Hot SiTEs TempIate

DescRipiioN

The template, or matrix, provides a visual reference you can use to plan your site-specific
communications work. It is designed to help you assess the likelihood that a site will become
contentious, or "hot." Understanding the potential of a site to become controversial gives you
an advantage in preventing serious issues before they arise and in saving time and resources.

UsiNq tNe Resource

The template helps you:

•	Classify site communities by their potential to become contentious, or hot;

•	Identify the appropriate level of effort to mitigate that potential;

•	Allocate limited time and resources across your sites according to their potential for
becoming hot;

•	Identify specific communication needs;

•	Develop a communications strategy specific to each site community;

® Set realistic goals and measures of progress; and

® Assess which influencing factors are present and which sites demand the most attention.

Although some sites will become contentious regardless of what you do, this is not a reason to
avoid analyzing your communities and planning accordingly. Rather, it emphasizes the impor-
tance of such efforts. If you recognize the potential for problems at the site, plan accordingly,
and implement appropriately, you can be reasonably confident that you are prepared to deal
with the site.

WMen to Use

The hot sites template is useful at any time, even if a site has already gone hot. While it is too
late to avoid problems at a site that already has done hot, you still have to deal with them. The
best way to address existing problems is to figure out why they occurred and focus on cor-
recting the underlying causes. The hot sites template is an excellent tool for identifying the
factors that led to problems and where future communication efforts will provide the biggest
payoff in terms of lessening controversy.

The hot sites template is most effective if it is applied very early in the Superfund process. To
get the most out of the information gathered from preliminary interviews that the SAM (Site
Assessment Manager) and, possibly, the RPM (Remedial Program Manager) did with com-
munity members. This information can be helpful in identifying the factors that could affect

the community's relationship with EPA. Your research will provide additional information that	See rommnnitv

will help make the template more effective. Refer to your Community Interviews and do	Interviews.

some research into local news coverage of the site including editorials and letters to the	Tab 5

editors, and assess their tone (positive or negative) toward EPA's involvement at the site.

If the hot sites template is not applied during the PA/SI (Preliminary Assessment / Site
Investigation) stage, or if sufficient information is not available, use the template after the
Community Interviews are held.

Last Updated:

September 2002

1


-------
Hot SiTEs TempIate

How to Use

You can use the sample template at the end of this tool to classify and rank your sites accord-
ing to their communications risk. Write your site names across the top of the matrix in the
boxes provided. Down the left side, you will see a list of factors, or site attributes, that are
often present at Superfund sites. A Glossary of Site Attributes appears at the end of this
tab. Refer to it to gain a better understanding of each attribute and to refine the definition to
meet your needs.

The attributes are listed in descending order, with those most likely to contribute to conten-
tiousness at the top. Evaluating one site at a time, place a check mark next to any factor that
you know or believe to apply to your site. Generally, the more factors checked, the greater the
possibility the site will become hot. However, be aware that a single factor, such as incinera-
tion or political interest, can by itself make a site enormously challenging. This is a qualitative
as well as a quantitative tool.

Completing the template provides a visual guide for developing and targeting communications
efforts. Your communication plan should target efforts towards alleviating those attributes that
could most easily cause a community to become contentious.

After completing the attributes for each site, rank sites according to how much attention they
need. To help with this, the attributes divided into three groupings, according to the combina-
tions of factors most likely to make a site contentious. The grouping at the top contains the
most dangerous combination of factors, and the danger lessens as you go down the list. The
EPA Region that developed the template chose to use four levels, with level 4 presenting the
greatest risk. The breakdown of the guidelines is found at the end of this tab under Sug-
gested Guidelines for Ranking Sites. However, since sites are not static, you may find it
useful to redo the checklist from time to time (at least once a year) to see if site circum-
stances have changed. Then, with this new information, you can consider revising your
strategy or level of attention for each site.

RANKINGS OR CLASSIFICATIONS

For the CIC (Community Involvement Coordinator): you can use your site rankings to direct
resources towards those sites most likely to become hot, and to structure your time and assure
that you are handling differing sites appropriately and effectively. You will find a sample LOE
(Level of Effort) Guide, based on the rankings, at the end of this tab. The following offers a
very basic example:

•	A Level 1 site presents an "acceptable risk" for minimal communications. You may be
able to "babysit" these sites with minimum effort.

•	A Level 2 site is slightly more demanding but still does not pose much risk of contention. It
should receive a bit more attention to ensure it stays non-threatening.

® A Level 3 site is potentially volatile and merits close watching to keep it from becoming
contentious; it might merit some activity on a regular basis.

® A Level 4 site is contentious or has all the makings of becoming so; it will require the most
attention and greatest level of effort, perhaps one form of community communications a
month.

2


-------
Hot SiTEs TempIate

Once the sites are ranked, use the information to help develop your communications strategy
for each site. This should be part of, or an addendum to, your Community Involvement Plan.
While developing your strategy, explain your plan to the RPM and get the RPM's "buy in." In
most cases, the RPM will be receptive to your ideas.

For the CI (Community Involvement) Manager: To reap the biggest rewards from the tem-
plate, work it with the entire team of CICs in your Region. You get the added benefit of
having all of the Region's sites ranked. With this additional information, the CI Manager can
use the rankings to help balance the workload among CICs. In the Region that developed the
template, the CI Manager used the template to ensure that the workload was distributed
appropriately among the staff. The template is also useful for assigning workload to new CICs
and recognizing professional growth. For example, the new CIC might receive only levels 1
and 2, while the senior CIC might receive a load consisting only of Level 3 and 4 sites.

Tips

® Adapt the tool to make it work best for you. Brainstorm with other CICs in your Region to
identify communication risk factors and ranking criteria.

® The template is most useful during the beginning stages of work at a site. However, site
classification is useful at any time. Review your site rankings at least annually. Consider
whether the plans you have developed for communicating at each site level work, and
adjust your site rankings and plans accordingly.

•	Use the template as part of an overall management strategy.

•	Use the site ranking to establish guidelines for communication.

® Remember, there is no way of knowing whether your efforts prevented a situation, and
there is no way of knowing whether a situation could have been prevented.

ReLatecJ TooLs/Resources iN tNe TooLkii

See Community
Involvement
Plans. Tab 7

® Community Interviews. Tab 5
® Community Involvement Plan. Tab 7
® Informal Activities. Tab 20

AuAchEd Items WiihiN This Resource

®	Attachment 1: Blank Template

®	Attachment 2: Glossary of Site Attributes

®	Attachment 3: Suggested Guidelines for Ranking Sites

®	Attachment 4: Suggested Level of Effort for Site Rankings

5


-------
Attachment 1: BLanL TempIate

Site factors are listed in descending order and grouped into three categories according to importance. Insert your site
names across the top and use this template as it appears, or use it as a guide to develop your own. An electronic
version is included on the disk. Technical factors appear in boldface type.

Attribute/Site



























Politics



























Hostile PRP



























Media



























Location



























Demographics



























Staff Turnover



























Slow Action



























Economics



























Site Security



























State History



























Land Use



























Contaminants



























Inconsistent EP^
Policy



























Activist PR



























Community
Perception



























Local Agenda



























Complexity



























Poor EPA
Communication



























Local Government
Initiative



























A4

Hot SiTES TempIate


-------
Attachment 2: Gloss a Ry of SiTE ArrmbiiTES

Note: The following are provided to help you understand the criteria assigned to the various site attributes or charac-
teristics. The criteria are not mutually exclusive and may overlap. They are provided as a guide only; you should
develop your own interpretations as well as the manner in which you will apply them before proceeding.

ACTIVIST PR: Public relations activities undertaken by local, regional, or national activist groups. As used here, it is
assumed to be negative: the more of this you have, the more contentious the site will be. If there is negative activist
PR directed at your site, mark this characteristic on the template.

COMMUNITY PERCEPTION: The view the community has of the site, of Superfund, and of EPA. Also consider
the community's perceptions on environmental justice as applied to them. If you are aware of negative community
perceptions, mark this characteristic on the template.

CONTAMINANTS: Some contaminants, such as dioxin, are more emotionally charged than others and, therefore,
have an alarming effect on residents. Some chemicals may be commonly accepted, but can be more harmful than the
more well known chemicals, which means that you may encounter problems getting people to understand why EPA is
working in their community. If emotionally charged contaminants are present, or if you sense a consensus of commu-
nity concern over the contaminants, mark this characteristic.

DEMOGRAPHICS: Concentrations of young children or elderly near a site generally mean higher levels of con-
cern. Higher education levels tend to bring higher levels of public interest, involvement, and even political pressure.
The predominance of home owners or renters typically brings different interests and concerns. Now that environmen-
tal equity has become a national issue, the population's racial and socioeconomic makeup and location (urban, subur-
ban, rural) will have an impact on Superfund involvement at sites. If any of these demographic factors that generally
lead to high concern or interest at a site are present, mark this characteristic. Also mark this characteristic if some
unique aspect of the population surrounding your site exists and you suspect it will lead to high interest.

ECONOMICS: Does Superfund threaten the well being of a major employer or the community's tax base? Is there
someone or some entity who wants to develop this site and who views Superfund as an obstacle? Does the commu-
nity see the Superfund designation as an opportunity for a windfall if they can force EPA to buy them out? Are
property values a major concern (they usually are)? Is the viability of the community's business district a consider-
ation? If questions like these are an issue, mark this characteristic.

HOSTILE PRP (Potentially Responsible Party): Some PRPs will step up to the plate, accept responsibility, and
work with EPA. More often, however, the PRPs will fight EPA, even while presenting a facade of being cooperative.
Most will mount some level of public relations activities against what EPA is trying to do—usually with information
that is skewed or inaccurate. Some PRPs may become very aggressive, to the point that you cannot match their
resources or level of effort. Some may attempt to threaten the community with layoffs or shut down; some may
harass employees or even concerned citizens who cooperate with EPA. If such is the case in your community, mark
this characteristic on the template.

INCONSISTENT EPA POLICY: This tends to become more obvious as the process evolves. It refers to EPA's
inconsistency on its decisions, actions, staffing, and so forth. It can be one of those things that will turn a neutral or
positive community into a negative one. If this is an issue, mark this characteristic on the template.

LAND USE: Future use of the site is generally a major concern within the community, and if EPA has not taken this
into account in its planning, land use can become a major contributor to contention. Mark this on the template if land
use is an issue at your site.

LOCAL AGENDA: Various elements within the community may have their own designs on the site. They may have
ideas of how they can further their causes, which may or may not relate directly to the site, by becoming actively
involved. Private citizens often see the site as a way to gain power within the community. It is possible to have
multiple agendas at work at the same time, even multiple agendas working at odds to each other. If local agendas are
apparent at your site, mark this characteristic on the template.

Hot SiTES TempIate

A5


-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE: Local governments may have their own designs on the site that might
conflict with EPA's objectives. This may or may not be the same as a local agenda, but it is certainly different from
politics. If this is the case, mark this characteristic on the template.

LOCATION: The size of the "affected community" directly impacts the level of community involvement efforts. For
example, when a large population is at risk, the task of keeping everyone informed is greater (increased fact sheet
mailings, more inquiries, larger and more frequent meetings). Proximity to schools, play grounds, hospitals, nursing
homes, or churches increase the potential for contention or, at least, citizen involvement. Consider whether site location
may lead to greater involvement or concern over the site, and if so, mark this on the template.

MEDIA: The level of media interest has a direct impact on how hot a site may become. Not all reporters are as
objective as we would like to believe. At most hot sites, media attention is very high, demanding increased media
relations by the CIC. This level of attention does not necessarily mean interest from a lot of media outlets; it could
mean a lot of interest from just one major outlet, such as a very popular and trusted local newspaper. Couple this with
a negative bias from the beat reporter, and you have the makings for a contentious site. If the level of media interest in
your site is high or coverage seems negative, mark this on the template.

POLITICS: Local and state politicians often see Superfund sites as their ride to bigger and better things. The interest
and involvement of local, state and/or federal officials impacts EPA's progress at sites. Intense political interest will
inevitably create a hot site, and should be marked on the template.

POOR EPA COMMUNICATION: Nothing can transform a neutral or positive community into a contentious one
faster than this. Citizens want and have a right to know what a government agency is doing in their community, why
they are doing it, and what it will mean to them and to their quality of life. EPA sometimes makes the mistake of
assuming that they do not care, that they will not understand, that it is "just business as usual," that it is not an issue, or
should not be an issue, all of which leads to controversy, lack of trust, and contention. Unfortunately, this is something
that evolves over time. However, you can look at what was done during discovery, site assessment, and the initial
stages of the RI (Remedial Investigation) to get a good idea of what confronts you. If EPA has not actively communi-
cated with local residents, mark this characteristic on the template.

SITE SECURITY: This is almost always a concern. Is it easy for people, especially kids, to get onto the site? This
often ties in with perception—if the residents perceive that they are at risk from any level of exposure, ease of access
becomes an issue regardless of whether they are actually at risk. Until some form of security is installed, such as a
locked fence around the site, this will be a bone of contention, and should be marked on the template.

SLOW ACTION: A recurring issue at many sites is the long time it takes EPA to clean up a site. The public's
perception of "wasted time" can impact EPA's actions at sites. Again, this is not always evident up front, unless there
has been PRP propaganda, activist PR, or other factors at work. If slow action is a problem or is perceived to be a
problem by local residents, mark this characteristic on the template.

STAFF TURNOVER: Many residents complain that EPA turns over staff too often and that they end up having to
train the new people. It is not unusual to find citizens with more site knowledge than team members. Be alert for this
as the site moves through the pipeline. If there has been a great deal of turnover at your site, mark this characteristic
on the template.

STATE HISTORY: If your initial research reveals state activities that were ineffective, or that residents disapproved
of, you may suffer a transfer of that sentiment and find yourself with a contentious, or at least distrusting, community
before you even get started. If this is the case, mark this characteristic.

TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY: The more technically complex a site, the more CI efforts are needed. For example,
sites having multiple operable units are more difficult for citizens to understand, take longer to complete, and require
more overall communications. If your site is technically complex, mark this characteristic on the template.

A6

Hot SiTES TempIate


-------
Attachment 5: SuqqESTEd CuideliNES For RANkiNq SiTES

The following are provided as a guide; you are encouraged to develop your own strategy for ranking sites.

Sites are ranked according to how many and which factors are present at each site:

•	Level 4 = 4 hits from the top category; or 3 hits from the top category + 1 or more from the middle category

•	Level 3 = 0 hits from the top category and 4 or more hits from the middle category; or 2 hits from the top category
and 3 or more from the middle category

•	Level 2 = 0 hits in the top category, 2 or fewer hits from the middle category, and 0 to 5 hits from the bottom
category

•	Level 1 = Any combination of hits from the bottom category alone

Hot SiTES TempIate

A7


-------
Attachment 4: SuqqESTEd LeveL of EFFort For SiTE RANkiNqs

Level 4: some form of interaction monthly
Level 3: some form of interaction quarterly
Level 2: some form of interaction semiannually
Level 1: some form of interaction annually
Interactions include but are not limited to:

® Fact sheets
® Public meetings

• Public availabilities/poster sessions
® Workshops
® Phone calls
® Informal visits
® Conference calls

A8

Hot SiTES TempIate


-------