Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0005-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-12-10T05:00Z

MEETING
SUMMARY
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
17­
19,
2002
Holiday
Inn
and
Suites
625
First
Street
Alexandria,
Virginia
 
Prepared
by
Meridian
Institute
July
23,
2002
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
2
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
Meeting
June
17­
19,
2002
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
held
its
first
meeting
June
17
through
19,
2002
in
Arlington,
Virginia.
This
document
summarizes
discussion
topics
and
key
decisions
made
during
the
meeting.
A
full
transcript
of
the
meeting
will
be
made
available
through
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
Docket
#
SFUND­
2002­
0005.

EPA,
Meridian
Institute
and
Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
the
Subcommittee's
Chair,
provided
an
orientation
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
on
June
17,
2002.
The
meeting
did
not
cover
any
substantive
topics
associated
with
Superfund
and
was
purely
administrative.
The
Meetings
on
the
18th
and
19th
were
open
to
the
public.
Both
days
afforded
the
public
opportunities
to
offer
comments
to
the
Subcommittee
at
designated
times.

Monday,
June
17,
2002,
1:
30
p.
m.
 
5:
30
p.
m.
Pre­
Meeting
Member
Orientation
and
Administrative
Meeting
Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
presented
welcoming
remarks.
He
introduced
Lois
Gartner,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer
(
DFO)
for
the
Subcommittee
and
John
Ehrmann,
the
lead
facilitator
of
the
group,
from
Meridian
Institute.
The
first
day
focused
on
orienting
the
members
to
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).

Tim
Sherer
of
the
Office
of
Cooperative
Environmental
Management
(
OCEM)
discussed
the
Superfund
Subcommittee's
role
relative
to
the
overarching
NACEPT
Committee,
reviewed
the
requirements
for
membership
diversity
on
a
NACEPT
Subcommittee
and
explained
how
recommendations
from
the
Superfund
Subcommittee
would
be
submitted
to
and
approved
by
the
NACEPT
Committee.
Wilma
Subra
is
the
designated
representative
from
the
NACEPT
Committee
on
the
Superfund
Subcommittee.
She
will
serve
as
a
full
member
of
the
Subcommittee
while
also
providing
a
key
link
between
the
NACEPT
Committee
and
the
Subcommittee.

Introduction
of
Subcommittee
Members
Dr.
Loehr
offered
a
few
comments
about
himself
and
his
role
as
the
Subcommittee
Chairman.
Lois
explained
that
the
choice
of
the
Chairman
was
the
prerogative
of
the
Administrator.
Dr.
Loehr
asked
each
Subcommittee
member
to
introduce
him
or
herself,
and
provide
fellow
committee
members
with
a
brief
summary
of
his
or
her
background
and
relevant
Superfund
expertise.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
3
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
FACA
Orientation
Marilyn
Kuray
from
EPA's
Office
of
General
Council
(
OGC)
provided
a
brief
orientation
to
the
history
of
FACA
and
associated
ethics
issues.
Marilyn
discussed
that
advisory
committees
provide
only
advice
and
recommendations
to
governmental
agencies.
As
purely
advisory
bodies,
they
are
not
involved
in
implementing
or
overseeing
the
implementation
of
any
of
the
recommendations
they
make
to
a
governmental
agency.
She
also
explained
the
FACA
requirement
that
advisory
committees
must
be
"
fairly
balanced
in
terms
of
the
points
of
view
represented
and
the
functions
to
be
performed."
Marilyn
emphasized
that
balance,
in
the
FACA
context,
does
not
require
equal
numbers
of
representatives
from
different
sectors,
but
does
mean
that
committees
must
reflect
a
spectrum
of
points
of
view
and
necessary
expertise.
With
respect
to
ethical
considerations,
Marilyn
suggested
that
any
members
currently
in
receipt
of
a
grant
from
EPA
should
talk
to
Lois
to
make
sure
there
is
no
perceived
or
real
conflict
of
interest.
Lois
introduced
the
FACA
binder
which
serves
as
a
key
FACA
and
NACEPT
resource
including
background
information,
regulatory
requirements
and
relevant
EPA
policies.

Introduction
to
the
Collaborative
Process
John
Ehrmann
reviewed
the
Operating
Principles
distributed
to
the
Subcommittee
members.
Topics
included:

Representation

Decision
Making

Communications
with
the
Press

Facilitation

Meeting
Materials
and
Summaries

Timeline
and
Schedule
This
document
summarized
the
key
factors
of
the
decision­
making
framework
for
the
Subcommittee,
provided
a
definition
of
`
consensus'
and
explained
how
consensus
works.

The
schedule
for
future
meetings
was
proposed.
Subcommittee
members
were
asked
to
check
their
schedules
and
notify
the
staff
of
any
major
conflicts.
Revisions
were
made
to
the
Operating
Principles
document
at
the
request
of
the
members.
A
revised
version
of
the
document
was
handed
out
the
following
day
and
is
attached
to
this
summary
(
Attachment
A).

Group
Discussion
The
group
discussed
the
process
for
developing
and
implementing
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.
Key
discussion
points
included
the
following
topics:

It
is
not
likely
that
EPA
will
add
people
to
the
Committee.
However,
EPA
and
the
facilitators
will
work
with
the
Subcommittee
to
ensure
the
integration
of
any
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
4
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
relevant
perspectives
that
Members
believe
are
needed
to
enhance
the
knowledge
of
the
Subcommittee
so
it
can
accomplish
its
objectives.

While
there
are
not
any
other
FACA
committees
focused
solely
on
Superfund,
there
are
committees
whose
working
groups
are
addressing
issues
related
to
Superfund.
For
example,
the
Finance
Advisory
Board
has
a
Superfund
Subcommittee
and
the
Science
Advisory
Board
sometimes
has
a
subcommittee
dealing
with
Superfund.

EPA
used
the
NACEPT
Subcommittee
membership
criteria
to
select
the
Members
of
this
Subcommittee.
They
also
considered
expertise
and
balance
in
the
perspectives
that
they
expected
would
be
relevant
to
the
Subcommittee
deliberations.
There
were
about
150
nominations
from
which
EPA
had
to
choose.

The
Subcommittee
and
Workgroups
have
the
option
to
invite
technical
experts
on
specific
issues
relevant
to
their
deliberations.

The
participation
of
the
public
is
limited
to
specifically
designated
time
periods
on
the
agenda.
All
public
sessions
will
include
a
block
of
time
for
public
comment.
Public
involvement
is
limited
to
offering
comments
at
designated
times
and
does
not
include
interjecting
comments
or
questions
during
other
portions
of
the
meeting.
The
working
groups
can
integrate
outside
perspectives
as
they
see
fit.

EPA
has
made
it
a
priority
to
provide
the
resources
(
including
the
technical
and
regulatory
expertise)
that
the
Subcommittee
needs
to
accomplish
its
goals
and
answer
questions.
The
EPA
representatives
will
be
available
to
clarify
any
policy
questions
that
arise.

Tuesday,
June
18,
2002
The
Public
meeting
of
the
Subcommittee
began
on
the
morning
of
June
18,
2002.
The
meeting
was
an
open
session
and
audio
recorded.
A
written
transcript
will
be
prepared
and
available
through
the
EPA
Docket
#
SFUND­
2002­
0005.
Interested
individuals
and
members
of
the
press
were
present
as
observers.
The
Subcommittee
heard
comments
from
the
public
during
the
designated
times
on
the
agenda.

The
objectives
of
the
June
18
and
19,
2002
meeting
were:

1)
Introduction
of
Subcommittee
Members;
2)
Review
of
EPA's
Charge
to
the
Subcommittee;
3)
Discussion
and
agreement
on
Subcommittee
operating
procedures;
4)
Discussion
of
Subcommittee
members'
expectations;
5)
Review
of
Subcommittee
structure
and
work
planning;
and
6)
Public
comment.

Dr.
Raymond
Loehr,
Chairman
of
the
Subcommittee,
opened
the
meeting
and
presented
welcoming
remarks.
He
introduced
Lois
Gartner,
the
Designated
Federal
Officer
for
the
Subcommittee
and
John
Ehrmann,
the
lead
facilitator
for
the
Subcommittee,
from
Meridian
Institute.
Dr.
Loehr
referred
to
the
Meeting
Purpose
document
(
available
as
a
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
5
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
handout
and
attached
to
this
document
as
Attachment
B)
while
introducing
the
group
and
the
goals
for
the
meeting.

Dr.
Loehr
introduced
Marianne
Horinko,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
&
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER).
Ms.
Horinko
welcomed
and
thanked
the
members
of
the
Subcommittee
for
agreeing
to
serve
and
summarized
EPA's
expectations
and
vision
for
the
panel.
Key
points
made
during
Ms.
Horinko's
presentation
and
the
discussion
with
the
Subcommittee
that
followed
included:

If
there
are
additional
voices/
perspectives
that
the
Subcommittee
wants
considered
during
its
deliberations,
then
the
panel
should
identify
individuals
or
organizations
with
those
perspectives
to
make
presentations.
These
individuals
will
serve
as
consultants
or
experts.

The
Subcommittee
should
not
hesitate
to
bring
key
issues
to
EPA,
through
the
full
NACEPT
Committee,
to
help
strengthen
the
Superfund
Program
in
the
interim
­
before
the
Subcommittee
finalizes
its
recommendations.

It
is
not
the
Agency's
intent
to
weaken
Superfund.
In
the
cases
where
alternatives
to
the
NPL
are
implemented,
EPA
is
putting
into
place
guidance
to
ensure
that
voluntary
cleanups
meet
the
stringent
standards
of
the
NCP.
EPA
wants
to
take
advantage
of
these
efforts
to
maximize
the
opportunities
available
through
a
suite
of
cleanup
programs.

After
their
discussion
with
Ms.
Horinko,
the
Subcommittee
Members
introduced
themselves
and
John
Ehrmann
reviewed
the
Agenda.
The
group
agreed
to
a
proposed
modification
of
the
Agenda
by
moving
up
the
discussion
of
the
Operating
Procedures,
thereby
leaving
the
remainder
of
the
morning
to
discuss
the
draft
Charge.

Group
Operating
Procedures
Discussion
John
Ehrmann
led
the
group
in
a
discussion
of
ground
rules
for
the
Subcommittee's
deliberations.
Comments
from
the
Subcommittee
are
summarized
below
according
to
each
topic
area
within
the
Operating
Principles
(
see
Attachment
A).

Representation

Some
members
raised
concerns
about
their
perceptions
that
lack
of
expertise
or
limited
representation
of
certain
perspectives
in
the
Subcommittee's
membership
might
impede
the
panel's
work.
Supplementary
expertise
and
perspectives
can
be
made
available
to
the
full
Subcommittee
and
any
working
groups
through
the
use
of
consultants
or
experts.
Such
consultants/
experts
can
be
used
to
provide
representation
of
a
constituency
represented
by
a
Member
unable
to
attend
a
given
meeting
or
they
can
be
used
to
provide
expertise
perceived
to
not
be
present
on
the
standing
Subcommittee.
These
consultants
would
not
be
"
voting"
members.
They
would,
however,
be
able
to
provide
perspectives/
expertise
when
asked
to
do
so
by
the
Subcommittee
or
a
workgroup
and
their
ideas
and
concerns
could
be
integrated
into
a
work
product.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
6
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02

Concerns
were
raised
about
potentially
making
the
workgroups
unwieldy
if
Members
bring
in
experts
and
consultants
to
participate.
Each
working
group
needs
to
decide
collectively
how
it
will
balance
its
discussion,
whether
through
the
addition
of
outside
perspectives
or
some
other
acceptable
means.

The
Subcommittee
Members
expressed
no
disagreement
over
the
"
representation"
language
in
the
Operating
Principles.

Decision
Making

The
testimony
of
outside
perspectives
needs
to
be
documented
and
incorporated
into
the
deliberations
of
the
group.
The
Subcommittee
will
be
taking
public
comment
and
will
be
integrating
the
ideas
from
public
testimony
into
its
decisionmaking
as
an
important
part
of
the
process.

One
of
the
responsibilities
of
Meridian
and
the
Agency
will
be
to
make
sure
that
the
perspectives
of
the
Subcommittee
and
key
constituents
are
reflected
in
their
decisions.
If
one
of
the
members
is
absent
on
a
day
when
a
key
decision
is
being
made
then
Meridian
will
make
sure
those
perspectives
are
sought.
Everyone
shares
responsibility
for
making
sure
progress
is
made
without
compromising
the
integrity
of
the
process
by
omitting
key
perspectives.

If
there
were
a
deadlock
then
it
would
be
the
discretion
of
the
chair
to
decide
how
to
move
forward.
Meridian
and
the
Agency
do
not
mention
voting
in
the
decision
making
structure
because
this
group
was
not
organized
to
function
as
a
representative
democracy.
There
are
a
number
of
tools
that
can
be
used
to
encourage
the
breaking
of
an
impasse.
But
the
Subcommittee
can
opt
to
document
alternative
views
and
move
on.

If
members
of
the
public
would
like
to
comment
but
cannot
attend
the
meetings
then
they
can
submit
written
comments.
In
addition,
Lois
Gartner
(
the
DFO)
will
work
with
individuals
who
would
like
to
offer
comments
but
are
unable
to
physically
attend
a
meeting.

Communication
With
the
Press

When
contacted
by
the
press
about
workgroup
or
Subcommittee
deliberations,
Subcommittee
Members
are
encouraged
to
limit
communication
of
the
details
of
the
work
group
or
Subcommittee
deliberations.
The
Subcommittee
and
Staff
will
explain
the
groups
and
the
topics
they
are
addressing
to
the
Public
and
Press,
but
at
any
given
time
in
the
process,
the
thinking
of
the
work
groups
as
a
whole
may
not
necessarily
reflect
a
workgroup
or
the
Subcommittee's
final
recommendations.

There
are
judgment
calls
that
members
will
have
to
make.
Discussing
personal
opinions
about
an
issue
is
appropriate,
but
to
discuss
your
view
regarding
someone
else's
idea
that
was
suggested
in
a
workgroup
meeting
would
be
inappropriate.

Role
of
the
Facilitator
The
Members
had
no
comments
on
this
section.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
7
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Meeting
Materials
and
Summaries

The
meetings
will
be
recorded
and
the
transcript
will
be
made
available
for
the
public.
A
shorter
summary
will
also
be
produced
to
highlight
key
topics
of
discussion
and
decisions.

There
will
be
a
facilitator
for
work
groups.
FACA
prohibits
work
groups
from
making
decisions
for
the
Subcommittee.
A
transcript
will
not
be
prepared
for
the
work
group
meetings.
Commonly,
a
working
draft
of
a
document(
s)
becomes
the
rolling
record
of
the
work
groups'
process,
but
it
is
up
to
the
Members
to
determine
the
most
effective
means
of
communicating
with
the
full
group.
Work
groups
will
be
asked
to
submit
documents
in
advance
so
the
full
Subcommittee
has
plenty
of
time
to
review
and
consider
them
prior
to
the
meetings.

It
is
not
preordained
that
there
will
be
three
work
groups
that
mirror
the
three
main
topics
in
the
Agency's
charge
to
the
Subcommittee
(
i.
e.,
role
of
the
NPL,
mega
sites
and
program
performance
measures).
It
may
be
possible
to
organize
the
Subcommittee's
task
differently
or
in
an
iterative
process.
The
Subcommittee
agreed
to
develop
options
over
the
next
day
or
so.

The
deliberations
of
the
work
groups
will
be
both
in­
person
and
via
facilitated
conference
calls.
Site
visits
are
an
option
that
will
be
explored.

Regarding
the
time
frame
of
"
approximately
12
months",
the
members
are
appointed
for
an
18­
month
period
of
time.
The
Operating
Principles
document
will
be
revised
to
reflect
that.

Charge
Discussion
The
Charge
for
the
committee
was
introduced
as
drafted
by
the
EPA.
Meridian
staff
facilitated
a
group
discussion
about
the
Charge
and
documented
additional
ideas
from
the
Subcommittee
members
about
topics
that
were
missing
or
needed
clarification.
Meridian
staff
agreed
to
integrate
the
ideas
and
interests
expressed
by
the
Subcommittee
Members
into
the
Charge
overnight
and
provide
a
revised
draft
for
the
Subcommittee
to
review
and
discuss
the
following
day.
A
copy
of
the
revised
document
is
attached
(
Attachment
C).

Remarks
from
Linda
Fisher
Linda
Fischer,
Deputy
Administrator,
offered
her
thoughts
on
the
Subcommittee's
purpose
and
what
she
hopes
to
see
come
from
its
deliberations.
She
also
provided
some
clarification
on
key
topics
and
questions
raised
by
the
group.

For
the
purpose
of
this
group's
deliberations,
continuation
of
a
current
level
of
funding
for
Superfund
should
be
assumed.
EPA
is
employing
this
assumption
for
planning
purposes.

Don't
assume
that
EPA
is
going
to
seek
legislative
changes.
If
legislative
options
for
a
given
issue
seems
to
become
important
through
Subcommittee
deliberations,
then
the
Subcommittee
should
make
note.
However,
EPA's
focus
is
on
what
can
be
done
within
the
current
context
of
the
law
and
the
Agency
is
not
looking
at
changing
underlying
statutory
frameworks.
EPA
is
interested
in
having
all
waste
cleanup
programs
work
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
8
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
together
more
seamlessly.
Recommendations
offered
in
this
vein
should
be
made
in
the
context
of
the
existing
statutes.
If
that
assumption
interferes
with
Subcommittee
deliberations
 
i.
e.
improving
the
consistency
across
waste
cleanup
programs
cannot
be
considered
without
contemplating
legislative
changes,
then
that
impediment
should
also
be
noted.
In
short,
the
Agency
needs
to
manage
some
very
difficult
public
policy
issues
now,
and
it
is
on
those
issues
that
EPA
seeks
Subcommittee
advice.

A
Member
questioned
what
specific
challenges
EPA
sees
relative
to
mega
sites.
The
Deputy
Administrator
explained
that
a
detailed
presentation
would
be
provided
to
the
group
on
the
topic,
but
some
of
the
factors
include:

The
drain
on
resources
 
the
high
dollar
needs
over
a
long
period
of
time
and
the
resulting
trade­
offs
in
terms
of
what
cannot
be
done
if
resources
go
to
fund
mega
sites.

Engineering/
remedial
action
complexity.

Time
required
for
clean­
up
(
20­
30
years
is
an
unacceptable
answer
in
the
opinions
of
most
communities.)

Risk
management
complexity
­
the
first
80%
of
the
risk
may
be
reduced
through
a
fraction
of
the
cleanup
but
the
site
is
still
not
complete.

Getting
to
"
complete"
is
unclear.

A
Subcommittee
Member
raised
another
question
regarding
how
EPA
will
track
the
implementation
of
the
Subcommittee's
recommendations.
The
Deputy
Administrator
said
that
a
formalized
feedback
loop
has
not
been
typical
for
the
NACEPT
Subcommittees
but
she
would
be
open
to
formalizing
such
a
mechanism
to
report
back
on
how
recommendations
have
or
have
not
been
used.

Regarding
federal
facilities,
EPA
decided
not
to
specifically
include
a
focus
on
federal
facilities
because
that
would
be
such
a
significant
task.
However,
EPA
realizes
their
relevance
and
importance
to
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee.

EPA
has
formed
internal
committees
around
NPL
and
mega
sites
to
funnel
information
into
this
NACEPT
Subcommittee.
These
EPA
committees
are
internal
workgroups
that
include
various
perspectives
and
expertise
in
the
agency.

EPA
Presentations
EPA
Staff
briefed
the
Subcommittee
on
Superfund
and
program
topics
germane
to
the
Subcommittee
Charge.
The
presenters'
slides
are
attached
(
Attachment
D).
Presentations
were
made
by
EPA
staff
as
follows:

General
Overview
of
Superfund:
Larry
Reed,
Deputy
Director,
Office
of
Emergency
Remedial
Response
(
OERR);
Barry
Breen,
Director,
Office
of
Site
Remediation
Enforcement
(
OSRE),
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA);
and
Susan
Bromm,
Deputy
Director,
OSRE/
OECA
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
9
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
NPL
Listing:
Steve
Caldwell,
Deputy
Director
of
the
State
and
Site
Identification
Center
(
OERR);
Yolanda
Singer,
State
and
Site
Identification
Center;
Jen
Griesert,
State
and
Site
Identification
Center.

Public
Comment
Period
Two
Members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
offer
comments
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
Subcommittee.
Their
testimony
will
be
included
in
the
transcript.
The
June
18th
portion
of
the
meeting
adjourned
at
5:
00
p.
m.,
immediately
following
the
public
comment
period
Wednesday,
June
19,
2002
R.
Loehr
called
Wednesday's
meeting
to
order
at
8:
30
a.
m.
and
reviewed
the
agenda
for
the
day.
The
meeting
began
with
EPA
presentations
as
follows:

Mega
Sites:
Bruce
Means,
Senior
Process
Manager,
OERR.
Performance
Measures:
Melanie
Hoff,
Program
Analysis
and
Resource
Management,
OERR,
and
David
Cooper,
Region
3/
8
Center,
OERR.

The
presenters'
slides
are
attached
(
Attachment
D).

Subcommittee
Structure
and
Work
Planning
Discussion
A
revised
version
of
the
Operating
Principles
was
circulated
to
the
Members.
Minor
changes
were
suggested.
The
document
was
revised
based
on
the
Subcommittee's
input
and
is
included
as
Attachment
A.

John
Ehrmann
facilitated
a
discussion
about
how
the
Subcommittee
would
organize
itself
to
accomplish
its
work.
A
revised
version
of
the
draft
Charge
­
in
which
Members'
comments
from
the
previous
day's
discussion
were
integrated
into
the
questions
defining
each
subsection
of
the
Charge
 
was
presented.
The
group
asked
that
the
relevant
comments
and
questions
from
the
discussion
of
mega
sites
and
performance
measures
be
integrated
into
the
Charge.
John
Ehrmann
suggested
that
the
group
consider
using
the
Charge
as
the
foundation
for
developing
a
dynamic
work
plan
for
the
Subcommittee.
The
original
Charge
as
drafted
by
EPA
could
stand
to
document
the
original
position
of
EPA.
The
changes,
clarifications
and
additions
from
the
Subcommittee's
discussion
would
provide
a
first
step
toward
evolving
the
document
into
a
more
specific
description
of
their
scope,
a
statement
of
the
problem
and
the
questions
they
would
attempt
to
answer.
After
further
discussion,
the
group
agreed
that
they
did
not
feel
comfortable
with
the
(
proposed)
work
groups
(
i.
e.
the
role
of
the
NPL,
mega
sites
and
measuring
program
progress)
as
the
structure
for
their
work
in
the
near
term.
They
agreed
to
engage
in
a
fact­
finding
phase
in
order
to
better
educate
themselves
about
the
"
problems"
and
the
appropriate
focus
of
their
effort.
The
first
task
will
be
to
refine
the
questions
further
and
connect
them
to
information
and
data
needs
so
the
group
does
not
waste
time
collecting
"
just
interesting"
information.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
10
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Schedule
The
final
schedule
for
the
next
four
full
Subcommittee
meetings
agreed
to
by
the
members
of
the
Subcommittee
present
were:

September
23­
24,
2002
January
7­
8,
2003
March
11­
12,
2003
June
18­
19,
2003
Public
Comment
Period
Two
members
of
the
public
were
invited
to
offer
comments
on
their
perspectives
and
concerns
regarding
Superfund
and
the
Subcommittee.
Their
testimony
will
be
included
in
the
transcript.

Next
Steps
After
lunch,
John
Ehrmann
proposed
a
reorganization
based
on
the
conversation
of
the
Group.
He
suggested
developing
ad­
hoc
groups
that
would
meet
between
now
and
September
according
to
the
following
topics:

Information
collection
and
assessment

Work
Plan
(
charge)
refinement

Measuring
Program
Progress
The
goal
established
was
to
refine
the
policy
questions
around
the
Subcommittee's
Charge.
In
parallel,
the
Subcommittee
will
develop
a
list
of
information
needs
and
collect
relevant
information
already
available
by
the
September
meeting.
The
group
agreed
that
every
effort
should
be
made
to
distribute
meeting
materials
to
Subcommittee
members
at
least
7
days
prior
to
Subcommittee
meetings.
A
detailed
summary
of
next
steps
was
circulated
to
the
members
following
the
meeting
and
is
attached
(
Attachment
E).

The
Agency
efforts
to
Measure
Program
Progress
have
a
near­
term
need
for
input
from
the
Subcommittee.
The
Subcommittee
will
miss
the
opportunity
to
influence
that
internal
effort
if
the
topic
is
tabled
for
the
time
being.
Therefore
a
work
group
will
be
developed
to
initiate
work
with
the
internal
agency
team.

The
ideas
from
the
Members'
discussions
regarding
how
they
should
divide
into
workgroups
will
be
integrated
into
the
Charge
discussion
and
the
development
of
a
first
draft
of
a
work
plan
for
the
Subcommittee.

The
Subcommittee
Members
agreed
to
the
proposed
re­
organization.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
11
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Meridian
staff
agreed
to
prepare
a
summary
of
the
next
steps
that
resulted
from
the
discussion
about
group
organization
and
circulate
it
as
soon
as
possible
to
all
Subcommittee
Members
(
prior
to
the
meeting
summary).
They
also
agreed
to
take
the
next
cut
at
revising
a
work
plan
based
on
the
initial
Charge,
but
integrating
the
Subcommittee's
comments
with
dates
and
deadlines.
Meridian
and
EPA
staff
assignments
and
communication
for
each
group
would
also
be
clarified.

The
group
agreed
that
the
focus
of
the
next
meeting
Agenda
would
be
an
update
and
response
to
progress
on
the
three
efforts.
Members
of
the
Subcommittee
were
asked
to
volunteer
for
participation
in
each
of
the
work
areas.

The
meeting
was
adjourned
at
3:
00
p.
m.
on
the
afternoon
of
the
June
19th.

A
complete
list
of
Meeting
Participants
and
Observers
will
be
circulated
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
and
available
along
with
the
transcript.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
12
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
ATTACHMENTS
A.
Operating
Principles
B.
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
C.
Revision
of
the
Subcommittee's
Charge
D.
EPA
Presentations
Superfund
Overview
Enforcement
Presentation
Overview
of
NPL
NPL
Background
The
Mega
Sites
Issue
E.
Summary
of
Next
Steps
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
1
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Attachment
A
­
Operating
Principles
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
Operating
Principles
REVISED
6­
18­
02
Representation
Direct
participation
of
all
Members
is
an
essential
element
of
the
success
of
the
Subcommittee.
Members
are
expected
to
attend
all
Subcommittee
meetings.
Any
member
not
able
to
attend
a
meeting
may
send
a
representative
who
may
be
asked
for
their
opinion
and
expertise,
however
they
will
neither
sit
at
the
table
nor
take
part
in
ongoing
Subcommittee
deliberations
or
decision­
making.

Decision
Making
The
committee
will
operate
using
a
collaborative
problem­
solving
approach.
This
approach
calls
for
the
committee
to:

1)
Gain
a
thorough
understanding
of
the
issues,
interests
and
ideas
of
the
Members.
2)
Based
on
that
understanding,
develop
goals
and
objectives
designed
to
satisfy
the
respective
interests
of
the
Members.
3)
Develop
recommendations
based
on
the
consensus
opinions
of
the
Subcommittee.
4)
Consensus
means
that
everyone
can
"
live
with"
the
outcome,
though
aspects
of
it
may
not
be
their
first
choice.
5)
In
the
absence
of
consensus,
the
divergent
opinions
of
the
Members
will
be
documented.

Collaborative
problem
solving
depends
on
mutual
respect
and
careful
listening
among
members.
Meetings
will
be
structured
to
support
a
respectful
atmosphere
and
the
development
of
trust
and
understanding
among
Members.

In
accordance
with
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act,
opportunity
will
be
provided
for
public
comment
at
each
public
meeting
of
the
Subcommittee.
The
Subcommittee
will
carefully
consider
input
from
the
public
in
its
deliberations
and
will
include
a
summary
of
public
comments
in
the
public
record
of
the
Subcommittee's
work.

In
the
case
where
outside
experts
need
to
be
consulted,
an
explicit
effort
will
be
made
to
bring
accurate
and
trusted
information,
data
and
professional
expertise
into
the
process.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
A­
2
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Communications
with
the
Press
In
accordance
with
FACA,
all
formal
meetings
of
the
Subcommittee
will
be
open
to
the
public
and
press.
When
Subcommittee
Members
are
contacted
by
the
press,
they
are
expected
to
represent
only
their
personal
perspectives
and
not
to
characterize
the
views
of
other
Members
or
the
Subcommittee
deliberations.
In
some
cases,
the
Subcommittee
may
designate
the
chair
or
other
representative
to
handle
press
contacts.

Facilitation
A
neutral,
third­
party
facilitator(
s)
will
assist
the
Subcommittee
by
guiding
the
discussions
in
a
balanced
and
fair
manner
that
keeps
the
Subcommittee
focused,
respectful,
and
within
time
limits
agreed
to
in
agendas.

Meeting
Materials
and
Summaries
Every
effort
will
be
made
to
distribute
meeting
materials
to
Subcommittee
members
at
least
7
days
prior
to
Subcommittee
meetings.
Meeting
summaries
will
be
developed
for
each
Subcommittee
meeting.
Summaries
will
be
accurate
and
substantive
accounts
of
the
meeting,
but
will
not
be
literal
transcripts.
Summaries
will
be
submitted
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
for
their
review
and
comment
prior
to
making
them
available
to
the
public.

Timeline
and
Schedule
We
anticipate
that
the
Subcommittee
will
meet
for
approximately
18
months,
with
Subcommittee
meetings
quarterly
and
workgroups
meeting
more
frequently
in
between.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
B­
1
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Attachment
B
­
Meeting
Purpose
Statement
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June
12,
2002
Meeting
Purpose
Objectives
of
June
18th
and
19th
meeting:

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.
Public
comment.

This
committee
is
chartered
as
a
Subcommittee
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT).
This
meeting
is
being
held
to
gather
information
and
facilitate
discussion
to
help
the
Subcommittee
in
its
task
of
assisting
the
agency
in
identifying
the
future
direction
of
the
Superfund
program
in
the
context
of
other
federal
and
state
waste
and
site
cleanup
programs.
To
this
end,
the
Subcommittee
will
review
the
relevant
resources
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
provide
answers
to
the
questions
set
forth
in
its
Charge.

Subcommittee
Members
are
being
asked
to
examine
the
information
and
material
obtained
during
this,
and
other
public
meetings,
in
an
effort
to
inform
its
work.
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
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.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
1
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Attachment
C
­
Revision
of
the
Subcommittee's
Charge
Superfund
Subcommittee
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
Charge
REVISED
6­
19­
02
Following
Subcommittee
Discussion
on
6­
18­
02
BACKGROUND:

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

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

STATEMENT
OF
TASK:

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

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

LEVEL
OF
EFFORT:

1.
The
Agency
shall
furnish
the
necessary
personnel,
material,
reports,
background
documents
and
facilities
needed
for
the
Subcommittee
activities.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
2
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
2.
It
is
expected
that
the
Subcommittee
activities
will
be
accomplished
by
a
series
of
meetings
over
about
an
18
month
period.

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

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

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

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

7.
The
Subcommittee
will
operate
as
and
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
a
FACA
Committee.

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

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

1.
What
should
the
role
of
the
NPL
be
in
addressing
waste
cleanup
and
what
does
it
mean
to
be
placed
on
the
NPL?
a.
What
should
be
the
relationship
between
the
NPL
and
other
cleanup
programs?
b.
How
to
best
ensure
an
adequate
level
of
cleanup?
c.
How
to
integrate
the
NPL
with
other
programs/
statutes
(
NRD,
CWA,
Brownfields,
etc.)?
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
3
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
d.
Should
the
NPL
be
a
"
tool
of
last
resort?"
In
particular,
what
is
the
appropriate
role
of
non­
NPL
cleanups
and
States
in
addressing
sites?
e.
What
are
the
impacts/
implications
of
placement
on
the
NPL
(
funding,
community,
etc.)?
f.
How
can
EJ
concerns
be
more
effectively
integrated
into
the
implementation
of
the
NPL
(
e.
g.
synergistic
and
cumulative
impacts)?
g.
What
is
the
appropriate
use
of
the
NPL
in
the
context
of
mega
sites
(
e.
g.
river
basins)?
h.
What
are
the
issues
associated
with
the
goals
of
remediation
and
economic
redevelopment?

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

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

Information
Needs
1.
Assess
the
relative
costs
of
using
other
cleanup
programs
as
alternatives
to
the
NPL.
2.
Determine
whether
EPA
has
used
the
citizen
petition
process
to
add
sites
to
the
NPL.
If
so,
how?
3.
Identify
the
other
remedial/
cleanup
alternatives
and
their
obligations/
requirements
(
RCRA
ToSCA,
state
standards,
etc.).
4.
Identify
other
funding
sources
(
non­
EPA
public
sources,
private
funding).
5.
Assess
the
issues
behind
"
recalcitrant
parties".
6.
Understand
EPA
guidance
on
the
listing
process.
7.
Assess
the
characteristics
of
other
cleanup
programs
that
have
made
them
more
or
less
successful
than
the
NPL.
What
kind
of
sites
were
involved
(
cost
complexity
etc.)?
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
4
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
8.
Gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
HRS
and
the
application
of
the
"
magic
number."
9.
Assess
community
acceptance
of
NPL
listing
vs.
voluntary
cleanups.
10.
Determine
what
types
of
sites
are
typically
listed
on
the
NPL.
(
Is
it
true
that
"
sites
placed
on
the
NPL
are
typically
those
with
either
recalcitrant
or
no
potentially
responsible
parties
(
PRPs),
those
where
States
lack
funds
to
perform
cleanup,
those
considered
Federal
facilities,
or
where
tribal,
trustee,
or
affected
community
pressure
is
applied?)
11.
Assess
the
use
of
106
Orders
(
and
funding
to
implement).

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

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

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

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

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

Information
Needs
1.
Confirm
the
characteristics
that
drive
the
costs
of
mega
sites
(
quantity
of
material,
etc.).
2.
Confirm
the
list
of
all
sites
defined
as
"
mega
sites."
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
5
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
3.
Bring
in
outside
experts
to
help
frame
the
discussion
around
issues
where
the
committee
may
be
missing
expertise.
4.
Clarify
the
federal
budgeting
process
and
how
mega
sites
are
funded.
5.
Summary
of
RFF
study.
6.
Clarify
EPA's
position
on
liability/
cleanup
responsibility
for
state/
private/
other
ownership.
7.
Determine
the
impact
of
PRPs
protecting
their
assets.

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

Among
the
issues
that
will
be
addressed
are
the
following:

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

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

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

4.
How
to
integrate
long­
term
stewardship
into
the
goals
of
the
Program?
a.
How
to
assure
responsibility?
b.
How
to
fund
for
long­
term
stewardship?
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
C­
6
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Information
Needs
1.
Clarify
how
the
money
is
used
and
what
you
get
for
it.
2.
Determine
how
communities
feel
about
the
program.
Is
there
consensus
about
what
communities
identify
as
success
and
progress?
3.
Assess
the
impacts/
implications
of
economic
redevelopment
vs.
remediation.
4.
What
are
the
timing
assumptions
for
construction
completion
(
speed
of
cleanup)?
5.
What
are
the
institutional
controls
available
for
monitoring
and
long­
term
stewardship?
6.
What
environmental
indicators
do
other
cleanup
programs
use?
7.
What
factors
influence
whether
a
resource
is
useable
(
cultural
factors,
factors
influencing
subsistence
lifestyles
etc.)?
8.
Determine
the
steps
for
communities
to
assess
their
own
measures
of
success.
9.
Determine
how
to
measure
long­
term
treatment
scenarios
for
those
sites
that
do
not
reach
construction
completion.
10.
Identify
Congressional
perspectives
on
success.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
D­
1
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Attachment
D
­
EPA
Presentations
Attachment
D
­
EPA
Presentations
available
electronically
as
separate
documents.

1.
Superfund
Overview
2.
Enforcement
Presentation
3.
Overview
of
NPL
4.
NPL
Background
5.
The
Mega
Sites
Issue
EPA
Presentations
available
as
hard
copies
(
see
contact
information
below):

1.
Characterization
of
the
NPL
2.
Performance
Measures/
Environmental
Indicators
Please
contact
Beth
Huron
at
bhuron@
merid.
org,
or
970­
513­
8340
ext.
204
for
information
on
any
of
the
EPA
presentations.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
E­
1
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Attachment
E
­
Summary
of
Next
Steps
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
June,
2002
Meeting
Next
Steps
Summary
6­
25­
02
The
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
agreed
to
follow
three
concurrent
paths
of
action
between
its
first
(
June
17­
19,
2002)
and
second
(
September
23­
24,
2002)
meetings.
The
following
are
the
three
tracks:

Information
Collection
and
Assessment

Work
Plan
(
Charge)
Refinement

Develop
a
strategy
for
addressing
"
Measuring
Program
Performance"

Ad
hoc
groups
established
to
coordinate
the
work
of
the
Subcommittee
prior
to
the
September
meeting
will
address
these
three
tasks.
At
the
September
meeting,
decisions
will
be
made
about
the
most
appropriate
way
to
organize
the
Subcommittee's
work
from
that
point
forward.
Members
volunteered
for
participation
in
the
ad
hoc
groups
at
the
June,
2002
meeting.
Those
Members
who
were
not
present
to
volunteer
will
be
asked
to
sign
up
after
reviewing
this
document.
Meridian
staff
will
work
to
ensure
balanced
and
diverse
perspectives
are
represented
in
each
of
the
ad
hoc
committees.
Face­
to­
face
meetings
and/
or
conference
calls
are
anticipated
for
each
track.
Meridian
and
EPA
will
provide
staff
support
and
facilitation
for
each
of
the
groups
as
necessary.

Additionally,
Meridian
will
circulate
a
draft
summary
of
the
June,
2002
meeting
highlights
by
June
28th.
A
transcript
of
the
full
meeting
will
be
prepared
and
available
to
the
Subcommittee
Members
and
the
Public
by
the
end
of
July.

Information
Collection
and
Assessment
Step
1:
Steering
Committee
Members
volunteer
to
participate
in
an
ad
hoc
work
group.
(
done
 
contact
missing
members
and
address
balance
of
group.)

Step
2:
Meridian
staff
will
draft
an
initial
list
of
information
needs
and
data
gaps
identified
during
group
discussion
and
contained
in
the
revised
charge
distributed
on
the
last
day
of
the
June,
2002
meeting.
Comments
and
questions
posed
by
the
Subcommittee
Members
following
the
EPA
presentations
and/
or
submitted
by
the
Subcommittee
Members
in
writing
at
the
meeting
will
be
included.
The
focus
of
the
fact­
finding
will
be
on
the
issues
identified
for
the
NPL
and
mega
sites.
Measuring
program
performance
will
be
addressed
through
the
third
track
activity.
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
E­
2
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Step
3:
Meridian
staff
will
circulate
the
initial
list
to
the
Subcommittee
members
by
July
15th.
Members
will
be
asked
to
respond
with
the
following
information
within
2
weeks:

Refine
the
list
of
information
needs.

Identify
additional
information
needs.

Identify
data
and
information
available
to
address
some
of
the
needs
identified
to
date.
Include
a
copy
of
the
document/
data
or
reference
and
contact
information
to
aid
staff
in
the
collection
of
materials.

When
responding,
members
will
be
asked
to
relate
all
data
requests
to
a
policy
issue
identified
in
the
scope
of
the
most
recent
version
of
the
charge
(
circulated
to
members
on
6/
19/
02).

Step
4:
Meridian
Staff
will
collect
responses,
revise
the
document
and
develop
a
system
for
tracking
all
information
available
and
efficiently
making
that
information
available
to
the
Members
(
July
2002).

Step
5:
Meridian
and
EPA
staff
will
support
the
Subcommittee
Members
in
their
efforts
to
collect
information
to
fill
the
data
gaps
and
information
needs.
EPA
representatives,
States
and
other
resources
will
be
contacted
as
necessary
during
the
information
gathering
phase.
(
July
 
September,
2002
and
ongoing)

Step
6:
Meeting(
s)
and/
or
conference
call(
s)
will
be
scheduled
to
discuss
information
and
data
priorities
and
identify
topics
for
the
September
meeting.
(
late
August)

Step
7:
Meridian
Staff
will
circulate
information
to
all
Subcommittee
Members
in
response
to
the
information
needs
as
it
becomes
available.
(
ongoing)

Step
8:
Workgroup
members
will
present
information/
data
at
the
September
Subcommittee
meeting
through
written
material
and
presentations
as
deemed
appropriate.

Information
Collection
and
Assessment
Work
Group
Volunteers:
Subcommittee
Members
volunteered
for
participation
in
the
ad
hoc
groups
at
the
June,
2002
meeting.
Those
Members
who
were
not
present
to
volunteer
are
asked
to
sign
up
after
reviewing
this
document.
Meridian
staff
will
work
to
ensure
that
balanced
and
diverse
perspectives
are
represented
in
each
of
the
ad
hoc
committees.
Members
who
have
signed
up
to
date
include:

Jane
Gardner
(
Sediments
data)
Tom
Newlon
(
Sediments
data)
Sue
Briggum
(
other
program
data)
Steve
Elbert
(
Mine
cleanup
data)
Mel
Scaggs
Lindene
Patton
(
Comparative
regulatory
program
analysis
­
primarily
legally
focused)
Mark
Giesfeldt
(
State
information
via
ASTSWMO,
alternate
state
approach)
Catherine
Sharp
(
as
above)
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
E­
3
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Lexi
Shultz
(
abandoned
mine
land
program
information
for
some
states)
Bill
Adams
(
Mine
Cleanup
data)
Dick
Dewling
 
(
alternate
funding)
Mike
Mittelholzer
 
(
Survey
of
State
Cleanup
Programs)

Work
Plan
(
Charge)
Refinement
The
Charge
for
the
Subcommittee
was
drafted
by
EPA
to
provide
a
guide
for
the
group
in
its
focus.
This
ad
hoc
work
group
will
use
the
Charge
and
the
feedback
from
the
Subcommittee
Members
to
draft
a
Work
Plan,
defining
the
policy
issues
that
they
will
address
in
their
path
forward.

Step
1:
Steering
Committee
Members
volunteer
to
participate
in
an
ad
hoc
work
group.
(
done
 
contact
missing
members
and
address
balance
of
group.)

Step
2:
Meridian
staff
will
revise
the
Charge
based
on
feedback
from
the
Members
during
the
June,
2002
meeting
and
circulate
a
revised
draft
to
the
ad
hoc
group.
(
July
8th)

Step
3:
Convene
a
meeting
and/
or
conference
call(
s)
as
necessary
to
try
to
refine
the
policy
issues
that
the
Subcommittee
will
address.
(
July)

Step
4:
Work
with
Meridian
Staff
to
revise
the
Charge
and/
or
develop
a
Work
Plan
that
reflects
this
policy
focus.
(
July
 
August)

Step
5:
Recognize
the
link
with
the
information
collection
group
and
share
draft
revisions
as
appropriate.

Step
6:
Circulate
a
revised
draft
of
the
Work
Plan
to
the
full
Subcommittee
for
feedback
and
revision
prior
to
the
September
meeting.
(
Late
August)

Step
7:
Present
a
refined
draft
to
the
full
Subcommittee
2
weeks
prior
to
September
meeting.

Work
Plan
(
Charge)
Refinement
Work
Group
Volunteers:
Subcommittee
Members
volunteered
for
participation
in
the
ad
hoc
groups
at
the
June,
2002
meeting.
Those
Members
who
were
not
present
to
volunteer
will
be
asked
to
sign
up
after
reviewing
this
document.
Meridian
staff
will
work
to
ensure
balanced
and
diverse
perspectives
are
represented
in
each
of
the
ad
hoc
committees.
Members
who
have
signed
up
to
date
include:

Grant
Cope
Jim
Derouin
Steve
Elbert
Glenn
Hammer
Ken
Jock
Jane
Garder
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
E­
4
June
Meeting
Summary
9/
6/
02
Michael
Mittelholzer
Vicky
Peters
Kate
Probst
Ed
Putnam
Catherine
Sharp
Mel
Scaggs
Lexi
Shultz
Wilma
Subra
Robin
Wiener
Measuring
Program
Progress
Step
1:
Steering
Committee
Members
volunteer
for
an
ad
hoc
committee
to
provide
review
and
reaction
to
initial
agency
ideas
on
measuring
the
progress
of
the
Superfund
program.
(
done
 
contact
missing
members)

Step
2:
Collect
additional
information
from
Internal
EPA
agency
team
to
clarify
their
needs
and
the
focus
of
the
feedback
they
would
like.
Contact
work
plan
volunteers
with
additional
information
and
proposed
meeting
time
and
format.
(
July
15)

Step
3:
Plan
meetings
and
conference
calls
as
necessary
to
support
a
dialogue
with
the
internal
agency
team.
(
July
 
August)

Step
4:
Ad
hoc
group
develops
a
draft
strategy
that
can
then
be
circulated
more
broadly
for
comment/
discussion.
Meeting(
s)
and/
or
conference
calls
will
be
necessary.

Step
5:
Report
back
to
the
Subcommittee
with
strategy
for
addressing
this
topic
in
September.
(
Circulate
2
weeks
prior
to
September
meeting)

Measuring
Program
Progress
Work
Group
Volunteers:
Subcommittee
Members
volunteered
for
participation
in
the
ad
hoc
groups
at
the
June,
2002
meeting.
Those
Members
who
were
not
present
to
volunteer
will
be
asked
to
sign
up
after
reviewing
this
document.
Meridian
staff
will
work
to
ensure
balanced
and
diverse
perspectives
are
represented
in
each
of
the
ad
hoc
committees.
Members
who
have
signed
up
to
date
include:

Bill
Adams
Sue
Briggum
Grant
Cope
Steve
Elbert
Mark
Giesfeldt
Fred
Kalisz
Ray
Loehr
Jason
White