DRAFT  FOR DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page i 1 2 3 This Draft is a Work in Progress. 4 It was Prepared for Subcommittee Discussion Only and 5 Does Not Represent Consensus of the Subcommittee 6 7 8 9 DRAFT REPORT 10 11 12 13 Superfund Subcommittee 14 of the 15 National Advisory Council for 16 Environmental Policy and Technology 17 18 19 20 21   22 23 24 August 12, 2003 version 25 26 27 DRAFT  FOR DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page ii Subcommittee Members Raymond Loehr  Chairman University of Texas at Austin William Adams Kennecot Utah Copper Corporation Sue Briggum Waste Management Doris Cellarius Sierra Club Grant Cope Earthjustice James Derouin Steptoe & Johnson Richard Dewling Dewling Associates, Inc.

Steve Elbert BP America, Inc.

Jane Gardner General Electric Glen Hammer Ashland, Inc.

Dolores Herrera Albuquerque San Jose Community Awareness Council, Inc.

Robert Hickmott Smith Free Group Aimee Houghton Center for Public Environmental Oversight Ken Jock St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Frederick Kalisz City of New Bedford Gary King state of Illinois Ed Lorenz Alma College Mildred McClain Harambee House, Inc.

Michael Mittelholzer National Association of Home Builders Tom Newlon Stoel Rives Lindene Patton Zurich North America Victoria Peters state of Colorado Kate Probst Resources for the Future Ed Putnam state of New Jersey Catherine Sharp state of Oklahoma Alexandra Shultz Mineral Policy Center Mel Skaggs InDepth Environmental Associates Richard Stewart New York University School of Law Wilma Subra Louisiana Environmental Action Network Michael Tilchin CH2M Hill Jason White Cherokee Nation Robin Wiener Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries EPA Ex Officio Representatives Barry Breen U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Phyllis Harris U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Lawrence Starfield U. S. Environmental Protection Agency DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page iii Table of Contents 1 2 Subcommittee Members................................................................................................... ii 3 Additional information on the members will be included in the Attachments 4 5 Introduction from the Chair............................................................................................ v 6 Letter from the Chair will be written after the recommendations are stable and will 7 introduce the report. 8 9 Executive Summary......................................................................................................... vi 10 The Executive Summary will be written after the recommendations are stable. 11 12 I. Background and Charge to the Subcommittee .................................................. 1 13 14 II. Working Assumptions and Guiding Principles.................................................. 5 15 16 III. The Use of the National Priorities List................................................................ 6 17 The Purpose of the NPL.......................................................................................... 6 18 Involvement of Stakeholders in the Listing Process............................................. 10 19 Coordination with Other Cleanup Programs......................................................... 13 20 The Hazard Ranking System ................................................................................ 18 21 Tracking Sites That Are Considered for the NPL But Not Listed........................ 21 22 Summary of Recommendations on the Use of the NPL ....................................... 24 23 24 IV. Managing Sites on the NPL................................................................................ 26 25 Setting Priorities Among Listed Sites................................................................... 27 26 Priority Setting Criteria......................................................................................... 28 27 Allocation of the Superfund Budget ..................................................................... 32 28 Program Management Efficiencies....................................................................... 36 29 Reforms to the Contracting Process...................................................................... 37 30 Summary of Recommendations Related to Management of Sites on the NPL .... 39 31 32 V. Mega Sites............................................................................................................ 40 33 Defining Mega Sites ............................................................................................. 40 34 Assessing Large Complex Sites............................................................................ 44 35 Dividing Large, Complex Sites into Smaller Units .............................................. 46 36 Establishing a Regional Coordinating Committee................................................ 49 37 Summary of Recommendations Related to Mega Sites........................................ 50 38 39 VI. Measuring Program Progress............................................................................ 52 40 Overview............................................................................................................... 52 41 Need for Core Data                         53 42 Coordination with Tribal Nations, States, Communities         .. 54 43 Preparation of Annual Report                     57 44 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page iv Summary of Recommendations Related to Measuring Program Progress........... 60 1 2 VII. Additional Issues Identified by the Subcommittee .......................................... 61 3 Agency for Toxics Substances Disease Registry ( ATSDR) and National Institute 4 of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS) ........................................................ 61 5 6 List of Figures.................................................................................................................. 63 7 8 Glossary of Terms and Phrases ..................................................................................... 64 9 10 Appendices....................................................................................................................... 65 11 12 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page v Introduction from the Chair 1 2 Letter from the Chair will be written after the recommendations are stable and will 3 introduce the report. 4 5 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page vi Executive Summary 1 2 The Executive Summary will be written after the recommendations are stable, and 3 reviewed by the Subcommittee as part of a future meeting. 4 5 6 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 1 I. Background and Charge to the 1 Subcommittee 2 3 In July 2001, the Deputy Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency 4 ( EPA) directed the development of an action plan to address the recommendations in the 5 Resources for the Future ( RFF) report to Congress, Superfund's Future, What Will It 6 Cost? The plan called for the creation of a Superfund Subcommittee under the auspices 7 of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT), 8 an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA). 9 10 The Superfund Subcommittee was chartered in June 2002. Members of the 11 Subcommittee were appointed by EPA and are senior level individuals from business and 12 industry, community and environmental advocacy groups, federal, state, local and tribal 13 governments, and environmental justice, other non governmental organizations and 14 academia. ( See Appendix A for a list of Subcommittee members.) 15 16 EPA asked the Subcommittee for advice in three areas. 17 18

Use of the National Priorities List ( NPL), including the role of the NPL in the 19 context of other cleanup programs, the types of sites that should be on the NPL, 20 and who should be involved in determining the sites that are listed. 21 22

How to best address mega sites ( defined as sites where total cleanup costs are 23 expected to exceed $ 50 million), including whether cost should continue to be 24 the determining factor when identifying mega sites, whether there are viable 25 alternatives for placing mega sites on the NPL and/ or containing their costs, and 26 whether there are unique aspects of mega sites that might require a different 27 decision making process for NPL listing. 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 2

Measuring progress in the Superfund program, including the criteria that 1 should be used to measure progress, who should be involved in measuring 2 progress and defining success, measuring the long term effectiveness of 3 institutional controls, containment and natural attenuation, and integrating long 4 term stewardship into the goals of the Program. 5 6 Each of these areas is defined more fully in the final Charge agreed to by the 7 Subcommittee, included in Appendix B. The final charge the Subcommittee used to 8 guide its work resulted from discussions by the Subcommittee in which the original 9 charge presented by EPA was modified and elaborated upon to reflect the views of the 10 Subcommittee. 11 12 The Subcommittee met eight times from June 2002 to December 2003. Between 13 Subcommittee meetings, small working groups of Subcommittee members met to 14 continue deliberations and develop options and recommendations for consideration by the 15 full Subcommittee. EPA ex officio Subcommittee members participated in discussions to 16 offer insight into Agency operations and policy and advice on the implementation 17 implications of recommendations under consideration. The Agency also supported 18 Subcommittee deliberations by making staff available to provide informational briefings 19 and other materials to the Subcommittee and by providing professional facilitators for 20 Subcommittee and work group meetings. EPA did not participate in the final decision 21 making on Subcommittee recommendations. 22 23 In accordance with the requirements of FACA, notices of full Subcommittee meetings 24 were published in the Federal Register and the meetings were open to the public. 25 Opportunities for public comment were provided at each meeting and the content of the 26 public comments are included in the meeting transcripts. A description of the 27 Subcommittee process, including dates and locations of full Subcommittee meetings and 28 lists of individuals who offered presentations to the Subcommittee or made comments, is 29 included in Appendix C. Meeting agendas, transcripts and other materials are available 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 3 through the Superfund Docket [ docket contact information]; reference Docket # SFUND 1 2002 0005. 2 3 In developing this report, Subcommittee members considered and articulated their views 4 on many complex and inter related issues. The final report is an integrated package that 5 represents the Subcommittee's best effort to formulate consensus recommendations. The 6 Subcommittee worked to reach the greatest degree of consensus possible among the wide 7 range of views reflected in its membership. Consensus was defined as an outcome that 8 everyone can " live with," in the context of the report as a whole, though aspects of any 9 particular finding or recommendation may not be the first choice of all members. When 10 consensus was not reached, the report identifies options or describes the range of views 11 held by Subcommittee members. 12 13 The rest of this report is organized as follows. Section II discusses key assumptions and 14 themes used by the Subcommittee to frame their deliberations and recommendations. 15 Sections III through VI present the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 16 Subcommittee recommendations are presented in report sections that align with the issues 17 raised in the Subcommittee charge. 18 19

Use of the National Priorities List 20

Managing Sites on the NPL 21

Mega Sites 22

Measuring Program Progress 23 24 In the case of the first element ( NPL listing), two sections of recommendations are 25 presented: the first addresses the types of sites that should be listed and the listing 26 process; the second addresses how sites on the NPL should be managed. 27 28 Within each issue area the Subcommittee recommendations are further organized by 29 topic. To aid the reader in understanding the Subcommittee's views and to put the 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 4 recommendations in context, recommendations are preceded by commentary highlighting 1 the key points of the Subcommittee's deliberations leading to each recommendation. 2 Recommendations are numbered sequentially throughout the Report and are printed in 3 bold and italicized text. When appropriate, recommendations are followed by additional 4 information describing the Subcommittee's additional views regarding the specifics of 5 the recommendation. A summary of recommendations is provided at the end of each 6 Section. 7 8 During the Subcommittee's deliberations a number of issues arose which were related to 9 the charge, but on which the Subcommittee did not have time to focus in depth. There 10 several of these issues which the Subcommittee believes merit further attention by EPA. 11 These issues are discussed in Section VII. 12 13 14 15 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 5 II. Working Assumptions and Guiding Principles 1 2 Consistent with the deliberations in New Bedford, this section will be developed after the 3 Subcommittee has a better sense of its core recommendations. The draft text will be 4 reviewed by the Subcommittee at a future meeting. 5 6 There was a suggestion at the New Bedford meeting that some historical context be 7 added to the report. The language below is an initial effort ( place holder) for that 8 language that we would suggest could be placed in this section of the report: 9 10 EPA invited the Subcommittee to consider a wide range of possible future directions for 11 the Superfund program, but asked that the Subcommittee include a " level funding 12 scenario" among its considerations. Since [ year], the taxes used to fund the Superfund 13 have expired and the program has been funded through annual appropriations of 14 approximately $ 1.3 billion per year. In fiscal year ( FY) 2002, EPA for the first time did 15 not have enough money to fully fund all the new remedial actions that were ready to start 16 at NPL sites while at the same time maintaining the pace and level of funding for ongoing 17 NPL cleanups. Because of this situation, and consistent with the request that the 18 Subcommittee consider a level funding scenario, there likely will continue to be pressure 19 on EPA's ability to fully and completely fund all cleanup actions at all NPL sites at the 20 maximum rate of progress simultaneously.] [ Review Question: This is an effort to 21 provide factual, historical context to the Subcommittee's Charge as suggested by 22 members. Is this the right information and the right place for this text?] 23 24 25 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 6 III. The Use of the National Priorities List 1 2 One of the three areas that EPA asked the Subcommittee to address is the National 3 Priorities List ( NPL). For purposes of deliberations and making recommendations, the 4 Subcommittee divided issues related to the future use of the NPL into two categories: 5 issues related to the listing process ( Section III) and issues related to management of sites 6 that are listed on the NPL ( Section IV). This section addresses the first category, issues 7 related to the NPL listing process. The Subcommittee addresses five issues related to 8 NPL listing: 9 10

the purpose of the NPL, 11

involvement of stakeholders in the listing process, 12

coordination with other cleanup programs, 13

the hazard ranking system, and 14

tracking sites that are considered for the NPL but not listed 15 16 The Subcommittee's deliberations and recommendations for each of these issues are 17 described below. 18 19 The Purpose of the NPL 20 21 The NPL is one of the cornerstones of the Superfund program and defines the sites at 22 which EPA is authorized to spend Superfund monies on remedial and long term response 23 actions. The Subcommittee's deliberations were carried out in a climate of public 24 concern and debate over the amount of money available to the Superfund program and 25 EPA's continued ability to simultaneously fund timely progress at all fund lead NPL 26 sites. The Subcommittee understands that no matter how much money is appropriated to 27 Superfund, resources to address contaminated sites never have been and never will be 28 unlimited. In this context, the Subcommittee considered a number of ways that EPA 29 might change its listing practices, including the following. 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 7 1

List only sites that can be funded at current and anticipated future appropriation 2 levels. 3 4

Create a new list within the NPL to distinguish sites for which funding is 5 available from sites for which funding is not available. 6 7

Create a new list outside the NPL ( or use the current list of " sites of Federal 8 interest") to track NPL caliber sites that are not listed primarily due to funding 9 concerns. 10 11 These options were ultimately rejected based on three considerations. First, the 12 Subcommittee is convinced that for the most part sites that are considered for NPL listing 13 are recommended to EPA by states, tribal nations, or affected communities because these 14 sites have not been, or cannot be, appropriately addressed by a non NPL cleanup 15 program. For example, a site might be considered or proposed for the NPL if 16 government funding is needed for cleanup. This would be the case if cleanup costs are 17 expected to exceed funds available under a state cleanup program. A site also might be 18 considered for the NPL if a previous cleanup approach has not worked, for example if a 19 non NPL cleanup program has not achieved the type of progress a state, tribal nation, or 20 affected community desires. Against this backdrop, the Subcommittee is concerned that 21 choosing not to list sites that would otherwise qualify for the NPL based primarily on 22 concerns about limits on funding available for cleanup would throw sites into a sort of 23 " limbo," where they are not addressed by non NPL cleanup programs and not addressed 24 by the NPL. 25 26 Second, choosing not to list sites based primarily on concerns about funding limits would 27 mask the true extent of the need for the NPL and the number of sites awaiting cleanup. 28 While the Subcommittee recognizes that this could be managed ( e. g., through additional 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 8 site tracking mechanisms), it was not convinced that establishing a new administrative 1 approach for identifying or tracking NPL caliber sites was desirable. 2 3 Third, at the time NPL listing decisions are made, the costs of likely remedial actions can 4 be projected, at best, only very generally. While it may be appropriate to consider such 5 general cost projections in forecasts of overall impacts on the Superfund budget or in 6 thinking about the pace of cleanup that may be possible at listed sites, it is not appropriate 7 to use them as a primary basis to include or exclude a site from the NPL. 8 9 [ Sidebar text: what is an NPL caliber site?] 10 11 Although the Subcommittee agrees that costs should not be a primary factor in 12 determining whether an eligible site is listed on the NPL, the members did not reach 13 consensus on whether anticipated cleanup costs and the availability of funding should be 14 considered in any way during listing decisions. Some Subcommittee members believe 15 that, as a practical matter, EPA must be able to consider the effects listing decisions could 16 have on future Superfund spending during the listing process. For example, if a large site 17 needing significant fund lead work were to be listed, such a listing could have serious, 18 practical implications for EPA's ability to continue to fund ongoing cleanups. 19 Subcommittee members who advocate some consideration of costs during listing believe 20 that EPA must be able to consider these practical eventualities when making listing 21 decisions and during subsequent planning processes. Other Subcommittee members 22 believe that any consideration of potential cleanup costs and funds available during 23 listing would result in EPA inappropriately deferring listing of some sites based on cost 24 considerations rather than on data about risks and potential risks to humans and the 25 environment. Subcommittee members who do not support any consideration of cost 26 during the listing process believe that this outcome would inappropriately dilute 27 Superfund's focus on protection of human health and the environment and is contrary to 28 statute. 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 9 In both cases, all Subcommittee members recognized that EPA's ability to make timely 1 progress at listed sites will be influenced by the resources available at the time that 2 cleanup decisions are needed. Regardless of whether or how the Agency decides to 3 consider anticipated cleanup costs and the availability of funding when making listing 4 decisions, the Subcommittee recommends the following: 5 6 1. The NPL should reflect true national priorities for Superfund cleanup. Therefore, 7 the number of sites listed on the NPL should not be arbitrarily capped based on 8 current or anticipated Program funding. 9 10 The Subcommittee recommends that EPA take the following steps to ensure that the 11 Superfund program is focused on true national priorities for cleanup. 12 13

EPA should use existing systems to carefully focus the program on sites that truly 14 represent the highest national priorities for Superfund cleanup. The NPL should 15 reflect sites that pose a significant risk to human health or the environment and 16 that will not be cleaned up absent funding being available ( for either response 17 actions or oversight of PRP work) only for sites designated as NPL sites. The 18 definition of significant risk should remain relatively consistent over time. Sites to 19 be considered for NPL listing should continue to be identified by states, tribal 20 nations, EPA regional offices, and communities, and should continue to become 21 eligible for the NPL based on a legitimate HRS score of 28.5 or greater. EPA 22 should continue to ensure that HRS scoring packages are properly prepared and 23 defensible. Rigorous review of scoring packages at the EPA Headquarters level 24 should ensure proper application of the HRS model, and bring a national 25 perspective and professional judgment to bear. This should be done without 26 losing sight of the fact that EPA regional offices operate in regional specific risk 27 circumstances; some types of risks ( e. g., ecological risks) are more prevalent or 28 more important in some regions than in others. The Subcommittee anticipates 29 that this approach will result in a list of sites that pose risks similar to those posed 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 10 by sites previously listed, and that cannot be adequately addressed through other 1 programs. 2 3

EPA should take appropriate actions to reduce the future burden on the NPL. For 4 example, increased vigilance in preventive programs could reduce the number of 5 contaminated sites that must be managed in the future. Increased deliberateness 6 and thoughtfulness with respect to aggressive implementation of non NPL 7 cleanup programs may result in these programs effectively addressing more sites. 8 EPA should track trends in the types of sites being proposed to the NPL. These 9 trends should be used to help identify measures that can be taken to minimize 10 future sites requiring cleanup, or the extent of cleanup required. For example, 11 such trends may help to identify opportunities to strengthen preventive programs 12 and compliance assistance, ensuring reliable financial assurances, and any other 13 measures identified in the course of reviewing new site listings. EPA should also 14 continue efforts to strengthen the capacity of states, tribal nations, and affected 15 communities to address contaminated sites by continuing to support development 16 of effective state and tribal cleanup programs. 17 18

Finally, EPA should appropriately prioritize funding and attention for listed sites. 19 As described in Section IV of this report, this prioritization should occur only 20 after initial remedial investigations and feasibility studies have been carried out, 21 when more is known about the risks presented by a site and the types of cleanup 22 actions that are needed. 23 24 Involvement of Stakeholders in the Listing Process 25 26 There are hundreds of thousands of contaminated sites across the United States. These 27 sites range from relatively simple gas station cleanups to complex urban waterways and 28 sites affecting hundreds of acres. Of all these sites, only a small fraction will present the 29 level of risk and public concern that warrants NPL listing. Under current EPA practice, 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 11 before a site is officially " discovered" for purposes of Superfund and placed in the 1 CERCLIS database, EPA regions, states, and tribal nations carry out a series of pre 2 screening activities to assess whether a site is an appropriate candidate for consideration 3 for NPL listing. 4 5 Sites may enter this pre screening process for many reasons. In September 2002, EPA 6 regional offices were informally surveyed by EPA headquarters staff about the factors 7 that most often prompt initiation of the Superfund site assessment process and inform 8 eventual NPL listing. Results of this survey are still being compiled; however, based on 9 responses from seven regional offices, it appears that the vast majority of sites are 10 considered for the Superfund site assessment process based on a recommendation from a 11 state or a tribal government or based on collaboration between a regional office and a 12 state or Tribe. Regions listed the need for fund money to pay for cleanup ( i. e., orphan 13 share) as the reason a site was raised for considered for the NPL for approximately one 14 third of new NPL listings. Lack of cooperation from PRPs was listed as the reason a site 15 was raised for consideration for the NPL for another one third of new listings. In 16 general, state cleanup programs refer sites to EPA for consideration for the NPL; EPA 17 does not " defer" sites to state programs. State regulators, for the most part, are the 18 primary discoverers of contaminated sites, and state programs tend to be the default 19 cleanup mechanism for most contaminated sites. When these programs cannot address 20 the site, Superfund and other alternatives are considered. 21 22 Based on these considerations, the Subcommittee recommends the following 23 improvements to the involvement of stakeholders in the listing process. 24 25 2. EPA regional offices should continue to involve states in the identification of which 26 sites to recommend for NPL listing. EPA should also involve potentially affected 27 communities and potentially responsible parties earlier in the Superfund Site 28 Assessment process through solicitation of information about sites being 29 considered for listing. 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 12 1 The Subcommittee believes that, with respect to states, it is critical that EPA continue its 2 practice of collaborating to determine which sites warrant assessment under Superfund. 3 If there are situations where coordination between states and EPA regions is lacking, 4 coordination practices should be expanded or instituted. Collaboration between Tribal 5 nations, states, and EPA regional offices is an important step in sorting through 6 contaminated sites and ensuring that resources for Superfund site assessment, and 7 eventually cleanup, are oriented towards the sites that truly require national attention. 8 Given the need to focus the NPL on the true national priorities for cleanup ( see above) it 9 is critical that this process of collaboration continue, and, as appropriate, be expanded. 10 11 In general, individual EPA regional offices have developed practices of coordination that 12 they believe are appropriate to their region and state specific circumstances. These 13 practices include regional decision teams, site " watch lists," and other strategies. The 14 Subcommittee emphasizes that it is not advocating expenditure of resources on 15 development or standardization of coordination practices; informal, region and state 16 specific approaches are appropriate, as long as coordination is achieved. 17 18 With respect to potentially affected communities and potentially responsible parties, 19 coordination during pre CERCLIS screening should be expanded. Currently, potentially 20 affected communities and potentially responsible parties, if known, are involved in pre 21 CERCLIS screening only on an ad hoc basis, if at all. This is troubling to the 22 Subcommittee because communities and PRPs often have information about sites that 23 may not be available to EPA, states, or tribal nations, and may have views about cleanup 24 needs at a site and how cleanup should best be accomplished. 25 26 EPA should involve potentially affected communities and PRPs in pre CERCLIS 27 screening. Community leaders, site neighbors, and previous site workers are sources of 28 historical information and knowledge concerning site activities and likely contamination 29 and exposure pathways. EPA should reach out to these individuals during pre CERCLIS 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 13 screening using targeted outreach efforts or other informal means. PRPs are also sources 1 of information about site conditions. In addition, the identification of PRPs during pre 2 CERCLIS screening could prompt them to step forward to cleanup a site voluntarily or 3 under a non NPL cleanup program such as a state program or the Superfund Alternative 4 program. 5 6 Of course, coordination is meant to improve listing decisions, not to delay them. EPA 7 should not allow coordination efforts to delay a listing decision when it is clear that the 8 NPL is the most appropriate cleanup method to use at a site. If a site is proposed for 9 listing, the listing process and the subsequent cleanup provide numerous opportunities for 10 coordination. The Subcommittee emphasizes that EPA retains sole discretion to make 11 decisions about which sites to list on the NPL and these recommendations are not 12 intended and should not be interpreted as fettering that discretion. The Agency has a 13 responsibility to make listing decisions in a timely and efficient manner, in accordance 14 with promulgated procedures and based on credible technical evidence. 15 16 [ Sidebar text: what is the SF site assessment process, with flow chart.] 17 18 [ Sidebar text: what is the SF Alternative Program?] [ Review question: we anticipate this 19 would simply describe the SF alternative program. Is this the right place for such a 20 description and, does the Subcommittee wish to express any views about the strengths or 21 weaknesses of the program?] 22 23 Coordination with Other Cleanup Programs 24 25 The Subcommittee had extensive discussions about the role that other federal cleanup 26 programs and state cleanup programs should play relative to the NPL. The primary 27 outcome of these discussions was recognition that non NPL cleanup programs should not 28 be seen as supplanting the role of the NPL. The Subcommittee believes that both a 29 strong, functioning NPL and strong, functioning non NPL cleanup programs are needed 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 14 to address the full range of contaminated sites and cleanup challenges that exist in this 1 country. In many ways, a strong NPL serves to strengthen other cleanup programs, 2 particularly state programs, by providing a certain alternative if progress is not made. 3 4 The second outcome of these deliberations was a desire among Subcommittee members 5 to ensure that to the extent other programs offer authorities, processes, or funds that will 6 facilitate cleanup of NPL caliber sites, these " tools" are known and available to EPA 7 regional offices, deliberately and thoughtfully considered, and used to complement 8 Superfund processes and funding where they can be appropriately applied without 9 compromising cleanup standards, liability, or community participation. 10 11 The Subcommittee identified several ways in which non NPL cleanup programs might be 12 a useful complement to the NPL. 13 14

A program might provide sources of funding that could be used to supplement 15 funding under Superfund. For example, under some circumstances the U. S. Army 16 Corps of Engineers can provide funding for environmental dredging in ways that 17 may complement an ongoing Superfund cleanup. 18 19

Program authorities might be used in combination with the Superfund program to 20 provide additional cleanup authorities or strategies to augment a Superfund 21 cleanup. These coordinated approaches have been used at a number of Superfund 22 sites, such as the Grand Calumet cleanup [ other examples?], and are being 23 considered under EPA's Urban Rivers Initiative. To the extent that such 24 approaches do not compromise cleanup standards, liability, or community 25 participation, they can be an important element of ensuring that all available 26 resources are leveraged to achieve effective cleanups. 27 28

Some programs might provide a viable alternative administrative framework 29 under which cleanup activities at a site could be appropriately overseen or 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 15 enforced. For example, Superfund already has a policy of deferring responsibility 1 for cleanup to the RCRA corrective action program where that program applies. 2 Use of a non NPL program to oversee or enforce cleanup might also be 3 appropriate where cleanup will be funded by PRPs and a state program can 4 provide appropriate oversight of the PRP cleanup. Again, to the extent that use of 5 non NPL programs at NPL caliber sites does not compromise cleanup standards, 6 liability, or community protection, the Subcommittee believes these are important 7 alternatives, and their use will allow limited NPL resources to be directed only 8 toward sites where they are most needed. 9 10 The Subcommittee was briefed on EPA's effort to harmonize cleanup programs   the 11 One Cleanup Program Initiative. The Subcommittee embraces this initiative as a way to 12 improve coordination among programs, minimize duplication of efforts across programs, 13 and take advantage of the unique attributes different programs offer without sacrificing 14 cleanup standards, liability, or community participation. 15 16 In a recent survey conducted by EPA, all ten EPA regional offices confirmed that they 17 convene meetings of a regional Decision Team or similar body to coordinate evaluation 18 of which sites most need to be addressed using the NPL and which might be 19 appropriately addressed using a non NPL cleanup program. However, the programs 20 considered and the methods and nature of this analysis can vary significantly among 21 regions. All ten EPA regional offices indicated that they routinely consider removal 22 actions, the Superfund Alternative Site approach, other EPA authorities and programs 23 ( e. g., RCRA corrective action), and all possible state remediation programs before 24 making a commitment to formally propose a site for NPL listing. Nine regions report 25 routine meetings with state program managers to coordinate cleanup priorities, seven 26 regions report similar meetings with the Superfund removal program, and three regions 27 report routine meetings with other EPA programs such as the RCRA corrective action 28 program. Regions also report that they consult informally with these programs before 29 proposing a site to the NPL. Eight regions report that they also consider other Federal 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 16 agency response programs, such as the programs put in place by the Department of 1 Defense and the Department of the Interior, before proposing a site to the NPL. 1 2 3 To further encourage consideration of non NPL cleanup programs and use of these 4 programs as appropriate, the Subcommittee recommends that: 5 6 3. EPA should institute a deliberate process carried out at the regional level to provide 7 for consistent consideration of other federal cleanup programs and state cleanup 8 programs before a site is recommended for NPL listing. 9 10 In implementing this recommendation, EPA should establish guidelines for consideration 11 of other programs so that all regions consider appropriate non NPL cleanup programs for 12 NPL caliber sites, and so that programs are considered at appropriate points in the listing 13 process. The Subcommittee considered, but ultimately rejected, recommending a more 14 formal mechanism for coordination, such as a " coordinating committee." ( Note: the 15 coordinated committee approach is suggested for use at the regional level with regard to 16 mega sites   see Mega site recommendations). Instead, the Subcommittee favors an 17 approach that recommends achieving the outcomes of coordination but leaves to EPA 18 regional offices and their partners the responsibility of determining the best means to 19 achieve those outcomes given regional specific circumstances. It seems likely that the 20 most efficient means for EPA to accomplish the coordination outcomes recommended by 21 the Subcommittee is through improvements to the existing regional infrastructures for 22 coordination, rather than through establishment of a new standard mechanism. 23 24 EPA should also ensure that accurate, up to date information about the strengths, 25 weaknesses, and capabilities of other federal cleanup programs that might complement 26 Superfund is available to the states, regions and other interested parties, along with 27 1 U. S. EPA survey of existing NPL listing management practices in the EPA regional offices, reported August 16, 2002. DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 17 support for regional project managers who wish to consider coordination or collaboration 1 with such programs. This will assist regional offices in determining which non NPL 2 programs might be most appropriate to consider for a specific site and in making 3 determinations as to how a non NPL program might be used in a way that doesn't 4 compromise cleanup levels, liability, or community participation. 5 6 As with the discussion of coordination, above, the Subcommittee emphasizes that EPA 7 should not allow consideration of non NPL cleanup programs to delay a listing decision 8 when it is clear that the NPL is the most appropriate cleanup method to use at a site. EPA 9 retains sole discretion to make decisions about which sites to list on the NPL and these 10 recommendations are not intended and should not be interpreted as fettering that 11 discretion. The Agency has a responsibility to make listing decisions in a timely and 12 efficient manner, in accordance with promulgated procedures and based on credible 13 technical evidence. 14 15 [ Sidebar text listing programs considered by the Subcommittee w/ two sentence factual 16 description of each.] 17 18 [ Sidebar text listing potential good practices from state programs to evaluate or 19 recommending other studies?] 20 21 [ Sidebar text on capacity building? Mentioned earlier in first recommendation.] 22 23 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 18 The Hazard Ranking System ( HRS) 1 2 The Subcommittee was not charged with evaluating the HRS and therefore did not carry 3 out a detailed assessment of how the HRS currently is functioning. The Subcommittee 4 therefore is not making recommendations on changes to the 28.5 threshold or to the HRS 5 model. At the same time, because the HRS is the way in which EPA most often defines 6 which sites are eligible for NPL listing, the Subcommittee felt it was appropriate to 7 discuss the HRS during their deliberations on the use of the NPL and the NPL listing 8 process. 9 10 The Subcommittee recognizes that the HRS serves a specific and limited function in the 11 Superfund Program. The use of the HRS does not result in a risk assessment and was not 12 designed to result in a risk assessment. Risk assessments are carried out after sites are 13 listed, during the cleanup process. Rather, the HRS is a screening tool that assigns 14 certain numerical values to a variety of exposure characteristics known or assumed to be 15 associated with a site, with the presumption that a site score of at least 28.5 indicates 16 significant risks and delineates a site that warrants national attention under Superfund. 17 Sites with an HRS score of 28.5 are eligible for the NPL. During the HRS scoring 18 process, once an evaluation of one or more exposure pathways results in a score of 28.5 19 or above, EPA generally does not invest the resources in completing calculations for all 20 pathways to determine how high the site score should be. It is interesting to note that 21 because of this practice ( which is a legitimate resource saving technique), HRS scores 22 cannot be used to compare the relative degree of risk among NPL sites and cannot be 23 relied upon to make judgments about the total amount of risk posed by individual sites. 24 25 Subcommittee members identified a number of concerns related to the HRS. Some 26 Subcommittee members expressed concern that limitations of the HRS as implemented 27 may preclude NPL listing of sites that pose legitimate and serious risks to humans and the 28 environment that warrant national attention under Superfund. Subcommittee members 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 19 identified the following concerns about potential limitations in the ways the HRS 1 accounts for site risks. 2 3

Does the HRS adequately address sites where the primary risk is due to vapor 4 intrusion? 5 6

Does the HRS adequately account for environmental justice issues? 7 8

Does the HRS adequately enable EPA to list sites that are not located near major 9 population areas? 10 11

Does the HRS adequately address explosive hazards? 12 13

Does the HRS adequately enable EPA to list sites that pose a threat to exposed 14 individuals with traditional lifestyles? 15 16 Other Subcommittee members had concerns about the opposite problem, that application 17 of the HRS may result in listing of sites that do not truly pose the types of legitimate, 18 significant risks to humans or the environment that the Superfund program was designed 19 to address. Some Subcommittee members believe that the 28.5 threshold is too low and 20 should be raised. Some Subcommittee members suggested that layers of conservatism 21 built into the HRS default assumptions result in unreasonably conservative listing 22 decisions. Finally, some Subcommittee members asked whether the HRS does not 23 appropriately balance real and present danger with potential future risks, by giving the 24 same weight to both circumstances. Concerns over the HRS capturing too many sites as 25 eligible for the NPL are serious and care should be taken to implement the HRS so that 26 the sites proposed for listing on the NPL represent significant risks and true national 27 priorities. 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 20 The Subcommittee noted that EPA has, and routinely exercises, the discretion not to list 1 NPL eligible sites ( i. e., sites with an HRS score of 28.5), so that a less than perfect 2 application of the scoring system has the potential to be corrected in EPA's exercise of its 3 discretion relative to listing decisions. On the other hand, if a site does not score 28.5 or 4 above using the HRS, EPA generally is unable to consider it for NPL listing. 5 6 As a result of the issues and concerns raised with respect to the HRS, the Subcommittee 7 recommends that: 8 9 4. EPA should review the HRS with respect to several important issues including how 10 effectively it is addressing sites located in sparsely populated areas, environmental 11 justice concerns, traditional lifestyles, vapor intrusion or explosive hazards. 12 13 With respect to vapor intrusion, the Subcommittee supports EPA's current investigation 14 of the prevalence and seriousness of vapor intrusion at sites currently listed on the NPL. 15 As this evaluation yields data, EPA should consider whether vapor intrusion is a 16 significant enough issue at NPL sites to warrant a change in the HRS. In the meantime, 17 EPA should work with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 18 Officials ( ASTSWMO) to determine whether vapor exposure pathways can be addressed 19 adequately through the application of the HRS. If it is determined that the HRS is 20 sufficient, EPA should disseminate its findings through training and/ or new or revised 21 guidance/ policy directives so that all EPA regions, tribes and states understand that the 22 tool is available and how to use it. If it is determined that the HRS does not adequately 23 reflect risks from vapor pathways, EPA should work with states, tribal nations, and other 24 appropriate individuals to decide what steps to take to ensure that sites posing significant 25 enough risks via vapor intrusion are eligible for listing on the NPL. 26 27 With respect to environmental justice, as with many other aspects of environmental 28 programs, it is not clear that the HRS adequately incorporates environmental justice 29 considerations. Many believe that socio economically depressed areas are often 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 21 subjected to a greater proportion of environmental insult as a result of ongoing and 1 abandoned industrial and waste facility releases, and fewer redevelopment opportunities. 2 As a result, a community could be exposed to a number of sites, none of which score 28.5 3 but which together may pose greater risks to receptors than sites currently on the NPL. 4 In addition, genetics, inferior nutrition, and poor health care may all predispose 5 individuals to disease and other adverse effects. The HRS, as is typical with 6 environmental programs, does not incorporate such considerations; rather, it evaluates 7 releases in isolation. Although the Subcommittee acknowledges this issue, it has not had 8 the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the components and arrive at a definitive proposed 9 resolution. Therefore, EPA should request that the National Environmental Justice 10 Advisory Committee ( NEJAC) follow up on their current related efforts and help to 11 formulate policies which would ensure that predisposition to disease, as a result of 12 genetics, poor nutrition or health care and cumulative exposures from a disproportionate 13 number of contaminant sources, be considered in NPL listing decisions. Additionally, 14 EPA should convene an EPA/ state/ Tribal task force to formulate scientifically 15 supportable policies to address concerns identified by NEJAC related to NPL listing. 16 17 With respect to sparsely populated areas, traditional lifestyles and explosive hazards, 18 EPA should work with appropriate stakeholder groups to better understand whether the 19 HRS adequately addresses these issues and, if not, to develop a strategy to make 20 appropriate improvements to the HRS. 21 22 Tracking Sites That Are Considered for the NPL But Not Listed 23 24 During the Superfund Site Assessment process, the majority of sites considered for listing 25 on the NPL are " screened out" for various reasons. Most often, sites are eliminated from 26 further consideration for listing on the NPL based on a determination that they would not 27 achieve an HRS score of 28.5. A site might also be screened out because it can be 28 appropriately addressed under a non NPL cleanup program, such as the RCRA 29 Corrective Action Program, or because PRPs enter into a voluntary agreement to carry 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 22 out the cleanup. Generally, sites that are screened out in these ways are reflected in 1 CERCLIS as " No Further Remedial Action Required" or " NFRAP." 2 3 Some sites that make it through the Superfund Site Assessment process and are eligible 4 for listing on the NPL are, nonetheless, at EPA's discretion, not listed. EPA might 5 choose not to list an NPL eligible site, for example, if the default assumptions used in the 6 HRS model are not consistent with actual site specific conditions. EPA might also 7 choose not to list an NPL eligible site based on evaluation of the immediacy and 8 significance of risks and potential risks posed by the site and the number and types of 9 receptors ( humans and environmental) that may be at risk. NPL eligible sites that EPA 10 chooses not to list for these reasons generally are not reflected in CERCLIS as NFRAP 11 but rather are tracked informally by EPA for consideration during future NPL listing 12 cycles. 13 14 While the Subcommittee recognizes and affirms EPA's need to exercise professional 15 judgment and discretion in selecting which NPL eligible sites to propose for listing on 16 the NPL, it is troubled by the lack of transparency in this decision making and the 17 informal nature of EPA's tracking protocols for NPL eligible sites that are not proposed 18 for listing. As discussed earlier in this report, in most cases, potential NPL sites are 19 referred to EPA by states, communities, and tribal nations only after other cleanup 20 avenues have been exhausted. When these sites score 28.5 using the HRS model, yet are 21 not listed, EPA must assure that adequate protection of human health and the 22 environment does occur. 23 24 The Subcommittee is also concerned that sites screened out earlier in the Superfund Site 25 Assessment process ( e. g., because they would not achieve a 28.5 HRS ranking) and noted 26 as NFRAP may be misconstrued by some as being " clean" even when site conditions still 27 pose risks to humans and the environment. To address these concerns, the Subcommittee 28 recommends that: 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 23 5. EPA should increase the transparency of decisions not to propose NPL eligible 1 sites for listing on the NPL and should establish a formal process to track NPL 2 eligible sites that are not listed. 3 4 6. EPA should establish standard protocols to ensure that communications with 5 states, tribal nations, affected communities and other appropriate individuals about 6 NFRAP sites make site conditions and risks clear. 7 8 With respect to NPL eligible sites, in implementing the recommendation to increase 9 transparency of decision making EPA should at a minimum document its decisions not to 10 propose NPL eligible sites for listing and communicate these decisions to states, tribal 11 nations, affected communities and other appropriate individuals. In communicating 12 these decisions, EPA should state explicitly that the site has not been determined to be 13 clean. Typically, EPA has information on the types of contaminants likely to be present 14 at these sites, environmental media affected, and potential receptors. This information 15 should be included in communications about the site. In implementing the 16 recommendation to establish a formal tracking procedure, EPA should ensure that site 17 conditions, including any cleanup efforts undertaken pursuant to non NPL cleanup 18 programs, are reassessed each [ time period, year? Listing cycle?]. If site conditions 19 worsen or cleanup progress is not made, EPA should ensure that the sites are 20 reconsidered for NPL listing during future listing cycles. 21 22 With respect to NFRAP sites, the Subcommittee understands that these sites are generally 23 referred back to state cleanup programs, because they do not present a level of risk that 24 warrants further consideration for the NPL ( i. e., they would not achieve an HRS score of 25 28.5). As with communications about NPL eligible sites that are not proposed for listing, 26 in communications about NFRAP sites EPA should state explicitly that the site has not 27 been determined to be clean and include available information on the types of 28 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 24 contaminants likely to be present at these sites, environmental media affected, and 1 potential receptors. 2 3 Summary of Recommendations on the Use of the NPL 4 5 Based on its discussions and deliberations, the Subcommittee provides the following 6 recommendations related to the NPL listing process. The logic for these 7 recommendations was presented in earlier sections of this report. 8 9 1. The NPL should reflect true national priorities for Superfund cleanup. Therefore, 10 the number of sites listed on the NPL should not be arbitrarily capped based on 11 current or anticipated Program funding. 12 13 2. EPA regional offices should continue to involve states in the identification of which 14 sites to recommend for NPL listing. EPA should also involve potentially affected 15 communities and potentially responsible parties earlier in the Superfund Site 16 Assessment process through solicitation of information about sites being 17 considered for listing. 18 19 3. EPA should institute a deliberate process carried out at the regional level to provide 20 for consistent consideration of other federal cleanup programs and state cleanup 21 programs before a site is recommended for NPL listing. 22 23 4. EPA should review the HRS with respect to several important issues including how 24 effectively it is addressing sites located in sparsely populated areas, environmental 25 justice concerns, traditional lifestyles, vapor intrusion or explosive hazards. 26 27 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 25 5. EPA should increase the transparency of decisions not to propose NPL eligible 1 sites for listing on the NPL and should establish a formal process to track NPL 2 eligible sites that are not listed. 3 4 6. EPA should establish standard protocols to ensure that communications with 5 states, tribal nations, affected communities and other appropriate individuals about 6 NFRAP sites make site conditions and risks clear. 7 8 [ Review question: does the Subcommittee want to include a recommendation to " Ensure 9 immediate actions are taken, as appropriate" from the early screening work? Are there 10 other issues/ recommendations that should be addressed relative to the removals 11 program?] 12 13 14 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 26 IV. Managing Sites on the NPL 1 2 As described earlier in this Report ( p. 6), the Subcommittee divided issues related to the 3 future use the NPL into two categories: those related to the listing process and those 4 related to management of sites that are on the list. The first category of issues, what 5 types of sites should be placed on the NPL and how listing decisions should be made, 6 was emphasized on the charge. Recommendations addressing NPL listing are made in 7 the previous section. The Subcommittee believes that the second category of issues, 8 those related to management of sites listed on the NPL, is also very important. This is 9 particularly so given the Subcommittee's recommendations that the NPL continue to be 10 used to reflect true national priorities for cleanup and that the number of sites placed on 11 the NPL not be arbitrarily capped based on current or anticipated Program funding. If 12 EPA cannot simultaneously fully and completely fund all cleanup actions at all NPL sites 13 at the maximum pace of cleanup, issues related to prioritization of NPL sites for attention 14 ( and funding) become critical. The Subcommittee addressed five issues related to 15 management of sites on the NPL: 16 17

setting priorities among listed sites, 18

priority setting criteria, 19

allocation of the Superfund budget, 20

program management efficiencies, and 21

reforms to the contracting process. 22 23 The Subcommittee's deliberations and recommendations for each of these issues are 24 described further below. 25 26 [ Review question: does the Subcommittee wish to make additional recommendations in 27 this area? For example, additional recommendations on the use of insurance were 28 described in the previous draft, along with recommendations on expanded consideration 29 of the alternative settlement strategy process.] 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 27 1 Setting Priorities Among Listed Sites 2 3 As discussed earlier in this report ( Section III), the Subcommittee recognizes that there 4 likely will never be enough funds available to work on all sites on the NPL at maximum 5 intensity at the same time. It likely therefore will be necessary for EPA to set priorities 6 among fund lead sites. When necessary, the Subcommittee recommends that these 7 priorities be set based on reliable site specific data about the nature and extent of 8 contamination and site specific risks to human health and the environment. 9 10 Under the standard cleanup process for NPL sites, after a site is listed the nature and 11 extent of contamination at and from the site, associated risks, and potential remedial 12 actions are identified and characterized through a remedial investigation and feasibility 13 study ( RI/ FS). In general, the RI/ FS represents a relatively low cost element of the 14 cleanup process; at NPL sites where EPA funds cleanup, most RI/ FS are completed for 15 less than [ dollar amount]. When the nature and extent of contamination is known and 16 potential remedial actions identified, a remedial action is selected for the site through a 17 public process that involves EPA publishing a proposed plan for remedial action and 18 soliciting public comment on the proposed plan. The chosen remedial action is then 19 documented in a Record of Decision ( ROD). After the ROD, a remedial design ( RD) 20 study is carried out to plan the details of remedy implementation, and remedial actions 21 are constructed and implemented. 22 23 At fund lead sites, EPA's current practice is to set priorities for funding remedial actions 24 at the conclusion of the RD phase. This creates a potential inefficiency, since remedial 25 designs may become outdated and need to be re done if remedial actions are not promptly 26 implemented, for example, due to funding constraints. Therefore, the Subcommittee 27 recommends the following: 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 28 7. To the extent that EPA must set priorities for funding at NPL sites, these priorities 1 should be set after completion of remedial investigations and feasibility studies and 2 issuance of records of decision, when more is known about site risks and options to 3 assure protection of human health and the environment. 4 5 Placing this recommendation in the context of typical cleanup milestones would result in 6 priorities for funding being set after the ROD, and before investment in RD. EPA should 7 make every effort not to delay RI/ FS or RODs based on the availability of funds, since 8 information from RI/ FS and RODs is needed to fully understand the risks associated with 9 a site and the remedial actions needed. Priorities should be set in light of this 10 information, not before it is available. This approach is appropriate because it will allow 11 EPA to prioritize sites for funding based on a consistent level of information that relates 12 to protection of human health and the environment. 13 14 [ Review question: this takes a strong position on the timing for EPA priority setting. Are 15 there situations, or certain types of sites, where the Subcommittee thinks it would be wise 16 for EPA to deviate from this timing and set priorities at a different time, such as before a 17 ROD?] 18 19 Priority Setting Criteria 20 21 In 1995, EPA established an internal priority setting process and criteria for making 22 decisions about allocating Superfund funds. The process is set forth in a January 19, 23 1996 memorandum (" Remedial Action Priority Setting") from Assistant Administrator 24 Elliott Laws to regional Administrators ( the " Laws Memo"   Appendix D). The Laws 25 Memo established a national prioritization system for removal actions expected to cost 26 more than [ dollar amount] and new fund lead remedial actions. The system uses a 27 ranking scheme to prioritize projects based on five criteria: 28 29

risks to human population exposed; 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 29

contaminant stability; 1

contaminant characteristics; 2

threat to a significant environment; and 3

program management considerations. 4 5 Each criterion is ranked on a scale of one to five, with five representing a current 6 risk/ current exposure scenario posing risk to human health and the environment and one 7 representing a future risk/ future exposure scenario. 8 9 The Subcommittee believes that these five criteria are valid. However, in light of other 10 recommendations made in this report: 11 12 8. The Subcommittee recommends that EPA should update the process and criteria it 13 currently uses to set priorities for funding at NPL sites to make sure that sites that 14 have significant health/ exposure risks receive the highest priority for funding. In 15 addition, EPA should explore an approach that could assign different funding 16 priorities to different portions of the same site. 17 18 In implementing this recommendation, EPA should strive to achieve the following seven 19 outcomes. 20 21

Sites with significant health risks/ current exposures should have the highest 22 priority for funding. In other words, the presence of current health risk/ exposure 23 should be the most important factor in making decisions about which removals 24 and fund lead remedial actions to fund. Among sites that present a current health 25 risk/ exposure, there is a wide variety of degrees of risk represented. These 26 degrees of risk should be considered in determining how to allocate funding 27 among sites. 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 30

Allow for funding only portions of sites. At sites with multiple releases and/ or 1 potential risks, EPA should establish policies and procedures that allow it to fund 2 activities to respond to individual releases without automatically funding 3 activities at the entire site. Current health risk/ exposure should be a factor in 4 decisions about which releases and/ or potential risks to fund at any given site. 5 EPA should allow for funding hot spot treatment and/ or source removal projects 6 which constitute a specific current health risk/ exposure at a site without that 7 decision constituting a decision to immediately and continuously fund other 8 elements of the overall site that may not pose a similar risk. 9 10

Carefully consider the how the allocation of funds to address current health 11 risks/ exposures at all sites relates to the value of completing cleanup activities at 12 individual sites. It is desirable to remediate an entire site completely; at the same 13 time, it is appropriate to defer remediation activities at portions of a site that do 14 not pose a current health risk/ exposure, if needed to provide for funding of current 15 health risk/ exposure at other sites. A decision to defer funding of some activities 16 at a site should not be interpreted as a decision to take no further action at a site. 17 All relevant stakeholders should be informed when such decisions are made and 18 information regarding when future actions can be anticipated should be made 19 available. 20 21 In addition, there are other factors that should be considered when funding and 22 management decisions are being considered at Superfund sites. In making 23 decisions to defer remediation activities at a site in order to allocate more funding 24 to current human health risks/ exposures at other sites, EPA should consider: 25 26 o the significant value to a community in completing all intended work at 27 the site; 28 o the additional costs associated with stopping and then restarting 29 remediation activities; and 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 31 o the ability to achieve program milestones. 1 2 Striking the appropriate balance between funding cleanup of current health 3 risks/ exposures at all fund lead sites and completing all remediation at some fund 4 lead sites may be the most complex and difficult component of how EPA sets 5 priorities. 6 7 [ Review question: are there other factors to weigh? Does the Subcommittee have 8 a position on the relative weight of the factors, or what types of trade offs among 9 factors EPA should favor?] 10 11

Measures of program performance and site deletion practices should account for 12 actions that eliminate or reduce health risks/ exposures at portions of a site. 13 Eliminating an exposure pathway which, prior to remedial action, represented a 14 current health risk is an important measurement of the success of the Superfund 15 program, even where additional remedial action may be needed to respond to 16 other risks at the site. EPA should track and report actions that eliminate 17 exposure pathways which represented a current health risk. Further, EPA should 18 have the ability to delete separable and discrete areas of an overall site at which 19 such actions are undertaken and successfully concluded consistent with the 20 National Contingency Plan ( NCP). 21 22

Properly account for subsistence use of natural resources. In determining whether 23 a current health risk/ exposure scenario exists with respect to a condition which 24 impacts a natural resource such as a lake or stream, EPA should take into account 25 whether the lake or stream is used for subsistence purposes. Failing to properly 26 account for subsistence use of natural resources may lead to incorrect conclusions 27 regarding the current human health risks/ exposures associated with a site. 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 32

The application of a funding prioritization process may be applicable at various 1 points in the Superfund pipeline. The process of setting priorities for fund lead 2 actions may be valuable at more than one point in a cleanup, and should be used 3 to set priorities. These actions are not necessarily limited to remedial actions, and 4 it may be appropriate to apply a funding prioritization process at other stages in 5 the Superfund pipeline. However, there is a significant transaction cost associated 6 with a rigorous priority setting process, and repeatedly re setting priorities, or re 7 prioritizing among relatively small sites would generally not be warranted. 8 9 The Subcommittee does not feel that the comments above are inconsistent with 10 the previous recommendation (# 7) to make it a priority to fund RI/ FSs and 11 RODs. They wish to reinforce the importance of making prioritization decisions 12 when more information regarding the risks posed at a site are known. 13 14 There are a range of considerations that are not directly related to human health or 15 ecological risk, but are still important to assuring an effective and robust Superfund 16 program. In terms of site prioritization, these include but are not limited to: 17 18 o environmental justice concerns; 19 o fostering the development of improved cleanup technologies; 20 o maintaining a strong enforcement program; 21 o " leveraging" cleanup funding from sources outside of Superfund; and 22 o returning sites to productive use. 23 24 The relevance and importance of these considerations at any given site is highly site 25 specific. However, the Subcommittee strongly suggests that EPA weigh them 26 appropriately when setting priorities and making funding decisions. 27 Allocation of the Superfund Budget 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 33 The question of how much money is needed to successfully implement the Superfund 1 program is a complicated one. The complexity derives in large part from the fact that 2 how much money the program " needs" depends upon the number of sites placed on the 3 NPL and site characteristics such as amounts, toxicities, and locations of contaminants at 4 NPL sites; the types of cleanup actions implemented at each site and the pace of cleanup 5 activities; and whether the government or PRPs pay for cleanup. Because funding for 6 cleanup will never be unlimited, the Subcommittee focused on how to implement the 7 program most effectively and, in circumstances where funding constraints might be 8 present, how to manage the program in light of these constraints. In that context, 9 successful implementation of the Superfund program will involve improvements in each 10 of these areas, as addressed in the other recommendations in this Report. This 11 recommendation addresses how the Superfund budget, whatever it is, should best be 12 used. 13 14 In FYs 2002 and 2003, Congress appropriated approximately $ 1.3 billion for the 15 Superfund program. In FY 2002, EPA reported that it spent a total of $ 210 million on 16 fund lead remedial actions and long term response actions. This means that $ 1.09 billion 17 was spent on other Superfund related activities. Even allowing that some of the $ 1.09 18 billion was spent on removal actions, it is clear that, at least in FY 2002, the 19 preponderance of the Superfund budget was not spent on cleanup activities in the field. 20 The FY 2003 spending decisions are similar: $ 220 million ( or 17 percent of the total 21 Superfund budget) is planned for fund lead remedial and long term response actions. 22 23 [ Sidebar text: charts will be included on how SF budget is currently spent and inclusion 24 of charts on funding appropriation levels, extramural funding trends and breakdown of 25 current budget] 26 27 The Subcommittee discussed a number of ways in which more money might be made 28 available for cleanup. These strategies fall into four categories. 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 34

Increase the total Superfund budget, and direct the increase towards remedial and 1 response actions. 2 3

Decrease the number of sites needing Superfund funding by appropriate use of 4 other cleanup funding sources and programs and by encouraging PRPs to fund 5 more cleanups. 6 7

Increase the efficiency with which fund money is spent. 8 9

Re prioritize the Superfund budget to allocate more money to field cleanup 10 activities. 11 12 Although there was broad agreement across the Subcommittee that more money should 13 be spent on cleanups in the field, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus about the 14 degree to which any one of these strategies should be used to make additional funds 15 available. 16 17 Appropriate use of other programs and encouragement of PRP funding are discussed in 18 recommendations addressing NPL listing in Section III of this report. Recommendations 19 to increase the efficiency with which fund money is spent flow throughout the report, and 20 specific recommendations addressing improvements in contracting are described later in 21 this Section. 22 23 With respect to the overall Superfund budget, the $ 98 M " saved" by moving Brownfields 24 to the EPM account was absorbed by a new one time requirement of $ 75 million for 25 homeland security building decontamination research. The $ 75 million was subsequently 26 split with $ 50 million going to research and $ 25 million for HS preparedness support. 27 The balance between $ 75 million and $ 98 million, we believe, was absorbed in payroll 28 increases and other associated administrative costs ( travel and working capital fund). 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 35 The $ 10 million reflected was the money OSWER chose to move from pre construction 1 activities to remedial action funding, and had nothing to do with the Brownfields shift. 2 ( At the request of EPA, as a matter of factual accuracy, this paragraph was changed after 3 the hard copy of the August draft was sent to the Subcommitte) 4 5 All Subcommittee members agreed that regardless of what the annual Superfund budget 6 is, more of the money should be allocated towards cleanup in the field. Because of the 7 small proportion of the overall Superfund budget being spent on cleanup activities in the 8 field, diversion of even a small proportion of the rest of the Superfund budget to field 9 activities has the potential to meaningfully increase the pace of cleanup actions. Using 10 the FY 2002 figures, had five percent of the non remedial/ response action Superfund 11 budget been diverted to fund lead remedial and response actions activities, it would have 12 increased the remedial/ response budget from $ 210 million to $ 265 million, or 26 percent. 13 A ten percent diversion would have increased the remedial/ response budget by over 50 14 percent. A twenty percent diversion would have nearly double the amount of money 15 available for cleanup activities in the field. 16 17 As the overall pressure on the Superfund budget continues, it is appropriate that EPA 18 reexamine its priorities to ensure that it is allocating as much of the budget as possible to 19 protecting humans and the environment by accomplishing real cleanups in the field. In 20 order to do so, the Subcommittee recommends the following: 21 22 9. EPA should carry out a serious and thoughtful review of all its activities with a 23 view towards increasing efficiencies, or reprioritizing work, in a ways that increase 24 the amount of the Superfund budget that is available for fund lead remedial and 25 response actions. 26 27 [ Review question: this highlights only remedial and response actions; does the 28 Subcommittee wish to include other cleanup pipeline activities, such as RI/ FS, RODs, 29 and RDs in this recommendation?] 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 36 1 Program Management Efficiencies 2 3 The Subcommittee believes strongly that EPA should be making every appropriate effort 4 to increase the operational and management efficiency of the program. Dollars available 5 to the Superfund program should be utilized as efficiently and effectively as possible. 6 While the Subcommittee was not charged with conducting an in depth review of the 7 operations and management of the program, the members clearly recognize the linkage 8 between how the program operates and the appropriate and efficient use of the available 9 funds, which clearly is an important element of the charge to the Subcommittee. 10 11 The Subcommittee is making a recommendation (# 17) in Section VI ( Measuring Program 12 Performance) that calls for EPA to be evaluated on budget transparency and accurate 13 program tracking information by preparing annual reports. Specifically this would focus 14 on 1) budget transparency   that is, how are dollars actually being used in the Superfund 15 program, and 2) general program tracking   assuring that needed information about the 16 program is reliable and readily accessible. The Subcommittee believes that adherence 17 with this recommendation should assist the Agency in tracking and improving program 18 performance. 19 20 In furtherance of the goal of increasing program efficiency and effectively, the 21 Subcommittee specifically recommends that: 22 23 10. EPA should conduct periodic management/ operations audit reviews to determine 24 areas of the management and administration of the program that could be 25 improved with a particular focus on finding increased operational efficiencies. 26 27 [ Review Question: Are there other specific recommendations that the Subcommittee 28 wishes to consider in this category of increased management/ operational efficiencies?] 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 37 1 Reforms to the Contracting Process 2 3 A significant portion of the Superfund budget, particularly the budget for site assessments 4 and remedial actions, is spent through contracts. The Subcommittee believes that 5 different contracting approaches might more efficiently utilize fund lead resources. In 6 light of this, the Subcommittee recommends the following: 7 8 11. EPA should explore and pilot test contract reform initiatives, including graduated 9 fixed price remediation contracts; indefinite quantity with guaranteed minimums; 10 and requirements contracts. 11 12 Each of these contract options is described further below. 13 14 Graduated Fixed Price Remediation ( GFPR) contracts have been used by other federal 15 agencies to procure services for cleanup work. GFPR contracts require the contractor to 16 complete cleanup activities ( including approval by the overseeing regulatory agency) at a 17 guaranteed price by a date certain. The guarantees are supported by combinations of 18 corporate guarantees and third party financial instruments such as insurance policies. In 19 cases where insurance instruments have been used, the government, by its own estimates, 20 has experienced faster completion times and substantially reduced costs in both direct and 21 indirect costs. This has occurred because the contracts are structured to create economic 22 incentives and penalties which are very motivating to the contractors, and using insurance 23 provides a market based quality assurance/ quality control mechanism for a fixed price   24 as well as a financial assurance mechanism. In this way, both cost overruns and costs to 25 manage the program are reduced because much of those costs and risks have been 26 assumed by the private sector as part of the contract. However, to achieve such benefits, 27 funding must occur up front. ( For more information, see Appendix E for a copy of a 28 PowerPoint presentation made by the Department of the Army Chief of Staff for 29 Installation Development to [ audience], January 30, 2001). 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 38 1 Because up front funding is needed, GFRP contracts may be most difficult to use where 2 they would create the greatest value   large cleanups   unless significant provisions 3 related to future funding failures could be added to the contract which differ from 4 traditional termination for convenience terms. Guarantees may be void where work is 5 stopped mid way, since the delay of projects often actually causes cost overruns. 6 7 Indefinite quantity contracts with guaranteed minimums can be let for any kind of service 8 and are regularly used by the Army Corps of Engineers to obtain volume discounts. The 9 contracts typically require unit prices, such as hourly rates or volume or quantity based 10 price declarations. The key to making such contracts result in cost savings is geographical 11 aggregation. If a contractor can avoid mobilization costs for people or equipment, 12 substantial savings can be realized. For waste disposal contracts, guaranteed flow into a 13 site permits better planning and cost efficiencies to occur. Unfortunately, the 14 geographical aggregation requirements run headlong into the political requirements or 15 expectation that funds be spread across the country so as not to concentrate or limit the 16 benefit to one locality or region. Further, as with GFPR, these contracts require both the 17 Agency and the contractor to perform. Unlike traditional time and materials contracts, if 18 the Agency were to cancel early before minimums were achieved, cost savings may be 19 lost. 20 21 Requirements contracts, in which the Agency promises all of the particular type of work 22 to one provider might be explored where the work to be performed could be primarily 23 performed at the offices of the provider. For NPL sites, this might include certain 24 specialty data analyses or types of assessment. Again, volume should beget a discount to 25 permit the Agency to do more with less. 26 27 In spite of the challenges noted with each of these contracting options, the Subcommittee 28 believes there is merit to EPA seriously considering different contracting approaches and 29 recommends that EPA evaluate these and other options. 30 31 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 39 Summary of Recommendations Related to Management of Sites 1 on the NPL 2 3 In response to its charge and in light of factors described above, the Subcommittee makes 4 five recommendations related to management of sites on the NPL. 5 6 7. To the extent that EPA must set priorities for funding at NPL sites, these priorities 7 should be set after completion of remedial investigations and feasibility studies and 8 issuance of records of decision, when more is known about site risks and options to 9 assure protection of human health and the environment. 10 11 8. The Subcommittee recommends that EPA should update the process and criteria it 12 currently uses to set priorities for funding at NPL sites to make sure that sites that 13 have significant health/ exposure risks receive the highest priority for funding. In 14 addition, EPA should explore an approach that could assign different funding 15 priorities to different portions of the same site. 16 17 9. EPA should carry out a serious and thoughtful review of all its activities with a 18 view towards increasing efficiencies, or reprioritizing work, in a ways that increase 19 the amount of the Superfund budget that is available for fund lead remedial and 20 response actions. 21 22 10. EPA should conduct periodic management/ operations audit reviews to determine 23 areas of the management and administration of the program that could be 24 improved with a particular focus on finding increased operational efficiencies. 25 26 11. EPA should explore and pilot test contract reform initiatives, including graduated 27 fixed price remediation contracts; indefinite quantity with guaranteed minimums; 28 and requirements contracts. 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 40 V. Mega Sites 1 2 Mega sites are currently defined as sites where total cleanup costs are expected to exceed 3 $ 50 million ( reference). EPA pays special attention to mega sites because their cost and 4 complexity means that a single fund lead cleanup can have very significant implications 5 for the Superfund budget. Even PRP lead mega sites create significant budget impacts 6 for EPA, because of the resources involved in providing oversight of the cleanup process. 7 The Subcommittee addresses three issues related to mega sites: 8 9

assessing large, complex sites, 10

dividing large, complex sites into smaller units, and 11

establishing a regional coordinating committee 12 13 The Subcommittee's deliberations and recommendations for each of these issues are 14 described further below. 15 16 Defining Mega Sites 17 18 A number of large, complex sites are moving through the Superfund cleanup pipeline and 19 are concurrently in the more resource intensive phases of cleanup   remedial actions. 20 Many of these sites are, at least in part, fund lead. This situation, which the 21 Subcommittee expects will continue, presents serious resource management challenges to 22 EPA and its partners. The Subcommittee was specifically charged with considering and 23 providing recommendations related to management of large, complex and costly 24 cleanups. In response, the Subcommittee considered various approaches to addressing 25 large, complex and costly sites, including the following. 26 27

Categorically defer certain types of sites that are likely to have significant 28 resource implications for the Superfund program to other cleanup programs. This 29 approach would be similar to the approach the Agency currently uses for sites 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 41 subject to cleanup under the RCRA corrective action program, where Agency 1 policy is to defer to the RCRA program to compel and oversee cleanup. 2 3

Create a new cleanup program specific to sites, or specific types of sites, that are 4 likely to have significant resource implications. 5 6

Create a separate approach within the Superfund program dedicated to sites, or 7 specific types of sites, that are likely to have significant resource implications. 8 9

[ Review question: Others options considered?] 10 11 Ultimately, the Subcommittee rejected the idea that any one of these approaches would 12 be appropriate for all so called " mega sites" based on three considerations. First, it is 13 very difficult to predict the types of sites that typically create significant resource 14 implications using site type data. In many documents   including the Subcommittee 15 charge   it is hypothesized that mining sites and sediment sites largely make up the 16 universe of so called " mega sites." The Subcommittee attempted to evaluate this 17 hypothesis and found it very difficult to do so using the site type data currently collected 18 by EPA. 19 20 For example, EPA currently defines mining sites to include not only sites at which 21 mining was carried out ( e. g., [ list some site names]), but also sites at which ore was 22 processed ( e. g., [ list some names]). While some of these sites create significant resource 23 implications, others do not. Similarly, " sediment site" is not a site type category 24 currently utilized by EPA; instead, EPA tracks all NPL and NPL caliber sites at which 25 some sediment assessment and/ or cleanup may be necessary. This results in a list of 26 [ hundreds] of sites, and it is not possible to distinguish between sites where sediment 27 assessment and cleanup is the primary risk or cost driver and where it is not. Again, 28 while some sediment cleanup sites are posing, and doubtless will continue to pose, 29 significant resource challenges, others do not. 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 42 1 Second, as discussed throughout this report, the Subcommittee believes that 2 considerations of how to best prioritize and respond to site risks should be the 3 fundamental factor in allocating time, money, and attention among NPL sites. The costs 4 involved with cleanup of a site flow from site conditions and decisions about risk 5 assessment and management. The Subcommittee chose to address these decisions 6 directly ( e. g., in recommendations addressing prioritization of sites on the NPL), rather 7 than by using cost as a proxy for what are really very difficult questions related to risk. 8 9 Finally, while some cleanup sites certainly pose special challenges because of their large 10 size, geographic location, or the complexity of the cleanup, in general these challenges 11 ( or combinations of challenges) define situations that can result in increased cleanup 12 costs; they are not in fact created by increased costs. It seems appropriate, therefore, to 13 address these special challenges directly where they are presented, rather than to address 14 them only where cleanup costs are expected to exceed a certain threshold. 15 16 In light of these considerations, the Subcommittee recommends the following: 17 18 12. EPA should use a combination of site features rather than cost alone to describe 19 sites that because of their size or complexity are going to be especially costly to 20 remediate or require special attention. 21 22 The special challenges that the Subcommittee believes create situations that warrant 23 special attention are listed below. 24 25

Sites where contamination is spread over a large geographic area that includes 26 multiple individual properties, for example, urban embayments and industrial 27 waterways such as [ Portland Harbor, Commencement Bay, and the Duwamish 28 Waterway] and where residential properties are affected, for example [ examples]; 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 43

Sites at which more than one source of contamination is a primary risk driver and 1 sites where contamination from multiple sources has become mixed, such as sites 2 with co mingled ground water plumes, such as [ examples]; 3 4

Sites at which contamination is discontinuously distributed, with high 5 concentrations ( and high risk levels) interspersed with relatively larger areas that 6 have much lower concentrations and risk levels, such as [ Asarco Ruston and 7 Everett, Coeur d'Alene] [ Others?]; 8 9

Sites at which multiple PRPs are participating in the cleanup and different PRPs 10 are accountable for releases at different areas of the site, such as [ examples]; and 11 12

Sites with ground water plumes that have spread under multiple properties over 13 large areas, such as [ examples]. 14 15 Sites that present one or more of these challenges are " large, complex sites" ( or " mega 16 sites") and deserve special management attention. 17 18 There is a possible exception to this approach, where the Subcommittee believes that the 19 cost of the remedy itself is a special challenge deserving special attention, and therefore 20 should play a part in defining a " large, complex" site. Where a very costly remedial 21 action is selected and will be implemented over a number of years, EPA should pursue 22 special approaches to securing and dedicating funding over the life of remedy 23 implementation, in addition to the other special management strategies described later in 24 this Section. 25 26 [ Review question: previous sentence is a placeholder for potential future 27 recommendation on multi year funding and/ or special appropriations. Does the 28 Subcommittee want to make such a recommendation?] 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 44 The Subcommittee notes that besides posing special management challenges, large, 1 complex sites also may create special management opportunities. For example, many 2 urban embayments and industrial waterways have the potential to benefit from sediment 3 management actions ( and funding) related to ongoing dredging efforts carried out by the 4 Corps of Engineers. EPA should identify and capitalize on these types of opportunities, 5 for example, by ensuring that all appropriate cleanup resources are brought to bear, as 6 discussed in Section III of this report in the recommendations addressing other cleanup 7 programs. 8 9 [ Sidebar text: listing the number of mega sites by EPA site type? Or listing each mega 10 site by name and giving a one sentence explanation of the cleanup driver?] 11 12 Assessing Large Complex Sites 13 14 Cleanup of a large, complex site represents a considerable resource commitment by EPA. 15 This is the obviously the case for fund lead sites, but it is also a true for PRP funded 16 cleanups, where the resources involved in EPA management and oversight of the cleanup 17 process can be significant. Given the level of commitment that is needed for large, 18 complex sites, it is important that actual site specific conditions, rather than default 19 assumptions, drive decision making. Additional up front investments in an enhanced site 20 assessment will pay important dividends in helping to identify and prioritize among sites 21 that pose the most serious risks. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that: 22 23 13. EPA should establish a more thorough site assessment process for large, complex 24 sites, and carry out these assessments before making NPL listing decisions or other 25 programmatic commitments. 26 27 In implementing this recommendation, EPA should ensure that this more through 28 assessment to ensure that the site boundaries are properly defined and assist in 29 determining the most effective clean up of each complex site. EPA guidance already 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 45 identifies an approach for gathering additional critical information prior to considering a 1 site for NPL listing that could be built upon to implement this recommendation. The 2 expanded assessment, known as an Integrated Expanded Site Inspection/ Remedial 3 Investigation ( ESI/ RI), however, has apparently been infrequently used by regions and 4 the states when evaluating sites. The ESI/ RI is used to expedite remedial response by 5 gathering site characterization data common to ESI and RI activities in one step, thereby 6 expediting the later collection of data when comprehensive RI activities are performed. 7 ESI/ RIs facilitate, but do not replace additional investigations and are recommended at 8 sites where conditions indicate that the HRS score will be above 28.5, and a remedial 9 response may be needed. The RI portion of an ESI/ RI is intended to be a site wide 10 activity. 11 12 It is the Subcommittee's understanding that while the Agency has provided general 13 information on these assessments, it has not provided detailed guidance on their use or 14 content. During an integrated ESI/ RI, EPA should gather information to define a site 15 appropriately, considering the nature and locations of contaminants present; inform 16 consideration of other remedial programs that might be able to contribute to the cleanup 17 effort; identify potential sources of funding; and understand community concerns and the 18 concerns of tribal nations. While these considerations are important at every Superfund 19 site, they are especially important at large, complex sites because of the special 20 challenges they pose and the significant effects decision making about such sites can 21 have on the overall operation of the Superfund program. The Agency should consider an 22 ESI/ RI assessment for all large, complex sites that will likely score above 28.5, before 23 such sites are proposed for listing on the NPL. Further, the Agency should develop 24 guidance on carrying out these assessments appropriately given the special challenges 25 related to large, complex sites. At a minimum, EPA guidance should address the need to 26 involve states, tribal nations, affected communities, potential PRPs, and other appropriate 27 individuals in site assessments, by reaching out to those individuals for information about 28 the site and by establishing practices to keep them involved as site assessments are 29 carried out. 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 46 1 It is important to note that these recommendations should not be interpreted as a 2 constraint on EPA's discretion to make listing decisions. There may be instances where a 3 large, complex site appropriately could be listed without an ESI/ RI; if the agency has 4 information causing it to decide that a site should be listed without an integrated ESI/ RI, 5 it should go forward with listing without delay. 6 7 Dividing Large, Complex Sites into Smaller Units 8 9 In some situations, it may be possible to appropriately divide large, complex NPL sites 10 into smaller cleanup units. Smaller cleanup units may improve the pace of cleanup, 11 provide opportunities to leverage additional funds for cleanup, or clarify focus on the 12 most significant risks presented by a site. ( This issue is also addressed in Section IV of 13 the report). The Subcommittee identified three circumstances in which it may be 14 appropriate to divide a large, complex site into smaller cleanup units, as follows. 15 16

Discontinuous distribution of contamination allows for expedited focus on 17 portions of the geographic area that are likely to pose the greatest risks. 18 19

Association of certain PRPs with one or more particular " hotspot" areas, but not 20 the geographic area as a whole, such that those PRPs will be highly motivated to 21 address that hotspot through focused study and remediation ( potential removal 22 action or cleanup under an alternative program such as a state's cleanup program). 23 Their alternative will be getting pulled into PRP status at a much larger site if the 24 entire area is NPL listed. 25 26

Increased clarity regarding responsibility for contamination will reduce arguments 27 between EPA and PRPs and among PRPs over liability and share of cleanup 28 costs, thereby reducing transaction costs. 29 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 47 Where these circumstances occur, the Subcommittee recommends that EPA consider 1 remediating large, complex sites in smaller units. EPA should consider the following 2 factors in determining whether dividing a site into smaller cleanup units is appropriate 3 and with respect to the timing of dividing a site into smaller units. 4 5

It facilitates more focus on addressing highest risk areas early in the process. 6 7

It reduces transaction costs by encouraging cleanup of the highest risk areas, thus 8 obviating the need to list altogether. 9 10

It avoids diseconomies of scale for sites that cover such a large area that 11 coordination of efforts and parties becomes ungainly and time consuming. 12 13

Where PRPs are not known or defined, it allows EPA to focus resources on 14 cleanup of highest risk areas, giving EPA more flexibility in how to address an 15 area, including flexibility about how to prioritize parts of a site and when to incur 16 costs. 17 18

Where PRPs are available, it may result in quicker response action from PRPs on 19 hotspot areas. 20 21

It facilitates early and thorough consideration of alternative programs for a 22 portion of a geographic area, rather than trying to find an alternative program with 23 the resources and authority necessary to take on complex sites that cover larger 24 geographic areas. This increases the chance that an alternative program will be 25 able to take on some portion of the larger area, preserving CERCLA resources. 26 27

It allows an adaptive management approach to complex sites that cover larger 28 geographic areas. This can allow for the highest risks to be addressed and then 29 additional review can be take place to determine if either CERCLA or other 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 48 programs need to be focused on further work in the area. It avoids diseconomies 1 of scale that can arise when a highly complex situation is taken on all at once. 2 3 However, the Subcommittee also recognizes that dividing a large, complex cleanup site 4 into smaller units might not be appropriate in the following circumstances. 5 6

Economies of scale are possible in joining similar hotspot cleanups into one 7 global effort. 8 9

Maximizes the use of joint and several liability to bring more resources to the 10 table so PRPs can ( at least theoretically) be held accountable for distant site 11 contamination that they may have contributed to in only a minute fashion ( as 12 opposed to localized contamination near their facility) 13 14

Situations where it is clear that the whole area needs to be addressed in a 15 comprehensive, coordinated fashion. Conducting the clean up in this fashion will 16 take less time and be less costly. 17 18 In summary, the Subcommittee recommends that: 19 20 14. EPA should develop a process to consider remediating large, complex sites in 21 smaller units where discontinuous distribution of contamination allows for 22 expedited focus on portions of the site that are likely to pose the greatest risks, 23 where certain potential liable parties are associated with one or more particular 24 " hotspots" but not the site as a whole and/ or where increased clarity about 25 responsibility for discrete areas of contamination will reduce conflicts between EPA 26 and PRPs and among PRPs, thereby reducing transaction costs. 27 28 [ Sidebar text: discuss how this approach builds on the operable unit concept currently in 29 use in Superfund] 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 49 1 Establishing Regional Coordinating Committees 2 3 As described earlier in this report ( see Section III, Use of the NPL), the Subcommittee 4 had extensive discussions about the role of non NPL cleanup programs at NPL caliber 5 sites and the roles of various interested parties in bringing forward information for EPA 6 to consider when making NPL listing decisions. In general, the Subcommittee's views 7 on the need for coordination with non NPL cleanup programs and interested parties 8 during NPL listing and related recommendations are described in Section III of this 9 report; however, large complex sites present special challenges and opportunities with 10 respect to program coordination that deserve special attention. 11 12 During the Subcommittee deliberations, various approaches to establishment of 13 coordinating committees were discussed. As discussed by the Subcommittee, the role of 14 a coordinating committee would be to formalize EPA's process of involving interested 15 parties in evaluations of potential NPL sites and to ensure thoughtful consideration of 16 non NPL cleanup programs. Advocates of coordinating committees believe that they 17 would enhance the utilization and improve coordination of a wider range of non NPL 18 cleanup programs and funding, where appropriate, and create greater transparency in the 19 listing process. Particularly for large complex sites, where multiple applicable 20 authorities, multiple PRPs, broad geographic scope, diffuse contamination, and other 21 factors complicate the decisions made during listing of sites and management of them 22 once they are on the NPL, the coordination function becomes critical to making sound 23 decisions. 24 25 The Subcommittee ultimately chose not to make recommendations to establish formal 26 coordinating committees in favor of an approach that recommends achieving the 27 outcomes of coordination. The Subcommittee believes that for most Superfund sites it is 28 more appropriate to leave to the EPA regional offices and their partners the responsibility 29 of determining the best means to achieve those outcomes given regional specific 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 50 circumstances. As described earlier in this report ( Section III), most regions already 1 carry out some form of coordination activities during NPL listing; these activities likely 2 can be most efficiently improved by making changes within the existing regional 3 infrastructures, as appropriate, rather that through establishment of a new standard 4 mechanism. 5 6 For large, complex sites, however, the Subcommittee believes that a more formal, 7 standardized approach is warranted. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that: 8 9 15. EPA should establish regional coordinating committees to serve as information 10 gathering and exchange venues during consideration of large complex sites for 11 NPL listing. 12 13 Such coordinating committees should evaluate the challenges and opportunities presented 14 by large complex sites, ensure that non NPL cleanup programs and funding are 15 appropriately considered, and should provide a forum for information sharing between 16 EPA, Tribal nations, states, PRPs, and site neighbors and other affected parties. 17 18 Of course, care should be taken in implementing a coordinating committee so as not to 19 create any constraint on EPA's discretion to make NPL listing decisions. EPA alone is 20 responsible for listing decisions, and has a responsibility to make such decisions in a 21 timely and efficient way in light of credible site specific data. 22 23 [ Review note: this recommendation and the related recommendation in the section on use 24 of the NPL taken together result in: recommendation for increased coordination at all 25 sites using informal mechanisms developed by the regions and appropriate to regional 26 specific circumstances with a formal coordinating mechanism at the regional level 27 recommended for mega sites] 28 29 Summary of Recommendations Related to Mega Sites 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 51 In response to its charge and in light of factors described above, the Subcommittee makes 1 thee recommendations related to mega sites. 2 3 12. EPA should use a combination of site features rather than cost alone to describe 4 sites that because of their size or complexity are going to be especially costly to 5 remediate or require special attention. 6 7 13. EPA should establish a more thorough site assessment process for large, complex 8 sites, and carry out these assessments before making NPL listing decisions or other 9 programmatic commitments. 10 11 14. EPA should develop a process to consider remediating large, complex sites in 12 smaller units where discontinuous distribution of contamination allows for 13 expedited focus on portions of the site that are likely to pose the greatest risks, 14 where certain potential liable parties are associated with one or more particular 15 " hotspots" but not the site as a whole and/ or where increased clarity about 16 responsibility for discrete areas of contamination will reduce conflicts between EPA 17 and PRPs and among PRPs, thereby reducing transaction costs. 18 19 15. EPA should establish regional coordinating committees to serve as information 20 gathering and exchange venues during consideration of large complex sites for 21 NPL listing. 22 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 52 VI. Measuring Program Progress 1 2 Overview 3 4 The final element of EPA's charge to the Subcommittee was to provide recommendations 5 on better ways to measure program performance. For this particular issue, EPA did not 6 pose specific questions to the Subcommittee. Rather, the Subcommittee was asked to 7 work with the Agency on its ongoing efforts to develop new measure proposals and 8 provide interim feedback. In addition to providing this interim assistance, the 9 Subcommittee developed recommendations on how the Superfund program can improve 10 the way it captures and communicates performance on a national and site specific level. 11 In doings so, the Subcommittee explored measures that would supplement " construction 12 complete" and more comprehensively reflect the significant milestones in protecting 13 human health and the environment at Superfund sites. 14 15 The Subcommittee recognizes that there are many possible types of measures of 16 performance for the Superfund program. For example, there are measures that relate to 17 progress cleaning up contaminated sites, measures that relate to how institutional 18 concerns ( involvement of the public, tribes, state and local governments) are addressed, 19 and measures that relate to overall program performance ( efficient use of resources, as an 20 example). In addition, different measures may be required if the goal is to capture 21 performance on a national scale rather than on a site specific level. In addition, even 22 within each of these categories there can be multiple measures. Thus, it is important to be 23 clear whether the measure is to be used to address national or site specific achievements, 24 or both. 25 26 The Subcommittee also recognizes the difference between developing performance 27 measures to capture program progress and accomplishments, versus developing 28 performance measures with the goal of justifying the Superfund program. In the case of 29 the latter, the measures would be used as the basis for evaluating whether the benefits of 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 53 the program are worth the costs. Some workgroup members believe that a cost benefit 1 approach should be used to justify Superfund's existence; others do not support such an 2 approach. Therefore, the Subcommittee's recommendations focus on measures that 3 address program progress, accomplishments, and efficiency   not the develop measures 4 of the overall benefits ( and costs) of the Superfund program. 5 6 The Subcommittee also recognizes that secondary impacts will result from the 7 institutionalization of any new measures of performance. In addition to the explicit and 8 primary goal of accounting for the accomplishments ( etc.) of the program, measures drive 9 both behavior and expectations. Therefore, it is important to consider the ( potentially 10 unintended) behavior modification that is likely to result from the institutionalization of a 11 specific performance measure. Additionally, performance measures will influence the 12 expectations and resulting satisfaction of interested parties, including communities, 13 Congress, EPA managers, etc. 14 15 Finally, the Subcommittee recognizes that developing suitable measures of performance 16 is complex and that such measures will most effectively evolve over time through an 17 iterative process. 18 19 Need for Core Data 20 21 Notwithstanding the complexity of issues associated with measuring the Superfund 22 program's performance, the Subcommittee believes that developing and systematically 23 reporting against a core set of measures is critical to accurately reflect the progress of the 24 program and therefore makes the following three recommendations: 25 26 16. EPA should identify and accurately report a core set of data, such as those metrics 27 included in the performance profiles for all NPL sites and Program activities. 28 29 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 54 The Subcommittee recommends that EPA continue its efforts to develop and improve 1 upon the Site Performance Profile and a National Performance Profile currently under 2 development. This agency effort reflects improved performance measures. The 3 Subcommittee supports the concept in draft ( with modifications and additions suggested 4 by individual members and the workgroup) and urges EPA to begin implementing 5 tracking of such measures immediately. The Subcommittee recognizes the complexity of 6 developing effective measures and suggests that the agency implement the performance 7 profile format ( under development) as an iterative process with mechanisms for making 8 improvements as needed in the future. Specific suggestions to add additional measures to 9 the profiles for which data currently exist and, in the future, to add additional measures 10 for which data do not currently exist have been provided by the Subcommittee as interim 11 advice to the agency and are included in Appendix __. [ Note: a separate memo is being 12 prepared for review by the Subcommittee.] The Subcommittee emphasizes the value of 13 rolling up the site specific results to a regional and national level and reporting the results 14 on an annual basis so the information can reflect incremental improvements. Pilot testing 15 and peer review of measures by knowledgeable individuals and organizations prior to 16 widespread adoption is also recommended. 17 18 Coordination with Tribal Nations, States, Communities 19 20 17. EPA should develop measures of performance that assess the effectiveness of 21 coordination with Tribal, state and community interests. 22 23 In addition to the measures under development through the performance profiles, the 24 Subcommittee recommends that EPA explore further the development of measures that 25 address how successful EPA's Superfund Program has been in coordinating with other 26 institutions and individuals impacted by, interested in, knowledgeable about, or 27 responsible for Superfund sites. Such parties include Tribal Governments, states and 28 communities. The Subcommittee recognizes that there are relevant roles, authorities and 29 jurisdictions unique to each of these parties and any proposed measures would 30 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 55 supplement, document and or encourage the appropriate coordination and involvement in 1 decision making required by these established relationships. 2 3 Additionally, the Subcommittee recognizes that there are many existing requirements and 4 guidance documents driving the efforts to inform various parities of Superfund site 5 activities and to include Tribal Governments, states, local governments, PRPs and 6 communities in parts of the Superfund process. In fact, the recommendations of the 7 Subcommittee draw from these resources, such as the recently released " Public 8 Involvement Policy" ( complete citation will be added) and the " Model Plan for Public 9 Participation" ( complete citation will be added). The Subcommittee supports the 10 direction of the Agency to develop and effectively implement these tools. Furthermore 11 the Subcommittee does not wish to add an unnecessary or redundant layer of 12 bureaucracy, particularly with measures that would generate a score of full compliance. 13 Many traditional measures of public involvement have historically focused on formal 14 " notice and comment" type requirements that represented nothing more than " checking a 15 box" and did not reflect substantive involvement and coordination with the parties. Yet, 16 clearly there is a range in the impact, quality, or thoroughness of public participation and 17 institutional coordination and involvement achieved among sites. Doubtless there also is 18 considerable variation in the interest of various publics and institutions in the process, 19 ranging from indifference at some places to intense concern or even opposition to agency 20 procedures, decisions, or actions. 21 22 The Subcommittee recommends that, in its efforts to further develop measures that 23 address coordination with Tribal, state and community interests, they consider the 24 following guidelines: 25 26

The measures might better be called tools or process review methods, 27 28

The tools would seek to assess the quality of participation and the variety of 29 participation at various stages of the process, beginning with the site listing stage, 30 and 31 DRAFT  FOR SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONSENSUS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DO NOT CITE Draft of 08/ 12/ 03 Page 56 1