Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0005-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-12-10T05:00Z

NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
MEETING
SUMMARY
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
September
23­
24,
2002
Crystal
Gateway
Marriott
1700
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA
 
Prepared
by
Meridian
Institute
December
6,
2002
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
2
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
Meeting
September
23­
24,
2002
Arlington,
VA
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
second
meeting
September
23
and
24,
2002,
in
Arlington,
Virginia.
This
document
summarizes
discussion
topics
and
key
decisions
made
during
the
meeting.
The
meeting
was
open
to
the
public
and
audio
recorded.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
were
present
as
observers.
While
the
Subcommittee's
agenda
designated
several
opportunities
for
public
comment,
none
were
offered.
A
written
transcript
will
be
prepared
and
available
through
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
Docket
#
SFUND­
2002­
0005.
Lois
Gartner,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer
(
DFO),
is
the
primary
point
of
contact
for
all
public
and
press
inquiries.

The
objectives
of
the
September
23­
24,
2002
meeting
were
to:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Subcommittee's
Work
Groups,
formed
at
the
panel's
first
meeting
in
June
2002,
to
report
on
the
status
of
their
activity
and
seek
feedback
from
the
full
Subcommittee.
 
Provide
educational
information
on
the
current
and
projected
status
of
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).
 
Provide
information
on
some
key
non­
CERCLA
cleanup
programs.
 
Provide
a
briefing
from
the
Superfund
Program
on
relevant
activities
occurring
within
the
Agency.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
structure
and
work
plan;
and
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.

Monday,
September
23,
2002,
9:
00
a.
m.
 
5:
30
p.
m.

Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
presented
welcoming
remarks.
He
introduced
Lois
Gartner,
the
DFO
for
the
Subcommittee
and
John
Ehrmann,
the
lead
facilitator
for
the
group,
from
Meridian
Institute.
Dr.
Loehr
summarized
the
Subcommittee's
charge,
its
activity
since
the
first
meeting
and
the
goals
for
the
second
meeting.
The
Introductory
Statement
was
available
as
a
handout
and
is
included
in
Attachment
A.
Dr.
Loehr
asked
each
Subcommittee
Member
to
briefly
introduce
him
or
herself.

Opening
Remarks
from
the
Assistant
Administrator
Dr.
Loehr
introduced
Marianne
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator
for
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER).
Ms.
Horinko
thanked
the
Members
for
their
continued
service
to
the
Agency
as
advisory
committee
members.
She
introduced
EPA's
One
Cleanup
Program
and
summarized
EPA's
expectations
and
vision
for
the
Subcommittee.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
3
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Ms.
Horinko
explained
that
the
"
One
Cleanup
Program"
represents
EPA's
vision
for
how
all
of
the
nation's
cleanup
programs
can
work
together
to
meet
their
challenges
and
ensure
that
resources,
activities,
and
results
are
more
effectively
coordinated
and
easily
communicated
to
the
public.
Mike
Shapiro,
Deputy
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER
and
an
EPA
representative
to
the
Subcommittee,
has
been
designated
as
the
lead
senior
manager
for
the
initiative.
Ellen
Manges
is
the
staff
coordinator
for
the
initiative.
The
Subcommittee
is
being
asked
to
participate
in
the
public
evaluation
of
the
initiative
as
part
of
its
input
on
the
future
direction
of
EPA
waste
cleanup
programs.
A
critical
part
of
the
One
Cleanup
Program
is
the
development
of
new
cross­
program
performance
measurements.
The
Subcommittee's
analysis
of
Superfund
performance
metrics
will
be
considered
during
the
development
of
measures
that
can
be
used
by
all
waste
cleanup
programs.

Ms.
Horinko
reaffirmed
the
importance
of
the
Subcommittee's
work
and
reiterated
her
expectations.
She
is
hoping
the
Subcommittee
deliberations
will
generate
ideas
and
recommendations
about
the
future
of
the
Superfund
Program,
such
as:

 
How
should
mega­
sites
be
handled?
 
How
should
waste
sites
be
evaluated
and
prioritized
for
the
NPL?
 
How
can
the
progress
and
results
of
our
cleanups
be
better
measured?
 
How
can
complicated
waste
site
problems
be
better
explained
to
the
public?

While
the
Agency
will
continue
to
adjust
aspects
of
its
policies
in
the
interim,
the
Subcommittee's
advice
will
help
to
shape
long­
term
policies.

Additional
comments
offered
by
the
Assistant
administrator
included
the
following:

 
This
year
only
(
19)
sites
were
added
to
the
NPL
list,
in
comparison
to
30­
40
in
some
past
years.
The
Agency
does
not
intend
for
that
decrease
to
indicate
a
slowdown
The
listing
numbers
have
fluctuated
significantly
year­
to­
year
over
the
Superfund
program's
history.
The
Agency
does
not
have
a
goal
regarding
the
ideal
size
or
characteristics
of
(
the
NPL)
universe.
The
provision
of
insights
on
those
issues
by
the
Subcommittee
would
be
valuable
to
the
Agency.
 
The
One
Cleanup
Initiative
is
being
released
for
broad
public
comment
in
October.
The
Subcommittee
is
the
first
public
forum
at
which
the
One
Cleanup
Initiative
materials
will
be
distributed.
The
Agency
is
very
open
to
public
input
on
the
development
of
the
Program
Initiative.

Update
from
the
NACEPT
Committee
Wilma
Subra,
Executive
NACEPT
Council
Vice­
Chair,
provided
an
update
from
the
Executive
NACEPT
Council
(
NACEPT).
Ms.
Subra
explained
that
Lois
Gartner
made
a
presentation
on
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
to
the
full
NACEPT
council
on
July
18th,
2002.
Overall,
NACEPT
is
very
supportive
of
the
Subcommittee's
work.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
4
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Comments
made
by
NACEPT
members
on
the
Subcommittee's
work
were:

Charles
Jones,
County
Commissioner,
Douglas
County
Kansas:
It
is
extremely
important
for
the
Superfund
program
to
take
credit
for
voluntary
cleanup
initiatives.
In
Kansas
there
are
few
NPL
sites
but
a
large
number
of
voluntary
cleanup
sites
due
to
the
Superfund
laws.

Joe
Boren,
AIG
Environmental:
Expressed
grave
concerns
that
if
the
Subcommittee
did
not
consider
funding
options,
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee
would
not
result
in
solutions
to
the
Superfund
situation.
He
felt
the
resources
would
be
inadequate
to
address
the
cleanup
of
orphan
mega
sites.

Dorothy
Bowers,
Chairperson
of
the
NACEPT
Council,
responded
to
the
Superfund
Subcommittee's
concerns
that
the
NACEPT
Council
would
make
changes
to
Subcommittee
recommendations.
She
explained
that
the
NACEPT
Council
has
never
changed
recommendations
in
the
past
and
does
not
intend
to
in
the
future.
Rather,
they
have
raised
questions
concerning
Subcommittees'
recommendations
and
have
sought
clarification
or
resolution
of
such
questions
prior
to
adopting
a
Subcommittee's
report.
A
close
working
relationship
between
the
Subcommittee
and
NACEPT
Council
throughout
the
life
of
the
Subcommittee
will
facilitate
addressing
questions,
issues
and
concerns
as
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee
progresses.

The
next
meeting
of
the
NACEPT
is
scheduled
for
the
first
week
in
December.
At
that
time
it
may
be
appropriate
to
address
or
respond
to
additional
questions
or
comments
posed
by
Council
Members.

Vicky
Peters,
Subcommittee
Member,
explained
that
the
issue
of
funding
assumptions
has
also
been
raised
in
workgroup
discussions.
She
suggested
that
the
Subcommittee
could
assume
various
levels
of
funding
with
corresponding
recommendations.
Marianne
Horinko
emphasized
her
desire
for
the
Subcommittee
to
assume
level
funding
in
at
least
one
of
the
alternatives
included
in
their
deliberations
because
that
is
the
most
likely
funding
scenario
under
which
the
Superfund
program
will
operate
in
the
foreseeable
future.

Information
Gathering
Summary
and
Status
Elizabeth
McManus
from
Ross
&
Associates
Environmental
Consulting,
Ltd.
summarized
the
information
gathering
efforts
that
have
been
undertaken
since
the
June
meeting.
She
circulated
the
outline
of
Information
Needs
and
Sources
(
available
on
the
public
website)
and
explained
that
it
was
developed
with
input
from
individual
Members
of
the
Subcommittee.
The
organization
of
the
information
summary
document
draws
from
the
logic
flow
developed
by
the
Work
Plan
Work
Group.
The
document
is
a
tool
to
catalogue
all
the
questions
or
issues
raised,
not
to
pass
judgment
on
whether
they
are
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
There
may
be
items
on
the
list
of
needs
for
which
there
is
NOT
information
available.
All
the
sources
listed
have
been
located
and
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
5
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
are
available
to
the
Subcommittee
on
the
Website
or
in
hard
copy.
Additional
sources
that
have
been
suggested,
but
have
not
yet
been
obtained
are
not
included
on
the
list.
Dr.
Loehr
requested
that
Members
be
diligent
about
making
sure
that
information
requested
is
necessary
for
the
Subcommittee
to
accomplish
its
charge.

Comments
from
the
Subcommittee
included
the
following:

 
EPA
can
invite
individuals
with
specific
expertise
(
e.
g.
consulting
engineers)
to
address
missing
information.
The
Subcommittee
needs
to
fine­
tune
the
questions
so
that
the
most
relevant
areas
of
expertise
can
be
identified.
The
Subcommittee
needs
to
make
some
choices
about
how
to
allocate
the
resources
available.
Consensus
or
collective
agreement
regarding
that
expertise
is
important.
 
The
Subcommittee
should
focus
at
a
policy
level
so
we
are
not
asking
for
information
that
is
unnecessary.
There
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
are
important,
but
which
ones
will
we
be
able
to
address
as
a
Subcommittee?

Work
Planning
Work
Group
Effort
Vicky
Peters
and
Michael
Mittelholzer
presented
the
Work
Plan
developed
by
the
Work
Group
and
explained
how
the
draft
document
evolved
from
the
Subcommittee
Charge
discussed
at
the
June
meeting.
The
document
included
a
thematic
outline
or
"
logic
flow"
for
the
Subcommittee's
process
and
a
proposed
schedule.
The
logic
reflected
in
the
thematic
summary
was
intended
to
reflect
a
variety
of
viewpoints
while
remaining
neutral
on
conclusions.
The
Work
Group
attempted
to
remove
biases
perceived
in
the
original
Charge.
They
did
not
attempt
to
remove
or
pass
judgment
on
anything
from
the
laundry
list
of
issues
identified
to
date,
though
they
acknowledged
that
paring
it
down
may
be
necessary.
Questions
and
data
requests
were
integrated
into
the
information
gathering
efforts
so
the
group
could
track
one
list.

Everyone
was
supportive
of
the
basic
logic
flow
presented
in
the
Work
Plan.
The
following
comments
were
offered
by
the
Subcommittee:

 
An
explanation
of
what
has
happened
with
the
mega
site
and
performance
measures
focus
needs
to
be
added.
 
The
information
needs
could
be
integrated
into
this
document
if
doing
so
does
not
make
it
confusing.
 
There
may
be
a
parallel
effort
to
address
the
policy
options
concurrently
with
the
information
gathering.
 
The
term
"
mega
sites"
was
identified
as
confusing.
One
Subcommittee
Member
suggested
focusing
on
sediment
and
mining
sites
since
they
make
up
the
bulk
of
the
"
mega
site"
universe.
The
working
definition
of
mega
sites
for
this
document
 
until
defined
otherwise
 
is
based
on
cost:
$
50
million
or
more
spent
on
cleanup.
 
A
glossary
of
terms
would
be
helpful.
 
The
development
of
a
description
of
alternatives
is
an
important
next
step.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
6
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
 
The
Subcommittee
could
consider
a
laundry
list
of
different
types
of
sites
and
the
programs
that
can
address
the
unique
needs
of
those
types
of
sites.
There
are
going
to
be
a
variety
of
sites
that
may
need
to
be
culled
out
 
perhaps
inexpensive
sites,
or,
alternately,
expensive
sites
 
but
there
are
cases
that
need
to
be
dealt
with
differently.
 
While
the
logic
flow
seems
acceptable,
the
volume
of
information
reflected
in
the
scope
of
work
outline
is
overwhelming.
 
If
there
are
important
policy
issues
associated
with
the
Charge
but
not
necessarily
called
out
in
it,
then
the
Subcommittee
has
been
told
that
they
have
the
flexibility
to
address
them.
The
Work
Plan
was
developed
in
the
spirit
of
that
sentiment.

 
The
path
forward
questions
are
the
most
ill­
formed.
These
questions
were
not
necessarily
posed
by
EPA,
but
were
raised
during
the
June
meeting
or
during
subsequent
deliberations
of
the
work
group.
These
questions
were
not
judged
or
removed
by
the
work
group.
 
There
was
a
sentiment
at
the
June
meeting
that
the
Subcommittee
did
not
want
to
divide
the
NPL
and
mega
sites.
 
The
Subcommittee
will
need
to
be
thinking
through
the
content
of
a
final
work
plan
product.
The
interim
work
plan
is
not
sufficient.
While
it
may
be
a
little
early
in
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
to
finalize
a
work
plan,
this
task
needs
to
be
done
sooner
rather
than
later.

Mike
Mittelholzer
reviewed
the
schedule
portion
of
the
Work
Plan
document
and
reviewed
some
of
the
issues
considered
by
the
workgroup:
how
well
do
we
educate
ourselves
without
getting
bogged
down
in
information
collection
mode?
Can
we
make
some
macro
level
policy
decisions
in
the
interim?
The
Subcommittee
discussed
the
need
to
clarify
the
Subcommittee's
charge
and
the
priority
questions
in
order
to
start
moving
in
the
direction
of
being
able
to
make
decisions.
Dr.
Loehr
reminded
the
Subcommittee
that
it
is
necessary
to
have
draft
recommendations
in
writing
by
May
or
June
of
next
year
in
order
to
be
able
to
meet
goals
of
the
group.

Summary
of
Internal
Activities
Relevant
to
the
Work
Plan
Mike
Cook,
Director
of
the
Superfund
Program,
summarized
Superfund
Program
activities
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
charge.
Key
comments
included
the
following:

Resources:
The
matter
of
resources
is
perhaps
the
most
important
issue
to
Superfund
according
to
the
press,
Congress,
and
the
Agency.
How
much
money
will
be
available
is
not
clear.
EPA
has
seen
a
budget
shortfall
for
the
Superfund
Program
for
the
first
time
this
year.
How
EPA
allocates
Superfund
resources
is
a
factor
in
the
types
of
listing
policy
issues
being
considered
by
this
group.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
7
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
NPL
Listing
Policy:
EPA
recently
proposed
7
new
sites
and
added
19
to
the
NPL.
EPA
has
recently
implemented
interim
changes
to
its
NPL
listing
policy
pending
the
advice
of
the
Subcommittee.
As
part
of
that
revised
interim
policy,
the
Agency
will
be
looking
more
closely
at
alternatives
to
listing.
The
Agency
issued
NPL
alternative
guidance
to
enable
potentially
faster
cleanups
and
to
be
sensitive
to
community
and
PRP
concerns.
The
alternative
guidance
states
that:
o
NPL
alternative
sites
must
meet
the
criteria
for
listing
and
have
PRPs
who
are
willing
to
perform
cleanups
consistent
with
the
National
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)
under
enforceable
agreements.
o
State/
Tribal
involvement
in
the
RI/
FS,
remedy
selection,
design
and
implementation
is
the
same
as
at
NPL
sites.
o
Response
selection
is
the
same.
o
If
a
settlement
agreement
is
not
reached,
EPA
can
list
the
site
and
proceed
with
enforcement;
if
there
is
non­
compliance
with
the
settlement,
EPA
can
list
the
site
and
issue
a
UAO
or
take
over
the
work.

Enforcement
First:
Consistent
with
the
"
Enforcement
First"
principle:
1)
EPA
will
explore
the
enforcement
route
before
committing
fund
money
to
a
site;
2)
EPA
will
continue
to
leverage
PRP
funding
as
much
as
possible;
and
3)
EPA
expects
to
issue
more
unilateral
orders
in
the
near
future.

Sediment
Activities:
The
Agency
has
instituted
a
consultation
process
for
sediment
sites
(
many
of
them
mega
sites)
to
draw
upon
the
expertise
of
a
headquarters/
regional
advisory
group.
The
group
issues
recommendations
to
the
Remedial
Project
Managers
(
RPMs)
about
how
they
can
better
undertake
their
ongoing
site
investigations.
Also,
EPA
issued
draft
guidance
on
contaminated
sediment
remediation.
Currently,
States
and
other
Federal
agencies
are
reviewing
it
and
the
Agency
expects
the
guidance
to
be
available
for
public
review
later
this
fall.

Funding
Related
Issues:
The
Agency
is
under
increased
scrutiny
regarding
how
resource
decisions
are
made.
From
the
Program's
perspective,
keeping
in
mind
the
limited
funds
available
for
the
Program
should
be
an
important
facet
of
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations.
There
are
many
alternative
futures
the
Subcommittee
might
assume
for
the
Superfund
Program.
The
Program
is
looking
for
advice
on
those
futures.
The
Subcommittee's
insight
on
the
pros
and
cons
of
some
of
the
policy
options
relative
to
a
range
of
funding
alternatives
will
be
valuable.

Measures
of
Success:
The
Superfund
Program
has
recognized
that
EPA
needs
to
be
more
proactive
with
Superfund
data.
The
Agency
is
developing
new
measures
of
success,
and
wants
the
public,
and
its
stakeholders,
to
understand
better
the
Program's
process
and
its
successes.
The
Subcommittee's
Measuring
Performance
Progress
Work
Group
will
help
evaluate
these
new
measures.
The
Program
is
looking
forward
to
feedback
on
new
ways
of
capturing
and
communicating
progress.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
8
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
A
discussion
among
the
Subcommittee
Members
and
EPA
representatives
followed
Mr.
Cook's
presentation.
The
discussion
yielded
the
following
additional
points:

 
There
are
many
sites
where
responsible
parties
are
engaged.
But,
the
30%
or
so
of
Fund­
lead
sites
represent
a
large
sum
of
funds
that
EPA
will
have
to
address
over
the
next
years.
The
Agency
is
projecting
shortfalls
well
into
the
future.
Next
year,
the
Agency
is
projecting
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
shortfall.
The
shortfall
seems
to
increase
rapidly
over
the
next
years
and
grows
by
more
than
$
200
million
each
year.
 
The
Fiscal
Year
03
budget
suggests
level
funding
for
next
year.
 
More
cleanup
money
came
from
the
State
Revolving
Funds
program
than
the
Brownfields
Program.
 
EPA
is
stepping
up
consideration
of
re­
use
for
sites
and
could
be
working
that
into
funding
decisions.
 
The
value
of
the
Superfund
trust
fund
has
been
steadily
diminishing
because
Congress
has
not
renewed
the
tax
supporting
the
trust
fund
since
it
lapsed
in
1995.
This
lack
of
trust
fund
dollars
does
not
necessarily
affect
the
Superfund
program
because
it
is
the
amount
of
money
appropriated
to
the
Program
that
is
critical,
not
the
funding
source.
Congress
can
and
does
fund
Superfund
out
of
general
revenues
as
well
as
the
trust
fund.

NPL
issues
Several
presentations
were
made
to
the
Subcommittee
regarding
the
NPL
listing
issues.
Key
Subcommittee
questions
(
from
the
information
gathering
and
work
planning
efforts)
were
used
to
frame
the
presentations.
Presentation
slides
are
included
in
Attachment
B.
Presentations
included
the
following:

Kate
Probst,
Resources
for
the
Future
 
"
Superfund
Past
and
Future"
A
briefing
on
issues
from
the
RFF
report
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
Dave
Evans,
EPA,
OSWER
 
The
NPL
Listing
Process
Paul
Nadeau,
EPA,
OSWER
 
Funding
Streams,
Prioritization
and
Budget
Issues
Discussion
followed
the
presentations.
The
following
points
were
raised:

 
EPA
does
not
want
to
add
sites
to
the
NPL
that
they
do
not
have
resources
to
address,
and
EPA
does
not
currently
have
the
resources
to
address
every
site
that
the
states
and
tribes
want
to
clean
up.
Similarly,
EPA
does
not
want
to
pull
the
rug
out
from
under
sites
once
they
are
on
the
list.
 
EPA
would
like
to
look
at
Superfund
as
leverage
to
bring
other
cleanup
programs
to
bear.
 
There
is
a
need
to
consider
other
cleanup
programs
more
uniformly
and
systematically,
through
better
documentation
of
how
some
sites
go
forward
and
some
don't.
 
Is
it
possible
to
consider
ways
of
addressing
a
portion
of
the
site
at
a
time?
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
9
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
 
The
Subcommittee
has
been
told
that
there
is
a
shortfall
in
funding
for
the
Superfund
Program
in
excess
of
200
million
dollars.
Has
there
been
a
change
in
policy
to
reflect
that
shortfall?
In
the
face
of
a
shortfall
the
Agency
cannot
spend
money
that
doesn't
exist.
There
is
a
need
to
address
the
human
health
risk
using
a
variety
of
strategies
so
that
EPA
can
allocate
incremental
funds
more
efficiently.
 
There
is
a
net
increase
in
cost
that
results
from
spreading
out
the
costs
of
some
of
these
sites.
It
is
going
to
cost
more
to
finance
them
over
a
longer
period
of
time.
 
Thanks
to
the
impacts
of
the
"
enforcement
first"
initiative,
each
of
the
sites
may
have
funds
left
over
from
what
was
originally
obligated.
EPA
tries
to
project
those
funds
and
is
anticipating
that
they
will
continue
to
rise.
 
It
is
possible
that
sites
are
not
being
listed
because
states
do
not
have
their
10%
share,
but
it
is
a
factor
that
is
hard
to
measure
directly.
The
state
may
say
they
don't
want
a
site
listed,
but
EPA
does
not
know
why.

Public
Comment
Period
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
No
public
comments
were
made.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
10
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Tuesday,
September
24,
2002
Integrated
Panel
Presentations
and
Discussion
of
Cleanup
Programs
Several
presentations
were
made
to
the
Subcommittee
regarding
other
cleanup
programs.
Key
Subcommittee
questions
(
from
the
information
gathering
and
work
planning
efforts)
were
used
to
frame
the
presentations.
Presentation
slides
are
included
in
Attachment
B.
Presentations
included
the
following:

Mark
Giesfeldt
 
State
Cleanup
Programs
 
Wisconsin
Case
Study
Sue
Sladek,
EPA
 
State
and
Tribal
Involvement
in
the
Superfund
Program
Steve
Heare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
 
EPA
interaction
with
States
on
RCRA
Jason
White
 
Tribal
issues
associated
with
Superfund
and
other
cleanup
programs
Discussion
followed
the
presentations.
The
following
points
were
raised:

 
EPA
does
defer
NPL
caliber
sites
to
the
states
but
many
of
the
sites
documented
as
"
state
cleanups"
(
and
funds)
are
not
NPL
caliber.
 
If
RCRA
cannot
take
on
more
sites
because
it
doesn't
have
the
authority,
and
the
states
cannot
take
more
sites
because
of
limited
funds,
then
how
much
time
should
the
Subcommittee
be
focusing
on
these
alternatives?
Perhaps
they
are
not
viable
alternatives.
 
There
is
a
need
to
look
at
the
quality
of
state
programs
in
addition
to
the
quantity.
The
Subcommittee
needs
to
look
at
the
standards
that
are
being
required
by
the
states'
programs.
 
There
is
a
Tribal
Superfund
working
group
working
with
EPA.
A
database
is
being
developed.
 
It
is
hard
to
categorize
tribes
because
they
are
each
individual
nations.
It
makes
some
of
the
issues
complex.
 
Tribes
need
to
be
working
with
other
federal
agencies
 
states
and
EPA.
Quite
a
few
concerns
 
still
have
a
ways
to
go
in
integrating
tribal
concerns.
 
Most
Indian
Tribes
work
under
the
treaties
that
include
the
protection
of
health
and
welfare.
Those
treaties
address
the
authorities
of
each
tribe.
The
legal
history
of
the
development
of
treaties
would
be
relevant
because
it
influences
the
tribal
authorities
and
relationships
under
CERCLA.

One
Cleanup
Program
Ellen
Manges
provided
an
introduction
to
the
One
Cleanup
Program
and
the
plan
for
implementation
currently
being
developed.
She
circulated
the
description
of
the
plan
to
the
Subcommittee
for
comment.
With
origins
in
the
Resources
for
the
Future
report
on
"
Superfund's
Future,"
the
One
Cleanup
Program
is
attempting
to
look
at
hazardous
waste
cleanup
in
the
broader
context
­
beyond
Superfund
to
all
cleanup
programs.
The
vision
of
the
Program
is
to
get
all
the
cleanup
programs
onto
the
same
page,
with
joint
planning
and
sharing.
The
draft
document
is
available
for
public
comment
(
on
public
website).
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
11
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group
Mike
Tilchin
summarized
the
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group's
efforts
to
date.
Its
primary
purpose
is
to
review
and
comment
on
initial
Agency
ideas
on
measuring
progress
of
the
Superfund
program.
Three
performance
measures
white
papers
are
currently
in
early
development
stage
within
the
agency:
 
Population
Risk
Reduction
Indicators
 
Ecological
Risk
Reduction
Indicators
 
Land
Reuse
Performance
Measures
The
Population
Risk
Reduction
white
paper
is
available
in
initial
draft
for
the
work
group
to
review.
The
other
two
white
papers
are
anticipated
later
in
the
fall
and
early
in
2003.
The
work
group
intends
to
provide
interim,
consultative
feedback
to
the
Agency
in
the
early
stage
of
performance
measure
development.
The
work
group
is
committed
to
providing
a
"
quick
turnaround"
on
their
response.
Additionally,
the
Subcommittee
charge
allows
for
more
comprehensive
recommendations
on
performance
measures
to
be
provided
to
the
Agency.
Therefore,
the
work
group
is
considering
additional
performance
measure
concepts
while
the
Agency
white
papers
are
under
preparation,
including:
°
Community
and
environmental
justice
°
Consistency
among
cleanups
°
Cost
measures
°
Institutional
controls
°
Remediation
and
physical
activity
°
Tribal
measures
Initial
performance
measure
concepts
have
been
developed
by
individual
work
group
members
to
date
and
a
review
is
underway.
An
in­
person
meeting
has
been
scheduled
to
develop
a
work
group
plan.
Work
group
tasks,
milestones
and
definition
of
roles
and
responsibilities
will
be
developed.
Comments
from
the
Subcommittee
Members
included
the
following:

 
At
the
regional
level,
a
lot
of
what
EPA
does
depends
on
the
perceptions
of
the
communities
 
their
opinions
are
key
in
defining
success.
 
Performance,
in
the
eyes
of
the
community,
is
all
about
deletion.
 
Resources
for
the
Future
has
received
a
grant
that
may
overlap
with
task
of
this
workgroup.
Kate
Probst
will
get
more
information
to
the
Subcommittee
and
coordinate.

Public
Comment
Period
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
comment
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
No
public
comments
were
made.

The
public
meeting
adjourned
on
Tuesday
at
12:
15
p.
m.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
12
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Post­
Lunch
Work
Group
Planning
Meeting
­
Closed
to
the
Public
During
the
working
lunch,
John
Ehrmann
proposed
a
plan
for
moving
forward
with
the
Subcommittee's
activities.
He
emphasized
the
need
to
look
at
the
policy
options
in
front
of
the
Subcommittee
and
start
to
address
some
of
the
critical
issues
in
parallel
with
the
information
gathering
efforts.
As
an
agenda
for
the
working
session,
he
proposed
a
group
discussion
of
the
following
work
planning
topics:

 
Plan
moving
forward
with
working
groups
 
Revision
to
work
plan
document
 
Meeting
locations
 
Meeting
agenda
structure
 
Preparatory
materials
 
Other
issues
The
objectives
for
moving
forward
with
working
groups
were
summarized
as
follows:

°
Continue
information
collection,
but
focus
more
on
the
analysis
needed
to
support
the
development
of
recommendations.
Link
information
gathering
to
key
Subcommittee
questions
and
priorities.
°
Provide
a
logical
progression
through
the
issues.
°
Lay
the
groundwork
for
the
formulation
of
recommendations.
Build
options
and
alternatives
for
analysis.
°
Get
information
in
a
form
to
work
with
and
on
which
to
base
recommendations.
°
Provide
an
opportunity
for
smaller
working
group
activities.

The
options
for
Work
Groups
were
summarized
as
follows:

Focus
#
1:
Cleanup
Programs
Work
Group
Driving
Question:
What
should
the
relationship
be
between
NPL
cleanups
and
other
clean­
up
programs?

Work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
assess
the
links
and
relationships
between
various
cleanup
programs
and
NPL
cleanups,
with
a
view
towards
understanding
how
these
programs
are
currently
used
and
what
they
offer,
so
that
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
can
be
considered
in
the
context
of
other
cleanup
programs.
For
example,
the
Subcommittee
can
consider
what
types
of
sites
belong
(
or
do
not
belong)
on
the
NPL
and
what
criteria
should
be
used
to
list
sites
in
the
context
of
other
cleanup
programs.
In
the
cases
where
the
work
group
identifies
a
link
between
a
cleanup
program
and
the
Subcommittee's
charge,
the
work
group
is
asked
to
assess:

°
What
can
the
various
programs
clean
up?
°
Lessons
learned
about
what
has
worked
and
what
has
not
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
13
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
°
Scope
(
nature
of
sites
being
addressed)
°
Funding
(
scale
and
sources)
°
Public
participation
°
Cleanup
standards
°
Track
record
(
what
has
been
accomplished)
°
Future
projections
(
what
is
anticipated
in
coming
years,
what
sites
are
not
yet
in
the
pipeline)

Additionally,
the
Work
Group
is
asked
to
consider
the
relationship
among
programs
such
as
continuity
and
incentives
(
how
programs
interact
positively
and
negatively).

Cleanup
programs
to
consider
include:

°
Other
federal
programs
°
RCRA
°
Brownfields
°
State
Programs
°
Others
(
need
to
be
far­
reaching
and
creative
in
the
exploration
of
alternatives)

Focus
#
2:
Site
Types
Work
Group
Goal:
to
summarize
and
coalesce
available
information
to
give
the
Subcommittee
a
set
of
basic
assumptions
about
the
body
of
sites
that
could
be
considered
for
the
NPL
in
the
future.
Work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
develop
a
sense
of
the
size
of
the
potential
NPL
universe,
with
a
particular
emphasis
on
the
number
and
types
of
sites
that
may
become
mega
site
cleanups.

To
accomplish
this
goal,
work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
consider
the
questions
discussed
below,
with
a
view
towards
informing
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations
on
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
given
the
number
and
types
of
cleanup
sites
that
may
be
expected
in
the
future,
as
discussed
in
the
Subcommittee's
charge.
For
example,
the
Subcommittee
can
consider
what
types
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL
and
what
criteria
should
be
used
to
list
them
considering
the
universe
of
sites
that
need
attention.
Consider
the
following:

°
Characteristics/
numbers
°
Size
°
Complexity
(
various
indices)
°
Cost
°
Origin
°
Explore
"
megasite"
definitional
issues
°
What
is
coming
through
the
"
pipeline?"
°
Tie
to
Key
Questions
in
the
charge/
work
plan
relating
to
Megasites
and
NPL
°
What
kind
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL?
°
Criteria
for
listing
sites
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
14
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
This
Work
Group
was
asked
to
give
the
full
Subcommittee
basic
assumptions
under
which
they
should
be
operating
 
an
order
of
magnitude
to
define
the
playing
field.

Focus
#
3:
How
Does
it
Work
Now?

Meridian
and
Ross
will
develop
a
briefing
paper
(
no
work
group)
to
summarize
1)
What
is
the
decision
making
process
for
NPL­
eligible
sites?
2)
A
bit
more
elaboration
on
what
Dave
Evans
and
Paul
Nadeau
presented
earlier
in
the
Subcommittee's
meeting;
and
3)
How
are
listing
and
funding
allocation
decisions
made?

January
Agenda
The
focus
for
the
January
meeting
was
proposed
as:

°
Discussion
of
Cleanup
Program
and
Site
Types
Work
Groups
policy
exploration.
The
goal
would
be
to
present
key
findings
that
link
to
policy
questions
and
the
focus
of
the
Subcommittee
charge.
°
Tribal
presentation/
discussion.
°
Measuring
Program
Performance
update.
°
Time
for
the
Site
Types
and
Cleanup
Program
Work
Groups
to
meet
face­
to­
face.

The
work
group
efforts
are
intended
to
build
options
and
alternatives
for
recommendations
to
be
considered
by
the
Subcommittee
as
a
whole.
A
set
of
alternatives
and
priorities
will
be
developed
that
can
be
discussed
at
the
January
meeting.
Each
group
will
meet
via
conference
call
and
hopefully
in
person
once
before
the
January
meeting.
Time
during
the
January
meeting
agenda
will
be
allocated
for
meetings
of
the
work
groups.

The
Subcommittee
Members
agreed
to
the
proposed
work
group
structure
and
the
focus
of
the
next
meeting
Agenda.
Members
of
the
Subcommittee
were
asked
to
volunteer
for
participation
in
each
of
the
work
areas.
Meridian
staff
agreed
to
prepare
a
summary
of
the
next
steps
that
resulted
from
the
discussion
about
the
next
phase
of
Subcommittee
activity
and
circulate
it
as
soon
as
possible
to
all
Subcommittee
Members
(
prior
to
the
meeting
summary).
A
detailed
summary
of
next
steps
was
circulated
to
the
Members
following
the
meeting
and
is
attached
(
Attachment
C).

The
Subcommittee
engaged
in
a
discussion
of
the
process
for
engaging
other
perspectives
into
their
deliberations.
Comments
included:

°
The
Subcommittee
needs
to
hear
from
other
interests
(
business
and
community)
via
presentations
etc.
°
The
Subcommittee
also
needs
to
have
some
public/
community
involvement.
°
The
Work
Groups
should
make
recommendations
if
they
feel
it
is
necessary
for
the
Subcommittee
to
hear
from
outside
expert(
s).
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
15
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
°
It
would
be
helpful
to
go
to
another
location
and
invite
the
public
to
an
evening
session
to
get
their
opinions.
°
Either
in
addition
to
or
as
a
substitute
for
a
public
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
can
get
input
by
reaching
out
to
talk
with
communities
and
other
interest
groups
about
relevant
issues
and
then
bring
that
information
back
to
the
Subcommittee.
°
The
Subcommittee
can
target
input
 
invite
formal
community
advisory
groups
and
Technical
Assistance
Grant
(
TAG)
recipients
to
submit
abstracts
or
position
papers.
(
consider
TAG
recipient
conference
in
February
or
the
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Committee
(
NEJAC)
conference)
°
Lois
Gartner
has
tapes
from
the
last
Superfund
Technical
Assistance
Grant
Recipients
Conference
available
for
review.
°
A
health
perspective
is
missing
from
this
group.
The
Subcommittee
needs
a
neutral
health
expert.

Agenda
for
January
Subcommittee
Meeting
The
following
tentative
proposal
was
agreed
to
regarding
the
January
Subcommittee
meeting:

Day
1:
Tuesday,
January
7,
2003
Full
Subcommittee
discussion
in
the
morning,
Work
Group
meetings
in
the
afternoon,
possible
public
comment
meeting
in
the
evening.

Day
2:
Wednesday,
January
8,
2003
Full
Subcommittee
meeting
in
the
morning,
Work
Group
work
planning
in
the
afternoon.
A
tribal
expert
will
be
invited
to
address
the
Subcommittee
at
some
point
in
the
agenda.

Location
suggestions:

Subcommittee
Members
supported
the
idea
that
some
of
their
meetings
be
held
outside
of
the
Washington
D.
C.
area
in
an
effort
to
visit
sites
that
could
offer
educational
opportunities.
The
following
suggestions
were
made:
 
Aniston,
Alabama
 
Salt
Lake
City
 
Kennecott
`
s
Facility
 
New
Bedford
 
mega
site
and
sediment
site
 
Phoenix
 
Brownfields
redevelopment
site
 
Chicago
 
Denver
 
Coeur
d'Alene
Subcommittee
Members
discussed
the
characteristics
of
field
visits
that
would
be
beneficial,
including:
 
A
site
with
EJ
issues
 
A
failed
RCRA
site
 
A
site
with
a
significant
revitalization
component
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
16
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
 
A
site
with
a
representative
from
the
Subcommittee
(
positive
and
negative
comments
received)
 
A
site
with
an
active
community
 
A
site
with
Tribal
issues
 
Logistical
convenience
Schedule
The
schedule
for
the
next
Subcommittee
meetings
stands
as
decided
at
the
June,
2002
meeting:

January
7­
8,
2003
March
11­
12,
2003
June
18­
19,
2003
The
meeting
was
adjourned
at
3:
30
p.
m.
on
the
afternoon
of
September
24th.

A
complete
list
of
Meeting
Participants
and
Observers
will
be
circulated
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
and
available
along
with
the
transcript.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
17
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
B.
Presentations
1.
Wilma
Subra
 
NACEPT
Council
briefing
2.
Kate
Probst,
Resources
for
the
Future
 
"
Superfund
Past
and
Future"
A
briefing
on
issues
from
the
RFF
report
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
3.
Dave
Evans,
EPA,
OSWER
 
The
NPL
Listing
Process
4.
Paul
Nadeau,
EPA,
OSWER
 
Funding
Streams,
Prioritization
and
Budget
Issues
5.
Mark
Giesfeldt
 
State
Cleanup
Programs
 
Wisconsin
Case
Study
6.
Sue
Sladek,
EPA
 
State
and
Tribal
involvement
in
the
Superfund
Program
7.
Steve
Heare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
 
EPA
interaction
with
States
on
RCRA
(
This
presentation
not
available
as
an
attachment)
8.
Mike
Tilchin
­
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group
Summary
9.
Options
for
Organizing
the
Next
Phase
of
Subcommittee
Activities
C.
Summary
of
Next
Steps
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
1
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Attachment
A
 
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
2
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Introductory
Statement
Summary
of
Charge
The
overall
intent
of
the
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee's
efforts
is
to
assist
EPA
in
identifying
the
future
direction
of
the
Superfund
program
in
the
context
of
other
federal
and
state
waste
and
site
cleanup
programs.
Specifically,
the
Subcommittee
will
review
the
relevant
documentation
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
provide
answers
to
questions
that
relate
to:
a)
the
role
of
the
NPL,
b)
mega
sites,
and
c)
measuring
program
performance.
The
Subcommittee
will
operate
as
and
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
a
Federal
Advisory
Committee.

It
is
expected
that
the
Subcommittee
activities
will
be
accomplished
by
a
series
of
meetings
over
about
an
18­
month
period.
It
is
anticipated
that
one
or
a
series
of
consensus
reports
will
result
from
the
Subcommittee
deliberations.
However,
where
consensus
cannot
be
reached,
a
written
discussion
of
the
different
opinions
of
Subcommittee
members
is
to
be
provided.
As
appropriate,
the
Subcommittee
may
also
respond
to
issues
in
the
form
of
"
consultation,"
i.
e.,
dialogue,
rather
than
a
formal
written
report.

Summary
of
June,
2002
meeting
A
detailed
summary
of
the
June
meeting
was
prepared,
distributed
to
the
Subcommittee
members
and
is
available
on
the
EPA
Superfund
Subcommittee
website
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oswer/
SFsub.
htm)
or
by
contacting
Beth
Huron
at
970­
513­
8340,
ext.
204.
The
following
provides
a
brief
overview
of
that
meeting.

The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
first
meeting
June
17
through
19,
2002
in
Alexandria,
Virginia.
An
orientation
was
provided
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
on
June
17,
2002.
At
that
time,
the
members
were
briefed
on
their
responsibilities
as
members
of
a
Subcommittee
to
the
National
Advisory
Committee
on
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
FACA).
They
were
also
provided
an
introduction
to
the
collaborative
process
and
group
decision­
making.
The
meetings
on
the
18th
and
19th
were
open
to
the
public.
The
main
purposes
of
the
meeting
included
the
following:

1)
Introduction
of
Subcommittee
members;
2)
Review
of
Subcommittee
charge;
3)
Discussion
and
agreement
on
Subcommittee
operating
procedures;
4)
Discussion
of
Subcommittee
member
expectations;
5)
Review
of
Subcommittee
structure
and
work
planning;
and
6)
Receive
informational
briefings
from
EPA
personnel
on
issues
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee
Charge.
7)
Public
comment.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
3
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
As
a
result
of
the
deliberations
during
the
June
2002
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
agreed
to
form
two
ad
hoc
work
groups
and
initiate
a
parallel
information
gathering
effort.
The
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
was
formed
to
work
with
the
Agency
to
provide
advice
on
its
internal
efforts
to
develop
Superfund
Program
performance
measures.
The
Work
Plan
Refinement
Work
Group
was
tasked
with
the
responsibility
for
taking
the
policy
questions
included
in
the
Subcommittee's
Charge
and
refining
them
into
a
work
plan
to
guide
the
group's
activities
during
the
duration
of
the
Subcommittee's
work.
Additionally,
the
Members
agreed
to
support
an
effort
to
develop
a
list
of
information
needs
and
collect
relevant
information.
This
"
fact­
finding"
phase
was
intended
to
help
better
educate
Members
about
the
"
problems"
and
the
appropriate
focus
of
their
effort.
Individual
Members
volunteered
to
participate
in
the
three
efforts.

Summary
of
activity
since
last
meeting
During
the
period
of
time
between
the
June
2002
meeting
and
the
September
2002
meeting,
the
Subcommittee
members
participated
in
ad
hoc
work
group
activities
focusing
on
Measuring
Program
Progress
and
Work
Plan
Refinement.
In
parallel,
Members
have
been
supporting
the
efforts
of
staff
to
develop
a
comprehensive
list
of
information
needs
and
sources
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
Each
work
group
met
via
conference
call
at
least
twice,
with
sub­
group
activities
implemented
by
volunteers
in
between
calls.
The
results
of
the
work
group
efforts
will
be
summarized
at
the
September
meeting.

Statement
of
Purpose
for
this
meeting
with
goals
and
objectives
Specifically,
the
September
23­
24
meeting
is
intended
to
accomplish
the
following
objectives:

Objectives
of
September
23rd
and
24th
meeting:

 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
the
Work
Groups
to
report
on
the
status
of
their
activity
and
seek
feedback
from
the
full
Subcommittee.
 
Provide
educational
information
on
the
current
and
projected
status
of
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL).
 
Provide
information
on
some
key
non­
CERCLA
cleanup
programs.
 
Provide
a
briefing
from
the
Superfund
Program
on
relevant
activities
occurring
within
the
Agency.
 
Review
the
Subcommittee
structure
and
work
plan;
and
 
Provide
an
opportunity
for
public
comment.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
4
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Interactive
discussion
and
questioning
for
the
purpose
of
probing
an
issue
and
clarifying
a
point
will
be
encouraged.
As
such,
the
comments
made
by
Subcommittee
Members
at
this
and
future
meetings
should
neither
be
interpreted
to
reflect
their
current
position
on
the
subject
under
discussion
nor
their
future
position
as
it
may
evolve
over
the
course
of
deliberation.
Additionally,
the
comments
of
individual
Subcommittee
Members
should
not
be
interpreted
as
positions
of
the
Subcommittee
or
the
EPA.

The
Subcommittee
will
deliberate
thoroughly
before
developing
consensus
findings,
conclusions
or
recommendations.
Any
report
on
of
the
opinion
of
the
group
will
undergo
rigorous
review
by
all
Subcommittee
Members
before
it
is
considered
final
and
transmitted
to
EPA.

This
is
an
open
session
for
public
record.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
have
been
invited
to
attend
as
observers.
We
will
be
entertaining
questions
from
the
floor
during
the
designated
times
on
the
agenda.
Lois
Gartner,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer,
will
be
available
to
assist
reporters
and
other
interested
individuals
who
would
like
additional
information.
Her
contact
information
is
available
on
the
Roster
at
the
registration
table.

In
addition,
a
detailed
summary
of
this
September
meeting
will
be
prepared
and
made
available
to
interested
parties.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
B­
1
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Attachment
B
 
Presentations
Attachment
B
 
Presentations
available
electronically
as
separate
documents:

1.
Wilma
Subra
 
NACEPT
Council
briefing
2.
Kate
Probst,
Resources
for
the
Future
 
"
Superfund
Past
and
Future"
A
briefing
on
issues
from
the
RFF
report
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
3.
Dave
Evans,
EPA,
OSWER
 
The
NPL
Listing
Process
4.
Paul
Nadeau,
EPA,
OSWER
 
Funding
Streams,
Prioritization
and
Budget
Issues
5.
Mark
Giesfeldt
 
State
Cleanup
Programs
 
Wisconsin
Case
Study
6.
Sue
Sladek,
EPA
 
State
and
Tribal
involvement
in
the
Superfund
Program
7.
Steve
Heare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
 
EPA
interaction
with
States
on
RCRA
(
This
presentation
not
available
as
an
attachment)
8.
Mike
Tilchin
­
Measuring
Program
Performance
Work
Group
Summary
9.
Options
for
Organizing
the
Next
Phase
of
Subcommittee
Activities
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
1
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Attachment
C
 
Summary
of
Next
Steps
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
2
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
September
2002
Meeting
SUMMARY
OF
NEXT
STEPS
At
the
September
23­
24,
2002
meeting
of
the
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee,
Members
agreed
to
next
steps
for
moving
forward
as
defined
below.
A
narrative
meeting
summary
will
be
developed
in
addition
to
this
summary
of
next
steps.

WORKING
GROUPS
Efforts
of
the
Subcommittee
members
between
the
September
23/
24,
2002
and
the
January
7/
8,
2003
meetings
will
be
concentrated
on
work
group
activities.
Three
work
groups
will
be
active:

 
Program
Work
Group
 
Site
Characterization
Work
Group
 
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
The
work
group
efforts
are
intended
to
build
options
and
alternatives
for
recommendations
to
be
considered
by
the
Subcommittee
as
a
whole.
A
set
of
alternatives
and
priorities
will
be
developed
that
can
be
discussed
at
the
January
meeting.
Each
group
will
meet
via
conference
call
and
hopefully
in
person
once
before
the
January
meeting.
Time
during
the
January
meeting
agenda
will
be
allocated
for
meetings
of
the
work
groups.

Cleanup
Program
Assessment
Work
Group
Driving
Question:
What
should
the
relationship
be
between
NPL
cleanups
and
other
clean­
up
programs?

Work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
assess
the
links
and
relationships
between
various
cleanup
programs
and
NPL
cleanups,
with
a
view
towards
understanding
how
these
programs
are
currently
used
and
what
they
offer,
so
that
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
can
be
considered
in
the
context
of
other
cleanup
programs.
For
example,
the
work
group
can
consider
what
types
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL
and
what
criteria
should
be
used
to
list
sites
to
the
NPL
versus
another
cleanup
program.
(
Note:
Start
by
understanding
the
range
of
programs,
and
once
armed
with
that
information,
start
to
develop
a
list
of
characteristics
of
a
site
that
point
to
NOT
putting
it
on
the
NPL.
If
a
site
needs
cleanup,
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
a
candidate
for
the
NPL,
then
it
needs
to
be
handled
by
another
program,
so
that
knowledge
of
programs
is
essential.)
To
support
these
activities,
Meridian
and
Ross
will
work
with
EPA
and
Subcommittee
members
to
identify
and
gather
information
on
other
cleanup
programs
as
discussed
below
and
as
further
defined
by
the
workgroup.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
3
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
Assess:
1)
Other
federal
programs
(
RCRA,
Brownfields,
WRDA,
mining);
2)
State
Programs;
3)
Others.
Subcommittee
members
agreed
to
be
far­
reaching
and
creative
in
the
exploration
of
alternatives.

Criteria
to
be
analyzed
with
respect
to
clean­
up
programs:

 
Scope
(
Nature
of
sites
being
addressed.
What
can
they
clean
up?)
 
Funding
(
scale
and
sources)
 
Public
participation
 
Cleanup
standards
 
Track
record
(
what
has
been
accomplished)
 
Future
projections
(
what
is
anticipated
in
coming
years,
what
sites
are
not
yet
in
the
pipeline)
 
Lessons
learned
about
what
has
worked
and
what
has
not
 
Continuity
between
programs
 
Incentives
 
how
programs
interact
(+
&
­)
 
Other
criteria
as
discussed
in
the
information
needs
outline
and
further
developed
by
the
work
group.

Members
signed
up
to
date:
Sue
Briggum,
Grant
Cope,
Mark
Giesfeldt,
Michael
Mittelholzer,
Kate
Probst,
Mel
Skaggs
Site
Characterization
Work
Group
Goal:
To
summarize
and
coalesce
available
information
to
give
the
Subcommittee
a
set
of
basic
assumptions
about
the
body
of
sites
that
could
be
considered
for
the
NPL
in
the
future.
Work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
develop
a
sense
of
the
size
of
the
potential
NPL
universe,
with
a
particular
emphasis
on
the
number
and
types
of
sites
that
may
become
mega
site
cleanups.

To
accomplish
this
goal,
work
group
members
will
be
asked
to
consider
the
questions
discussed
below,
with
a
view
towards
informing
the
Subcommittees
deliberations
on
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
given
the
number
and
types
of
cleanup
sites
that
may
be
expected
in
the
future,
as
discussed
in
the
Subcommittee's
charge.
For
example,
the
Subcommittee
can
consider
what
types
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL
and
what
criteria
should
be
used
to
list
them
considering
the
universe
of
sites
that
need
attention.

To
support
these
activities,
Meridian
and
Ross
will
work
with
EPA
and
Subcommittee
members
to
identify
and
gather
available
information
on
site
types.

Questions
to
be
explored
by
the
Sites
Work
Group:

 
What
types
of
sites
are
currently
coming
to
EPA's
attention
for
consideration
for
the
NPL
and
how
are
these
sites
coming
forward?
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
4
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
 
What
types
of
sites
are
eventually
listed
and
why?
 
What
types
of
(
and
how
many)
sites
are
expected
to
come
forward
for
consideration
in
the
future?
 
Besides
cost,
are
there
common
characteristics
across
mega
sites
and,
if
so,
what
are
they?
 
Are
there
ways
(
other
than
cost)
to
distinguish
sites
of
major
concern?
 
How
many
and
what
types
of
sites
can
be
reasonably
expected
to
be
mega
sites?
Or,
what
is
the
potential
universe
of
mega
sites?
 
What
are
the
characteristics
of
sites
currently
on
the
NPL
(
or
deferred
from
the
NPL
or
addressed
through
removals
or
other
methods)
that
make
them
best
suited
for
cleanup
under
one
versus
another
program?

Members
signed
up
to
date:
Jim
Derouin,
Dick
Dewling,
Glen
Hammer,
Tom
Newlon,
Ed
Putnam,
Catherine
Sharp,
Lexi
Shultz,
Mel
Skaggs,
Wilma
Subra,
Mike
Tilchin
Measuring
Program
Progress
Efforts
of
the
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
will
continue
as
defined
by
the
group
at
the
September
meeting.
They
anticipate
meeting
in
person
at
the
beginning
of
November.

Members
signed
up
to
date:
Bill
Adams,
Sue
Briggum,
Grant
Cope,
Steve
Elbert,
Mark
Giesfeldt,
Dolores
Herrera,
Bob
Hickmott,
Aimee
Houghton,
Fred
Kalisz,
Ray
Loehr,
Ed
Lorenz,
Kate
Probst,
Dick
Stewart,
Mike
Tilchin,
Jason
White
Overall
Work
Group
Recommendations
It
was
agreed
at
the
September
meeting
that
each
work
group
would
allocate
some
time
prior
to
the
January
meeting
when
members
can
do
some
initial
"
brainstorming"
regarding
potential
packages
of
recommendations.
The
intent
is
to
provide
another
avenue
for
the
generation
of
potential
policy
recommendations
to
complement
what
will
be
forthcoming
from
the
work
groups.

INFORMATION
GATHERING
The
primary
goal
of
the
next
phase
of
the
information
gathering
effort
will
be
to
get
information
in
a
form
with
which
to
work
and
on
which
to
base
recommendations.
Elizabeth
will
work
with
key
Subcommittee
members
to
continue
focused
information
collection.
Their
efforts
will
concentrate
more
on
analysis
needed
to
support
work
group
activities
and
development
of
policy
options
and
recommendations,
and
will
be
linked
to
key
questions/
priorities
identified
by
work
groups.
Initial
efforts
will
focus
in
four
areas:

NPL
Issues
Meridian
and
Ross
will
work
with
Agency
representatives
to
further
clarify
how
the
NPL
listing
process
works
now
and
how
listing
and
funding
allocation
decisions
are
made.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
5
September
23­
24,
2002
Meeting
Summary
The
existing
NPL
briefing
paper
will
be
developed
further
to
address
the
decision
making
process
for
NPL­
eligible
sites
and
elaborate
on
what
Dave
Evans
and
Paul
Nadeau
presented
at
the
September
02
meeting.

Cleanup
Programs
Gather
information
on
key
criteria
of
other
state
and
Federal
cleanup
programs.
Key
features
will
be
consistent
with
those
being
addressed
by
the
Cleanup
Program
Assessment
Work
group
and
will
start
with
the
criteria
listed
above
and
discussed
at
the
September
23­
24,
2002
meeting
wrap
up
and
those
listed
on
the
information
needs
outline.

Funding
Sources
Gather
information
on
potential
funding
sources
and
funding
models,
especially
funding
sources
and
models
that
might
be
appropriate
for
mega
sites.
For
example,
under
what
circumstances
are
WRDA
funds
available?

Mega
Sites
In
coordination
with
the
site
types
workgroup,
gather
information
on
the
potential
universe
of
mega
sites.
(
i.
e.,
how
many
and
what
types
of
mega
sites
might
need
cleanup
in
the
future?)

WORK
PLAN
Meridian
will
focus
revisions
to
the
work
plan
document
on
the
schedule
clarifications
and
goals
identified
during
the
September
meeting.
The
outline
is
intended
to
be
a
living
document.
The
work
group
will
not
continue
to
meet.

NEXT
MEETING
Location:
Meridian
will
be
working
with
the
Chair
and
the
Agency
to
determine
the
location
of
the
next
several
meetings
based
on
the
suggestions
made
by
the
Subcommittee
Members.
Meridian
will
notify
Subcommittee
members
as
soon
as
the
decision
is
made.

Agenda:
The
Agenda
for
the
next
meeting
will
be
structured
to
allow
time
for
work
groups
to
meet.
Additionally
time
will
be
identified
for
field
visits/
panel
discussions.
Plenary
discussion
topics
will
focus
on
the
work
of
the
Program
and
Site
working
groups
and
policy
exploration.
The
goal
will
be
to
present
key
findings
from
the
work
group
deliberations
that
link
to
the
policy
questions
and
focus
of
the
Subcommittee
charge.
Time
will
be
allotted
for
a
presentation
from
a
Tribal
representative
and
a
report
from
the
Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group.