3 33 (v ,std? I United States Communications. Education, ^-»,«o I/'' Environmental Protection And Public Affairs Agency (A-107) Note to Correspondents I fV » During a meeting on Oct. 4^ 1993,, draft discussion papers of the Superfund Subcommittee, National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), were presented to Administrator Carol Browner. The papers deal with five subjects which the NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee was asked to address: I - liability scheme . ' remedy selection reform - state role in managing cleanup work - municipality liability reform ., - environmental justice/community issues \ These papers are strictly for discussion purposes and do not reflect NACEPT recommendations. The NACEPT subcommittee holds its next meeting on Nov. 8, 1993. ( The Subcommittee includes members from industry (large and small businesses), environmental organizations, citizen activist groups (those concerned with community perspectives, including environmental justice), state and local governments and academia. For further information, contact Lauren Mical at 202-260-4358. John Kasper ',- ' Director Press Services Division ( I '.' .. m EPA Headquarters Library ------- ------- MEMORANDUM To: Administrator Carol Browner From: Snperfund Evaluation Committee, NACEPT He: Position Paper on Liability Date: October 4, 1993 The attached memorandum summarizes the current views of NACEPT members on Superfund's liability scheme. Although there is considerable consensus on a number of points, several major issues remain unresolved. We intend to work during the month of October to reach agreement on these issues. ------- NACEPT Positkm Paper on Liability Introduction NACEPT members share a variety of views on the merits of the current liability scheme under Superfund. Some members strongly support the current liability system. Others members, while not favoring the current liability regime, are prepared to accept this regime provided that key changes are made in the process of allocating cleanup costs. Finally, some NACEPT members believe the current liability system is fundamentally flawed and support more substantial changes. Against this backdrop of divergent views, the NACEPT Committee examined a variety of issues surrounding the current liability system and proposed alternatives. Specifically, die Committee focused on two alternatives that generated die most interest among NACEPT members. Both are discussed in greater detail below. The first proposal would retain major elements of the current liability scheme, but establish an allocation system to reduce transaction costs, expedite settlement and provide greater certainty for responsible parties. A key, and as yet unresolved, issue regarding this proposal is the role of the fund in paying for so-called "orphan11 shares identified in the allocation process and-how^orphans" would be defined. The second major proposal, introduced by NACEPT member Michael Soots on behalf of furniture manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as the "Soots Proposal") would ftimmat? current retroactive liability for waste which was legally disposed of at multiparty sites prior to January 1, 1987. It would provide proportional liability after that date (coupled wim mandatory fund payment of orphan shares), and it would pay for these changes through tax and fee increases on the business community. After carefully considering these two proposals and a number of variations and, in spite of the considerable divergence of views among NACEPT members, a significant majority of NACEPT members have expressed support for using an improved allocation process to distribute costs among responsible parties, rather than pursuing variations on the Soots proposal Most NACEPT members believe that an improved allocation scheme win reduce transactions costs, provide greater certainty, and, to the extent additional mixed funding **ap be f**Ap available, provide greater fairness. Although major issues remain, a majority of NACEPT members believe that an allocation scheme offers the best prospect for meaningful reform. lHs does not evaluate approaches to municipal liability issues. AUxNigfa NACEPT tn \ifitvfm apmmi liability a0d municipal liability issues* municipal liability considerations are presented under a separate document. ------- In addition, a significant majority of NACEPT members believe that special efforts must be taken to address the concerns of de minimis contributors to Superfund sites dirough die use of "cash-out" settlements, structured settlements, and other measures. Specific recommendations are oudined below. Some NACEPT members do not believe an allocation process alone will provide sufficient reform. These members fed strongly that elimination of retroactive liability would substantially reduce transaction costs and make the liability system significandy more fair. However, elimination of retroactive liability for waste disposed of at multi- party sites prior to January 1,1987 (or some other date) would require a substantial increase in funding for cleanup. Major concerns focused primarily on the need and support for additional taxes to finance this cleanup have convinced a substantial majority of NACEPT members that, until a viable, assured funding source for such cleanup can be found, the allocation alternative is the preferred approach. Additional issues would also have to be addressed (see Evaluation of Options below). NACEPT Recommendations on Allocation As indicated earlier, a majority of NACEPT members strongly supports using an improved allocation scheme to address concerns with Superfund*s liability system. As a result, much of our discussion over the past few mondis has focused on specific aspects of this proposal Although several major and minor issues remain unresolved to date, we can ofler some recommendations at this point in our dialogue. We hope to ofler additional views as our work continues during the month of October. What follows are our current perspectives: 1. Orphan Definition and Orphan Shares. A critical unresolved issue in our discussions is the definition and role of the - fund in defraying die costs attributable to so-called orphan shares. Some advocates of the allocation approach believe strongly diat me fund should pay some or all of die costs attributable to orphan share, but diere is consensus agreement diat funds must be found to provide tfiese payments without lessening the ability of the program to continue to folly finance cleanups. We intend to work during the month of October on this key issue. 2. Timing of an Allocation. NACEPT members support an allocation process as early in the Superftind process as is feasible. NACEPT members recognize mat gathering data for allocations may take some time, but we also believe diat responsible party searches can be performed by bom the government and identified responsible parties at a much earlier stage in the Superfund process. ., . ------- In addition, NACEPT members believe that allocations can and should be made as long as die available information is sufficient to provide a "rough" and fair allocation. 3. Reopening Allocations. NACEPT members believe that, in general, allocations should be final and that only a very limited opportunity to reopen should be provided to responsible parties. We recognize that some limited ability to reopen allocations might be warranted to prevent substantial unfairness to the responsible parties. In addition, we abo believe that even a limited opportunity to reopen an allocation should have a fixed time limit to guarantee finality of the allocation. 4. Contribution Suits. NACEPT members recommend that the allocation process should be used in lieu of existing contribution actions. 5. Allocator. - Although some NACEPT members-recommend that administrative law Judges perform the allocation, we recognize there may be potential problems with this approach, including the time it may take for EPA to hire an adequate number of Aljs to perform allocations and the potential delays if AIJs fail to meet statutory or other deadlines. NACEPT members have also explored the use of private firms to perform allocations, but again recognize several potential problems, including the time it may take to find the necessary individuals or firms, the expense of private allocators, the need to ensure that they are assigned in a random manner to sites, the need to define what capabilities they may need to have, and whether they will have sufficient constitutional authority to make the allocation binding without further government review. NACEPT members believe that both approaches should be examined more closely, and we intend to explore these issues in greater detail in subsequent discussions. 6. Appeals Jrom Allocation Decisions. NACEPT members believe that, although responsible parties should be given . the right to appeal from adverse allocation decisions and/or determinations of responsibility, such appeals should be limited and should cany stiff sanctions to the extent they fafl to substantially alter the basic nature of the allocation. Specifically, NACEPT supports a fairly high legal standard of review for any allocation decision. In addition, to the extent the result of an appeal leaves the allocation roughly the same, ------- NACEPT members recommend that EPA consider requiring the appealing party to pay the attorneys' fees for all other parties, deny access to mixed funding, and/or require other sanctions to discourage unmeritorious appeals. 7. Procedural Elements of'the Allocation. NACEPT members support a simplified, informal process to achieve an allocation. We believe it would be counterproductive to the goal of reducing transaction costs to replace the current rigors of third party litigation wfch a similarly complex process to achieve allocations. We hope to work on more specific recommendations to keep the allocation process simple and straightforward. -* & Non*settHng Parties. Any allocation process should assign cost shares to all parties,: whether or not they participated in the allocation process. Assigned shares would be binding on such parties and responsible parties who perform cleanup work or pay the government for fund-financed cleanup should be provided with incentives to encourage all parties to promptly reimburse the performing or paying party. 9- Enforcement Authorities. . ~ V i Under current law, responsible parties are strictly and retroactively liable for Superfund sites and can be compelled by the government to perform 100 percent of the cleanup work at Superfund sites, without regard to an allocated share of costs. Having conducted a site cleanup, a responsible party can receive reimbursement for their costs from other responsible parties through third party litigation. A majority of NACEPT members agree that the current strict and retroactive liability of responsible parties to perform 100 percent of cleanup work at a site should be preserved. Specifically, NACEPT members support the retention of the government's authority under section 106 to compel one or more responsible parties to perform 100 percent of a site cleanup, whether or not the allocated share of costs to that party or parties is less than 100 percent. This authority would be preserved before, during and after an allocation process and would be applicable to sealing and non-settiing parties. Parties who perform deanup work would be entitled to recover costs from other responsible parties based upon the allocation process and would be provided with "bounty" provisions to encourage prompt payment by other private parties. To the extent we can reach an agreement on die handling of orphan shares, a performing party would also be entitled to mixed funding payments from die government for such shares. In addition, NACEPT members support a requirement that, as a precondition of settlement, the government may, in its discretion, require responsible parties to agree ------- to perform cleanup work at a site. We are continuing to discuss some issues involving the procedures for performing parties to collect payments from other parties and the value or need for Congress to provide nonbinding guidance to the government in exercising its discretion to issue 106 orders. Also under discussion is the impact, if any, of an allocation scheme on other current enforcement authorities. Some NACEPT members would appreciate the views of EPA or the Department of Justice on this latter point. 10. Structured Settlements. NACEPT members recognize that many small businesses may be unable to pay their share of cleanup costs in a lump sum payment NACEPT recommends that EPA explore options for providing structured settlements to these parties to the extent the responsible party is unable to pay and to the extent that the structured settlement includes all interest and administrative costs of providing the structured settlement Structured settlements should be available to qualifying parties whether they are de minimte or non-de tninimfg parties. * NACEPT Rcconi mcnctattons on De Minimls Settlements NACEPT members believe that special-attention must be paid to the settle issues surrounding de minimis parties. Specifically, we recommend the following: 1. Definition of DeMinanis. NACEPT members do not have a consensus recommendation on the definition of de minimi* parties. However, options that should be considered include a definition established by the allocator or a presumptive definition established by statute that can be adjusted at the discretion of the allocator. We have also discussed how so-called de micromis parties should be treated, but no consensus has yet emerged from NACEPT members. 2. "Casb-out" Settlements. NACEPT members support providing de minimfc parties with an opportunity to "cash out" as early in the Superfund process as possible. We recognize tint allocations may be made before reliable cleanup cost estimates are available, but we recommend that EPA make a conservative estimate of cleanup costs as early as feasible, perhaps at the RI/FS stage. To protect other responsmle parties and the fund, de minimte parties seeking to "cash out* at this stage should be required to pay a substantial premium On the group opinion, paying twice the best estimate of costs would not be inappropriate) in ggphange for a complete release from liability and protection from contribution actions. Acceptance of a "cash out" settlement should be completely voluntary, with no penalty assessed any party who elected to pay its de minimis share ------- >-,'? f as costs are incurred and no release from liability until the completion of the cleanup. NACEPT members also are considering whether it may be appropriate to adjust the premium downward over time as cost estimates become more reliable. 3. Non-settling De Minimis Parties. NACEPT members believe that a de party who refuses to reach a settlement with the government to "cash out" or refuses to agree to pay its share of costs as they come due should be treated in die same manner as non-settling non-de minimis parties (see paragraph 8 in die preceding section). Evaluation of Options In order to provide me Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wim some sense of me analysis that went into our evaluation of me two principal liability alternatives, NACEPT members believe thai it is worthwhile to briefly describe the perceived pros and cons of each alternative, tte arguments presented for tbe Soots proposal and against the allocation scheme were prepared by proponents of tbe Soots proposal and do not necesessarify reflect the views of att NACEPT members. Similarly, the arguments presented for the a/location proposal and against the Soots proposal onfy reflect the views of those supporting the allocation proposal No attempt was made to reconcile tbe views below. Instead, we provide these alternative views for tbe benefit of tbe Administrator. Allocation Scheme. . Views of Allocation Scheme Advocates. 1. Could Expedite the Pace of Response. The allocation approach will leave alone EPA's existing authority to take or compel remedial action and will speed up remedial action. By requiring "early on", regularized PRP liability searches and data disclosure and liability determinations and allocations, PRP groups wffl be formed much earlier and the site "set up" for resolving how the remedy will be executed much earlier than under the current scheme. 2. Could More Fairly Allocate According to die "Polluter Pays" Principle. By requiring that each PHP's allocated share will be determined in a regularized, cost-effective manner, die allocation approach will more fairly assign responsibility for paying for each party's share, which will greatly encourage settlement early in die process and bring the largest number of parties to die table. Moreover, EPA will have a much better basis for fair PRP selection in bom compulsory remedial and cost very cases. ------- 3. Will Substantially Reduce Transaction Cost. By replacing the existing scheme for resolving allocation of PRP shares (de novo. district court contribution litigation at the end of the process) with an "upfront" allocation process, transactions costs will be reduced. Disputes over liability and allocation will be severely limited in time to die earlier stage of the site process and be circumscribed dirough carefully controlled administrative and arbitrative actions ramer dian in open-ended "fufl blown trial* court contribution cases. 4. Will Not Require Massive New Taxes. The allocation scheme win not require massive new taxes, as would a "public works" program. The administrative allocation scheme win be funded as "response costs* under existing law, so diat private PRPs pay direcdy for most of the effort. To me extent that orphan shares are Fund-financed under this approach, me resulting impact on governmental funds is much lower dian a full public works approach. Views of Soots Proposal Advocates. 1. Transaction costs for die government are likely to increase, particularly if -administrative law judges are used to make me allocations. 2. Transaction costs for PRPs and insurers would not be reduced. If anything, PRP transaction costs would probably increase. 3. , Small business wfll not receive meaningful relief. Small entities, who generally have litde or no documentary information on dieir involvement at waste sites and who are least able to afford adequate legal representation in the process, will continue to face die likelihood of baring to bear an undeserved portion of cleanup costs. 4. The pace of cleanup is likely to be slower because of the need to gamer additional data to property allocate responsibility. 5. Third-party contribution suits will continue, albeit under a different name, because PRPs wfll want to have as many parties present as possible before the allocation is made and because EPA will have an incentive to narrow die size of the orphan share. In addition, me "bounty* provisions of the proposal wfll provide an even greater incentive to begm third-party suits. *. 6. Small businesses wfll face potential harm to dieir operations and ability to obtain financing if they are erroneously identified as a PRP based on "early" information. ------- 7. Because retroactive liability is retained, economic redevelopment of old cial and industrial sites will continue to be discouraged. Businesses will still be afraid they are "purchasing" Superfund liability if they acquire "old" land. 8. The fundamental unfairness of the current liability system will be perpetuated in holding parties responsible for practices engaged in years ago which were legal and acceptable at die time. 9. The orphan share created by the allocation scheme has not been defined and no source of funding has been proposed for me cleanup of the orphan share. Soots Proposal . Views of Soots Proposal Advocates. 1. Transaction costs for all parties, including EPA, would be substantially reduced. Virtually all litigation, including third-party suits, would be eliminated at old sites. EPA's transaction costs would be reduced to die same low level they are how at me 70 entirely orphan sites on the NFL 2. Future pollution would be deterred and incentives for sound waste management would be retained by continuing to apply die strict liability system prospectively. 3. The "polluter pays" principle would be retained for die cleanup of old, pre-1967 waste by making the polluter pay through taxes instead of litigation. This recognizes the fact mat virtually everyone has contributed to the hazardous waste problem. At me same time, me "polluter pays" principle would be retained in its present form for waste disposed of after 1986. 4. Cleanups could take place faster at old waste sites, since the need for litigation over liability, including third-party suits, would be eliminated. 5. The current law applies Supernind liability retroactively without regard to whether the waste involved was handled in compliance wim existing laws. This fundamental unfairness would be eliminated. 6. Proportional liability for waste disposed of after 1986 would be more fair than the current system, because parties would be responsible for only me cleanup of their own waste. 8 ------- 7. The current liability system discourages redevelopment of old industrial sites due to fears by new business mat they may be "purchasing1' Superfund liability if they buy "old" land. This disincentive to economic redevelopment results in abandoned industrial sites and encourages the taking of more virgin land for new development. These unintended economic and ecological consequences of retroactive liability would be eliminated. Views of Allocation Scheme Advocates. 1. No specific basis or rationales for increase in the tax base needed to support massive new Fund. The Soots proposal predicts Fund expenditures at 12.5 billion/year or more than an 80 percent increase from current levels, coupled with only the condusory suggestion that mis win be raised through "taxes and fees primarily on the business community. . . involving a slight increase" of the EFT. However, Soots does not explain specifically how mis can be accomplished. Indeed, his proposal suggests that mere will be no increase in the present petrochemical feedstock tax, the Fund will lost the benefits of recovery of past EPA costs due to the newly exempted "retroactive share" and Soots1 ^transition rule" would deplete the remaining tax base by offsetting credits for post-90 remediation expenses. 2. .Abrogates "Polluter Fays" Principle in Most Circumstances. Soots proposes to exempt from liability all pre-1993 municipal landfill disposals, all pre-1967 industrial multi-party sites and all "owner/operators sites," unless a PRP caused a release dirough illegal acts or willful misconduct. This means that the vast majority of historic waste disposal will be exempted from CERCLA's liability scheme. As post-1987 waste disposal is dosely regulated under RCRA and other laws, few industrial sites would fall under CERCLA according to Soots' scheme and public funds would essentially be the sole basis for a massive cleanup program. 3. Will Create New Litigation For "megal/Wfflful Misconduct" Cases. The government and the few PRPs who are not dearly exempted will attempt to hold an others liable under the exemption to shift the burden of remediation funds. This wffl spawn a whole new round of complex, resource-intensive litigation over whether waste disposal over the past 40 years was "fflegaT or involved Vfflful misconduct," similar to die existing insurance coverage battles over the terms of GCL policies. 4. Will Remove Constraints on Cost Overruns by Severing the Link Between PRP Performance of Cleanup Work and Expenditures by the Fund.. ------- «.'₯ .iv,;-'«*'-..- Currently, the large majority of response is performed by private PRPs f who have every incentive to carefully manage the work and control costs. By shifting most response to the Fund-financed activity in EPA's hands, Soots' proposal would rfiminat** the "checks and balances" of the existing program to prevent cost overruns. 5. will Slow the Pace of Cleanup. By shifting the basis for response from private PRPs to me Fund for me great proportion of response to historic contamination, the Soots proposal will inevitably slow the pace of . cleanup. Hie Fund will be limited to die monies raised and appropriated by Congress on a periodic basis. In particular, the removal * . program wffl be circumscribed because EPA cannot predict in the budgeting process what the full needs for removals will be two or three years ahead of time. 6. Win Deter Voluntary Cleanup. Because parties with pre-1986 liability will have that liability excused by the Fund, mere are no incentives to come forward and volunteer to perform cleanup at sites not yet on the NFL. 7. Impact on State and Other Laws. Most Superfund sites are subject to * enforcement under state "Superfund*1 laws and odier laws (e.g-, Clean Water Act) providing strict, joint and several liability. Will the trust fund override these authorities? NACEPT 'Views on RecycHng One issue that arose in our discussions on liability was die differential treatment under Superfund of the liability for certain generators of recycled and virgin -After several discussions of diis issue, mere seems to be consensus on die following points: * The Federal court interpretation that the sale of metal, paper, plastic, glass, textile or rubber materials for recycling, constitutes arranging for their treatment or disposal under section 107 creates a unique disincentive to recycling by making those materials subject to liability while exempting competing virgin materials. * Creating a preference for the use of virgin materials over recycled ki te rpptraf *» *frf "hf**hTy "f «a«*y n»inimlMri«%fi and natural resource conservation. 10 ------- * Waste generated by the recycling process should be subject to Superfund liability. * Application of liability should differentiate between the product and waste generated by recycling. * Further clarification of what constitutes sham vs. legitimate recycling is necessary. * Burning of material, even for the recovery of energy, is not recycling. ~~ (To make this distinction work, utane must be a way to distinguish between recycling mat is environmentally acceptable - and preferable - and diat which is not. In other words, how do you encourage good recycling and discourage bad recycling.) 11 ------- NACEPT DISCUSSION DRAFT ON REMEDY SELECTION REFORM October 4, 1993 The following text summarizes major points of agreement and disagreement that have emerged as a consequence of the NACEPT Superfund Remedy Selection Subcommittee's discussions over the past two months. Areas of general agreement among the subgroup members are indicated in bold; major areas in which disagreements have emerged or further discussion is needed are indented and in' ordinary type. A New Approach A more streamlined method for remedy selection that is protective of human health and the environment is merited. A national standard approach may be a viable alternative to the current system. National standards would apply to soil and groundwater and would be based on the use of the site or resource and other site- related factors decided upon pursuant to negotiated rulemaking. Site-specific risk assessment would be used where national standards do not apply. The environmental community strongly prefers national soil and groundwater standards which would be developed and applied at least to cleanups to unrestricted (residential) levels. While the environmental community views inclusion of a national standards approach in the statute as necessary for elimination for ARARs, the industrial community believes that ARARs should be eliminated under a site-specific risk assessment approach as well. The industrial community favors site-specific risk-based decisionmaking that would be based on a site-specific risk assessment, but has prepared an alternative draft proposal that attempts to detail how a national standards approach could work. Industry believes that MCLs should serve as the basis for cleanup of groundwater at point of use, a position with which the environmental community disagrees. State representatives prefer national soil standards based upon health protection to a stated risk level in residential and industrial land use scenarios, while reserving the option for state promulgation of soil standards. For other land uses (e.g., agricultural, mining, parkland, etc.), similarly, national (health-based for domestic use) groundwater standards would be established; MCLs may be helpful in this analysis ------- but are not presumed to be the appropriate health-based standards. States would be free to establish standards for the protection of other beneficial uses of groundwater resources, with variances available from standards for site-specific characteristics by means of an approved formulaic process, State representatives believe that if ARARs are replaced with soil and groundwater standards, other applicable environmental laws would need to continue to apply to provide protection of other environmental receptors. Currently, discussions are focusing on a formulaic approach whereby national standards would take into account site-specific factors that can be objectively measured, whose effects are well understood, where the variable has a significant impact on the numerical standards, and/or other factors decided upon pursuant to negotiated rulemaking. State and industry representatives believe variances should be available from the national standard to account for site- specific characteristics. Land Use Remedy selection should be land-use based, conditional on resolving how future land use will be considered in this process. Three types of land use should be considered - residential, industrial, and "other uses" (/... those uses that are not residential or industrial). Legal vehicles to ensure that land use restrictions remain in place in perpetuity, or that adequate protection will be provided under changed circumstances, are needed to implement land-use based decisionmaking. The role of all levels of government, including local government, in this process needs further discussion. Beneficial use classifications of other natural resources also should be determined by the appropriate level of government. State representatives believe that remedy selection should not be premised upon use of the land exclusively, but that current or reasonably projected future uses of other natural resources impacted by the site should also be considered in remedy selection. The NACEPT Superfund Committee did not consider the relationship between remedy selection and natural resource damages because of time limitations, but the issue deserves consideration in other venues. ------- Risk Assessment . ,-..,.. EPA's risk assessment methodologies need to be improved soon and periodically thereafter. The industrial community's first priority in this process is establishment of realistic exposure scenarios based on current or currently planned land use, realistic actual or likely human exposure, and, to the maximum extent possible, actual site data. The environmental community's first priority is that risk assessment consider persons with multiple exposures to other sources of contamination around the area of the Superfund site. Remedy Selection Process Industry proposes, and states representatives are interested in . discussing, the concept that the remedy selection process have two phases. Phase one would require remedial actions to meet the health standard and address urgently needed protection of sensitive environmental receptors. Phase two would address non-urgent environmental concerns. The states would include technological feasibility, practicability and cost as factors for consideration in remedy selection, along with factors such as permanence, actual and future uses of resources, and impact on the community. Cost Further discussion is needed to clarify the important issue of cost in the remedy selection process. State Standards Uniformly applied state standards for remediation sites should retain a role in remedy selection, but that role must be clarified in light of the elimination of ARARs and in relation to national standards, and in relation to the delegation/authorization issues. Further discussion is warranted about the use of more stringent state standards as well as state standards for protection of land/resource uses not addressed by national standards. ------- Treatment There is disagreement over how permanence and treatment preferences should be dealt with in the statute. There is agreement that treatment may be appropriate for the most highly contaminated "hot spot" materials at a site. However, a mutually agreeable definition of "hot spots" remains to be determined. The group continues to work toward an understanding and potential agreement on this definition. Technological Feasibility Technological feasibility for cleanup situations such as DNAPLs which cannot be cleaned up with existing available technology must be addressed. The industrial community believes that where institutional and engineering controls are sufficient to meet the health and environmental standards, they should be considered on an equal footing with treatment options. They also believe cost is a major factor in considering the availability of technology. The environmental community prefers .that technology be assessed as physically available or not - and that concerns about disproportionate costs be addressed elsewhere. Groundwater The group believes that further discussion of when groundwater treatment is and is not required would be fruitful. Containment The statute should require appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements for contained facilities, and information should be publicly available. The environmental community wants more detailed and frequent monitoring and reporting requirements and wants compliance to be . citizen suit enforceable. The industrial community prefers such vehicles as citizen petitions to EPA to address compliance problems. Technology Operation There needs to be further discussion on the need for performance and operation requirements for technologies employed as part of remedy selection at each site. ------- Demonstrated Control Measures EPA should develop for types of sites with commonly encountered end well understood characteristics (e.g.. municipei weste landfills, wood preserving facilities) Demonstrated Control Measures sufficient to satisfy the remedial standard. The Demonstrated Control Meesures should be comprised of technology and/or institutional and engineering controls that are effective, proven and accepted. ------- ------- MM. flTTY. GEN'S. QFC. Fax:612-297-4193 Oct 4 '93 . 9=23 P.02/07 DISCUSSION DRAFT 10/4/93 STATE ROLE IN MANAGING CLEANUP WORK UNDER CERCLA Background There is general agreement that several problems exist with the current allocation of responsibilities between EPA and the states. The most serious of these problems is the cost, delay and excess use of scarce resources that results from both levels of government having major roles at most NPL sites. Other key issues include: (1) effective utilization of the combined state and federal workforce to maximize the number of cleanups; and recognizing that many sites not currently on the NPL need cleanup and that the CERCLA cleanup program is a long-term effort. There is also general agreement that state Superfund capabilities vary widely. The subcommittee agrees that to address these issues, changes should be made that would: designate a single managing agency for most sites; . focus on a larger universe of sites in determining which should be cleaned up under CERCLA; » authorize states with adequate authority and resources to manage more cleanup work under CERCLA; * help states build their capacity to manage CERCLA cleanups over time; and ensure that delegated or authorized states mniTitflin quality CERCLA cleanup programs. To accomplish these goals, the subcommittee recommends the process outlined below be considered. Where issues remain unanswered or there is ' disagreement about an approach, this fact is noted in the description. State Authorization Track A dual-track approach for allowing states to manage sites (including making final decisions on remedies) is proposed. Under the first track, a state could request full authorization of the state program. States would request authority to manage all CERCLA cleanups in the state including fund-financed sites. States with state Superfund laws similar to CERCLA and with fully-functioning Superfund cleanup programs could apply for authorization to manage all sites under their state law. ------- MM. flTTY. GEN'S. OFC. Fax:6l2-297-dl93 Oct 4 '93 S-2d P. 05/0? The authorization process could include convening a "stakeholders" panel that would make a recommendation to EPA on authorization of the state program. The final authorization decision would be made by EPA based on the stakeholders' recommendation and on the following factors: 1. Does the state have adequate personnel and adequate resources including funding to carry out the program? 2. Does the state have the legal authority to manage a responsible party-based cleanup program that can achieve similar results as EPA has under CERCLA? 3. Has the state committed to obtaining a level of responsible party cleanup similar to the level achieved by EPA, and is there a demonstrated record of achieving this level of responsible party cleanup? (some believe that this could be a matter that might be subject to annual review, rather than initial program review.) 4. Will the program achieve an equivalent level of health and environmental protection including meeting any national cleanup standards? » 5. Will an equivalent level of public participation be provided under the state program. This analysis should be conducted in a manner that allows procedural flexibility as long as the goals of equivalent level of responsible party cleanup, equivalent environmental results and equivalent public participation are achieved. There is some concern about what the parameters of "procedural flexibility" would be. Therefore, more discussion is needed about the specifics of this idea. Site by Site-Delegation Track The second track would involve site specific delegation of authority to states. This track could be used for states with less developed or less comprehensive programs, or for states without the full range of authority in CERCLA. However, even under this track, states and EPA would be encouraged to work toward a program that would qualify for full authorization. On this second track, EPA regions and their states would meet annually to discuss the CERCLA workload in each state. Based on the analysis of state capacity and EPA capacity, sites would be divided between the state and the region. -2- ------- MM. flTTY. GEN'S. OFC. ..Fax:612-297-4193 Get '-4 '93 9 = 24 P. 04/0? The decision to assign a site would be based on whether the state has adequate personnel and resources to manage the site. Past history in managing NPL and non-NPL sites could play an important role in this decision. The state could pursue the cleanup under state law if state law provides authority equivalent to CERCLA. Bex the alternative, the state could request delegation of federal authority if state law is not adequate in the opinion of either EPA or the state. If a state decides to clean up a site using delegated federal federal authority, the state would be required to follow EPA's cleanup process, both substantively and procedural!/. (Note: Some have suggested that if any federal cleanup dollars including orphan share are used, the state would be required to follow the federal remedy selection process.) SiteLi»t Under the proposal, the National Priorities List would be phased out (no new sites added) and replaced by two lists. The first list would be a state-generated list of sites needing cleanup in the state. This list could be all inclusive (RCRA, UST, CERCLA) or only those sites where CERCLA will likely be the principal cleanup program. The "work list" would be the basis for annual EPA-State program review and assignment of sites to either EPA or the state. (One suggested approach would have this assignment process also determine whether sites would best be remediated under CERCLA or under other existing authorities.) This approach would more clearly recognize the fact that CERCLA now applies to non-NPL sites where hazardous substances have been disposed, but would clearly allocate responsibility for managing cleanup of these sites to one level of government. The NPL would be supplanted by a "National Funding List" that would prioritize for federal funding for those sites at which responsible parties are unwilling or unable to conduct the cleanup. Sites would be ranked in a manner similar to the existing program. (Some have suggested ranking sites after the RI is completed. This approach might require additional funding for states to conduct more RIs.) Federal Role Under the approach described above, the federal role is unlikely to change dramatically in the short term. Much of what is described under full authorization is being done in some states already (Minnesota, New Jersey) and many other states (e.g., by coordinative agreement in Colorado) are gome NPL sites through a site-by-site decision-making process. -3- ------- MM. flTTY. SEN'S. OFC. Fax:612-297-4193 Oct 4 '93 9=25 P.OS/07 The key short-term savings would be on duplicative site review. At the same time, new federal resources might need to be dedicated to the authorization and delegation processes. Over the longer term, the expectation is that EPA would move to a support role in many, perhaps most states. (Additionally, EPA might be looked to for particular areas of specialty expertise not developed at state levels.) This support role includes setting national standards, technical assistance, guidance, R & D and information exchange. EPA would remain in an implementing role for states that had not yet developed substantial programs and for specialty sites. Funding It is not anticipated that significant new federal dollars would be required under the approach described above. EPA would continue its CORE funding program. Some new funding and some reallocation of existing funding might be needed to help build capacity in some states. States would continue to contribute a share of cleanup costs (the 10 percent cost-share is not seen as a major obstacle unless new burdens occur as a result of mixed funding. However, significant concern remains about the state's financial obligation for 0 & M). Site-specific funding for remedial actions would continue to be provided according to the priorities established by the "National Funding List." Funding patterns for removal and emergency actions would not be expected to change significantly. Overnight Oversight of authorized programs and delegated responsibilities is a key issue. Several options were identified: EPA opt-in such as EPA's authority in reviewing permits under the Clean Water Act; overfilingbyEPA; program reviews by EPA such as occurs under programs like RCRA; program audits focused on capacity building; public performance reviews; and citizen suits against the states. There a strong feeling that a RCRA-type oversight is not the best approach to follow. There is also concern about whether an UST self-certification process is sufficient for CERCLA. ------- MM. flTTY. GEN'S. OFC. Fax:612-297-4193 Oct- 4 '93 9:25 P..06/07 One middle ground for oversight that may be workable is a three-part approach. The first part is periodic stakeholders' review of the state program's performance. This could be a public meeting convened by the EPA and the state. A second part of the oversight could be an annual program audit by EPA (perhaps with some peer review from other states). The focus of the audit would be to identify areas of success and areas of concern with emphasis on strengthening the state's capabilities. The annual review could also examine whether the level of RP cleanups were similar to the level achieved by EPA anjd whether adequate funding remains available in the state. The annual review would also take into account the results of the stakeholder meeting. Finally, some site-specific safeguards may be needed. One option would be for EPA to intervene at a site if a citizen, a PRP or EPA itself has evidence that the remedy (Phase 1 - if a phased approach described by the remedy selection group is adopted) at a site is not likely to provide an equivalent level of protection to the federal program (a clearer call if there are national standards involved). Under this scenario, EPA would notify the state of the suspected problem and give the state a short period of time to respond. If a problem existed and was not corrected, EPA could take over the remedial process. Another option would be to allow citizen suits to be filed against the state if the state-selected remedy failed to meet a national cleanup standard. The citizen suit option was not discussed in detail and needs further work. Voluntary Cleanup To facilitate voluntary cleanups and redevelopment of contaminated property, it is important: (1) to have a government capability to quickly review investigation and cleanup plane; and (2) to have a single government body deciding cleanup requirements. Several states have developed voluntary cleanup programs (many funded on a fee-for-services basis) to provide timely review of voluntary cleanup plans. It may be helpful, though, to achieve the country's cleanup goals to encourage development of additional voluntary cleanup programs through providing "seed" or "start-up" money to states. For a non-responsible party, voluntary cleanups' finality is a critical issue. Many developers and financiers find sufficient comfort with a state "sign-off1 on cleanups. Some, though, are concerned about potential federal liability. -5- ------- MM. flTTY. GEN'S. OFC. ' Fax:612-297-4193 Get 4 '93 9:26 P.07/0? One approach to resolve this problem would be to allow a fully-authorized state (see previous discussion) with a voluntary cleanup program to approve a cleanup for purposes of both state and federal law. Another approach would be for EPA to authorize state voluntary cleanup programs to approve cleanups for purposes of both state and federal law at least for non-priority sites. Authorization criteria might include: adequate personnel and resources; equivalent level of health and environmental protection; and adequate public participation. *" Voluntary cleanup programs may be a good area for EPA to experiment with different ways of working with states. Demonstration or pilot projects using a variety of approaches to promote state voluntary cleanup programs and the needed finality to encourage redevelopment of contaminated property could be utilized. ' '\ Little time was available for discussion of the voluntary cleanup issue. It, therefore, needs further development and discussion. ------- NACEPT DISCUSSION DRAFT ON MUNICIPAL LIABILITY REFORM October 4, 1993 Options considered: (1) Municipal solid waste (MSW) (i.e., garbage and sewage sludge from public or private sources) excluded from Super-fund liability - not viable. (2) Provisions of Lautenberg bill: block on third party suits against MSW generators and transporters and municipality owners and operators, four per cent settlement cap on contribution of MSW generators and transporters, ability to pay test for settlements by municipality owners and operators - environmentalists and local government preferred option. (3) Complete public works program for all sites - rejected because EPA has excluded from consideration by NACEPT and subcommittee does not seek to change EPA's ground rules. (4) Co-disposal site public works program - tabled as requiring larger public funding than consistent with EPA's ground rules, also opposed by environmentalists. (5) Proportional liability without special rules for MSW - tabled as insufficiently responsive to needs of local governments, small business, and citizen generators because emphasizes volume as key allocation factor. (6) Proportional liability plus special rules for allocations involving MSW generators and transporters, separate ability to pay determination for municipalities, deterrents to third party suits - industry's preferred option. (7) No change in current program - not viable. ------- Summary of positions: (A) Industry, environmentalists, and local governments agree that options 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are not viable options for comprehensive reauthorization legislation, and that comprehensive reauthorization legislation must include this topic. (B) Industry, environmentalists, and local governments agree that creative use of in-kind services should be emphasized in settlements involving MSW sites and that deferred payment schedules keyed- to actual cleanup milestones may be appropriate once a determination has been made concerning ability to pay. (C) Industry, environmentalists, and local governments agree that a numeric cap on the contribution to cleanup costs of MSW generators and transporters may be appropriate. (D) Environmentalists and local governments believe that a numeric cap ("allocation by rule") of four per cent of total cleanup costs covering the total contribution of public and private MSW generators and transporters is an essential element of municipal liability reform, and that the adoption of such an allocation represents the full contribution of such parties without leaving any orphan share. (E) Industry believes that the four per cent cap is arbitrary and that any uniform cut-off ("allocation by rule") will create an orphan share that varies site-by-site and must be paid by the general revenues portion of the fund because it reflects a problem society in general created by their generation of MSW. (F) Industry, environmentalists, and local governments agree that municipal liability reform must incorporate an "ability to pay" determination for municipality owners and operators. (G) Environmentalists and local governments believe that the ability to pay test must recognize the need for local governments to provide other essential public services and their consequent inability to pay large Superfund costs. (H) Industry believes that the ability to pay of municipality owners and operators should be determined in a proceeding that follows the allocation process and that any shortfall in the threshold allocation remaining after the determination of ability to pay should be allocated to the orphan share. (I) Industry believes that the inability to pay of municipality owners and ------- operators will create an orphan share that should be paid by the general revenues portion of the fund. (J) Industry believes that municipal liability reform should include the adoption of presumptive remedies for co-disposal sites and that any relief for MSW generators and transporters and municipality owners or operators should be limited to current and future NPL sites only. (K) Environmentalists and local governments believe that only EPA should have the legal authority to prosecute under Superfund MSW generators and transporters and municipality owners and operators, with all other "third party" Superfund suits blocked. ------- ------- National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Superfund Subcommittee Environmental Justice/Community Issues Subgroup More than others, this document must be viewed as a preliminary. discussion draft reflecting incomplete discussion among both the Committee and Subgroup. Neither the full Committee nor the Subcommittee feel that these issues have received sufficient attention to warrant finality. Both will work over the next month to detail more fully the proposals put before the Committee, and the extent and,nature of the issues on which we agree and disagree. This subgroup was charged with working on five distinct but interrelated issues: Community Involvement/Empowerment Non-Discriminatory Implementation and Enforcement Economic Restoration/Security Redevelopment of Cleanup sites Community-wide Environmental Quality Approach (Including synergistic effects of multiple source cleanup activities and risk tradeoffs in remedy selection) The subgroup has prepared a set of statements on each issue. The statements seek to reflect the level of agreement and. disagreement on each issue, as well as present strong minority views where appropriate. The Committee as a whole felt that the first two issues (community involvement and non-discriminatory implementation and enforcement) should be addressed as fully as possible within the context of Superfund reauthorization. There was a strong feeling that all of these issues would best be addressed through serious demonstration projects involving new methods utilized on scales appropriate for testing their effectiveness and feasibility. Such demonstrations projects, if successfully implemented, have the potential to substantially improve the Superfund program with respect to the environmental and economic health of affected communities, the speed and acceptability of cleanups, and the overall cost of the program. : ------- Non-Discriminatory Implementation and Enforcement 1. Better data must be collected on environmental justice issues to enhance the process of designing and implementing reforms. Thus,the Committee, as a whole, is in agreement there should be formal requirements that Superfund information systems collect and manage critical data on racial and socio-economic factors and conditions as they relate to hazardous waste cleanups. Over the next month, this subcommittee will further explore specific legislative implications and implementations of this proposal. The central goal will be to ensure that the data are collected and used to ensure the overall fairness of Superfund. Specific issues that will be examined will be the impact of such data collection on: environmental epidemiology in low-income and minority communities; the costs and benefits of Superfund on these communities; the timing of NPL listing of CERCLA sites; the Hazard Ranking System, particularly with respect to Native American populations and socio-economic groups facing multiple environmental burdens. 2. The Committee also agreed that Superfund reauthorization should ensure that future enforcement and implementation be non-discriminatory, and that the Act be designed to ensure full compliance with relevant civil rights statutes. The subgroup is discussing and working on detailed legislative language for implementing this position. The subcommittee felt that such changes are particularly important in light of the growing evidence that people of color and low-income communities face a disproportionate burden of environmental hazards. The evidence uncovered by the National Law Journal last year also points to significant questions about the fairness of enforcement under the nation's hazardous waste laws. One characteristic common to many communities of color, particularly in urban areas, is the existence of multiple hazardous sites as well as other sources of contamination. They are a major contributory factor, both direct and indirect, to the ------- low health status, economic deterioration, environmental degradation, and overall blight of host communities. Logically the concomitant concerns of multiple exposure and multiple risks, and cumulative exposure and cumulative risks assume great importance. Some of these concerns are addressed in the demonstration project approach outlined below. ------- Community Participation Reforms to Superfund There is agreement that the community including but not limited to the residents surrounding a site, the local government impacted by cleanup activity, and interested health and environmental professionals in the area should be more meaningfully involved in the Superfund process. Opportunities for such involvement should come as early as possible, for example before/during the site listing, and continue throughout the site investigation, remedy selection, and cleanup steps. There is agreement that.resources, both technical and financial, should be made more directly available to the local citizenry to enable meaningful community participation and assure better information transfer and sharing. Among the changes needed are refinements in the TAG program, including: Simplification of the TAG application process (e.g., simpler forms, broader eligibility); Earlier TAG availability, e.g., as soon as a site is identified, so citizens can participate in investigations that may lead to the site's listing; Fewer restrictions on grant funds, including: give TAG recipient some flexibility to use funds as needed (e.g., for data collection, hiring technical support); remove or reduce matching funds requirement; remove or waive the $50,000 limit; authorize advance payments; remove or waive time limit on TAG availability; There is agreement on the advisability of community working groups. The committee considered various options regarding how a group should be appointed and its functions. On how members should be appointed (by federal/state vs. local authority), more discussion is needed, but there appears to be some consensus that a group should have local government representation and also that the group should be open to committed community residents who wish to participate. Among the functions of such a group: Review and influence key remedy selection decisions BEFORE the government or PRP have committed major resources; Participate in more frequent and open meetings with the ------- government and PRPs, acting as an official 'sounding board' for proposed decisions and actions; Act as a liaison to engage all sectors and members of the community, and be responsible to establish community preferences through public debate, e.g., on decisions related to land use choices and public health protection assumptions; Develop and implement the Institutional Controls Program at the site, including legal, technical, and long-term maintenance issues, particularly as linked to the remedy selection; 4. There is agreement that the community should have the ability to pursue its own agenda with a sense of integrity. Some Committee members believe that the role and purpose of a designated community working group (or TAG recipient, preferably one in the same) shall be formal and tangible, going beyond an "advisory role' to include a check-off or acceptance step. A role with some teeth would serve to sustain involvement and facilitate decision-making: It would truly .engage people in the decisions, which helps to build consensus before actions are implemented, and places some of the responsibility for the decisions on the people most affected, thus removing some of the constant second-guessing by the community before/during/after decisions are made. 5. There is no agreement on a proposal to create statewide Community Involvement and Action Offices. There is agreement on the need to develop better mechanisms to address the proposed functions of such offices, i.e., to inform citizens and elected officials about Superfund activities through a variety of information dissemination and technical assistance tasks. ------- Notes to Community Involvement: Issues for more discussion 1, If the TAG program is refined and improved, coupled with the creation of the community working groups, it may be appropriate to seek mechanisms to ensure that the TAG recipient is1fully represented on the Board of the working group. 2. A formal role for the community goes to the issue of where the "community acceptance1 criteria fits in the NCP hierarchy used to select remedies. There is some support to elevate this criteria to a balancing (vs. modifying) criteria, as per EPA's options paper (Level 3) and to give the community greater authority (Level 4). 3. The working group could assume direct oversight responsibilities to review and monitor the implementation of the remedy, with a signoff authority. More discussion is needed, but one minority view is to commit and allocate a percentage of the EPA oversight funds to the impacted community (either its working group or local government). This provision could be coupled with an annual CAP on oversight funds per site to ensure this transfer of funds (and responsibility) does not result in an increase of oversight costs. ------- Economic Restoration/Security/Redevelopment: The subgroup acknowledges that the Superfund Program cannot shoulder the full burden of serious economic restoration/security problems in the nation. At the same time, several Committee members believe strongly that, 1) the Superfund program should not create additional impediments to economic restoration/security, 2) the Superfund program should be a catalyst for economic restoration/security and a strong contributing component in a comprehensive, integrated approach to economic restoration/security in depressed areas with hazardous waste problems. *» The program's economic problems can be characterized by those that are community-specific, involving the communities surrounding contaminated sites, and those that are programmatic, involving the impacts of the program as a whole on a wide universe of sites that have either been identified as contaminated, or are under the cloud of potential future findings of contamination (e.g. the CERCLIS list and beyond). In general, we characterize the former set of problems as being those of community-specific economic restoration/security, and the latter as being programmatic barriers to site re-development and re-use. (There is obviously some overlap between the two, and with other issues covered in this document.) Economic Restoration/Security (community-specific demonstrations}: The subcommittee believes that Superfund should undertake a National Model Demonstration Program consisting of pilot projects to use Superfund and any other authority (see below) as catalysts for a comprehensive set of activities to achieve several benefits, including: community empowerment meaningful community participation job training and educational infrastructure development job creation and economic redevelopment ~-' effective partnerships between a wide range of public and private institutions overall risk reduction sustainable community development These projects will seek to demonstrate the viability of Federal interagency and intergovernmental cooperation and are to be achieved through an integrated approach. * (Other authorities: the Environmental Justice Act, the DOD Base Closure Program, DOE's Environmental Restoration and Research ------- Programs, the National Voluntary Service - VISTA - program.) There was agreement that the issue of Superfund's role in economic redevelopment should be addressed in Superfund reauthorization through demonstration projects. These projects should include means to attract business to former Superfund sites, means to speed the remedial process and make it more responsive to the needs of the affected community, means to maximize local employment and training opportunities in this process, and means to use local schools and colleges for communications outreach and training, where possible. Please refer to Attachment #1 for a list of suggested objectives that would accompany the model demonstration projects. svelopment (ore ttic demonstrations); The subcommittee is further discussing, but has not reached consensus on, a programmatic demonstration program that would seek to test models for removing economic barriers faced by communities and speeding the cleanup of contaminated sites and their re-entry into the pool of lands available for use by communities. As with the community-specific demonstrations, such programmatic demonstrations must be designed to be evaluated and, if successful, integrated into the broader Superfund program. They are programmatic because they explore the feasibility and effectiveness of substantial changes to the program's broader legal and regulatory impact. Unlike the community-specific demonstration program proposed above, they cannot be evaluated fairly on a community by community basis. This concept is also being further elaborated in the context of the State and Local Governments subcommittee and their approaches to voluntary cleanups. Potential targets for this demonstration program would include: liability waivers for future purchasers, lenders, and insurers on sites that meet certain criteria (cleanup standards, risk, proposed use, etc...) in order to expedite voluntary site assessments and remediations; full EPA delegation to states or local authorities of the right to "sign-off" on voluntary cleanups proposed by various parties; alternative allocation and cost-share schemes, and alternative cost recovery methods. Such demonstrations must proceed sensitively to avoid involving the community in tradeoffs between economic goods and 8 ------- environmental goals. These demonstrations could clearly not be tested on an anecdotal basis. Those selected would need to apply to a fairly broad geographic area (an EPA region, or a state) to evaluate their effects. ------- Community-Wide Environmental Quality Approach (also community-specific): The subcommittee is also discussing a range of options for addressing the management of the multiple environmental hazards faced in some communities. (Some of these are covered under the economic restoration/security/community-specific demonstration program discussed above.) Again, the Committee felt that responses to such problems should be explored through demonstration projects, as well as through careful examination of other statutory authorities available to EPA for addressing them. The subcommittee is discussing demonstration projects that would address: synergistic effects, either by integrating multi-media, multi-site data into site evaluation criteria/ or by ensuring that such sites are examined under the lens of multiple environmental statutes; multiple sites in one community/multiple non-superfund . sources of contamination through some form of coordinated cleanup action; the remediation of environmental risks adjacent to or concurrent with those posed by a Superfund site, but not covered under proposed remedies. This option will explore the possible use of some cleanup monies for remediating such additional risk. Other Issues: Finally, the subcommittee is interested in understanding the possible impacts of reauthorization on the roles of ATSDR, the right-to-know provisions, and the toxic release inventory. 10 ------- ATTACHMENT A The following is a list of suggested objectives of such projects from Charles Lee's proposal. At this time, they are meant to be illustrative and the Environmental Justice/Community Issues Work Group will continue to work to provide greater organization and clarity to them. These objectives may be: , - to develop strategies for site specific cleanup or combinations of site specific cleanups which address issues of cumulative exposure and overall risk reduction in environmental high impact areas. to demonstrate the effectiveness and benefits of linking environmental cleanup and other environmental protection activity to a full range of other public goals, including job creation, educational infrastructural development, community development in cooperation with a wide range of public and private institutions (city and county government, community based organizations, labor, civil organizations, churches, philanthropy, business, etc.). to demonstrate the feasibility of timely, cooperative action among Federal agencies. to demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of fundamentally new methods of effective public outreach and involvement of affected stakeholders in reaching consensus around environmental decisions. to foster working relations between government, labor, business, and the nonprofit sector in solving the environmental ills of a community and impediments to economic redevelopment. - to identify mechanisms by which overall risk reduction can be achieved in highly impacted, multiple risk communities. to identify and support mechanisms present in communities which can provide trusted liaison between public and private groups by ensuring community empowerment and provide a mechanism for information to be processed, disseminated, and acted upon. ~ to identify and foster mechanisms for participatory research in conjunction with members of affected communities for the purposes of site identification, hazard assessment, and the development of site inventories, technical and medical databases, and other information. ------- - to offer regular community based forums, workshops, and other venues for interactive information exchange. to aid in making connections between training for environmental careers, job opportunity, contaminated land cleanup and reuse, and the coordination of public and private programs to foster infirastructural support of such development. to demonstrate the viability of redevelopment or reuse of abandoned sites. to link defense industry conversion efforts, especially the use of technical expertise and resources resident within national research laboratories and other Federal facilities to economic and environmental needs of urban communities. to encourage the development of locally based economic development corporations in the areas of urban site restoration, waste recycling, energy conservation, new business development, and education. to make use of the facilities of locally based educational institutions, especially Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's), minority academic institutions, and community colleges, as the preferred mechanism to retain within the community the increased knowledge and skill base obtained from cleanup projects. This is to be accomplished through innovative community based pilot programs. to provide support to activist oriented research centers based in the local community made up of consortia of academic institutions, public schools, labor, small business, churches, civil rights organizations, community based organizations and community development corporations where the technical expertise and knowledge base gained from various cooperative arrangements is retained within the community and wbere every idea, every hopeful experiment is warmly received, obtains critical technical support and thorough examination, and where every success, big or little, can be documented, promoted, and replicated. to establish mechanisms such as symposia, workshops, conferences and telecommunications networks which provide links between projects in various areas to promote an interchange of ideas. to encourage the development of environmental curricula in primary and secondary schools which can provide an important pipeline for diversification of the environmental, workforce, and be a vehicle to promote real life experiences to understand the science, technology, and social values issues inherent in environmental policy making and choices. . ------- to provide opportunities for voluntary service through linkages with the National Voluntary Service Act. to enlist youth, through active participation, especially in cultural activities to express for us a sense of their reality and their visions for a humane and sustainable urban environment. to give support to local reuse initiatives by assuring that safeguards be established to remove the regulatory uncertainty associated of contaminated properties and encourage the use of voluntary cleanup. - to establish a national commission to oversee and ensure public accountability for the conduct of demonstration projects. to sponsor a conference in conjunction with affected communities and relevant stakeholders to synthesize the lessons of the demonstration projects and give them visibility. - to make an annual report to Congress regarding progress in this initiative. ------- ------- |