United States Office of Solid Waste and OSWER 9285.7-01E-PEnvironmental Protection Emergency Response EPA 540-R-98-042Agency (5201G) PB99-963303

March 1999www.epa.gov/superfund/

Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund:

Volume 1 – Human Health Evaluation ManualSupplement to Part A:Community Involvement in SuperfundRisk Assessments

Printed on Recycled Paper

Publication 9285.7-01E-PMarch 1999

Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:Volume 1

Human Health Evaluation ManualSupplement to Part A:

Community Involvement in Superfund RiskAssessments

Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponseU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC

iii

Notice

This document provides guidance to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)staff. The document does not, however, substitute for EPA’s statutes or regulations,nor is it a regulation in itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements onthe EPA, states, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situa-tion based upon the circumstances. The EPA may change this guidance in the future,as appropriate.

iv

Acknowledgments

This manual was developed by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response andEPA Regional risk assessors. Environmental Management Support Inc., 8601 GeorgiaAvenue, Suite 500, Silver Spring, MD, 20910 under Contract Number 68-W6-0046provided assistance with the final preparation of this document.

For More Information

For more information, please contact:

Bruce Engelbert, M.S.Program AnalystCommunity Involvement and Outreach CenterUSEPA Office of Emergency andRemedial Response401 M Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20460Phone: 703-603-8711engelbert.bruce@epa.gov

Jayne Michaud, M.P.H.Environmental ScientistUSEPA Office of Emergency andRemedial Response401 M Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20460Phone: 703-603-8847michaud.jayne@epa.gov

Sophia Serda, Ph.DToxicologistUSEPA Region 9SFD-8-B75 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105Phone: 415-744-2307serda.sophia@epa.gov

v

Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY INPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

COMMUNITY INPUT TO THE SUPERFUND RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3SCOPING PHASE AND WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5TOXICITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6RISK CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SOURCES OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CASE EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16St. Francois Old Lead Belt Mining Area, St. Francois, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, Palmerton, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1

INTRODUCTION

Many people who live and work nearSuperfund sites want a greater

role in helping to make decisions aboutthe cleanup work that is being done. Community stakeholders have told EPAthat current public involvementpractices are often inadequate (seebox), and that more meaningful andeffective ways to participate areneeded. Public involvement is oftenmore meaningful when it is sought outearly in the Superfund process. Thehuman health risk assessment is onepart of the Superfund process thatwarrants early community involvement.EPA is committed to promotingparticipation in the decision-makingprocess by people whose lives areaffected by Superfund sites locatedin their neighborhoods.

Superfund baseline risk assessmentsare conducted to evaluate potentialhuman health and environmental risksposed by uncontrolled hazardous wastesites. The results of a risk assessment

are critical in determining whetherresponses to protect human health andthe environment are justified, and inestablishing an appropriate cleanuplevel. The risk assessment also helpsEPA identify potential risks associatedwith a particular remedy and evaluaterisks remaining at a site after cleanup iscompleted. This document focuses onhuman health risk assessments.

The purpose of this guidance documentis to provide the site team—riskassessor, remedial project manager(RPM), and community involvementcoordinator—with information toimprove community involvement in theSuperfund risk assessment process.Specifically, this document:

� Provides suggestions for howSuperfund staff and communitymembers can work together duringthe early stages of Superfundcleanup;

� Identifies where, within theframework of the human healthrisk assessment methodology,community input can augmentand improve EPA’s estimates ofexposure and risk;

� Recommends questions the siteteam should ask the community;and

� Illustrates why communityinvolvement is valuable duringthe human health risk assess-ment at Superfund sites.

This document establishes no formalrequirements for community involve-ment (these are covered in the National

Community Feedback on RiskAssessment

� Provide opportunities for the public tobe in the process early, not buy in atthe end.

� Create partnerships with all communitygroups early.

� Plan for community involvement.

� Protect community values and culture.

� Schedule public meetings at times andplaces convenient to the community.

� Clarify who the risk assessmentprotects.

2

Contingency Plan [NCP] and are high-lighted in the Superfund CommunityInvolvement Handbook and Toolkit(EPA, 1998)). This document identifiestechniques that can lead to risk assess-ments that the community will acceptand understand. Additional resourceson community involvement, riskassessment, risk communication, and

the Superfund process are cited at theend of this document. In addition, thesite team should talk with its counter-parts at the state and local levels andto the Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry to learn abouttheir risk assessment and communityinvolvement requirements.

IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY INPUT

EPA is committed to providingopportunities for citizens to partici-

pate meaningfully in the cleanupprocess. People sometimes questionthe utility of involving nontechnicalgroups in technical discussions. How-ever, people who live and work near aSuperfund site not only deserve to beinformed and involved, but are likely tohave knowledge and insights about thesite’s history, uses, and activities thatcan improve the accuracy of the riskassessment. While risk assessorsalso should consult with state andlocal agencies, population surveys,data bases, and EPA’s risk assess-ment guidance (see Sources ofInformation), the community maycontribute vital information locatednowhere else.

Although time and energy must beinvested to promote public involvement,the investment pays significantdividends in community understandingand goodwill. The Presidential-Congressional Commission on RiskAssessment and Risk Managementrecognized this in its Framework forEnvironmental Health Risk Manage-ment report (February 1997). TheCommission identified “a clear need to

modify the traditional approachesused to assess and reduce risks. . . ” and supported the principlethat community members shouldbe engaged as active partners inthe process so that differenttechnical perspectives, publicvalues, and perceptions aregiven full consideration.

Community Input Can Help

� Identify overlooked local knowledgeCommunity members may have useful information about the site’s history,chemical uses, human activities, and past, current, and future land uses.

� Streamline effortsCommunity members may have special issues or concerns that, if incorporatedinto the risk assessment planning at the outset, will reduce the likelihood thatthe risk assessment and cleanup plans will have to be redone.

� Gain acceptanceCommunity members who contribute to planning the risk assessment will betterunderstand the process and will more likely give the outcome their support.

3

Key Discussion Points for the Outset ofCommunity Involvement

� Anticipated timing and level ocommunity involvement.

� Acknowledgment that EPA will considerall public input, but may not agree withall of it.

� Risk assessments should follow policyand be scientifically sound.

� EPA must meet the legal requirementsof the Superfund law.

COMMUNITY INPUT TO THE SUPERFUND RISKASSESSMENT

The timing and amount of commu-nity involvement will vary from site

to site (see box). This is due toscheduling requirements and thereality that many Superfund sites arefar along in the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process. Thedegree of community input during therisk assessment phase also will varydepending on the complexity of theissues and the level of communityinterest. The nature and extent ofcommunity involvement should beappropriate to the scope and impact ofa decision. In some cases, the stand-ard risk assessment assumptions willbe appropriate.

Because education about risk assess-ment is necessary and often requestedby community members, the site teashould address this need as quickly aspossible. Risk assessors, RPMs, and

community involvement coordinatorsare encouraged to refer to risk com-munication guidance and educationalresources to supplement this guidance.

The Commission Suggested That

� The goals of community involvement should be clear at the outset, and thepublic should be involved early in the decision-making process.

� Community involvement efforts should attempt to engage all potentiallyaffected parties and solicit a diversity of perspectives.

� Community members must be willing to negotiate, should be flexible, and beprepared to listen to and learn from diverse viewpoints.

� Community members should have a say in important decisions and be giventhe information and technical assistance necessary to facilitate thisparticipation.

� Community members should be given credit for their roles in a decision, andhow and why community input was or was not used should be explained.

� The nature, extent, and complexity of community involvement should beappropriate to the scope and impact of a decision.

4

Ultimately, the EPA risk assessors andRPMs are responsible for ensuring thatthe risk assessment is based onreliable scientific information. EPA willensure that risk management decisionsarticulate actions that comply with, orqualify for a waiver of, applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements,as required by the Superfund Amend-ments and Reauthorization Act of 1986(SARA) and the NCP. Furthermore,EPA should ensure that the communityunderstands these requirements.

The Superfund human health riskassessment process has four steps: 1)data collection and evaluation; 2)exposure assessment; 3) toxicityassessment; and 4) risk characteriza-tion. Each step involves an analysis ofspecific data or assumptions related tothe areas of contamination and poten-tial human exposures to contaminantsof concern. A complete description ofEPA’s risk assessment methodologyand definitions of the four componentsof risk assessment can be found in the“EPA Risk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund, Volume I, Human HealthEvaluation Manual Part A” (EPA 1989).

The purpose of community input ateach step of the risk assessment andkey questions the site team may askcommunities are set out in the followingsections.

SCOPING PHASE AND WORK PLANDEVELOPMENT

The scoping phase involves learningenough about a site to formulate a planof action for the risk assessment. During the scoping phase, the riskassessor identifies:

� Past site uses, manufacturing and disposalpractices, and spills orsuspicious activities at oraround the site.

� Who is exposed to the site and thepathways by which exposureoccurs (e.g., children playing incontaminated water).

� Information on the types andsources of data required for the riskanalysis.

� Types of samples and specificcollection methods needed.

� How community concerns will beaddressed.

Community input is particularly impor-tant during the scoping phase anddevelopment of the risk assessmentwork plan. Community members mayprovide critical information about thesite, their health, and how people mightbe exposed.

The work plan evolves from thescoping phase and lays the foundationfor the risk assessment. It may berevised during implementation of therisk assessment to account for newinformation such as finding a contami-nated drinking water source. Riskassessors can use the scoping phaseand work plan development as anopportunity to educate communitymembers about the risk assessmentprocess, encourage communityinvolvement, and build trust withcitizens.

GoalDuring scoping and work plan develop-ment, the site team should:

� Educate the community about therisk assessment process.

� Solicit public concerns, cultures,and values.� Consult with appropriate

authorities on unique issuessuch as tribal concerns.

� Identify populations exposedto the site.

5

� Support informed decision making.� Foster communication, and

encourage dialogue with communitymembers.

� Discuss the expectations andconstraints of the process.

��Key Questions The following are several questionsrelated specifically to scoping that thesite team should discuss with thecommunity before the risk assessmentbegins. However, often it is appropriateto ask all of the questions recom-mended at each step of the riskassessment during this phase.

� What is known about the site (e.g.,spill and waste disposal history)?

� What are community perceptionsabout the hazards and risks?

� Who is exposed to the site?� How are people exposed (e.g.,

fishing, gardening, playing)?� Are there specific sources of data

that should be considered in thesampling plan, including specificareas of concern near the site?

� Who else in the community shouldthe site team be talking to?

DATA COLLECTION ANDEVALUATION

The collection of adequate andappropriate data is critical for evalu-ating the extent of Superfund sitecontamination and the potential risksposed by a site. Often most site dataare collected before the risk assess-ment is scoped out. Additional datamay be collected to meet the needs ofthe risk assessors. Community inputduring this phase of the risk assess-ment is important to help identifyadditional information about a site’shistory, potential areas of contamina-tion, and areas frequented by peoplewho live near the Superfund site.

GoalThe goal of community input at thisstage is to ensure that no hazardoussubstances or potential exposure isoverlooked. Since local informationcan vary significantly from EPA’sstandard assumptions and exposurescenarios, the site team shouldcommunicate how input on potentialsources of contamination and people’sbehavior and lifestyles can affect therisk assessment. For example, aresident might recommend samplingfish in a stream known to be frequentedby children. Residents may haveinformation that could point to orexclude certain off-site areas as suit-able locations for background samples.

Key Questions The site team should seek communityinput on:

� Are there specific chemicals orsubstances of public concern, and ifso, why?

� Are there areas that may not beappropriate for determining back-ground levels of contaminants?

� Is the review of historical activitiesat the site complete? If not, whowould have such knowledge?

� What are the current and futureanticipated land uses at the site?

� When are the best times to takesamples?

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Exposure assessment is the estimationof how much and in what waysexposures to chemicals may occur atand around a Superfund site. The riskassessor looks for complete exposurepathways from the source of contami-nation to people on or near the site.This includes sensitive sub-populationssuch as children. Exposure estimatesconsider both present exposures andprobable future exposures, based onthe proposed future land use, if no

6

further cleanup action is taken at thesite. Because the exposure estimateincorporates information on thelocations and activities of people livingnear the Superfund site, the exposureassessment presents an opportunity forsignificant community input.

GoalThe purpose of community input to theexposure assessment is to obtaincomplete information about potentiallyexposed people and their activities. This information, along with data oncontaminant concentrations, will helpproduce a risk assessment that isrealistic, reasonable, and comprehen-sive.

��Key Questions The site team should seek communityinput on:

� Who may come into contact withthe site? Sensitive groups mayinclude children, elderly, pregnantand nursing women, and peoplewith chronic illnesses.

� How do people use the land on andnear the site (e.g., fishing,gardening, berry picking, hunting,playing, swimming)?

� How often do people use the landfor these activities?

� Where are children likely to play oruse the site?

� What types of animals are huntedor fished?

� What types of food are produced inthe garden?

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

The toxicity assessment addresses thepotential of environmental contami-nants to cause harmful effects inhumans. Information on effects ispublished in an EPA data base—theIntegrated Risk Information Syste(IRIS). Risk assessors use IRIS to helpevaluate cancer and noncancer effects

for each chemical of concern. Becausethe toxicity information in IRIS isverified through a consensus processand widely accepted, community inputon specific toxicity values is generallynot anticipated. However, explaining tocitizens how the toxicity assessment fitsinto the overall risk assessmentprocess is important. Communityconcerns related to the types of toxicitysite chemicals pose should be fullyaddressed by the site team. Forchemicals that are not site-related orfor general health issues broader thanSuperfund’s area of concern, riskassessors may refer citizens to state orlocal public health officials or theAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry.

GoalThe primary goal of community input tothe toxicity assessment is to obtainclarification about the community’shealth concerns so that clear andappropriate explanations aboutpotential toxicity can be provided to thecommunity and incorporated into therisk assessment.

��Key Questions The site team should seek communityinput on:

� What are the community’s healthconcerns that may be related to thesite?

� Has the community discussed anyunusual health problems with localpublic health authorities?

� What does the community want toknow about the toxicity assessmentprocess?

RISK CHARACTERIZATION

The final step of the risk assessmentintegrates the results of the exposureassessment and toxicity assessment. Risk characterization estimates thepotential health risks posed by the site

7

if no remedial action is taken. It alsoexplains the level of risk that may beleft after different cleanup approachesare applied and describes the uncer-tainties associated with the data andrisk estimates. Uncertainties may beassociated with strengths and weak-nesses of the data, the exposureassumptions, or the toxicity values.

GoalThe purpose of having community inputat this stage is to ensure that the risksare described in clear and meaningful

terms, and that site-related assump-tions are still appropriate.

Key Questions The site team should seek communityinput on:

� Have community concerns beenadequately addressed?

� Have any contaminants, exposure,or sensitive groups beenoverlooked?

� Are the risk assessment process,results, and conclusions under-standable?

� Do you understand how this riskassessment is being used?

INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES

This section describes several pos-sible approaches and techniques for

involving the public in developing therisk assessment. Since everycommunity and situation is different,involvement techniques should betailored to each community. The bestway to design an effective approach isto talk with people in the community tofind out what kind and how muchinvolvement they want. Identify thosewilling to participate and commitadequate time to the project. Mentioneducational opportunities and theavailability of technical assistance suchas EPA’s Technical Assistance Grants,the university-based Technical Out-reach Services for Communities(TOSC) program, and the Departmentof Defense’s Technical Assistance forPublic Participation (TAPP) program, ifapplicable.

A strategy may be needed to targetspecific audiences and structure theoutreach. A strategy should considerthe size and diversity of the community,level of interest expressed by commu-nity members, geography of the site

and community, and resources andtime available to community membersand the site team. Communicationstrategies often are employed as part ofa community involvement plan.

The following list of tools is notexhaustive and is no substitute for thecreativity and imagination of the siteteam and community members who willcollaborate on the project. TheSuperfund Community InvolvementHandbook and Toolkit provides moredetails on communication strategiesand the following involvement tech-niques. In addition, state and localofficials, as well as the Agency forToxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry, can be consulted aboutappropriate communication methods.

InterviewsInformal, face-to-face or telephonediscussions with community membersare an excellent means of obtainingfirst-hand information about localinterests, concerns, and issues. Thistechnique also provides an opportunityfor EPA to establish trust and confi-

8

dence, but is relatively slow and laborintensive.

Community interviews are required tothe extent practicable by the NCP.Interviews are used for developing thecommunity involvement plan beforefield work for the RI/FS begins. Theseoffer another opportunity to gather riskassessment-related information frothe community. Community interviewsshould be face-to-face sessions, andmay be conducted in citizens’ offices oreven in their homes. Their purpose is tosolicit the community’s concerns andinformation needs and to learn how andwhen citizens would like to be involvedin the Superfund process.

Small Group MeetingsGetting together with severalcommunity members in aprivate home or local meetingplace allows for good inter-action and dialogue.Somewhat less time-consuming thanindividual interviews, this technique isan excellent way of developing usefulinformation, and establishing rapportand trust.

Focus GroupsFocus groups are more formal thansmall group meetings. They are struc-tured to obtain answers to specificquestions. Focus group participantsusually are invited individually to partici-pate. The meeting is led by a trainedfacilitator who guides the discussionand elicits reactions to carefullydesigned questions or proposals. Thistechnique is an efficient means ofobtaining citizen knowledge andexpectations if the participants trulyrepresent the community. Becausefocus groups are designed to elicitinformation in a structured, one-timeway from selected participants, they aregenerally less effective than othertechniques in developing rapport andgood working relationships with thecommunity.

Public MeetingsA large public meeting is an efficientway of informing people about activitiesand getting general feedback. It is alsoa useful way to move a communitythrough the process together. A publicmeeting is an appropriate forum foridentifying major community concerns,but is an inappropriate method fordeveloping detailed information. Largepublic meetings need to be well plan-ned and facilitated to avoid becomingtedious and unwieldy.

Public Availability Sessions/OpenHousesA public availability session is a lessstructured alternative to a public

meeting and is generallypreferred in situations wherepublic meetings are not required.A risk assessor or other siteteam member announces thatshe or he will be available duringa convenient time and place for

the community to come and talk inform-ally. No appointment is necessary. Thisgives community members a chance toconverse privately and raise issuesthey may not feel comfortable raising inother forums.

Community Advisory GroupA community advisory group is arepresentative group of communitymembers that meets regularly to adviseEPA on issues and review documentsthroughout the life of the project. Thistechnique ensures an ongoing linkbetween interested community mem-bers and the decision makers, and itgenerally results in developing goodrapport. An advisory group approachrequires the decision makers’ commit-ment of time and resources, and theadvisory group’s commitment to partici-pate regularly.

Cooperative Work GroupThis technique is an extension of thecommunity advisory group. It is used toempower community members to be

9

substantively involved in a project. Thedecision makers commit to work incollaboration with community membersto create the work group and make keydecisions on a consensus basis.Decisions are made with the under-standing that when a consensus can-not be reached, the decision makerswill be responsible for determining thecourse of action. While this is a verytime-intensive technique and is some-what of a risk for the decision makers ithas enormous benefits in terms ofcommunity support and satisfaction.

Public NoticesPublic notices are announcementspublished in the print media or broad-cast on radio or television. They arerequired at various times in the Super-fund process such as when a site isproposed to be added or deleted frothe National Priorities List (NPL) andwhen public comment periods willoccur. They also can be used topublicize opportunities for the commu-nity to participate in planning for a riskassessment or to review documents

such as a work plan. Major mediaoutlets are not the only or necessarilythe best sources to use. Often, ethnicor foreign language publications, nicheradio stations, church bulletins, andpostings at local gathering placesprovide more effective coverage. Apublic notice is a relatively inexpensiveway of spreading the word, but isunlikely to generate a large response.As a result, public notices shouldalways be used in conjunction withother techniques.

WorkshopsWorkshops are formal, participatoryseminars used to explore a Superfundsubject. Workshops are a powerful toolfor educating small groups of citizenson site-specific issues such as riskassessment, participation opportunities,and how to become contributingparticipants in the Superfund process.The educational, involvement, andempowerment values of workshopsmake them a desirable component ofthe community outreach and involve-ment process. However, they are time-intensive and require commitmentsfrom citizens to help develop the work-shop curriculum and to participate.

CONCLUSION

Communities around Superfund siteshave a major interest in the out-

come of the site investigation andcleanup process. Community input intothe risk assessment process can helpensure a risk assessment that iscomplete and useful. Early involve-ment is always ideal, but in caseswhere this is not possible or has notbeen achieved, input at later points isstill important.

Each of the four steps of risk assess-ment present opportunities for commu-nity input. At the outset, risk asses-

sors, RPMs, and community involve-ment coordinators should explainclearly to the community all legalrequirements and other constraints, aswell as how community input will beused during the risk assessment. Some quick tips for EPA staff andcitizens are summarized at the end ofthis document. Additional resourcesand references on community involve-ment, risk assessment, and risk com-munication are provided under Sourcesof Information.

10

It is important to remember that mean-ingful participation is never quick oreasy. The understanding and trustneeded for a good working relationshipdevelop slowly under the best ofcircumstances. There are many

challenges including identifying whoshould or can be involved, fosteringsufficient technical understanding sothat all parties interact comfortably andcan contribute, and establishingefficient and effective group dynamics. Many Superfund site teams have beensuccessful in engaging the public in theSuperfund risk assessment process. Some lessons learned from theseexperiences are included in the caseexamples appended to this document.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human HealthEvaluation Manual (Part A). USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,Washington, DC. EPA 540/1-89/002. PB90-155581CDH.

EPA, 1990. Risk Assessment in Superfund: A Primer. First Edition. USEPA, Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540/X-91/002. PB91-214197CDH.

EPA, 1991. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy SelectionDecisions. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.PB91-921359CDH.

EPA, 1993. Use of IRIS Values in Superfund Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office ofEmergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. PB93-963360CDH.

EPA, 1994. This is Superfund. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,Washington, DC. PB94-963218.

EPA, 1996. Superfund Today: Focus on Risk Assessment. USEPA, Office of SolidWaste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540-K-96-003. PB96-963227.

EPA, 1998. Superfund Community Involvement Handbook and Toolkit. USEPA, Officeof Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540-R-98-007.

Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management,1997. Volume 1 Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management. Final Report;Volume 2 Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making.National Academy of Sciences. Phone: 202-233-9537. Internet: http://www.riskworld.com.

International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1997. Risk Assessment.The Role of Local Government. Washington, DC. ISBN 0-87326-124-0, Item number42162. Toll free phone: 800-745-8770. Internet:http://www.icma.org/publications/riskassess.htm.

11

EPA INTERNET RESOURCES

EPA Home Page: http://www.epa.govEPA Risk Assessment web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/riskEPA RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotlineSuperfund for Kids: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/kidsRecycle City: http://www.epa.gov/recyclecityIntegrated Risk Information System (IRIS): http://www.epa.gov/iris/

ORDERING GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

General sources of EPA documents:

� The National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, is a centralrepository for all EPA documents. Over 5,000 titles in paper and electronic formatare available for distribution (usually at no cost to the public). Individuals canbrowse and search EPA’s National Publications Catalog, and order EPApublications online or by telephone. The EPA publication number (e.g., EPA 999-F-99-999) is used to identify the resource.

NSCEPNational Service Center for Environmental PublicationsP.O. Box 42419Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419Phone: 800-490-9198Fax: 513-489-8695Internet: http://www.epa.gov/ncepi

Documents not available free of charge through NSCEP can be obtained throughthe National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

� NTIS is a central resource for government-sponsored U.S. and internationalscientific, technical, engineering, and business-related information. As a self-supporting agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS covers its businessand operating expenses with the sale of its products and services. NTIS indexesEPA publications by their EPA publication number, complete title, and an NTISproduct number (e.g., PB99-999999). NTIS accepts Visa and MasterCard.

NTIS National Technical Information Center5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22151Phone: 800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000 Fax: 703-321-8547E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.govInternet: http://www.ntis.gov

12

GLOSSARY

Baseline risk assessment Superfund human health estimate of the likelihood andmagnitude of health problems occurring if no cleanup action is taken at a site. Riskassessment may include both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the likelihoodthat there will be harm to human health and the environment by the actual or potentialpresence of environmental contamination.

Biota: the animal and plant life of a given region.

Community Advisory Group (CAG) a committee of community members who wantto be involved in planning for the cleanup of a Superfund site. The CAG works withEPA and the state to review site data and evaluate response options. The CAG alsomay serve as a bridge of communications between EPA and the rest of the community.

Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC): an EPA person who works with com-munity members to keep them informed about a Superfund cleanup and also helpsthose who are interested to participate in the response decision-making process.

Exposure: contact of a person with a chemical or physical agent.

Exposure pathway the course a chemical or physical agent takes from a source toan exposed individual.

Hazard Ranking System (HRS): is the principal mechanism EPA uses to placeuncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system thatuses information from initial, limited investigations—the preliminary assessment andthe site inspection—to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to humanhealth or the environment.

Hazardous waste defined by Section 1004(5) of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) and regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 261.20. In general,hazardous wastes are solid wastes that may cause or significantly contribute to illnessor death, or that may substantially threaten human health or the environment when notproperly controlled.

National Contingency Plan (NCP) the federal regulation that guides the Superfundprogram. (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan).

National Priorities List (NPL) EPA's list of priority releases of hazardous substan-ces, pollutants, or contaminants identified for possible long-term remedial action underSuperfund. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the HazardRanking System. EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year. A site mustbe on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action.

Noncancer effects in human health risk assessment, disease outcomes pertaining toneurological, developmental, reproductive, or other effects not associated with cancer.

13

Remedial Project Manager: the individual who manages and oversees all RI/FSactivities, including the human health evaluation, for a site. The RPM is responsible forensuring adequate evaluation of human health risks and for determining the level ofresources to be committed to the human health evaluation.

Risk: a measure of the probability that damage to life, health, property, or the environ-ment will occur as a result of a given hazard. Environmental risk is the likelihood ofharm to one’s health from exposure to environmental chemicals.

Risk assessor professional who organizes and analyzes site data relevant to human(or ecological) exposures, analyzes the ways exposures to site contaminants mayoccur during current and future land uses, carries out risk calculations, and interpretsthis information for risk managers. Risk assessors for Superfund sites are EPAscientists, contractors to EPA, other federal agencies, states, or potentially responsibleparties.

Risk communication the exchange of information about health or environmentalrisks among risk assessors and managers, people who live near or on Superfundsites, the general public, news media, and other interest groups. Effective communi-cation requires proper training and experience in translating scientific data into clear,accurate and understandable language.

Risk management: the process of evaluating and selecting alternative regulatory andnon-regulatory responses to risk. The selection process necessarily requires theconsideration of legal, economic, and behavioral factors.

Smelting a process that melts or fuses ore, often with an accompanying chemicalchange, to separate its metal content.

Toxicity value: a numerical expression of a substance’s dose-response relationshipthat is used in risk assessments. The most common toxicity values used in Superfundrisk assessments are reference doses (for noncarcinogenic effects) and slope factors(for carcinogenic effects).

14

Tips for Risk Assessors and Remedial Project Managers

How Do I Get Started?

1. Team up with a community involvement coordinator (CIC). CICs can provide goodadvice and support on developing and implementing public participation efforts.

2. Talk to another risk assessor, RPM, or CIC who has gone through the participationprocess.

3. Review the recommended Key Questions to ask.4. Get out and start talking to the community.

What Should I Keep In Mind?

Be Prepared . Do not take working with the community lightly. Begin by planning how youwill proceed and involve the community. Keep an open mind and a sincere commitment tohear and understand what the public is saying. Public participation is not simply aboutproviding ways for getting issues raised; it is a mutual, continuous learning process. For itto be meaningful, the risk assessor should reflect on others’ needs and interests and usetheir input.

Be Proactive . Consult with community members. Coordinate with the CIC and sitemanager, and if appropriate, the environmental justice coordinator, to develop a processthat works for the particular situation. Consider holding a workshop or open house toexplain the risk assessment process and provide a starting point for meaningful site-specific input.

Be Realistic . Nothing is more frustrating than to hear a public official make a promise thatwill not be kept. Take care to avoid establishing expectations that cannot be met. Makecertain the public understands how their comments may have affected the decisions. Thisdoes not require a detailed responsiveness summary covering every issue. However,there should be some visible connection between community input and outcome.

15

Tips For The Community

How Do I Get Started?

1. Seek out and talk to EPA’s community involvement coordinator, risk assessor, orremedial project manager for the site about becoming involved in the process.

2. Review EPA’s recommended key questions and site work plans, if available.

What Should I Keep In Mind?

Be Prepared . Meaningful community involvement requires a commitment of time andenergy. Community members can prepare themselves by: 1) learning about importanttechnical and substantive details; 2) regularly participating in meetings and talking with site staff; and 3) following up on the key issues outlined in this reference document. To be effective, community participants do not require the same level of effort or expertiserequired of a risk assessor.

Be Proactive . While the site team must reach out to communities and provide opportu-nities for input, interested community members also should initiate ways to get involved,raise concerns in a constructive manner, and contribute fully and responsibly as the riskassessment progresses.

Be Realistic . The Superfund law and accompanying policies and regulations establish aframework within which the risk assessment and all other activities are generallyconducted. Also, professional and technical guidelines and funding restrictions affect therisk assessor’s discretion. For example, Superfund risk assessments deal with localcontamination issues that are associated with the site under study. Community membersalso should recognize the time and cost constraints that may limit what can be donebeyond the essentials for a complete and reliable risk assessment.

16

CASE EXAMPLES

St. Francois Old Lead Belt Mining Area, St. Francois, MO

Background

The Old Lead Belt mining area in St.Francois, Missouri, was mined until1972. This area is part of the southeastMissouri Lead Belt, one of the world’slargest lead mining districts. To thisday, past ore extraction, milling,separation, and smelting conducted inthe area are a constant source of dustand soil contamination. Natural ores,ore-derived soils left on the surface,and man-made lead products add tothe overall lead problem at thisSuperfund site.

The 1990 census reported a totalpopulation of 17,213 for the incorpor-ated areas of the Old Lead Belt. Aboutten percent were young children knownto be particularly susceptible to leadhazards. In contrast to most otherSuperfund sites where public concernabout health risks is high, citizensaround Old Lead Belt did not believethat lead in the mining wastes couldpose a health threat. Many of thefamilies worked in the mining industryand grew up playing on the waste piles.

Community involvement was necessaryto educate the public about the healthrisks, the need for cleanup, and to winsupport for the Missouri Department ofHealth’s study of children’s exposure tolead. The study involved samplingchildren’s blood, sampling environ-mental media (such as soil and dust),and questioning residents about theirlifestyles as they relate to leadexposure. The concern about commu-nity education and involvement wasjustified by the results of the studywhich indicated that children living inthe Old Lead Belt area had higher

blood lead levels than those detected inchildren from another part of the state.

Community InvolvementComponents

TrainingTo help communicate the potentialhealth risks, EPA and the MissouriDepartment of Health held a series oftraining sessions for a group called the“Environmental Round Table” on therisk assessment process and the healthrisks associated with lead. This group,which organized themselves to discussenvironmental activities at the site,included representatives from the site’smining industry (those responsible forcleaning up the site), the community,Minerals Area Community College, theEPA, and state and local governmentagencies. The Environmental RoundTable in turn provided consistentcommunication to the public regardinghealth threats and cleanup approaches.EPA and the Missouri Department ofHealth offered additional training for thecommunity as the risk assessmentprogressed.

Availability sessionsThe Environmental Round Tablesponsored availability sessions for thepublic to discuss issues. Publicavailability sessions also were co-sponsored by EPA and the MissouriDepartment of Health on specificissues of community concern.

Community Advisory Group A Community Advisory Group (CAG),representing diverse communityinterests, formed and received an EPATechnical Assistance Grant to facilitatepublic participation and distribution of

17

information. Through the CAG, citizensparticipated in developing cleanupalternatives and in oversight of theresponse action. The CAG discusseddiverse cultural and political issuesrelated to the cleanup. Some of theseissues included the reluctance of manylocal citizens to accept the healthproblems, depressed property values,the stigma of a Superfund site designa-tion, disruption of lifestyles duringresponse actions, and the economicimpacts of construction.

Lessons Learned

The Superfund site team found itnecessary to establish ground rulesearly so that people understood theirroles and acquired realistic expecta-tions of EPA’s role and limitations. EPAalso recognized the need to establishtwo-way communications early in theprocess and distinguish between publicinvolvement and public information dis-semination activities.

Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, Palmerton, PA

Background

The Palmerton Zinc Superfund Siteconsists of a small town in a valleysandwiched between two former zincsmelting plants. From 1898 to 1981zinc smelting and zinc product manu-facturing took place at both the Eastand West Plants which bracketed theBorough of Palmerton, a community of5,000. These operations caused therelease into the environment of hazard-ous metals, especially lead, cadmium,zinc, and arsenic. Since 1981, anelectric arc furnace dust recyclingfacility at the East Plant continued toadd to the areal contamination.

The Palmerton Zinc Pile Site was listedon the NPL in 1983. Additional environ-mental contamination studies wereconducted to characterize the environ-mental contamination and locate itssource. Under a variety of corporatenames, “the Zinc Company” (as manyPalmerton residents still refer to it) builtthe town and employed its residents.As a result, the history of EPA inPalmerton is rife with controversy,particularly because of the relationshipthe industry had to the town. Thecommunity showed significant distrustof government, and many peopleasserted that the contamination in

Palmerton was not associated withindustrial practices, but instead was theresult of other environmental riskfactors such as lead paint, gasoline,and cigarettes. EPA met with consider-able resistance when it recommendedan interim cleanup of lead in homes.

Community InvolvementComponents

Early information disseminationOnce the environmental contaminationstudies were completed, the EPA siteteam provided data to the communityfrom fingerprinting methods thatshowed that the hazardous metalscontamination in the area was froindustrial origins. This occurred duringthe first phase of the risk assessmentfor Palmerton and vicinity.

Early community involvementEPA asked the community for input atthe time the fingerprinting data werereleased and before starting the riskassessment process. The communityresponded within weeks with sugges-tions and supporting data for EPA’sreview.

Community participation in the riskassessment

18

An industry-funded community “clearinghouse” group (Palmerton Environ-mental Task Force) participated in therisk assessment and organized peoplein the community to participate. EPAinvited members of PETF to participateas colleagues in its risk assessmentprocess. PETF established an inter-ested subset of their members, the RiskAssessment Subcommittee, who, withtheir consultants, participated with EPAin the risk assessment. Although EPAperformed the risk assessment accord-ing to EPA guidance, PETF participatedto the fullest extent possible. EPA andPETF met on a rotating basis in theEPA regional office and in Palmertonevery two weeks for almost two years.

Open Communication and ParticipationCommunity members kept minutes ofmeetings and published a newsletter tohelp explain the risk assessmentprocess to others, “demystify” siteactivities, and inform the communityabout the group’s progress.

Technical InputA noteworthy example of how commu-nities can influence the process wasthe agreement PETF won to have“bioavailability studies” performed onlead. The bioavailability studies helpeddetermine how much lead in soil is

actually absorbed into the body froingestion or other pathways ofexposure.

EPA shared drafts of the risk assess-ment with community participants andthe public at large. This yielded twosignificant benefits. First, someadditional considerations wereuncovered resulting in importantrevisions to the risk assessment.Second, the public understood or wereaware of site decisions. Although noteveryone agreed with everything,people did not feel left out of theprocess.

Lessons Learned

The site team discovered that:� Public/stakeholder involvement is

increasing at Superfund sites.� As soon as a community group is

created, it should state its goals,develop a framework, and establishground rules.

� The site team needs to communi-cate with all parties openly, early,and often.

� The site team and the communityneed to be open minded and willingto abandon false preconceptions.

� The site team should establish aschedule for site actions, butconsider trading time for communityacceptance.

� The site team must share owner-ship, responsibility, work, and creditwith the community.

United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency(5201G)Washington, DC 20460

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use$300