MEETING
SUMMARY
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10
­
12,
2003
Phoenix
Pointe
Hilton
Squaw
Peak
Resort
Phoenix,
Arizona
 
Prepared
by
Meridian
Institute
April,
2003
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10
­
12,
2003
Phoenix,
Arizona
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
fourth
meeting
March
10­
12,
2003
in
Phoenix,
AZ.
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.

The
objectives
of
the
March
2003
meeting
were
to:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Groups
to
report
on
their
process
and
status
of
their
deliberations.
 
Engage
the
full
Subcommittee
in
discussions
regarding
preliminary
conclusions,
policy
options
and
recommendations
developed
by
the
Work
Groups.
 
Provide
input
from
the
state
of
Arizona
and
EPA,
Region
9
regarding
experience
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
input
from
community
members
with
experience
in
the
state
and
federal
cleanup
programs.
 
Determine
the
Work
Groups
and
the
focus
of
activities
between
the
March
2003
and
June
2003
plenary
meetings.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
schedule
and
determine
a
path
forward.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
 
Provide
Subcommittee
Members
an
opportunity
to
visit
a
large
complex
mining
site
being
addressed
through
the
State
cleanup
program.

Monday,
March
10,
2003,
2:
00
p.
m.
 
6:
00
p.
m.

Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
presented
welcoming
remarks.
He
introduced
Angelo
Carasea,
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
third
meeting
and
the
goals
for
the
fourth
meeting.
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.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
2
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Agenda
Review
John
Ehrmann,
Meridian
Institute
facilitator,
reviewed
the
progress
to
date,
discussed
the
status
of
key
work
group
activities
and
explained
the
agenda
for
the
meeting.

Opening
Remarks
Terry
Goddard,
Attorney
General
for
the
State
of
Arizona,
was
introduced
by
Subcommittee
member
Jim
Derouin.
Mr.
Goddard
offered
insights
with
regard
to
the
Subcommittee
based
on
his
extensive
experience
as
Attorney
General
and
Mayor
of
Phoenix.
The
Subcommittee
had
the
opportunity
to
ask
Mr.
Goddard
questions
in
follow­
up
to
his
presentation.
Topics
addressed
in
the
presentation
and
discussion
included:

 
Arizona's
State
Hazardous
Waste
Program
 
Local
involvement
in
cleanup
decision­
making
 
Redevelopment
of
sites
 
Financial
assurances
 
The
manner
in
which
Arizona
appropriates
its
state
hazardous
waste
tax
funds.

Work
Group
Presentations
Representatives
from
both
the
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Groups
presented
a
summary
of
their
research
and
deliberations
to
date.
Copies
of
the
PowerPoint
Presentations
from
both
groups
were
handed
out
and
are
included
in
Attachment
B.

Site
Types
Work
Group
Molly
Mayo
summarized
the
activity
of
the
work
group
since
the
January
Subcommittee
meeting.
Members
of
the
work
group
met
in
Dallas
on
January
29th
and
30th
and
held
several
conference
calls
and
small
group
calls
to
advance
their
deliberations.
Draft
documents
summarizing
policy
options
developed
by
the
work
group
were
circulated
to
Subcommittee
members
for
review
prior
to
the
meeting.
Representatives
of
the
work
group
presented
the
outcomes
of
several
sub­
work
group
level
efforts
to
date.
The
following
topics
were
addressed:
 
NPL
Listing
 
The
HRS
 
Funding
Prioritization
 
Mega
Sites
 
Overarching
Comment
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Elizabeth
McManus
summarized
the
activity
of
the
work
group
since
the
January
Subcommittee
meeting.
Members
of
the
work
group
met
in
Washington
D.
C.
on
February
11th
and
12th
and
participated
in
conference
calls
and
small
group
activities
to
advance
their
deliberations.
Summaries
and
conclusions
regarding
State
programs
were
developed
by
the
work
group
and
circulated
to
Subcommittee
members
for
review
and
consideration.
Steve
Elbert
led
the
PowerPoint
presentation.
The
following
topics
were
addressed:
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
3
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
 
Summary
of
Federal
Programs
 
Findings
from
analyses
of
State
Programs
 
Funding
and
Efficiencies
Following
the
presentations,
the
group
discussed
the
variety
of
issues
that
had
been
raised.
The
Chair
asked
the
Subcommittee
members
to
consider
the
ideas
that
had
been
introduced
in
the
presentations
and
come
prepared
to
deliberate
the
following
day.

Public
Comment:
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
Dan
Randolph
from
the
Mineral
Policy
Center
offered
remarks.
His
testimony
is
included
in
the
meeting
transcript.

Tuesday,
March
11,
2003
Miscellaneous
Business
Wilma
Subra
and
Ed
Lorenz
reported
on
the
Technical
Advisory
Grant
Recipient
Workshop
that
was
held
in
Albuquerque,
New
Mexico,
Feb.
28
 
March
1.
They
summarized
the
briefing
they
provided
to
the
group
and
the
feedback
they
received.
The
primary
message
received
was
the
recommendation
of
an
increase
in
funding
of
the
Superfund
Program
from
the
current
level
to
a
level
that
will
be
sufficient
to
fully
fund
the
Program.
Additional
comments
and
recommendations
were
summarized
in
a
handout
included
in
Attachment
B.

Barry
Breen
provided
a
report
from
the
Environmental
Financing
Advisory
Board
(
EFAB)
meeting
held
in
Washington,
D.
C.
on
March
4.
He
summarized
the
feedback
and
suggestions
provided
by
the
EFAB
regarding
1)
opportunities
for
cross
work
between
the
two
groups
and
2)
the
(
environmental
finance)
needs
of
the
EPA
land
protection
programs
Topics
the
EFAB
is
currently
address
that
may
overlap
with
the
NACEPT
Subcommittee
include:
tax
increment
financing,
how
to
help
states
meet
their
cost­
share,
and
assessing
whether
there
is
a
value
in
helping
to
make
capital
markets
work
more
efficiently
through
standardized
terms
in
financial
instruments.

John
Ehrmann
reviewed
the
agenda
for
the
day.
During
the
first
half
of
the
day,
the
Subcommittee
would
take
the
work
group
issues
raised
the
previous
day
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
opinions,
recommendations
and
next
steps.

Work
Group
Issues
Discussion
The
Subcommittee
members
went
through
the
issues
raised
by
both
of
the
work
groups
to
discuss
the
draft
recommendations,
policy
issues
and
driving
questions.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
4
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Site
Types
Work
Group
Discussions
NPL
Screening
and
Coordinating
Committee
Discussion
Key
Discussion
Questions:
 
Do
you
support
moving
forward
the
work
group's
consensus
on
ways
to
improve
early
screening?
 
Can
these
ideas
be
combined
with
the
ongoing
evaluation
of
a
coordinating
committee?
 
What
are
your
views
on
the
two
NPL
scenarios?
Should
sites
on
the
NPL
compete
for
funding
(
Scenario
1)?
or
Should
sites
compete
to
get
on
the
NPL
(
Scenario
2)?
Which
scenario
should
be
carried
forward
or
should
both
be
evaluated
further?

HRS
Discussion
Questions
to
lead
discussion:
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
support
capturing
"
observations"
on
the
HRS
in
its
report
to
EPA?
 
Is
it
worth
pursuing
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
the
HRS?
 
What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
on
the
HRS
is
needed
short/
long­
term
to
support
Subcommittee
deliberations?

Funding
Prioritization
Questions
to
lead
discussion:
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
want
to
recommend
a
system
of
funding
prioritization
for
sites
on
the
NPL?
 
Is
the
current
system
a
good
place
to
start?
 
What
additional
evaluation
and
analysis
of
funding
prioritization
criteria
is
needed?

Arizona
and
Region
9
Cleanup
Programs
Panel
Shannon
Davis,
Director
of
the
Waste
Programs
Division
of
the
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
moderated
a
panel
of
Regional,
State
and
local
representatives
who
addressed
their
experiences
with
the
Arizona
state
program
and
the
integration
of
federal
and
state
cleanup
programs.
Members
of
the
Panel
included
the
following
individuals:

 
Keith
Takata,
Superfund
Director,
Region
IX,
EPA
 
Patrick
Cunningham,
Deputy
Director,
ADEQ
 
Philip
McNeely,
Manager,
Superfund
Programs
Section,
ADEQ
 
Rick
Lavis,
Chairman
of
the
Advisory
Board
for
the
state's
Water
Quality
Assurance
Revolving
Fund
 
Karen
Masbruch,
Director
of
Environmental
Services,
City
of
Tucson
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
5
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Discussion
followed
the
presentations.
Key
points
raised
during
the
presentations
and
the
subsequent
discussion
included
the
following:

 
There
is
more
than
enough
work
out
there
for
all
of
the
different
programs
 
every
year,
every
month,
discovering
new
sites.
 
Threat
of
the
NPL
is
important,
but
it
is
not
the
first
option
considered
in
Region
9.
Other
options
are
considered
first
to
decide
if
it
is
the
right
tool.
 
Extremely
recalcitrant
PRPs
or
very
complex
sites
may
necessitate
a
combination
of
legal
authorities.
 
There
is
a
need
to
fit
the
site
to
the
program.
 
if
you
only
have
a
hammer
then
everything
looks
like
a
nail.
 
A
lot
of
the
other
statutes
cannot
deal
with
the
worst
sites.
 
It
is
important
to
have
a
strong
Superfund
Program.
It
helps
the
local
authorities
and
creates
a
back
up
for
the
other
programs
­
helps
make
them
strong.
 
Appropriators
in
the
Arizona
legislature
have
been
using
some
of
the
money
from
the
state
tax
that
was
supposed
to
go
to
the
program
and
using
it
for
other
purposes.
 
The
state
has
made
an
effort
to
enhance
community
involvement
by
requiring
Community
Advisory
Boards
for
each
site,
which
help
to
determine
uses
and
outcomes
for
the
site.
 
The
state
program
is
facing
a
serious
lack
of
funding
despite
the
assumption
of
"
assured"
funding
when
the
law
was
created.
As
a
result,
financial
assurances
are
not
adequate
to
address
existing
cleanup
liabilities.
 
Federal
Superfund
programs
may
address
a
broader
range
of
contamination
than
the
state
program
(
e.
g.
aquifer
restoration)

Site
Specific
Example
of
Cleanup
Program
Integration
South
Indian
Bend
Wash
(
SIBW)
was
featured
as
a
case
example
of
a
site
cleanup
that
has
integrated
federal
and
state
cleanup
programs.
The
site
illustrated
key
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations.
Shannon
Davis,
Director
of
the
Waste
Programs
Division
of
the
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
moderated
the
session.
Panelists
included
the
following
individuals:

 
Karen
Gaylord,
Salman,
Lewis
&
Weldon
 
Phil
Lagas,
Brown
and
Caldwell
 
Amanda
Stone,
Capacity
Development
Section,
ADEQ
 
Brad
Wilde,
M&
B
Capital
Partners,
L.
L.
C.

The
purpose
of
the
SIBW
collaborative
effort
was
to
jointly
redevelop
the
Superfund
site.
Presenters
provided
the
following
information:
 
Background
on
the
site
 
Details
on
the
history
of
redevelopment
area
 
Obstacles
 
Future
direction
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
6
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Following
the
panel
discussions,
the
Subcommittee
resumed
discussions
of
work
group
issues.

Continuation
of
Work
Group
Topic
Discussions
Mega
Sites
Discussion
Discussion
Questions
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
want
to
pursue
further
an
alternative
approach
to
classifying
big
complex
sites?
 
For
these
sites
should
we
further
consider
recommendations
related
to:
­
Subdividing
­
Identifying
specific
categories
of
sites
and
alternative
approaches
for
them
­
Enforcement
 
Would
it
be
better
to
look
at
the
mega
site
issue
in
isolation
or
to
fuse
it
into
other
related
topics
(
e.
g.,
early
screening/
Coordinating
Committee,
funding
prioritization)?

Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Discussions
Discussion
of
Federal
Programs
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
support
carrying
forward
the
observations
on
Federal
programs
in
its
report
to
EPA?
 
What
are
your
views
on
the
Coordinating
Committee?
How
should
this
idea
be
carried
forward?
 
What
additional
analyses
or
evaluations
on
Federal
Programs
are
needed
to
support
deliberations
(
short
and
long­
term)?

Discussion
of
State
Programs
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
support
carrying
forward
observations
on
state
programs
in
its
report
to
EPA?
 
Should
there
be
further
inquiry
into
state
programs'
innovations/
good
practices?
 
What
additional
analyses
or
evaluations
on
state
programs
are
needed
to
support
deliberations
(
short
and
long­
term)?

Discussion
of
Funding
&
Efficiencies
 
Does
the
Subcommittee
support
moving
forward
with
further
analysis
and
evaluation
of
funding/
efficiencies
around
options
2
or
3?
 
What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
is
needed
to
support
deliberations
(
short
and
long­
term)?

Public
Comment
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
Dan
Randolph
from
the
Mineral
Policy
Center
offered
remarks.
His
testimony
is
included
in
the
meeting
transcript.

The
public
meeting
adjourned
at
approximately
5:
45
P.
M.
Members
of
the
public
were
welcome
to
stay
for
the
Community
Involvement
Panel.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
7
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Community
Involvement
Panel
Community
Advisory
Board
members
and
other
public
interest
perspectives
participated
in
a
panel
and
interactive
discussion
with
the
Subcommittee.
Panel
members
included
the
following
individuals:
 
Karen
Peters,
East
Washington
Fluff
Community
Advisory
Board
 
Frank
Connell,
Central
Camelback
Community
Advisory
Board
 
Dan
Randolf,
Mineral
Policy
Center
 
Terry
Davis,
West
Van
Buren
Community
Advisory
Board
 
Louis
Rhodes,
West
Van
Buren
Community
Advisory
Board
A
few
of
the
topics
addressed
in
the
presentations
and
discussion
included
the
following:

 
State
officials
in
Arizona
have
shown
that
they
were
willing
to
integrate
the
perspectives
and
interests
of
the
community
into
their
plans
for
sites.
 
When
developing
relationships
with
the
impacted
communities,
there
is
a
need
for
true
transparency,
clarity
of
cleanup
goals,
listening
and
an
indication
that
the
input
received
will
change
actions.
 
It
is
important
to
recognize
the
difference
between
restoration
and
closure
and
the
clear
difference
in
the
perception
of
the
two.
(
e.
g.
healing
the
site
for
the
community
vs.
meeting
regulatory
requirements)
 
There
is
a
need
for
Technical
Advisory
Grants
(
TAGs)
to
help
the
communities
participate
effectively
and
engage
independent
experts.
 
Cleanup
activities
can
stimulate
the
economy
of
an
area.
The
stigma
of
Superfund
is
that
it
is
has
a
negative
economic
impact
on
communities.
 
Personal
contact
and
connection
is
the
most
important
part
of
connecting
with
the
community.
 
Trust
is
earned
 
and
takes
a
lot
of
time.
 
The
expenses
of
involving
the
community
are
a
drop
in
the
bucket
compared
to
site
costs,
and
it
is
an
investment
worth
making.

Wednesday,
March
12,
2003
Work
Group
Session
 
Closed
to
the
Public
John
Ehrmann
and
Ray
Loehr
reviewed
a
proposed
work
plan
and
path
forward
for
the
group.
The
work
of
the
Subcommittee
was
organized
according
to
sub­
group
efforts
as
follows:

Writing
Teams
(
2­
3
person
teams
to
develop
the
ideas/
sections
that
have
already
been
developed
in
draft,
discussed
by
the
Subcommittee
and
ready
for
preliminary
drafting
of
text
for
the
Final
Report).
 
HRS
 
Program
Funding
and
Efficiencies
 
Federal
Programs
 
Prevention
Issues
 
Characteristics
that
define
large
complex
sites
(
Mega
sites)

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
8
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Creating
Teams
(
For
issues
somewhat
developed,
but
needing
more
discussion
among
a
small
group
of
members)
 
Prioritization
of
Sites
once
they
are
on
the
NPL
 
Use
of
NPL
(
AKA
"
NPL
Scenarios")
 
Subdividing
Sites
 
State
Programs
Work
Groups
1)
NPL
Listing
 
Early
Screening
 
Community
Involvement,
TAGs
and
Tribal
role
 
Coordinating
Committee
 
RI/
FS
development
for
more
sites
 
Preliminary
RI
and
other
special
approaches
to
large
complex
sites
2)
Measuring
Program
Progress
(
Lead:
Ed
Lorenz,
Mike
Tilchin)

NEXT
MEETING
Location:
The
next
plenary
meeting
of
the
Subcommittee
will
be
held
in
New
Bedford,
MA
from
June
17­
19th
.
The
group
agreed
that
the
goal
will
be
to
schedule
the
main
meeting
for
a
half
day
on
the
17th
,
a
full
day
on
the
18th
and
a
closed
working
group
session
for
half
the
day
on
the
19th
.
Additionally,
a
field
trip
will
be
scheduled
for
the
morning
of
the
17th
.

Agenda:
The
majority
of
the
meeting
agenda
will
focus
on
review,
comment
and
deliberation
over
the
draft
materials
for
the
final
report.
Additionally,
the
following
topics
were
suggested
by
the
members:
 
Environmental
Justice
Panel
 
Sediment
Management
Working
Group
 
Experience
of
local
community
from
Aniston,
AL
 
Local
perspectives
from
New
Bedford.

Subcommittee
members
should
assume
that
both
evenings
(
17th
and
18th
)
are
likely
to
include
working
group
meetings
and/
or
panel
presentations.

The
Subcommittee
meeting
adjourned
at
approximately12:
30
p.
m.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
9
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
B.
Presentations
1.
Report
from
Technical
Assistance
Grant
Recipients
Workshop
in
Albuquerque
2.
Site
Types
Work
Group
Presentation
3.
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Presentation
4.
Keith
Takata
 
Region
9
EPA
Presentation
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
10
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Introductory
Information
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
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
about
an
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.

Interactive
discussion
and
questioning
for
the
purpose
of
probing
an
issue
and
clarifying
a
point
will
be
encouraged.
As
such,
any
material
developed
by
any
work
group,
any
presentations
by
a
work
group
or
work
group
member,
or
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
a
work
group
or
an
individual
Subcommittee
Member
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.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
1
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Subcommittee
Meetings
To­
date,
the
Subcommittee
has
held
three
meetings
in
Washington
D.
C.
(
June
17­
19,
2002;
September
23­
24,
2002
and
January
7­
8,
2003).
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.

January
2003
Meeting
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
third
meeting
January
7
through
8,
2002
in
Washington,
DC.
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
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.

As
a
result
of
the
deliberations
during
the
January
2003
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
agreed
to
maintain
the
three
work
groups
established
at
the
September
2002
meeting.
The
Site
Types
Work
Group
was
asked
to
focus
on
the
listing
process;
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
given
the
number
and
types
of
cleanup
sites
that
are
expected;
the
prioritization
of
funding
for
sites
once
they
are
listed
on
the
NPL
and
how
to
address
large,
complex
sites
that
may
become
very
costly
("
mega"
sites).
The
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
was
asked
to
focus
its
efforts
on
completing
its
research
of
other
cleanup
programs
so
that
the
NPL
can
be
considered
in
the
broader
context
of
other
cleanup
programs.
Additionally,
they
were
asked
to
consider
other
sources
of
funding
possibilities
for
increasing
efficiencies
to
Program
implementation.
The
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
chose
to
take
a
hiatus
between
the
January
and
March
meetings
in
order
to
focus
the
efforts
of
the
group
members
on
the
increasing
demands
of
the
other
two
groups.
When
the
Work
Group
reconvenes,
they
will
continue
to
provide
advice
to
the
Agency
on
its
internal
efforts
to
develop
Superfund
Program
performance
measures
while
developing
additional
options
for
program
measurements
to
be
considered
by
the
Subcommittee.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
2
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Summary
of
Activity
Since
Last
Meeting
During
the
period
of
time
between
the
January
2003
meeting
and
the
March
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
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
March
2003
meeting.

Objectives
of
the
March
10­
12
Meeting
The
March
10­
12,
2003
meeting
is
intended
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Groups
to
report
on
their
process
and
status
of
their
deliberations.
 
Engage
the
full
Subcommittee
in
discussions
regarding
preliminary
conclusions,
policy
options
and
recommendations
developed
by
the
Work
Groups.
 
Provide
input
from
the
state
of
Arizona
EPA,
Region
9
regarding
experience
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
input
from
Community
members
with
experience
in
the
state
and
federal
cleanup
programs.
 
Determine
the
Work
Groups
and
the
focus
of
activities
between
the
March
2003
and
June
2003
plenary
meetings.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
schedule
and
determine
a
path
forward;
and
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
 
Provide
Subcommittee
Members
an
opportunity
to
visit
a
large
complex
mining
site
being
addressed
through
the
State
cleanup
program.

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.
Angelo
Carasea,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer,
will
be
available
to
assist
reporters
and
other
interested
individuals
who
would
like
additional
information.
His
contact
information
is
available
on
the
Roster
at
the
registration
table.

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
3
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
B­
1
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
Attachment
B
 
Presentations
Attachment
B
 
Presentations
available
electronically
as
separate
documents:

1.
Report
from
Technical
Assistance
Grant
Recipients
Workshop
in
Albuquerque
2.
Site
Types
Work
Group
Presentation
3.
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Presentation
4.
Keith
Takata
 
Region
9
EPA
Presentation
