summary available to the public in the information repository.
Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate during
O&M/Five-Year Review
Planning for community involvement for O&M/five-year review should begin early. As a first step, the
site team should consult the site's CIP to obtain information about the community and how interested and
                      Informing the Community about Five-Year Reviews
  When informing the community that a five-year review will be conducted, consider including:
  •   The site name, location, and website address (if available).
  •   The lead agency conducting the review.
  •   A brief description of the selected remedy, including ICs.
  •   A summary of contamination addressed by the selected remedy.
  •   How the community can contribute during the review process, including information about monitoring
      ICs and contacts for reporting breaches.
  •   A contact name and telephone number for further information.
  •   The scheduled completion date of the five-year review.

  When informing the community that a five-year review has been completed, consider including:
  •   The site name, location, and website address (if available).
  •   The lead agency conducting the review.
  •   A brief description of the selected remedy, including ICs.
  •   A summary of contamination addressed by the selected remedy as provided in the initial notice.
  •   A brief summary of the results of the five-year review.
  •   The protectiveness statement(s).
  •   A brief summary of data and information that provided the basis for determining protectiveness, and
      issues, recommendations, and follow-up actions directly related to the protectiveness of the remedy.
  •   Locations where a copy of the five-year review can be obtained or viewed (including site repositories).
  •   A contact name and telephone number for more information or to ask about the results.
  •   The date of the next five-year review or a statement and supporting rationale indicating that five-year
      reviews no longer will be required.
involved it was in the selection and implementation of the remedy. The CIP provides a good overview of
the previous community involvement approach and can be an invaluable resource when planning for
community involvement for the five-year review. If appropriate, the site team may choose to interview
several community members during the five-year review process to get their views about current site
conditions, problems, or related concerns. The site team also may choose to talk with people who
implement the ICs to see if the ICs are working as intended. If there is or was a CAG or a group that
received a TAG or other technical assistance services on behalf of the community, the site team may wish
to interview representatives of these groups at appropriate points in the five-year review process.
When assessing the need for community involvement activities during the O&M/five-year review stage,
the site team should consider the following factors:
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
60
Chapter 3
•   Level and complexity ofO&M or other activities at
    the site. Are significant remediation activities
    continuing at the site? Are other OUs still under
    construction? If so, does the community have issues or
    concerns with the other OUs? Was the remedy
    controversial in the past? If five-year reviews were
    conducted previously, was the remedy found to be
    protective and functioning as intended by decision
    documents? Were ICs a part of the remedy? Is the
    community aware of ICs? What is required to monitor
    compliance with ICs? Have there been any inquiries
    about ICs or concern about compliance with 1C restrictions
                                                    The CIP: A Living Document
                                                Community attitudes and perceptions may
                                                change significantly over a long period of
                                                time. The CIP may no longer be an
                                                accurate reflection of current community
                                                attitudes. In addition, community
                                                demographics can change significantly
                                                over an extended period of time.
                                                (e.g., land or resource use)?
•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
    other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?

•   New information or changes in last five years. Have there been developments or new information
    during the past five years that could cause the community to question current operations? Are the
    exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives still valid? Did the
    five-year review find the remedy to be "not protective"? (This may be particularly important for reuse
    considerations.)

•   Community concern or media interest. Have community members raised concerns about the
    effectiveness of the remedy or about potential health and safety issues? Historically, has the site had a
    significant level of community concern? Was there community  opposition to the ROD, RD/RA, or
    how the cleanup was implemented? Have community members contacted EPA about the site remedy,
    its operation, or site conditions? Does or did the site receive technical assistance  services or have a
    CAG or a TAG recipient group? Are other organized community groups interested in site issues and
    the operation of the remedy? Have reporters contacted the site team or EPA representatives to ask
    questions about the five-year review or the protectiveness of the remedy?
For most five-year reviews, planning and conducting the activities recommended in the Comprehensive
Five-Year Review Guidance (i.e., informing the community and interested parties about the beginning and
completion of the five-year review and making the results available to the public in the information
repository)  should be sufficient. If the site has ICs, information about the ICs and contact information for
reporting breaches should be included in these communications.

The guidance also recommends that Regions document in a memo to the site file any community
notification activities. While this information does not necessarily need to be documented in the actual
five-year review report, the Agency recommends that documentation be kept in the Region's site files for
site inspection (site inspection checklist or trip report), interviews (details or summary notes), and public
notifications (copy  of outreach documents and announcements). (See memorandum on "Five-Year
Review Program Priorities" to Superfund National Policy Managers. Regions 1-10. May  3, 2007,
OSWER# 9200.2-60.)

There are many effective methods for notifying the community about five-year reviews. Examples
include: posting information and reports on the site's webpage or social media site; disseminating reports;
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapters     61
preparing and distributing postcards, fact sheets, and flyers via mail, email, social media, or at events;
issuing press releases; and placing advertisements in local newspapers, community newspapers, or
newsletters. Additional community involvement activities might include notifying local public officials,
such as the primary local health agency, and the leadership of neighborhood and civic groups.

Enhanced community involvement may be appropriate in some situations, such as when the remedy is
found to be not protective. Additional community involvement may be warranted when the five-year
review is for one OU at a site with several OUs and the community is very interested and involved. In
such cases, it is a good idea to develop a communication strategy before informing the public about the
five-year review. Possible additional activities include hosting open houses or availability sessions when
the community has expressed concern about the five-year review or the results of the review. Holding a
public meeting or providing an opportunity for submitting written comments can help address issues
when the community has significant concerns about the site and five-year review. These activities may be
conducted before or at the outset of the  five-year review and in conjunction with the site inspection,
depending on the situation at the site and the community's needs.

                  Useful Community Involvement Video for Five-Year Reviews

The Federal Workgroup on Five-Year Reviews developed a video to help site managers communicate with
community members about the purpose and process of five-year reviews. While this video was developed
specifically for use at federal facilities, it  may be useful for non-federal facility sites where a five-year review
is being conducted. Other useful tools also are available.


11.  NPL Site Deletion

The NCP states that a site may be deleted from or recategorized on the NPL when no response or no
further response is appropriate. To delete a site from the NPL, EPA must determine, in consultation with
the state or tribe, that one of the following criteria has been met:

•   Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.

•   All appropriate Fund-financed responses under  CERCLA have been implemented, and no further
    response action by responsible parties is necessary.

•   The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or
    the environment; therefore, no remedial measures are required.
At most sites, the NPL deletion process begins after EPA  determines that the site-completion milestone
has been achieved and documented. Site deletion requirements ensure that:

•   The documentation of activities and decision-making at the site is complete.

•   The activities conducted and documented are verified.

•   The public is notified and provided an opportunity to  submit comments before the  site is formally
    deleted from the NPL.
Sites also may be deleted from the NPL through deferral to the RCRA Corrective Action program or to
other entities, including the Underground Storage Tanks program or state or tribal cleanup programs. For
more information about the site deletion process, see Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List
Sites (May 2011\

Site deletion was separated from the five-year review process in December 1991. This  means that a site
can be deleted from the NPL before the first five-year review is completed. Consult the Comprehensive
Five-Year Review Guidance for more detailed information.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
62
Chapter 3
                        Figure 3-7: Recommendations for Conducting
                Community Involvement for the O&M/Five-Year Review Phase
      Complexity—New Information—EJ/Tribal—Community Interest/Concern
               Low
    Conduct These Minimum
            Activities


    •   Inform public of the start of
       the five-year review and also
       of its completion using
       appropriate methods.*
    •   Prepare brief summary of
       results of the five-year
       review.*
    •   Make the five-year review
       report and summary
       available to the public in the
       information repository.*
    •   Review the CIP.
    •   As appropriate, issue a press
       release or send postcard
       notices to the community.
    •   Post information on a
       website or social media site.
                                  Moderate
                             Also Consider Adding
                           Some of These Activities
                            Prepare communication
                            strategy, if appropriate.
                            Conduct community
                            interviews and revise the CIP,
                            if appropriate.
                            Make presentations to
                            community groups in person
                            or via conference call, Adobe
                            Connect, or other Agency
                            meeting or webinar tools.
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Hold a public meeting or
  sponsor conference-call
  meetings or calls using
  Adobe Connect or other
  Agency meeting software
  tools.
  Have a public availability
  session or open house.
  Hold a public comment
  period.
  * Recommended by EPA's Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. Note that CERCLA and the NCP do not
   address any activities during the O&M or five-year review process.
  Note: This matrix lists a few suggested activities. It is not a comprehensive listing of all community
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
EPA also may delete portions of NPL sites, provided that deletion criteria are met. EPA's Partial Deletion
Rule (November 1995) allows the Agency to delete portions of a site—a defined geographical area, OU,
or a specific medium (e.g., surface water) at the site—that may have been cleaned up and made available
for productive reuse.

Planning for Community Involvement during the NPL Deletion Process
Procedures for NPL site deletion are similar to rulemaking for NPL site additions, which means that the
Agency must propose deleting a site through a formal rulemaking notice in the Federal Register. This
initial notice announces the "intent to delete" and solicits public comments. The process is completed
when the Agency announces the final deletion through a notice placed in the Federal Register and a local
newspaper, and the deletion information is made available to the public in the information repository. The
site team should ensure that local information repositories contain copies of all supporting information
before notifying the public about EPA's intent to propose a site deletion.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                 Chapter 3
                                                                                          63
                                       The Deletion Docket
                               At a minimum, these documents are
                               included in the Deletion Docket:
                                       For a Full Site Deletion:
                               •   Final Closeout Report.
                               •   State Concurrence Letter.
                               •   Administrative Record Index.
                               •   Federal Register deletion notices,
                                   responsiveness summary, and public
                                   comments.
                                       For a Partial Deletion:
                               •  No Action ROD or RA Report for the
                                  parcels proposed for deletion.
                               •  A map clearly delineating the
                                  boundaries of the parcels proposed for
                                  deletion.
                               •  Bibliography of the administrative
                                  record citing the documents pertinent to
                                  the parcels.
                               •  Federal Register deletion notices,
                                  responsiveness summary, and public
                                  comments.
As part of this process, Regional staff prepares a deletion
docket that contains the documentation supporting the
deletion, along with copies of the Federal Register
deletion notices, responsiveness summary, and public
comments, as appropriate. All information contained in
the docket also should be made available to the public in
the information repository.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities during
the NPL Site Deletion  Process

The following community involvement activities are
required during the NPL site deletion process:

•   Publish a public notice in the Federal Register to
    announce the intent to delete and a public comment
    period. Also, publish a public notice in a major local
    newspaper or use one or more other mechanisms to
    give a community adequate notice of the intent to
    delete.

•   Solicit public comments through a public comment
    period for a minimum of 30 days.

•   Respond to each significant comment and any
    significant new data submitted during the comment
    period, and include  these responses in a
    responsiveness summary in the final deletion docket.

•   Publish a final deletion announcement in the Federal Register.

•   Once the notice of the final deletion has been published in the Federal Register, ensure the deletion
    docket is made available to the public in the  information repository. The deletion docket also is made
    available at the EPA Regional office public docket and online on the federal government's Federal
    Docket Management System website, which provides online access to the dockets of all federal
    rulemaking.

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate during
the NPL Site Deletion  Process

Deleting a site from the NPL is the culmination of the Superfund remedial process. The site deletion
milestone is  significant, so it is a good idea to share the news with all Superfund stakeholders, particularly
the affected community. In addition to announcing the proposed deletion through the Federal Register
and publishing a public notice in a local newspaper or using one or more other mechanisms, the site team
also might consider additional methods to reach a broader audience. The outreach effort should reflect the
level of community interest and involvement, particularly at this stage of the process.

Depending on community sentiment about the Superfund site and the completion of cleanup activities, the
site team may want to plan a ceremony or special event to commemorate completion and recognize
community members  who have helped. In many cases, the cleanup process may have taken longer than
anyone expected  or wanted, and a special event signals success or finality for all involved. In some cases,
a special event also can be used to formally "return land" to the community.  Several Regions have
undertaken activities intended to bring closure to the site for the community as well as for the site team.
Grand openings, dedications, and naming ceremonies all are appropriate.
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
64
Chapter 3
For example, when the Quincy Smelter portion of the Torch Lake Superfund site in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula was deleted from the NPL, Region 5's Administrator joined the Superintendent of the
Keweenaw National Historical Park to announce the milestone. The announcement occurred at an event
in Houghton, Michigan, directly across the Keweenaw Waterway. Quincy Smelter has historic
significance as the last standing copper smelter of its kind. The announcement recognized the partial
deletion as a notable milestone for the long-term preservation and historical interpretation of the smelter.
The Region 5 Administrator said, "EPA will continue working to remediate the remainder of the Torch
Lake Superfund site, so that it can be removed from the National Priorities List."
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                         Chapter 3
65
Summary of Community Involvement Provisions
Related to the Superfund Remedial Process
(See Appendix A for a complete discussion of CERCLA Requirements and NCR Provisions)
NPL Listing
D Federal Register Notice'. Publish the proposed rule on NPL listing.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period on proposed rule for NPL
listing for at least 30 days.
D Federal Register Notice: Publish the final rule on NPL listing.
D Response to Comments: Prepare responsiveness summary and make available to the
public.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(d)(5)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(d)(5)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(d)(5)(ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(d)(5)(ii)
Prior to Field Work for and at Commencement of Remedial Investigation
D Community Interviews'. Conduct interviews to solicit concerns/information needs and
learn how people want to be involved.
D Community Involvement Plan (CIP): Prepare CIP based on community interviews
and other information.
D Information Repository: Establish at least one information repository at or near the
site and inform the public.
D Technical Assistance Grant (TAG): Inform public of TAG and make the TAG
application information available to the public in the information repository.
D Administrative Record: Establish an administrative record file upon commencement
of the remedial investigation.
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in local newspaper to announce
establishment/availability of the administrative record file.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(c)(2)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(c)(2)(ii)(A-C)
CERCLA 1 17(d); NCP 40
C.F.R. §300.430(c)(2)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(c)(2)(iii) and (iv)
CERCLA 113(k)(l); NCP 40
C.F.R. §300.815 (a-c)
§300.430(f)(3)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.815(a)
Proposed Plan
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in local newspaper that (1) announces the
availability of the PJ/FS and Proposed Plan; (2) includes a brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan; and (3) announces a public comment period.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period on the Proposed Plan and
RI/FS for at least 30 days and extend by 30 days upon timely request.
D Public Meeting: Provide an opportunity for a public meeting regarding the Proposed
Plan.
D Meeting Transcript: Prepare a transcript of the public meeting and make it available
to the public.
D Response Summary: Prepare a written response to comments and include it in the
ROD.
CERCLA 1 17(a)(l) and (d);
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)
CERCLA 11 7(a)(2); NCP 40
C.F.R. §300.430(f)(3)(i)(C)
CERCLA 113(k)(2)(B)(iii)
and 117(a)(2); NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)
CERCLA 117(a)(2);
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)
CERCLA 113(k)(2)(B)(iv);
and 117(b);NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)
Pre-Record of Decision (ROD) Significant Changes (if necessary)
D ROD Significant Changes: Include in ROD a discussion of significant changes that
could have been reasonably anticipated by the public.
D Revised Proposed Plan: Issue revised Proposed Plan when changes could not have
been reasonably anticipated by the public.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period on the revised Proposed
Plan.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(ii)(A)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)
After the ROD Is Signed
D ROD Availability: Make ROD available for public inspection and copying at or near
the site.
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in a local newspaper that announces the
availability of the ROD.
NCP 40 C.F.R
§300.430(f)(6)(i) and (ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R
§300.430(f)(6)(i) and (ii)
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
66
Chapter 3
D CIP Review/Revision: Review the CIP and consider a comprehensive revision, if
necessary, to take a fresh look at EPA's community involvement approach during
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA).
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(l)
Post ROD: Explanation of Significant Differences (if necessary)
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in local newspaper that summarizes the
explanation of significant differences (BSD).
D Administrative Record/Information Repository. Make the BSD available to the public
in the administrative record file and information repository.
Post ROD: Amendment to the ROD (if necessary)
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in local newspaper that announces availability
of the amended ROD and provides a brief description of the ROD amendment.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period of at least 30 days on the
proposed amended ROD and extend the period by 30 days upon timely request.
D Public Meeting: Provide an opportunity for a public meeting regarding the amended
ROD.
D Meeting Transcript: Keep a transcript of comments made during the public meeting.
D Responsiveness Summary: Prepare a response to comments and include the response
summary in the amended ROD.
D Public Notice: Publish a public notice in local newspaper to announce the availability
of the final amended ROD.
D Administrative Record/Information Repository: Make the amended ROD available to
the public in the administrative record file and information repository.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B)
§300.825(a)(2)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B)
§300.825(a)(2)

NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2) (ii)(A)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(B)-(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(B)-(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(B)-(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(B)-(F)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G) and (H)
§300.825(b)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G) and (H)
§300.825(b)
Consent Decrees for Remedial Action
D Federal Register Notice: Publish a notice in the Federal Register for a consent decree
with a PRP covering Remedial Action.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period of 30 days on a proposed
consent decree with a PRP covering Remedial Action.
28 C.F.R. 50.7
CERCLA 122(d)(2)
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
D Fact Sheet: Issue a fact sheet prior to beginning remedial action.
D Public Briefing: Provide a public briefing, as appropriate, prior to remedial action.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(3)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(3)
NPL Deletion
D Federal Register Notice: Publish a notice of intent to delete in the Federal Register.
D Publish a notice of availability of the final deletion docket in the Federal Register.
D Inform the Community of the Intent to Delete: Publish a public notice in newspaper to
announce the Federal Register notice of intent to delete or use one or more other
mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community of the intent to delete.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period of 30 days on proposed rule
of intent to delete.
D Information Repository: Make the site deletion documentation and the final deletion
(or docket) available to the public in the information repository. The final deletion
docket must be made available in the information repository once the notice of final
deletion has been published in the Federal Register.
D Response Summary: Prepare a response to comments and include the response
summary in the deletion docket.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4) (i) and (ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(5)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4) (i) and (ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4) (i) and (ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4)(iii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4)(iv)
                    Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                Chapter 3      67

Chapter 3 Endnotes
1 U.S. EPA. Preliminary Assessment Petition, October 2002, 9200.5-330FS (Fact Sheet).
http://semspub.epa. gov/src/document/HQ/176083
2 See CERCLA §117(e) and 40 CFR 35.4110(a).
3 See National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii)).
4 U.S. EPA. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional
Controls at Contaminated Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: December 2012, EPA-540-R-09-
001, OSWER 9355.0-89.
5 Ibid. See Section 8.6.
6 See (a) U.S. EPA. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(Interim Final). October 1988. EPA 540-G-89-004, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, p. 6-14; and (b) U.S. EPA;^4
Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision
Documents, July 1999. EPA 540-R-98-031, OSWER 9200.1-23P, PB98-963241, p. 1-5 to 1-6 and 3-1 to 3-5.
7 Effective October 1, 2014, the NRRB began piloting a change to the dollar threshold from the current $25 million
threshold for requiring a review of a Superfund response action to a $50 million threshold. See OSWER Directive
9285.6-21.
8 See the 'FAQs' tab at http://www2.epa.gov/superfund/national-remedv-review-board-nrrb
9 Ibid. 6(b), pp. 7-1 to 7-5.
10 Ibid. (6(b), p. 7-5.
1: Sometimes when an RA is of longer duration, a five-year review may be conducted during this phase of the
Superfund process. See information about five-year reviews in Section 10 of this chapter. Also see Section 1.3.1 of
EPA's Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001),
which states:
"... In accordance with CERCLA § 121 and the NCP, a statutory review is triggered by the initiation of the first
remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In cases where there are multiple remedial actions, the earliest remedial
action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site should trigger the initial review, even if
it is an interim remedial action. For the purpose of a five-year review, a remedial action typically is initiated on the
date of 'actual RA on-site construction' or the 'actual RA start' date for Federal facilities. The date of actual RA on-
site construction generally corresponds to the date the contractor begins work at a site for the remedial action,
typically the date of on-site mobilization. The definition of the 'actual RA start' varies as outlined in the
Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual (SPIM). For remedies where on-site mobilization may not occur, as
a matter of policy, the date of the first monitoring event following ROD signature or the ROD signature itself should
be used to trigger the five-year review period."
12 Ibid. Five-year reviews also may be conducted during the RA.
                          Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
68
Chapter 3
                    Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 4     69



                                                                     CHAPTER  4

                       COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  DURING

	THE  REMOVAL PROCESS


Introduction

Removals are responses to releases that threaten the public health or welfare or the environment of the
United States. The type and frequency of community involvement activities for removals will vary with
the urgency and type of removal action. The community involvement approach for a removal action
should be flexible and responsive to changing site conditions and to the needs of the surrounding
community.

This chapter begins with an overview of community involvement activities during Superfund removal
actions. This is followed by a discussion of planning and implementing an appropriate community
involvement approach for each type of removal action. For each type of removal action, a recommended
approach to planning is presented that (1) accounts for community involvement activities required by
CERCLA or addressed in the NCP, and (2) discusses a way to assess the situation to determine whether
additional activities should be conducted to encourage community participation. The community
involvement challenges and opportunities for each type of removal action also are discussed.

Overview: Community Involvement for Superfund Removal Actions

CERCLA Section 104 authorizes a removal action when: (1) there is release or substantial threat of
release of a hazardous substance into the environment or (2) there is a release or substantial threat of
release of a pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare.

In general, removals are initiated when the lead response agency determines that a removal is the
appropriate response action and an "Action Memorandum" (action memo) is signed. (Sometimes the
action memo is signed after the fact.) This determination is based upon a removal site evaluation, which is
an assessment of a release or threatened release and the potential threat to human health and the
environment. In addition to determining that a removal action is appropriate, the action memo designates
the type of removal action to be conducted based on the time before the physical, on-site removal
activities must start. There are three types of removal actions:

1)  Emergency removals require an immediate response to releases or threatened  releases to the
    environment. Emergency removals are initiated within hours or days of the determination that a
    removal action is appropriate. Typical emergency removals address immediate threats, such as fires,
    explosions, toxic spills, or imminent contamination of a water supply. Because an emergency removal
    can begin within hours or days of the determination that a removal is appropriate, there is little or no
    time for planning and relatively few procedural and community involvement requirements. Instead,
    the focus is on communications: quickly disseminating information to warn of the potential threats,
    advising community members about how to protect themselves, and explaining the protective
    measures EPA is taking.

2)  Time-critical removals are situations for which EPA determines that a removal is appropriate and on-
    site removal activities must begin within six months. Examples include removal of drums or small
    volumes of contaminated soil and stabilization of lagoons. The NCP addresses two different sets of
    community involvement activities, depending on the expected duration of the time-critical removal
    action: (1) short-term responses for which on-site activities will be completed within 120 days of the
    initiation of on-site actions, and (2) longer-term response actions that require more than 120 days for
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
70
Chapter 4
    on-site activities. For a time-critical response, the action memo is the only required written document
    describing the cleanup options for the release. There are specific community involvement activities
    required for time-critical removals that are expected to be completed within 120 days, and additional
    requirements when the time-critical removal will require on-site activities that last longer than 120
    days.
3)  Non-time-critical removals are undertaken when EPA determines that a removal action is appropriate
    and the situation allows  for a planning period of at least six months before on-site activities must
    begin. Because non-time-critical sites do not present an immediate threat to public health or safety,
    more time is available to thoroughly assess potential threats and evaluate cleanup alternatives. The
    decision documents for non-time-critical removal actions are more prescriptive than the other types of
    removal actions and are  tied to specific milestones. EPA must prepare an engineering evaluation and
    cost analysis (EE/CA), analyzing alternatives for the site. The  EE/CA is available to the public for
    review and comment. The longer planning period for a non-time-critical removal comes with
    significantly more  community involvement.
The NCP addresses certain community involvement activities for each type of removal action, at specific
points in the removal process (see Table 4-1). However, as is true for all Superfund community
involvement efforts, these activities should be a foundation  upon which to plan and conduct a robust and
effective community involvement strategy. The community involvement activities addressed in the NCP
often will be sufficient to meet the needs of the affected community; however, OSCs and site teams
should continually assess the situation to determine an appropriate mix of activities to fully engage the
community. For example, it  often is a good idea to talk with Regional environmental justice or tribal
coordinators and to use EJSCREEN or other GIS tools to learn more about potentially affected
communities, including downstream communities that otherwise might not be easily identified.

Assessing community involvement needs usually encompasses many factors, such as the nature and
extent of the threat and the need for immediate action; location of the incident or site; the expected
duration of the removal action; the degree of community and media interest; the potential impact of
cleanup activities on the community;  and other factors. The site team should be  flexible and willing to
adjust the community involvement approach throughout the removal action. Early and continued
community involvement—particularly for longer time-critical and non-time-critical removals—generally
will help promote community acceptance of the cleanup solution and may prevent or substantially reduce
conflict with the community or other  stakeholders throughout the removal process.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                    Chapter 4
71
Table 4-1 : NCR Community Involvement Activities for Removal Actions

Designate Agency spokesperson
to notify public and respond to
questions.
Establish an administrative
record.
Notify the public about the
availability of the administrative
record.
Hold a public comment period, if
appropriate (required for EE/CA).
Respond to public comments by
preparing a responsiveness
summary and put in
administrative record file.
Establish an information
repository and inform the public
of its availability.
Conduct community interviews.
Prepare a Cl Plan.
Notify the public about the
availability of, and provide a
brief description of the EE/CA.
Emergency
Removal
•
•
•
As appropriate
As appropriate
N/A
N/A
As
appropriate,
when longer
than 120 days
N/A
Time-Critical Removal
(Planning Period of Less than 6
Months)
Short-Term
On-site Activity
Lasts Less than
120 days
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Long-Term
On-site Activity
Lasts More than
120 days
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
N/A
Non-Time-Critical
Removal
Planning Period of
More than 6
Months
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community Involvement and Outreach during Emergency Removals

For EPA and the OSC, the initial focus of an emergency removal is to address the situation and eliminate
the immediate or potential threat. During an emergency, it is equally important for EPA to provide
prompt, accurate information to the public on the nature of the release or threat of the release and the
actions necessary to mitigate the threat. EPA also should inform the public of important events and
developments, and should be available to answer questions from the affected community.

Emergency removals may involve:

•  Evacuating, sheltering in place, or temporarily relocating people to protect them from direct harm.

•  Stabilizing or detonating flammable or explosive hazardous materials.

•  Providing site security by posting signs, erecting fences, or posting guards.
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
72
Chapter 4
•   Providing an alternate water supply, such as bottled water.

•   Treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous substances, such as controlling drainage, stabilizing
    berms, draining lagoons, capping soils or sludge, excavating and removing contaminated soil,
    removing drums and other containers, or using chemical stabilizers.
The OSC is authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the surrounding community. This
includes informing the media and the community of the emergency and response plans. The NCP requires
EPA to designate a spokesperson to inform the community and respond to questions during an emergency
removal. The OSC usually serves in this capacity but may delegate that responsibility. In addition,  OSCs
should be familiar with consultation requirements, acts, executive orders, and policies that require them to
work with tribal representatives as much as possible during area planning and Regional response team
meetings. (See the Consultation and Coordination with Tribes page and Appendix B of this handbook for
references and links to relevant documents related to tribal consultation.)

Community involvement during  an emergency removal often presents many challenges due to the
urgency of the situation and fast-paced nature of the response, the often limited availability of resources,
and the potential involvement of multiple agencies and organizations. Successful community involvement
depends on quickly and accurately assessing  community needs and concerns and tailoring community
involvement efforts to address those needs. Developing a communication strategy to identify key
messages and appropriate communication methods often is a good idea.

Whenever people may be in immediate danger and the objective is to get information out quickly to a
wide audience, all available communication avenues should be used. This includes disseminating
information through the news media, door-to-door notifications, social media, text messaging, and  any
other existing emergency notification procedures used by local authorities. (See the Community
Involvement Toolkit for additional information on a variety of communication tools.)

When quick and widespread information dissemination is not required, other methods may be more
effective. Some critical information may be communicated effectively through more personal methods,
such as telephone calls, door-to-door visits, and public meetings. Generally, the more personal the
information about individual sample results and health issues generally should be disseminated directly to
the affected individuals.
                   Effective Communication during an Emergency Removal

     Assess the community's information needs.
     Develop a risk communication approach that meets the needs of the community. Emergency removals
     require knowledge of risk communication techniques and a willingness to work with the media and
     with community members who may be frightened.
     Develop a communication strategy and implement the approach and activities accordingly.
     In addition to traditional media and outreach mechanisms, make good use of local government
     emergency notification mechanisms to disseminate critical information quickly. These may include
     distribution of recorded telephone messages to all local community members, text-message alert
     systems, and announcements on local radio stations and public access channels, local websites, or
     Facebook pages.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 4
                                   73
Planning for Community Involvement during an Emergency Removal
Staff likely to be involved in emergency removals should have communication tools and materials
prepared in advance that can be quickly deployed in an emergency removal. Activities that OSCs, CICs
and other members of EPA's site team can undertake before and during an emergency removal to plan
effectively for outreach and communication include:

•   Participating in training and desktop exercises to improve communication and outreach.
•   Defining roles and responsibilities of all response
    personnel who will conduct communication and
    outreach activities during an emergency removal.
    Understanding the roles of each individual in advance
    is likely to improve teamwork and coordination
    during the incident.

•   Developing a response communications toolkit for
    emergency removals. The toolkit might include
    electronic templates of press releases and fact sheets
    that explain EPA's role in responding to the situation;
    checklists of activities to perform at the incident; tips
    for dealing with the media; and lists of contacts in the
    media and other response organizations. Also
    consider including a list of equipment and materials
    needed for a field office, such as a laptop computer,
    portable printer, paper, notepads, pens, tape,  stapler,
    folders, telephone equipment, and other basic office
    equipment and materials.

•   Developing templates for communication strategies
    to help identify key audiences and messages  as well
    as communication approaches and methods.

•   Developing templates for fact sheets that address
    various types of incidents (pipeline spill, train
    derailment, chemical spill, etc.) that can be modified
    to address site-specific and community needs.

•   Establishing a network of contacts in the response
    community at the local, state or tribal, and federal
    level. In medium and large emergency removal
    situations, all three levels of government may be
    involved in the  response.

Minimum Activities for Emergency Removals
At a minimum, the NCP indicates that the site team (which sometimes consists only of an OSC and
response contractors) perform two community involvement-related activities for an emergency removal:

•   Designate an Agency spokesperson to inform the community of actions taken, respond to inquiries,
    and provide information concerning the release of hazardous substances. The spokesperson notifies
    community members immediately affected by the release, as well as tribal and local officials and civil
    defense or emergency management agencies, as appropriate.
      Incident Command and
   Coordinating Communications
 Through a Joint Information Center

When an emergency response involves
numerous agencies, the OSC may consider
establishing a Joint Information Center
(JIC) to handle communications and
outreach.
A JIC is a centralized hub designed to
coordinate communications to the public
and media in a timely, useful, and accurate
manner. Response agencies work together
and speak with a single voice. By
maintaining a centralized communication
facility, resources are better managed,
duplication of effort is minimized, and
records are centrally maintained.
The JIC gathers incident data, analyzes
public perceptions of the response, and
informs the public. Representatives from
response agencies are assigned specific
functions and tasks to manage information
flow and outreach during an incident. The
JIC structure can expand or contract in size
to meet the specific needs of an incident.
Additional information on establishing a
JIC is available in a National Response
Team document, National Response Team
(NRT) Joint Information Center Model:
Collaborative Communications During
Emergency Response.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
74
Chapter 4
    Establish an administrative record containing documents that form the basis for selecting the
    response action remedy. For emergency removals lasting less than 30 days, placement of the
    administrative record file in one central location fulfills NCP requirements.
               Community Engagement at Green Lake, Seattle, Emergency Removal

   EPA Region 10 cleaned up thousands of toxic chemicals in improperly stored containers from a
   densely populated Seattle neighborhood in the spring of 2014. It was stressful for the community to
   find half a dozen big trucks and a field categorization work tent blocking off the sidewalk as people
   in hazmat suits suddenly appeared in the neighborhood.

   The community expressed appreciation for the emergency response work EPA performed, despite
   the  Agency's significant footprint. Region 10 had a CIC on site for the entire 11-day response and
   distributed four fact sheets in that time, with updates as the work progressed. Each fact sheet was
   formatted to include "What we found," "What we're doing about it," and "What you're seeing."
   Fact sheets also provided contact information.
Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate during
an Emergency Removal

In most cases, an emergency removal is relatively short in duration. The community involvement effort
focuses on communication, primarily disseminating accurate information to the public through the
spokesperson (usually the OSC), as addressed in the NCP.

When an emergency removal continues for several days, weeks or longer, the nature of the
communication and outreach effort may change overtime, and the need to plan an effective
communication approach increases. In addition to disseminating information, it also may be necessary to
solicit information from affected stakeholders with direct knowledge of the incident and the site. At the
onset, the EPA site team should consider the following factors to fully assess the situation and develop an
effective communication approach:

•  Nature of the immediate threat and the need for immediate protective action:  Does the incident
   involve an  immediate threat to human health that requires people to take specific protective actions
   (e.g., shut windows, restrict water use, heed fish advisories, shelter in place, evacuate, temporarily
   relocate, etc.)? Is the threat one that people can readily see, hear, smell, or taste, or does it involve a
   danger that may not be immediately apparent?

•  Community members who may be hard to reach. Does the incident affect a tribe or Indian country?
   Are there populations that subsist on fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among
   those impacted by the incident? Are there members of the community who might not be reached
   through the communication methods or channels that reach most other members of the community?

•  Location of the incident. How large an area or population is potentially  affected? Did the incident
   occur in a rural or urban area? Are nearby community members directly  impacted by the incident or
   potentially exposed to contaminants? Are homes, schools, day care centers, or hospitals nearby?

•  Length of the incident and potential duration of the response. How long is the immediate threat (or
   need for immediate protective action) likely to last? Once the immediate danger has abated, how long
   is the emergency removal or cleanup likely to last? How much time is needed to respond to the
   incident? Will EPA be involved for days, weeks, or months?

•  Community concern and media interest. Is the community fully aware of the incident and potential
   hazards? Have people asked questions, expressed concerns, or raised objections about EPA's
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 4      75
    response actions? Are community members worried about their health or the socio-economic impacts
    of the incident or the response? Is there reason to believe the community may not fully trust EPA's
    judgment or incident-related actions? Are the media interested in the incident and EPA's role? (Be
    sure to work closely with the Regional public affairs office whenever there is media interest in an
    incident.)

•   Potential disruption to the community. Will response activities cause substantial disruption in the
    community (e.g., evacuation, temporary relocation or shelter-in-place, substantial truck traffic, or
    neighborhood disruption)? If drinking water is being provided, how long is the need expected to
    continue? Are there plans to issue fishing or recreational use advisories? Will response work affect
    schools, playgrounds, parks, or other nearby public spaces? How many community members will be
    affected by removal action work at the site?
After considering these factors, the site team may wish to undertake some of the outreach and
communication activities described in Table 4-2.

Community  Involvement and Outreach during Time-Critical Removal
Actions

A removal is time-critical when EPA has conducted a site evaluation and determined that there is not an
immediate emergency, but on-site  removal activity must begin within six months. The NCP (at 40 CFR
300.415(n)(2) and (3)) establishes  two sets of community involvement requirements for time-critical
removals based upon the expected duration of on-site removal activities. The first situation occurs when
EPA determines that on-site actions can be completed within 120 days of the initiation of on-site removal
activities. For this type of time-critical removal, the NCP prescribes community involvement activities
that are similar to those required during an emergency removal. The second situation applies when EPA
determines that on-site actions are  likely to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site response
activities. When this occurs, the community involvement requirements are more extensive.

Planning for Community Involvement during Time-Critical Removals
For time-critical removals, site teams should initiate outreach as early as possible. If the site transitions
from a time-critical removal to a non-time-critical removal or a remedial action, a well-informed
community is more likely to be supportive of EPA's role as longer-term work continues.

The longer the removal action takes, the more important it can be to communicate with and involve the
community. There are many ways  to do so. The challenge is to plan activities that are well-suited to the
situation and the particular needs of the community, whether this involves conveying information about
the incident, soliciting information about the site,  seeking comments on EPA's planned cleanup approach,
or educating the public about the Superfund removal program and process.

Time-critical removals have longer planning periods than emergency removals, which means there is
more time to plan community involvement activities. Although the NCP specifies a different set of
community involvement activities  based on the expected duration (up to 120 days or beyond 120 days) of
on-site removal activities, the planning approach for community involvement is the same. The first step is
to know the minimum community  involvement activities addressed in the NCP. The next step is to assess
the situation to identify community needs and develop a community involvement approach that meets
those needs. Often the minimum community involvement activities will suffice. In other cases, it may be
appropriate to consider additional or enhanced community involvement activities to fully address
community needs.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
76
Chapter 4
Minimum Community Involvement Activities for Time-Critical Removals

For time-critical removals, EPA has up to six months to plan a removal from the time the Agency decides
that a time-critical response is appropriate (usually with the signing of the action memo). As noted
previously, there are two different sets of community involvement requirements for time-critical removals
based on the expected duration of the response action.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities for Time-Critical Removals When On-site Activities
Are Expected to Last up to 120 Days

If on-site activities can be completed within 120 days of initiation of on-site actions, the NCP addresses
the following community involvement activities:

•  Designate an Agency  spokesperson to inform the community of actions taken, respond to inquiries,
   and provide information concerning the release of hazardous substances. The spokesperson notifies
   community members immediately affected by the  release, as well as state, tribal, and local officials
   and civil defense or emergency management agencies, as appropriate. The role of the Agency
   spokesperson usually is filled by the OSC, but the  OSC may delegate spokesperson responsibilities.

•  Establish an administrative record containing documents that support the selection of the remedy
   for the time-critical removal action. The administrative record must be available at a central location
   at or near the site.

•  Publish a notice of availability of the administrative record in a major local newspaper or use
   one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a  community within 60 days of the
   initiation of on-site removal activity.

•  Hold a public comment period, if appropriate, of no less than 30 days from the time that the
   administrative record file is made available for public inspection. A comment period may be
   appropriate if the time-critical removal activity is ongoing at the time the  administrative record is
   made available for public inspection and if the comments received from the public are expected to
   affect future action at the site.

•  Prepare a responsiveness summary to respond to significant  comments and new data submitted
   during the public comment period. The responsiveness summary  should be placed in the
   administrative record.

Minimum Community Involvement Activities for Time-Critical Removals When Site Activities Are
Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days

For time-critical removals that are expected to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site
actions, the NCP addresses the same community involvement activities that are required for a time-
critical removal of shorter duration, as described above, plus three additional activities. Thus, the
community involvement activities for time-critical removal actions when site  activities are expected to
extend beyond  120 days are:

•  Designate an Agency  spokesperson.

•  Establish an administrative record.

•  Publish a notice of availability of the administrative record or use one or more other
   mechanisms to give adequate notice to the community of the availability of the administrative
   record file.

•  Hold a public comment period.

•  Prepare a responsiveness summary to respond to significant comments.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 4      77


Additional activities to complete within 120 days of the initiation of the time-critical removal action are:

•   Conduct community interviews with local officials, community members, public interest groups, or
    other interested or affected parties to solicit their information needs and concerns and to determine
    how or when community members would like to become involved in the removal process.

•   Prepare a Community Involvement Plan (CIP) based on the community interviews and other
    relevant information. The CIP specifies the community involvement activities that the Agency
    expects to undertake during the response.

•   Establish at least one information repository at or near the location of the response action (local
    information repository) to provide the public with easier access to site-related documents. The
    information repository contains the administrative record and other documents, and these items are
    available for inspection and copying. The public should be informed of the  establishment of the local
    information repository. (See box on page 35 for more information.)

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might  Be Appropriate during
Time-Critical Removals

The NCP addresses additional community involvement activities for time-critical removals when on-site
activities are expected to exceed 120 days. Regardless of the length of the response, the OSC and site
team should carefully plan a site-specific community  involvement approach that is based on fulfilling the
NCP community involvement provisions, assessing site-specific community interests and needs, and
conducting involvement activities that address community needs. The following are some of the factors
that the site team may want to consider when assessing the situation:

•   Length of the time-critical removal action. Will on-site actions exceed 120 days from the initiation
    of on-site activities? (This is the threshold that triggers additional NCP community involvement
    activities.)

•   Location of the time-critical removal site. Is the removal action being conducted in a rural or urban
    area? Do many people live near the site? Are nearby community members directly impacted by the
    site or potentially exposed to contaminants? Are homes, schools, day care centers, senior centers, or
    hospitals nearby?

•   Community concern or interest. Is the community aware of the situation and potential hazards? Have
    people asked questions, expressed concerns, or raised objections about EPA's response actions? Are
    community members worried about their health and/or various socio-economic impacts of the
    response? Is there reason to believe that the community may not fully trust the role of the PRPs or
    EPA's judgment or response-related actions?

•   Media interest. Are the media interested in the removal action and EPA's role? Have reporters
    contacted the site team or EPA representatives to  ask questions? (Be sure to work with the Regional
    public affairs office whenever there is media interest in an incident.)
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
78
Chapter 4
                     Table 4-2: A Sample of Community Involvement Activities
                  Appropriate for Time-Critical and Non-Time-Critical Removals
  By assessing the situation and identifying community needs and concerns, the site team often can determine an
  appropriate mix of community involvement activities for a removal site. Consider using some of the following
  types of activities in addition to the activities required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP for emergency
  removals and other removal actions. (Follow the links below to the CI Toolkit, and consult the toolkit for a
  comprehensive list of other community involvement tools and activities.)
  •   Develop a risk communication approach that meets the needs of the community.
  •   Canvass the neighborhood door to door to identify community members' needs, fears and concerns.
  •   Coordinate with Regional EPA staff to brief them about the response and ask for assistance, if necessary.
     Specifically, contact the Regional public affairs office and congressional liaison, other OSCs and CICs,
     and state contacts.
  •   Develop a communication strategy that defines the key messages for the public.
  •   Disseminate information to the media through appropriate methods, including interviews, press briefings,
     and news releases. If no information is available, tell the media that information will be disseminated as
     soon as accurate information becomes available. For press briefings and interviews, identify a facility
     (e.g., tent, office, trailer), schedule the briefing/interview, and notify the press of the time and location.
  •   Whenever possible, work with local officials to use existing local outreach mechanisms, including a local
     government's official website or Facebook page, or other local communication mechanisms.
  •   Develop and maintain a webpage or Facebook page throughout the duration of the response action. This
     may be more appropriate for a longer-term emergency removal and time-critical and non-time-critical
     responses that occur over a period of weeks or months.
  •   Distribute photographs, maps, or aerial photographs on a webpage or through social media mechanisms.
     These images can be distributed to the media and the public, used to document the response, or placed in
     fact sheets. This will help satisfy the public need for official information about the emergency.
  •   Determine community demographics and, if necessary, translate documents and provide emergency
     information in appropriate languages,  including tribal languages where some community members are
     fluent only in the tribe's native language. Consider using the Office of Civil Rights translation contract
     (http://intranet.epa.gov/civilrights/lepaccess.htmtf ga=1.43837606.2062774527.1425480689) (Internal
     EPA link) or contact the Superfund Community  Involvement Program to utilize the interagencv
     agreement with the U.S. Department of State.
  •   Develop and disseminate fact sheets electronically through a website or as paper copy to  let community
     members know about EPA's removal activities. Use existing fact sheets on the removal program, toxic
     spills, and other topics.
  •   Publicize and host public meetings or  similar events to deliver information to a large group of people, to
     let community members voice their concerns, and to  foster interaction between the EPA site team  and the
     community.
  •   Make good use of Agency meeting software tools such as Adobe Connect and webinar platforms to
     arrange virtual meetings when resource limitations preclude face-to-face meetings. Another idea is to
     publicize and host a conference-call meeting for the public or for specific community groups.
  •   Establish a local or toll-free telephone hotline or Facebook page and publicize its availability. The hotline
     or social media mechanism should be monitored closely at all times to respond immediately to questions,
     provide current updates on incident activities, or permit members of the community to ask questions or
     provide comments.
  •   Be prepared to expand the community involvement and outreach program when local community
     members have to be evacuated or temporarily relocated to protect them from potential harm. (See the
     Residential Relocation tool.)
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 4      79


•   Potential disruption to the community. Is drinking water being provided by state or local
    governments? Have fishing or recreational use advisories been issued? Will removal activities cause
    substantial disruption in the community (e.g., relocation, substantial truck traffic, noise from heavy
    equipment use, dust, or other impacts)? Will site work affect schools, playgrounds, parks, or other
    public spaces? How many community members will be affected by removal action work at the site?

•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation, or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted by the site? Are there
    other hazardous sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?
Use Figure 4-1 as  a tool to help determine  an appropriate mix of community involvement activities for a
time-critical removal site. If the level of community interest/concern and media interest is relatively low,
the site team usually can plan and implement the activities addressed in the NCP, perhaps augmented by
one or more additional activities. When a single issue (such as temporary relocation)  or several factors
combined suggest potential for a high level of community and media interest, the community involvement
effort probably should expand accordingly.

Sometimes technical assistance may be needed to help community members understand the technical
issues related to the  removal action (e.g., sampling strategies, sampling results about hazardous
substances present at the site, or cleanup approaches or technologies). EPA should consider offering
technical assistance using the services available through EPA's Technical Assistance Services for
Communities (TASC) contract, particularly at sites  with strong community interest or potential
environmental justice concerns.

Building a relationship with the community can be particularly important if the site becomes a non-time-
critical removal or a remedial action. A well-informed community familiar with EPA and its programs is
likely to be more trustful of EPA decisions throughout the process.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
80
Chapter 4
                   Figure 4-1: Recommendations for Planning and Conducting
                      Community Involvement during Time-Critical Removals
     Time—Location—EJ/Tribal—Community/Media Interest—Potential Disruption
                 Low
     Conduct These Minimum
              Activities
    On-site Actions (120 Days or less)
    •  Designate a spokesperson.*
    •  Establish an administrative
       record.*
    •  Notify the public about the
       availability of the administrative
       record.*
    •  Hold a public comment period, if
       appropriate.*
    •  Prepare a responsiveness
       summary.*
    •  Prepare media talking points.
    •  Use social media for
       communication.
    On-site Actions (120 Days or more)
    •  Designate a spokesperson.*
    •  Establish an administrative
       record.*
    •  Notify the public about the
       availability of the administrative
       record.*
    •  Hold a public comment period, if
       appropriate.*
    •  Prepare a responsiveness
       summary.*
    •  Conduct community interviews.*
    •  Prepare a CIP.*
    •  Establish a local information
       repository.*
    •  Inform the public about the
       establishment of the information
       repository and provide notice of
       the availability of the
       administrative  record file.*
    •  Prepare communication
       strategies.
    •  Prepare media talking points.
    •  Distribute a fact sheet about the
       removal and the Superfund
       process.
                                       Moderate
                                 Also Consider Adding
                               Some of These Activities
                                Adopt an effective risk
                                communication approach.
                                Make presentations to
                                community groups in person or
                                via conference call, Adobe
                                Connect, or other Agency
                                meeting or webinar tools.
                                Host an availability session/open
                                house.
                                Prepare fact sheets on cleanup
                                approach.
                                Offer a workshop or webinar on
                                Superfund removal process.
                                Host site tours.
                                Establish a telephone hotline.
                                Provide translation services, if
                                necessary.
                                Hold public meetings or publicize
                                and host conference-call
                                meetings that are open to the
                                public.
                                Hold an extra public meeting in a
                                tribal community, if appropriate.
          High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Work with an existing
  community group.
  Offer technical assistance, if
  appropriate.
  Prepare and maintain a website
  or social media site.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCR (see Appendix A for more information).
  Note: This matrix lists only a few suggested activities and is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
                           Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 4     81
Community Involvement during Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions

Non-time-critical removals are conducted when EPA determines, based on the site evaluation, that a
removal action is appropriate and a planning period of at least six months is available before on-site
activities must begin. The site team must complete an engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) for a
non-time-critical removal. The EE/CA is analogous to a streamlined RI/FS conducted for Superfund
remedial actions. It includes a comparison of various technology alternatives and describes the
recommended action and EPA's reasons for the recommendation. This determination can be summarized
in a fact sheet and placed in the administrative record file. The EE/CA is an important milestone for
community outreach activities because several of the NCP's community involvement activities for non-
time-critical removal actions hinge upon the timing of the EE/CA.

After the initial site evaluation is conducted and the need for a non-time-critical removal action is
determined, an EE/CA is prepared and is subject to public comment. After considering comments, EPA
finalizes the EE/CA. The results of the EE/CA and EPA's response decision are summarized in the
approved Action Memorandum, which provides a concise written record of the removal action selected to
address the contamination at the site. This Action Memorandum mirrors the function of a Record of
Decision (ROD) for a  remedial response, but the decision process usually is faster. Upon approval of the
Action Memorandum, EPA or a PRP with EPA oversight will undertake the non-time-critical removal
action to address problems at the site.

Planning for Community Involvement for Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions

The site team is responsible for understanding and fulfilling the community involvement activities
addressed in the NCP  for non-time-critical removal actions. Early and frequent community involvement is
recommended throughout the planning and implementation of a non-time-critical removal. Community
involvement activities should be tailored to the specific needs of the affected community as well as to the
technical action schedule. While fulfilling community involvement activities addressed in the NCP for a
non-time-critical removal often is sufficient to address community needs, the site team also is encouraged
to assess site-specific community needs and concerns to determine whether additional activities might be
warranted.

Minimum Activities for Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions

Sections 300.415(n) and 300.820 of the NCP specify the community involvement and administrative
record activities for non-time-critical removal actions. These minimum activities are:

•   Designate an Agency spokesperson to inform the community  of actions taken, respond to inquiries,
    and provide information concerning the release of hazardous substances. The spokesperson notifies
    community members immediately affected by the release, as well as state/tribal and local officials and
    civil defense or emergency management agencies, as appropriate. The role of the Agency
    spokesperson can  be filled by the lead OSC, a CIC, another OSC, or any qualified field staff.

•   Conduct community interviews with local officials, community members, public interest groups, or
    other interested or affected parties to solicit their information needs and concerns and to determine
    how or when community members would like to become involved in the removal process. The
    community interviews  should be completed before the EE/CA is completed.

•   Prepare a Community Involvement Plan before the EE/CA is completed. The CIP is a site-specific
    document that discusses the approach and rationale for the community involvement efforts and
    activities throughout the removal process.

•   Establish an administrative record file by the time the EE/CA approval memorandum is signed.

•   Establish at least one information repository at or near the site by the time the EE/CA approval
    memorandum is signed, and inform the public of the establishment of the information repository. The
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
82
Chapter 4
    repository is intended to ensure the public has easy access to site-related information and documents,
    which must be available for inspection and copying. At least one repository must contain the
    administrative record.

•   Publish a public notice in a major local newspaper or use one or more other mechanisms to
    announce (1) the availability of the EE/CA, with a brief description of it, and (2) the availability of
    the administrative record file when the EE/CA is placed in the administrative record file and made
    available  for public comment. This notice also can be used to announce a public comment period.

•   Hold a public comment period of no less than 30 days from the time that the administrative record
    file and EE/CA are made available for public inspection and comment. Upon timely request (usually
    defined as requests received about two weeks before the close of the comment period), the public
    comment period must be extended by a minimum of 15 days.

•   Prepare a responsiveness summary to respond to significant comments and new data submitted
    during the public comment period. The responsiveness summary should be placed in the
    administrative record.

Assessing Whether Additional Community Involvement Activities Might Be Appropriate at a
Non-Time-Critical Removal Site
The issuance of the EE/CA generally is a time of enhanced community involvement, and the approach
should start with the activities addressed  in the NCP. Site teams at non-time-critical removal  sites also are
encouraged to consider whether additional community involvement might be appropriate. Depending on
the site, additional community involvement efforts may be warranted if the level of community concern
or distrust is high or if EPA's preferred action could be controversial or cause significant disruption
within the community. Here are some of the factors the site team may wish to consider when determining
whether enhanced community involvement might be appropriate at a non-time-critical removal site:

•   The level of community concern or trust. What has been the level of community interest in the site?
    Is there reason to believe that the community may not fully trust EPA's judgment or site-related
    actions? Have people asked questions, expressed concerns, or raised objections  about EPA's actions
    at the  site? Is there concern that EPA has determined that the removal is not time-critical? Is there
    interest in reusing the site?

•   Media interest. Is the removal action being covered by the media? Have  reporters contacted the site
    team or EPA representatives to ask questions? (Be sure to work with the  Regional public affairs
    office  whenever there is media interest in an incident.)

•   Environmental justice or tribal concerns. Are there low-income, minority, or indigenous populations
    living  near the site who are or may be more adversely impacted by the site? Does the site affect a
    tribe or Indian country? Are there cultural resources that might be impacted by site activities that are
    important to tribal  members who may not live near the area? Are there populations who subsist on
    fish, vegetation,  or wildlife? Are there language barriers among those impacted  by the site? Are there
    other hazardous  sites or sources of pollution that affect the community? Does the community lack
    benefits such as  municipal services (sewer/drinking water, trash collection) or access to green space
    or health services? Is there reason to  believe this community or segments of the community may bear
    a disproportionate  environmental burden or include sensitive subpopulations with greater
    vulnerability to environmental hazards?

•   Likelihood that the preferred action could be controversial. Are there several reasonable action
    alternatives  that  could be considered? Has the community indicated a preference for, or resistance to,
    the approach recommended in the EE/CA?

•   Site location and potential disruption to the community. Is the site in a rural or urban area? Do many
    people live near the site? How many  are directly affected by the site?  Are homes, schools, day care
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                           Chapter 4
83
    centers, or hospitals nearby and will they be impacted by site work? Will the recommended action
    require substantial disruption in the community (e.g., temporary or permanent relocation, substantial
    truck traffic, or neighborhood disruption)? Have community members been provided with drinking
    water? Have fishing or recreational use advisories been issued?
If one or more of these factors are present, the site team might wish to expand the community
involvement effort (see Figure 4-2). Additional outreach activities that may be appropriate during a non-
time-critical removal action include:

•   Issuing press releases (see the Media tool).

•   Preparing and distributing a fact sheet (paper or electronic) summarizing the EE/CA or explaining the
    non-time-critical removal action process.

•   Distributing flyers throughout the community in schools, grocery stores, other gathering spaces, and
    churches or other places of worship.
       Community Involvement at a Removal Site with Environmental Justice Concerns

 EPA Region 7 assessed community needs and developed a plan with enhanced community involvement for
 a community with environmental justice concerns at a non-time-critical removal site in an urban area where
 nearly all members of the community are minorities and about two-thirds have low incomes. An EJSCREEN
 analysis showed that the area may also bear a significant environmental burden.
 After the initial time-critical removal action was completed, a non-time-critical removal action followed. As
 the duration of work at the site increased, the Region continually assessed community involvement needs by
 conducting a new round of community interviews and revising the site's original CIP several years after it
 was first developed.
 Region 7 takes a flexible approach to community involvement that adapts to specific community needs. For
 example, when Region 7's efforts to encourage the community to form a Community Advisory Group at the
 site were unsuccessful, a neutral facilitator was brought in to work with community groups. Instead of a
 formal CAG, the facilitator worked with the community to develop a series of roundtable meetings that
 eventually resulted in a "workgroup approach" that suited community needs.
 Over the years, a full suite of community involvement activities has been conducted, such as:
 •   Press releases, fliers, phone calls, email and door-to-door distribution of notices.
 •   Public meetings and availability sessions.
 •   Numerous community meetings, meetings with grassroots community organizations, and individual
     meetings with neighbors and businesses.
 •   Support provided through the TASC contract for assistance interpreting technical documents. TASC
     services  were available to the community at all times and were used for the EE/CA and at other pivotal
     points during the process.
 •   A celebration event to announce the transition from the planning phase to the implementation stage.
 •   An Environmental Justice Listening Session with Region 7's Regional Administrator.
    Creating a mailing list, email list, or text-message cell phone-number list of concerned community
    members to distribute information.

    Making a presentation to a community organization, in person, via conference call, or using one of
    the Agency's meeting software tools, such as Adobe Connect (Internal EPA link).
    Holding informal public availability/poster sessions.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
84
Chapter 4
    Establishing a toll-free telephone hotline, website, Facebook page, or other social media site and
    publicizing its availability.

    Setting up a text-messaging system for site activity bulletins, if appropriate.

    Considering whether the community might need help understanding the information in the EE/CA so
    that they can provide comments and participate in the decision-making process in a meaningful way,
    and then, if appropriate, offering technical assistance to the community, perhaps through EPA's
    TASC contract.
                  Figure 4-2: Recommendations for Planning and Conducting
                   Community Involvement during a Non-Time-Critical Action
    Community/Media Interest—EJ/Tribal—Potential for Controversy/Disruption
               Low
     Conduct These Minimum
             Activities


    >   Designate a spokesperson.*
    >   Establish  an administrative
       record.*
    >   Establish  an information
       repository.*
    >   Conduct community
       interviews.*
    >   Prepare a CIP.*
    >   Notify the public about the
       availability of the
       administrative record file and
       EE/CA availability.*
    >   Hold a public comment
       period.*
    >   Prepare a responsiveness
       summary and place in the
       administrative record.*
    >   Prepare a fact sheet
       summarizing the EE/CA.
    >   Issue a press release.
                                    Moderate
                              Also Consider Adding
                             Some of These Activities
                              Conduct informal activities.
                              Host an availability
                              session/open house.
                              Make presentations to
                              community groups in person,
                              in a conference call meeting,
                              or through an Agency
                              meeting software tool, such
                              as Adobe Connect.
                              Offer a workshop or webinar
                              on the removal process or on
                              the technologies involved in
                              the recommended action.
                              Create a website, Facebook
                              page, and/or use other social
                              media mechanisms.
         High
 Also Consider Adding
Some of These Activities
  Prepare communication
  strategies, as needed.
  Use mobile media/text
  alerts to alert the
  community to site activities,
  if appropriate.
  Offer mediation or dispute
  resolution services.
  Offer technical assistance to
  the community, perhaps
  through EPA's TASC
  contract.
  * Activity required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP. See Appendix A for more information.
  Note: This matrix provides suggested activities but is not a comprehensive listing of all outreach and
  involvement activities that may be appropriate at a site.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                         Chapter 4
85
Summary of Community Involvement Activities
for the Superfund Removal Program
(See Appendix A for a complete discussion of CERCLA Requirements and NCP Provisions)
Emergency Removals
D Agency Spokesperson: Designate a spokesperson to inform the community about
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information concerning the release.
D Administrative Record: Establish an administrative record file that is available for
public inspection at or near the site.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(l)
CERCLA 113(k)(l);
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.800 (a);
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.820
(a)(l)
Time-Critical Removals (Planning Period of Less than Six Months)
Expected to Extend 120 Days or Less After the Start of Removal Activities
D Agency Spokesperson: Designate a spokesperson to inform the community about
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information concerning the release.
D Administrative Record: Establish an administrative record file that is available for
public inspection at or near the site.
D Notify the Public: Publish a public notice in the local newspaper or use one or more
mechanisms to give a community adequate notice of the availability of the
administrative record file.
D Public Comment Period, as appropriate: Hold a public comment period of at least 30
days once the administrative record file is made available.
D Response Summary: Prepare a written response to comments and include it in the
administrative record file.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.41 5(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(ii)
§300.820(b)(2)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(iii)
§300.820(b)(2)(3)
Time-Critical Removals (Planning Period of Less than Six Months)
Expected to Extend More than 120 Davs After the Start of Removal Activities
D Agency Spokesperson: Designate a spokesperson to inform the community about
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information concerning the release.
D Administrative Record: Establish an administrative record file that is available for
public inspection at or near the site.
D Notify the Public: Publish a public notice in the local newspaper or use one or more
other mechanisms to give a community adequate notice of the availability of the
administrative record file.
D Public Comment Period, as appropriate: Hold a public comment period of at least 30
days once the administrative record is made available.
D Response Summary: Prepare a written response to comments and include it in the
administrative record file.
D Community Interviews: Within 120 days of the start of on-site removal activity,
conduct community interviews to solicit concerns/information needs and learn how
and when people want to be involved.
D Community Involvement Plan (CIP): Prepare CIP based on interviews and other
information.
D Information Repository: Establish at least one information repository at or near the
site [local information repository] and notify the public. Make the administrative
record file available at the [local] information repository and provide notice of the
availability of the administrative record file.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(ii)
§300.820(b)(2)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(iii)
§300.820(b)(2)(3)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(3)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(3)(ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(3)(iii)
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
86
Chapter 4
Non-Time-Critical Removals (Planning Period of at Least Six Months)
D Agency Spokesperson: Designate a spokesperson to inform the community about
actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information concerning the release.
D Administrative Record: Establish an administrative record file that is available for
public inspection at or near the site. Make the administrative record available in at
least one information repository no later than the signing of the EE/CA approval
memorandum.
D Community Interviews: Prior to completion of the EE/CA, conduct community
interviews to solicit concerns/information needs and learn how and when people want
to be involved.
D Community Involvement Plan (CIP): Prior to completion of the EE/CA, prepare the
CIP based on interviews and other information.
D Information Repository: No later than by the signing of the EE/CA, establish at least
one information repository at or near the site and notify the public.
D Notify the Public: The administrative record file shall be made available for public
inspection when the EE/CA is made available for public comment. At such time,
publish a public notice in the local newspaper or use one or more other mechanisms
to give a community adequate notice of the availability and brief description of the
EE/CA.
D Public Comment Period: Hold a public comment period of at least 30 days once the
EE/CA is made available and extend the comment period by at least 15 days upon
timely request.
D Response Summary: Prepare a written response to comments and include it in the
administrative record file.
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.41 5(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(ii)
§300.820(a)(l)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(iii)
§300.820(a)(2) §300.825(b)
and (c)
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(iv)
§300.820(a)(2)
                    Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 5     87



                                                                     CHAPTER  5

                       COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  DURING

	ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES


Introduction

One major goal of the Superfund program is to encourage responsible parties to clean up contaminated
sites. EPA has the authority to negotiate settlements, to issue orders directing PRPs to take necessary
response actions, to use Fund monies for response actions, or to sue PRPs (through the U.S. Department
of Justice [DOJ]) to repay the costs of such actions when Fund monies have been used for these purposes.
The approach EPA takes to reach a settlement or compel responsible parties to pay for or undertake the
cleanup of sites is referred to as the Superfund enforcement process. At enforcement sites, EPA makes all
decisions regarding cleanup standards and the selected remedy. As noted above, EPA may direct the PRP
to perform site work, subject to EPA oversight.

The enforcement process used by EPA to enlist or compel PRP involvement normally includes five major
efforts:

1)  EPA attempts to identify and notify PRPs as early as possible in the Superfund process.

2)  EPA encourages PRPs to do the work at a site.

3)  If EPA believes that a PRP is willing and capable of doing the work, EPA generally will attempt to
    negotiate an agreement with the PRPs that is enforceable by a court of law.

4)  If a settlement is not reachable, EPA can issue a unilateral administrative order (UAO) directing the
    PRP to do the work or file suit (through DOJ) against the PRPs.

5)  If the PRPs do not perform the response action and EPA undertakes the work, the Agency files suit
    against a PRP or PRPs, when practicable, to recover money spent by EPA and deposit it in the
    Superfund Trust Fund.

This chapter provides an overview of community  involvement in the Superfund enforcement program. It
discusses the opportunities and challenges associated with conducting community involvement during the
cleanup process at enforcement sites. These include opportunities for enhancing community involvement
when searching for viable potentially responsible parties; performing enforcement activities relating to the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA), or removal
actions; and conducting enforcement for cost recovery or against instances of Superfund noncompliance.

Community involvement at "enforcement sites" or "enforcement-lead sites"—sites where the PRPs
conduct the response actions—follows the same process as Fund-lead sites. (See Chapter 3, Community
Involvement during the Remedial Process, and Chapter 4, Community Involvement during the Removal
Process.) Community involvement at enforcement sites can be challenging, but not because there are
many additional requirements; in fact, there are only a couple of additional requirements. Conducting
community involvement at enforcement sites can be a challenge because of the complexity of the
enforcement process, lack of public knowledge or awareness of the respective roles of the PRP and EPA,
the  confidentiality of settlement negotiations, and potential mistrust between the public and the
responsible parties.

Site teams should consider augmenting community involvement to address the enforcement-related issues
at the key points in the process—particularly during the RI/FS and RD/RA. At these points, it may be  a
good idea to assess whether additional activities should be planned and implemented to: (1) educate the
public about the enforcement process and the confidentiality of settlement negotiations; (2) explain EPA's
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
88
Chapter 5
oversight role to the public; and (3) address any trust issues the community may have with the PRP that is
conducting cleanup activities. EPA has compiled a list of such activities that the Agency has used in the
past for more meaningful involvement of communities in the Superfund enforcement process. See the
Agency's 2014 report, Community Engagement Initiative:  Compilation of EPA 's Activities Encouraging
Community Engagement in Superfund Enforcement.

Confidentiality of Settlement Negotiations
EPA's negotiations with responsible parties for any response activity (RI/FS, RD/RA, or removal)
generally are conducted in confidential sessions. Community members may not participate in the
negotiations unless all litigants agree to allow their participation. The confidentiality of statements made
during negotiations is a well-established principle of the American legal system and is intended to
promote a thorough and frank discussion of the issues between the litigants in an effort to resolve
differences. For written documents subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), there is no
settlement privilege that would exempt the production of settlement communications. However, in certain
circumstances, the Agency may be able to withhold settlement communications if there is a federal court
order or under Exemption 7(A), which exempts records that could reasonably be expected to interfere
with enforcement proceedings. The law is unsettled in this area at this time. (Please note that under
Exemption 7(A), settlement communications may be subject to disclosure after the enforcement
proceeding has been resolved.) Litigants may be unwilling to negotiate without a guarantee of
confidentiality because they fear that public disclosure of sensitive issues might interfere with the orderly
resolution of a settlement and damage their potential litigation position. Confidentiality also ensures that
offers and counteroffers made during negotiation will not be used by one litigant against the other in any
ensuing litigation.

The confidentiality of settlement negotiations can result in a lack of transparency that may cause or
increase community mistrust. Community members may not fully understand the process or EPA's role in
the negotiations. For this reason, it might be important for the site team to educate the public about the
process and reassure them that the Agency does not negotiate cleanup standards or possible cleanup
remedies with the PRPs. EPA merely negotiates  the terms obligating the PRPs to carry out the cleanup.
These terms can include EPA's promise not to sue the PRPs again if they perform the specified cleanup
and attain the cleanup standards; the penalties they will have to pay if they violate the settlement in the
future; the process they can use if they believe that EPA is asking for unreasonable steps beyond the
selected response; their legal protection from lawsuits by other PRPs; and the arrangement wherein EPA
can periodically send them a bill for the costs incurred in overseeing their work.

EPA Oversight of PRP Response Activities

Educating the community about EPA's oversight role at enforcement-lead sites may also be important.
EPA uses a variety of legal enforcement instruments—including consent decrees, administrative
settlement agreements and administrative orders on consent, UAOs, and court injunctions—to compel
PRPs to take certain actions. Regardless of what enforcement instrument is used, EPA oversees the PRPs'
activities to ensure that they are in compliance with their obligations. This oversight includes reviewing
draft work plans and other deliverables submitted by the PRPs and ensuring that the PRPs' revisions
incorporate EPA's requested changes. In addition, EPA oversight often includes site visits by RPMs,
OSCs, or Agency contractors to ensure that the PRPs are conducting work properly.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                           Chapter 5
89
                       Enhanced Community Involvement and a Focus on
                      Future Use Make a Difference at an Enforcement Site
  Enhanced community involvement and a focus on site reuse can be important elements of the cleanup
  approach at a complex site where the cleanup will be conducted by a PRP. EPA Region 8's project team
  adjusted its usual emphasis on enforcement and cleanup to include consideration of future redevelopment at
  the Midvale Slag Superfund site in Midvale City, Utah. The team developed innovative enforcement
  mechanisms in partnership with the PRP-owner of the site, Midvale City, and other stakeholders to foster
  cleanup and reuse of the site.
  By nurturing relationships among regulatory agencies, the PRP, and the community stakeholders, EPA was
  able to negotiate a cleanup settlement that brought new benefits to the community. The collaboration
  included a settlement provision that provided the site's owner with Superfund special account money to
  clean up the site. The 2004 settlement also provided  for the implementation of Institutional  Control Process
  Plans, which clarified long-term stewardship roles and helped ensure future site protectiveness. These
  enforcement mechanisms were instrumental in transforming a site with mountains of slag into Bingham
  Junction, a thriving retail, commercial and transportation center with residential units and recreational space.
  This result was in marked contrast to EPA's earlier experience at the nearby Sharon Steel site, where the
  community felt that its involvement was minimal and that its preferences for site reuse were not adequately
  considered in the site's ROD. The Sharon Steel site was capped and to date has not been redeveloped.
  In the late 1990s, the outlook for productive partnerships and innovative solutions at the Midvale Slag site
  was not promising. "There was limited communication, poor relationships and a lot of staff turnover,"
  recalled EPA project manager Fran Costanzi. "People's experiences from the  [nearby] Sharon Steel site
  were still fresh. The community felt that the regulatory agencies were not listening to them, and EPA and
  UDEQ [the Utah Department of Environmental Quality] were unsure how to incorporate the community's
  priorities and redevelopment interests in the cleanup process."
  EPA Region 8, UDEQ, Midvale City and the site's owner began to change these dynamics in 1999. EPA
  decided that expanded community outreach and engagement would be an important part of the Agency's
  approach to the site's cleanup. EPA staff hosted education sessions to explain the Superfund process at the
  site to citizens, community organizations, and elected officials. A community group used its TAG to engage
  a technical advisor to help residents understand cleanup options and consider redevelopment options for the
  site. EPA collaborated with others on a detailed assessment of community priorities,  local economic
  conditions, and regional market trends as well as an environmental review of the site's contamination and
  physical features.  This enabled Midvale City and the site's property owner to  identify future land uses for
  the site that would address community priorities and fit appropriately with the site's remedy. The resulting
  Master Plan outlined opportunities for mixed residential, office, retail and recreational land uses.
  "We [EPA] emphasized that we didn't have all of the answers, and that we weren't sure how cleanup and
  redevelopment might be able to mesh together," said Costanzi. "We framed the process as an ongoing
  discussion built around sharing information and problem-solving to identify options and opportunities.
  We emphasized that it is EPA's mission to not only protect human health and the environment, but also
  to help communities restore contaminated lands to beneficial use."
  For more information, see the Midvale Slag enforcement case study: From Midvale Slag to Bingham
  Junction: A Superfund Success Story. See also: Cleanup and Mixed-Use Revitalization on the Wasatch
  Front: The Midvale Slag Superfund Site and Midvale City, Utah.
Overview of the Superfund Remedial Enforcement Program
Initial enforcement efforts begin when the Agency searches for parties responsible for the contamination.
If this PRP search is successful, EPA adopts an "enforcement first" policy that explores using its
settlement and enforcement authorities before using the government's Fund monies to conduct the
response activity. Consistent with this philosophy, EPA attempts whenever possible to negotiate an
agreement requiring the PRPs to conduct the  RI/FS and RD/RA under EPA oversight.
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
 90
Chapter 5
 The PRP Search and Early Phases of Remedial Enforcement
 EPA begins any Superfund cleanup enforcement effort with a search for the parties responsible for the
 contamination. The Agency often asks parties to provide records, documents, and other information and
 also requests access to properties in order to assess site conditions, conduct sampling and perform other
 response activities. Parties that do not comply with such requests for information or access may be subject
 to an enforcement action (see CERCLA section 104(e)(5)).

 RI/FS Enforcement
 After identifying the responsible parties, EPA typically attempts to negotiate a settlement that requires the
 PRPs to conduct an RI and an FS under EPA oversight. If this is the case, the enforcement mechanism
 usually is an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (ASAOC), although in some
 cases it might be a UAO, or even (in very rare instances) a judicial consent decree or injunction. Each of
 these mechanisms is enforceable in court.
Community Involvement Provisions Often Included in PRP Settlement Agreements

EPA often seeks to include several provisions related to community involvement in negotiated settlement
agreements.

Community Involvement Provisions in RI/FS Settlement Agreements

When negotiating an RI/FS settlement agreement, EPA typically seeks to include at least two provisions
related to community involvement. EPA may require PRPs to:
•   Provide support to the Agency's community involvement efforts, including participation in preparing
    information for dissemination to the public and in public meetings.
•   Establish an information repository near the site (local information repository) to house a copy of the site's
    administrative record and other appropriate technical and outreach documents. This echoes the NCP
    regulatory provision about such repositories (40 CFR 300.430(c)(2)(iii)). For more information about
    recent NCP changes regarding the establishment of information repositories, please see box on page 35.

Community Involvement Provisions in Superfund Alternative Approach Agreements

When EPA decides to use the Superfund Alternative Approach at a site (see Chapter 3, Section 2, Site
Assessment, for more information), Agency policy requires the Region to try to include a Technical Assistance
Plan (TAP) provision in any settlement agreement for RI/FS or RD/RA. A TAP provision in a settlement
obligates the PRPs, at EPA's request, to arrange at their own expense for a community group to obtain the
services of an independent technical advisor and share information with others in the community. (See EPA's
Interim Guidance: Providing Communities with Opportunities for Independent Technical Assistance in
Superfund Settlements, dated September 3, 2009.)

Community Involvement Provisions in RD/RA Settlement Agreements

EPA usually seeks to include at least several provisions relating to community involvement in RD/RA
settlement agreements. EPA may require the PRP to:
•   Assist with community involvement if requested by EPA.
•   Submit written progress reports periodically to EPA and provide EPA, upon request, with copies of records
    and information relating to the RD/RA.
The Agency may decide to make these reports and documents publicly available.
 When an administrative settlement (e.g., an ASAOC for the RI/FS) contains a cost recovery compromise,
 EPA is required to publish notice of the proposed settlement in the Federal Register to provide persons
 who are not parties to the proposed settlement an opportunity to comment on this component. This
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                        Chapters      91
requirement typically is aimed at PRPs that did not agree to the proposed settlement, rather than at
members of the community.

Absent a settlement agreement, EPA may issue a UAO for the PRP to conduct the RI, the FS, or both, or
EPA may work with DOJ to seek a judicial order requiring the PRP to perform the RI, the FS, or both.
EPA also has the authority to perform the RI/FS itself and can seek to recover its costs from the
responsible parties.

As with Fund-lead sites, once the RI/FS is complete, EPA issues a Proposed Plan that identifies its
preferred option for cleaning the site and seeks public comment. After considering comments, EPA issues
the ROD that sets forth its reasons for selecting the remedy. The ROD also includes a summary of the
Agency's analyses of, and responses to, the public comments it received on the Proposed Plan. (See
Chapter 3 for a discussion of community involvement during the RI/FS, Proposed Plan, and ROD
phases.)

RD/RA Enforcement

EPA generally tries to get PRPs to conduct cleanups themselves, in concert with EPA's "enforcement
first" philosophy.1 For remedial actions, EPA attempts whenever possible to negotiate a judicial consent
decree requiring the PRPs to conduct the RD/RA under EPA oversight. If an agreement cannot be
reached, EPA might issue a UAO for the cleanup or work with DOI to seek a judicial order requiring the
cleanup.
After negotiations are completed, CERCLA requires DOI to provide an opportunity for the public to
comment on the RD/RA consent decree before the court decides whether to approve it as a final judgment
(see CERCLA section 122(d)(2)(B)). DOI does so by publishing a notice in the Federal Register (see 40
CFR 300.430(c)(5)(ii) and 28 CFR 50.7). EPA might also decide to issue a press release (either alone or
jointly with DOI) and/or take other steps (e.g., send copies of the Federal Register notice to persons on
the site mailing list) to alert community members about their opportunity to comment on the proposed
settlement after it has been signed by the PRPs, EPA, and DOI.

Once the public comment period on the proposed consent decree has closed, DOI (in cooperation with
EPA) will consider each comment. If the comments present facts or considerations that indicate the
proposed decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate, DOI and EPA can withdraw consent.
However, if DOI and EPA decide to proceed, DOI will file a "Motion to Enter" the consent decree. This
filing, which requests the court's approval of the proposed decree, will include a summary of the
comments received as well as the government's responses to the comments.

Planning for Community Involvement during  the Remedial  Enforcement
Process

As has been emphasized throughout this handbook, CICs and other members of site teams should view
the community involvement requirements in CERCLA and provisions in the NCP as a starting point for
planning community involvement at each step of the remedial process. They should carefully assess the
situation at each site to develop a plan that includes an appropriate mix and schedule of community
involvement activities tailored to the needs of each site. (See chapters 3 and 4.) Similarly, Superfund
enforcement cases vary greatly.

There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to activities for involving communities at enforcement sites.
Site teams should consider site-specific circumstances when assessing whether to go beyond the
minimum required community involvement activities. The fact that EPA successfully used a particular
technique at one enforcement site does not necessarily mean that the approach will be effective in other
cases. Site teams should treat each enforcement site as unique and adopt an appropriate community
involvement approach.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
92
Chapter 5
There are only a couple of additional requirements for public notification/community involvement as a
result of the enforcement process:

•   If an administrative settlement (e.g., an ASAOC for removal or RI/FS) contains a cost recovery
    compromise, EPA is required to publish notice of the proposed settlement in the Federal Register at
    least 30 days before the settlement becomes final in order to provide persons who are not parties to
    the proposed settlement a period of at least 30 days during which to comment on this component.
    This requirement typically is aimed at PRPs that did not agree to the proposed settlement, rather than
    at members of the community.

•   When EPA negotiates a settlement for performance of a remedial action, the Agency is required to
    put the settlement in the form of a judicial consent decree. For this or any other type of CERCLA
    consent decree, DOJ is required by law to give the public an opportunity to review and comment
    when it submits such a settlement on EPA's behalf to a federal court for the judge's approval.

Community Involvement during the PRP Search and Early  Phases of the Remedial
Enforcement Process
Community involvement at enforcement sites is
most likely to be effective when the site team
carefully plans for and addresses any special
circumstances and potential community
concerns. This planning process begins with
careful internal coordination. The site team
should make sure that the roles of the CIC, the
RPM/OSC, the civil investigator, and the
Regional counsel are clearly defined, and that all
members of the team closely coordinate their
activities.

All members of the site team should work
closely throughout the process to ensure that
they elicit and provide information to the
affected community in ways that do not
jeopardize any Agency enforcement actions.

Consideration of enforcement-related issues
early in the process is important, particularly
when community interviews are planned and the
Community Involvement Plan for the site is
prepared (see box), usually during the RI/FS
phase. Sometimes the PRP search process
involves interviewing members of the
community. Members of the site team
responsible for working on enforcement may
ask the CIC or RPM/OSC to seek information
about PRPs and their waste-handling practices
during community interviews when preparing
the CIP. In other cases, enforcement staff may
decide that the CIC or response personnel
should not explicitly solicit PRP-related information during community interviews. If such information is
volunteered during an interview, enforcement staff may ask the interviewer to inform the interviewee that
the information will be passed along to an EPA civil investigator and that the investigator may follow up
with the interviewee later.
                                           Preparing Community Involvement
                                               Plans for Enforcement Sites

                                      The site team should ensure that the CIP for an
                                      enforcement site:
                                      •   Indicates that the NCP allows PRPs to participate
                                          in the Agency's community involvement efforts
                                          (40 CFR 300.430(c)(3)). PRPs do not develop the
                                          CIP. EPA directs the community involvement
                                          activities as well as any support or participation
                                          from the PRPs.
                                      •   Includes additional activities and informational
                                          materials to educate the public about the
                                          enforcement process, explains and reassures the
                                          public about EPA's oversight role, and addresses
                                          issues related to possible community mistrust of
                                          the PRP.
                                      •   Outlines all community involvement activities
                                          that will be undertaken. Most activities will be
                                          related to the RI/FS and RD/RA phases of the
                                          Superfund process.
                                      In addition, before the PRPs begin the RD, the EPA
                                      site team must review the CIP and determine whether
                                      it should be revised to include further public
                                      involvement activities during the RD/RA (40 CFR
                                      300.435(c)). This is an excellent opportunity to add a
                                      discussion about the PRP's legal obligations (under
                                      any consent decree) to provide assistance with EPA's
                                      community involvement activities.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 5     93
PRPs do not develop the CIP. EPA directs the community involvement activities as well as any support or
participation from the PRPs. In rare cases, additional preplanning for community interviews may be
necessary at enforcement-lead sites. The CIC and RPM/OSC should work with the Regional counsel and
civil investigators to identify potential precautions that should be taken during community interviews
(e.g., where there is sensitivity to pending negotiations or litigation) or whenever the site team plans to
interview the current owner of the facility or other PRPs.

Community Involvement during RI/FS and RD/RA Enforcement

The enforcement-related community involvement issues and the types of activities suggested to address
community concerns and questions at enforcement sites during the RI/FS and RD/RA phases of the
Superfund process are very similar.

Before RI/FS settlement negotiations begin, and when EPA begins negotiations for an RD/RA consent
decree, it is a good idea to "demystify" the enforcement process  for the public.  One idea is to distribute or
post EPA's fact sheet, The Superfund Enforcement Process: How it Works, on the site website, or to
prepare a site-specific fact sheet about the upcoming negotiations. Other ideas include holding meetings
or planning informal activities in the community to educate the public about the enforcement process.

Educating the public about the process can be critical to building and maintaining trust and open
communication with the community in the face of negotiations that usually are conducted behind closed
doors. Communications should focus on describing the negotiation and settlement process.  They could
explain what topics would be covered by the confidential  negotiations and, more importantly, what topics
would not be covered. It also may be important to identify what  information EPA can or cannot share
with the public about negotiations and to reassure the public that EPA does not negotiate the cleanup
standards or selected cleanup plan with the PRPs. EPA is  solely  responsible for those decisions, as
reflected in the Proposed Plan and ROD.

The subsequent settlement negotiations essentially cover how the cleanup will be carried out by the PRPs,
not what the cleanup will entail or the standards the cleanup must meet. EPA should be clear that the
Agency retains all decision-making authority and that it negotiates only the terms obligating the PRPs to
carry out the cleanup.

While negotiations for either an RI/FS settlement agreement or the RD/RA consent decree are ongoing,
the site team should consider whether to  schedule public meetings, availability sessions, or informal
activities to discuss technical issues. These technical discussions are held separately from, but concurrent
with, the settlement negotiations with the PRPs (see 40 CFR 300.430(c)(4)). Such meetings can be a
valuable opportunity to  engage community members on cleanup implementation issues that are
significant to them.

While settlement negotiations for the RD/RA consent decree are underway, the site team may be able to
give communities some limited information about the progress of ongoing settlement negotiations rather
than waiting until a proposed consent decree is submitted to a court for its approval. The site team should,
however, coordinate with the EPA and DOJ attorneys  on any such disclosure in order to avoid any
improprieties.2

Once the enforcement instrument takes effect, the site team may consider whether it is appropriate to keep
communities apprised of the PRPs' actions.  PRPs usually will submit draft RI/FS and RD/RA work plans
and other relevant documents to EPA for Agency review.3 Agency policy allows Regions to consider
making these documents available to the public. EPA can post information online to help communities
track the RI/FS and RD/RA schedule and alert them to deliverables and their due dates. EPA also
routinely adds relevant PRP submissions to the site file, which is broader than the site's administrative
record on response selection. These documents also may be made available to the public in the
information repository.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
94
Chapter 5
Consider reassuring the community that the Agency is overseeing the PRP's RI/FS or RD/RA activities to
ensure that they are performed correctly. One option is to summarize EPA's oversight role in fact sheets
or other site outreach documents. In some cases, it may be a good idea to provide more details on how
EPA monitors the PRP's compliance, such as by reviewing the PRP's submissions of draft documents
and ensuring that the PRP revises the drafts to incorporate the changes sought by EPA.

Community Involvement with Enforcement for Removals

At removal sites, EPA uses its enforcement capabilities either to negotiate with or compel the responsible
party to clean up contamination, or to recover costs for performing the work itself. There are three types
of removal actions: non-time-critical removals, time-critical removals, and emergency removals. (See
Chapter 4 for a thorough discussion of the removal process.) For some removals (especially the non-time-
critical removals), the Agency generally tries to get the PRPs to do the cleanup themselves, preferably via
settlement (this represents implementation of EPA's "enforcement first" policy4). If a non-time-critical
removal is needed, EPA initially attempts to negotiate a settlement for the engineering evaluation/cost
analysis (EE/CA)—the removal program's version of an RI/FS—which lays the groundwork for EPA's
cleanup decision. In emergency situations, EPA may undertake the response itself (or at least the initial
portion) and take enforcement action later to recover its costs.

As is true for sites requiring remedial action, EPA does not negotiate with PRPs about what the removal
will entail or what the cleanup standards will be. EPA retains all decision-making authority and negotiates
the terms obligating the PRPs to carry out the cleanup. If negotiations for an EE/CA or the physical
removal activities appear infeasible or prove unsuccessful, the Agency may issue a UAO or coordinate
with DOJ to seek a judicial order obligating the responsible parties to perform the activity.

The Agency's enforcement practices vary for each type of removal, which means that the opportunities
for community involvement in enforcement also vary. The information in this section addresses the
special requirements, opportunities, and challenges associated with conducting community involvement
for enforcement sites in the Superfund removal program.

Community Involvement with Enforcement for  Emergency Removals

Emergency removals are responses that need to be started immediately or within a matter of hours or
days. EPA tries to secure PRP cooperation with these emergency removals as quickly as possible. By
their nature, emergency removal situations do not allow for extensive public involvement. Nevertheless,
the Agency's communications with the community during these removals should explain that EPA's OSC
is in charge of the response and is directing the PRP's efforts.5 After the passage of time, EPA in many
cases classifies subsequent responses to the same release as a time-critical or non-time-critical removal. In
those cases, the site team may continue with the community involvement activities conducted for time-
critical or non-time-critical removals.

Community Involvement with Enforcement for  Time-Critical Removals

Time-critical removals are responses that need to be started sooner than a non-time-critical removal or a
remedial action. This usually means there is less time for enforcement activities. Nevertheless, EPA often
negotiates a settlement or issues a UAO obligating the PRPs to conduct time-critical removals and also
takes steps to involve the public in these enforcement activities. Additional community involvement
activities sometimes undertaken for time-critical removals include holding public meetings with
community members on technical issues while settlement negotiations are occurring separately, and
sharing information by making PRP deliverables available to the public.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 5     95


Community Involvement with Enforcement for Non-Time-Critical Removals

EPA's approach to enforcement with non-time-critical removals generally is the same as its approach in
remedial actions, except that a different legal instrument often is used for the settlement agreement. For
remedial actions, EPA is required to use judicial consent decrees for any settlement agreement (see
CERCLA section 122(d)(l)(A)). With non-time-critical removals, the Agency usually uses ASAOCs as
the enforcement instrument; a consent decree is used only in rare cases. Community involvement for non-
time-critical removals is similar to the approach used for the RD/RA. However, there is no requirement to
provide an opportunity for public comment on a settlement agreement for a non-time-critical removal that
uses ASAOC as the settlement mechanism (unless it contains a compromise of a cost-recovery claim).

Community Involvement with Cost Recovery Enforcement

Cost-recovery enforcement tends to focus on deciding what portion of the cleanup costs should be borne
by the PRPs and what portion should be borne by EPA. In some cases, cost-recovery settlements can have
a significant impact on when response activities will occur in the future and on the pace at which the
response will move forward. As a result, community members may be interested in whether a cost-
recovery settlement ensures that sufficient funding will be available to carry out the response action in the
future. Site teams should anticipate this concern and consider providing interested communities with
information about cost-recovery enforcement and the resources available (from the PRPs and/or EPA) for
future response activities. For example, the site team can provide information to the community about
how and when EPA plans to use the monies received from the PRPs as  a result of a settlement.

EPA is required to give the community  an opportunity to  review the proposed agreements and provide
comments for administrative  settlements reached under CERCLA section 122(h) (and also under 122(g),
which is de minimus settlements).6 In these cases, EPA must publish a notice of the proposed settlement
in the Federal Register at least 30 days  before the agreement becomes final. (See  CERCLA section
122(i); 40 CFR 300.430(c)(5)(i) and (ii).) The notice must state the name of the contaminated site and the
parties who signed the proposed settlement. Anyone who has not signed the agreement has 30  days to file
written comments. In practice, any comments received tend to be from PRPs who did not participate in
the proposed settlement rather than from members of the community at large.

Community Involvement with Enforcement for Superfund  Noncompliance

Sometimes a party may fail to comply with a Superfund-related obligation. For example, it might not
report a release of hazardous  substances, or it may fail to conduct studies or cleanups required  by a UAO.
A PRP may balk at an Agency request for relevant information or access to property needed for sampling
or other cleanup activities. Such noncompliance can give  rise to claims  for CERCLA statutory penalties.
As part of a settlement for these types of penalty claims, an alleged violator may voluntarily agree to
undertake a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP).7A SEP is an environmentally beneficial project
that is not required by law but which a defendant voluntarily agrees to implement  as part of a settlement
of a penalty claim. When negotiating a penalty settlement that may include a SEP provision, EPA and the
alleged violator should collaborate in obtaining public input on possible projects.8 The Agency might
even consider proactively inviting the public to submit ideas for possible projects  before any
noncompliance has occurred. EPA and the alleged violator could then consider those ideas as SEPs in the
future if noncompliance does occur.

Aside from an enforcement action by EPA, CERCLA also authorizes any person to bring a civil
enforcement action against any person who is allegedly in violation of any Superfund requirement or
order (see CERCLA § 310(a)(l)). Such actions can augment EPA's enforcement efforts or highlight
certain violations for EPA's attention. For example, citizen suits for alleged violations of the reporting
requirements under CERCLA §103 can supplement the Agency's own efforts to enforce these  provisions.
Parties also can bring citizen  suits for alleged violations of cleanup-related orders  or settlements. In part
to assist potential citizen-suit plaintiffs, EPA is required to make any records, reports or information
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
96
Chapter 5
obtained pursuant to CERCLA §104 available, unless such information constitutes confidential business
information (see CERCLA §104(e)(7)(A)).

Chapter 5 Endnotes
1 "Enforcement First for Remedial Action at Superfund Sites," Memorandum signed by John Peter Suarez ,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Marianne Horinko, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to Regional Administrators, September 20, 2002.
www.epa.gov/enforcement/guidance-enforcement-first-remedial-action-superfund-sites
2 See the following EPA guidance: Restrictions on Communicating with Outside Parties Regarding Enforcement
Actions, signed by Granta Y. Nakayama/OECA and dated March 8, 2006, at www.epa.gov/enforcement/restrictions-
communicating-outside-parties-regarding-enforcement-actions: Outside Communications Regarding Matters Under
Investigation, in Pre-Litigation Stages, or in Litigation, EPA Ethics Advisory 90-2, signed by Gerald H.
Yamada/OGC and dated October 26, 1990 (not available publicly, but available to EPA employees on the Intranet);
and Public Release of EPA Enforcement Information, signed by Steven A. Herman/OE and dated August 15, 1996,
not available publicly, but available to EPA employees on the Intranet.
3 See Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public Throughout the Cleanup Process, and Discussing Site
Findings and Decisions as They are Developed (Superfund Management Review: #43 G, H, Q, R, T), November 5,
1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-16), pp. H-24 and H-25. http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174057
4 "Enforcement First" for Removal Actions, Memorandum signed by Cynthia Giles and Mathy Stanislaus, August 4,
2011. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/enf-first-removal.pdf
5 See 40 CFR 300.120(a) and 40 CFR 300.135(a), which provide that the OSC directs response efforts and
coordinates all other efforts (including communications) at the scene of a release. See also 40 CFR 300.135(n),
which requires OSCs to ensure that all public and private interests are kept appropriately informed, and 40 CFR
300.155, which provides that all federal news releases by participating agencies be cleared through the OSC.
6 A 122(g) settlement is a settlement with a PRP that contributed relatively little to the contamination. A 122(h)
settlement is an administrative settlement for cost recovery only, usually but not always involving dollar amounts
smaller than those with judicial consent decrees.
7 See EPA's Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy, revised 2015.www.epa.gov/enforcement/2015-
update-1998-us-epa-supplemental-environmental-projects-policv
8 Interim Guidance for Community Involvement in Supplemental Environmental Projects, 68 FR 35584 (June 17,
2003). www.epa.gov/enforcement/environmental-protection-agencv-federal-register-notice-interim-guidance-
community
                          Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 6     97

                                                                     CHAPTER  6
                                       COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
                                                 AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
CERCLA and the NCP's provisions on early and meaningful community involvement and the basic
approach to community involvement apply equally to federal sites as they do to private sites. However,
because other federal agencies often have lead cleanup authority at these sites, they also have the lead
responsibility for community involvement. Accordingly, EPA's primary role at federal facility sites on
the NPL tends to be providing oversight of the other federal
agency's community involvement activities to ensure that the
CERCLA requirements as well as the NCP and EPA
guidance are met. EPA's site team also can act as an advisor,
and in the most successful instances, a partner in the
development and implementation of the other agency's
community involvement program for a site. This may involve
acting as an advocate for meaningful community involvement
at various points in the process. EPA site teams should work
closely with the federal facility lead so that an effective
community involvement approach can be developed while carefully considering resource constraints.
This chapter is intended primarily for
members of EPA Superfund site teams
working with other federal agencies at
federal facility sites on the NPL. EPA
site team counterparts in other federal,
state, and tribal agencies also may find
this information useful.
Effectively, ensuring protectiveness of human health and the environment often depends on cooperation
between federal agencies and good communication among EPA, the federal agency, state/tribal and local
regulatory agencies, and the public. Agencies and stakeholders should share information freely, engage in
proactive community involvement, and work to build trust through ongoing engagement with the
community. In addition, agencies and stakeholders should work with communities that have
environmental justice concerns so that they are better able to participate in a site's remedy selection and
cleanup process.
This chapter focuses primarily on community involvement for the federal sites on the NPL. A discussion
of EPA's community involvement role at federal facility sites on the NPL follows, including some of the
special considerations that arise with community involvement at these sites.

Federal Government Contaminated  Sites
The federal government currently owns or operates many contaminated sites. These include active
Department of Defense (DoD) military installations1  and Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities,
as well as millions of acres of land owned by the United States and managed by the Department of the
Interior (DOI) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In addition, numerous contaminated sites are no
longer owned or operated by the federal government, such as DoD's Formerly Used Defense  Sites and
many  sites with radioactive contamination from early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission operations that
now may be tribally or privately owned.2

EPA and the federal agencies responsible for these sites often have discretion regarding which legal
authorities (e.g., CERCLA, RCRA) can be used to address contamination at a particular site. For
example, they might opt to use  CERCLA's remedial  or removal authorities. Alternatively, they might
consider using RCRA authorities that typically are implemented by authorized states. About 78
contaminated sites that are owned or operated by the  federal government are listed on the NPL. (Also see
the box,  "EPA's Listing Decision," on page 27 for a  summary of the other legal authorities that can be
used to address contaminated sites.)
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
98
         Chapter 6
Cleanup Process at Federal Facility Sites on the NPL

The technical and procedural steps in the Superfund process and the community involvement activities
required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP apply equally at federal facilities using CERCLA cleanup
authority. Equal application means that any and all of the community involvement CERCLA
requirements for NPL sites also must be followed and satisfied at federal facilities. (See Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4 for a full discussion of how to implement community involvement at each stage of the removal
and remedial cleanup processes.)
                                                             For More Information
                                                   Visit the following websites:
                                                   •   Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
                                                       Office: www.epa.gov/fedfac
                                                   •   Compliance and Enforcement at Federal
                                                       Facilities:
                                                       www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-
                                                       and-compliance-federal-facilities
For federal facility sites on the NPL, CERCLA
requires EPA and the federal agency to negotiate an
interagency agreement (IAG), commonly known as a
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), within six months
of review of the RI/FS.3 To date, EPA has negotiated
more than 170 CERCLA FFAs with other agencies,
most at the beginning of the RI/FS.  FFAs are site-
specific agreements, so the work required for cleanup
differs from agreement to agreement. In general, these
agreements delineate activities that will be undertaken
for each step of the remediation process and define
the responsibilities of the federal agencies involved. FFAs usually include community involvement
activities through a plan that the lead federal agency will develop and implement to establish the overall
framework for conducting community involvement.

The site management plan (SMP) is an important component in many FFAs. The SMP is supposed to
identify the key steps in the remedial action process,  set milestones, specify the documents to be produced
for EPA review during the cleanup, and prioritize the cleanup activities. During the negotiation for the
FFA, the lead agency and EPA should ensure that community involvement is adequately addressed;
requiring the federal facility to prepare a community involvement plan or similar document often is the
best way to do so.

Listing Federal Facilities on the NPL
CERCLA  Section 120(c) requires EPA to establish a docket that lists contaminated federal properties. At
the end of FY 2013,  EPA had included more than 2,000 sites on this publicly available docket. Once a
site is listed on the docket, the agency associated with that property is required under CERCLA section
120(d) to take steps to assure that a preliminary assessment (PA) is conducted. Executive Order 12580
delegates the President's CERCLA authority to the responsible federal agency to conduct CERCLA
response activities, including PAs. The agencies must comply with substantive and procedural CERCLA
requirements to the same extent as private entities. Accordingly, these agencies typically prepare the PA
for their facilities that are on the docket, while EPA provides oversight to ensure that these assessments
meet the CERCLA requirements and are consistent with the provisions in the NCP.

Once the PA is complete, the PA report is made publicly available, and the federal agency determines
whether to also require a site investigation. From there, EPA will  decide whether the site should be
proposed for the NPL. An initial EPA proposal to include a federal site on the NPL is reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget, which provides an opportunity for the responsible federal agency to
provide input. Even at this stage, it is possible that the federal government may decide against addressing
the contamination with an NPL listing. If EPA proposes the site for the NPL, the Agency follows the
same listing process  used for any site proposed for the NPL (see Chapter 3). This includes requirements
for public  comment periods when the site is proposed and when the final listing notice is published in the
Federal Register.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 6      99
Implementation of RI/FS at Federal Facilities on the NPL
Once a federal facility is added to the NPL, the lead federal agency must, in consultation with EPA and
the appropriate state or tribal authorities, commence an RI/FS within six months of listing. Typically, the
lead  federal agency has the lead role at the RI/FS stage, and EPA provides oversight and support. This is
true not only for the technical and engineering aspects of the response activities but also for community
involvement. The FFA usually requires the lead federal agency to develop a CIP (or similar plan) or
implement a CIP that already has been drafted. The CIP is a CERCLA requirement. The  CIP in the FFA
acts as a commitment by the federal facility to conduct the activities that are contained in the CIP.

CERCLA section 120(f) requires the lead federal agency and EPA to provide an opportunity for
state/tribal and local officials to  participate in the studies leading up to the remedy selection, including
(but not limited to) the review of all applicable data as it becomes available and the development of
studies, reports, and action plans.

Proposal and Selection of the Remedy for Federal Facilities on the NPL

After completion of the RI/FS, the lead federal agency typically submits a draft Proposed Plan to EPA.
Once EPA concurs, the lead federal agency releases the Proposed Plan and is required to notify the public
of the availability of the Proposed Plan and the opportunity for public comment. EPA provides oversight
during this process. The EPA site team should encourage the federal agency to pay close attention to
community involvement during  this critical step when developing the CIP for the site (see discussion of
Proposed Plans and RODs in Chapter 3).

Following consideration of comments received during the public comment period for the Proposed Plan,
the responsible federal agency drafts the ROD and then seeks EPA's review and approval. The EPA site
team might again suggest to the  federal agency that activities be included in the site's CIP to fully explain
the final decision to the community. EPA can assist by using its relationship with the community and
offering advice and expertise in  risk communication to facilitate explaining the final decision to the
affected community. This may be particularly important when the federal agency and EPA are unable to
reach agreement on the remedy and the decision will be made by EPA.

Implementation of RD/RA and O&M for Federal Facilities on the NPL
Subject to EPA oversight, the lead federal agency will conduct the RD/RA and O&M pursuant to the
terms of the FFA and consistent with the requirements of CERCLA and provisions of the NCP. During
the lead federal agency's implementation of the RD/RA and O&M, EPA should monitor the cleanup
schedule and milestones and oversee the other agency's implementation to ensure that the FFA's
requirements are met, including proper and timely implementation of cleanup activities and adherence to
CERCLA's community involvement requirements. This includes working with the lead agency to ensure
that the community is kept informed of significant milestones and other important information (see
Chapter 3).

Pursuant to the FFA, EPA can assess stipulated penalties for noncompliance,  including missed
milestones.  The FFA also has a formal dispute resolution process that is used when the parties disagree on
whether a violation occurred or about some other aspect of the cleanup.

If the ROD calls for the establishment of institutional controls  (ICs, sometimes called "land use controls"
or LUCs for federal facilities) as a component of the remedial action, the FFA's SMP may call for
coordination with the community. Such coordination can assist the federal facility and EPA in ensuring
that any ICs, such as restrictive covenants or deed restrictions for parcels no longer owned by the federal
government, are appropriately defined and effectively implemented.

If the ROD calls for a remedy that would leave any hazardous  substances, pollutants, or contaminants at
the site, the federal agency must review the remedial action within five years  after the initiation of the RA
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
100
         Chapter 6
and every five years thereafter. Five-year reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the implementation
and performance of a remedy to determine whether it remains protective of human health and the
                                                   environment. The FFAs may set forth
                                                   requirements for five-year reviews, including a
                                                   process for public participation and a process
     Community Tools for Five-Year Reviews
  In July 2011 EPA, DoD, DOE, and the DOI formed a
  workgroup to improve the federal five-year review
  process by promoting community tools and best
  management practices.
  The workgroup developed training tools—including a
  video, training module, and fact sheets—to help site
  managers communicate with community members
  about the purpose and process of five-year reviews.
  The tools are intended to help site teams educate the
  public about five-year reviews so that they understand
  the focus of the five-year review report. The tools are
  meant to keep the message focused on evaluating the
  protectiveness of the remedy.
  These tools can be easily adapted for use at any site
  where a five-year review is being conducted. (See
  www.epa.gov/fedfac).
                                                   for resolving any interagency disputes.

                                                   Typically, the lead federal agency will draft the
                                                   five-year review report and submit it for EPA's
                                                   review. EPA will either concur with the other
                                                   agency's findings or make its own independent
                                                   findings. If necessary, EPA and the agency may
                                                   use a formal dispute resolution process set forth
                                                   in the FFA to resolve any disputes on the
                                                   findings of the five-year review. (See EPA's
                                                   Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, p.
                                                   2-5.)

                                                   Community involvement activities undertaken
                                                   by the lead federal agency during the five-year
                                                   review should include notifying the community
                                                   that the review will be conducted; requesting
                                                   information from the community about the site,
if appropriate; notifying the community that the review (including a determination of whether the selected
remedy is protective) has been completed; and preparing a summary of the review and making it available
at the local repository and/or on a webpage. The five-year review can be an important source of site-
related information for community members, especially during the later stages of cleanup when
community involvement activities may diminish. (See Chapter 3 for additional information about
community involvement during five-year reviews.)

Role  of EPA's Site Team in Community Involvement at Federal Facility Sites
on the NPL

Community involvement at federal facility NPL sites typically works well when there is cooperation
between EPA and the lead federal agency. EPA should do all it can to assist other federal agencies to
ensure  successful community involvement at federal facility NPL sites. In addition to providing oversight
of the lead agency's community involvement activities, EPA's site team, particularly the CIC at sites
where one is assigned, should offer advice to the federal agency on the development and implementation
of the federal agency's community involvement plan and activities at a site.

The foundation of effective community involvement at NPL sites generally starts with a commitment to
the principle that the public should be meaningfully involved in decision-making. EPA should work with
the federal agency to ensure that the community involvement requirements in any FFA are fulfilled,
including the federal facility's obligations to:

•  Fulfill the community involvement activities required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP.

•  Involve the community throughout the cleanup process, within resource constraints.
EPA's  site team also can build a working relationship that promotes partnership with its federal facility
counterpart by:

•  Encouraging the federal facility to take a proactive planning approach to ensure meaningful
   community involvement in a site's remedy selection and cleanup process.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 6
                                   101
•   Providing guidance about planning and implementing outreach and involvement activities.

•   Providing advice and input for the site's CIP, including participating in community interviews, if
    possible.

•   Reviewing and commenting on drafts and encouraging updates to the CIP and other outreach
    documents, as needed.

•   Attending public meetings and advisory board meetings.

•   Being available to provide advice or guidance to the federal facility when community involvement
    issues arise.
Additional community involvement activities may be appropriate to fully engage and inform the
community. These activities should be specified in the site's CIP, which typically provides a blueprint for
community involvement activities throughout the cleanup process, and is the heart of the community
involvement effort for the site. The EPA site team (and particularly the CIC, where involved) should be
prepared to act as advisor and partner to the federal facility to ensure that the CIP addresses the
community's needs and concerns, and clearly explains the federal facility's plans for involving the
community.
Factors to consider when assessing whether additional
community involvement activities may be appropriate
in the CIP could include the level of community and
media interest; location and size of the site; the
community's relationship with the federal facility
and/or EPA; environmental justice concerns; and the
level of interest surrounding cleanup plans and future
use of the site. (See the discussion and matrices in each
subsection of Chapter 3 for additional guidance about
the factors to consider when assessing community
involvement needs at each  phase of the process.)

The EPA site team should coordinate with their federal
agency counterparts to help ensure that the CIP is
updated or revised as appropriate. This means ensuring
that the CIP is implemented and, if necessary, modified
to address unforeseen needs at each step of the cleanup
process.

Prompt and effective  communication and coordination
with the lead federal agency generally is important
throughout the process. EPA's site team should
continue to work closely with, advise, and partner with
the lead federal agency to monitor community needs and suggest additional outreach and community
involvement activities whenever appropriate. Promptly addressing any lapses in agreed-upon community
involvement procedures or milestones in the FFA is very important. This means that EPA's CIC (where
involved) sometimes  might wish to encourage the  federal facility to solicit and consider community input.
 At Federal Facility Sites on the NPL,
     the EPA Site Team Should:

•   Ensure that all applicable federal rules
    and regulations governing community
    involvement are being implemented by
    the federal facility.
•   Encourage the federal agency to
    advocate for early and meaningful
    community involvement.
•   Become familiar with the FFA.
•   Offer advice, as appropriate, about
    planning and implementing community
    involvement activities.
•   Bring community issues to the federal
    facility site team's attention with best
    practices to address the situation.
•   Immediately address any lapses in
    agreed-upon community involvement
    procedures or milestones in the FFA.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
102
Chapter 6
Special Considerations for Community Involvement at Federal Facility
Sites on the NPL

Several aspects of community involvement may be unique to federal facility NPL sites. These include the
types of community groups and advisory boards that sometimes operate at DoD and DOE sites, and the
technical assistance services that may be available to communities at federal facility sites.

Community Advisory Boards

Community groups and advisory committees can enhance public participation in the cleanup process by
providing a public forum where representatives of diverse community interests can discuss their concerns
and learn from each other. The committees, task forces, or boards include community members affected
by a site. DoD Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and DOE Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs)
offer local stakeholders opportunities to participate in cleanups at federal facilities. These stakeholders
generally include representatives of the lead agency, EPA, and major stakeholder groups in the
community. The boards often review site plans and sometimes can be the entity through which technical
assistance is provided to the community.

RABs and SSABs provide stakeholders with a formal, structured mechanism for sharing information and
participating in site cleanup decisions that affect the health and environment of their communities. EPA
works with DoD and DOE and their respective stakeholders at the local level by providing technical and
regulatory input at advisory board meetings. Many times the RPM, CIC, or both represent EPA on a site's
advisory board or attend advisory board meetings.

DoD RABs provide a forum through which members of nearby communities can offer input into DoD's
environmental restoration program at a particular site. RABs typically are established at DoD federal
facility NPL sites where there is sufficient and sustained community interest.

SSABs were developed to involve stakeholders more directly in DOE cleanup decisions. While only one
Federal Advisory Committee Act-chartered Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board
(EM SSAB) existed as of the end of FY2013, local site boards have been organized under the EM SSAB
umbrella charter at DOE sites: the Hanford Advisory Board. Idaho National Laboratory Citizens Advisory
Board. Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board. Nevada SSAB. Oak Ridge SSAB. Savannah
River Site Citizens Advisory Board. Portsmouth SSAB. and Paducah Citizens Advisory Board.

Advisory boards that work well are representative of the broad range of community interests, have a good
working relationship with the federal agency that operates the site, participate in site decisions, keep the
community informed of the advisory board's activities, and provide opportunities for community
members to participate in advisory board meetings.

While SSABs and RABs can play an important role in the community involvement effort at federal
facility sites on the NPL, these panels are intended to complement and facilitate existing  community
involvement activities rather than supplant broader community involvement. EPA site teams and their
federal-agency counterparts should ensure that all stakeholder concerns can be heard and that these
advisory boards do not become the only means of community involvement at federal facilities.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 6
                                               103
Technical Assistance at Federal
Facilities on the NPL

In general, there are few differences in
how technical assistance is offered and
provided at federal  facility sites on the
NPL compared to other NPL sites. The
differences are related to the eligibility of
community groups  at federal facility sites
on the NPL for various technical
assistance services  available through EPA,
and to the availability of additional
technical assistance resources that may be
offered through other federal agencies.
The best time to assess a community's
need for technical assistance is early in the
process. However, as is the case for other
NPL sites, the community's need for
technical assistance at federal facility sites
should be reassessed at various times
throughout the remedial process.

The community's technical assistance
needs should be addressed in the site's
CIP. At complex sites or where there is
strong community interest or
environmental justice concerns, the lead
federal agency should consider assessing
the community's need for technical
assistance. One way to do this is by
conducting a Technical Assistance Needs Assessment (TANA) to determine whether the community
would benefit from technical assistance and to identify the most appropriate programs or services that can
be offered to help the community. These programs or services may include assistance through EPA's
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program or through EPA's Technical Assistance Services for
Communities contract. Other sources of technical assistance may include DoD's TAPP program (see box
on p. 103). The best time to conduct a TANA is early in the process, ideally in conjunction with the
community interviews for development of the  CIP.
           DoD's Technical Assistance for
            Public Participation Program
Community members of DoD RABs may request technical
assistance through DoD's Technical Assistance for Public
Participation (TAPP) program. TAPP provides funds to
small businesses to conduct independent technical analyses
for community members of RABs on topics of concern at
DoD environmental restoration sites. Up to $25,000 per
year and a total of $100,000 per DoD installation is
available. Waivers to these limits sometimes are considered.
Those requesting technical assistance must be members of
an established RAB or Technical Review Committee (TRC)
with at least three community members. The majority of the
RAB or TRC members must support the request.
Communities that have received technical assistance grants
or other technical assistance services from EPA are not
precluded from getting a TAPP, but these other sources of
assistance are considered during the decision process.
Funding for TAPP services is awarded competitively under
federal contracting rules. DoD makes the final decision
about who is hired as the technical consultant.
For more information, see DoD Manual Number 4715.20,
Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management
(March 9, 2012), pp. 83-84.
www.denix.osd.mil/references/upload/DoDM 471520 DE
RP-Manual  9March2012.pdf
               SSAB Recognized by EPA for Excellence in Community Involvement
   EPA awarded its 2006 Citizen Excellence in Community Involvement Award to the Oak Ridge Site
   Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) in recognition of the SSAB's dedication and commitment to the
   community members affected by the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
   ORSSAB was established to reflect the concerns of the communities impacted by cleanup of the Oak Ridge
   Reservation and to serve as a communication link between the public and DOE. Members of the board are
   appointed by DOE and serve on a voluntary basis, without compensation. Among ORSSAB's
   achievements are the development of a process to facilitate tracking of contaminated parcels of DOE land
   and the creation of a Stewardship Education Resource Kit that provides local educators with the tools to
   engage students in developing a general awareness of environmental cleanup issues and long-term site
   stewardship issues.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
104
Chapter 6
When considering the most appropriate technical assistance program and identifying a community
organization to receive technical assistance services on behalf of the community, it is important to
carefully consider eligibility criteria for various programs. For example, while TAGs are available at
federal facility sites on the NPL, the SSAB or RAB may not be eligible to apply because TAGs cannot be
awarded to groups with PRP representation on their boards. TAGs are available only for sites that are on
the NPL or proposed for the NPL once site activities have been initiated.

Chapter 6 Endnotes
1 See the Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress at www.denix.osd.mil/arc/.
 See, for example, EPA's report, Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo
Nation (January 2013), which discusses hundreds of such sites.
3CERCLA section 120(e)(2) provides that an IAG/FFA must be entered into within 180 days of the completion of
the RI/FS. The statute also states that "substantial continuous physical onsite remedial action" must begin no later
than 15 months after RI/FS completion. CERCLA section 120(e)(2)'s final sentence requires that all lAGs comply
with CERCLA section 117's requirements for public participation (e.g., on the Proposed Plan, ROD, etc.).
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                             Appendix A
105
                                                             APPENDIX A

               SUPERFUND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

	REQUIREMENTS

Community involvement activities required by CERCLA or addressed in the NCP are listed by site
activity in a table on the following pages. The source citation in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and source language in CERCLA and the NCP are provided for each
site activity. The source language column allows the reader to easily access the exact terminology in
CERCLA and the NCP for all the community involvement provisions. The inclusion of this column is
intended to help minimize confusion or misinterpretation of CERCLA and the NCP.

This table lists and discusses the minimum community involvement activities required by CERCLA or
addressed in the NCP that are  conducted at a Superfund site. These activities are intended to be the
foundation for comprehensive community involvement activities at CERCLA sites. Other sections of the
NCP that discuss community involvement (such as §300.155) that are not included in this Appendix can
be found in the_complete text for CERCLA and the NCP. which are available to download and read
online.

*Note about text in boldface in the "Source Language" column: The editors added boldface text in the
Source Language column to emphasize certain passages. This language is not actually shown in boldface
in CERCLA or the NCP.
                     Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
106
Appendix A
Remedial Actions
           Site Activity
        Responsible Party
                        Source
                      Citation(s)
                    Source Language
      Remedial Actions/NPL Additions
      Publication of Proposed
      Rule and Public
      Comment Period

      Responsible Party: EPA
                   NCP40C.F.R.
                   §300.425(d)(5)(i)
(5) To ensure public involvement during the proposal to add a
release to the NPL, EPA shall:
(i)  Publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register and solicit
   comments through a public comment period.
      Publication of Final
      Rule and Response to
      Comments

      Responsible Party: EPA
                   NCP40C.F.R.
                   §300.425(d)(5)(ii
(ii) Publish the final rule in the Federal Register and make
   available a response to each significant comment and any
   significant new data submitted during the comment period.
      Prior to Remedial Investigation (Rl)
      Community Interviews

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   NCR 40
                   C.F.R.§300.430(c)
                   (2)0)
(2) The lead agency shall provide for the conduct of the following
community relations activities, to the extent practicable, prior to
commencing field work for the remedial investigation:
(i)  Conducting interviews with local officials, community
   residents, public interest groups, or other interested or
   affected parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns and
   information needs, and to learn how and when citizens would
   like to be involved in the Superfund process.	
      Community Involvement
      Plan (CIP)

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   NCR 40
                   C.F.R.§300.430(c)(2)
(ii) Preparing a formal community relations plan (CRP), based
   on the community interviews and other relevant information,
   specifying the community relations activities that the lead
   agency expects to undertake during the remedial response.
   The purpose  of the CRP is to:
   (A) Ensure the public appropriate opportunities for
       involvement in a wide variety of site-related decisions,
       including site analysis and characterization, alternatives
       analysis, and selection of remedy;
   (B) Determine, based on community interviews, appropriate
       activities to ensure such public involvement, and
   (C) Provide  appropriate opportunities for the community to
       learn about the site.

Note: The Community Relations Plan (CRP) referenced in the
NCP passage above is now commonly called referred the
Community Involvement Plan	
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                     Appendix A
107
Site Activity
Responsible Party
Information Repository
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
Technical Assistance
Grant Availability
Notification
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
Source
Citation(s)
CERCLA117(d);
NCP40C.F.R
.§300.430(c)(2)(iii)
NCR 40
C.F.R.§300.430(c)(2)
(iii) and (iv)
Source Language
CERCLA117(d)
(d) Publication.-For the purposes of this section, publication
shall include, at a minimum, publication in a major local
newspaper of general circulation. In addition, each item
developed, received, published, or made available to the
public under this section shall be available for public
inspection and copying at or near the facility at issue.
NCP 40 C.F.R.§300.430(c)(2)(iii)
(iii) Establishing at least one local information repository at or
near the location of the response action. Each information
repository should contain a copy of items made available to
the public, including information that describes the technical
assistance grants application process. The lead agency shall
inform interested parties of the establishment of the
information repository.
(iii) Establishing at least one local information repository at or
near the location of the response action. Each information
repository should contain a copy of items made available to
the public, including information that describes the
technical assistance grants application process. The lead
agency shall inform interested parties of the establishment of
the information repository.
(iv) Informing the community of the availability of technical
assistance grants.
Upon Commencement of Remedial Investigation (Rl)
Administrative Record,
Administrative Record
Notification and Public
Comment Period
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
CERCLA113(k)(1);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.815 (a),(c)
§300.430(f)(3)
CERCLA113(k)(1)
(1) Administrative record. -The President shall establish an
administrative record upon which the President shall base the
selection of a response action. The administrative record
shall be made available to the public at or near the facility at
issue. The President also may place duplicates of the
administrative record at any other location.
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.815 (a)
(a) The administrative record file for the selection of a remedial
action shall be made available for public inspection at the
commencement of the remedial investigation phase. At such
time, the lead agency shall publish in a major local
newspaper of general circulation a notice or use one or more
other mechanisms to give adequate notice of the availability
of the administrative record file.
(c)The lead agency shall comply with the public participation
procedures required in §300.430(f)(3) and shall document
such compliance in the administrative record.
Upon Completion of the Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan
RI/FS and Proposed
Plan Notification and
Analysis
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
CERCLA117(a)(1)
and (d);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3) (i)(A)
CERCLA117(a)and(d)
(a) Proposed Plan. - Before adoption of any plan for remedial
action to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by
any other person, under section 104, 106, 120, or 122, the
President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the
following actions:
(1) Publish a notice and brief analysis of the proposed plan
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
108
Appendix A
           Site Activity
        Responsible Party
                         Source
                       Citation(s)
                    Source Language
                                                        and make such plan available to the public.
                                                 (d)  Publication. - For the purposes of this section, publication
                                                     shall include, at a minimum, publication in a major local
                                                     newspaper of general circulation. In addition, each item
                                                     developed, received, published, or made available to the
                                                     public under this section shall be available for public
                                                     inspection and copying at or near the facility at issue.

                                                 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)
                                                 (i)  The lead agency, after preparation of the proposed plan and
                                                     review by the support agency, shall conduct the following
                                                     activities:
                                                     (A) Publish a notice of availability and brief analysis of the
                                                        proposed plan in a major local newspaper of general
                                                        circulation.
      Public Comment Period
      on RI/FS and Proposed
      Plan

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   CERCLA117(a)(2);
                   NCR 40 C.F.R.
                   §300.430(f)(3)
                   NCR 40 C.F.R.
                   §300.815(b)
CERCLA117(a)(2)
(a) Proposed Plan. -Before adoption of any plan for remedial
   action to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by
   any other person, under section 104,106, 120, or 122, the
   President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the
   following actions:
    (2)  Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of
        written and oral comments and an opportunity for a
        public meeting at or near the facility at issue regarding
        the proposed plan and regarding any proposed findings
        under section 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards).
        The President or the State shall keep a transcript of the
        meeting and make such transcript available to the
        public.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.430(f)(3)(i)(C)
(C) Provide a reasonable opportunity,  not less than 30 calendar
   days, for submission of written and oral comments on the
   proposed plan and the supporting analysis and information
   located in the information repository, including the RI/FS.
   Upon timely request, the lead agency will extend the  public
   comment period by a minimum of 30 additional days.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.815 (b)
(b) The lead agency shall provide a public comment period as
   specified in §300.430(f)(3) so that interested persons may
   submit comments on the selection of the remedial action for
   inclusion in the administrative record file. The lead
   agency is encouraged to consider and respond as
   appropriate to significant comments that were submitted prior
   to the public comment period. A written response to
   significant comments submitted during the public
   comment period shall be included in the administrative
   record file.
      Public Meeting

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   CERCLA
                   113(k)(2)(B)(iii)and
                   NCR 40 C.F.R.
                   §300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)
CERCLA 113(k)(2)(B)(iii)
(B) Remedial action. -The President shall provide for the
   participation of interested persons, including potentially
   responsible parties, in the development of the administrative
   record on which the President will base the selection of
   remedial actions and on which judicial review of remedial
                             Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                Appendix A
                                                                            109
     Site Activity
  Responsible Party
     Source
    Citation(s)
                    Source Language
                                               actions will be based. The procedures developed under this
                                               subparagraph shall include, at a minimum, each of the
                                               following:
                                               (iii) An opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area,
                                                  in accordance with section 117(a)(2) (relating to public
                                                  participation).

                                            CERCLA117(a)(2)
                                            (a) Proposed Plan. -Before adoption of any plan for remedial
                                               action to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by
                                               any other person, under section 104,106, 120, or 122, the
                                               President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the
                                               following actions:
                                               (2) Provide a reasonable  opportunity for submission of
                                                  written and oral comments and an opportunity for a public
                                                  meeting at or near the facility at issue regarding the
                                                  proposed plan and regarding any proposed findings
                                                  under section 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards).
                                                  The President or the State shall keep a transcript of the
                                                  meeting and make such transcript available to the public.

                                            NCR 40 C.F.R.§300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)
                                            (D) Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to be held during
                                               the public comment period at or near the site at issue
                                               regarding the proposed plan and the supporting analysis and
                                               information.
Meeting Transcript

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
CERCLA117(a)(2);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)
CERCLA117(a)(2)
(a) Proposed Plan. -Before adoption of any plan for remedial
   action to be undertaken by the President, by a State, or by
   any other person, under section 104,106, 120, or 122, the
   President or State, as appropriate, shall take both the
   following actions:
    (2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of
      written and oral comments and an opportunity for a public
      meeting at  or near the facility at issue regarding the
      proposed plan and regarding any proposed findings
      under section 121(d)(4) (relating to cleanup standards).
      The President or the State shall keep a transcript of the
      meeting and make such transcript available to the public.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)
(E) Keep a transcript of the public meeting held during the public
   comment period pursuant to CERCLA section 117(a)  and
   make such transcript available to the public.	
Notice and Comment
Periods for Settlements
with De Minimus Parties
and Settlements
Containing a
Compromise of  U.S.
Cost Recovery Claim

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
CERCLA 122(i)(1-3);
NCR 40 C.F.R.
§300.430(c)(5)(i) and
CERCLA 122(i)(1-3)
(1) Publication in Federal Register. -At least 30 days before any
   settlement (including any settlement arrived at through
   arbitration) may become final under subsection (h), or under
   subsection (g) in the case of a settlement embodied in any
   administrative order, the head of the department or agency
   which has jurisdiction over the proposed settlement shall
   publish in the Federal Register notice of the proposed
   settlement. The notice shall identify the facility concerned and
   the parties to the proposed settlement.
(2) Comment Period. -For a 30-day period beginning on the date
   of publication of notice under paragraph (1) of a proposed
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
no
Appendix A
           Site Activity
        Responsible Party
                        Source
                      Citation(s)
                    Source Language
                                                   settlement, the head of the department or agency which has
                                                   jurisdiction over the proposed settlement shall provide an
                                                   opportunity for persons who are not parties to the proposed
                                                   settlement to file written comments relating to the proposed
                                                   settlement.
                                                (3) Consideration of Comments. -The head of the department or
                                                   agency shall consider any comments filed under paragraph
                                                   (2) in determining whether or not to consent to the proposed
                                                   settlement and may withdraw or withhold consent to the
                                                   proposed settlement if such comments disclose facts or
                                                   considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is
                                                   inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

                                                NCR 40 C.F.R.§300.430(c)(5)(i)and (ii)
                                                (i) Lead agencies entering into an enforcement agreement with
                                                   de minimis parties under CERCLA section  122(g) or cost
                                                   recovery settlements under section 122(h) shall publish a
                                                   notice of the proposed agreement in the Federal Register at
                                                   least 30 days before the agreement becomes final, as
                                                   required by section 122(i). The notice must identify the name
                                                   of the facility and the parties to the proposed agreement and
                                                   must allow an opportunity for comment and consideration of
                                                   comments; and
                                                (ii) Where the enforcement agreement is embodied in a consent
                                                   decree, public notice and opportunity for public comment
                                                   shall be provided in accordance with 28 CFR 50.7.	
      Responsiveness
      Summary

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   CERCLA
                   113(k)(2)(B)(iv);and
                   NCR
                   40C.F.R.§300.430(f)(
                          '
CERCLA 113(k)(2)(B)(iv)
(B) Remedial action. -The President shall provide for the
   participation of interested persons, including potentially
   responsible parties, in the development of the administrative
   record on which the President will base the selection of
   remedial actions and on which judicial review  of remedial
   actions will be based. The procedures developed under this
   subparagraph shall include, at a minimum, each of the
   following:
(iv) A response to each of the significant comments, criticism,
   and new data submitted in written or oral presentations.

CERCLA 117(b)
(b) Final Plan. -Notice of the final remedial action plan adopted
   shall be published and the plan shall be made available to
   the public before commencement of any remedial action.
   Such final plan shall be accompanied by a discussion of any
   significant changes (and the reasons for such changes) in the
   proposed plan and a response to each of the significant
   comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in written
   or oral presentations under subsection (a).

NCR 40C.F.R.§300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)
Prepare a written summary of significant comments, criticisms,
and new relevant information submitted during the public
comment period and the lead agency response to each issue.
This responsiveness summary shall be made available with  the
record of decision.
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                               Appendix A
                                                                            Ill
Pre-Record of Decision Significant Changes
Discussion of
Significant Changes
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
NCR 40
C.F.R.§300.430(f)(3)
 (ii) After publication of the proposed plan and prior to adoption of
    the selected remedy in the record of decision, if new
    information is made available that significantly changes the
    basic features of the remedy with respect to scope,
    performance, or cost, such that the remedy significantly
    differs from the  original proposal  in the proposed plan and the
    supporting analysis and information, the lead agency shall:
    (A) Include a discussion in the record of decision of the
       significant changes and reasons for such changes, if the
       lead agency determines  such changes could be
       reasonably anticipated by the public based on the
       alternatives and other information available in the
       proposed plan or the supporting analysis and information
       in the administrative record.
Revised Proposed Plan
and Public Comment

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(3)
    (B) Seek additional public comment on a revised proposed
       plan, when the lead agency determines the change could
       not have been reasonably anticipated by the public based
       on the information available in the proposed plan or the
       supporting analysis and information in the administrative
       record. The lead agency shall, prior to adoption of the
       selected remedy in the ROD, issue a revised proposed
       plan, which shall include a discussion of the significant
       changes and the reasons for such changes, in
       accordance with the public participation requirements
       described in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.	
After the ROD is signed
ROD Availability and
Notification

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
CERCLA117(b);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(f)(6) (i) and
 CERCLA117(b)
 b) FINAL PLAN.—Notice of the final remedial action plan
 adopted shall be published and the plan shall be made available
 to the public before commencement of any remedial action.

 NCR 40 C.F.R §300.430(f)(6) (i) and (ii)
 (6) Community relations when the record of decision is signed.
    After the ROD is signed,  the lead agency shall:
    (i)  Publish a notice of the availability of the ROD in a major
       local newspaper of general circulation; and
    (ii) Make the record of decision available for public
       inspection and copying at or near the facility at issue prior
	to the commencement of any remedial action.	
Revision of the CIP

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
NCR 40
C.F.R.§300.435(c)(1)
 (c) Community relations. (1) Prior to the initiation of RD, the lead
    agency shall review the CRP to determine whether it should
    be revised to describe further public involvement activities
    during RD/RA that are not already addressed or provided for
    in the CRP.

 Note: The Community Relations Plan (CRP) referenced in the
 NCP passage above is now referred to in common practice as
 the Community Involvement Plan (CIP)	
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
112
Appendix A
      Post-ROD Significant Changes: When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree,
      differs significantly from the remedy selected in the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or cost.
      Notice and Availability
      of Explanation of
      Significant Differences

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   NCR 40
                   C.F.R.§300.435(c)(2)
                   (i)(A)and(B)
                   §300.825(a)(2)
 NCP 40 C.F.R.§300.435(c)(2)(i)(A) and (B)
 (2) After the adoption of the ROD, if the remedial action or
    enforcement action taken, or the settlement or consent
    decree entered into, differs significantly from the remedy
    selected in the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or
    cost, the lead agency shall consult with the support agency,
    as appropriate, and shall either:
    (i)  Publish an explanation of significant differences when the
       differences in the remedial or enforcement action,
       settlement or consent decree significantly change but do
       not fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the ROD
       with respect to scope, performance, or cost. To issue an
       explanation of significant differences, the lead agency
       shall:
       (A) Make the explanation of significant differences and
          supporting information available to the public in the
          administrative record established under §300.815 and
          the information repository;  and
       (B) Publish a notice that briefly summarizes the
          explanation of significant differences, including the
          reasons for such differences, in a major local
          newspaper of general circulation

 NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.825(a)(2)
 (a) The lead agency may add documents to the administrative
    record file after the decision document selecting the response
    action has been signed if:
     (2) An explanation of significant differences required by
        §300.435(c), or an amended  decision document is
        issued, in which case, the explanation of significant
        differences or amendment decision document and all
        documents that form the basis for the decision to modify
        the response action shall be added to the administrative
        record file.
      Fundamental Changes
      fundamentally alters the
                 : When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree,
                 basic features of the selected remedy with respect to scope.
      Notice of Availability/
      Brief Description of
      Proposed ROD
      Amendment

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   NCP 40 C.F.R.
                   §300.435(c)(2) (ii)
 (ii) Propose an amendment to the ROD if the differences in the
    remedial or enforcement action, settlement, or consent
    decree fundamentally alter the basic features of the selected
    remedy with respect to scope, performance, or cost. To
    amend the ROD, the lead agency, in conjunction with the
    support agency, as provided in §300.515(e), shall:
    (A)  Issue a notice of availability and brief description of the
        proposed amendment to the ROD in a major local
	newspaper of general circulation	
      Public Comment
      Period, Public Meeting,
      Meeting Transcript, and
      Responsiveness
      Summary

      Responsible Party:
      Lead Agency
                   NCP 40
                   C.F.R.§300.435(c)(2)
    (B) Make the proposed amendment to the ROD and
       information supporting the decision available for public
       comment;
    (C) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30
       calendar days, for submission of written or oral comments
       on the amendment to the ROD. Upon timely request, the
       lead agency will extend the public comment period by a
       minimum of 30 additional days;
    (D) Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to be held
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                              Appendix A
                                                                          113
                                                 during the public comment period at or near the facility at
                                                 issue;
                                              (E) Keep a transcript of comments received at the public
                                                 meeting held during the public comment period;
                                              (F) Include in the amended ROD a brief explanation of the
                                                 amendment and the response to each of the significant
                                                 comments, criticisms, and new relevant information
                                                 submitted during the public comment period.	
Notice and Availability
of Amended ROD

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.435(c)(2) (ii
and (H)
§300.825(b)
NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.435(c)(2)(ii)(G) and (H)
(G) Publish a notice of the availability of the amended ROD in a
   major local newspaper of general circulation; and
(H) Make the amended ROD and supporting information
   available to the public in the administrative record and
   information  repository prior to the commencement of the
   remedial action affected by the amendment.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.825(b)
(b) The lead agency may hold additional public comment periods
   or extend the time for the submission of public comment after
   a decision document has been signed on any issues
   concerning selection of the response action. Such comment
   shall be limited to the issues for which the lead agency has
   requested additional  comment. All additional comments
   submitted during such comment periods that are responsive
   to the request, and any response to these comments, along
   with documents supporting the request and any final decision
   with respect to the issue, shall be placed in the administrative
   record file.
Remedial Design
Fact Sheet and Public
Briefing

Responsible Party:
Lead Agency	
NCR 40
C.F.R.§300.435(c)(3)
(3) After the completion of the final engineering design, the lead
   agency shall issue a fact sheet and provide, as appropriate, a
   public briefing prior to the initiation of the remedial action.
Proposed Consent Decrees for Remedial Action
Opportunity for Public to
Comment

Responsible Party:
Department of Justice
CERCLA122(d)(2);
28 C.F.R. 50.7
CERCLA §122 (d)(2)Public Participation
Filing of proposed judgment. (A) At least thirty days before a final
judgment is entered under paragraph (ljudgmengt shall be filed
with the court.
(A)  Opportunity for comment. The Attorney General shall
     provide an opportunity to persons who are not named as
     parties to the action to comment on the proposed judgment
     before its entry by the court as a final judgment...

28 C.F.R. §50.7 Consent judgments in actions to enjoin
discharges of pollutants.
(a)   It is hereby established as the policy of the Department of
     Justice to consent to a proposed judgment in an action to
     enjoin discharges of pollutants into the environment only
     after or on condition that an opportunity is afforded persons
     (natural or corporate) who are not named as parties to the
     action to comment on the proposed judgment prior to its
     entry by the court.
(b)   To effectuate this policy, each proposed judgment which is
     within the scope of paragraph (a) of this section shall be
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
114
Appendix A

Filing and
Consideration of
Comments from Public
Responsible Party:
Department of Justice

CERCLA
§122(d)(2)(B)
lodged with the court as early as feasible but at least 30
days before the judgment is entered by the court. . .
Where it is clear that the public interest in the policy hereby
established is not compromised, the Assistant Attorney
General may permit an exception to this policy in a specific
case where extraordinary circumstances require a period
shorter than 30 days or a procedure other than stated
herein.
CERCLA §122(d)(2)(B)
Opportunity for comment... The Attorney General shall consider,
and file with the court, any written comments, views, or
allegations relating to the proposed judgment. The Attorney
General may withdraw or withhold its consent to the proposed
judgment if the comments, views, and allegations concerning the
judgment disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
proposed judgment is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
28CFR§50.7(b)
... Prior to entry of the judgment, or some earlier specified date,
the Department of Justice will receive and consider, and file with
the court, any written comments, views or allegations relating to
the proposed judgment. The Department shall reserve the right
(1) to withdraw or withhold its consent to the proposed judgment
if the comments, views and allegations concerning the judgment
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed
judgment is inappropriate, improper or inadequate and (2) to
oppose an attempt by any person to intervene in the action.
De Minimis Settlements and Settlements Containing a Cost Recovery Compromise
Notice for Settlements
with De Minimis Parties
and Settlements
Containing a
Compromise of United
States' Cost Recovery
Claim, respectively
Responsible Party:
Lead Agency
Comment Period
CERCLA §122(i)(1);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.430(c)(5)
CERCLA §122(i)(2)
CERCLA §122(i)(1)
Publication in Federal Register. At least 30 days before any
settlement (including any settlement arrived at through
arbitration) may become final under subsection (h) of this
section, or under subsection (g) of this section in the case of a
settlement embodied in an administrative order, the head of the
department or agency which has jurisdiction over the proposed
settlement shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the
proposed settlement. The notice shall identify the facility
concerned and the parties to the proposed settlement.
NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.430(c)(5)
(i) Lead agencies entering into an enforcement agreement with
cte minimis parties under CERCLA section 122(g) or cost
recovery settlements under section 122(h) shall publish a notice
of the proposed agreement in the Federal Register at least 30
days before the agreement becomes final, as required by section
122(i). The notice must identify the name of the facility and the
parties to the proposed agreement and must allow an opportunity
for comment and consideration of comments; and
(ii) Where the enforcement agreement is embodied in a consent
decree, public notice and opportunity for public comment shall be
provided in accordance with 28 C.F.R. 50.7.
CERCLA §122(i)(2)
(2) Comment period.— For a 30-day period beginning on the
date of publication of notice under paragraph (1) of a
proposed settlement, the head of the department or agency
                   Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                     Appendix A
115

Consideration of
Comments

CERCLA§122(i)(3)
which has jurisdiction over the proposed settlement shall
provide an opportunity for persons who are not parties to the
proposed settlement to file written comments relating to the
proposed settlement.
CERCLA§122(i)(3)
(3) Consideration of comments.— The head of the department or
agency shall consider any comments filed under paragraph (2) in
determining whether or not to consent to the proposed
settlement and may withdraw or withhold consent to the
proposed settlement if such comments disclose facts or
considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
NPL Deletions
Public Notice and
Public Comment Period
Responsible Party: EPA
Public Access to
Information
Responsible Party: EPA
Response to Significant
Comments
Responsible Party: EPA
Availability of Final
Deletion Docket
Responsible Party: EPA
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4) (i)
and (ii)
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4)(iii)
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(4)(iv)
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.425(e)(5)
(e) Deletion from the NPL. Releases may be deleted from or
recategorized on the NPL where no further response is
appropriate.
(4) To ensure public involvement during the proposal to
delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall:
(i) Publish a notice of intent to delete in the Federal
Register and solicit comment through a public
comment period of a minimum of 30 calendar days;
(ii) In a major local newspaper of general circulation at or
near the release that is proposed for deletion, publish
a notice of availability or use one or more other
mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community
of the notice of intent to delete.
(iii) Place copies of information supporting the proposed
deletion in the information repository, described in
§300.430(c)(2)(iii), at or near the release proposed for
deletion. These items shall be available for public
inspection and copying.
(iv) Respond to each significant comment and any
significant new data submitted during the comment
period and include this response document in the final
deletion docket.
(5) EPA shall place the final deletion docket in the local
information repository once the notice of final deletion has
been published in the Federal Register.
Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
116   Appendix A
Removal Actions
            Site Activity
         Responsible Party
     Source
   Citation(s)
                   Source Language
      Removal Actions
      Agency Spokesperson

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
 NCP40C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(1)
(n) Community relations in removal actions.
   (1)  In the case of all CERCLA removal actions taken
       pursuant to §300.415 or CERCLA enforcement actions
       to compel removal response, a spokesperson shall be
       designated by the lead agency. The spokesperson shall
       inform the community of actions taken, respond to
       inquiries, and provide information concerning the
       release. All news releases or statements made by
       participating agencies shall be coordinated with the
       OSC/RPM. The spokesperson shall notify, at a
       minimum, immediately  affected citizens, state and local
       officials, and,  when appropriate, civil defense or
       emergency management agencies.
      Administrative Record

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
CERCLA 113(k)(1);
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.800 (a)

NCP40C.F.R.
§300.820 (a)(1)
CERCLA 113 (k)(1)
(1) Administrative record. - The President shall establish an
   administrative record upon which the President shall base
   the selection of a response action. The administrative
   record shall be made available to the public at or near the
   facility at issue. The President also may place duplicates of
   the administrative record at any other location.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.800 (a)
(a) General requirement. The lead agency shall establish an
   administrative record that contains the documents that form
   the basis for selection of a  response action. The lead
   agency shall compile and maintain the administrative
   record in accordance with this subpart.

NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.820 (a)(1)
(a) If, based on the site evaluation, the lead agency determines
   that a removal action is appropriate and that a planning
   period of at least six months exists before on-site removal
   activities must be initiated:
   (1) The administrative record file shall be made available
       for public inspection when the engineering
       evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) is made available for
       public comment. At such time, the lead agency shall
       publish in a major local newspaper of general
       circulation or use one or more other mechanisms to
       give adequate notice to a community of the availability
       of the administrative record file.
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                               Appendix A
                                                                         117
For Removal Actions with a Planning Period of Less Than Six Months
Notice and Availability of
Administrative Record

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(i)
§300.820(b)(1)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(2)(i)
(i)  Publish a notice of availability of the administrative record
   file established pursuant to §300.820 in a major local
   newspaper of general circulation or use one or more other
   mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community within
   60 days of initiation of on-site removal activity.

NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.820(b)(1)
(1) Documents included in the administrative record file shall be
   made available for public inspection no  later than 60 days
   after initiation of on-site removal activity. At such time, the
   lead agency shall publish in a major local newspaper of
   general circulation a notice or use one or more other
   mechanisms to give adequate notice to the public of the
   availability of the administrative record file.
Public Comment Period

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(ii)
§300.820(b)(2)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(2)(ii)
(ii) Provide a public comment period, as appropriate, of not less
   than 30 days from the time the administrative record file is
   made available for public inspection, pursuant to
   §300.820(b)(2).

NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.820(b)(2)
(2) The lead agency shall, as appropriate, provide a public
   comment period of not less than 30 days beginning at the
   time the administrative record file is made available to the
   public. The lead agency is encouraged to consider and
   respond, as appropriate, to significant comments that were
   submitted prior to the public comment period. A written
   response to significant comments submitted during the
   public comment period shall be included in the
   administrative record file.
Response to Significant
Comments

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(2)(iii)
§300.820(b)(2)(3)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(2)(iii)
(iii) Prepare a written response to significant comments
   pursuant to §300.820(b)(3)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.820(b)(2)(3)
(2) The lead agency shall, as appropriate, provide a public
   comment period of not less than 30 days beginning at the
   time the administrative record file is made available to the
   public. The lead agency is encouraged to consider and
   respond, as appropriate, to significant comments that
   were submitted prior to the public comment period. A
   written response to significant comments submitted
   during the public comment period shall be included in
   the administrative record file.
(3) Documents generated or received after the decision
   document is signed shall be added to the administrative
   record file only as provided in §300.825.
For Removal Actions Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days
Community Interviews

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCP 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(3)(i)
(3) For CERCLA removal actions where on-site action is
   expected to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of
   on-site removal activities, the lead agency shall by the end
   of the 120-day period:
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
118
Appendix A
                                                       (i)  Conduct interviews with local officials, community
                                                          residents, public interest groups, or other interested or
                                                          affected parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns,
                                                          information needs, and how or where citizens would like
                                                          to be involved in the Superfund process.
      Community Involvement
      Plan(CIP)

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
                      NCP40C.F.R.
                      §300.415(n)(3)(ii)
   (ii) Prepare a formal community relations plan (CRP) based
      on the community interviews and other relevant
      information, specifying the community relations activities
      that the lead agency expects to undertake during the
      response.

Note: The Community Relations Plan (CRP) referenced in the
NCP passage above is now referred to in common practice as
the Community Involvement Plan).
      Information Repository
      Establishment and
      Notification/Notice of
      Availability of Administrative
      Record

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
                      NCP40C.F.R.
                      §300.415(n)(3)(ii
   (iii) Establish at least one local information repository at or
      near the location of the response action. The information
      repository should contain items made available for public
      information. Further, an administrative record file
      established pursuant to subpart I  for all removal actions
      shall be available for public inspection in at least one of
      the repositories. The lead agency shall inform the public
      of the establishment of the information repository and
      provide notice of availability of the administrative record
      file for public review. All items in the repository shall be
      available for public inspection and copying.
      For Removal Actions with a Planning Period of at Least Six Months
      Community Interviews and
      Community Involvement
      Plan

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
                      NCP40C.F.R.
                      §300.415(n)(4)(i)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(4)(i)
(i) Comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs
   (n)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, prior to the completion of
   the EE/CA, or its equivalent, except that the information
   repository and the administrative record file will be
   established no later than when the EE/CA approval
   memorandum is signed.
      Information Repository/
      Administrative Record
      Establishment and
      Notification

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
                      NCP 40 C.F.R.
                      §300.415(n)(4)(i)
                      NCP 40 C.F.R.
                      §300.820(a)(1)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(4)(i)
(i) Comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs
   (n)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, prior to the completion of
   the EE/CA, or its equivalent, except that the information
   repository and the administrative record file will be
   established no later than when the EE/CA approval
   memorandum is signed.

NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.820 (a)(1)

(1) The administrative record file shall be made available for
public inspection when the engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA) is made available for public comment. At such time,
the lead agency shall publish in a major local newspaper of
general circulation a  notice of the availability of the
administrative record file.
      Notice of Availability/
      Description of the EE/CA

      Responsible Party: Lead
      Agency
                      NCP 40 C.F.R.
                      §300.415(n)(4)(ii)
NCP 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(4)(ii)
(ii) Publish a notice of availability and brief description of the
   EE/CA in a major local newspaper of general circulation or
   use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice
   to a community pursuant to §300.820.
                             Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                              Appendix A
                                                                        119
Public Comment Period

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCP40C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(iii)
§300.820(a)(2)
§300.825(b) and (c)
 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(4)(iii)
(iii) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30 calendar
   days, for submission of written and oral comments after
   completion of the EE/CA pursuant to §300.820(a). Upon
   timely request, the lead agency will extend the public
   comment period by a minimum of 15 days.

 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.820(a)(2)
 (2)The lead agency shall provide a public comment period as
   specified in §300.415 so that interested persons may submit
   comments on the selection of the removal action for
   inclusion in the administrative record file. The lead agency is
   encouraged to consider and respond, as appropriate, to
   significant comments that were submitted prior to the public
   comment period. A written response to significant comments
   submitted during the public comment period shall be
   included in the administrative record file.

 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.825(b) and (c)
 (b)The lead agency may hold additional public comment
   periods or extend the time for the submission of public
   comment after a decision document has been signed on any
   issues concerning selection of the response action. Such
   comment shall be limited to the issues for which the lead
   agency has requested additional comment. All additional
   comments submitted during such comment periods that are
   responsive to the request, and any response to these
   comments, along with documents supporting the request
   and any final decision with respect to the issue, shall be
   placed in the administrative record file.

 (c) The lead agency is required to consider comments
   submitted by interested persons  after the close of the public
   comment period only to the extent that the comments
   contain significant information not contained elsewhere in
   the administrative record file which could not have been
   submitted during the public comment period and which
   substantially support the need to significantly alter the
   response action. All such comments and any responses
   thereto shall  be placed in the administrative record file.
Responsiveness Summary

Responsible Party: Lead
Agency
NCR 40 C.F.R.
§300.415(n)(4)(iv)
§300.820(a)(2)
 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.415(n)(4)(iv)
(iv) Prepare a written response to significant comments
   pursuant to §300.820(a).

 NCR 40 C.F.R. §300.820(a)(2)
 (2)The lead agency shall provide a public comment period as
   specified in §300.415 so that interested persons may submit
   comments on the selection of the removal action for
   inclusion in the administrative record file. The lead agency is
   encouraged to consider and respond, as appropriate, to
   significant comments that were submitted prior to the public
   comment period. A written response to significant
   comments submitted during the public comment period
   shall be included in the administrative record file.
                      Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
120
Appendix A
                   Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                              Appendix B
121
                                                              APPENDIX B

                  CERCLAANDTHE  NCP, REGULATIONS,

                              POLICIES AND GUIDANCE, AND

	OTHER  USEFUL REFERENCES

This section includes links to some useful reference documents and Web sites, primarily focusing on EPA
guidance and policies for Superfund. URLs are shown in lieu of hyperlinks to provide references for
readers who might be using a paper copy of the Handbook.

CERCLA and the  NCP

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. 42 U.S. Code
§§ 9601-9675 (2010 ed.)
www.epw.senate.gov/cercla.pdf
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as "Superfund," was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980, in the wake of the discovery of
toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Times Beach in the 1970s. The law authorizes the President to
respond to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may endanger public health,
welfare, or the environment. CERCLA also enables the President to force parties responsible for
environmental contamination to clean it up or to reimburse the government for the response or
remediation costs incurred.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. 42 U.S. Code §§ 9601-9675 (2010 ed.)
htto://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap 103 .htm
Law full text here with downloadable PDF: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/hr2005/text
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised various sections of
CERCLA and reflected the government's experience administering the Superfund program during its first
six years. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies  and innovative treatment technologies in
cleaning up hazardous waste sites; increased state involvement in every phase of the Superfund program;
encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up; and made
several other important changes and additions to the Superfund program.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 40 CFR Part 300 (March
2014)
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=7c606fc837c9121c39f256clff5300be&mc=true&node=pt40.28.300&rgn=div5

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, more commonly called the
National Contingency Plan or NCP, is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills
and hazardous substance releases. The NCP describes the mechanisms and structures by which the federal
government plans for, prepares for, and responds to oil and hazardous substance releases. Since its initial
establishment in 1968, the NCP has been broadened and revised several times to keep pace with the
enactment of legislation.
                     Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
122
Appendix B
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Revision to Increase Public
Availability of the Administrative Record File. 78 FR 16612, pp 16612 -16614 (March 18, 2013)
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/18/2013-06189/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-
pollution-contingencv-plan-revision-to-increase-public
EPA promulgated a final rule to amend 40 CFR § 300.805(c) of the NCP pertaining to the location of the
administrative record files. This rule acknowledges advancements in technology used to manage and
convey information to the public. The amendment that is the subject of the rule adds language to the NCP
to broaden the technology to include computer telecommunications or other electronic means that the lead
agency is permitted to use in making the administrative record file available to the public.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Amending the NCP for Public
Notices for Specific Superfund Activities. 80 FR 17703, pp 17703-17706 (April 2, 2015)
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/04/02/2015-07474/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-
pollution-contingency-plan-ncp-amending-the-ncp-for-public
Effective May 4, 2015, EPA promulgated a final rule to amend the NCP to broaden the mechanisms the
lead agency can use to provide public notice to the community. As a result, the lead agency can publish a
notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation or use one or more  other mechanisms to notify
the public in six specific instances, which are specified in the rule.

Superfund Community Involvement Directives
(Listed chronologically, with most recent first)

U.S. EPA. Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003 (EPA
233-B-03-002)
htto://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/100045RR.PDF?Dockev=100045RRPDF

The purpose of EPA's 2003 Public Involvement Policy is to improve the acceptability, efficiency,
feasibility and durability of EPA's decisions; reaffirm EPA's commitment to early and meaningful public
involvement; ensure that EPA makes its decisions by considering the interests and concerns of affected
people and entities; promote the use of a wide variety of techniques to create early and, when appropriate,
continuing opportunities for public involvement in EPA decisions; and establish clear and effective
guidance for conducting public involvement activities.

U.S. EPA. Early and Meaningful Community Involvement, October 12, 2001 (OSWER Directive
9230.0-99)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/175501

This policy directive describes and encourages the use of six practices to ensure more substantive
involvement of communities from the outset of Superfund cleanups. It builds on a 1991 policy from
EPA'S Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response directive (OSWER Directive 9230.0-18) that
discusses four key steps necessary to satisfactorily incorporate citizen input into site decision-making.

Technical Assistance Grant Program; Final Rule. (October 2, 2000) 65  FR 58858
www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2000-10-02/pdf/00-24047.pdf
EPA published the final rule for the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Program on October 2, 2000. This
rule is EPA's regulation for the TAG program. It further streamlines the TAG program by simplifying
application and management procedures and allowing advance payments up to $5,000 to new recipients.
(Note that some sections of the TAG regulation were amended in 2008 (73 FR 15922) and again in 2014
(79 FR 75871).)
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Appendix B
123
U.S. EPA. Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-making (Superfund Management
Review: Recommendation #43B), January 21,1991 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-18)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174143

This policy directive discusses in detail the four steps mentioned by the 1989 Superfund Management
Review Recommendation #43B as necessary to satisfactorily incorporate citizen input into site decision-
making. The four steps discussed are: (1) Listen carefully to what community members are saying; (2)
Take the time necessary to deal with community members' concerns; (3) Change planned actions where
citizen suggestions have merit; and (4) Explain to community members what EPA has done and why. The
directive was issued to ensure the incorporation of citizen concerns into Superfund site decision-making.

This policy directive provides guidance to Regional staff on planning for sufficient community relations
activities and identifies specific planning activities that have been used in the Regions.

U.S. EPA. Minimizing Problems Caused by Staff Turnover (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43 M, N, O), December 19,1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-13)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174148

This policy directive provides guidance for Regional Superfund teams on maintaining continuity in
community involvement when site team staff turnover occurs.

U.S. EPA. Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in Superfund Community Relations
(Superfund Management Review Recommendation #43.A), November 30,1990 (OSWER Directive
9230.0-20)
http: //semspub .epa. gov/src/document/HQ/174145
This policy directive describes six innovative techniques used by Regions to expand community
involvement in the Superfund process and encourages their replication in other Regions.

U.S. EPA. Making Superfund Documents Available to the Public throughout the Cleanup Process,
and Discussing Site Findings and Decisions as They are Developed (Superfund Management Review:
#43 G, H, Q, R, T), November 5,1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-16)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/174057

This policy directive presents recommendations for improving Superfund efforts toward timely release of
information to the public during site cleanup activities.

U.S. EPA. Using State and Local Officials to Assist in Community Relations (Superfund Management
Review: Recommendation #43.K.L), September 28,1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-17)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/174055

This policy directive provides recommendations for increasing the involvement of state and local officials
in communicating with the public during Superfund cleanups.

U.S. EPA. Role of Community Interviews in the Development of a Community Relations Program for
Remedial Response, June 15,1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-15)
http: //semspub .epa. gov/src/document/HQ/174144
This policy directive offers guidance on the use of community interviews, which are required under the
NCP, to guide development of community involvement plans at Superfund cleanup sites.

U.S. EPA. Superfund Responsiveness Summaries (Superfund Management Review: Recommendation
#43E), June 4,1990 (OSWER Directive 9203.0-06)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174146

This policy directive updates the format for oral and written responsiveness summaries to improve EPA's
explanations of how it considers  community concerns raised during public comment periods in making
remedy selection decisions.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
 124
Appendix B
U.S. EPA. Planning for Sufficient Community Relations (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43A), March 7,1990 (OSWER Directive 9230.0-08)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174056

This document provides guidance to help Superfund managers promote earlier and more frequent
community relations at Superfund site communities. It recommends specific planning activities that have
been used successfully in the Regions. These recommended activities encourage Superfund managers to:
integrate community relations into all technical phases; ensure responsive community relations activities;
and establish realistic  schedules to meet Superfund site community needs.

Environmental Justice and Tribal Consultation  Documents
(listed roughly in chronological order, with the most recent first)

Environmental Justice

U.S. EPA. Plan EJ 2014
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/
Plan EJ 2014 is a road map or strategy to help EPA integrate environmental justice (EJ) into its programs,
policies, and activities. The plan was named in recognition of the 20th anniversary of President Clinton's
issuance of Executive Order 12898. EPA finalized Plan EJ 2014 in 2011 and developed a comprehensive
suite of guidance, policies, and tools to integrate EJ into every facet of the Agency's activities and
operations.

U.S. EPA. Guidance  on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory
Actions, May 2015
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policv/ej-rulemaking.html

This guidance was created to ensure understanding and foster consistency with efforts across EPA's
programs and regions to consider environmental justice and make a visible difference in America's
communities.  The final guidance supersedes the agency's Interim Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, released in July 2010. The Guidance is a
step-by-step guide that helps EPA staff ask questions and evaluate environmental justice considerations at
key points in the rulemaking process. It helps EPA staff determine whether actions raise possible
environmental justice  concerns and encourages public participation in the rulemaking process.

Executive Order No. 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 16,1994 (59 FR 7629)
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf
 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, was issued by President William J. Clinton in 1994 to focus federal attention on
the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations.
Its goal was to achieve environmental protection for all communities. The executive order directs federal
agencies to  identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, and to develop a strategy
for implementing environmental justice.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                      Appendix B
125
U.S. EPA. Integration of Environmental Justice into OSWER Policy, Guidance, and Regulatory
Development, September 21,1994 (Memorandum)
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/91015AV6.PDF?Dockev=91015AV6.PDF

This memorandum carries out a recommendation in the 1994 OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force
Final Report, which emphasized the need to ensure that attention is focused on environmental justice in
policy, guidance and regulation development. The memorandum states that to the extent practicable, staff
should evaluate the ecological, human health and socio-economic impacts of a proposed decision
document in minority and low-income communities. The memorandum also states that there should be
meaningful input from stakeholders, including members of the environmental justice community and
members of the regulated community, at all critical stages of development.

U.S. EPA. The Model Plan for Public Participation, November 1996 (EPA300-K-96-003)
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/500003KG.PDF?Dockev=500003KG.PDF

The EPA Model Plan for Public Participation was written as a part of the activities of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council and outlines critical elements for conducting public
participation. The plan also identifies core values and guiding principles for the practice of public
participation. It was published as a "living document" that would be reviewed and revised as necessary,
and has since been revised twice. The 2013 revision, Model Guidelines for Public Participation.
recognizes barriers and challenges common to environmental justice communities and is intended to
complement the implementation of EPA's Plan EJ 2014.

Tribal Policy and Tribal Consultation
Memorandum to EPA Employees from Administrator Gina McCarthy Commemorating the 30th
Anniversary of the EPA's Indian Policy, December 1, 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/indianpolicvtreatvrightsmemo2014.pdf
The memorandum states that EPA has an obligation to honor and respect tribal rights and resources
protected by treaties. While treaties do not expand EPA's authority, EPA must ensure its actions do not
conflict with tribal treaty rights. In addition, EPA programs should be implemented to enhance protection
of tribal treaty rights and treaty-covered resources when we have discretion to do so.

U.S. EPA. Policy for Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and
Indigenous Peoples, 2014.
http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policv/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policv.pdf
This policy clarifies and integrates environmental justice in the Agency's work with federally recognized
tribes, indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and others living in Indian country."

Tribal Consultation and Coordination Plan: EPA's Plan EJ2014
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/resources/policv/plan-ej-2014/plan-ej-tribal-consult.pdf
Plan EJ 2014 is a roadmap that will help EPA integrate environmental justice into the Agency's
programs, policies, and activities. Plan EJ2014  highlights Cross-Agency Focus Areas, Tools
Development, and Program Initiatives as three essential elements that will advance environmental justice
across the EPA and the federal government. The Tribal Consultation and Coordination Plan includes a
description of the actions under consultation with federally recognized tribes  in Plan EJ 2014, the process
EPA intends to follow, the consultation and coordination timeline, and information on how tribes can
provide input on this action.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
126
Appendix B
U.S. EPA. EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, May 2011
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/cons-and-coord-with-indian-tribes-
policy.pdf
This policy establishes national guidelines and institutional controls for tribal consultation across EPA.
EPA program and Regional offices have the primary responsibility for consulting with tribes. All program
and Regional office consultation plans and practices must be in accord with this policy. This policy seeks
to strike a balance between providing sufficient guidance for purposes of achieving consistency and
predictability and allowing for, and encouraging the tailoring of consultation approaches to reflect the
circumstances of each consultation situation and to accommodate the preferences of tribal governments.

U.S. EPA. Consulting with Indian Tribal Governments at Superfund Sites: A Beginner's Booklet.
November 2006 (OSWER-9200.3-42)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/175860

This booklet introduces EPA staff and managers to the basics of government-to-government consultation
with Indian tribal governments within the context of Superfund. It provides a beginner's background to a
subject matter that involves many important, nuanced, historical, complex, and challenging issues.
Therefore, it is not exhaustive  in scope, and is meant as a starting point.

Executive Order No. 13175. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments.
November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/FR-2000-ll-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf
This executive order, signed by President Bill Clinton, charges executive-level departments and agencies
with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the
development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, and strengthening the government-to-
government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.

Additional Resources: EPA community involvement staff should be familiar with consultation
requirements, acts, and policies that require them to work with tribal representatives as much as possible.
The following laws and guidances address federal government policies that may be relevant to EPA
responses on tribal lands:

•   Endangered Species Act: Directs federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of
    threatened and endangered plant and animal species and the habitats in which they are found.

•   Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitats Final
    Rule: Designates and protects essential fish habitats, or waters and substrates necessary to produce
    managed fishery resources.

•   National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 (Cultural and Historic Resources): Establishes a
    review process that directs federal agencies to minimize potential harm and damage to historic
    properties and cultural resources, and to ensure stakeholder voice in decisions affecting these
    resources during any federal undertaking.

•   Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Section 13: Directs federal agencies to
    consult Indian tribes, Alaska Native Villages, or Native Hawaiian organizations when projects
    encounter, or are expected to encounter, Native  American cultural items or when such items are
    unexpectedly discovered on federal or tribal lands.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                     Appendix B
127
Community Engagement Initiative

U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Community Engagement Initiative Action
Plan, May 2010

The CEI Action Plan presents actions to enhance OSWER's relationships with communities as EPA
carries out its mission to protect human health and the environment.

U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Community Engagement Initiative
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response introduced the CEI in 2009 to enhance OSWER
and regional offices' engagement with local communities and stakeholders, such as state and local
governments, tribes, academia, private industry, other federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations, to
help them meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency preparedness
and response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste.

U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Community Engagement Initiative
Implementation Plan
The CEI Implementation Plan discusses the specific actions and activities under the CEI. It discusses the
steps that OSWER and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance program offices plan to
implement under the CEI, and outlines the schedule and specific deliverables of the Initiative.

U.S. EPA. Office of Enforcement and  Compliance Assurance. Community Engagement Initiative
Compilation of EPA's Activities Encouraging Community Engagement in Superfund Enforcement,
September 2014.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/cei-compilation-final-2014.pdf
This document is a compilation of activities that EPA has taken to encourage more meaningful
involvement of communities in the past  in the Superfund enforcement process. It is merely a listing of the
types of actions that some case teams have implemented and which can be considered for use, as
appropriate, in future cases. It is not a policy or guidance and does not present any recommendations or
establish any requirements.

Other Superfund Guidance, Policy, and Selected Documents
(listed roughly in chronological order in the Superfund cleanup process)

U.S. EPA. Preliminary Assessment Petition, October 2002, 9200.5-330FS
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/176083

This fact sheet discusses the procedures  for submitting a citizen's petition for a preliminary assessment
under CERCLA Section 105(d), which provides the public with an opportunity to formally petition the
federal government to conduct a preliminary assessment. By submitting a petition, persons can notify the
EPA of suspected environmental problems that may directly affect them, thus possibly identifying sites
that may otherwise remain unknown.

U.S. EPA. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA, September 1991,
(NTIS PB92-963303, EPA 9345.0-01A)
http: //semspub .epa. gov/src/document/HQ/189160
This guidance discusses how regional EPA, state, and contractor staff can conduct a preliminary
assessment and report results. The document discusses the information necessary to evaluate a site and
how to obtain it, how to score a site, and reporting requirements. Guidelines on preliminary assessment
evaluation, scoring, and the use of standard preliminary assessment score sheets are also provided. The
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
128
Appendix B
overall goal of the guidance is to help users conduct high quality assessments that result in correct site
screening or further action recommendations.

U.S. EPA. Superfund National Priorities List Web Area
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl

The National Priorities List Web area describes the NPL site listing process and allows users to locate
NPL sites, check on the cleanup progress of NPL sites, and find information on new and proposed NPL
sites.

U.S. EPA. Superfund RI/FS and Treatability Studies Overview
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-remedial-investigationfeasibilitv-studv-site-characterization

This page provides a list of guidance documents that provide standard guidelines for conducting a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) or for performing treatability studies. A wide variety of
topics are covered including scoping, screening, cost estimating, alternative remedy analysis, and
treatability applications. It includes a link to EPA 's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final) October 1988.

U.S. EPA. Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), December 1989 (with annotations added April 2010). EPA 540/1-89/002.
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/rags a.pdf
RAGS Part A provides guidance on the human health evaluation activities conducted for the baseline risk
assessment, the first step of the RI/FS.

U.S. EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual Supplement to Part A: Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ci  rasupp.pdf
The purpose of this guidance document is to  provide the site team with information to improve
community involvement in the Superfund risk assessment process. It provides suggestions for how
Superfund staff and community members can work together during the early stages of Superfund cleanup;
identifies where, within the framework of the human health risk assessment methodology, community
input can augment and improve EPA's estimates of exposure and risk; recommends questions the site
team should ask the community; and illustrates why community involvement is valuable during the
human health risk assessment.

U.S. EPA. Guidance for Scoping the Remedial Design, March 1995 (EPA/540/R-95/025)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174091
This guidance document discusses the activities performed in the pre-design planning phase of the
Superfund remedial process. The document presents  information about preparing the statement of work to
facilitate remedial design for Superfund cleanup projects. It also discusses preparing a Project
Management Plan, remediation schedules, cost estimates, and model statements of work for oversight of
Fund-lead projects and the remedial design process.

U.S. EPA. Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook, June 1995 (EPA 540/R-95/059)
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi?Dockev=100025CO.PDF
The EPA Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook provides RPMs with an overview of the remedial
design and remedial action processes. The handbook focuses on how an RPM can use project
management principles to effectively implement a selected remedy in  accordance with the ROD. It is not
a conventional engineering manual, but rather a general reference document for issues that arise during
theRD/RA.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                       Appendix B
129
U.S. EPA. Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook, August, 2003 (OSWER
9285.7-50)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/175 343

This handbook was developed to promote a nationally consistent decision-making process for assessing
and managing risks associated with lead-contaminated residential sites across the country. Major sources
of lead contamination historically included mining and milling sites, primary and secondary smelters,
battery manufacturing and recycling facilities, pesticide formulators, pesticide use in orchards, and paint
manufacturers (prior to 1978). EPA has remediated, or overseen the remediation of, many lead-sites and
surrounding residences. This document is based on the lessons learned from EPA's experience in
remediating residential lead sites. Section 2.0 of this handbook addresses community involvement.

U.S. EPA. Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy
Selection Decision Documents, July 1999 (EPA 540-R-98-031)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174930

This guidance document, commonly referred to as the "ROD Guidance" provides guidance to EPA and
state staff on preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, RODs, Explanations of Significant Differences, and
ROD amendments. The guidance includes recommended formats and content for Superfund remedial
action decision documents; clarifies the roles and responsibilities of EPA, federal facilities, states, and
tribes in developing and issuing decision documents; clarifies roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in
the remedy selection process; and explains how to address changes made to proposed and selected
remedies.

U.S. EPA. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, May 25,1995 (OSWER Directive
9355.7-04)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174935

This policy directive presents information for considering land use in making remedy selection decisions
under CERCLA at NPL sites. The directive states that EPA believes early community involvement, with
a particular focus on the community's desired future uses of property associated with the CERCLA site,
should result in a more democratic decision-making process; greater community support for remedies
selected as a result of this process; and more expedited, cost-effective cleanups.

U.S. EPA. Considering Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use and Reducing Barriers to Reuse at
EPA-lead Superfund Remedial Sites, March 17, 2010 (OSWER Directive 9355.7-19)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/175 5 63

This directive is designed to further EPA's policy supporting, whenever practicable, reuse of all or a
portion of NPL sites where EPA has lead responsibility. The directive is intended to facilitate future
remedial decisions at NPL sites by outlining a public process and sources of information that should be
considered in developing reasonable assumptions regarding future land use. The document also highlights
many of the principles from the  1995 Superfund Land Use Directive and provides additional guidance on
considering reasonably anticipated future land use when carrying out response actions under CERCLA, as
amended by SARA.

U.S. EPA. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing
Institutional Controls and Contaminated Sites, December 2012. (OSWER Directive 9355.0-89)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/175446
This guidance identifies and addresses  many of the common issues that may be encountered when using
institutional controls pursuant to several of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund remedial and removal,
federal facilities, brownfields, underground storage tanks, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
sites). It also provides an overview of the Agency's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of
stakeholders involved in various aspects of the institutional control life cycle, namely the planning,
implementing, maintaining, and enforcing of institutional controls.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
130
Appendix B
U.S. EPA. Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Superfund Land Use Directive, June 4, 2001
(OSWER Directive 9355.7-06P)
http ://semspub .epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174941

This policy directive presents information for developing future land use assumptions when making
remedy selection decisions for Superfund sites under CERCLA. The purpose of the directive is to
reaffirm Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process (OSWER Directive 9355.7-04) ("Superfund
Land Use Directive") in Superfund response actions, extend the applicability of the Superfund Land Use
Directive to non-time-critical removal actions where appropriate, and introduce "reuse assessment" as a
tool to help implement the Superfund Land Use Directive.

U.S. EPA. Post Construction Completion Web Area
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-post-construction-completion

The EPA Post Construction Completion Web Area contains documents, memoranda, fact sheets, and
other supporting information on post construction completion activities, which are intended to ensure that
Superfund response actions provide for the long-term protection of human health and the environment.
Information in this area includes: long-term response actions; operation and maintenance; institutional
controls; five-year reviews; remedy optimization; and NPL deletion.

U.S. EPA. Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites, May 2011
(OSWER Directive 9320.2-22)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/176076

This guidance document describes the process for accomplishing remedial action completion,
construction completion, site completion, partial deletion, and site deletion for NPL sites. The guidance
also recommends a format and content for relevant closeout documents.

U.S. EPA Superfund Redevelopment Web Area
http://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative
The EPA Superfund Redevelopment Web Area provides information on how the Superfund program is
working with communities and other partners to return hazardous waste sites to safe and productive use
without adversely affecting the remedy.

U.S. EPA. Direct Final Process for Deletions and Partial Deletions, October 2002
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/176081

This fact sheet is targeted to Regional EPA staff and provides details on the streamlined process for
deleting sites from the NPL.

U.S. EPA. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, June 2001 (EPA 540-R-01-007)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/128607
The Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P) is intended to
promote consistent implementation of the five-year review process. The guidance document provides an
approach for conducting five-year reviews, facilitates consistency across the 10 EPA Regions, clarifies
current policy, and discusses the roles and responsibilities of various entities in conducting or supporting
five-year reviews. Appendix A provides a brief discussion about community involvement during the five-
year review. Appendix A focuses on the role of the CIC, community involvement activities, community
notification, additional recommended activities at high visibility sites, elements of a communication
strategy, and community interviews. An example timeline of communication activities and sources for
additional information on community involvement are also provided.
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                       Appendix B
131
U.S. EPA. Five-Year Review Program Priorities, May 3, 2007 (OSWER Directive 9200.2-60)
http: //semspub .epa. gov/src/document/HQ/174113
This memorandum provides the results of the December 2006 Office of Inspector General Audit Report
on the Five-Year Review program and highlights Five-Year Review program priorities. Priorities
identified for EPA include: improve the quality and consistency of five-year review reports; continue to
involve the community; document site verification activities;  continue to improve timeliness of reviews;
track and implement five-year review issues and recommendations; and continue to improve coordination
between Headquarters and Regions.

Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. November
1,1995 (60 FR 55466)
https://federalregister.gov/a/95-27069
The Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List, or the
"Partial Deletions Rule," notifies the public of a change in EPA policy. The Partial Deletions Rule allows
EPA to delete releases at portions of NPL sites. Under previous EPA policy, releases could only be
deleted after the evaluation of the entire site.

Enforcement

U.S. EPA. Updated Superfund Response and Settlement Approach for Sites Using the Superfund
Alternative Approach (SAA), September 28, 2012 (OSWER Directive 9200.2-125)
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rev-saa-2012-mem.pdf
This document contains a transmittal memorandum and updated guidance on response selection and
settlements using the Superfund Alternative Approach. The guidance addresses the use of Superfund
agreements at sites that are eligible to be listed on the NPL but are not listed.

U.S. EPA. Enforcement First for Remedial Action at Superfund Sites, September 20, 2002
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/guidance-enforcement-first-remedial-action-superfund-sites
This memorandum requests Regional Administrators to redouble their attention to ensure the continued
implementation of the "enforcement first" policy at Superfund sites in their Regions. The enforcement
first policy promotes the "polluter pays" principle and helps to conserve the resources of the Hazardous
Substance Trust Fund for the cleanup of those sites where viable responsible parties do not exist.

U.S. EPA. Compliance & Enforcement at Federal Facilities Web Area
http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-and-compliance-federal-facilities
This Web area contains  resources and supplemental links for  obtaining information and relevant guidance
on enforcement and compliance at federal facilities.

U.S. EPA. Superfund Enforcement  Program
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/superfund-enforcement
The Superfund Enforcement Program website contains resources on finding potentially responsible
parties, Superfund liability, negotiating Superfund settlements, recovering cleanup costs, and other
information pertinent to Superfund enforcement. Supplemental links for Superfund enforcement policy
and guidance documents, Superfund enforcement reports and publications, and Superfund enforcement
cases and settlements are also provided.

U.S. EPA. Interim Guidance: Providing Communities with  Opportunities for Independent Technical
Assistance in Superfund Settlements, September 3, 2009
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/interim-tap-sf-settle-mem.pdf
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
132
Appendix B
This document provides an overview of how technical assistance plans (TAPs) have typically been
implemented to date, as well as guidance to Regions on negotiating a settlement provision for a TAP. Six
attachments to the document provide guidance on TAPs in Superfund settlements.

Removal Actions

U.S. EPA. Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA, August
1993 (EPA540-R-93-057)
httD://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPURL.cgi?Dockev=9100SN02.txt
Chapter 2 of this document provides guidance for conducting an engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA), which analyzes removal action alternatives for a site. An EE/CA is required for all non-time-
critical removal actions under the NCP, provides a vehicle for public involvement, and evaluates and
recommends the appropriate response.

U.S. EPA Community Involvement during Emergency Removals Web Area
http://www2.epa.gov/emergencv-response/communitv-involvement-during-emergencv-responses
This Web area provides links to additional information on requirements and good practices in community
involvement during emergency removal actions.

U.S. EPA. Use of Non-Time Critical Removal Authority in Superfund Response Actions, February 14,
2000 (Memorandum)
http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HO/174826

This memorandum is intended to serve as a guide to project managers during the decision process of
selecting between remedial and removal actions. Pertinent NCP criteria are summarized to ensure that
Regions properly consider and document the rationale for employing removal authorities.

U.S. EPA. "Enforcement First" for Removals, memorandum  signed by Cynthia Giles and Mathy
Stanislaus, August 4, 2011
http ://www2 .epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/enf-first-removal .pdf.

This memorandum clarifies EPA's Enforcement First for removals policy.
                       Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                               Appendix C
133
                                                             APPENDIX  C:

                             EPA COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

	CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Customer satisfaction surveys are used by EPA to gather community input about EPA's community
involvement efforts. To help site teams evaluate community involvement efforts, EPA received approval
from the Office of Management and Budget for use of the "Customer Satisfaction Survey" for EPA
community involvement that is included in this appendix.

The EPA Community Involvement Customer Satisfaction Survey included here is a source document
approved by the OMB with numerous questions that can be used to develop shorter customer satisfaction
surveys for use at Superfund sites. (The survey is NOT intended to be given in its entirety.) Generally,
site-specific surveys consist of up to ten questions asking community members to provide opinions and to
rank EPA's community interactions, the level of knowledge citizens have gained about the site and issues,
how citizens learned information about the site, and the desires of the community for how they would like
to interact with EPA.

The information gathered in these customer satisfaction surveys helps EPA improve its community
involvement activities and relationships with communities at Superfund sites. EPA estimates that these
surveys will be completed at five (5) active Superfund federal-lead sites each year. The template for this
survey accompanies this ICR.

Note that the survey here is approved for use only through April 30, 2016. However, EPA plans to renew
the survey for use after that date. Please contact CIPIB before using questions from this survey to ensure
that you have the most up-to-date version, as changes to the survey are  made periodically.
                     Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
134
Appendix C
                                                                     OMB Control No: 2050-0179
                                                                     Expiration Date 04/30/2016
               What Do You Think About the U.S. EPA's Community
                     Involvement Efforts at the	  Site?


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is cleaning up the contamination at the
	Superfund site in your community. The U.S. EPA believes the active, meaningful
involvement of community members is critical to the success of a cleanup effort. This survey is an
opportunity for you to tell us how well we are doing at listening to your concerns about the cleanup and
making it possible for you to participate in the planning and decision making process. Please take a few
minutes to answer the questions. Your views are important and will help us to be more responsive to your
needs and interests.

This survey is being conducted in accordance with the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act Information
Collection Request # 1487.12. You will need about 15 minutes to answer the questions.

*Note to surveyors: It is intended that each survey given will include the introductory paragraph,
above, and Section G with the closing disclosure. Sections A-F are optional sections with questions
that may be used as a specific  situation dictates. This survey is NOT intended to be given in its
entirety. The surveyor may also choose, in addition to paper copies, to provide the survey to
participants online via commercially available software.
Section A:
     Assessing Overall U.S. EPA Community Involvement Efforts
A-1.    How do you rate the U.S. EPA at each of the following? (Circle one choice for each question)

 a.  Providing the information you need.              Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
 b.  Making the information easy to understand.        Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good

 c.  Making it easy to get involved.                 Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good

 d.  Listening to your concerns.                    Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
 e.  Responding to your concerns.                 Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
 f.  Treating you courteously.                     Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
 g.  Using your input.                           Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
 h.  Explaining decisions.                        Very Poor      Poor      Average      Good     Very Good
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                  Appendix C
                                                                                              135
Section B:
        Assessing U.S. EPA Efforts at Keeping Communities Informed
B-1.     How do you learn about the U.S. EPA's work at the site? (Check all that apply)
          U.S. EPA mailings
          Newspaper articles
          Radio or TV news
          U.S. EPA's web page
          Community members/family/friends
          Public meeting or information session held by the U.S. EPA
          Direct conversation with someone from the U.S. EPA
          Information about the site is "common knowledge"
          Know someone who worked at the site
          Through one or more community organizations, business associations, or advisory groups (CAG)
          Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
          Other (Please specify):	
B-2.
B-3.
How would you prefer to receive information from the U.S. EPA about the site?
(Check up to 3 choices)

 Mailings—short (1-2 pages) very focused (issue-specific) sent frequently
 Mailings—longer, general information, sent periodically
 Emails—brief, very focused (issue-specific) sent frequently
 Emails—longer, general information, sent periodically
 Meetings—short, very focused, held frequently
 Meetings—longer, general informational meetings, held periodically
 Social media (Facebook, Twitter)
 Direct communication with an U.S. EPA representative
 The U.S. EPA website
 Presentations at local clubs and organizations
 Other (Please specify):	
How interested are you in obtaining information about the following topics? (Circle one answer for each
question)
 a. U.S. EPA's Superfund Program.

 b. Contamination at the site.

 c. How the site might affect human health.

 d. How the site might affect the environment.

 e. Site cleanup decisions.

 f.  Site reuse or redevelopment.

 g. Other (Please specify):	
                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested

                                            Not Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Interested

Interested

Interested

Interested

Interested

Interested

Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
  Very
Interested
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
136
Appendix C
B-4.     In what ways do you prefer to participate at this site? (Check all that apply)
         Through opportunities to provide written comments on U.S. EPA documents.
         Through public meetings.
         Through opportunities to meet and talk informally with U.S. EPA staff.
         By attending community club/organization meetings that U.S. EPA staff have been invited to.
         By calling a toll-free telephone number.
         Through a community group.
         Through opportunities to talk with independent experts.
         Through a web site or social media.
         Other (Please specify):	
          Not interested in being involved.
B-5.     Please tell us whether you have ever:
     Provided information to the U.S. EPA about the site and its history.
     Expressed your concerns about the site to the U.S. EPA.
     Offered suggestions or advice about the site to the U.S. EPA.
     Given comments to the U.S. EPA on materials available for public review.
     Requested information from the U.S. EPA about the site.
     Attended a U.S. EPA-sponsored meeting or event about the site.
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
                                                                          Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
B-6.     In a few words, what is your understanding of the cleanup work U.S. EPA plans to do at the site?
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                              Appendix C
137
B-7. How concerned are you that the site may be harmful to each of the following: (Circle
question.)
a. My or my family's health.
b. The environment.
c. Property values.
d. Jobs in the community.
e. Business in the community.
f. Community historical or cultura
integrity.
g. Site redevelopment or reuse.
Section C: Public Meeting
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Not
Concerned
Feedback Questions
Somewhat
Concernec
Somewhat
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Somewhat
Concernec
Somewhat
Concernec
Somewhat
Concernec

These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand what worked well
holding future public meetings.
Concerned
Concerned
Concerned
Concerned
Concerned
Concerned
Concerned

one answer for each
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Very
Concerned

and what improvements to consider making
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable

before
C-1.     How did you learn about this public meeting? (Check all that apply)
	     U.S. EPA mailings (other than this survey)
	     Newspaper articles
	     Radio or TV news
	     Community organization
	     Family or friends
	     Email from U.S. EPA
	     U.S. EPA's website
	Social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
	Flyers in store windows/bulletin boards
	Direct conversation with someone from the U.S. EPA
	     Other (Please specify):	
                          Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 38 Appendix C
C-2. Please give us your feedback on the following:
a. Information about the meeting was available early
enough to make plans to attend.
b. Meeting location was convenient.
c. Meeting facility was comfortable.
d. Meeting time was convenient.
e. The length of the meeting was appropriate.
f. Language interpreters were available
(if needed).
g. Provisions were made to accommodate the needs of
persons with disabilities
h. Meeting facility was well-equipped for all planned
activities (enough seats, work space, supplies, etc.).
(Circle one choice for each question)
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
C-3. What topics were of most interest to you at the meeting?









C-4. How was the meeting useful to you?
C-5. How can U.S. EPA improve the next public meeting?
                        Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                   Appendix C
                                                                                      139
Section D:
Questions for Use During Site Cleanup-Removal/Relocation
These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand what worked well and what improvements to consider when
implementing future removals requiring temporary relocation of residents.
Introduction: You were recently relocated while removal and restoration activities were completed at your property. These
activities were designed to remove significant potential sources of _[contaminant]_ from your property, thereby reducing any
potential _[contaminant]_-related health exposures. We would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to provide feedback
on your relocation experience and the removal/restoration work that was completed on your property.

D-1. Relocation (Circle one choice for each question)
 a. U.S. EPA staff were friendly and helpful.
                                  Strongly
                                  Disagree
Disagree       Agree
            Strongly
             Agree
                Not
            Applicable
 b. The relocation handouts I was given were useful      Strongly
    and understandable.
                                  Disagree
                                                                 Disagree      Agree
                           Strongly
                            Agree
                            Not
                        Applicable
 c. U.S. EPA staff responded to my questions in a       Strongly
    timely manner.                                   Disagree
                                                Disagree      Agree
                           Strongly
                            Agree
                            Not
                        Applicable
 d. I was treated with courtesy and respect by U.S.
    EPA staff.

 e. U.S. EPA staff contacted me as often as I would
    have liked:

    •   Before my relocation.
    •  While I was relocated.


    •  After my property was cleaned up and I was
       back in my home.

 f.  I was well-informed of my choices for relocation
    (hotel, friend's home, etc.).

 g. I was well-informed about the expected length of
    my relocation and was kept informed of any
    changes.

 h. I was told when I needed to relocate with enough
    time to plan my move.

 i.  The reimbursement paperwork was
    understandable.
 j.  I received my reimbursement within 30 days.
                                  Strongly
                                  Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
 Agree
   Not
Applicable
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 40 Appendix C
D-2. U.S. EPA's Work on My Property: Removal and Restoration (Circle one choice for each question)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
1 was well-informed about the extent of the
work U.S. EPA would do on my property.
The specifics of the property restoration were
explained in writing and provided to me.
1 was informed of the landscape options for
my property.
1 understood what 1 had to do following the
removal at my property in order for the
landscaping to be successful.
The on-site workers were courteous and
respectful.
1 was kept informed about any changes in
the schedule for the work on my property.
1 was informed if any of my possessions
could NOT be decontaminated.
My property was restored to a condition at
least equal to its previous condition
(recognizing that it may take time and
water/aerating on my part for the seed to
take or plants to grow).
The work done on my property met my
expectations.
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
D-3.  Do you have any additional comments/feedback regarding your relocation or the removal/restoration work on
     your property? (Use the space below)
                         Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                   Appendix C
                                                                                      141
Section E:
 Questions for Use at Sites with Institutional Controls
These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand whether community members are aware of, or interested in,
information about any institutional controls (ICs) at the site, which are administrative and legal controls, including limitations on
land use or resource use, deed restrictions, or building codes. An example of an 1C might be building code restrictions to prevent
vapor intrusion, or preventing development on a landfill cap to avoid damage to the integrity of the cap surface. Community input
can be essential to selecting, using, and monitoring ICs that are the best fit for the community and the protectiveness of the
remedy.


E-1. Are you aware of any restrictions (institutional controls) in place at the site including limitations on land and/or
     resource use, building code requirements or deed restrictions?
         Yes
    No
E-2.  Would you like more information about restrictions (institutional controls) on the use of land or resources or any
     deed restrictions in place at the site?
        Yes
    No
If yes, please contact (name and phone number) to request the information.
Section F:
Questions about Technical Assistance Resources Provided to the Community
These questions will help the U.S. EPA better understand how to provide the most effective technical assistance resources at
sites.
F-1.  Do you know of any assistance U.S. EPA has provided to help you and other community members/groups better
     understand technical and scientific information regarding the site cleanup?
          Yes
     _No  (Please skip to question F-3)
F-2.  How was technical assistance provided to your community? (check all that apply)

 	       Through a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)

 	       Through Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC)

 	       Through U.S. EPA site staff

 	       Through assistance from a local, regional or national organization/entity/university

 	       Through a Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU)

 	       Through a Technical Assistance Plan (TAP)

 	       Through Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP)

 	       I do not know how the assistance was provided

 	       Other (Please specify):	
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
1 42   Appendix C
Please rate how useful each of the following has been in helping community members better understand information
about the site and take a more active role in the process:
 a.  Community informational newsletters and/or
    factsheets.

 b.  Presentations by experts to explain technical
    site information to the community.

 c.  Community informational
    workshops/trainings.

 d.  Redevelopment planning.

 e.  U.S. EPA provides facilitator or mediator to
    help the community.

 f.  U.S. EPA assists community groups that
    want to help the community understand or
    participate in the site cleanup process.

 g.  Other (Please specify):
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Not Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Somewhat
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Very Helpful
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
F-3.   If technical assistance has not been provided to your community, which of the following activities could help
      you and other community members/groups better understand technical and scientific information regarding the
      site cleanup? (Check all that apply)
            Community informational newsletters and/or factsheets.

            Presentations by experts to explain technical site information to the community.

            Community informational workshops/trainings.

            Redevelopment planning.

            U.S. EPA provided facilitator or mediator to help the community.
            U.S. EPA gave assistance to one or more community groups that wanted to help the community understand or
            participate more actively in the site cleanup process.

            Other (Please specify):	
            I don't feel that any technical assistance is needed.
                            Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
                                                                                 Appendix C
143
Section G:       General Information [REQUIRED Section]

This section must be included at the end of all surveys.
G-1.  Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the U. S. EPA's community involvement efforts or about the
     cleanup activities at this site?
Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us. If you would like to be on the U.S. EPA's mailing list, please
contact (name and telephone number).
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.
20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed survey to this address.
                           Community Involvement Handbook (January 2016)

-------
United States                         Office of Land and                      EPA540-K-02-015
Environmental Protection               Emergency Management                 OLEM 9230.0-50
Agency                              (5102G)                               January 2016

-------