DRAFT
­
FOR
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
i
1
2
3
This
Draft
is
a
Work
in
Progress.
4
It
was
Prepared
for
Subcommittee
Discussion
Only
and
5
Does
Not
Represent
Consensus
of
the
Subcommittee
6
7
8
9
DRAFT
REPORT
10
11
12
13
Superfund
Subcommittee
14
of
the
15
National
Advisory
Council
for
16
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
17
18
19
20
21
 
22
23
24
August
12,
2003
version
25
26
27
DRAFT
­
FOR
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
ii
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
Lindene
Patton
Zurich
North
America
Victoria
Peters
state
of
Colorado
Kate
Probst
Resources
for
the
Future
Ed
Putnam
state
of
New
Jersey
Catherine
Sharp
state
of
Oklahoma
Alexandra
Shultz
Mineral
Policy
Center
Mel
Skaggs
InDepth
Environmental
Associates
Richard
Stewart
New
York
University
School
of
Law
Wilma
Subra
Louisiana
Environmental
Action
Network
Michael
Tilchin
CH2M
Hill
Jason
White
Cherokee
Nation
Robin
Wiener
Institute
of
Scrap
Recycling
Industries
EPA
Ex­
Officio
Representatives
Barry
Breen
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Phyllis
Harris
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Lawrence
Starfield
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
iii
Table
of
Contents
1
2
Subcommittee
Members...................................................................................................
ii
3
Additional
information
on
the
members
will
be
included
in
the
Attachments
4
5
Introduction
from
the
Chair............................................................................................
v
6
Letter
from
the
Chair
will
be
written
after
the
recommendations
are
stable
and
will
7
introduce
the
report.
8
9
Executive
Summary.........................................................................................................
vi
10
The
Executive
Summary
will
be
written
after
the
recommendations
are
stable.
11
12
I.
Background
and
Charge
to
the
Subcommittee
..................................................
1
13
14
II.
Working
Assumptions
and
Guiding
Principles..................................................
5
15
16
III.
The
Use
of
the
National
Priorities
List................................................................
6
17
The
Purpose
of
the
NPL..........................................................................................
6
18
Involvement
of
Stakeholders
in
the
Listing
Process.............................................
10
19
Coordination
with
Other
Cleanup
Programs.........................................................
13
20
The
Hazard
Ranking
System
................................................................................
18
21
Tracking
Sites
That
Are
Considered
for
the
NPL
But
Not
Listed........................
21
22
Summary
of
Recommendations
on
the
Use
of
the
NPL
.......................................
24
23
24
IV.
Managing
Sites
on
the
NPL................................................................................
26
25
Setting
Priorities
Among
Listed
Sites...................................................................
27
26
Priority
Setting
Criteria.........................................................................................
28
27
Allocation
of
the
Superfund
Budget
.....................................................................
32
28
Program
Management
Efficiencies.......................................................................
36
29
Reforms
to
the
Contracting
Process......................................................................
37
30
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Management
of
Sites
on
the
NPL
....
39
31
32
V.
Mega
Sites............................................................................................................
40
33
Defining
Mega
Sites
.............................................................................................
40
34
Assessing
Large
Complex
Sites............................................................................
44
35
Dividing
Large,
Complex
Sites
into
Smaller
Units
..............................................
46
36
Establishing
a
Regional
Coordinating
Committee................................................
49
37
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Mega
Sites........................................
50
38
39
VI.
Measuring
Program
Progress............................................................................
52
40
Overview...............................................................................................................
52
41
Need
for
Core
Data                        
53
42
Coordination
with
Tribal
Nations,
States,
Communities         ..
54
43
Preparation
of
Annual
Report                    
57
44
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
iv
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Measuring
Program
Progress...........
60
1
2
VII.
Additional
Issues
Identified
by
the
Subcommittee
..........................................
61
3
Agency
for
Toxics
Substances
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
and
National
Institute
4
of
Environmental
Health
Sciences
(
NIEHS)
........................................................
61
5
6
List
of
Figures..................................................................................................................
63
7
8
Glossary
of
Terms
and
Phrases
.....................................................................................
64
9
10
Appendices.......................................................................................................................
65
11
12
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
v
Introduction
from
the
Chair
1
2
Letter
from
the
Chair
will
be
written
after
the
recommendations
are
stable
and
will
3
introduce
the
report.
4
5
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
vi
Executive
Summary
1
2
The
Executive
Summary
will
be
written
after
the
recommendations
are
stable,
and
3
reviewed
by
the
Subcommittee
as
part
of
a
future
meeting.
4
5
6
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
1
I.
Background
and
Charge
to
the
1
Subcommittee
2
3
In
July
2001,
the
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
4
(
EPA)
directed
the
development
of
an
action
plan
to
address
the
recommendations
in
the
5
Resources
for
the
Future
(
RFF)
report
to
Congress,
Superfund's
Future,
What
Will
It
6
Cost?
The
plan
called
for
the
creation
of
a
Superfund
Subcommittee
under
the
auspices
7
of
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT),
8
an
advisory
committee
under
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
FACA).
9
10
The
Superfund
Subcommittee
was
chartered
in
June
2002.
Members
of
the
11
Subcommittee
were
appointed
by
EPA
and
are
senior­
level
individuals
from
business
and
12
industry,
community
and
environmental
advocacy
groups,
federal,
state,
local
and
tribal
13
governments,
and
environmental
justice,
other
non­
governmental
organizations
and
14
academia.
(
See
Appendix
A
for
a
list
of
Subcommittee
members.)
15
16
EPA
asked
the
Subcommittee
for
advice
in
three
areas.
17
18

Use
of
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL),
including
the
role
of
the
NPL
in
the
19
context
of
other
cleanup
programs,
the
types
of
sites
that
should
be
on
the
NPL,
20
and
who
should
be
involved
in
determining
the
sites
that
are
listed.
21
22

How
to
best
address
mega
sites
(
defined
as
sites
where
total
cleanup
costs
are
23
expected
to
exceed
$
50
million),
including
whether
cost
should
continue
to
be
24
the
determining
factor
when
identifying
mega
sites,
whether
there
are
viable
25
alternatives
for
placing
mega
sites
on
the
NPL
and/
or
containing
their
costs,
and
26
whether
there
are
unique
aspects
of
mega
sites
that
might
require
a
different
27
decision­
making
process
for
NPL
listing.
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
2

Measuring
progress
in
the
Superfund
program,
including
the
criteria
that
1
should
be
used
to
measure
progress,
who
should
be
involved
in
measuring
2
progress
and
defining
success,
measuring
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
3
institutional
controls,
containment
and
natural
attenuation,
and
integrating
long­
4
term
stewardship
into
the
goals
of
the
Program.
5
6
Each
of
these
areas
is
defined
more
fully
in
the
final
Charge
agreed
to
by
the
7
Subcommittee,
included
in
Appendix
B.
The
final
charge
the
Subcommittee
used
to
8
guide
its
work
resulted
from
discussions
by
the
Subcommittee
in
which
the
original
9
charge
presented
by
EPA
was
modified
and
elaborated
upon
to
reflect
the
views
of
the
10
Subcommittee.
11
12
The
Subcommittee
met
eight
times
from
June
2002
to
December
2003.
Between
13
Subcommittee
meetings,
small
working
groups
of
Subcommittee
members
met
to
14
continue
deliberations
and
develop
options
and
recommendations
for
consideration
by
the
15
full
Subcommittee.
EPA
ex
officio
Subcommittee
members
participated
in
discussions
to
16
offer
insight
into
Agency
operations
and
policy
and
advice
on
the
implementation
17
implications
of
recommendations
under
consideration.
The
Agency
also
supported
18
Subcommittee
deliberations
by
making
staff
available
to
provide
informational
briefings
19
and
other
materials
to
the
Subcommittee
and
by
providing
professional
facilitators
for
20
Subcommittee
and
work
group
meetings.
EPA
did
not
participate
in
the
final
decision­
21
making
on
Subcommittee
recommendations.
22
23
In
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
FACA,
notices
of
full
Subcommittee
meetings
24
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
and
the
meetings
were
open
to
the
public.
25
Opportunities
for
public
comment
were
provided
at
each
meeting
and
the
content
of
the
26
public
comments
are
included
in
the
meeting
transcripts.
A
description
of
the
27
Subcommittee
process,
including
dates
and
locations
of
full
Subcommittee
meetings
and
28
lists
of
individuals
who
offered
presentations
to
the
Subcommittee
or
made
comments,
is
29
included
in
Appendix
C.
Meeting
agendas,
transcripts
and
other
materials
are
available
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
3
through
the
Superfund
Docket
[
docket
contact
information];
reference
Docket
#
SFUND
1
2002­
0005.
2
3
In
developing
this
report,
Subcommittee
members
considered
and
articulated
their
views
4
on
many
complex
and
inter­
related
issues.
The
final
report
is
an
integrated
package
that
5
represents
the
Subcommittee's
best
effort
to
formulate
consensus
recommendations.
The
6
Subcommittee
worked
to
reach
the
greatest
degree
of
consensus
possible
among
the
wide
7
range
of
views
reflected
in
its
membership.
Consensus
was
defined
as
an
outcome
that
8
everyone
can
"
live
with,"
in
the
context
of
the
report
as
a
whole,
though
aspects
of
any
9
particular
finding
or
recommendation
may
not
be
the
first
choice
of
all
members.
When
10
consensus
was
not
reached,
the
report
identifies
options
or
describes
the
range
of
views
11
held
by
Subcommittee
members.
12
13
The
rest
of
this
report
is
organized
as
follows.
Section
II
discusses
key
assumptions
and
14
themes
used
by
the
Subcommittee
to
frame
their
deliberations
and
recommendations.
15
Sections
III
through
VI
present
the
recommendations
of
the
Subcommittee.
16
Subcommittee
recommendations
are
presented
in
report
sections
that
align
with
the
issues
17
raised
in
the
Subcommittee
charge.
18
19

Use
of
the
National
Priorities
List
20

Managing
Sites
on
the
NPL
21

Mega
Sites
22

Measuring
Program
Progress
23
24
In
the
case
of
the
first
element
(
NPL
listing),
two
sections
of
recommendations
are
25
presented:
the
first
addresses
the
types
of
sites
that
should
be
listed
and
the
listing
26
process;
the
second
addresses
how
sites
on
the
NPL
should
be
managed.
27
28
Within
each
issue
area
the
Subcommittee
recommendations
are
further
organized
by
29
topic.
To
aid
the
reader
in
understanding
the
Subcommittee's
views
and
to
put
the
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
4
recommendations
in
context,
recommendations
are
preceded
by
commentary
highlighting
1
the
key
points
of
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
leading
to
each
recommendation.
2
Recommendations
are
numbered
sequentially
throughout
the
Report
and
are
printed
in
3
bold
and
italicized
text.
When
appropriate,
recommendations
are
followed
by
additional
4
information
describing
the
Subcommittee's
additional
views
regarding
the
specifics
of
5
the
recommendation.
A
summary
of
recommendations
is
provided
at
the
end
of
each
6
Section.
7
8
During
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
a
number
of
issues
arose
which
were
related
to
9
the
charge,
but
on
which
the
Subcommittee
did
not
have
time
to
focus
in­
depth.
There
10
several
of
these
issues
which
the
Subcommittee
believes
merit
further
attention
by
EPA.
11
These
issues
are
discussed
in
Section
VII.
12
13
14
15
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
5
II.
Working
Assumptions
and
Guiding
Principles
1
2
Consistent
with
the
deliberations
in
New
Bedford,
this
section
will
be
developed
after
the
3
Subcommittee
has
a
better
sense
of
its
core
recommendations.
The
draft
text
will
be
4
reviewed
by
the
Subcommittee
at
a
future
meeting.
5
6
There
was
a
suggestion
at
the
New
Bedford
meeting
that
some
historical
context
be
7
added
to
the
report.
The
language
below
is
an
initial
effort
(
place­
holder)
for
that
8
language
that
we
would
suggest
could
be
placed
in
this
section
of
the
report:
9
10
EPA
invited
the
Subcommittee
to
consider
a
wide
range
of
possible
future
directions
for
11
the
Superfund
program,
but
asked
that
the
Subcommittee
include
a
"
level
funding
12
scenario"
among
its
considerations.
Since
[
year],
the
taxes
used
to
fund
the
Superfund
13
have
expired
and
the
program
has
been
funded
through
annual
appropriations
of
14
approximately
$
1.3
billion
per
year.
In
fiscal
year
(
FY)
2002,
EPA
for
the
first
time
did
15
not
have
enough
money
to
fully
fund
all
the
new
remedial
actions
that
were
ready
to
start
16
at
NPL
sites
while
at
the
same
time
maintaining
the
pace
and
level
of
funding
for
ongoing
17
NPL
cleanups.
Because
of
this
situation,
and
consistent
with
the
request
that
the
18
Subcommittee
consider
a
level
funding
scenario,
there
likely
will
continue
to
be
pressure
19
on
EPA's
ability
to
fully
and
completely
fund
all
cleanup
actions
at
all
NPL
sites
at
the
20
maximum
rate
of
progress
simultaneously.]
[
Review
Question:
This
is
an
effort
to
21
provide
factual,
historical
context
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge
as
suggested
by
22
members.
Is
this
the
right
information
and
the
right
place
for
this
text?]
23
24
25
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
6
III.
The
Use
of
the
National
Priorities
List
1
2
One
of
the
three
areas
that
EPA
asked
the
Subcommittee
to
address
is
the
National
3
Priorities
List
(
NPL).
For
purposes
of
deliberations
and
making
recommendations,
the
4
Subcommittee
divided
issues
related
to
the
future
use
of
the
NPL
into
two
categories:
5
issues
related
to
the
listing
process
(
Section
III)
and
issues
related
to
management
of
sites
6
that
are
listed
on
the
NPL
(
Section
IV).
This
section
addresses
the
first
category,
issues
7
related
to
the
NPL
listing
process.
The
Subcommittee
addresses
five
issues
related
to
8
NPL
listing:
9
10

the
purpose
of
the
NPL,
11

involvement
of
stakeholders
in
the
listing
process,
12

coordination
with
other
cleanup
programs,
13

the
hazard
ranking
system,
and
14

tracking
sites
that
are
considered
for
the
NPL
but
not
listed
15
16
The
Subcommittee's
deliberations
and
recommendations
for
each
of
these
issues
are
17
described
below.
18
19
The
Purpose
of
the
NPL
20
21
The
NPL
is
one
of
the
cornerstones
of
the
Superfund
program
and
defines
the
sites
at
22
which
EPA
is
authorized
to
spend
Superfund
monies
on
remedial
and
long­
term
response
23
actions.
The
Subcommittee's
deliberations
were
carried
out
in
a
climate
of
public
24
concern
and
debate
over
the
amount
of
money
available
to
the
Superfund
program
and
25
EPA's
continued
ability
to
simultaneously
fund
timely
progress
at
all
fund­
lead
NPL
26
sites.
The
Subcommittee
understands
that
no
matter
how
much
money
is
appropriated
to
27
Superfund,
resources
to
address
contaminated
sites
never
have
been
and
never
will
be
28
unlimited.
In
this
context,
the
Subcommittee
considered
a
number
of
ways
that
EPA
29
might
change
its
listing
practices,
including
the
following.
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
7
1

List
only
sites
that
can
be
funded
at
current
and
anticipated
future
appropriation
2
levels.
3
4

Create
a
new
list
within
the
NPL
to
distinguish
sites
for
which
funding
is
5
available
from
sites
for
which
funding
is
not
available.
6
7

Create
a
new
list
outside
the
NPL
(
or
use
the
current
list
of
"
sites
of
Federal
8
interest")
to
track
NPL­
caliber
sites
that
are
not
listed
primarily
due
to
funding
9
concerns.
10
11
These
options
were
ultimately
rejected
based
on
three
considerations.
First,
the
12
Subcommittee
is
convinced
that
for
the
most
part
sites
that
are
considered
for
NPL
listing
13
are
recommended
to
EPA
by
states,
tribal
nations,
or
affected
communities
because
these
14
sites
have
not
been,
or
cannot
be,
appropriately
addressed
by
a
non­
NPL
cleanup
15
program.
For
example,
a
site
might
be
considered
or
proposed
for
the
NPL
if
16
government
funding
is
needed
for
cleanup.
This
would
be
the
case
if
cleanup
costs
are
17
expected
to
exceed
funds
available
under
a
state
cleanup
program.
A
site
also
might
be
18
considered
for
the
NPL
if
a
previous
cleanup
approach
has
not
worked,
for
example
if
a
19
non­
NPL
cleanup
program
has
not
achieved
the
type
of
progress
a
state,
tribal
nation,
or
20
affected
community
desires.
Against
this
backdrop,
the
Subcommittee
is
concerned
that
21
choosing
not
to
list
sites
that
would
otherwise
qualify
for
the
NPL
based
primarily
on
22
concerns
about
limits
on
funding
available
for
cleanup
would
throw
sites
into
a
sort
of
23
"
limbo,"
where
they
are
not
addressed
by
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
and
not
addressed
24
by
the
NPL.
25
26
Second,
choosing
not
to
list
sites
based
primarily
on
concerns
about
funding
limits
would
27
mask
the
true
extent
of
the
need
for
the
NPL
and
the
number
of
sites
awaiting
cleanup.
28
While
the
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
this
could
be
managed
(
e.
g.,
through
additional
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
8
site
tracking
mechanisms),
it
was
not
convinced
that
establishing
a
new
administrative
1
approach
for
identifying
or
tracking
NPL­
caliber
sites
was
desirable.
2
3
Third,
at
the
time
NPL
listing
decisions
are
made,
the
costs
of
likely
remedial
actions
can
4
be
projected,
at
best,
only
very
generally.
While
it
may
be
appropriate
to
consider
such
5
general
cost
projections
in
forecasts
of
overall
impacts
on
the
Superfund
budget
or
in
6
thinking
about
the
pace
of
cleanup
that
may
be
possible
at
listed
sites,
it
is
not
appropriate
7
to
use
them
as
a
primary
basis
to
include
or
exclude
a
site
from
the
NPL.
8
9
[
Sidebar
text:
what
is
an
NPL­
caliber
site?]
10
11
Although
the
Subcommittee
agrees
that
costs
should
not
be
a
primary
factor
in
12
determining
whether
an
eligible
site
is
listed
on
the
NPL,
the
members
did
not
reach
13
consensus
on
whether
anticipated
cleanup
costs
and
the
availability
of
funding
should
be
14
considered
in
any
way
during
listing
decisions.
Some
Subcommittee
members
believe
15
that,
as
a
practical
matter,
EPA
must
be
able
to
consider
the
effects
listing
decisions
could
16
have
on
future
Superfund
spending
during
the
listing
process.
For
example,
if
a
large
site
17
needing
significant
fund­
lead
work
were
to
be
listed,
such
a
listing
could
have
serious,
18
practical
implications
for
EPA's
ability
to
continue
to
fund
ongoing
cleanups.
19
Subcommittee
members
who
advocate
some
consideration
of
costs
during
listing
believe
20
that
EPA
must
be
able
to
consider
these
practical
eventualities
when
making
listing
21
decisions
and
during
subsequent
planning
processes.
Other
Subcommittee
members
22
believe
that
any
consideration
of
potential
cleanup
costs
and
funds
available
during
23
listing
would
result
in
EPA
inappropriately
deferring
listing
of
some
sites
based
on
cost
24
considerations
rather
than
on
data
about
risks
and
potential
risks
to
humans
and
the
25
environment.
Subcommittee
members
who
do
not
support
any
consideration
of
cost
26
during
the
listing
process
believe
that
this
outcome
would
inappropriately
dilute
27
Superfund's
focus
on
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
is
contrary
to
28
statute.
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
9
In
both
cases,
all
Subcommittee
members
recognized
that
EPA's
ability
to
make
timely
1
progress
at
listed
sites
will
be
influenced
by
the
resources
available
at
the
time
that
2
cleanup
decisions
are
needed.
Regardless
of
whether
or
how
the
Agency
decides
to
3
consider
anticipated
cleanup
costs
and
the
availability
of
funding
when
making
listing
4
decisions,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
the
following:
5
6
1.
The
NPL
should
reflect
true
national
priorities
for
Superfund
cleanup.
Therefore,
7
the
number
of
sites
listed
on
the
NPL
should
not
be
arbitrarily
capped
based
on
8
current
or
anticipated
Program
funding.
9
10
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
take
the
following
steps
to
ensure
that
the
11
Superfund
program
is
focused
on
true
national
priorities
for
cleanup.
12
13

EPA
should
use
existing
systems
to
carefully
focus
the
program
on
sites
that
truly
14
represent
the
highest
national
priorities
for
Superfund
cleanup.
The
NPL
should
15
reflect
sites
that
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
and
16
that
will
not
be
cleaned
up
absent
funding
being
available
(
for
either
response
17
actions
or
oversight
of
PRP
work)
only
for
sites
designated
as
NPL
sites.
The
18
definition
of
significant
risk
should
remain
relatively
consistent
over
time.
Sites
to
19
be
considered
for
NPL
listing
should
continue
to
be
identified
by
states,
tribal
20
nations,
EPA
regional
offices,
and
communities,
and
should
continue
to
become
21
eligible
for
the
NPL
based
on
a
legitimate
HRS
score
of
28.5
or
greater.
EPA
22
should
continue
to
ensure
that
HRS
scoring
packages
are
properly
prepared
and
23
defensible.
Rigorous
review
of
scoring
packages
at
the
EPA
Headquarters
level
24
should
ensure
proper
application
of
the
HRS
model,
and
bring
a
national
25
perspective
and
professional
judgment
to
bear.
This
should
be
done
without
26
losing
sight
of
the
fact
that
EPA
regional
offices
operate
in
regional­
specific
risk
27
circumstances;
some
types
of
risks
(
e.
g.,
ecological
risks)
are
more
prevalent
or
28
more
important
in
some
regions
than
in
others.
The
Subcommittee
anticipates
29
that
this
approach
will
result
in
a
list
of
sites
that
pose
risks
similar
to
those
posed
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
10
by
sites
previously
listed,
and
that
cannot
be
adequately
addressed
through
other
1
programs.
2
3

EPA
should
take
appropriate
actions
to
reduce
the
future
burden
on
the
NPL.
For
4
example,
increased
vigilance
in
preventive
programs
could
reduce
the
number
of
5
contaminated
sites
that
must
be
managed
in
the
future.
Increased
deliberateness
6
and
thoughtfulness
with
respect
to
aggressive
implementation
of
non­
NPL
7
cleanup
programs
may
result
in
these
programs
effectively
addressing
more
sites.
8
EPA
should
track
trends
in
the
types
of
sites
being
proposed
to
the
NPL.
These
9
trends
should
be
used
to
help
identify
measures
that
can
be
taken
to
minimize
10
future
sites
requiring
cleanup,
or
the
extent
of
cleanup
required.
For
example,
11
such
trends
may
help
to
identify
opportunities
to
strengthen
preventive
programs
12
and
compliance
assistance,
ensuring
reliable
financial
assurances,
and
any
other
13
measures
identified
in
the
course
of
reviewing
new
site
listings.
EPA
should
also
14
continue
efforts
to
strengthen
the
capacity
of
states,
tribal
nations,
and
affected
15
communities
to
address
contaminated
sites
by
continuing
to
support
development
16
of
effective
state
and
tribal
cleanup
programs.
17
18

Finally,
EPA
should
appropriately
prioritize
funding
and
attention
for
listed
sites.
19
As
described
in
Section
IV
of
this
report,
this
prioritization
should
occur
only
20
after
initial
remedial
investigations
and
feasibility
studies
have
been
carried
out,
21
when
more
is
known
about
the
risks
presented
by
a
site
and
the
types
of
cleanup
22
actions
that
are
needed.
23
24
Involvement
of
Stakeholders
in
the
Listing
Process
25
26
There
are
hundreds
of
thousands
of
contaminated
sites
across
the
United
States.
These
27
sites
range
from
relatively
simple
gas
station
cleanups
to
complex
urban
waterways
and
28
sites
affecting
hundreds
of
acres.
Of
all
these
sites,
only
a
small
fraction
will
present
the
29
level
of
risk
and
public
concern
that
warrants
NPL
listing.
Under
current
EPA
practice,
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
11
before
a
site
is
officially
"
discovered"
for
purposes
of
Superfund
and
placed
in
the
1
CERCLIS
database,
EPA
regions,
states,
and
tribal
nations
carry
out
a
series
of
pre­
2
screening
activities
to
assess
whether
a
site
is
an
appropriate
candidate
for
consideration
3
for
NPL
listing.
4
5
Sites
may
enter
this
pre­
screening
process
for
many
reasons.
In
September
2002,
EPA
6
regional
offices
were
informally
surveyed
by
EPA
headquarters
staff
about
the
factors
7
that
most
often
prompt
initiation
of
the
Superfund
site
assessment
process
and
inform
8
eventual
NPL
listing.
Results
of
this
survey
are
still
being
compiled;
however,
based
on
9
responses
from
seven
regional
offices,
it
appears
that
the
vast
majority
of
sites
are
10
considered
for
the
Superfund
site
assessment
process
based
on
a
recommendation
from
a
11
state
or
a
tribal
government
or
based
on
collaboration
between
a
regional
office
and
a
12
state
or
Tribe.
Regions
listed
the
need
for
fund
money
to
pay
for
cleanup
(
i.
e.,
orphan
13
share)
as
the
reason
a
site
was
raised
for
considered
for
the
NPL
for
approximately
one­
14
third
of
new
NPL
listings.
Lack
of
cooperation
from
PRPs
was
listed
as
the
reason
a
site
15
was
raised
for
consideration
for
the
NPL
for
another
one­
third
of
new
listings.
In
16
general,
state
cleanup
programs
refer
sites
to
EPA
for
consideration
for
the
NPL;
EPA
17
does
not
"
defer"
sites
to
state
programs.
State
regulators,
for
the
most
part,
are
the
18
primary
discoverers
of
contaminated
sites,
and
state
programs
tend
to
be
the
default
19
cleanup
mechanism
for
most
contaminated
sites.
When
these
programs
cannot
address
20
the
site,
Superfund
and
other
alternatives
are
considered.
21
22
Based
on
these
considerations,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
the
following
23
improvements
to
the
involvement
of
stakeholders
in
the
listing
process.
24
25
2.
EPA
regional
offices
should
continue
to
involve
states
in
the
identification
of
which
26
sites
to
recommend
for
NPL
listing.
EPA
should
also
involve
potentially
affected
27
communities
and
potentially
responsible
parties
earlier
in
the
Superfund
Site
28
Assessment
process
through
solicitation
of
information
about
sites
being
29
considered
for
listing.
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
12
1
The
Subcommittee
believes
that,
with
respect
to
states,
it
is
critical
that
EPA
continue
its
2
practice
of
collaborating
to
determine
which
sites
warrant
assessment
under
Superfund.
3
If
there
are
situations
where
coordination
between
states
and
EPA
regions
is
lacking,
4
coordination
practices
should
be
expanded
or
instituted.
Collaboration
between
Tribal
5
nations,
states,
and
EPA
regional
offices
is
an
important
step
in
sorting
through
6
contaminated
sites
and
ensuring
that
resources
for
Superfund
site
assessment,
and
7
eventually
cleanup,
are
oriented
towards
the
sites
that
truly
require
national
attention.
8
Given
the
need
to
focus
the
NPL
on
the
true
national
priorities
for
cleanup
(
see
above)
it
9
is
critical
that
this
process
of
collaboration
continue,
and,
as
appropriate,
be
expanded.
10
11
In
general,
individual
EPA
regional
offices
have
developed
practices
of
coordination
that
12
they
believe
are
appropriate
to
their
region­
and
state­
specific
circumstances.
These
13
practices
include
regional
decision
teams,
site
"
watch
lists,"
and
other
strategies.
The
14
Subcommittee
emphasizes
that
it
is
not
advocating
expenditure
of
resources
on
15
development
or
standardization
of
coordination
practices;
informal,
region­
and
state­
16
specific
approaches
are
appropriate,
as
long
as
coordination
is
achieved.
17
18
With
respect
to
potentially
affected
communities
and
potentially
responsible
parties,
19
coordination
during
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
should
be
expanded.
Currently,
potentially
20
affected
communities
and
potentially
responsible
parties,
if
known,
are
involved
in
pre­
21
CERCLIS
screening
only
on
an
ad
hoc
basis,
if
at
all.
This
is
troubling
to
the
22
Subcommittee
because
communities
and
PRPs
often
have
information
about
sites
that
23
may
not
be
available
to
EPA,
states,
or
tribal
nations,
and
may
have
views
about
cleanup
24
needs
at
a
site
and
how
cleanup
should
best
be
accomplished.
25
26
EPA
should
involve
potentially
affected
communities
and
PRPs
in
pre­
CERCLIS
27
screening.
Community
leaders,
site
neighbors,
and
previous
site
workers
are
sources
of
28
historical
information
and
knowledge
concerning
site
activities
and
likely
contamination
29
and
exposure
pathways.
EPA
should
reach
out
to
these
individuals
during
pre­
CERCLIS
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
13
screening
using
targeted
outreach
efforts
or
other
informal
means.
PRPs
are
also
sources
1
of
information
about
site
conditions.
In
addition,
the
identification
of
PRPs
during
pre­
2
CERCLIS
screening
could
prompt
them
to
step
forward
to
cleanup
a
site
voluntarily
or
3
under
a
non­
NPL
cleanup
program
such
as
a
state
program
or
the
Superfund
Alternative
4
program.
5
6
Of
course,
coordination
is
meant
to
improve
listing
decisions,
not
to
delay
them.
EPA
7
should
not
allow
coordination
efforts
to
delay
a
listing
decision
when
it
is
clear
that
the
8
NPL
is
the
most
appropriate
cleanup
method
to
use
at
a
site.
If
a
site
is
proposed
for
9
listing,
the
listing
process
and
the
subsequent
cleanup
provide
numerous
opportunities
for
10
coordination.
The
Subcommittee
emphasizes
that
EPA
retains
sole
discretion
to
make
11
decisions
about
which
sites
to
list
on
the
NPL
and
these
recommendations
are
not
12
intended
and
should
not
be
interpreted
as
fettering
that
discretion.
The
Agency
has
a
13
responsibility
to
make
listing
decisions
in
a
timely
and
efficient
manner,
in
accordance
14
with
promulgated
procedures
and
based
on
credible
technical
evidence.
15
16
[
Sidebar
text:
what
is
the
SF
site
assessment
process,
with
flow
chart.]
17
18
[
Sidebar
text:
what
is
the
SF
Alternative
Program?]
[
Review
question:
we
anticipate
this
19
would
simply
describe
the
SF
alternative
program.
Is
this
the
right
place
for
such
a
20
description
and,
does
the
Subcommittee
wish
to
express
any
views
about
the
strengths
or
21
weaknesses
of
the
program?]
22
23
Coordination
with
Other
Cleanup
Programs
24
25
The
Subcommittee
had
extensive
discussions
about
the
role
that
other
federal
cleanup
26
programs
and
state
cleanup
programs
should
play
relative
to
the
NPL.
The
primary
27
outcome
of
these
discussions
was
recognition
that
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
should
not
28
be
seen
as
supplanting
the
role
of
the
NPL.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
both
a
29
strong,
functioning
NPL
and
strong,
functioning
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
are
needed
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
14
to
address
the
full
range
of
contaminated
sites
and
cleanup
challenges
that
exist
in
this
1
country.
In
many
ways,
a
strong
NPL
serves
to
strengthen
other
cleanup
programs,
2
particularly
state
programs,
by
providing
a
certain
alternative
if
progress
is
not
made.
3
4
The
second
outcome
of
these
deliberations
was
a
desire
among
Subcommittee
members
5
to
ensure
that
to
the
extent
other
programs
offer
authorities,
processes,
or
funds
that
will
6
facilitate
cleanup
of
NPL­
caliber
sites,
these
"
tools"
are
known
and
available
to
EPA
7
regional
offices,
deliberately
and
thoughtfully
considered,
and
used
to
complement
8
Superfund
processes
and
funding
where
they
can
be
appropriately
applied
without
9
compromising
cleanup
standards,
liability,
or
community
participation.
10
11
The
Subcommittee
identified
several
ways
in
which
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
might
be
12
a
useful
complement
to
the
NPL.
13
14

A
program
might
provide
sources
of
funding
that
could
be
used
to
supplement
15
funding
under
Superfund.
For
example,
under
some
circumstances
the
U.
S.
Army
16
Corps
of
Engineers
can
provide
funding
for
environmental
dredging
in
ways
that
17
may
complement
an
ongoing
Superfund
cleanup.
18
19

Program
authorities
might
be
used
in
combination
with
the
Superfund
program
to
20
provide
additional
cleanup
authorities
or
strategies
to
augment
a
Superfund
21
cleanup.
These
coordinated
approaches
have
been
used
at
a
number
of
Superfund
22
sites,
such
as
the
Grand
Calumet
cleanup
[
other
examples?],
and
are
being
23
considered
under
EPA's
Urban
Rivers
Initiative.
To
the
extent
that
such
24
approaches
do
not
compromise
cleanup
standards,
liability,
or
community
25
participation,
they
can
be
an
important
element
of
ensuring
that
all
available
26
resources
are
leveraged
to
achieve
effective
cleanups.
27
28

Some
programs
might
provide
a
viable
alternative
administrative
framework
29
under
which
cleanup
activities
at
a
site
could
be
appropriately
overseen
or
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
15
enforced.
For
example,
Superfund
already
has
a
policy
of
deferring
responsibility
1
for
cleanup
to
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program
where
that
program
applies.
2
Use
of
a
non­
NPL
program
to
oversee
or
enforce
cleanup
might
also
be
3
appropriate
where
cleanup
will
be
funded
by
PRPs
and
a
state
program
can
4
provide
appropriate
oversight
of
the
PRP
cleanup.
Again,
to
the
extent
that
use
of
5
non­
NPL
programs
at
NPL­
caliber
sites
does
not
compromise
cleanup
standards,
6
liability,
or
community
protection,
the
Subcommittee
believes
these
are
important
7
alternatives,
and
their
use
will
allow
limited
NPL
resources
to
be
directed
only
8
toward
sites
where
they
are
most
needed.
9
10
The
Subcommittee
was
briefed
on
EPA's
effort
to
harmonize
cleanup
programs
 
the
11
One
Cleanup
Program
Initiative.
The
Subcommittee
embraces
this
initiative
as
a
way
to
12
improve
coordination
among
programs,
minimize
duplication
of
efforts
across
programs,
13
and
take
advantage
of
the
unique
attributes
different
programs
offer
without
sacrificing
14
cleanup
standards,
liability,
or
community
participation.
15
16
In
a
recent
survey
conducted
by
EPA,
all
ten
EPA
regional
offices
confirmed
that
they
17
convene
meetings
of
a
regional
Decision
Team
or
similar
body
to
coordinate
evaluation
18
of
which
sites
most
need
to
be
addressed
using
the
NPL
and
which
might
be
19
appropriately
addressed
using
a
non­
NPL
cleanup
program.
However,
the
programs
20
considered
and
the
methods
and
nature
of
this
analysis
can
vary
significantly
among
21
regions.
All
ten
EPA
regional
offices
indicated
that
they
routinely
consider
removal
22
actions,
the
Superfund
Alternative
Site
approach,
other
EPA
authorities
and
programs
23
(
e.
g.,
RCRA
corrective
action),
and
all
possible
state
remediation
programs
before
24
making
a
commitment
to
formally
propose
a
site
for
NPL
listing.
Nine
regions
report
25
routine
meetings
with
state
program
managers
to
coordinate
cleanup
priorities,
seven
26
regions
report
similar
meetings
with
the
Superfund
removal
program,
and
three
regions
27
report
routine
meetings
with
other
EPA
programs
such
as
the
RCRA
corrective
action
28
program.
Regions
also
report
that
they
consult
informally
with
these
programs
before
29
proposing
a
site
to
the
NPL.
Eight
regions
report
that
they
also
consider
other
Federal
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
16
agency
response
programs,
such
as
the
programs
put
in
place
by
the
Department
of
1
Defense
and
the
Department
of
the
Interior,
before
proposing
a
site
to
the
NPL.
1
2
3
To
further
encourage
consideration
of
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
and
use
of
these
4
programs
as
appropriate,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that:
5
6
3.
EPA
should
institute
a
deliberate
process
carried
out
at
the
regional
level
to
provide
7
for
consistent
consideration
of
other
federal
cleanup
programs
and
state
cleanup
8
programs
before
a
site
is
recommended
for
NPL
listing.
9
10
In
implementing
this
recommendation,
EPA
should
establish
guidelines
for
consideration
11
of
other
programs
so
that
all
regions
consider
appropriate
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
for
12
NPL­
caliber
sites,
and
so
that
programs
are
considered
at
appropriate
points
in
the
listing
13
process.
The
Subcommittee
considered,
but
ultimately
rejected,
recommending
a
more
14
formal
mechanism
for
coordination,
such
as
a
"
coordinating
committee."
(
Note:
the
15
coordinated
committee
approach
is
suggested
for
use
at
the
regional
level
with
regard
to
16
mega­
sites
 
see
Mega­
site
recommendations).
Instead,
the
Subcommittee
favors
an
17
approach
that
recommends
achieving
the
outcomes
of
coordination
but
leaves
to
EPA
18
regional
offices
and
their
partners
the
responsibility
of
determining
the
best
means
to
19
achieve
those
outcomes
given
regional­
specific
circumstances.
It
seems
likely
that
the
20
most
efficient
means
for
EPA
to
accomplish
the
coordination
outcomes
recommended
by
21
the
Subcommittee
is
through
improvements
to
the
existing
regional
infrastructures
for
22
coordination,
rather
than
through
establishment
of
a
new
standard
mechanism.
23
24
EPA
should
also
ensure
that
accurate,
up­
to­
date
information
about
the
strengths,
25
weaknesses,
and
capabilities
of
other
federal
cleanup
programs
that
might
complement
26
Superfund
is
available
to
the
states,
regions
and
other
interested
parties,
along
with
27
1
U.
S.
EPA
survey
of
existing
NPL
listing
management
practices
in
the
EPA
regional
offices,
reported
August
16,
2002.
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
17
support
for
regional
project
managers
who
wish
to
consider
coordination
or
collaboration
1
with
such
programs.
This
will
assist
regional
offices
in
determining
which
non­
NPL
2
programs
might
be
most
appropriate
to
consider
for
a
specific
site
and
in
making
3
determinations
as
to
how
a
non­
NPL
program
might
be
used
in
a
way
that
doesn't
4
compromise
cleanup
levels,
liability,
or
community
participation.
5
6
As
with
the
discussion
of
coordination,
above,
the
Subcommittee
emphasizes
that
EPA
7
should
not
allow
consideration
of
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
to
delay
a
listing
decision
8
when
it
is
clear
that
the
NPL
is
the
most
appropriate
cleanup
method
to
use
at
a
site.
EPA
9
retains
sole
discretion
to
make
decisions
about
which
sites
to
list
on
the
NPL
and
these
10
recommendations
are
not
intended
and
should
not
be
interpreted
as
fettering
that
11
discretion.
The
Agency
has
a
responsibility
to
make
listing
decisions
in
a
timely
and
12
efficient
manner,
in
accordance
with
promulgated
procedures
and
based
on
credible
13
technical
evidence.
14
15
[
Sidebar
text
listing
programs
considered
by
the
Subcommittee
w/
two
sentence
factual
16
description
of
each.]
17
18
[
Sidebar
text
listing
potential
good
practices
from
state
programs
to
evaluate
or
19
recommending
other
studies?]
20
21
[
Sidebar
text
on
capacity
building?
Mentioned
earlier
in
first
recommendation.]
22
23
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
18
The
Hazard
Ranking
System
(
HRS)
1
2
The
Subcommittee
was
not
charged
with
evaluating
the
HRS
and
therefore
did
not
carry
3
out
a
detailed
assessment
of
how
the
HRS
currently
is
functioning.
The
Subcommittee
4
therefore
is
not
making
recommendations
on
changes
to
the
28.5
threshold
or
to
the
HRS
5
model.
At
the
same
time,
because
the
HRS
is
the
way
in
which
EPA
most
often
defines
6
which
sites
are
eligible
for
NPL
listing,
the
Subcommittee
felt
it
was
appropriate
to
7
discuss
the
HRS
during
their
deliberations
on
the
use
of
the
NPL
and
the
NPL
listing
8
process.
9
10
The
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
the
HRS
serves
a
specific
and
limited
function
in
the
11
Superfund
Program.
The
use
of
the
HRS
does
not
result
in
a
risk
assessment
and
was
not
12
designed
to
result
in
a
risk
assessment.
Risk
assessments
are
carried
out
after
sites
are
13
listed,
during
the
cleanup
process.
Rather,
the
HRS
is
a
screening
tool
that
assigns
14
certain
numerical
values
to
a
variety
of
exposure
characteristics
known
or
assumed
to
be
15
associated
with
a
site,
with
the
presumption
that
a
site
score
of
at
least
28.5
indicates
16
significant
risks
and
delineates
a
site
that
warrants
national
attention
under
Superfund.
17
Sites
with
an
HRS
score
of
28.5
are
eligible
for
the
NPL.
During
the
HRS
scoring
18
process,
once
an
evaluation
of
one
or
more
exposure
pathways
results
in
a
score
of
28.5
19
or
above,
EPA
generally
does
not
invest
the
resources
in
completing
calculations
for
all
20
pathways
to
determine
how
high
the
site
score
should
be.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
21
because
of
this
practice
(
which
is
a
legitimate
resource
saving
technique),
HRS
scores
22
cannot
be
used
to
compare
the
relative
degree
of
risk
among
NPL
sites
and
cannot
be
23
relied
upon
to
make
judgments
about
the
total
amount
of
risk
posed
by
individual
sites.
24
25
Subcommittee
members
identified
a
number
of
concerns
related
to
the
HRS.
Some
26
Subcommittee
members
expressed
concern
that
limitations
of
the
HRS
as
implemented
27
may
preclude
NPL
listing
of
sites
that
pose
legitimate
and
serious
risks
to
humans
and
the
28
environment
that
warrant
national
attention
under
Superfund.
Subcommittee
members
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
19
identified
the
following
concerns
about
potential
limitations
in
the
ways
the
HRS
1
accounts
for
site
risks.
2
3

Does
the
HRS
adequately
address
sites
where
the
primary
risk
is
due
to
vapor
4
intrusion?
5
6

Does
the
HRS
adequately
account
for
environmental
justice
issues?
7
8

Does
the
HRS
adequately
enable
EPA
to
list
sites
that
are
not
located
near
major
9
population
areas?
10
11

Does
the
HRS
adequately
address
explosive
hazards?
12
13

Does
the
HRS
adequately
enable
EPA
to
list
sites
that
pose
a
threat
to
exposed
14
individuals
with
traditional
lifestyles?
15
16
Other
Subcommittee
members
had
concerns
about
the
opposite
problem,
that
application
17
of
the
HRS
may
result
in
listing
of
sites
that
do
not
truly
pose
the
types
of
legitimate,
18
significant
risks
to
humans
or
the
environment
that
the
Superfund
program
was
designed
19
to
address.
Some
Subcommittee
members
believe
that
the
28.5
threshold
is
too
low
and
20
should
be
raised.
Some
Subcommittee
members
suggested
that
layers
of
conservatism
21
built
into
the
HRS
default
assumptions
result
in
unreasonably
conservative
listing
22
decisions.
Finally,
some
Subcommittee
members
asked
whether
the
HRS
does
not
23
appropriately
balance
real
and
present
danger
with
potential
future
risks,
by
giving
the
24
same
weight
to
both
circumstances.
Concerns
over
the
HRS
capturing
too
many
sites
as
25
eligible
for
the
NPL
are
serious
and
care
should
be
taken
to
implement
the
HRS
so
that
26
the
sites
proposed
for
listing
on
the
NPL
represent
significant
risks
and
true
national
27
priorities.
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
20
The
Subcommittee
noted
that
EPA
has,
and
routinely
exercises,
the
discretion
not
to
list
1
NPL­
eligible
sites
(
i.
e.,
sites
with
an
HRS
score
of
28.5),
so
that
a
less
than
perfect
2
application
of
the
scoring
system
has
the
potential
to
be
corrected
in
EPA's
exercise
of
its
3
discretion
relative
to
listing
decisions.
On
the
other
hand,
if
a
site
does
not
score
28.5
or
4
above
using
the
HRS,
EPA
generally
is
unable
to
consider
it
for
NPL
listing.
5
6
As
a
result
of
the
issues
and
concerns
raised
with
respect
to
the
HRS,
the
Subcommittee
7
recommends
that:
8
9
4.
EPA
should
review
the
HRS
with
respect
to
several
important
issues
including
how
10
effectively
it
is
addressing
sites
located
in
sparsely
populated
areas,
environmental
11
justice
concerns,
traditional
lifestyles,
vapor
intrusion
or
explosive
hazards.
12
13
With
respect
to
vapor
intrusion,
the
Subcommittee
supports
EPA's
current
investigation
14
of
the
prevalence
and
seriousness
of
vapor
intrusion
at
sites
currently
listed
on
the
NPL.
15
As
this
evaluation
yields
data,
EPA
should
consider
whether
vapor
intrusion
is
a
16
significant
enough
issue
at
NPL
sites
to
warrant
a
change
in
the
HRS.
In
the
meantime,
17
EPA
should
work
with
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
18
Officials
(
ASTSWMO)
to
determine
whether
vapor
exposure
pathways
can
be
addressed
19
adequately
through
the
application
of
the
HRS.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
HRS
is
20
sufficient,
EPA
should
disseminate
its
findings
through
training
and/
or
new
or
revised
21
guidance/
policy
directives
so
that
all
EPA
regions,
tribes
and
states
understand
that
the
22
tool
is
available
and
how
to
use
it.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
HRS
does
not
adequately
23
reflect
risks
from
vapor
pathways,
EPA
should
work
with
states,
tribal
nations,
and
other
24
appropriate
individuals
to
decide
what
steps
to
take
to
ensure
that
sites
posing
significant
25
enough
risks
via
vapor
intrusion
are
eligible
for
listing
on
the
NPL.
26
27
With
respect
to
environmental
justice,
as
with
many
other
aspects
of
environmental
28
programs,
it
is
not
clear
that
the
HRS
adequately
incorporates
environmental
justice
29
considerations.
Many
believe
that
socio­
economically
depressed
areas
are
often
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
21
subjected
to
a
greater
proportion
of
environmental
insult
as
a
result
of
ongoing
and
1
abandoned
industrial
and
waste
facility
releases,
and
fewer
redevelopment
opportunities.
2
As
a
result,
a
community
could
be
exposed
to
a
number
of
sites,
none
of
which
score
28.5
3
but
which
together
may
pose
greater
risks
to
receptors
than
sites
currently
on
the
NPL.
4
In
addition,
genetics,
inferior
nutrition,
and
poor
health
care
may
all
predispose
5
individuals
to
disease
and
other
adverse
effects.
The
HRS,
as
is
typical
with
6
environmental
programs,
does
not
incorporate
such
considerations;
rather,
it
evaluates
7
releases
in
isolation.
Although
the
Subcommittee
acknowledges
this
issue,
it
has
not
had
8
the
opportunity
to
thoroughly
evaluate
the
components
and
arrive
at
a
definitive
proposed
9
resolution.
Therefore,
EPA
should
request
that
the
National
Environmental
Justice
10
Advisory
Committee
(
NEJAC)
follow
up
on
their
current
related
efforts
and
help
to
11
formulate
policies
which
would
ensure
that
predisposition
to
disease,
as
a
result
of
12
genetics,
poor
nutrition
or
health
care
and
cumulative
exposures
from
a
disproportionate
13
number
of
contaminant
sources,
be
considered
in
NPL
listing
decisions.
Additionally,
14
EPA
should
convene
an
EPA/
state/
Tribal
task
force
to
formulate
scientifically
15
supportable
policies
to
address
concerns
identified
by
NEJAC
related
to
NPL
listing.
16
17
With
respect
to
sparsely
populated
areas,
traditional
lifestyles
and
explosive
hazards,
18
EPA
should
work
with
appropriate
stakeholder
groups
to
better
understand
whether
the
19
HRS
adequately
addresses
these
issues
and,
if
not,
to
develop
a
strategy
to
make
20
appropriate
improvements
to
the
HRS.
21
22
Tracking
Sites
That
Are
Considered
for
the
NPL
But
Not
Listed
23
24
During
the
Superfund
Site
Assessment
process,
the
majority
of
sites
considered
for
listing
25
on
the
NPL
are
"
screened
out"
for
various
reasons.
Most
often,
sites
are
eliminated
from
26
further
consideration
for
listing
on
the
NPL
based
on
a
determination
that
they
would
not
27
achieve
an
HRS
score
of
28.5.
A
site
might
also
be
screened
out
because
it
can
be
28
appropriately
addressed
under
a
non­
NPL
cleanup
program,
such
as
the
RCRA
29
Corrective
Action
Program,
or
because
PRPs
enter
into
a
voluntary
agreement
to
carry
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
22
out
the
cleanup.
Generally,
sites
that
are
screened
out
in
these
ways
are
reflected
in
1
CERCLIS
as
"
No
Further
Remedial
Action
Required"
or
"
NFRAP."
2
3
Some
sites
that
make
it
through
the
Superfund
Site
Assessment
process
and
are
eligible
4
for
listing
on
the
NPL
are,
nonetheless,
at
EPA's
discretion,
not
listed.
EPA
might
5
choose
not
to
list
an
NPL­
eligible
site,
for
example,
if
the
default
assumptions
used
in
the
6
HRS
model
are
not
consistent
with
actual
site­
specific
conditions.
EPA
might
also
7
choose
not
to
list
an
NPL­
eligible
site
based
on
evaluation
of
the
immediacy
and
8
significance
of
risks
and
potential
risks
posed
by
the
site
and
the
number
and
types
of
9
receptors
(
humans
and
environmental)
that
may
be
at
risk.
NPL­
eligible
sites
that
EPA
10
chooses
not
to
list
for
these
reasons
generally
are
not
reflected
in
CERCLIS
as
NFRAP
11
but
rather
are
tracked
informally
by
EPA
for
consideration
during
future
NPL
listing
12
cycles.
13
14
While
the
Subcommittee
recognizes
and
affirms
EPA's
need
to
exercise
professional
15
judgment
and
discretion
in
selecting
which
NPL­
eligible
sites
to
propose
for
listing
on
16
the
NPL,
it
is
troubled
by
the
lack
of
transparency
in
this
decision
making
and
the
17
informal
nature
of
EPA's
tracking
protocols
for
NPL­
eligible
sites
that
are
not
proposed
18
for
listing.
As
discussed
earlier
in
this
report,
in
most
cases,
potential
NPL
sites
are
19
referred
to
EPA
by
states,
communities,
and
tribal
nations
only
after
other
cleanup
20
avenues
have
been
exhausted.
When
these
sites
score
28.5
using
the
HRS
model,
yet
are
21
not
listed,
EPA
must
assure
that
adequate
protection
of
human
health
and
the
22
environment
does
occur.
23
24
The
Subcommittee
is
also
concerned
that
sites
screened
out
earlier
in
the
Superfund
Site
25
Assessment
process
(
e.
g.,
because
they
would
not
achieve
a
28.5
HRS
ranking)
and
noted
26
as
NFRAP
may
be
misconstrued
by
some
as
being
"
clean"
even
when
site
conditions
still
27
pose
risks
to
humans
and
the
environment.
To
address
these
concerns,
the
Subcommittee
28
recommends
that:
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
23
5.
EPA
should
increase
the
transparency
of
decisions
not
to
propose
NPL­
eligible
1
sites
for
listing
on
the
NPL
and
should
establish
a
formal
process
to
track
NPL­
2
eligible
sites
that
are
not
listed.
3
4
6.
EPA
should
establish
standard
protocols
to
ensure
that
communications
with
5
states,
tribal
nations,
affected
communities
and
other
appropriate
individuals
about
6
NFRAP
sites
make
site
conditions
and
risks
clear.
7
8
With
respect
to
NPL­
eligible
sites,
in
implementing
the
recommendation
to
increase
9
transparency
of
decision
making
EPA
should
at
a
minimum
document
its
decisions
not
to
10
propose
NPL­
eligible
sites
for
listing
and
communicate
these
decisions
to
states,
tribal
11
nations,
affected
communities
and
other
appropriate
individuals.
In
communicating
12
these
decisions,
EPA
should
state
explicitly
that
the
site
has
not
been
determined
to
be
13
clean.
Typically,
EPA
has
information
on
the
types
of
contaminants
likely
to
be
present
14
at
these
sites,
environmental
media
affected,
and
potential
receptors.
This
information
15
should
be
included
in
communications
about
the
site.
In
implementing
the
16
recommendation
to
establish
a
formal
tracking
procedure,
EPA
should
ensure
that
site
17
conditions,
including
any
cleanup
efforts
undertaken
pursuant
to
non­
NPL
cleanup
18
programs,
are
reassessed
each
[
time
period,
year?
Listing
cycle?].
If
site
conditions
19
worsen
or
cleanup
progress
is
not
made,
EPA
should
ensure
that
the
sites
are
20
reconsidered
for
NPL
listing
during
future
listing
cycles.
21
22
With
respect
to
NFRAP
sites,
the
Subcommittee
understands
that
these
sites
are
generally
23
referred
back
to
state
cleanup
programs,
because
they
do
not
present
a
level
of
risk
that
24
warrants
further
consideration
for
the
NPL
(
i.
e.,
they
would
not
achieve
an
HRS
score
of
25
28.5).
As
with
communications
about
NPL­
eligible
sites
that
are
not
proposed
for
listing,
26
in
communications
about
NFRAP
sites
EPA
should
state
explicitly
that
the
site
has
not
27
been
determined
to
be
clean
and
include
available
information
on
the
types
of
28
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
24
contaminants
likely
to
be
present
at
these
sites,
environmental
media
affected,
and
1
potential
receptors.
2
3
Summary
of
Recommendations
on
the
Use
of
the
NPL
4
5
Based
on
its
discussions
and
deliberations,
the
Subcommittee
provides
the
following
6
recommendations
related
to
the
NPL
listing
process.
The
logic
for
these
7
recommendations
was
presented
in
earlier
sections
of
this
report.
8
9
1.
The
NPL
should
reflect
true
national
priorities
for
Superfund
cleanup.
Therefore,
10
the
number
of
sites
listed
on
the
NPL
should
not
be
arbitrarily
capped
based
on
11
current
or
anticipated
Program
funding.
12
13
2.
EPA
regional
offices
should
continue
to
involve
states
in
the
identification
of
which
14
sites
to
recommend
for
NPL
listing.
EPA
should
also
involve
potentially
affected
15
communities
and
potentially
responsible
parties
earlier
in
the
Superfund
Site
16
Assessment
process
through
solicitation
of
information
about
sites
being
17
considered
for
listing.
18
19
3.
EPA
should
institute
a
deliberate
process
carried
out
at
the
regional
level
to
provide
20
for
consistent
consideration
of
other
federal
cleanup
programs
and
state
cleanup
21
programs
before
a
site
is
recommended
for
NPL
listing.
22
23
4.
EPA
should
review
the
HRS
with
respect
to
several
important
issues
including
how
24
effectively
it
is
addressing
sites
located
in
sparsely
populated
areas,
environmental
25
justice
concerns,
traditional
lifestyles,
vapor
intrusion
or
explosive
hazards.
26
27
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
25
5.
EPA
should
increase
the
transparency
of
decisions
not
to
propose
NPL­
eligible
1
sites
for
listing
on
the
NPL
and
should
establish
a
formal
process
to
track
NPL­
2
eligible
sites
that
are
not
listed.
3
4
6.
EPA
should
establish
standard
protocols
to
ensure
that
communications
with
5
states,
tribal
nations,
affected
communities
and
other
appropriate
individuals
about
6
NFRAP
sites
make
site
conditions
and
risks
clear.
7
8
[
Review
question:
does
the
Subcommittee
want
to
include
a
recommendation
to
"
Ensure
9
immediate
actions
are
taken,
as
appropriate"
from
the
early
screening
work?
Are
there
10
other
issues/
recommendations
that
should
be
addressed
relative
to
the
removals
11
program?]
12
13
14
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
26
IV.
Managing
Sites
on
the
NPL
1
2
As
described
earlier
in
this
Report
(
p.
6),
the
Subcommittee
divided
issues
related
to
the
3
future
use
the
NPL
into
two
categories:
those
related
to
the
listing
process
and
those
4
related
to
management
of
sites
that
are
on
the
list.
The
first
category
of
issues,
what
5
types
of
sites
should
be
placed
on
the
NPL
and
how
listing
decisions
should
be
made,
6
was
emphasized
on
the
charge.
Recommendations
addressing
NPL
listing
are
made
in
7
the
previous
section.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
the
second
category
of
issues,
8
those
related
to
management
of
sites
listed
on
the
NPL,
is
also
very
important.
This
is
9
particularly
so
given
the
Subcommittee's
recommendations
that
the
NPL
continue
to
be
10
used
to
reflect
true
national
priorities
for
cleanup
and
that
the
number
of
sites
placed
on
11
the
NPL
not
be
arbitrarily
capped
based
on
current
or
anticipated
Program
funding.
If
12
EPA
cannot
simultaneously
fully
and
completely
fund
all
cleanup
actions
at
all
NPL
sites
13
at
the
maximum
pace
of
cleanup,
issues
related
to
prioritization
of
NPL
sites
for
attention
14
(
and
funding)
become
critical.
The
Subcommittee
addressed
five
issues
related
to
15
management
of
sites
on
the
NPL:
16
17

setting
priorities
among
listed
sites,
18

priority
setting
criteria,
19

allocation
of
the
Superfund
budget,
20

program
management
efficiencies,
and
21

reforms
to
the
contracting
process.
22
23
The
Subcommittee's
deliberations
and
recommendations
for
each
of
these
issues
are
24
described
further
below.
25
26
[
Review
question:
does
the
Subcommittee
wish
to
make
additional
recommendations
in
27
this
area?
For
example,
additional
recommendations
on
the
use
of
insurance
were
28
described
in
the
previous
draft,
along
with
recommendations
on
expanded
consideration
29
of
the
alternative
settlement
strategy
process.]
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
27
1
Setting
Priorities
Among
Listed
Sites
2
3
As
discussed
earlier
in
this
report
(
Section
III),
the
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
there
4
likely
will
never
be
enough
funds
available
to
work
on
all
sites
on
the
NPL
at
maximum
5
intensity
at
the
same
time.
It
likely
therefore
will
be
necessary
for
EPA
to
set
priorities
6
among
fund­
lead
sites.
When
necessary,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that
these
7
priorities
be
set
based
on
reliable
site­
specific
data
about
the
nature
and
extent
of
8
contamination
and
site­
specific
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
9
10
Under
the
standard
cleanup
process
for
NPL
sites,
after
a
site
is
listed
the
nature
and
11
extent
of
contamination
at
and
from
the
site,
associated
risks,
and
potential
remedial
12
actions
are
identified
and
characterized
through
a
remedial
investigation
and
feasibility
13
study
(
RI/
FS).
In
general,
the
RI/
FS
represents
a
relatively
low
cost
element
of
the
14
cleanup
process;
at
NPL
sites
where
EPA
funds
cleanup,
most
RI/
FS
are
completed
for
15
less
than
[
dollar
amount].
When
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
is
known
and
16
potential
remedial
actions
identified,
a
remedial
action
is
selected
for
the
site
through
a
17
public
process
that
involves
EPA
publishing
a
proposed
plan
for
remedial
action
and
18
soliciting
public
comment
on
the
proposed
plan.
The
chosen
remedial
action
is
then
19
documented
in
a
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD).
After
the
ROD,
a
remedial
design
(
RD)
20
study
is
carried
out
to
plan
the
details
of
remedy
implementation,
and
remedial
actions
21
are
constructed
and
implemented.
22
23
At
fund­
lead
sites,
EPA's
current
practice
is
to
set
priorities
for
funding
remedial
actions
24
at
the
conclusion
of
the
RD
phase.
This
creates
a
potential
inefficiency,
since
remedial
25
designs
may
become
outdated
and
need
to
be
re­
done
if
remedial
actions
are
not
promptly
26
implemented,
for
example,
due
to
funding
constraints.
Therefore,
the
Subcommittee
27
recommends
the
following:
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
28
7.
To
the
extent
that
EPA
must
set
priorities
for
funding
at
NPL
sites,
these
priorities
1
should
be
set
after
completion
of
remedial
investigations
and
feasibility
studies
and
2
issuance
of
records
of
decision,
when
more
is
known
about
site
risks
and
options
to
3
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
4
5
Placing
this
recommendation
in
the
context
of
typical
cleanup
milestones
would
result
in
6
priorities
for
funding
being
set
after
the
ROD,
and
before
investment
in
RD.
EPA
should
7
make
every
effort
not
to
delay
RI/
FS
or
RODs
based
on
the
availability
of
funds,
since
8
information
from
RI/
FS
and
RODs
is
needed
to
fully
understand
the
risks
associated
with
9
a
site
and
the
remedial
actions
needed.
Priorities
should
be
set
in
light
of
this
10
information,
not
before
it
is
available.
This
approach
is
appropriate
because
it
will
allow
11
EPA
to
prioritize
sites
for
funding
based
on
a
consistent
level
of
information
that
relates
12
to
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
13
14
[
Review
question:
this
takes
a
strong
position
on
the
timing
for
EPA
priority
setting.
Are
15
there
situations,
or
certain
types
of
sites,
where
the
Subcommittee
thinks
it
would
be
wise
16
for
EPA
to
deviate
from
this
timing
and
set
priorities
at
a
different
time,
such
as
before
a
17
ROD?]
18
19
Priority
Setting
Criteria
20
21
In
1995,
EPA
established
an
internal
priority­
setting
process
and
criteria
for
making
22
decisions
about
allocating
Superfund
funds.
The
process
is
set
forth
in
a
January
19,
23
1996
memorandum
("
Remedial
Action
Priority
Setting")
from
Assistant
Administrator
24
Elliott
Laws
to
regional
Administrators
(
the
"
Laws
Memo"
 
Appendix
D).
The
Laws
25
Memo
established
a
national
prioritization
system
for
removal
actions
expected
to
cost
26
more
than
[
dollar
amount]
and
new
fund­
lead
remedial
actions.
The
system
uses
a
27
ranking
scheme
to
prioritize
projects
based
on
five
criteria:
28
29

risks
to
human
population
exposed;
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
29

contaminant
stability;
1

contaminant
characteristics;
2

threat
to
a
significant
environment;
and
3

program
management
considerations.
4
5
Each
criterion
is
ranked
on
a
scale
of
one
to
five,
with
five
representing
a
current
6
risk/
current
exposure
scenario
posing
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
one
7
representing
a
future
risk/
future
exposure
scenario.
8
9
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
these
five
criteria
are
valid.
However,
in
light
of
other
10
recommendations
made
in
this
report:
11
12
8.
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
should
update
the
process
and
criteria
it
13
currently
uses
to
set
priorities
for
funding
at
NPL
sites
to
make
sure
that
sites
that
14
have
significant
health/
exposure
risks
receive
the
highest
priority
for
funding.
In
15
addition,
EPA
should
explore
an
approach
that
could
assign
different
funding
16
priorities
to
different
portions
of
the
same
site.
17
18
In
implementing
this
recommendation,
EPA
should
strive
to
achieve
the
following
seven
19
outcomes.
20
21

Sites
with
significant
health
risks/
current
exposures
should
have
the
highest
22
priority
for
funding.
In
other
words,
the
presence
of
current
health
risk/
exposure
23
should
be
the
most
important
factor
in
making
decisions
about
which
removals
24
and
fund­
lead
remedial
actions
to
fund.
Among
sites
that
present
a
current
health
25
risk/
exposure,
there
is
a
wide
variety
of
degrees
of
risk
represented.
These
26
degrees
of
risk
should
be
considered
in
determining
how
to
allocate
funding
27
among
sites.
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
30

Allow
for
funding
only
portions
of
sites.
At
sites
with
multiple
releases
and/
or
1
potential
risks,
EPA
should
establish
policies
and
procedures
that
allow
it
to
fund
2
activities
to
respond
to
individual
releases
without
automatically
funding
3
activities
at
the
entire
site.
Current
health
risk/
exposure
should
be
a
factor
in
4
decisions
about
which
releases
and/
or
potential
risks
to
fund
at
any
given
site.
5
EPA
should
allow
for
funding
hot
spot
treatment
and/
or
source
removal
projects
6
which
constitute
a
specific
current
health
risk/
exposure
at
a
site
without
that
7
decision
constituting
a
decision
to
immediately
and
continuously
fund
other
8
elements
of
the
overall
site
that
may
not
pose
a
similar
risk.
9
10

Carefully
consider
the
how
the
allocation
of
funds
to
address
current
health
11
risks/
exposures
at
all
sites
relates
to
the
value
of
completing
cleanup
activities
at
12
individual
sites.
It
is
desirable
to
remediate
an
entire
site
completely;
at
the
same
13
time,
it
is
appropriate
to
defer
remediation
activities
at
portions
of
a
site
that
do
14
not
pose
a
current
health
risk/
exposure,
if
needed
to
provide
for
funding
of
current
15
health
risk/
exposure
at
other
sites.
A
decision
to
defer
funding
of
some
activities
16
at
a
site
should
not
be
interpreted
as
a
decision
to
take
no
further
action
at
a
site.
17
All
relevant
stakeholders
should
be
informed
when
such
decisions
are
made
and
18
information
regarding
when
future
actions
can
be
anticipated
should
be
made
19
available.
20
21
In
addition,
there
are
other
factors
that
should
be
considered
when
funding
and
22
management
decisions
are
being
considered
at
Superfund
sites.
In
making
23
decisions
to
defer
remediation
activities
at
a
site
in
order
to
allocate
more
funding
24
to
current
human
health
risks/
exposures
at
other
sites,
EPA
should
consider:
25
26
o
the
significant
value
to
a
community
in
completing
all
intended
work
at
27
the
site;
28
o
the
additional
costs
associated
with
stopping
and
then
restarting
29
remediation
activities;
and
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
31
o
the
ability
to
achieve
program
milestones.
1
2
Striking
the
appropriate
balance
between
funding
cleanup
of
current
health
3
risks/
exposures
at
all
fund­
lead
sites
and
completing
all
remediation
at
some
fund­
4
lead
sites
may
be
the
most
complex
and
difficult
component
of
how
EPA
sets
5
priorities.
6
7
[
Review
question:
are
there
other
factors
to
weigh?
Does
the
Subcommittee
have
8
a
position
on
the
relative
weight
of
the
factors,
or
what
types
of
trade­
offs
among
9
factors
EPA
should
favor?]
10
11

Measures
of
program
performance
and
site
deletion
practices
should
account
for
12
actions
that
eliminate
or
reduce
health
risks/
exposures
at
portions
of
a
site.
13
Eliminating
an
exposure
pathway
which,
prior
to
remedial
action,
represented
a
14
current
health
risk
is
an
important
measurement
of
the
success
of
the
Superfund
15
program,
even
where
additional
remedial
action
may
be
needed
to
respond
to
16
other
risks
at
the
site.
EPA
should
track
and
report
actions
that
eliminate
17
exposure
pathways
which
represented
a
current
health
risk.
Further,
EPA
should
18
have
the
ability
to
delete
separable
and
discrete
areas
of
an
overall
site
at
which
19
such
actions
are
undertaken
and
successfully
concluded
consistent
with
the
20
National
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP).
21
22

Properly
account
for
subsistence
use
of
natural
resources.
In
determining
whether
23
a
current
health
risk/
exposure
scenario
exists
with
respect
to
a
condition
which
24
impacts
a
natural
resource
such
as
a
lake
or
stream,
EPA
should
take
into
account
25
whether
the
lake
or
stream
is
used
for
subsistence
purposes.
Failing
to
properly
26
account
for
subsistence
use
of
natural
resources
may
lead
to
incorrect
conclusions
27
regarding
the
current
human
health
risks/
exposures
associated
with
a
site.
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
32

The
application
of
a
funding
prioritization
process
may
be
applicable
at
various
1
points
in
the
Superfund
pipeline.
The
process
of
setting
priorities
for
fund­
lead
2
actions
may
be
valuable
at
more
than
one
point
in
a
cleanup,
and
should
be
used
3
to
set
priorities.
These
actions
are
not
necessarily
limited
to
remedial
actions,
and
4
it
may
be
appropriate
to
apply
a
funding
prioritization
process
at
other
stages
in
5
the
Superfund
pipeline.
However,
there
is
a
significant
transaction
cost
associated
6
with
a
rigorous
priority­
setting
process,
and
repeatedly
re­
setting
priorities,
or
re­
7
prioritizing
among
relatively
small
sites
would
generally
not
be
warranted.
8
9
The
Subcommittee
does
not
feel
that
the
comments
above
are
inconsistent
with
10
the
previous
recommendation
(#
7)
to
make
it
a
priority
to
fund
RI/
FSs
and
11
RODs.
They
wish
to
reinforce
the
importance
of
making
prioritization
decisions
12
when
more
information
regarding
the
risks
posed
at
a
site
are
known.
13
14
There
are
a
range
of
considerations
that
are
not
directly
related
to
human
health
or
15
ecological
risk,
but
are
still
important
to
assuring
an
effective
and
robust
Superfund
16
program.
In
terms
of
site
prioritization,
these
include
but
are
not
limited
to:
17
18
o
environmental
justice
concerns;
19
o
fostering
the
development
of
improved
cleanup
technologies;
20
o
maintaining
a
strong
enforcement
program;
21
o
"
leveraging"
cleanup
funding
from
sources
outside
of
Superfund;
and
22
o
returning
sites
to
productive
use.
23
24
The
relevance
and
importance
of
these
considerations
at
any
given
site
is
highly
site­
25
specific.
However,
the
Subcommittee
strongly
suggests
that
EPA
weigh
them
26
appropriately
when
setting
priorities
and
making
funding
decisions.
27
Allocation
of
the
Superfund
Budget
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
33
The
question
of
how
much
money
is
needed
to
successfully
implement
the
Superfund
1
program
is
a
complicated
one.
The
complexity
derives
in
large
part
from
the
fact
that
2
how
much
money
the
program
"
needs"
depends
upon
the
number
of
sites
placed
on
the
3
NPL
and
site
characteristics
such
as
amounts,
toxicities,
and
locations
of
contaminants
at
4
NPL
sites;
the
types
of
cleanup
actions
implemented
at
each
site
and
the
pace
of
cleanup
5
activities;
and
whether
the
government
or
PRPs
pay
for
cleanup.
Because
funding
for
6
cleanup
will
never
be
unlimited,
the
Subcommittee
focused
on
how
to
implement
the
7
program
most
effectively
and,
in
circumstances
where
funding
constraints
might
be
8
present,
how
to
manage
the
program
in
light
of
these
constraints.
In
that
context,
9
successful
implementation
of
the
Superfund
program
will
involve
improvements
in
each
10
of
these
areas,
as
addressed
in
the
other
recommendations
in
this
Report.
This
11
recommendation
addresses
how
the
Superfund
budget,
whatever
it
is,
should
best
be
12
used.
13
14
In
FYs
2002
and
2003,
Congress
appropriated
approximately
$
1.3
billion
for
the
15
Superfund
program.
In
FY
2002,
EPA
reported
that
it
spent
a
total
of
$
210
million
on
16
fund­
lead
remedial
actions
and
long­
term
response
actions.
This
means
that
$
1.09
billion
17
was
spent
on
other
Superfund
related
activities.
Even
allowing
that
some
of
the
$
1.09
18
billion
was
spent
on
removal
actions,
it
is
clear
that,
at
least
in
FY
2002,
the
19
preponderance
of
the
Superfund
budget
was
not
spent
on
cleanup
activities
in
the
field.
20
The
FY
2003
spending
decisions
are
similar:
$
220
million
(
or
17
percent
of
the
total
21
Superfund
budget)
is
planned
for
fund­
lead
remedial
and
long­
term
response
actions.
22
23
[
Sidebar
text:
charts
will
be
included
on
how
SF
budget
is
currently
spent
and
inclusion
24
of
charts
on
funding
appropriation
levels,
extramural
funding
trends
and
breakdown
of
25
current
budget]
26
27
The
Subcommittee
discussed
a
number
of
ways
in
which
more
money
might
be
made
28
available
for
cleanup.
These
strategies
fall
into
four
categories.
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
34

Increase
the
total
Superfund
budget,
and
direct
the
increase
towards
remedial
and
1
response
actions.
2
3

Decrease
the
number
of
sites
needing
Superfund
funding
by
appropriate
use
of
4
other
cleanup
funding
sources
and
programs
and
by
encouraging
PRPs
to
fund
5
more
cleanups.
6
7

Increase
the
efficiency
with
which
fund
money
is
spent.
8
9

Re­
prioritize
the
Superfund
budget
to
allocate
more
money
to
field
cleanup
10
activities.
11
12
Although
there
was
broad
agreement
across
the
Subcommittee
that
more
money
should
13
be
spent
on
cleanups
in
the
field,
the
Subcommittee
did
not
reach
consensus
about
the
14
degree
to
which
any
one
of
these
strategies
should
be
used
to
make
additional
funds
15
available.
16
17
Appropriate
use
of
other
programs
and
encouragement
of
PRP
funding
are
discussed
in
18
recommendations
addressing
NPL
listing
in
Section
III
of
this
report.
Recommendations
19
to
increase
the
efficiency
with
which
fund
money
is
spent
flow
throughout
the
report,
and
20
specific
recommendations
addressing
improvements
in
contracting
are
described
later
in
21
this
Section.
22
23
With
respect
to
the
overall
Superfund
budget,
the
$
98
M
"
saved"
by
moving
Brownfields
24
to
the
EPM
account
was
absorbed
by
a
new
one­
time
requirement
of
$
75
million
for
25
homeland
security
building
decontamination
research.
The
$
75
million
was
subsequently
26
split
with
$
50
million
going
to
research
and
$
25
million
for
HS
preparedness
support.
27
The
balance
between
$
75
million
and
$
98
million,
we
believe,
was
absorbed
in
payroll
28
increases
and
other
associated
administrative
costs
(
travel
and
working
capital
fund).
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
35
The
$
10
million
reflected
was
the
money
OSWER
chose
to
move
from
pre­
construction
1
activities
to
remedial
action
funding,
and
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
Brownfields
shift.
2
(
At
the
request
of
EPA,
as
a
matter
of
factual
accuracy,
this
paragraph
was
changed
after
3
the
hard
copy
of
the
August
draft
was
sent
to
the
Subcommitte)
4
5
All
Subcommittee
members
agreed
that
regardless
of
what
the
annual
Superfund
budget
6
is,
more
of
the
money
should
be
allocated
towards
cleanup
in
the
field.
Because
of
the
7
small
proportion
of
the
overall
Superfund
budget
being
spent
on
cleanup
activities
in
the
8
field,
diversion
of
even
a
small
proportion
of
the
rest
of
the
Superfund
budget
to
field
9
activities
has
the
potential
to
meaningfully
increase
the
pace
of
cleanup
actions.
Using
10
the
FY
2002
figures,
had
five
percent
of
the
non­
remedial/
response
action
Superfund
11
budget
been
diverted
to
fund­
lead
remedial
and
response
actions
activities,
it
would
have
12
increased
the
remedial/
response
budget
from
$
210
million
to
$
265
million,
or
26
percent.
13
A
ten
percent
diversion
would
have
increased
the
remedial/
response
budget
by
over
50
14
percent.
A
twenty
percent
diversion
would
have
nearly
double
the
amount
of
money
15
available
for
cleanup
activities
in
the
field.
16
17
As
the
overall
pressure
on
the
Superfund
budget
continues,
it
is
appropriate
that
EPA
18
reexamine
its
priorities
to
ensure
that
it
is
allocating
as
much
of
the
budget
as
possible
to
19
protecting
humans
and
the
environment
by
accomplishing
real
cleanups
in
the
field.
In
20
order
to
do
so,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
the
following:
21
22
9.
EPA
should
carry
out
a
serious
and
thoughtful
review
of
all
its
activities
with
a
23
view
towards
increasing
efficiencies,
or
reprioritizing
work,
in
a
ways
that
increase
24
the
amount
of
the
Superfund
budget
that
is
available
for
fund­
lead
remedial
and
25
response
actions.
26
27
[
Review
question:
this
highlights
only
remedial
and
response
actions;
does
the
28
Subcommittee
wish
to
include
other
cleanup
pipeline
activities,
such
as
RI/
FS,
RODs,
29
and
RDs
in
this
recommendation?]
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
36
1
Program
Management
Efficiencies
2
3
The
Subcommittee
believes
strongly
that
EPA
should
be
making
every
appropriate
effort
4
to
increase
the
operational
and
management
efficiency
of
the
program.
Dollars
available
5
to
the
Superfund
program
should
be
utilized
as
efficiently
and
effectively
as
possible.
6
While
the
Subcommittee
was
not
charged
with
conducting
an
in­
depth
review
of
the
7
operations
and
management
of
the
program,
the
members
clearly
recognize
the
linkage
8
between
how
the
program
operates
and
the
appropriate
and
efficient
use
of
the
available
9
funds,
which
clearly
is
an
important
element
of
the
charge
to
the
Subcommittee.
10
11
The
Subcommittee
is
making
a
recommendation
(#
17)
in
Section
VI
(
Measuring
Program
12
Performance)
that
calls
for
EPA
to
be
evaluated
on
budget
transparency
and
accurate
13
program
tracking
information
by
preparing
annual
reports.
Specifically
this
would
focus
14
on
1)
budget
transparency
 
that
is,
how
are
dollars
actually
being
used
in
the
Superfund
15
program,
and
2)
general
program
tracking
 
assuring
that
needed
information
about
the
16
program
is
reliable
and
readily
accessible.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
adherence
17
with
this
recommendation
should
assist
the
Agency
in
tracking
and
improving
program
18
performance.
19
20
In
furtherance
of
the
goal
of
increasing
program
efficiency
and
effectively,
the
21
Subcommittee
specifically
recommends
that:
22
23
10.
EPA
should
conduct
periodic
management/
operations
audit
reviews
to
determine
24
areas
of
the
management
and
administration
of
the
program
that
could
be
25
improved
with
a
particular
focus
on
finding
increased
operational
efficiencies.
26
27
[
Review
Question:
Are
there
other
specific
recommendations
that
the
Subcommittee
28
wishes
to
consider
in
this
category
of
increased
management/
operational
efficiencies?]
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
37
1
Reforms
to
the
Contracting
Process
2
3
A
significant
portion
of
the
Superfund
budget,
particularly
the
budget
for
site
assessments
4
and
remedial
actions,
is
spent
through
contracts.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
5
different
contracting
approaches
might
more
efficiently
utilize
fund­
lead
resources.
In
6
light
of
this,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
the
following:
7
8
11.
EPA
should
explore
and
pilot
test
contract
reform
initiatives,
including
graduated
9
fixed
price
remediation
contracts;
indefinite
quantity
with
guaranteed
minimums;
10
and
requirements
contracts.
11
12
Each
of
these
contract
options
is
described
further
below.
13
14
Graduated
Fixed
Price
Remediation
(
GFPR)
contracts
have
been
used
by
other
federal
15
agencies
to
procure
services
for
cleanup
work.
GFPR
contracts
require
the
contractor
to
16
complete
cleanup
activities
(
including
approval
by
the
overseeing
regulatory
agency)
at
a
17
guaranteed
price
by
a
date
certain.
The
guarantees
are
supported
by
combinations
of
18
corporate
guarantees
and
third
party
financial
instruments
such
as
insurance
policies.
In
19
cases
where
insurance
instruments
have
been
used,
the
government,
by
its
own
estimates,
20
has
experienced
faster
completion
times
and
substantially
reduced
costs
in
both
direct
and
21
indirect
costs.
This
has
occurred
because
the
contracts
are
structured
to
create
economic
22
incentives
and
penalties
which
are
very
motivating
to
the
contractors,
and
using
insurance
23
provides
a
market­
based
quality
assurance/
quality
control
mechanism
for
a
fixed
price
 
24
as
well
as
a
financial
assurance
mechanism.
In
this
way,
both
cost
overruns
and
costs
to
25
manage
the
program
are
reduced
because
much
of
those
costs
and
risks
have
been
26
assumed
by
the
private
sector
as
part
of
the
contract.
However,
to
achieve
such
benefits,
27
funding
must
occur
up
front.
(
For
more
information,
see
Appendix
E
for
a
copy
of
a
28
PowerPoint
presentation
made
by
the
Department
of
the
Army
Chief
of
Staff
for
29
Installation
Development
to
[
audience],
January
30,
2001).
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
38
1
Because
up­
front
funding
is
needed,
GFRP
contracts
may
be
most
difficult
to
use
where
2
they
would
create
the
greatest
value
 
large
cleanups
 
unless
significant
provisions
3
related
to
future
funding
failures
could
be
added
to
the
contract
which
differ
from
4
traditional
termination
for
convenience
terms.
Guarantees
may
be
void
where
work
is
5
stopped
mid­
way,
since
the
delay
of
projects
often
actually
causes
cost
overruns.
6
7
Indefinite
quantity
contracts
with
guaranteed
minimums
can
be
let
for
any
kind
of
service
8
and
are
regularly
used
by
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
to
obtain
volume
discounts.
The
9
contracts
typically
require
unit
prices,
such
as
hourly
rates
or
volume
or
quantity
based
10
price
declarations.
The
key
to
making
such
contracts
result
in
cost
savings
is
geographical
11
aggregation.
If
a
contractor
can
avoid
mobilization
costs
for
people
or
equipment,
12
substantial
savings
can
be
realized.
For
waste
disposal
contracts,
guaranteed
flow
into
a
13
site
permits
better
planning
and
cost
efficiencies
to
occur.
Unfortunately,
the
14
geographical
aggregation
requirements
run
headlong
into
the
political
requirements
or
15
expectation
that
funds
be
spread
across
the
country
so
as
not
to
concentrate
or
limit
the
16
benefit
to
one
locality
or
region.
Further,
as
with
GFPR,
these
contracts
require
both
the
17
Agency
and
the
contractor
to
perform.
Unlike
traditional
time­
and­
materials
contracts,
if
18
the
Agency
were
to
cancel
early
before
minimums
were
achieved,
cost
savings
may
be
19
lost.
20
21
Requirements
contracts,
in
which
the
Agency
promises
all
of
the
particular
type
of
work
22
to
one
provider
might
be
explored
where
the
work
to
be
performed
could
be
primarily
23
performed
at
the
offices
of
the
provider.
For
NPL
sites,
this
might
include
certain
24
specialty
data
analyses
or
types
of
assessment.
Again,
volume
should
beget
a
discount
to
25
permit
the
Agency
to
do
more
with
less.
26
27
In
spite
of
the
challenges
noted
with
each
of
these
contracting
options,
the
Subcommittee
28
believes
there
is
merit
to
EPA
seriously
considering
different
contracting
approaches
and
29
recommends
that
EPA
evaluate
these
and
other
options.
30
31
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
39
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Management
of
Sites
1
on
the
NPL
2
3
In
response
to
its
charge
and
in
light
of
factors
described
above,
the
Subcommittee
makes
4
five
recommendations
related
to
management
of
sites
on
the
NPL.
5
6
7.
To
the
extent
that
EPA
must
set
priorities
for
funding
at
NPL
sites,
these
priorities
7
should
be
set
after
completion
of
remedial
investigations
and
feasibility
studies
and
8
issuance
of
records
of
decision,
when
more
is
known
about
site
risks
and
options
to
9
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
10
11
8.
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
should
update
the
process
and
criteria
it
12
currently
uses
to
set
priorities
for
funding
at
NPL
sites
to
make
sure
that
sites
that
13
have
significant
health/
exposure
risks
receive
the
highest
priority
for
funding.
In
14
addition,
EPA
should
explore
an
approach
that
could
assign
different
funding
15
priorities
to
different
portions
of
the
same
site.
16
17
9.
EPA
should
carry
out
a
serious
and
thoughtful
review
of
all
its
activities
with
a
18
view
towards
increasing
efficiencies,
or
reprioritizing
work,
in
a
ways
that
increase
19
the
amount
of
the
Superfund
budget
that
is
available
for
fund­
lead
remedial
and
20
response
actions.
21
22
10.
EPA
should
conduct
periodic
management/
operations
audit
reviews
to
determine
23
areas
of
the
management
and
administration
of
the
program
that
could
be
24
improved
with
a
particular
focus
on
finding
increased
operational
efficiencies.
25
26
11.
EPA
should
explore
and
pilot
test
contract
reform
initiatives,
including
graduated
27
fixed
price
remediation
contracts;
indefinite
quantity
with
guaranteed
minimums;
28
and
requirements
contracts.
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
40
V.
Mega
Sites
1
2
Mega
sites
are
currently
defined
as
sites
where
total
cleanup
costs
are
expected
to
exceed
3
$
50
million
(
reference).
EPA
pays
special
attention
to
mega
sites
because
their
cost
and
4
complexity
means
that
a
single
fund­
lead
cleanup
can
have
very
significant
implications
5
for
the
Superfund
budget.
Even
PRP­
lead
mega
sites
create
significant
budget
impacts
6
for
EPA,
because
of
the
resources
involved
in
providing
oversight
of
the
cleanup
process.
7
The
Subcommittee
addresses
three
issues
related
to
mega
sites:
8
9

assessing
large,
complex
sites,
10

dividing
large,
complex
sites
into
smaller
units,
and
11

establishing
a
regional
coordinating
committee
12
13
The
Subcommittee's
deliberations
and
recommendations
for
each
of
these
issues
are
14
described
further
below.
15
16
Defining
Mega
Sites
17
18
A
number
of
large,
complex
sites
are
moving
through
the
Superfund
cleanup
pipeline
and
19
are
concurrently
in
the
more
resource­
intensive
phases
of
cleanup
 
remedial
actions.
20
Many
of
these
sites
are,
at
least
in
part,
fund­
lead.
This
situation,
which
the
21
Subcommittee
expects
will
continue,
presents
serious
resource
management
challenges
to
22
EPA
and
its
partners.
The
Subcommittee
was
specifically
charged
with
considering
and
23
providing
recommendations
related
to
management
of
large,
complex
and
costly
24
cleanups.
In
response,
the
Subcommittee
considered
various
approaches
to
addressing
25
large,
complex
and
costly
sites,
including
the
following.
26
27

Categorically
defer
certain
types
of
sites
that
are
likely
to
have
significant
28
resource
implications
for
the
Superfund
program
to
other
cleanup
programs.
This
29
approach
would
be
similar
to
the
approach
the
Agency
currently
uses
for
sites
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
41
subject
to
cleanup
under
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program,
where
Agency
1
policy
is
to
defer
to
the
RCRA
program
to
compel
and
oversee
cleanup.
2
3

Create
a
new
cleanup
program
specific
to
sites,
or
specific
types
of
sites,
that
are
4
likely
to
have
significant
resource
implications.
5
6

Create
a
separate
approach
within
the
Superfund
program
dedicated
to
sites,
or
7
specific
types
of
sites,
that
are
likely
to
have
significant
resource
implications.
8
9

[
Review
question:
Others
options
considered?]
10
11
Ultimately,
the
Subcommittee
rejected
the
idea
that
any
one
of
these
approaches
would
12
be
appropriate
for
all
so
called
"
mega
sites"
based
on
three
considerations.
First,
it
is
13
very
difficult
to
predict
the
types
of
sites
that
typically
create
significant
resource
14
implications
using
site
type
data.
In
many
documents
 
including
the
Subcommittee
15
charge
 
it
is
hypothesized
that
mining
sites
and
sediment
sites
largely
make
up
the
16
universe
of
so
called
"
mega
sites."
The
Subcommittee
attempted
to
evaluate
this
17
hypothesis
and
found
it
very
difficult
to
do
so
using
the
site
type
data
currently
collected
18
by
EPA.
19
20
For
example,
EPA
currently
defines
mining
sites
to
include
not
only
sites
at
which
21
mining
was
carried
out
(
e.
g.,
[
list
some
site
names]),
but
also
sites
at
which
ore
was
22
processed
(
e.
g.,
[
list
some
names]).
While
some
of
these
sites
create
significant
resource
23
implications,
others
do
not.
Similarly,
"
sediment
site"
is
not
a
site
type
category
24
currently
utilized
by
EPA;
instead,
EPA
tracks
all
NPL
and
NPL­
caliber
sites
at
which
25
some
sediment
assessment
and/
or
cleanup
may
be
necessary.
This
results
in
a
list
of
26
[
hundreds]
of
sites,
and
it
is
not
possible
to
distinguish
between
sites
where
sediment
27
assessment
and
cleanup
is
the
primary
risk
or
cost
driver
and
where
it
is
not.
Again,
28
while
some
sediment
cleanup
sites
are
posing,
and
doubtless
will
continue
to
pose,
29
significant
resource
challenges,
others
do
not.
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
42
1
Second,
as
discussed
throughout
this
report,
the
Subcommittee
believes
that
2
considerations
of
how
to
best
prioritize
and
respond
to
site
risks
should
be
the
3
fundamental
factor
in
allocating
time,
money,
and
attention
among
NPL
sites.
The
costs
4
involved
with
cleanup
of
a
site
flow
from
site
conditions
and
decisions
about
risk
5
assessment
and
management.
The
Subcommittee
chose
to
address
these
decisions
6
directly
(
e.
g.,
in
recommendations
addressing
prioritization
of
sites
on
the
NPL),
rather
7
than
by
using
cost
as
a
proxy
for
what
are
really
very
difficult
questions
related
to
risk.
8
9
Finally,
while
some
cleanup
sites
certainly
pose
special
challenges
because
of
their
large
10
size,
geographic
location,
or
the
complexity
of
the
cleanup,
in
general
these
challenges
11
(
or
combinations
of
challenges)
define
situations
that
can
result
in
increased
cleanup
12
costs;
they
are
not
in
fact
created
by
increased
costs.
It
seems
appropriate,
therefore,
to
13
address
these
special
challenges
directly
where
they
are
presented,
rather
than
to
address
14
them
only
where
cleanup
costs
are
expected
to
exceed
a
certain
threshold.
15
16
In
light
of
these
considerations,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
the
following:
17
18
12.
EPA
should
use
a
combination
of
site
features
rather
than
cost
alone
to
describe
19
sites
that
because
of
their
size
or
complexity
are
going
to
be
especially
costly
to
20
remediate
or
require
special
attention.
21
22
The
special
challenges
that
the
Subcommittee
believes
create
situations
that
warrant
23
special
attention
are
listed
below.
24
25

Sites
where
contamination
is
spread
over
a
large
geographic
area
that
includes
26
multiple
individual
properties,
for
example,
urban
embayments
and
industrial
27
waterways
such
as
[
Portland
Harbor,
Commencement
Bay,
and
the
Duwamish
28
Waterway]
and
where
residential
properties
are
affected,
for
example
[
examples];
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
43

Sites
at
which
more
than
one
source
of
contamination
is
a
primary
risk
driver
and
1
sites
where
contamination
from
multiple
sources
has
become
mixed,
such
as
sites
2
with
co­
mingled
ground
water
plumes,
such
as
[
examples];
3
4

Sites
at
which
contamination
is
discontinuously
distributed,
with
high
5
concentrations
(
and
high
risk
levels)
interspersed
with
relatively
larger
areas
that
6
have
much
lower
concentrations
and
risk
levels,
such
as
[
Asarco
Ruston
and
7
Everett,
Coeur
d'Alene]
[
Others?];
8
9

Sites
at
which
multiple
PRPs
are
participating
in
the
cleanup
and
different
PRPs
10
are
accountable
for
releases
at
different
areas
of
the
site,
such
as
[
examples];
and
11
12

Sites
with
ground
water
plumes
that
have
spread
under
multiple
properties
over
13
large
areas,
such
as
[
examples].
14
15
Sites
that
present
one
or
more
of
these
challenges
are
"
large,
complex
sites"
(
or
"
mega
16
sites")
and
deserve
special
management
attention.
17
18
There
is
a
possible
exception
to
this
approach,
where
the
Subcommittee
believes
that
the
19
cost
of
the
remedy
itself
is
a
special
challenge
deserving
special
attention,
and
therefore
20
should
play
a
part
in
defining
a
"
large,
complex"
site.
Where
a
very
costly
remedial
21
action
is
selected
and
will
be
implemented
over
a
number
of
years,
EPA
should
pursue
22
special
approaches
to
securing
and
dedicating
funding
over
the
life
of
remedy
23
implementation,
in
addition
to
the
other
special
management
strategies
described
later
in
24
this
Section.
25
26
[
Review
question:
previous
sentence
is
a
placeholder
for
potential
future
27
recommendation
on
multi­
year
funding
and/
or
special
appropriations.
Does
the
28
Subcommittee
want
to
make
such
a
recommendation?]
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
44
The
Subcommittee
notes
that
besides
posing
special
management
challenges,
large,
1
complex
sites
also
may
create
special
management
opportunities.
For
example,
many
2
urban
embayments
and
industrial
waterways
have
the
potential
to
benefit
from
sediment
3
management
actions
(
and
funding)
related
to
ongoing
dredging
efforts
carried
out
by
the
4
Corps
of
Engineers.
EPA
should
identify
and
capitalize
on
these
types
of
opportunities,
5
for
example,
by
ensuring
that
all
appropriate
cleanup
resources
are
brought
to
bear,
as
6
discussed
in
Section
III
of
this
report
in
the
recommendations
addressing
other
cleanup
7
programs.
8
9
[
Sidebar
text:
listing
the
number
of
mega
sites
by
EPA
site
type?
Or
listing
each
mega
10
site
by
name
and
giving
a
one
sentence
explanation
of
the
cleanup
driver?]
11
12
Assessing
Large
Complex
Sites
13
14
Cleanup
of
a
large,
complex
site
represents
a
considerable
resource
commitment
by
EPA.
15
This
is
the
obviously
the
case
for
fund­
lead
sites,
but
it
is
also
a
true
for
PRP­
funded
16
cleanups,
where
the
resources
involved
in
EPA
management
and
oversight
of
the
cleanup
17
process
can
be
significant.
Given
the
level
of
commitment
that
is
needed
for
large,
18
complex
sites,
it
is
important
that
actual
site­
specific
conditions,
rather
than
default
19
assumptions,
drive
decision­
making.
Additional
up­
front
investments
in
an
enhanced
site
20
assessment
will
pay
important
dividends
in
helping
to
identify
and
prioritize
among
sites
21
that
pose
the
most
serious
risks.
Therefore,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that:
22
23
13.
EPA
should
establish
a
more
thorough
site
assessment
process
for
large,
complex
24
sites,
and
carry
out
these
assessments
before
making
NPL
listing
decisions
or
other
25
programmatic
commitments.
26
27
In
implementing
this
recommendation,
EPA
should
ensure
that
this
more
through
28
assessment
to
ensure
that
the
site
boundaries
are
properly
defined
and
assist
in
29
determining
the
most
effective
clean­
up
of
each
complex
site.
EPA
guidance
already
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
45
identifies
an
approach
for
gathering
additional
critical
information
prior
to
considering
a
1
site
for
NPL
listing
that
could
be
built
upon
to
implement
this
recommendation.
The
2
expanded
assessment,
known
as
an
Integrated
Expanded
Site
Inspection/
Remedial
3
Investigation
(
ESI/
RI),
however,
has
apparently
been
infrequently
used
by
regions
and
4
the
states
when
evaluating
sites.
The
ESI/
RI
is
used
to
expedite
remedial
response
by
5
gathering
site
characterization
data
common
to
ESI
and
RI
activities
in
one
step,
thereby
6
expediting
the
later
collection
of
data
when
comprehensive
RI
activities
are
performed.
7
ESI/
RIs
facilitate,
but
do
not
replace
additional
investigations
and
are
recommended
at
8
sites
where
conditions
indicate
that
the
HRS
score
will
be
above
28.5,
and
a
remedial
9
response
may
be
needed.
The
RI
portion
of
an
ESI/
RI
is
intended
to
be
a
site­
wide
10
activity.
11
12
It
is
the
Subcommittee's
understanding
that
while
the
Agency
has
provided
general
13
information
on
these
assessments,
it
has
not
provided
detailed
guidance
on
their
use
or
14
content.
During
an
integrated
ESI/
RI,
EPA
should
gather
information
to
define
a
site
15
appropriately,
considering
the
nature
and
locations
of
contaminants
present;
inform
16
consideration
of
other
remedial
programs
that
might
be
able
to
contribute
to
the
cleanup
17
effort;
identify
potential
sources
of
funding;
and
understand
community
concerns
and
the
18
concerns
of
tribal
nations.
While
these
considerations
are
important
at
every
Superfund
19
site,
they
are
especially
important
at
large,
complex
sites
because
of
the
special
20
challenges
they
pose
and
the
significant
effects
decision­
making
about
such
sites
can
21
have
on
the
overall
operation
of
the
Superfund
program.
The
Agency
should
consider
an
22
ESI/
RI
assessment
for
all
large,
complex
sites
that
will
likely
score
above
28.5,
before
23
such
sites
are
proposed
for
listing
on
the
NPL.
Further,
the
Agency
should
develop
24
guidance
on
carrying
out
these
assessments
appropriately
given
the
special
challenges
25
related
to
large,
complex
sites.
At
a
minimum,
EPA
guidance
should
address
the
need
to
26
involve
states,
tribal
nations,
affected
communities,
potential
PRPs,
and
other
appropriate
27
individuals
in
site
assessments,
by
reaching
out
to
those
individuals
for
information
about
28
the
site
and
by
establishing
practices
to
keep
them
involved
as
site
assessments
are
29
carried
out.
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
46
1
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
recommendations
should
not
be
interpreted
as
a
2
constraint
on
EPA's
discretion
to
make
listing
decisions.
There
may
be
instances
where
a
3
large,
complex
site
appropriately
could
be
listed
without
an
ESI/
RI;
if
the
agency
has
4
information
causing
it
to
decide
that
a
site
should
be
listed
without
an
integrated
ESI/
RI,
5
it
should
go
forward
with
listing
without
delay.
6
7
Dividing
Large,
Complex
Sites
into
Smaller
Units
8
9
In
some
situations,
it
may
be
possible
to
appropriately
divide
large,
complex
NPL
sites
10
into
smaller
cleanup
units.
Smaller
cleanup
units
may
improve
the
pace
of
cleanup,
11
provide
opportunities
to
leverage
additional
funds
for
cleanup,
or
clarify
focus
on
the
12
most
significant
risks
presented
by
a
site.
(
This
issue
is
also
addressed
in
Section
IV
of
13
the
report).
The
Subcommittee
identified
three
circumstances
in
which
it
may
be
14
appropriate
to
divide
a
large,
complex
site
into
smaller
cleanup
units,
as
follows.
15
16

Discontinuous
distribution
of
contamination
allows
for
expedited
focus
on
17
portions
of
the
geographic
area
that
are
likely
to
pose
the
greatest
risks.
18
19

Association
of
certain
PRPs
with
one
or
more
particular
"
hotspot"
areas,
but
not
20
the
geographic
area
as
a
whole,
such
that
those
PRPs
will
be
highly
motivated
to
21
address
that
hotspot
through
focused
study
and
remediation
(
potential
removal
22
action
or
cleanup
under
an
alternative
program
such
as
a
state's
cleanup
program).
23
Their
alternative
will
be
getting
pulled
into
PRP
status
at
a
much
larger
site
if
the
24
entire
area
is
NPL­
listed.
25
26

Increased
clarity
regarding
responsibility
for
contamination
will
reduce
arguments
27
between
EPA
and
PRPs
and
among
PRPs
over
liability
and
share
of
cleanup
28
costs,
thereby
reducing
transaction
costs.
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
47
Where
these
circumstances
occur,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
consider
1
remediating
large,
complex
sites
in
smaller
units.
EPA
should
consider
the
following
2
factors
in
determining
whether
dividing
a
site
into
smaller
cleanup
units
is
appropriate
3
and
with
respect
to
the
timing
of
dividing
a
site
into
smaller
units.
4
5

It
facilitates
more
focus
on
addressing
highest
risk
areas
early
in
the
process.
6
7

It
reduces
transaction
costs
by
encouraging
cleanup
of
the
highest
risk
areas,
thus
8
obviating
the
need
to
list
altogether.
9
10

It
avoids
diseconomies
of
scale
for
sites
that
cover
such
a
large
area
that
11
coordination
of
efforts
and
parties
becomes
ungainly
and
time­
consuming.
12
13

Where
PRPs
are
not
known
or
defined,
it
allows
EPA
to
focus
resources
on
14
cleanup
of
highest
risk
areas,
giving
EPA
more
flexibility
in
how
to
address
an
15
area,
including
flexibility
about
how
to
prioritize
parts
of
a
site
and
when
to
incur
16
costs.
17
18

Where
PRPs
are
available,
it
may
result
in
quicker
response
action
from
PRPs
on
19
hotspot
areas.
20
21

It
facilitates
early
and
thorough
consideration
of
alternative
programs
for
a
22
portion
of
a
geographic
area,
rather
than
trying
to
find
an
alternative
program
with
23
the
resources
and
authority
necessary
to
take
on
complex
sites
that
cover
larger
24
geographic
areas.
This
increases
the
chance
that
an
alternative
program
will
be
25
able
to
take
on
some
portion
of
the
larger
area,
preserving
CERCLA
resources.
26
27

It
allows
an
adaptive
management
approach
to
complex
sites
that
cover
larger
28
geographic
areas.
This
can
allow
for
the
highest
risks
to
be
addressed
and
then
29
additional
review
can
be
take
place
to
determine
if
either
CERCLA
or
other
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
48
programs
need
to
be
focused
on
further
work
in
the
area.
It
avoids
diseconomies
1
of
scale
that
can
arise
when
a
highly
complex
situation
is
taken
on
all
at
once.
2
3
However,
the
Subcommittee
also
recognizes
that
dividing
a
large,
complex
cleanup
site
4
into
smaller
units
might
not
be
appropriate
in
the
following
circumstances.
5
6

Economies
of
scale
are
possible
in
joining
similar
hotspot
cleanups
into
one
7
global
effort.
8
9

Maximizes
the
use
of
joint
and
several
liability
to
bring
more
resources
to
the
10
table
so
PRPs
can
(
at
least
theoretically)
be
held
accountable
for
distant
site
11
contamination
that
they
may
have
contributed
to
in
only
a
minute
fashion
(
as
12
opposed
to
localized
contamination
near
their
facility)
13
14

Situations
where
it
is
clear
that
the
whole
area
needs
to
be
addressed
in
a
15
comprehensive,
coordinated
fashion.
Conducting
the
clean­
up
in
this
fashion
will
16
take
less
time
and
be
less
costly.
17
18
In
summary,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that:
19
20
14.
EPA
should
develop
a
process
to
consider
remediating
large,
complex
sites
in
21
smaller
units
where
discontinuous
distribution
of
contamination
allows
for
22
expedited
focus
on
portions
of
the
site
that
are
likely
to
pose
the
greatest
risks,
23
where
certain
potential
liable
parties
are
associated
with
one
or
more
particular
24
"
hotspots"
but
not
the
site
as
a
whole
and/
or
where
increased
clarity
about
25
responsibility
for
discrete
areas
of
contamination
will
reduce
conflicts
between
EPA
26
and
PRPs
and
among
PRPs,
thereby
reducing
transaction
costs.
27
28
[
Sidebar
text:
discuss
how
this
approach
builds
on
the
operable
unit
concept
currently
in
29
use
in
Superfund]
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
49
1
Establishing
Regional
Coordinating
Committees
2
3
As
described
earlier
in
this
report
(
see
Section
III,
Use
of
the
NPL),
the
Subcommittee
4
had
extensive
discussions
about
the
role
of
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
at
NPL­
caliber
5
sites
and
the
roles
of
various
interested
parties
in
bringing
forward
information
for
EPA
6
to
consider
when
making
NPL
listing
decisions.
In
general,
the
Subcommittee's
views
7
on
the
need
for
coordination
with
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
and
interested
parties
8
during
NPL
listing
and
related
recommendations
are
described
in
Section
III
of
this
9
report;
however,
large
complex
sites
present
special
challenges
and
opportunities
with
10
respect
to
program
coordination
that
deserve
special
attention.
11
12
During
the
Subcommittee
deliberations,
various
approaches
to
establishment
of
13
coordinating
committees
were
discussed.
As
discussed
by
the
Subcommittee,
the
role
of
14
a
coordinating
committee
would
be
to
formalize
EPA's
process
of
involving
interested
15
parties
in
evaluations
of
potential
NPL
sites
and
to
ensure
thoughtful
consideration
of
16
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs.
Advocates
of
coordinating
committees
believe
that
they
17
would
enhance
the
utilization
and
improve
coordination
of
a
wider
range
of
non­
NPL
18
cleanup
programs
and
funding,
where
appropriate,
and
create
greater
transparency
in
the
19
listing
process.
Particularly
for
large
complex
sites,
where
multiple
applicable
20
authorities,
multiple
PRPs,
broad
geographic
scope,
diffuse
contamination,
and
other
21
factors
complicate
the
decisions
made
during
listing
of
sites
and
management
of
them
22
once
they
are
on
the
NPL,
the
coordination
function
becomes
critical
to
making
sound
23
decisions.
24
25
The
Subcommittee
ultimately
chose
not
to
make
recommendations
to
establish
formal
26
coordinating
committees
in
favor
of
an
approach
that
recommends
achieving
the
27
outcomes
of
coordination.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
for
most
Superfund
sites
it
is
28
more
appropriate
to
leave
to
the
EPA
regional
offices
and
their
partners
the
responsibility
29
of
determining
the
best
means
to
achieve
those
outcomes
given
regional­
specific
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
50
circumstances.
As
described
earlier
in
this
report
(
Section
III),
most
regions
already
1
carry
out
some
form
of
coordination
activities
during
NPL
listing;
these
activities
likely
2
can
be
most
efficiently
improved
by
making
changes
within
the
existing
regional
3
infrastructures,
as
appropriate,
rather
that
through
establishment
of
a
new
standard
4
mechanism.
5
6
For
large,
complex
sites,
however,
the
Subcommittee
believes
that
a
more
formal,
7
standardized
approach
is
warranted.
Therefore,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that:
8
9
15.
EPA
should
establish
regional
coordinating
committees
to
serve
as
information
10
gathering
and
exchange
venues
during
consideration
of
large
complex
sites
for
11
NPL
listing.
12
13
Such
coordinating
committees
should
evaluate
the
challenges
and
opportunities
presented
14
by
large
complex
sites,
ensure
that
non­
NPL
cleanup
programs
and
funding
are
15
appropriately
considered,
and
should
provide
a
forum
for
information
sharing
between
16
EPA,
Tribal
nations,
states,
PRPs,
and
site
neighbors
and
other
affected
parties.
17
18
Of
course,
care
should
be
taken
in
implementing
a
coordinating
committee
so
as
not
to
19
create
any
constraint
on
EPA's
discretion
to
make
NPL
listing
decisions.
EPA
alone
is
20
responsible
for
listing
decisions,
and
has
a
responsibility
to
make
such
decisions
in
a
21
timely
and
efficient
way
in
light
of
credible
site­
specific
data.
22
23
[
Review
note:
this
recommendation
and
the
related
recommendation
in
the
section
on
use
24
of
the
NPL
taken
together
result
in:
recommendation
for
increased
coordination
at
all
25
sites
using
informal
mechanisms
developed
by
the
regions
and
appropriate
to
regional­
26
specific
circumstances
with
a
formal
coordinating
mechanism
at
the
regional
level
27
recommended
for
mega
sites]
28
29
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Mega
Sites
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
51
In
response
to
its
charge
and
in
light
of
factors
described
above,
the
Subcommittee
makes
1
thee
recommendations
related
to
mega
sites.
2
3
12.
EPA
should
use
a
combination
of
site
features
rather
than
cost
alone
to
describe
4
sites
that
because
of
their
size
or
complexity
are
going
to
be
especially
costly
to
5
remediate
or
require
special
attention.
6
7
13.
EPA
should
establish
a
more
thorough
site
assessment
process
for
large,
complex
8
sites,
and
carry
out
these
assessments
before
making
NPL
listing
decisions
or
other
9
programmatic
commitments.
10
11
14.
EPA
should
develop
a
process
to
consider
remediating
large,
complex
sites
in
12
smaller
units
where
discontinuous
distribution
of
contamination
allows
for
13
expedited
focus
on
portions
of
the
site
that
are
likely
to
pose
the
greatest
risks,
14
where
certain
potential
liable
parties
are
associated
with
one
or
more
particular
15
"
hotspots"
but
not
the
site
as
a
whole
and/
or
where
increased
clarity
about
16
responsibility
for
discrete
areas
of
contamination
will
reduce
conflicts
between
EPA
17
and
PRPs
and
among
PRPs,
thereby
reducing
transaction
costs.
18
19
15.
EPA
should
establish
regional
coordinating
committees
to
serve
as
information
20
gathering
and
exchange
venues
during
consideration
of
large
complex
sites
for
21
NPL
listing.
22
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
52
VI.
Measuring
Program
Progress
1
2
Overview
3
4
The
final
element
of
EPA's
charge
to
the
Subcommittee
was
to
provide
recommendations
5
on
better
ways
to
measure
program
performance.
For
this
particular
issue,
EPA
did
not
6
pose
specific
questions
to
the
Subcommittee.
Rather,
the
Subcommittee
was
asked
to
7
work
with
the
Agency
on
its
ongoing
efforts
to
develop
new
measure
proposals
and
8
provide
interim
feedback.
In
addition
to
providing
this
interim
assistance,
the
9
Subcommittee
developed
recommendations
on
how
the
Superfund
program
can
improve
10
the
way
it
captures
and
communicates
performance
on
a
national
and
site­
specific
level.
11
In
doings
so,
the
Subcommittee
explored
measures
that
would
supplement
"
construction
12
complete"
and
more
comprehensively
reflect
the
significant
milestones
in
protecting
13
human
health
and
the
environment
at
Superfund
sites.
14
15
The
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
there
are
many
possible
types
of
measures
of
16
performance
for
the
Superfund
program.
For
example,
there
are
measures
that
relate
to
17
progress
cleaning
up
contaminated
sites,
measures
that
relate
to
how
institutional
18
concerns
(
involvement
of
the
public,
tribes,
state
and
local
governments)
are
addressed,
19
and
measures
that
relate
to
overall
program
performance
(
efficient
use
of
resources,
as
an
20
example).
In
addition,
different
measures
may
be
required
if
the
goal
is
to
capture
21
performance
on
a
national
scale
rather
than
on
a
site­
specific
level.
In
addition,
even
22
within
each
of
these
categories
there
can
be
multiple
measures.
Thus,
it
is
important
to
be
23
clear
whether
the
measure
is
to
be
used
to
address
national
or
site­
specific
achievements,
24
or
both.
25
26
The
Subcommittee
also
recognizes
the
difference
between
developing
performance
27
measures
to
capture
program
progress
and
accomplishments,
versus
developing
28
performance
measures
with
the
goal
of
justifying
the
Superfund
program.
In
the
case
of
29
the
latter,
the
measures
would
be
used
as
the
basis
for
evaluating
whether
the
benefits
of
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
53
the
program
are
worth
the
costs.
Some
workgroup
members
believe
that
a
cost­
benefit
1
approach
should
be
used
to
justify
Superfund's
existence;
others
do
not
support
such
an
2
approach.
Therefore,
the
Subcommittee's
recommendations
focus
on
measures
that
3
address
program
progress,
accomplishments,
and
efficiency
 
not
the
develop
measures
4
of
the
overall
benefits
(
and
costs)
of
the
Superfund
program.
5
6
The
Subcommittee
also
recognizes
that
secondary
impacts
will
result
from
the
7
institutionalization
of
any
new
measures
of
performance.
In
addition
to
the
explicit
and
8
primary
goal
of
accounting
for
the
accomplishments
(
etc.)
of
the
program,
measures
drive
9
both
behavior
and
expectations.
Therefore,
it
is
important
to
consider
the
(
potentially
10
unintended)
behavior
modification
that
is
likely
to
result
from
the
institutionalization
of
a
11
specific
performance
measure.
Additionally,
performance
measures
will
influence
the
12
expectations
and
resulting
satisfaction
of
interested
parties,
including
communities,
13
Congress,
EPA
managers,
etc.
14
15
Finally,
the
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
developing
suitable
measures
of
performance
16
is
complex
and
that
such
measures
will
most
effectively
evolve
over
time
through
an
17
iterative
process.
18
19
Need
for
Core
Data
20
21
Notwithstanding
the
complexity
of
issues
associated
with
measuring
the
Superfund
22
program's
performance,
the
Subcommittee
believes
that
developing
and
systematically
23
reporting
against
a
core
set
of
measures
is
critical
to
accurately
reflect
the
progress
of
the
24
program
and
therefore
makes
the
following
three
recommendations:
25
26
16.
EPA
should
identify
and
accurately
report
a
core
set
of
data,
such
as
those
metrics
27
included
in
the
performance
profiles
for
all
NPL
sites
and
Program
activities.
28
29
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
54
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
continue
its
efforts
to
develop
and
improve
1
upon
the
Site
Performance
Profile
and
a
National
Performance
Profile
currently
under
2
development.
This
agency
effort
reflects
improved
performance
measures.
The
3
Subcommittee
supports
the
concept
in
draft
(
with
modifications
and
additions
suggested
4
by
individual
members
and
the
workgroup)
and
urges
EPA
to
begin
implementing
5
tracking
of
such
measures
immediately.
The
Subcommittee
recognizes
the
complexity
of
6
developing
effective
measures
and
suggests
that
the
agency
implement
the
performance
7
profile
format
(
under
development)
as
an
iterative
process
with
mechanisms
for
making
8
improvements
as
needed
in
the
future.
Specific
suggestions
to
add
additional
measures
to
9
the
profiles
for
which
data
currently
exist
and,
in
the
future,
to
add
additional
measures
10
for
which
data
do
not
currently
exist
have
been
provided
by
the
Subcommittee
as
interim
11
advice
to
the
agency
and
are
included
in
Appendix
__.
[
Note:
a
separate
memo
is
being
12
prepared
for
review
by
the
Subcommittee.]
The
Subcommittee
emphasizes
the
value
of
13
rolling
up
the
site­
specific
results
to
a
regional
and
national
level
and
reporting
the
results
14
on
an
annual
basis
so
the
information
can
reflect
incremental
improvements.
Pilot
testing
15
and
peer
review
of
measures
by
knowledgeable
individuals
and
organizations
prior
to
16
widespread
adoption
is
also
recommended.
17
18
Coordination
with
Tribal
Nations,
States,
Communities
19
20
17.
EPA
should
develop
measures
of
performance
that
assess
the
effectiveness
of
21
coordination
with
Tribal,
state
and
community
interests.
22
23
In
addition
to
the
measures
under
development
through
the
performance
profiles,
the
24
Subcommittee
recommends
that
EPA
explore
further
the
development
of
measures
that
25
address
how
successful
EPA's
Superfund
Program
has
been
in
coordinating
with
other
26
institutions
and
individuals
impacted
by,
interested
in,
knowledgeable
about,
or
27
responsible
for
Superfund
sites.
Such
parties
include
Tribal
Governments,
states
and
28
communities.
The
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
there
are
relevant
roles,
authorities
and
29
jurisdictions
unique
to
each
of
these
parties
and
any
proposed
measures
would
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
55
supplement,
document
and
or
encourage
the
appropriate
coordination
and
involvement
in
1
decision
making
required
by
these
established
relationships.
2
3
Additionally,
the
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
there
are
many
existing
requirements
and
4
guidance
documents
driving
the
efforts
to
inform
various
parities
of
Superfund
site
5
activities
and
to
include
Tribal
Governments,
states,
local
governments,
PRPs
and
6
communities
in
parts
of
the
Superfund
process.
In
fact,
the
recommendations
of
the
7
Subcommittee
draw
from
these
resources,
such
as
the
recently
released
"
Public
8
Involvement
Policy"
(
complete
citation
will
be
added)
and
the
"
Model
Plan
for
Public
9
Participation"
(
complete
citation
will
be
added).
The
Subcommittee
supports
the
10
direction
of
the
Agency
to
develop
and
effectively
implement
these
tools.
Furthermore
11
the
Subcommittee
does
not
wish
to
add
an
unnecessary
or
redundant
layer
of
12
bureaucracy,
particularly
with
measures
that
would
generate
a
score
of
full
compliance.
13
Many
traditional
measures
of
public
involvement
have
historically
focused
on
formal
14
"
notice
and
comment"
type
requirements
that
represented
nothing
more
than
"
checking
a
15
box"
and
did
not
reflect
substantive
involvement
and
coordination
with
the
parties.
Yet,
16
clearly
there
is
a
range
in
the
impact,
quality,
or
thoroughness
of
public
participation
and
17
institutional
coordination
and
involvement
achieved
among
sites.
Doubtless
there
also
is
18
considerable
variation
in
the
interest
of
various
publics
and
institutions
in
the
process,
19
ranging
from
indifference
at
some
places
to
intense
concern
or
even
opposition
to
agency
20
procedures,
decisions,
or
actions.
21
22
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that,
in
its
efforts
to
further
develop
measures
that
23
address
coordination
with
Tribal,
state
and
community
interests,
they
consider
the
24
following
guidelines:
25
26

The
measures
might
better
be
called
tools
or
process
review
methods,
27
28

The
tools
would
seek
to
assess
the
quality
of
participation
and
the
variety
of
29
participation
at
various
stages
of
the
process,
beginning
with
the
site
listing
stage,
30
and
31
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
56
1

Most
importantly,
the
tools
would
be
designed
to
help
the
agency
learn
how
2
complete
and
effective
was
its
site
planning
and
how
well
it
made
the
outcome
of
3
remediation.
The
tools
would
not
be
simply
measures
of
the
process
of
4
participation.
5
6
Additionally,
the
goal
of
developing
such
measures
is
to
be
helpful
to
EPA,
gather
new
7
assessment
data,
and
be
relatively
easy
to
collect
and
report.
The
Subcommittee
has
8
offered
suggestions
on
three
types
of
measures
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
EPA
in
9
balancing
the
three
approaches
at
each
site.
These
types
of
measures
are
based
on
the
10
multifaceted
definition
of
program
effectiveness
identified
in
EPA's
Public
Involvement
11
Policy.
Appendix
___
includes
a
document
that
addresses
the
measures
and
their
12
application
in
more
detail.
13
14
A
Management
Measure
would
focus
upon
use
of
local,
Tribal,
state
and
other
relevant
15
knowledge
and
participation
to
design
clean­
ups.
Assessment
should
be
done,
for
16
example,
of
how
well
the
agency
assessed
demographics
around
a
site
and
solicited
17
information
from
users
of
resources
impacted
by
a
site.
For
example,
the
agency
could
18
document
subsistence
use
and
report
on
how
knowledge
of
resource
use
influenced
19
design
of
clean­
ups.
The
agency
could
receive
grades
based
on
the
difficulty
of
20
eliminating
pathways
of
exposure
distinct
to
a
site.
Likewise
the
public
involvement
in
21
the
management
approach
could
be
assessed
by
measuring
the
incorporation
into
22
remedial
designs
of
proposals
arising
from
independent
technical
studies
done
by
23
communities
(
under
the
Technical
Assistance
Grant
[
TAG]
process)
or
responsible
24
parties.
The
general
point
of
this
set
of
measures
would
be
did
the
agency
take
advantage
25
of
resources
other
than
its
own
to
design
and
implement
remediation.
26
27
A
Representation
Measure
would
focus
on
assessing
inclusiveness
and
effectiveness
of
28
the
involvement
of
various
interests
in
building
support
and
avoiding
conflict
at
the
site.
29
Many
potential
measures
of
representation
are
already
used,
such
as
reporting
on
the
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
57
notice
and
comment
requirements
related
to
the
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD).
A
1
quantitative
measure
that
might
add
new
information
would
be
how
many
comments
are
2
received
on
public
notices
and
how
many
require
additional
changes.
Many
comments
3
would
not
be
bad;
however,
indications
that
the
process
needed
significant
modification
4
would
hint
at
potential
problems.
A
qualitative
measure
that
might
reflect
the
last
goal
in
5
the
Public
Involvement
Policy,
explanation
of
how
input
affected
the
agency,
might
be
a
6
valuable
measure,
especially
if
done
through
some
independent
mechanism.
7
8
A
Legal
Measurement
might
be
helpful
if
it
measured
quantitatively
the
number
and
9
consequences
of
formal
legal
challenges
to
agency
actions
at
a
site.
Certainly
the
10
number,
duration,
and
cost
of
litigation
related
to
each
site
could
be
measured
and
values
11
assigned
based
upon
the
type
litigants
and
the
outcome
of
litigation
(
Did
the
agency
12
win?).
Sites
also
could
be
measured
on
the
amount
of
funding
recovered
through
13
litigation.
Finally
litigation
could
be
classified
and
scored,
such
as
that
which
is
14
primarily
procedural
(
Did
the
agency
not
respond
to
my
comments
about
the
proposed
15
clean­
up?)
in
contrast
to
substantive
(
Am
I
responsible
for
dumping
contaminants?).
16
17
Appendix
___
also
includes
a
sample
(
DRAFT)
form
for
reporting
on
the
progress
of
18
involvement
and
coordination
with
Tribal
governments,
states,
local
governments,
19
communities
and
other
parties
using
the
proposed
model.
20
21
Preparation
of
Annual
Report
22
23
18.
To
increase
transparency
and
accountability,
EPA
should
prepare
an
annual
report
24
which
presents
information
on
the
status
of
the
program,
summary
of
sites
listed
25
and
considered,
but
not
listed,
budget/
expenditure
analyses
and
other
relevant
26
indices
of
the
status
of
the
Superfund
program.
27
28
The
Subcommittee
recommends
that
the
Agency
look
beyond
the
performance
of
site
29
cleanup
activities
to
measures
that
address
other
critical
aspects
of
a
well
functioning
and
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
58
effective
federal
program.
These
other
goals
include:
1)
budget
transparency
 
that
is,
1
how
are
dollars
actually
being
used
in
the
Superfund
program,
and
2)
general
program
2
tracking
 
assuring
that
needed
information
about
the
program
is
reliable
and
readily
3
accessible.
These
measures
help
to
create
accountability
for
the
use
of
public
funds.
4
Reporting
of
these
measures
can
be
accomplished
through
an
annual
report
with
5
information
on
dollars
spent
on
key
functions
that
are
meaningful
to
those
outside
of
6
government
(
i.
e.,
the
public).
Such
an
annual
report
should
include
a
summary
of
actions
7
completed,
underway,
initiated
since
the
last
FY,
actions
waiting
for
funding,
estimates
of
8
future
liability
for
cleanup
activities
by
year
for
next
five
years
and
beyond,
etc.
The
data
9
suggested
are
similar
to
those
included
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
[
Note:
should
this
10
recommendation
include
an
independent
review
or
Third
Party
development
of
the
11
data/
report?]
12
13
As
part
of
its
responsibility
to
report
complete
and
accurate
information
on
an
annual
14
basis,
the
Agency
should
adopt
the
following
three
objectives:
15
16
EPA
should
improve
the
quality
of
the
information
in
its
data
systems.
17
18
The
Subcommittee
recognizes
that
the
value
of
any
performance
measurement
system
is
19
limited
by
the
quality
of
the
data
used
for
reporting.
In
addition
to
the
aforementioned
20
recommendations
addressing
WHAT
the
system
is
reporting,
the
Subcommittee
also
21
believes
that
it
is
critically
important
that
EPA
improve
the
quality
of
data
it
is
using
to
22
report
against
existing
and
future
measures.
Specifically,
EPA
needs
to
improve
the
23
reliability
and
consistency
of
information
in
its
main
data
systems
related
to
the
cost
of
24
cleanup
(
to
EPA,
PRPs
and
the
states),
risks
at
a
site,
a
description
of
what
portion
of
a
25
site
is
addressed
by
each
operable
unit,
initial
and
post­
cleanup
contamination,
26
institutional
controls
and
restrictions
on
land/
water
use,
the
type
of
remedy
implemented,
27
and
the
remedy's
effectiveness,
among
other
information.
The
implementation
of
the
28
site
performance
profile,
by
drawing
on
existing
data
systems,
will
most
likely
lead
to
29
improved
data
quality
as
the
data
become
more
visible.
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
59
1
EPA
should
not
aggregate
activities
at
alternative
and
NPL
sites
in
its
annual
2
reporting
on
Superfund
progress
in
an
attempt
to
show
progress
by
including
sites
3
addressed
under
this
program.
4
5
The
Subcommittee
raised
serious
concerns
about
a
policy
EPA
discussed
only
briefly
6
with
the
Subcommittee:
the
"
Superfund
Alternative
Strategy."
This
program
does
not
7
appear
to
support
the
rules
for
prioritization
and
coordination
with
other
programs
8
recommended
by
the
Subcommittee
in
this
report.
Additionally,
the
alternative
program
9
makes
a
number
of
EPA
administrative
reforms
and
guidance
only
discretionary.
It
is
10
based
upon
EPA's
special
arrangement
with
private
parties
outside
of
the
NPL
listing
11
process
and
although
the
guidance
for
the
program
requires
consistency
with
the
National
12
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)
and
a
mandatory
Technical
Advisory
Group
(
TAG)
grant,
it
is
13
not
at
all
clear
what
kind
of
oversight
will
be
conducted,
whether
remedies
selected
will
14
be
comparable,
and
whether
these
sites
will
go
faster
or
slower
than
NPL
sites.
As
a
15
result,
the
Subcommittee
recommends
that
activities
conducted
under
this
program
be
16
tracked
independently
from
activities
addressed
under
Superfund
and
the
NPL.
17
18
Develop
a
system
to
track
and
evaluate
the
performance
of
institutional
controls.
19
20
The
tracking,
implementation,
and
maintenance
of
institutional
controls
is
critical
at
21
many
sites
to
assuring
long­
term
protectiveness.
There
are
many
issues
still
to
be
22
addressed
regarding
the
use
and
enforcement
of
institutional
controls,
as
well
as
23
questions
about
how
to
assure
that
needed
controls
are
in
fact
implemented
and
who
will
24
pay
for
the
ongoing
costs
of
institutional
controls.
The
Subcommittee
believes
that
these
25
issues
are
extremely
important
and
should
be
a
high
priority
for
the
Superfund
program.
26
The
Subcommittee
further
recognizes
that
there
is
a
substantial
effort
underway
at
EPA
27
to
develop
an
institutional
controls
tracking
system
and
supports
the
continued
28
investment
in
such
an
effort.
[
Note:
should
we
propose
a
deadline.]
29
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
60
Summary
of
Recommendations
Related
to
Measuring
Program
1
Progress
2
In
response
to
its
charge
and
in
light
of
factors
described
above,
the
Subcommittee
makes
3
thee
recommendations
related
to
measuring
program
progress.
4
5
16.
EPA
should
identify
and
accurately
report
a
core
set
of
data,
such
as
those
metrics
6
included
in
the
performance
profiles
for
all
NPL
sites
and
Program
activities.
7
8
17.
EPA
should
develop
measures
of
performance
that
assess
the
effectiveness
of
9
coordination
with
Tribal,
State
and
community
interests.
10
11
18.
To
increase
transparency
and
accountability,
EPA
should
prepare
an
annual
12
report
which
presents
information
on
the
status
of
the
program,
summary
of
sites
13
listed
and
considered,
but
not
listed,
budget/
expenditure
analyses
and
other
14
relevant
indices
of
the
status
of
the
Superfund
program.
15
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
61
VII.
Additional
Issues
Identified
by
the
1
Subcommittee
2
3
During
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
a
number
of
issues
arose
which
were
related
to
4
the
charge,
but
on
which
the
Subcommittee
did
not
have
time
to
focus
in­
depth.
There
5
several
of
these
issues
which
the
Subcommittee
believes
merit
further
attention
by
EPA.
6
These
issues
are
discussed
in
this
section.
7
8
[
Review
Note:
We
anticipate
additional
issues
will
be
added
to
this
section
as
a
result
of
9
Subcommittee
discussions]
10
11
Agency
for
Toxics
Substances
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
and
12
National
Institute
of
Environmental
Health
Sciences
(
NIEHS)
13
14
The
Subcommittee
raised
concerns
about
the
Superfund
appropriations
going
to
these
15
two
agencies.
Where
these
funds
are
spent
and
how
they
benefited
the
Superfund
16
Program
are
unclear.
The
concerns
related
both
to
the
accountability
of
these
agencies
to
17
the
mission
and
priorities
of
the
program
and
the
relative
benefit
of
that
investment.
18
19
Specific
questions
raised
by
the
Subcommittee
included:
20
21
(
NOTE;
we
are
awaiting
responses
from
ATSDR
and
NIEHS
with
regard
to
the
following
22
questions
that
were
posed
by
the
ad
hoc
group
that
discussed
these
issues
following
the
23
New
Bedford
meeting.)
24
25

What
is
the
relationship/
interplay
between
ATSDR/
NIEHS
and
the
EPA
risk
26
assessment
process?
Are
there
efficiencies
that
could
be
gained
through
better
27
coordination
of
these
processes?
28
29

What
are
the
major
activities/
programs
of
ATSDR/
NIEHS?
30
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
62
1

What
criteria
are
used
by
ATSDR/
NIEHS
to
determine
what
types
of
studies
are
2
done
and
where?
3
4

How
much
flexibility
does
ATSDR/
NIEHS
have
with
regard
to
the
activities
it
5
undertakes
at
sites
and
overall?
6
7

What
is
the
ATSDR/
NIEHS
budget
and
what
are
the
major
categories
of
activities
8
on
which
it
is
expended?
9
10

Where
does
ATSDR/
NIEHS
think
it
has
been
most
effective
and
in
what
areas
11
would
it
like
to
be
able
to
do
more?
12
13

Are
there
aspects
of
the
data
collected
by
ATSDR/
NIEHS
that
could
be
applied
to
14
better
measuring
program
performance?
15
16
(
Additional
information/
comments
may
be
developed
based
on
the
response
to
the
17
Subcommittee's
questions
prepared
by
NIEHS
and
ATSDR.)
18
19
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
63
List
of
Figures
1
2
3
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
64
Glossary
of
Terms
and
Phrases
1
2
Institutional
Controls
3
4
Outcome
measures
5
6
Output
measures
7
8
NPL
Candidate
Site
9
10
NPL
Caliber
Site
11
12
Superfund
Site
Assessment
Process
13
14
No
Further
Remedial
Action
is
Planned
15
DRAFT
­
FOR
SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION
ONLY
DOES
NOT
REPRESENT
THE
CONSENSUS
OF
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE
DO
NOT
CITE
Draft
of
08/
12/
03
Page
65
Appendices
1
2
[
Review
Note:
Additional
appendices
will
be
added.
Appendix
materials
will
be
3
reviewed
by
Subcommittee
members
prior
to
finalization
of
the
report]
4
5
6
A.
List
of
Subcommittee
Members
and
Member
Bios
7
8
B.
Charge
to
the
Subcommittee
9
10
C.
Description
of
Subcommittee
process,
including
list
of
individuals
who
made
11
presentations
or
comments
to
the
Subcommittee
12
13
D.
Law's
memo
14
15
E.
Installation
Development/
Contracting
presentation
16
17
F.
Supporting
documents
for
Measuring
Program
Performance
Section
18
