MEETING
SUMMARY
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
New
Bedford,
MA
 
Prepared
by
Meridian
Institute
July,
2003
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
2
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
New
Bedford,
MA
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
fifth
meeting
June
17­
18,
2003
in
New
Bedford,
MA.
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
June17­
18,
2003
meeting
was
intended
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Subcommittee
to
review
and
discuss
the
compilation
of
information
preliminary
to
report
drafting
(
June
2003
draft
report).
 
Engage
the
full
Subcommittee
in
discussions
regarding
preliminary
findings
and
recommendations
developed
by
the
writing
teams,
creating
teams
and
work
groups.
 
Provide
input
from
EPA
Region
1,
the
state
of
Massachusetts
and
the
Town
of
New
Bedford
regarding
the
New
Bedford
Harbor
site
and
related
Sediment
Site
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
input
from
Representatives
of
Environmental
Justice
Communities.
 
Establish
a
schedule
for
the
development
of
the
Draft
Final
Report.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
 
Provide
Subcommittee
Members
an
opportunity
to
visit
a
large
complex
sediment
site.

Tuesday,
June
17,
2003
Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
welcomed
the
Subcommittee
members.
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
fourth
meeting
and
the
goals
for
the
fifth
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.

Agenda
Review
John
Ehrmann,
Meridian
Institute
facilitator,
briefly
explained
the
agenda
for
the
meeting.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
3
Opening
Remarks
The
Honorable
Frederick
Kalisz
 
Mayor,
City
of
New
Bedford,
welcomed
the
Subcommittee
to
New
Bedford
and
provided
opening
remarks.
He
presented
slides
summarizing
the
key
accomplishments
of
the
cleanup
activities
conducted
in
New
Bedford.

Introduction
of
the
Draft
Subcommittee
Report
Ray
Loehr
explained
the
history
and
nature
of
the
"
June
2003
draft
report".
The
key
topics
he
addressed
included
the
following:


The
drafting
process
built
off
of
the
white
papers
and
other
documents
developed
by
work
groups.
Work
group
material
was
synthesized
into
the
"
June
2003
draft
report"
that
was
to
be
discussed.

The
audience
for
the
report
includes:
USEPA,
interested
and
affected
parties,
site
and
program­
wide
stakeholders,
state
agencies,
Congress,
and
knowledgeable
members
of
the
public.
The
assumption
is
that
the
audience
will
be
knowledgeable
of
Superfund
issues
to
varying
degrees.

The
"
June
2003"
draft
does
not
represent
final
statements,
recommendations,
or
conclusions
of
the
Subcommittee
or
any
of
the
members.

The
report
will
not
be
final
until
December.

Considerable
changes
are
expected
between
now
and
the
next
draft.

Considerable
and
possibly
heated
discussion
is
expected
during
this
meeting
to
address
areas
of
disagreement.

One
of
the
goals
of
this
meeting
is
to
separate
the
relevant
from
the
interesting
and
to
identify
explicit
changes
and
suggestions
for
the
next
draft.

The
next
draft
needs
(
1)
more
focus
on
the
hard
questions;
(
2)
clearer
conclusions,
findings,
statements
and
recommendations;
(
3)
more
focus
on
the
Charge
and
(
4)
clear
articulation
of
differences
of
opinion.

The
Chairman
emphasized
the
fact
that
during
this
meeting,
the
staff
would
be
looking
for
a
variety
of
types
of
comments,
including:

Editorial
(
typos,
re­
wording)

Organizational

Clarifications
and
definitions

Conclusions,
findings,
recommendations

Disagreement,
no
consensus
He
further
explained
that
the
core
components
of
the
Final
Report
were
expected
to
include:
1.
Executive
Summary
2.
Body
of
the
report
(
key
findings,
statements,
recommendations,
logic
framework,
differences
of
opinion)
3.
Appendices
(
Detailed
work
documents,
background
documents,
website
access
to
meeting
summaries,
etc.)
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
4
Finally,
the
chair
emphasized
the
fact
that
there
would
be
additional
opportunities
to
polish
and
finalize
the
report
in
the
future.
The
schedule
would
be
discussed
later
in
the
meeting.

John
Ehrmann
explained
the
focus
of
the
review
of
the
"
June
2003
draft
report"
at
this
point
in
process
and
explained
how
the
agenda
was
organized
to
discuss
and
revise
the
"
June
2003
draft
report".

Group
Discussion
of
Draft
Report
The
bulk
of
the
meeting
was
focused
on
discussing
the
Subcommittee's
comments
on
the
"
June
2003
draft
report",
deliberating
over
the
issues
and
developing
consensus
where
possible
on
the
recommendations.
The
key
issues
raised
addressed
(
1)
comments
on
the
introduction
and
organization
of
the
report;
(
2)
comments
on
the
substance
of
the
recommendations;
and
(
3)
new
ideas
for
consideration
(
not
already
included
in
the
report.)
The
details
of
all
the
comments
can
be
found
in
the
transcript
of
the
meeting,
available
through
the
DFO.

Miscellaneous
Business
Wilma
Subra
and
Angelo
Carasea
reported
on
the
briefing
they
provided
at
the
meeting
of
the
full
NACEPT
Council.
Some
members
of
the
Council
have
expressed
concern
that
the
scope
of
the
Subcommittee
is
too
narrow.
Some
members
felt
that
the
Subcommittee
should
consider
the
cost/
benefit
analysis
issues
associated
with
Superfund.
The
Council
agreed
that
a
representative
would
raise
these
issues
with
Assistant
Deputy
Administrator
Horinko.
The
Council
would
like
to
comment
on
the
draft
report
of
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
at
the
Council's
meeting
in
late
September.
Therefore,
the
draft
available
at
the
Subcommittee's
meeting
in
September
will
likely
be
the
version
they
will
review.

Public
Comment
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.

1.
Sandra
Jaquith
Rocky
Mountain
Arsenal
2.
Doris
Bradshaw
Defense
Depot
Memphis
Tennessee
Concerned
Citizens
Committee
The
testimonies
are
included
in
the
meeting
transcript,
available
through
the
DFO.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
5
Wednesday,
June
18,
2003
John
Ehrmann
reviewed
the
agenda
for
the
day.
Most
of
the
day
was
spent
continuing
the
deliberations
of
the
"
June
2003
draft
report".
From
3:
00
PM
to
5:
00
PM
the
Subcommittee
heard
from
the
Environmental
Justice
Panel.

Group
Discussion
of
Draft
Report
Continued
The
Subcommittee
continued
its
deliberation
on
key
issues
raised
in
the
"
June
2003
draft
report".
Details
of
the
discussion
are
available
in
the
meeting
transcript
through
the
DFO.

Environmental
Justice
Panel
and
Discussion
Subcommittee
members
Dolores
Herrera
and
Mildred
McClain
moderated
the
Environmental
Justice
presentations
and
lead
an
interactive
discussion
among
the
panel
members
and
the
Subcommittee.
Members
of
the
Panel
included
the
following:

Panel
Members
 
Florence
Robinson,
North
Baton
Rouge
Environmental
Association,
Baton
Rouge,
LA
 
Charles
Utley,
Hyde
and
Aragon
Park
Improvement,
Chair
of
Augusta
Brownfields
Commission,
Augusta
GA
 
Michael
Lythcott,
The
Lythcott
Company,
Marlboro,
NJ
 
Veronica
Eady,
Department
of
Urban
and
Environmental
Planning,
Tufts
University
Dolores
Herrera
and
Mildred
McClain
provided
a
welcome,
an
overview
of
Environmental
Justice
issues
and
introduced
the
panel
members.
After
presentations
from
each
of
the
panel
members,
an
interactive
discussion
was
facilitated
among
the
panel
members.
The
session
concluded
with
a
question
and
answer
period
for
the
Subcommittee
members.
Some
of
the
topics
addressed
in
the
presentations
and
discussion
included
the
following:


The
Subcommittee
should
be
targeting
"
out
of
the
box"
recommendations.
Look
for
creative
and
innovative
solutions.

There
is
a
lack
of
grass
roots
representatives
and
diverse
perspectives
from
people
of
color
communities
on
the
Subcommittee.

A
lot
of
the
environmental
justice
issues
we
are
dealing
with
today
come
from
the
fact
that
the
siting
of
many
of
these
facilities
(
that
are
now
on
the
NPL)
came
at
a
time
when
African
Americans
had
no
voice
in
the
democratic
process.

Early
community
involvement
is
critical
to
an
effective
program,
effective
cleanup
of
sites
and
community
satisfaction
with
the
cleanup.

There
is
a
difference
between
the
term
"
community"
and
"
near
neighbor".
It
is
a
matter
of
degree
 
the
neighborhood
that
has
born
the
impact
of
the
site
is
in
a
different
category.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
6

Superfund
creates
the
opportunity
for
TAG
grants.
Strengthen
this
tool
to
include
factors
like
redevelopment
so
that
communities
can
be
fully
informed.

There
are
gentrification
and
displacement
issues
that
we
should
be
considering.
What
we
are
seeing
is
that
the
more
you
devolve
Superfund
from
the
national
level
to
the
states,
the
more
the
EJ
communities
are
being
devolved.
This
is
an
unintended
consequence
identified
by
a
work
group
on
the
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Council
(
NEJAC).

Something
must
be
done
about
transaction
costs
associated
with
Superfund.
These
funds
should
be
going
into
the
cleanup
of
communities.
We
should
be
willing
to
put
"
polluter
pays"
on
the
table
in
exchange
for
reducing
transaction
costs.

Don't
let
Superfund
die.
Strengthen
it.
Fund
it
and
if
it's
broken,
then
fix
it,
but
the
devolution
of
authority
isn't
the
way
to
fix
it.

In
your
report,
have
some
language
that
shows
some
heart.
Have
some
soul
so
that
people
understand
that
there
was
real
involvement
and
understanding.
(
that
may
come
in
the
cover
letter
too)

Regarding
the
nature
of
community
involvement,
we
need
to
provide
communities
the
resources
they
need
to
be
able
to
understand
the
issues
necessary
to
be
able
to
participate
actively.

We
use
the
term
"
risk"
in
terms
of
the
chances
of
creating
human
health
impacts,
but
risk
has
not
predicted
the
illnesses
that
have
developed
in
these
communities.
We
are
using
a
faulty
tool.

It
would
be
helpful
to
see
a
list
of
alternatives
to
Superfund
that
EJ
communities
could
consider
taking
advantage
of.

Adequate
health
care
is
a
critical
element
that
is
missing
for
these
impacted
communities.

In
EJ
communities,
homeownership
is
a
critical
step
in
a
family's
evolution.
Many
Superfund
sites
involving
EJ
communities
have
families
that
would
have
to
go
back
to
public
housing
if
they
are
relocated.

Impacts
on
property
values
to
the
homes
adjacent
to
sites
should
be
considered.

The
panel
was
invited
to
comment
in
writing
on
the
"
June
2003
draft
report"
and
the
draft
HRS
work
group
document
to
help
the
Subcommittee
integrate
the
panel
members'
ideas
into
the
Subcommittee's
decision
making.

Public
Comment
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
The
following
individuals
commented:

3.
Sandra
Jaquith
Rocky
Mountain
Arsenal
4.
Doris
Bradshaw
Defense
Depot
Memphis
Tennessee
Concerned
Citizens
Committee
5.
Larry
Silverman
Attorney
 
Environmental
Consultant
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
7
Testimonies
are
included
in
the
meeting
transcript,
available
through
the
DFO.
The
public
meeting
adjourned
at
approximately
6:
20
PM
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
8
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Meeting
Introductory
Information
B.
List
of
Presentations
and
Handouts
C.
List
of
Subcommittee
Members
and
Staff
in
Attendance
D.
List
of
Observers
Attachment
A
 
Meeting
Introductory
Information
Introductory
Information
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
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
a
Subcommittee
member(
s),
any
presentations
by
a
Subcommittee
member(
s),
or
comments
made
by
Subcommittee
Members
at
this
and
future
meetings
should
neither
be
interpreted
to
reflect
their
current
Subcommittee
position
on
the
subject
under
discussion,
nor
their
future
position
as
it
may
evolve
over
the
course
of
deliberation.
Additionally,
the
comments
of
an
individual
Subcommittee
Member
should
not
be
interpreted
as
positions
of
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
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
1
Subcommittee
Meetings
To­
date,
the
Subcommittee
has
held
four
meetings.
Three
were
held
in
Washington
D.
C.
(
June
17­
19,
2002;
September
23­
24,
2002
and
January
7­
8,
2003)
and
one
was
held
in
Phoenix,
AZ
on
March
12
 
14,
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.

March
2003
Meeting
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
fourth
meeting
March
12
through
13,
2003
in
Phoenix,
Arizona.
The
meeting
was
open
to
the
public.
The
main
purposes
of
the
meeting
included
the
following:

 
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
DEQ
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.
 
Define
the
Work
Groups
and
the
focus
of
their
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.

As
a
result
of
the
deliberations
during
the
March
2003
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
agreed
to
organize
itself
into
writing
teams,
creating
teams
and
work
groups.
The
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
agreed
to
reconvene
after
taking
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.

Writing
Teams
were
established
as
2­
3
person
teams
to
develop
the
ideas
that
had
been
drafted,
discussed
by
the
Subcommittee
and
were
ready
to
be
developed
into
preliminary
text
for
the
Draft
Final
Report.
Writing
Teams
included:
 
HRS
 
Program
funding
and
efficiencies
 
Federal
Programs
 
Prevention
Issues
 
Characteristics
that
define
large
complex
sites
(
Mega
sites)

Creating
Teams
were
established
as
groups
of
5­
6
people
working
together
to
refine
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
2
issues
somewhat
developed,
but
needing
more
discussion
among
a
small
group
of
members
before
text
was
drafted
for
the
Draft
Final
Report.
Creating
Teams
included:
 
Prioritization
of
Sites
once
they
are
on
the
NPL
 
Use
of
NPL
(
AKA
"
NPL
scenarios")
 
Subdividing
sites
 
State
programs
A
work
group
was
developed
to
address
a
variety
of
issues
around
NPL
listing
that
still
needed
significant
discussion
among
Subcommittee
members.
Topics
identified
to
be
addressed
by
the
work
group
members
included:
 
Early
Screening
 
Coordinating
Committee
 
RI/
FS
development
for
more
sites
 
Preliminary
RI
and
other
special
approaches
to
large
complex
sites
In
addition
to
conducting
its
work
via
conference
calls,
the
NPL
Listing
Work
Group
held
an
in­
person
meeting
on
April
30
to
May
1
in
Washington
D.
C.

Additionally,
the
Measuring
Program
Progress
work
group
reconvened
after
the
March
meeting.
The
focus
of
their
efforts
was
to
respond
to
EPA
on
draft
documents
and
initiatives
under
development
within
the
agency,
to
integrate
ideas
from
other
subcommittee
efforts
(
including
funding
prioritization
and
mega
sites
in
particular)
into
their
efforts
and
to
continue
work
on
developing
additional
options
for
program
measurements
to
be
considered
by
the
Subcommittee.
In
addition
to
conducting
its
work
via
conference
calls,
the
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
held
an
in­
person
meeting
on
April
29th
in
Washington
D.
C..

Summary
of
Activity
Since
Last
Meeting
During
the
period
of
time
between
the
March
2003
meeting
and
the
June
2003
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
members
participated
in
team
activities
via
conference
calls
and
faceto
face
meetings.
The
majority
of
their
efforts
related
to
the
drafting
and
reviewing
of
recommendations
for
consideration
by
the
full
Subcommittee.

Objectives
of
the
June
17­
18,
2003
Meeting
The
June17­
18,
2003
meeting
is
intended
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Subcommittee
to
review
and
discuss
the
preliminary
draft
of
a
final
report.
 
Engage
the
full
Subcommittee
in
discussions
regarding
preliminary
findings
and
recommendations
developed
by
the
writing
teams,
creating
teams
and
work
groups.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
3
 
Provide
input
from
EPA
Region
1,
the
state
of
Massachusetts
and
the
Town
of
New
Bedford
regarding
the
New
Bedford
Harbor
site
and
related
Sediment
Site
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
 
Provide
input
from
Representatives
of
Environmental
Justice
Communities.
 
Establish
a
schedule
for
the
development
of
the
Draft
Final
Report.
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
 
Provide
Subcommittee
Members
an
opportunity
to
visit
a
large
complex
sediment
site.

This
is
an
open
session
for
public
record.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
have
been
invited
to
attend
as
observers.
The
Subcommittee
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
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
4
Attachment
B
 
Presentations
and
Handouts
The
following
presentations
and
handouts
are
available
electronically
as
separate
documents:

1.
Subcommittee
Charge
2.
June
2003
Draft
Subcommittee
Report
3.
Town
of
New
Bedford
Presentation
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
5
Attachment
C
 
List
of
Subcommittee
Members
and
Staff
in
Attendance
Subcommittee
Members
Raymond
Loehr
­
Chairman
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
William
Adams
Kennecot
Utah
Copper
Corporation
Sue
Briggum
Waste
Management
Doris
Cellarius
Sierra
Club
Grant
Cope
Earthjustice
James
Derouin
Steptoe
&
Johnson
Richard
Dewling
Dewling
Associates,
Inc.

Steve
Elbert
BP
America,
Inc.

Jane
Gardner
General
Electric
Glen
Hammer
Ashland,
Inc.

Dolores
Herrera
Albuquerque
San
Jose
Community
Awareness
Council,
Inc.

Robert
Hickmott
Smith­
Free
Group
Aimee
Houghton
Center
for
Public
Environmental
Oversight
Ken
Jock
St.
Regis
Mohawk
Tribe
Frederick
Kalisz
City
of
New
Bedford
Gary
King
State
of
Illinois
Ed
Lorenz
Alma
College
Mildred
McClain
Harambee
House,
Inc.

Michael
Mittelholzer
National
Association
of
Home
Builders
Tom
Newlon
Stoel
Rives
Victoria
Peters
State
of
Colorado
Kate
Probst
Resources
for
the
Future
Ed
Putnam
State
of
New
Jersey
Mel
Skaggs
InDepth
Environmental
Associates
Wilma
Subra
Louisiana
Environmental
Action
Network
Michael
Tilchin
CH2M
Hill
Jason
White
Cherokee
Nation
Robin
Wiener
Institute
of
Scrap
Recycling
Industries
EPA
Representatives
Barry
Breen
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Lawrence
Starfield
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
1
Designated
Federal
Officer
Angelo
Carasea
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Subcommittee
Staff
Holly
Dobson
Meridian
Institute
John
Ehrmann
Meridian
Institute
Molly
Mayo
Meridian
Institute
Elizabeth
McManus
Ross
and
Associates
Environmental
Consulting
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Meeting
Summary
Developed
by
Meridian
Institute
A
­
1
Attachment
C
­
List
of
Observes
and
Public
Comments
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
18,
New
Bedford,
MA
Public
Comment:
1.
Sandra
Jaquith
Rocky
Mountain
Arsenal
2.
Doris
Bradshaw
Defense
Depot
Memphis
Tennessee
Concerned
Citizens
Committee
3.
Larry
Silverman
Attorney
 
Environmental
Consultant
Public
Observers:
1.
Scott
Alfonse
City
of
New
Bedford
2.
Michael
Bonchonsky
Dowling
Associates
3.
Steve
Caldwell
US
EPA
4.
Ron
Carreira
Eagle
Safety
5.
Paul
Connor
EPA
6.
Carolyn
Copper
U.
S.
EPA
7.
Paul
Craffey
MA
DEP
8.
Mike
Crystal
Sevenson
Environmental
Services
9.
Alan
Hanley
General
Electric
10.
Stephen
Langel
Inside
Washington
Publishers
11.
Jean
Martin
BP
 
attorney
12.
William
Michaud
SRA
International
13.
Paul
Montney
Georgia
Pacific
14.
Doug
Motha
Mayor's
Office
 
New
Bedford
15.
Stacy
Silva
Dyn
Corp
16.
Nico
Sloss
US
GAO
17.
Matthew
Thomas
City
of
New
Bedford
18.
Jim
Vondracek
Ashland
19.
Dale
Young
MA
EOEA
