Feedback
from
the
Second
National
EPA
Technical
Assistance
Grant
Recipients
Workshop,

February
28
­
March
1,
2003
EPA
provides
Technical
Assistance
Grants
(
TAGs)
to
community
groups
associated
with
Superfund
sites.
The
community
groups
use
the
grants
to
hire
their
own
technical
advisors
to
assist
the
communities
in
participating
in
the
Superfund
process.

On
February
28
and
March
1,
2003,
EPA
sponsored
a
workshop
for
TAG
community
group
recipients
and
their
technical
advisors
in
Albuquerque.

There
are
currently
119
TAGs
at
Superfund
sites.
TAG
community
groups
and
technical
advisors
from
42
Superfund
sites
in
22
states
participated
in
the
workshop.

Ed
Lorenz
and
Wilma
Subra
of
the
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
provided
an
overview
of
the
work
of
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
and
requested
feedback
from
the
workshop
recipients.
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
workshop
feedback
relative
to
the
Superfund
Subcommittee.

I.
Funding
The
need
for
adequate
funding
in
the
Superfund
program
was
the
#
1
message
from
the
workshop.

Workshop
participants
strongly
supported
an
increase
in
funding
to
the
level
of
a
fully
funded
Superfund
program.

The
current
level
of
funding
is
not
adequate
to
fully
implement
the
entire
Superfund
program.
The
workshop
participants
requested
the
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
recommend
an
increase
in
funding
from
the
current
funding
level
to
a
level
that
will
be
sufficient
to
implement
the
entire
Superfund
program.
II.
Reinstate
The
Superfund
Tax
Workshop
participants
strongly
supported
the
reinstatement
of
the
Superfund
tax.

III.
NPL
Listing
All
sites
that
qualify
for
listing
at
the
Federal
level
should
be
listed.
Sites
that
qualify
for
listing
should
not
be
omitted
due
to
the
lack
of
financial
resources.

IV.
Remedial
Actions
All
fund
led
sites
that
are
ready
for
remedial
actions
should
have
adequate
resources
to
initiate
and
completely
implement
the
required
actions.

All
fund
led
sites
currently
in
the
remedial
action
phase
should
have
the
required
financial
resources
to
fully
implement
the
remedial
actions
on
an
ongoing
basis.

Remedial
actions
should
not
be
selected
based
on
financial
resources
and
cost
to
the
detriment
of
appropriate,
implementative
and
protective
short
and
long
term
remedies.

Remedial
actions
have
moved
more
towards
containment
and
less
towards
treatment
and
permanent
remedies.
This
trend
should
be
reversed
to
more
appropriately
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Remediation
of
Ecological
Risk
should
not
be
considered
secondary
to
Human
Health
Risk.
Particular
emphasis
should
be
placed
on
Eco
Risk
that
impact
species
used
for
human
consumption
and
indigenous
ceremonies.

Brownfield
resources
should
not
be
used
for
Superfund
site
stabilization
when
the
Brownfield
focus
is
used
as
the
driver
to
enable
lesser
protective
remedy
due
to
proposed
future
land
use.
V.
Legal
Resources
The
Superfund
program
lacks
adequate
resources
to
bring
PRPs
to
the
table
at
fund
led
sites.

VI.
Measuring
Program
Performance
Community
involvement
and
participation
in
the
Superfund
process
needs
to
be
a
part
of
program
assessment.
Community
knowledge
is
not
inferior
to
the
expertise
brought
by
agency
staff
and
PRPs
and
it
needs
to
be
sought
and
valued.

Use
of
TAG
process
needs
to
be
assessed
as
part
of
program
measurement.
Remediations
planned
without
community
based
technical
input
are
likely
to
fail.

Community
evaluation
of
site
remedial
activities
needs
to
be
empowered
through
the
TAG
process.

VII.
Technical
Assistance
Grants
Increase
community
involvement
through
an
increase
in
the
number
of
TAGs
and
community
outreach
mechanisms.

Increase
the
scope
of
the
TAGs
to
include
health
studies
and
legal
issues.

Insure
adequate
resources
to
fully
implement
the
TAG
program.

VIII.
Community
Involvement
Communities
should
be
the
primary
stakeholder
in
all
Superfund
remedial
selection
and
implementation
processes.
Communities
must
be
afforded
the
opportunity
for
early,
meaningful
and
full
participation
in
all
phases
of
the
Superfund
program
including
early
discussions
and
the
planning
processes.
Communities
should
be
able
to
participate
in
all
meetings
between
PRPs,
federal,
state
and
local
government
agencies
in
the
development,
reviewing
and
implementing
of
all
aspects
of
the
Superfund
process.
(
Exception
­
financial
negotiations
between
government
agencies
and
the
PRPs
and
during
negotiations
of
consent
decrees.)

More
consistency
in
implementing
the
program
should
be
developed
across
regions.
The
interaction
between
remedial
project
managers
and
communities
regarding
participation
in
program
site
planning,
document
reviews
and
site
decisions
needs
to
be
addressed.

Few
of
the
TAG
recipients
(
other
than
those
linked
to
Wilma
or
Ed)
knew
of
the
work
of
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
and,
perhaps,
of
most
concern,
did
not
know
we
were
holding
meetings
in
Phoenix
or
New
Bedford.
We
need
to
do
a
good
job
of
informing
community
organizations
at
NPL
sites
of
our
activities.
As
a
result
of
the
presentation
at
the
TAG
workshop,
EPA
has
sent
a
notice
to
all
TAG
groups
and
all
EPA
community
advisory
groups
(
CAGs)
about
the
upcoming
meetings
of
the
subcommittee.
