I31 MR. EHRMANN: I'm just trying to  I mean, it's [ 4] very  I mean, I think it was very helpful for me to [ 5] understand. But I'm just trying to ligure out what would [ 6] be safe?

I71 MS. PROBST: Right. I don't know. I'm with [ a] something Jim said. I don't think we've talked about the 191 criteria are for listing.

01 MR. EHRMANN: I understand that and WC get to 11 that later on.

21 MS. PROBST: Well, I would be comfortable that 31 the statement of costs should not bc the primary  I 41 don't think that's the whole  all we should say.

51 MR. EHRMANN: I understand. I undersldnd. I'm 61 just trying to take this particular piece  okay. ( Go 71 ahead.

81 MR. LOEHR: Et1 208 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, ML June17,200 [ i] was your consideration for the sites you didn't list?

[ z] What did you think was going to happen to them?

PI MR. BREEN: I knew I had other listings in the ___ ___ Page 209 Page 211 [ I] because that's obviously informing what's going on here,

[ 2] which is what I think your question

I31 MR. PUTNAM: Wetl, I also  they threw this out [ 4] hlture where I could move them into the listing process 151 and that it wasn't a one shot deal, and that this  you [ 6] know, you only list a site once, but you don't  you ~ 71 don't decide  if you don't put it on that list it [ a] doesn't mean you can't put it on the next one.

PI MR. PUTNAM: Well, why would you think the [ lo] circumstances are going to be any different a1 the next 11 I] listing? That a low ranking site is ever going to not be 1121 a low ranking site and that you're going to get more [ 13] money? I mean, the reality is that site was given to you ( 141 by a State and you rejected it or you postponed it for a [ i5] future listing that may never come.

( 161 MR. BREEN: It's certainly the case I didn't ( 171 reject it.` l'hat's not called up to do that. It just [ ia] meant that I didn't need to list it at the time at that [ rsl tnotncnt in order to feel like I was managing responsibly. I41 Fi 1` 31 PI IlO!

1111 [ I?

I [ I31 as two after the charge was developed. I mean

MR. EHRMANN: I understand.

MR. PUTNAM:  our first meeting was what's the role of the NPL and then, you know, six months into it it's like oh, wait a minute. We have this idea we want your input on. And I thought it was pretty clear the input was not too many people liked it.

MS. MAYO: Was there an idea  was that going to the work group?

[ I41 ( 151 1lW MR. PUTNAM: I mean, they  the impression I got in Phoenix was it wasn't a good idea.

MR. EHRMANN: Well, I think again what we need to gravel with here is the ideas that are down on paper,

what people think about them and are there other ways to get at this that would be more effective, and I think what Barry's putting on the table is an aspect of this Issue. PO1 1211 WI [: I PI PI ( 41 PI 161 ( 71 PI 21 I' 01 ! 111 [ 121 I' 31 [: 4]

[ IF [ if31 I171 ;' 61 1191 [ 23]

[ 21 ( 22) on this site, and you said what lo him or her, whoever it was7 Not yet,

MR. EREEN: ` l'hc system didn't call on me to do tha(. It just called on me to  I understand your pottiL, f: d, but I guess  what I'm trying to tell you back is that thcrc are consequences to listing and assigning those consequences to a community, 1 feel like I need 10 take into account everything and not just some things.

MR. PUTNAM: Well, additionally, I think what you did requires rofc Inaking and public comment.` l'here \~` a\ public comment on what you were concerned. My rccollcction is nobody liked it, yet you did it anyway.

And as far as workload, doing an KII'S on a site is a minor workload addition. I mean, it  FI'li wise and money wise it's a very small percentage of the overall workload going on at liPA.

MR. EHRMANN: Let me suggest that  I mean, I think II'S very helpful obviously 10 have the real time cxpcrlcncc here and encourage folks who arc commenting to rcllrcr on tflc spccilic suggestion that Barry made,

rcfIcc. 1 on Lhc cxpericncc lhat happcncd in this year, MR. PUTNAM: But didn't the States ask you to do it at that time. I mean, we're  you have a site where w31 WI the State Governor handed it to you and said please work ~~ ~_ ~` L221 Page 210 1 If1 121 131 L41 151 El F 1 Fl PI [ lOI [ I 11 1121 1131 [ I41 I151 [ I61 [ I71 llel Some may see it as not the right answer to the right question, but let's reflect on the language that's __~

Page 212 here and get a sense of whether  what you would propose  and you've already said in your earlier comments, you would prefer language that says caution not be a factor.

MR. PUTNAM: Caution not be a factor and if you are going to reject sites from the NPL, which is, in essence, whal they did  I mean, I think it's a rejection, not putting it on when it's ready to go.

That we can reflect in the language. I don't think that's acceptable. I think doing that without soliciting proper public comment on that issue. I mean,

right now if you read the NCP all you need is a 28.5 to get on the NPL. You don't even a Governor's letter.

So, I think they've violated their own rules by not doing that. By implementing this new strategy and then asking us for permission is certainly contrary to how it should go.

FEMALE VOICE: The other point that I hear you tnaking and I just want to repeat because I feel Iike it's [ I91 getting lost in the point that you  ( inaudible)

[ zo] choosing not to list a site, to delay listing a site or ~ [ XI not to list it altogether, has consequences too. So, you 1221 know, after sort of considering alI of the consequences ForTheRecord, Inc. ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 55) Page209 Page212 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 213 [ I] of that decision making the yes has a set of consequences [ z] and the no has a set of consequences, and the not right [ a] now, maybe later has a set of consequences.

[ 41 MR. PUTNAM: Well, I think our language has  I [ q mean, we have the limbo phraseology in there and I think 161 that's what happens to it. So, I think  it can even [ 7] say more about, you know, this type of action being [ a] contrary to existing role making and all that other stuff [ 9] too.

[ lOI MR. LOEHR: Let me continue the roll. Dolores.

u11 MS. HERRERA: Okay. Barry, I wouldn't want your [ iz] job and I'm glad I don't have it.

[ 131 I believe that there is a process that if that's ~ 141 going to happen, what you're proposing, is  and it's ~ 151 called talking to the community and giving them an option ( 1 s] and explaining what the options are. But just to make 1171 that decision based on non accessible dollars or [ re] resources or expendable resources, anAgency capacity is 1191 circumventing a public process. I would vote no.

1201 MR. LOEHR: Grant.

I211 MR. COPE: I was just trying to get my points ( 221 down into three because that's what Mel says. It's

Page 214 [ I] always three. Even if it's four, it's three.

t21 MALE VOICE: That's an engineer. Lawyers get 131 more than that.

141 MR. COPE: That's my fist rule. On the issue [ s] of the legality of it and  I don't know  I'm [ s] obviously not with ODC, but it seems to me findings are a r/] pretty flimsy foundation to rest a policy like that on,

[ a] and I guess I would echo what other people have said in [ g] that I don't  it certainly, you know, common sense to [ IO] be a good manager and you don't want to overstress your [ i 11 people; morale is important.

[ f21 But I don't know if it is legitimate to refuse IIS] to list sites that are ready to go. It seems to me to be ~ 14~ a pretty drastic change in policy and I guess I would 1151 just echo what other people have said. You know, I don't ~ 161 know if that's an issue that this working group or this ( 171 group, rather, wants to take up, period, to recommend [ je] that EPA re examine that in a real serious way  well,

( 19] with the recommendation for doing away will1 it.

PO1 And then just really quickly two other poinls.

[ 21] If EPA decides to go down this road, it dots stem to mc p21 that you're just recreating the stigma problem. I mean,

Page 213  Page 216 ( 56) Min U Script@ Page 215 ( 11 I understand that you don't want to list it to get away [ 2] from it, but the higher the proftie, you know, the more [ a] stigma it would create.

[ 41 And then this feeds right into the third issue,

[ s] which is, you know, you really are creating, in essence,

[ s] what is a pressure release valve, which undercuts your.

~ 1 ability to actually get more funding. So, it seems like [ 8] it's a  you know, the thing that I've written down is [ g] the cosmetic solution as an approach to addressing real lo] problems, which are, you know, communities being hurt.

111 MR. LOEHR: Doris.

121 MS. CELLARIUS: I find that the proposal for the 131 listed area we're talking about a little bit confusing,

141 at least, to me. A person would want to know what 151 Superfund benefits they might still have if they weren't 161 on the list. But 1 think there are a lot of things that 171 the community and the legal opportunities wouldn't be i a] there.

191 I have a question in reading the Resources

zo] ( inaudible)  book. It said that when they surveyed the 211 States there were States that said that they would add 221 some mega sites to it and that a significant number 01 Page 216 [ i] these mega sites could largely be funded by Pl1Ps.

[ z] Something like 80 percent. And this really jumped out at [ 3] me as an opportunity. Is that true? 1 mean  iC [ 4] sounded like

PI FEMALE VOICE: It is true that not  you know,

[ s] I don't remember the exact numbers. I think we had  I [ 7] mean, at least based on the interviews we did it wasn't [ a] that all mega sites were going to be fund lead. It was [ g] like 20 or 30 percent  I think 20 or 30 percent. I IO] don't remember, although I could get you the number.

111 MS. CELLARIUS: Well, it's like an interesting IZ] number.

131 FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. No, they're not all

141 MS. CELLARIUS: It makes you feel that  you 151 know, that there arc real opportunities once a site is 161 listed and you don't start that process unless

171 MR. LOEHR: Gary.

181 MR. COPE: I guess  I don't see this as bcinl:

191 3,000 sites that we're talking about.` l'hc process 01 201 bringing a site forward to the point of listing is a 211 process that no local community, no State. no EPA 221 regional office takes without knowing that thcrc is a For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, M June 17,200 Page 217 I

[ I] significant amount of costs that are involved just moving [ z] it forward.

I31 1 mean. the community has to agree. You have to [ 4] make SLIK you've talked to the PRPs where they're there.

151 For a State, you have to go through a difficult process [ 6] through your administration to get approvaI. You've gone [ 7] throtlgh an extensive overview as far as the pathways to 181 make sure a11 your data is solid to withstand any kind of [ 9] appeal 101 YOLI know, I think we're  I think what we're . i 11 talkmg abot~ t doing is for a limited number of sites  I 121 don't know. ten, twenty a year  we're creating a new 131 category and I call it the listing purgatory. I just

141 I don't know how these sites are going to get out of i 51 thcrc I mean, if we're going to call it that, I guess 161 tkit`~ what it is. ~ 11 works, that the regional staff will say, well, I'm going [ z] to choose the sites that I want to work on, and we're not ( 31 going to go through the NPL process but I'm going to say,

[ 4] you know, this is close, it's equivalent, and we would [ sl like you  you know, we would Iike to oversight on your [ 6] site.

1`

I' [ 71 And so I'm trying to figure out how we put this la] into a system in which we're making recommendations about ( 91 how YOLI make choices and do something that's very IO] transparent on an NPL listing, but at the same time the I I] kind of decent  ( inaudible)  structure allows 14 regional staff to make their own decisions in terms of 131 the sites that they're going to spend time on by 141 designating them Superfund alternatives.

151 MR. LOEHR: Steve.

161 MR. ELBERT: I would say just a couple things. 1r I'

['

[ i [ I71 But I agree with Ed, I'm not sure how they get [ IQ out of therc. hnd to  I think as others have said, it [ igl really is transforming what  I mean, the purpose of the [ ZOJ NPI. is really to identify those sites that have a ( 211 significant human health and environmental risk that are [ zzl sites of national concern. This nation needs to know 11 [ I 71 Number one, I'm very, very comfortable with having cost [ is] be a significant criterium for Listing. I think it puts 1191 some pressure in the system. I think we do ourselves a [ zo] disservice when we say, well, if we consider those costs 1~ 1 then the program becomes static or we compromise an [ zz] ability to fimd. Page 21s Page 218 Page 220 ~ 11 ; rlx~ ut those sites and that goes beyond funding issues.

I21 1 lust  I'm just troubled by this and I'm ( 31 trouhlcd by the notion of trying to compare sites that [ 41 have gone to this level with the 3,000 other sites of 151 I~ edcral Interest, which I'm not even sure what that list 161 is all about. ~ 111 To me that's missing the point. The problem is [ z] we don't have the funding. We're not  if the answer 131 were that well, we'll just get additional funding, then [ 4] there's no point in this Subcommittee even meeting. The ( [ s] IPA has convened us to help get advice on how to deal [ 6] with, as Dolores put, the realities of today, which is we VI MR. EHRMANN: We've got about seven/ eight 171 don't have more funding. [ sl mlnutcs on this topic. So, if the remaining speakers PI Now if we want to talk about additional funding, [ g] make your comments brief we can get everybody in 19) that's a valid thing. I'm happy to talk about that. But [ IO] p"` bably 1101 it misses the point of this conference  or this II ` 1 MR. LOEHR: Sue. `[ ii] program. And I Iikc the idea of putting cost in there [ IT MS. BRIGGUM: Yeah. I'm just having trouble [ IZI because it triggers the kinds of discussions that Ed and ~ 131 hcrc with my experience in the field and the description $ 31 Gary raised, which I don't understand entirely, but it 1141 of' the system because I'm hearing what Ed and Gary are 1141 begins to get those very thorny questions out on the [ 151 saying in terms of the importance of the prioritization [ is] table and it puts some pressure in the system to raise [ 16] where you have a process that the States make their 1161 those discussions. [ j71 sclcction. they go to I1PA.` ll~ cre's a headquarters review I' 71 When we dog leg off into saying well, we'll just ;` 8) acid ; I clctcrmination of the universe of sites that all of [ ial argue and get more appropriations, there's no pressure in 1191 the IVA employees should be devoting themselves on in 1191 the system to do anything different and the whole point 12~: tefn~ s of new listings a year. ( 201 01' LIS  oL` what EPA has asked us to do is to give them P ` I ]~ LII in at Icast a trouplr of the regions our ( 211 options Li) r getting  to thinking differently and ( 2%) expcricncc is that that entirely the way the program 1221 driving different behavior.

p LL.. I ~ orTheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 57) Page 217  Page 220 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 221 [ iI MR. LOEHR: Vicky.

El MS. PETERS: Speaking as an attorney who has [ 3] recently been reassigned for the third time in my 15 year [ 4] career to the same site, I did not come to the conclusion [ 5] easily that Ed and others have been proposingYou know,

[ 6] I work on Leadville. We're going to be hitting 20 years m and it was real hard for me to say, yeah, maybe we should [ a] be looking at putting resources to other sites. You [ g] know, I think all money should go there until we're done.

[ jOI But, on the other hand, what convinced me was [ I 11 two things. One was was the idea of telling the truth 1121 and shaming the devil, and if Congress doesn't want to 1131 put more money in and EPA doesn't want to ask for more [ 14] money then tie. We have to deal with those [ t 51 consequences. But in the interest of transparency and [ i6] accountability 1 think that people have a right to know ~ 171 that that is what is going on.

Vsl But, perhaps, even more importantly in my mind [ Is] was it was  it just fundamentally seemed so [ 20] inappropriate to me on a year to year basis to be judging 1211 sites relative to other sites. That a site might get on ( 221 the NPL and arbitrary  might get on the NPL in one year Page 222 [ I] because it was lucky enough not to have other bad sites [ 2] coming up at the same time, but the next year it wouldn't [ 3] because there were.

[ 41 And so in the course of our conversations what [ s] appealed to me more was that there is a standard and thal [ s] if you don't reach that standard of risk or whatever, you [ 7] know, it's the State  the State's are going to have to [ a] suck it up and figure out what to do about those. But if [ g] it does, it's a national priority and everybody needs to [ lo] know about it and deal with it.

[ ill And if a new site comes on that's worse than a [ 12] site that's been there for 10 years, then, you know

~ 131 maybe not  maybe not every site is going to have a ~ 141 program manager right away, but EPA wilI have all the ~ 151 sites on the list and look among them and do the [ 16] prioritization that, you know, Mike and some other people [ 171 are talking about, and the ones move forward that pose [ is] the greatest risks.

[ 191 That's how I came to the conclusion. We did ( 2111 talk basically about your suggestion.

I211 MR. LOEHR: Jim.

VI MR. DEROUIN: Back a few meetings ago, one 01. Page 223 [ i] the issues on the table was whether we were going lo look [ 2] at the HRS and the efficacy of continuing the 28.5 level [ 3] for listing, and we went back to the arguments of 1980.

[ 4] It was a temporary thing. It got us initial sites. IIow [ 5] meaningful was it? So on and so forth.

Is1 And I was one of the pusher of that. That came [ A off of the table and it was my understanding coming oul [ a] of Phoenix and in subsequent work sessions that we were [ g] to have a 1.5 that split the difference between the two io] options that are set forth here and with transparent t i] improvements. And as hard as I look at this, 1 do set iz] the word improvement mentioned once in these seven pages,

131 but I don't see a coherent discussion of the option that 41 we were to come forward with coming out of Phoenix 51 One of the things discussed was to get risk s] based decision making into the equation as a means 01 71 advancing sites to the NPL. I Illink some of us  Mike a] and Wilma and myself included  suggested that no site 91 that posed a real true health threat should be kept off ! o] of the NPL. That's a fact or an additional to the cost ! I] issue, which is why I objected to the way the one finding ! 2] was stated because it was very lonesome sitting there all Page 224 [ I] by itself identifjiing cost as the sole decision making [ 2] item.

[ 31 Now in this section I don't see any [ 4] recommendations. What I see on page 19 is that [ s] additional efforts should be mddc lo explore the issue [ 6] and that's pablum and that doesn't go anyplace. And then [; 7 on page 21, suggestions for additional research, that's a [ a] Washington DC proposal if I ever saw one and that is we [ g] couldn't come to a conclusion so  you know, let's ask o] for additional studies to be made of it.

11 So, I guess two things  two concluding 2l thoughts. Whcre is one 1.5? And number two, to point 31 this out, because, as we point oul lalcr in the report 4] and I think it was MikeTilchin's language, we are never 51 going to have unlimited funding. It's never going Lo be 61 the case.

71 So, the more that Ed and Gary get on that list `[ ia] in terms of site for the next 29 years, it's less that [ ig] New Bedford gets. whatever it is because the pit is a [ 20] certain size and that is the numerator, and the nunlbcr of [ zi] sites is the denominator, and one way or Lhc other, : I:,

[ 22] Steve was saying, WC 1x1~ to  you know. it's crunch Page 221 Page 224 ( 58) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, n, June 17,200,

__. ~

Page 225 { I] time to try and figure out what the solution is with all ( 21 these competing considerations.

( 31 But where is 1.5? Did we move away from that?

~ 41 Did it disappear? Did some Subcommittee agree not to [ 5] include it?

Fl MR. EHRMANN: No.

( 71 MR. LOEHR: You have a comment on that  you're [ a] into fimding.

PI MR. DEROUIN: As far as the 1.5, again that 101 discussion is carried more in the  back in the B part I 11 of the document. I mean, it looks  something might 121 have gotten dropped off too, but there was the numbers

131 as it #" es through that there was a number of different 141 I. 5 options that were, in fact, looked at and considered.

151 MR. EHRMANN: Let me ask Elizabeth just to

161 she was working on the draft.

171 MS. McMANUS: The way I remember the discussions IS] in the group, and I' 11 look around so people can help 191 keep me honest here, is there was an initial move to say [ zo] lhat looking in total at all of the recommendations ~ 211 emerging on Improvements to early screening, improvements 1221 to IIRS. the idea of the coordinating committee, Ed's RIPS 11 ['

['

( 1 $ 1 Page 227 [ II MR. DEROUIN: Well, what I would Iike to say is ~ 21 that I do think there are repercussions if we have ~ 31 changed where we left Phoenix, including the discussion ~ 4) of the 28.5 efficacy as the HRS standard, which is what 1s) Mel brought up. So, I thiik to the extent that we move 161 off of 1.5 as a defied objective to try and modify that,

171 that does push us back toward other issues.

PI MR. LOEHR: Mel.

A MR. SKAGGS: I think some of my comments may be a] a little out of place. I have been hanging in here since rl the first time period commented.

21 I think that to list on the basis of 28.5 31 without regard to resources is disingenuous to the public 41 and it's also a disregard of Congress, if you will. I 51 mean they basically have established the size of the 61 program they wanted and we might talk them into a little q bigger program or they may decide on their own to do a] that.

91 I beIieve that if the Superfund Program was $ 120 1201 Billion instead of $ 1 Billion every UST in the country ( 211 would be on  would be scoring 28.5, we would have an 122~ NPL of 100,000 sites, and haIf the State programs would Page 226 Page 226 ~ 11 prioritization scheme  I tend to call it a scheme. I'm ~ 21 sorry.` l'hat taken in total those would constitute 1.5.

PI I do think, Jim, it's fair and accurate for you ~ 41 to say thcrc was some drift when the work group got back [ j] togcthcr around this idea and that drift  my 161 observation is that drift tended to drift people back ( 11 towards options that were closer to the two scenarios ~ 81 that were presented in Phoenix, you know, which arc ~ 91 pretty cIosc IO the options that you have here.

[ 101 SO, you know. you have option one that says ~ 1 : I don't do : I national screen, list it all; and that  that [ ITI will bc 1.5 because we've improved the listing process so [ jq much that wc'tl have it be more targeted. Or you have [ ln! the other oplion, which says no, we need a national level [ iq screen. but it shouldn't consider funding. It should be ( 161 looking, as Vicky said, at this sort of national standard [ I 71 to rllakc sure that the right sites arc getting on the list ( 181 : iI a11 limes j19] So I don't know il` that helps or doesn't help,

~ 701 1~ 11 that's my rccollcction. I'll look around the table.

I211 MR. LOEHR: Should we go to Mel to get his input ( 221 at this time?

... [ II be disbanded because the State programs fiU the sites [ 2] that don't quite make it and when a site doesn't quite [ q make it, it puts Ed and Gary and theirAgencies in a 1 ( 41 bind, and it puts the public in a bind in those [ s] locations. But it's honest. At least you know it's not ' [ 6] on the list.

I71 And I think we need to acknowledge that we have [ a] exactly the same problem today that we would have. We do [ g] have funding constraints today. We just don't [ lo] acknowledge it.

PII MR. LOEHR: Aimee.

I' 21 MS. HOUGHTON: I want to get my two cents in, no 1131 pun intended. On the fimding.

1' 41 I disagree with the fact that we should not [ is] point out lo Congress that there is a severe funding [ i6) shortfall. And I'm going to use ` an analogy of another 1171 cleanup program where there is a severe funding shortfall [ i a] and lhat has many more sites than the Superfund site.

[ 191 And that's a DOD program, a former Lees Defense site.

( 201 It's got 6,000 sites and 3,000  well, it doesn't have I[ 211 any adequate funding for it  1,000 of them fall another I .' [ zz] cdtc~ ory whcrc there is even less funding.

For The Record, Inc. _" ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 59) Page 225  Page 228 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 229 [ II And the reason it's been such an orphan program [ 2] is because Congress really didn't know about it. DOD has ~ 31 never asked for the appropriate amount of funding to deal 141 with the problem. To some degree they have never even [ q known the scope of the problem. And it's just now, after ( 61 years of making this an issue and literally having to do [ 7] it, you know, person by person, that they're beginning

[ a] that Congress is beginning to understand that they have a 191 role to play in this. They didn't understand they had a [ lo] role to play in this before because they didn't [ I I] understand the magnitude of the problem.

1121 One of the reasons that they've begun to ~ 131 understand the magnitude of the problem is this report ( 141 that Kate mentioned earlier today, which in the annual [ IFS] report to Congress lists out the funding levels, the cost ( 161 to complete, and based on that cost to complete and based [ 17] on the appropriations that they program 0~ 1, it gives you [ ISI a year that that completion will take place. And in most [ I91 cases, it's like 20/ 48,20/ 75.

VOI And the reason that I bring this up is because I ~ 211 don't think that we can duck the issue of funding. I ~ 221 think we have to look at every other  all the options Page 230 111 on the table, but I think we would be remiss in not ~ 21 calling the question and saying this is a problem because ~ 31 Congress  whether or not, you know, that gets  it [ 4] gets back to the politics that Dolores was talking about.

PI IJnless the information is being presented to [ 6] them, unless there is some sort of accountability ~ 71 required, they've got a million other things that they [ a] can focus their attention on. But I do think that, you [ q know, the Hill is well aware that this committee is [ I o] engaged in this debate, they will look for this report [ III when it comes out, and I think that we would be  we ( 121 would sort of advocate some of our responsibility if we ( 131 didn't lay that out very clearly.

1141 MR. EHRMANN: Let me just make one observation [ ISI  and I'm not saying this to put out a trial balloon to [ jq see if people agree with both parts of what I'm going to ( 171 say. But you could  it would not be inconsistent to jra] have a recommendation that says we think this progrdm [ jg] needs more money and make a recommendation that says we [ PO) think costs ought to be a factor in making these [ 211 decisions.

P21 You can say both those things and not be self .~. ~. ~~...___ ~

Page 231 [ I]  I'm not saying you're ready to or you want to or ~ 21 there's a consensus on that or anything else. But they 131 are  those two issues can sit side by side and be 141 consistent.

PI So I think  you know, as we get  as we weave [ s] this web a little more as we go through these other [ 7] sections  I mean, this is obviously a very core issue [ a] for this report for the Subcommittee and that's why we're [ g]  you know, it's worth spending the time on it now IO] because it's going to echo through other things that we I 11 have on our list up here.

121 But I think  1 would just encourage everybody 131 to think about the various strands of this pretty 141 carefully. And clearly WC have different views on either 151 strand that I just said. So, I'm not  again, I'm not IS] trying to, you know, float a trial balloon, but I just 171 point that out in terms of the threat of this discussion.

181 MR. LOEHR: MikeTilchin.

191 MR. TILCHIN: At the risk of great controversy,

201 I would actually like to make a comment on page ten.

! I] MR. EHRMANN: You're outside the bracket, I'm z21 sorry.

Page 232 [ II MR. TILCHIN: When WC start with the key [ 21 fiidings that section at the top of ten, I think that [ 31 that immediately starts this section down on this ' 41 fleeting path, in that it talks about  and we never .5] really get off that path. And it talks about the problem 61 with national level prioritization, is that it dOWS you . A to introduce funding as a listing criteria.

81 And then if you move over to the two options on : g] page 12, I think that issue  that's still a confusing o] point here and that is  you know, you could break the 11 world down into national level review or no national 21 level review. You could break the options down inlo cost 31 should be a consideration for listing, cost should not bc 41 consideration for listing. But those are not absolutely 51 the same. The percentages, though, are the same and 61 that's incorrect.

71 So, I think we just need to  that needs to be a] straightened out.

91 Nso just thinking about the dialogue that we've ` 01 had, somewhere in the discussion there  I don't ` 11 remember who said it and it was almost just in the court ' 21 of conversation. Someone talked about cost being a Page 229  Page 232 ( 60) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Mi June 17, ZOO,

____.._~

Page 233 : Page 235 [ II primary factor in listing. I don't think there's anyone 111 were talking, where we came to in trying to figure out [ z] at UK table that thinks that. But somehow that, sort ( 21 what our guidance was from the Subcommittee, was that we 131 of, has seeped its way into the discussion. So, people [ 3] didn't hear

141 ought to be mindful of  you know. ( 41 I mean, we called  I called the question; John [ 51 Harry said do I go Iike this and I think mosl [ sl called the question three times  whether anybody 161 people feet like no, you shouldn't do that. Hut there is ( 61 supported a scenario  I think you guys flipped them

171  yeah, there is  yeah. Therc's a  you know, [ 7] I think one and two. [ a] there's a lot of room to discuss the issue of resource WI But the scenario where EPA would select sites 191 availability and listing without talking about it in [ g] based upon how much they cost and how much funding was ( IO] terms of being the primary issue. [ IO] avaiIabIe. And nobody spoke out in favor of that.

[ I 11 Backing up to page 11, it's an HRS related [ I II I Iowevcr, several people spoke out against the other [ jzl comment and that is that whatever WC have to say about [ IZI scenario that the role of the Federal Government would be 1131 the IIRS and beeling it up I don't want us to lose sight [ IL+] limited to some kind of quality controLAnd we didn't 1141 over the fact that there's a real advantage to the HRS ~ 41 define that and I think it means different things for [? s] being an expedited process that's fairly inexpensive. [ 15] different people.

1161 That is an advantage and whalever we have to say about I' 61 Hut certainly people were not  I would say, at ( 171 that process, about beefing it up, make it more rigorous, 1171 least four or five people spoke up at the last meeting [ rq needs lo keep that in mind. , IIE] and said they're just not comfortable with that. They 1191 And then back on page 10 we talk about the HRS 1191 want some kind of national prospective, professional [ zoj no1 being  not being a risk asscssmcnt and it combines [ ZOI judgment to be brought to those decisions. And so that  ( 211 quantitative data and professional judgment. Well, so do ( 211  that was what WC took away from that meeting in terms [ z] risk assessments, so don't lose sight of that issue [ ZZI of the  you know, the 1.5  if' you've got one saying Page 234 i I Page 236 [ II either.

PI And finally on page 11 under the summary of 131 recommendations and rationale, we talk aboul the  you [ 4] know, make cvcry effort to look for other programs that ( 51 will cleanup sites quickly. Well, Superfund doesn't [ 6l clean them up quickly cithcr. So that word is really

[ 7] if that word is a problem I'm sure we can fix that.

PI MR. LOEHR: Vicky PI MS. PETERS: I want to get back to the nasty [ IO; issue and help Elizabelh out in explaining, you know,

[ i I] whcrc we are and how we got there. And it's too bad that [ ITI ( Zatherinc isn't hcrc because she underwent the most brain !` 3] damage on this one.

1141 l', ut as Mike said, the issues as  you know, the [ is; work group, which I missed in Dallas. took their best ( 161 shot a~ kind of framing some big issues and they did lump [ I : I SOIW things, you know, togcthcr and they left some things [ la] OLIl 1191 But they  I think what's written up here is [ XI] kind ol'a chronology of the thinking of the group, and 1211 that is rhc lumping the national screen with the funding jz] as onc. And my understanding and the work group as we 111 money is not a factor/ money is a factor, there really 14 isn't anything in between that, you know. If it's more 131 than not a factor it's a factor and you're into the other ~ 41 scenario that was rejected.

151 And so the solution that we came up with  and 161 I think you're probably right, Jim, that it's not weII [ 7] represented here. But we haven't even talked about HRS.

[ a] You know, my paper now  you have it  but certainly 191 part of that is  and I recognize, Mike, you're right,

[ IO] Ihat there's a balance in making it quick and simple and 1111 cheap.

, I121 Maybe the Subcommittee won't adopt the ~ 131 recommendation, but the recommendation that we're ( 141 bloating is that there is more of a rigorous review of [ IS] the IIRS and that the PRPs are involved and the ( 161 communities are involved, so we arc  you know, we're 1171 sure that we're dealing with the high caliber [ is] sites.

( 191 You know, based upon the statistics we've seen,

( 201 of die 3,000 GAO identified sites, you know, it's going ( 211 IO be : I fraction of them that's going to get through this [ zz] screen that, you know, Gary and Ed are talking about.

For The Record, Xnc. " ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 61) Page 233  Page 236 ,_ ._^. . . Page 237 Page 239 Cl1 So, I think maybe this is one, again, that we [ l] can say increased authorization or increased [ z] need to do the hard work and calling the recommendations. [ 2] appropriations, then maybe we should go down that road.

[ 3] We haven't really  we haven't really spelled out, I 131 To finish it off, I don't think also that it [ 4] think, in enough detail what the early screening looks [ 4] takes funding or reforms. I think that's a false [ s] like and what the role of the HRS screening is going to [ SJ dichotomy. I think we can come out with reforms that [ 6] look like. Maybe we need to do that work before we try [ 6] actually strengthen the program. Now strengthen, of [ 7] to solve the macro issue here. That would be my [ 7] course, is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. But you [ s] recommendation.

191 MR. EHRMANN: That's helpful.

[ lOI MR. LOEHR: Grant.

[ 111 MR. COPE: Just touching on the funding issue,

[ iz] real quickly. For what it's worth, I guess I approached ~ 131 this from the prospective of if we don't need to do any 1141 damage  if we don't need to weaken the program we [ 15] shouldn't. It's kind of the medical, I think, you know,

[ 16] first thing do no harm.

[ I71 Funding is and always was a part of this [ is] conversation. Fisher clarified that at  what was it

[ Is] the first or second meeting. So that's always been on [ 20] the table. [ a] don't need to necessarily say it's a  you know, one [ 9] thing or another. Either we get more money or we do lo] these reforms. We can come up with ways to improve it.

` 11 MR. LOEHR: Point of reality. We do have  how 121 many people that wish to speak to us?

131 MR. EHRMANN: Two at this point.

141 MR. LOEHR: Two at this particular point. So, I 151 want to make sure we give them enough time. I see, and I 161 have four people still wishing to speak and then we'll i 71 move onto the public participation.

181 Let me go to Ed, Kate, Wilma and Jim.

191 MR. EHRMANN: IMr. Chairman, let me make a [ r] sometimes the conversation floats into a  we'll either ( 21 have to clean them all up at once or, you know, we're [ 3] going to clean them up only one by one, little by little.

141 What we're talking about now is sites that arc [ s] ready to move forwardAre they getting cleaned up?

El FEMALE VOICE: Grant, can you move that closer 171 to your mouth, please.

[ 81 MR. COPE: Sites that are ready to go. How's [ 9] that?

[ 101 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, real close.

[ 111 MR. COPE: So, if we're not talking about [ iz] cleaning up all the sites at once  and we're not.

[ 13] We're talking about cleaning up those sites that are 1141 moving through the process that arc ready to go that have [ is] communities or ecosystems that are being injured by [ i6] contamination.

[ I71 How do we get that funding? It seems to mc that [ IS] it's not a, you know, situation where you're going to one [ ig] extreme or another. It's more what Kate has raised a PO] couple times, which is if there is a situation now where p11 we can say funding is going to solve a lot of these ( 221 problems and we don't need to weaken the program, but WC VI My third point. The Superfund Program has been 1221 cleaning up sites. It's not that  I feel that ! o] process suggestion. Since we're not going on the II] trolleys until 7: 00, I would suggest we do, just as you ~ 21 said, take  do these comments; take the public comments Page 238 Page 240 [ i] since they came at the time it was noticed; and then [ z] spend a bit more time on another issue if we could before ~ 31 6: 00.

[ 41 MR. LOEHR: Is thdt okay

PI MR. EHRMANN: We still have an hour break. It's [ 6] up to the Subcommittee, but it's just so we keep moving.

[ 7] Because this has been a very important discussion. We [ a] don't want to cut this off, but I would like to see if WC [ s] could get one more in before we break.

[' 101 MR. LOEHR: Okay. Putnam.

[' ` II MR. PUTNAM: 1' 11 be brief. Honest. 1 came out c: 121 of Phoenix looking for more of a 1. I or 1.5 on my end. NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEF'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ~ 131 but I  what isn't in here that I actually cxpectcd was [ 14] in the original charge they discuss is Supcrfund the 1151 program of last resort to get a site cleaned up. I like [ i6] to calI it, you know, a national sdfcty net to catch [ 17] them.

[` aI And I think the only way to do that is to, in [ IS] essence, catch everything that comes hadc~ llartU'S way.

[ zo] So, if it comes into hcadcluartcrs they need to catch it.

[ ZI] But they need to bc the last resort; they need to bc the [ 22] person at the end of the line; and doing anything less Page 237  Page 240 ( 62) Min U Scripts For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Ml June17,200:

Page 241 [ I] than putting on the NIT doesn't fi~ llii that criteria.

PI MR. LOEHR: Kate.

PI MS. PROBST: 1 would just like to build in what 141 I think Jim andvicky said, and I don't know if we have ( 51 time for this this meeting. But when I saw this there ~ 61 was a lot of process and I guess I was expecting some ~ 71 criteria, and I think you mentioned like there were some [ a] things that people thought if certain criteria were met [ 9] it really should go on the NH,.

[ i 01 I guess I'm more comfortable  I hope that at 11 II some point we can talk about, sort of, a more positive or ( 121 you know, what are the  what is it that warrants a site ~ 131 going on the l+ deral/ NationaI priorities list, which, to ~ 141 mc, is the fundamental question  as opposed to all [ ts] thcsc, sort of, well, we could do this, we could do that.

11% I don't  and I don't think  I wasn't in ( 171 Phocntx and I wasn't on that work group, but I heard some [ ISI from Jim and Mel andvicky, my sense is there has been [ is) some of that discussion. As a member of the fill1 ~ 201 committee, I haven't heard that discussion. I think [ zi] maybe we could take this in a more positive direction [ zz; rather than WC don't want to do this, we don't want to do Page 243 [ II And so I'm coming back to that part of the text [ 2] and I like Kate's idea about what should be a [ q characteristic of sites on the NPL. But what I'm 141 reacting to is that being told, you know, sort of go and 151 look just like, you know, in one direction, but not all [ 6] around.

[ 71 In terms of  you know, two months ago we just [ s] had to make a decision and I didn't have cost data. But [ g] I didn't want  but I did have a general sense of how IO] much workload could be handled and I didn't want to set I I] expectations of communities unrealistically off by saying 121 you all are now on.

` 31 hnd so what I did, and it wasn't  you know, it 141 wasn't alone, right. You make these recommendations 151 after an office makes recommendations to you and  and I 61 with a lot of help within the Agency was try to go for ! I.

r.

r [ i 71 the high priority sites, meaning those are riskiest. We [ 16] added in those that the enforcement program told us would [ I91 help add a site to have it listed. And we tried to keep `[ zq a general listing presence all around the countryAnd [ ZII so we tried to, in general, have some listing activity go ~ 221 on in lots of places, just geographically.

Page 242 /

[ i] that.

PI So, just a suggestion.

[ 31 MR. LOEHR: Thank you. Wilma.

PI MS. SLJBRA: I have question of Barry and  I'm [ S] not trying lo pul him on the spot, hul he has to leave I 16) know So WC won't have him.

\ 7; When these sites that you looked at and m& de the [ a] clcc~ s~~~ s came into headquarters, were any of them [ g] dcfcrrcd or sent back or anything? Secondly, I would [ io] like to understand a little bit more about how you made [ I I] thr decisions you made and when you set these sites aside [ I?] and said not this year, what makes it different next year ji31  if you have enough money for these sites and any new [ M] ones to come in. will they still drop out because of the 115; decisions you made this year?

[ I61 I'm just trying IO undrrstand the process you [ i7] wcnl lhrougll.

!` R MR. BREEN: ` L'hanks, Wilma. WC don't have cost [ ig] dal; r. cvcn if WC wanted it, that's precise. What 120) troubled mc, coming back lo thr text, is being told don't (? I] think abc> ut this bccausc as : I decision maker that just [ XT] doesn't lcct .. it doesn't feel realistic. ! 111 And then I looked at what that came up with and ~ 21 it looked like an amount that we could manage in the ] a] program. And so when I think about what I would do if an [ 4] advisory committee said don't think about cost, it would [ s] worry me that if I came to this in the future I couldn't [ 6] make that kind of, sort of, sculpting judgment and I

[ 7] and I recognized the needs. But I just feel Iike, as a [ a) manager, we have Co be realistic too.

PI And so that's that dilemma, that tension that [ IO] you're feeling inside of you right now.

IllI MS. SUBRA: And what happens to the deferred [ 121 sites rhe next time around?

'[ I31 MR. BREEN: We look at them and we see  first 1141 of all, what we think is risky we always are revisiting 1151 and WC consider risk then and we'll make judgments then ~ 161 about whcrc the workload has gotten for sites that keep [ 17] moving through and what we can then take in. And we' 11 [~ a] take this committee's advice and do a count.

1191 I teed up some thoughts and if you all tell me,

1201 you know, hat  I mean, we asked you for your advice [ zi] for a reason, right. So, it's not irrelevant what you [ Z] say.

. ._... .".._^ ,___ __ I_.^

ForTheRecord, Inc. ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 63) Page 24X  page 244 Page 244 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEI'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 11 i] without taking advantage of the lessons that might be ( 121 from here  you know, from New Bedford. And I don't [ IS] know if I know what those listings are, but at least two [ 14] concerns that I have when we talk about the costs are,

[ is] one, that we, several times, hinted at. But we don't [ ts] even know what the cost is when we start.

[ ITI I mean, how do they know what the cost of New 1181 Bedford's cleanup was when they were listing the site.

[ is] Right? I mean, the just incredible growth in cost came [ 20] later and I think that may be true of an awful lot of [ 21] sites.

[= I So, in a way, the only costs we're talking about Page 245 Ill So what I do next time, you know, could easily [ al be in a few more months and I'll stiIl have to take this [ 3] into account. But  and ultimately after December we'll [ 4] take that into account too. I can't look that far ahead [ s] I'm afraid.

PI MS. SUBRA: Okay. Thank you, Barry.

m MR. BREEN: You bet.

PI MR. LOEHR: Ed Lorenz.

PI MR. LORENZ: It is briefly. I kept thinking as [ lo] we go along through this, we're discussing the cost issue Page 246 [ I] knowing up front is, you know, the specific [ 2] administrative costs we're going to have to have or, you 131 know, a project manager and some other things. I worry.

141 Unless we get into the next section of the report on [ 5l early screening and try to improve that to have a better [ s] idea of what we're getting into when we look at a site.

VI And then just thinking about New Bedford again,

[ a] a second issue that I think should be discussed when we [ g] get into cost is what is the impact on the community of [ IO] delay? I mean, the one thing we heard this morning when [ I I] we saw that table, right, of the  do we do it in four [ 12] years or 20 some years.

[ I31 Well, there's not just the cost to EPA and to [ 14] the Federal Treasury  I mean, it's being almost blind [ is] to just think of it in terms of, you know, reholding 1161 program funding steady because we should be factoring in ~ 171 also economic opportunity for a community in delayed [ is] redevelopment.

( 191 I don't know how to do that and I don't want to 1201 make this bigger than it is, but I'm starting to think [ 21] that's something that we shouldn't be  this is a one

[ 221 sided deal of cost and it shouldn't b` c one sided. One of Page 247 [ I] the contributions WC could make is helping Barry think [ z] about how do you bring this priority setting other [ 3l consequences.

[ 41 MR. LOEHR: Jim.

[ 51 MR. DEROUIN: Another way of phrasing the option IS] one/ option two discussion in Phoenix was really the 171 creation of false expectations by listing everything that [ a] gets 28.5. I think we concluded that was not good.

PI Option two was the limbo option and that is that 10) you just chop off based on cost arbitrarily. That's the li] way I was viewing it and those were the words. INot 121 purgatory, but limbo, you know.

131 Purgatory, you go there and you get punished on 141 a temporary basis

151 MALE VOICE: Well, we're  ( inaudible).

161 MR. DEROUIN: Yeah. Well, just  only babies 171 who weren't baptized went to limbo, Ed.

181 But those were the words that we used. Wilma 191 was concerned about limbo, as am I. But I'm also ! o] concerned about false expectations also, and what I think ! i]  what I view 1.5 as being was elevating sites to the ~ 21 list that could legitimately compete for dollars and get Page 248 [ I] some dollars. Not sit there. That's a Palsc [ 2] expectation. But compete for dollars based on health [ 3] risks and all of the other issues that we haven't gotten [ 4] to and that is prioritization prior to the remedial [ 5] action plan ROD stage.

PI So, in terms of narrative words, that's what I [ 7] remember and whal I was looking for. 1.1 is, you know,

[ a] kind of false expectations, but it isn't really in the [ g] middle of a field.

01 And what I am concerned about is that you guys I] do a great job on behalf of the State and you deserve 21 accolades for doing it. But you

31 ( End tape three, side two.)

41 MR. DEROUIN:  to the extent that we can. ['

~ 151 Whether it's delincd as I .5 or whatever, identiQ the [ 16] characteristics of the sites that should be funded that [ 17] are on the NPL assuming that every site that gets up [ ia] there should get some funding in short order.

[ ISI Then I think we would bc doing a scrvicc to EPA [ 20] because I just don't think that the creation of false [ 21] expectations is what WC should be sending back to WA [ 22] The problem on both ends, WC got to split them

Page 245  Page 248 ( 64) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 _ .. I _, X_ l. le._ 1. . ., I. .  .,, NACEPT SUF'ERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 1' 1 I21 [ 31 PI PI PI [ 71 PI I?

IlO1 [ Ii1 Ii?

[ 131 1141 11%

[ I61 1171 [ ISI 1191 I201 Pi!

WI I' 1 PI [ 31 14;

iSI El [ 71 181 PI fiO1 1' ` I II21 1131 I141 f's1 f161 [ II)

[ I81 Page 249 Page 25 1 MR. LOEHR: Two last comments on this particular [ I] element of risk reduction under a ROD for a partial point. Dewling and Gary  three. Grant. Not that I [ z] cleanup? We saw one today. We went out and saw that the say three  < irant's is the last one. I just saw it. I31 cleanup at that estuary  that was not the whole cleanup So, let's take those three and then we do need [ 4l at this site. There's a lot more things to be done. But to move on. Dewling. ISI this site  if this site were not on the NPL, they MR. DEWLING: KeaI quick. Jim keeps mentioning, [ 6] wouldn't have done that, you know.

you know, the health risk and when you're on the  you r/ l And there are lot of sites where if they go on know. when you go up to 28.5 there is no health risk [ a] the NPL there is going to be a ROD done and a significant assessment. I mean, you don' 1 have enough information to [ a] element of risk reduction that doesn't get to the whole do a health risk assessment. ( lo] cleanup. So  So when you make it up there, if there's any [` II MR. LOEHR: Grant. issue that is a health risk assessment, I think the [' a MR. COPE: With respect to whether this is  Agency and the Slate take an emergency action to get the [ ia] the issue of funding is just a, kind of, spat between EPA people's water supply corrected, so you've already done 1141 and the States, I guess I approach it from a different the Band Aid.

What it rcaIly caIIs for is what we called for in the watershed wide sites, where the Agency and the States have the ability to do an  you know, a preliminary RI to get that type of` information before it goes up to that next step. You know, maybe that's the 1.5 that you get more information because all the I151 prospective. I think, no, in fact it's a really serious [ is] policy issue and there's people ail across the country

~ 171 communities all across the country that have got to deal 1181 with this. And we all here speak from various [ ia] prospectives on that one issue. So, I don't think it's [ zo] jusl a spat between the States and EPA,

WI On the issue of false exnectations. I like the documentation in my experience shows a great deal of Page 250 professional judgment as weII as other pressures to put sitcs on the list.

`[` here are some data available, but in many cases it's limitcd. And even today there are sites that shoukh'l be up there and on the list.

MR. LOEHR: Gary.

MR. KING: Just two things. I% rst the struggles that the work team was having coming up with this middle range. If you look at 133 and 134, you can see the options we considered and rejected before we reached the approach that Vicky described. So there was a lot of effort to do that and I suggested a number of holes and people told me I was  you know, they weren't good ideas.

` l'his thing about false cxprctalions, part of the problem  costs should be  there should be a conzitleration of cost, but the problem is how arc those costs being considered? Is ITPA  I; d mentioned, how do we know at this point what the costs are going to be for 111 bit different. You have a listing process that's [ z] supposed to be based on risk. Communities at risk;

[ 31 people being exposed; put it on the List; clean it up.

I41 ` 1' 0 me, it seems like a false  you're setting a [ q false expectation. If that's the law  you've got the ISI program to prove that it works, but you're artificially ~ 71 constraining its ability to meet that goal.

PI Where I see this breaking down with respect to [ aI costs specifically, you know stepping back and taking a [ IO] broader look, is cost entering in at almost every single [ 1 I] layer from the decision whether or not to list; to what [ lzj gets cleaned up once it's on the list; to the feasibility [ ia] study. To me that  getting back to my original point,

~ 14~ you know, on funding, that's just a weakening of the [ i 51 program.

[ I61 MR. LOEHR: Thank you. That's the beginning of [ 17l the discussion on this and we'll, obviously continue 11 a] perhaps in the next two days as WC keep coming back to [ ia] this and into the future.

PO1 John, you mentioned that we have a possibility ~ 211 of starting a new session. I should report that the two ~ 221 individuals who are interested in providing public [! a! cleanup? Are they looking at the total potential costs [ ml and then adding them a11 up for sites and then not 12.1 listing them?

I22 What about sites where ~ OLI can do a significant [ zzl way you put it. I mean, I actually look at it a little "....._ l .__

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 65) Page 249  Page 252 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS [ q the public comments and a break before we get on the rioI trolley.

1111 All right, John, what do you suggest?

( 121 MR. EHRMANN: I'd say 15  let's take 15 Ii31 minutes on early screening.

1141 MR. LOEHR: So what's the deadline by which [ tq we're going to go?

[ I61 MR. EHRMANN: 5: 45, let's cut that off; take the ~ 171 public comment; and then we need final logistics and [ la] adjourn.

1191 MR. LOEHR: Okay. So

PO1 MR. EHRMANN: Early screening  oh, I'm sorry.

~ 211 Dolores.

1221 MS. HERRERA: I was going to say I didn't

( 11 MR. EHRMANN: It should be, but

PI MS. HERRERA: Okay. I didn't know we were going ~ 31 to do that, negotiate the agenda and I've made other 141 arrangements. I've got to go get some stuff done. I've IS] got to make a couple of phone calls. So, I was not going [ 6] to be available to

VI MR. EHRMANN: Okay. Well, two options. One is LB] we don't start into early screening; the other is that we [ g] split the early screening discussion and do 15 minutes [ IO] for those who are here and pick it up in the morning so [ II] you'd have an opportunity to comment on it in the [ jz] morning. Would that be acceptable?

[ I31 MALE VOICE: I'd pick it up in the morning.

[ I41 MR. EHRMANN: Okay. Either way. I'm easy.

[ IsI MALE VOICE: We can come 15 minutes earlier in 1161 the morning

1171 MR. EHRMANN: Our published starting time in the [ ia] morning is 8: 30.

[ I91 ( Inaudible conversations.)

WI MR. EHRMANN: West coast/ east coast. It is [ 21) late. I mean, I'm not  look, I'm just trying to help [ 22) us get through everything that we have lo get through. Page 253 [ I] comment have no problem of waiting for a while. In fact,

[ 2] they  if I recall what John told me  might find out 131 comments interesting and thereby have some comments on [ 4] our comments, as part of the public comments.

El So, the point is that it is okay for us to [ s] continue or start  I doubt if we're going to finish the ~ 1 whole thing  another topic. But let's set an official [ a] time so that everybody knows when we will have time for Page 254 Page 255 [ iI FEMALE VOICE: Can we start at 8: 00?

PI MR. EHRMANN: Why don't we start at

[ 31 FEMALE VOICE: Can we start at 8: 00?

[ 41 MR. LOEHR: Well, the problem is the public is [ 5] told that we're going to start at 8: 30. Now we can lildge [ s] it by 8: 15, but starting at 8: 00 is  they're going to [ 7] be signing in. If there are no people

Fl MR. EHRMANN: Let's do this. Wc'll start at [ g] 8: 30, but I'm sure that Ray and I will be able to take o] our 15 minute miscellaneous business and turn it into I] about 30 seconds and pick up our 15 minutes right there.

21 so

31 MR. LOEHR: We do have some reports from the 41 NACEFT Council Committee.

51 MR. EHRMANN: Right. But I think we can  how 61 long is that going to be, do you think?

71 FEMALE VOICE: You want to do that now?

81 MR. EHRMANN: We can do that now? Can we do 91 that now?

! O] FEMALE VOICE: You want to do that now

! I] MR. EHRMANN: Can we do that now, Angelo? Maybe P] Dolores can hang on for two minutes for that.

Page 256 ( 11 FEMALE VOICE: She may not care.

21 MR. EHRMANN: So let me just recap the bidding 3) here. We're going to have the NACEPT Full Commiltee 41 report for a couple minutes; WC will not move into a new 51 issue; we'll take public comment after Angelo and any 61 questions on his report; and we'll still start at 8: 30 in 71 the morning, but we'll be able to get into the subslance s] quicker that way by doing this right now. Is that okay 9) with everybody? Dolores, is that okay with you?

01 All right. Angelo.

11 MR. CARASEA: Wilma and I  this is the one ZJ minute version. Wilma and I briefed the Council on the 31 current status as of May  as of May. That went very 41 well.

51 There were some members of the NACEPT Council 61 that questioned whether the charge sl~ ould lx expanded 71 Some of them were

81 MR. EHRMANN: Go ahead, Angelo.

[` Ql MR. CARASEA: I want to say a few  wouldn't 1201 you say a few or some? I would say about Ii> ur or live 01 1211 us, a group of about this size, wcrc wanting us to [ 22] consider cost bcncfit as part of the determination, which Page 253  Page 256 ( 66) Min U Script@ ..

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 ____.. Page 257 Page 259 [ i] is a big deal. [` I MS. PROBST: Who were the new members? Can we PI The resolution of that issue is that Dorothy [ 2] get a list at some  pi Dnuers, the Chair of the Committee, will take the issue PI MR. EHRMANN: Yeah, why don't we share that [ 4] to l& 4, Mariann Ren ko ( phonetic), and raise that issue [ 4] later. ~ 51 with her. So, that's where that issue stands. , IsI MS. SUBRA: Right. We can get you a list.

161 11 would have been great to have someone like [ 61 MR. EHRMANN: The draft report  you know, this [ 7] the Mayor speak to that group about the benefits of the [ 7] draft report is sitting out there on the table, so [ a] Supcrfund Program because I think he really caphlred the [ a]  I mean, we adopted as much of a transparent approach [ 9] good lhal this program does. [ g] here as we possibly can assuming that if this is I' 01 ` I` he other main issue that I want to bring to the [ IO] everywhere it will be newsworthy than if it is nowhere or [ I I] attention of the group is that in the third week of [ i I] only a few places, as well as just  I think Angelo's ,121 September Wilma and I will brief the Full Council on the [ iz] judgment is the DFO, that that's the way the package ~ 13)  well, I want to be careful with Ray sitting at the end 1131 should be implemented and we certainly support that. 114) of the table  the current leanings of the group. [ I41 So I think the  you know, the report  the [ 1X MR. LOEHR: That's right. No recommendation. [ rs] full report  whatever we put on the table for the [ I61 MR. CARASEA: No. I don't want to use the term [ i6] September meeting as the next draft certainly would be 1171 rccommendation. And maybe Wilma could speak  this is ~ 171 availablc. You may want to take the summary out of that, ~ 181 to give them the idea of what  what they need to know `[ re] whatever it looks like at that point, for ease of [! 9] to make their final decision to make the report go ( 191 communication and make sure that they focus specifically po) li, rward to the Agency. I'm not quite sure of the process I201 on that. ,211 that the Pull Council does because  and I'll let Wilma [ 211 I do think that this issue of the process  you I' 1 I) ut we have to rcmembcr that this Committee will [ z] come to a conclusion, but that all recommendations are

131 all advice and recommendations of this Committee must be pt] approved by the Council before it goes to the Agency.

! Sl MR. LOEHR: Wilma PI MS. SUBRA: WC had a large number of brand new 171 members at Ihe May meeting, so they were very engaged and [ e] they were interested in the Superfimd issue. In [ q addition. the NA( ZEPT Council would like to see as much as ` 101 they can see at the September meeting, trying to be 111 responsive to our needs to get this process over with by iz] the end of December.

1 v W'c'vc given them briefings, but as you know,

14~ this is the first time we've really had a document. And 151 $ 0 II wc can come up with something that  maybe even is] the l: xccutivc Summary or the general points of the 171 rc~ olnmendation, like you pulled out  something to give 1 J$ them subslancc to rcarl ahcacl of time and be able to 191 dialogue with them.

201 I lhink that's going to go a long way lo making 711 lhcrn able to approve the project in Dcccmbcr.

27j MR. EHRMANN: Kale.

.~ ~ 221 talk to that issue.

Page 258 [ I] process that the NACEPT  Full NACEPT Committee would [ z] not, you know, mess around with your recommendations on 131 their way to the Agency, and it sounds like it may be 141 appropriate  and maybe you can continue that dialogue [ q as well. Kind of the process discussion as well as the 161 substantive.

VI But I would think it's important for this  on IS] behalf of this Subcommittee that it would be  that [ q process, as Angelo said, be clear, in addition to IO] obviously briefing them on the substance which, as I say,

I I] I Chink there will be a new draft and they can certainly IZ] see that. Thc cluestion is are they going to look at it ['

[ 13] and say well, I can't live with this recommendation or ( 141 that onc.` Thcn we've got  you know, then we got [ I 51 another kind of issue there.

f1` 4 MS. SUBRA: I think if we take the September 1171 draft and ~ hc results of the September meeting of this [ iq group and boil it down to whatever form and bring it to [ iq that group, if we get feedback like well, why aren't you 1 [ zo] doing that, thcrc will be things we can respond to. I ! ( 271 So thcy'rc not trying to mess around with what I[ 221 we're doing, but they're trying to understand what it is For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025  L Min U Script@ ( 67) Page 257  Page 260 22) know. we were, I think, told at the beginning of this Page 260 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 261 I Page 263 [ il we're doing and engage  and part of the process.

PI So, I think  well, the reason we scheduled the [ 31 dates in September so it would follow this September 141 meeting with enough time. So, whatever we have at that [ 5] point as a result of that meeting I think is going to IS] give them a lot to think about and look at and make them [ 7] more comfortable when they come up to approving the final ( 81 product.

191 MR. EHRMANN: That makes senseAny other [ IO] comments on that? And what are those dates? Do you [ I 11 know?

[ la MR. CARASEA: September  like September 22nd.

[ I31 MR. EHRMANN: Oh, it's late. Okay. Well,

( 141 that's good because then there will be about two and a

~ 15) half weeks after our meeting.

[ I61 MS. SUBRA: Yeah. hnd we pushed it to that 117) point because

114 MR. EHRMANN: Yeah. Okay.

[ IQ1 MR. LOEHR: Okay. Well, we have that report and [ zo] we'll be trying to figure out how to help smooth the [ ZII thing through the system.

WI MS. SUBRA: And that's what we're trying to do [ I] up the microphone Sandra. And you're with the Rocky [ 2] Moun,. ain Arsenal Site Specific Advisory Board out of ~ 31 Denver?

141 MS. JAKEWITH: Yes, sir. Sandra Jakewith [ sl ( phonetic).

Fl MR. LOEHR: Oh, that's the way it says here.

171 Right. Jakewith. Thank you very much.

PI MS. JAKEWITH: And I'm impressed you could read [ Q] my handwriting. So, it's a good beginning.

UOI MR. LOEHR: No, you did fine.

[ I' 1 MS. JAKEWITH: Okay.& I said, I'm Sandra [ izl Jakewith from Denver, Colorado. 1 serve on the Site 1131 Specific Advisory Board, which is a citizen advisory ~ 141 board with Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I am a past co chair ( 151 of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Restoration Advisory Hoard [ iq and I also served  that's, of course, a Federal [ 17] facility, but a Superfund site and on the NPL list. I i [ is] also serve on theicitizen advisory group ol the Shaddick [ IQ] Supcrfund site in' Denver. So, I work with both a Federal [ zo] facility and with B non Federal facility Superfund site.

Pll I've been invoivcd in monitoring cleanup of 122) hazardous waste as a citizen since 1986, which means I'm Page 262 Page 264 [ I] too, is to give them enough information without flooding [ I] going now on about 20 years, and this is certainly not [ 2] them, but not telling them you get to say whatever you [ z] what I expected to be doing for 20 years of my life. But [ 31 want and this Subcommittee is going to do all your [ ZI] for those of you who have been involved in this, you know 141 recommendations. It's trying to just engage them and 14~ that these are long term projects and the importance of [ 5] inform them. ~ [ 5l public participation and public monitoring, I just can't 161 MR. LOEHR: Right. That's good. And that's [ 6l emphasize thal enough. [ q appropriate. 171 In every site that 1 have been aware of and with PI So, therefore, we are moving to the public [ al alI the many people I have met at National conferences [ Q] comment session and my understanding is we have two [ Ql around the country, cleanup at all these different sites [ lo] individuals who wish to make public comments to us. [ IO] has been improved and I think  it has been improved by 1111 The procedure is that we ask the individual to [ I I] public participation and public participation has been [ IZ] come to the microphone, which WC think works  right? ( 121 shown to be essential.

~ 131 And to state their name, affiiation, anything they want [' 31 And so I would like to address public ( 141 us to know about their background; context and the [ 14l participation as one of my issues today. I'm very glad [ I 51 comments as they would like to have us  if you have ($ 51 to see that you've included that issue in the report 11~ 1 [ 16] anything written, that's certainly very appropriate to [ 161 you're making.

[ 17] leave with us, but I take it  I don't know who the ( 171 A couple things that I would like to bring to [ is] individuals are, but you have been with us, I think, most [ re] your attention as part of' this. One is that on your pq of the day, so you've got a sense of what we're doing and [ IQ] draft document, page seven, wherr you talk ; tbout ( 201 how we're trying to approach it. [ zo] community involvement. In the middle of that paragraph WI The list I have is Sandra and, if you could help pi] it talks about community members  giving them : I [ z] me pronounce your last name so I don't screw it up. Come ~ 221 mechanism to provide input. ___.. ~.  ~~  __ .~ ~~~

page 261 Page 264 ( 68) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 .. I_ _._._._. . . ..` II... . ,_ I ..,_ ,_"__,_ _,__. )) I..* ^._. _. I..,._*". ... Llll_ l.^. l_ ..,. _ ...... * L _. _ _ .__,_ ,___.,__ LI Dyc NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, MA HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17, 2003 Page 265 i? l And one of the points I wanted to make is that ~ 21 community involvement is far more than simply input into 131 the process. <; ood public participation includes a given ~ 41 and take and a dialogue that goes on between the ~ 51 community, the citizens who are involved and the many [ 61 different actors, whether they be PRPs or regulators.

~ 71 Any part of this dialogue is improved by direct dialogue 181 throughout this process.

KY There's rcscarch to show that money is actually [ to] saved in cleanups by good public participation throughout [ III the process. So, I would ask that you take out the word [~ ZI input and use public participation or public involvement [ i31 in its most generic sense withoul limiting it to simply ( 141 something like a comment period, which is what many of [ is] thcsc processes are set up as.

I' 61 And in regard to that spectiic issue, one of the [ 171  there is a paradigm shift that has occurred in public [< a] participation in very positive ways for all members of 1191 thcsc dialogues, and the one that I am most familiar with [ zo] and that I think has had the most successful review by ( 211 all parties is the AQrJA, which I believe is AQUA,

( 221 dialogue, which took place regarding chemical weapon ~~ ~~~. __ ' [ II costs to rise for everybody down the line.

PI One of the issues that came up with that, and I 13) don't know that you're going into this much detail in [ 4] your report on public participation, but I think is a [ 5~ really essential issue regarding EPA, is that al Shaddick [ s] when Senator Allard's ( phonetic) staff went to look at ( 71 the administrative records so that they could get an idea [ s] of what was going on when the citizens raised the issue,

[ gl they were told they couldn't see almost half of the [ IO] administrative record because it had been marked [ I 11 privileged or confidential.

LIZI And in a Denver Post newspaper article on the pa] topic, a very good article by Mark Geddy ( phonetic), one 1141 of the regional attorneys for EPA was quoted as saying 1151 it's standard practice in EPA to mark everything [ IIT] confidential or privileged until somebody asks to look [ 17] for it or asks to get copies of it, and then they'll ( 181 decide whether or not it's actually confidential or [ 19] priviIeged.

WI One of the problems with that is that the index + I] was also marked privileged, so you couldn't get the index [ zz] to look for the documents either. Page 267 Page 266 /

[ I] incineration, m csscnce.

PI II` S ; I process that is well documented. There's ~ 31 lots written on it.` I'he Keystone Center was involved in 141 it. ( Craig Williams was involved in it. They have 151 information written on this. I will ask them all to ~ 6) provide written comment and outlines to you of their [ 71 process.

PI But from what I understand, you know, the Army ( 91 participants, the regulators and the citizen participants ( rol wcrc all very happy with this process and it's a process [ I 11 that gets everybody on board by the time these decisions [ jzj arc made. Money is spent at all of these sites fixing 1131 problems that coulrl have been avoided if we had had (,.+ 1 public participation from the very beginning.

[ l? And Shaddick SuperfLlnd site is one sr~ ch site [ IS] whcrc the rcmcdy was actually overturned because the EPA [ j 71 Li~ llowed an illegal process rcgdrding their public [ ia] participation and the decisions that were made in that [ I91 clcanup. And that site has gone from being paid for by po] < Xti (; roup to being paid for by Citi Group and the [ 21] Supc. rfuncl silc. And [ here's a really cxcellcnt cxamplc l22j 0L` how not doing this correctly to begin with causes Ill So that type of difficulty in the transparency ( 21 of a public participation process, I believe, is rampant 13) throughout the system and those issues really need to be : [ 41 specifically looked at, if not as part of your report 151 then perhaps as another public dialogue and committee [ 6] report.

[ 71 One of the other issues that came to my IS] attention the very early part of your draft and that you [ 9] all have been discussing for the last few minutes, is the ~ 101 issue of funding and I'm sorry that I don't know all of [ I 11 your names, but the gentleman over here on my left was 1121 talking about the false constraints that these budget [ 131 discussions impose upon this process. And that's even ( 141 more true in the Federal facilities process where there [ I 51 is a specific budget that is allocated by the Pentagon 1[ 161 for cleanup of defense sites.

I171 The availability of money has nothing to do with [ 18] the amount of harm that communities are being exposed to [ ig] And the idea that WC should talk about prioritizing how [ zo] we clean things up, rather than talking about demanding @ I more money fhr the cleanup process, truly astounds me. I i [ zz] understand the prioritization is a reality and as part of Page 268 .....

For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 69) Page 265  Page 268 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 Page 269 NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ~____~~

Page 271 [ i] a cost benefit analysis, but I was amazed that at least 121 so far in what I've read I haven't seen in your report a 131 demand that there be more money put into the cleanup and [ 4] Superfund process.

151 Tied into that concept  I haven't gone into ls] this in great depth, but one of the things that came to [ fl my mind as I read through the outline of your issues is [ a] the whole idea of prioritizing hot spots at sites and la] cleaning them up, which I understand is both a reality in lro] terms of harmful effects in the community and as a 11 i] reality in terms of money allocation.

1121 But the idea of taking a site, like the Rocky [ is] Mountain Arsenal, which has 181 different sites of [ 14] cleanup, some of those far more contaminated than others,

[ ISI and cleaning up only the hot spots simply to leave the 1161 medium range and low range contamination in the 1171 community, I End discomforting if not appalling.

( 181 But understanding the reality of that, one of 1191 the things I would ask you to look at as you discuss 1201 these issues is your performance measurements and how ~ 211 those dovetail into that sort of a reality. In other ~ 221 words, I don't think that anybody, whether it bc EPA or [ I] effect as well. But I think that's one of the issues [ z] that needs to be looked at in terms of overall cleanup [ 3] program.

[ 41 Number two is long term institutional controls,

[ s] particularly focusing on the Department of Interior and [ s] the funding that the Department of Interior does not [ 7] have, in my opinion. They're being asked across this ~ [ s] country  Rocky MoUntdin Arsenal being one of the firs1 [ D]  to manage wildlife refuge and wildlife preservesAnd [ IO] wildlife refuges and preserves are being used as a way 01 [ 1 II end use that minimizes the amount of cleanup that you [ IZ] have to do.

( 131 Rocky Mountain Arsenal, we have a $ 2 Billion [ 14] cleanup that's really a cap and cover. If we had 1151 actually cleaned anything up, it probably would have been [ 16] $ 20 BiIlionAnd what that assumes and what tlial ! [ 17] requires is that over the next hundreds of years that you ~ [ IS] actually manage a wildlife refuge is that those caps and [ ia] covers be kept intact.

WI The Department of Interior has taken all of [ 21] those on. Rocky Flats in Denver being another one 01 ~ 221 these. And my understanding is their funding is so low Page 270 / Page 272 [ I] the Army or PRP should get full credit for cleanup when ( 21 they've done a partial hot spot cleanup and left the rest [ s] of the contamination in place, deferred it for another 141 time.

El There needs to be something in the measurements ls] that encourages everybody to continue to keep an eye on [ 7] that middle range and low range contamination, return to [ a] it and actually finalize the cleanup of these sites.

PI And if you ail knew me personally, you would [ lo] know that I really could carry on this dialogue for about 11 I] four hours. So, I try to identify several key issues 112) that I want to bring to your attention and would ask your [ 13] indulgence to also make public comments tomorrow after ~ 141 I've heard some more of your dialogue tomorrow.

[ I51 But one of the things that occurred to me in [ is] looking at this is I think there's potential for several ( 171 more committee reports or national dialogues that are ] js] really tangential and essential to this discussion. One [, D] is on the whole issue of Federal facilities because 1201 Federdl facilities are often listed as NPL sites and at ~ 211 least on some of them, depending on the private versus , a~] military aspect of it, Superfund monies can come into [ i] they don't know how they're going to bc able to manage ~ [ 2] these sites, So this issue, in terms of your funding and ~ [ 3] cleanup, is essential.

[ 41 And another is innovative technologies and [ s] public support and acceptance of some of those innovative [ 6] technologies. They'rc, hopefully, new and better ways to [ 7] cleanup and to do that in a more cost effective manner [ a] and I think this sort of a dialogue might be very [ a] beneficial in addressing some of those issues.

1101 Let me look through my notes one moment. The [ II] issue of health assessment is another major issue that 1 [ 12] think Doris is going to speak to, so 1 won't say anything [ 13) at this point. But the use ofATSDR in this process has [ 14] been  from everything that I have heard across the ( 151 country, it has been an absolute failure. I don't think [ 16] I've ever talked to anyone who has been saCsEed with [ i7] the participation of ATSDR or any of their health ( ia] assessments in these processes, and it was a good idea [ ia] that Congress had it.

PO1 1 don't think it's being carried out well and I [ 21] don't know the scope of these sorts of dialogues, but [ 22] that may be another place of review and investigation as ~_ ~. ..___

Page 269  Page 272 ( 70) I Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 . __... ._. .  NACEI'T SUF'ERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 Page 273 [ I] the whole A'I` SDR and health assessment problem in this [ z] country related to cleanups.

[ 31 `[` hank you very much for your time today.

I41 MR. LOEHR: ` I'hank you very much, Sandra. We [ s] appreciate il.

161 We do offer the opportunity for the members of 171 the Subcommittee to comment or a little dialogue with ~ 81 whoever provides us with public comment, but given that ~ 91 Sandra's segway into  I mean  yeah. Sandra's segway ( II)! into Doris, perhaps we should listen to Doris fust and [ III then, if we have time and you wish, there can be some [ 12] discussion back and forth. Or we can do it after the [ I 31 session is over with.

[ I41 But the second person who has asked for [+ s) commentary is Doris Bradshaw from Memphis, Tennessee.

1161 Doris, thank you for being with us and, again, if you [ 171 would give us a little background and where you're from,

[ 18] besides Memphis. Tenncssce, and your comments, we would 1191 greatly appreciate it.

WI MS. BRADSHAW: My name is Doris Bradshaw. I'm [ 21] the President of the Defense Depot called Memphis,

[ ZZI ` l'cnncssee Concerned Citizens Committee. I'm also the

Page 275 [ I] been exposed to and they need medical help. Doctors that [ 2I have been trained in Environmental Medicine so they can [ 3] tredt these people.

[ 41 I live in a community with a site that's 640 [ sl acres. The frost house is 15 feet from the site itself.

161 And this is a Federal facility. Sandra hit on it. But I [ 7I live that close to a place where they have chemical ( 81 weapons and everything else that you want to think of [ q that went out to the soldier on a battlefield.

[ lOI For 50 years our community has been there and [ III some people were there before the place was ever built.

~ 1121 Now the people are sick and dying. Children are coming lt31 down with different types of disease. Superfund don't [ 14I even dampen that. We're not supposed to be sick because [ 15I this place called ATSDR, the Agency for Toxic and [ is] Substance  Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease ~ 171 Registry, was mandated by Congress to do a health [ ia] assessment.

( 191 Now to you and your men, you may think a health [ 20] assessment means looking at the health of the people, but ~ 211 it doesn't mean it. It means site evaluation of that [ 22I particular site on site And these words that people ) ~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ". ..__

Page 274 111 <: ommunity liaison for the Correlation of the BlackTrade ( 21 Ilnion CRATTcam, Citizen Response ActionTeam. I'm a [ 3] Board Member of MPT and I have sat as a special ~$ 1 consultant to A'I'SDR Community and'l` ribal Subcommittee.

( 51 And there's a lot of other boards I sit on. The other ( 61 one is Known Stockpile Chemical Working Group and this is ~ 71 a grc, up that looks at technology to use other than [ a] incineration toor chemical weapons.

P: One thing that I was looking at your draft, and [ lo] this  I know this has been said before. Superfund [ I,] Icavcs out monies fbr communities that have been [ IZ] cl'l`& tcd. And we riced to look at the fact of how monies ~ 13; can 1~ put in place l'or communities to seek health care ~ 141 IIWC; ILISC the majority of these communities are poor and [ is] they don't have healthcare.

1161 ,\ nd I know this is hard for a lot of you to [ i 7; hclicvc. Poor communiGcs, they don't have an asbestos [` a] doctor and a lot of rural communities don't have the [ iq acc` esb as to getting to local doctors. And thcrc should [ XI] bc something put in place. like  I'm not going to call `% i] it a clinic I'm talking about hands on treatment,

~ 221 prcvcntivc care because you know what the people have ' [ il play games with is making us ill and then you'll hear of ~ 21 other people, business people and our mayors and 131 politicians and everybody else, thinking that things are [ 4] okay because the Agency said it was okay.

i I51 But it's still talking about the particular I [ q site. Not off site. Not even talking about pathways ~ 71 that people are actually hurt by these chemicals on site.

PI Superhmd has to go a little deeper than talking 191 about public health. That needs to be omitted completely [ IO] out of Superfund. It should be human health, not public [ I 11 health because ATSDR got another meaning for that.

1: 21 And that's what I'm saying is words is being ( 131 played on this Board and in this country that people,

( 141 like Congress, think they're passing one thing and it 1151 means totally something else. And community people is [ is] tired of these word games where folks don't understand 1171 what the heck they're talking about. Even when you put a [ ISI glossary in there, it sounds like you're talking about [ IQ] one thing, but it means another. And this got to stop.

VJI Supcrl'und is supposed to address what is i ~ 211 happening on its site, not just the site, but the whole 122) area.` l'he whole impacted area. Page 276 ,

ForTheRecord, Inc. ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 71) Page 273  Page 276 NEW BEDFORD, MA  June 17, 2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 277 [ II The other issue is conflicts of interest where [ z] industry ends up polluting a site and then the same 131 industry ends up being the ones that come out and cleanup 141 the site and then they're the ones that are telling us [ 5] it's okay. There needs to be some wording, please, for [ s] the communities to deal with that type of injustice [ q that's happening to us because most of the time they're [ a] not cleaning up anything.

191 Like the Defense loophole, there was only

[ I o] there was actually no cleanup. It was shuffled for [< I] paper. It was a paper cleanup. Everything was hidden 11~ 1 from the community. The public participation is only a 1131 wrap instead of here entailed in the community thoroughly ~ 141 so people can understand.

LlSl The things that Superfund has set into place are [ E] things like if the wording is not exactly like it's [ ITI supposed to be there's loopholes for people to do wrong.

[ is] I read the list of people that sit on this Board and I'm [ I91 really hurt.

1201 I'm a community person, so I'm going to tell you pi] this. I don't see why industry is sitting on this Board [ 22] and part of the problem. And I know EPA has this thing Page 278 [ I] that they can help solve the problems, but for me they [ 2] help soften things to keep from hurting them when they ( 31 hurt people. And this is  I want to put a human fact ~ 41 on this. Kids are dying in our community,

( 51 especially around the areas where we have to deal with [ s] Federal facilities. And some of you can look up and say,

[ 7] wow, here we go again. Here's another Environmental [ s] Justice accident. Yes. And I'm going to preach this [ g] until I quit doing this.

IlO1 Our children are dying in our community. Your ~ 1 I] kids may not have uterine cancer and your kids may not ( 121 have testicular cancer, but that's an issue for us when LIZI] we see we are being  ( inaudible).

Cl41 Now I want to put a face on this because there .

I [ 1 [ 1 ['

11 [ I ['

['

['

['

1:

[:

_ 1: Page 279 : r] facilities for the government to go back and its lead [ 2] Agenc y for their own cleanup. It's not getting done.

[ 3] It's not working. And I don't  and I didn't see [ 4] anything in Superfund that even talked about Federal [ 5] facilitiesAnd WC are being hurt all over this country.

PI [ 71 Do you think that they can make mustard gas and [ a] deal with uranium and nothing happen to the community?

191 That they can bring plutonium and uranium  ( inaudible)

01  and nothing happen to the community? When all of a 11 sudden a group of little boys up here in Massachusetts 121 are sick with cancer, the response was nothing was 131 happening until five, six  sometimes 10 years later.

141 And they said, oh, yeah, it was in the water.

151 People in our community don't have that kind of 161 time and thank you for your undivided attention.

171 MR. LOEHR: Thank you very much. Dolores.

181 MS. HERRERA; I just wanted to address  can 191 you hear me? '

! O] MR. LOEHR: Np. It may not be on.

! I] MS. HERRERA I Sandra  thank you both for ! 2] speaking, but I ju t wanted to say that I don't know that +..

1 Page 280 [ I] if you're in the room when we talked about Ed Lorenz from 121 Alma College  he's right over there  and Molly, WC [ 3] have been working on this unit for public engagement,

~ 41 meaningful public participation, and so that was the [ 5] snippet and I appreciate your catch of that word, but it [ s] has  it's a little tiny bit of the comprehensive report [ 7] and alliance that is going to be interwoven into this [ a] report.

PI And so, trust me, 1 work for a community and it 10) will get in there, and I really appreciate your comments.

111 And, Doris, you know I love you, honey, and I 121 love your passion  I share it. But I do want to sa)

131 that the Agency lor'l'oxic Substance and Disease Registr!

~ 141  we've heard the story and, 1 mean, WC share the story.

~ [ is] I do want to say is there wasn't enough money to be able [ is] to provide communities what they needed and with ATSDR,

[ i7] they've used information that was : Wdihbk and it was an [ ia] injustice, especially to the people, to the children,

[ ig] your children, our children, my children, but it was an [ 20] injustice to the Agency as well because a lot of times [ zi] within government you know what happens. thcrc's ( hi5 [ 22] little tiny bit of money  littlc bit of resources that . [ I 51 are kids in our community, 13 year old girls coming down [ is] with uterine cancer. Boys at the age of 17 getting ~ 171 testicular cancer and I can name these children.

[ 181 We don't want ATSDR talking about well, this ~ 191 doesn't exist. Pull them out of Superfund, put real [ 20] doctors in there that have been trained with [ 211 Environmental Medicine and then you won't hear from mc.

PI Also take  take the control out of Fcdcral page 277  Page 280 ( 72) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NEW BEDFORD, Mi HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS June 17,200; ~~ ~~~ _~~  ~~ / ~~~. ~~~~..~~~. ~_ _.. ~__.

Page 281 [ I] are needed for a gargantuan problem.

PI And so I wanted to make reference to that for [ 3! the record, because  to share those concernsAnd I 141 was just going to tell you ladies just to keep it up [ s] because we all have to listen to each other and I really ~ 61 appreciate your commentsAnd if you want to add 17) anything further, you guys know my c mail address and my [ a] phone number. Thank you.

PI MR. LOEHR: WC have some firrther comments.

[ IO] Vicky.

11' 1 MS. PETERS: I have a specific question for [` 21 1) oris and then to follow up on this ATSDR issue because I ~ 131 don't know how much time you've had to look  lhis is ~ 14) very awkward, isn't it.

1151 I don't know how much time you've had to look at [ 16] all of the draft reports, but there is a consensus

( 171 thcrc seems to be a consensus  not a recommendation, of [ ISI course, but a growing consensus of the members to really [ I91 highlight the issue of human health in terms of both [ zo] listing decisions and prioritizing among sites that arc ( 211 already on the list. And I had some questions myself how ~ 21 wc` rc going to do that. ~ 11 as mine what it means to them, but in their mandate by ) ~ 21 Congress someway public health means something totally [ 31 different.

[ 41 Maybe it doesn't mean health for people of color ~ 51 and poor communities. Maybe that's what it means.

[ 6] Because it hasn't happened. And when the reports are [ 7) written up they're all the same.

L9 I remember when we first got our health 191 assessment. We thought that it was an assessment about ,[ Io] the community's health. It is a site evaluation on the 11 I] site itself, not on site because the community don't have [ lzl any type of data. Until the community gets the data then 1131 it's normally stated that it's incorrect. There's ~ 141 something always wrong with the community people.

[ I51 And so I feel like that ATSDR was set up on [ 16] purpose to put flaws so that the communities that are [ 17l really hurt can't sue and the communities that normally [ le] can't sue are the communities that are poor and cannot [ ig] afford attorneys to fight their battle.

PO1 It's not that we want to just sue, but something [ ZI] was done lo us and everyone acts like we're out to get ~ 221 something because we are poor communities all over this Page 283 Page 282 [` I My sense is that people are thinking  actually 12) I'm not sure, but I assume people were thinking in terms 131 of risk assessment, which is kind of different, my sense ~ 41 is. than what you're talking about, which is really going [ si out into the communities and seeing what's going on there ~ 61 and what the  you know, what kind of diseases are there [; I and what have you, as opposed to some kind olmodeled

[ al you know, this concentration we would predict these as [ 9] racts.

II01 So, if' you have any thoughts on that. You know,

[ I 11 if we come forward with the recommendation that the sites [ in] that post the highest risks arc the most imminent threats ~ 131 to the community, how do you see that being implemented ( 141 and what the ATSDR  what kind of faith would you have [ i5] in ATSDR playing a role in that.

116) But Lix you, in particular, Doris, 1 didn't ( 171 rlnclcrstantl your comment about how public health means [ lo: somcthing diffcrcnt to ATSDR than what we would think [ i91 public health would me; m.

lw MS. BRADSHAW: We think of public health as [ ai] Iooking at health issues. Public health means something 1221 tolally different to A'I'SDR. Now, your guess is as good 111 country when we say we are sick. And the numbers show I [ z] that we are.

[ 31 There was some data done in Memphis back in ( 41 1798. ATSDR came in to do it. This was a five year data [ s] on cancer. Now, I sat on the Board to do the health [ s] consultation.` l'hc numbers were changed before our eyes [ 7] it' the numbers were too high, and we're not supposed to [ a] be scientists that know what they're doing. But as you 191 do this long enough you begin to follow and see what's [ IO] happening.

1111 But the numbers didn't add up because when the ~ 121 media did the numbers it was 695 cancers reported.

~ 13) ` I'hat's just reported. That's not talking about the ( 141 cancers that are not reported, deaths and stuff like [ is] that. But this was just five years.

1161 Our community is 25,000 within a half mile 1171 radius of the depot. Now the depot has been there 50 [ ia] years.` l'hc depot would not go back 50 years to count the [ 19] cancer deaths in their community. That's what you were [ zo] supposed to have been doing. Not so much as cancer, but `( 211 the olhcr related illness that is related to these [ 22] particular sites.

Page 284 .

For The Record, Inc. _ ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 73) Page 281  Page 284 .... .__. ._ .. _ .".

.1_. _ . ..~" __.. ."._.,.~"_ __ . , I" "~_".^ . . .  ... _" .... ^ ,.._ I  NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPEBFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 285 111 ATSDR has said that it's supposed to be a [ z] registry. That registry never happened. That's the [ 31 reason why I said the process was flawed, it wasn't right 141 when they put this group together in the first place and 151 they have some kind of other motive. To me it's like a [ s] PR firm that fights against the people and we pay our ~ 1 taxes for them to attack us.

Bl So, we're looking for things that are fair.

191 ( End tape four, side one.)

[ lOI MS. BRADSHAW:  that 10 years, 20 years from 1111 now when science catches up with oh, we did make a [ lz] mistake. This happens over and over again and we don't [ is] have time. And industry knows these things are [ 141 happening. Industry creates these chemicalsAnd you [ ISI know darn well uranium, plutonium and all the other stuff [ i6] that deal with radiation, ifit's in a community, the [ 17] barrels and stuff, low levels of radiation eventually arc [~ a] going to get  break down your system. The same thing ~ 191 about weapons of mass destruction. All the chemicals po] that's in there.

WI So, I'm not a scientist, but I know that this is [ zzl not fair and this is not right, and that an Agency like Page 286 [ I] this put in place was the safeguard for government and [ z] industry because it's inconclusive all the timc. And so [ 3] we have to do something about why we pay these people to ( 41 do nothing and why

I51 That's the money that can be used for health [ s] care in Superfund. Take the $ 98 Million and put it back 171 for national healthcare. It seems easy to me. Let there [ a] be a Subcommittee that constantly works on the issue [ Q] around health with Superfund. It's got to happen because [ lo] people are tired of testifying and talking about the [ I 11 things that's happening in the community.

[ I21 MS. JAKEWITH: Vicky, if I could address that 1131 for just a second. At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, we had a 1141 health assessment by ATSDR and we were  I mean, it was ~ 151 a many month long process. I don't know how many [ is] hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent to do it.

1171 They didn't look at any health. And what they came back [ lsl with, quite honestly, was simply a pathways analysis.

[ 191 And, you know, I'm not a geophysicists and I'm [ 20] not a scientist, but I could have given them a pathways ~ 211 analysis in about five minutes. I mean, they stopped ~ 221 manuhcturer pesticides at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Shell I '

` 11 F . E ['

['

[.

1'

I i[. ~ 1 [ Page 287 : I] and other pesticide companies, back in the 1980s and the : z] conclusion was back in the 1980s they stopped doing this : 3] and so there's no longer a pathway. I mean, it was 141 pathetic what we got out of that.

Fl And so what that does is when you call that a [ 6] health assessment you've implied there's actually been a [ 7] review of people's health and I think that's one of the [ a] things that creates more anger and frustration in this [ g] process, which is why it is such an important issue for o] you all to look at, too, because that also slows down i] this process.

21 MR. LOEHR: Thank you. We have some other 31 comments. Ed Lorenz and then Jason.

41 MR. LORENZ: I guess just two comments directed 51 mostly to Doris and Sandy, is I think one thing that 6) would help us, perhaps, is if you  and you already 71 apparently have looked at the draft report, but would 181 give us suggestions about where references sl~ oulcl bc made IQ] to community participation. You know, like specific to] places. I think that would be helpful as we go through ti] trying to  you know, finalize this.

! 2] But then the second thing, I think, for all 01 Page 288 [ I] us that maybe has come out of this is I think this  WC [ 2] don't have anything, do we, on ATSDR in the draft or not [ 3] very much and maybe when we get to site  especially [ 4] some of the site Listing parts we should be, at least,

[ 5] giving a little Ihought to including some wording that [ 6] would address concerns thal they have raised.

[ 71 MS. JAKEWITH: You know, one of the issues that [ s] comes up in the mixed  in this, there are a couple 01 [ Q] scientific issues that are very difficult. One is IO] chemical mixtures and how these chemicals interact with II] each other, which is something that science is not really 121 able to do yet.

131 And within that there is also a major problem 141 with risk assessment of these sites in terms of looking 151 at what other contamination there is in a communily.

161 particularly these over burdened communities, thcsc poor 171 communities that have contamination from many sources.

181 The risk assessments for Superfimd sites ~ [? q idenw only the chemicals that arc on that Superfund [ 20] site and the risks that they pose without taking into ~ [ zi] account the risk that is posed by the contamination 01 [ z] other surrounding contamination sources. ~~~~~. ~~~~ ~~. ~~

Page 285  Page 288 ( 74) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, Msl June 17,200:

__ .__

Page 289 Page 291 !` I Those arc all the sorts of things that make this ( III MR. WHITE: Oh, it kind of hits close to home ~ 21 an ~ mfair process for communities. And 1 raise that [ z] for me, as kind of for you. p] within the context of what Ed was saying and 1 think it PI For example, our tribe  actually there was ~ 41 goes to the issue of integrity. This process at every [ 4l nine other tribes in  we're in Northeastern Oklahoma [ q step needs to have integrity so that people can believe [ s] and we had the same problem. There was a big problem ~ 61 that the process is as fair and as just as it can be [ q with our children having high  our Indian children had ~ 71 within the many constraints that it has. [ 7] high blood lead levcls. Actually the highest of the 181 And on many of the levels of this process there [ 8] nation. And, by law, they didn't see it as a problem and 191 doer not appear to be truth or integrity, and it's [ g] WC didn't go through the ATSDR. We actually went through [ rol something that simply causes frustration and anger in a [ lo] our public health and that's actually  it played an [? I] community and that lcngthcns the process. III] important  a big role in actually playing a role in the (` 2; At Rocky Mountain Arsenal recently we fought a [ IZ] rcmediation of the site.

~ 131 fight at the State Water Board with the Army concerning $ 131 We didn't have to go through them because they [ jq DiMI', which is a byproduct of nerve gas. It's also used 1141 found out that like 75 percent of our children  it's [ lq to make nerve gas. And they wanted to put more in our [ IS] like statistics like that  showed they had high blood [ i 61 waler. And this is a 1 O year fight. They spent millions [ i6] levels and it was actually impacting the children. And [ i 71 and millions and millions of dollars on a new study that 1171 we were able to go the additional step  our community [ is] was then peer reviewed by the National Academy of [ i8] actually played a role in the rcmcdiation activities.

1191 Scicnccs. 1! 191 1 understand your frustrations with ATSDR. I'm PO1 And truly I'm a community member and not a [ no] not real familiar with them, but 1 just wanted to give 1~ 11 scientist. 1 think that when things go to NAS and their [ ZI] you that as a part of help because that's what we did and 1~ 21 peer rcvicw, that that is a long and involved process [ zz] WC found OLIL that it helped get some of our soils Page 290 Page 292 [ I) L~; IL brings integrity to this whole concept and that when [ z] NAS rcvicws things it has meaning. And what I found out [ 3] in the process of this  1 appeared at NAS and did ~ 41 comment and WC hired  WC hired specialists to look at 15. this prc, ccss.

I61 hnd NAS does a very cursory review over a 171 rclativrly short period of lime with very little ~ 81 rcso~~ rccs l'or the people who volunteer to do this review.

191 II was a very, very poor review process and I'm appalled lio] to lind out that yet again one of the places where [ i 11 accountability and integrity are supposed to appear 1171 within the system appcarcd to simply be mirages, which is ( 131 what A'I'SDR is as well.

1141 Although 1 understand these arc tangential to [ js] what ! zou'rc looking at, thcy'rc part and prccl ot'thc ( 161 bigg: cr problem that you're looking at in terms of funding 117; and protecting our communilics.

1181 MR. LOEHR: Jason. Jason White.

1151 MR. WHITE: Oh, Sandra, this one is for YOLI [ XI: actually bccausc your story kind of hit kind of close to [ 71] Ilorllc.

1721 MR. LOEHR: Jason, again  [ I] rcmediated.

PI Is that something you guys have tried?

PI MS. BRADSHAW: 1 just want to say I doubt if [ 4] your site was a Superfund  NPL Superfund site. ATSDR ~ [ s] is manddted under C: ongress to step in when a site has [ 6] become [ 7]  when they, you know, get the tallies up and whatever [ a] level that it ratesThen if it's rated as an NPI.

( 91 Superfund site, then ATSDR has to come in and  at that [ io] particular time and that's where the mess up starts.

[ 111 MR. LOEHR: Doris.

[ 121 MS. CELLARIUS: 1 appreciate that Doris and 1131 Sandra have come to talk about the problems you've had [ 141 with ATSDR. You may know that 1 did work with ATSDR for [ is] a few years and WC often heard stories like you're [ 16] telling us now. It's sort of disappointing that we're ( 171 still hearing years later that citizens arc disappointed.

1181 I think that the community tribal forum that you [ 19] serve on, Doris, 1 had hoped that it would really improve `[ zo] the situation. 1 mean, we had  so this is probably [ ZI] something very important that this Subcommittee should [ 22] nddrcss that the way the original Superfund called for a e Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025

Min U Script@ ( 75) Page 289  Page 292 NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS Page 293 [ i] link to the newAgency, ATSDR, has had  well, a lot of [ z] unfortunate consequences and may have even harmed the 131 situation. So, 1% support helping get the report to 141 the address this.

151 MS. BRADSHAW: Another suggestion. If you would [ 6] use that special consultant to the Subcommittee and use 14 the people that have served on that as just a committee [ a] to come in to do a panel or something, then you will hcdr [ g] it from our direction.

[ lOI We tried. That's the only thing I can say. We [ ii] honestly tried to do what we could as citizens to mold [ lz] the organization the way that it should have been. But [ 13] it seems like, Ed, you go two steps forward, they puIl 1141 you 20 back. It's just like I don't want to do anything [ is] and that's what the citizens was seeing, even serving on ( 161 those Boards. We would make recommendations and make ~ 171 recommendations thinking the recommendation has been [ ia] applied and for some reason or another all of a sudden 1191 the recommendation disappears.

WI There was a change of the guard  I think that ~ 211 Dr. Johnson had great integrity after he found out that [ zz] people weren't going to take that anymore and we went Page 294 [ I] forward with that Subcommittee and it rcaIly started [ z] working. And we had a change of the guard with this new [ 3] doctor, Falk ( phonetic), and he just doesn't get it.

141 That's what I'm saying. The whole organization ~ 51  the money could be used for community people help [ 6] instead of wasting these millions of dollars for nothing.

m MR. LOEHR: We need to kind of close off. It's la] been a long day, but there still are a couple of comments lgl up and 1% take those. Aimee.

[ lOI MS. HOUGHTON: I just wanted to say Doris [ I 11 mentioned about the Federal facility component and much [ tzl to my personal dismay, just because it's what I focus on 1131 which is Federal facilities, the charge of this group was [ 14] not necessarily focused on Federal facilities. I mean, I [ 15] bring it up every meeting and I think pretty much ~ 161 everybody here can attest to that.

( 171 But, you know, there will be a portion in there [ is] that will touch on it, but it's not  unfortunately,

1191 it's not going to be an in depth assessment of what I 1201 view as an overwhehniig concern, the number of Federal [ 21] facilities that arc on the Superfund Iist.` I'hcy ~ 221 oumumber any of the private sites. Page 295 111 So, I would  you know, I support what both you ( z] ant Sandra are saying. But just to let you know, I try [ 3] and bring them up all the time. So, it's not going inLo 141 a total void.

ISI MS. JAKEWITH: Wett, not only do they outnumber [ 6] the Superfund sites. Federal facilities  some of these [ 7] are the largest contaminalion sites in the world. Rocky [ s] Mountain Arsenal and Aberdeen are two of the Iargcst and [ g] have, I mean, just acres and acres of contamination.

101 So, it's not just a matter of numbers. It's a 1 I] matter of size and complexity, which are one of the 121 things you're also focusing on.

131 MR. LOEHR: Vicky.

141 MS. PETERS: I just wanted to make sure that WC:

is] understood Doris' recommendation. Is thal  are you 161 recommending that WC have this ATSDR Subcommittee tlial 171 Doris referred Ito come and ldlk to us?

181 MS. BRADSYAW: Yes.

191 MS. PETER+: So, you know the mame of that then.

201 MS. BRADSlhAW: The members that have served on 211 there for the p+ st  I think it's been in existence six .! 221 yearsAnd I tlqk that if you get the members that have Page 296 li] already served the iirsl four years because I think it [ 2] was three years before that when you served on that [ 3] Board?

[ 41 FEMALE VOICE: Ycs. Three years before Lhat.

151 MS. BRADSHAW: And I think you need these people ( 61 to hear what happened, what we did. We end up  every [ 7] time there  new community people come on they fought [ a] all the way to the beginning instead of starting where [ g] people stopped off at.

[ lOI MR. LOEHR: Final commenl. Dolores.

[ Ii1 MS. HERRERA: Yes. I need to say that Florence i [ 12] Robinson is out in the audience and I think  I can` t [ is] see without my glasses, but Florence and a group of us,

~ 141 Penny Newman and several  I don't know.` I'herc was 1151 about nine females, women. About I2 years ago went Lo [ 16] see ATSDR and we wcrc accompanied by Linda King, who [ 17] helped write " Inconclusive By Design". If anybody hasn't [ ia] read that, it's very interesting.

Cl91 And it does talk about A'I'SDR because we were m ! [ zo] Washington, we had blisters on our feet  I mean, on our ,211 tongues becdusc we  I man, NC ralked until WC wcrc [ zz] blue. We talked to all of those pcoplc and bccausc 01.

page 293  Page 296 ( 76) Min U Script@ For The Record, Inc.  ( 301) 870 8025 NACEI'T SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ~. __ ~_~. ~ ~~ ~ ~.~.. ~. NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 Page 297 Page 299 111 that I would Iike to think that these groups were formed [ II committed to maintaining equity and fairness and cleanup [ 2] that you sat on. But. you know, we have all been a part [ z] in their communities. [ a] of the movement, but there are warriors and we have the PI Thank you.

[ 41 scars to prove it. 141 MR. LOEHR: On behalf of the committee, let me I51 ` l` he one thing that I do want to say is that it IsI thank both of you for the time you did spend with us and 161 was the expectations of a governmental entity that [ a] sharing your thoughts and comments. 17) hclievcd that ATSDR could do the work that was written I71 Sandra, you said you would be around tomorrow. 181 and what happened, it was reports of asking very  a [ 81 I'm sure there will be some further interactions, and if [ Q] very small percentage of community and getting i [ a] you choose to tomorrow, we'll be looking forward to some 1101 information and data and putting it in a report that did [ IO] additional comments. Doris, if you choose to do so, [, I; not ; tddrcss the issue of public health. [ i I] that's line too. But, again, thank you very much for [ I21 But I have to say, as you know, there's a huge I121 sharing those particular thoughts with us. ljsl debate about environmental health and public health and [ I31 This committee has been going since 8: OO this 1141 public health. a lot of times, deals with shots and baby 1141 morning. More power to you. I see you're still [ ls! well clinics, and we're talking about a comprehensive 1151 surviving and still up, and time to take that final break ( 161 environmental health tragedy in our communities where [ XI for the day, except for dinner, which is at 7: O0. ( 171 people have died that are sick and they're sick of being ( 171 MR. EHRMANN: People, you want to get the bus at ( 181 Icstcd. [ ia] 7: 00 or 7: 15?

1' 91 But I think that we arc here with this group lo [ I91 COMMITTEE: 7: O0. cnol address some issues. But we do have a track record and I I201 MR. EHRMANN: I knew you would  7: O0. Be ~ 21~ ~ LISI wanted to say that because there is a huge debate [ zi] there at 7: O0. We'll he ready to go.

1223 and it Isn't dx~ ut, as I've said many times on a national  WI MR. LOEHR: John would like to go over another Page 298 Page 300 ( 11 lcvcl and intcrnatiomal Ievel, when I'm starting  when [ z] somebody is referring to dala or, you know, this is the Ia] risk. And I always ask what if that was your daughter,

~ 41 what if that was your son and what if that was your 151 mother or your falher or your sister or your brother.

[ a] Just once makes a lot of difference.

I71 So I jllsl wanted to sdy mat. I'm tired.

PI MS. JAKEWITH: I know you're closing. I'd Iike [ a] to thank you all for your attention because I know this 1101 public comment session is something that is added for ( 111 your herrefit as well as for ours and we do appreciate the 1121 time and attention, and appreciate the time and effort ( 133 and thought that you're putting into the charge before ( 14) you because ils so important.

[ I51 And just know that this important to the people ~ 16: that you're making decisions for and about. We pay our 1171 own ways to come here and to stay in hotels and to [ ia] participate in this, and there's a great sacrifice II] section of the report  but well see you at 7: 00 out [ 2] frontThank you again,

PI 141 El ( 61 [ 71 [ ai IQ1 [' ' 01 [' 111 ' 21 131 141 ' 51 I[' 61 11 7)

111 181 (` I'he meeting was adjourned.)

[ ia] involved in participating in these processes. I[ 191 WI lind so as you look at the public participation PO1 1211 and involvement scgtncnts of this, you know. know that P'l 1221 you're Ginply opening the doors for people who are very ._ i [ w For The Record, ~ nc.  ( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ ( 991 Page 299  Page 300 NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June17,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ( 11 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRlPTlONlST VI [ 3] I, Donna N. Rea. do hereby certify that the [ 4] foregoing transcription was reduced to typewriting via [ s] audiotapes provided to me; that I am neither counsel ( or,

[ 6] related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the ( 71 action in which these proceedings were transcribed; that [ a] I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or ( 91 counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially [ io] or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

[ Ii1 [ 121 [ I31 [ I41 [ I51 DONNA N. REA,

] lsl Transcrlptlonist v71 [ I 81 [ I91 [ 201 WI WI Page 301 Page301 Page 30X ( 78) Min U ScriptQ ForTheRecord, Inc.( 301) 870 8025 Lawver's Notes NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS NEW BEDFORD, MA June 17,2003 / 1289884: 4 12: oo 143: 3 12: 30 144: 1 13 49: 13; 278: 15 15 28: 4; 33: 5; 143: 4; 179: 14; 180: 19; 221: 3; 253: 12,12; 254: 9,15; 255: 10,11; 275: 5 15,000 27: 20 15th 31: 15 17 5: 2; 278: 16 17,000 12: 22 17 19 1: 12 18 43: 11; 114: 5 18,000 12: 21; 14: 1; 39: 4; 101: 7 18OOs53: 12 181 269: 13 19 224: 4 1940 52: 4  79 12: 21 7: 00 148: 5,8,14; 239: 21; 299: 16,18,19,20,21; 3OO: l 7: 15 299: lS $

9  1 4 1 i i I ;

i i i  /

a 2 a a ; 9 a i a 1 2 1 2 t 1'

2 P 1 P 1 ' 2 2 a al ai ar ac 2: 6; l! 50: 19; 212: 9; 254: 12 aCCeptanCe272: 5 access 24: 10, 11, 14; 83: 3; 111: 7; 274: 19 accident 278: 8 accolades 248: 12 accommodate 67: 21; 79: 15 accompanied 296: 16 accomplish 158: 20 accomplished 20: 2; 107: 12 accomplishments 23: 14; 29: 6; 35: 1; 40: 16; 159: 4 according 17: 18 accordingly 144: 11 account 136: 20; 138: 16; 199: 5; 201: 6; 205: 16; 207: 11; 210: 8; 245: 3,4; 288: 21 accountability 62~ 22; 185: 11,15; 186: 9; 221: 16; 230: 6; 290: 11 sccounts 55: 14,19 accumulate l1: 21 sccuracy 26: 5,21 xcurate 24: 4; 26: 3, ii, 13; 122: 15; 226: 3 XCUrately l23: 3; 152: 17 rccustomed 92: 22 rchieve 168: 1,4 achieved 22: 5,7,9, 15 Ichusnet's 44: 5 acknowledge 113: 7; ! 28: 7, 10 acknowledging 196: 21 acquisitions 25: 2 cre 12: 22; 13: 5,19; 0: 9; 34: 7; 50: 20; 92: 15; ,5: 11 creage 35: 8 cres 11: 7; 12: 22; 13: 1; 4: 2; 19: 20; 22: 12; 26: 4; 7: 13; 39: 4; 49: 10; 96: 7, 0,10,12; 101: 7; 275: 5; 95: 9,9 Cross 7: 7; 33: 22; 35: 17; 4: 5; 80: 5; 82: 19; 91: 1; ;; N;; 251: 16, 17; 271: 7;

LCt 24: 18; 94: 3; 137: 16; 78: 17 LCtiOn 3: 10; 9: 15; 29: 5, 4; 30: 7,11; 50: 4; 66: 8; 13: 7; 248: 5; 249: 13; 74: 2 ctions 93: 16; 179: 15 ctive 62: 4; 126: 15 ctively 43: 9; 95: lo ctivist 65: 6 ctivities 5: 7, 11,17; 3: 18; 41: 17; 67: 8, 12; 3: 11; 95: 21; 111: 10; > l: l5, 17,20; 291: 18 27th 85: 4, 17; 86: 4, 18; 128: 16 28 96: 7 28.5 199: 10; 202: 19; 203: 11,14; 212: 11; 223: 2; 227: 4,12,21; 247: 8; 249: 8 29 224: 18 2: 00 138: 6 2: 30 136: 2 $ 1 227: 20 $ 10 345; 59: lG $ 100 37: 13; 173: 4,6 $ 120 227: 19 $ 130.5 S7: 21 $ 15 37: 3,5 $ 15/$ 20 37: 10 $ 2 / 15: 9: 53: 21; 5/ i:`), 14; 271.13 $ 20 %: 2,, 4, 5, 10. 15, 16; 55: 20; 106: 22; 271: 16 $ 21 l48: 3 $ 26 55: 21 $ 29036: 22 $ 33 54: 6 $ 395 3715 $ 40 23: 18 7th l 11: 6 8 80 216: 2 8: 15 255: 6 800 20: 8 80s 49: 15 83 13: 1 8: 30 142: 22; 254: 18; 88 13: 2 255: 5,9; 256: 6 880,000 16: 17; 24: 6; 26:'

8: 00 143: 22; 255: 1,3,6; 299: 13 3 3,000 200: 7; 202: 17,21; 204: 20; 216: 19; 218: 4; 228: 20,21; 236: 20 3 4140: 19 135: 18; 137: 21; 216: 9,9; 255: ll 30,000 137: 2 30 1516; 65: 7; 134: 19;

$ 56 5., 1: 7 ~ 195 11: 4; 12: 16; 15: 20; $ 66 37: 18 17: 3; 43: 10; 44: 10 $ 80 104: 13 1980 173: 13; 223: 3 $ 98 286: 6 1980s 287: 1,2 1986263: 22 0 1988189 25: 7 1990 13: 4; 82: 6 1990s 37: 16 026112 199427122 03 15.5 19% 25: lO 1 i997 102: 4,8 1998 23: 19; 37: 13; 284~ 4 1999 27: 18 1 99: 9 190 5: 8; 143: 3 1,000 Il: 6; 12: 22; 39: 10; 1 1: 15 143: 4 77: 17 35 27: 9; 114: 19; 206: 2 ~

3: 00 143: 5,6 3: 15 145: 3 9 4 90s 37: 14 94 11: 12; 13: 5; 25: 9; 27: 14, 17,22; 49: 16 95 11: 12; 25: 9; 27: 7,14, 17; 28: 1; 49: 16 98 10: 17; 13: 6; 15: 18 99 13: 11 9: 30 59: 20 9th 141: 10,13, 17 A 4,000 27: 16; 37: 10; 49: 11 40 14: 10; 206: 2 40s 12: 18; 51: 20 42 162: 16 45 22: 12; 135: 21; 151: 18 46,000 30: 1 I 5 5 37: 15 ~ abandoned 33: 4,5; 1,200 20:')

1,600 20~ 6;~ 6: 18 2 c ,,, W! 17T. z; ,78:, 1 34: ll rlv ~ 7.1,~/ 5: 10; 284: 17. i Aberdeen 295: 8 18 / abilities 173: 4 1,800 I IO: IS 1.1 240: 12; 248: 7 1.3 205: 21; 206: 1 I. 5 223: 3; 224: 12; 225: 3, 9, 14; 226~ 2. 12; 227: 6; 235: 22; 240: 12; 2.47: 21; 248: 15; 249: 23 10 17: 19,22; 54: 9; 77: 15, 2 I ; 79: 2 1; 151: 9; 155: 4; 18.~~: 1H; 222: 12; 233: 19; 279: 13; 285~ 10 2 99: 9 2,500 193: 18 207: 12; 15: 13; 24: 5; 49: 3; 99: 15; 179: 14; 216: 9,9; 221: 6; 246: 12; 264: 1,2; 285: 10; 293: 14 20,000 29: 16 20120 97: 17 20148 229: 19 2Of75 229: 19

50,00042: 22 500 1OO: lO 5: 30 142: 4 5: 45 253~ 16 5th 141: 3,4 6 ) ability 57: 2; 2157; 219: 22; 249: 18; 252: 7 able 6: 14; 19: 22; 20: 4,6; 22: 8; 30: 16; 36: 20; 40: 10; , 58: 12; 61: 7; 77: 18: 80: 17:

10,000 1 S7: 2; 1394; 200 24: lO 150: 9; 166: 20; 186: 1X 1 2000 13: 14; 25: 11,15; 6,000 24: 1; 228: 20 1 O year 2067.8, 20; , 28: 1,2; 36: 17; 49: 17; 50: 5; 600 102: 16,22 289: 16 i 205: 21 , m_ 154: 11,17,17 82: 19; 83: 11; 86: 18; 87: 6; 88: 20; 93: 21; 97: 2; 99: 8; I 17: 18: 126: 8; 136: s; 159: l; 169: 5; 177: l; 185: 22; 255: 9; 256~ 7; 258: 18,21; 272: 1; 280: 15; 288: 12; 291: 17 above 12: 2; 15: 21; 27: 16; 50: 16; 163: 6; 190: 14; 202: 19; 203: 11,1.4 absent 46: 13 100 28.8; 80: 22 2001 28: 18 640 275: 4 ioo, oOO 227122 1 2003 1: 12; 5: 2 66 114: 18 10th M 1. IO. 18 13, 2008 205: 21 695 284: 12 11 196: 1'; 397: 6; 233: 11; 21 224: 7 6: OO 142: 7; 143: 17; 240: 3 absolute 272: 15 2s4: 2 22nd 261112 6th 141: 4 1 absolutely 5: 19; 50~ 6;

115 28: 21 183: 13, 13; 232114 25 28: 14; 51: 12; 92: 15; 12 05: 1 I: l')~>~ I'; 1') 7: 6; II4: I; 173: 12 7 abutting 96: 12 LJ29; LO(>. I$ 25,000 284: lh ~~~ j Academy 289: 18 120,000 39.5, x 26 ST':~ I accelerated 29: lo; 50: 5 125 I(>:&) 27 189: 1/ i 1 70s I OO:$ accept 108: 3 75 28: 14; 96: 11; 291: i1 acceptable 47: I 3; 48: 6;

~ OFTheReCOrd, Xn~.( 301) 870 8025 Min U Script@ 0) $ 1 _ activities NEW BEDFORD, MA NACEFT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING June 17,2003 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS activity 6: 5; 61: 5; 243: 21 actors 265: 6 acts 283: 21 actual 35: 15; 179: 14 actually 18: 14; 20: 17; 21: 7; 23: 2; 35: 3,9,11; 39: 13; 57: 1; 69: 13; 89: 12; 101: 5; 109: 2,17,19; 110: 7; 127%; 138: 20; 160: 12; 164: lO; 169: lS; 170: 5,7; 177: 12; 181: 8, 19; 189: 21; 191: 21; 198: 15; 199: 15; 206: l; 215: 7; 231: 20; 239: 6; 240: 13; 251: 22; 265: 9; 266: 16; 267: 18; 270: s; 271: 15, 18; 276: 7; 277: lO; 282: l; 287: 6; 290: 20; 291: 3,7,9,10,11,16, 18 Acushnet 29: 21; 30: 14; 47: 4; 53: 15 Adams 2: 3; 66: 16,16; 167: 19; 168: 3 adapted 153: ll add 75: 15; 77: 9; 89: 11; 140: 16; 141: 2; 156: 6; 158: 13; 168: 22; 170: 12; 177: 7; 179: 21; 192: 12; 195: 22; 198: 15; 215: 21; 243: 19; 281: 6; 284: ll added 117: 16; 243: lS; 298: 10 adding 250: 20 addition 11: 18; 14: 18; 92: ll; 157: 12; 163: 6; 171: 5; 176: lO; 210: 15; 258: 9; 260: 9 additionaI61: 11; 94: 15; 116: 13; 125: 18; 127: s; 131: s; 141: 6; 157: s; 169: 5; 180: 19; 197: 17, 19; 220: 3,8; 223120; 224: 5,7, 10; 291: 17; 299: lO additionally 210: 10 address 67: 5; 87: 16; 90: 2; 103: 12,22; 105: 9, 12; 108: 13; 119: l; 121: 5; 139: l; 149: 22; 172: 14; 177: 1; 187: 5, 15; 190: 6, 13, 17; 202: 7; 264: 13; 276: 20; 279: 18; 281: 7; 286~ 12; 288~ 6; 292122; 293: 4; 297: 11,20 addressed 102: 2; 110: 9; 121: 2 addressing 41: 5; 84: 9; 101: 21; 131: 17; 162: 15; 21519; 27219 adequate 144: 14; 228: 21 217: 6 administrative 69: 17; 97: ll; 246: 2; 267: 7, 10 administrator 56: 3; 66: 21; 146: Jo adopt 236: 12 adopted 259: 8 advance 40: 3; 91: 11 advancing 223: 17 advantage 20: 14,20; 233: 14,16; 245: ll adverse 22: 21 adversely 92: 13 advice 139: 21; 167: 9; 220: 5; 244: 18,20; 258: 3 Advisory 4: lO; 6: 7; 64: 18; 82: 13; 122: 7; 244: 4; 263: 2,13, 13,15, 18 advocate 94: 6,15; 96: l; 230: 12 advocated 108: I advocates 104: 21 advocating 93: 14; 95: 7 Aero 98: 14,22 Aerovox 11: 2,9; 12: 16, 19; 15: 20; 99: 1,2; 100: 9; 102: 7; 109: 4 affected 72: 19 aff i I iated 64 : 5 affiliation 64: l; 262: 13 afford 283: 19 afraid 245: 5 afternoon 5: s; 88: 14; 133: 13; 135: 6; 136: 3,6; 142: 6; 144: 6,21; 198: 4,6 Again 10: s; 12: 17; 13: 22; 14: 3; 15: 18, 19; 29: 17; 31: 20; 32: 14; 34: 9, 18; 40: 14; 41: 16; 43: 13; 45: 13; 48: 17; 63: 12; 68: 7; 71: 10; 73: 13; 74: 22; 76: 1, 7; 78: 20,21; 82: 12; 91: 12, 22; 92: 19; 95122; 97: 13, 14; 111: 2; 114: 19; 115: ll; 116: 12, 18; 117: 9; 122: 3; 125: l; 128: 14, 16; 130: 15; 131: 9,12,14; 133: 4; 134: 6,11; 135: 7, 11; 137: 4; 139: 9; 141: 6; 142: 2; 143: 18; 150: 6, 11, 21; 151: s; 153: 14; lSS: 14; 156: ll; 159: 16; 161: 21; 172: 16; 175: ll; 177: 16, 22; 189: 12; 193: 12; 194: 7; 195: 21; 196: 6,21; 211: 15: 225~ 9; 231: 15; 237: l; 72: 1, 18; 105: 8; 106: 7; 121: 21; 139: 13,15,21; 14O: l; 145: 19,20; 146: 2; 158: 1,18,19; 178: ll; 204: 2,8; 213: 18; 243: ls 0; 249: 13, 17; 257~ 20; 25814; 260: 3; 275: 15, 16; 276: 4;

279: 2; 280: 13,20; 285: 22; 293: l agenda 60: 15; 83: s; 88: 12; 133: ll; 135: 19; 142: 1,22; 254: 3 aggregate 162: 22 aggregated 98: 3 aggressive 99: 22 ago 16: 1; 62: 15; 74: 2;

88: 9; 89: 14; 99: 15; 109: 2; 184: lS; 198: 15; 199: lS; 205: ll; 222: 22; 24317; 296: 15 agree 27: 20; 74: 12; 7514; 78: 20; 87: 21; 118: 6,22; 121: 5; 151: 21; 173: 9; 174: lS; 205: 18; 207: 6; 217: 3, 17; 225: 4; 230: 16 agreed 75: 14; 76: 2; 112: 20; 121: 19; 122: 15; 194: 20; 206: 19 agreeing 181: 9; 195: 11; 203: 17 agreement 74: 12; 75: B; 78: 6; 79: 4; 80: 22; 88: 3; 118: 18; 121: 2,4; 123: l; 126: 7, 19; 130: 19; 190: 2; 197: 8,12, 12 agreements 24: 10,12 agrees 74: 10 ahead 38: 17; 97: 18; 145: 2; 161: 20; 205: 9; 208: 17; 245:/ t; 256: 18; 258: 18 Aimee 2: 16; 65: 14; 175: 4; 228: ll; 294: 9 air 22: 18: 27: 2,3; 40: 10; 62: 21 airborne 41: 4 al 67: 19 Alaska 8: 11 Alaskan 84: 8 Albuquerque 2: 13; 65: 6, 11 alert Ill: 2 alike 44: 6 Allard's 267: 6 alliance 280: 7 allocate l/ 14: 10; 179: ll allocated 168: 8; 268: 15 allocation 269: 1 I allotted I 38: 4 adjacent 94: 2; 95: 12; 246: 7; 273: 16; 278: 7;

109: 21 285: 12.290: 10 22.

299: 11; 300: 2 ' ' adjourn 253: 18 allow 19: 2; 85: lO; 88: 12; adjourned 300: 3 against 37: 21; 23S: ll; 285: 6 96: 14; 189: 8 adjust 60: I5 age 278: 16 , allowable 14: I I, 22; 15: 4 adjustments 142: 22 Agencies 72: 21; 89: 19; 1 allowed 29: 13; 316 administered 189: 7 91: 17; 97: 3; 228: 3 allowing 88: lO administration 55: 17; Agency 3: 17, 19; 66: 22; allows 204: 6; 219: ll; 232: 6 amount 13: 6; 22: 18; alluded 12: 10.99: 11 26: 18; 2713; 3812; 4517; Alma 2: 21; 64118; 280: 2 almost 42: 11; 52: 6;

47: 21; 55: 21; S6: S; 71: 2; 55: 20; 60: 21; 71: 14; 107: 15; 159: 20; 232: 21; 246: 14; 252: lO; 267: 9 alone 104: 18; 243: 14 along 14: 19; 57: 7; 81: 22; 120: 6; 126: 20; 192: 2; 245: lO alternative 87: 7, 10, 15; 137: 5; 149: 5; 160: 4; 162: ll; 178: 16; 201: 7 alternatives 93: 16; 108: l; 219: l. d although 6: 21; 23: ll; 39: 15; 95: 12; 148: l; 152: 21; 201: 3; 216: lO; 290: 14 altogether 212: 21 always 5: 20; 9: 12; 77: 9; 107: 4; 145: 2; 178: s; 186: 7; 188: 22; 214: l; 237: 47, 19; 244: 14; 283: 14; 298: 3 amalbamation 75: 5 ama+ ed 269: 1 amajement 74: 6 amaiing 39: 12 ambient 22: 9, 18; 2319 amended 13: 11; 27: 18 amejding 199: 19 amendments 199: I9 America 2: lO; 64: 22 among 69: 5,7; 79: l; 112: 16; 123: 12; 222: 15; 281: 20 anticipating 133 4 ,, anymore 1721 I; 293: 22 anyplace 22416 appropriations 103: 16, apologies 69: lS apologize 128: s 22; 176: 16: 220: 18; appalled 290:~) appalling 269: 17 Apparently 31: 16; 100: 12; 287: 17 appeal 217: 9 appealed 222: 5 appear 74: 20; 289:`); 290: 11 appeared 99: 7; 108: 7; 290: 3, 12 appears 178: 4 appendices 82: I Appendix 126: I 6, I 6, 20, 21; 125: ll application lj5: 3 applied 293: 18 appointing 63: I6 appreciate 6: l; 180: 17: 273: 5, 19; 280: 5, 10; 281: 6; 292: 12; 298: 11, 12 appreciated 68: 16 approach 38: 7,7; 118: ll; 160: 3; 173: I 1; 215: 9; 250: 10; 251: 14; 25918; 262~ 20 approached 237: 12 approaches 41:~); 160: 5 appropriate 70: 10; 92: 19; 229: 3; 260:/ i; 262: 7, 16 appropriation 178: 21;

179: 9 95: 2; i67: 7; 217: l; 229: i; 244: 2; 268: lS; 271: ll amounts 20: 7; 55: 14; 95: 4 anadromous 31: 13 analogy 16: 22; 228~ 16 analysis 139: 18; 269: l; 286: 18,21 Angelo 3: 16; 64: 13; 68: 13, 13; 255: 21; 256: 5, 10, 18; 260: 9 Angelo's 259: 11 anger 287: 8; 289: lO animal 124: 22; 153: 20; 165: s ANISTEN 204110 annotating 129: 9 annual 129; 36: 10, 14; 373; 158: 16; 229: 14 answered I 21: I 3 anthropogenic SS: 14 anticipate 1 15: ll; 117: 18; 120: 6, 22; 121: 15: 125:/ t: 132: lO. 15.22 229: 17; 239: 2 appropriators 163% approval 131: 18,217: 6 approve 258: 2 I approved 258: 4 approving 26 I: 7 approximately 23: 18; 37: 6, 13, 18: 96: 1 1 April 198: 14 AQUA 265: 21,21 arbitrarily 247: 10 arbitrary 221: 22 archeological 24: IS area 10: 22: 14: l. f; 1610:

activity  area ( 2) Min U Script@  17.10; 19: 19; 21: 5; 22: 15:

24: 2, 17; 25: 12; 27: M:

28: 5,6; 29: 11; SO: 5,9, 11,

SS: 3,4, 12; M: X. 12, 16: 39: 21: 42: 11; 43: 20. 22; , j, j: s, ; j; 451, J; ,47: j; tjC) J 2;

52: 17; 5j: 11.16.55 I. IO:

90: 2;') 2: lG; 101: 21;

106: 9: 107: 7, 15: I lO: I/ t:

12S: X. 1 I; 1N: l 1: I(> 1 5. 10X: 1~~; 196: 15; 215: 1S;