121 On the issue of insurance. I think that 131 insurance can be a great way for businesses who made 141 business decisions in the past that turned out to be bad 151 in the long run to limit their risk. Where I jump off 161 the boat is with liability releases. And I saw that 171 phrase in here. A business decision makes  if 181 businesses are going to make decisions that result in IS] liability just the same way they would have to address a zo] bank, or the IRS, their business partners, they shouldn I 21) just assume that they force the cost on to taxpayers to zz] pay for their bad decisions period. 1 [

[

1 I [.

[:

[:

6 ( 31 have a good quality product from somebody who has just a [ 4] tremendous history of producing good work in this arca,

;

Page 458  Page 461 ( 42) Page 460 111 It was interesting that you guys wanted [ 2] retroactive application of some of the issues that you [ 3] had discussed. I was hoping to get that more flushed [ 4] out.

[ 51 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think you got to talk to [ s] Lynn Dean just so you know.

171 MR. COPE: Okay. Just so long as somebody is [ a] taking a note, because 1 think it was said in a fairly [ 9] overarching way and that could be just a hornet s nest.

' 01 This is maybe editorial, so maybe I II II] definitely write this down. But too, I d like to flag it 121 because I ve flagged it numerous times in the past, but 131 it keeps on coming up. We re talking about transferring 141 stuff to WRDA, particularly with Corps. They ve got a 151 horrendous history of doing cleanups. So, any report 161 certainly that my name would be put on, which lists them 171 as something that we should be promoting in doing more 181 work rather than less, I have serious qualms about.

191 With respect to the material that we use when ? o] looking at the financing issue, Kate s book was ~ 11 congressionally requested study. It is the most ! 2] comprehensive information that we have on it. It is the Page 461 [ I] best data. We don t generate data really on this [ 2] committee. We use other people s data. And where we 151 we should USC it.

k31 On the issue of Browntields. It s been brought [ 7] up in the past. People saying well if we could just [ a] transfer this money to Brownfields, ct cetera. For me [ s] the issue with Brownlields to the extent that I was IO] involved in the drafting of the legislation, I think this I] point is critical. Brownfields arc excluded

121 Brownfields funding is excluded from NPI. sites for a 131 particular reason. They re strict, joint, ( inaudible)

141 liability at Superfund sites. We rc talking about 51 taxpayers paying. Money comes directly from the gcncral 61 fund into the Brownfields program. When you re talking 71 about looking at other pots of money, this is the issue a] that s raised consistently, and Brownficlds is just one 91 example. I guess one of the reason why it surprises mc ! o] so much that this committee continues to briog it up, is ! i] because there s a specific exclusion writlcn into the 121 law. We re supposed lo run away from, not embrace Min U Script@

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 SO25 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 462 111 legislative changes. We re not supposed to just [ q entertain them willy nilly saying we want to do this.

! 31 It s if all else fails, only then.

L41 And maybe to kind of come back where 1 started.

[ s] The issue of looking for other money, and other pots, and [ sl other programs. Given all the other issues 1 ve already [ rl raised it crystahzes for me best this thought. If we [ a] starve the Super fund program of money, we know that ~ 91 there s unmet needs out there  and consistent what 1 [ ia] said yesterday, we re not talking about cleaning up alI [> I] the sites right now. We re talking about a small amount [ iz] of unmet need of an annual basis that s going to grow and ~ 131 increase across time. But if WC nip it in the bud now.

~ 141 it s not as big as it will be in 10 years. So, when [ is] we rc talking about how much money we might want to ~ 161 rcqucst either in authorization or appropriations, Kate s ~ 171 book does provide one good comprehensive excellent 1181 example where she s projected out just over the next rig] dccadc. But we rc not talking about a huge amount of [ zo] money if WC deal with the problem now rather letting it [ zi] linger WI MR. LOEHR: 1 observe that lunch is here. We NEW BEDFORD, Mp June 18,2002 Page 464 ill MS. CELLARIUS: Yes, because I know that, you [ z] know, they both spend most of their money on basic ~ 31 research and not cleanup. 1 recall at Bunker Hill site 141 the citizens were very upset because they were doing ~ 51 research projects there with the women who had long time [ q lead contamination. And they said this is such a 171 wonderful opportunity, never in history have we been able [ a] to study a group of women like this because of the

[ g] they were looking at how much lead is released to fetuses [ IO] when these woman are pregnantAnd yet at the time there ] I 11 was not money put into things the community needed Iike [ IZ] getting their homes cleaned. That site s been there for ( 131 20 years and people s houses stiIl have a lot of lead in 1141 them. And 1 don t really understand why they clean up 1151 the yard but not the house where the children play on the Iis] floor.

[' 71 1 don t know whether this is anything  we can [ ia] do anything about it, but 1 11 do a little more research 1191 and put something into my comments. And whether it could 120~ be relevant, because this is a lot of money for basic ; 1211 research that doesn t really directly go to cleaning [ zz] things up. though it increases the body of scientific Page 463 Page 465 [ II have four people who have asked li) r time to comment. We [ i] kn0wtedge. A lot of the ATSDR money I know is contracted 121 hope that we could tackle those four and then have lunch, [ n] out to the states and they do assist citizens with a [ q and then come back at about j0 minutes if it s alright 131 little more information about the sites. But I often ~ 41 with you No body s getting up, so let s at least go to 141 found them duplicating what the EPA office was doing. ( 51 l> oris and Jim, Gary, and Bill Adams. ~ [ s] ` l` hat s kind of one of the more unusual ideas, but it 161 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you remind the ( 61 might have something we can say in our report, 17) speakers that the pizzas getting a little colder. I71 MR. LOEHR: Jim Derouin.

PI MR. EHRMANN: You did. PI MR. DEROUIN: 1 wanted to endorse Kate s idea, PI UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, 1 guess 1 did. 191 seconded by Mike to stick our big picture items out I' 01 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you didn tat the [ lo] there. 1 don t think it s too late to look at them. 1 ( 1 il microphone. ! 11] think when we come to the mega site issue, we re a little 114 MR. LOEHR: Doris. [ IZ] weak on that. Big chunks of money are disproportionately [ I31 MS. CELLARIUS: 1 cl like to ask about the funds B[ 13~ spent or at Icast in the future potentially could be [ 14j th: li go to A'I` Sl) I< and NIEIIS.` l'hey tota] about $ 1 .8 I .' ( 141 spent dcpcnding on what direction EPA doesAnd 1 think j15] million. And does this come from the  dots Congress [ is] it is not too late to take look, albeit we would have to [ ifi] set the levels of appropriation? [ is] do it on an expedited basis. I' 71 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. they do. y71 And then Kate or Grant  who was it that [ lK MS. CELLARIUS: So, there can be no shifting of [ re] requested  1 have forgotten  your study,

: I91 liltltk:' rIgI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congress. Appropriation s WI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. those would be [ zo] committee. p7] clctlicatcd funds to those two agencies oul ol the 1221 Srlpcrlllncl appropriation.

___. l_ l__

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 ` I211 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It s a congressionatiy ~ 1271 rcqucsted study.

~

Min U Script@ ( 43) Page462 Page 465 NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& ZOO3 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 466 [ II MR. DEROUIN: But who in Congress?

PI UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was in the 2000 [ 3] appropriations.

[ 41 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Appropriation s committee.

PI MR. DEROUIN: So, it was in a bill.

[ sl UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was in a conference [; 1 report to the FY 2002 EPA appropriation s budget.

[ al MR. DEROUIN: Okay. My point is this, and then [ g] I will drop it. John, I think and others, remember [ i o] things a little bit differently out of Phoenix. And I [ i I] think we feel that is kind of the camel s nose under the [ iz] tent to all of a sudden at this state to be devoting a IV] lot of effort to something that we view as being [ 14] tangential. I don t mean to dispute the report, but it ~ 151 is out there. It s public. It s general knowledge.

[ is] It s been published, and Congress has it available. And [ 17] for us at this stage to go back and dig into it with [ la] respect to generalized conclusions. If EPA had wanted to [ 19] form a committee that came back to it and said you need [ zo] more money, they could have found a committee and we ( 211 would have dealt with that issue. But I just think it s ~ 221 the wrong thing to get into at this point.

Page 467 ['

[' [ i] issue. But that show it ended up taking on the scope [ 2] that it did at that point in time.

( 31 MR. LOEHR: Gary.

L41 MR. KING: On pages 44 through 45 there was a [ 5] list of 8 proposed recommendations. Is it okay to 161 comment on those?

VI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That would be too [ a] straightforward actually.

PI MR. EHRMANN: It would be refreshing actually.

101 MR. KING: I m just going to go down the ones I I] that I support and one I don t support. Number one, I 121 support that, I think that s really low cost. Could 131 generate some good information that might successful for 141 the future. Number two. I don t support that. I think 151 that s too expense, al1 the study elements. Number 161 three. I don t support that one. 1 think that s  iL s 171 too expensive and I don t think it s going to generate 181 very much information. Number four might be useful, but 191 that s a Brownfields issue. I don 1 think funding for 201 that kind of thing should come out of Superfund. You can 211 transfer that one to Linda Garzensky ( phonetic). Number 221 five, I don t support that. I think thal s just taken a [` I MR. EHRMANN: Since you brought it up, I want to [ 2] separate the KFS references from what was that Workgroup ( 31 asked to do and why. But on the second question  I m [ 4] not going to go back and check the tapes here. You II IS] recall perhaps that Wilma made a proposition near the end [ s] of the Phoenix meeting about whether the subcommittee was m prepared to support language that said the program needs [ a] at least level funding and maybe more, so I can t [ g] remember the exact wording. And the sense of the [ IO] subcommittee at that point was, no we don t have a [ I 11 consensus on that. But that would be a good issue for [ IZ] this group that Lynn Dean that was going to take on ~ 131 funding to start exploring the overall funding issue in ~ 141 response of that proposaLThat s what it came from.

[ ISI MR. DEROUIN: Okay. Well, that was the last ~ 161 slide that inside EPA ( inaudible) prior to the meeting,

~ 171 even though Wilma was unaware of fact that she become [ le] famous inside EPA for having the  the subcommittee [ Is] having made that recommendation.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Whatever it is, it is. It s 1211 there, and you re right. The point is to look forward [ z] and decide how the subcommittee wants to deal with the Page 466 Page 469 [ II 5 percent thing out of everything. That doesn t make [ 2] sense to me. Number six. I don t know enough about [ 3] those contract reform initiatives lo form a comment on [ 4] that. So, I 11 pass on that enc. Number seven. I think [ 5] that s a good idea, and I would support that. hnd number 161 eight. I think that s a good idea, and I support thal 171 one as well.

F31 MR. EHRMANN: ` I'hanks.

PI MR. LOEHR: BillAdams.

' 01 MR. ADAMS: Since I m standing between pizza and [ I 11 the break, I 11 be quick here. Just a sort of an [ 12] overview and reflection of this morning. I think we ve ~ [ 13] had a few hard discussions that arc good and we rc 1141 getting down to the substance of it. But I did feel like ~ 151 in the last while we vc retrenched a little and thcrc 5 a [ 16] bunch of digging in on earlier positions that s ( 171 particularly helpful. And I just want to comment on a [ 16] couple.

[ 191 I thought yesterday we were making some pretty [ zo] good progress on some subjects. I heard things [ 21] differendy today. I didn t hear people arguing t` or the [ 22] polluter pays principal should disappear. I think that s Page 466  Page 469 ( 44) I Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 3Ol) 87@ SO25 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, ML June 18,200:

Page 470 [ i] too strongly stated. I didn t hear anybody arguing that [ z] the standard should be weakened. I think what we re 131 looking for are ways in which we  as Mel said keep the ( 41 tools in the tool box. So, I m certainly not going to 151 support weaker standards or that the polluter principal [ 6] goes away.

[ 71 I also sort of think [ hat we ve put a little too [ 81 much emphasizes on the need for consensus all the time.

191 In fact, I fully supporl getting some issues on the table [ lo] as Katr would say, and get them discussed whether we have ( 111 COIISC~ SLIS or not, because there s good points that the [ 12] Agency should have a look at. And we don t have to have ~ 131 a consensus on everything. It s perfectly in my view to ( 141 have deciding views.

1151 MR. EHRMANN: Just to comment on your lirst ( 161 point. I don t think  it s not unusual in my 1171 cxpcrience in this kind of process when you get into some [ I& these kind of core issues  in fact, this group has been [ I91 relatively good compared lo a lot of groups that I ve [ zo] workctl with in terms of piaying lapes.` I'here are certain 121) themes that come back, but actually I think folks have [ zz] done a pretty good job of staying away from kind of __

Page 472 [ T] which there probably is enough of, you need to pay us 121 five bucks. For members of the subcommittee, the lunch ; [ ZI] is on us. Members of the audience  subcommittee and [ 4] the panelists the lunch is us. For the panelists lunch [ s] this afternoon is on. Others please give Holly $ 5 for [ 6] your pizza.

171 MR. LOEHR: Before everybody disappears, let me [ a] ask

PI MR. EHRMANN: Hold on everybody.

[` Ol MR. LOEHR: Let me ask that you tty to ftish [ I r] off lunch so we can get back around 1 : 00, so we can [ 12] continue to good discussion we ve got.

[ I31 ( Lunch recess.)

[ I41 ( END OFTAPE)

[ I 51 MR. LOEHR:  so that we will have a break ~ 161 before our panel and the subsequent discussion that s to [ 17] be stqted at about 3: 00, or at 300. Prior then to that [ ia] partiqular break, we 11 have now and between 2: 45 to [ 19] cover/ these four topics which we ve identified as 1 [ zo] priorilization, and mega sites, and measuring progress,

[ ZI] and I committee. All very easy things to go [ 22] thro+ very quickly.

~~ T ___

Page 471 j Page 473 [ j] digging every issue back to some fimdamentai principal [ iI So, ` to initiate that particular discussion, let ~ 21 and then reminding everybody what their favorite [ z] mc turn it back over to John. ! 31 tilndamen~ al principal is, which I can assure you does ( 31 MR. EHRMANN: ` This section, prioritization of ~ 41 happen quite often, and you ve all seen it. So, I think [ 4] sites for funding once they are on the NPL  Jim ( 51 somctimcs when you get inlo core issues Iikc money, and 1 [ s] indicated probably should be kind post ROD. Starts on ( 61 stantl; trds, and those kinds of things, it triggers peoples [ 6] page 46' I'he recommendations are described on 47 and [ T] kind of worse cast concernsAnd I think while it s 171 into & And, again, I think it would be usually both to ~ 81 important to reminder everybody of those, as I think [ al get reactions to the content of this particular section, ~ 91 YOLI re suggesting. it s important to stay to the focus of [ 91 but also to think collectively about how this relates to [ IO] what we rc trying to do here. So, I think lhat s just [ IO] the discussion we had earlier relative Lo prioritization [ I,! important for everybody to bear in mind. Dolores, did [ I 11 on Ihe RISF earlier decision making as to the NPL, et j121 you have comment? [~ ZI cetera.` I'hink about the prioritization piece in a 1131 MS. HERRERA: 1 m just glad thal Warren a, q xs ( 131 unilicd manner.

~ 141 with mc that polluters should pay. 1141 So, entertain any comments either on this or [ IS, MR. LOEHR: I ve got one lunch annormccment.

[` 61 MR. HERRERA: I mean William. I m sorry,

11 71 W~ llianl.

1' 8: MR. LOEHR: Go ahead.

ji9] MR. EHRMANN: We rc going to USC the consumer 1.. ,[ 15] kmd ol how you see these various prioritization issues I ( 161 connrctitq to each other would be helpful. I know Mike ) ~ 171 ` l` ilchin and some others did a fair amount of work on this ( 181 scclion, so they might want to chime in with some more [ I91 background if there s any particular auestions. [ ZOO pays principal here in part.` l` he subcommittee members [ ZO] (: ommcnts?

121' ~ IIC Ilinch is on ~ 1s courtesy of ollr gcncrosity. 13111 the Vll UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay, next topic. iZ] folks in the audicncc. if you want : a piccc of pizza, [= I MR. EHRMANN: Alright next section. We re  _____

FolrTheRecord, Inc,  (' fi01) 870 8025 Min U Scripti ( 45) Page 470  Page 473 NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& 2003 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 474 [ iI moving now.

r4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Way to go, John.

[ 31 MR. EHRMANN: I m telling you.

I41 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike, congratulations. The ~ 51 nice guy award.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Mike, is there anything you want m to say by way of context that might . Oh, Grant s got [ a] his card up. There we go. Grant.

[ 91 MR. COPE: Just two things, well, three things.

[ IO] One is, I didn t see any reference to the environment in [ III any type of prioritization, which is inconsistent with [ 12] the statutory language. So, it should really be in [ IZI there. I wasn t certain  maybe it would take a more of [ 14] a thorough reading, but where potential threats are 1151 relative to current for both environmental as well as 1161 public health.

1' 71 And on page 49 where it says program management [ ia] consideration serves as an important balancing criteria [ I91 The frost bullet is return of sites to productive use.

[ 20] And I would object to that being in there. Superfund s [ 211 about cleaning up sites. It s about protecting public ~ 221 health and cleaning up ecosystems. It s not about Page 475 [ II redevelopment.

PI MR. LOEHR: Jason.

PI MR. WHITE: I just wanted to add a little ~ 41 statement in there, in the second paragraph that s 151 unlined and started with the priority. When it evaluate [ s] health and risk expenditures, it talks about subsystems.

m I was wondering if we could also add in addition to ( 81 subsystems, maybe trial life ways or trial traditional 191 lifestyles.

[ lOI MR. EHRMANN: You got the spot there, Mike?

It 11 MR. TILCHIN: Yep.

[ I21 MR. LOEHR: Sue.

[ I31 MS. BRIGGUM: It must be the pizza, but I have ~ 141 to agree with Grant. I agree with him.

[ I51 MR. EHRMANN: We got you and Jane. If we get ,161 one more, we ll have theTrifecta here.

[ I71 MS. BRIGGUM: I agree that health and the 1181 environment have to paramount. And so I think that ~ 191 rather than saying it should be used, it should bc used ~ 201 with extreme caution. I m also a little

WI MR. EHRMANN: What page are you on?

1221 MS. BRIGGUM: This is the same point with tcgard I[

[:

[:

I [ i] the memo and they all go into a room and out comes the ~ 21 l& And a list that s even public.

[ 31 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Subject to I; OIA, that ' 41 would be good start.

51 MR. LOEHR: Your turn, Vicky.

61 MS. PETERS: Okay. I m on page 49, too. And [ Page 476 [ iI to return sites

( 21 MR. EHRMANN: Okay.

[ 31 MS. BRIGGUM:  fostering developmenl of [ 4] cleanup technology and leveraging cleanup funding from [ 5] other sources. I think we should talk about that [ 6] someplace else. I m very nervous about allocations [ 7] otherwise health based on technology development, and I [ a] wonder if environmental justice is the correctly as [ g] mentioned here as to what ( inaudible). I think that mode lo] is a vital part protecting health and the environment and ii] put it down here ( inaudible). I hear people want to mdkc 121 sure that that priority exists.

131 MR. LOEHR: Ed.

141 MR. PUTNAM: Hi. 1 want to reiterate that EPA 151 has deviated from the Law s memo. So, we may or may not 161 want to continue to reference it as a standard. And 171 additionally, we keep saying a transparent process, but I 181 haven t quite seen the detail on what we mean by that.

191 So, I think I would just encourage everyone to kind of 201 summit their comments on what they mean, what each of us 211 think we mean when we say transparent. Currently the 1lPA ! 2] prioritization system is entirely secrctive. They have Page 477 ~ 71 there s a sentence up here. It s the second full ~ [ a] paragraph about deleting separable and discrete elements [ g] of an overall site. And I don t really have a problem [ IO] with that. I m surprised Grant let it go. because I know [ I I] he s okay  he s back.

Ii21 But I d just like to put in a plug here. I made 1131 an off the cuff comment earlier about how I think EPA is ( 141 really kind of distorting the program, tried desperately [ 15] to get beans. And one example of that I belicvc is this 1161 practice that they have now undertaken lo delete mcdiurn ( 171 Clearly, when Congress set up this program and the NCI'

[ ia] was put in place, people were talking about geographical [? g] areas. A site was on, a site was off: And to me to [ zo] delete soils when the ground water, or the surlgcc water [ zi] running through is still conlaminatcd, it just crcales ~ 221 massive confusion, and distrust, and lack OC credibility.

Page 474  Page 477 6461 Min U Scrip&@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M June 18,200 __.~. ~.

Page 478 111 And so I would be very happy if we made it clear [ z] in hcrc when we re talking about deleting separable and ( 31 discrete elements. What WC cc talking about is a 141 situation where perhaps there s a clean site, or a site s [ s] that s been cleaned. Let s get it off the list if that [ 6] really is causing problems in getting funding, or [ 7] whatever. If it provides additional comfort level to the ( 81 community Grant will tell you all the problems with [ s] potentially doing that, but if can be done IO] responsibility, I m all for that.

" I A couple of other things down on the bottom with ____ ___

Page 48(

[ II And there ate tons of people visiting them all the time.

121 But then you work your way through that, you get your [ 3] way. And then it acknowledged and lists a bunch of the ( 41 fudge factors. Like how has the site? Do we have enough 151 data? And how long is it going to take to get enough [ so data to make the decisions? And that goes in to. But [ 7] it s all transparent and there are feedback loops back in [ a] that case I think it s mostly states. But probably ! 9] communities and Federal register type stuff. And it s an 01 ongoing process.

11 This isn t as concrete as some of the stuff we 11 11 ( 121 the considerations. I think in previous drafts there was ~ 131 some emphasis on enforcement and credibility of the ~ 14) program being something to be taken into consideration,

[ js] and I didn t know if that was a conscious decision. I [ IZI saw from the group before. And so I m not clear if this 1131 is it, or if this is kind of this is where we are now and ~ 141 we re going to continue to refine it with guidance From [ is1 the subcommittee. I d like to hear what the thinking is ) [ IsI on that. ~ 161 don t feel that strongly about it, but I d be curious to ( 171 hear ii' there was some discussion and that was [ I71 MR. LOEHR: Any direct response? Mike? Not ( 181 consciously dropped form this and why. Personally, I ve [~ a] that it s needed. [ ISI always wondered why we have to spend money to have a [ 19 MR. TILCHIN: I think there is some  there ate [ zo] credible threat when we vc got 106 orders. But again, [ 201 some things that were in the key fmdings. If that [ Z~ J I m just curious about that. 1211 actually got split out of this. Specifically talking IW I think thought that  you know, I agree 1221 about the acting in ways that keep the enforcement Page 479 [ iI obviously human. health and the environment that s got to 121 bc on top. But I would realIy like a special emphasize ( 31 for these sites that have lingered on the NPL for going [ n] on 20. We rc passed teenage. We re getting past teenager [ jj years And it s not clear fbr me whether you rc really 161 proposing a waiting type systems, or if it s all going to ~ 71 bc very qualitative. But I think that those sites should [ a] get a special nod. I don t know how to do this. In 191 consldcring Sue s comment about kind of diluting these [ IO] with all of these other considerations, but Kate and Lynn [ I I] Dean s piccc talked about, what was it? Minimum [ i3; guaranlec, indcfinitc something or other. Okay, that was 1131 Lynn I) can. But the idea was tlxlt maybe YOU could get ~ 141 more' hng Ibr your buck if you had ; I certain amount of 1151 work that you could guarantee to a contractor. And it [ rs] seems to bc that would be an instance were perhaps WC ( 171 would lirdgc ; I little bit on a very strict risk base if we [ ial could gel a lot mot c done for less money, because it s in [ is] the same arca.` lhat kind of thing.

poj What I liked about the I) OI> prioritization is [ 2ij that dclicicntly identified the lop prioritics. You ~? j know. arc thcrc uncxplodcd bombs right at the surface? Page 48 1 ~

For The Record, Inc,  ( 301) 870 8025 [? I aspects of the program very sttong. That was I think [ z] brought out very clearly in the key findings. But those 131 are in another section now. When it was written they ~ 41 were all of a piece. As this was organized that got ~ 5) taken out. But I think it needs to be in this section as [ s] well.

[ 71 I agree that there ate areas where we need to be [ SJ mote concrete and definitive. 1 don t object to that [ g] comment at alLAs we prepared this, we wete balancing a ( 101 combination of length of the text. This is a personal 11 t] opinion and I would ask  Jim and Wilma and I were the [ iz] team preparing this. I don t think we should be terribly [ ISI prcscriptivc when it comes to balancing factors, because ` 1141 I don t  two statements. One is, I think it takes a 1151 lot of site specitic knowledge. How you weight factor ) [ is] such : I ( inaudible) is going to be quite site specific,

/ [ 17] and it takes a lot of knowledge about that site. I m not [ is] confident that we could tell EPA to actuaIly weight j [ IS] things and balancing in that balancing process that would [ 2c] improve their decision making and priority setting. We / [ zj] c; in irlcntify the f`: tctors that we think ate important. We [ zz] have ordered them to some degree, but when push comes to __ I

k% in U Script@ 647) Page 478  Page 481 NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& 2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS

Page 482 Page 484 [ I] shove and are you going  you ve got 10 sites that are p] going to work with 8, and 8 and 9 are really a close 131 call. I think that really  I hope people don t start [ 4] throwing stones. But I really think that s an expert [ 5] judgment kind of calLThat we couldn t really lay out a ( 61 process that would be very helpful at that final level of [ 7] distinction.

WI I don t know if Jim or Wilma want to comment on is] that also.

IlO1 MS. SUBRA: This piece was prepared in response 11 I] to a request by a response by Larry Starfield in the D. C.

[ 12] meeting. And yesterday Barry said that he agreed with it [ 13l with a few minor changes. And hopefully we will be l14l receiving those so it can bc included. But I d like to [ 15] get some input from Larry on what he thinks about whether [ IS] it s perspective enough or not enoughAnd is it usable ~ 171  is it the kind of thing you were looking for?

1181 MR. STARFIELD: I think it has to be  I think [ ia] Mike is exactly right. It has to be flexible. I m very ~ 20) much  having spent 10 years in Washington and then 7 l21] years in the region. It s much harder than I though it l22] was when I was in Washington to make these decisions and Page 483 Page 485 [ I] I think they re much site specificAnd the balancing is 121 very difficult to impose in the abstract.

[ 31 So, I think the fact that you haven t tried to 141 say you have to do it in a sort of a military what is l5l right. The thing that struck me as I was reading through 161 it is how much this interrelates to the measures of l7] success of the program, and that the viability of the [ a] Agency doing these things to my mind is very much [ a] dependent on whether there s an ability to convince [ to] Congress and the public that we should be measured in a [ ii] different way then we ve been measured so far. Because [ 12] if you re interested in deletion of sites, then if that s 1131 your measure, then a lot of these steps of delaying and [ 14] deferring or doing the worse and then coming back, isn t [ is] going to work. And if completions or deletions are your [ 16] measure, then a lot of what I consider sort good judgment [ 17] decisions to maybe defer remediation at a portion of site [~ a] that does not pose a current health risk, which I think [ js] makes tremendous sense in an atmosphere of limited ] 20] resources, you can t do it. If we re going to get beat 1211 up because we didn t finish enough sites.

P21 To my mind, at lcast five of these  the two,

____._.. ~~~~~. ~~~~~ ~~~ [ I] kind of support on the second half.

PI MR. LOEHR: Any follow up on that? Otherwise [ 3] we 11 move from that particular point.

( 41 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ray, I would add some [ 5] comments.

El MR. LOEHR: Okay. Let me get to Sue and then 171 I ll bounce back to you.

WI MS. BRIGGUM: It s specifically to Larry. I ( 61 agree to completely. And 1 think WC re farther, I hope,

[ IO] then we think. Because the measuring program progress [ I I] one of the appendices that isn t there has a number of [ 12] measures that would do just that as they look at risk [ 13] reduction, corrective action, measures that would bc [ 14] imported. And that would give a much clearer picture.

[ 15] And I think would be nicely compatible with what WC [ 16] suggest and would get you away from having do just do [ 17] full site construction completion as your only measure 01 [ re] important work.

[ I91 MR. LOEHR: Jim, you came in just as this was [ zo] related to this. You want to wait until full house? I ( 211 don t really cam, but some oP us have

WI MR. DEROUIN: Let s get Grant s comment.

~~~ _..~  [ I) three, four, and then the one down below talking about [ zl deletions are all critically dependent upon whether you [ 3] all  first of all whether you all are comfortable [ 4] making a recommendation is another way to measure [ 5] progress that s more linked to what you think ought to bc 161 happening. And 1 think there are other waysAnd then [ 7] whether that gets adopted in way that empowers the Agency [ a] and empowers Marianne to say okay, well then I m going to 191 go that way.

` 11 101 They re absolutely tied together. And if you ~ [' 111 can get to the other place and say what s important is [ 12] that we address the worst health threats, just to take [ i3] the simplest case, and therefore WC may go to a site and [ 14] spend some time and say we re going to defer further [ f5] action on that site when we go next door and take care of Ii61 higher health threat than what remains. Which 1 think is ~ 171 right. Then we ve got to be given credit for that so [ rel that we re not beaten up at the end of the year.

1191 So, that s a long way of saying these are the 1201 right factors, but if you don t do the other half of the [ 21] job, which I guess we 11 get to later this afternoon, we [ 22] won t be able to implement these if we don t get that page 482  Page 485 ( 48) Min U Scrip& B For The Record, Inc. " < 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPEBFUND SUBCOMMZTTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS i.~. ~~..~~... ____ Page 486 NEW BEDFORD, M June l& 20( 1 Page 481 Ill MR. LOEHR: Well, go ahead, Jim.

PI MR. DEROUIN: Larry and members of the ( 31 subcommittee, the clear hopeful intent of this as Sue [ 4] just said was to try to move away from full site ( 51 construction completion as a measure of progressAnd if [ 6] you go to page 4c) in the second full paragraph, the 171 scntcnce that begins EPA, states that EPA should track 181 and site actions which it undertakes and successfully 191 concludes to element exposure pathways which represented [ lo] a current health risk exposure scenario.` I'hat that [ I 11 should be a bean. Ilow if WC rc talking about is ( 121 complicated sites at which there are multiple what we ! jq used to call operable units, which the Law s memo 1141 referred to in other term. Whether that involves 11s) deletion or not, I mean we ve got to look to you to tell ( 16) us whether that s too complicated a step fbr you to ( 171 accomplish. Rut there are a couple of things in here it [ ISI strikes me arc very relevant to what we observed on our ( 191 tour yesterday. Because here in knew Bedford we have a [ zo] large complicated site which is made up of multiple hot [ ZI] spots and then generalized drilling. And it sounds like [ zz] there have certain things that have already been Page 487 111 MR. COPE: Two other issues. One just kind of [ z] dittoing on the enforcement issue with respect to ( 31 transparency. There might be these lists out here, but I ~ 41 doubt that that would be available to FOIAThey d [ s] probably be enforcement confidential. I mean, I would I [ 6] Imdgine. hnd I think that s importantwhat s my point?

171 That s criticaLThat they be kept enforcement [ a] confidential.

PI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What should be kept [ I 01 enforced?

[ IfI MR. COPE: EPA s prioritization of lists. EPA s ( 121 prioritization of sites to actually address. In other ~ 131 words, if you re a PRP and you re involved in 114) negotiations with EPA and you can get the list, you know [ IS] you might be 30th out of 15 that wilI get fundingYou [ is] have absolutely no incentive to strike a deal. In fact,

~ 17) you vq got an incentive to delay.

iI81 UNlPENTlFlED FEMALE: They should be getting a [ 19] 106 odder anyway.

1 WI MR! COPE: The 106 is only affective if you can I 1 [ zl] actual , y  I mean Superfund s about recovery. It s not [ zz] about rclribution. So, if they deny the order, the only [ I] accomplished for which the Agency should be able to 121 dcclarc a success. 1 think that does tie in to the ~ 3: dclction ISSIIC. because one of the things that the mayor [ 4] has obviously done successfully is wrapped economic [ s: dcvclopment and renewal inlo the Superfimd program. And [ 6] sometimes deletion is an extraordinarily important step [ 7] toward accomplishing that goal because of the liability [ a] issues. So, I don t think we want to take that arrow out 191 of your quiver. Rut whether it s mandatary, whether it s IO] a plus or a minus, I think you vc got to dtlvisc us back.

1' 1 And in that context, that top bullet on the 121 bottom of pas: 4' 1 which Grant highlighted and I can 13) understand where he is coming from. But in the context 14: of Ior example, yew Bedford again, the return of sites to 151 productive use is clearly something that it appears this 161 region has taken into account al least tangentially in 171 terms of sequencing the dollars to be spent and so on in ia] where thcyvc constructed the treatment facility and so 191 on.~\ nd again, I don t think wc want to take that arrow 201 out of KAI 5 quiver in terms of dealing with really 2' 1 con~ plrx silts like we obstrrvctl yestcrtlay.

22) MR. LOEHR: Now WC II go to Grant. Page 489 / 111 thing really you can do effectively is go in there and [ z] cleanup and do cost recovery later on.

131 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can sue to enforce the 1 ~ 41 order. I 1 ( 51 MR. COPE: IIow much do you get back? You only [ s] get back

[ 71 MR. EHRMANN: Okay, ( inaudible) let s keep IS] moving here. Do you have a second issue?

PI MR. COPE: Second issue with respect to [ IO] segmentation. It s a huge issue. You re right, Vicky, I [ I I] had a big star next to it and I just ignored it. So,

I pzl ditto on everything you said. I would say there are '[? 3] practical concerns, community concerns, and then broader 1141 concerns that I think are policies front and center for ( 151 this cotnmiitcc.

fl61 Some of the practical concerns are leans for I [ rr] example. If you clean up one part of a arca, that part [ ia] dots have some economic value that is inert to it largely [ is] as a result ol'government activity Let s assume that i ( 201 il s a funded site the PRP didn t want to clean up,

! i) i] whalcvc, r ) iPA should be able to put a lean on that. And 1 [ z: if. you dclist it, that could get in the way. Even more  _ .   I___

FOX The Record, Inc,  ( 3013370 8025  lll_

Min 7J Script@ ( 49) Page 486  Page 489 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 18,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ~ ~___.._ ~ ~

Page 490 Page 492 [ I] practically than that though, sometimes on site you need [ II bad idea in that situation of the surf'dce unit if that [ z] access. You need to lay a foundation for a building [ z] helps redevelop the property, torn a Brownfields into a [ 3] which they re going to use to remediate the site. ~ 31 productive use. But I think the harder one is the one 141 AU those factors and more I think are important , [ 4] that the option that s talked about here which is you 151 for having the site listed, or can be important for I [ 5] have several surface operable units. One thdt s much [ 6] having the site. I agree I think there s a distinction [ 7] between prescribing it and allowing EPA to do it. But I [ a] think that once again we should  if we re going err it [ s] all, it should be on making certain EPA has the capacity [ IO] to protect public health and environmental quahty,

[ I 11 rather than restricting their ability to.

1121 From a community aspect I think you d have [ I 31 communities going crazy if you told them that, weII the ~ 141 sites kind of clean but it s not really clean. The 1151 ground water s not really clean and won t be cleaned for ~ 161 50 years, maybe ever, but the soil, weII at least the [ 17] first 3 feet of the CAP, whatever  you re going to have [ ia] so much confusion. So, practically speaking when you re [ 19] talking about what does this mean for people in those [ 20] congressional districts and how does that reflect upon 1211 you, that could be a huge issue.

WI And then one of the other issues is just leaving Page 491 [ II widespread levels of low level contamination across the 121 country. I m not certain that s a road we want go down.

PI MR. EHRMANN: Let me just make  this camera [ 41 over here is local media covering part of the meeting.

~ 51 So, don t get alarmed. It s not the  inside EPA hasn t [ q gone to live video feeds. Not yet anyway.

VI MR. LOEHR: Larry, go ahead.

[ aI MR. STARFIELD: In that case, I m Barry Breen [ a] ( phonetic). The issues that Grant raises are obviously [ IO] true and I think that s one of the hard issues for [ j I] communities, is how do you  and we re sort of here at 1121 the ivory tower place trying to figure out what do you ~ 131 do. Where are the tradeoffs with actually looking at the [ 14] individual people.

[ 151 But I do think there s a reality on a lot of [ 161 these big sites that have brown water pollutants. We re ~ 171 going to be pumping for 30 years. We may have cleaned up [ IS] the surface. The surface may be fine and there may be ( 191 some wells that are going and will be going for 30 years.

,201 I m not sure that that s a message that is difficult if [;~ IJ you meet the community that cannot be explained. I think ( 221 the harder one is where  and I m not sure deletion is a I: 161 hotter than the others. We go in and we take care of the [ q hot one and we fence off the other two, and say we II bc [ a] back. That s a much harder decision. At the same time [ g] sitting where we are, it s hard not to say that s not the IO] right decision, because the community down the road has a 111 hotter area than your area.

121 This is sort of Iike there arc no easy answers 131 here. So, that s why I come back wlyat I said this 141 morning about the site specific, all the factors. I 151 think you have to sit down with community and you have to 161 say this is what we think makes sense. Maybe you sit 171 down with both communities. This is what makes sense.

181 We have only so many people, so many dollars, can t be in 191 both places at once. We wiIl come back. Maybe give them zo] a schedule. But this is hard stuff. I think what this 211 does is it gives us  it asks us to make decisions based 22) on risk. And I think communities  weIl nobody s happy Page 493 [ I] about not having their site cleaned up today.

( 21 I think we can explain it as long as we re 131 operating on some criteria that arc out there and people [ 4] respect. That s what this Workgroup is trying has been ~ 51 trying to do is to give us the criteria. It s always [ s] hard. And aII the community activists know how difficull [ 7] it is to say to a group of people you have to wait. But [ a] the reality is somebody s waiting if we re doing yours.

[ g] There s just not a good total answer to it.

101 MR. LOEHR: Kate.

111 MS. PROBST: I think just builds on what Larry 121 said, although I didn t know what he was going to say.

131 I m not sure I understood what Grant said. I would argue 141 that if you re at a site and you re deferring action at 151 some operable units or some hot spots, WC should add to is] this directly informing the community. And I think that 171 EPA needs to track those and there needs to be some 181 revisiting proccss. That s what teenager sites are att 191 about. You know, we vc got these sites where IiPA m tact zo] never comes back to them. So, I think of WC' rc going to 2i] put in these factors in lhis priorililalion, we need to 221 be clear that the community needs to be cnhrccd Lhat Page 490  Page 493 ( 50) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, MJ HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS . June 18, 2001 Page 494 1 ( 11 action at this CX! or whatever it is is being deferred and [ z] that EJ'A needs to, in CERCIA or whatever, it needs to [ 3] stay  we need to somehow account for them and we need [ 41 IO revisit them periodically. Because what happens is [ s] sometimes things just falls off everybody s radar screen.

PI And there needs lo be some way the Agency 171 annually or every two years, or something, goes back and [ al says is this still the right remedy. are we going to do [ g] il. You don t want them to pdnguish for 10 or 15 years,

[ IO] because then in fact you are changing cleanup standards [ ii] in a very hmdamental way. So. I think we need to add ~ 121 those process projections.

[ I31 MR. LOEHR: Bill Adams.

I141 MR. ADAMS: Kate, I want to agree with you on 1151 that one. From a company perspective of having to deal ( 16j with Superhmd sites over many years, at least in my 1171 company we want to be done with that. I don t want to [ ia] have it drag on forever. And I can tell you last week in [ I91 the I; ederal Register the Acutec site in Salt Lake City ( 201 was published and noticed for delisting after 15 years.

[ 2t] WC rc glad it is. It s the last one we had to deal with.

[ zn] I rcalizc other companies may have a different Page 495 I [ I] perspective on that.

PI Mike, I m not disagreeing with what you wrote.

131 I just like what Kate said, maybe there needs to be a ~ 43 time frame in which it gets revisited or something.

( 51 Because they have it drag on, because you took the heart [ 6] of il out and left the remaining portion ami come back 6,

17) 8, IO years later means the sraff is gone, the people are [ 8] gone. the program has gone away, the RPR from the EPA has [ g] changed twice. you have to go hunting down the files.

[ IO] So, I think it s : I little problematic to do it just in : il] 111ac way 1' 21 () ne last thing which is I do agree though,

[ is] Larry, with you on the issue of the ground water ( 141 situation.` l'he community can t understand that.` l'hey [ is] understand pump and treat, or some other in situ [ ifi] rcmcdiation event over a 30 year time pcriod'fhcy ~ 171 rccognizc that when their waler supply has been changed [ loi and shllntrtl out hy another means then in fact okay.` lIie ( 191 soil s been clcancd up. but the ground water hasn t.` I'he 120) con\ munity can icarn to deal with that. So, you can 1211 tlcl~ s~, 1 think, in that scnsc.

[ Z] MR. LOEHR: , ucl. 111 lot of work and discussion, but we haven t wrapped it up 121 and I would hope we could stress the importance of ~ 31 spending some of their resources on this kind of close [ 4] out review. Because I think it will be very beneficial.

El MR. LOEHR: Vicky.

PI MS. PETERS: Here, here. I don t know, Sue, if 171 you ve had a chance to look at their

[ aI MR. LOEHR: A little closer, please.

PI MS. PETERS:  they have draft I think of their [ lo] rcview. And I haven t had a chance to read it, so I [ i 11 don 1 know if it s something that I would

LiZI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have it?

( 131 MS. PETERS: Yes.

i[ 14] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She s from the state. She [ I51 gets it.

[ I61 MS. PETERS: Pardon me.

,[" I UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I didn t hear what you [ ia: were talking about. Sorry.

llW MS. PETERS: Sue referenced the teenager review [ ZO] that IPh was doing.` l% ey caU it the pre SAM sites [ zi] rcvicw or something like that. I promised ~ Molly that I ( 221 would look at it and let her know whether I thought it Page 496 PI MR. SKAGGS: I just think that as long , [ z] construction complete on all elements is the only bean [ z] that s counted, that there s a disincentive on major 141 sites. On complex sites you don t even start source [ 5] control until you believe you have plan for the ultimate [ sl cleanup of the second and third and operable units. I [ 7] think that s a terrible disincentive to the Agency,

[ a] because I think particularly in source control and hot [ 91 spot where they rc isolated into responsible areas that ( 101 everyone benefits by them getting a bean so they re [ I rI incentive eyes to go and get.

1121 MR. LOEHR: Sue.

u31 MS. BRIGGUM: Just a clarification. I m glad [ 141 Kate mentioned the teenager site, because one of the 1151 things we haven t mentioned and I think we should support [ is] very strongly is headquarter teenager site review to try [ ITI to get these sites moved out and resolved. But it would [ is] be a misnomer to say that what happened was that they 1191 were languishing. We have three teenager sites, and ~ 201 there has never been a day in that decade or in some ( 211 cases two, that WC have not someone from the Agency on [ zz] site or communicating. It s not  there isn t a whole ~~~. I_ __

Page 497 FOXY The Record, Inc, " ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 51) Page 494  Page 497 NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& 2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 498 Page 500 [ i] was something that the committee should look al, or p] anybody can get it.

PI I was concerned about that, because it was just [ 4] an internal EPA review. They did not appear to have [ s] spoken with the communities or the states. To me that s [ s] of very limited value if you don t get everybody s m perspective on what s holding things up. I m sure they [ a] would get a very different perspective if they talked to [ 9] the state on some of our sites.

t101 Because there were a couple of more comments on [ II] this ground water soil s issue I just wanted to throw out [ lz] in my opinion, the EPA guidance on deletion is overly [ 13] strangest. In my view  the statute says nothing about [ 14] when you can delete a site. The NPC says all appropriate [ 15] response actions have been taken. So, the question is,

[ IG] what s the response action in the case of a ground water [ IT] cleanup? Is it the construction of the treatment [ is] facility? Or is it the ongoing operation? EPA says it s 1191 kind of in between. It s not construction complete when [ zo] the facility is constructed, but you don t have to wait [ zi] until the aquifer s completely clean and you don t need [ 22] any more operation and maintenance. But you can delete [ I] five year review on our first Superfund site. It s using [ 2] the pumping treatment. It s going through the process,

[ 3] but it sure keeps the level of calmness in the community.

141 And it sure helps, because EPA made promises to the [ s] community and as a Federal government agency they re I [ s] keeping the promises to the community, and we don t know [ 7] who we can go to. When we defer an action, we can 1 [ a] defer something hoping that it s going to just go away,

[ g] or that we can hid it under the carpet. And if that IO] would be a plan, 1 don t like the plan. But if it would 1 I] be a plan, there would have be established criteria, and i2] deferment would have to be monitored in a way that s 131 going to cost money anyway. It s going to have to bc 141 reviewed, and remediation and cleanup is going to have to I 51 happen sometime. And every time that we continue to put 161 things off, the clock is running and the banks arc 171 offering higher rates of interest on what WC have to do.

181 And that s the real world.

1% The reality is that in many of our communities 201 the reasons  one major reason that communities are 211 being cleaned up is because  and I m going to say in 221 people of color communities, poor communities, is Page 499 [ I] at the point where the water is treated to the action [ 2] level. That s not a nonsensical idea. There are [ 3] certainly arguments for going that way.

[ 41 But given the fact that in most cases these ~ 51 treatment facilities may never be turned off, or [ s] certainly would be turned off a lot later. Because even m if you meet the action level, if you keep treating more is] stuff comes off from the aquifer material and the levels ( 91 go up again, you know, it goes like this.

LlOl My recommendation would be that you get your [ II] construction complete and you can delete the site once ~ 121 that response action basically has been taken. The [ 13] response action being the facility. And that would deal [ 14] with the issue of redevelopment when there s ground water [ IS] there, or whatever other your issues are with the [ 16] acknowledge that the treatment has to keep going. And ~ 171 that doesn t then just make a mess basically of this [ la] whole idea of what s on and what s off the NPL and why.

~ 191 There s just a lot of articiality going on in 1201 ~ I, ipUkdtiflg that w1101c system.

[ 211 MR. LOEHR: I~ olorcs.

WI MS. HERRARA: A year and half ago WC just had a Page 501 [ i] political action, political power. I just get really ( 21 worried when we re going to defer something, because this [ I ['

t:

L [ 3] is public health epidemic. It s not a threat anymore,

[ 4] it s an epidemic. It s encroaching in on other [ 5] communities. And so if we don t take care of business,

[ 6] we re going to be in more trouble than we are today.

[ 71 MR. LOEHR: Mike, we got kind of started with [ a] you. Perhaps you can have the fiial say in this one, or [ g] final comment. And then we ] I move on to another topic.

101 MR. TILCHIN: I didn t intend to make a wrap up 111 comment, but I do have one thing that I want to actually 121 raise. Maybe WC don t have time to get feedback.

131 Looking at on page 49 on the bottom, we listed a number 141 of what we calI balancing criteria. By balancing 151 criteria it s when you ve got your, and I recognize IS] there s going to change. What comes above arc the hard 171 criteria for making priority decisions. And by the way,

ie] there is in the sort of prcdmble to the list there is 191 discussion on you can t forget about enviroumcntal zo] protection. I agrcr it needs to be shown more visibly 111 here.

? 2] But getting back to the  you have your hard Page 498  Page 501 ( 52) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& 2003 ___

Page 502 Page 504 [ II criteria, you have balancing criteria. And then four [ iI on page 17.

[ 2] bullets were listed just as examples. It was not 121 MS. McCLAIN: No, but if you do it here, I ll 131 intended to be a comprehensive list. [ al probably figure out what it means on 17.

141 ` l` hc environmental justice concerns, the comment ( 41 MR. TILCHIN: In a very simplistic way, it would 151 that was made was, gees that needs more visibility and [ 5] be I 11 get back to  you re an EPA manager and you are [ s] emphasis. That s fine. And then the other three were [ 6] making decisions on how you re going to spend your ~ 71 objected to. So, the question is, should there be any [ q available funds and you ve got 10 sites in front of you, [ al balancing criteria? Or should these priority decisions 181 and you can fund 8 of them. And you re making that ( 91 say you just have to work with hard prioritization. You [ g] decision between eight and ninc. The frost seven you ve [ lo] can t consider the softer stuff. I would hope that we [ IO] got and now you ve got to pick your last site, and so [ I,] didn t end up there. I think that that is actually ( II II you ve got choice A and choice B, site A and site B. If [ iz] extremely important. And even if they re not directly [ IZ] there could be certain characteristics of a site that [ 131 related to reducing exposure, I do think they re very [ 13] would make you want to spend your hypothetical last [ 141 important to the overall success of the program and to ~ 141 dollar on site B rather than site A for the time being, [ is] the quality of live to the people in the communities [ rsl because there s an environmental justice concern. And ~ 161 around those sitesAnd I would hope we wouldn t ( 161 that bumps the priority of a  that s pushes that [ 17) jettison them. And again I m thinking back to  I m ( 171 particular site into that eighth slot recognizing that [ js] specifically thinking about bullets one and four in the [ ial means you re to defer the ninth and tenth site. 1191 context ofwhat we saw yesterday. [ I91 Probably didn t help you at ail there, but WI There s absolutely no doubt in my mind that in ( 201 that s what I mean by balancing. It is non health [ Z~ I addition to reducing the community s exposure to PCBs, ` WI related issues, non health and risk related issues that ( 221 which is absolutely by a huge measure the most ( 221 arc present at a site that might make a site  I don t l_ l_

Page 503 Page 505 111 significant thing that has to happen in New Bedford.

121 That the collateral benetits to the community are very,

~ 31 very important. And the fact that if Superfund is ! 41 investing a certain amount in the cleanup, that the state [ 51 and a private party sees that investment and they say [ 6] okay. we rc in and we re going to do the following things [ 7] in addition to that.

PI That shouldn t drive you to a site in a way that [ 9] you rc leaving a health risk ctscwhere behind. I think [` ol it s still legitimate balancing criteria and would not 1111 want IO SW them taken out. [ II like to use this word  more attractive, or more [ 21 beneficial way to spend your resources than a site that [ 31 docsn t have those characteristics. I think I did a bad 141 job on that.

( 51 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I Il try. Another way to [ 61 say that is there are a set of criteria you would use to 1121 MS. McCLAIN: Ray, can I aks a question?

I131 MR. LOEHR: Sure.

( 141 MS. McCLAIN: This is the second time that I ve :` 51 seen the concept ofI~ al~~ ncing.~ I'he first time on page 17 ~ 161 it raisctl my attention where it said a meaningful [ III involvcmcnt ol' communities must be balanced against the [` RI need IO avoid undo dclays. And then we have another [ I91 balancing here. Coulrl you talk a little bit  1 m not : 20] qtlltc clear on what you mean by balance in lhesc l2i] instances. So, could you share that? 171 help you make decisions between sites that are equal with [ a] respect to the threshold. So, if you say the threshold [ s] is we rc only going to work on site that present a risk,

[ IO] humans or the environment. Then you re going to fund the 1221 MR. TILCHIN: Mildred, I can t talk about what s [ I I] sites that present that risk, and you say okay I want ~ 121 these ( inaudible) sites. How are we going to figure out [ 13] which ones to work on fEst.

[ I41 MR. TILCHIN: Balancing is bad word in this [ is] context, Mildred. It really means additional [ is] considerations.

[ I71 MS. McCLAIN: There you go. Thank you.

1181 MR. EHRMANN: That s helpful. Let me suggest ( 191 that  Mike s asked a question which I don t think we 1201 have time to answer right now, or we re going to [ Zi] sacritice some Other things, speaking of prioritizing.

i 1221 So, I would ask people to take  it s an important .

ForTheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 802fi Min U Script@  zz. Y ( 53) Page502 Page505 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 18,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 506 111 question whether we should have this particular section 121 about additional considerations where. Reflect those in [ 3] your written comments and we 11 get another whack at this [ 4] next time around. But if we slip into a back and forth [ 5] about response to that, we re not going to have time for 161 two other important issues.

VI So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we move to the [ a] next section, which is on the large complex sites.

PI MR. LOEHR: Go ahead.

LlOl MR. EHRMANN: Tom Newlon, what do you have to [ ii] say about large complex sites. Since Tom hasn t said 1121 anything for a day and half, I know he s got a lot to say 1131 about this. He told me about that at the break. He said ~ 141 he saving up his time for large complex comments.

1151 MR. NEWLON: I want to reserve at least half an ( 161 hour for rebuttal. I think I II need that. Actually ~ 171 this was  Ed, Dick, others that will share the blame as [ is] it comes heaping on in.

figI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought we separated you ~ 201 guys at Phoenix.

VI MR. NEWLON: Too late the damage is already 1221 done.

Page 507 [ II MR. EHRMANN: Where to begin.

r4 MR. NEWLON: Really there are a lot of things 131 plugged in here together. Part of what we were thinking [ 4] through was a lot of these decisions about what is a 151 site, what types of sites seem to be causing vast ( 61 expenditures. Maybe that makes sense. Maybe the 80 20 [ q rule we used to talk about maybe that s just sort of a [ a] thing that occurs in nature that occurs here too. You [ g] know, it occurs in elementary school classrooms and it ( 101 occurs with Superfund sites.

[ ill On the other hand, there did appear to be ( 121 certain types of sites that maybe, you know, let s try 1131 some radical suggestion about how to look at things a ( 141 little differently. How do you really evaluate that?

( 151 How do you really think those things through when you re 1161 EPA and you re tying to define what a site is? You re 1171 trying to decide whether to list or not. How do you make [ re] those decisions in a vacuum basically, or with a dearth [ I91 of information? And then you get 10 years into it and [ 201 you realize oh man, we could have done this differently ~ 211 if we d just known x or y or z early on.

VI The things that WC kind of qualm together wcrc ._ ~~__  I

~ [ I 11 Page 508 111 some existing tools, this expanded site, the ESI/ RI,

[ 2] let s get some more information into the mix before a [ 3] listing decision is made. Particularly for what look [ 4] like they re going to be large complicated geographic [ 5] areas that you re making decisions about. Let s have ( 61 that information put forth not just to some people [ 7] sitting in EPA regional office sitting around saying,

[ 8] well what are going to do. Let s get that inli) rmation 191 out and have the community involved, and the public IO] involved, and PRP s involved for that matter, and allow 111 folks to make some suggestions to EPA about what they 121 might could, how they might approach it before the 131 listing is  before you sort of boom, here s the listing 141 that goes forward. Okay, now what are we going to do.

151 In a lot of ways the die is cast on these large complex , s] sites when you define the site up front and you list it IV] is as here s my sitc. And that sort of assuming a lot of 881 answers to questions that were never asked. Certainly 91 never asked to the public. Certainly never asked to the ! ol public in a very broad folks including the folks who are ! i] going to be asked to pay the bills.

! 2] What you see in the draft report, I think was

Page 509 [ II maybe Molly or Elizabeth could talk about this for a : 2] second  was just an attempt to pulI together some ideas : 3] for alternative approaches to those large complicated 41 areas or sites and see if those might be useful in terms , s] of alternatives that would allow the Agency to make more : 6] informed decisions up front in ways that posture an 71 approach to an area that I think would be more eflicient 8) inalotof gives the Agency the option to be more 91 efficient that way.?` 0 garner more information and allow 01 them to evaluate it more effectively. And gets everybody I] more involved up front, rather than having a listing sort `[ 12] Of land in your lap as a COi kd aCCOmphSSez, and Okd)

[ 13] now what are we going to do. hnything you want to add lo [ 14] that Ed or Dick?

[ I51 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there are two parts 1161 of this as we talk about it, and it s pretty obvious 1171 looking at this. First of all is the issue of how to [ la] handle large sites as far as this enhanced investigation [ ig] The second is the segmentation. We probably should cl& r [ 20] segmentation, becdusc I think they rc really two [ ZIJ different issues.

VI MR. NEWLON: There arc. The one  scgmcntation Page 506  Page 509 ( 541 Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 18,2003 .__~~

Page 510 [ II as I ve sat here and thought about for the last day and [ z] hall` while I haven t been talking. Really that s kind of [ 3l a pejorative way to talk about it, isn I it now? Really [ 4] it s talking about are there situations where attacking a [ s] problem where small is beautiful, you know, we ll invite [ s] E. II Shoemauker ( phonetic) here where you can get more

( 71 _ where thcrc are diseconomies in scale. Where we re 181 saying okay I m going to list the state ofwashington as [ g] an NIT site then I can worry about all the low grade IO] contamination everywhere. Maybe New Jersey.

ii] ` l` hat really is very much a subset plugged into 121 this entire approach Hut would be a subset for a 131 certain type of site that I think there are some 14) characteristics listed in the materials. If you have a 151 manufacturing facility that has basically a source and 161 it s got contamination spread over a broad area, that s 171 not what WC were talking about for potentially looking at IS] it broken up into chunks.

191 ~\ nd on that. that particular issue, that s one zo] that maybe my experience an inch wide and a mile deep.

211 WC vc seen in Lhe northwest a number of those sites and 221 WC XC that more of them coming as kind of a next wave of ~~ ~__

Page 511 I'

[' ['

r [ iI sites that are extremely ditlicult to figure out how to ~ 21 deal with, and extremely difficult on a transaction cost [ 3] kind of way when you have these large geographic areas 14) thaw arc not tied together with a particular discharge or [ 51 one particular source but multiple sources, multiple [ 6] arc; u And a kind of'swash between that are arguably not 171 a problem at all or more than arguably.

ISI WC can defer that and just talk about the big [ 9] picture lirst maybe. 1 II lcavc that up to ~ OLI guys.

[' 01 MR. EHRMANN: I think ip we can have some [ I?] comments about rhc issue we talked about yesterday when [ 121 cvcryonc was giving feedback on Lhose initial findings [ i31 and thcrc was on that was trying inartfully to grabble ( 141 with this issue of do we define a category of things that [ rsl arc dilrcrcnt? And that s question number one. If we re [ 16] going to define a category of types of sites that are 1171 diffcrcnt. do WC thcreforc need a special way of managing [ iii; those. sites thal is somehow diflcrent in process in any [ IS] kind of important way from the typical Superfund site?

[ ToI And il'so. what w0~ 1ld those differences be?

I?` 1 And that s kind 01' the steps here I think. If 12~ 1 you want to commrnt on the first one  where are folks Page 512 11 J as it relates to what do we do with the definitional [ z] issues and do you think if this needs to be defmed as ~ 31 some kind of separate category or type of site, is there 141 something in a management sense that should be done ISI differently. It would be useful to get people s [ s] reaction. And then we could go back and talk about what [ 7] some of those methods might be if there s an interest in ( 81 doing that, like segmentation or RFS.

PI MR. LOEHR: Dick, you were pointed out as a IO] contributor.

` II MR. DEWLING: I think it s important to 121 understand the steps that are taken when you re 131 evaluating sites to be put onto the NPL for the 28.5.

141 And you look at the model that we typically use for an 15) industrial site that maybe a complex site, but maybe 10,

161 20 acres versus one of these, and we call them now,

171 watershed side sites which have very large geographical 181 areas. When you look at the guidance documents from EPA,

191 the site inspection guidance and preliminary assessments ` 01  I mean a preliminary assessment is a judgment factor ! I] based on whatever information that s available. And when ~ 1 you go in there to do a  correct me on this  when go Page 513 [ i] in there and do a site investigation, you are really [ 2] testing lhc hypotheses of the professional judgment of [ a] the Agency with what other samples critical analytical ( 41 data that you might need. And then if you have focused 151 SI, which is another site investigation, you may poke a [ 6] well in. Dut the purpose of poking a well in is to ( 71 determine whether or there had been a release or not.

LB] You are not quantifying the types of quantity of material 191 that are out there.

IlO And when you re dealing with these larger sites,

[ 111 all we re saying is that before  not saying not to go [ iz] on lhc NIX We re saying that before you re considered [ la] for the NPL, folks you need more information to base a ( 141 judgment on something that s going to be so bigAnd [ 1 q maybe a component be of the segmentation. There maybe a `[ is] component here where PRPs can do certain things. And : i~] there certainly is a component for some emergency action.

[ is] But we rc not saying instead of NPL. We re saying think iis] more carefully with more precise and concise technical i [ zo] information to define the are of the @ audible), to [ a] tlcfinc the : wea of'covcrage.

1 m And the Agency, lo give you some very specific For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ 65) Page 510  Page 513 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEI'T SUF'ERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 18,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ~____~~ I Page 514 Page 516 [ I] information, they have wonderful documents out there to [ I] gave you for 15,000 yards. They told me how many samples [ z] the field peop1e. A site inspection should take you no [ z] it takes. But this didn t go for a whole river basin. ( 31 more than 400 hours. That s what we re talking about [ 3] So, that s what we re trying to narrow in on. That s 141 before you go on the NPL. So, 400 hours and of that 150 [ 4] ail.

[ 5] of that is mobilization and traveLThese are the PI MA. LOEHR: Ed. [ s] guidance documents that telI the people in the field this [ 61 MR. PUTNAM: Okay. I think we should reiterate ~ 1 is what a SI includes, or a focused SI includes. And [ 7] here that get rid of the word mega site. Start off by [ a] then you ve got sampling strategies and sampling to [ a] saying let s get rid of that word. Is] support this, that, and the other thing. They re PI I do think large complex watershed wide sites do [ IO] wonderful documents. And it s instructional to read that [ IO] deserve an expanded process so to speak. Take the time ( 111 that you this is the information that s being gathered to [ I 11 up front to do the extra work to see if there s unique [ IZ] support the PA to go on the NPL Iist. WelI, from the ( 121 ways to handle them, because each of these sites have a ( 131 standpoint of these larger sites, these area wide sites, 1131 unique problem in some way. From my experience if you 1141 it doesn t fit that traditional model. ~ 141 don t do it up front, it slows you down later. When you [ I 51 The Agency has in there other guidance the 1151 do get into it and the site goes on and on, and you re on [ is] implementation manual for site assessment NPL listing, ~ 161 your 15th iteration of your RI, I think it really ~ 171 they have a new acronym that s called the integrated [ 17] deserves the extra time up front. t think we should [ is] ESIRI, all right. Which says your integrated and expand [ ia] endorse this idea. ( 191 a site inspection and an RI. So, you re spending money [ I 91 Specifically on page 52 we get a little [ zo] up front. It s not taking the place of an RI, but it s [ zo] parentheses where you re talking about should the site 1211 something more than the assessment phase to be able to 1211 have all these criteria or just some of them. I m going 1221 define what the magnitude of the problem is. And most [ 22] to certainly comment on the criteria on what kind of __. ~~ ~..~~~~

Page 515 [ I] importantly, determine whether or not there s a need for [ 2] emergency action, so immediate response  the response [ 3] that I was talking about before, that needs to be [ 4] corrected.

I51 So, that s essentially what we re suggesting.

[ s] We are not suggesting sites not be put on the NPL list.

171 If you remember, original suggestions were that, you [ a] know, how do you rank these sites against each other as 191 opposed to the rest of the model? No. We took that off [ lo] the table. We re not taking out certain types of sites [ II] and say lets compare mining sites with mining sites,

~ 121 industrial sites with industrial sites. Because there 1131 are many mining sites that are listed as industrial sites ~ 141 that should have been mining sites. And we re not trying 1151 to say mining sites are always more expensive, because ~ 1131 they re not always mega sites. And river basin sites are 117~ not always mega sitesWe re talking about large [ ia] areawide basin sites. And there iS. what we re 1191 recommending is that the Agency provide guidance to the [ 201 licld on how to conduct these types of sludics, What ~ 211 types of money they should spend on it. And it s almost 1221 comparable when talked about sediments with PC% Ihey [ II sites qualify. But to me would be you just had any one.

[ 2] You wouldn t need to have all. If you re one of these [ 3] sites, this type of site, then you should probably have [ 4] the opportunity to go down a different l~ ath.` l'l~ erc maybe [ 5] some reasons not to that, but I think this is a good idea [ 6] that we should endorse. And I didn t say that jusl [ 71 because Dick s from New Jersey.

PI MR. LOEHR: Doris.

PI MS. CELLARIUS: This is a site near and dear to IO] my heart.

111 MR. EHRMANN: Section, you mean.

121 MS. CELLARIUS: Pardon?

31 MR. EHRMANN: The section near and dear to your 41 heart?

51 MS. CELLARIUS: Yeah, the mega sites issues,

( 161 which I m just using as just an easy word. I think in ~ 171 our subgroup we called them sites that were formally [ iq known as megd sites, which is fine too.

r191 MR. EHRMANN: There ought to be an acronym in [ zo] there or something.

PII MS. CELLARIUS: Yeah, right. It s the princc

p2] like approach. I think mega sites arc  sites formally Page 517 page 514  Page 517 ( 56) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& ZOO3 [ II PI PI 141 151 PI VI PI PI I' 01 11 11 [! 21 I' 31 I' 41 I' 51 c's1 [ I71 [` aI II 91 v31 FJ'I WI 111 121 [ 3!

[ 41 t51 Fl ( 71 [ W PI [` Ol II ` I I121 ! i 31 Page 518 known as mega sites are different. The resources they put on the program. The resources they put on the community. And the technical complexity and wild swings in variation within one of these sites is different from most standard, if you will, SuperSund sites.

And I don t agree with the statement that WC

( END OF TAPE)

MS. CELLARIUS:  done under the Superfund.

YOLI have a separate program that does it where you get all the experts together. So you have national consistency. And you have people who have dealt with these things, which is a huge learning curve for people together. And maybe a portion, a percentage, of the budget goes to them and nothing more. So that there s some [ yarameters to work within so that you rc not sucking all the money from the Superfund program for one site.

For example, the Housatonic River, the EPA is dredging 1 l/ 2 milcs.` I'hcre estimate was $ 30 million to do it.

` I'hcn it went of 50. Now it s 82. And about 2 weeks ago WC heard it s $ 114 for a mile and a half of river. l'hat is a huge hit. That s a huge hit for anybody. And anybody who thinks that  I II say it again. Anybody [ II PI I31 c41 El 161 r/ l PI PI ! I01 [ ill 1121 [ I 31 [ I41 I151 [ 161 I171 Il81 I! 91 WI WI who thinks that taxpayers don t pay for this stuff,

you rc smoking something. Because any company gets it s money from sealing products. And that s where the money comes from. All of you buy products. I buy products.

It c` omcs back 10 the individuals in this country no nialtcr how you cut it. Whcther it 5 through taxes, or product prices> or imports from Mexico, and people losing iobs in America because it s too expensive. Whatever.

1 just ask people to not polarize the discussion about taxpayer or polluter pays. We also have to remember Supcrfund s not a retributive  is that the rlgh I word  program that most of the activities that were done were Icgal at the time, done under permits, /[ zz] different from a regular Superfund program. You have to 1141 done with the state and Federal government concurrence.

( 151 We didn t have the state of the art we have today. So,

[ lfi) it 5 a clean up program. And a11 of socictp gets [ I 71 al'f~ clrd by il.

It81 ` l'hcrc are different issues that come out in [ is] thcsc large sites. Thc IIudson Rivcr.` I'akc that for [ XI] cxamplc when you say, what does the community think about [% l] the li Iutlson I< ivcr. Wc almost had New York succeeding from (% z] the umon, the upper Iiudson from the lower Iludson because Page 520 they couldn t agree. You couldn t tell anybody who represents the community there, because did not want the watering cells in their backyardsThey didn t want recreational and commercial fishing disrupted for 20 years, and others did. Both legitimate viewsYou know,

I m not saying which is right and wrong, but I m saying there is no  as there might be for a landfii or something else, and everybody just wants it out, or covered over. Whatever the community view is. When you have site that s 100 miles long, you don t have a community view. You have community views. And EPA s taken a raft of beating over this on the Hudson River over the years, because they can t accommodate everybody.

Thatsaproblem.

` l'hcy have different technical issues from what most sites have. They have different, very wild fluctuations in where the contamination is. It s not uniform. If you have a river, there are areas that have higher and lower. And it gets back to my perennial issue. hnd my answer is that I do think you do have to took at these sites formally known as mega sites as Page 519 '

1 111 evaluate risk differentIy. You have prioritize funding 121 differently. You have to look at community concerns in a 131 much more holistic way then I think we do, or EPA does in ~ 41 other sites. I just think they are a different breed.

1 [ q And they are a huge drain on the Superfund, and on [ q companies. C) bviously, I m concerned about what we spend ( 71 too. And my view is always we ll spend what makes sense.

[ a] To spend a billion dollars and get much cleanup is crazy.

is] It s crazy for the country. It s crazy for New York.

1 [ IO] And it s crazy for everybody. EPA has to look at if 1111 you re going to spend a billion dollars, you better get ~ 121 your money s worth out of it. I m not arguing whether [ 131 you should or not  whether you should or not spend it.

( 141 RLI~ I think when you rc talking about that kind of money,

[ IS] it s a whole different story then when you re talking [ iq about a $ IO million cleanup.

[ I71 So, I guess the conclusion is that I think you [ ia; have to look at them differently. I don t think [ iq Supcrfund is nccessariIy the right answer. Maybe it is.

I[ 201 Maybe there s way to reorganize it in the Superfund 1211 program. I) ut thcrr s been s~~ ccessf~~ l ways of dealing [ 22] with large watershed sites outside of the Superfund ___" . . . ~_ ll_

For The Record, Inc,  ( 301) 870 8025 _

Min U Script@ ( 57) Page 518  Page 521 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June l& 2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS _  .

Page 522 Page 524 [ rl program that have been more efficient and more effective [ I] context when you re close to this site, you might have p] than what s happening in Superfund. That s it for now. [ z] something in between. So, that s kind of my general.

PI MR. LOEHR: Vicky. [ 3] And that actually would apply both to this fist idea and I41 MS. PETERS: I m kind of just kidding. The [ 4] the segmentation. I think those are the people who would ~ 51 title of this section is large comma complex, or [ sl best able to determine what would be the appropriate ( 61 watershed wide sites. So, 1 guess there was a discussion ~ 61 decisions on that as well.

[ 7l whether we should leave this to deal with the Hudson VI I d just like to go ahead because I don t have [ a] River s of the world or whatever, and people were not [ al that much more to talk about. On the segmentation part [ gl comfortable with that. It s my contention that there are [ sl of this, my major concern with that is that it is very 1101 the Hudson Rivers and the Housatonics, and whatever, and [ IO] much assuming that we re talking about a geographical [ 11) there s the local land. tUs. And clearly there s a big [ I 11 area on an NPL. And that s not what this statute says. [ VI difference. But I think there is everything in between. [ IL!] And I know that that s what has happened in many 1131 That s where it will get difficult if we have some kind ~ 131 instances, and I m not always  it s happened at at 1141 set aside prescriptive rules for this certain types of 1141 least one site that I m involved in. And it tends to 115~ sites, which we re even having a hard time defining. [ is] happen  I think that creates a lot of problems. 1161 Larry I think on two occasions during the day [ I 61 Sue told me a story in Phoenix where just 1171 has pointed out how difficult it is to make ~ 171 because she was in  you know, her waste management 1181 prioritization decisions or whatever on a prescriptive [ ia] happened to be in a geographical area. People were 1191 and program wide basis. I think this is another one, [ is] looking at them to clean up a related site that had [ zo] frankly. What I was thinking is that the some of the NPL [ ZO] nothing to do with their activities. That s not right. 1211 workgroups  there s all this interlapping, but I think [ 21] That s not what CERCLA intended. I vc got sites where ~ 221 what I was envisioning and I think other people were ~ ( 221 just because we artticially in a consent to create drew Page 523 Page 525 ~ 11 envisioning was that we kind of upgrade the whole quality [ I] a circle around a site, I don t see how we can get out of ~ 21 of the prescreening and initiaI evaluation of these [ 2l there now without cleaning up everything within those ~ 31 sites. That applies to all of the sites. But I think ( 31 lines to a level to where we can all say is protective of [ 4l would be most helpful if we can go ahead  I would not [ 5l have a provision that said if your sites needs all of any [ s] of these criteria, thou shalt do an ES, whatever we re ~ 1 calling it now, an ESPI or a PRI or whatever. I would [ a] leave that discretion to these site specific or regional ( 91 coordinating communities. And if we want to say, you [ iol know, our sense is if this a geographically extensive [ ill watershed type site. If we suspect that there are a lot [ is?] of sources, this, that, or the other, in those instances [ 131 these regional communities or site groups, you know, this ~ 141 collaborative decision making process might want to look ~ 151 at these other options. And if there are particular ( 161 types of investigations, Dick, that you have in mind to ( 171 get the answers and to frame the questions. What arc the [ fs] data quality objectives? What are the questions that [! 9] we re asking? That s not clear to me from here. Some of [ 20) it is, but some of it isn t. What exactly would be done 1211 with what information.

WI I think that it would a lot more usefull in that [ 4] human health or the environment. Even though fhc risks [ sl posed do not compete with some of the other sites that 161 we ve heard about.

[ 71 I think that  1 am not comfortable with [ a] endorsing this as is. 1 think that a lot of this is good [ gl work, and can be, should be incorporated into a more I [ IO) focused discussion with some of these other groups to I ! I 11 further delineate what this early screening and the role I 1121 of the coordinating or committees would be or what have [ 13] you. But I think a lot of really hard thought has to go ~ 141 into the kind of fundamental philosophical question that [ 15] EPA really did pose in the charge. And I think it s ( 161 another hard one that we ve been dodging. And that is ~ 171 how to list sites. Whether it s releases. How are WC [ ia] going define releases? There are times when listing a [ ig] release could be very problematic. Other times it would ~ 201 be very simple. So, I think we need rnorc talking abour ( 211 this. Probably at a workgroup level.

El MR. LOEHR: Jim Derouin.

. __ __.. ~. _ .~.~ .__ ~~

Page 522  Page 525 C58) Min U Scrip& B For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUFKOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Ml June 18,200;

[ II El [ 31 I41 151 PI [ 71 PI PI [' Ol II r1 [ I21 L' 31 [ I41 ( 15 1161 [` 71 I' 81 fIgI P?

VI 1221 Page 526 MR. DEROLJIN: Now that I have been here in New Bedford and gone through the tour, the question that I kind of see presented to us on the old mega and now the complex site issue is, if EPA is confronted in the next couple of years with a similar request from St. Louis or IIouston or LA. or Miami, similar to this where you ve got a $ 300 million project, what is that EPA can or should do and what should we recommend to it that should do to rry to handle that kind of a behemoth? Because under any scenario it will overwhelm the program. I don t have the answer to that, but any thinking that we could do and come to agreement on whether it be a special petition to Congress under WRDA. Or an agency of the United States government gets behind the request. Or whatever it is to infuse the needed of dollars into project, I think is part of the question that EPA has asked.

I lavmg said that, Ed made the comment that he felt that sites that fit into this category, broad ones,

complex ones, ct cetera? should go down a different path.

And I m wondering if you could comment on what you kind of think that different path might be. And whether it s Page 527 ! [ I] use the term large complex area wide. And fortunately [ 2] WC re coming toward closure, so it s not quite so [ s] controversial. But there are several lessons. It ( 41 involves the San Gabriel VaIley. This is an enormous.

[ sI Thousands of potential contributors. A very large area.

[ s] And it was approached in different ways for different 171 parties there. There was the Superfund site, and that [ a] was the classic Superfund approach for the oh you were I PI I101 ` I111 [ 121 [ I31 , I141 ( 151 1161 ( 171 [ ISI [ 191 PO1 [ 211 involved in. They took six usual suspects. Said okay,

you know, you can pay the $ 150 million or go someplace else.

WC were also ama; rjngly the same facility, a small RCRA facility and they said years earlier then anything happened clean up your releases. And we did that. We dug everything up. We took it someplace else.

We made sure we got nothing into the groundwater. It happened very expeditiously by saying, meet your record corrective action obligations. It was very effective.

And WC certainly precluded any future concern.

And then there was what I like to call the free,

the culpable popular party s movement, which was, you know, there s just too many people here. So, what we ve only procedural or if it might be fimding. If you could comment on it.

MR. PUTNAM: I think that you take the extra time up front to get the additional information. And then it you can segregate the site  even to bust it into pieces if it works, each one of those pieces might go down a different path. One of them might be Superfund. One of them might be WRDA. One of them might be Brownfields. But as long as they can all go somewhere and get taken care of. then that may be the appropriate thing. But the main path is stiII looking down the Superfund path.

If 11x whole site doesn t get taken care of, it slill can head into the Superfimd program where Superflmd will take care of the whole site. It may take a while.

So, it s mot c of like a way to chip away at what Supcrf'uncl is going to end up having filnding  have to do up front before you list it.

MR. LOEHR: Sue.

MS. BRIGGUM: I want to echo with a real world cxamplc what Ed just said. Because I think I can recollect and repose experience that a mcga site, we 11 ( 11 I21 [ 31 L41 I51 I' 31 [ 71 [ ai PI [ 101 11~ 1 [ I21 ( 131 I141 I151 Page 528

Page 529 going to do is say all of you are innocent. It doesn t really matter. Don t tell us about tanks. Don t tell us about medium sized companies that spilled a bunch of solids. Just don t telI us. We re just going to tell you the 1,100 parties are just gone. There s only six of you who are large companies that we d like to clean it up. That took what, 15 years? And it was wholly inefficient. It was very controversiaLThe contamination spread farther than it should have. And what it says to me is reflecting now after we ve finally pulled this together.

If you took this approach that Ed s talking about where you start and first say, how can we stop all the operating sources? Because there s a lot of them,

and WC can look this, and their enforcement capabilities.

( 161 And let s do this as fast as we can with each of the ( 171 partics. And let s look at the other possibilities. We [ ra] ended up with the separate appropriation. And fortunate [ is] thcrc were responsible municipalities who realized they [ zo] had a part to play in this, and they got some extra [ zi] moncy. Thcrc was WRDA money. There were a lot of [ zz] approaches lo this. RIJ~ I think WC would have been there For The Record, Inc. I ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ 69) Page 526  Page 529 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 18,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 530 [ I] faster and would have had a smaller program if we d done [ z] what you said in terms of the up frcnt, look at it. Look [ 3] at it as what s the problem, not what s the site that WC [ 4] have to get the assessment around. Maybe it would be 151 more manageable.

IsI MR. LOEHR: Grant.

11 MR. COPE: On the narrow issue of listing. If [ 8] that s the issue, and that s all I ll speak to right now.

[ q I could see that there would value in insuring EPA in the [ IO] regions, site managers, now definitively, or at least as [ ii] definitively as they should at that point, what they re [ IZ] listing. I think for litigation purposes that s 1131 important so they stave off litigation which can delay ~ 141 listing, which can delay cleanupsAnd that s happened.

1151 I think it just makes good sense for some of the reasons ( 161 that have already been stated. I do think though that we [ IA should not perspective in the way in which we discuss [ fe] this. I think it s something EPA is going to gain a [ lg] tremendous amount of knowledge and experience on over ~ 201 time with guidance. I would hate to see us a one size [ 21] fits aII approach with whatever recommendation we might p2] come out with.

Page 53 1 111 MR. LOEHR: Doris.

PI MS. CELLARIUS: I spoke to some people who are ~ 31 at what I would call a large complex site that used to be [ 4] a very small site that got expanded. And I was impressed [ 5] by the fact that expanding the size of this site  they [ s] like it because it increased the number of affected [ q communities and stake holders who would come to the party [ e]  come to the table. It just appears to me that there [ Q] could be benefits to the community by the fact that [ IO] keeping large mega sites as single Superfund sites, but ~ 1 I] managing appropriately as Ed Putnam spoke about with a 1121 real careful early look at the whole situation. And then 113~ looking for the responsible parties you would more likely ~ 141 bring them together to some kind of agreement. You ( 151 potentially would, because there could be more [ IIT] responsible parties.

( 171 From my look at the recommendation, which is [ IS] basically to keep mega sites in the Superfund Program and [ tq look creatively at their benefits especially the cost [ 20] effectiveness. It would seem to me for New Bedford that [ ZII an overall issue was just the PCBs. And a lot of your pz1 technical work was PCS related and kind of drudging. I[ Page 532 111 Things that were very similar and probably most cost

[ z] effectively managed as one site. For now I like this [ a] recommendation of keeping it in Superfund as one site.

I41 MR. LOEHR: Dolores.

151 MS. HERRERA: I agree with what Grant said. I IS] also want to say that I don t take things personal wiLh 171 Jane, what are you smoking? Folks

PI MS. GARDINER: Sorry, that s an 60s expression.

[ 9] I apologize.

101 MS. HERRERA: No apologize necessary, because I 1 I] mean, I just want to say is that people would think that iq I m crazy if I wouldn t say that in reality industry 131 polluted, they poisoned our communities.` l'hey re the 141 responsible parties. And I have to say that. I don t 151 smoke. I wear strong pertime and talk loud  Doctor, by is] the way, I m sorry if I bother people.

171 ButImgoing to say is maybe the next thing is 181 forget environmenLd1 justice and get rid of community 191 involvement, and then get rid of Superfund. If we rc LO] going to smoke something, maybe that s going to be the 211 next stepsAnd it ain L going to happen in my lifetime.

Z] MS. GARDNER: Nobody s suggesting any of that.

Page 533 [ I] It s not an attack on communities by any means. What I [ z] was trying to say was that this is a societal problem and [ 3] yes, industries did contribute to it. And they did 141 create a lot of it.` l'hey did it at times when nobod)

[ 5] knew any better. Now, there are some that did it [ 6] illegally or all that. But the vast majority of [ 7] Superfund sites are from historic practices b& ore modern 181 environmental laws, which only started in 1970s. Of 191 companies, and not just ours, by many, many companies are [ IO] from the turn of the century or the first half of the [ i I] century, or whatevcr. To polarize it by saying the LIZI industry is polluter, we re all poltutcr. You throw away [ 13l something from your garage, you re a polluter. EPA [ 14] doesn t make decisions on who to go after or not. But 1151 everybody has contributed to this societal problem. New ( 161 York harbor, the ciLy of New York, cvcrybody has [ t 71 contributed to New York harbor s problem.

[ j81 I m very much supporLive of communily input.

[ 19] I m very supportive of the sensitivilics of that. BuL I ' 1201 don t think it helps to polarize the situation by good.

[ 2i] the pure, and Lhe bad. It s just not like LhaL. In my [ 22] experience, it s just mL like that.

page 530  Page 533 (@ I Win U Script@ ForTheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Mk June 18,2005 Page 534 ( Page 536 [ II MS. HERRERA: I m Iike  I can 1 even think, [ iI UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congressional budget lz] because I m very upset. I raised three nieces. They p] office. [ z] have Lupus. One of them died. The other ones dying PI UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The concept of mega sites ( 41 because of pollution. I live with this everyday. I [ 4] typically we put a doIIar sign on it. If we define mega [ 51 don t have a garage. In my community WC don t have 151 sites as encompassing aII of these types of ~ 61 garagcs.` I'he stuff you throw away, some of the people in [ 6] considerations, we re in the same  that it include ~ 71 my community would probably pick up. And 1 don t want to [ r] watershed wide sires when we use the word complex. Many [ al get personal on this, but I totally, absolutely refule 18) pollutants, many mediums impacted. Large could be a p] what you say. Because I do not agree. I wiIl never ~ [ q large industrial. But a mega site doesn t necessarily  [ IO] agrcc. And because I m one of two pcoplc sitting around [ IO] is not a $ 50 million site. It s a site that may be area [ I 11 this table  and if you look at the List, this is an [ I I] wide, watershed wide, that type of thing. [ lz] imbaIanced group. We ve talked about it from the fsst 114 The other issues are that when you re looking at [ IS] meeting. I just want to say how dare you. How dare you. [ IS] watershed wide sites, the issue that was mentioned before [ 14] Ilow dare you. How dare you. 1141 with Mildred, the word balance, and Aimee mentioned the [' 51 MR. EHRMANN: Jane, Jane. , ~ 151 word prevention, and Ed was talking about the possibility L161 MS. GARDNER: I don t understand what I dare to [ is] of taking segments of it. I mean, you talk about ~ 171 do. I rn expressing an opinion. I am not attacking 1171 polIu( ion prevention in these areas where we re restoring [ i 81 anybody. [ re] Ihe area by removing all the sediment, doing something [ ISI MR. EHRMANN: It s not our job Zo decide who s 1191 different, we have storm water flows from agricultural pal perceiving what by whom. But it is our job to try to ~ 1201 areas, in municipal areas, that will continue over the 121~ maintain a courteous discourse around the table. So, I [ ZI] next years. So, if you don t go into a prevention lzz] would ask both of you folks to maybe have a side 1221 program and demonstrate that the prevention program is Page 535 I II] conversion and try lo clear the air of what s obviously 121 xi upsclling situation. But we re not going to resolve [ q it by talking more across the table through microphones.

141 AI Icast Ihat would be my strong advise.

151 I worrld suggest given lhc amount of time we have 161 left. Mr. Chairman, that we take the cards that are up ~ 71 and then we II take a look at the agenda in lerms of what ( 81 we riced Lo do going forward. Still we re obviously going 191 to do ihe Department of Juslice panel from 3: 00 to 5: O0.

1101 But what wc do around that we II make some suggestions.

11 ` I MR. LOEHR: So, let s go back. ( lnaudiblc), and [ i2] then I) rwling, and then Dcwling.

I14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just some of the technical ( 141 issues lo try to reflect on some of the comments of Grant ~ 151 and I% 1 andvicky WC wrestle with the problem of large [ i6] comptcx watershed wide in terms ot` trytng to use the one 1171 worcl. And I m sure Kate wrestled with this when she came [ ia; up with word mega I assume you mepa. Who came up with 1191 the mcga years ago? EPA?

m UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

( 21; UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I m giving you credit fix [ Z?] It. [ II cffectivc, there s no sense taking an action in that lz] sediment to restore fisheries or whatever the case may be 131 until you know some of your prevention things workAnd [ 4] you coukl do that by segmenting some of those issues. Or 1 [ SI of you decide to do this balance, you ve got to look at [ 6] in the longer term. Because you vc got another source of ( 71 contamination. The source wiU not end. And that s what [ a] we rc saying. In these watershed wide that must be ls] evaluated.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was reaIIy only going to i" 31 . ,.. 1141 c larlfy a couple things I think came up and urge everyone 1151 ctsc to think aboul really three issues. One again, is [ 16] that list on the bottom of page of 52, and give us [ I 71 suggestions. We vc heard a little, but I think [ ia] systematically made me think about those four categories.

[ IS] Are they the four ways to deIine it? We want to maybe ( 201 get that.

i1211 And the other is the worries about segmentation.

Wc haven t really talked much about that. But thoughts Page 537 [ 101 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You warned me.

1111 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that how you try to shut [ 12] me up?

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 87O 8025 Min U Script@ ( 61) Page 534  Page 537 NEW BEDFORD, MA June x3,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 538 I

[ I] on that I think are important. And one thing I don t [ z] think we did deal with and we probably should have that 1 ~ 31 think came up in some of the discussion were maybe Jane s [ 4] comments, is the special complexity of community [ s] involvement on a huge site where you literally have truly IS] multiple communities. And I don t think we ve dealt with 171 that, so we probably should put that in.

bl One other thing if I could just add that I hope [ g] people would think about is, I think one of the good [ IO] things in the introductory text of this was that emphasis 1111 on  well, there were two  one is no emphasizing cost [ 12] since we realize we don t know what the costs are up [ I31 front. So, we got to use other categories other than [ 14] simple cost. And secondly, the emphasis in the last [ IS] paragraph before we get into the how to classify the [ i6] sites, the emphasis on pollution prevention. Because if 1171 we re ever going to get out of the cost problem, we re [ is] going to have to get into that. Especially at the large 1191 sites, which have the potential of eating up all the [ zo] resources.

1211 MR. LOEHR: Grant.

[ W MR. COPE: I just wanted to clarify that I was 141 If we re just on the issue of okay you ve got IS] the site listed, how do you list it? And then if you is] segment it and have all these various programs, that is a 171 huge problem. And it s from start to fmish at a 1 a] community level. And then from start to finish at a what ig] applies level with respect to cleanup standards.

201 1 don t to be redundant, but I want to highlight ZI] an aspect of what Larry and I talked about earlier, and ~ 221 what other people mentioned as well. If you are going to  I. I I I[

I [

I [

I[

[

[

[

[ [ I] mean in this 300 acre site these are the standard that [ z] apply. And then this other 500 acre site, these arc 131 standards that apply. And it puts a tremendous amount

[ 4] it overwhelms communities in their capacity to actually 151 affect cleanup decisions. I mean, it completely [ s] overwhelms them. And the agencies are so strapped  and p] I don t mean to editorialize but if we re looking at the [ a] program as a whole then this is something that we should [ g] consider. The agencies are so strapped at both the state IO] and Federal level, they don t have the capacity to I I] compensate for the overwhelming nature of having all iz] those various cleanup activities going on at the same 131 time.

Page 539 Page 541 Page 540 [ i] only speaking to the listing issue, because that s what I [ I] at the back end segment these sites, and say okay this is 121 thought that was the question raised. About segmentation [ 2] clean, this isn t. I do think that does undercut the ~ 31 and the whole range of source controLThose are [ 3] efficacy of the program. Superfund is about getting 141 separate and distinct. If we re speaking about those now 141 sites cleaned up. And when you list a site, you should 151 then I guess I d like to put back in my card. [ 5] clean it up. You shouldn t just let it lie, and then IsI MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, if you had comments on  [ s] hopefully come back at some point in the fumre. Call mc 171 I d get them now. On the segmentation or the other parts [ 7] a cynic, but I think that s a recipe for disaster in [ s] of this sections, since others have already referenced [ a] particular with the Federal government, because it s such [ 9] it. [ g] a large bureaucracy, And there are so many pressing UOI MR. COPE: Okay. Then on the segmentation [ IO] issues out there. I think if you re going to take on a [ 11] issue. For me that s very big. And I imagine that Tom [ i 11 site  and I think this is distinct from what Vicky s ~ 121 and I will have very distinct perspectives on this issue. [ 12] talking about. I understand what she s talking about. I ( 131 I ve talked with certain communities around the country 1131 think that if you ve got an area wide source of ( 141 who are dealing with sites. They re having these multi [ 14] contamination, you should list that area wide source of ~ 151 jurisdictional problems. And it s very basic. It s how [ 15] contamination. But if there s a distinct Docility that s [ 16] to know what s going on at the site? Forget information. [ 16] got another release, maybe you shouldn t include that [ IT] How do you know if a cleanup is going to occur? And the ( 171 within the circle. And I don t know how much of that ( la] once a cleanup is going to occur, how do you get [ Ia] encompasses your concerns.

~ 191 information? Once it actually gets going, what cleanup [ I91 So, those sorts of issues, yeah. maybe you do go [ zo] standards apply? What public participation standards [ zo] back and you clean up that metal plating facility at : I ( 211 apply? And then it s on a site by site basis. I don I ~ 211 later time than you do the lacility that used to do ,221 mean one mega site or one distinct wdtershcd site. I ~ 221 transfersAnd that s lint. But that s a differenL _____.~~. ~. .___~.~ ~~~ ~~ . ~~~ ~~~~

Page 538  Page 541 ( 62) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M. f June 18,200:

Page 542 Page 544 111 issue than, okay we ve got four facilities that aU used 111 bring something else in over there. It s good cleanups ( 21 to do metal plating. They ve all released heavy metals, [ z] are happening, but from the perspective of getting an 131 et cclera. What do we do? Do we just clean up the first [ s] understanding of what s really going on in the whole 141 one and then the other three just lie fallow for 20 years ( 41 watershed, and the community involvement, and all the ISI if we ever get back to them. ISI other issues that have been mentioned, it s very hard for ( 61 & ly last point. Something that you keyed on 161 people to see what s actually going on. If Superfund [ 71 which I hadn t realty thought of, but it strikes near and ~ 71 came in and put a whole circle around the site and then 181 dear to my heart. I think by going down that route by ( 81 said now we re going to have a range of strategies within [ 91 saying, yeah, we should just bite off what we can chew [ 9] that to deal with it, but it s all going to be subject to [ IO) right now, fence the rest and come back later. One of [ IO] the kind of public involvement, et cetera. We want to [? I] the things that I  call me naive  I can onto the [ III deal with hot spot. The kind of thing that happened more ~ 121 committee and 1 thought gosh, EPA s used a tremendous `[ Iz] in New Bedford where they were  everybody sat down it [ 13] amount of containment for example in the last decade or [ IZJ sounds in the room and help decide what was going to be 1141 so, maybe longer than that. Maybe we can reverse that by [ 14] done first, second, and third. That s a different kind [~ s, I looking at the long term costs that are associated with [ iq of process. ( 161 containment. I think that if we go the other way and we 1161 I think we need to  again, this is one of [, 71 say well we should just segment off sites, I think that [ 17] those words that people see it and they kind of assume [ rtll Supcrfund s preference for treatment  break it down. [ rs] the worst in their perspective or assume the best. And 1 rig] <: lcaning up these sites for communities, I don t think [ ig] think we rc going to have to parse this out a little bit 1201 that becomes a realistic goal at all. I think it becomes [ 20] and think about what it s really  what are the [ 211 one big removal program. Kate and I might differ on the [ 211 gradients of what s really going on. It may still be ~ 221 importance on that overall. When I think removals I [ 22] that none of that s acceptable or all of it s acceptable. __ Page 543 Page 545 [ i] think little of' any community participation and ARARs our [ I] But in the current formulation, it s hard to get your [ TI policy. They rc not rcquircd. And so you loss the two [ z] hands around it because it s not clear how the 1x1 basis building blocks for Superfund. And I ve already ( 31 subcommittee will be recommending things be done in terms 141 seen El% doing this at these big mega sites. They It do ( 41 of those kind of' options. [ sj non time critical removal actions that go on for years. 151 MR. LOEHR: We have two comments still to go, a ( 61 And the community is suffering, because they want to  ~ 61 brcak. hnd then WC will start our Environmental Justice ~ 71 they want to affect it, but they don t have the capacity 17) panel at 4: OO. Mike and thenTom. [ a] 10. PI MR. TILCHIN: I actually had a very different PI So it does  lhis segmentation issue takes the 191 opinion than Grant. Then he passed out the chocolate so [ IO) program fimdamcntally in a different direction and it s [ IO] from this point whatever Grant says. ! ii] key. [ Ill I wan1 to respond directly to what Ed s 1121 MR. EHRMANN: I vc had : I couple side 1121 question. And then looking at those four criteria that [ 13: conversations on this segmentation issue. I think  and I[ 131 you laid out, propertics. That you laid at the bottom of (`" 1 this rclatcs things ; I couple people have said. I think [ i4] page 52. And obviously there s a fair amount of room for [ ISI it s going to be usel'ul to take a step back comprehensive [ is] interpretation and scale there. But as I read these four ~ 161 look at this. What I vc heard some people be concerned ( 161 characlcristics, I think you have multiple sites. That s ~` 71 about, and I think this is partly where Grant s concern [ jr] what that ficels like to me, as opposed to a single site. [ ia] conic l'rom, is if' you have a large watershed kind of [ ie] You asked if we would address that issue.

[ isj situation and the Agency comes in using Superfund as it s rig1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. [ zo] kind of hammer and is able to negotiate an agreement with WI MR. TILCHIN: Yeah. l'hc image that that 1;`)) 3 RI111 owr 110 c ancl you do something voluntarily and gel I ( 711 conjures up li) r me is that these are multiple sites.

~ 27' thar start& and then do a dillcrent strategy here. and [ z] Mtrttiplc smaller sites rather than one large site. And _. I. ___. I___

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 631 Page 542  Page 545 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEFT. SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 18,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS  ._ __.~ ~~~ ~~

Page 546 Page 548 [ I] it would be better dealt with that way. Picking on that [ I] need this type of further exploration, it should be used [ z] a little bit further without sort of like a picture of [ z] and ask the Agency to provide that necessary guidance to [ 3] what this would mean, it s probably hard to do. But it [ 3] the people in the field on what criteria one might use to [ 4] would be interesting to hear from EPA institutionally [ s] would it be, and administratively, would you rather deal ( 61 with multiple sites that are this scenario  let s say r/] there were four of them, or a single site?

PI UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don t know whether we [ g] thought it was inevitably multiple sites. You seem to be [ lo] saying

L111 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It reads that way.

[ i 21 MR. TILCHIN: I thought you asked what s our ~ 131 opinion of this. I thought I should give it to you since ~ 141 you asked. I apologize.

( 151 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think what I was asking, I ( 161 don t know whether it maybe totally wrong. What I was ~ 171 asking is are they right four listings? Or should WC

[ is] we went right in and gotten into that. I guess I [ ig] wondered are these the way to simply identify this is a [ zo] site that goes into the special process. It doesn t mean [ zi] anything about being split up yet, segmented or anything.

[ zz] It s just what are the triggers for throwing it into the _____ ~~~

Page 547 [ I] expanded  what do we call it?

121 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Integrated ESIRS.

[ 31 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that s all that is.

[ 4] But is that accurate? Since we sort of threw out cost as [ 5] the simple way to decide it. Since we don t know cost at [ s] this stage, are they the four? Only for that reason.

m Like New Bedford harbor where they mentioned revere and [ e] aerobox ( phonetic), should that be a revert site and an [ 9] aerobox? That s not what we re getting into yet at this [ lo] stage. We just know they ve got two, so therefore it s [ I I] in.

[ la MR. EHRMANN: Triggers that process.

v31 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It triggers it, because ~ 141 they ve got two different companies. Not to get into [ rs] other details, I just remember them mentioning revere.

[ I61 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It could be wild and scenic ,171 rivers. It could be tribal lands. I m just saying lo [ is] you all these things could be triggered to try to gather [ 19] more information where this segment might impact a lower [ zo] area. So, this was not to be all inclusive. It s not ( 211 dictating that EPA use this approach. All we re saying,

[ z] they have tool that when we had these lypes of sites thal [ 4] make that decision. Some of them would need these, plus [ s] there s a lot more.

PI MR. TILCHIN: Are there others that we had ~ 71 forgotten? That s especially what I think we would like [ a] input on that.

[ 91 MR. NEWLON: Real quickly. I just want to [ IO] reiterate we re not trying to tell EPA you must break [ 1 I] these sites up if they have characteristics, or you must ( 121 do anything other than  if it s the type of site that [ 13] in people s experiences, and the experiences of Superfund [ 14] has tended to be these kind of quagmire sites and lasted 1151 forever, and taken infinity to get to actual c1canup. A [ 16] sediment site I m in Washington for the Port of Seattle,

1171 the west waterways around Harbor Island, we re on our [ is] fourth supplemental remedial investigation. Therc s a [ ig] proposed ROD that s been out there for three years now.

[ zo] The site will be 20 years old on September 8th of this [ zi] year. We re no where near going final yet.

21 The characteristics that have led to that sort Page 549 : i] of quagmire I think seem to be, at least in my limiled : z] experience, the four  one, two, three, four here, seem is] to tend in that direction. It s not saying gee, EPA.

[ J] we re going to carve those out and take the program in : I [ 5] completely direction. II s stop, look, and listen for a [ 6] second, and let s make sure that there s not some better [ 7] way to approach this area where there s contamination [ s] here, contamination there, contamination thcre. The [ g] whole idea of saying, gee, taking this site  as soon as IO] you say that, we re going to take this site in a I 11 different direction, we ve already answered the clucstion.

121 The question is what is the site? Or is it as Michael 131 says, is this really multiple sites that WC should be 141 addressing. The whole idea of get, you re going Lo 151 confuse the communily on the Dwdmish site in Washinglon.

161 I think the community s more confused by the fact that 171 we ve got what really ought to be multiple sites. And re] then we ve got EPA on course control kind of overriding.

491 overseeing city efforts, county efforts on source control 201 that were already ongoing, CSO controls under the Clean 211 Water Act. It s incredibly convoIuted. And Superfund z] has an organizing principal to work that all around Page 546  Page 549 ( 64) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, M HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 18,200 Page 550 111 really is working very well. And everybody s kind of [ z] scratching their heads and saying, why don t you guys p] just clean it up. And kind of nobody gets it.

( 41 It s not a question of taking the program in a 151 different direction. It s more an issue of stop, look,

161 and listen, think through how this is going to work [ 7] before you just sort of say, oh have somebody decide.

[ al It s almost fhr administrative convenience, I m going to [ 91 take this big chunk of urban imbaymcnt ( phonetic) and [ ro] call it all one site, even though I ve got slip four and [ I I] slip six. and this arca down here where the real hot [ 12] spots are. And then these large areas that would be ( 131 clean capping material Jane or below any action level for ~ 141 New Bedford IIarbor. In any event  let s see. That s [ iq it.

1161 MR. LOEHR: At this particular point I want to 1171 declare a break. We need to get set LIP for the next [ IS] panel. Those of you who still have issues that you would [ iq like IO raise, we can take more time either after the [ 201 panel, tomorrow morning, or something to bring them back.

[ 21] I don t want to overlook them, but we do need to move on ~ 221 to the panel. For those of you who havr comments and [ il don t know what wiIl be next.

PI We have Michael Lythcott, Florence Robinson.

[ 3] And Charles and Michael are here, and 1 m going to ahead [ 4] and hand over the microphone to Mildred so she can give 151 the EJ overview.

161 MS. McCLAIN: First of aII I want to just say [ 7] that given the composition of this body, there really is 181 no need to do an Environmental Justice overview. Because ( 91 I m quite confident that each of you in your respective `[ IO] jobs and positions in your community are quite familiar [ I 11 with Environmental Justice.

[ I21 When we talk about Environmental Justice we can 1131 talk about it as a movement. We can talk about the 1141 Presidential Executive Order on Environmental Justice.

[ 15] We can talk about a definition of Environmental Justice ( 161 from the government perspective, from industry s [ 17] perspective, and certainly from impacted community s [ la] perspectives. We could talk about the work of the Fig] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. We ( 201 could talk about Environmental Justice principals that ~ 211 were birthed in 1991 at the first People of Color ~ 221 Environmental Justice Leadership Summit. And of more ____ Page 551 Page 55;

Page 553 [ I] would like to do them now, I apologize. But we re going [ z] Lo move on. And we U take the panel as soon as we get [ 3: orginized up here.

[ 41 MR. EHRMANN: APtcr the panel, we 11 take the : s] public comment and continue. Therc are cookies and sodas [ 6] and stuff up here. and coffee in the back.

[ 71 ( END OF TAPE)

PI MS. HERRERA:  or even more fanldstic 191 Environmental Justice Panel and discussion will occur.

[ IO] We want to thank everybody from the facilitation group 1111 that hclperl LIS put this togcther. As people know as 1121 volunteers. we do this for frcc. And a lot of EJ people,

( 131 probably 99.9 pcrccnt. do this work free. And so we [ id] really thank all of our participants of today s panel and [ is] discussion, and we welcome the Iblks.

I161 I m going to introduce people and just by way of [ i71 inlroduction. And then what s going to happen is Mildred ;` a] will l> c giving an oocrvicw and introduce the I! J more [ i91 ti) rtnally. And then we II have facilitation discussion [ TOi that Mildrrcl wit1 facilitate, and then we II open up to 1711 answers No clucslions and answers, and will help do [ ZZI that. WC II # et rnto a very short conclusion. And I I [ I] recent we can talk about Environmental Justice [ 2] Considerations.

PI I m going to leave it at that and to say that 14) Environmental Justice communities, Environmental Justice [ sl advoc, ates look at whole range of issues, and it s not 161 just focused on community involvement or what people have [ 7] begun to call public participation. During this [ a] morning s deliberations we had a lot of sidebar [ g] ConversationsAnd for this particular session i m going 1101 to ask that if you have a sidebar conversation, I want `[ ii] ~ OLI to take it out of the room. That s an Environmental ~ 121 Juslicc principal. Because we respect each other and we 1131 try to listen so that there can indeed be a deliberative 1141 process. And if you re talking while I m talking, you ii51 can 1 hear what I m saying. Okay.

p1 I ve also been asked to bc the timekeeper. So,

1171 this session will end at 5 minutes to 5: OO. Not 530 [ ral o clock, 5 minutes to 5: O0.

[ 191 When we look at the whole umbrella of PO) Knvironmcntal Justice often we as community people we are ~ 11 looking al disI~ roporti~~ n:~ tc exposures to all kinds of [ 22] contaminants, poisons, toxins, if you will. But central ..__ .

For The Record, Inc. I ( 301) 870 8025 _;__

& tin U Script@ ( 65) Page 550  Page 553 NEW BEDFORD, MA June l& 2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 554 Page 556 [ t] to all of discussions and all of our deliberations is the [ I] they sent us Dr. Vcronica Eady to take his place and she p] whole issue of human health. For ue that s where the [ z] didn t even know it. We didn t know it. But I was so [ 3] rubber meets the road, or the road meets the rubber, , ( 31 moved to ask her to join this panel, because of her [ 4] however you want to phrase it. But in addition to that, [ 4] experiences, because of her expertise, and the fact that [ s] because we are a holistic people, people of color, taking [ 5] currently she s serving as the interim chair of the [ s] about indigenous people to this continent total island. 161 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Sister [ TI I m talking about Latinos, not Hispanics. If you want [ 7] Dolores. [ e] Hispanics, okay. I m talking about African Americans. PI MS. HERRERA: Well our EJ participants have [ g] I m talking about Asians. I m talking about people of [ g] already been briefed. Have already been briefed on the [ ID] color, and I m talking disenfranchise communities. I m [ IO] formation of this committee, of our body, that Mildred ] I I] talking about marginalized communities. I m talking [ i I J and I sit on. And I ve explained today s agenda, and I [ IZ] about poor white people who live with us and are treated 1121 just want to go ahead and remind folks that we were [ ia] just like us. 1131 tasked, this group was tasked, and I m going quote the [ I41 Under this rubric of Environmental Justice ~ 141 overall intent of NACEPT Superfund Subcommittec.` l'he [ rs] indeed we look at sustainable development, and [ is] committee as WC re called is offer the NACEP'I Council on [ 16] sustainable production practices. We look at equity of [ I61 EPA Findings and Recommendations on the future direction 1171 representation of roundtables like this. We look at [ 17] of the Superfund Program in the context of' our Federal [~ a] fairness, and justice, and injustices, and certainly we [ is] and state waste and site cleanup programs. ~ 191 do look at environmental racism, and we call it just like [ I91 We had three role of NPL, mega sites, and [ zoj we see it. [ zo] measuring program performance. And one we have to [ 241 We look at the issues of community s right to [ ZI] consider is we have to stay within the current statutory 1221 know. We look at issues of the role states in cleanup. [ 22] authorities. And two, using current authorized funding ~~ ~ ._ ____. Page 555 Page 557 [ i] We look at the right to be involved, not justice to [ 2] participate and show up as a number to be check off on [ 3] the check box list. We look at our right to participate 141 in the planning, the characterization, the permitting [ 5I process, the decision making process, the remedy [ IT] selection, the oversight, the monitoring, the on and on,

] 7] the environmental stewardship issues that will lead well [ a] into the next hundred years.

PI So, it s not just about community involvement.

[ IO] Yes, it is, because we want to be at the table in a ~ 111 substantive way. And I would derelict in my duty if I [ 12] didn t say as Environmental Justice communities we always [ 131 look at Federal facilities, because those are some of the 1141 biggest Superfund sites going. It is unfortunate that [ is] within this body we are unable to really focus on that [ 16] issue.

[ I71 That s my Environmental Justice overview. I [ ia] hope it s been somewhat enlightened, and I sure hope you [ 19] are awake now. With that I m going to turn it back over ,201 to sister Dolores. I would just say one thing. One of [ 21] our panelists was unable to make it today, Larry Charles.

[ 221 But God is good and the ancestors are working bccausc ' [ I] levels. And with that we 11 go ahead and start.

I21 And instead of me t& king about how great you [ 3] arc, because I know how great all of you arc, I want you [ 4] to go ahead an introduce yourself and let us go forth.

[ s] We 11 start with Florence Robinson.

PI MS. ROBINSON: Hello. I m Florence Robinson.

[ 7] I ve served on FACA committees before. I know how [ a] difficult it is. I know how important it is to have all [ g] of the parties represented. But I also understand that s ~ [ IO] extremely important for those most allcctcd to be able to [ I 11 be present.` lb have that voice, and to be able to have ~ ( 121 that voice in efficient way. And therefore, when 1 look [ is] at this committee, and when I looked at who was on the [ la] committee, I was very, very disappointed. Disappointed ~ 151 in the lack of representation of grassroots communities.

[ isI These are the people who really suffer the problem.

~ 171 ` These are the people who know the problem firsthand [ ia] because they re thcrc. And I just really i` ecl that there ( is] is a lack of it.

PI I also want to express the simple fltct that [ zr] Niican Americas arc not one monolithic culture.

1221 Hispanics arc not one monolithic culturc. Also, the ~~ ~.

Page 454  Page 557 ( 66) I Min U Script33 For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEF'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMIT'I'EE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 18,2003 Page 558 [ I] kinds of the sites where we live, they re very diverse.

[ zl And there s a diversity in attitudes about sites, about [ 3] Superlimd, about approaches to cleanup. And I just don t [ 4] think that this committee has enough representation in ( 51 that department to adequately reflect the real problems [ 6] lhal we have out there.

( 71 I formally lived in the communily ofAlson. I I31 lived there for 27 years. I left Alson about almost five ( 91 years ago, but I carried Allison with me. You can [ IO~ bclicvc il. I carried it with me in my heart. I carried [ I 11 it with in my concerns. I carried it with me in my ~ 121 knowlcdge. And unl` orhmatcly I carried the true Alson ~ 131 1egacy. A legacy of bad health. I have impaired ( 141 neurological function. I have impaired immune system [ is] function. I have severely impaired respiratory system.

[ is] And God only knows what else I have suffered as a [ 17] consequence of living in Alson and being exposed to [ ia) chemicals in Alson for 27 years.

[ I91 Next slide, please. We re here to meet about [ zc] Supcrfund and Environmental Justice. At the heart of the ~ 211 cntirc matter is funding. because without funding you ( 221 don t have Supcrfund. You ve a dwelling pile of money.

Page 559 111 Congress: in it 5 great wisdom, saw fit not to [ z] rcauthorizc Supedimd despite the many people and despite ~ 31 the IBct that we had CEOs  I see one of them 141 representing an organization sitting here  who sat and 151 agreed on a set ol' principals and Congress refused to on ( 61 with thal authorization.

i71 So. here WC arc many years later struggling with [ a] this problem that still exists. And for the simple fact [ Q] that so many African American communities and so many , iol Iiispanic communities. and other people of color ii] communities exist a1 the fence line of Superfund sites or 121 on iop of' thcm. You can t have Environmental Justice 131 ~ mlcss you have Superfund.

' 41 Next slide, pleasr. So, we want talk about such 151 things as ~ hc hazard ranking system, prioritization, and tq justrcc. All of' these things require money. Without 171 money: you know, WC rc talking about whether we re going 181 to have mega silts or not They require moncy. And in] withoIlt funding you don t have anything. And I think XI] thaw this commitlce has an cxccllcnt opportunity to make 213 a tlrIl~ rcncc. Ycs. I tn supposed lo say within Ltic lxx,

231 I> LI~ I never was very good at that. I think also that you Page 560 Ii] have the opportunity to make some very, very strong [ z1 recommendations that can make a difference.

: ( 31 Superfund is an issues ofAmerican justice. In ( 41 the first place those of us who suffer from the problem,