Institutional Controls

Description

The purpose of this Fact Sheet is to assist
Superfund Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) in
implementing effective remedies by leveraging
Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs) to
facilitate in the implementation of Institutional
Controls (ICs). This document will: (1) define
types of ICs; (2) outline the skills of CICs as they
relate to IC issues; and, (3) identify past suc-
cesses of Community Involvement with Institu-
tional Controls.

EPA defines ICs as non-engineered instruments,
such as administrative and/or legal controls, that
help to minimize the potential for human exposure
to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a
remedy. There are four general categories of ICs:
Proprietary Controls, Governmental Controls,
Enforcement and Permit Tools with IC Compo-
nents, and Informational Devices. ICs are part of a
balanced, practical approach to site cleanup and are
generally designed to supplement engineering
controls. ICs work by limiting land or resource use
and/or by providing information that helps modify or
guide human behavior at the site.

ICs are an important part of remedy selection and
effectiveness that can be advanced through Com-
munity Involvement activities. CICs have a variety
of skills and experiences with the communities and
local governments impacted by ICs. ICs affect the
way that natural resources, including an individual's
property and groundwater wells, are utilized.
Therefore, it is imperative that the community be
involved in the IC process so that it fully under-
stands its limitations and responsibilities related to
ICs. CICs are in a unique position to bolster the
community's understanding and support of ICs and
have been trained in the communication skills
necessary to address public concerns regarding IC
implementation. Additionally, CICs have estab-
lished relationships with community members and,
therefore, can provide efficient and effective
support for implementing ICs.

Types of Institutional Controls

As stated in Draft Guidance, Institutional Con-
trols: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring and
Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund,
Brownfields, Federal Facility, UST, and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, February 2003
(www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/
icgdraft.pdf). the four primary categories of ICs are
defined as follows:

1.	Proprietary Controls - These controls are based
on state law and use a variety of tools to prohibit
activities that may compromise the effectiveness
of the remedy or restrict activities or future uses
of resources that may result in unacceptable risk
to human health or the environment. The most
common examples of proprietary controls are
easements and covenants.

2.	Governmental Controls - These controls impose
land or resource restrictions using the authority
of an existing unit of government. Typical
examples of governmental controls including
zoning, building codes, drilling permit require-
ments, and state or local groundwater use
regulations.

3.	Enforcement and Permit Tools with IC Compo-
nents - These types of legal tools include orders,
permits, and consent decrees. These instru-
ments may be issued unilaterally or negotiated to
compel a party to limit certain site activities, as
well as ensure the performance of affirmative
obligations (e.g., to monitor and report on ICs'
effectiveness).

4.	Informational Devices - These tools provide
information or notification about whether a
remedy is operating as designed and/or that
residual or contained contamination may remain
on site. Typical information devices include state
registries, deed notices, and advisories.

For a more detailed discussion of the types and
relative strengths and weaknesses of the four
categories of ICs, consult the EPA Fact Sheet
entitled, Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's
Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting

-------
Institutional Controls at Snperfnnd and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups, September 2000
(OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005)
(www.epa. gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide .pdf).

Using the Resource

Community Involvement

Each category of ICs has unique implementation
issues. While Community Involvement (CI) may
not be the solution for every obstacle, there are
some instances in which CI is central to implement-
ing ICs. Because ICs generally affect the local
community to a great extent, it is imperative that the
community support the ICs to ensure their effec-
tiveness.

Community Involvement activities can form the
basis for Informational Devices. CICs already
conduct outreach and informational activities (e.g.,
informational fact sheets/flyers), and through the
Community Involvement Plan, have a program for
community involvement that can be modified or
elaborated to include ICs information. CICs may be
able to assist RPMs, and state and local officials in
developing informational flyers that could regularly
be mailed out to the community to inform it of the
residual risks and the corresponding ICs at various
portions of the site. Lead registries, well drilling
prohibitions, and fish advisories are some examples
of where waste may be left in-place and where ICs
are used to maintain protection of human health and
the environment. CICs may be able to assist in
developing the appropriate outreach materials that
can be used to appropriately inform the community
and maintain the effectiveness of the ICs over the
long-term.

Similarly, CI can play a role in Governmental
Controls. Generally, CICs will have conducted
public meetings regarding the site, and, therefore,
should already have connections with local public
officials, community organizations, and the general
public. CICs may have the ability to connect EPA
staff, including the RPM and Regional Counsel,
with local representatives to expedite the IC
process. Additionally, CICs often know how the
local government operates, thus understanding
which key officials should be included in IC discus-
sions to ensure that all affected departments and
organizations are represented. CICs likely work
simultaneously on more sites than RPMs, and,

therefore, may already know the process for
implementing ICs due to previous experiences with
other sites. Consequently, CICs" knowledge and
skills allow for efficient IC identification and
implementation.

Additionally, ICs may be controversial in communi-
ties because community members do not under-
stand the importance of ICs, how they are person-
ally affected by them, or the role of the local
government in implementing and monitoring, among
other issues. In many cases it would be beneficial
for CICs to conduct a public presentation regarding
basic IC information, including what ICs are, what
they are intended to accomplish, how they are
implemented, and how they affect the community
and local government. Informing the community
about ICs and addressing any fears it may have are
imperative for generating support for ICs. Addi-
tionally, CICs are in a position to prepare Fact
Sheets that explain ICs for those community
members unable to attend public meetings. Early
and meaningful communication of the importance
and restrictions associated with potential ICs would
work to smooth the path for IC implementation at a
later date. Once the community is committed to
ICs, it can create a supportive political environment
to implement and monitor them.

In summary, Community Involvement Coordinators
possess a unique skill set and experience in con-
ducting community involvement activities regarding
a myriad of topics. The Community Involvement
Program provides a primed platform to inform and
advocate ICs and has the potential to alleviate the
site RPMs from some IC-related responsibilities.

ICs are an important remedy component, and IC
implementation is fundamental to protecting the
integrity of the remedy and ensuring protection of
human health and the environment. There are four
primary types of ICs, two of which (Governmental
Controls and Informational Devices) provide
opportunities for CIC assistance. Community
Involvement Coordinators can be a vehicle, already
positioned, to assist in getting the local government
and community involved and on board with IC
implementation. Attached are two sample sites in
which the CIC was able to assist with, and ad-
vance, IC implementation.

-------
Tips

¦	Early and meaningful involvement of the commu-
nity in regard to ICs can ease acceptance and
implementation.

¦	Public meetings and fact sheets informing the
community of ICs may eliminate misunderstand-
ing and fears associated with ICs.

¦	Continual IC discussions are crucial in maintain-
ing ICs during changes in local administrations.

¦	CI staff may have expertise and contacts that
can help involve the community and negotiate the
local government process.

¦	EPA CI facilitation can expedite the process for
IC implementation.

¦	Early and meaningful involvement benefits both
the community and EPA because the community
can provide valuable insight to site conditions,
site use, and potential reuse opportunities.

¦	By discussing communication needs with the
RPM, CICs can make sure that smaller tasks
that affect the community don't get lost in the
overall site cleanup and long-term operation and
maintenance activities.

Additional Sources of
Information

Case Study I: Palos Verdes Shelf

Site Information:

Palos Verdes Shelf
Region 9

17-square-mile area off of Palos Verdes peninsula
www.epa.gov/region09/features/pvshelf/index.html

IC Decision Document: Action Memorandum for
Institutional Controls

Site IC Snapshot: Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethane (DDT) contamination from Montrose
Chemical Corporation of California, Inc.

(Montrose) chemical site has polluted the Palos
Verdes Shelf off the coast of Los Angeles. This
contamination is bio-accumulated in fish species,
specifically white croaker, that are consumed by
local anglers and market-goers on a regular basis,
creating a viable exposure pathway to contami-
nants. To inform and protect subsistence anglers
and customers at local fish markets, EPA launched
a 10-year Institutional Control (IC) Program in 2001

that addresses site issues through the three-prong
approach that includes an extensive outreach
program, a monitoring program, and an enforce-
ment program. The IC program utilizes the authori-
ties and skills of local, state and federal govern-
ment, as well as local community groups, to ensure
all high-risk populations are adequately informed of
potential health hazards and methods to minimize
exposure. The Community Involvement Coordinator
(CIC) and the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
worked with the local government officials and
community groups to implement the IC Program.

Site Summary: The Palos Verdes Shelf lies
approximately one to three miles offshore of the
Palos Verdes peninsula, near the City of Los
Angeles. The impacted portion of the Palos Verdes
Shelf consists of sediments contaminated with DDT
and its metabolites and PCBs. The DDT- and
PCB-contaminated sediments cover a 43-square-
kilometer (17 square miles) area of the ocean floor
on both the continental shelf and the continental
slope, and the area is the largest known DDT-
impacted sediment deposit in the country. Starting
in 1947, Montrose produced DDT at a manufactur-
ing plant in Los Angeles County. Wastes from the
manufacturing process, containing DDT residues,
were discharged to the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant and then to the ocean until 1971. The
Montrose plant stopped discharging process
wastewater to the sewer in the early 1970s, and the
manufacturing plant was closed and dismantled in
1983. The DDT and PCBs in contaminated sedi-
ments were entering the food web and posed a
variety of threats to sediment dwelling organisms,
fish, and higher predator species (including some
protected by state or federal endangered species
laws). Some of these fish, including white croaker,
are consumed by humans, creating a human
exposure pathway.

Problem: Exposure to DDT and PCBs from the
Montrose Chemical site through fish consumption,
particularly consumption of white croaker, or fish
caught near the Palos Verdes Shelf created a
human exposure pathway.

IC Objectives: Implementation of ICs to put
fishing restrictions in place and to improve public
awareness of the health effects of eating contami-
nated fish. Limit availability of contaminated fish
through a ban of commercial fishing for white
croaker and imposition of a catch limit on sport

-------
fishing for white croaker in the area of the Palos
Verdes Shelf. Evaluate the effectiveness of fishing
restrictions through a monitoring program for
contaminated fish in local markets and "fish-in-
occan" monitoring to adjust the size of the closure
area as appropriate to limit human exposure.

Methodology: A pilot program was conducted to
outline an effective IC program. The site RPM and
CIC worked together with local community groups
to identify pertinent environmental issues, ensuring
their work addressed site conditions and community
needs. A Consent Decree, signed in 2001, provided
ample funding for the IC program, permitting
extensive community work. The resulting IC
Program consists of a three-prong IC approach:
Public Outreach, Monitoring, and Enforcement.

Public Outreach Program: The outreach pro-
gram component, entitled the Fish Contamination
Education Collaborative, was designed to reach
target populations, including subsistence anglers
from multi-ethnic communities and communities
purchasing fish from local markets. EPA worked
with a variety of stakeholders, including the state,
the Natural Resource Trustees, county health
officials for both Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
and community-based organizations for populations
at risk, to create an effective program. The pro-
gram incorporates several methods of outreach to
engage the entire community. Programs are in
place to reach local anglers, family and community
organizations, and local commercial markets.

EPA provided funding and information for local
community groups to conduct outreach activities.
Heal the Bay and Cabrillo Marine Aquarium
currently conduct the angler outreach program
by educating pier and shoreline anglers about the
dangers associated with consuming contami-
nated fish. Multi-lingual informational brochures
were created to identify fish contamination
zones and fish consumption limits, and recom-
mend preparation methods to reduce potential
exposure to contaminants.

As part of the general community outreach pro-
gram, educators from local organizations were
trained to conduct culturally appropriate outreach
sessions to their organizations. Additionally, local
health departments trained public health nurses to
incorporate health messages into already existing
programs to further educate at-risk populations,

including children and women of child-bearing age.
Educational resources, including a comic book for
children, an interactive exhibit for health fairs, a
Web site, a video, and fact sheets, have been
provided to reach the community in a variety of
settings. The Web site, www.pvsfish.org. provides a
great deal of historical information as well as current
outreach activities. Additionally, local environmental
groups were trained in media relations and contacted
media and political representatives to disseminate
information about the potential hazards of consuming
contaminated fish and the ongoing efforts to reduce
exposure opportunities.

The market outreach program is a community-led
program to encourage market owners to purchase
fish from trusted sources. A poster and a flyer
entitled Fish is Good When Fish is Safe to Eat
was published to assist market owners, as well as
their customers, in avoiding the purchase of con-
taminated white croaker.

Monitoring Program: At the request of the local
community groups, the site RPM and CIC worked
with the Trustees to include mercury testing in the
fish monitoring program. Although mercury con-
tamination was not associated with the Montrose
Site, mercury testing was included in monitoring
activities to create a more inclusive study that
addressed community health concerns regarding
chemical contamination.

The monitoring program for white croaker consists
primarily of two parts, namely analysis of "fish-in-
occan" and market-sold fish to assess the extent of
fish contamination and consumption of contami-
nated fish. The ""fish-in-occan" monitoring plan,
conducted adjacent to the commercial closure area,
was scheduled to take place every two years to
determine the geographic representation of fish
contaminant levels. Information obtained from these
monitoring activities will be utilized in the site's RI/
FS and to update the California Fish Advisory. EPA
partnered with county environmental health inspec-
tors to conduct inspections of white croaker
available on the market. This program was sched-
uled as a five-year program with the potential for
continuation. Local environmental groups coordi-
nated the inclusion of the media, providing great
news coverage of the program.

Enforcement Program: The enforcement portion
of the program is administered by the California

-------
Institutional Controls

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The
enforcement program is meant to prohibit commer-
cial catching of white croaker in the Palos Verdes
Shelf area and establish a daily white croaker catch
limit for sport anglers. Due to staff vacancies within
the CDFG. continuous coverage using patrol boats
is infeasible. Therefore, enforcement relies on
shore-based activities. Local county health officials,
in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties, conduct
market monitoring for contaminated white croaker
as a local enforcement measure. This information is
provided to CDFG to assist it in allocating resources
to effectively conduct enforcement activities.

Program Results: Outreach activities have been
conducted in approximately 14 languages, including
Cantonese, Cebuano, Chamorro, English, Ilocano,
Khmer, Korean, Mandarin, Marshallese, Samoan,
Spanish, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese. The
community is positively engaged in the outreach
program. The pier outreach program has reached
people from a large geographical area, including
Riverside County residents, who would not have
otherwise been reached through conventional, local
community involvement activities. Thanks to the
involvement of local community organizations, the
work being conducted at this site has received
positive media attention.

Lessons Learned:

¦	The RPM and CIC played a large role in coordi-
nating IC activities that included federal, state,
county and city governments, and local commu-
nity organizations.

¦	Educating and empowering the community-based
organizations provided opportunities for imple-
mentation of the outreach component of the IC
Program.

¦	The RPM and CIC worked as liaisons between
the community organizations and the Trustees to
create a partnership to adequately address health
concerns.

¦	Working with local groups to provide perpetual
outreach programs in a one-on-one setting
reached a larger audience than local community
meetings alone.

¦	Translating technical information into languages
understandable by the public permitted an
effective outreach program.

¦	The monitoring component of the IC Program is
beneficial both for evaluating exposure path-

ways and for gathering information for the RI/
FS process.

¦ Innovative approaches to IC activities allowed
for a larger population to be included in outreach
activities than conventional methods alone.

Contact Information:

EPA Remedial Project Manager
Sharon Lin

75 Hawthorne Street (SFD-7-1)

San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)972-3446
lin. sharon@epa. gov

EPA Community Involvement Coordinator:

Jackie Lane

75 Hawthorne Street (SFD-3)

San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)972-3236
lane ,j ackie @epa. gov

Case Study II: Stamina Mills, Inc.

Site Information:

Stamina Mills, Inc.

Region 1

North Smithfield, RI 02824
www.vosemite. epa. gov/r 1 /npl_pad .nsf/
5 Idc4fl73ceef5 Id85256adf004c7ec8/
c2292bda44445e5c852569 If0063f6fa! OpenDocument&
Highlight=0.stamina#toc

IC Decision Document: Second Explanation of
Significant Differences

Site IC Snapshot: Trichloroethylene (TCE)
contamination from Stamina Mills polluted ground-
water beneath the site. Continual use of groundwa-
ter by residents threatened to increase vapor
intrusion exposure pathways by altering groundwa-
ter flow and causing the plume to move under
homes. EPA stepped in and worked with the town
to implement an institutional control (IC) that limited
residential groundwater use. The IC was imple-
mented through a city ordinance limiting groundwa-
ter use and well installation to avoid altering con-
taminant transport mechanisms, thereby protecting
the community. The Community Involvement
Coordinator (CIC) and the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM) worked with the local government
officials to craft the ordinance.

— 5

-------
Site Summary: Stamina Mills, located on a five-
acre parcel, operated as a textile mill in the early
1900's. In 1969, a solvent scouring system which
used TCE for removing oil and dirt from newly
woven fabric was installed. Sometime during that
same year, an unknown quantity of TCE was spilled
at the site. In 1975, the mill closed, and by 1987, all
residences impacted by the spill were connected to
the public water supply. Groundwater is contami-
nated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
primarily TCE. Sediments are contaminated with
TCE, dieldrin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs). In 1990, EPA issued a Record of
Decision that selected in-place vacuum extraction
of soil contaminated with TCE in the spill area,
excavation of approximately 550 cubic yards of
landfill waste and sediments, and the extraction of
contaminated groundwater and treatment. A pump
and treat system utilizing air stripping with granular
activated carbon (GAC) treatment of the vapors is
currently in place. The 2005 five-year review stated
that while the remedy is functioning as designed, in
order for the remedy to be protective in the long-
term, institutional controls need to be addressed,
and vapor intrusion studies need to be conducted.

Problem: The utilization of private wells would
alter groundwater flow, creating a new pathway of
exposure, vapor intrusion, under approximately 40
homes. Additionally, private use of contaminated
water for irrigation purposes would spread the
contaminants, requiring further remediation activities.

IC Objectives: Enact a legal mechanism to
eliminate well installation and/or usage within a
quarter mile of the site.

Methodology: Byron Mah, the RPM, evaluated
potential options to identify the Institutional Control
that would prohibit groundwater extraction. A
Town Ordinance was chosen over deed notices
because it requires only one action, versus approxi-
mately 40 legal actions, and it will run with the land.
Sarah White, the CIC who was knowledgeable
about the community and had contacts with local
government officials, used her skills to get the issue
on the Town Council Agenda. The RPM and CIC
created an informational packet for Council Mem-
bers, and the RPM prepared a presentation about
the IC before the Town Council. The RPM sent
the Town Manager and the Town Planner a draft
ordinance from another town to provide an example
of the ordinance he was seeking.

The draft ordinance included a provision that
requires a permit from the Building Inspector to
install a well. Additionally, wells are not permitted if
the location is connected to a public water supply or
if the Inspector identifies the site as an EPA
designated site, or is located on a property identified
as a property on which ICs are recommended.

The Stamina Mills ordinance delineated the Stamina
Mills Groundwater Remediation District to encom-
pass all associated properties in the area of sur-
rounding the site. This document allows the town to
enforce the IC by requiring current wells to be
decommissioned, and preventing the installation of
new wells. The use of an ordinance also permits
the IC to run with the land rather than be associ-
ated with series-specific deed notices.

Once the Town Council modified the draft ordi-
nance to fit the town's needs, the CIC and RPM
again obtained a spot on the Town Council Agenda
to hold a Public Hearing regarding the ordinance.
The CIC contacted all parties with a vested interest
(the environmental department, the water depart-
ment, etc.) and informed them of the Town Meeting
to get everyone's perspectives and local knowl-
edge. Additionally, local residents were notified of
the hearing to provide an opportunity for them to
learn about the ordinance and provide the RPM and
CIC an opportunity to address any public com-
ments. Following the Public Hearing, the Town
Council voted to pass the ordinance, and it is
currently functioning as designed.

Program Results:

The IC was successfully implemented by the Town
Council and remains effectively in place as a
result of EPA efforts. While this is an EPA IC,
the town of North Smithfield also has enforce-
ment authority since it is a town ordinance. The
IC maintains the protectiveness of the remedy.

Lessons Learned:

¦	Learning the local government system and
establishing contacts within it are crucial to
efficiently advancing local ICs because not all
local governments operate in the same fashion.

¦	CI Staff may have expertise and contacts that
can help involve the community and negotiate the
local government process.

¦	EPA CI facilitation can expedite the process for
IC implementation.

-------
Institutional Controls

Early discussions with the Town Manager and
Town Planner were mutually beneficial for the
Town and EPA because the Town Council could
provide information on initiatives that have failed
or succeeded, and EPA was able to tap into the
local system to implement appropriate IC.

Contact Information:

EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Byron Mah

1 Congress Street Suite 1100 (HBO)
Boston, MA 02114
(617)918-1249
mah.bvron@epa.gov

EPA Community Involvement Coordinator:
Sarah White

1 Congress Street Suite 1100 (HIO)
Boston, MA 02114
(617)918-1026
white. sarah@epa. gov

— 7

-------