MEETING
SUMMARY
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
January
7
 
8,
2003
Hyatt
Regency
Washington
on
Capitol
Hill
400
New
Jersey
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.

 
Prepared
by
Meridian
Institute
April
2003
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
Meeting
January
7
 
8,
2003
Washington,
D.
C.

The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
third
meeting
January
7
 
8,
2003
in
Washington
D.
C.
This
document
summarizes
discussion
topics
and
key
decisions
made
during
the
meeting.
The
meeting
was
open
to
the
public
and
audio
recorded.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
were
present
as
observers.
The
Subcommittee's
agenda
designated
several
opportunities
for
public
comment
as
summarized
in
the
appropriate
sections
of
this
document.
A
written
transcript
was
prepared
and
is
available
through
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
Docket
#
SFUND­
2002­
0005.
Angelo
Carasea,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer
(
DFO),
is
the
primary
point
of
contact
for
all
public
and
press
inquiries.

Monday,
January
7,
2003,
8:
30
a.
m.
 
5:
30
p.
m.

Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
presented
welcoming
remarks.
He
introduced
Lois
Gartner,
the
DFO
for
the
Subcommittee
and
John
Ehrmann,
the
lead
facilitator
for
the
group,
from
Meridian
Institute.
Dr.
Loehr
summarized
the
Subcommittee's
charge,
its
activity
since
the
September
meeting
and
the
goals
for
the
third
meeting.
The
objectives
of
January
7­
8,
2003
meeting
were
to:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
each
of
the
three
Work
Groups
to
report
on
the
status
of
their
deliberations
and
engage
in
discussions
with
the
diverse
perspectives
on
the
Subcommittee
regarding
the
direction
of
assumptions,
policy
options
and
information
gathering.
 
Provide
educational
information
on
Tribal
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
a
briefing
from
and
opportunity
for
discussion
with
the
EPA
Administrator.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
Work
Groups
to
meet
face­
to­
face.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
schedule
and
determine
a
path
forward;
and
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.

The
Introductory
Statement
was
available
as
a
handout
and
is
included
in
Attachment
A.
Dr.
Loehr
asked
each
Subcommittee
Member
to
briefly
introduce
him
or
herself.
Barry
Breen,
OSWER's
new
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator
and
NACEPT's
newest
member
of
the
Subcommittee
provided
additional
background.
His
bio
is
available
on
the
Subcommittee
Website.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
2
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Future
Meeting
Locations
The
chairman
summarized
the
status
of
the
decision
regarding
future
meeting
locations
and
options
for
consideration
by
the
Subcommittee.
The
March
and
June
meetings
were
being
considered
for
locations
outside
of
the
D.
C.
area.
The
options
suggested
by
members
had
been
narrowed
down
to
the
following
5
cities:
Albuquerque,
New
Bedford,
Phoenix,
Salt
Lake
City,
and
Seattle.
A
questionnaire
was
circulated
to
the
Subcommittee
members
asking
for
their
preferences.
The
chair
explained
that
the
assumption
was
that
the
remainder
of
the
meetings
would
likely
be
held
in
the
D.
C.
area.
A
final
decision
was
expected
by
the
end
of
the
meeting.

Update
from
the
NACEPT
Council
Wilma
Subra,
Executive
NACEPT
Council
Vice­
Chair
provided
an
update
on
the
discussions
of
the
Executive
NACEPT
Council
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee.
The
Council
met
most
recently
in
Washington
D.
C.
on
December
10th
and
11th
.
At
that
meeting
Wilma
provided
an
update
on
the
Superfund
Subcommittee's
progress.
Issues
and
concerns
raised
by
the
Council
members
included
the
following:

 
Assuming
the
current
level
of
funding
may
limit
the
Subcommittee's
ability
to
come
up
with
solutions
that
really
work.
 
Mega
sites
have
the
potential
to
use
up
all
the
money,
leaving
none
for
smaller
sites
which
are
still
impacting
human
health.
 
When
we
have
a
list
of
states
that
lack
the
resources
to
provide
their
10%
match
or
the
long­
term
O&
M,
it
should
be
passed
on
to
the
Council
so
that
they
have
a
better
idea
of
which
states
are
having
problems.
 
Bob
Olson,
Institute
for
Alternative
Futures
worked
on
an
emerging
trends
report
for
the
NACEPT
Council.
It
(
will)
include
key
drivers
that
affect
the
Superfund
Program
over
the
next
25
years.
Lois
will
provide
copies
for
everyone.
 
The
NACEPT
Council
is
totally
in
support
of
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
 
The
next
Council
meeting
is
scheduled
for
March
25th
and
26th
.

Opening
Remarks
Dr.
Loehr
introduced
Marianne
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER).
Ms.
Horinko
provided
a
brief
welcome
to
the
Subcommittee
members
and
Tribal
Representatives.
She
explained
that
the
Agency
is
undertaking
interim
measures
within
the
program
to
address
some
of
the
key
issues
with
which
the
Subcommittee
is
grappling.
Those
internal
efforts
are
intended
only
as
interim
measures
until
the
Subcommittee
renders
recommendations
late
next
year
and
the
Agency
has
the
opportunity
to
consider
them.
Ms.
Horinko
introduced
Christie
Whitman,
EPA
Administrator.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
3
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Administrator
Whitman
thanked
the
Subcommittee
for
their
efforts
to
date.
She
emphasized
the
importance
of
the
elements
of
their
Charge
and
the
importance
of
a
strong
Superfund
Program.
She
felt
the
importance
of
the
Subcommittee's
work
included
the
following:

 
Crafting
the
future
direction
our
country
should
adopt
with
regard
to
addressing
hazardous
waste
sites
 
in
particular
helping
the
Agency
determine
how
to
set
priorities
based
on
human
health
and
the
environment
in
a
time
of
constrained
resources
­
will
be
invaluable
to
EPA
as
we
move
forward.
 
Helping
the
Agency
to
keep
better
track
of
the
progress
we
are
making
through
consideration
of
our
performance
measures
is
another
very
important
aspect
of
ensuring
and
maximizing
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
 
Considering
the
Charge
in
the
context
of
other
cleanup
programs
is
especially
valuable
because
such
consideration
makes
for
a
much
more
relevant
discussion.

General
Discussion
with
the
Subcommittee:
Following
the
presentation,
there
was
an
open
discussion
between
the
Administrator
and
the
Subcommittee.
The
discussion
included
the
following
points.

 
The
Agency
recognizes
the
unique
government­
to­
government
relationship
between
Tribes
and
the
Agency
as
Tribes
are
working
to
strengthen
their
role
within
the
Superfund
process
and
the
future
authority
of
tribes.
 
The
Agency
will
continue
to
attempt
to
bring
the
right
information
into
the
Subcommittee's
discussions.
If
the
Subcommittee
is
not
getting
the
right
information,
Christie
and
Marianne
would
like
to
know.
 
Many
of
the
communities
need
more
voice
for
their
concerns.
They
are
afraid
that
Superfund
will
cease
to
exist
and
whatever
ends
up
in
its
place
will
not
be
adequate.
 
The
Program
is
not
weakening
but
it
is
not
likely
to
grow
much
from
a
budgetary
level.
The
funding
is
level.
The
expectations
of
communities
are
not
always
realistic.
 
The
need
for
measures
and
efficiency
has
been
stressed.
Don't
we
need
to
be
able
to
assess
the
bang
for
the
buck?
We
may
need
to
constantly
assess
how
the
cleanup
program
is
doing.
We
need
to
constantly
check
ourselves
to
make
sure
we
are
doing
the
job
right.
 
Do
you
see
any
statutory
changes
in
the
future
to
address
issues
such
as
public
participation?
EPA
has
no
plans
to
consider
legislative
changes
at
this
point.
 
Could
there
be
a
focus
on
tribal
and
subsistence
living
and
could
we
focus
on
"
green
fields"
to
preserve
pristine
environments?
EPA
recognizes
the
impacts
on
subsistence
living
communities
and
is
willing
to
consider
any
recommendations
that
come
out
of
this
committee.
 
It
would
be
helpful
to
get
information
from
this
group
regarding
how
to
prevent
sites
from
becoming
problems
in
the
future
 
Cost
effectiveness
versus
cost
benefit
analysis:
The
cost
benefit
analysis
is
a
tool
but
it
is
never
going
to
be
used
to
justify
not
doing
something
that
needs
to
be
done
to
protect
human
life
 
it
is
not
the
only
tool.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
4
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
 
A
question
coming
up
in
Subcommittee
deliberations
relates
to
governor
concurrence.
EPA
should
be
willing
to
list
a
site
even
if
the
governor
does
not
concur
but
without
the
approval
of
the
State,
EPA
does
not
have
the
support
for
funding.
There
are
ways
to
move
a
site
along
without
the
Governor's
concurrence
but
with
the
governor's
engagement
you
have
much
more
investment
in
the
long
term
success
for
the
site.
EPA
needs
the
local
state
people
involved
upfront.
The
Administrator
said
she
has
not
seen
a
site
with
an
immediate
threat
where
the
governor
did
not
concur.
 
Some
people
have
already
assumed
that
mega
sites
are
beyond
Superfund's
capacity.
How
do
we
compartmentalize
a
mega
site?
Are
there
sites
that
should
be
singled
out
because
of
the
complexity
of
problems
so
that
they
should
be
dealt
with
differently?
 
Ms.
Whitman
said
she
did
not
predict
a
lot
more
money
for
the
Superfund
Program
in
the
future.
It
may
be
some
people's
opinion
that
we
can't
work
without
a
huge
infusion
of
funds,
but
just
putting
more
money
at
the
program
is
not
the
answer
State
of
the
Superfund
NACEPT
Subcommittee
John
Ehrmann
summarized
the
accomplishments
of
the
Subcommittee
to­
date
as
follows:

The
Subcommittee
has:
 
Established
groundrules
and
operational
protocol
 
Reviewed
and
gained
clarification
and
understanding
of
the
Charge
 
Received
briefings
from
EPA
on
key
background
information
 
Established
initial
working
groups
and
process
for
information
gathering,
work
plan
development
and
measuring
program
performance
 
Developed
a
work
plan
for
moving
forward
through
the
initial
stages
of
the
Subcommittee's
work
 
Expanded
upon
the
guiding
questions
provided
in
the
EPA
Charge
 
Gathered
input
from
Subcommittee
on
key
information
needs
 
Initiated
process
to
gather
and
analyze
information
that
had
been
requested
 
Heard
presentations
from
EPA
pertaining
to
a
number
of
specific
information
requests
 
Reviewed
and
provided
comments
on
EPA
White
paper
on
"
Superfund
Environmental
Indicators:
Population
Risk
Reduction?"
 
Drafted
and
distributed
several
information
papers/
tables
to
the
Subcommittee
in
support
of
deliberations
 
Established
second
set
of
working
groups
 
on
Clean­
up
Programs
Assessment
and
Site
Types
 
Work
groups
met
several
times
by
conference
call
and
once
in
person
since
September
full
Subcommittee
meeting
 
Work
groups
have
initiated
development
of
program/
policy
options
for
discussion
and
consideration
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
5
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
The
issues
and
challenges
faced
by
the
Subcommittee
to
date
include
the
following:


How
to
focus
the
Subcommittee's
work
while
responding
to
the
Charge
provided
by
EPA
 
which
covers
three
sets
of
policy
issues
 
NPL,
megasites
and
measuring
program
performance.
The
Meridian/
Ross
staff
suggest
continuing
with
the
three
current
work
groups,
at
least
until
the
March
meeting.
Each
group
should
be
charged
with
prioritizing
and
focusing
its
discussions.
The
staff
and
the
Chair
will
be
asking
the
full
Subcommittee
to
assist
in
this
process
through
the
feedback
that
will
be
solicited
during
this
meeting.
To
a
certain
extent,
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee
will
continue
to
include
a
wide
range
of
ideas
and
options
as
a
result
of
the
nature
of
the
charge
and
the
fact
that
we
are
still
in
the
idea
generation
portion
of
the
process.


Determining
the
appropriate
"
balance"
between
information
gathering
and
development
of
potential
policy
recommendations
 
how
much
information
is
enough?
What
is
available
and
how
difficult
is
it
to
obtain?
The
Meridian/
Ross
staff
suggest
that
the
Subcommittee
continue
the
development
of
policy
options
that
has
been
initiated
and
ask
that
each
work
group
prioritize
any
additional
information
needs.
Information
needs
can
be
calibrated
and
prioritized
based
on
the
particular
policy
options
that
are
being
explored.


What
is
the
appropriate
role
of
the
Agency
in
developing
and
reviewing
information
that
is
being
requested
by
the
Subcommittee?
The
Agency
should
continue
to
provide
information
to
the
Meridian/
Ross
team
as
quickly
as
possible.
Information
that
is
developed
by
Meridian/
Ross
should
be
reviewed
by
the
Agency
for
factual
accuracy
only.


Having
a
creative
process
to
look
at
a
wide
range
of
possibilities,
while
not
raising
concerns
about
whether
that
means
the
Subcommittee
is
focusing
on
statutory
change.
The
work
groups
should
continue
to
think
creatively
about
alternatives,
but
as
that
process
is
undertaken,
everyone
should
bear
in
mind
that
the
Subcommittee
has
been
asked
by
the
Agency
to
work
within
the
bounds
of
the
existing
statute.
This
does
not
mean,
however,
that
there
might
not
be
alternative
approaches
that
could
be
considered
that
are/
would
be
under
other
authorities
at
the
Federal
or
state/
tribal
level.


Clarifying
what
is
meant
by
a
"
consensus
report"
of
the
Subcommittee
as
the
goal.
As
outlined
in
the
groundrules,
the
goal
of
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
is
consensus
 
meaning
that
all
members
can
"
live
with"
and
support
the
final
report
as
an
accurate
summary
of
the
Subcommittee's
discussions
and
recommendations.
This
approach
does
allow
for
policy
options
to
be
presented
with
pros
and
cons
delineated
in
a
manner
that
reflects
the
views
of
all
of
the
members.
The
search
for
consensus
should
not
be
used
to
prematurely
eliminate
options
that
are
being
explored.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
6
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary

How
to
deal
with
the
"
overlap"
between
the
scope/
direction
of
the
working
groups?
This
will
be
a
focus
of
our
discussions
at
this
meeting
as
the
full
Subcommittee
has
an
opportunity
to
hear
the
status
reports
from
each
work
group.

The
path
forward
was
proposed
as
follows:

 
It
is
important
that
the
process
of
developing
policy
options/
recommendations
be
continued
and
it
is
appropriate
for
the
Subcommittee
to
provide
guidance
to
the
working
groups
to
help
focus
their
discussions.
This,
however,
needs
to
be
balanced
with
the
need
for
a
creative
process
of
developing
and
discussing
options.
 
At
the
March
plenary,
we
would
like
to
have
a
set
of
options
from
each
working
group
that
they
believe
represent
their
best
thinking
on
options
that
merit
the
full
Subcommittee's
review.
Options
should
be
accompanied
by
an
analysis
of
"
pros
and
cons".
 
At
the
March
plenary,
a
draft
table
of
contents
for
the
final
report,
based
on
the
deliberations
of
the
work
groups,
will
be
reviewed
and
revised.
 
By
June,
draft
language
should
be
developed
so
that
the
full
Subcommittee
can
review
an
initial
draft
of
the
final
report.
 
We
will
be
scheduling
meeting
dates
for
early
September,
late
October
and
early
December
during
this
session.

A
Subcommittee
member
asked
the
chair
if
there
would
be
public
comment
on
the
report
that
results
from
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations.
He
explained
that
the
Public
will
not
review
anything
before
the
Subcommittee
comes
to
agreement
on
what
it
will
submit.
What
the
Agency
chooses
to
do
with
the
document
thereafter
is
up
to
them
and
is
open
for
discussion.

Site
Types
Work
Group
Catherine
Sharp
and
Dick
Dewling
presented
a
summary
of
the
Site
Types
Work
Group's
activities
to
date.
The
PowerPoint
presentation
was
circulated
to
the
group
and
is
included
in
Attachment
B.
Topics
covered
included:

 
Presentation
of
assumptions
and
issues
 
Review
of
policy
options
 
Discussion
of
information
needs
 
Discussion
of
key
questions
for
the
Subcommittee
Group
discussion
included
the
following
comments
and
questions:

 
The
group
should
consider
policy
administrative
and
operational
functions.
 
The
group
does
not
have
clarity
on
what
20%
of
the
sites
are
and
why
they
are
getting
80%
of
the
funding.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
7
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
 
There
was
a
long
discussion
of
where
all
of
the
money
is
going
and
whether
there
needs
to
be
additional
study.
 
Superfund
provides
communities
with
resources
and
access
that
no
other
program
offers.
Other
programs
do
not
give
the
same
options
as
Superfund.
The
group
could
make
recommendations
about
how
resources
are
given
to
communities.
 
Listing
has
impacts
on
the
funding
that
is
available
to
clean
up
a
site.
 
When
considering
listing
of
mega
sites,
the
Subcommittee
needs
to
consider
issues
other
than
cost.
 
Before
listing,
need
to
make
sure
that
the
states
(
and
others)
have
done
everything
they
can
to
remediate
or
get
the
PRP's
to
do
so.
 
Use
the
phrase
"
safety
net"
instead
of
"
last
resort"

Cleanup
Program
Work
Group
Grant
Cope
from
the
Cleanup
Program
Work
Group
presented
a
summary
of
the
group's
activities
and
progress
to
date.
The
PowerPoint
presentation
was
circulated
to
the
group
and
is
included
in
Attachment
B.
The
group
has
been
charged
with
developing
policy
options
and
recommendations
concerning
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
within
the
context
of
what
is
provided
through
other
federal
and
state
cleanup
programs.
Topics
covered
included:

 
Summary
of
work
group
activities
to
date
o
Review
of
key
questions
and
assumptions
o
Review
programs
o
Review
framework
within
which
other
programs
are
being
assessed
and
evaluated
o
Review
path
forward
 
Discussion
with
Subcommittee
about
activities
to
date
o
Seek
consensus
on
approach
o
Gather
general
feedback
to
help
focus
the
future
direction
of
the
work
Discussion
followed
the
presentations.
The
following
points
were
raised:

 
As
the
work
group
is
looking
at
the
programs
that
can
potentially
take
sites
from
the
NPL
they
should
also
look
at
whether
they
are
feeding
sites
to
NPL
(
because
they
are
not
being
protective
of
human
health
and
environment
or
they
are
creating
problems).
 
Anything
we
can
do
to
save
money
is
a
good
thing.
 
"
Other
programs
should
be
implemented
to
avoid
Superfund
sites
in
the
future "
No
one
would
disagree.
But
there
is
a
question
about
how
much
detail
we
should
get
into.
Look
into
preventative
aspects
of
RCRA
and
others.
 
Look
at
both
ends
of
the
state
spectrum
 
good
and
bad
examples.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
8
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Tribal
Issues
Panel
Several
Tribal
representatives
were
present
to
provide
insights
to
the
Subcommittee
on
issues
related
to
Superfund
and
the
Subcommittee's
charge.
Presentations
and
statements
were
made
by
the
following
individuals:

Lisa
Gover,
National
Tribal
Environmental
Council
Chairman
Brian
Wallace,
Washoe
Tribe
of
Nevada
and
California
John
Persell,
Minnesota
Chippewa
Tribe
Bernadino
Chavarria,
Santa
Clara
Pueblo
Rob
Greenbaum,
Washoe
Tribe
of
Nevada
and
California
Nancy
John,
Cherokee
Nation
Fred
Corey,
Aroostook
Band
of
Micmac
Indians
Robert
Holden,
National
Congress
of
American
Indians
Althea
Wolf,
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
John
T.
Aquino,
Tribal
Association
on
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
Lisa
Gover
provided
an
overview
presentation
on
the
Tribal
issues/
perspectives
most
relevant
to
Superfund,
particularly
those
being
addressed
by
the
National
Tribal
Environmental
Council.

Key
points
presented
during
Tribal
Issues
Panel:

 
Tribal
consultation
needs
to
happen
early
and
often.
In
most
cases,
Tribal
governments
have
no
role
in
clean
up
decisions.
Tribes
have
no
authority
to
list
or
delist
a
site
on
the
NPL,
which
causes
a
problem
when
the
state
governor
will
not
concur,
or
if
State
and
Federal
governments
are
PRPs.
 
There
is
a
lack
of
Tribal
government
involvement
in
site
investigation
and
all
other
phases
of
the
Superfund
process.
 
Tribes
need
to
be
involved
in
decision
making
at
sites.
 
The
agency
and
states
need
to
share
information
with
the
Tribe
involved
with
the
site.
Open
peer­
to­
peer
communication
is
essential.
Developing
relationships
with
other
EPA,
State
and
Tribal
officials
is
necessary.

Discussion
followed
the
presentations:

The
Tribal
representatives
strongly
advocated
to
the
Subcommittee
for
the
institutionalization
within
EPA
of
site
hazard
ranking,
assessment
and
cleanup
criteria
that
prescribe
individual
Tribes'
protection
for
Tribal
Traditional
Lifeway
activities,
including
the
use
of
Tribal
resources
for
cultural,
subsistence
and
ceremonial
purposes.
 
It
is
important
to
advise
EPA
in
the
development
of
a
Tribal
Superfund
policy
focusing
on
the
government
to
government
relationship
between
Tribes
and
the
United
States.
Community
involvement
also
must
be
a
focal
point,
recognizing
that
some
Tribes
are
comprised
of
one
community
and
some
of
many
communities.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
9
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
 
It
is
important
to
maintain
the
distinction
between
the
Tribal
government/
Federal
government
relationship,
as
noted
in
bullet
1
above.
 
It
is
important
to
distinguish
between
real
community
involvement
versus
public
participation.
Public
participation
is
broad
and
includes
anyone
who
wants
to
comment.
Community
involvement
is
people
sitting
down
throughout
the
process
and
being
involved
in
the
process.
As
a
community,
we
need
to
distinguish
between
the
two.
Impacted
communities
and
Environmental
Justice
communities
are
asking
for
involvement
to
access
the
process
and
the
product.
At
the
end
is
too
late.
 
Standards
developed
to
protect
Tribal
Traditional
Lifeways
will
most
likely
be
protective
of
all
humans
who
utilize
resources
in
a
similar
manner.
 
Treaties
and
other
Tribal
government/
Federal
government
agreements
are
legally
binding
documents
and
need
to
be
(
but
are
not
currently)
recognized
by
EPA
as
applicable,
relevant
and
appropriate
requirements
(
ARARs)
for
sites
impacting
each
Tribe.
 
A
lot
of
these
issues
relate
to
faith
and
trust
and
in
many
cases
that
does
not
exist
between
Tribes
and
the
Federal
government.

Public
Comment
Period
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
No
members
of
the
public
signed
up
for
comment.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
10
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Tuesday,
January
8,
2003
8:
30
 
10:
45
Preliminary
Business
John
Ehrmann
summarized
the
results
of
the
Subcommittee's
input
on
their
preferences
for
meeting
locations:

Phoenix
(
March
10,
11,
12)
and
New
Bedford
(
June17,
18,
19)
are
the
next
two
meeting
locations
and
dates.
Additionally,
people
said
they
would
be
willing
to
stay
an
extra
day
to
be
able
to
be
briefed
on
local
experiences
that
are
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
An
extra
day
was
added
to
each
of
the
schedules.
Meridian
will
work
with
State
agencies
etc.
to
identify
community
perspectives
to
meet
with
the
Subcommittee
prior
to
the
meeting.
The
fall
meetings
will
likely
be
held
in
Washington
D.
C.

One
Cleanup
Program
Ellen
Manges
provided
an
update
on
the
One
Cleanup
Program
and
the
plan
for
implementation
currently
being
developed.
The
Agency
has
received
comments
on
the
plan.
The
overall
goal
of
the
plan
is
that
it
would
be
EPA's
vision
of
how
all
the
nation's
waste
cleanup
programs,
including
state,
Tribal
and
local
levels
can
all
work
together
better
to
coordinate
strategically.
A
revised
draft
will
be
available
in
the
next
two
or
three
weeks.
The
Agency
may
need
some
more
input
from
the
Subcommittee
before
final
decisions
are
made.
The
Agency
would
be
willing
to
return
at
a
future
meeting
to
provide
a
presentation.

General
Business
The
members
were
asked
to
indicate
preferences
for
fall
meeting
dates
during
the
break
so
final
decisions
could
be
made
during
the
administrative
session
later
in
the
day.
The
suggestions
were:

 
Need
to
integrate
community
perspective
into
the
Phoenix
meeting.
 
Need
to
integrate
the
Environmental
Justice
Perspective
into
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
 
if
not
in
Phoenix
then
some
time
soon.
 
Consider
a
big
mining
mega
site
that
the
group
could
see
in
Phoenix.
 
Regarding
the
One
Cleanup
Program,
we
need
to
be
careful
of
trying
to
do
too
much
in
the
time
we
have.
Preference
is
to
do
a
few
things
well.
Perhaps
the
group
can
comment
on
the
One
Cleanup
Program
as
individuals
but
not
as
a
full
Subcommittee.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
11
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group
Mike
Tilchin,
Kate
Probst
and
David
Cooper
summarized
various
aspects
of
the
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group's
efforts
to
date.
The
PowerPoint
presentation
was
circulated
to
the
group
and
is
included
in
Attachment
B.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
Work
Group
is
to
review
and
comment
on
initial
Agency
ideas
on
measuring
progress
of
the
Superfund
program.
Three
performance
measures
white
papers
are
currently
in
development
within
the
agency.
The
Work
Group
and
individual
members
of
the
Subcommittee
were
given
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
Population
Risk
Reduction
Indicators
White
Paper
during
the
fall
2002.
Additional
indicators
under
development
include
the
Ecological
Risk
Reduction
Indicators
and
the
Land
Reuse
Performance
Measures.

Additionally,
the
Work
Group
is
considering
additional
performance
measure
concepts
while
the
Agency
white
papers
are
under
preparation.
Drafts
have
been
developed
and
circulated
to
the
Subcommittee
for
review
including
an
introduction
to
performance
measure
issues
and
the
following
proposed
performance
measures:
 
An
alternative
framework
for
a
human
health
protection
measure,
 
A
remedy
effectiveness
measure,
and
 
An
institutional
coordination
measure
(
including
Tribal,
state,
and
community
coordination).

David
Cooper
from
EPA
summarized
the
Population
Risk
Reduction
Indicators
developed
by
EPA
and
the
feedback
they
received
from
the
Subcommittee
members.

Discussion
included
the
following
questions
and
comments:

 
Should
the
population
risk
measure
be
used
to
compare
the
relative
risk
of
sites
or
to
measure
progress
at
individual
sites?
 
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
and
National
Institute
of
Health
(
NIH)
should
be
integrated.
 
Can
we
measure
unintended
impacts
of
a
remedy?
 
There
seems
to
be
a
movement
toward
interim
measures
and
removals
 
can
we
measure
removals
in
addition
to
remediation?
 
Can
measures
make
it
harder
to
"
game
the
system"?
 
How
do
you
control
exposure
 
what
do
you
control
to?
"
0"
 
The
group
needs
to
explain
what
"
yes"
and
"
no"
mean
in
the
models
developed.
 
Should
we
be
measuring
program
progress
or
program
merit?
One
just
suggests
that
we
are
doing
something,
not
whether
or
not
it
is
working.
 
"
Scoring"
means
the
HRS
to
a
lot
of
people.
Could
the
group
use
another
word?
 
As
new
chemicals/
contaminants
are
discovered,
the
risk
may
increase.
Can
you
go
back
and
revisit
the
measure?
There
is
a
need
to
evaluate
a
site
as
the
situation
changes.
 
The
main
thing
that
locals
want
to
know
is
when
the
site
is
going
to
be
cleaned
up
and
whether
you
are
on
schedule.
Nothing
else
matters
as
much.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
12
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
 
Scoring
changes
should
not
be
a
disincentive
to
improving
remedies
because
there
is
so
much
inertia
against
changing
remedies
 
the
group
shouldn't
hesitate
to
add
that.
 
If
you
tell
the
Regions
that
they
are
going
to
get
a
lower
score
because
you
are
doing
less
"
treatment"
remedies
 
then
you
are
going
to
create
an
incentive
for
treatment.
What
if
natural
attenuation
is
going
to
take
as
long
as
treatment?
The
program
is
doing
a
lot
of
positive
things
to
protect
people.
We
may
not
want
a
one­
size­
fits­
all
remedy.
Measuring
how
many
sites
get
treatment
is
different
than
measuring
whether
we
are
protecting
health
and
the
environment.
 
Need
to
get
regional,
Tribal
and
state
input.
Some
states
get
a
low
score
because
they
voluntarily
do
not
want
some
of
the
factors
that
contribute
to
a
higher
score.
 
The
problem
with
measuring
progress
with
Superfund
is
that
you
can't
give
it
a
number
like
you
can
with
the
air
program.
It
would
be
enormously
helpful
to
have
something
of
a
target,
such
as
90%
people
drink
safe
water
or
90%
people
have
clean
air.
Can
the
group
look
at
such
measures
to
address
the
pressure
that
the
agency
is
under?

The
Subcommittee
was
given
until
January
22nd
to
submit
additional
comments
on
the
Measures
to
the
Work
Group
in
writing.

Public
Comment
Period
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
Public
comment
was
offered
by
the
following
individuals:

 
Alan
Crawford,
Vice
Chairman
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
for
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation
 
Kenyon
Larson,
Marasco
Newton
Group
at
SRA
International
 
Gerald
White,
Division
of
Resources
Manager,
Executive
Director
for
the
Leech
Lake
Band
of
Ojibwe
 
Althea
Wolf,
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation
 
Luke
Wilson,
Council
Member,
Leech
Lake
Band
of
Ojibwe
The
testimony
from
the
public
comment
period
is
included
in
the
transcript.

The
public
meeting
adjourned
on
Tuesday
at
10:
45
a.
m.

Work
Group
Breakout
Sessions
and
Planning
Meeting
­
Closed
to
the
Public
After
the
public
comment
period,
John
Ehrmann
distributed
a
proposed
plan
for
moving
forward
with
the
Subcommittee's
activities.
He
explained
that
it
was
intended
to
provide
a
guideline
for
priorities
for
the
working
groups
until
the
March
plenary
session.
He
emphasized
the
desire
of
the
Chairman
that
specific
policy
options
be
developed
by
the
work
groups
prior
to
the
March
meeting.
The
following
summary
of
the
division
of
labor
was
discussed
and
agreed
to
by
the
Subcommittee.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
13
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Work
Group
Division
of
Labor
and
Priorities
Until
March,
2003
Site
Types
Work
Group
1.
Listing
process.
2.
Address
special
categories
of
sites.
3.
What
do
you
do
with
the
money
once
you
have
it?

Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
1.
Complete
research
on
federal/
state
programs.
2.
Identify
the
implications
of
the
research
for
Subcommittee
deliberations.
3.
Are
there
other
sources
of
funding
that
should
be
explored?
4.
Implementing
the
program
 
internal
and
external
efficiencies
and
opportunities.

Working
Group
Breakout
Sessions
The
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Groups
divided
into
breakout
sessions.
Due
to
the
overlap
in
membership,
the
Measuring
Program
Progress
work
group
did
not
meet.
However,
they
were
asked
to
convene
immediately
after
the
breakout
sessions,
during
the
break,
to
make
a
decision
about
whether
they
would
continue
to
be
active
or
if
they
would
take
a
hiatus
until
March.

Agenda
for
March
Subcommittee
Meeting
Due
to
the
likely
flight
schedules
for
the
Phoenix
destination,
John
Ehrmann
suggested
that
the
group
consider
meeting
for
half
a
day
on
Monday,
all
day
Tuesday
and
a
half­
day
on
Wednesday.
That
would
allow
everyone
to
be
able
to
fly
on
Monday
and
be
home
by
Wednesday
night.
The
group
agreed.

Future
Meeting
Schedule
The
schedule
for
future
Subcommittee
meetings
was
established
as
follows:

March
11­
12,
2003
in
Phoenix,
AZ
June
18­
19,
2003
in
New
Bedford,
MA
September
3­
4,
in
Washington
D.
C.
November
5­
6,
in
Washington
D.
C.
December
9­
10,
in
Washington
D.
C.

Subcommittee
Work
Planning
Discussion
The
Measuring
Program
Progress
work
group
met
at
the
break
and
decided
to
put
their
activities
on
hold
until
March.
The
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Groups
reported
back
on
their
breakout
sessions.

The
meeting
was
adjourned
at
approximately
3:
00
p.
m.
on
the
afternoon
of
January
8th
.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
14
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
B.
Work
Group
Presentations
1.
Site
Types
Work
Group
Presentation
2.
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Presentation
3.
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group
Presentation
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
15
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Attachment
A
 
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
1
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
Introductory
Information
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
The
Superfund
Subcommittee
of
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
was
established
in
June
2002
for
the
purpose
of
assisting
EPA
in
identifying
the
future
direction
of
the
Superfund
program
in
the
context
of
other
federal
and
state
waste
and
site
cleanup
programs.
Specifically,
the
Subcommittee
will
review
the
relevant
documentation
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
provide
answers
to
questions
that
relate
to:
a)
the
role
of
the
NPL,
b)
mega
sites,
and
c)
measuring
program
performance.
The
Subcommittee
will
operate
as
and
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
a
Federal
Advisory
Committee.

Membership
on
the
committee
represents
a
diversity
of
interests.
Subcommittee
members
include
senior­
level
decision­
makers
and
experts
from:
academia,
business
and
industry,
community
and
environmental
advocacy
groups,
state,
local
and
tribal
governments,
environmental
justice,
and
non­
governmental
and
professional
organizations.
Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Professor
of
Civil
Engineering
at
the
University
of
Texas
in
Austin,
is
the
chair
of
the
Subcommittee.

The
Subcommittee
is
working
to
accomplish
its
Charge
through
quarterly
Subcommittee
meetings
and
interim
Work
Group
meetings
over
an
approximately
18­
month
period.
It
is
anticipated
that
one
or
a
series
of
consensus
reports
will
result
from
the
Subcommittee
deliberations.
However,
where
consensus
cannot
be
reached,
a
written
discussion
of
the
views
of
Subcommittee
members
is
to
be
provided.
As
appropriate,
the
Subcommittee
may
also
respond
to
issues
in
the
form
of
"
consultation,"
i.
e.,
dialogue,
rather
than
a
formal
written
report.

Subcommittee
Meetings
To
date,
the
Subcommittee
has
held
two
meetings
in
Washington
D.
C.
(
June
17­
19,
2002
and
September
23­
24,
2002).
A
summary
of
the
meetings
can
be
obtained
via
the
EPA
website
at
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oswer/
SFsub.
htm
).
Highlights
from
the
most
recent
meeting
are
included
below.

September
2002
Meeting
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
second
meeting
September
23
through
24,
2002
in
Arlington,
Virginia.
The
meeting
was
open
to
the
public.
The
following
information
provides
a
brief
overview
of
that
meeting.

The
main
purposes
of
the
meeting
included
the
following:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Work
Groups
to
report
on
the
status
of
their
activity
and
seek
feedback
from
the
full
Subcommittee.
 
Provide
educational
information
on
the
current
and
projected
status
of
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
2
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
 
Provide
information
on
some
key
non­
CERCLA
cleanup
programs.
 
Provide
a
briefing
from
the
Superfund
Program
on
relevant
activities
occurring
within
the
Agency.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.

As
a
result
of
the
deliberations
during
the
September
2002
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
agreed
to
form
two
new
work
groups
and
maintain
one
of
the
work
groups
established
at
the
June
2002
meeting.
The
Site
Types
Work
Group
was
formed
to
develop
basic
assumptions
about
the
body
of
sites
that
could
be
considered
for
the
NPL
in
the
future
and
develop
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
given
the
number
and
types
of
cleanup
sites
that
are
expected.
This
work
group
will
consider
the
number
and
types
of
sites
that
may
become
mega
site
cleanups.
The
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
was
formed
to
focus
on
understanding
how
other
cleanup
programs
are
currently
used
and
what
they
offer,
so
that
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
can
be
considered
in
the
context
of
other
cleanup
programs.
The
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
continues
to
work
with
the
Agency
to
provide
advice
on
its
internal
efforts
to
develop
Superfund
Program
performance
measures
and
is
simultaneously
developing
additional
options
for
program
measurements
to
be
considered
by
the
Subcommittee.
Additionally,
the
Subcommittee
agreed
to
continue
the
ongoing
information
gathering
effort
in
parallel
with
the
efforts
of
the
three
work
groups.

Summary
of
activity
since
last
meeting
During
the
period
of
time
between
the
September
2002
meeting
and
the
January
2003
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
members
participated
in
work
group
activities
via
conference
calls
and
face­
to­
face
meetings.
Subcommittee
members
supported
the
implementation
of
work
group
activities
by
drafting
and
reviewing
summaries
of
background
information,
and
by
developing
assumptions
and
policy
options
for
future
consideration
by
the
Subcommittee.
The
results
of
the
work
group
efforts
will
be
presented
and
discussed
with
the
full
Subcommittee
at
the
January
2003
meeting.

Objectives
of
the
January
2003
Meeting
The
January
7­
8,
2003
meeting
is
intended
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
each
of
the
three
Work
Groups
to
report
on
the
status
of
their
deliberations
and
engage
in
discussions
with
the
diverse
perspectives
on
the
Subcommittee
regarding
the
direction
of
assumptions,
policy
options
and
information
gathering.
 
Provide
educational
information
on
Tribal
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
a
briefing
from
and
opportunity
for
discussion
with
the
EPA
Administrator.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
Work
Groups
to
meet
face­
to­
face.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
schedule
and
determine
a
path
forward;
and
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
3
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Interactive
discussion
and
questioning
for
the
purpose
of
probing
an
issue
and
clarifying
a
point
will
be
encouraged.
As
such,
the
comments
made
by
Subcommittee
Members
at
this
and
future
meetings
should
neither
be
interpreted
to
reflect
their
current
position
on
the
subject
under
discussion
nor
their
future
position
as
it
may
evolve
over
the
course
of
deliberation.
Additionally,
the
comments
of
individual
Subcommittee
Members
should
not
be
interpreted
as
positions
of
the
Subcommittee
or
the
EPA.

The
Subcommittee
will
deliberate
thoroughly
before
developing
consensus
findings,
conclusions
or
recommendations.
Any
report
on
the
opinion
of
the
group
will
undergo
rigorous
review
by
all
Subcommittee
Members
before
it
is
considered
final
and
transmitted
to
EPA.

This
is
an
open
session
for
public
record.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
have
been
invited
to
attend
as
observers.
We
will
be
entertaining
questions
from
the
floor
during
the
designated
times
on
the
agenda.
Lois
Gartner,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer,
will
be
available
to
assist
reporters
and
other
interested
individuals
who
would
like
additional
information.
Her
contact
information
is
available
on
the
Roster
at
the
registration
table.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
4
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
B­
1
January
7­
8,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Attachment
B
 
Work
Group
Presentations
Attachment
B
 
Work
Group
presentations
available
electronically
as
separate
documents:
1.
Site
Types
Work
Group
Presentation
2.
Cleanup
Programs
Assessment
Work
Group
Presentation
3.
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
Presentation
