ForTheRecord, Inc. ( 301) 870 8025 [ z] have reservations on how quickly something could be [ 3] hmdcd to bring not only this project, but a number of 14) the NPL sites to completion on the time tables that are [ 51 out there and are being spoken of.

1% MR. LOEHR: Mr. Dcwling.

171 MR. DEWLING: Mayor, what would be your reaction [ a] il` the Agency or  as WC get into mega sites  said p] that if you're going to address mega sites and its off

[ IO] site disposal, and you got to bring it out LO Michigan or [ I 11 something like that, that the State within which this ijzj occurs has a responsibility to address that with its own [ 131 political boundaries. Would that have stopped this ( 141 project or would that have delayed it a long time or is [ is] that

Ii 6 MAYOR KALISZ: Let me just get clarification.

1171 On the Michigan side or the State  on ( he [ ie] Mass;~ chusc~~ s?

[ 191 MR. DEWLING: No. I'm saying your site in New ( 201 IIcdti~ rcl IIarbor. The contaminated sediment is being [ zt] dcwalcred  it's being shipped out of State, correct?

WI MAYOR KALISZ: That's correct. [ 2] New Jersey.

31 Now maybe New Jersey's waste have a different [ 4] stigma than Massachusetts, but we always had a very [ s] difficult time moving New Jersey material out of New [ s] Jersey. And when you look at these big Superfund sites,

( 71 these area wide sites and sediment sites  and NewYork [ a] State has the same problem with the PCBs.

PI So, you know, ~ OLI got old military facilities.

`[ io] You got some of these that could be used for that type of 11 I] thing. Is that something that you think could be [ IZ] accomplished in the State of Massachusetts?

' I31 MAYOR KALISZ: I don't think so. From the ~ 141 comments that they've passed, the density of the State,

~ 151 the almost contiguous boundaries of area, there is no 1161 unincorporated land that the State has jurisdiction over.

[ 17] The townships, the cities. Very parochial. What could [ is] you possibly do?

1191 The& was questions even raised by our City 1201 Council pt the time of how was it going to get trucked 1211 out? <> ve$ what land into where? And finally it came [ 22] down to lthe realization thaat there was no other way other .~~~  + ..~~.~_ .~~ Page 106 ) Page 108 II! MR. DEWLING: I mean, and suppose

PI MAYOR KALISZ: That's Ihc plan.

PI MR. DEWLING: AlI right. And that's big bucks.

( 4j And what I'm saying to you, getting it out of the water [ i] is lhc rmporlant thing and getting il away from the 161 pathway of exposure.

I71 Suppose the Agency had slid or says to you the [ SI Slate of MassachuseUs has to come up with a site in its [ g] own area where we can contain it and control it, as [ lo] opposed to shipping it, which would save. you know,

[ ii] millions and millions of dollars that could be used on [ iz] maybe some other site. Would that type of option be ;: 3] totallp offensive to you or possible or

1141 MAYOR KALISZ: No, not al ali. We had early [ i51 tliscussmns with DI? as far as possible sites in [ i6] Massachusetts when this was being looked at and the 1 1,) than the alternatives that wcrc not being advocated for ~ [ PI the burning and incineration, and the recognition was [ 31 that people would have to accept that it would have to be 141 I rucked out [ 51 But Iherc were some early discussions here [ s] rclalive to potential siles in Massachusetts, in New [ 7] Ibdmpshire, that appeared to be likely candidates that [ a] were ruled out for  I forget what reasons. But they [ g] just wcrcn't viable to sustain that type of transfer.

[ lOI MR. LOEHR: Let me take one more question on [ i 11 this particular aspect and then we'll go into the report.

[ IZ] I would suggesl that there may well be comments related [ 13] lo a spccilic sire that the IMayor or others could address ~ 141 in context of some of the items in the report, we could 1151 do that. So, I don't want to cut off a discussion about [ 16] New Iledli> rd. but if we could keep it in context of the or 71 answers basically came back that thcrc wcrc no reasonable ( 171 report. [ 16] silcz. l[ ie] Mike  1191 MR. DEWLING: Yeah. But. SK, Ihat's the whole [` Ql MR. TILCHIN: I can do a final context report. 1x1 problem I fact the same place in New Jcrscy and Bob WI MR. LOEHR: Okay. ( kentleman in the back. IMr. [ zr, I< owc I~~ ssccl 3 llill  Congressman Ilowe a( the lime  and izi] Skaggs. jnz1 said wc will give you an cx1ra $ 20 Million just to site a 1221 MR. SKAGGS: I; PA put out a list of about a dozen __ ~ l_ l _.__. e z.  ~~

Forl'heRecord, Enc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Scrip@ ( 29) Page 105  Page 108 NACEI? l. SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, M HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17,200 ~~ _~~~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~__~~_.~~ ~~

Page 105 Page 1 Oi [? I are necessary, but the big nut is the money and even they [ II facility in New Jersey so we don't have to ship it out of NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 109 [ I] principles for handling the sedimentsThat was a year [ z] or so ago. One of them  actually the frost one is [ 3] controlled sources and obviously part of controlling ( 41 sources is making sure that Aerovox is not continuing to [ s] directly contribute materials. But we heard that the ( 61 PCBs were also discharged into various sewer and sanitary 81  well, it was unclear whether it was sanitary sewer or [ a] CSO sewer systems.

PI Nave you all gotten a pretty good grasp of where [ IO] those PCBs may now reside?

1111 MAYOR KALISZ: Scatty. Scott Elfonz is the [ iz] Environmental Planner.

( 131 MR. LOEHR: Scott, if you could take the mike 1141 just for clarity and for recording.

[ ISI MR. ELFONZ: The PCBs were discharged into both [ is] the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer. They have ~ 171 actually impacted a large section of the city's sanitary [ ia] sewer system and that portion of the sewer system has [ ig] been remediated by the city in which we actually bypass [ zo] that whole section of the sewer system, constructed a new [ ZI] main interceptor adjacent to that, and have fried that ~ 221 section of the sewer system so we basically capped that Page 110 [ I] contamination in place in the sewer system.

PI MR. SKAGGS: And that's generally believed to be [ 3] the only outstanding source of PCBs to the system so you [ 4] don't have anything new coming in.

El MAYOR KALISZ: That's correct. There's no other [ sj manufacturers.

VI MR. ELFONZ: There's actually also the issue of [ a] the outfall of the city's waste water treatment plant,

191 which will need to be addressed, I believe, in Phase III [ lo] of the project. We're not sure what is proposed for that ( 1 I] work. But as you can imagine, the discharge through the 112~ city's sewer system into the outfall, which is about [ ia] 1,800 feet south of the existing waste water treatment 1141 plant has impacted that area as well.

[ IsI MR. LOEHR: Fred, thank you very much for your [ i6] comments, for taking the questions, as well as for the ~ 171 grand tour. It was a great tour and a grand tour.

( 181 ( <EMAIL_ADDRESS> [ I91 MR. LOEHR: Some of your staff that are here, we 1201 would like to thank them, but I would ask YOLI also to (~( 1 relay our comments and thanks to all the other parts ot ~ 2~ 1 your staff that participated so very well this morning. Page 111 [ il Thank you.

El Again, I've been reminded to alert the audience [ 3] primarily that these are open meetings and that the [ 4] summary of all of the meetings that we have had so far ~ 51 and this meeting, and the subsequent meetings, are all [ s] put on the website for the Subcommittee so that everybody [ fl can have access to them and that will take place with [ a] regard to this meeting shortly thereafter. I don't know [ g] how short is short because there's a lot of other lo] activities going on, but it will happen.

111 So those of you that have an interest in riding 121 out well, what happened at the previous meetings

$ 31 ( End tape two, side one.)

141 MR. LOEHR: John, let me mm it to you then for 151 any subsequent comments about protocol and so forth, as i 61 well as you offering some suggestions to proceed.

171 MR. EHRMANN: Thanks, Ray. I'm going Lo talk a 181 bit about the draft report and get into the structure a 191 bit and then talk about the process we would like to LIX 701 for discussing the report during the meeting that we're 211 just beginning. This is a bit of an overlap with what 221 Kay said, but I think it doesn't hurt to re emphasize the Page 112 [ l] point.

El And that is now that we have a draft report it's ~ 31 kind of a good news/ bad news story. The good news is we [ 4] have a draft report. and the bad news is we have a drafi [ 5] report. The good part of that is, as Ray said, WC have a [ 6] report that has all of the work that's been done by the ' ~ 71 various working groups and drafting groups put in one , [ al place. It has the beginning of a logical Plow to it. It ~ [ gl has a structure report. It has a table of contcnls.

[ IO] It's got covers on it. And you can start to get a feel [ II] for what your final product might look like.

[ I21 But, as he said and I just want to re emphasize,

[ 13) it also means that there's a lot of material in there ~ 141 which is, you know, as he mentioned, very uncvcn. Some [ 15] of that material has been through quite a bit ol [ i6] discussion in various working group pcrmealions and among [ 17] this full group, and some of it was drafted by two or [~ a] three people and is in the report and you've never seen [ ig] it before.

L331 So, we believe, and you agreed, that  and we 1211 still strongly bclievc that it was imporlanl to gel all ( 221 this information in one place and start to get a feel liar Page 109  Page 112 ( 30) Mim U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, ML HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17,200S Page113 1 / [ t] what it looks like when you look at the inner [ 2l relationships in the whole context of the report. But,

131 as Ray said, we, Meridian and Ross, certainly well [ 4] understand the nature of what's in there and the [ 5l unevenness of it and that's why, of course, we have three [ 6] more meetings scheduled.

171 So, we just wanted to acknowledge that right up ( a] front. that there's kind of a yin yang, if you will,

[ s] having called this a report, part of which relates to the [ IO] kind of things that show LIP in the press. But I think [ jr] that's part of what we work with in a FAG4 context and [ in] we'll talk more onThursday morning in our procedural 1131 session just ; tbout any other continuing issues about ~ 141 documents, circulation and publication and all of that [ isj because I know there are issues around that.

[ I61 What does this draft do? Well. it establishes,

[ 17] as 1 said, an organizational structure. It tries to [ is] suggest some overarching themes and fmdings based on the [ I91 work of the Subcommittee, and we intentionally tried to [ 20] keep lhe work of the subgroups identifiable.

[ 211 We could have  Molly and I and Elizabeth could [ zn] have locked ourselves in a room and taken all of your [ i] good work and come out with something of about 25 pages ; z] and said this is what we think are the key 131 rccommcndations and we hope you don't mind that we threw ( 41 these four out and combined thcsc two and rcdratcd these [ ii IR El ISot WC didn't do that. Wc tried to keep the 171 integrity of what had been done by the working groups [ a] bcc; iuse we are in this transition phase, if you will. So 191 that was intentional.

[ 101 We did, as you know from the structure of the [ i I] port, take some background material out and put it in the ( 121 back of lhc report. llut in lerms of really massaging and 113: lxxvil~~ cdiling what was in the content of the drafts 1141 that WC received from all of you, we did not do that.

[ ISI Anti rht's important for everybody to recognize.

[ 161 1 usI a note about structure. Thc overview and [ ii] rccc, ntmcntl; ltic, ns. as all of you know because I know you've [ is] rcatl it cover to cover. arc on pages one through 66; and [ is] then in lhc background section, K 1 to 35, again are [ 2q material lhf WC took out, just directly transfcrrcd into ; 2i] kintl 01 a holding tank, if you will. So, you can rcfcr lz] to II if'vou wan1 lo see, whcrc` s thal thinI: go lhat WC Page 114 111 have to use it. But it's intended to give you a format ~ 21 for the various sections of the report where you can [ 31 enter in your comments. We're also happy to take your ( 41 comments in bold, strike out, et cetera right in the body 151 of the document if that's easier. If it's easier to ~ 61 write them on the margin and send it to us that way,

[ 7] that's okay too, as long as we can read them.

PI But obviously, the more electronic you can do 191 the better. But if that's not comfortable for you and if [ lo] you're better working on a hard copy, we'll do that. We [ III want to make the comment process  facilitate its ease 1121 for you and, again, on Thursday we're going to talk about ~ 131 a couple additional ideas we have about how we might 1141 structure that comment period  comment process in Iis] future iterations.

I161 And then WC also did a summary of [ I 71 recommendations. which was an effort to just puIl

[~ a] again, just mechanically pull out the various [ I91 recommendations and stick them in one document. So, if 1201 you want kind of a streamline sense of the [ zi] rccomnlendations, thcrc they are.

WI Now we'll find, as WC go through this document,

1 I.. II_ I Page 115 [ i] wrote about background? But we tried to lighten up the [ q front part of the report and take out some of that 131 background information.

c41 We've not included any attachments yet. We will ~ 51 be keeping track of your suggestions around attachments.

[ q We already have a list of what we believe is a good 171 starting list for attachments, and we'll review that [ al during the meeting.

PI We'll be building a glossary of terms. We know [ to] that's going to be important. That's not in there yet.

[ I I] And, again, we anticipate significant changes in both ( 121 content and potentially organization as we go through '

[ i3] these various iterations.

I141 You also received some documents that it's [ 151 important to pay attention to. One was a guidance for [ is] reviewing the document. This is particularly important 1171 to look at both  to some extent for our discussion, but [ 181 also for your written comments in terms of kind of [ iq categorizing your concerns. And I'll talk more about [ 20] that in a minute ,[ 211 We gave you a worksheet that a couple of people 1221 have used and seems to be helpful for them, but you don't

For The Record, Tnc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 31) Page 113  Page 116 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 117 [ I] that there are areas in various finding sections that are [ 2] basically pseudo recommendations or important [ a] conclusions. Those are not in here. We just literally [ 4] pulled out the things that were called recommendations.

[ 5] There may very well be, obviously, other important [ s] statements in there, but that was just a way to help you [ 7] get another cut of what was in the document.

PI We talked about having your comments in several [ g] different categories, and again I would like to thank [ IO] those who have commented today for doing a good job of [ II] this. One is I'm very comfortable with this as drafted.

~ 121 It looks fine to me.

[ I31 Second, I can live with this, but I would feel ~ 141 better about it if I have a stronger support for it, if [ 15] it could be redrafted in the following way or the ~ 161 following language could be added, or this phrase could 1171 be dropped, or that kind of thing.

[ I81 You anticipate you will not be able to live with [ 19] a particular recommendation no matter how it's drafted [ 20] and it's helpful to have clear statements like that. And [ 21] then  and you have a new idea and here it is. And I [ 22] want to emphasize this. There's sometimes, I think, a .~

Page 118 [ I] temptation at this stage of these processes to say hey,

[ z] we've done all this work group work and we have all the [ 3] issues and there's no room for any new ideas. We just [ 4] have to fight over the ideas that we have in the [ 5] document.

161 I think the Chair and we agree we don't expect p] to have a lot of new issues at this stage, but we're [ a] still open to new ideas. So, in this two/ three day [ g] session and in your written comments if you have another [ lo] way to get at one of these issues, another option,

[ ti] another approach, please don't stop the creative process ~ 121 of trying to think about those. We've got  as the 1131 Chairman said, we've got five months left in this process 1141 and if you've got another way to think about mega sites,

[ 15] or another way to think about NPL priorities or whatever ( 161 it is, those ideas need to get entered into the ( 171 discussion because it's only by trading those kind of [ ia] ideas that we'll build as much agreement as we possibly Ii91 can.

K331 Sue, did you have a point that?

PI MS. BRIGGUM: Yes. This is a mechanical pq question, but when you see something that you don't agree I

Page 119 [ i] with there are two ways you can address it. You can [ z] either tell you I can't live with this, or you can say

[ 3] it's fme to say some people think and other people think ~ 41 why.

[ 51 Do you have a preference? The way I've been [ 6] doing is whenever I can't live with it I say some people [ 7] and then other people say something else. Is that [ E] helpful in the document or is that going in the wrong [ g] direction?

101 MR. EHRMANN: Well, I think both are helpful,

1 I] quite frankly. I mean, it's helpful to know where you 121 have a serious concern and then if you can make 131 suggestions for kind of some people language that would

141  you know, some parties support this and some don't and is] here's why, that's also very helphll.

161 So, I think it's  and the latter kind of 171 infers the firrst. So, if you do the second way, you 181 don't necessarily have to also say and if you don't . ig] change it I'm not happy. I mean, 1 think we'll  we'll : 20] assume that from the way you structure the  you know : 21] If a document says there was consensus on X and you 1221 redraft it to say well, not exactly. Some parties Page 120 [ I] thought X, but some thought Y, you know, it will be [ 2] pretty clear.

( 31 But I want  that kind of relates to my point I [ 4] just made about continuing to put creative ideas on the [ 5] table. I mean, I don't think  we've said all the way [ S] along and Ray emphasized it, that we fully anticipate on [ 7] an issue as complex as this one, with as many issues

[ s] complicated issues as are in the charge and the trature 01 [ 9] this group lhdt we're not going to have a report whcrc [ lo] every recommendation, every conclusion is supported 1~)

[ I I] everybody. We recognize that.

1121 But I think it's part of our responsibility up ~ ~ 131 here to keep pushing all ol' you to look for proposals and ~ 141 options that do gain the broadest possible support and 1151 hopefully the consensus of the Ml Subcommittee.

[ I61 So, we will go to language about some ~ 171 people/ some people when we need to, but we're going to [ is] continue to push back on you in our discussions and say,

[ jq well, yeah, you could do that, but if WC tinkerrd with ~ 201 this main statement, coulcl you live with it that way mtl [ ZI]  you know, that's the kind of testing we all need to do [ 22] with each other. Bul we certainly anticipate that some ~~ ..~ __.

page 117  Page 120 ( 321 :

M& u U Script@ ._ a For The Record, Inc.  ( 30X) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Mt' June 17,200?

Page 121 .~

Page 123 111 of dlese major  some of these points are going to end [ z] up being addressed by saying there was not an agreement ~ 31 in the group and here's what the views were or there was 141 agreement on the problem and we came up with two options ( 51 to try to address it and we couldn't agree on which 161 option, but here's the two options and the pros and cons,

( 71 wlr~ ch wc already have some language like that in the [ a] drafi at this point.

PI Vicky and then Jim.

f101 MR. DEROUIN: I'm dropping it now.

11 11 MR. EHRMANN: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You [ IZ] went up and down. 1 don't know if YOLI were

[ I31 MS. PETERS: I think you answered the question.

1141 It  as just a clarification following Sue's comment. Do [ ISI you anticipate in the final document that there will be [ 16! language that says some people say this, other people say [ I 71 that. or arc you really just going to include where there fit31 is consensus?

[ 1% MR. EHRMANN: No. We agreed at the Phoenix

1201 well, prior to the Phoenix meeting, but I think re

[ zi] emphasized at the phoenix meeting that  and the Agency,

[ zz] I think, supported this, that they would like  they 1 [ I] being clear about where there was agreement and in cases [ zj where there isn't, then we want to describe that as 131 accurately as we can.

I41 Kate. We'll just go around.

I51 MS. PROBST: I was just going to say a comment lsl to that. I think it's really important sometimes in the ( 71 draft report  1 know it's very early on  it's clear [ a] that there's an area that's really sort of a lightening l9l rod for folks. Sometimes it just says some people/ other `[ lo] people. 1 find this some people/ other people

[ I 11 sometimes it's sort of covering up an area where there 1121 really is deep division among the group and I think that ( 131 then it's just used as cover for EPA or whomever to do [ 14] whatever they want.

[ ISI So, 1 guess I just urge you guys in the final [ IG] writing that where there really is an issue that's a ( 171 lightening rod they need to know that clearly. And so [ IS] the mealy mouth language, I think, doesn't really help jr91 anybody. So I discourage that.

WI MR. BHRMANN: And I think that's  we need your : ( 211 help in kind of feeling our way through those areas that [ ZZJ need that and don't need that and where that  you know. ____ I_

Page 122 / Page 124 ( 11 would rather have options, even if they aren't fully 121 supported by everybody then have  throw everything out 131 unless it's complete consensus bccausc, you know, again,

~ 4) grvcn the nature of the issues I think they want to see ( 51 the thinking of the group as il relates to some of the 161 options.

( 71 We're an advisory committee and they can look at [ 6] it and, you know, make the decisions they want to make.

191 but if wc  we don't want Lo get into an all or nothing [ IO] kind of calculation there.

1111 On the other hand, you know, our goal is lo have [ IZ; a report at me cm1 of the day that all of you can say 1131 that's an honest, clear reprcscntation of what we talked ( 141 about. So, WC want consensus on the report being an [ 161 accurate summary of everything you agreed on in those [ i 61 areas wlicre you had diffcrenccs and a clear summation of [ ii] that.` lhat WC' want a consensus on.

[` K \ l'ou know, we don't want to get to the end of the [ ig] day and somebody says I don't think this report, ~ OLI [ zo] know, rel` lccis whal we did and it's not  you know, that (? I] kind ol thing.' l` ht would be, I think, a serious problem [ z] lrorii this sitlc of thc table. But wc want to get there by ~ 11 So I think we're certainly open to different ways of l2l dealing with that.

131 Jim, and then Vicky.

( 41 MR. DEROUIN: A couple of comments and then one [ sl question. 1 think it would be helpful if you could get [ 61 to us as quickly as you can. Everything that you have ( 71 already concluded should be an attachment because [ a] sometimes there is stuff in the attachments that is

[ 9] that people will want to comment on.

IlOl Number two, I don't know about other people, but 1 [ I 11 t found th * . L several page summary and the body of the / [ 121 document to be significantly inconsistent with each other 1~ 13) on a couple of issues. Okay. And I don't know here ~ 141 whether we're going to start with the summary or the li5l document. Bul that leads to my final question.

[ ISI Appendix II. What is the purpose for Appendix B i ~ 171 because  is it simply going to be a shorter version of 1 [ Mel the report? And the reason I ask that is that some of ( 191 the things on which I have comments show up in both the lzo] body of the report and Appendix B.

PI MR. EHRMANN: C; oocl qucstion. Appendix Is is just 1221 a transient animal. I mean, it's only there for this . __

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025  I.... z._ I Min U Script@ ( 33) Page 121  Page 124 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING tune 17,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS [ i] meeting to give you  again, we didn't want to take 121 stuff out of work group products and have you say where 131 did it go? I need to find it. We just thought we would [ 4] stick it in there. We don't anticipate that being even [ sl in the next draft of the report. That really was just to [ q help with this, kind of, transition draft that we're [ 7] dealing with because you're exactly  it's intentionally [ al duplicative in some ways because we just took the [ q language straight out so you would see the context.

[ lOI Vicky.

( 111 MS. PETERS: Appendix B, you mean Background

[ I21 MR. EHRMANN: Background B is what he's saying.

( 131 MS. PETERS: Okay.

[ I41 MR. EHRMANN: Chapter B.

( 151 MS. PETERS: It hasn't been clear to me  I ( 161 mean, you're talking on the slide about new ideas and 1171 then when we were doing our templates there was a place [ IS] for new ideas and new  you know, additional research.

[ I91 It hasn't been clear to me what was in mind by [ 20] that. To what extent, I think, clearly  to the extent [ zi] that we're dealing with some of these issues and people 1221 aren't sure where they are on them. You know, what more ._____. .

Page 126 Page 125 Page 127 [ ll there, but your point we strongly suggest that this issue [ 2] be looked at by another body. But not us, of course.

[ 3] You know, we sign off on it. Good bye. Go find another ~ 41 group.

~ ( 51 But my point is yes.` I'hc answcc is that we're ( 61 not cutting those off  I forget what section it's in in pl here, but there was an attempt to have some suggestions [ a] or placeholder  actually it's additional considerations [ g] is the terminology that's used here. We probably can [ IO] come up with a better one for that, but that's what that [ I 11 one is for. So, do not omit your thoughts up that.

( 121 MS. PETERS: Okay.

[ I31 MR. LOEHR: While I have  for a second here.

[ 14] I want to come to something that Kate said. Not to pick ~ ~ 15~ out Kate or her words, but just lo make it very clear ~ 11 information they need to decide.

121 But on the other hand, I felt that, you know,

[ 3] kind of early on a lot of us, at least, felt that, you 141 know, we have an awful lot on our plate and we need to ( 51 hone down what we can really do well and do quality more IS] than quantity.

[ 71 But I thought that we had an agreement that we [ tq would flag issues that we just were not able to get to,

( 91 but that we thought EPA really should look at. And I'm [ IO] hoping that that's still on the table as a separate,

[ I I] perhaps, section of the report saying, you know, these ~ 121 following areas we didn't get a chance to get into, but ( 131 WC think really need more work.

( 141 MR. LOEHR: No, that's still on the table and ( 151 I'm hoping that we will be active in terms of producing ~ 161 something like that. That's a parking lot. That's a ~ 171 sort of situation. Not only did we not get there because [ IS] of time or something, but we  when we did get there we ( 191 may not have had enough time to come to agreement yes or 1201 no along these lines.

[ 211 Equally, and a third point, we may come up with [ PHI some things that said WC didn't have enough time to get [ I61 You know, we're not going to write the report.

[ 17] The point is that you all arc writing the report and we [ is] need your input. I can't remember what you said, Kate,

[ IQ] but there was an inference of what are you going to do.

PJI Well, what we're going to do is package  we're [ zi] going to synthesize  we're going to integrate. My [ 22] point is we need some written stuff from you folks to Page 128 [ I] make it clear what goes where. I don't remember your [ 2] words, but I took it that way.

[ 31 I apologize if I took them out of context, but I [ 4] do want to emphasize the point that we need explicit [ 5] written something from everybody that we'll Lhcn try to [ 6] massage and then you can take another shot at it at some F] other future time.

[ El MR. EHRMANN: I'll say  Jim, I think it's [ Q] still up from before. Jim, do you have another comment?

[ 101 MR. DEROUIN: No  oh, excuse me.

1111 MR. EHRMANN: I'm going to say more in a little ( 121 bit about the kind of process from this meeting on and ( 131 then I'll come back, I think, for this drafting question [ 14] a bit. So, again, we're asking you to submit any ~ 151 final written comments on this draft no later than the [ 16] 27th. Again, as I said, you know if you got cxtenualing [ 17] circumstances let us know Just so we know to bc [ re] expecting something.

[ IQ1 We will be, as Ray just said, integrating those [ PO] comments into a new draft. Now, we're not just going Lo [ zi] lake scissors  electronic scissors and cut out whal you [ zz] say and stick it in thcre. Wc're going to take the i& as For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 . _^ a NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 _~~

[ rl  if you hwe, obviously, specific wording for [ zl recommendaGon, we're going to use that. But it's our [ q responsibility, I think, up here, Meridian and Ross, in 141 conjunction with the Chair to produce a next draft that [ q will be smoother than this draft.

El So. on the next draft we're going to take more 171 libcrtics based on your guidance, as Ray was just saying,

181 in terms of streamlining things and trying to get rid of ( 9) duplication or annotating. Say, you know, WC think we [ Sol should drop this. What do you guys think? You know, the [ I 11 kind of notes that we have in there already. I3ut sooner [ is?] or later some set of people have to take the ~ 131 responsibility of doing that massaging.

I141 The ideas, though  the specific wording, the [ ISI spccilic recommendations and aII that  is going to be [ 161 what comes from you. We're not going to create new 1171 recommendations or say, gee, we think it would bc good to [ ia] fill a gap if  we'll just make one up. That's got to I191 come from the work that's already been done and from your [ zcq commcnls and from this discussion.

( 21: But the. kind of, editing process, if you will,

[ zzl of` continuing to make this ; I smoother document is [ I] important, and if you think we ought to drop something lzl because it's not helpful, it's using Ray's rule about why ~ 31 we're saying it and who are we talking to about it. We ~ 41 want to make those decisions.

151 In those cases where there is disagreement, we [ IX] want to start thinking about the process for moving that I ~ 71 issue forward. Is it a small group that can do some la] additional thinking and discussion by conference caII or [ q small meetings and inputting that, et cetera. Again,

[ IO] we'll talk more about that onThursday morning.

Ii11 We want to work coward as much consensus as we ( 1~ 1 can reach on specific issues and, again, an overall [ 13l consensus in support of the report. And in some cases,

1141 again, we may go to options and pros and cons. We y151 already have some of that, but we don't want to move [ ISI there too quickly. We want to continue to push and see [ 17] if there are new ways of addressing these issues that can lrel perceive broad approval or broad support. Okay.

[ 191 Now the overview findings. Those overview ( 201 lindings in the front of the document were drafted by 1211 Meridian/ Ross, silly us, in an effort to begin the ___. 1221 process of trying to capture some big messages from the Page 130 Page 132 [ I] somclhing tliat's a responsibility of Meridian and Ross.

121 Wc'rc not going to get a work group together and say 131 write that Ihr two. front to back. I think that's

( 41 we've got to do that as part of our responsibility.

1% And WC will give you  on Thursday we'll go ! 6] through in some detaii how we see this happening. But [ 7] the bottom line is we will have another draft out to you,

[ al wc'rc hoping, three weeks prior to the September meeting is] So you will have a revised drdfl that you will have a to] chance to make comments on well prior to the  because I I] WC got August. So, we're going to try to give everybody 121 cxlra lime bccausc it's August, but it is going to lx 131 Augusl. Wc can't do anything about that.` l'o read that 141 nest draft.

151 So, again. you can do written comments and come 161 prepared to discuss that draft having had ; I chance to 171 really look at it pretty carclillly.

181 So. our goal during this mccling; assess where 191 thcrc 1s agrcemcnt, where people are generally 201 comfi~ rtablc with the direction of a particular section;

? I] Iry ( 0 ~ mrrom' the discussion as we go through those z;` l scctlons, thr issues that you think are particularly ( 11 rcport. Those are only intended to start what I know [ zl will bc a vigorous debate about what those crosscutting [ 3] issues arc. We've already gotten some very good feedback 141 on those.

19 I'm lalking about the overview findings that are IS] in the first section that starts with Superfund Program

~ 71  there's still a need for the Superfund Program,

[ al Programs to be Funded at Particular Levels  that 191 section.

` 01 We fully anticipate that many of these will be 111 maybe torn up and thrown away or started over or combined 121 or there will be five more we haven't thought of yet.

131 But WC felt it was important to start the process of 141 starting to think about those kind of crosscutting themes IS] that Ray mentioned in his remarks and we would anticipate 16) in the final product to be, kind of, up front in the 171 document, both in an executive summary and in the full [! B] document.

v91 I'll talk to you just a second about how we lzo] propose talking about those in the context of the full [ ZI] rcporl. Hut I did want to make it clear that those were,

[ zzl you know, a very lirst cut and WC anticipate they'll be _. _ l For The Record, XIIC.  C301) 870 8025 ,

IWin U Script@ ( 35) Page 129  Page 132 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS

Page 133 [( I destroyed.

64 I think we can move to the next slide. So, let [ 3] me talk a little bit about the outline of the report.

[ 4] Again, we're anticipating the all of you being listed,

[ 5] obviously; an introduction letter from the Chair; an [ s] executive summary, and I won't repeat that because Ray v] explained it very well in his commentsThen there will [ a] be the overview, which would include the charge, the ( 91 organization of the report, et cetera.

UOI And then we would start into these sections.

[ i 11 Embedded in this is our suggestion for our agenda for the [ 12] next day and a half. So, kind of built this in. Thdt we [ 13] would spend this afternoon, about an hour, with an 1141 initial discussion on these key fmdings and the overall [ i5] structure of the report.

[ I61 So, if you have, you know, major comments about,

[ 17] you know, I don't like this finding or I think we're [ ia] missing a major theme, I think it's this or  you know,

[ 19] I don't know why we organized the report this way. I'm ~ 201 thinking about turning it upside down. We could talk ~ 211 about these fmding, obviously, for a day and a half.

[ 22] But we want to take about an hour, in keeping with Kay's .___.

Page 134 [ I] and then we're going lo hold the Coordinating Comtniltce [ 2] until later tomorrow because it kind of relates to the ~ 31 potential application to a number of different topics.

[ 4] So, we thought it was better to park that one until we [ 5] get later down the list.

[ sl And this afternoon we'll also try to gel through ( 71 the Federal program section, again focusing primarily on [ a] those pages that I've designated there.

WI And then in the morning we pick up with State IO] programs. A short discussion on pollution prevention.

111 Again, we don't have that draft, but we need to ldlk 121 about how to handle the issue. And on through the day.

131 You'll see, we've got a question mark on the 141 RIFS funding prioritization piece because Ed drafted it 151 and, therefore, who cares. No, I'm just kidding. Ed [ 16] suggested it and it may fit better glued onto anolher [ IT] section. So, we want to, kind of, visit that issue. Wc [ is] may decide we don't need the full 30 minutes Lbr that at [ 19] that point in the agenda. And then take a bit more time [ 20] on program funding and efficiencies and prioritization of [ 21] sites; once around the NPL, about 45 minutes each; and ( 221 then an hour for the large complex sites and an hour for ` I /'

[ I] suggested ground rules, concise comments about your 121 initial reactions to that frost part of the report. That [ 3l overview part of the report or the report organization.

L41 Then we want to move into the use of the NPL 151 section and I  we designated page numbers here because [ s] we want to focus  again, we're not going to have time ~ 1 to go through every page of this report and even get [ a] everybody's big comments. So, we want to focus on ( 91 sections that we believe contain, kind of, the heart of [ jo] the matter as it relates to a particular chapter. And,

11 i] again, that's a little inconsistent because of the bet [ IZ] that these documents were generated by different drafting [ 13] groups, and in some cases it's all in the ~ 141 recommendations, and in some cases it's in the f mdings,

1151 and in some cases it's up front, some cases it's better 1161 expressed in the summary of recommendations in the back.

( 171 But the bottom line is we're going to draw your [ la] attention to particular pages and we tried to designate [ jg] those up here and spend about 30 minutes per those first ,201 two issues; use of NPL, early screening, and then a few 1211 minutes on the issue of what we should do in terms of the [ 72] IIRS draft because that's kind of par1 of that section,

Page 135 Page 136 [ I] the Measuring Program Performance.

( 21 This basically takes us up to about 2: 30 [ 3] tomorrow afternoon, which would give us a little bit of ( 41 time before we go into the Environmental Justice Panel [ s] that Dolores and Mildred has helped us organize for [ 6] tomorrow afternoon.

[ 71 So, that is  what we are going to need to do [ a] in terms of being able to talk about these topics,

[ q obviously, in that relatively constrained timeframe that [ IO] I'm laying out is the following: First of all, we really [ I 11 are going to need to stick to the high drea of import; mcc ~ 121 in each section that we've tried to designate. Now. il [ 13] we missed the page numbers by hall' a page. you know,

[ 14] we'll talk about it. I'm not trying to be overly literal [ 15] about this, bul we do need to stick to the, kind of,

[ 16] what's the major thrust of the recommendations or [ 17] proposals or findings in that section, not the nuances 01 [ re] the background, et cetera.

1191 Those comments on those sections WC will gel in / [ 20] your written commenls. WC will take them into dccounl pi] We will IKlor them into the ncxl draft. But wr'rc just [ 22] not going to have time to talk through them all.

Min U Script@ .

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEi'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, MA HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17,2003 _ _~~  ~.  ___

Page 137 Page 139 111 Second, we really need the comments to be at Ii] would take me to address. But thank you for asking.

Iz] about IO. 000 f& t  not 30,000, but not 5,000. We're PI MS. SUBRA: You're comfortable with it?

~ 31 not looking for word smiting; we're not looking for that [ 31 MR. BREEN: Yeah. We'll have, perhaps, some [ A) kind of Lhing in the discussion. Again, if you have [ 4] words  level changes, but not the 10,000 foot level Iq particular words we want them for alternative language. [ q kind of changes.

( 61 But we need it at the level of  you know, thcsc two 161 MS. SUBRA: Okay. Thanks.

[ 71 options I just cannot see how I could ever support option ( 71 MR. EHRMANN: Good point. lhanks, Wihna. Okay.

~ 81 one because dah dah dah dah dah. Now, if option one said [ a] Final slide  oops. Back to the final slide.

[ q this I might feel better.?` hat's the kind of comments we [ 91 Again, we want to focus on these key issues. We [ lo] need. Or J'm uncomfortable with the basic thrust of this [ to] need your written comments. As I just said, we need to ~ 1 I] section because I think it ought to be doing this versus [ ii] move on at certain points.

[ IZ] that with enough detail that we know what you're VdkiIIg [ I21 Remember that consensus recommendations are [ 13] about. I131 going Lo have more impact on the Agency than lack of

[ I41 So, as you think about your comments over the ( 141 you know, if we end up seven views on a two sided issue,

[ ISI next day and a half, it's  you know, it will bc a ( 151 that's not going to be as helpful to the Agency as having [ ICI balancing act and the Chair and I will do our best to try I161 more coherent recommendations, either consensus or 1171 to keep us at the right elevation here and not any  not ~ 171 clearly articulated options that are based on a good [ la] either nosediving to the ground or hit any obstructions. [ 18] sound analysis.

[ 19] But WC need to be at about thal level so that we can keep ` I191 And no one ever said this would be easy. This ( 20) the discussion moving. ~ 201 kind of process is not easy. It takes a lot of hard work E'l And when WC get to the 30 minutes. WC may not [ zi] to try to see where advice to the Agency can be put [ 221 gel everybody in on every issue. We're just going to ~ ( 221 together in a way that's both going to be useful to the ~~

Page 138 Page 140 [ i] have to move on. We'll do our best Lo be fair, 111 Agency and represent the broad support of the group 121 that's 21s diverse as this one. [ ZJ obviolrsly, about who gets to speak. Ilopcfully, if people 131 arc concise, we can get most of the major comments in in ~ 41 the timeframe that we've allotted. But if we have to ~ 51 move on, we'll move on bccausc I think no one wants to be Iq at 2: OO tomorrow and wc'vc only gotten through half of 171 thcsc chapters. I think that would be suboptimal in [ a] terms of what we riced at this stage of our deliberations.

PI Wilma, question? Comment.

` 01 MS. SUBRA: On the 111 priori~ ization/ charactcrization we have the Larry and 12; Barr) show WC have Barry here today and Larry here 131 tomorrow. Jlavc you all decided it's better to do it with 141 Larry and not Barry? Iiave you Ilad that discussion?

151 MR. EHRMANN: What about Curly and Moe? What do 161 you think? No. We did not take that into account when 171 we were deciding this particularly ordering. JP it makes ia] scnsc lo flip/ flop or something, we can certainly do 191 that Xl] MR. BREEN: Actually, thanks. Wc'vc had a 211 cl~ ancc IO look at it and 1 think it would bc fine with 221 1. x l y tomorrow J don't think thcrc arc issues that it PI As we were saying at breakfast this morning, in ~ 41 some ways we're just  the fun is just beginning with 151 this draft. But our real intent here was to get all the 1 [ 6] information, all the good work that you all have been j 171 doing through the work group process in one place so that Ie] WC can begin to really see which parts of this need more [ sl rclincment, which parts need to be dropped, and what's [ lo] going to be helpfnl in terms of the final report.

1111 Just one other, kind of, logistic  I want to [ IZI remind people about these upcoming dates so that we can ~ 131 return to this issue on yhursday morning for some final 1141 decision making about DecemberAnd we also have another 115) decision to make. which is whether WC keep these as two

( 161 day mcclings or WC add a day, like we did for this ~ 171 mccting.` I` hesc are all, just to remind everyone, DC `[ Is] rncclings. W: lshington DC meetings.

Ij91 September 3 4. which I believe is a [ zo] Wedncstl;~ y/` l'hursday. And we only have one option there I[ 211 for oxtcnding it if we're going to. It would be Friday.

[ zz] Ilccausc if we cxtcnded it toTuesday, it would mean to be _ ; L

F~ rTheRecord, Xnc, ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 37) Page 137  Page 140 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS II] say one more word about the overall agenda, and then I'll lz] turn it back to you. Again, our plan today is to proceed Is] with our discussion until about  depending on how much ~ 41 public comment has been asked for, probably about 5: 30.

( 51 We would work our way through these sections of the Is] report that I suggested for this afternoon and then have 171 public comment and wrap up no later than 6: 00 today.

PI And then we do have a group dinner. What's the [ a] dinner situation?

IlO1 FEMALE VOICE: Yes.

[ IfI MR. EHRMANN: Yes, we're having dinner.

1121 FEMALE VOICE: We'll report back to you after 1131 break.

[ 141 MR. EHRMANN: Okay.

Cl51 FEMALE VOICE: ( Inaudible.)

[ I61 MR. EHRMANN: Okay. But we're going to go there ~ 171 on the Mayor's trolleys, so you don't have to know where lls] it is. You just have to know where the trolley is and [ jq you'll get there. So, we'll explain all that in detail [ zo] timing to you a little bit later.

P11 And then tomorrow morning we'll have  we'll Ia21 start up at 8: 30 with any agenda review and adjustments ~~~ ~~.___~ . I [ I] wrap everything up no later than 12: 30 so cvcrybocly can 21 get on with their respective travel needs. And that s] session, as we've done before, will focus on meeting 41 scheduling, planning, work group designations, process 51 for continuing to do the work on the issues that we'll be 61 talking about this afternoon and tomorrow.

71 And, for the public, if you are wishing to make a] a public comment either today or tomorrow, please sign up 91 outside on the sign up list so we'll know how many people `[ to] wish to make a public comment. We can allocate OLK time ~ [ i 11 accordingly. If you're here today, but want to make yo~ tr [ iz] comment tomorrow, that's fine. Just let ~ 1s know mat ~ OLI [ 13] want to do it that way and then we'll make sure WC ~ 141 provide adequate time for public comment.

[ I51 Any other questions or concerns before I turn it [ 16] back to Mr. Chairman? Yes, Vicky I' 71 MS. PETERS: Do we really have no breaks Ire] scheduled between now and

[ 191 MR. EHRMANN: We'll take one when we get to a ( zo] convenient point in the way these sections run. We will [ a] take a short break this al'tcmoon ` l'hanks for pwnting [ 22] that out. Page 141 [ i] traveling on Labor Day, which I know I'm not going to do.

[ z] So, I would ask you to consider whether we want to add [ 3] some time on the 5th, which would be a Friday.

( 41 And then November 5th and Gth, which, I think,

151 is also aTuesday/ Wednesday. So, we would be suggesting [ q a possible additional of the 7th. And, again  I'm not 171 saying this for sure, but I would like you to check your Is] calendars for these extensions.

PI And then the proposed dates for the December [ IO] meeting are the 9th and 10th. But it was our ( 1 I] recollection that those were bad for a couple people

( 1~ 1 any option we picked in December was bad for somebody 1131 We ended up with the 9th and 10th because it was slightly ~ 141 better given the number of people who had a conflict with 1151 the other date. But we want to return and get a [ 16] confirmation of those dates or some other proposal, if we ( 171 have to go there. But hopefully we can confirm the 9th [ is] and 10th of December.

[ I91 But we'll come back to these issues onThursday [ zo] morning. But I wanted to just remind you of those dates I211 and the location of those future meetings.

I221 So, Mr. Chairman, those were the  let me just Page 142 Page 143 [ I] we need to make, statements from the Chairman, and then [ z] we will proceed through the draft report with a couple [ a] breaks. Lunch, 12: OO to, hopefully, 1: OO instead of ( 41 1: 15. If we can pick up 15 minutes there And then we ISI will break right before 3: OO.

161 And at 3: 00 we're having an Environmental [ 7] Justice Pdnel. This is a panel that was requested by the [ a] Subcommittee and we've had great help in putting the [ a] panel together from Dolores and Mildred, who are going to o] be co monitoring the panel. And I'll let them say more I] about that tomorrow. But we already have at least one a] member of our panel here with us. Florence Robinson is a] out in the audience there. And others will be joining 41 us, hopefully, tonight at dinner and then tomorrow for s] the Environmental Justice panel.

` 51 We'll follow that with public comment tomorrow 71 and then wrap everything up no later than 6: OO. And 81 again we'll have a group dinner opportunity tomorrow 91 evening.

` 01 And then for the Subcommittee members, there is ` 11 a work session scheduled for Thursday. It's a non public 21 work session, which will start at 890 and then we'll Page 144 Page 141  Page 144 ( 38) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc. _ ( 301) 870 8025 NACEIT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M, Tune 17,200 Page 145 [ iI MR. LOEHR: Well, with that reminder and since [ z] the Chair always likes to be a little bit ahead of the ( 31 < Zommittce, let's take a break until s: lS. And then we'll [ 4] return here and continue as John has suggested.

151 ( A brief recess was taken.)

161 MR. EHRMANN: There's a couple of documents [ 7] coming around for the Subcommittee members that I want to 181 point to your attention. One is the draft  these are [ g] two sections that were not included in the rough draft [ io] report because the authors felt like they needed more [ i 11 disc. ussion.

[` 21 One was the piece that Grant Cope put together [! 3] on pollution prevention, and the other was the work that 1141 principally Vicky. buL also others, have been doing on [ IS] thinking about the HRS. So, you should find those at ( 161 your place upon your return.

I171 And then there's another piece, which I'm going [ is] to send around which Betsy Sutherland brought to us,

[ ig] which is what the Agency  just in case you think [ zo] lhey'rc not paying any attention to you. The Agency put 1211 togcthcr a list ol'all of the potential evaluations,

[ zz] guidancrs. studies and workshops that are currently ['

1' ____.

Page 147 [ iI MS. PROBST: So, I don't have to read them right [ a] now.

PI MR. EHRMANN: But we didn't want to send  in [ 4] keeping with  in the keeping with  Kate, with the [ 5] desires of certain Subcommittee members not to be [ s] inundated with too many e mails, we decided not to send m those to you at the sametimewe sent you the

PI MS. PROBST: Are you picking on me?

PI MR. EHRMANN: No. I'm just saying  picking at IO] random. Okay.

` II So, what we would like to do is talk about 121 dinner, just so you have this in mind, to give you an 131 incentive for the next three hours. Molly, you want to 141 explain the

151 MS. MAYO: Sure. So those of you who need to 161 organize your social calendars I want to give you some ,71 more

81 FEMALE VOICE: We can't hear you.

91 MS. MAYO: Okay. So, we have dinner festivities [ I [ zo] planned for tonight and tomorrow night.

PII Tonight will be Okiana ( phonetic). Okiana is 1 [ zzl the name of the restaurant for dinner tonight. It's a I ~~  ~~~ ~ ~~ _ Page 146 Page 148 ( 11 contained in the draft report, so you could get an idea 111 seafood restaurant, although we will have vegetarian 121 of'what that wouLd mean for the Agency. It's coming [ z] options, chicken options and steak  all of it. ( 31 around. So, that's just to kind of have as a rcfercnce [ 31 Everything including tip and taxes is $ 21, if you'll 141 guide as WC go through the document. [ 41 bring that for dinner. And the trolley will be leaving 51 I think she said that they would be happy to do [ q outside the front  outside the lobby in front at 7: 00 [ q all of those and have them done in two months. Wasn't [ S] tonight. So, Okiana.

( 71 lhat what you said, Betsy? I71 MR. EHRMANN: ( Inaudible.) PI MS. SUTHERLAND: Oh, that's a d& mite quote. 181 MS. MAYO: No. Be there at 7: 00 tonight.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Speaking for theAssistant PI MR. EHRMANN: They're all coming? [ io] ~ 1dmimstrator on that? So, anyway, that's just something ( 101 MS. MAYO: WC don't need a count. Do you want a [ I 11 to LISC IO help, kind of, track that particular  that l[ ii] count?

[ 121 particular issue or se1 of issues as we go through the ( 13) draft. Kate has a question.

! i4j MS. PRO& T: Arc we discussing these things

u51 MR. EHRMANN: No (" 51 MS. PROBST:  at this time?

1' 71 MR. EHRMANN: No. Thr IIRS and the IUlution [ ia] I+ x7~ enlion arc just for your edification We're going to [ ig: talk !` cry briefly about  procedurally about how to ( 701 handlr those two issues, but we're no1 going to go over [ 7' 1 tlicm in the way that wc'rc going over the rest of the ( 221 rcporl 1121 MR. EHRMANN: No.

[ I31 MS. MAYO: Okay. If you want to have dinner, be [ 14] there at 7: 00 tonight or Ict us know if you would like 1151 directions to get there.

` 361 Then tomorrow tight we're going to having diner 1171 at Four'l'abor Park, weather permitting, outside for a [ ia] traditional New England clam boiI. And

11% MALE VOICE: Where are the clams from?

VI MR. LOEHR: From the harbor.

[ 2' 1 MALE VOICE: Are they guaranteed? Arc they [ 22] ccrtilicd?

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 39) Page 145  Page 148 N EW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEI'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 149 III FEMALE VOICE: How many parts per million?

[ 21 MS. MAYO: We've been told that  we need to be [ 3] quoted the market price for the clams. I don't have an [ 4] exact cost for you yet, but there will be barbecue [ s] chicken and a vegetarian alternative for those of you who 161 aren't huge fans of clams.

m But there's also going to be a special [ a] celebration. So, I really encourage you if' you can only [ g] make one, tonight or tomorrow night, in particular [ lo] tomorrow night should be really fun and we will also have [ I I] the EJ Panelists joining us for dinner. So, it will sure [ VI to be a special evening.

[ I31 Seven o'clock both nights though. There will be 1141 a trolley. And see me if you have any other questions or [ iq comments.

U61 MR. EHRMANN: Thank you. AU right. What we ( 17 would Iike to do then is  I've been told some people [ IS] are having trouble hearing, so please, when you make your [ ig] comments try to grab one of these mikes because it is [ zo] kind of echoing in here and if anybody is having trouble [ AI picking up you folks talking, please say something so WC [ zz] can try to address the problem.

Page 150 III The first piece of this that we wanted to go [ ZJ through, as I outlined earlier, which we would like lo ~ 31 spend an hour or so, is the overview section,

~ 41 particularly as it relates to those tentative findings iI [ I [ 1 1;

[ Z

I ' I[ 1 Page 151 111 to what the front of a report like this might look like,

[ z] suggest some important themesAnd the way we're going [ 3] to manage this discussion is Kay is going to, as Chair,

[ 4] recognize folks and move us through that process, and [ s] I'll try to focus on digesting your comments, making sure [ 6] we're clear about what you're suggesting and any back and [ 7] forth as to that, so we can be efficient about this.

PI And then also, again, at about  1' 11 try to [ g] warn us when we're getting within about five or 10 a] minutes of the end of our time for the topic so you can 1) be ready for that as we move to the next section, which z] will be the NPL listing. Which sites should go in the 31 NPL piece.

41 So, with that, if you would like to be 51 recognized, please raise your card and we'll get going.

61 AIs0 I want to say that we rcdy would like broad 71 participation in this. So, if you're not  if you 81 haven't said anything after about 45 minutes, I or the 91 Chair reserve the right to draw you out because we really LOI do want to get a sense of  if you just want to say ! i] ditto, I agree with everything that has been said, that's ! z] fine. But we really want to make sure we hear f'rom folks Page 152 : I] on this  on all the sections, but this one 21 particularly.

31 Comments.

41 MR. LOEHR: Well, just lo be specific, John.

( 51 that  so we're talking about pages one through seven in [ 6] the draft. Again, we're looking for your overall m reactions. I think there's a major finding missing. I [ s] think this one is really bad. I think this one could be [ g] made better if it said thisThose kind of 10,000 foot [ IO] policy level responses.

( 111 Again, this is  Molly and Elizabeth wiU be ~ 121 taking notes on all of the discussion that we will be ~ 131 having over the next day and a half on your various ( 14~ interventions and we will  I will also, from time to

[ is] time, be asking them to  particularly on the later [ IS] sections, to provide some context since they worked with ~ 171 the various working groups that developed the draft ~ 181 material in the rest of the report. I'll be asking, in [ jg] some cases, for them to kind of set the stage in terms of ~ 201 the life history of some of these pieces.

WI But on this piece  again, this wds something [ T~ I tllat we drafted with the Chair in an effort to get used ~~ ~ __~ __ I51 MR. EHRMANN: Yes.

PI MR. LOEHR: What page do you want started?

171 MR. EHRMANN: Specifically, I'm looking for the [ a] key findings on page four through seven, and I wouldn't

[ g]  I don't think we need to go through them one by enc. I [ IO] would take them as a set. I think we want to get [ ii] people's reactions. If you have comments on a specific [ iz] rinding, then obviously please reference the one that [ 13] you're talking about.

u41 MR. LOEHR: It looks like Jim is f& t up.

1151 MR. DEROUIN: I'm confused by the relationship 1161 between the findings and the recommendations. On page ~ 171 four, in the middle of the page, we state accurately that [ is] EPA asked the Subcommittee to provide recornmenclations [ ig] regarding several questions. And then the way wc arc ( 201 currently structured, we go on for scvrctl pages [ ZI] answering questions that they did not ask, altlwugh WIIK [ zz] of them clearly are subsumed in some of' the questions __~..

page 149  Page 152 ( 40) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEi'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 ~$ 1 char they did ask.

El And then when we get to the recommendations

( 31 f6r example, on page eight  that is clearly within one ( 41 of the major questions and that is the role of the NIX,

ISI aflcr which we go on to talk about key findings.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Now, Jim, just to  maybe I can 171 help clarify part of this as you're going through that.

Is] ` I'hcrc arc in each  1' 11 refer to them as chapters. In [ q each chapter there are. depending on the style. the way [ io] that the particular working group or drafting group ! I I] adapted the template we had provided, liuldings and [ iq recommendations at that Icvel.

[ I31 ` 1%~ findings that are pages four to seven, ; Lnd ( 141 again it's probably a poor choice of words there, but [ rq those overall themes, conclusions, whatever, that arc in 1161 that pages foLLr to seven are meant to be, kind of,

] 17] cutting across the sperifc recommendations in the [ ia] report.

[ 191 So, the lindings that are in individual chapters [ ZOJ arc kind of a different animal. Rut it is confLLsing and ( 21; I think you're certzzinly right that some of those [ zz] findings relate more directly to the charge as stated [ i; Ih; rn others.

I21 MR. DEROUIN: Now, having said that, when we get 131 onlo p; Lge live, there are some major inconsistencies in [ 4] the body of the document thal are not captured in the [ 51 paragraph on fLlndiflg, and there arc major inconsistencies 161 in the bolton of the  in the body of the document that 171 arc nol caplured in Ihc mega site.

[ K l; or example, in the summary, which is a separate ( 91 docLment, on the mega site issue, it refers to, on page ( IO] scvcn, a whole list of issues that supposedly arc in page [ I 11 6 I of the main document relating to measuring program [ IZ; progress. I ~ LICSS we don't have anything in the findings [ I31 on program progress.

[ I41 MR. EHRMANN: Let me make a

[ 151 MR. DEROUIN: Maybe that was my poinl there.

~ 161 What WC have in the summary documents, supposedly on page 11 : I 6 I, I not li~ uncl on page 6 I or any other place in the jl0j Imtl!~ of Ihc clocunicnt and 1s inconsistent. But 1' 11 save [ is] thal cornmcnt lix when wc get to

1201 MR. EHRMANN: I think yowl raised an imporPdnr [ 2i] issue thar I think wc'tl wcIcomc other comments enc. One : zz] way to do this kind of crosscutting thcmc/ excculive Page 153 Page 155 lr] summary is to pull basically intake recommendations from [ zl the body of a report like this into an executive summary,

~ 31 have them all there and say, of all the recommendations [ 4] these arc the 10 we think are the most important. That's Is] one way to structure this kind of thing. That's not what [ s] this is.

I71 What this was was an effort to say based on all [ a] of the deliberations of the Subcommittee there are four Is] or five or six, kind of, broad conclusions that we draw , [ IDI from our deliberations, some of which are directly ( I II related to the charge, some of which we just think are [ lz] important to say because of the context in which we're ~ 131 going  the Subcommittee is doing its work.

1141 And, again, it's your call which one you want to [ is] do, but you're exactly right. These are not tied back ~ 161 into Ihc body of the report the way that they might be.

( 171 MR. DEROUIN: Yeah. Given where we are now,

Ire] what I yas going to suggest is we'd be better just to [ lq defer o$ having draft findings until we figure out what [ zo] our recgmmendations are going to be because then what's 1211 major i4 most likely going to float to the surface.

~ .~~~ WI MR. 4HRMANN: That is certainly a way we could f. .~~~ __ ~_ ___

Page 154 Page 156 ' [ I] go. I et's' have others comment on that as well.

PI MR. LOEHR: Just continuing around. Ed  Kate 131  Mike  Bob  Vicky.

[ 41 MR. PUTNAM: I mean, I have  I don't know. I [ q can live with what's written here, I guess, is how to 161 start off. I would like to add certain things or do ( 71 litlle word changes. Is that what you want to hear now,

[ SJ or do you want to hear those as written comments?

PI MR. EHRMANN: Well, I think if you  not so ( 101 much the word changes, but if you had themes  like, I 1111 think, the major theme of X  again, whether it ends up 1121 cvcntually being in the lindings or we need to get it [ iq back into the recommendations, it's more important to ( 141 hear what you think the issues are and then we'll figure [ 15] out how to present them.

[ 161 MR. PUTNAM: Yeah.& far as the need for 1171 Supcrfund, and it also rclalcs to putting sites on the [ la] NPI,, what we heard today from Massachusetts and it's true [ IS] in my slate, if you don't have a strong Superfund program 1~ 01 you lose that enforcement leverage in the Superfund ( 211 program and when you lose it in the Superfund program Ihe [ 22] States lose some of their leverage also. And that's not

For The Record, Inc. " ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 4X) Page 153  Page 156  , . _"  . . . NEW BEDFORD, MA . Tune17,2003 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 157 [ I] mentioned up here and it could go in a couple of spots.

[ z] And 1 would Iike to be a little more stronger on not ~$ 1 using costs at all in putting sites on the NPL as a [ 4] criteria.

[ 51 But 1 think the enforcement thing is something [ s] that we should put up front as to why we need to be doing [ A what we're doing. And that enforcement encourages [ a] additional private funding source to get more sites [ s] cleaned up.

[ lOI MR. EHRMANN: Okay.

1111 MR. LOEHR: Kate.

[ I21 MS. PROBST: 1 had one addition and a couple of ~ 131 questions. Just for brevity, 1 really didn't understand ~ 141 what the assuring the effectiveness of risk management.

( 151 1 read that paragraph a couple of times. This is on page ~ 161 seven. 1 mean, we don't have to go into it here, but 1 [ 171 really didn't get the point. So, 1  1 don't have to [ is] comment on it one way or the other, but 1 just  1 [ 19] didn't really understand it.

[ 201 A second point was that  and this is just my

[ zi]  it's not a can't live with, but on the mega sites, that [ zz] we shouldn't separate them out. 1 guess I think funding Page 158 [ I] is such a big issue that we need to  the Agency needs [ z] to know in managing a program they need to track mega [ 3] sites. It doesn't mean they need a separate program.

[ 41 When we list a mega site there's a huge resource [ s] implication. So, 1 need to word smith there, but 1 think [ s] there is something important about mega sites and the way ( 7~ 1 read this it's kind of like let's not talk about them 181 that way at all.

PI The final thing is there's a statement, the [ lo] Superfund Program should be funded at a level that [ 11] reflects its needs in any given year. 1 think that's [ rz] lovely, but 1 think that's a little naive.

[ ISI And 1 guess 1 would add to it what to me is the ~ 141 most important thing on funding, which is  and 1 don't [ is] have a language, which 1 wiIl get you that  there needs [ is] to be an annual report identifying what the program's 1171 unmet needs are, which my understanding is even the head [ ICI] of an Agency can do that DOD and DOE do it where, you [ rs] know, what are the outward Liabilities, which the Agency [ zo] llsed to do, and what is it that they couldn't accomplish 12 I] this year. 1 know you can't say 1 need more money [~ ZI under all the various things, but my understanding is you I

VI MS. PROBST: Right. 1 mean, 1 don't know if 1 [ 2] can  1 mean, 1 can live with this. This is not my [ 3] preferred approach. 1 mean, I would have to think  I [ 4] don't know if, at some point, you want alternative ~ 51 approaches on mega sites.

El MR. EHRMANN: Oh, yeah. When we get to the mcga r] site chapter we definitely want to hear

PI MS. PROBST: But, as 1 say, this makes it sound 191 like they're kind of irrelevant.

101 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, that's very helpf~ rl.

111 MR. LOEHR: Mike.

121 MR. TILCHIN: Actually to the same sentence that [ 13] Kate commented on.

![ I41 MR. EHRMANN: Thanks, IMike.

9151 MR. TILCHIN: On page five where we talk about [ 16] the program being funded at levels that reflect needs.

[ 17] It's very difficult to understand they and what 1 would ~ [ 16]  what 1 would be interested in seeing, and 1 do believe [ ig] it said elsewhere in the report that we recommend [ zo] increased funding for the program [ 211 And if I were to take that to. maylx, the next [ z] level detail fbr the next two years where thcrc is this Page 159 I] can say this is what we weren't able to do.

21 So, 1 guess 1 would say that as an overarching 31 level there's a need for transparency in terms of program 41 accomplishments and unmet funding needs.

51 MR. EHRMANN: Just to comment on the mega sites 61 piece because 1 think you put your finger on something we 71 kind of struggled with as we wrote this, and that is our ` a] sense of the group  and I'm not saying that is the p] sense of the full group, but at least in some of the work o] group discussions on mega sites  the notion was kind of I] as you said it. That, yeah, you need to keep track and 2) understand what's coming and these sites are different,

31 and we need to understand how and those kinds of issues.

41 But should there bc a, you know, national mega  should 51 this Subcommittee recommend a national mega site program 61 in the sense of, again, the work group  I'm not saying 71 it's a consensus of everyone yet at this point  was no,

81 we probably shouldn't do that.

91 So we were  but 1 think you're right. The way ! o] it's drafted it almost makes it sound like we don't think ! i] there's any reason to even understand these sites and ! 2] that was not the intent of  but it needs some work.

Page 160 page 157  Page 160 ( 42) Min U Script@ ForTheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 8025 NACEI'T SUPERJ? UND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, M HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17,200  I ... ~~ ~..~ ~~ ~...~._~~~. ~~ ~_ .__ Page 161 /

[ t] bump m needs'l'hat's a very specific recommendation and 121 it's meaningful to the extent that I can philosophy 131 slightly where we can do that I really think it would be 141 good thcre. l` hat WC word things in that way.

I51 So. in that area, if WC want to make a [ sl recommendation on a short term increase in funding I [ 7] would support that and, at least, it would be a very 181 concrete  whatever recommendation we make I hope it's 19) co11crcte.

[' Ol MR. EHRMANN: Just a procedural note. I think [ I ~ 1 on these kinds of suggestions like on mega sites or on [ iz] I'unding, WC will come back to those issues also when we ~ 131 get to that section and kind of dig a little deeper and 1141 kind of, you know, test the group about who might support [ is] what. 1 don't want to get into that right now. I think ( 161 we just want to keep this as more

[ I71 MR. TILCHIN: Okay.

[ I81 MR. EHRMANN: That's why I'm not asking, you [ is] know, are people comfortable with this suggestion. We [ no] will get that when we get to that section. Go ahead.

! 2ll MR. TILCHIN: Yeah. And, again, I'm going to ( 221 rciterale what Kale said. Assessing the effectiveness of [ I] with other existing programs it's a billion eight  two 121 billion.

131 And I think those of us who look at it want to 141 make it very clear that there may be some other sources [ s] that out there that could be used for NPL cleanups, but [ 6] only in addition and above what's needed for Superfund.

I71 I guess it's maybe more  more emphatic to EPA 181 and to the appropriators what our point of view is.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Yeah. I think clearly, you know,

1101 the Subcommittee is going to need to grapple with this [ I 11 kind of interplay between what Mike just said, you know,

~[ IZI if the Subcommittee could draft a consensus statement [ IZJ about your assessments of the availability of funding and ( 141 tying that both into your assessment of what's available 1151 from Federal and what, perhaps, should be forthcoming [ IS] through other means, as Mike was suggesting, obviously [ 171 that's something we're going to want to  you know,

[ re] we're going to need some careful discussion on. But I [ IS] think your two comments kind of relate to each other in ~ 201 that way, being more precise about what's being said 1211 there.

PZ MR. LOEHR: Vicky. Page 16:

11) risk management didn't really do anything for me. And in ( 21 the middle of that we described something that we thought [ a] should be in the middle of that paragraph on page seven.

143 What WC say here ignores the fact that risk ~ 51 asscssmcnts arc performed as part of lhc IUI3That ~ 61 seems like a significant omission lo me.

I71 MR. EHRMANN: Thank you.

181 MR. LOEHR: Bob  Bob IIickmott.

PI MR. HICKMOTT: I guess my point is one of tone [ joj or emphasis. On the bottom of six and the top of seven,

[ j : I we spent a lot of time looking at alternative Federal ,121 programs as possible sources for money and we say in the [> 31 report the Subcommittee did not fmd any signiiicant ( 141 sources of new funds that could be used towards ( 11 MS. PETERS: I think I'm losing track of some of lz] my comments, but

PI MR. EHRMANN: PuU the mike up a littIe, Vicky,

1 141 if you could.

El MS. PETERS: To the extent that I can recommend,

[ SJ lirst Jim started out by saying he felt that there was [ 7] some  that some of the findings looked more like [ 8] recommendations. I would just point, in particular, to 191 the mega site. I think that that clearly reads as a ( IO] recommendation. I actually felt that most of the other [ I I] ones read like findings. So, I would ask that you take a [ 12] look at that.

[ I31 And also related to the mega site stuff, I think 1141 it reads really oddly. I know why in this report we're [ IS: addressing NI'I. sites. And I think there is some cross IIS) saying, you know, that the Subcommittee doesn't recommend ~ 161 rcfirencc lo elaboration on lhal on page 12. 1161 a separate category, but I think from the real world 1' 71 I) o we need lo make it more emphatic that any ( 171 nobody is going to know what the heck that means, and I ; ds] other programs that do exist would be a supplement to the [ ial think it's odd, you know, that we would be saying, you ~< q cxlsting Superfund funding? I think there was concern ( 191 know, wc just  we're not doing this. You know, we ~ 201 when we look at these programs that somehow that would be 1201 don't do that else where we say what we are doing. 1211 usctl a\ a hit 01. a fig leaf to say, well, the funding for 2r1 But this might be another reason to follow Jim's [ zq Supcrlllnd is a billion three, but when you aggregate that ( 221 reCOnlmcndatiOnS. Let's figure OUt What w: want to do and  ~.~.____~ .

For ` Che Record, Xnc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 43) Page 16x Page 164 NEW BEDFORD, MA . June 17, 2003 NACEF'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 165 I [ I] then do the findings because

121 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah.

L31 MS. PETERS: On the whole mega site thing my [ 4] sense is that these groups, the NPL groups, are very [ sl conscious of how mega sites are a different animal and,

[ s] you know, we need to take special care, but we need to m flush that out.

PI And so I think the key fmding then would be [ gl maybe a broad brush of how we're dealing with them in the ( 101 early screening and things like that. So  you know, to 1111 the extent that we have these findings, we know what our ~ 1~ 1 recommendations are going  you know, from that maybe [ 13] just have placeholders for now or something like that.

[ I41 Another comment that I had was

1151 FEMALE VOICE: Vicky, can you use the mike?

[ 16] Even I can't hear you.

1171 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, sorry.

[ ISI MS. PETERS: I thought I was. Okay.

[ 191 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, these are  you got to get [ zol pretty close.

1211 MS. PETERS: All right. The other thing I noted ~ 221 was I think with respect Mariann's desire that we deal I [

I I I [

[

[

1:

~ 1:

1:

Page 166 [ i] with the one cleanup program, we have this kind of lame 121 statement in here, you know, in recognition of this need 131 we note the initiation of one cleanup. I think we need 141 to make a decision of whether we're really going to [ sl tackle that or not and, if we are, you know, have [ 6] something meaningful, and if not, I would just take that ~ 1 out of there. kind of silly.

161 I think I'm forgetting some things, but I did [ gl  I have some notes, too, I think, to echo Ed Putnam's 101 that I thought was just crosscutting. I did not 111 participate in the other cleanup programs, but I know 121 from reading the notes on the site, whatever  I can't 131 remember what the name of the site's work group. There 141 was a lot of talk about strengthening, enforcement,

151 leverage dollars and the importance of the Federal 161 program or the State and all thal. So I would just echo 171 that one.

181 MR. EHRMANN: Thank you.

191 MR. LOEHR: Sue.

201 MS. BRIGGUM: Yes. This is really 10,000 feet,

211 but I think we leap into the report, including even the 221 charge withour giving the fachld premise. It might bc  i  Page 167 [ I] helpful just to explain what happened. It's woven [ 2] throughout the report in bits and pieces, but basically,

[ a] you know, you're going around. You have Superfund. It's [ 4] at steady state and then there's a crunch in terms of [ 5] funding that comes from several sources. One is pipeline [ 6] development; another is a few really big orphan sites [ 7] that took an enormous amount of money, leaving the 181 shortfall where EPA needed to make a new kind 01 [ gl prioritization. They ask our advice.

101 I think if we have that, including like the I 11 numbers in terms of the funding, that would be helpful 121 because they have changed the funding a little bit too.

131 They've shifted the Browntields out and that went up a 141 hundred. We want to make sure that people don't say, oh.

is] wait a second. You don't even have the facts right.

161 So, if we could get that at the beginning I 171 think it makes even the charge easier to understand.

181 MR. LOEHR: Bill.

191 MR. ADAMS: I'm on page  ( inaudible). Comment ro] really. I just question whether the title  the , I] Supertind Program should be funded at a level

221 ( inaudible)  should be changed, for example, to maybe Page 168 [ i] fmds insuflicient fungs to achieve short term goals.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Okay.

( 31 MR. ADAMS: Sorry. Could be changed, perhaps,

[ 4] that the Committee finds insufficient funds to achieve [ 5] short terms goals. Or there's a sentence about three

[ 6] qUarterS of the way down in that lirst paragraph that ( 71 says the Subcommittee has developed recommendations li) r [ s] prioritizing how funds should be allocated. That's 191 another possibility.

[ lOI And then one last comment on this particular [ I I] section is that while I think this is a great statement ~ 121 that the Committee has developed recommendations li) r 1131 prioritizing funds, we should, maybe, give a bit of a [ 14] hint here or reference some area where one could find [ ISI these recommendations, or give a little bit of more [ 16] detail associated with that because it's really a key [ ITI finding.

1161 MR. EHRMANN: Thank you.

[ 191 MR. LOEHR: Ken.

WI MR. JOCK: On page seven, part of that community [ ZI] involvement is a vital par1 oP succcsstul or medium [ 22] programs. I Illought it would be good to add a section in age 165  Page 168 ( 44) Min U ScripI For TheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M June 17,200 ___

Page 169 Page 171 ( 11 here or at lcast a sentence that kind of reflects a lot [ I] and putting it two; and then taking the last one and 121 of the information that we got when the tribal ( 21 maybe rewording it a little because  making it more [ 3] representatives spoke in Washington. The fact that a lot 131 generally deal with measuring program progress and the ~ 41 of the tribal governments and Environmental offices need ~ 41 whole idea of, you know, construction completionAnd ~ 51 additional fnnding as far as being able to  needing it ( 51 then say, in addition we have these other two points. 181 to catch up to, let's say, States and Federal 161 One is fnnding; one is community, tribal, EJ issues. [ q capabilities. I71 And so we have sort of a five point set  and WI So, l thought that might be a place where we [ a] the last thing is instead of key findings  I think like p] rould put it in there. 1 [ 9] those words you leave in that fust sentence, your [` Ol MR. EHRMANN: Thanks.

[ f 11 MR. LOEHR: I d.

[ i 21 MR. PUTNAM: Yeah. Without getting into the [ 131 specific wording, I sort of like  I really like this,

~ 141 but I also  since Jim; s initial comment and then some ~ 151 of the others, I think Sue had an inleresting ~ 181 introduction, perhaps, that would clarify this.

I1 71 It seems to me that what is confusing is that [ r8] it's not tied into the charge, but yet I actually think [ lq it is tied into the charge if it's slightly tweaked or 1201 rcorganizcrl because  you know, like that first one [ IO] italics, after key findings, you know, something like [ I I] common ground or may call it common principles rather 1121 than findings because that's what, I think, also gets us ~ 131 into confusion with recommendations.

1141 Rut ! like a lot of the wording.

Ii51 MR. EHRMANN: Let me just say the fust one,

[ 16] which i know at least one of the comments we have gotten ( 17) in writing raised an issue about, you know, there's still [ 18] a need for the Superfund Program. Is it  I mean, just [ is] to exdlain why that's there. I think this  at the [ 211 deals with NH sort of, without getling into words. The lzo] bcgin? ing of this Subcommittee's creation and [ a] dehbefations, I think, we'll all recall that there was a [ zz] second one  or  hold the second one. ~ 221 lot of', bon know, concern and wondering from various ___  Page 170 I Page 172 Ii! The third  you know, those bold headings.

[ z] Looking at thosc.` I` hc third one deals with mega sites.

is] I think the last one deals with measuring program [ 4! progressThen the others, if they're like regrouped,

[ 5] would l& us  several of them actuaI] y deal with NPI., so 161 thar` s one of our chargcs. And then what I would think 171 wc would want to do  and this relates actually to a [ a] comment that was made earlier this morning, I think, by [ q Dolores, that we don't say something about community,

[ io] Environmental Jrrsticc. Well, the next to the last one

[ r 11 the one that can  it's just saying about the tribal [ IZ] part  if that were redone, would add that.

[ iSI And then I think that second bold one on the top ( 141 of pag: c live deals with the funding issue, which is, sorl [ is] of. somclhmg maybe we should talk about even though in a [ 16] way. that's not our charge, that's what's lying behind [ 171 the charge to a great cxtcnt.` l` he whole problem of jia] funding.

it91 So, whal I would think is we would wdnt to 1201 reorganize this having  pulling out a11 the ones that [? I] tlcal wrth NPI. and making them one, so it corresponds to [ 22] the orclcr of the charge; pulling out the rncga site one [ I] partieg about is this Committee  Subcommittee even put [ z] together to get rid of Superfund.

PI And so it seems there are some  answering some 141 issues like that, even though they're not explicitedly in ( 51 the chatgc, would provide a context similar to what Sue [ q was saying, I think, in terms of her suggestions.

I71 So, whether it ends up as a finding or as part 181 of a context or whatever, as the folks who drafted that I ' 181 just want to be clear that's why it's there. Not because [ IO] we thought that the charge was tell us if we need [ II] Super fund anymore. But there are, for a number of folks [ tz] who ate observing the creation and workings of the ~ 131 Subcommittee, I think they've wondered whether that was ~ 141 the charge. So. this is meant to, at least, address that IiS] issue.

1181 Again, if it's decided it rolls in better ( 171 somewhere else or it's not needed, obviously that's your [ 18] call. But I just wanted to give you the reason why it's [ 19] there.

I201 MR. LOEHR: Dick.

lP? l MR. DEALING: I wanted to echo what Ed had said 1 [ z] mhcrr wc said there is a need for the Superfund Program.

..

For The Record, Inc.  4301) 870 8025 in U Script@ ( 45) Page 169  Page 172 NEW BEDFORD, MA June17,2003 NACEPTSUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEEMEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 173 [ I] I think you have to reinforce the need to continue a very [ z] strong enforcement program and also to get PRPs ( 31 identified early, and for those States that don't have 141 the capability now to try to enhance their abilities [ s] through grant programs, existing water grants or other [ q grants, to get some of these other States up to speed to m where some other States may already exist.

[ El The other issue, in general, is the funding ( 91 issue. I don't agree that there is no other viable [ lo] source of funds. Everybody is looking for the free gift.

[ i I] There's a different approach. We went through this in [ iz] the construction grants program for 25 years. We gave [ 13] grants to  ( inaudible). Then in 1980 we started the [ r4] State revolving fund loan programs.

UsI And what I'm saying to you is here you can ~ 161 leverage money three to four to one. And nowhere in here ( 171 are we talking about changing the way we do business [ te] relative to funding. We're only looking for money that's [ 19] grants out there. And I think, you know, we had 1201 discussed this, but for some reason it's not reflected in 1211 the documents here.

1221 There are other sources of funding, even the Page 174 [ I] DEOB ( phonetic) money, if there was a way to put that [ z] into the State revolving funds, which today are being [ 3] used for storm water, water supply, waste water 141 treatment. You know, they're being used for a great many IS] things and there's opportunities there that I think were [ 6] discussed that I don't see here up front, nor do I see it p'] in the back.

PI MR. LOEHR: Gary.

PI MR. KING: I would like to echo comments of Ed [ lo] and Vicky and Dick on the need for discussion enforcement [ I 11 aspect and the importance of a solid Superfund ~ 121 enforcement efforts. I also wanted echo Ed's comment [ 13] about  this is on page six of the discussion about ~ 141 costs should not be the primary criteria driving [ IS] decisions regarding which sites should be listed.

~ 161 Obviously is a correct statement from my prospective.

1171 However, it certain leaves an implication that it would ~ 161 used as a significant or any factor, which I would agree ~ 191 with Ed that I would disagree with it being used as any [ 2oj factor as far as listing.

Pll And then the thud thing I also would echo the ~ 221 comments of Mike and Kate on the effectiveness to risk ~~.~~ ~~ [; Page 175 [ q management. I was just unsure about the nalurc ol'what [ z] that was meaning.

I31 MR. EHRMANN: Thank you.

141 MR. LOEHR: Aimee.

Fl MS. HOUGHTON: I want to  I think Sue was sort [ 6] of on the right track with  I'll call it more a [ q statement of the problem. I think that in that problem [ q we have to talk about some of the specifics. Whether or [ s] not  you know, what the problem is, whether or not WC IO] fmd answers to them in this report is something else I 11 again. But I think that we have to bc very up front and IZ] very honest in the beginning.

131 You know, this is the problem. You know, sites 141 aren't being cleaned up as fast as they should be, as 151 they have been in the past. You know, flmding is static.

161 I mean, there are some realities there and I think we 171 need to state that up front so that there's a clear 161 picture of, sort of, the reality that  excuse me, the 191 reality that we're grasping and trying to manage or make zo] recommendations on.

? I] MR. LOEHR: Grant.

121 MR. COPE: On following up on Ed's comment Page 176 [ I] earlier about how to, maybe, lay things out in a [ z] different sense. I mostly followed, I think, the thrust ~ 31 of what he wanted. I would just suggest, though, if we [ 4] decide to go down that road we make it clear that that's [ s] not enough prioritization on our part. That we explain [ 6] our rationale because most people just take a look at the [ 7] first, three, four, whatever and those are the three that [ a] we can do and everything else is going to  you know,

[ s] whatever.

101 In addition to the State enforcement I I] capabilities, I would also  I reference Federal IZ] enforcement  Federal Program encorcement capabilities,

131 building on Superfund. I'm just going to go down the 141 laundry list here.

' 61 Yeah. On the funding issue, I would say not 161 just appropriations, but also autliorization. There's two 171 different, obviously, phases thcrc. Increasing both.

181 On page six, caution not be a primary criteria.

191 I'll echo whatever people have said in that it should not 101 be a criteria at all.

! I] Prior to placing sltcs on NPI., there should be a zz] clear understanding OC whcthcr other programs might 1~

Min U Script@ ForTheRecord, Xnc. ( 301) 870 8025 NAdEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 .___ ____ .~~ Page 177 Page 179 111 able 10 addrcss. That's on page six. [ I] not.

PI There's nothing in the statutes that say EPA has 121 But it does occur to me that it did not result ~ 31 to consider whatever programs it can do risk based. So, ~ 31 in more cleanups happening when we moved Brownfields out 141 I disagree with that. [ 4] of EPA's Superfund budget and suddenly another $ 100 ( 51 1 was really confused about page seven, the risk 151 Million of it became available there. If that was a ~ 61 managcmcnt stuff. I don't really know what to say other ) 16) straight up answer we should have gotten another $ 100 ~ 71 than I'm really confused about it. I guess I would add ~ 71 Million worth of cleanup coming down the pipeline and ; 61 in  I mean, maybe looking at things in a different ( 81 that didn't happen. So, I'm not sure that raising IQ] scnsc maybe IiPA has to meet ARs ( phonetic). You know [ Q] appropriation is all that clean an answer. [ io] thcy'vc got ; a preference for permdncnt treatment. 1101 Another possible  the third of my four answers [?> I I guess 1 would look maybe more to what the [ I I] is to allocate more of EPA Superfund budget to cleanup [ IT) Statute actually says with respect lo whal they have to ( 121 and that necessary entails taking it from somewhere else, ~ 131 be doing at the sites, rather than risk prioritization. l131 and some priority setting that could result in more than ~ 141 Well, maybe that's what risk prioritization means and I ~ 141 15 or 20 percent of the budget going to actual remedial ( 151 just don't have it flushed out well enough in my mind [ is] actions. [ 16] either. Hut I would look for. once again, you know, [ If2 And the final choice is more effective use of 1171 statutory preference for permanent treatment, is that 1171 the remedial money, which either more effective is such a 11~ 1 bring rnet; Alls, are those met and stliff like that. [ ia] misnomer because everyone in this room sees that 1191 MR. LOEHR: MCI.

1201 MR. SKAGGS: I thought that there was a lot of 1211 good work here, but in some ways this didn't capture my [ 22] view of what WC were set out to do and this is, again, [ IQ] differently. But that probably means either less [ 20] cxpensivc remedies or better contracting methods or

1~ 11 I'm sure one around this room could add something to that ( 221 list, but it's all incremental as I mean in a way.

Page 178 ( 11 something higher than 5,000 feet and less than satcUte 121 high.

P! Ilasically, WC have a Superfund Program that 14) appears to be constrained and we're asking how it  we 15) were asked how it should coordinate with other programs 161 and how we can get the most out of this program. And as ( 71 I looked al it, there's four answers lo the question. I [ a] know my engineer props always told me there were only 191 three, but thcrc's four in this case.

1101 One is WC can maximize the use of other programs 1111 and try to help the Agency with whatever guidance we can 1121 ol'ltir on when dial should bc done and when it shouldn't 1131 and continue to caution that it should be done within the i? 4? thctoric of a Supcrhmd enforceable setting because a lot [ is] of' 11mcs the way you get them into the other program is ( 161 Ihat lhcir alternative is worse.

: i 71 And that might IX the <; reat Lakes Legacy Act or [ ial it nilght IX a hundred other littlc things. But it's not [ IQ] going lo relieve Lhe mainline crunch, but it will help [ zo] some It is one of the options.` l` he second is to raise ( 211 the appropriation and clearly wc have some language here 1271 that wc' will discuss ; iboul whcthcr 117al's ; I wise move or [ iI But I really see those as constituting the [ z] universe of answers to the Superfund constraint. And as 131 I read through this I set elements attempting to reply to 141 each of those, but they're not structured in a way that a ~ 51 reader could understand that those are  those are the

[ s]  that we're seeking answers in those four areas.

I71 I guess I wasted enough of your time, but that's [ FII what I really think. I think that there's four possible IQ] answers and we're seeking for pieces of those. We just [ IO] aren't communicating it real well right now. My written 1111 comments will say that incidentally.

I121 MR. EHRMANN: No, I think that's a helpful  I [ 13] mean, Ihal kind of breakdown or logic flow, if you will,

~ 14) I thmk, is very helpful for us to think about  I mean,

) 1: 51 us collectively to think about in terms of telling the [ 16] story 01. what the Subcommittee has been trying to do.

~ 171 So. we apprccialc that.

11 Ql I et me just say  I would ask that we take [~ QI about ten, 15 minutes at the outside for any additional [ zo: comments on this topic.

/ VI MR. LOEHR: 0kay. I have three, maybe four 1221 still to go. Barry  then Doris  Dolores  then Jim Page 180 nor The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Scripts ( 47) Page 177  Page 180 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEF'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS  I.

Page 181 111 started us and we passed away from him, so let me give 121 him a final chance to come back. So, Barry.

[ 31 MR. BREEN: Thanks. I've raised my card really [ 4] as a placeholder on the text on page six that several of 151 us have talked about. Cost should not be the primary 161 criteria in driving decisions regarding which types would 171 be on the NPL.

PI I actually am comfortable with that text and I [ a] found myself agreeing with Jim that this one might be 1101 better focused on after we get through some of the [ I 11 recommendations. I know the spirit in which some have 1121 made that comment  in the spirit of the best interest 1131 of the program and maybe when we get to it III have a 1141 chance to explain why I find that a comfortable place to 1151 be, and this, I think, Ray, might be one in which you had 1161 categorized as I have a new way of looking at it and want ~ 171 to talk to the group about it and ask people to think ~ 181 about it. 161 MR. EHRMANN: I think what we would plan to do [ 7] is after we do the redraft on the substantive chapters [ s] then we'll take a fresh look at that in light of these [ 9] comments and redraft this front section.

` 01 So, we'll reflect the process you're discussing,

111 but it won't happen at this meeting.

121 MS. CELLARILJS: ( Inaudible)  more opportunity?

131 MR. EHRMANN: Yes, absohitely. Absolutely.

141 MR. LOEHR: Dolores.

151 MS. HERRERA: Okay. You don't have to say 161 Dolores, it's just a pretty cool Spanish name.

171 MR. LOEHR: It is. I I' [ 181 MS. HERRERA: I was going to say that just to [ IsI So, I'll save that for when we actually pick it ~ [ is] revisit  you know, the politics of Superfund, I think [ zol up I think in the next portion of the discussion. 1201 that's an overarching issue and we really need to bear VI MR. LOEHR: YesAnd you're with us only today. [ zi] that in mind and Superfund was reauthorized, but now it's WI MR. BREEN: Right. [ zzl not been reauthorized, and I think that we Iyave to Page 182 Page 184 111 remember that. [` I MR. LOEHR: So, we'll make sure that you do

El MR. BREEN: Okay.

PI MR. LOEHR:  lay it on the table for us before [ 4] you have to disappear.

I51 MR. BREEN: Okay. Thanks.

161 MR. LOEHR: Thank you. Doris Cellarius, since [ 7] there's two  Doris and Dolores, make sure I get the 181 fist one. Doris and then

PI MS. CELLARILJS: ( Inaudible.)

L~ OI MR. LOEHR: I know. But I can't roll it the way ~ 111 you can do that. Let me get Doris fist.

1121 MS. CELLARIUS: I want to support the [, a] suggestions that have been made that this be  a [ 14] suggestion that this section be  ( inaudible)  going [ I 51 to be recommendations are discussed because I find that [ 16] most  many of the comments I would have are included in ~ 171 the recommendations because  ( inaudible).

1181 Whoever reads this report would get some ~ 191 pictures on how the program could be improved

WJI ( inaudible).

P11 MR. EHRMANN: IJse the mike a little more PI There's a historical prospective, I think, that la] needs to be stated. And also I took some notes  I hope [ 4] I can  by one word. But the charge, I thought that was [ s]  that was so key. I mean, yes, we have a charge. But [ 6] with the problem statement, that's wonderful IXGILIS~ I [ 7] believe that would help tie everything in.

PI I was very concerned about the statements in [ q regard to Superfund, having the opportunity to continue [ IO] and 1 really believe we need to reinforce that with the [ I I] politics of Superfund and what is being done bcca~~ se ; I [ 12] huge question has been out in the community, elected [ 13] officials and others, is the waste of human capital or [ 14] human resources and monetary resources, and 1 think we [ Is] have to mention the state of the art technology and [ rs] innovative technology and that

[ I 71 You know, this is a new way of doing business [ te] and it isn't 10 years ago. It's now. hnd a11 of the [ is] things that have been learned  I think that needs Lo be [ zo] reinforced because the dollars that are going to be ~ [ PI] needed will be following the results ol the  no1 just Page 183 [ II MS. CELLARIUS: The suggestion I also would make [ zl on the section  ( inaudible)  risk management

[ 31 ( inaudible)  is confusing, but I think all of these

[ 41 ( inaudible)  I mean at this meeting or will that happen [ 5] later?

1221 directly. I'm sorry.

Page181  Page184 ( 48) [ aa] the pro activism. but all of the partnerships and the

Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 II] funding and the costs. I think that's the other part [ q that I didn't see very much is  you know, the funding,

131 the cost of programs.

L41 Well, we just had a marvelous opportunity this [ s] morning to see how there's incorporation of different [ q stakeholder groups in regard to some of the Superfund [ 7] cleanup here in New Bedford.

PI I also, with the Risk Management and Assessment 191  you know, you look at that and that's going lo be a [ IO] real diflicult  it's going to be a real difficult [ i I) category. hut tlvdt's accountability. And 1 think that we ( 121 can tic that also in to what the  what happened in the [ ISI past and what's going to happen now. And I think that 1141 the enforcement factor is also a part of the [ ISI accountability and how our elected officials are  you 1161 know. there are certain members and I know that EPA can't 1171 deal with it, but we, as members of the public and j? s) rcsperlive organizations, can deal with the fact that Ii91 there arc certain arcas of government or people in po] positions of power and authority that have different 1211 views.

1221 But in order to be able to effectively clean up III types of sites should be on the NPL.

PI I played a small role looking at some of these [ 3I other Federal programs and I note language in here that [ 4] states the group couldn't come to consensus and, in fact,

ISI I think, thankfully, we didn't even address the issue of [ sl public involvement, public participation in these other 171 Federal programs and State programs.

WI Ilowever, a paragraph down, which 1 think it's [ s] the issue of measuring program performance, community [ loI involvement, does talk about the creation of a [ ii] coordinating committee to look at many of the non

114 Superfund programs in an effort to make them more ( 131 transparent to get more community involvement.

[ I41 My question is  I'm not participating on that ( 151 second group  is is that an attempt to address the 116) issue that's been flagged in non NPL cleanups in the ~ 171 previous statement, and if it is  if it is an effort to [ 1sI look a! some of these public involvement issues, should [ rq it not $ e cross referenced as an attempt to get to the 1 [ ZOJ bottom of` that? 1 ( 211 MS./ MAYO: I can probably speak to some of that.

[ zz] I think one of the things that was a concern is that if + .~~ ~.

Page 186 Page 188 [? I the communities for the greater good and in the public's 121 best interest and  you know, number one. of course, I'm ~ 31 very intercstcd in people of color and tribes because we 141 have been impacted with the most for Environmental [ sj Ju\ licc ISSLKS. lht we need lo show that and I believe 161 that WC can do that.

( 71 But we always have to remember that there is [ a] politics big time in Superfund and we can't negate the [ g] lkt that a lot of the accountability has not been marked [ lo] and measured and WC have  that's a task. And once we [ j , I idrntif'y that, I believe that we're on a  I don't know,

( 121 I more narrower road or a bcttcr road. I don't know.

[ 13: W'c'rc on the path that we riced to be.

1141 MR. LOEHR: LMikc , Mittclholzer and then back to [ isI Jinx and then we'll close off' this one and move on, John.

!` 6 MR. EHRMANN: Yours is up from b& rc or

1171 MR. MITTELHOLZER: I jusl had a quick question.

[ is] IIopcf~ ully this doesn't go loo liar below 10,000.

: 191 l\ ut it's on page six and scvcn. hnd 1 think ( zo] this talks about maybe cross rcti renting between the pi1 difIcrcn1 goals of charge. ITor example, I read,

[ x21 ol~\~~ o~~ sly. the bottom ol~ pagc six, gelling at the  what [ II you started to go down the road and look at what other [ 2] programs could bring to the table one of the, sort of,

131 bedrock components of Superfund, especially for I ' [ 4] communities, is the public participating component and j [ q the rcsourccs it brings to bear.

ISI So when we were discussing, you know, pros and 171 cons of some of these other programs, one of the things 181 that we decided to do was, you know, what is it that [ s] Superfund has that other programs don't have.

[ jOI So, that's sort of where the genesis of this [ t i] comes from because if you are  if you're going to clean 1121 up a Superf~ und caliber site, if you will, and you're 1131 going to use another program, you want to make sure that 1141 the community still has the same benefits, you know, for ( 151 involvement, for technical assistance, for those kinds of 1161 things and that was an attempt there to capture it.

, I171 My personal opinion is that 1 think, regardless,

( 1~ 1 these programs should have that because they  you know,

[ i9I that will  the community can have a more proactive role [ zo] in that and that

) I% 11 I` ll use a Fcdcral facilily as an example [ 22] bccausc it's the one I always use. But you have jots of For The Record, Inc. _ ( 301) 870 8025 M[ in U Script@ ( 49) Page 185  Page 188 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 189 [ I] Federal facility sites that are not necessarily Superfund [ z] sites, but by the definition, and we've been given mega [ a] sites, they certainty are mega sites. So you don't have [ 4] the resources of a technical assistance grant.

[ 51 DOD initiated a policy called the technical [ s] assistance for public participation, which is half the ~ 71 size of a tag grant and administered in a completely [ a] different way, but it does allow some sort of resource to ( 91 go to the community for technical assistance.

[ 101 So, that's sort of what this was getting at.

[ I 11 Does that answer your question?

[ I21 MR. MITTELHOLZER: I think so. I mean, again ~ 131 community involvement is an issue where, I think, we're 1141 going to get 27 different opinions around this table.

[ is] But my only point for raising this is is if this group [ is] that has been put together is looking at what community [ 17] involvement means in the context of Superfund and what [ la] are some elements that, maybe, should be looked to in [ 19] non Superfund programs, if we're going to use those for [ zo] cleanup, I would simply take, for lack of a better term,

[ ZI] credit for that, that this body is actually looking at [ zz] that.

Page 190 VI Whether or not this body can come back to [ z] agreement on that, that's fine. But I know for my small [ 3] part, looking at these non Superfund cleanup programs as 141 part of, maybe, cleaning up NPL caliber pites, when we [ 5] were looking at the Brownfields program we intentionally [ s] did not address the issue of public involvement because ~ 71 we knew if we kind of break down the group and the pi Statute is some people think it s quite clear on what the 191 public involvement commitments are, other people aren't,

[ lo] we purposely avoided it.

[ ill My only point for raising this one line here in [ IZ] the community involvement section is if this is an [ 13] attempt to address that perhaps that should be cross ( 141 referenced in the bullet above, saying that while this [ IS] group didn't  when I say this group, this group looking ( 161 at NPL sites and whether the cleanup programs could bc 1171 used to do that  did not address the issue of public ~ 181 involvement. Another working group is attempting to do [ i91 that.

I201 MS. MAYO: The problem is we're not.

[ nrl MR. MITTELHOLZER: Oh, sorry.

P21 FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, I think  [ I] with those and we'll probably bc need to modify it as we [ z] move along.

[ 31 That, I think  if I understand correctly [ 4] there's also  you're requesting that we make sure that ~ 51 we're explicit about how some of these  all these [ 6] things connect and thcrc is overlap there. I don't Ihink ~ 71 we explicitedly said so in this piece and maybe wc need [ a] to do that. I think that this is one of those that we [ g] come back to depending on how it develops. And Dolores [ IO] and Ed Lorenz are in lead right now working with some [ pi] other people in trying lo draft some of that.

( 121 MS. HERRERA: Could I just add something to that ~ 131 because Molly, Ed and I have worked and, I believe, done ~ 141 a lot of work. But one of the things is we have the EJ I [ is] panel tomorrow and we want to make sure that we [ 16] synthesize that information as well.

[ I71 MS. MAYO: Yeah. I'm sorry I did not say that.

~[ I81 MR. LOEHR: Grant. No, let me close with Jim.

[ 49] Grant.

[ 201 MR. COPE: It was on my laundry list and 1 ( 211 forgot to mention it. With respccl 10  it's on my page ~ 221 seven  making rcfercncc to the Coordinating <: ommittcc

Page 191 [ iI FEMALE VOICE: I mean, the coordinating [ z] committee  we haven't even talked about that.

w MR. EHRMANN: Molly, you worked on this  make [ 41 a comment.

H MS. MAYO: Yeah, I think  so, this isn't going [ s] to directly answer your question about the cross 171 referencing to the previous statement, but thcrc is an [ a] implied  there is a crosscutting issue there that we [ g] were trying to, at ledst, TF as a placeholder because IO] there are ongoing efforts  there are several ongoing ii] efforts that are not completely flushed out in this 121 draft. One of them is some community involvement work 131 and other institutional coordination work that, right 141 now, is focusing on the measuring program progress/ work ,151 group activities.

161 There's also the IIKS pollution prevention : 171 activities that we circulate. We didn't have anything in :~ a] draft to give you at this point on the community rig] involvement, Environmental Justice and other ~ 201 institutional coordination activitics. This  but this ~ 211 was, actually, an attempt to, at least, recognize that [ 22] there were some of those issues, we are going someplace Page 192 .__ __.~. ~~ ~~~~~. ~~~~. ,

Page I89 Page192 ( 501 Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 Page 193 __

Page 195 [ I] I don't know if that's something that would, necessary,

121 go into this give, you know, the dispirit views right now 131 over whether a Coordinating Committee is a good idea and,

~ 41 if so  over whether a Coordinating Committee is a good ~ 51 idea and, if so, what it should do.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Yeah. We don't  that's great.

~ 71 I mean. we're not assuming there's a consensus on that [ a] proposal yet.

PI MR. LOEHR: And Jim. You got us kind of started [ IO] and WC` rolled so that we could get input and now we're [ I iI back to your thoughts.

1121 MR. DEROUIN: Well, let me just say again, the [ IS] closest that we have to an Executive summary are the ~ 141 findings and we got the findings before the ~ 151 rccommcndations and I think the lindings are ( 161 misrepresentativc of a year's full of work by virhle of ~ 171 the issues chosen and how they're phrased specifically at [ i81 2,500 feet or whatever level we're at.

I' 91 Let mc just point out a couple of things. I ( 201 think it's clearer that there is a need for the Superfund [ ZI] Program. We go around on that issue, but it bothers me p21 merely, and maybe it bothers me more because 1 am a [ II EPA asked us to tell them  you know, to answer [ zl the question about the NPL and its non sequitur, to ~ 31 answer the question and say well, costs shouldn't be it [ 41 because there's so much more in the body than merely that ISI sole conclusion.

~ El So, for those reasons

VI MR. EHRMANN: Other than that you thought they ( [ a] were right on, right?

PI MR. DEROUIN: Yeah, you know. Great job and

( 101 right. So, that's  you know, 1 find I'm in the unusual [ I 11 position of agreeing with myself.

1121 MR. EHRMANN: The Chairman arranged it that way [ icy for you.

1141 MR. LOEHR: Well, with that, let me turn it back [ ISI to John. That sometimes going over this section my sense `[ 16] is that we may need to  probably should revisit if'

( 171 not if, when we go through the other sections to see if ( 181 some of these continue to survive and should be placed up ( 191 in front as key findings.

VOI MR. EHRMANN: Yeah. And we should have a better [ 21] time to do that at the end of the tomorrow and, again,

~ 221 these comments are extremely helpful. 1 would just add

Page 194 ~ Page 196 [ II t~ wycr tlr; tn anything else, but WC refer on line five to ( 21 consistent with the findings of' Kate's rcport. And 1 [ s] think WC run a danger anytime we incorporate. by ~ 41 rcfcrcncc, in total the body of an entirely different ISI body ~ I` work. r\ ncl 1 think that's something that, you 16; know, I just raise that CpIeStiOn.

[' I In terms of` thc fLmding, and I'll say it again,

[ 8] it is one half of the discussion that is in this document ~ 91 and Iatcr parts on the funding issue. So as a ~ 10; consequence it is incomplete on the issue of mega sites.

(? 11 ` fhcrc is kind of an oblique reference to the segmentation [ jz] stdy, but nary does the word scgmcntation occur, and for 1131 the c:~ sual reader, let's face it, the media is going to 1443 rc; d the findings because that's exactly the summary. Yoir [ jil know, that is incomplete with respect to the issue 01 cls] mcga sitcs because we do make, 1 think. some ~ 1 71 recommcnclations.

( 181 Finally. with respect to the cost issue, I'm not 1191 sure  you know, 1 was on one of the phone GilIS and 1 po] think cvcn ;~~ recd to lhc language costs should not be the ~ 2" primary critcrium in driving decisions. llowcvcr, there ,221 is ; I whole another side lo the issue and that is What is.

____ 1 [ I]  is there anyone else who didn't  in the spirit of [ z] what I said earlier, didn't comment that wants to make 131 any fmal comments on this. 1 know you all know how to 141 put your cards up, but just so we make sure that someone [ 5] is not

El And, again, you know, everybody who commented 171  1 know a lot of those will be echoed in your written 181 comments, which wiIl be very helpful, and if there are [ g] others who didn't speak, but have written comments,

( IO] obviously we take those gleefully. That was a very `[ I 11 helpful discussion.

[ I? Let's go then, if we could, to the section [ rg] that's entitled which sites should go on the NPL and I[ 141 there are four subsections to that, the first of which is [ is] the USC of the NPL. And 1 think the area to focus [ ISI primarily on here, but I'm going to ask Elizabeth to just ( 171 quickly introduce this to us, are pages 11 and 12, just [ ia] so you can get oriented because that's really that kind [ ig] of summary of recommendations and then the two options,

[ zo] and that's what we really would like to get your [ zi] reactions to, again, acknowledging, there's lots of I [ z] language m hcrc that we'll pick up on your written 111___ 1 ~~

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 197 [ i] commentary.

PI Elizabeth, any introductory comments?

PI MS. McMANUS: I would just say that this is the [ 4] work that came out of the two scenarios. We used to call [ 5] these scenarios for the NPL back in the Phoenix meeting.

[ s] So, you3 see that here on page 11 and 12 there are a m number of, sort of, we characterize them as provisional [ a] areas of agreement, including the now much discussed [ g] language on the role that costs should play in informing [ ICI] EPA's decisions about whether or not to list NPL sites.

1111 Basically, you know, the group came out with Liz] these areas of agreement  provisional agreement having [ is] to do with improvements to the screening process, having [ 14] to do potentially with improvements to HRS, all of which ( 151 will be discussed in more detail. In light of those [ is] improvements they had two options then for whether on top 1171 of those there should be an additional Federal screen.

[ la1 Of course, option one is yes, there should be an [ 19] additional national level screen and you can see the ~ 201 reasons why people thought that was a good idea; and [ ZI] option two was no, the improvements to the Superfund site 122) assessment process to HRS or early screening

Page 198 [ II ( End tape three, side one.)

PI MR. LOEHR: Let me open the discussion by 131 turning to Barry, who you recall has commented earlier 141 this afternoon about their aspects of this to which he [ s] would like to make some comments and I would like to [ 6] capture those this afternoon.

m So, let me start with that and then those of you [ s] that have other inputs, usual situations  put up your [ 9] signs and we'll make sure you get noticed.

[ lOI MR. BREEN: Thanks, Ray. Let me tell you,

[ I 11 first, why I feel moved to speak on this and then,

[ lz] second, what my other option that I would tee up for you [ 13] is.

[ I41 Why I feel moved to speak, in April, two months [ 15] ago, it felI to me to actually add sites to the NPI.. I ~ 161 was the one who signed the Federal Register notice, going [ t ; 1 the role making, both the proposed and the fiil. And I [, a] knew when I did thal that I was having a real flcsh and

( 191 blood impact on certain communities. Whatever arc the [ XI] worries about being designated an NPL site, I was doing [ ZI it, and I knew I was having an impact on the program. A ( ZZ] workload impact. We now had to worry about finding ` I 141 So when we looked inside we started to set that is] there is actually another way to create some of the 161 transparency that I think we're all looking for, and it's 171 this. L'

I[.

[: Page 199 [ I] remedial project managers for these sites and managing [ 2] them.

L31 And so it was a responsibility I took pretty 141 seriously and ultimately I felt like it would be foolish [ 5] on my part not to take into account what the workload was [ 6] and what the real life impacts were. And so, yet I knew [ 7] when I read this text over the last couple of weeks that [ a] it was an effort to find a middle ground and we had [ g] talked in Phoenix about not wanting to go all the way to io] option one, which was list everything at 28.5, and not ii] all the way to option two, which is only list sites that IZ] you know at the time you list them you've got funding 131 for. And we're looking for a middle ground.

161 A year and a half ago when Congress enacted the 191 Brownfield amendments, they did it by amending CIRCLIS ! o] ( phonetic) and so we now have built into CIRCLIS a number ? I] of new findings that we never made before. And Congress 121 called us to develop a set of sites. Congress didn't ask Page 200 [ j] us to give it a name and it doesn't have a name in the [ 2] Statute, and internally we had started calling them sites [ 3] of Federal interest. But it is a list of sites that are [ 4] not on the NPL, but that we are, nonetheless, cognizant [ 5] of  the Statute says possible for listing on the NPL in [ 6] one place.

VI And so it turns out there are about 3,000 of [ a] these sites of Federal interest and I wonder  and [ g] that's beyond the NPI.. And I wonder if some of the neccl 101 that we're all feeling for a level of giving some [ i I] visibility and transparency without getting all the ~ [ 12] unintent consequences of making the sites, getting ( 131 whatever stigma it gets from being on the NPL and making ~ 141 commitments honestly to communities about you arc now on [ is] our list to get Federal funds, a commitment that I had [ 16] trouble making when I had to make that commitment. lha1 1171 if we contract those sites of Federal interest better,

[ is] elevate and make them more visible, that that doesn` t [ lg] meet some of the needs that you're feeling without having [ zo] the unintended consequcnccs that I worried about so ITILICII.

WI So, I think the bottom line, Ray, the issue I'm ~ 221 suggesting is that WC pay some attention to saying that Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M1 June 17,200:

Page 201 1 Page 203 [ II the entry onto that set of sites of Federal interest ( 11 I mean, I'm wondering if there's a way, and I ( 21 ought not to be driven  ought not to be cognizant of [ z] haven't thought it through because I wasn't on this work ~ 31 cost, but that when one would list an NPL site, although [ 3] group, of thinking about a process where we, at least, [ q it should be driven by risk and program fit, it's 141 know where those sites are. But I don't think that gets ~ 51 legitimate for a manager to take workload and cost into [ q to the NPL listing issue. [ q account in that process. 161 I guess I think that's  that's a solution to a [ 71 And so that's the alternative that 1 would be [ 7] different problem. I mean, I guess I would argue it, ~ 81 asking for some thoughts back on. ( 81 sort of, goes to the comments that option two here is, as PI MR. LOEHR: Wilma [ g] an old boss of mine would say, smoking dope. I mean,

[ lOI MS. SUBRA: Two questions. Are these sites of `[ IO] we're just not going to have a system in which any size [ ii] special interest on CIRCLA, yes or  [ ii] as far as 28.5 or above is  it's not an LBA loss  is ! 121 MR. BREEN: On CIRCLIS  in CIRCLIS, the Circle [ IZ] listed. [< q Information Systcm. Yes, they are in CIRCLIS. [ I31 So, just on the totally practical element there 1141 MS. SUBRA: Okay. And then how would you ~ 141 are thousands of these sites that score 28.5 or above. [ jq propose to fund the cleanup of these sites? [ is] So, to me to talk about this section  I just think two 1161 MR. BREEN: What I'm proposing is that thcsc [ 16] is completely unrealistic, the score  HRS scoring, 117: shauld be sites that we would give some visibility to ~ 171 which I think you're agreeing with. I mean, we're just (~ a] that list. 1 don't have the answer because some of them [ I81 11q are going to ultimately go to other programs. These are ~ ncq the sites that are possible for NPI. listing and not,

[ zi] certainly for NPL listing.

WI MS. SUBRA: So, before they would get on this 1 [ ISI So, I mean, for me that's not something we can [ no] live with just from a practical notion. But I don't [ ZII think your solution gets to the heart of the problem,

1221 which is, frankly, it's a chicken and egg and I try to Page 202 Page 204 [ II list wouldn't you evaluate and see whether or not they 1 [ I] write this in the funding piece, which is  I think for [ 2] lit in other programs? [ 2] some of us we're concerned that if the agency only lists I31 MR. BREEN: Not necessarily before. It could [ 3] those sites  I only speak for myself. + I] happen easily while they're in that category. L41 Only lists those sites where they have money,

bl MS. SUPRA: Okay. Thanks. ( 51 there's frankly nothing out there on the political arena 161 MR. LOEHR: Kate. [ 6] that allows anybody to lobby for more funding for [ 71 MS. PROBST: Do you want me to address Barry's 17) Superfund. And it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, [ q point or talk about this section? ( 81 The Agency lists exactly what it has the resources to ( 91 MR. LOEHR: First, Barry's point. [ s] lisl and then if you're the Mayor of New Bedford or [` Ol MS. PROBST: I guess I wonder if then we're /[ io] you're somebody else or you're ANISTEN ( phonetic) or [ I 11 recreating the (~ IRCLIS problem we had before, which we [ ill you're some site out there, there's kind of no way for jlz] got IXI 01` because ofdrvelopmcnt and other concerns [ 13] about sires that had liability  you know, how WC wiped / [ t21 you to get into the system where then you can argue you I131 need money. [ lb] out the old  the list  the sites that were CIRCLIS ( 151 lx~; wse a whole lot of dcvclopers didn't like that.

I $ 61 So I  I mean. I think  and 1 think that's [ I 7: whcrc we would be. If the number is 3,000 we're kind of ,181  that's the jail list  that's the list  you know,

[ rol 28.5 or above that wc don't cluitc know what to do with.

( 201 So, why we can track it those sites would never be on the 171; NPI. bc~ cause ~, OOO sites waiting liar NPI. listing is, you p?] know, 1101 possible I141 So, if we only list exactly what we have the [ ISI program is static. hnd I  speaking for myself, that [ i6] worries me given what I think of is the purpose of the [ ITI NPI.. So I  you know, I don't think your process  it [ ia] joist is a more transparent what's in the CIRCLIS system.

II91 I mean, we would all like to have information on 1201 11~ s~ ~, OOO sites. 1 know when we did our interviews,

1211 you know the States were tracking them down. So that's.

I [ z] sort of', to me an information systems problem because For The Record, IX.  ( 301) 87@ 8025 . _ " ... . I. M& U Script@ ( 53) Page 201  Page 204 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEP'I' SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS

Page 205 Page 207 111 it's not that EPA is saying they're going to take care of lz] them. They're just saying, we'll make the list easier 131 for you to get.

141 I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I ls] think that's the problem  a solution to a different [ s] problem and this really is a political problem. I'll be 171 quiet. Did that  I don't know if that made any sense [ al at all, but

PI MR. LOEHR: Go ahead, Barry.

[ jOI MR. BREEN: Something, Kate, that you said made [ 111 me wonder whether I was articulate enough a moment ago [ I21 I wouldn't suggest that we would list only sites [ 131 that we were sure we could fund, but rather  I also ~ 14~ don't want to be irresponsible and not think about [ I sl workload and funding either. And so language that would [ 16] say to me don't take cost into account feels to me like ~ 171 I'm being told go like this when you make a decision.

I181 MS. PROBST: I totally agree. Can I say one ~ 191 more thing? This is bias by my work, which Jim doesn't ~ 201 want to cite, but when I look at our numbers, okay, we ~ 211 have this more than 1.3 Billion from 2000 to 2008 ~ 221 basically, and then given the assumptions we have where Page 206 [ I] at 1.3, which is actually less because it changes, I ( 21 think on into the future listing about 35 or 40 sites a ( 31 year with a couple of megas  I mean, one of the [ 4] questions as I listen lo all this  I know political [ 51 horizons are short.

El Because I sit there and think do we have a m problem that's a lo year problem. So, not a two year [ sl problem, but a IO year problem, but not a problem out 191 into the fuuture forever. And are we creating this whole [ lo]  I mean, I found this section more than I could handle [ I,]  confusing, difficult. I didn't think it was going to ~ 121 be  I didn't see how EPA could implement it. If I were ~ 131 Betsy or Barry I would cry.

[ I41 And I guess one of the questions I have is

[ 15] what's the problem we're trying to solve, which goes back [ 16] to some other comments that we've had. We have the ~ 171 charge from EPA, but I guess I'm not sure that we  I'm [~ a] not sure we, as a group, ever clearly articulated and [ I91 agreed on what the problem wds.

IW But if this is a lo year problem, as opposed to [ 2,1 Medicare, which is a  you know, whatever problem whcrc [ zl the Federal deficit  and if it's a really relatively [ I J small number in the larger scheme of things, are we tying [ 2] ourselves in knots for what is a problem that if WC  il [ 3] you guys redid our numbers and we updated them or ( 41 whatever as sort of finite  you know, are we creating IS] whole new structures.

161 No. I agree with you that you can't not look [ 71 and see  you know, pretend that there is no resource 181 constraints. I mean, 1 think that would be [ gl irresponsible. But all I'm saying is there's got to be a [ i 01 middle ground where, you know, we all read that preamble 11 carefully as saying, oh, they took costs into account

21 to the most recent listing. I mean, I think a lot of us 31 read that extremely carefully. And that's a little scary 41 because then, frankly, what you have is EPA just 51 controlling the program to the point where they can say 61 we have no funding shortfall, right, because the sites go 71 down. So there's not a problem because you've so 61 constrained what the workload is.

91 MR. EHRMANN: Did I hear you to say that you to1 would  just to put a finer point on it  that you ! il would be comfortable with the kind of language where 11 ! 21 says costs should not be the primary criteria in option [ I91 MR. PUTNAM: 110~ did Marianne arrange to bc out ~ po] of town, so you had to sign the listing?

1211 FEMALE VOICE: I'm sure she  ( inaudible).

~ [ 221 MR. PUTNAM: Well, where's Mike in that? What aage 205  Page 208 ( 54) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Page [ i] one?

Kl MS. PROBST: Well