Superfund
Subcommittee
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
Charge
REVISED
6­
19­
02
Following
Subcommittee
Discussion
on
6­
18­
02
BACKGROUND:

In
July
2001,
the
Deputy
Administrator
directed
the
development
of
an
action
plan
to
address
the
recommendations
in
the
Resources
for
the
Future
(
RFF)
report
to
Congress,
Superfund's
Future,
What
Will
It
Cost?
Specifically,
the
plan
called
for
the
creation
of
a
Superfund
Subcommittee
under
the
auspices
of
the
Agency's
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT).

In
the
fall
of
2001,
the
Agency
enlarged
the
Superfund
Subcommittee's
scope
to
reflect
consideration
of
the
Superfund
program
in
context
with
other
federal
and
state
waste
cleanup
programs.
This
broader
focus
will
consider
how
the
Nation's
waste
programs
can
work
together
in
a
more
effective
and
unified
fashion,
so
that
citizens
can
be
assured
that
federal,
state,
tribal
and
local
governments
are
working
optimally
to
make
sites
safe
for
their
intended
uses.

STATEMENT
OF
TASK:

The
overall
intent
of
this
effort
is
to
assist
in
identifying
the
future
direction
of
the
Superfund
program
in
the
context
of
other
federal
and
state
waste
and
site
cleanup
programs.
Specifically,
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
will
review
the
relevant
documentation
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
provide
answers
to
the
questions
that
are
attached
and
that
relate
to:
a)
the
role
of
the
NPL,
b)
mega
sites,
and
c)
measuring
program
performance.

During
the
period
of
Subcommittee
activity,
additional
issues
may
arise
for
which
the
Agency
will
seek
Subcommittee
input.
If
this
occurs,
EPA
will
identify
specific
issues
or
questions
for
which
advice
is
sought
and
provide
appropriate
documentation.

LEVEL
OF
EFFORT:

1.
The
Agency
shall
furnish
the
necessary
personnel,
material,
reports,
background
documents
and
facilities
needed
for
the
Subcommittee
activities.

2.
It
is
expected
that
the
Subcommittee
activities
will
be
accomplished
by
a
series
of
meetings
over
about
an
18
month
period.

3.
It
is
anticipated
that
one
or
a
series
of
consensus
reports
will
result.
However,
where
consensus
cannot
be
reached,
a
written
discussion
of
the
different
opinions
of
Subcommittee
members
is
to
be
provided.

4.
The
scope
of
the
Subcommittee,
as
identified
in
the
Statement
of
Task,
will
not
change
without
agreement
of
both
the
Subcommittee
and
the
Agency.

5.
For
additional
issues
for
which
the
Agency
will
seek
Subcommittee
input,
it
is
understood
that
these
issues
would
not
replace
the
main
focus
of
the
Subcommittee
as
identified
in
the
Statement
of
Task.
For
these
additional
issues,
the
Subcommittee
response
may
be
in
the
form
of
a
"
consultation,"
i.
e.,
dialogue,
rather
than
a
formal
written
report.

6.
The
Subcommittee
may,
at
its
discretion,
make
use
of
separate
working
groups
to
address
specific
issues.
The
Agency
will
support
the
activities
of
these
working
groups
in
the
same
manner
as
will
be
provided
for
the
Subcommittee
itself.

7.
The
Subcommittee
will
operate
as
and
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
a
FACA
Committee.
ROLE
OF
THE
NPL
The
process
to
place
sites
on
the
NPL
has
become
increasingly
contentious
since
the
Superfund
program's
inception.
Some
stakeholders
support
the
notion
that
the
NPL
is
most
appropriately
a
"
tool
of
last
resort."
Others
believe
the
current
process
inappropriately
emphasizes
keeping
sites
off
the
list.
Perceptions
aside,
sites
placed
on
the
NPL
are
typically
those
with
either
recalcitrant
or
no
potentially
responsible
parties
(
PRPs),
those
where
States
lack
funds
to
perform
cleanup,
those
considered
Federal
facilities,
or
where
tribal,
trustee,
or
affected
community
pressure
is
applied.
Other
cleanup
avenues
include
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
program,
the
relatively
new
Brownfields
program,
Federal
agency
response
programs,
Leaking
Underground
Storage
Tank
Program,
State
deferral
or
voluntary
cleanup
programs,
and
EPA's
use
of
so­
called
"
NPL­
equivalent"
cleanups
and
large­
scale
removals.

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

1.
What
should
the
role
of
the
NPL
be
in
addressing
waste
cleanup
and
what
does
it
mean
to
be
placed
on
the
NPL?
a.
What
should
be
the
relationship
between
the
NPL
and
other
cleanup
programs?
b.
How
to
best
ensure
an
adequate
level
of
cleanup?
c.
How
to
integrate
the
NPL
with
other
programs/
statutes
(
NRD,
CWA,
Brownfields,
etc.)?
d.
Should
the
NPL
be
a
"
tool
of
last
resort?"
In
particular,
what
is
the
appropriate
role
of
non­
NPL
cleanups
and
States
in
addressing
sites?
e.
What
are
the
impacts/
implications
of
placement
on
the
NPL
(
funding,
community,
etc.)?
f.
How
can
EJ
concerns
be
more
effectively
integrated
into
the
implementation
of
the
NPL
(
e.
g.
synergistic
and
cumulative
impacts)?
g.
What
is
the
appropriate
use
of
the
NPL
in
the
context
of
mega
sites
(
e.
g.
river
basins)?
h.
What
are
the
issues
associated
with
the
goals
of
remediation
and
economic
redevelopment?

2.
Who
should
be
involved
in
determining
what
sites
are
listed
(
e.
g.,
states,
tribes,
and
communities)?
a.
What
should
the
nature
of
their
involvement
be?
b.
Should
their
role
differ
depending
on
the
site
type
or
risk?
c.
What
is
the
role
of
local
authorities?
d.
What
is
the
role
of
communities
(
in
listing,
risk
assessment
methodology,
etc.)?
e.
How
can
the
role
of
ATSDR
(
or
equivalent)
be
integrated
at
non­
NPL
sites?

3.
What
kinds
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL?
a.
Should
the
NPL
be
used
for
a
more
limited
range
of
sites?
b.
How
can
Tribal
sites
be
addressed
more
effectively
through
the
NPL?
(
How
can
cultural
and
subsistence­
living
factors
be
integrated
more
effectively?)
c.
What
is
the
role
of
Risk
(
ecological,
human
health)
in
determining
which
sites
should
be
on
the
NPL?
d.
What
are
the
technical
criteria
for
listing
a
site?
e.
What
should
the
interaction
be
between
the
removal
and
the
remedial
programs?
f.
What
are
the
broader
issues
of
NPL
listing
(
stigma,
etc.)?

Information
Needs
1.
Assess
the
relative
costs
of
using
other
cleanup
programs
as
alternatives
to
the
NPL.
2.
Determine
whether
EPA
has
used
the
citizen
petition
process
to
add
sites
to
the
NPL.
If
so,
how?
3.
Identify
the
other
remedial/
cleanup
alternatives
and
their
obligations/
requirements
(
RCRA
ToSCA,
state
standards,
etc.).
4.
Identify
other
funding
sources
(
non­
EPA
public
sources,
private
funding).
5.
Assess
the
issues
behind
"
recalcitrant
parties".
6.
Understand
EPA
guidance
on
the
listing
process.
7.
Assess
the
characteristics
of
other
cleanup
programs
that
have
made
them
more
or
less
successful
than
the
NPL.
What
kind
of
sites
were
involved
(
cost
complexity
etc.)?
8.
Gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
HRS
and
the
application
of
the
"
magic
number."
9.
Assess
community
acceptance
of
NPL
listing
vs.
voluntary
cleanups.
10.
Determine
what
types
of
sites
are
typically
listed
on
the
NPL.
(
Is
it
true
that
"
sites
placed
on
the
NPL
are
typically
those
with
either
recalcitrant
or
no
potentially
responsible
parties
(
PRPs),
those
where
States
lack
funds
to
perform
cleanup,
those
considered
Federal
facilities,
or
where
tribal,
trustee,
or
affected
community
pressure
is
applied?)
11.
Assess
the
use
of
106
Orders
(
and
funding
to
implement).

MEGA
SITES
The
RFF
Superfund
cost
study
defined
mega
sites
to
be
those
NPL
sites
where
cleanup
costs
(
i.
e.,
total
removal
and
remedial
action
costs)
exceed
$
50
million.
Mining
and
contaminated
sediment
sites
are
often
considered
synonymous
with
mega
sites,
although
the
majority
of
mining
and
sediment
sites
are
not
mega
sites,
and
vice
versa.
RFF
indicated
that
cleanup
costs
for
mega
sites
are
among
the
major
variables
driving
future
program
costs.
Mega
site
cleanups,
especially
those
tied
to
mining
and
contaminated
sediments,
are
also
often
difficult
and
time
consuming.

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

1.
Should
costs
be
the
determining
factor
when
designating
sites
as
mega
sites
or
should
other
factors
such
as
complexity
or
geographic
size
be
considered?

2.
What
are
the
reasonable
policy
options
for
addressing
mega
sites?
a.
Are
there
viable
alternatives
to
placing
mega
sites
on
the
NPL
and/
or
ways
of
containing
their
costs
(
for
example,
listing
only
the
highest
priority
portions
of
the
sites)?

3.
What
are
the
unique
aspects
of
mega
sites
that
might
require
a
different
decision
making
process
for
NPL
listing?
a.
Large
geographical
distribution
(
e.
g.
river
basins)
b.
Slow
rate
of
progress
c.
Risk
management
challenges
d.
Factors
specifically
relevant
to
Federal
Facilities
4.
How
to
integrate
long­
term
stewardship
in
the
cleanup/
management
of
mega
sites?

Information
Needs
1.
Confirm
the
characteristics
that
drive
the
costs
of
mega
sites
(
quantity
of
material,
etc.).
2.
Confirm
the
list
of
all
sites
defined
as
"
mega
sites."
3.
Bring
in
outside
experts
to
help
frame
the
discussion
around
issues
where
the
committee
may
be
missing
expertise.
4.
Clarify
the
federal
budgeting
process
and
how
mega
sites
are
funded.
5.
Summary
of
RFF
study.
6.
Clarify
EPA's
position
on
liability/
cleanup
responsibility
for
state/
private/
other
ownership.
7.
Determine
the
impact
of
PRPs
protecting
their
assets.

MEASURING
PROGRAM
PROGRESS
For
approximately
the
last
seven
years
of
the
Superfund
program,
construction
completion
has
been
the
program's
key
measure
of
progress
for
sites
on
the
NPL.
However,
this
milestone
only
reflects
the
final
outcome
of
years
of
analysis,
cleanup
work,
and
effort
at
NPL
sites.
Construction
completion
neither
measures
nor
characterizes
the
impacts
of
cleanup
efforts
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
construction
completions
do
not
correlate
as
milestones
for
non­
NPL
cleanups
or
with
efforts
at
other
hazardous
waste
cleanups.
In
the
past
few
years,
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
program
developed
indicators
to
gauge
the
impact
of
its
efforts
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
Superfund
program
has
capitalized
on
RCRA's
efforts
and
conceptualized
similar
indicators
for
Superfund
work.
Nonetheless,
there
still
are
few
cross­
program
metrics
to
capture
comprehensive
outcomes
for
interim
work.
This
void
impedes
the
Agency's
ability
to
communicate
work
at
hazardous
waste
sites
to
the
public,
Congress,
States,
and
the
regulated
community.
The
Agency
expects
to
share
new
measure
proposals
with
the
panel
and
will
seek
feedback
from
the
Subcommittee
on
those
proposed
measures.

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

1.
What
criteria
should
be
used
to
measure
progress?
a.
Should
environmental
indicators
be
established
that
are
consistent
among
environmental
programs?
b.
Review
the
definition
of
construction
completion
and
the
relationship
between
that
and
"
really
being
done."
c.
Determine
the
role
of
public/
community
values
in
determining
progress
(
e.
g.
cultural,
social,
subsistence
lifestyles).
d.
How
to
address
and
respond
to
remedy
failures?

2.
Who
should
be
involved
in
measuring
progress
and
defining
success?
a.
What
is
the
role
of
communities
and
other
parties?

3.
What
is
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
institutional
controls
(
particularly
enforcement),
containment
and
natural
attenuation?

4.
How
to
integrate
long­
term
stewardship
into
the
goals
of
the
Program?
a.
How
to
assure
responsibility?
b.
How
to
fund
for
long­
term
stewardship?

Information
Needs
1.
Clarify
how
the
money
is
used
and
what
you
get
for
it.
2.
Determine
how
communities
feel
about
the
program.
Is
there
consensus
about
what
communities
identify
as
success
and
progress?
3.
Assess
the
impacts/
implications
of
economic
redevelopment
vs.
remediation.
4.
What
are
the
timing
assumptions
for
construction
completion
(
speed
of
cleanup)?
5.
What
are
the
institutional
controls
available
for
monitoring
and
long­
term
stewardship?
6.
What
environmental
indicators
do
other
cleanup
programs
use?
7.
What
factors
influence
whether
a
resource
is
useable
(
cultural
factors,
factors
influencing
subsistence
lifestyles
etc.)?
8.
Determine
the
steps
for
communities
to
assess
their
own
measures
of
success.
9.
Determine
how
to
measure
long­
term
treatment
scenarios
for
those
sites
that
do
not
reach
construction
completion.
10.
Identify
Congressional
perspectives
on
success.
