Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
-z
Uj
<3
X-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Jan 2 1 1991
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9230.0-18
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund
Decision-making (Superfund Management Review:
Recommendation #43B)
FROM:
Henry L. Longest, II, Director /s/
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO:
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
To ensure the incorporation of citizen concerns into Superfund site
decision-making.
Background:
EPA's capacity and willingness to incorporate community concerns into
site decision-makinq are among the most important measures of Superfund's
community relations program. Although EPA has made significant progress in
its promotion of mutually satisfactory two-way communication with the
public, room for improvement exists in integrating the public's concerns
into site decisions.
EPA has established methods for soliciting citizen concerns, but that
represents only the first step. Citizens rightfully expect that EPA will
then carefully consider and fairly evaluate the concerns the community has
voiced, making it imperative that EPA pay close attention to such input. It
is not enough that we
Purpose:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
H-32

-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
solicit and read public comments. It is important that we
demonstrate to citizens that they are involved in the
decision-making process.
The impacts of citizen input will be more obvious at some
sites than at others, and will not always, of course, be the
principal determinant in site decisions. EPA must make every
effort, however, to fully incorporate those concerns into site
decision-making. The Superfund Management Review (SMR) mentions
four steps necessary to satisfactorily accomplish this: "...listen
carefully to what citizens are saying; take the time necessary to
deal with their concerns; change planned actions were citizen
suggestions have merit; and explain to citizens what EPA has done
and why." (p.5-7). The following recommendations discuss in detail
each of these steps.
Implementation:
1)	Listen carefully to what citizens are saving. Superfund
managers and staff should listen carefully throughout the technical
process to the concerns and comments of local communities. It is in
the interest of Superfund to listen to what citizens are saying not
only during the comment period after the Proposed Plan is issued,
but during the entire process. Although some may see only the short
term view that a community's involvement slows the decision-making
process and causes costly delays, it has been EPA's experience that
the long term success of the project is enhanced by involving the
public early and often. Carefully considering citizen concerns
before selection of a preferred remedy will lead to better
decision-making.
Some Regions have successfully adopted innovative techniques
for soliciting citizen input. These include community workgroups,
open houses, and informal "roundtable" discussions. Regions are
encouraged to try as many of these techniques as possible to
communicate with citizens.
2)	Take the time necessary to deal with citizens' concerns.
Incorporating citizen concerns into site decisions need not be a
cause for delay or, for that matter, excessive cost. By allocating
sufficient resources to community relations and maintaining an
awareness of citizen concerns throughout the process, Regions can
successfully assimilate citizen concerns into site decisions.
The most effective way to provide time to deal with citizen
concerns is by building a schedule at the outset that allows
adequate time (and resources) for public involvement. Such
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
H-33

-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
planning should include, among other things, the likelihood that
commentors may request an extension of the public comment period
following issuance of the Proposed Plan, as allowed by Section 300.
425 (f)(3)(i)(C) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). In
accordance with the SMR, site managers should announce a thirty-day
comment period, but anticipate the possibility of a sixty-day
period. Also, effective planning and early citizen involvement will
allow site managers to anticipate those particularly controversial
sites or proposed remedial actions which may warrant an additional
extension of the comment period.
OSWER Directive #9230.0-08 of March 8, 1990, entitled
"Planning for Sufficient Community Relations," provides additional
guidance and instructs Regions to dedicate adequate resources to
support additional community relations needs. The guidance included
the SMR recommendation that Regions "... establish a discretionary
fund that they could use to fund additional work necessary to
respond to citizen concerns." (p.5-7).
3)	Change planned actions where citizen suggestions have
merit. It is crucial that EPA remain flexible, and willing to alter
plans where a local community presents valid concerns. In recent
years, EPA has demonstrated an increased willingness to change or
significantly alter its preferred remedy. In some instances,
citizen input has saved EPA from mistakes and unnecessary costs. It
is obviously more cost effective to spend time, energy and money
working with the public on a regular basis, than to deal with
resistance created when a community believes it has been left out
of the process.
With regard to changing planned actions, EPA's measure of
success should not be whether or not the community applauds the
remedy because EPA did what it asked, but whether or not EPA
honestly listen to citizens, and genuinely took into account their
concerns. EPA may remain unpersuaded after hearing from citizens,
but it is EPA's responsibility to reinforce to citizens that their
comments were carefully and thoughtfully considered.
4)	Explain to citizens what EPA has done and why. Regardless
of the outcome of site decisions, EPA must fully communicate those
decisions to the public. The most thorough vehicle for such
communication is the responsiveness summary. As recommended by the
SMR, EPA has revised the format of responsiveness summaries to make
them more easily understandable to citizens without compromising
the legal and technical goals of the document. It is imperative
that the public be able to see in writing EPA's response to their
concerns and comments. As the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
H-34

-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
OSWER Directive #9230.0-18
SMR notes, "Whether EPA can do what citizens ask or not, we should
always provide them a clear explanation of the basis for our
decision." (p.5-7). The public needs clear, candid responses,
rather than volumes of technical and legal jargon piling up
evidence for why EPA's original decision was the only possible one.
Although the responsiveness summary represents the most
visible and comprehensive vehicle for explaining EPA decisions to
the public, it is only one component of a process. EPA should
explain site decisions throughout the entire cleanup, rather than
only at few key stages. That is, EPA must establish and maintain a
dialogue through which we discuss site decisions as they develop,
as well as make Superfund documents more available to the public
throughout the cleanup process.
Conclusion:
Although Superfund has firmly established its ability to
share information with, and receive it from, the public, the
program nevertheless needs to better incorporate citizen concerns
into site decisions. The recommendations outlined above will move
Superfund closer to that goal. For more information regarding
Community Relations in Superfund, contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff
Langholz of my staff at FTS 398-8340 or FTS 398-8341, respectively.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
H-35

-------