Superfund

Community Involvement

Handbook

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency
Errata/Revisions to Pre-Publication Versions

Pre-publication versions of this document have been available in print since June 2001 and

online since October 2001. The following revisions to the pre-publication versions appear in this

document:

Revision 1 (June 2001): Chapter 5 (Implementing Community Involvement in Remedial

Action), section 12 (Operation and Maintenance), has been rewitten.

Revision 2 (December 2001): Name of original Appendix was changed to ìAppendix Aî

(Superfund Community Involvement Requirements). ìAppendix Bî (Superfund Community

Involvement Directives) was added. Chapter 2 was revised to include an explanation of the

Directives.

Revision 3 (April 2002): References to ìSARAî in Appendix A (Superfund Community

Involvement Requirements) were changed to ìCERCLA.î ìNotice and Comment Period on

Consent Decreesî was changed to ìNotice and Comment Period on Settlement Agreements.î

EPA 540-K-01-003

April 2002

www.epa.gov/superfund

Solid Waste and

Emergency Response

(5204G)
EPA 540-K-01-003

April 2002

Superfund

Community Involvement

Handbook

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

U.S. Environmental Proctection Agency

Washington, DC
Notice

The policy and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of

Government personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights

enforceable by any party in litigation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Officials

may decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the

guidance, based on an analysis of site circumstances. The Agency reserves the right to change

this guidance at any time without public notice.

Acknowledgments

This handbook was developed by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and EPA

community involvement staff. Environmental Management Support, Inc., 8601 Georgia Avenue,

Suite 500, Silver Spring, Maryland, provided assistance with final preparation of this document

under Contract Number 68-W6-0046

For More Information

For more information, please contact:

Leslie Leahy

Community Involvement and Outreach Center

Office of Emergency and Remedial Resposne

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code 5204G

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (703) 603-9929

leahy.leslie@epa.gov
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Contents

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

Background----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

How to Use the Handbook ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN SUPERFUND -------------- 3

Mission Statement--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

The Concept ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

The Letter of the Law versus the Intent of the Law ------------------------------------------------- 3

The Site Team -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Big Ideas in Community Involvement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Community Involvement Objectives ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

Core Values for Public Participation------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7

Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

CHAPTER 3 RISK COMMUNICATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Principles of Risk Communication-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication ---------------------------------------------------- 10

Addressing Technical and Non-Technical Concerns --------------------------------------------------- 11

Non-Technical Public Concerns --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Explaining Technical Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

Risk Comparisons ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

Involving the Public ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

Techniques---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17

CHAPTER 4 EARLY PLANNING FOR MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

When to Start ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19

Preliminary Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19

Site Inspection ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMEDIAL ACTIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

About the Superfund Remedial Process ------------------------------------------------------------------ 23

i
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ii

CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMEDIAL ACTIONS (continued)

1. Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

2. Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection -------------------------------------------------------------- 24

Outreach Activities During PA/SI -------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

3. Proposed Listing on the NPL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25

Community Involvement Outreach Activities During Listing on the NPL --------------------- 26

4. Final Listing on the NPL in the Federal Register --------------------------------------------------- 26

Community Involvement Activities After Final Listing on the NPL ---------------------------- 26

More About the Community Interviews------------------------------------------------------------- 27

More About Community Involvement Plans ------------------------------------------------------- 28

More About Communication Strategies ------------------------------------------------------------- 29

More About the Information Repository ------------------------------------------------------------ 29

More About Public Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

More About Technical Assistance Grants----------------------------------------------------------- 30

5. RI/FS Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

Recommended Outreach Activities During RI/FS ------------------------------------------------- 31

More About the Community Advisory Groups ---------------------------------------------------- 33

6. Feasibility Study Completion and Proposed Plan---------------------------------------------------- 34

Community Involvement Activities Related to FS Completion and the Proposed Plan ------ 34

More About the Proposed Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

More About the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet---------------------------------------------------------- 36

More About Public Notice of the Proposed Plan -------------------------------------------------- 36

More About the Public Comment Period and Public Meeting ----------------------------------- 37

7. Notice and Comment on Consent Decree ------------------------------------------------------------- 38

Community Involvement Activities for Consent Decrees ---------------------------------------- 38

More About Community Involvement Activities for Enforcement Actions ------------------- 39

8. Pre-ROD Significant Changes -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41

Pre-ROD Community Involvement Activities ------------------------------------------------------ 41

9. Record of Decision --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42

Community Involvement Requirements During the ROD ---------------------------------------- 42
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMEDIAL ACTIONS (continued)

More About Public Notice of ROD ------------------------------------------------------------------ 42

ROD Outreach Activities------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42

10. Post-ROD Significant Changes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 43

Post-ROD Outreach Activities------------------------------------------------------------------------ 44

11. Remedial Design/Remedial Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- 44

Community Involvement Activities During RD/RA ---------------------------------------------- 45

12. Operation and Maintenance --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46

13. Proposed NPL Deletion and Final NPL Deletion in the Federal Register---------------------- 46

More About the Notice of Intent to Delete --------------------------------------------------------- 47

Additional Outreach Activities During NPL Deletions ------------------------------------------- 47

Community Involvement on Prospective Purchaser Agreements------------------------------------- 48

Community Involvement Activities for EPA Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of

Contaminated Property -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 48

CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMOVAL ACTIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49

About Superfund Removal Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49

Roles and Responsibilities --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50

Planning for Communications/Outreach During Removal Actions ---------------------------------- 50

How to Conduct Community Involvement/Outreach During Removal Actions-------------------- 51

Community Involvement/Outreach During Emergency Responses ---------------------------------- 53

Outreach Activities During Emergency Response ------------------------------------------------- 54

Community Involvement/Outreach During Time Critical and Non-Time Critical

Removal Actions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56

Time-Critical Removals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57

Non-Time-Critical Removals ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57

Outreach During for Time-Critical and Non-Time-Critical Removals-------------------------- 58

Additional Required Activities for Time-Critical Removals Extending Beyond 120 Days-- 58

Additional Outreach Activities for Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions ---------------------- 59

iii
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMOVAL ACTIONS (continued)

Recommended Outreach Activities for Non-Time-Critical Removals------------------------------- 60

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 62

CHAPTER 7 DEALING WITH THE MEDIA ----------------------------------------------------------- 63

In General----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63

Be a Resource ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 64

Build the Relationship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64

Use the Media Tools ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64

Working with the Media in Emergency Situations ----------------------------------------------------- 64

Media Contact ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 65

Establish Boundaries and Structure ------------------------------------------------------------------ 65

The News Cycle ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65

Local Media versus National Media ----------------------------------------------------------------- 66

Think Visuals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66

ìNo Comment,î ìOff the Record,î and ìNot for Attributionî ----------------------------------- 66

Closure/Critique ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 66

CHAPTER 8 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AT FEDERAL FACILITIES ------------------- 67

The Federal Government as Owner of Superfund Sites------------------------------------------------ 67

Interagency Agreements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 67

Cooperation and Communication ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68

EPA as Advisor at Federal Facilities---------------------------------------------------------------------- 69

Federal Facility Advisory Boards ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES DURING

RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71

When Residential Relocation is Part of the Response Action ---------------------------------------- 71

EPA Interim Policy/Federal Uniform Relocation Act -------------------------------------------------- 71

Special Commuity Needs at Relocation Sites ----------------------------------------------------------- 72

TAGs and CAGs at Relocation Sites --------------------------------------------------------------------- 73

iv
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

APPENDICES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75

Appendix A: Superfund Community Involvement Requirements ------------------------------------ 75

Removal Actions --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77

Remedial Actions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80

Appendix B: Superfund Community Involvement Directives ---------------------------------------- 87

Early and Meaningful Community Involvement (OSWER Directive 9230.0-99) ------------- 89

Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-Making (Superfund Management

Review: Recommendation #43B) (OSWER Directive 9230.0-18) ------------------------------ 93

v
The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

vi
1

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) applies the term community involvement

to its commitment to early and meaningful

community participation during Superfund

cleanup. The foundation of Superfundís community involvement program is the belief that

members of the the public affected by a Superfund site have a right to know what the Agency

is doing in their community and to have a say in

the decision-making process. This Handbook

presents legal and policy requirements for

Superfund community involvement and additional suggestions for involving the community

in the Superfund process. These suggestions are

based on experience and are intended to enact

EPAís commitment to providing the public with

every opportunity to become meaningfully

involved in the Superfund process.

Background

When Congress passed the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as

Superfund, in 1980, it incorporated public

involvement into the Superfund process. Congress intended to ensure that the people whose

lives were affected by abandoned hazardous

wastes and EPAís actions to clean them up would

have a say in what happened in their community.

Since then, Congress, through passage of the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986 (SARA), and EPA, through administrative reforms, have further strengthened the role

of community members in the Superfund process. While EPA retains the final responsibility

and authority to decide what will happen at a

Superfund site, the Agency values and seriously

considers community input.

Over the years, EPAís Superfund program has

learned a lot about working with people affected

by hazardous waste cleanups. Initially, ìcommunity involvementî was called ìcommunity

relations,î and although the wording may not

seem significant, the concept of public participation was new, even in the private sector. The

idea of imparting information to citizens was

understood, but the idea of involving citizens

and using their advice in making decisions was

novel. Consequently, early community relations

activities mostly focused on information

dissemination rather than on exchange of

information and ideas with the community.

As the Agency learned more about hazardous

wastes and cleaning them up, so did the general

public. Now people in every community have

an opportunity to be as informed about

Superfund issues as the EPA experts. People

who live near Superfund sites should play a

meaningful role in the decisions that affect their

community. Many people have made a substantive contribution to the site assessment and

cleanup process when they have taken the time

to become involved.

How to Use The Handbook

This Handbook contains guidance on how to

implement an effective community involvement

program:

ï Chapter 2, The Role of Community Involvement in Superfund, describes the mission

statement of the Superfund Community

Involvement Program, community involvement

legal requirements and policy guidelines, the

big ideas in community involvement, and the

shared community involvement responsibilities

of the members of the Site Team.

ï Chapter 3, Risk Communication, focuses

on the fundamentals of risk communication

to promote informed public participation in

Superfund risk assessment and risk management decisions.

ï Chapter 4, Early Planning for Meaningful

Community Involvement, explains the

importance of conducting community

interviews and accepting community ideas.

This chapter also discusses steps necessary

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
2

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

for drafting a Community Involvement Plan

that encourages collaboration and sharing

information with the public.

ï Chapter 5, Implementing Community

Involvement in Remedial Actions, outlines

the steps in the Superfund process and explains required and recommended outreach

activities that should occur at each step. This

chapter starts with Site Assessment and

finishes with deletion from the National

Priority List.

ï Chapter 6, Implementing Community

Involvement in Removal Actions, discusses

required and recommended community

involvement procedures for Superfund removal actions. This chapter covers emergency

removals, time-critical removals, and nontime-critical removals.

ï Chapter 7, Dealing with the Media, discusses how the Site Team can improve its

relationship with the media by becoming a

valuable resource. This chapter addresses how

to establish a media perimeter, conduct briefings, provide visuals, understand and work

within different news cycles, use carefully

defined messages, and obtain feedback.

ï Chapter 8, Community Involvement at

Federal Facilities, addresses the differences

between responses managed by EPA and those

led by Federal facilities or States. The chapter

emphasizes the Site Teamís interaction with

other lead agencies to improve outreach and

community involvement at these sites.

ï Chapter 9, Community Involvement Activities During Residential Relocation, presents

suggestions for conducting community involvement and outreach activities at sites

where residents are being either temporarily or

permanently relocated.

ï Appendix A presents a comprehensive list of

statutory and regulatory community involvement requirements in the Superfund program.

This list represents the minimum requirements

for community involvement under the law.

However, be aware that truly successful

community involvement typically requires

actions beyond the basic requirements.

ï Appendix B presents the two primary

OSWER Directives for Superfund community

involvement: Early and Meaningful Community Involvement (OSWER Dir. 9230.0-99,

October 12, 2001); and Incorporating Citizen

Concerns into Superfund Decision-making

(OSWER Dir. 9230.0-18, January 21, 1991).

This Handbook cross-references many of the tools

and resources found in the Superfund Community

Involvement Toolkit, EPA 540-K-01-004, referred

to hereafter as the Toolkit.
3

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Mission Statement

The mission of the Superfund Community

Involvement Program is to advocate and

strengthen early and meaningful community

participation during Superfund cleanups.

The Concept

ìCommunity involvementî is the name EPA uses

to identify its process for engaging in dialogue

and collaboration with communities affected by

Superfund sites. EPA community involvement is

founded on the belief that people have a right to

know what the Agency is doing in their community and to have a say in it. Its purpose is to give

people the opportunity to become involved in the

Agencyís activities and to help shape the decisions that are made.

Superfund community involvement is not a

public relations effort to sell the Agency or its

plans to the community, nor is it just the communication of information. Remedies that have

community concerns and interests factored into

them are less controversial and more likely to be

accepted. Community involvement is the vehicle

EPA uses to get community concerns and interests to the decision-making table.

The Letter of the Law versus the Intent of

the Law

CERCLA, as implemented by the National

Contingency Plan (NCP), requires specific

community involvement activities that must

occur at certain points throughout the Superfund

process. The Appendix to this document lists

these activities according to the steps in the

cleanup process. EPA policy, however, goes

beyond the letter of the law and recommends the

implementation of additional community involvement activities not required by the NCP.

In CERCLA, Congress was clear about its intent

for the Agency to provide every opportunity for

residents of affected communities to become

active participants in the process and to have a

say in the decisions that affect their community.

Congress, in establishing the Superfund program,

wanted the Agency to be guided by the people

whose lives are impacted by Superfund sites. The

intent of the law is restated in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.430(c)(2)(ii): ì(A) Ensure the public appropriate opportunities for involvement in a wide

variety of site-related decisions, including site

analysis and characterization, alternatives analysis, and selection of remedy; and (B) Determine,

based on community interviews, appropriate

activities to ensure such public involvement.î

Satisfying the intent of the lawóensuring that the

public has appropriate opportunities for involvementómay include implementing the formal and

informal outreach activities listed in the Superfund Community Involvement Toolkit, which

complements this document. This Handbook

cross-references many of the tools and resources in

the Toolkit. The Toolkit includes a number of

standard and innovative outreach activities that

EPA can use to satisfy the intent of the law. EPA

has learned that making the extra effort to listen

to and involve people leads to a smoother and

more timely cleanup. Most communities can

accept a remedy, even if they are not completely

satisfied with it, provided they understand how

the decision was reached and had a meaningful

part in reaching the decision.

The Site Team

Integrating community involvement into every

phase of cleanup requires the commitment of all

members of a Superfund Site Team. Team

members typically include: a Remedial Project

Manager (RPM) or On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)

or both; the Community Involvement Coordinator

CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

SUPERFUND

ìYou will be most successful when you

regularly interact with the community

and proactively share information in an

understandable way.î

Paul Groulx, OSC, Region 1
4

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

(CIC); a Site Assessment Manager (SAM); an

attorney; and other technical staff.

The RPM or OSC is the overall project manager

and is responsible for all site activities, including

public outreach and community involvement. The

role of the project manager is vitally important in

public participation and outreach. The active

involvement of the project manager promotes

public participation among all team members and

ensures the integration of community involvement

in the cleanup process. Furthermore, the community sees that the entire Site Team is involved in

public participation, which encourages the community to become interested and involved in the

Superfund process. This ultimately helps to

establish EPAís credibility in the community and to

build trust between EPA and the community.

The CIC is responsible for advising the project

manager and the Site Team on required community involvement activities and on activities that

are recommended to ensure the community has

every opportunity to be involved. The CIC often is

delegated responsibility for planning community

involvement and public outreach activities and for

implementing most of these activities. However,

an activity is most effective when it is implemented by the entire Site Team.

A good example of how a community involvement

activity is planned and implemented is community

interviews, which are conducted to obtain information for the Community Involvement Plan

(CIP). The CIC can plan the interviews and make

the necessary arrangements. Then, the CIC and

the project manager (and other team members, if

possible) can conduct the interviews. Through

this approach, citizens see that there is broader

interest in what they have to say, and the project

manager starts establishing trust with the community. The project manager also will obtain a

firsthand understanding of community interests

and sentiments.

All Site Team members should participate in

community involvement activities whenever

possible. Team members should contact key

people in the community periodically and also take

time during site visits to meet informally with

community members. Although project managers

may not be able to participate in all community

involvement activities, they should be briefed after

key activities and maintain contact with the CIC,

other team members, and the community.

A site in Region 2 provides an example of

how early and meaningful public involvement

can lead to a better cleanup. The community

at this site played a substantive role in planning for the cleanup. A community task force

was organized prior to the initiation of the

Remedial Investigation (RI) to test the effectiveness of early community involvement in

the Superfund cleanup process. The task force

provided assistance and valuable input to

EPA on the best approach for dealing with

soils, sediments, and ground-water contamination. The Remedial Project Manager

reported that the task force contributed

significantly to the cleanup effort, primarily

through early scoping of issues and dissemination of information to the community.

At a site in Region 5, EPA developed a

partnership with a community group, the

Minority Health Coalition. This partnership was pivotal in overcoming years of

mistrust and community dissatisfaction

about a former municipal landfill. EPA

solicited community input on the remedy

and changed the plans for dealing with

groundwater issues as a result of community concerns. The community also came

up with useful suggestions for removing

an underground storage tank and designing a cap for the landfill.
5

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Big Ideas in Community

Involvement

Community Involvement Objectives

On January 21, 1991, EPA issued Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

Directive 9230.0-18, based upon Superfund

Management Review Recommendation #43B.

Among other things, the directive states that ìit is

important that we demonstrate to citizens that

they are involved in the decision-making process.î

The directive emphasizes the objective that EPA

should make every effort to fully incorporate the

publicís concern into site decision making. The

Superfund Management Review listed four steps

necessary to satisfactorily accomplish this incorporation: ìlisten carefully to what citizens are

saying; take the time necessary to deal with their

concerns; change planned actions where citizen

suggestions have merit; and explain to citizens

what EPA has done and why.î

The recommendations of the Superfund Management Review have been restated in the general

community involvement objectives listed below:

ï Keep the public well informed of ongoing

and planned activities. Most communities,

including those that appear unconcerned, want

to be informed of EPAís activities even when

there appears to be nothing going on at the site.

It is a mistake to believe that if there is nothing

significant to share with the community, there is

no need to talk to the community.

ï Encourage and enable the public to get

involved. People should be able to talk to the

RPM and other members of the Site Team at

regularly scheduled meetings or teleconferences, and should be able to easily get in touch

at other times.

ï Listen carefully to what the public is saying.

Superfund managers and staff should listen

carefully to the concerns and comments of

citizens throughout the Superfund cleanup

process. It is in the interest of Superfund staff

to listen to what people are saying not only

during the comment period after the Proposed

Plan is issued, but during the entire process.

The long-term success of the project is enhanced by involving the public early and often.

Carefully considering the publicís concerns

throughout the process leads to better decision

making. Some Site Teams have successfully

adopted innovative techniques for soliciting

citizen input. These include community

workgroups, open houses, and informal discussions. Site Teams are encouraged to try as

many of these techniques as possible to

communicate with the community. (See the

An RPM at a State-led site worked directly

with community residents. He listened to

community input but made it clear that the

final decision rested with the regulatory

agency. Citizens formed a community group

and felt empowered because the group

could give input directly to the decision

maker. They felt that the RPM was sensitive

to the communityís concerns about the

potential economic impact of the cleanup.

The community was very satisfied with the

remedy selected, which takes an innovative

approach and will be much less costly than

other options that were considered.

After several years of community hostility

and distrust at a Superfund smelter site,

EPA organized a Coordinating Forum that

included community members and other

key stakeholders. The forum assisted in the

development and selection of a remedy for

residential cleanup that all participants

could support. That remedy was implemented without any major problems, and

the forum has continued to work on plans

for cleaning up the smelter site.
6

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Community Involvement Tools in the Toolkit

for a detailed list and description of how and

when to use different outreach techniques).

ï Identify and deal responsibly with public

concerns. Incorporating public concerns into

site decisions need not be a cause for delay or

excessive cost. By allocating sufficient time

and resources for community involvement at

the outset, the Site Team can successfully

address community concerns in site decisions.

For example, 30 days may not be enough time

for an interested public to read and comment

on a proposed plan. The Site Team will engender more trust and support if it works with the

community to establish a realistic review period

from the outset. OSWER Directive #9230.0-08

of March 8, 1990, titled ìPlanning for Sufficient

Community Relations,î provides additional

guidance and instructs Regions to dedicate

adequate resources to support additional

community involvement needs. The directive

recommends that Regions ì...establish a

discretionary fund that they could use to fund

additional work necessary to respond to citizen

concerns.î

ï Change planned actions where public comments or concerns have merit. It is crucial that

EPA remain flexible and be willing to alter

plans when 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, public input has saved EPA

from mistakes and unnecessary costs. It is

more cost-effective to spend time, energy, and

money working with the public regularly than to

deal with resistance created when a community believes it has been left out of the process.

EPA may remain unpersuaded after hearing

from the public, but it is EPAís responsibility to

seriously consider suggestions and provide

feedback demonstrating that community

comments were carefully and thoughtfully

considered. The measure of success should not

be whether the community applauds the

remedy because EPA did what the community

asked, but whether or not EPA honestly

listened to people who participated and genuinely responded to their concerns.

ï Explain to citizens how EPA considered their

comments, what EPA plans to do, and why EPA

reached its decision. Regardless of the outcome of site decisions, EPA must fully communicate those decisions to the public. The

most thorough vehicle for such communications is the ìresponsiveness summary,î EPAís

written response to comments received from

the public. It is imperative that the public be

able to see EPAís response to their concerns

and comments in writing. Responses should be

clear and candid, not loaded with technical and

An On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) at a

New England site encouraged community

members to form a task force to guide

decision making at the site. The OSC took

the position that he ìworked for the

community.î He saw it as his job to keep

people informed and get their buy-in. He

listened and built a foundation based on

communication. The OSC acknowledges

that it took a lot of effort up front to give

residents a stake in the effort. ìI empowered the community without giving the

store away,î he said.

Once the task force was formed, the OSC

listened to what they had to say. EPAís

initial plan called for demolition and onsite burial of waste under a cap. The task

force found it would be more prudent to

remove everything to avoid land use

restrictions and monitoring requirements.

EPA and the State worked hard to make

the recommendation work. The Site Team

had an ambitious yet realistic plan and a

battle cry of ìahead of schedule and

under budget,î and they did it.
7

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

legal jargon, and provide reasons and justifications explaining EPAís decision. Although the

responsiveness summary is the most visible

and comprehensive explanation of EPA

decisions, it is only one component of the

process. EPA should explain site decisions

throughout the entire cleanup, rather than only

at a few key stages. EPA must establish and

maintain a dialogue through which site decisions are discussed as they are made, as well

as make Superfund documents more available

to the public throughout the cleanup process.

Core Values for Public

Participation

The Superfund program endorses the core values

for public participation developed by the International Association for Public Participation. These

core values are also incorporated into the Model

Plan for Public Participation developed by the

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

and are the foundation upon which EPA should

base its interactions with communities:

ï People should have a say in decisions about

actions that affect their lives.

ï Public participation includes the promise that

the publicís contribution will influence the

decision.

ï The public participation process communicates

the interests and meets the needs of all participants.

ï The public participation process seeks out and

facilitates the involvement of those who are

potentially affected.

ï The public participation process involves

citizens in defining how they participate.

ï The public participation process communicates

to participants how their input was or was not

used.

ï The public participation process provides

participants with the information they need to

participate in a meaningful way.

Summary

The purpose of Superfundís Community Involvement Program is to provide the mechanism

through which EPA and a community can work

collaboratively on a good solution to the hazardous waste problem confronting that community.

As practiced by EPA, community involvement

fulfills the statutory and regulatory requirements

of CERCLA, as well as the intent of the law. At

most sites, the success of community involvement has a direct impact on the success of the

overall cleanup. For this reason, EPAís preferred

cleanup remedy, as presented in the Proposed

Plan, should reflect community concerns as much

as possible. When it does, the community usually

is more willing to accept the Proposed Plan. This

will eliminate potential delays in the implementation of cleanup plans.
8

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund
9

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Introduction

This chapter discusses the principles underlying

effective risk communication and focuses on the

need for the Superfund Site Team and all others

involved in communication and decision-making

activities at a Superfund site to understand and

implement these principles (see the Risk Communication tool in the Toolkit for additional tips

on effective risk communication and references to

useful resources). Communication of risk will be

effective only if the Agencyís overall communication effort at a site is effective. This means

establishing early communication networks that

build trust and credibility. While there is a need to

explain the technical basis for EPAís decisions

and their effects on the risk facing the public, risk

communication involves much more than merely

ìinformingî the public. It is an on-going, two-way

process between the government and the public.

The government must provide information to the

public in an understandable and useful manner.

Risk communication activities are an integral part

of the Community Involvement Plan (CIP; see

also the Community Involvement Plan tool in

the Toolkit). Basic objectives and criteria for

successful risk communication should increase:

ï Agency awareness of the publicís perception

of risks at a site;

ï Public understanding of the chemicals of

concern and corresponding potential effects on

human health and the environment;

ï Public understanding of the risks of remedial

actions; and

ï Public understanding of how the agency uses

risk assessment in decision-making at a site.

Even an effective risk communication process

does not guarantee consensus on the proper

remediation activity among all affected parties.

The goal of the risk communication strategy is to

increase the understanding and involvement of

interested parties in the process rather than reach

unanimity. To that end, the public needs to be

informed of Superfundís mandate to address

public health and environmental threats from

hazardous waste sites, rather than achieving zerorisk or to return waste sites to their best use.

Risk assessment is used in the Superfund process

to help answer questions regarding: the risks of

doing nothing to clean up a site; exposure and

cleanup levels; and risks from undertaking

cleanup activities. The public is much more likely

to accept an Agency decision if it has been

involved in the decision-making process and

helped to establish exposure levels. In some ways,

effective risk communication gains the Agency

the ìbenefit of the doubtî when making decisions.

Risk communication allows the public to feel that,

although it may not be in total agreement with

agency actions, EPA should be allowed to proceed as long as the public can hold the Agency

accountable and verify its activities.

This chapter reviews the basic principles underlying effective risk communication. It also provides

practical guidance on how to discuss technical

issues with the public and address their concerns.

Principles of Risk

Communication

The ìpublicî is not a single entity. Rather, it is

made up of a wide range of individuals including,

but not limited to, potentially responsible parties,

individuals living near a site, members of special

interest groups, and state and local politicians.

Any communication effort must be directed to the

specific needs of targeted public sectors. For

purposes of this chapter, we simply refer to the

ìpublic,î while recognizing its many sub-groups.

CHAPTER 3 RISK COMMUNICATION

ìSignificant community involvement in the

risk assessment led to a better product and

increased public confidence in the project.î

Fred MacMillan, RPM, Region 3
10

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The Seven Cardinal Rules of

Risk Communication

The goal of risk communication is to promote

public involvement that is informed, reasonable,

thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative.

EPA plays a pivotal role in shaping these attitudes. The Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk

Communication are the principles for effective

risk communication developed by EPA. They are

recommendations, not hard and fast rules.

1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. This can be accomplished by

involving the community and all other parties

that have an interest in the issue early. Keep in

mind that you work for the public.

2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.

Successful risk communication planning and

evaluation entails: (1) clear, explicit objectives;

(2) assessment of strengths and weaknesses of

risk data; (3) attention to the needs and interests of various groups; (4) staff training

(including technical staff) in communication

skills; (5) message rehearsal and testing; and

(6) evaluation and ìlessons learned.î

3) Listen to the publicís specific concerns.

Do not make assumptions about what people

know, think, or want. Instead, take the time to

find these out by listening to parties with an

interest in the issue and and recognizing their

feelings. People often are more concerned

about trust, credibility, competence, control,

fairness, caring, and compassion than mortality

statistics or quantitative risk assessments.

4) Be honest, frank, and open. State your

credentials, but do not ask or expect to be

trusted. If you do not know an answer or are

uncertain, acknowledge it and respond with the

answer as soon as possible. Do not hesitate to

admit mistakes or disclose risk information. Try

to share more information, not less; otherwise,

people may think you are hiding something.

5) Coordinate and collaborate with other

credible sources. Take the time to coordinate

with other organizations. Try to issue communications jointly with other credible sources. Few

things make risk communication more difficult

than conflicts or public disagreements with

such sources.

6) Meet the needs of the media. Be open with

and accessible to reporters. Realize that

reporters must meet their deadlines. Provide

risk information tailored to the needs of each

type of media. Prepare in advance and provide

background material on complex issues. Do not

hesitate to follow up on stories with praise or

criticism. Establish long-term relationships of

trust with specific editors and reporters. Keep

in mind that the media are usually more

interested in reporting politics rather than risk,

simplicity rather than complexity, and danger

rather than safety (see the Media tool in the

Toolkit and Chapter 7 in this Handbook).

7) Speak clearly and with compassion. Be

sensitive to norms, such as speech and dress.

Whether addressing large groups or individuals,

use simple, non-technical language. Communicate on a personal level by using vivid, concrete images or examples and anecdotes that

make technical risk data come alive. Use

comparisons to help put risks in perspective,

but avoid comparisons that do not include

distinctions that people consider important.

Acknowledge and respond with words and

actions to emotions that people expressó

anxiety, fear, anger, outrage, and helplessness.

Always try to include a discussion of actions

that are underway or can be taken. Tell people

what you cannot do. Promise only what you

can do, and be sure to do what you promise.

Although these appear to be basic, common-sense

rules for communication, they are frequently

ignored. The Site Team must make special efforts

to incorporate these communication rules into all

projects.
11

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Risk Communication Is...

A two-way process that:

ï Discusses risk and other concerns to

identify mutual solutions;

ï Responds effectively to public outrage;

and

ï Is genuine and sincere, and conducted

with peopleís interests in mind.

Risk Communication Is Not...

ï A public relations scheme to steer the

public into seeing it EPAís way; or

ï Another way of better explaining EPAís

point of view.

ìLay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic

conceptualization of risk is much richer than

that of the experts and reflects legitimate

concerns that are typically omitted from

expert risk assessment. As a result, risk

communication and risk management efforts

are destined to fail unless they are structured

as a two-way process. Each side, expert and

public, has something valid to contribute.

Each side must respect the insights and

intelligence of the other.î - P. Slovic, ìPerceptions of Risk,î Science, 236:285, 1987

Addressing Technical and

Non-Technical Concerns

Individuals are often much more concerned with

non-technical issues, such as fairness and control,

than with the technical details of risk assessment.

The risk communicator needs to address both

technical risk assessment and non-technical

concerns. Agency representatives have a tendency to focus on the technical issues, often to

the exclusion of the publicís other concerns.

When this occurs, the Agency representative is

not communicating with the public, especially

since the public often views risk differently than

do the technical experts.

Too often, experts in government or industry

complain that the public is being irrational or

emotional by failing to see the wisdom of the

technical assessment. These experts feel that if

they could just educate the public to the ìrealî

risk (e.g., injury from a Superfund site), then most

of their concerns could be dispelled. That assumption is not realistic. The publicís perception

of risk can be driven by non-technical concerns

and no amount of explanation of the technical

data will address non-technical fears.

This is not to say that the technical aspects of risk

assessment are not important. On the contrary,

the technical aspects of the risk assessment are

usually the basis for risk management decisions.

The Site Team should be prepared to respond to

both technical questions from the public regarding

the scientific underpinnings of site management

decisions and any non-technical issues raised by

the public. In turn, a good risk communication

strategy prepares the Site Team to deal with nontechnical public concerns about risk and provides

opportunities for the public to understand the

technical aspects of risk assessment.

The ìbottom lineî is to establish trust and credibility between EPA and the public. The following

sections identify some general guidelines to help

explain risk to a lay audience, describe technical

issues, and respond to the publicís non-technical

concerns.

Non-Technical Public

Concerns

Any explanation of the risk around a Superfund

site must be coupled with a recognition of the

issues that are driving the publicís perception of

risk at the site. Public perceptions of risk are very

important. Agency staff need to realize that if the
12

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Community residents near a Superfund site

were angry with EPA. The Community

Involvement Coordinator (CIC) asked key

residents to invite their neighbors and

friends for an informal session with him,

the toxicologist, and the hydrogeologist.

He also invited the strongest opponent to

attend each session so that critics knew

that the Agency was dispensing consistent

and correct information. The CIC held as

many as three sessions per week over

several weeks. The sessions helped citizens

understand site risks and helped the community to trust EPA.

public perceives something as a risk then it is a

risk, no matter how minimal technical experts

consider the risk to be. Researchers have identified factors that contribute to the way the public

perceives a risk. Given the same technical risk

assessment, these factors will affect whether

individuals view a problem as more or less risky.

Less Risky More Risky

Voluntary Involuntary

Familiar Unfamiliar

Natural Man Made

Fair Unfair

Controlled by Self Controlled by Others

Chronic Catastrophic

Not Memorable Memorable

An example is the perception of the risk of

smoking. If the 350,000 Americans who die of

cancer from smoking every year all died on the

same day, smoking would probably be prohibited.

Because the risks from smoking are chronic,

rather than catastrophic, they are perceived as

less serious.

The public will generally consider the hazards of a

Superfund site to be more risky for each of the

above factors (with the exception of chronic

versus catastrophic). For example, fairness is

usually judged by whether there is an equitable

distribution of risks and benefits. In the Superfund

context, the public living near the site bears the

risk while someone else has benefitted.

The communicator can use this insight into how

the public perceives risk by addressing factors

that can be changed, whenever possible. For

example, the communityís involvement in the

decision-making process will increase the sense

of control and lower the perceived risk. When the

factor itself cannot be changed, acknowledging its

presence and the legitimacy of those in the

community who are ìoutragedî by it will help

assuage concerns raised by the public. If the

public does not believe that you take its concerns

seriously, it may be less willing to listen to your

technical explanations.

When using risk comparisons to explain the risk

assessment or to put risks into perspective, do not

compare risks that affect risk perception differently. For example, it is usually inappropriate to

compare a voluntary risk, such as driving a car, to

an involuntary one, such as living near a Superfund site. The public will often view these as noncomparable and will respond negatively to attempts to link them.

Explaining Technical Issues

Early explaining of the risk assessment process

for a Superfund site to the public is a critical

component of the risk communication strategy;

the earlier the Agency provides explanations, the

better the outcome. The public needs to understand how EPA arrives at the determination of

risk, what information is used, how the information is used, the uncertainties inherent in the

process, and how uncertainties are addressed.

Site Team members should familiarize themselves

with the Superfund risk assessment process and

how it is used in site decision-making regarding

risk management, which will prepare them to
13

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

answer technical questions from the public more

effectively.

The public needs to understand that for a risk to

exist, the following three factors must be present:

1) site contamination; 2) contaminant pathways

that reach surrounding populations; and 3) populations that may be exposed to site hazards. If any

of these factors are missing, little or no risk is

present. Other important technical issues for the

public to understand include:

ï The four steps of risk assessmentódata

collection and analysis, exposure assessment,

toxicity assessment, and risk characterization;

ï The use of Reasonable Maximum Exposure

(RME) as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site, considering

land use, intake variables, and pathway

combinations;

ï The methods used by the agency to calculate

risk from carcinogens and risk from noncarcinogens;

ï The fact that there is always some risk of

exposure to carcinogens at a site;

ï Potential health and ecological effects associated with the chemicals of concern; and

ï Other site-specific issues that should be

brought to the publicís attention.

Problems often arise when either too much or too

little information is provided. The spokesperson

often fails to determine precisely what information

the public needs and in what form. Consequently,

the tendency is to provide too much information,

which muddles the message and does not meet

the publicís needs or the Agencyís objectives.

After carefully selecting information to provide to

the public, other sources of information should be

acknowledged to avoid perceptions that information is being withheld.

Communicating technical information to the public

can be accomplished using the following general

guidelines (adapted from C. Chess, B.J. Hance,

and P. Sandman, Improving Dialogue with

Communities, NJ Department of Environmental

Protection, 1987) :

ï Do not underestimate the ability of the public to

assimilate technical information. Keep in mind

that if there is a compelling reason for people

to learn new information, they will make an

effort to acquire an understanding of a new

subject, even if it is technical.

ï Try to determine what risk information people

need and in what form. This determination

means the spokesperson should take the time

to ìknow his/her audience.î Be willing to

summarize information that the audience needs,

rather than present everything the communicator knows.

ï Anticipate and respond to peopleís concerns

about their personal risk. Remember the

factors driving the publicís concern.

ï Be sure to provide adequate background when

explaining risk numbers. Use non-technical

language as much as possible.

ï Be prepared to provide information in foreign

languages as needed.

ï Provide information responsive to public

concerns that is neither too complex nor

patronizing.

ï Put data in perspective and try to express the

risk in different ways.

ï Use language consistent with the expertise of

your audience and avoid jargon and words that

may mean one thing to one group and something else to another. For example, Agency

personnel often say they use a ìconservativeî

model to estimate risk, meaning that the model

tends to overestimate the likely risk. The public,

however, may likely think of ìconservativeî in

its political sense as favoring the preservation

of existing conditions.

ï Explain the process (the steps in the Superfund

risk assessment process). Be willing to discuss

uncertainties. Reviewing this process with the

public will demonstrate that the risk numbers

are not derived from a ìblack box.î
14

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Use graphics and visual aids.

ï Collaborate with other credible experts.

ï Be careful when comparing environmental risk

to other risks.

Risk Comparisons

One of the best ways to communicate technical

issues is to use comparisons that provide context

for a situation. However, inappropriate comparisons can have disastrous results for the

credibility and efforts of the communicator.

Staff should use comparisons only in conjunction

with factors that affect the way the public

perceives risks associated with the site. Do not

use comparisons that ignore these factors. For

example, do not compare an involuntary risk, such

as groundwater contamination, to a voluntary risk,

such as smoking. The communicator should avoid

comparisons that trivialize the risk, such as

indicating that one has a greater chance of

developing cancer from a contaminant in peanut

butter than from living near a Superfund site. This

comparison may be technically true, but it is

irrelevant and may anger the general public.

As with any technical discussion, be careful to

document the accuracy of risk estimates used in

comparisons. An inappropriate or inaccurate

comparison can lower audience interest and

participation to the point that they no longer hear

the message being communicated. The following

are guidelines for using risk comparisons:

ï A risk comparison should not address acceptability of risk, since ìacceptabilityî is a value

question rather than a technical one. Use

comparisons that put risks in perspective. This

can help individuals determine the acceptability

of the risk for themselves.

ï Compare the risks associated with your

proposed solution or action to that of alternative

solutions.

ï Quantitative comparisons usually are more

useful than probability comparisons.

ï Use comparisons of the same risk at different

times (i.e., before and after remediation).

ï Use comparisons with a standard (for example,

if the standard for cleanup at a Superfund site

is a risk level of one in a million, the remedial

action seeks to reduce the risk to that level).

ï Compare different estimates of the same risk

(e.g., estimates from communities, industry,

and your own). If someone else has a higher or

lower risk estimate, note the difference.

When explaining risk comparisons to the public,

keep the overall communication goal in mind: to

provide the public with useful information so that

it can understand and participate in the process.

The public may only want to know ìIs it safe?î It

might be useful when explaining estimated excess

cancers to point out that 25-33 percent of the

population will likely contract some form of

cancer during their lifetime, regardless of exposure at this or any site. Again, do not try to imply

that the risk at the site is acceptable, but rather

provide information to help the public put the risk

into perspective. Point out, without sounding glib

or condescending, that individuals have to make

their own determinations about what they consider safe. For example, a 10-6 level chosen by

EPA at a site is not risk-free. It is the level

determined by EPA at which the risk posed to

human health and the environment is low enough

to warrant no further action.

Involving the Public

Ideally, the public should be involved as early as

possible in decisions affecting a Superfund site.

Early involvement is important not only from a

community involvement standpoint, but also

because the public can provide valuable information and input into the risk assessment, including

pathways of exposure, historical activity, and

potential future use of the site. Such information

can be collected from the public during the site

inspection phase, but most certainly should be by

the initiation of the remedial investigation.
15

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

At a very controversial Region 3 site, EPA

invited stakeholders to provide input into

what became one of the most complicated

risk assessments the Agency had ever undertaken. Community members responded with

ideas on approaches to the risk assessment

and information about things such as housecleaning practices, resident longevity, and

land use practices.

When a PRP-funded community group

offered to conduct the risk assessment, EPA

invited the group to participate as a partner

in the assessment process. Data, methods,

issues, and concerns were shared and discussed. Despite varying agendas, the risk

assessment was collegial. EPA shared a

preliminary draft of the risk assessment with

the community group, which provided valuable data corrections.

By involving members of the community in the

assessment itself, EPA gained helpful information and established a high level of public

confidence. Although not everyone was

pleased with the conclusions of the risk

assessment, no one felt left out of the process.

EPA gained a better understanding of peopleís

misgivings about a very technical process, and

the community gained a greater respect for

EPAís risk assessment process. Most importantly, each gained a better sense of otherís

priorities, in the process overcoming much

distrust and many preconceptions.

Involving the community in risk assessment

activities is not always easy, even if the proper

groundwork has been laid. Establishing a conversational rapport with citizens who are not familiar

with the Superfund risk assessment process may

be difficult. At sites where the community is

actively involved in the risk assessment process,

staff may have difficulty scheduling meetings that

are convenient for both Agency officials and

community residents. High staff turnover found in

many federal and state agencies may be frustrating for both the agency and the community as the

two try to establish a working relationship based

on familiarity and trust. Despite these difficulties,

early community involvement in risk assessment

activities should be undertaken at all sites.

Community involvement is best coordinated

through a risk communication strategy, which is

incorporated into the Community Involvement

Plan (CIP). In developing the strategy, Agency

staff should anticipate the kinds of questions the

public will have at each stage of the process and

the plan for suitable information to be distributed

at each step. For example, during the period

leading up to the risk assessmentópreliminary

assessment, site inspection, and listingóthe public

likely will be most concerned about immediate

risks from the site, such as effects on drinking

water from their wells.

During the risk assessment period, the public may

focus on their future well-being and the progress

of the risk assessment once immediate concerns

have been addressed. The Site Team may hear

questions such as: ìWill the Agency find out how

much contamination there is and where it will

go?î or ìIs the Agency considering childrenís

exposure?î or ìIs the Agency taking into account

people who grow vegetables?î The best opportunity for community involvement in the risk assessment process is during the exposure assessment

step. Exposure information may be gathered from

the public during community interviews or through

a workshop designed to explain risk assessment

and gather exposure information.

After the risk assessment is completed, concerns

often will turn to the overall effectiveness of the

remedial action. The public may ask questions

such as: ìIf wastes are left on site, how can the

remedyís effectiveness be guaranteed?î or
16

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

A teacher from a school near a Superfund

site with lead and mercury contamination

asked a Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC) about educating children and

their parents about the site risks in a

manner appropriate for their age groups.

The CIC organized an exhibit in the school

auditorium with a variety of information

on lead and mercury. There were pamphlets for parents and school staff on what

to do in case of emergencies. For the

children, the CIC showed two short films

on the dangers of lead and mercury poisoning. Parents and children asked questions relating to the movies. Afterwards,

many adults said that the movies delivered

a clear message about the hazardous

substances. Many said it was a great way

to show the students, parents, and teachers

what mercury looked like in ìreal life,î

without the danger of having it present.

Visualization of toxic effects also strengthened the message.

ìWhat guarantees are there that no effects from

exposure will occur in 20 years?î or ìWhat are

the risks from conducting the cleanup?î Staff

should use a variety of community involvement

techniques to answer these questions.

Staff should not selectively involve the public in

the risk assessment process. For example, staff

should not gather exposure information at a public

meeting without explaining the risk assessment

process. Nor should they release risk assessment

information without explaining it. Selective

involvement can create false expectations and

damage trust and credibility.

Techniques

Several techniques are available to establish an

effective communication network.

One-to-One or Small Group: This is an

effective method to communicate with interested

individuals or groups. It is low-key and nonthreatening, and can facilitate a useful one-to-one

exchange of information.

Public Meeting: This technique may be effective early to explain the Superfund process to the

community and later to focus on risk assessment

and the RI/FS. A public meeting in the early

stages of Superfund is a clear sign to the community that the Agency wants to establish an open

rapport from the beginning, even if it does not

have complete information to answer all of the

publicís questions. Later, meetings can be used to

answer more specific questions and inform the

public about precisely what is occurring at the

site. Remember the guidelines discussed above

for communicating technical issues.

Workshop and Less Formal Interaction:

Depending on its relationship with the community,

the Agency may choose a less formal, more

interactive community involvement technique,

such as workshops, to describe Superfundís risk

assessment process and how it will be used. A

workshop early in the RI/FS process is a good

opportunity to present Superfund procedures and

timeframes and discuss the publicís expectations

of the Agency at the site. A workshop also may

be useful just before the completed risk assessment is released to the public.

Focus groups: Focus groups are in-depth

interactive discussions led by a facilitator. They

are designed to obtain information from selected

participants and test ideas or techniques. Potential

uses for focus groups in risk communication

include:

ï Explaining risk perceptions;

ï Evaluating perceptual uses and information

processing;

ï Testing risk communication materials;

ï Selecting risk communication channels;
17

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Designing risk-mitigating polices; and

ï Assessing risk communication effectiveness.

Summary

An effective risk communication strategy promotes meaningful community involvement early in

the cleanup process. The goals of risk communications are to help individuals understand risk

assessment and help technical staff understand

community perceptions and concerns. Understanding risk assessment enables individuals in the

community to better understand agency actions,

allowing them to participate fully in the decisionmaking process. Trust between the community

and EPA helps prevent conflicts and facilitates

resolution of conflicts that arise. If staff follow the

seven cardinal rules and the guidelines established

in this chapter, trust and credibility in the community have a better chance to develop.
18

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund
19

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

When to Start

The first question to answer in community

involvement is: ìwhen to start?î Planning for

community involvement should begin during the

site assessment phase. Site assessment is the

initial phase of a Superfund response to a hazardous waste release or threat of release. Site assessments consist of a preliminary assessment and a

site inspection (PA/SI).

If no immediate threat is present that requires

emergency response, then, during the site assessment, EPA and the State evaluate the severity of

reported hazardous waste releases. The Site Team

should plan for community involvement if the

response action is expected to last more than 120

days. The plan should include:

ï Designating a Community Involvement

Coordinator (CIC);

ï Contacting key local officials;

ï Assembling community profiles; and

ï Explaining site assessment activities to the

community.

Preliminary Assessment

Preliminary assessments are limited in scope,

generally involving a review of site records,

permits, pathway data, target data, and land titles

to establish past activities at the site (e.g., waste

produced or disposed) and the need for further

investigation. A preliminary assessment is typically

a ìdesk-top review,î and usually does not require a

site visit or sampling. As a result, there is little need

for organized community involvement during the

preliminary assessment beyond designating a CIC

and possibly calling key local officials.

If it is likely that the site will be placed on the

National Priorities List (NPL) or is a long-term

removal, it may be wise to contact key local

officials, such as the mayor, city council members,

public health and works officials, and members of

local planning boards. Staff should keep informed

CHAPTER 4 EARLY PLANNING FOR

MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT

about the results of the preliminary assessment to

plan any follow up contacts with the community. If

the preliminary assessment indicates that a site

inspection is not needed, the same key community

officials should be informed. If a site inspection is

needed, local officials should be advised that the

site is slated for further government investigation

and given an approximate schedule. Providing

information to interested officials and residents,

especially when they request it, can improve future

relations and communication efforts.

Site Inspection

The purpose of the site inspection is to gather

information to determine whether the site should

be placed on the NPL or will require a removal

action. A site inspection may involve one or more

visits by State or EPA field teams to evaluate site

hazards. Because a site inspection involves teams

working in protective clothing, community interest

in the site will likely increase. Consequently, the

Site Team should obtain the schedule for all field

activities, including work by the Field Investigation Team, the Technical Assistance Team, and the

Technical Enforcement Support Team.

Although it is not required, the Site Team may

want to prepare the community beforehand for any

on-site visits by technical work teams. The individuals to contact include:

ï Local officials;

ï Heads of community organizations;

ï Citizens who have expressed concerns to local,

state or federal officials;

ï People who live closest to, or on, the site;

ï Principals of schools near the site;

ï Local businesses near the site; and

ï Potentially responsible parties.

Advance notice can help to prevent alarm about

the appearance of government officials and

contractor teams at the site. Consider placing a

display advertisement in a local newspaper or

request the newspaper to include an article about
20

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

planned site activities. The more open EPA is

with the community, the more likely the Agency

will be trusted. Not informing the community

(passively) can be interpreted as withholding

information (actively).

During the site inspection, the Site Team should

identify key community leaders and organizations

to interview. This identification can be accomplished by assembling a community profile and

updating it as often as necessary. A community

profile outlines local issues, events, and players

(see the Community Profiles tool in the Toolkit).

Assembling a profile helps the Site Team to

understand local issues and people, and may help

the Site Team determine whether any preliminary

community involvement should be conducted.

Furthermore, a community profile helps the Site

Team to develop a communication strategy and a

Community Involvement Plan (CIP).

To assemble the community profile, the Site

Team should:

ï Acquire information about the site by conferring with the Site Assessment Manager and

other Regional and State staff;

ï Conduct research on the Internet;

ï Confer with local resources and contacts; and

ï Identify interested officials, citizens, and

organized groups.

When acquiring information about the site,

consider some of the following characteristics:

ï Demographics;

ï Ethnic backgrounds;

ï Languages;

ï Sensitive populations;

ï Media interest and contacts;

ï Previous cleanup activity;

ï Interest in obtaining a Technical Assistance

Grant (TAG);

ï Interest in forming a Community Advisory

Group (CAG);

ï Popular activities; and

ï Accessible resources.

Conducting research on the Internet is a great

way to assemble information for a community

profile. WasteLAN (formerly called CERCLIS3)

is a national database with extensive information

on hazardous waste sites, including site history,

cleanup progress, and milestones (see the

WasteLAN resource in the Toolkit). Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) contain demographic

information regarding environmental and socioeconomic characteristics. For instance, both the

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Developmentís 20/20 GIS program and EPAís

LandView GIS program track population by:

race; population per square mile; population by

age; percentage of minority households in the

surrounding area; numbers of households living

in poverty; and community support programs.

The Site Team also should take advantage of the

multimedia facet of LandView, which identifies

other hazardous waste sites or permitted facilities.

It is critical that information on other local EPA

facilities or environmental activities in other media

be thoroughly noted in the community profiles,

ìThe sooner you reach out the better. You

will be more successful with early, humble

coordination.î

Rita Engblom, RPM, Region 6

By accessing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) web

page, an EPA CIC learned that Step-Up

(HUDís Worker Training program) was

active in a community near a Superfund site.

He met with the local Step-Up contact to

learn more. Then, using HUDís geographic

information systems, he gathered local

demographic data that improved the communication strategy for the site.
21

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

addressed in the community interviews, and

included in the CIP so that the Site Team is

familiar with other local EPA activities and will be

able to maintain credibility with the community

when questioned about the impact of those activities. In addition, knowledge of multimedia issues

at a site can help to set the proper level and

methods for community involvement. For instance, if EPA has already been active in the

community, fact sheets may be sufficient. Conversely, if a community has never dealt with EPA,

more community involvement activities may be

necessary.

Local contacts (e.g., community leaders, store

owners, activists, and long-time residents) should

be consulted to identify stakeholders and begin

creating a mailing list. Conferring with local

resources and contacts also will help you to see

local issues from an insiderís perspective. Research the siteís history by visiting the public

library and searching local publications for

information. These documents can convey a lot of

information about site contamination, EPAís

previous involvement, and the risk that site

contaminants pose to residents.

The Site Team should explain to the community

that a site inspection is not evidence of a confirmed problem. To help explain this, the Site

Team should develop a brief communication

strategy to determine the message, the audience,

and the vehicle to communicate the message (see

the Communication Strategies tool in the

Toolkit). Possible vehicles to communicate the

message include public advertisements, flyers,

telephone hot lines, and fact sheets. Although

there are a variety of vehicles to choose from, the

fact sheet is used most frequently (see the Fact

Sheets tool in the Toolkit). Whatever vehicle is

used, it should explain the purpose of the site

inspection and its possible outcomes (e.g.,

proposal of the site for the NPL, placement of the

site in a category, or referral of the site to another

program to address hazardous waste problems).

In addition, a contact name and phone number

should be included for members of the public

seeking further information.
22

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund
23

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

About The Superfund

Remedial Process

This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of how a Site Team should advocate and

strengthen early and meaningful community

participation during a Superfund remedial action.

Remedial actions are long-term actions taken by

EPA to study and clean up sites listed on the

NPL. These actions have a number of distinct

phases, each with its own set of community

involvement activities.

In this chapter, each phase in the remedial

process is discussed in sequence:

 1. Discovery

 2. Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation

 3. Proposed Listing on the NPL

 4. Final Listing on the NPL

 5. RI/FS Begins

 6. FS Completion and Proposed Plan

 7. Notice and Comment on Consent Decree

(if necessary)

 8. Pre-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)

 9. Record of Decision

10. Post-ROD Significant Changes (if necessary)

11. Remedial Design/Remedial Action

12. Operation and Maintenance

13. Proposed NPL Deletion and Final NPL

Deletion in the Federal Register

Some of these phases may run concurrently.

The section for each phase includes an introduction followed by a discussion of the phaseís

required community involvement activities and

additional recommended community involvement

activities. Discussions of specific community

involvement activities (e.g., public comment

periods, fact sheets, etc.) in this chapter are brief,

and the reader is referred to the Community

Involvement Toolkit for further details. The

chapter discusses community involvement

requirements for certain phasesóincluding Final

Listing on the NPL and FS Completion and

Proposed Planóin more detail due to their

greater complexity and importance. References to

community involvement tools and resources in

the Toolkit are denoted with bold typeface.

Integrating community involvement into every

phase of a remedial action requires the commitment of all members of a Superfund Site Team.

Team members at a remedial action site typically

include: the Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC), the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)

(plus possibly an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) if

the site includes a removal action), a Site Assessment Manager (SAM), an attorney, and other

technical staff.

The RPM is the overall project manager with

responsibility for everything that occurs at the

site. The CIC is responsible for advising the

project manager on required community involvement activities and recommending activities that

will ensure the community has every opportunity

to be involved. Involvement by all members of

the Site Team in community involvement planning and implemenation activities ensures

integration of community involvement in the

cleanup process and furthers public participation.

1. Discovery

Discovery is the first phase of the Superfund

remedial process. Sites may be discovered in a

number of ways. A person may report a hazardous substance release to the National Response

Center, citizens may petition EPA to investigate

potential releases, or state and local governments

may request that EPA investigate a potential

release. Once discovered, a site is added to

WasteLan, EPAís database of reported hazardous

waste sites (formerly known as CERCLIS3, see

CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMEDIAL ACTIONS

ìFrequent open and honest communication

fosters a high level of trust and cooperation.î

Mark Doolan, RPM, Region 7
24

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

the WasteLan resource in the Toolkit). Once a

site is included in WasteLan, EPA schedules it for

site assessment.

2. Preliminary Assessment/

Site Inspection

After discovery, EPA conducts a site assessment,

consisting of a preliminary assessment and a site

inspection (PA/SI), to determine whether hazardous materials are present at the site. The site

assessment phase may be the communityís

introduction to EPA and and the first time citizens hear about the possible presence of hazardous wastes near their homes. This phase can be

very frightening for residents. They may feel

threatened or uncomfortable about having limited

control over the hazardous waste problem in their

community. This fear and concern is why it is

important to design an effective community

involvement plan during this phase.

Preliminary Assessment. During the preliminary assessment, EPA searches permits, titles,

and other records to gather data about past

activities, exposure pathways, and human and

other biological targets at the site. Record

searches and other data gathering will involve or

affect citizens. Consequently, the community will

learn that EPA is investigating the site for dangerous substances. If the site is a likely candidate for

listing on the NPL, the Site Team should obtain

the schedule of all field activities to be conducted

by EPA contractors. The Site Team may want to

prepare the community before any on-site visits

by technical work teams and alleviate any

concerns about the presence of government

officials and contractor teams working at the site.

Site Inspection. During the site inspection, field

work begins. Workers wear protective equipment

in case hazardous substances are present. Understandably, these protective measures frighten

some people. Because of this fear, it is recommended that EPA conduct community outreach to

explain what EPA is doing at the site. Although

the field work that occurs during the site assessment is limited, the Site Team can still use this

time to brief the community on the Superfund

process, imminent and long-term risk, and what

to expect. Early briefings can help the Site Team

build trust in the community.

Outreach Activities During PA/SI

Although community involvement is not required

during either the preliminary assessment or the

site investigation phases of site assessment, EPA

does involve the community at sites that garner

public interest and sites with a high probability of

being placed on the NPL. Regions should consider the following factors when deciding

whether a site should receive more extensive

community involvement efforts during site

assessment:

ï The likelihood that the site will be included on

the NPL;

ï The siteís proximity to other NPL sites and the

level of public interest at those sites;

Sometimes the community can provide

valuable information about a siteís history

that may not be available elsewhere.

Community members at a Region 4 site

were not satisfied with EPAís site investigation because it relied on aerial photographs. They thought EPA had not done

enough to seek out information about past

practices from people who live near the

site. Working with EPA, members of a

Community Advisory Group (CAG) for the

site helped by talking with local media to

raise awareness and encourage people to

step forward. The CAG group hoped to

solicit information from long-time residents

with knowledge of site history or other past

practices who may have been reluctant to

talk with ìoutsidersî from EPA.
25

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï The siteís location with respect to the population centers; and

ï The amount of current interest in the site, as

measured by attention from citizensí groups,

local residents, and the media.

During the site assessment phase, the people most

likely to be aware of potential site problems and

interested in government response are local

officials, including the mayor, city council

members, the public health chief, the public

works chief, and members of local planning

boards. Therefore, one of the first actions staff

should take is to contact state and local officials,

the congressional delegation, and key citizens

who can provide information about the scope and

history of the problem.

Other individuals to contact include:

ï Heads of community organizations;

ï Citizens who have expressed concerns to local,

state, or federal officials;

ï People who live closest to, or on, the site;

ï Principals of schools near the site;

ï Local businesses near the site; and

ï Potentially responsible parties.

Some recommended outreach activities to

conduct at this point are:

ï Designating a CIC who can advise the Site

Team on community involvement and field the

communityís questions.

ï Distributing Fact Sheets to let residents know

EPA is conducting site assessment activities

(see the Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit).

ï Holding informal Public Availabilities/Poster

Sessions (see the Public Availabilities/Poster

Sessions tool in the Toolkit).

ï Distributing flyers throughout the community

(in schools, grocery stores, and churches).

ï Using news releases (see the Media tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Creating a Mailing List of concerned citizens

(see the Mailing List tool in the Toolkit).

ï Establishing a toll-free telephone hotline and

publicizing its availability (see the Telephone

tool in the Toolkit).

EPA should follow up with the community after a

PA/SI has been completed to explain the results

and the evaluation and scoring that will happen

during the next phase. Site sampling and scoring

often take many months to perform, and the time

lag between the SI and the decision to proceed

with a remedial investigation (RI) may lead to

considerable frustration. The Site Team should

issue a fact sheet describing the preliminary

findings to reassure the community that EPA is

actively addressing the site.

EPA should always notify the community when a

decision is made about the site. Local officials

and the public should hear such news directly

from the Site Team, rather than from the news

media or other sources.

3. Proposed Listing on

the NPL

The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is the screening tool used by EPA to evaluate risks to public

health and the environment associated with a site.

Using the HRS, EPA assigns a score between 0

and 100 to indicate the relative seriousness of the

risks posed by the site. The factors reflected in the

HRS score include the level of contamination at

the site in air, soil, and water (including surface,

ground, and drinking water); the size of the

population at risk; the ecological area at risk; and

the likelihood that people will come into direct

contact with contaminants at the site. The HRS

score accounts for the potential for ecosystem

destruction, effects on the human food chain, and

actual or potential contamination of ambient air.

The HRS score is one way to determine whether

a site is placed on the NPL, and, if so, its priority

ranking on the list. Once a site is scored, it may

be placed on the NPL for any of three reasons:

ï The site scores 28.5 or higher using the HRS;
26

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï The state in which the site is located designates the site as its highest priority; or

ï The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) issues a health

advisory for the site, and EPA believes that a

remedial action is the best response.

If a site does not qualify for the NPL, it may be

addressed by other Superfund response programs,

such as removal and emergency response. Sites

not meeting Superfund removal or remedial

response criteria may be handled under other

environmental laws, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or the Clean Water

Act. Sites also may be referred to other federal

programs, such as the Brownfields Economic

Redevelopment Initiative, or may be handled by

state hazardous substance response programs,

including voluntary cleanup programs.

If a site is placed on the NPL, several community

involvement activities are required.

Community Involvement/Outreach Activities

During Listing on the NPL

Once EPA decides to propose a site for listing on

the NPL, the Agency is required to conduct

several community involvement activities.

During the listing phase, EPA is required to:

ï Publish notice in the Federal Register. EPA

must publish its proposal to list the site on the

NPL and its request for public comments in

the Federal Register (see the Public Comment Periods tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publish a public notice of EPAís Federal

Register proposal. The Site Team must

publish a notice in a major local newspaper of

general circulation to announce the Federal

Register proposal and initiation of a public

comment period.

ï Hold a public comment period. The Site

Team must hold a public comment period of at

least 60 days.

ï Prepare a written response. EPA must

consider all public comments and publish a

responsiveness summary that addresses

significant comments and any significant

new data received during the public comment

period (see the Responsiveness Summary

tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publish final listing on the NPL. EPA must

revise and publish the final rule in the

Federal Register no less than 30 days prior to

the effective date of the site listing.

The Site Team should anticipate increased

community concern or interest when a site is

proposed for the NPL. During the NPL listing

process, EPA recommends that the Site Team

distribute a fact sheet that describes the site,

outlines the NPL process, explains the

timeframe for NPL listing, and describes how

the public can submit comments. The fact sheet

also presents a good opportunity for introducing

the availability of Technical Assistance Grants

(TAGs). This fact sheet should be placed in the

information repository when it is established.

Listing attracts media attention. Preparing a

press release to accompany the fact sheet may

be useful. (see the Media tool in the Toolkit).

4. Final Listing on the NPL

in the Federal Register

Once EPA has considered and responded to the

comments received on its proposal to list a site

on the NPL, the Agency must announce in the

Federal Register its final decision to list the

site. Several community involvement activities

must occur before RI field activities begin.

Community Involvement Activities After

Final Listing on the NPL

Before RI field activities start, EPA must:

ï Conduct community interviews. The Site

Team must conduct personal interviews to

solicit peopleís concerns and determine how

and when people want to be involved (see the

Community Interviews tool in the Toolkit).
27

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Prepare a formal Community Involvement

Plan (CIP). The Site Team must prepare a CIP

based on community interviews and other

relevant information. The CIP must specify

outreach activities that the Agency expects to

undertake (see the Communication Strategies

and Community Involvement Plan tools in

the Toolkit).

ï Establish and maintain an information

repository. The site team must establish at

least one information repository at or near the

location of the response action (see the Information Repository tool in the Toolkit).

ï Establish the administrative record. The

Site Team must establish and place the administrative record in the information repository.

ï Issue public notice of information repository. The Site Team must publish a notice in a

major local newspaper informing the public of

the establishment of the information repository

and the availability of the administrative

record (see the Public Notice tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Publish notice of Technical Assistance

Grants (TAGs). The Site Team must inform

the community of the availability of technical

assistance grants (see the Technical Assistance for Communities tool in the Toolkit).

More About Community Interviews

The success of community involvement planning

depends on community interviews with state and

local officials, community leaders, media representatives, potentially responsible parties, and

interested residents. The Site Team should use

community interviews as a tool to construct the

CIP. Typically, these interviews are conducted

one-on-one in the personís home or office.

However, phone interviews or focus groups

occasionally may be appropriate. The most

successful interviews are face-to-face discussions

that allow the Site Team to determine public

concerns and learn how and when local residents

want to be involved. The information gathered

from 15-25 community interviews provides the

basis for development of the CIP. Community

interviews also can help to establish a positive

relationship with the community.

Community interviews usually are scheduled

over two to three days, and often are supplemented with additional unplanned interviews

and follow up conversations. When contacting

individuals to schedule interviews, the Site

Team should explain briefly and clearly the

purpose of the interviews. Specifically, staff

should explain that they will be talking with

area residents and local officials about community concerns regarding the site, and that

community interviews are held so EPA can

prepare a meaningful community involvement

plan. Staff should convey to the interviewees

that detailed technical information about site

problems or future site actions is not yet available. While some community members may not

be willing to be interviewed, generally most

citizens, including PRPs, will realize that the

discussions are a significant opportunity to

A member of a community group at a

Colorado site suggests that the role of the

community and the procedures it must

follow should be clearly stated by EPA at

the beginning. EPA should have information on resources available to a community

ready to go out as soon as a hazardous

waste response situation is discovered.

EPA should identify the players in the

process early and determine the information necessary for the community to make

informed decisions and provide meaningful

input into any response actions, including

to whom the participants should direct

their input. EPA also should identify

available financial and/or technical assistance resources, including the availability

of Technical Assistance Grants.
28

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

express their concerns. Staff should speak first

with state and local officials to obtain background information and to let them know that

area residents will be interviewed. Officials have

an understandable interest in Agency activities

that affect their constituents.

For remedial actions, community interviews

should be conducted after the site is formally

listed on the NPL and before the RI/FS begins. If

the situation warrants (this can be determined by

using the Hot Sites Template resource in the

Toolkit), consider conducting community interviews before the site is listed on the NPL.

More About Community Involvement Plans

Once the Site Team has conducted the community interviews, it should develop a Community

Involvement Plan (CIP). Previously known as the

Community Relations Plan (CRP), the CIP is

central to Superfund community involvement. It

specifies the outreach activities that EPA will

undertake to address community concerns and

expectations. The CIP is a public document that

should be placed in the information repository.

The CIP format should include a cover page that

identifies the CIP as an EPA document, and also

include information specifying what EPA will do,

not what EPA should do.

The CIP should explain how the Site Team will

involve the community in site cleanup, rather

than provide information about the site itself. It

should identify the communityís issues, needs,

and concerns, and identify specific activities,

outreach products, or programs EPA will use to

address the communityís concerns. For example,

if groundwater contamination is an issue, the CIP

should identify it as such, and state that ìEPA

will conduct a series of workshops with a

hydrogeologist to explain groundwater.î If the

health effects of the substances are an issue, then

the CIP should propose an activity featuring a

toxicologist to talk about the site-specific contaminants, their known effects on people, and

how they move through groundwater.

As part of an overall community involvement strategy at a controversial site, a

Region 8 CIC determined that formation of

a CAG was an appropriate way to involve

the community, and took steps to help

citizens organize themselves. She invited a

diverse group of community leaders to an

informational meeting and asked them to

suggest other leaders who should be

involved in forming a CAG. They participated in a second organizational meeting.

Because of her prior research and knowledge of the community, the CIC knew the

emotional nature of the subject matter and

the potential for internal conflict, given the

fact that the group included people with

very different perspectivesóincluding

individuals whose family members had

suffered site-related health effects and

others who were employees of the PRP.

Thatís why, when the CAG held its first

ìofficialî meeting, it was led by an outside

facilitator. Neutral third-party facilitation

was necessary because of the potential for

future problems. Even though members

suggested that she continue to facilitate

meetings herself, the CIC didnít want to put

EPA in the ìmiddle,î where the trust and

credibility the Agency had built in the

community could be threatened.

A CIC attended a basketball game at a

local high school. By introducing herself

to local citizens, she built trust and showed

that she was making an effort to get to

know them. The people she met that day

were more candid in their interviews, and

later became advocates for EPA.
29

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The CIP also should establish a time line for

activities (e.g., ìAs the Site Team receives

sampling results, we will hold a series of ground

water workshopsî). While the CIP is a public

document, remember that the CIP is written for

the Site Team.

In general, the CIP should include:

ï An overview of the CIP;

ï A capsule site description;

ï Community background information;

ï Community issues and concerns;

ï Highlights of the CIP;

ï Community involvement activities and timing

(including the communication strategy);

ï A copy of the interview questions;

ï An official contact list (do not include names

of private citizens interviewed or the site

mailing list);

ï The location for public meetings;

ï The location of the information repository; and

ï Local media contacts.

Interviews are strictly confidential. Names,

addresses, and phone numbers of private citizens

interviewed should not appear in the CIP, and

there should be no way to trace information or

comments to any private citizen. However, local

officials and representatives of PRPs interviewed

in their official capacity should be identified in

the list of contacts.

CIP preparation should begin with information

about interested officials, citizens, and organized

groups. This information should be collected in

the community interviews. Also consult the

community profile assembled during the planning

phase for the following information:

ï Multimedia aspects of the site (any other EPA

or state activity regarding the environment or

other permitted facilities at or near the site);

ï Any past news articles, editorials, or letters to the

editor that give insight into local perceptions;

ï An overview of the demographics; and

ï Any need for translating documents (see the

Translation Services tool in the Toolkit);

The Community Involvement Plan tool in the

Toolkit contains a sample Community Involvement Plan and a Community Involvement Activities Template.

More About Communication Strategies

The CIP is the comprehensive strategy for all

community involvement and outreach at the site.

A communication strategy for each element of

the overall CIP should guide the development and

become part of the CIP. Communication strategies saves time and money by helping the Site

Team plan site-related communication with the

public and other stakeholders. They also can be

used to expedite the flow of information for

sudden, unfolding events. A good communication

strategy provides the ìwhy, what, who, when,

where, and howî of relaying information.

Specifically, a communication strategy provides a

structure for identifying issues, problems, and

actions that require outreach. A communication

strategy is a list of messages, audiences, potential

message vehicles, required resources, and feedback mechanisms to meet the unique communication needs of each Superfund site. For help in

developing communication strategies, see the

Communication Strategies tool in the Toolkit.

More About the Information Repository

An information repository is a record maintained

at or near a Superfund site that contains all correspondence, reports, and documents pertaining to

the site as well as general Superfund program

information. At an information repository, people

can research the site, review the law pertaining to

the cleanup, and learn how to participate in the

cleanup. The information repository should be

established early and be well publicized. At least

one repository must be established at or near a

remedial site before the RI/FS begins. The Agency

must inform the public of the information reposi-
30

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

tory. The availability of the administrative record

must be announced through the publication of

notices in a local newspaper of general circulation.

The two most significant decisions relating to the

information repository are location(s) and choosing the materials to be included. The number of

repositories established depends on the remoteness

of the site to surrounding communities. Specific

locations often are determined during community

interviews. Repositories should be convenient to

the public where photocopying equipment is

available. Common locations include public

libraries, city halls, or public health offices. Other

locations include fire stations and religious

buildings. If a photocopying machine is not

available, one may be purchased with site funds.

Repository contents should be organized and

indexed. Multiple copies should be made in case

documents are lost or misplaced. Repository

documents should be updated regularly. If possible, Site Team members should visit the information repository at least once a year to ensure that

its contents are current. A sample information

repository index is provided in the Information

Repository tool in the Toolkit.

More About Public Notice

Public notices are advertisements published in

local newspapers, broadcast on local radio, or

sent as mailings to announce public comment

periods for EPA decisions, major project milestones, and the establishment of information

repositories. The public notice is one of the

methods that EPA uses to solicit community

participation. The goal of a public notice is to

communicate an important announcement to as

many people as possible in the affected community. To that end, public notices should be attractive and located in main sections of the paper.

Notices should not be placed with legal notices.

For more information about public notices, see

the Public Notice tool in the Toolkit.

More About Technical Assistance Grants

EPA provides technical assistance to communities to help citizens understand site-related

information. By law, EPA must inform communities about the availability of Technical Assistance

Grants (TAGs) and assist them in applying for

these grants. EPA also informs citizens about

obtaining assistance through other programs,

such as the university-based Technical Outreach

Services for Communities (TOSC) program and

the Department of Defenseís Technical Assistance

for Public Participation (TAPP) program.

Under the TAG program, initial grants of up to

$50,000 are available to qualified groups affected

by a response action. Additional funding is

available for sites that meet certain criteria. TAGs

can be used to hire a technical advisor, who is an

independent expert that can explain technical

information and help articulate the communityís

concerns (see the Technical Information for

Communities tool in the Toolkit).

One CIC saved a lot of time by transmitting public notices to a local newspaper

via an e-mail message specifying the dates

the notice should appear and attaching the

public notice. The CIC also faxed the

public notice to the newspaper to ensure

that the newspaper had a hard copy from

which to proof the attached document. This

exchange took only a few minutes, instead

of the hours or days a request by mail or in

person might have taken.

One Region makes a regular practice of

putting a Resource Book at its site information repositories, since the mounds of paper

in the Repository can be overwhelming for

citizens. The Region finds that the Resource

Book helps citizens understand the Superfund process better and provides the

site-specific information they want.
31

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

5. RI/FS Begins

After a site is listed on the NPL, the Agency

performs a remedial investigation (RI) to gather

data needed to determine the nature and extent of

contamination at a site, establish site cleanup

criteria, identify preliminary alternatives for

remedial action, and support technical and cost

analyses of alternatives. After the RI has commenced, EPA conducts the feasibility study (FS),

which considers different alternatives for cleaning up the site and recommends selection of a

cost-effective alternative. Together, these studies

usually are referred to as the RI/FS.

The RI/FS is the most critical phase of the

Superfund process, and is the time when it is

easiest to lose the community. From the time that

a work plan is prepared through the completion

of the RI/FS, the Site Team should obtain information from the community and learn the

communityís perspective on site hazards. The

Site Team should ensure that the community is

informed about what to expect from the RI/FS, is

aware of current activities, can track progress at

the site, and has every opportunity to participate

in deciding upon the Proposed Plan. The specific

outreach activities the Site Team is responsible

for are discussed below.

Although the RI/FS usually takes 18 to 24 months

to complete, actual on-site work usually lasts no

more than several weeks to several months. The

rest of the time, analytical work is performed at

the office or in a laboratory. EPA presence at the

site is rare and limited to periodic monitoring or

additional sampling. During this period, the Site

Team focuses on receiving, reviewing, and

analyzing data, and identifying remedy options.

Recommended Outreach Activities During

RI/FS

Although community involvement activities are

not required during the RI/FS, EPA recommends

that at least one community involvement activity

be held each year during the RI/FS.

This is the period during which the community

hears the least from EPA. From a purely technical

perspective, many Site Teams conclude there is

nothing occurring that is of interest to the community. Since there is nothing unusual or alarming

happening and the Site Team does not want to raise

false hopes or fears, it may believe that nothing

needs to be shared with the community. However,

the community often wants information about the

Community members at a Region 6 site

agree that the TAG they received from EPA

enabled the community to participate more

effectively in decision making at the site.

ìOur ability to respond intelligently [to

information from EPA and the PRPs] in the

language they understand depends on

having a good technical advisor, and we

had one of the bestî said one member of the

community group that received the TAG.

While EPA held regular public meetings

prior to issuing its first cleanup plan at

one Region 1 site, community interest in

the site seemed limited until the Agency

announced the proposed remedy. EPAís

Proposed Plan for the site was met with

strong and widespread opposition from

community stakeholders and PRPs. EPA

extended the public comment period on

the Proposed Plan, and, in response to

those comments, decided to withdraw it.

EPA helped stakeholders form a coordinating committee to facilitate active

community involvement in decisionmaking. Eventually, these coordination

efforts led to development and acceptance

of a far less costly and less intrusive

alternative that won support from all

stakeholder groups in the community.
32

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

site and ongoing EPA activities, even when there

may be nothing significant to report. A lack of

communication or information typically results in

one of two community responses: either peopleís

fears, anxieties, anger, and frustration intensify, or

they may adopt a false sense of security by becoming complacent. Either response can be problematic for meaningful community involvement.

When EPA does not provide official information,

residents sometimes turn to other experts who seem

more willing to talk to them. These experts may

include people or groups with their own agendas.

Intentionally or not, these experts can stir up fears

and other concerns that would not have otherwise

arisen had EPA maintained contact. The end result

is usually a significant delay in the process while

the Agency responds to misinformation and calms

resulting fears and anxieties. Sometimes in these

situations, there is a perception that the delay was

caused by too much community involvement, when

in actuality, too little community involvement was

to blame.

The other response to a lack of information from

EPA is community complacency. The community

may perceive EPAís seeming lack of concern as

an indication that the site is harmless. The

community may come to the conclusion that

things are not as serious as EPA portrayed, that

EPA may have overreacted, and that there is

really nothing to worry about. Consequently, the

site becomes an afterthought and community life

returns to normal. At the same time, the Site

Team sees a quiet community and concludes the

residents either are unconcerned or uninterested.

In this case, the Site Team also can be lulled into

a false sense of security, which validates reasons

for not issuing information.

These attitudes can result in a contentious

response to the announcement of the Proposed

Plan. Because of this lack of communication

comes as a complete surprise to the community,

and the communityís reaction is just as surprising

to the Site Team. Citizens balk at the proposed

remedy, they wonder how EPA came up with the

idea, they complain that EPAís decision had no

local input, and they believe EPAís request for

comment is simply a meaningless exercise. The

end result is that the Agency needs to delay the

process to conduct community involvement work

that should have been done all along.

Recent research conducted at active sites indicates that citizens need to hear from EPA on a

continuing basis. People are reassured and feel

more empowered by simple communication from

EPA, even if nothing more is said than ìwe still

have not received the test results from the lab.î

Therefore, the Agency recommends that regular

outreach activities continue throughout the RI/FS,

with the Site Team organizing at least one

community involvement activity per year.

Community involvement activities that have

proven useful during this phase include Community Visioning, Fact Sheets, Focus Groups, and

Informal Activities such as community visits.

Other helpful activities include On-Site Activities, such as site tours, Presentations to local

officials, civic groups, and school groups, Public

Availabilities/Poster Sessions, site-update

Telephone hotlines, and Workshops. See the

Toolkit Table of Contents for more information

about these outreach tools.

The purpose of these activities is to prepare the

community for the publication of the Proposed

Plan.The Site Team needs to decide which of

these or other suggested activities are appropriate

during the RI/FS process. These community

involvement tools are described in detail in Part

II of the Community Involvement Handbook and

Toolkit. The tools included in Part II are guides,

not rules. However, the Agency expects the Site

Team to draft CIPs that use these tools. They can

be used as presented, modified, or combined to

address the unique situation at each site.

Person-to-person interaction is necessary for the

community to get to know Site Team members

and vice versa. Personal interactions, either by

telephone or in person, contribute more to the
33

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

development of trust and cooperative working

relationships than any other form of outreach.

Availability sessions, public meetings, workshops, and TV or radio appearances work well.

Some EPA Regions schedule an information

public meeting at the beginning of RI field work.

Here, the RPM and CIC introduce themselves

and the role of EPA, and describe what is and is

not known about the site and the implications of

this information. The Site Team explains the RI

work plan, the type of work anticipated, what

they hope to learn, what they expect to find, and

safety precautions. Some Site Teams demonstrate

protective gear and monitoring equipment at the

meeting so that people can become familiar with

it. This optional public meeting is an excellent

opportunity to educate both the community and

the Site Team. Whether it is a public meeting or

availability session, some form of person-toperson outreach or community involvement

activity during this phase is important to the

community and beneficial to the Site Team.

Other Regions take community outreach into the

local schools. Site Team members make presentations, either to a large assembly or to specific

classes. Team members show students the safety

equipment and protective gear and even let some

students try on the gear. Educating children also

can be a way of educating adults, since children

talk to their parents. Furthermore, information

brought from school may carry a level of credibility unavailable through other means. Recent

studies show that such efforts have positive, longterm effects in the community.

More About Community Advisory Groups

A Community Advisory Group (CAG) is a committee, task force, or board made up of residents

affected by a Superfund or other hazardous waste

site. A CAG provides a public forum where

representatives of diverse community interests can

present and discuss their needs and concerns

related to the site and the site cleanup process.

CAGs are a community initiative and responsibility. They function independently of EPA, but they

can be a very effective community outreach and

participation tool. The Agency encourages CAG

development, and EPA Regions provide administrative support for CAGs at many Superfund sites.

Experience indicates that CAG involvement in

the process results in better decisions on how to

clean up sites.

CAGs may not be appropriate at every Superfund

site. The Site Team should consider several

factors when evaluating whether a CAG would be

appropriate. For example, they should consider

In Chattanooga, TN, citizens addressed

environmental problems through a visioning

process by setting goals to achieve a shared

vision, designing action plans, and implementing projects throughout the community.

The high level of commitment generated

through an inclusive, open process enabled

the community to finance and implement

projects without the opposition often seen in

community change projects.

ìProviding the community with early drafts

of technical documents is worthwhile in the

long run.î

Mark Doolan, RPM, Region 7

The Site Team at one site found public meetings were never well-attended. They found it

was better to invite community members to

come by the site. The RPM was in the trailer

the same hours every day. Wednesday night

was ìOpen Trailer Night,î with coffee and

cookies. Community members appreciated

the RPMís availability, interest and responsiveness. Among other things they said: ìHe

always made the time to answer questions

and listen to complaints;î ìHe never shied

away from face-to-face forums;î and ìHe

was devoted to the site.î
34

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

the likelihood of long-term cleanup activity at the

site. CAGs usually can be beneficial at both

remedial sites and removal sites, particularly nontime critical removals. However, the time required to organize and begin CAG operations,

which can vary from a few weeks to several

months, may preclude CAGs at time critical

removal sites and other removal sites where

cleanup activities will be brief.

The Site Team also should assess the level of

community concern and interest in site cleanup

decisions and consider whether there are any

environmental justice issues or concerns regarding

the site. Has the community expressed an interest

in forming a CAG? A community with a high level

of interest and concern about remedial activities or

significant environmental justice concerns related to

the site should be a strong candidate for a CAG.

Forming a CAG may not be feasible, however, if

there are too many competing interests at the site.

Community interviews or profiles from early in the

process are a good source of information when

considering whether to recommend formation of

a CAG. Once EPA determines that a CAG may be

appropriate at a site, the CIC, Site Manager, and

other members of the Site Team should explain the

CAG concept to the community, recommend it as a

vehicle for involvement in the decision-making

process, and offer the Agencyís assistance in

forming and maintaining the CAG should the

community choose to form one. If EPA determines

that a CAG would not be appropriate at a site, it is

important to document the Agencyís reasons in a

way that can be shared to community residents

who express interest. For more information, see the

Community Groups tool in the Toolkit.

6. Feasibility Study

Completion and Proposed

Plan

The RI/FS process ends with the release of the RI/

FS documents and the Proposed Plan for remedial

action. This should be a time of intensive community involvement. The Site Team must inform the

public about, and receive comments on, all remedial

alternatives considered in the RI/FS, the Agencyís

preferred alternative, the rationale for the preference, and proposed waivers to cleanup standards.

Good technical work during this phase is crucial

to a good Proposed Plan. Good community

involvement is crucial to the communityís

understanding and acceptance of that plan.

According to Stephen Covey, author of 7 Habits

of Highly Successful People, ìPeople donít care

how much you know until they know how much

you care.î This concept is paramount to effective

community involvement. It does not matter how

good the work or the plan is if the community

does not understand or accept it.

Community Involvement Activities Related

to FS Completion and the Proposed Plan

At a minimum, the following activities must be

conducted:

ï Develop a Proposed Plan. The Site Team

must develop a Proposed Plan for public

comment. The plan must summarize the

remedial alternatives presented in the analysis

of the RI/FS and identify the preferred alternative, the rationale for that preferred alternative,

any proposed waivers to cleanup standards,

and documents that support EPAís decision.

ï Publish notice of the Proposed Plan. The

Site Team must publish a public notice of the

availability of the Proposed Plan and RI/FS, a

One Region that needed to distribute

bottled water to residents around a site

recognized the critical importance of

explaining why bottled water should be

used and how to avoid using tap water.

The CIC coordinated with a sixth grade

teacher, and gave a presentation to school

children. The students put on a play that

was a hit in the community.
35

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

brief summary of the Proposed Plan, and an

announcement of the Public Comment

Period in a major local newspaper of general

circulation (see the Public Comment Periods

and Public Notices tools in the Toolkit).

ï Place the Proposed Plan in the information

repository. The Site Team must make the

Proposed Plan and any supporting analysis and

information in the administrative record at the

Information Repository (see the Information Repository tool in the Toolkit).

ï Hold a public comment period. The Site

Team must provide a reasonable opportunity

(not less than 30 days) for the submission of

comments. The Site Team must extend this

comment period by at least 30 days upon

timely request. Although notifying the public

of the extension is not required, the Site Team

should consider publishing a notice of the

extension, or at a minimum, mailing a copy of

the extension to those on the site mailing list.

ï Hold Proposed Plan public meeting. The

Site Team must hold a public meeting on the

Proposed Plan (see the Public Meetings tool

in the Toolkit). The Site Team must provide a

transcript of all formal public meetings held

during the public comment period. EPA must

make the transcripts available to the public via

the administrative record.

ï Prepare a written responsiveness summary.

The Site Team must prepare a responsiveness

summary that responds to significant public

comments, criticisms, and new relevant information submitted during the public comment

period. The responsiveness summary becomes

part of the Record of Decision (see the Responsiveness Summaries tool in the Toolkit).

The community involvement activities required

for the Proposed Plan are largely impersonal. The

Site Team should conduct additional outreach

focusing on person-to-person contact during the

Proposed Plan phase. There are a number of tools

that can be used to personalize this phase. To help

explain the Proposed Plan, EPA recommends that

the Site Team use at least one of the following

outreach tools: Informal Activities, Presentations, Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions, and

Workshops (see the tools for all in the Toolkit).

While it is not required, distribution of the Proposed Plan to the entire site mailing list and any

other interested parties is recommended. The site

team should place copies of the Proposed Plan in

information repositories at or near the site.

More About the Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan reflects the decisions made by

the lead and support agencies and is a critical

part of remedy selection and the administrative

record. The Site Team should consult the ROD

guidance for information about how to develop

the Proposed Plan. The following section provides a brief summary of the discussion contained in the ROD guidance.

The Proposed Plan must be presented at a public

meeting, usually referred to as the Proposed Plan

public meeting. In the past, Site Teams have put

considerable emphasis on this event. However,

experience has shown that community involvement activities throughout the entire RI/FS

process are at least as important as the Proposed

Plan public meeting.

The Site Team can present the Proposed Plan in

either the expanded or fact sheet format discussed in the ROD guidance. Regardless of the

format, the Site Team should write the plan in a

clear and concise style and use illustrations and

figures to summarize the information in the RI/FS.

Preparation of the Proposed Plan should be a joint

effort of the Site Team. The RPM, CIC, and

Regional Counsel should ensure that the Proposed

Plan is technically accurate, satisfies statutory

requirements, and includes all the necessary

information in a clear and concise style that is

understandable to members of the community.

In addition to clearly summarizing the alternatives from the detailed analysis of the RI/FS, the

Proposed Plan must specify the preferred alterna-
36

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

tive and the rationale for the preference, citing

the evaluation criteria identified in the ROD

Guidance. The Proposed Plan should notify the

public about how to obtain additional information

(e.g., information repositories/administrative

record, RI/FS report, public meetings, contact

person), as well as when to submit comments.

The presentation of the preferred alternative

should emphasize that the Agency has not made a

final decision and is open to suggestions on how

the preferred alternative, or the other alternatives,

might be modified to better satisfy the remedial

objectives of the site. In other words, the Proposed Plan should clearly indicate that the

Agency encourages public comments on all

alternatives, not just the preferred alternative.

The Agency may alter the preferred alternative or

shift from the preferred alternative to another if

public comments or additional data indicate that

these modifications are warranted.

More About the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet

The Proposed Plan is a concise, easy-to-read

synopsis of the action EPA proposes to take.

Unlike the ROD, it is not a legal document that

binds EPA to an action, and it should not read

like a legal document. Instead, the Proposed Plan

is a communications tool required by the NCP as

a means of informing the general public about all

of the alternatives considered and EPAís preferred

remedy. It also notifies the community that it will

have an opportunity to comment. The Proposed

Plan should be released as a fact sheet, preferably

no more than eight pages long, and distributed to

all stakeholders. A more formal Proposed Plan

may be prepared and placed in the information

repository. In this case, summarize it in a Proposed Plan fact sheet, and use the fact sheet to

direct readers to copies of the formal plan.

The primary message to convey in the fact sheet

is the proposed remedy for the site. Provide this

information first, rather than starting with background on the site, other remedies considered, or

any other information. Explain that the fact sheet

briefly summarizes the formal plan for the

remedy. Include why the remedy was chosen over

other proposals, then list the other remedies that

were considered. Explain in a few sentences what

each remedy would entail and why EPA proposed

to eliminate it. After that, offer a more detailed

explanation of the proposed remedy. Provide

general information on the findings of the RI/FS.

Explain in more detail what will be done to clean

up the site, the impact it will have on the community, the cost, and the duration of construction.

If applicable, be sure to announce that the formal

plan is available for review and comment in the

information repository. Include the address and

hours of the repository and a phone number for

requesting copies. Include instructions on how

and when to submit public comments.

More About Public Notice of the

Proposed Plan

The advertisement published in the newspaper

should provide a brief summary of the Proposed

Plan and inform the public of the opportunity to

comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The

notice should summarize the alternatives and

identify the preferred alternative. It should also:

ï explain how to submit oral and written comments;

ï identify the location of the information repositories and administrative record;

ï name a contact person and how to reach him or

her; and

ï provide the opportunity for a public meeting,

or state the time and place of a public meeting

if one has been scheduled.

The announcement should be made at least two

weeks prior to the beginning of the public comment period so that the public has sufficient time

ìLearning what the citizens are thinking far

in advance of the development of the proposed plan is a tremendous advantage.î

Tony Able, RPM, Region 4
37

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

to obtain and read the document. In order to reach

as broad an audience as possible, the advertisement should be designed to attract attention and

engage the reader. The Site Team should consider

purchasing ad space in the most widely read

section of the newspaper.

More About the Public Comment Period

and Public Meeting

The public comment period offers special community involvement challenges and opportunities.

If implemented properly, it can also contribute to

the quality of the selected remedial alternative.

The Site Team should maintain communication

with local officials and interested community

members, explain the remedial alternatives in

understandable terms, and solicit public input. If

this communication is done effectively, concerned groups and individuals can see that their

interests are receiving serious consideration.

Effective communication should make a significant difference in the acceptability of the final

remedy. The public comment period, beyond the

30-day minimum, must be extended by at least 30

additional days upon receipt of a ìtimelyî citizen

request. Although ìtimelyî is considered to be

within the first two weeks of the comment period,

staff should make every reasonable effort to

accept requests received at any time during the

comment period. If the comment period is

extended, staff should publish a public notice to

announce the extension of the comment period.

One CIC scheduled regular talks at a

bookstore, similar to those given by visiting

authors. The presenter spoke about very

specific site-related topics and kept the

speech to about half an hour. The first ten

minutes always were devoted to giving a

quick summary of events that had occurred

at the site, the next 15 minutes covered the

topic, and the last five minutes summarized

the main points. After the presentation, the

presenter fielded questions.

CERCLA and the NCP require EPA to provide

an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the

site regarding the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The

Site Team also may choose to conduct a formal

public hearing, although this alternative is neither

required nor always encouraged. Public hearings,

at which concerned individuals formally state

their comments but no Agency response is given,

are primarily a vehicle for the public to get

comments into the record, rather than a means for

the Agency to engage in a dialogue with the

community. If the Agency receives a request for a

hearing, staff should explain the distinction

between public meetings and hearings and verify

that a hearing is what is desired. The publicís

need often can be met in a more informal,

productive, and less resource-intensive manner. If

a hearing is needed, the preferred approach is to

hold it in conjunction with small informal

meetings or other communications techniques.

One CIC decided to inform local stakeholders about an opportunity for review

and comment on the proposed cleanup

plan by holding a public meeting to

announce the opportunity and invite

interested parties to a public participation workshop. The meeting was held at a

library on a Saturday afternoon, and

attracted a large and diverse audience.

The workshop took place on the following

Saturday and provided information

about: (1) requirements for public review

of and comment on site activities; (2) pros

and cons of the process; and (3) how

citizens can maximize their contributions.

A workshop hand-out offered step-by-step

guidance for reviewing the site information and filing comments. As a result of

his actions, more than half of the workshop attendees submitted comments on

the proposed cleanup plan.
38

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The Site Team also must provide an opportunity

for submission of written and oral comments on

the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. The Site Team

must keep a transcript of the public meeting

conducted during the comment period and make

the transcripts available to the public as part of

the administrative record and information repository. Such transcripts are used by EPA to consider

oral comments made during meetings. Other

substantive discussions regarding the RI/FS,

Proposed Plan, or proposed waivers received by

other means, such as telephone calls or meetings

with individuals during the public comment

period, must also be documented. This documentation may be done through a record of communication, tapes, or notes that must be placed in the

administrative record. Agency staff should

encourage written comments to ensure they are

fully reflected in the record.

7. Notice and Comment on

Consent Decree (if necessary)

Sometimes after the Proposed Plan is developed,

the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) will

negotiate and enter into settlement agreements or

consent decrees with EPA to do the cleanup. To

conclude such negotiations, EPA enforcement

staff and the PRPs may make modifications to the

Proposed Plan. Therefore, EPA must inform the

community of the consent decree and allow the

community to provide input.

Community Involvement Activities for

Consent Decrees

In the event that there is an enforcement agreement, the following requirements apply:

ï Publish a notice of the proposed agreement in

the Federal Register at least 30 days before

the agreement becomes final, identifying the

name of the facility and the parties to the

proposed agreement.

ï Provide an opportunity for comments and for

consideration of comments (see the Public

Comment Periods and Responsiveness

Summaries tools in the Toolkit).

Under the law, consent decree negotiations are

not open to the public. Therefore, once a consent

decree emerges, the community may feel victimized.

Closed discussions between EPA and PRPs often

result in reduced trust and increased resistance on the

part of the community.

Fortunately, there are a few things that the Site Team

can do to prevent a community from feeling victimized by a consent decree. During consent decree

negotiations, the Site Team can use focus groups and

informal activities as tools to involve the community.

ï Focus groups are facilitated discussions about

the site and the communityís concerns voiced

by small groups of stakeholders. Focus groups

are a useful tool for understanding stakeholdersí opinions on site activities, why they feel

as they do, and their needs and expectations.

By holding separate focus group sessions with

different groups, the Site Team can find out

how the community will react to different

proposals being considered in negotiations

(For more information on using focus groups,

see the Focus Groups tool in the Toolkit).

ï Informal activities are unstructured visits to

the community to give people a chance to get

to know members of the Site Team and to

discuss the site in a relaxed atmosphere.

Informal activities can include visiting a

residentís home, hosting an information booth

at a local festival, or going door-to-door in a

neighborhood close to the site. Such activities

allow the Site Team to inform the community

about the consent decree. Be aware that any

such communication should be cleared with

Regional Counsel well in advance of the

activity. Typically, the most the Site Team will

be able to tell a community is that negotiations

may or may not occur and may or may not

result in a consent decree. These efforts may

not seem like much, but such communication

can go a long way in preventing unpleasant

surprises once a consent decree is signed. Such
39

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

activities allow the Site Team to identify

community concerns regarding the consent

decree and direct those concerns to EPAís

representative at the negotiation table (see the

Informal Activities tool in the Toolkit).

More About Community Involvement

Activities for Enforcement Actions

CERCLA created two complementary methods to

clean up hazardous waste sites. The first created

a trust fund to pay for site clean up. The second

provides EPA with authority to identify PRPs

linked to the site and negotiate settlements with

PRPs for site cleanup work or to issue administrative orders directing them to do so. EPA may

also recover the costs of such actions from PRPS

when the trust fund has been used.

Since the passage of CERCLA in 1980, several

states have enacted similar laws under which

they may undertake site cleanup and recover

costs from PRPs. Citing their own authority, they

may issue orders or enter into settlement agreements with PRPs. The enforcement process is

essentially the same as that followed by EPA.

Agency staff should try to help citizens understand Superfund program goals and activities,

including enforcement actions. If community

concerns are fully identified early in the remedial

process, the agency is better able to address these

concerns in the proposed plan.

Community Involvement Plan. In fostering

community involvement during enforcement

actions, CICs should follow the same steps as for

fund-financed projects. The steps critical to

community involvement are conducting interviews of local citizens and formulating a CIP.

Once the CIP has been developed, the CIC and

other members of the Site Team should ensure

that community involvement activities outlined

in the CIP take place. The administrative record

is one method to ensure that the public can access

information about site activities. This and other

methods should be considered and used to inform

and involve the public.

The agency in charge of response actions will

develop and carry out community involvement

activities at enforcement-lead sites. PRPs may

participate in community involvement activities

only at the discretion of the Regional Office.

PRPs do not develop the CIP. The Regional

Office will oversee any PRP community involvement activities. PRPs may participate in community involvement activities at sites where they are

conducting a removal, RI/FS, remedial design,

remedial action, or operation and maintenance.

The CIP should cover any PRP participation in

community involvement activities. In these cases,

the PRPs may wish to participate in public

meetings or in the preparation of fact sheets that

the agency must review before release to the

public. The contents of press releases, however,

are not negotiated with PRPs.

The completed CIP should be provided to all

interested parties and placed in the administrative

record and information repository. If the CIP is

revised, the final revised copy should be made

available to the public and placed in the administrative record and information repository.

Community involvement activities outlined in a CIP

for a PRP-lead site should not compromise the

settlement process and the likely schedule of

enforcement actions. Technical discussions may be

identified in the CIP as community involvement

activities. The CIP should document the Agencyís

approach to coordinating and sharing information

with PRPs. Special conditions on Agency interaction with PRPs should be spelled out in the administrative order or consent decree, not in the CIP.

The public must be informed early when PRPs

are participating in community involvement

activities identified in the CIP. When this happens, the public should be informed that the site

response team prepared the plan. Staff should

communicate this by preparing a fact sheet and

stating clearly at a public meeting that EPA, and

not the PRPs, prepared the CIP, retains all

decision-making authority, and directs all community involvement activities.
40

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The CIP also should describe how the litigation

process affects community involvement activities. Litigation generally does not occur until

after the remedy is selected, but community

involvement staff should explain early in the

process that legal constraints on community

involvement activities may apply during negotiations or litigation. Community involvement staff

may choose to describe EPA interaction with the

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). If litigation is

pursued, the CIP will be amended to reflect the

potential effects of litigation on community

involvement activities. When referral for litigation is the initial enforcement action, the CIP

should specify activities that are to be conducted

during litigation to the extent known at that time.

Enforcement Actions and Community Involvement at Remedial Sites. Community involvement and outreach activities should be planned as

early in the enforcement process as possible.

Generally, this outreach should occur before the

issuance of a RI/FS special notice. Meetings with

small groups of citizens, local officials, and other

interested parties are extremely helpful for sharing

general information and resolving questions. These

meetings may also serve to provide information on

the Agencyís general enforcement process. Also,

the information repository and administrative

record are sources from which the public may

obtain specific information about the site, general

Superfund process, and other Agency materials.

Negotiations about private party response actions

or payment of cleanup costs are conducted in

confidential sessions between the PRPs and EPA

or the state. PRPs may be unwilling to negotiate

without a guarantee of confidentiality. This

expectation of confidentiality restricts the type and

amount of information that can be made public.

Special effort should be made prior to the negotiation moratorium to warn the public that little

information will be available during negotiations.

Neither the public nor the technical advisor (if one

has been hired by a community) may participate in

negotiations between EPA, DOJ, and the PRPs

unless all those parties agree. Instead of direct

participation by the public in negotiations, community involvement staff may wish to mail out a fact

sheet on the Superfund enforcement process and

the moratorium schedules for the specific site.

The public should be informed when agreements

are reached and when consent decrees are referred

to DOJ, lodged, and entered by the court. A press

release may be issued if a site mailing list has not

yet been established. If a mailing list exists,

notices can be sent at the time of the press release.

Once a case is in court, only information from

court files will be available to the public. Agency

The mayor of a town with a Superfund

site held a series of meetings with community leaders to encourage community

participation in discussions with EPA and

PRPs on site cleanup plans. The process

continued after the ROD was signed, but

broke down prior to the consent decree

when the community came out opposed to

the selected remedy, incineration. The

community had little confidence in the

process leading to the RI and the selected

remedy, and felt that EPA had ìlet the fox

into the henhouse.î When the consent

decree was approved, incinerator construction began and residents asked

EPAís ombudsman to intervene when

fumes generated by construction overwhelmed the PRPsí control apparatus.

EPA stopped work on the site. The community asked for an alternative remedy,

and the PRPs agreed to develop one. To

help various interest groups at the site

work out the problems, EPA proposed

formation of a Community Advisory

Group, which ultimately helped interests

work together by improving relations

between EPA and the community.
41

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

statements about the case must be cleared with

DOJ. The Office of Regional Counsel (ORC)

team member will arrange for that clearance and

consult with DOJ on statements concerning site

status, such as investigations, risk assessments,

and response work. The ORC is responsible for

informing staff about consultations with DOJ.

8. Pre-ROD Significant

Changes (if necessary)

If needed, the Site Team may have to address

significant changes to the Proposed Plan prior to

selection of the final remedy. If new information

significantly changes the basic features of the

remedy in the Proposed Plan with respect to scope,

performance, or cost prior to adoption of the final

remedy proposed in the ROD, the Site Team is

required to do different community involvement

activities. These activities will depend upon

whether the significant changes could or could not

be reasonably anticipated by the public based on

information in the Proposed Plan, supporting

analysis, and administrative record.

Pre-ROD Community Involvement Activities

If new information that significantly changes the

basic features or cost of the remedy becomes

available after the publication of the Proposed

Plan, and if these changes could be reasonably

anticipated by the public based on information in

the Proposed Plan, supporting analysis, and

administrative record, then the Site Team must

include a discussion of the significant changes

and reasons for such changes in the ROD.

However, if EPA determines that the significant

change could not have been reasonably anticipated by the public based on information in the

Proposed Plan, supporting analysis, and administrative record, then the Site Team must:

ï Issue a revised Proposed Plan. Prior to the

selection of the remedy, the Site Team must

issue a revised Proposed Plan that includes a

discussion of the significant changes and the

reasons for such changes.

ï Hold a public comment period. The Site

Team must seek additional public comment on

the revised Proposed Plan (see the Public

Comment Periods tool in the Toolkit).

ï Prepare a written response. The Site Team

must respond to significant comments (see the

Responsiveness Summaries tool in the

Toolkit).

When revisions to the Proposed Plan necessiate a

a new round of public comment, public understanding of those significant changes is crucial.

EPA recommends that the Site Team use some of

the following community involvement tools:

ï Revised fact sheet. Distribute a revised

Proposed Plan fact sheet explaining significant

changes and the process for holding a new

round of public comments (see the Fact

Sheets tool in the Toolkit).

ï Public availability/poster session. The Site

Team should host a public availability/poster

session to explain significant changes and the

need for a new round of public comment.

Public availabilities and poster sessions are

less structured than public meetings; they are

preferred in situations in which public meetings are not required (see the Public Availability/Poster Session tool in the Toolkit).

ï Informal activities. The Site Team should

engage in some informal outreach activities,

such as setting up an exhibit booth at a comA CIC and RPM presented a site update to

a countyís Grand Jury panel that included

graphics, maps, and slides of the former

mine site. Afterwards, the audience stated

an interest in seeing the site first hand. Two

weeks later, the RPM and CIC led a site

tour for 25 people that included a visit to

an adjacent site where EPA was completing

removal of contaminated soil. Fact sheets

and a chronology of EPA activities were

provided as handouts.
42

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

munity event or going door-to-door, to explain

the significant changes and the new round of

public comments (see the Informal Activities

tool in the Toolkit).

ï On-Site activities. Depending upon the nature

of the significant changes, this point in the

process might present a good opportunity for

the Site Team to host a site tour, during which

the team can explain the site, the nature and

extent of contamination, and the significant

changes to the revised Proposed Plan (see the

On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï Telephone hot lines. If the Site Team has not

already set up a toll-free telephone hot line,

this would be a good time to do so. If the hot

line is already operating, it should be updated

to explain the revised Proposed Plan and the

new round of public comments (see the

Telephone tool in the Toolkit).

9. Record of Decision

After EPA considers comments on the Proposed

Plan, it selects a final remedy, which is published

in the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is

the official documentation of how EPA considered the remedial alternatives and why EPA

selected the final remedy.

Community Involvement Requirements

During the ROD

During selection of the final remedy in the ROD,

the Site Team must:

ï Publish a notice of the availability of the

ROD in a major local newspaper. The Site

Team must notify the public of the availability

of the ROD through publication of a notice in

a major local newspaper (see the Public

Notices tool in the Toolkit).

ï Review the CIP for needed changes. After

the signing of the ROD and prior to the

initiation of the Remedial Design, the Site

Team shall review the CIP to determine

whether it should be revised to include additional public involvement activities during the

RD/RA phase (see the Community Involvement Plans tool in the Toolkit).

More About Public Notice of ROD

EPA is required to publish a newspaper notice,

preferably a display ad, which informs the public

that the ROD has been signed and announces the

availability of the final remedial action plan

selected by EPA. The advertisement should

provide a brief summary of the selected remedy

and explain where a copy of the ROD can be

obtained or reviewed.

ROD Outreach Activities

When the ROD is issued, the Site Team should

make a concerted effort to inform the community

that EPA has made a decision about the site

remedy. This information needs to be disseminated as widely as possible. Although placing a

notice in a newspaper is required, it probably is

the least effective way of notifying the community. Other more effective approaches for notifying the community about the ROD include:

ï Fact sheets. Distribute a fact sheet explaining

the remedy in the ROD. (see the Fact Sheets

tool in the Toolkit, which includes sample fact

sheets and fact sheet templates).

ï Public availability/poster session. The Site

Team can host a public availability/poster

session to explain the ROD (see the Public

Availabilities/Poster Sessions tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Informal activities. The Site Team can

engage in informal outreach activities, such as

setting up an exhibit booth at a community

event, to announce the ROD (see the Informal

Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï On-site activities. The ROD announcement

might present a good opportunity for the Site

Team to host a site tour. (see the On-Site

Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï Press briefings and news releases. Most local

television and radio stations will broadcast

public service announcements related to sites.
43

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Site Team members may appear on a live radio

or cable television call-in shows. The Site

Team can respond to questions and also

explain the selected remedy. When participating on this type of show, develop messages and

repeat them frequently to ensure the key

mesages are conveyed to the public (see the

Media tool in the Toolkit and Chapter 7,

ìDealing with the Media,î in this Handbook).

ï Postcard or flyer. Prepare a post card or flyer

to announce the ROD and distribute it to

people on the site mail list. Place the flyer or

post card in various locations throughout the

community, such as schools, libraries, or

grocery stores.

10. Post-ROD Significant

Changes

After a ROD is signed, the PRP sometimes will

settle with EPA and agree to perform the remedy

selected in the ROD. If any post-ROD remedial

action or enforcement action under CERCLA ß106

is taken, or if any settlement or consent decree

under CERCLA ß106 or ß122 is entered into, and

if such action, settlement, or decree differs significantly from the ROD, then EPA must take one of

the following actions:

ï If the differences in the settlement or consent

decree do not fundamentally alter the remedy

selected in the ROD with respect to scope,

performance, or cost, the Agency must issue

an explanation of significant differences and

make the explanation and supporting information available to the public in the administrative record and information repository. Additionally, a notice that briefly summarizes the

significant differences and states the reasons

for such differences must be published in a

major local newspaper of general circulation.

ï If the differences in the settlement or consent

decree fundamentally alter the basic features

of the selected remedy with respect to scope,

performance, or cost, EPA must propose an

amendment to the ROD.

To amend the ROD, EPA must:

ï Publish a notice of availability of the

proposed amendment. The Site Team must

publish a notice of availability and a brief

description of the proposed amendment in a

major local newspaper of general circulation.

ï Provide time for comments. The Site Team

must provide at least 30 days for the submission of written and oral comments on the

proposed amendment (the comment period

must be extended by a minimum of 30 days,

upon timely request).

ï Provide public meeting opportunity. The

Site Team must provide the opportunity for a

public meeting during the comment period.

ï Keep a transcript of comments. The Site

Team must keep a transcript of comments

received at the public meeting.

ï Include an explanation of the amendment.

The Site Team must include a brief explanation of the amendment and a response to each

of the significant comments, criticisms, and

new relevant information received during the

comment period in the amended ROD.

At a controversial site, a CIC held regular

conference calls with EPA representatives,

reporters, editors, local officials, and interested residents. Twelve lines were dedicated

for each call. The date and time of the call

were announced in advance. The calls were

conducted on a quarterly basis at first, but as

work intensified, they were held monthly,

then bi-weekly, and weekly.

The CIC also placed weekly updates on a

toll-free hot line that citizens could call at

their convenience. This information answered the basic questions of affected residents and saved the CIC time responding to

individual messages. In the end, the ROD

was not contested.
44

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Once the ROD has been amended, EPA must:

ï Publish a notice of availability of the

amended ROD. The Site Team must publish a

notice of availability of the amended ROD in a

major local newspaper of general circulation.

ï Place the amended ROD in the information

repository. The amended ROD and supporting

information must be placed in the administrative record and information repository before

commencement of the remedial action.

Post-ROD Outreach Activities

When a settlement agreement or consent decree has

caused EPA to propose an amendment to the ROD,

EPA must perform the community involvement

requirements outlined above. Because settlement

negotiations are closed to the public, the settlement

and the resulting proposed ROD amendments may

come as an unpleasant surprise to the community,

and significantly undermine community trust and

cooperation. To avoid this result, EPA recommends

that the following additional community outreach

activities be undertaken:

ï Fact sheets. Distribute a fact sheet explaining

how EPA proposes to amend the ROD and any

changes to the scope, performance, and cost of

the remedy. The fact sheet should remind the

public of its opportunity to comment on the

proposed amendments to the ROD (see the

Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit, which includes

sample fact sheets and fact sheet templates).

ï Public availability/poster session. The Site

Team should host a public availability/poster

session to explain the proposed amendments to

the ROD and the need for a new round of

public comment. Public availabilities and

poster sessions are preferred in situations in

which public meetings are not required (see

the Public Availabilities/Poster Sessions tool

in the Toolkit).

ï Informal activities. The Site Team should

engage in informal outreach activities, such as

setting up an exhibit booth at a community

event or going door-to-door to explain the

proposed amendments to the ROD and the new

round of public comments (see the Informal

Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï On-site activities. Depending upon how

tangibly the amendments proposed for the

ROD can be demonstrated on site, this time

might present a good opportunity for the Site

Team to host a site tour. During the tour, the

Site Team can provide a history of the site and

describe the nature and extent of contamination and the changes to the remedy contemplated by the settlement or consent decree (see

the On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï Telephone hot lines. If the Site Team has not set

up a toll-free telephone hot line, this would be a

good time to do so. Alternatively, if the hot line

was established earlier in the process, it should

be updated to explain the proposed amendments

to the ROD and the new round of public comments (see the Telephone tool in the Toolkit).

11. Remedial Design/

Remedial Action

Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) is

the phase during which EPA designs and implements the cleanup remedy selected in the ROD.

As with the other phases, RD/RA has its own set

of community involvement opportunities and

potential problems. The disruption imposed on

communities during the construction phase can

cause communities to become agitated and vocal.

While the remedial design phase usually is

uneventful since little or no field work is conducted, the remedial action phase can be very

disruptive to the community, with extensive

construction, dust, noise, and heavy truck traffic

ìEngage in meaningful dialogue and you

will minimize delays from public misunderstanding and criticism.î

Ed Als, RPM, Region 2
45

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

that carries on for months or years. Members of

the public may express anger and surprise when

construction begins. Moreover, regardless of the

success of community involvement efforts prior

to construction, there always will be newcomers

to the community or people who recently started

paying attention who may be especially bothered

by the impact of construction on their lives.

The Site Team should continue any ongoing

communications and outreach efforts and engage

in further efforts. At least one community involvement or outreach activity should be performed each year during the design phase of the

remedy. These activities should emphasize that

EPA is making progress with the design and,

whenever possible, advise the community when

construction may begin. Fact sheets or flyers

work well to inform the community about the

progress of the design. Some Regions require the

site team to hold a public meeting at the 75 percent design completion point to educate the

community about the project and the potential

impact on residents.

Community Involvement Activities During

RD/RA

The NCP requires EPA to do the following after

the remedial design is approved and before

construction begins:

ï Issue a fact sheet. After completion of the

final design, the Site Team must issue a fact

sheet (see the Fact Sheets tool in the Toolkit).

ï Provide a public briefing. The Site Team

must provide a public briefing about the final

engineering design prior to the initiation of

remedial action (see the Presentations and

Public Meetings tools in the Toolkit).

The community should be informed about the

work to be done, planned work hours, truck

traffic, health and safety precautions, and monitoring to confirm that there are no releases. The

community also should be informed about issues

such as whether and how the remedial action will

affect school bus routes and schedules, local

traffic patterns, noise, and health and safety

issues. Procedures for notifying nearby residents

in the event of a release or other emergency also

should be established.

The required activities should be supplemented

with activities such as public availabilities/poster

sessions, site tours, radio show appearances, or

something similar on a local TV news show or

local cable TV station. These activities should

educate the community about what can be

expected to occur during the construction phase.

The Site Team also may want to consider special

events and facilities at the site that allow residents to see the progress first hand, such as

observation decks, special site tours, and other

Sometimes a previously ìsleepyî site can

become a community involvement challenge when new issues arise late in the

Superfund cleanup process. A last-minute

challenge occurred at a Region 4 site

where the community became aware during

the design phase that EPA was considering

allowing the PRPs to discharge untreated

groundwater into a sewer line. The discharge issue galvanized the community.

EPA scheduled a public meeting to hear

residentsí concerns on this and other siterelated issues and helped the community

form a Community Advisory Group (CAG).

EPA organized site visits and worked

closely with the CAG to address community

concerns. The Agency agreed to continue

investigating the site. While those involved

agree that the CAG should have been

formed much earlier in the process before

major site decisions were made, they also

agree that the group has played a significant role at the site and has helped build

trust between the community and EPA.
46

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

methods that will eduacate and inform the public.

Again, the more the residents know, the better the

chances of avoiding controversy.

12. Operation &

Maintenance

During the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

phase, EPA must conduct a review of the remedy

every five years. The project manager forms a

Site Team for the five-year review, which may

consist of a CIC, scientists, engineers, and other

technical personnel. The review includes: examining site data; visiting the site; taking new

samples; and talking with affected residents.

EPA is required to notify the community and

other potentially-interested parties that a fiveyear review will be conducted at their site. The

Site Team may interview community members to

get their views about current site conditions,

problems, and concerns. If there is a site CAG or

TAG, representatives of these groups should be

briefed at appropriate stages of the five-year

review. The Site Team also may conduct additional community involvement activities, such as

issuing fact sheets or holding a public meeting.

Upon completion of the five-year review, the Site

Team is required to write a review report which

includes background on the site and cleanup

activities, a description of what was done during

the five-year review, and an explanation of the

results. The explanation of results must include a

protectiveness statement for each remedy under

review indicating whether the remedy is protecting human health and the environment. While it

is not required, the Site Team may choose to ask

for public comment on the report.

Upon completion of this report, the Site Team

will write a summary of the review report and

place the report and its summary in the site

repository. The Site Team then will announce that

the review is complete, and that the report and

summary are available for the public to review.

For more information about community involvement strategies during a five-year review, read

Appendix A of the Comprehensive Five-Year

Review Guidance.

13. Proposed NPL Deletion

and Final NPL Deletion

in the Federal Register

A site can be deleted from the NPL when EPA

determines that no further response is needed.

Procedures for NPL site deletion are similar to

rulemaking for NPL site additions. Regional staff

need to prepare a deletion docket containing all

pertinent information supporting the deletion

recommendation before transmitting this docket

to EPA Headquarters for review. The Site Team

should ensure that the Regional public docket

and local information repositories contain copies

of all supporting information prior to publication

of public notification statements announcing

EPAís intent to propose a site deletion.

The following community involvement activities

are required during deletion from the NPL:

ï Publish a notice of intent. The Site Team

must publish a notice of ìintent to deleteî in

the Federal Register.

ï Hold a public comment period. In the notice,

the Site Team must solicit public comments

through a public comment period of a minimum of 30 calendar days (see the Public

Comment Periods tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publish a public notice of availability. The

Site Team must publish a public notice of the

intent to delete the site from the NPL. The

notice should be published in a major local

newspaper at or near the site (see the Public

Notices tool in the Toolkit).

ï Place copies in the Information Repository.

The Site Team must place copies of information supporting the proposed deletion in the

information repository (see the Information

Repository tool in the Toolkit).
47

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Respond to public comments. The Site Team

must respond to each significant comment and

any new data submitted during the comment

period and include this responsiveness summary document in the final deletion package

(see the Responsiveness Summary tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Place the deletion package in the Information Repository. The Site Team must place the

final deletion package in the local information

repository once the notice of the final deletion

has been published in the Federal Register.

More About the Notice of Intent to Delete

The Site Team must prepare the ìNotice of Intent

to Deleteî to appear in the Federal Register and

appropriate local publications. Additional information in the notice should include:

ï A summary of EPA deletion criteria and how

the site meets the criteria;

ï The locations of Regional dockets;

ï The locations of local information repositories

containing relevant documents;

ï The name and address of a Regional contact

where comments may be sent;

ï A brief site history, including location, former

use, contaminants, and date added to the NPL;

ï A description of all response actions taken at

the site (including the scope of the RI, if

applicable, the results, and the conclusions);

ï A summary of cleanup standards and criteria

and results of all confirmatory sampling;

ï A summary of Superfund community involvement activities;

ï A description of EPAís close-out plan for the

site that explains operation and maintenance

procedures, the monitoring program that will

be implemented, and any institutional controls

that will be used at the site;

ï An acknowledgment of State concurrence to

delete the site;

ï A description of procedures for deleting a site

from the NPL; and

ï A statement indicating that EPA retains the

authority to spend money on and take action at

a deleted site if future conditions warrant such

actions.

Additional Outreach Activities during NPL

Deletions

The last important activity is a special event to

commemorate completion and recognize citizens

who have helped (see the Citizen Recognition

and Special Events tools in the Toolkit). Regions

have tried a variety of activities intended to bring

closure to the site for the community, as well as

for the Site Team. In most cases, the complete

process has taken longer than anyone expected or

wanted, and a special event signals success or

finality for all involved. In some cases, it can also

serve to formally return land to the community.

Grand openings, dedications, and naming ceremonies are all appropriate. The purpose of such

special events is to involve the community and

One CIC organized a celebration around

the demolition of four smokestacks at a

Superfund site. The stacks had been an

eyesore in the community. The media was

involved, as well as the Regional Administrator and a local Congressman. Local

residents printed programs for the demolition and organized a fair with a helicopter

ride. The CIC distributed a fact sheet and

media package about the stack demolition.

Another CIC held a ceremony when work at

a site was completed. The occasion was the

completion of on-site revegetation to create

a bird sanctuary. Since the site appeared to

be nothing more than a grassy field, the

celebration focused on the removal of EPAís

Superfund sign and the unveiling of a new

sign designating the site as a sanctuary.
48

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

demonstrate to them in a dramatic fashion that

the project is complete.

Community Involvement on

Prospective Purchasers

Agreements

Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) are

agreements between EPA and prospective purchasers of contaminated properties that contain

covenants not to sue. These covenants release

purchasers from liability for past contamination.

The covenants not to sue are intended to encourage safe reuse or redevelopment of contaminated

property that would have substantial benefits to

the community (e.g., through job creation or

productive use of abandoned property).

EPA issued a ìGuidance on Agreements with

Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Propertyî in May 1995, which expanded the circumstances under which the Agency will consider

entering into PPAs. Previous guidance limited use

of these covenants to certain situations. The 1995

guidance allows EPA to consider ìindirect public

benefitî as one of the considerations. A model

PPA was issued in October 1999. A PPA tracking

system also has been developed within the

WasteLAN database.

Community Involvement Activities for EPA

Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of

Contaminated Property

Because settlements with prospective purchasers

are not expressly governed by CERCLA, there is

no legal requirement for public notice and

comment. However, in light of EPAís May 1995

policy of accepting ìindirect public benefitî as a

partial consideration, and the fact that the PPAs

will provide contribution protection to the

purchaser, the surrounding community and other

members of the public should be afforded an

opportunity to provide comments on the settlement, wherever feasible. This is particularly

important in urban communities and at facilities

where environmental justice is an issue.

At these sites, the Site Team should disseminate

information and facilitate public input. Seeking

cooperation with state and local government

agencies also may facilitate public awareness and

involvement. Additionally, the Site Team should

make a case-by-case determination of the need

and level of measures needed to ensure meaningful community involvement with respect to the

agreement. Some PPAs may be subject to relatively short deadlines. In these circumstances, the

Site Team should allow sufficient time for

appropriate approvals and public comment prior

to the deadline.

Summary

The Superfund remedial process can be traumatic

for a community, and it is incumbent upon the

Agency to help citizens deal with it. It is in EPAís

best interest to involve citizens in every aspect of

the cleanup. The more they feel involved in the

decision-making process, the greater their sense

of ownership and buy-in, and the more readily

they will accept the proposed remedy.
49

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Introduction

This chapter presents a comprehensive discussion

of how a Site Team should implement early and

meaningful community involvement during

removal actions. Removals are short-term responses to immediate threats to human health or

the environment. Since removals vary in their

duration, they present unique community involvement challenges and opportunities. The type and

frequency of community involvement activities

will vary with the length and urgency of the

removal action. Consequently, the community

involvement approach for a removal action

should be flexible and responsive to changing site

conditions and to the needs of the surrounding

community.

In this chapter, community involvement approaches and methods are discussed for three

types of removal actions: emergency responses,

time-critical removals, and non-time-critical

removals. The unique community involvement

approach for each type of removal action is

discussed in detail. Required community involvement activities, as well as recommended activities,

are presented, as is a discussion of the community

involvement challenges and opportunities posed by

removal actions. The chapter begins with an

overview of Superfund removal actions and

planning tips for conducting community involvement and outreach during removal actions. A

variety of community involvement activities and

suggestions and the rationale for conducting them

are presented throughout the chapter. Details

about each activity are provided in the Community Involvement Toolkit.

About Superfund Removal

Actions

Removal actions are characterized by their

urgency and duration. There are three basic types

of removals:

1) Emergency Responses are short-term (one-day

to three months) actions requiring the immediate removal of hazardous materials to protect

human health and the environment. Typical

emergency responses address imminent

threats, such as fires, explosions, or toxic

spills. Communications focus on quickly

disseminating information to warn of the

potential threats and explain the protective

measures EPA is taking.

2) Time-Critical Removals are situations where

EPA must begin cleanup activities within six

months of discovery of hazardous materials to

protect public health and safety. Community

involvement and outreach activities are similar

to emergency responses, although more time

usually is available to plan outreach activities.

3) Non-Time-Critical Removals occur when EPA

determines that a removal action is appropriate

and the situation allows EPA a planning period

of six months or more prior to the beginning of

removal activities at the site. These sites do not

present an immediate threat to public health or

safety. In non-time-critical removals, EPA must

complete an Engineering Evaluation and Cost

Analysis (EE/CA) that describes the cleanup

and approach. Because of the longer time

frame, the community involvement and outreach activities are similar to those performed

for remedial actions.

Even though the response time varies according

to the type of removal, the key is developing a

successful outreach plan for the situation. Early

and continued community involvement and

outreachóparticularly for non-time-critical

removal actionsówill help promote community

acceptance of the cleanup solution and may

CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTING

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN

REMOVAL ACTIONS

ìBe visible and available. Seek out opportunities to meet with community members

during their normal activities. Always find

the time to answer questions and listen to

concerns.î

Paul Groulx, OSC, Region 1
50

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

prevent or substantially reduce conflict with the

community or other stakeholders as the process

proceeds.

Roles and Responsibilities

The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) is responsible

for all response activities conducted during a

removal action, including non-technical activities

such as communications, public outreach, and

community involvement. The OSC can delegate

these responsibilities to another OSC, a Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC), or other

response agency personnel. Regardless of who

performs these functions, outreach, media relations, and community involvement activities are

important and necessary elements of a successful

cleanup conducted under removal authority.

Since the OSC is responsible for all site activities, he or she must decide early in the response

whether additional communications support and

expertise are needed. This decision should be

based upon the complexity and expected duration

of the removal action and the interest of the

community and the media. The OSC also relies

on advice and support from the CIC or Regional

press office when making decisions concerning

media relations and public outreach.

The CIC plays an important role in a removal

action. The role of the CIC in any type of removal action is to support the OSC and serve as a

communications and outreach advisor. The OSC

depends on the CICís expertise and capabilities

for developing and implementing a communication strategy for the removal action. This reliance

on the CIC by the OSC requires the CIC to

quickly gain an understanding of community

concerns and the mediaís needs during a removal

action and to develop a strategic plan to address

the communication/outreach needs. The CIC

advises the OSC of the communication/outreach

issues and the proposed communications plan.

After this consultation, the CIC coordinates with

the OSC to implement the communications plan.

Communications and outreach work best when

the OSC and the CIC work as a team to manage

all community involvement activities, including

community outreach, media relations, coordination with stakeholders, and information dissemination. A teaming arrangement allows the OSC to

focus on the technical issues concerning the

response while the CIC focuses on the communication and outreach issues. In this arrangement,

the OSC coordinates with the CIC to identify key

messages or technical issues that need to be

disseminated to the media or the surrounding

community. The OSC also keeps the CIC informed of technical cleanup activities so that the

CIC can knowledgeably respond to questions

from the media or the community. The CIC

advises the OSC of key concerns of the media

and community and suggests approaches for

addressing those concerns.

Planning for

Communications/Outreach

During Removal Actions

Once a removal action begins, the OSC and the

support team helping with communications

should be prepared to implement a variety of

communication and outreach activities quickly to

meet the needs of the community and other

stakeholders. To improve this capability, the EPA

removal Site Team should plan and prepare for

communications prior to removal actions. Provided below are several suggestions for planning

and preparing for a removal action:

ï Develop a ìResponse Communications

Toolkitî for emergency and time-critical

responses. The Toolkit should include: electronic templates of press releases and fact

sheets that explain EPAís role in responding to

the situation; checklists of activities to perform

at the incident; tips for dealing with the media;

and lists of contacts in the media and other

response organizations. The Toolkit also should

include a list of equipment and materials
51

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

needed for a field office, such as a laptop

computer, portable printer, printing paper,

notepads, pens, tape, stapler, folders, telephone

equipment, fax machine, and other basic office

equipment and materials.

ï Establish a network of contacts in the response

community at the local, state, and federal

level. In medium and large emergency response situations, all three governmental levels

will be involved in the response.

ï Develop templates of communication strategies to facilitate identification of key audiences, messages, and communication approaches and methods.

ï Define roles and responsibilities of all response personnel who will conduct communication and outreach activities. Understanding

the roles of each individual prior to the incident will improve teamwork and coordination

during the incident.

ï Participate in training and desktop exercises to

improve coordination pertaining to communications and outreach.

ï Become familiar with the Joint Information

Center (JIC) model for coordinating communications during multi-agency responses (See the

text box on page 54).

ï Develop fact sheets for each type of removal

action and fact sheet templates that can be

modified to address site-specific and community needs.

How to Conduct Community

Involvement/Outreach

During Removal Actions

The approach for conducting community involvement and outreach at removal actions depends on

the severity and the duration of the particular

response. In all removal actions, certain activities

are required by the National Contingency Plan

(NCP). The number of required activities increases with the duration of the response action

(see the summary of the required activities in the

Appendix). Experience has shown that meeting

the minimum requirements often is insufficient to

adequately meet the communityís needs and

concerns. Performing the minimum communication/outreach activities can be sufficient at some

sites; however, at most sites much more needs to

be done. The OSC, with advice from the Site

Team, determines the extent of community

outreach and involvement needed for the particular response. This determination is best made by

conducting an analysis of the communication

needs for the specific removal action. Such a

determination can be accomplished through a

communications strategy.

A communication strategy is critical to a successful outreach effort during removals (see the

Communication Strategy tool in the Toolkit). A

communication strategy answers four key questions: 1) Who are the individuals and organizations

impacted by the removal action (i.e., the audience)? 2) What are the key communication

issues, such as a communityís needs and concerns? 3) What are the key messages EPA needs

to convey to the public? and 4) Which techniques

or activities are most appropriate to meet the

communityís needs or to convey EPAís message?

These questions need to be answered before any

communications or outreach activity is conducted.

These answers can be derived informally through

a discussion among Site Team members or

formally in a written document. For an emergency

response, a discussion typically suffices, given the

time constraints.

For time-critical and non-time-critical responses,

a formal document, such as a Community Involvement Plan (CIP), is more appropriate. A

Community Involvement Plan is required for

removals that require more than six months.

No single approach works for all sites or situations. The Site Team should be flexible and

willing to adjust the communication approach

and strategy. Regardless of the general communication strategy and the particular outreach
52

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

activity, there are simple principles that make an

outreach program successful. These include:

ï Be available and accessible. Accessibility to

the community is critical to establishing EPA

as the leader of a removal action. The OSC or

the Site Team must anticipate and respond to

the fear, confusion, and concerns of the

community. Being available to answer questions or listen to concerns helps to address the

immediate insecurities and fears felt by many

community members. Accessibility also

increases the communityís familiarity with

EPA and the Site Team, which ultimately

increases comfort level and reduces fear.

ï Respond quickly to community questions,

concerns, and needs. Responding quickly

increases the communityís trust and confidence in EPA and the Site Team. Conversely,

responding slowly, or not at all, increases the

communityís fear and leads to mistrust. If time

is needed to respond to a request from a

stakeholder, explain when an answer will be

provided. Always follow up by explaining

what has or has not been done to address the

personís concern, even if the news is bad. A

person that does not hear back from EPA will

assume that he or she is being ignored.

ï Be honest and open. Never lie or be misleading. A community that learns that EPA staff

has been misleading will not believe EPA in

the future and will question every decision

EPA makes. If an answer is not known, say, ìI

donít know but will find out.î Once an answer

is in hand, follow up should be immediate.

ï Educate the impacted community about the

Superfund program, both in terms of what is

possible and not possible. This education will

help to manage expectations. If people understand that EPA is prohibited legally from doing

something, they will not expect EPA to do it.

Conversely, if they do not understand what

cannot be done under the Superfund program,

they will wonder why it is not being done.

Most removal actions are relatively small

in scope and limited to EPA or one other

state or federal agency. In these cases, the

OSC can manage the coordination of

communications and outreach. However,

some removal actions involve multiple

public or private agencies and organizations. For these occasions, the OSC

should consider establishing a Joint

Information Center (JIC).

A JIC is a centralized communications

hub designed to coordinate communications so that timely, useful, and accurate

information can be provided to the public

and media. The purpose of the JIC is to

gather incident data, analyze public

perceptions of the response, and inform

the public. Representatives from response

agencies are assigned specific functions

and tasks to manage information flow and

outreach during the incident. The JIC

structure works equally well for large or

small situations and can expand or contract in size to meet the specific needs of

the incident.

Through a JIC, response agencies can

work together and speak with a single

voice. By maintaining a centralized

communication facility, resources are

better managed, the issuance of mixed

messages is reduced, and duplication of

effort is minimized. Use of a JIC allows

for tracking and maintaining records and

information more accurately.

Additional information on establishing a

JIC is available in a National Response

Team (NRT) document, Joint Information

Center Model: Collaborative Communications During Emergency Response.
53

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Empathize with community members or other

stakeholders. Listen to people, be concerned,

and treat people as you would like to be treated

if you found yourself in similar circumstances.

ï Be creative and imaginative, particularly when

designing or implementing outreach activities.

Design activities to meet community needs.

ï Recognize that impacted citizens can be a

source of help to EPA. Local residents/business owners often know what has occurred at a

site and can share this information with EPA.

However, EPA needs to ask questions or

encourage people to provide the information.

Also, local residents can help disseminate

information throughout the community.

Adopting these attitudes and principles helps to

establish a relationship of mutual respect and trust

with the community. Although stakeholders may

disagree with specific EPA decisions, they are

more likely to understand and accept the decisions

if they trust EPA and believe the decision-making

process is fair and considers their input.

When an OSC does an initial site assessment at a

potential removal site and determines the site

probably will require a removal action of more

than six months, the OSC or CIC should consider

canvassing the area and coordinating meetings

with local public officials and the media. This

can be an opportunity to gain a better understanding of community concerns and to explain EPAís

emergency response and removal program. This

early involvement helps to build a relationship

with the community, and is particularly important

if the site becomes a non-time-critical removal or

a remedial action after a time-critical removal. A

well-informed community familiar with EPA and

its programs will be less skeptical of EPA decisions made during for the longer-term cleanup.

Community Involvement/

Outreach During Emergency

Responses

By definition, an emergency is an unforeseen

event that requires immediate action. For EPA

and the OSC, the initial focus of a response

action is to eliminate the immediate threat or

potential threat. Equally important is communicating with the impacted community to inform

them of events and to respond to questions.

During an emergency response, EPA needs to

give the public prompt, accurate information on

the nature of the release or threat of release and

the actions to mitigate the threat.

Emergency responses are designed to address

imminent threats such as fires, explosions, toxic

spills or any other immediate threat to public

health and the environment. They typically

involve:

ï Evacuating or temporarily relocating people to

remove them from direct harm;

ï Stabilizing or detonating flammable or explosive hazardous materials;

ï Providing site security by posting signs,

erecting fences, or posting guards;

ï Providing an alternative water supply, such as

bottled water; and

ï Treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous

substances, such as controlling drainage,

stabilizing berms, draining lagoons, capping

soils or sludge, excavating and removing

contaminated soil, removing drums and other

containers, or using chemical stabilizers.

The OSC is authorized to take whatever steps are

necessary to protect the surrounding community.

This authority includes informing the media and

the community of the emergency and the response plans. The NCP requires EPA to inform

the community and to designate a spokesperson

during an emergency response. The OSC can

ìTake the time to anticipate public concerns and likely reactions and develop

effective involvement strategies.î

Andy Bain, CIC, Region 9
54

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

serve as the spokesperson or that responsibility

can be delegated to a CIC or other qualified field

personnel. This decision should be made early in

the response, as soon as the OSC has determined

the potential communication needs for the

response. For multi-agency or complicated

responses, the OSC should consider establishing

a Joint Information Center (JIC) to handle

communications and outreach.

Community involvement and public outreach

during an emergency present many challenges

because of the time constraints and hectic nature

of the response, the potential involvement of

multiple agencies and organizations, and the

limited availability of resources. There is often

no pre-planning period. Regardless, successful

community involvement and public outreach can

be planned and implemented during emergencies.

See the section below entitled, ìCommunity

Involvement During Time-Critical and NonTime-Critical Removal Actions,î for planning

ideas and approaches that can be applied to

emergency response.

From the perspectives of surrounding residents

and business owners, an emergency response is a

potential threat to their health, family, and

property, and a significant disruption to their

daily routine and life. Consequently, local

residents and others impacted by the emergency

will be fearful, feel powerless, and possibly be

outraged. These concerns and feelings must be

addressed by the OSC or the Site Team. Providing frequent and timely information about the

emergency response and how it will impact

residents helps to alleviate some of these concerns. In most cases, information about individual

sample results and health issues should be

disseminated directly to individuals. General

information can be disseminated through public

meetings, telephone calls, door-to-door visits, or

leaflets. In rare cases, critical information can be

disseminated quickly through the media. The

more personal the approach, the more comfortable people will become with the situation and

with EPA. The exception to this rule is if people

are in immediate danger. In such cases, all

communication avenues should be used, including the media, door-to-door notification, radio

announcements, or any emergency response

notification procedures used by local authorities.

Provided below are specific activities and approaches that can be used to plan or conduct

community involvement and outreach activities

during an emergency response.

Outreach Activities During Emergency

Response

At a minimum, the Site Team needs to perform

three activities required by the NCP:

1) Designate an Agency spokesperson. In a

timely manner, this representative must inform

the community of actions taken, respond to

inquiries, and provide information concerning

the release of hazardous substances.

2) Notify affected citizens. The spokesperson

must promptly notify the citizens immediately

affected by the release, as well as state and

local officials, and when appropriate, civil

defense or emergency management agencies.

3) Establish an administrative record. Staff

must establish an administrative record

containing documents that form the basis for

selecting the response action. The administrative record must be available for public review.

Staff must notify the public of the availability

of the administrative record by publishing an

announcement in a major newspaper of

general circulation. For emergency responses

lasting less than 30 days, placement of the

administrative record file in one central

location fulfills statutory requirements.

The role of the agency spokesperson can be filled

by the lead OSC, a CIC, another OSC, or any

qualified field staff (see the Spokesperson tool in

the Toolkit). During complex, multi-agency

responses, the OSC should consider establishing

a JIC to coordinate the release of information to
55

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

the public through the media (see the Media tool

in the Toolkit).

The activities required by the NCP typically are

insufficient for informing the media, the public,

and interested stakeholders during an emergency

response. Many other options should be considered by the Site Team. Some of these options are:

ï Designate a communications lead, such as a

CIC, to advise the OSC on community involvement issues and assist the OSC with the media.

ï Canvass the neighborhood to identify residentsí

needs, fears, and concerns.

ï Formulate a quick communication strategy and

implement the approach and activities accordingly.

ï Coordinate with Regional EPA staff to brief

them about the response and to ask for assistance, if necessary. Specifically, contact the

Regional Press Office, Office of Congressional

Liaison, other OSCs and CICs, public affairs,

and state contacts.

ï Disseminate information to the media through

interviews, press briefings, and news releases.

Also see Chapter 7, ìDealing with the Media,î

in this Handbook. Prepare key messages for

interactions with the media. If no information

is available, tell the media that information

will be disseminated as soon as accurate

information becomes available. For press

briefings and interviews, identify a facility

(tent, office, trailer), schedule the briefing/

interview, and notify the press of the time and

location (see the Media tool in the Toolkit).

ï Distribute photographs. Take photographs or

use available photographs, maps, or aerial

photographs. These images can be distributed

to the media and the public, used to document

the response, or placed in fact sheets. This will

help satisfy the mediaís and publicís need for

official information about the emergency (see

the Maps, and Aerial Photographs tool in the

Toolkit).

Community Involvement Requirements for Emergency Responses and Removal Actions

Emergency Response

(On-site activity lasts

less than 30 days)

!

!

!

Time Critical Removal

(On-site activity lasts

less than 120 days)

!

!

!

!

!

!

Time Critical Removal

(On-site activity lasts

more than 120 days)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Designate an Agency spokesperson

Notify affected citizens

Establish an administrative record

Publish a notice of availability of the

administrative record

Hold a public comment period

Respond to public comments (prepare

a responsiveness summary)

Establish an information repository

Publish a notice of availability of the

information repository

Conduct community interviews

Prepare a Community Involvement

Plan

Publish a notice of availability and

a brief description of the EE/CA

Non-Time

Critical Removal

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Activity

Type of Action
56

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Distribute regular Facts Sheets to let residents

know about EPAís emergency response

activities. Use existing fact sheets on the

removal program, toxic spills, EPAís emergency response program and other topics.

Develop new site-specific fact sheets using

templates developed for emergency response

situations (see the Fact Sheets tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Publicize and host Public Meetings to deliver

information to a large group of people, to let

community members voice their concerns, and

to foster interaction between the Site Team and

the community (see the Public Meetings tool

in the Toolkit).

ï Establish a local or toll-free Telephone hotline

and publicize its availability. The hotline can

be constantly manned to respond immediately

to questions, play taped announcements that

provide current updates on site activities, or

permit callers to leave messages or ask questions (see the Telephone tool in the Toolkit).

ï Be prepared to expand the community involvement and outreach program when local residents need to be temporarily evacuated or

relocated to protect them from potential harm.

(see the Residential Relocation tool in the

Toolkit and Chapter 9, ìCommunity Involvement Activities During Residential Relocation,î in this Handbook).

ï Determine community demographics and, if

necessary, translate documents or radio public

service announcements into appropriate

languages (see the Translation Services tool

in the Toolkit).

ï Develop a risk communication approach that

meets the needs of the community (see the

Risk Communication tool in the Toolkit and

Chapter 3, ìRisk Communication,î in this

Handbook). Emergency responses require

skilled risk communication and a willingness to

work with frightened residents and the media.

Community Involvement/

Outreach During TimeCritical and Non-TimeCritical Removal Actions

Since both time-critical and non-time-critical

removals have longer planning periods than

emergency response actions, more planning may

be devoted to community involvement and outreach activities. Additional activities are required

by the NCP, and supplemental activities may be

needed to adequately address community concerns

and needs. Although there are differences between

community involvement and outreach approaches

and activities for time-critical and non-time-critical

removals, the differences are due primarily to

regulatory requirements. Supplemental activities

and the rationale for conducting these activities at

each type of removal action are identical. The

specific requirements for each type of removal

action are listed in the chart on page 55.

In time-critical and non-time-critical removal

actions, EPA should perform outreach and other

community involvement activities as early as

possible. For example, the OSC, preferably with

a CIC, could meet with local officials, media, and

residents during the initial site assessment to

explain EPAís removal program. Early involvement builds trust with the community and provides an opportunity for EPA to explain the

removal process. If the site is subject to a nontime-critical removal or remedial action, a wellinformed community will be more supportive of

EPAís role as longer-term work continues.

The longer the removal action takes, the more

important it is to communicate and involve the

community. This communication can be done

through many different activities. The important

ìAsk for help. If you sincerely seek information or support from a community, you will

almost always get something worthwhile.î

Donn Walters, CIC, Region 6
57

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

thing is to match the method with the situation so

that the purpose of the activity is met, whether it

is conveying information about the incident,

soliciting information about the site, or providing

training/educational materials about the Superfund program and process.

Time-Critical Removals

A removal is time-critical when EPA has determined that there is no immediate emergency and

a removal must begin in less than six months to

prevent the situation at the site from becoming an

emergency. Although time-critical removals are

almost as urgent as emergency responses, they

provide more time for planning and conducting

removal activities. The NCP requires specific

community involvement activities during timecritical removals.

The NCP (at 40 CFR 300.415(n)(2) and (3))

divides time-critical removals into two sets of

community involvement requirements (see the

table on page 55). The first set of applies when

less than six months exist before the removal

must begin. When less than six months exist

before removal initiation, the NCP lists community involvement requirements that are similar to

those implemented during emergency response.

The second set applies when EPA determines that

the time-critical removal action will extend

beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site

response activities. Because there is more time,

the NCP adds more community involvement

requirements. The community involvement

requirements and recommendations for both sets

of time-critical removals are described below.

Non-Time-Critical Removals

A non-time-critical removal occurs when EPA

determines that a removal action is appropriate

and there is time for at least a six month planning

period prior to when the removal must start. The

Site Team must complete an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for non-timecritical removals. The EE/CA is similar to a

At a site where an emergency response was

underway, EPA discovered a corroded tank of

anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (HF) releasing

vapors. This discovery required evacuation

of about 400 residents while the HF was

transferred from the storage tank. The Site

Team agreed that early and frequent coordination with local officials and citizens was

essential. Their proactive coordination efforts

were richly rewarded: EPA gained added

information about the plant from people who

had worked there when it was active, and the

local government coordinated much of the

support for the HF transfer.

A coordination and planning group that

included staff from EPA, local government,

the state and other federal agencies, met

regularly to plan the evacuation. The OSC

reported that the group coordinated much

of the time-consuming logistical work required for the evacuation.

The group did not rely on newspaper notices

and fact sheets to keep the community informed. Instead, local fire and police personnel went door-to-door in the evacuation area,

handing out flyers, explaining the situation,

reassuring residents, and delivering details

about safety plans. Local ministers kept their

congregations updated on the situation.

EPA and state and local agencies conducted a

public meeting two weeks before the evacuation. Turnout was large, but residents were

not anxious or upset. The meeting proceeded in an orderly, cooperative manner,

and was broadcast by a local TV station.

Although the evacuation itself was stressful, it proceeded smoothly, with the community coming together in support of EPA.
58

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, except

that it is shorter and less formal. The EE/CA is an

important milestone for community outreach

activities because several of the NCPís community involvement requirements hinge upon the

timing of the EE/CA. The next section provides a

complete description of these requirements.

Outreach Activities for Time-Critical and

Non-Time-Critical Removals

The initial communication/outreach activities

conducted during time-critical and non-timecritical removal actions vary according to the

urgency of the response and the needs of the

impacted community. The NCP requires EPA to

perform several activities for time-critical and

non-time-critical removal actions.

The NCP lists the following required activities

for all time-critical and non-time-critical responses:

ï Designate an Agency spokesperson. In a

timely manner, this representative must inform

the community of actions taken, respond to

inquiries, and provide information concerning

the release of hazardous substances.

ï Notify affected citizens. The spokesperson

must notify promptly the citizens immediately

affected by the release, as well as state and

local officials, and when appropriate, civil

defense or emergency management agencies.

ï Establish an administrative record. The Site

Team must establish an administrative record

containing documents that support the selection of the response action. For time-critical

and non-time-critical removals, the administrative record must be available at both a central

location and at or near the site (see the Information Repository tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publish a notice of availability of the

administrative record. The Site Team must

notify the public of the availability of the

administrative record within 60 days of the

initiation of on-site removal activity by

publishing an announcement in a major local

newspaper of general circulation (see the

Public Notices tool in the Toolkit). The Site

Team also must inform the public when

information repositories, which may house the

administrative record, are created.

ï Hold a public comment period. If appropriate, the Site Team shall provide a public

comment period of no less than 30 days from

the time that the administrative record file is

made available for public inspection. A

comment period is appropriate if cleanup

activity is ongoing at the time the administrative record is made available for public

inspection and if the comments received from

the public are expected to affect future action

at the site (see the Public Comment Periods

tool in the Toolkit).

ï Prepare a responsiveness summary. The Site

Team must prepare a written response to

significant comments and new data submitted

during the public comment period. The responsiveness summary should be placed in the

administrative record (see the Responsiveness

Summaries tool in the Toolkit).

The role of the Agency spokesperson can be

filled by the lead OSC, a CIC, another OSC, or

any qualified field staff (see the Spokesperson

tool in the Toolkit). Staff must coordinate with the

OSC about all news releases or statements made

by participating agencies.

Additional Activities for Time-Critical

Removals Extending Beyond 120 Days

The NCP requires more community involvement

and outreach activities during time-critical

removals that are expected to extend beyond 120

days from the initiation of the removal. When the

Site Team becomes aware that the removal action

ìTremendous gains can be achieved by

partnering with community leaders to

engage the public.î

Noemi Emeric, CIC, Region 5
59

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

will extend beyond 120 days, the NCP requires

the Site Team to perform the following activities.

These activities must be completed within 120

days of the initiation of the removal action:

ï Conduct community interviews. The Site

Team must conduct interviews with local

officials, community residents, public interest

groups, or other interested or affected parties

to solicit their information needs and concerns,

and determine how or when citizens would

like to become involved in the Superfund

process (see the Community Interviews tool

in the Toolkit).

ï Prepare a Community Involvement Plan.

The Site Team must prepare a Community

Involvement Plan (referred to as a ìCommunity Relations Planî in the NCP and previous

guidance documents) based on the community

interviews and other relevant information. The

plan specifies the community involvement

activities that the agency expects to undertake

during the response (see the Community

Involvement Plan tool in the Toolkit).

ï Establish an information repository. The

Site Team must establish at least one local

information repository at or near the location

of the response action. The information

repository must contain the administrative

record and other documents (see the Information Repository tool in the Toolkit). The

information repository is meant to provide the

public easier access to site-related documents.

All items in the repository must be made

available for copying.

ï Publish a notice of availability of the information repository. The Site Team must

inform the public of the information repository. If the Site Team knows that site work will

extend beyond 120 days, it can publish a single

public notice to announce the availability of

both the information repository and the

administrative record. (see the Public Notices

tool in the Toolkit).

Additional Outreach Activities for NonTime-Critical Removals

For non-time-critical removal actions, the NCP

requires activities similar to those required for

time-critical removals extending beyond 120

days, but they occur on a different schedule. The

timing of community involvement and outreach

events for non-time-critical removals depends

upon the schedule for development and approval

of the EE/CA. Activities must be performed prior

to completion of the EE/CA, when it is approved,

and after it is announced.

By the time the EE/CA approval memorandum is

signed, the Site Team must:

ï Establish an information repository. Establish at least one local information repository at

or near the site so the public will have easy

access to site-related information and documents. The information repository must

contain the administrative record and other

appropriate items, and these items must be

available for copying (see the Information

Repository tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publish a notice of availability of the information repository and administrative

record. The Site Team must notify the public

of the availability of the administrative record

and the information repository within 60 days

of the initiation of on-site removal activity by

publishing an announcement in a major local

newspaper of general circulation (see the

Public Notices tool in the Toolkit).

Prior to completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team

must:

ï Conduct community interviews. The Site

Team must conduct interviews with local

officials, community residents, public interest

groups, or other interested or affected parties

to solicit their concerns, information needs,

and elicit how or when citizens would like to

be involved in the Superfund process (see the

Community Interviews tool in the Toolkit).
60

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Prepare a Community Involvement Plan.

The Site Team must prepare a formal Community Involvement Plan based on the community

interviews and other relevant information. The

plan must specify the community involvement

activities that EPA expects to undertake during

the response (see the Community Involvement Plans tool in the Toolkit).

After completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team

must:

ï Publish a notice of availability of the EE/

CA. The Site Team must publish a public

notice of the availability and a brief description of the EE/CA in a major local newspaper

(see the Public Notices tool in the Toolkit).

ï Hold a public comment period. After the

completion of the EE/CA, the Site Team must

provide a public comment period of no less

than 30 days for the submission of written and

oral comments on the EE/CA. Upon timely

request (defined as those the Agency receives

approximately two weeks before the close of

the comment period), the Site Team should

extend the public comment period by a minimum of 15 days (see the Public Comment

Periods tool in the Toolkit).

ï Prepare a responsiveness summary. The Site

Team must prepare a written response to

significant written and oral public comments

submitted during the public comment period.

The responsiveness summary must be placed

in the information repository (see the Responsiveness Summaries tool in the Toolkit).

Recommended Outreach Activities for NonTime-Critical Removals

While conducting time-critical and non-time-critical

removals, the Site Team may determine that

additional community involvement and outreach

activities should be performed to adequately meet

the needs of the community. The OSC or the Site

Team should consider:

ï Designating a communications leader, such

as a CIC, to advise the OSC on community

involvement activities and relieve the OSC of

the responsibility of dealing with the media.

ï Preparing a communication strategy. For

time-critical removals extending beyond 120

days and for non-time-critical removals, the

Community Involvement Plan serves as the

communication strategy and plan for the

response. For a shorter duration time-critical

removal, the Site Team must develop an informal communications strategy to plan community

involvement and outreach activities. A communication strategy can be as simple as a checklist.

ï Developing a checklist to track community

involvement activities and ensure activities are

completed within the often chaotic schedule of a

removal action. The checklist typically consists

of three components:

1. People to contact, including U.S. Senators

and Representatives, mayors, newspapers,

TV and radio stations, concerned citizens,

and impacted residents.

2.Major site events and background information that, at a minimum, includes information about the location of the release and

how it was identified, what caused the

release of hazardous substances, what

hazardous substances are or are suspected to

be present, the nature of the threat posed by

the release, what action is planned, and what

actions already have been conducted.

3. Community involvement activities that

EPA will conduct. These activities should

be related to various target audiences (e.g.,

public officials, the media, and community

residents) at a removal scene. This list

should correspond to the CIP for the site.

ï Distributing regular Fact Sheets to let residents know about EPAís response activities.

These fact sheets should be site specific and

brief, typically no more than two pages long. It

is better to issue multiple fact sheets, each

concerned with a single subject or message,

than to issue a lengthy fact sheet with too

many messages or too much information. Brief
61

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

fact sheets are read; longer ones usually are

not (see the Facts Sheets tool in the Toolkit) .

ï Producing site-specific Videos. Videos allow

residents to see what is happening and

progress made at the site. They give residents a

clear picture of site activity in ways that

written materials cannot. These can be produced by a contractor and distributed to local

news or cable stations. They also should be

placed in the information repository (see the

Videos tool in the Toolkit).

ï Publicizing and hosting Public Meetings to

deliver information to a large group of people,

to let community members voice their concerns, and to foster interaction between the

Site Team and the community. Be aware,

however, that public meetings can be the least

effective way of soliciting or distributing

information. To ensure a public meeting is

useful to both EPA and the community, consult

the community when planning the meeting. If

possible, let local residents plan the agenda

and determine the time and location (see the

Public Meetings tool in the Toolkit) .

ï Hosting Public Availability/Poster Sessions

where EPA staff or other experts can discuss

cleanup activities with residents. Another

option is to display posters that describe

cleanup activities and to have EPA staff

available to answer questions. Posters also can

be displayed in public areas, such as libraries

or grocery stores (see the Public Availability/

Poster Sessions tool in the Toolkit).

ï Using Informal Activities such as unstructured community visits to give people a chance

to meet EPA staff and to discuss the site in a

relaxed atmosphere. This can be a very effective method for distributing information

quickly, and sends the message that EPA

wants to keep the community informed. One

approach is to go to every home in a given area

and talk with residents or distribute materials.

Possible materials include fact sheets, updates,

meeting notices, work schedules, and notices of

road closings or changes in traffic patterns.

Since placing materials in mail boxes is against

federal law, use door hangers to leave information (see the Informal Activities tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Making Presentations to brief local officials

about the threat remaining at the site and the

progress being made by EPA to address it (see

the Presentations tool in the Toolkit).

At a removal site in California, EPA overcame considerable community resistance

caused by a history of problems with state

regulators and earlier missteps caused by

inadequate development of its risk communication messages.

The Site Team mounted a proactive, energetic, and focused effort to reach out to the

community, beginning with a strategy to

engage the community. They offered workshops and poster sessions, made door-todoor visits, engaged in dialogue with focus

groups, distributed easy to understand fact

sheets, and established an Internet-based

database of resources. Eventually, EPA

facilitated a successful private buy-out deal

between the siteís PRPs and 65 residents.

Because of the attention and persistence,

the Site Teamís relationship with the community finally began to improve. The same

community organizer who earlier criticized

the Agency called the Community Involvement Coordinator ìa genuine partner,î and

praised the commitment and motivation of

the Site Team. Eventually, the community

accepted compromise solutions based on an

increasing trust in EPA. A Community

Advisory Panel, organized by both EPA and

the PRPs, is now focusing on land reuse

options to be funded by the PRPs.
62

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

ï Building an observation deck. Removals are

especially conducive to the use of observation

decks. These structures, built high and within

exclusion zones, enable people to get a

clear view of activities as they occur. An

observation deck also can be used for site tours

(see the On-Site Activities tool in the Toolkit).

ï Using press briefings, and news releases. Most

local stations will broadcast public service

announcements related to sites. Many radio or

TV stations also have live call-in shows on

which the Site Team can appear. These outlets

allow residents to speak with the Site Team

and ask questions, and the Site Team can

describe cleanup plans and progress. When

working with the media, the Site Team needs

to develop messages and repeat them frequently to ensure that important information is

conveyed to the public (see the Media tool in

the Toolkit and Chapter 7, ìDealing with the

Media,î in this Handbook).

ï Producing and distributing Maps and Aerial

Photographs. Use existing photographs or

maps, or take photographs. Use a digital

camera if possible because the pictures can be

printed immediately if a color printer is

available. Digital pictures are easy to include

in press briefings and fact sheets. Maps and

photographs can be distributed to the media

and the public or included in site fact sheets or

other educational materials (see the Maps and

Aerial Photographs tool in the Toolkit).

ï Being prepared to expand the community

involvement program if impacted residents and

businesses have to be temporarily or permanently relocated. During relocations, the

community involvement program needs to be

expanded significantly to adequately inform

and advise residents about relocation as well as

to identify and address their unique needs and

concerns (see the Residential Relocation

tool in the Toolkit and Chapter 9, ìCommunity

Involvement Activities During Residential

Relocation,î in this Handbook).

ï Establishing on-site information offices to

collect and distribute information and interact

with the public. These offices are a necessity

at complex sites, especially those involving

relocation of residents.

ï Establishing a local or toll-free Telephone

Hotline and publicizing its availability. The

hotline can be staffed continually to respond

immediately to questions, it can play taped

announcements that provide updates on site

activities, or it can permit callers to leave

messages (see the Telephone tool in the

Toolkit).

ï Translating documents or providing translators, if a portion of the impacted residents are

non-English speaking (see the Translation

Services tool in the Toolkit for suggestions and

approaches for obtaining translation services).

ï Developing a risk communication approach

that meets the needs of the community. Longterm removals require skilled risk communication and a willingness to work with frightened

residents (see the Risk Communication tool

in the Toolkit and Chapter 3 in this Handbook.

Summary

Removal actions can be frightening to communities because they happen quickly. The key is to

remember that removal actions are faster and

more fluid than remedial actions. They allow less

time for planning and require the Site Team to be

flexible and responsive. It is in EPAís best interest

to involve citizens in every aspect of the action.

Involving citizens early and sharing information

can help ensure a safe and quick response action.
63

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

In General

The media is the best means of reaching a large

audience quickly. However, unless an advertisement is being purchased, the media decides what

they will cover and how. The Site Team can

influence the mediaís decisions by fostering a

relationship with them and by using and repeating

carefully defined messages.

The Site Team usually work with the media under

two circumstances:

1) When EPA wants to use the media: EPA has

something it wants the media to disseminate to

the public; and

2) When the media wants to use EPA: someone is

covering a story that directly or indirectly

relates to the site.

In reality, news issued by the Site Team is a

publicity release rather than ìnews,î per se.

Although the Site Team may believe an announcement is news, the media often defines

news as something that is different, unexpected,

or controversial. Information about a local

Superfund site can be newsworthy, but it must be

immediate in nature to be considered news.

Information generally is not considered news if it

happened days ago, or will happen in the future.

Most citizens consider developments related to

local Superfund sites to be news and look for this

information in local media outlets. It is appropriate to use the media to publicize a site-related

decision, an upcoming meeting, changes in

schedule, or changes in activities or expectations.

However, the decision about what is ìnewsî rests

with the editor, so unless information is placed in

a paid advertisement, little control can be exerted

over what reporters or editors do with a news

release.

For this reason, the Site Team should deliver the

message to affected residents and local officials

first. Deliver the message directly to them, and

then use the media to reinforce it and distribute it

further. Remember that people would rather learn

about important issues that affect them from

someone directly rather than by reading about it

in the newspaper. However, in an emergency, it is

imperative to reach the media first to alert the

public of any dangers.

Work on presenting a well-defined message and

building a good relationship with the reporters

and editors. A positive relationship will improve

the odds that the media will pick up and use your

message with as little alteration as possible. To

do this effectively, learn how each medium

gathers and presents news and understand the

different needs of radio, television, and print

media. News releases should be tailored to each

medium (see the Media tool and its attachments,

especially Attachment 1: ìGuidelines for Working with the Media,î in the Toolkit).

The Site Team should always be aware of media

deadlines, especially it is a resource for a story. If

a deadline is not met, another source will be used,

and the missed deadline will be remembered.

CHAPTER 7 DEALING WITH THE

MEDIA

ìBe willing to shed your own preconceptions and to listen to and learn from your

critics. Share ownership, responsibility,

work, and credit.î

Fred MacMillan, RPM, Region 3

At a Superfund site where the cleanup was

completed, enabling site deletion from the

NPL, the Community Involvement Coordinator crafted a final message-specific

strategy. The key message she wanted to

convey was that the successful site cleanup

resulted from two factors: community

partnerships and an important technological advancement developed at the site that

cut cleanup time by 50%. By crafting a

well-defined and newsworthy angle, (the

technological breakthrough), her message

received Regional front-page coverage.
64

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

It is best to use a combination of the following

two approaches to media coverage:

ï Paid media. Media space or time is purchased

from a media outlet. This media is advertising,

and it is the only way to guarantee total control

of the message.

ï Unpaid media. The media chooses to cover

site news as a story. The Agency has less

control over how the story is reported, but, in

return, the Agency can benefit from the

increased credibility of the story stemming

from the independence of the reporter. The

Agency can improve the chances that a message in such a story will be clearly communicated by anticipating the hard questions,

repeating the carefully designed messages, and

earning the mediaís trust as a resource.

Be A Resource

Becoming a resourse is the first step in building

good media relations. To be an effective resource,

the Site Team must be an accessible and credible

source of information, whether the news is good

or bad. Working as an effective resource increases the likelihood that the media will work

cooperatively with the Site Team when needed.

Do not fear working with the media, which is

rarely out to ìgetî anyone. Good reporters are

unbiased and do not give preferential treatment.

Remember that the mediaís job is to smell out a

good story. Never evade and never lie, because

the lie will become the story. Likewise, remember

that good reporters are never ìoff duty.î Thus,

avoid making glib or ìoff the recordî comments.

Build the Relationship

Building a good working relationship with the

media is as important as getting the facts to the

media. Becoming a reliable source of credible

information is key. Here are some other suggestions for building a relationship with the media:

ï Stop by reportersí offices whenever possible,

bring them up to date, and ask if they need

anything.

ï While visiting the reporter, occasionally visit

the editor (print), assignment editor (TV), or

news director (radio) for the same purpose.

ï Invite reporters to the site and give them a tour.

ï Whenever something interesting is occurring,

invite the media to cover it.

ï If a reporter calls you on a slow news day to

solicit some ìnews,î seize the opportunity and

do your best to find something.

ï If a story is inaccurate, call the reporter and

explain whatís wrong, but never complain.

ï Learn and remember the different styles and

needs of each media outlet with which you

work, and attend to them as much as possible.

ï Have current information packets available for

new reporters assigned to the Superfund site.

ï Be patient with reporters. They cover many

stories and may need to be reminded about the

site, even though you recently visited or talked

with them.

Use the Media Tools

The news release and the media log are important

tools for working with the media. Both are

discussed in the Media tool in the Toolkit. The

Media tool also has the following nine attachments: Guidelines for Working with the Media;

How to Choose a Medium; Guidelines for

Picking a Media Event; How to Reach the Media;

How to Prepare a News Release; Sample News

Release; Other Media Tools; Media Log; and

Message Template.

Working with the Media in

Emergency Situations

In emergency situations, it is often more effective

to deal with the media first rather than directly

with affected residents, since broadcast media can

provide a ìreal timeî means of reaching the most
65

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

people in an emergency. Plus, hazardous material

emergencies tend to be news, and the media will

almost certainly cover the story.

Depending on the situation, it may be necessary

to have officials, possibly local authorities, go

door-to-door to alert people of the incident and

actions to take. Public meetings, availabilities,

and site tours are not typically appropriate until

the site has emerged from emergency status. Until

that time, the attention of the responding team

must be focused on stabilizing the emergency.

Media Contact

One of the key goals is to make the response

teamís job easier by assigning a member of the

Site Team, such as an On-Scene Coordinator

(OSC) or Community Involvement Coordinator

(CIC), to handle the media and the nontechnical

aspects of the response. The best way to view this

goal is by thinking in terms of information. The

more information the media contact provides to

the media and the public, the less the Site Team

members will be distracted by information

seekers. Make it known that this person is the

first point of contact for anyone wanting or

needing information.

Establish Boundaries and Structure

If possible, establish a media perimeter. Depending on the situation, this perimeter may be out of

the Agencyís hands. When establishing boundaries, remember the mediaís need for ìvisuals.î

Placing them too far away will frustrate the

media. Do what is possible within the parameters

of safety and good sense to accommodate them.

Establish a place for media briefings based on

factors such as the perimeter of the site, the

terrain, the number of media present, and the type

of media present (TV, radio, or print). Each type

of media has different needs. The place selected

may range from a nearby hotel conference room

to a spot in front of a fence or in a field. Consider

the backdrop for the visuals.

Identify and work with other on-scene media

relations specialists as needed. In particular, bear

in mind that other interested parties, including

PRPs, will have public relations workers on the

ground and in contact with the media. Use the

Joint Information Center (JIC) approach whenever possible (see Chapter 6).

Identify the time for the first media briefing. Try

to schedule this time within the first half-hour of

the spokespersonís arrival on scene. The spokesperson should inform the media and the Site

Team about when and where the first briefing

will be held. Decide who among the Site Team

will give a statement at the first media briefing.

Find a place to prepare for media briefings. Time

is needed to prepare key messages and set the

guidelines for the scene, including a schedule for

daily media briefings and other interviews with

the Site Team members. Consider forming a

media pool to limit access to the site. A pool

consists of one TV crew, a radio reporter, and a

print reporter and photographer, all of whom

agree to share their material with the other

interested media outlets. Members of a pool

should be chosen by their colleagues, not by EPA.

The News Cycle

News has a life cycle. The initial cycle begins

when the media first learn of the situation and

decides to cover it and lasts until the next deadline. Each subsequent cycle is about 24 hours.

However, new technology used by the electronic

media is making this less predictable. The first

news cycle is the critical one because this is when

EPA must deliver its message, establish the

Agency as competent and caring, and designate

the Site Team spokesperson as the point of

contact.

Be aware of subsequent news cycles. After the

first day, unless things continue to happen, the

event becomes less newsworthy. Subsequent

cycles provide opportunities to keep the media

informed and to provide updates. Continue to
66

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

hold briefings as long as necessary and appropriate. As long as pertinent information is presented,

the media will keep coming. If briefings are held

just to hold briefings, the media will stop attending. Always answer questions that were left

unanswered in the previous briefing.

Local Media versus National Media

Do not succumb to the perceived importance of

the national media at the expense of the local

media. Local media should have priority in most

cases. The national media eventually will leave,

but the local media will remain interested long

after the site has been stabilized. For formal

briefings in a room, set aside the front row of

seats for the local media. During question sessions, make it a point to pick a local person for

the first question and, if possible, the last.

Think Visuals

Select visual aids to be shown to the media. If

none are available, determine when some may

become available. Get a map and distribute it to

the media as soon as possible (include in the map

the location of the media area and the location of

future media briefings). Try to have one additional visual aid in each of the first few briefings.

Visual aids can be an updated map, a tour of a

small part of the affected area, a graph of acceptable levels, a fact sheet on the contaminant with a

picture, a clear jar filled with some of the contaminant, or anything else that is appropriate.

ìNo Comment,î ìOff the Record,î and ìNot

for Attributionî

Never lie or evade. Never say ìno commentî

without explaining the policy behind why you

cannot comment (e.g., ìIt is EPA policy to not

speculate on such mattersî). Do not make ìoff the

recordî comments. Determine whether you need

to coordinate with a public affairs or press office

or can deal directly with the media (see the

Media tool in the Toolkit).

Closure/Critique

Do not leave the media ìin the lurch.î Space

briefings out when new information is slow. The

media will sense this winding down as closure.

The Site Team should continue to help the media

meet their deadlines and ensure they know the

spokesperson can be reached. The media should

know that one or more members of the Site Team

is available for other issues and can become a

valuable resource for them.

Keep media contacts on the mailing list as the

cleanup continues. Most of the media will

continue to update the story, but may not have a

crew on site. Be honest with them about time

frames regarding new information.

Before they leave, ask for feedback on what went

well and what could be improved. Most journalists will offer feedback. If they are unable to do

so because of a deadline, ask if you can call them

at a more convenient time. After the media have

departed, the Site Team should review notes and

do a self-critique. What went well? Was it

planned or did it just happen that way? What

could have been done to make it better?

Summary

The media can be a strong asset for Superfund

outreach efforts, but do not assume the media can

be controlled or used at will. Appoint a media

contact to be a ready, accessible, and credible

source of information. Understand that news is

what the editor says it is. The Site Team can

influence the mediaís decisions about what is

news by fostering its relationship with the media,

by using carefully defined messages, and by

repeating those messages frequently. Pay attention to media deadlines. Unless there is an

emergency situation, go to your primary audience

before you go to the media.
67

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

The Federal Government as

Owner of Superfund Sites

This chapter describes community involvement at

Superfund sites that are owned or operated by the

federal government. While the basic steps in the

Superfund process are the same for federal

facilities as for other sites, there are important

differences in the way community involvement is

conducted at these sites and the role of EPAís Site

Team. This chapter highlights the relationship

between EPA and the federal agency responsible

for the cleanup of a facility and special concerns

that should be addressed in community involvement strategies at federal facilities. Roles for the

Site Team members at these sites may range from

oversight of the process, to advising the federal

site owner, to cooperative management of day-today community involvement activities. This

chapter also describes Superfund community

involvement policies and practices of the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of

Defense (DoD)óthe two largest owners of

federal facilitiesóand discusses the roles of

DOEís Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs)

and DoDís Restoration Advisory Board (RABs).

The roles and responsibilities for the Site Team

involved in Superfund cleanups at federal facilities

differ from those at non-federal sites in a

number of ways. The regulatory enforcement tools

available to EPA, the community involvement

policies of the federal Potentially Responsible

Party (PRP), and public perceptions all may vary

somewhat from non-federal facility cleanups. As

at all Superfund sites, there are three categories of

stakeholders with an interest in the outcome at

federal facility sites: the regulators (EPA and state

agencies), the regulated (federal site owners), and

the public. The key difference at federal facilities

is the relationship between the regulator and

regulated party as parts of the same government

and the effect of this relationship on the perceptions of the public. It may not seem this way to

personnel within a particular agency or department, but as far as the public is concerned, the

federal government is a single entity that ìspeaks

with a single voice,î as reflected in the conduct

and outcome of a federal action.

Given this perceived conflict of interest, the

federal government should avoid adopting the

ìDADî (Decide, Announce, and Defend) approach in its interactions with the public for

federal facility cleanups. The most important

thing to remember is that regardless of the roles,

perspectives, and outlooks of the various federal

agencies involved in the cleanup of the site, the

public generally sees the federal government as a

monolith that should be taking care of a problem

that it never should have created in the first place.

According to government estimates, federal

facilities account for approximately half of the

liability for Superfund cleanups across the U.S.,

including the largest single sites and the sites

with the widest varieties of contamination. These

sites pose the greatest cleanup challenges. Longterm cleanup time and cost estimates for federal

facilities range up to 75 years and $400 billion.

Interagency Agreements

EPAís CERCLA enforcement responsibilities

extend to federal facilities. The consequence of

this authority, coupled with the liability ownership circumstances described above, is that the

federal government must enforce CERCLA as

much against itself as against any other group of

responsible parties. Normally, the federal government can not sue itself. Conflicts between a

federal regulatory agency (such as EPA) and a

regulated federal agency (such as DoD and DOE)

may occur, but, within Superfund, these conflicts

are not resolved as at other NPL sites, where EPA

CHAPTER 8 COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT AT FEDERAL

FACILITIES

ìGetting the public more involved is the

right thing to do and will usually lead to

better decisions.î

David Page, RPM, Department of Energy
68

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

is able to compel PRP activities through consent

decrees, administrative orders, and cost recovery

actions. Rather, Superfund cleanups at federal

facilities depend on the ability of federal regulators and responsible parties to agree on and carry

out a remedy. The negotiated agreement reached

by EPA and the federal party responsible for the

cleanup of a federal facility is embodied in the

interagency agreement (IAG). IAGs cover the

post-RI/FS steps in the remedial process for the

site, including remedy selection, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance. The IAG

also should cover community involvement

requirements for the facility, including the

framework for community involvement.

While the regulatory framework and implementation tools for federal facility cleanups differ from

those at other remedial sites, the steps in the

Superfund process and the basic tenets and

requirements of CERCLA, including community

involvement requirements, apply equally at

federal facilities. Equal application means that

any and all public notice, comment, and meeting

requirements, administrative record requirements,

and other community involvement requirements

must be followed at federal facilities. Similarly,

the community involvement strategies discussed

in Chapter 5 should form the basis for a sound

Community Involvement Plan at federal facilities.

Bear in mind, the only thing that distinguishes

federal facilities from other NPL sites is the

relationship of EPA as regulator to the regulated

federal site owner; the same rules apply to all

sites, as do the same strategies for effective

community involvement.

Cooperation and

Communication

The keys to successful community involvement at

federal facilities are cooperation between EPA

and the responsible federal agency and prompt,

effective communication between these agencies

and the local community. Cooperation between

federal agencies and communication with the

public are especially important given the conflict

of interest and accountability issues that appear

whenever the federal government enforces a law

against itself. The public will not be interested in

the particulars of any conflicts between EPA and

the federal site owner, and may cast a suspicious

eye on any delays in the cleanup process caused

by such conflicts as part of a pattern of the

government ìgoing easyî on itself.

With regard to effective communication, a 1993

report by the Federal Facility Environmental

Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC)

identified three weaknesses in the ways that

federal agencies disseminate information on

federal facilities cleanups:

ï Stakeholder opinions are often solicited late in

the process after site investigations are completed;

ï The extent and effectiveness of information

dissemination and exchange are inconsistent

among agencies; and

ï Stakeholders perceive that their requests for

information are treated by federal agencies as

burdensome rather than as a right of citizenship.

In response, FFERDC recommended three

principles to guide information dissemination

during federal facilities cleanups:

ï Federal agencies have an obligation to ensure

that information is provided to interested

parties within regulatory and resource constraints;

ï Information dissemination and exchange

processes should ensure the timely release of

information to public stakeholders and provide

the basis for informed involvement in decision

making; and

ï Information dissemination and exchange

processes must be consistent with the Freedom

of Information Act.
69

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

EPA as Advisor at Federal

Facilities

At most federal facility sites, the role of EPAís

Site Team is best described as an advisor to the

federal agency leading the cleanup. The basic

strategies for effective community involvement

(early involvement, a meaningful role for local

stakeholders in decision making, attention to the

special needs of the community) are the same at

federal facilities as they are at other sites. The

difference is that the Site Team, as an advisor to

the process, is one step removed from ensuring

that effective strategies are implemented, increasing the need for prompt and effective communication and coordination with the federal PRP in

the development of the Community Involvement

Plan for the site. The Site Team should do more

than simply make themselves available to the

federal PRP as needed. EPA is the expert among

federal agencies on Superfund community

involvement and should do all it can to guide

community involvement at federal facilities to

ensure success, even if it is not the lead agency at

the site.

Federal Facility Advisory

Boards

In its interim and final reports, the FFERDC

recommended that responsible federal agencies

establish advisory boards at federal facilities to

provide stakeholders with a formal mechanism

for sharing information and participating in

decisions that affect the health and environment

of their communities. In response, DOE established SSABs, while DoD formed RABs. These

advisory boards are established either upon the

initiative of the federal agency or in response to

stakeholder interest. As of June 1998, more than

200 SSABs and RABs have been established.

These boards serve as valuable conduits between

the federal government and the public by providing opportunities for regular contact between the

agencies and public stakeholders. Through these

boards, the parties are able to discuss their

concerns and better understand the competing

needs and requirements of the government and

local citizens. The boards augment citizen

evaluations of site plans for technical adequacy.

The boards also broaden the scope of decision

making to account for local stakeholder issues in

addition to consideration of technical data

required under CERCLAís public comment rules.

SSABs and RABs are intended to complement

and facilitate existing community involvement

activities rather than supplant broader community

involvement, since not everyone with an interest

in the facility may have the time, ability, or

inclination to serve on a board. EPA Site Teams

and their federal agency counterparts should

ensure that all stakeholder concerns have an

opportunity to be heard and that these advisory

boards do not become the only means of community involvement at federal facilities.
70

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund
71

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

When Residential Relocation

is Part of the Response

Action

This chapter describes community involvement at

Superfund sites where temporary or permanent

relocation of residents on or near the site is part

of the remedy. While the basic guidelines for

effective community involvement are the same

for relocation sites as for other sites, there are

special challenges facing the Site Team in these

communities. In general, community involvement

and other staff should be prepared to go the extra

mile in these communities, where residents must

deal with both threats of real and perceived

contamination prior to the relocation, and the

prospect and reality of being moved out of their

homes and communities.

Close management of the situation and constant

communication among all stakeholders in the

relocation process are the keys to effective

community involvement at these sites, and these

requirements will be invoked repeatedly in this

chapter. This chapter also explains EPAís interim

policy on Superfund-related relocations, the

Uniform Relocation Act, administered by the U.S.

Department of Transportation, and the use of

Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) and Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) at relocation sites.

The roles and responsibilities for the Site Team at

relocation sites can be seen as ìCommunity

Involvement Plus.î Everything in the previous

chapters in this Handbook applies to relocation

sites before consideration of the special needs of

communities that will be relocated as part of a

remedy. Relocation settlements can take years to

negotiate and complete. In the meantime, residents are living on or near contaminated sites.

These residents share the same concerns regarding the threat of contamination posed by the site,

and the plans for dealing with those threats, as

residents at other Superfund sites. Added to these

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES DURING

RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION

concerns is the relocation itself and the special

concerns it raises, such as a fair appraisal,

adequate compensation, and the stress of finding

a new home. These difficulties can be complicated by the hard feelings that can arise at the

perceived injustice of the situation, by the lack of

trust of the government, and by other apprehensions that arise from being uprooted. The Site

Team must have a thorough understanding of the

relocation process and sensitivity to the needs of

the residents. This understanding will help

residents get through this very difficult transition.

Given the added stress placed on residents who

will be relocated, trust-building is of paramount

importance for the Site Team at relocation sites.

As always, building trust depends on open,

honest communication and attention to the

concerns of residents. This is paticularly important in relocation communities, where the government not only is already suspect but will be a

party negotiating property settlements and

compensation. The situation is best served when

the Site Team employs all of the communication

management strategies and practices described in

this Handbook and the Toolkit to their fullest

extent (see the Residential Relocation tool in

ther Toolkit).

EPA Interim Policy/Federal

Uniform Relocation Act

Permanent relocation is considered a remedial

action under the NCP. EPA issued its Interim

Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as

Part of Superfund Remedial Actions (OSWER

Directive 9355.0-71P) on June 30, 1999. The

policy provides direction to EPA Regional

ìCommunity involvement [at relocation

sites] is most effective when it commences

as soon as the first article appears in the

local newspaper.î

Anna Gabalski, NY State Dept. of Health
72

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

decision makers on when to consider permanent

relocation as part of a Superfund remedial action,

and stresses four major points surrounding the

consideration of relocation:

ï EPAís preference is to address the risks posed

by contamination by using well designed

cleanup methods that allow people to remain

safely in their homes and communities;

ï EPA may consider a permanent relocation

alternative as part of the feasibility study if

certain site conditions (found in the policy) are

encountered;

ï EPA should involve the community early in

the process and keep residents informed of

activities at the site;

ï EPA cannot conduct a permanent relocation of

tribal members without tribal government

approval.

Permanent relocations are selected as part of the

overall remedy for a site as embodied in a Record

of Decision (ROD). The decision-making criteria

that apply to other parts of a remedy, including

application of the nine criteria found in the NCP,

also apply to the decision to relocate residents

permanently.

The interim policy specifically discusses the

importance of community involvement in the

relocation process, and covers the role of TAGs

and CAGs at relocation sites. The interim policy

states: ìCommunity involvement activities at a

particular site should be tailored to meet the

various needs and concerns of individual citizens

within the affected community. EPA should also

explore opportunities to partner with other

federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and non-profit organizations to help identify other potential assistance

that may be available to the relocated residents or

to those in the community left behind.î

The interim policy restates the applicability of the

Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) to the implementation of

the decision to relocate residents. The URA

includes requirements and procedures to be

followed by the federal government when acquiring properties and compensating displaced

residents and sets standards for the habitability of

new housing for displaced residents. The URA

requires the federal government to provide

relocation services to reduce the burden on

relocated residents, which is the responsibility of

the Site Team at Superfund relocation sites. The

Site Team should be familiar with the URA and

the applicable property acquisition regulations

and be ready to explain the formalities of the

process to residents and extend the services

required under the URA.

Special Community Needs at

Relocation Sites

The keys to successful community involvement at

relocation sites are close management of the

situation and prompt, effective communication

among EPA, community residents, and others. As

mentioned above, community involvement can

not begin early enough at relocation sites. In

addition, nothing may contribute more to the

quality of the community involvement services

rendered than the regular presence in the community of experienced and highly qualified community involvement professionals who are available

to assist community members in making the

transition to a new community. The Site Team

should consider establishing a community

resource center with a full-time staff dedicated to

providing assistance to residents facing relocation

and providing the close management of the

process needed to reach a successful conclusion.

Building trust in the community is critical. For

the Site Team, this is an everyday part of their

job, and there is no substitute for open, effective

communication and dealing fairly and responsively with the community. This need for openness is especially high in communities where the

government has not only delivered the news of

potential contamination risks, but also is dealing
73

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

directly with individuals in the property acquisition process. Similar to the special challenges at

federal facilities, the government must make an

extra effort to build trust at relocation sites.

The Site Team should take a customer service

approach in implementing its community involvement plan at relocation sites. Though the relocation process involves a transaction, as properties

are acquired and owners are compensated, the

activities of the Site Team should never be

perceived as transaction-oriented. Rather, it

should be clear to all members of the community

that community involvement personnel are there

to help them get through the process and safely

into a new home. Relocation is usually a very

stressful event for residents, and the strain felt by

people can often spill over into their dealings

with others, including EPA staff.

The Site Team should be prepared to provide

technical and legal assistance related to the

appraisal, negotiation, settlement, and property

transfer process, as well as assistance in obtaining new housing, with an emphasis on encouraging home ownership. This assistance will require

knowledge of the URA and other relocation

programs, knowledge of the technical requirements of appraisals, and familiarity with working

with real estate agents and lenders and the tax

consequences of property acquisition. All of

these are in addition to the regular needs of a

community located near a Superfund site. In

other words, take everything in Chapters 2

through 8 of this Handbook and add to it the

special needs of residents being relocated.

At all times and in all technical and community

assistance areas, the Site Team must be prepared

to provide one-on-one services. Unlike many

other communities, residents subject to relocation

will require individual attention, as each has an

individual relationship with the government

under the circumstances. In addition, the added

pressures felt by families subject to relocation

should be remembered at all times.

TAGs and CAGs at

Relocation Sites

The interim relocation policy encourages the use

of TAGs for the hiring of relocation experts by

communities. Relocation experts hired with TAG

funds can provide independent assistance to

communities. The Site Team should ensure that

the community is aware of the TAG program and

given whatever assistance is needed in the TAG

application process.

The interim policy also encourages the use of

CAGs or similar bodies that engage the community in the relocation process by providing a

public forum for stakeholders to present and

discuss needs and concerns related to the site and

the relocation process in a meaningful way.

CAGs can be very valuable mechanisms for

facilitating open, active participation by stakeholders in the relocation process. The Site Team

should ensure that the CAG is truly representative of the variety of interests in the community.

A CAG that is perceived as ìstackedî against any

community stakeholder interest ultimately may

do more harm than good. Whenever possible, the

Site Team should work with community leaders

in establishing a CAG or other forum.

ìEPA must have experienced people on the

ground in relocation communities to

provide direct services and deal with

problems before they get a chance to

snowball.î

Pat Seppi, CIC, EPA Region 2
74

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund
75

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Appendix A: Superfund Community Involvement Requirements----------------------------------------- 77

Removal Actions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77

Remedial Actions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80

Appendix A

SUPERFUND COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
76

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

76
77

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Community involvement requirements are

presented below in a table that lists the requirements by site activity. The legislative citation is

provided for each of the site activities. For a

graphical presentation of the requirements, refer

to the maps, ìCommunity Involvement Activities

Throughout the Superfund Removal Processî and

ìCommunity Involvement Throughout the

Superfund Remedial Process,î found in the

preface of this Handbook. These maps combine

the list of required activities described below

with a list of recommended activities to involve

the community effectively.

The Site Team is responsible for ensuring that the

Agency meets all of the legal and policy requirements relative to community involvement and for

ensuring that the community has been given an

opportunity to participate in the process. This

table lists and describes the minimum community involvement requirements that EPA must

conduct at a Superfund site. Simply fulfilling

these requirements will not necessarily result in

effective community involvement at a site.

Rather, these requirements are intended to be the

foundation for more comprehensive activities at

sites.

Appendix A

SUPERFUND COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS

ìDonít be afraid to go beyond the traditional community relations approach. Adapt your

style and activities to the community.î

Mike Holmes, RPM, Region 8

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Removal Actions

Agency Spokesperson In the case of all CERCLA removal The National Oil and

actions taken pursuant to 300.415 or Hazardous Substance

CERCLA enforcement actions to compel Pollution Contingency

removal response, a spokesperson shall be Plan (NCP) 40 C.F.R.

designated by the lead agency. The 300.415(n)(1)

spokesperson shall inform the community

of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and

provide information concerning news

releases. All news releases or statements

made by participating agencies shall be

coordinated with the project manager. The

spokesperson shall notify, at a minimum,

immediately affected people, State and

local officials and, when appropriate, civil

defense or emergency management agencies.

Administrative Record The lead agency must establish an admin- CERCLA 113(k); NCP 40

istrative record and make the administra- C.F.R. 300.820

tive record available to the public at a

central location at or near the site.
78

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

78

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Removal Actions (continued)

For Removal Actions With A Planning Period of Less Than Six Months

Notice and Availability Within 60 days of the start of on-site NCP 40 C.F.R.

of Administrative removal activity, the lead agency must 300.415(n)(2)(i) and

Record make the administrative record available 300.820(b)(1)

to the public and issue a notice of availability in a major local newspaper.

Public Comment Period The lead agency must provide a public NCP 40 C.F.R.

comment period, if appropriate, of not 300.415(m)(2)(ii)

more than 30 days from the time the

administrative record is made available.

Response to Significant The lead agency must prepare a written NCP 40 C.F.R.

Comments response to significant comments. 300.415(n)(2)(iii)

For Removal Actions Expected to Extend Beyond 120 Days

Community Interviews By the end of the 120-day period, the NCP 40 C.F.R.

lead agency must conduct interviews with 300.415(n)(3)(ii)

local officials, public interest groups, or

other interested parties to determine their

concerns and information needs, and to

learn how citizens would like to be

involved in the Superfund process.

Community The lead agency must prepare a formal NCP 40 C.F.R.

Involvement Plan (CIP) CIP, based on community interviews and 300.415(n)(3)(iii)

other relevant information, specifying the

community involvement activities the

lead agency expects to undertake during

the response period. The lead agency

must complete this CIP within 120 days

of the start of on-site removal activity.

Information Repository Within 120 days of the start of on-site NCP 40 C.F.R.

Establishment and removal activity, the lead agency must 300.415(n)(3)(iii)

Notification/Notice of establish at least one information reposiAvailability of tory at or near the location of the removal

Administrative Record action that contains items available for

public inspection and copying. The lead

agency must inform the public of the

establishment of the information repository and provide notice of the administrative record in this repository.
79

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Removal Actions (continued)

For Removal Actions With a Planning Period Of At Least Six Months

Community Interviews The lead agency shall at a minimum NCP 40 C.F.R.

and Community comply with the requirements set forth in 300.415(n)(4)(i)

Involvement Plan (CIP) paragraphs (n)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this

section prior to completion of the

Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis

(EE/CA), or its equivalent, except that the

information repository and the administrative

record file will be established no later than

when the EE/CA approval memorandum is

signed. (Essentially, EPA must conduct

community interviews and prepare a CIP

prior to the completion of the EE/CA.)

Information Repository/ The lead agency must establish the NCP 40 C.F.R.

Administrative Record information repository and make the 300.415(n)(4)(i)

Establishment and administrative record available no later

Notification than the signing of the EE/CA approval

memorandum.

Notice of Availability/ The Agency must publish a notice of NCP 40 C.F.R.

Description of the availability and a brief description of the 300.415(n)(4)(ii)

EE/CA EE/CA in a major local newspaper of

general circulation.

Public Comment Period Upon completion of the EE/CA, the lead NCP 40 C.F.R.

agency must provide at least 30 days for 300.415(n)(4)(iii)

the submission of written and oral comments. The lead agency must extend this

comment period by at least 15 days upon

timely request.

Responsiveness The Agency must prepare a written re- NCP 40 C.F.R.

Summary sponse to significant comments and make 300.415(n)(iv)

this responsiveness summary available to

the public in the information repository.
80

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

80

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions

NPL Additions

Publication of Proposed EPA must publish the proposed rule in the NCP 40 C.F.R.

Rule and Public Federal Register and seek comments 300.425(d)(5)(i)

Comment Period through a public comment period.

Publication of Final EPA must publish the final rule in the NCP 40 C.F.R.

Rule and Response to Federal Register and respond to signifi- 300.425(d)(5)(i)

Comments cant comments and significant new data

submitted during the comment period.

Prior to Remedial Investigation (RI):

Community Interviews The lead agency must conduct interviews NCP 40 C.F.R.

with local officials, public interest groups, 300.430(c)(2)(i)

and community members to solicit their

concerns and information needs and to

learn how and when people would like to

be involved in the Superfund process.

Community Before commencing field work for the NCP 40 C.F.R.

Involvement Plan (CIP) remedial investigation, the lead agency 300.430(c)(2)(ii)

must develop and approve a complete (A-C)

CIP, based on community interviews and

other relevant information, specifying the

community involvement activities that the

lead agency expects to undertake during

the remedial response.

Information Repository The lead agency must establish at least CERCLA 117(d)

one information repository at or near the NCP 40 C.F.R.

location of the response action. Each 300.430(c)(2)(iii)

information repository should contain a

copy of items developed, received,

published, or made available to the public,

including information that describes the

Technical Assistance Grant application

process. The lead agency must make these

items available for public inspection and

copying and must inform interested

citizens of the establishment of the information repository.
81

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Site Activity Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions (continued)

Technical Assistance The lead agency must inform the public of NCP 40 C.F.R.

Grant (TAG) the availability of Technical Assistance 300.430(c)(2)(iv)

Notification Grants and include in the information

repository material that describes the

Technical Assistance Grant application

process.

Upon Commencement of Remedial Investigation:

Administrative Record The lead agency must establish an adminis- CERCLA 113(k); NCP 40

trative record, make it available for public C.F.R. 300.815 (a-c)

inspection, and publish a notice of its

availability. The lead agency must comply

with the public participation procedures

required in 300.430(f)(3) and shall

document such compliance in the administrative record.

Administrative Record The lead agency must publish a notice of NCP 40 C.F.R.

Notification availability of the administrative record in a 300.815(a)

major local newspaper of general

circulation.

Upon Completion of the Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan:

RI/FS and Proposed The lead agency must publish a notice of CERCLA 117(a) and (d);

Plan Notification and the availability of the RI/FS and Proposed NCP 40 C.F.R.

Analysis Plan, including a brief analysis of the 300.430(f)(3)(i)(A)

Proposed Plan, in a major local newspaper

of general circulation. The notice also must

announce a comment period.

Public Comment The lead agency must provide at least 30 CERCLA 117(a)(2); NCP

Period on RI/FS and days for the submission of written and oral 40 C.F.R.

Proposed Plan comments on the Proposed Plan and sup- 300.430(f)(3)(c)

porting information located in the information repository, including the RI/FS. This

comment period will be extended by a

minimum of 30 additional days upon timely

request.
82

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

82

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions (continued)

Public Meeting The lead agency must provide an opportu- CERCLA 113 and

nity for a public meeting regarding the 117(a)(2);

Proposed Plan and supporting information NCP 40C.F.R.

to be held at or near the site during the 300.430(f)(3)(i)(D)

comment period.

Meeting Transcript The lead agency must have a court re- CERCLA 117(a)(2);

porter prepare a meeting transcript that is NCP 40 C.F.R.

made available to the public. 300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)

Notice and Comment A notice of a proposed settlement must CERCLA 122;

Period for Settlement be published in the Federal Register at NCP 40 C.F.R.

Agreements least 30 days before the agreement be- 300.430(c)(5)(i)

comes final. This notice must state the and (ii)

name of the facility and the parties to the

proposed agreement. Those persons who

are not parties to the agreement must be

provided an opportunity to file written

comments for a period of 30 days.

Pre-Record of Decision Significant Changes:

Responsiveness The lead agency must prepare a response CERCLA 113 and

Summary to significant comments, criticisms, and 117(b);

new data submitted on the Proposed Plan NCP 40C.F.R.

and RI/FS, and ensure that this response 300.430(f)(3)(i)(F)

document accompanies the Record

of Decision (ROD).

Discussion of Significant The lead agency must include in the ROD NCP 40 C.F.R.

Changes a discussion of significant changes and 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(A)

the reasons for such changes, if new

information is made available that significantly changes the basic features of the

remedy and the lead agency determines

that the changes could be reasonably

anticipated by the public.
83

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions (continued)

Revised Proposed Plan Upon the lead agencyís determination that NCP 40 C.F.R.

and Public Comment such changes could not have been reason- 300.430(f)(3)(ii)(B)

ably anticipated by the public, the Agency

must issue a revised Proposed Plan that

includes a discussion of the significant

changes and the reasons for such changes.

The Agency must seek additional public

comment on the revised Proposed Plan.

After the ROD is signed:

ROD Availability and The lead agency must make the ROD NCP 40 C.F.R.

Notification available for public inspection and copying 300,430(f)(6)

at or near the site prior to the commencement of any remedial action. Also, the lead

agency must publish a notice of the RODís

availability in a major local newspaper of

general circulation. The notice must state

the basis and purpose of the selected action.

Revision of the CIP Prior to remedial design, the lead agency NCP 40 C.F.R.

Site Activity should revise the CIP, if necessary, to reflect 300.435(c)(1)

community concern, as discovered during

interviews and other activities, that pertain

to the remedial design and construction

phase.

Post-ROD Significant Changes:

When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree, differs

significantly from the remedy selected in the ROD with respect to scope, performance, or cost:

Notice and Availability The lead agency must publish a notice that NCP 40 C.F.R.

of Explanation of briefly summarizes the explanation of 300.435(c)(2)(i)

Significant Differences significant differences (ESD) and the (A) and (B)

reasons for such differences in a major local

newspaper, and make the explanation of

significant differences and supporting

information available to the public in the

administrative record and information

repository.
84

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

84

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions (continued)

When the remedial or enforcement action, or the settlement or consent decree,

fundamentally alters the basic features of the selected remedy with respect to scope:

Notice of Availability/ The lead agency must propose an NCP 40 C.F.R.

Brief Description of amendment to the ROD and issue a 300.435(c)(2)

Proposed ROD notice of the proposed amendment in a (ii)(A)

Amendment major local newspaper of general

circulation.

Public Comment Period, The lead agency must follow the same NCP 40 C.F.R.

Public Meeting, Meeting procedures for notice and comment as 300.435(c)(2)(ii)

Transcript, and those required for completion of the (B)-(F)

Responsiveness feasibility study (FS) and Proposed Plan.

Summary

Notice and Availability The lead agency must publish a notice of NCP 40 C.F.R.

of Amended ROD availability of the amended ROD in a 300.435(c)(2)(ii)

major local newspaper and make the (G) and (H)

amended ROD and supporting information available for public inspection and

copying in the administrative record and

information repository prior to commencement of the remedial action affected by the amendment.

Remedial Design:

Fact Sheet and Public Upon completion of the final engineering NCP 40 C.F.R.

Briefing design, the lead agency must issue a fact 300.435(c)(3)

sheet and provide a public briefing, as

appropriate, prior to beginning remedial

action.
85

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Site Activity Minimum Requirement(s) Source(s)

Remedial Actions (continued)

NPL Deletions:

Public Notice and EPA is required to publish a notice of NCP 40 C.F.R.

Public Comment intent to delete in the Federal Register and 300.425(e)(4)

Period provide notice of the availability of this (i) and (ii)

announcement in a major local newspaper.

EPA must also provide a comment period

of at least 30 days on the proposed

deletion.

Public Access to Copies of information supporting the NCP 40 C.F.R.

Information proposed deletion must be placed in the 300.425(e)(iii)

information repository for public inspection and copying.

Response to EPA must respond to each significant NCP 40 C.F.R.

Significant comment and any significant new data 300.425(e)(iv)

Comments submitted during the comment period and

include these responses in the final deletion package.

Availability of The final deletion package must be placed NCP 40 C.F.R.

Final Deletion in the local information repository once 300.425(e)(5)

Package the notice of final deletion has been

published in the Federal Register.
86

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

86
87

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

Appendix B: Superfund Community Involvement Directives --------------------------------------------- 89

Early and Meaningful Community Involvement (OSWER Dir. 9230.0-99) ------------------------ 89

Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund Decision-making (OSWER Dir. 9230.0-18) --- 93

Appendix B

SUPERFUND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

POLICY DIRECTIVES
88

The most current version

of this publication is

available at

www.epa.gov/superfund

88
89

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OSWER 9230.0-99

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Early and Meaningful Community Involvement

FROM: Elaine F. Davies, Acting Directior

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1 - 10

PURPOSE

To improve early and meaningful community involvement in Superfund

site decision-making.

BACKGROUND

In an April 10, 2001, memo on EPA’s Regulatory Decision Process,

Administrator Whitman endorsed “vigorous public outreach and

involvement” in working toward environmental goals. Her support for

effective public participation is consistent with the Agency’s draft

Public Involvement Policy (65 Fed. Reg. 82335, December 12, 2000).

Among other things, the draft Policy emphasizes that Agency programs,

when implementing their responsibilities, should:

1. Plan and budget for public involvement.

2. Identify interested parties.

3. Consider technical or financial assistance.

4. Provide timely and useful information and outreach.

5. Conduct meaningful involvement activites.

6. Assimilate public input and provide good feedback.

Superfund has a long-standing commitment to community involvement

(also known as public participation) that incorporates these functions.

In a 1991 memo (OSWER Directive 9230.0-18), one of my predecessors,

Henry Longest, encouraged site responders to “demonstrate to citizens

that they are involved in the decision-making process.” That memo

identified four key practices:

- Listen carefully to what community members are saying.

- Take the time needed to deal with community concerns.

- Change planned actions where community input has merit.

- Explain to the community what EPA has done and why.

This memo builds on the 1991 memo and encourages more substantive

involvement of communities from the very outset of a cleanup. The

involvement should begin prior to any on-site work and continue

throughout the cleanup process, including during any 5-year reviews.

This memo focuses on six practices that you should be implementing

during Superfund responses.

OFFICE OF

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY

RESPONSE
90

PRACTICES FOR EARLY AND MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT

1) Energize the community involvement plan (CIP). The CIP should be a

living vision that is focused, current and helpful. Ideally, a draft of the

CIP should be reviewed by the community to ensure that the CIP is on target

and meaningful. Making the involvement plan an actual partnership plan,

endorsed by the community, is a best practice. All site team members should

contribute to early development and implementation of the CIP.

2) Provide early, proactive community support. You should do more to

promote and give assistance to communities from the very outset of the work at

a site. Superfund has a variety of community assistance mechanisms: Technical

Assistance Grants, Community Advisory Groups, Technical Outreach Services to

Communities, and the Superfund Job Training Initiative. You should make sure

community groups know about these opportunities by the end of the site

investigation and you should encourage them throughout the cleanup process to

take advantage of what is available. You should also be creative in

identifying site-specific ways to enhance the ability of a community to

participate (e.g., arranging for educational activities or facilitation

services).

3) Get the community more involved in the risk assessment. You should

assume the community will be able to understand risk assessments and provide

useful input. If the right questions are posed, the community can make

important contributions from tHE outset. In particular, you should ask

community members about patterns and practices of chemical usage, exposure

pathways, and health concerns. At big or controversial sites, you should

share a draft of the scope of work with the community and answer questions

that are raised about it. You should also provide regular and clear feedback

on the progress of the risk assessment and its results. For more ideas, see

OSWER Directive 9285.7-01E- P, Community Inovlvement in Superfund Risk

Assessments.

4) Seek early community input on the scope of the remedial

investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). Soliciting input before the start of

the RI/FS on its scope and approach is a concrete demonstration that you take

early involvement seriously. In particular, you need to ask the community

what cleanup alternatives should be evaluated during the FS and then consider

thoughtfully the input you get. This does not mean you have to do or include

exactly what the community wants. It does mean you should listen carefully to

identify and understand significant concerns that have merit and should be

addressed.

5) Encourage community involvement in identification of future land use.

The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative focuses on helping communities

participate in identifying future land use and Superfund sites. Early during

removal and remedial site planning, you should work with the community to

develop a process for exploring future use. This should inlude providing the

information and tools to make this exploration a success. The community

should have the lead in assessing its social, economic and recreational needs

and in giving us its perspective of the most likely future use. You should

encourage this effort, while not advocating particular views or opinions.

6) Do more to involve communities during removals. Early and meaningful

community involvement at removals is important. Whether it is an emergency

response or a non-time critical action, community involvement should not be

neglected or postponed. While initial calls should be to state and local

authorities, soon thereafter you should reach out to the entire community,

which may have a high level of anxiety and concern about health and safety.

You need to demonstrate our sincere concern and credibility in order to set

the stage for the community cooperation that may be critical during the

response (e.g., during an evacuation or relocation). You should not wait to

share important information. If you proceed in a spirit of “early, humble

coordination,” as one On-Scene-Coordinator once put it, you will be suprised

at how much good input and help you get.
91

IMPLEMENTATION

The practices described above are good ways to help achieve early and

meaningful community involvement (see attachment for a handy checklist).

They are by no means the only effective approaches. Indeed, they may not

even be appropriate in certain circumstances. Each community is different

and deserves its own, well-thought-out involvement plan. As you conduct

removal and remedial actions, you should be creative and proactive in

looking for opportunities that meet the needs and interests of the

community, while making sound cleanup decisions. You should always be clear

about the respective roles of the participants to avoid creating unrealistic

expectations about how decisions will be made.

The responsibility for community involvement is a team effort. You

achieve the best results when all the key players -- the remedial project

manager, the on scene coordinator, the risk assessor, the legal advisor, the

site assessment manager and the community involvement coordinator --

cooperate to effectively involve the community. Also, all program managers

should look for ways to encourage community involvement and to recognize

staff members who successfully practice it.

CONCLUSION

Public involvement is an integral part of both removal and remedial

actions. Involvement should occur early and be sustained in a meaningful way

throughout all stages of our work. This is strongly encouraged by EPA’s

Public Envolvement Policy and should lead to better cleanups and more

satisfied communities.

Copies of this document are available on our web site at http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/pubs.htm. General questions about this topic should

be referred to the Call Center at 1-800-424-9346.

Attachment

cc: Jeff Josephson, Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 2

NARPM Co-Chairs

On-Scene Coordinators

Community Involvement Managers

OERR Records Manager, IMC 5202G

OERR Documents Coordinator, HOSC 5202G
92

Key Practices for Early and Meaningful

Community Involvement at Superfund Sites

From OSWER Directive 9230.0-18

• Listen carefully to what community members are saying.

• Take the time needed to deal with community concerns.

• Change plans where community suggestions have merit.

• Explain to the community what EPA has done and why.

From OSWER Directive 9230.0-99

• Energize the community involvement plan.

• Provide early, proactive community support.

• Get the community more involved in the risk assessment.

• Seek early community input on the scope of the remedial

investigation/feasibility study.

• Encourage community involvement in identification of

future land use.

• Do more to involve communities during removals.

Useful Resources

EPA Draft Policy on Public Involvement:

http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/policy.htm

Model Plan for Public Participation:

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oej/nejac/pdf/modelbk.pdf

Lessons Learned about Superfund Community Involvement:

http://intranet.epa.gov/oerrinet/topics/cioc/lessons/index/htm

Community Involvement in Superfund Risk Assessments:

www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/risk/ragsa/ci-ra.htm

Superfund Community Involvement Website:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/index.htm

Superfund Redevelopment Initiative Website:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/recycle.htm

EPA Stakeholder Website:

http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/intro.htm

International Assoc. of Public Participation Practitioner Tools:

http://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/index.html

Community Partnering for Environmental Results: A computerized

learning program for developing community involvement skills

(see Regional Training Officer or Community Involvement

Manager for access)
93

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OSWER 9230.0-18

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Incorporating Citizen Concerns into Superfund

Decision-making (Superfund Management Review:

Recommendation #43B)

FROM: Henry Longest, II, Director

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 Involvement Coordinators, Regions I-X

PURPOSE

To ensure the incorporation of citizen concerns into Superfund site

decision-making.

BACKGROUND

In EPA’s capacity and willingness to incorporate community concerns

into site decision-making 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 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 where 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.
94

Implementation:

1) Listen carefully to what citizens are saying 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 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 Slit, site managers should announce a thirtyday 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 coptroversial sitep 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 S1R 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 when 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 listened 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 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 vas the only possible one.
95

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 3988341, respectively.