Executive Summary

PROJECT BACKGROUND

EPA’s Community Involvement and Outreach Center (CIOC) designed and implemented the Community Involvement Impact Analysis Project (the Project) to comply with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Specifically, the goal is to determine how well the Superfund community involvement program is meeting the Agency’s goals and the communities’ needs. The Project involves the use of written questionnaires, focus groups, and other interview methods to gather feedback from communities affected by Superfund and hazardous waste cleanup sites. Through this study, EPA can establish baselines relative to these measures, set goals for improvement and track that improvement over time.

CIOC conducted a pilot project during 1997 and 1998 to develop and test research instruments and procedures. During this time, CIOC identified five measurable "outcomes" that it considers important results of the outreach effort. These are the Performance Measures that govern Project goals and plans and that CIOC uses to gauge success. Coincident with the Performance Measures and in concert with members of the public and EPA staff, CIOC identified eight activities that EPA must accomplish in order to be considered successful. Phase 2 of the project, which includes the Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards site and 18 others, is intended to refine the protocols as well as the research and reporting instruments.

THE OTIS PROJECT

The Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) is a former active duty Air Force Base that housed much of the east coast’s Strategic Air Command as well as fighter intercept capabilities. When the 21,000 acre base was formally closed as an active duty facility it was turned over to the state, where it became home to a variety of National Guard and Reserve components, as well as several active duty organizations. Much of the contamination is in the form of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which are the result of years of engine and equipment maintenance by the Air Force. These VOCs have found their way into the groundwater and threaten much of the aquifer that supplies drinking water for all of Cape Cod. Other contaminants found at the site include fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents, waste fuels, herbicides, transfer oil, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, ethylene dibromide (EDB), carbon tetrachloride, and dichloroethylene.

The community involvement program for the site is a cooperative effort involving all units on the base as well as EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Because MMR is a federal facility, EPA is not the lead agency for either the cleanup or the community involvement activities. Rather, EPA serves as a consultant and overseer to advise the federal agencies. For this reason, much of this report deals with participant’s perceptions of the base or the various component organizations rather than EPA per se.

During the week of June 21, 1999, five focus group sessions were held in Falmouth, Massachusetts regarding community involvement activities at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) Superfund site. The purpose of the focus groups was twofold: to gather public feedback on the effectiveness of the community involvement effort being conducted at the site and to provide those responsible for the program with specific recommendations for improving it. The facilitators used a combination of open ended discussion questions and an anonymous electronic voting software to gather information on the participants’ perception of:

• The success of the community involvement program;
• The risk the site poses;
• The effectiveness of various outreach tools;
• The job the various agencies are doing to keep the public informed and address the cleanup; and
• How well the agencies involved with the site are involving the public in the decision-making process.

The questions used in the focus groups can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. The actual number of responses for each possible answer to each question appear in Appendix 2.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

A total of 28 individuals participated in the focus groups. Overall, the base as a whole is not seen as readily forthcoming with the information that residents need and want. Furthermore, the Army National Guard is neither trusted nor respected relative to any aspect of the project. The Air Force Committee for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) is seen as having contributed significantly to improvements in communication and outreach coming from the base.

Information and Outreach
It appears that MMR is meeting the information and involvement needs of those participants who have identified themselves as interested in and/or affected by the site. However, it also appears that those residents who have not so identified themselves are not having their needs met. This is not to say that the information is not forthcoming or available. Rather, participants believe that the base simply has not been successful at presenting its information in a manner that will successfully compete with all of the other information vying for the individual’s limited time and resources. According to several participants, residents often feel that those who have identified themselves as interested receive preferential treatment and that they themselves receive the information only after decisions have been made.

In general, participants indicated a sense that the communication and involvement efforts coming from MMR have improved significantly during the last two to three years. However, according to the participants, perception of the overall effectiveness of communication and outreach suffers from the Army’s poor performance, which is seen as offsetting the good work being done by AFCEE and EPA. Participants indicated that they have trouble getting the information they need and want from the appropriate source and trusting that information.

Perception of Risk and Risk Communication
The site is perceived as a somewhat larger threat to the environment than to human health, although the difference is negligible. When asked to rate their level of concern over what is seen as the three primary risks associated with the site, participants are most concerned with possible danger from exposure to groundwater, followed by soils and then munitions.

Risk communication from the base appears to be making a difference in terms of helping residents understand the types of risk they face and how to minimize those risks. The overall perception is that risk communication has improved at MMR, but more work needs to be done to help the average citizen understand the risks. Participants indicated that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding the site and that most of the risk information transmitted to residents is too technical.

Public Input and Involvement
Participants believe that there is ample opportunity for public involvement. However, they noted that not everyone is aware of these opportunities. They believe that information is integral to involvement in that citizens appear to feel more involved if they are well informed.

Citizen Teams
The citizen teams are viable, but need to be restructured and the process action teams continue to be viable.

Participant Recommendations

While the discussion and data led the researcher to the above conclusions, the following recommendations come directly from the participants:

Project Background
This report is part of the ongoing Superfund Community Involvement Impact Analysis Project (the Project). The Project was conceived by the Community Involvement and Outreach Center (CIOC), within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), to assess the impact of the Superfund community involvement program. Its goal is to gauge the success of and, where possible, provide the means to improve EPA’s overall Superfund community involvement program through the use of standardized research instruments and protocols at the local site level. As a starting point, CIOC identified five measurable "outcomes" to be used as Performance Measures. These are:

• Percentage of sites at which community involvement activities exceed the statutory requirements;

• Level of public satisfaction with the information that EPA provides about the site;

• Level of public understanding of environmental and human health risks associated with the site;

• Level of public satisfaction with the opportunities provided by EPA for public input; and

• Level of public satisfaction with EPA’s response to public input.

Because MMR is a federal facility, EPA is not the lead agency for either the cleanup or the community involvement activities. Rather, the community involvement program for the site is a cooperative effort involving all units on the base as well as EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with EPA serving as a consultant and overseer. For this reason, much of this report deals with participant’s perceptions of the base or the various component organizations rather than EPA per se.

The information presented in this report was drawn from feedback obtained in five focus group sessions conducted in Falmouth, Massachusetts during the week of June 21, 1999. The overall purpose of the focus group was to gather feedback on the effectiveness of the Superfund community involvement effort being conducted at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR).

The MMR community involvement team defined six groups of affected stakeholders from which to recruit participants. They identified and invited over 200 potential participants from these groups:

• Process Action Teams/Citizen Teams, which are teams of citizens and local officials who work closely with officials from the base to address specific issues;

• Local business people;

• Local officials;

• Local educators;

• Local residents and neighborhood representatives; and

• Local environmentalists and activists.

Because of the size of the affected community, the size of the site mailing list and the generally high level of interest in this site, the team decided to hold seven separate, homogeneous focus group sessions rather than the three typically held at less complex sites. Although seven sessions were originally scheduled, five are addressed in this report. The first session revealed flaws in both questions and procedures and was considered to be a test and used to make revisions for the remaining sessions. Additionally, one was canceled because of a lack of participation.

Participants were asked two types of questions during the session – voting questions, consisting of multiple choice and scaling questions (i.e., "on a scale of 1 - 5 . . . "), and open-ended discussion questions. The voting questions were used as a catalyst for the discussion questions and also to gather quantitative data to be applied to the interpretation of the discussion. For the voting exercises, participants used a hand-held, wireless keypad to electronically respond to questions that were projected on a screen before the entire group. Votes were recorded by a software program called Sharpe Decisions^TM, which tabulated all votes and provided the data used to create the charts contained throughout this report.

Site Background
The Massachusetts National Guard first used Camp Edwards in 1911 for artillery firing and field training. In the 1940s, the base was heavily used for troop debarkation and training. In the 1950s, the Air Force established the Otis Air Force Base, which housed much of the east coast’s Strategic Air Command, as well as fighter intercept capabilities. When the 21,000 acre base was formally closed as an active duty facility in the 1970s, it was turned over to the State and became the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). It houses units from the Massachusetts Army National Guard, Massachusetts Air National Guard, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. Like many former active duty bases, and unlike current active duty bases, MMR does not have one command, or one commander, responsible for the entire facility. Rather, each organization is responsible for its own areas of operation.

Much of the contamination is in the form of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which are the result of years of engine and equipment maintenance by the Air Force. These VOCs have found their way into the groundwater and threaten much of the aquifer that supplies drinking water for the Upper Cape. Other contaminants found at the site include fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents, waste fuels, herbicides, transfer oil, trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, ethylene dibromide (EDB), carbon tetrachloride, dichloroethylene, RDX, NMX and unexploded ordnance.

The contaminated areas, and the plumes emanating from them, are of concern to residents surrounding the site. The site primarily affects people living in Barnstable County, including the towns of Falmouth, Bourne, Sandwich, and Mashpee.

The site is in various stages of cleanup activities. In 1986, water lines were installed to off-base residents with affected or potentially affected wells. In 1990, contaminated sediment was pumped and removed from the site. Long term monitoring of a landfill began in 1995 when the landfill cap was completed. A removal action, which treated 59,900 tons of contaminated soils, was completed in 1997. Other site work is currently underway and additional plumes of contamination in the groundwater are still being identified.

FINDINGS

Because of the nature of focus groups, the data presented herein are drawn from a relatively small sample and, in and of themselves, may or may not be statistically meaningful. No implication is made, nor should any inference be made, to generalize these findings to any other site. The value of the data lies in the insight they provide into public perceptions of the outreach and involvement program to the people responsible for effecting that program at this site.

Participants
A total of 28 people participated in five sessions. Figure 1 shows the distribution of participants among the various stakeholder groups. A majority of the participants, 86% of the group (24 people) live more than a mile from the site, with 39% of the total group (11) living more than five miles from the site. Young children live in 18% (5) of the participants’ homes and there is at least one person age 65 or older in 36% (10) of the homes.

Performance Measure 1: EPA Level of Effort
This is an internal measure designed to assess the level of effort expended by EPA to reach out to and inform the public. The intent is to determine the nature of that effort and whether it meets or exceeds the requirements of the Superfund law. Based on discussions with the site community involvement team, it appears that the outreach efforts at this site exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. Participants supported this conclusion during the discussion sessions, with several indicating that there is almost too much information available.

Performance Measure 2: Information and Outreach 
This Performance Measure is intended to determine public satisfaction with the Agency’s outreach activities and the information released through the community involvement program. The survey results suggest that EPA should consider an expanded effort to reach a broader segment of the affected public. Although EPA meets the legal requirements in this area, there was some question as to whether enough information is made readily available for people who have neither asked to be on the mailing list nor attended a public meeting.

Two different aspects of outreach were studied:

• MMR’s effectiveness at informing the public as measured by the degree of difficulty participants experience at staying informed; and
• The effectiveness of 11 of EPA’s more popular outreach tools, not as they are used at MMR, but simply how effective participants felt each tool could be at MMR.

Using the electronic voting software, participants were asked to respond to the questions "how easy or difficult it is for you to:

• Stay generally informed about the site;
• Get reliable information from the appropriate source; (Note: after considerable discussion over the word "reliable," it was decided to phrase this as "get the right information from the right source");
• Understand that information; and
• Trust that information.

Typically, this would be cause to doubt the validity of the question. However, discussion revealed that participants experienced considerable difficulty with the directions to generalize for the entire base. Most participants felt that the two dominant organizations, AFCEE and the Army National Guard, should have been voted on separately so that participants could more accurately report their thoughts. Participants indicated that AFCEE generates and distributes large amounts of information that is relatively easy to understand, while the Army National Guard and PAVE PAWS are less than forthcoming. For this reason, many said afterwards that they voted "neither easy nor difficult." To put things in perspective, most commented that, had they been able to vote on each organization, AFCEE would have received high and very high marks while the Army National Guard would have received the lowest possible votes.

Although during the discussion participants did indicate that overall communication and outreach had improved over the past two or three years, it appears that participants do not find it particularly easy to stay informed about the site overall. This is not necessarily due to a lack of information as much as it is to the nature and accessibility of that information. In general, participants seemed in agreement that there is no lack of information, at least not from AFCEE. They also felt that not everyone has a need for all of the available information. The consensus was that the challenge facing the base is determining how much of what information goes to which audience. There was also agreement that it is possible to have too much highly technical or complex information, which participants felt is worse than not having enough. "The complexity scares some people," one person said, "they don’t want to try to understand it; it’s about things they’re not familiar with." Furthermore, several participants commented that "you have to know exactly what information you want and then how to ask for it so that you get what it is that you want."

Participants in all sessions raised the issue that residents have differing levels of knowledge and understanding of the technical material, which further complicates outreach efforts. Participants criticized the practice of sending the same information to everybody, although they do seem to understand that the organizations may feel vulnerable to being accused of deliberately sending different messages. Their point in this discussion, however, seems to be (although no one used these words) that "one size does not fit all." One participant, who is a member of AFCEE’s Public Information Team (PIT), talked from experience about how difficult this is and offered this idea: "Maybe we need to develop more versions of the documents, each written at different levels." She noted that AFCEE makes it a practice to have members of the PIT review all documents before they are released to the public in an effort to make them as understandable as possible.

From the discussion, it appears that MMR is addressing the needs of the citizen teams and those other people who have identified themselves as being interested in and/or affected by the site. However, it also appears that those residents who have not so aligned or identified themselves, but who simply live in the area, may not be receiving the information they need. It must also be said that participants do not necessarily believe that the information is being withheld or that it is not available, only that the base has not been successful at 1) convincing the people that they need the information being offered, and 2) making the information interesting enough to compete with all of the other demands on a person’s time. Whether the perception is well grounded or otherwise, it appears from the discussion that residents feel that some groups receive preferential treatment (i.e., information in advance) while others receive the information only after decisions have been made.

Participants believe that AFCEE made a big difference in terms of overall communication and outreach from the base. That not withstanding, several participants mentioned that, although AFCEE’s information is complete and readily available, it is often not what the affected resident needs or wants, but rather what the Air Force has decided the public needs.

The Army National Guard continued to receive extensive criticism. The Army Guard was described in many ways with many terms, most of them unflattering and most of them attributed to their senior leadership rather than to individuals at the base level. However, they were not portrayed as consciously malicious in their dealings with the public. One person said, "they’re reacting the way they were trained -- to give information on a need-to-know basis, and to answer just the specific question that was asked. Essentially," he said, "the Guard does not appear to believe that citizens have a need to know because the Army is taking care of it." When all of the input is considered, however, it appears that most participants are in agreement that the Guard is trying to improve its communication with the public. One participant said "their outreach has improved upon inquiry," with the added caveat that "they continue to have difficulty voluntarily offering up information." Several others mentioned the new contractor recently hired by the Guard as an indication that they want to improve because they are having a positive effect on the outreach efforts. Be that as it may, there seemed to be an equally strong consensus that the Army is communicating from a bunker mentality.

Participants in several sessions mentioned that officials, regardless of the organization, tend to "cater to the group making the most noise at the moment" at the expense of the others. Concern was expressed that officials seem to release information to the citizen teams before communicating with the community most directly affected.

Outreach Tools
The community involvement team was interested in participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the more common outreach tools used by EPA. Participants were asked to vote on each of 11 tools, indicating how effective they think each tool is as a potential means for delivering information to the general public, not how effectively it is being used at MMR (some tools may not be in use at MMR). Figure 3 shows that 75% (21 people) of participants believe the short (1-2 pages), issue-specific fact sheet is the most effective outreach tool. Seventy-one percent of the participants (20) believe that both the newspaper and community liaison or ombudsman are "effective" or "highly effective." Informal informational sessions such as poster sessions and availabilities, as well as the short, issue-specific public meetings, were considered "effective" or "highly effective" by 68% of the participants (19). The tool considered least "effective," with 17 votes (61%) as "less-than-effective" or "not at all effective," was the infrequent, lengthy, broad-brush fact sheets.

Fig 3:  Outreach Tools Effectiveness

One tool that is not included but which virtually all participants agreed is valuable is a current, easy-to- read map of the area showing the latest information on known plumes. Desired information included present location of the plumes, direction of movement and concentration of contaminants.

Although the Internet received low ratings as possibly effective, it was mentioned several times in more than one session as an alternative that needs to be explored. Cable TV was also mentioned as something that should be used more creatively to communicate with local residents. There was also interest in having a video or computer CD available that could be given or lent to interested people. Another person suggested the importance of combining tools for maximum effectiveness.

There was unanimity in the observation that, for most people, communication must be made to stand out, to capture the attention of the intended reader, to make the person want to read the information. "If I get hit with something through the Internet, or a direct mail piece, or something on cable TV or, better yet, all of the above, something is going to stick. Then I’m going to read it, I’m going to make my husband read it, and have people in the office read it, send it out to my members living in the community." Another person said, "We all operate on a time deficit, we are time starved." Neighborhood representatives stressed that it is not appropriate to assume that, because people do not come out for meetings, they are not interested or do not have a need to know.

The educator noted that lesson plans on such topics as the various contaminants found at the site, groundwater and risk would be very useful in helping the children understand the issues. She also emphasized that children usually take important information like this home and discuss it with their parents, which would also help reinforce the information parents receive through other sources.

Performance Measure 3: Risk Perception and Risk Communication
One very important goal of EPA’s outreach effort is to inform the public of the risks associated with hazardous waste sites in their communities, including how to protect themselves from that risk. This Performance Measure was designed to evaluate whether EPA’s outreach activities are raising the level of public awareness about the risks associated with those sites.

During discussion, it became apparent that risk communication from the base is making an impact at some level. Several participants referred to the concept that "there is no risk if there is no means of exposure." Participants indicated that this message has become a standard part of every communication issued by AFCEE.

It also became apparent, however, that efforts at risk communication are yielding mixed results. In several instances participants used the above message, combined with their interpretation of statements concerning the depth of wells and the plumes, to draw the conclusion that "the plumes are so far below any residential or municipal wells that it is highly unlikely if not impossible for residents to be exposed to the contamination." According to official sources, however, this is an inaccurate assumption because several municipal and residential wells have been contaminated. Furthermore, officials indicated that there are paths of migration by which the subsurface plumes can enter surface water.

While it appears that many residents have a grasp of the fundamentals, it is equally apparent that many others do not. Risk communication coming from the base seems to be effective for the members of the various teams while, on the other hand, ineffective or less-than-effective for the more average person who is less involved. Participants believe this is because most risk communication is done in technical terms that most citizens do not understand, such as "one-in-10-to-the- minus-X power, which nobody understands," or in the "one in a billion" reference, which very few people can visualize. In general, there was agreement throughout all groups that:

• There is a lot of misunderstanding, incorrect perceptions, and fear;
• There is a general lack of factual knowledge about risk; and
• Most of the risk information is too technical and difficult to understand.

The issue of health vs. the environment is at the heart of a very real controversy. Some groups take pride in the success of their push for pristine cleanup standards, which they view as a significant accomplishment. However, some participants indicated that other residents resent the impact that this "accomplishment" is having. It appears that there are residents who include a component to risk that the authorities typically do not – the risk to the community from the cleanup work, such as the placement of extraction wells on private property, the overall impact on the aquifer from uncoordinated pumping and treating, and so forth. One participant stated "they have sacrificed my village." Another stated that some groups pointed to her community as a good place to put 40 or 50 pumping wells. "‘They won’t mind’," she quoted them as saying; "but no one ever came and asked us."

One participant coined the phrase "risk plus," which she defined as risks outside the normal realms considered by the authorities, or "risks outside the box." She and the participants in her group applauded AFCEE for their willingness to think in terms of "risk plus" and encouraged the other organizations to be similarly "courageous."

Two participants got to the heart of the issue of risk communication:

• "You’re addressing people who don’t know anything you’re talking about. You’re just trying to get people to understand that if they dip their toe into the water at the harbor, it’s not going to fall off by midnight. You’ve got to get down to their level; if you’re teaching algebra to 7^th graders you can’t teach them as if you’re a calculus professor. You’ve got to get down to their level; you’ve got to get to the level of the people who are on the receiving end."
• "If you want people to act, then it has to be very clear as to how it affects them now, not in 20 years, not globally, not generically. None of that matters. If it talks about longevity of life, it won’t have any impact but, if it says your real estate value is going to drop 40%, people wake up. If you can say validly that this is going to ruin your drinking water, people will wake up. If it doesn’t touch on issues of that nature, our ability as human beings to overlook it is infinite. It’s got to be real, gut issues and it’s really got to be pointed out that this is how it’s going to work and affect you."

Consistent with all discussion, AFCEE was commended for its efforts while the Army Guard was criticized.

Performance Measure 4: Public Input and Involvement 
This Performance Measure was designed to assess how satisfied members of the public are with EPA’s public participation process. It is concerned with how that process takes place and the opportunities available to the public for giving input to EPA about the cleanup.

Involvement Tools
This voting exercise was similar to that used to determine the effectiveness of various outreach tools. Participants were shown, one at a time, nine tools that are typically used to get people involved in the process. They were asked to indicate how useful they feel each tool could be if used in its most effective way, rather than how useful it currently is (some tools may not be in use). Figure 6 shows that, unlike the outreach tools, there are no useless involvement tools. The figure also reveals that identifying the "most useful" tools is a matter of interpretation, inasmuch as votes at the "very useful" and "useful" ratings were within one or two points for several tools.

Figure 6:  Useful Community Involvement Tools

The insight gained here is that the tools most often used may not be the tools considered by the participants as being most likely to get citizens involved. Although the law requires EPA to provide public meetings to hear oral comments as well as opportunities to submit written comments, these are not seen as the most useful tools for this community. The message from this relatively small group of citizens appears to be that officials need to provide additional opportunities that are more in keeping with contemporary life styles.

These results support comments made throughout the discussion that good information is critical to citizen involvement. Although the concepts of outreach and involvement were treated separately from one another, the results of this focus group indicate that they might be inextricably related. This would support findings from the very limited pilot project study completed in 1998.

Citizens base their perceptions of the organization and the problems, as well as their decision on whether to become involved, on the information they receive. Virtually every participant mentioned that their time is very limited and that they resent "meaningless opportunities." As one participant said, "Get my attention first. Get me to read it, get me to be interested in it, get me to know about it, then I can decide if I want or need to get involved."

Many participants said that it is a mistake to assume that a lack of citizen participation means a lack of interest. Similar to what was said in the section on outreach, one participant said, "What they do not recognize is how we are communicating and how we get that interest. What catches me is quick, fast (snapping fingers) come on, what is it. I flip the TV channel like this (still snapping fingers), what news channel am I going to watch. You talk about PR and being slick, whatever that is, it has to be something that catches. How does it affect me (several people echoed this), my family, my children? For instance, ‘Can I swim in John’s pond?’ or ‘Can I swim in Snake Pond?’ That will get my attention, and make me think about getting involved." The message here is that the typical military style of communicating, although effective within the confines of the military, is not effective for communicating with the public.

Perceptions of Agency Effectiveness
Because there are five military organizations from the base working on the cleanup, as well as the U.S. EPA and the Massachusetts Dept of Environmental Protection, the MMR team was interested in gathering information about how well each is perceived by the public. There was not a specific discussion question to address this; rather, it was interwoven throughout the entire discussion. However, there were three voting questions which corroborate the views expressed throughout every session, much of which was captured in the preceding discussion. What is presented here is a synopsis of the various discussions followed by an analysis of the voting.

In the anonymous voting exercise, participants were asked to use a 5-point scale to rate each agency on:

• Level of confidence in the information received from each agency 
  (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = neutral, 4 = high, and 5 = very high);
• Perception of how good a job each agency was doing at communicating with the public 
  (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = neither good nor bad, 4 = good, and 5 = very good); and
• Perception of how good a job each agency was doing at protecting and restoring the environment 
  (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = neither good nor bad, 4 = good, and 5 = very good).

During the discussion session, it became readily apparent that, while people do not try to break the base into its various components, they are generally aware of the various units and the roles they play. Coast Guard and the 102^nd Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard are seen to be minor players, if at all. They drew little, if any, comment on any subject.

PAVE PAWS, which is the early warning radar site, is perceived as being shrouded in mystery. There does not appear to be much concern over their involvement vis a vis the Superfund issues. However, their overall secretiveness lends them an aura of mystery and, hence, one of poor communication.

EPA and MassDEP appear to be seen as reliable and credible. There were some comments that they function, or are expected to function, as a watch dog to ensure that the military at least meet the requirements of the Superfund law. Some participants questioned several directives that EPA has given the military, but these are technical in nature and beyond the scope of this study. However, it was suggested that "EPA spend more time concentrating on the local residents and not listening to the military or the citizen teams."

The majority of the discussion revolved around the organizations that participants appear to view as the two main players – the Army National Guard and the Air Force as represented by AFCEE. All groups agreed that there is a deep level of mistrust of the Army National Guard and a high level of confidence in AFCEE. Two comments tell the story, from both a communications and a technical perspective: "If AFCEE goes away like they’re saying they will and leave everything to the Army, it’ll be a disaster;" and "Why doesn’t the Army hire AFCEE to do their work for them?"

There were a few common themes regarding the Army National Guard, perhaps best summed up by this comment, which also adds a sense of perspective: "their whole training is to give information only on a need-to-know basis, and to answer only the exact question that is asked. The public is fed only information from the military that the military wants them to have rather than everything they should have." Participants seemed to understand the general concept behind military style communication and acknowledge that it is a legitimate approach under certain circumstances. However, they do not appear willing to accept it as an excuse for not talking openly and honestly with the public in a situation that directly affects the public. There were comments throughout all groups that the Army does not voluntarily give information.

Process Action Teams 
The Process Action Teams are groups of citizens and officials joined to work together on a specific aspect of the larger project. They evolved as a result of the highly complex nature of the MMR site and early complaints from citizens about a lack of available information. They are an item of particular interest to the MMR community involvement team, to the extent that a full discussion block was devoted to them.

Other than the group of neighborhood residents and representatives, most participants were at least aware of these teams. Based on the discussions, it appears that the nature and purpose of these groups have not been well articulated to the community at large. According to the neighborhood and business representatives, the average local resident and the average business person seem to consider these teams as special interest groups rather than as community representatives or as liaisons for channeling information between the public and the base.

Among those able to converse on the subject, there appears to be consensus that the team structure has been effective and that it continues to serve a purpose. There also appears to be consensus that the structure, although still viable, may need "to be shaken up a bit" to keep its vitality. While several ideas were offered relative to the restructuring of the teams, the only one that was mentioned across all groups and which struck a cord of agreement in every session was that all teams need to be professionally facilitated.

The Public Information Team (PIT), operated by AFCEE, received generally favorable comments. Participants seemed to feel that the PIT works hard to try to assure that the right information is getting out to the right audiences. This team is one that appears to have had a less-than-stellar beginning but, through the introduction of a facilitator and the commitment of the AFCEE staff to make it work, is now seen as being effective. That is not to say, however, that there were not intimations that things could be improved, just that this is the best of the group and that no one had any specific suggestions on what improvements might be needed. One person who is a member of the PIT did mention that "we need to recruit new members all the time so that we have fresh ideas."

The Senior Management Board (SMB) was portrayed as a good idea that is weak in implementation. The local officials and the team member groups, in particular, felt that this team was not living up to its potential. Members of the other teams, local officials, business people and local residents aware of the teams, all look to the SMB for leadership and were in agreement that this leadership is not forthcoming. Participants want to see this team become stronger in its coordination of the other teams. They would also like to see this team become more assertive in its representation of community concerns and issues to base officials. One comment from a local official seems representative of feelings expressed: "local selectmen on the team need to be more active and take on more of a leadership role." The local neighborhood group said that the SMB "should be shaken up, reorganized" and that "a substantial number of them fail in their leadership abilities." One suggestion that came from the session of team members and activists was that the SMB should hold an environmental summit once or twice a year to bring all the teams together along with interested citizens to talk about issues, problems, progress, etc. "After all, the teams are advisors to the SMB, so let’s bring them together."

All groups are in agreement that the Impact Area Review Team (IART), which is headed up by EPA, needs to be professionally facilitated. There was strong agreement across the groups that EPA needs to relinquish control of this group and bring in a neutral facilitator. "It’s impossible for EPA to participate in the meetings and also run them effectively." Other than that, there were neither strongly negative nor positive sentiments towards this team.

The Community Assistance Panel (CAP) and the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT) received very negative reviews in several sessions. Some participants related that they have not returned to either group after their first experience and had no intentions of ever returning. Several others expressed concern that both seem to be dominated by certain groups to the exclusion of others. Whether justified or otherwise, there was concern expressed that members of these groups do not necessarily live in the immediately affected area and are attempting to impose what one participant expressed as "their global thinking on a local problem." Concern was also expressed that "decision makers seem to pay more attention to the people who make the most noise than to the average citizen." There is some resentment among the participants over this, and the one common plea is that the officials and decision makers "start listening more to the people whose lives are most immediately affected and leave the global decisions to the policy makers in Washington." However, one person from the local officials group made the following comment that keeps things in perspective: "The JPAT ... has evolved in its effectiveness. The very fact that these people, who care so very passionately about what they see as crimes against the environment at the base, can be on a team and have a chance to talk is very important. They raise very good issues and ask very good questions." Another person from a different session also acknowledged the contributions made by local activists and made the observation that, "in fact, they were the ones who were beating the drums when the rest of us didn’t want to hear about these problems."

Sentiments were equally strong about the CAP. One person from the local officials group made this comment about the CAP: "I feel very strongly that it should be changed dramatically. My suggestion would be to marry it to the four boards of health and I think we’d make some real progress." Following the discussion, the local officials group made a unanimous recommendation that the CAP team be brought under the umbrella of the coalition formed by the four local Boards of Health from the towns most directly affected by the site – Falmouth, Bourne, Mashpee and Sandwich.

The Joint Program Office (JPO) is neither a Process Action Team nor a Citizen Team but an official Department of Defense organization. It was established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Affairs specifically to address the complexities of the MMR site. Judging from the fact that the JPO was mentioned in every group as part of the discussion of the teams, it appears that a majority of the participants do not make the same distinctions as the officials do and consider it to be a team. The general feeling seems to be that the JPO is "under utilized" and, although it has done what was described as a very good job, "it has not managed to cut through the bureaucratic tape as we had hoped." One participant in the business group used the term holistic, and stressed that "the average citizen does not look at the environment, the base, or the government in the fractured way that the problem at the base is being handled." His point was that citizens see the military "but are not aware of the color of the uniform or which pocket the money comes from;" they see the environment but "do not care about the bureaucratic process of who can pay for what out which pot of money." Participants across all groups said that they believed that the JPO was formed to bring those different players together and "level the playing field." They seem to recognize that these distinctions must be made at the operational level, but they strongly believe that those distinctions must be seamless to the public who, they assert, need to see and hear one unified message. When pressed about suggestions from a business perspective, they asserted that there must be agreement at the top that all messages go through one office and that office should have the authority to talk for the base cleanup effort.

Performance Measure 5: EPA Response to Community Input
How EPA uses community input is critical to the success of its community involvement program. Therefore, this Performance Measure was designed to examine community perceptions of how EPA actually uses public input received through the public participation process. It looks at perceptions of how responsive the Agency is to public concerns, and how well EPA explains what went into making its decisions, including how and why public input was or was not used in making its decisions.

Participants were asked to indicate, using their wireless keypads, how good a job they felt MMR, as an entity, was doing at each of eight individual indicators of success. These indicators were identified by citizens participating in focus groups during the 1998 pilot project as well as by EPA community involvement coordinators and remedial project managers:

• Considering citizen input when making decisions;
• Providing information that citizens need and want;
• Providing opportunities for citizens to give input;
• Responding to citizen inquiries, requests and input;
• Understanding citizen concerns;
• Explaining what went into their decisions;
• Explaining the Superfund process and the role of citizens; and
• Having a fair decision making process.

Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the overall base performance on each measure or indicator. On this scale, 5 = Highly successful (A) and 1 = Totally unsuccessful (F). Figure 8 shows that participants believe the base is doing almost "B" level work at providing needed information to the public and responding to citizen inquiries or requests, and almost "C" level work at explaining the background behind decisions that are made, understanding citizen concerns and explaining the role citizens can plan in the Superfund process.

Perceived Community Involvement Success

Summary

Those participants who are or have been actively involved indicated that the base’s efforts are meeting their needs while those who have not been so involved expressed an opposite view. EPA, the MassDEP and the Air Force as represented by AFCEE, are seen as being effective at working with the public; the Army National Guard is seen as being ineffective, even obstructionist in its work with the public; and the other base agencies are, for the most part, seen as non-players in the Superfund project. In general, participants do not consider the base as being openly communicative with them and, perhaps, even less than that with the average citizen who does not participate in the various teams. The perception is that, although there is an abundance of information, participants find it unduly difficult to stay informed, to get the information they need and want and to trust that information once they do receive it. Participants who are active on the various teams find the information relatively easy to understand. However, they also agree that most communication from the base is too technical for the average person. This has resulted in a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding that still surrounds the various issues of the site and Superfund.

Participant Recommendations
The strongest recommendation to come from the participants is to communicate openly, clearly, and in a way that convinces the recipient that the message is important. The message must be presented in a way that competes successfully with the myriad other messages demanding the recipient’s attention. Others are:

• Risk communication needs to be in plain English, presented in terms of "here’s how it affects you now," and communicated first to the people most at risk or most likely to be affected;
• Current maps of the plumes should be available on a continual basis, especially at the library, chambers of commerce and real estate offices;
• A variety of outreach products should be developed to deliver the same message in different ways to targeted audiences;
• An effort should be made to communicate new information with the immediately affected neighborhoods at the same time that it is communicated with the process action teams and citizen teams, and before it reaches the media;
• Professional facilitators should be brought in for all citizen teams not currently facilitated;
• The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) should be brought under the umbrella of the four local Boards of Health already working on site specific issues (Falmouth, Bourne, Mashpee and Sandwich);
• The Senior Management Board (SMB) should consider holding a bi-annual summit meeting, including its various advisory boards as well as local residents, to provide a forum for open discussion and debate;
• The Joint Program Office (JPO) should be empowered to "speak with one voice for the base,"
• Issue information in "clear English that is easy to read, concise and to the point;"
• Release information to the most directly affected residents at the same time that it is released to the teams;
• Explore using the Internet;
• Explore producing programs for local cable TV access channels, but be sure to advertise them;
• Explore producing a video and/or computer CD;
• Help develop a block of instruction about the environment and hazardous wastes as related to this site; and
• Use communication tools that the citizens use and feel comfortable with.

1. Vote (MC-1) Where do you live relative to the site?

1. On site 
2. Adjacent to site 
3. Within 2 blocks 
4. Within half-a-mile 
5. Within 1 mile
6. Within 5 miles
7. More than 5 miles
8. Don’t know

2. Vote (MC-2) Where do you work relative to the site?

1. On site 
2. Adjacent to site 
3. Within 2 blocks 
4. Within half-a-mile 
5. Within 1 mile
6. Within 5 miles
7. More than 5 miles
8. Don’t know

3. Vote (MC-3) Are you participating in this session as

1. On site 
2. Adjacent to site 
3. Within 2 blocks 
4. Within half-a-mile 
5. Within 1 mile
6. Within 5 miles
7. More than 5 miles
8. Don’t know

4. A local official

4. Vote (MC-4) Is there anyone age 12 or younger living in your home?

1. Yes 
2. No

5. Vote (MC-5) Is there anyone age 65 or older living in your home?

1. Yes 
2. No

6. Discussion: Let’s take a minute to get to know each other. Let’s go around the room, and this is the only time we’ll do it this way, and please give us your first name and tell us a little bit about yourself and the site – how long you’ve known about it, how you came to be involved with it, how it affects you, etc.

7. Vote (MC-6) How dangerous do you think this site is to human health?

1. Very dangerous 
2. Dangerous 
3. Relatively safe
4. Completely safe

8. Vote (MC-7) How dangerous do you think this site is to the environment?

1. Very dangerous 
2. Dangerous 
3. Relatively safe
4. Completely safe

9. Vote (MC-8) We’re curious as to what concerns you the most at the site? How concerned are you over the risks associated with Soil contamination?

1. Not at all concerned 
2. Not too concerned 
3. Concerned
4 Very concerned

10. Vote (MC-9) How concerned are you over the risks associated with Groundwater contamination?

1. Not at all concerned 
2. Not too concerned 
3. Concerned
4 Very concerned

11. Vote (MC-10) How concerned are you over the risks associated with Munitions?

1. Not at all concerned 
2. Not too concerned 
3. Concerned
4 Very concerned

12. Discussion: What has been done at MMR to help you and other residents understand the risks associated with the site? Have they communicated effectively about these risks? What can be done differently?

13. Intro: The MMR is like a large industrial park, made up of several separate organizations: the Massachusetts Army National Guard, the 102^nd Fighter Wing, AFCEE, Coast Guard, and PAVE PAWS. In addition, the U.S. EPA and the MassDEP also get involved at various levels. The next few questions deal with your interaction with and perception of these various organizations,

13 a - u. Vote (SV)
On a scale of 1-5, What is your level of confidence in the information you receive from ...
On a scale of 1-5, how good a job do you believe ... is doing at communicating with the public?
On a scale of 1-5, how good a job do you believe ... is doing to protect and restore the environment at MMR?

Intro: We’re going to look at 4 communications activities, one at a time, and we’d like you to rate how easy or difficult each is for you in your present capacity relative to the site.

14. Vote (MC-11) How easy or difficult is it for you to stay generally informed about the site?

1. Very difficult 
2. Difficult 
3. Neither easy nor difficult
4. Easy
5. Very easy

15. Vote (MC-12) How easy or difficult is it for you to get reliable information from the appropriate agency?

1. Very difficult 
2. Difficult 
3. Neither easy nor difficult
4. Easy
5. Very easy

16. Vote (MC-13) How easy or difficult is it for you to understand that information?

1. Very difficult 
2. Difficult 
3. Neither easy nor difficult
4. Easy
5. Very easy

17. Vote (MC-14) How easy or difficult is it for you to trust that information?

1. Very difficult 
2. Difficult 
3. Neither easy nor difficult
4. Easy
5. Very easy

18. Discussion: For a variety of reasons a communications and involvement structure has evolved that has created several issue-specific teams of citizens. For your convenience, we’ve listed them here on the flip chart, and I won’t pretend to know what these mean: CAP, IA/GW, AFCEE/IRP, PIT, SWSGP, JPAT, and SMB. How familiar are you with these various teams? How effective do you think they are now? Do they continue to serve a viable function? Are they organized in a manner which addresses the public’s, as well as your own, current informational needs? Is it time to reorganize these teams in some way?

[Start here]

19. Vote (SV) These organizations use a wide variety of tools to get information out to residents. We’d like you to look at them, one at a time and from two different perspectives. To what degree do you think each is an effective tool for communicating with you?

Mail, frequent, brief, issue specific (neighborhood fliers)
Mail, infrequent, lengthy, general
Newspaper articles
Radio or TV news
A community liaison or ombudsman
The Internet
Public meetings, frequent, issue specific
Public meetings, infrequent, general informational
Poster sessions, availabilities, back porch conversations with appropriate officials
Toll free telephone information line
A local community group

20. Discussion: Let’s talk more generally now. Overall, how effective is the communication coming from MMR? How good are they at communicating with you? Do you get more or better information from one organization than another?

Are they providing the right information?
Is it what residents want?
Is it what they need to become involved?
Is it adequate to enable them to become involved?
What information do residents want ?
Is there enough information?
Are they using the right tools?
What problems do you see with the information program?

Intro: Now let’s look at involvement. There are a variety of ways to make it possible for citizens to become involved in the Superfund process, and we’d like to know how useful you think each one is.

1 = useless, 2 = not very useful, 3 = useful, 4 = very useful

21. Vote (MC-15) How useful is providing opportunities to give written comments?

22. Vote (MC-16) How useful is holding public meetings to hear oral comments?

23. Vote (MC-17) How useful is accepting comments by e-mail?

24. Vote (MC-18) How useful is holding informal discussion sessions (poster sessions, availabilities, back porch)?

25. Vote (MC-19) How useful is providing a telephone hot line to call with comments?

26. Vote (MC-20) How useful is forming a community group to present citizen input?

27. Vote (MC-21) How useful is providing opportunities for citizens to talk with an independent expert?

28. Vote (MC-22) How useful is providing opportunities for site visits?

29. Vote (MC-23) How useful is holding general informational meetings?

Intro: We did a series of focus groups last year with citizens and EPA staff to see if we could identify how they judge whether the community involvement effort is successful. They came up with 8 factors that they called indicators of success, and we’d like you to rate how good a job you think MMR, overall, is doing at each.

1 = very bad, 2 = bad., 3 = neither good nor bad, 4 = good, and 5 = very good

30. Vote (MC-24) How good a job is MMR doing at considering citizen input when making decisions?

31. Vote (MC-25) How good a job is MMR doing at providing information that citizens need and want?

32. Vote (MC-26) How good a job is MMR doing at providing opportunities for citizens to give input?

33. Vote (MC-27) How good a job is MMR doing at responding to citizen inquiries, requests and input?

34. Vote (MC-28) How good a job is MMR doing at understanding citizen concerns?

35. Vote (MC-29) How good a job is MMR doing at explaining what went into their decisions?

36. Vote (MC-30) How good a job is MMR doing at explaining the Superfund process and the role of citizens?

37. Vote (MC-31) How good a job is MMR doing at having a fair decision making process?

38. Discussion: Overall, how do you feel about the community involvement initiatives and efforts at MMR? Do you think citizen input means anything? Are there real and meaningful opportunities for citizens to get involved?

39. Vote (MC-32) And now for the bottom line: how satisfied are you with the overall community involvement program at MMR?

1 = extremely dissatisfied 
2 = dissatisfied 
3 = satisfied
4 = extremely satisfied

40. Vote (MC-33) And how confident are you that the work being done will make the public safe?

1 = extremely dissatisfied 
2 = dissatisfied 
3 = satisfied
4 = extremely satisfied