Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook

f *m
% If0^e
/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
w so mo
OFFICE Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
KSMPFAWPTO
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Innovative Methods to Increase Public Involvement in
Superfund Community Relations (Superfund Management.
Review Recommendation #43.A) '
Henry L. Longest II, Director .
Office of Emergency and Remedial Resj^snse
Director, Waste Management Division,
Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division,
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X
Community Relations Coordinators, Regions I - X
Purpose: To discuss and present innovative techniques for
increasing public involvement in Superfund Community Relations.
Background: The Superfund Management Review found that
citizens question whether they actually influence EPA's decisions
regarding Superfund sites. Many citizens believe EPA's community
relations program is just "sophisticated public relations" and
not a program to involve citizens in the decision-making process.
Although Superfund is improving in its efforts to listen to
citizen concerns, and where applicable, to incorporate them into
site decisions, there still is room for more improvement. Rather
than merely acknowledge and occasionally utilize citizen input,
Superfund should actively encourage such participation.
Superfund must go beyond that which is required, and establish
new and creative methods of community outreach.
H-36

-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
Implementation: The six techniques described below have
proven effective in increasing public involvement in the
Superfund process. While some are recent innovations, others
were developed many years ago, but new and better ways of using
them have bolstered their effectiveness. The list does not
pretend to be exhaustive. Instead, it shows some of the outreach
vehicles Regions have found to be particularly effective in
encouraging citizen participation. Regions should make every
effort to integrate as many as possible of these activities into
the cleanup process.
1) Citizen work groups: since the mid 1980s, citizen work
groups — also known as technical information committees, citizen
information committees, or community work groups — have been
established at sites across the country. Widely recognized as
one of the best mechanisms for increasing public involvement in
the decision-making process, citizen work groups are structured
organizations for the discussion and exchange of information
between decision-makers and the affected public. Work groups
have become more widespread and sophisticated as people realize
their effectiveness.
Citizen work groups generally consist of State and local
officials, representatives from community groups, and EPA staff
including at least the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and the
Community Relations Coordinator (CRC). The size of the group and
the number of meetings it holds depends on the public's interest
in the site, activity at the site, and material to be reviewed.
A successful citizen group does not guarantee agreement
about technical issues, nor does it eliminate controversy between
citizens and EPA. Regions state that successful work groups help
EPA identify and understand community concerns that are important
to address during the cleanup process. The groups also give
citizens an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the
complexity of the cleanup process, as well as the technical
aspects of the remedial alternatives available. Armed with this
kind of technical knowledge and given a forum in which to discuss
their concerns, citizens provide relevant and valuable
information to aid in decision-making.
A few factors limit the effectiveness of a work group.
Occasionally, one or two well-organized community interests
dominate the group, squelching other important interests or
obscuring the community's real concerns. In other instances,
members of the group will fail to report back to their
constituents, limiting the dispersal of information. To avoid
these obstacles, work groups should contain a wide representation
of the community and develop ground rules for the meetings that
allow all groups to participate equally.
H-37

-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
QWSER Directive #9230.0-20
Work groups are highly labor-intensive and time-consuming.
Also, the additional information citizens receive through the
work group may occasionally result in SPA extending comment
periods to allow them time to understand the technical issues and
prepare comments. Host Regions agree, however, that the benefits
of having the group outweigh any negative aspects. Their
experience demonstrates that work groups are an effective way to
give the public a greater role in the decision-making process at
a Superfund site.
2)	Citizen Superfund Workshopt Few citizens understand the
complexity of the Superfund process. This frustrates citizens
who want to be involved at the site and contributes to their
distrust of the Agency. One Region recently developed a six-hour
Citizen Superfund Workshop for all Regions that provides citizens
with an overview of the Superfund program. Through lecture,
discussion and case studies, the workshop provides participants
with a general summary of the cleanup process, as well as an
explanation of the various opportunities for public involvement.
The success of the pilot workshop held in Spring 1990
indicates that it could be a very effective way of increasing
public involvement at superfund sites. Not only does it
familiarize citizens with the Superfund process, but it also
tells them when and how to become involved in the process. In
addition, the workshop itself gets citizens involved with EPA,
and it gives both parties a chance to meet one another and begin
developing rapport.
The workshop is especially effective if given early in the
Superfund process. An ideal time is during development of the
Community ^Relations Plan. Regions should convey to participants
that the workshop is not a debate on the merits of the Superfund
program or a precise indication of how work will be conducted at
their site, but a lesson on how the program operates in general.
The workshop is inexpensive and requires only one or two
instructors. Guidance materials necessary to conduct the
workshop have been developed and distributed to all Regions.
3)	Bilingual Communicationt Bilingual communication helps
break language barriers that prevent non-English speaking
citizens affected by a Superfund site from becoming involved or
aware of activities at the site. Regions have used bilingual
fact sheets for many years, most notably in the Spanish and
Portuguese languages. Recently, a few Regions have expanded
their bilingual services to include translating other
informational materials besides fact sheets, developing bilingual
summaries of publicly available technical documents, and
H-38

-------
Community Relations Handbook
Appendix H
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
providing translators at public meetings and hearings. These
techniques give non-English speaking citizens access to more
information about Superfund sites and enable then to participate
more broadly and effectively in community relations activities.
4)	Citizen Awards for Participation: For a citizen to be
highly involved at a Superfund site — organizing and running a
community group for instance —- requires a good deal of time and
dedication on the person's part, especially because activities at
sites span many years. This can deter some citizens from ever
becoming involved at a site and lead to "burn out" among those
that do. One Region is encouraging public involvement — and
recognizing the dedication it takes — by presenting the "Citizen
Participation Award." The award is bestowed on an individual,
usually representing a citizen group, who has significantly
contributed to public involvement at a Superfund site in the
Region. The Region states that the award demonstrates to the
community the value EPA places on public involvement, and thus
encourages further participation.
5)	increased Interviews; Increasing the number of
interviews with citizens is one of the most effective methods to
enhance citizen participation. Many Regions conduct, where
necessary, more than the required 15 - 25 interviews to be used
as a basis of the Community Relations Plan. Depending on the
site, Regions have conducted anywhere from dozens to hundreds of
interviews. Regions should not hesitate to increase the number
of interviews to reflect both the complexity and the level of
citizen interest at a site. Although this effort may require
substantial labor and resources at the outset of community
relations work, it helps ensure that the Region identifies and
focuses attention on those issues that are most important to the
community.
Regions should first determine the scope and history of any
problems at the Superfund site, using interviews with local
officials and key citizens, and an availability session or public
forum. If EPA determines, based on this evaluation, that the
site will likely require more aggressive community involvement,
the Agency should make plans to significantly expand its
interviewing efforts.
Regions have found interviews to be a particularly effective
way to gather information. Often issues emerge during the
interviews that some citizens would hesitate to air during a
public meeting. Increasing the number of interviews enables the
Region to develop a highly responsive program for addressing
citizens' concerns and involving the community in the decision-
making process.
H-39

-------
Appendix H
Community Relations Handbook
OWSER Directive #9230.0-20
«> Open Houses/Availability Sessions: Some citizens find
public meetings intimidating and may be afraid to voice their
concerns at them. Open houses —• or availability sessions --
provide an informal, personal setting in which citizens can
discuss their concerns one-on-one with EPA officials. While open
houses are not new to public involvement, their use is steadily
increasing. Regions are beginning to move beyond only the
customary "ice-breaker" open house, toward a more consistent
offering of these valuable opportunities throughout the process.
Open houses usually take place at convenient public
locations where the Region can set up displays containing
information about the site, provide staff to discuss technical
information with citizens, or just meet with the community in an
informal manner. Regions say that the open houses help the
community learn more about the site and about the EPA officials
that will be working on it. It helps, one community relations
coordinator said, "to show the community that the RPM and other
EPA officials are just people." Another said it enabled the
Region to "hear from other citizens besides the vocal minority
that tends to dominate public meetings." Others use open houses
to mark strategic points in the cleanup process.
Open houses are relatively inexpensive, but require planning
and participation from a variety of EPA officials who are
knowledgeable about the site.
Conclusion: The techniques discussed in this memorandum
require additional cost and effort. However, by taking a
proactive approach to community relations, and going a step
beyond the required activities, the Superfund program will better
avoid or resolve conflict with citizens. By encouraging mutually
satisfactory two-way communication and promoting increased public
involvement in site decision-making, the Superfund program will
move closer toward acceptance of citizens as legitimate partners
in the cleanup process. The techniques for increasing citizen
participation outlined in this memorandum will help achieve this
goal.
For further information regarding public involvement in
Superfund, please contact Melissa Shapiro or Jeff Langholz of my
staff at FTS 398-8340 and FTS 398-8341, respectively.
H-40

-------