Community Involvement Dunning Site Assessment
Community Involvement
During Site Assessment
Description
Site assessment is the first phase of the Superfund
remedial process. A Superfund site assessment is
performed to evaluate potential or confirmed
releases of hazardous substances that may pose a
threat to human health or the environment. The
process is guided by criteria established under the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) and the National
Contingency Plan and is carried out by EPA, state,
tribal, or other federal agency environmental
programs. Following notification of a potential
release, a series of assessments are carried out
until a final decision is reached regarding the need
for remedial cleanup attention. Several cleanup
approaches are available, including:
¦ placement on the National Priorities List (NPL).
¦ use of the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach.
¦ deferral to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) or to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission,
¦ referral to EPA's removal program.
¦ referral to state or tribal cleanup programs, and
¦ cleanup by other federal agencies.
During the site assessment process, EPA, states,
tribes and other federal government environmental
programs review data and work together to
determine how best to proceed. State concurrence
is requested prior to proposing a site to the NPL,
and tribal concurrence if the site is located on the
lands of a federally recognized tribe.
Required Activity
in EPA's ability to deal fairly and effectively with
site issues by conducting community involvement
activities and explaining the process to the
community.
Making It Work
The decision to conduct community involvement
activities during the site assessment process should
be based on a careful evaluation of the level of
community's interest and concern about the site,
and resources available for community involvement
activities. For example, conducting community
involvement activities during site assessment is
especially important if it appears likely the site will
be proposed for listing on the NPL or addressed
through the SA approach. It is important not to
create false expectations in the community about
future EPA involvement at the site because most
sites assessed will not be addressed by EPA.
No. There are no requirements for community
involvement during site assessment. The decision to
conduct community involvement during site
assessment should strike a balance between the
level of community's interest and concern about the
site, resources available for community involvement
activities, and the likelihood that further action at
the site is needed. However, EPA can begin to
develop trust and build the community's confidence
Superfund Alternative (SA) Approach
The SA approach:
¦ Uses the same investigation and cleanup
process and standards that are used for
sites listed on the NPL.
¦ Is an alternative to listing a site on the
NPL; it is not an alternative to Superfund
or the Siiperfiind process.
¦ Can potentially save the time and resources
associated with listing a site on the NPL.
As long as a PRP enters into an SA approach
agreement with EPA, there is no need for EPA
to list the site on the NPL (although the site
qualifies for listing on the NPL). Currently,
sites with SA approach agreements are a small
subset of all Superfund cleanup agreements.
For more information: http:/7www2. epa. gov/
enforcement/siiperfund-alternative-approach
J
-------
When to Use
Working with appropriate state and tribal officials,
EPA site teams should evaluate the level of interest
and need for community involvement during the site
assessment. Site Assessment Managers (SAMs),
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Community
Involvement Coordinators (CICs) should identify
high visibility/high priority sites where there may be
a general need for early community involvement
efforts. Although this will be determined on a site-
by-site basis, some sites that may need early
community involvement include those that have:
¦ High potential for a HRS score >28.5 or being
placed on the NPL.
¦ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) health advisory.
¦ Community petition for preliminary assessment,
or interest from an organized community group in
the area.
¦ High level of congressional, state, tribal, or local
governmental interest.
¦ High level of media attention.
¦ High potential for human exposures.
¦ Residential property or community-wide sampling.
¦ Environmental justice concerns identified in the
community.
In addition, it is recommended that EPA conduct
community outreach whenever there are site
assessment activities with particular community
interest or when the site team wishes to contact
members of the community. For example:
¦ The EPA site team may wish to contact state
and local officials, tribal officials, and key
community members for information about the
scope and history of the site's contamination and
the surrounding community as part of the
Preliminary Assessment (PA). In some in-
stances, EPA also may want to solicit informa-
tion from the public to help identify potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and their waste-
handling practices. In these situations, the
community will learn that EPA is investigating
the site for dangerous substances, so it often
makes sense to conduct community outreach
before these activities commence.
¦ When onsite sampling is anticipated, outreach
may be conducted, particularly if there are
residents living near the site or if sampling will be
necessary in areas of public interest such as
schools, parks, or residential properties.
¦ The site team also should consider informing the
community about EPA's schedule of field
activities. It is a good idea to prepare the com-
munity before any onsite visits by technical work
teams so members of the community are not
alarmed by the presence of government officials
and contractor teams working at the site. This is
particularly important when workers use protec-
tive clothing or equipment on site. These protec-
tive measures may frighten some people, so it is
a good idea to let people know in advance what
EPA is doing at the site.
How to Use
Once you have determined that community
involvement activities may be warranted, consider
which activities are most appropriate for the
community. Appropriate outreach and community
involvement activities for EPA and state and tribal
partners may include:
¦ Developing a Communication Strategy to help
plan site-related communication with the public.
¦ Designating a CIC for the site who can advise
the site team on community involvement activi-
ties, and assist with implementing the community
involvement activities.
¦ Distributing information through existing local
government websites, Facebook or other social
media sites, and other dissemination methods.
¦ Using news releases (see the Media tool).
¦ Going Door to Door to visit community members.
¦ Developing Fact Sheets to let residents know
that EPA and/or state or tribe is conducting site
assessment activities and to explain the site
assessment.
¦ 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 public.
¦ Making a Presentation to community organiza-
tions.
¦ Holding informal PublicAvailabilities/Poster
Sessions, as appropriate given pre-decisional/
deliberative information guidelines
(Attachment 1: OSWER Directive 9320.1-11).
¦ Establishing a toll-free telephone hotline and
publicizing its availability.
¦ Coordinating closely with state, tribal and local
officials, including relevant health departments
-------
Community Involvement During Site Assessment
*
J
V
V
—
V
X.
1—
Related Tools
¦ Communication Strategy
¦ Media
¦ Fact Sheets
¦ Mailing List
¦ Presentation
¦ Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions
¦ Telephone
¦ Technical Assistance Needs Assessment
¦ Door to Door Tool
¦ Superfund Program Implementation Manual
Community involvement activities can be
implemented as a team effort by site assessment
and community involvement staff. State and local
or tribal government representatives also may be
valuable partners. EPA regions should notify and
coordinate community involvement approaches with
appropriate state and tribal environmental cleanup
program staff.
Tips for Conducting Early
Community Involvement
¦ Be careful not to create false expectations in the
community about future EPA involvement at the
site.
¦ Explain the rationale behind EPA's activities and
decisions, as appropriate given pre-decisional/
deliberative information guidance (QSWER
Directive 9320.1-11) and applicable guidance in
EPA's Superfund Program Implementation
Manual.
¦ Clarify the community's role during site assess-
ment (e.g., providing information about the site).
¦ Provide timely and useful information about the
site assessment process.
¦ Listen carefully to what community members are
saying.
¦ Balance the need for early community involve-
ment against the level of community interest and
EPA resources.
¦ Provide an EPA, state or tribal point of contact.
¦ Use plain English for any written materials.
¦ Explain the roles of the various government
agencies (i.e., federal, state, local, tribal) and
contractors in site assessment activities.
¦ Keep state and tribal partners informed of
planned and completed community outreach
activities.
¦ Follow EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordi-
nation with Indian Tribes as appropriate.
Attachment
Attachment 1: OSWER Directive 9320.1-11
— 3
I
-------
ATTACHMENT 1: OSWER Directive 9320.1-11
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
APR 3 0 I993
DIRECTIVE NO. 9320.1-11
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedia
SUBJECT: Discussions with the Public Cor NPL Listings
lesponse
TO:
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I, IV, V
VII
Hazardous Haste Management Division Directors, Regions
III, VI, VIII, IX
Acting Director, Hazardous Waste Division; Region X
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
This memorandum briefly outlines EPA's policy on site-
related discussions prior to and during rulemaking concerning the
listing of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).
BACKGROUND
Recently some Regions, as well as several members of
Congress, have raised the question of what types of site-related
discussions are permissible between EPA personnel and the public
(e.g., potentially responsible parties (PRPs) or commenters)
prior to and during the listing process.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not forbid
contact between the Agency and interested parties either before
or during rulemaking. It is EPA policy, however, not to disclose
its internal deliberations concerning listing decisions except
through the formal rulemaking process. Improper disclosure of
such deliberations may inhibit the free exchange of ideas within
the Agency, and can give rise to APA notice and comment and
Freedom of Information Act legal concerns. If such contact
occurs, discussions with and disclosures to non-Agency personnel
concerning listing decisions prior to and during rulemaking
should be made in accordance with this directive, which is
PURPOSE
Recycled/Recycl»N»
f~)> CA Printed with Soy/Canon w mo* ifwt
\n
-------
Community Involvement During Site Assessment
-2-
consistent with the APA and is designed to prevent improper
disclosure of Agency deliberations. See memorandum dated May 31,
1985, from Lee M. Thomas to EPA employees (attachment I) entitled
"Contacts with Persons Outside the Agency" and OSWER directive
9345.1-12 dated December 26, 1991, (attachment II) entitled
"Releasibility of HRS Documents Under FOIA."
PRE <-PROPOSAL
Prior to proposal, disclosures to non-Agency persons
requesting information about the Agency's evaluation of sites for
placement on the NPL should be limited to a general description
of the Agency's process for evaluating sites; a general
indication of the status of sites in that process (i.e., at the
PA, SI, SEA, or further evaluation for listing stage); and a
general, factual, non-controversial description of site
conditions. Agency deliberations regarding listing issues should
not be disclosed orally or in writing. Prior to proposal, site
scores should not be discussed and copies of the site scoring
package should not be released to the public due to their pre-
decisional nature.
DURING RULEMAKING (between proposal to NPL and final decision)
The strictures of the APA further heighten concerns about
improper disclosure of Agency deliberations during the rulemaking
process. Other than formal statements made during the rulemaking
process, disclosures to non-Agency persons requesting information
about the Agency's evaluation of sites for placement on the NPL
should be limited to a general description of the Agency's
process for evaluating sites; a general description of the
rulemaking process; and information in the public docket. Agency
deliberations regarding listing issues should not be disclosed
orally or in writing outside the formal rulemaking process.
TIMING 07 RULEMAKING DECISIONS
EPA's longstanding policy has been that it does not inform
the public and interested parties of either the proposed or final
rule in which a site is expected to appear (i.e., EPA does not
project whether a particular NPL site will be included in a
particular proposed or final rule); nor does EPA agree to delay
final listing. However, it is appropriate to provide copies of
preliminary assessments (PAs) and site inspections (Sis), which
are public documents, and indicate whether the site has been
"screened out," or is still in the NPL decision-making process.
— 5
I
-------
i a 1
Community Involvement During Site Assessment
-3-
MEETING8 OR CONVERSATIONS WITH INTERESTED PERSONS
Prior to and during rulemaking, Agency personnel sometimes
receive requests to meet or have conversations with persons
interested in sites being evaluated for listing. Agency
personnel may hold such meetings or conversations, although any
other party interested in the particular site also should have
similar opportunities for such a meeting or conversation-
Agency deliberations regarding listing issues should not be
disclosed orally or in writing during such meetings or
converations.
It is important that the final rulemaking decision on site
listing reflect all of the information considered by the Agency.
Therefore, for meetings or conversations held during rulemaking,
a memorandum summarizing any oral communication regarding
significant new factual data or information likely to affect the
Agency's final decision on the rule should be placed in the
public docket along with any written materials provided to the
Agency. Attendees should, also be advised to forward in writing
to Headquarters any significant comments they may have.
EXTENSIONS OP THE COMMENT PERIOD AND LATE COMMENTS
Formal extensions of the comment period must come from
Headquarters. Generally, EPA does not grant extensions unless
the Agency has erred procedurally. For example, if EPA places an
incomplete documentation record in the public docket, the comment
period may be extended for the period of time that lapsed before
a complete record is provided.
Any information received during rulemaking after the comment
period has closed will be treated as a late comment. In past
rulemakings, EPA has attempted to respond to late comments, or
when that was not practicable, to read late comments and address
those that may have identified a fundamental error in the scoring
of a site. However, EPA guarantees only that it will consider
and respond to those comments postmarked by the close of the
formal comments period (57 FR 47205, October 14, 1992).
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Generally, questions relating to Federal facilities should
be treated the same as questions posed for any other site. The
exception is that Regions should notify the affected Federal
facility immediately prior to submittal of proposed and final
rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
6
-------
Community Involvement During Site Assessment
-4-
I hope that this memorandum will be of help to both you and
your staffs in meeting with PRPs and other parties interested in
site listing issues. If you have any questions regarding this
information, please contact Janet Grubbs at (703) 603-8860.
cc: Supferfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Earl Salo, OGC
Sally S. Mansbach, OWPE
— 7
I
------- |