This document discusses communication strategies at Superfund sites. It provides examples of communication at three Superfund sites: the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Tennessee, Love Canal in New York, and the North Carolina State University site. At Paducah, the Citizens Advisory Board failed to adequately represent the community. At Love Canal, the EPA worked closely with the public and provided forums to communicate findings. At NC State, researchers analyzed whether managers communicated effectively with the public about cleanup efforts and hazards.

1. Kamal, Foulke, & Roberson
Dr. Kittle Autry
COM 436
November 29th, 2014
North Carolina State University (Lot 86 Farm Unit #1)
Communicating about Superfund Sites
Intro
A Superfund is an environmental program that attempts to eliminate hazardous waste on
sites (U.S. EPA, 2013). The Environmental Protection Agency cleans up sites that have been
identified as having hazardous waste, which creates unsafe and unclean conditions. The EPA
can compel responsible parties to perform clean­up, or they will take on responsibility
themselves and bill the guilty party (U.S. EPA 2013).
In order to be identified as a Superfund site, evidence must exist that toxic waste and
chemicals have been released into the environment (U.S HHS, 2014). Preliminary site
inspections assess the current state of the site in order to determine level of hazards. A scoring
method is used to determine the overall state of the site, including its toxicity level and potential
impact on the public (U.S. HHS, 2014). Superfunds will organize clean­up by identifying most
hazardous areas and methods to be used to ensure cleaning. They perform continual assessments
over time, taking soil and water samples to determine if hazardous waste still exist. If waste is
eliminated, superfunds will deem the site safe and being to rebuild the area. Many parks and
green spaces have been created due to the success of Superfund site. In Antioch, Illinois, a
Superfund site was transformed into recreational area, including a sports complex for the
community and acres of wetland used for environmental study by local schools (U.S. EPA,
2013).

2. A Superfund site exists at North Carolina State University. From 1969 to 1980, NC
State buried laboratory waste in ten foot trenches across 1.5 acres near Carter Finley Stadium
(Sherman, 2012). In 1986, the site appeared on the “National Priority List”. NC State agreed to
the EPA requirements and completed most of the clean­up by 1996. Today, North Carolina State
University continues to clean the groundwater but all most waste has been eliminated (Sherman,
2012).
Superfund sites are created to eliminate environmental risks on the public. Over 150,000
people live within 4.5 miles of the site at North Carolina State University, posing problems such
as contaminated drinking water or toxic soil (Sherman, 2012). Superfund sites can play an
important role in the quality of life of residential, commercial, and industrial life. Too often do
Superfund sites fail to communicate efficiently, misrepresent the community ideals, or do not
address concerns of the public. During its existence, the Superfund site at North Carolina State
University communicated openly to the public and informed the community about the cleanup
process, potential hazards, and future plans. Therefore, direct and open communication between
the superfund and the public is essential for environmental success. We believe that North
Carolina State University efficiently communicated their efforts, progress, and plans for the
Superfund site in a reasonable, informed, and productive manner.
Method
To support our claim, we conducted online researched related to Superfund sites. After
researching facts, hazards, and benefits of Superfund sites, we then studied the NC State
University superfund site to determine if the site information was accurately communicated with

3. the public. We compared information from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Five
Year Assessment to multiple online sources to determine the accuracy of the communication
from the NC State Superfund site. We analyzed the research to identify if proper communication
occurred during the existence of the NC State Superfund site.
Results
Typical communication for superfund sites
The NC State Superfund Site is one among several hundred inside the US. These sites are
spread all over the country, and vary in their size and severity. The EPA and a few other groups
keep a close eye on these Superfund projects, which allows the public to monitor each
contaminated site via their services. Each site is managed somewhat differently based on the
parties involved, but all have to adhere to certain EPA regulations. This allows for there to be
variation in how each site project communicates to the public. In this section a few different
sites’ communication will be explained and analyzed in order to understand what level of
communication is expected from Superfund Sites. Their communication adequacy will also be
weighed in light of certain EPA regulations and the public’s legal rights. Early on in the
regulation of these sites, legislation was passed such as the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986. SARA contained the Emergency Planning and
Community Right­to­Know Act of 1986 [EPCRA] (Hoover, 2013, p.42). This piece of
legislation helped to "set the foundation for the concepts of community right to know and risk
democracy" (Hoover, 2013, p. 7). This legislation was passed with the intent of making the
communities directly affected by the contamination partners in the management of the site

4. (Hoover, 2013, p.43). Other legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) require government agencies to have public
hearings (Hoover, 2013, p.43); however; these expectations fall short in some cases. EPA
initiatives such as the Superfund Reuse Initiative [SRI] seek to educate and partner with
communities very closely to arrive at long­term solutions and uses for each Superfund Site (U.S.
EPA, Superfund Reuse, 2013, p.15).
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is located in Western Tennessee. PGDP’s footprint
covers 740 acres, and is surrounded by a fence. The fenced area is then surrounded by a “buffer
zone” of 640 acres, which is surrounded by a 2100­acre wildlife management area that U.S. DOE
leases to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Management (U.S.
EPA, 2011). The plant is also close to a large residential area that is dependent on groundwater
wells. There were about 1400 residents getting their water from wells within a 4 mile radius of
PGDP (U.S. EPA, 2011). The leadership on this cleanup effort composed a Citizens Advisory
Board to help open up communication and involvement between experts and the residents. This
would seem like compliance to protocol, and a great effort to communicate with the public. The
CAB is supposed to reflect the diversity of the residents affected, but this one failed to do so. The
board consisted of 50% bachelor degrees and 50% graduate degrees, but the community they
were representing had less than 20% with bachelor degrees (Hoover, 2013, p.47). This is a big
failure in the area of leadership to establish good communication with the public, and led to
animosity on behalf of the residents. The efforts for this site were meeting their EPA
requirements by engaging the public, completing EPA reports, and creating impact surveys;

5. however; it fell short in giving equal voice and information to all residents, thus violating their
rights to know, comment, and standing.
Love Canal
According to the EPA (2012), the Love Canal of Niagara Falls N.Y. was originally meant
to be a housing development, but it fell through and became a dumping site for Hooker Chemical
Co. Several years later the canal was filled up with soil, and sold to the Niagara Falls Board of
Education (NFBE) for development. After the purchase, the area surrounding the canal was
extensively developed, and included many residences and an elementary school. This superfund
site consists of the original 16­acre hazardous waste landfill and a 40­acre cap. The development
of this site pre­dated the superfund program, and was not investigated until the early 1980’s
when the community began to complain about smells, birth defects, and burns and sickness from
coming in contact with chemical seepage (Cox, 2013, p.27). In 1982, the residents persuaded the
federal government to investigate their situation, and also to relocate those who wanted to leave
Love Canal. Hooker Chemical Company was fined for their dumping, and forced to help finance
much of the cleanup effort (Townsend, 2001, p.3). Once the EPA adopted the Love Canal, an
eleven­member Love Canal Land Use Advisory Panel was constructed to give public forums in
order to communicate their scientific findings to the public, and also large community
organizations, such as religious groups, became involved in the process (Townsend, 2001, p.12).
Once this site was placed on the superfund list the public was worked with very closely, and any
financial hardships were compensated. After the initial struggle to get the federal agencies to
adopt the Love Canal, communication between experts, the EPA, and the affected public became
successful and thorough.

6. North Carolina State University (Lot 86 Farm Unit #1)
Communicating to the public about a hazardous waste site is a tricky conversation. There
are many people involved in the communication process, as well as specific information that
needs to be available to the public. In this instance, the safety of students, community members
and the environment were at play. What we tried to unearth, as researchers, was to determine did
the managers of this superfund site address the needs of the public in a reasonable and practical
way and communicate to the public the correct information to create an informed and involved
society. There are many ways that this hazardous waste site was communicated to the public.
The use of old and new media was executed to extend that information to the public, including
press releases, local public hearings and interviews (all which are available for public reading at
the Cameron Village Regional Library). Further more, they used photography to document
progress and give visual representations of the success of the cleanup process, allowing a more
thorough understanding of the situation to nonscientists.
Press Release
The press release was the first form of media used to communicate the hazardous waste
cleanup. Within the press release, the writer utilized different pieces of information to allow the
public to exercise their three main rights; the right to know, the right to comment and the right to
stand (Cox, 2013). “The purpose of the Five­Year Review is to make sure the selected cleanup
actions effectively protect human health and the environment” (U.S. EPA, 2013) Not only did
this press release state the purpose, but included the site background information, cleanup
actions, Five­Year Review schedule and contact information of the main person on the job. In
releasing this information the public, it gave way to the liberty of the public’s right to know. “As

7. part of the Five­Year Review process, EPA staff is available to answer questions about the Site”
(U.S. EPA, 2013). By providing the contact information of both EPA remedial project manager
and EPA Community Involvement coordinator, it allowed the public their right to comment.
Finally the public’s right to stand stems from the contact information as well. If they public felt
that the information provided was not sufficient or did not meet their needs, they could petition
or protest the superfund. The press release alone confirms the EPA’s efficiency in conducting
the cleanup process and communicating about the North Carolina State University Superfund
site. Unfortunately, the people mentioned in the press release were not contacted at the time
about the Superfund site.
Interviews
Following the press release, the EPA conducted interviews from persona with managerial
positions involved in the clean up and from people who were affected by the hazardous waste.
The interviews combined a use of digital (new) and old media to convey the information. By
using voice recorders and analyzing their responses, EPA persona were able to develop a better
understanding of the site’s impression in the the EPA’s and public eye, complaints, concerns and
suggestions regarding the cleanup (U.S. EPA, 2013). Four participants were interviewed and all
of them answered positively to the overall impression of the site and cleanup process (Hill,
2013). The question “What is your overall impression of the remedial activities at the site” plays
into the pragmatic aspect of environmental communication, educating and persuading the public.
This question is the primary goal of the interviews, to determine how the process is being
perceived (U.S EPA, 2013). The question also merits all positive responses from all interviewees
and helps to push viewers to see a positive remedial situation. The interview also address any

8. public concerns by directly inviting the interviewees to mention is complaints had been issued
from the public about environmental concerns or societal concerns. Again, all participants
answered positively in saying no concerns came up from the public about the environment or
surrounding communities. Although the interviews explained the success of the cleanup and
addresses that there are no concerns, it fails to underline the environmental aspects. By not
asking direct questions about cleaning up the environment, it does meet the requirements to be an
adequate form of media about environmental communication.
Five Year Review
Finally, the last form of media used to communicate about the North Carolina State
University Superfund site is the Five­Year Review, created by the EPA to take a closer look at
the remedial process. In examining the FYR, we found that is does meet the environmental
communication framework of the public’s rights, the pragmatic and constitutive aspect of
environmental communication, as well as disclose information to the public in ways that do not
eliminate certain demographics and psychographics. Rather, it allows readers to gain a full
understanding of the superfund site. “The EPA states online that 150,000 people live within 4.5
miles of the site. Although some residents use private wells rather than city water, a 1996 study
found the well water was uncontaminated” (Sherman, 2012). This following quote explains one
of the main purposes of the FYR, to determine if the sight was indeed uncontaminated.
Furthermore, to also give those answers to the public.
First, the FYR address the public’s rights. By making a pdf file of the FYR and providing
it online, it showed that the EPA understood and was abiding by the law. “In 1996, the Congress
amended FOIA by passing the Electronic Freedom of Information Amendments. The

9. amendments requires agencies to provide public access to information online” (Cox 2013). In
doing so, the EPA is being transparent and allowing the public their right to know. Secondly,
they allow the public to comment and stand by distributing contact information. The FYR does
not specifically identify public hearings, but does address the fact the the public was allowed that
opportunity. In this research, we found that public hearings would not be beneficial, because
much of the land affected had no significant effect on surrounding communities (U.S. EPA,
2013). Although there was no significant effect, they still were given the opportunity and as
stated previously no one took up that opportunity.
Digital media through the use of photography was another avenue used in the FYR. At
the end of the review, the EPA provides visuals and captions to show readers that technology
used to contain the contaminated area is working properly. The picture below shows a well with
a caption “Locked well” to underline that the property is well evaluated and up to code. This
helps the less scientific sector to understand the activity at the site.
Finally, we found that the EPA’s use of graphs in the FYR provide another visual
learning experience for viewers. It provides them with a clear and concise understanding of
chemicals located at the site and their increase or decrease of presence in samplings from the

10. sight. As the image below shows that ​methylene chloride, a carcinogen, increased from 2008 to
2009, then dropped significantly from 2009­2010 and has stayed that way to the end of the
review (U.S. EPA, 2013; ATSDR, 2000).
By providing readers with these charts, they are better able to understand the success of the
remedial project at the superfund site. However, the downfall to these charts is that they do no
provide background information about the chemicals listed. Only readers with a specific
chemical background would be able to understand the lasting effects of these chemicals on the
human body. After researching and gaining an understanding of the chemical mentioned in the
FYR, we feel that they failed to inform the public about the nature of the chemicals and it was a
violation of their right to know. However, the FYR did not have the sole purpose to inform the
public about chemicals, rather inform the public about the remediation process and how the
environment was cleanup. This Five­Year Review does exactly that.
Conclusion
“The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the environment because

11. contaminated soils were remediated through stabilization/solidification, ground water
contamination has been contained through extraction, treatment and discharge to the City sewer,
and institutional controls are in place restricting access to contaminated groundwater and soils”
(Hill, 2013). This statement was issued in the Five­Year Review of the North Carolina State
University Superfund site and underlines that the site is no longer a threat to the community and
environment. While the site may be free of its harmful contaminants, as environmental
communication researchers, we needed to determine if they adequately communicated to the
public the issue affecting the area. After analyzing multiple Environmental Protection Agency
sources and new reports, including a press release, charts and photographs, we determined that
the North Carolina State University Superfund site was communicated to the public efficiently.
Through different frameworks, three public rights and pragmatic and constitutive means, we
found that they covered all the basic regulations stated by the government, and were able to
adequately inform the public of the issue. The EPA specifically created charts and graphs that
helped a less scientific audience understand the issue, while providing contact information for
them if any questions persisted. Comparing the North Carolina State University site to other
major Superfund sites shows that their forms of communication were consistent and worked
efficiently as well. While there was not a major community hazard with the University’s site, it
shows they did in fact attempt to use every form of media to alert the public and created an
informed society, equivalent to Superfund sites that had a major effect on communities and
gathered a lot of community involvement.

12. Works Cited
Cox, R. (2013). Chapter 1 study and practice of environmental communication. In
Environmental communication and the public sphere​ (pp. 9­32). London: Sage Publications.
Hoover, A. G. (2013). Communication at superfund sites and the reification of division: Toward
a convergence­building model of risk communication. ​Theses and
Dissertations­­Communication​, 1­204. Retrieved from
http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=comm_etds
Sherman, F. (2012). ​A Review of Raleigh’s Superfund Sites. ​Retrieved from
http://raleighpublicrecord.org/news/2012/02/24/a­review­of­raleighs­superfund­sites
Townsend. (2001). Case study one love canal superfund site, niagara falls, new york. Society
for Applied Anthropology, 1­31. Retrieved from
http://www.sfaa.net/files/8913/7329/3950/niagra.pdf
US EPA. (2012). Love canal. Retrieved from U.S Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/lovecanal/
US EPA. (2013). Superfund reuse: Bringing new opportunities to communities. In Epa superfund
redevelopment initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sribrochure2013.pdf
U S EPA (2011). Superfund: Cleanup Process. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/index.htm​.
US EPA (2014). Superfund: Basic Information. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm​.
US EPA (2014). Superfund Redevelopment. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.html
US HHS (2014). What Happens During the Cleanup of a Superfund Site? Retrieved from
http://toxmap.nlm.nih.gov/toxmap/faq/2009/08/what­happens­during­the­clean­up­of­a­superfun
d­site.html