Superfund RD&D

Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

HEARING ON SUPERFUND RD&D
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Chairman CALVERT. We will now convene the hearing. The hearing will come to order.
    Today's hearing is on research, development and demonstration, RD&D, for new technologies under the Superfund program. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over RD&D, as well as risk assessment provisions contained within the Superfund law and its amendments.
    The reason for today's hearing is that two Superfund bills are moving out of committee, and Superfund legislation may be headed for the House Floor. H.R. 2580, which was reported out of the Commerce Committee last week, and H.R. 1300, which was reported out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on September 30th, contain provisions that are within the Science Committee's jurisdiction.
    Our purpose today is to examine how well new and exciting cleanup technologies and methods have been brought up from the lab to the field. Have these technologies been adopted quickly and effectively, or have they been shelved in favor of older, conventional cleanup methods and technologies? Furthermore, can anything be done to accelerate the adoption of useful new technologies and methods?
    These issues are of critical importance if we are to finish the cleanup and restoration of these sites quickly, without imposing unnecessary costs to the public. The track record of the Superfund program to date has not been encouraging. However, I think that the quick, effective and efficient cleanup of the remaining sites is certainly in the Nation's best interest.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I believe that this hearing will illustrate that there are some very effective tools out there that can help us get where we want to be: a clean environment for us and for future generations. Furthermore, these technologies will help reclaim land to generate new economic growth and additional opportunities for the American public.
    As I stated earlier, Superfund does not have a great track record. In fact, some States are cleaning up brownfield sites better, cheaper, faster than the federal Superfund. I remain skeptical of centralized, legalistic, and overly bureaucratic solutions that stifle innovation and delay cleanups. Instead, we should look for success stories in the States and in the private sector, examine what they're doing well, and try to adopt some of their approaches to improve the federal Superfund program.
    Joining us today, Dr. Norine Noonan, Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Research and Development, ORD; Dr. Edgar Berkey from EPA's Science Advisory Board Committee on Environmental Engineering. We also have received testimony from Dr. Wayne Kachel, the Chairman of the SAB Superfund Innovative Technology and Evaluation Subcommittee. Dr. Kachel was unfortunately unable to be with us today. Dr. Berkey was kind enough to appear before us on very short notice, and for that we thank you.
    Also with us today is Mr. Tony Davenport, the Co-Chair of the Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council, and Dr. Peter Lederman, the Interim Executive Director of the Northeast Hazardous Research Center, HSRC. They will discuss what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of the Superfund RD&D program as it stands today, and what changes might improve the program.
    Truly, this is an important and timely discussion, and I'm pleased to welcome all four of our witnesses today. Before I get started, once again, I do this every hearing, I'd like to remind the members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses that the hearings are being broadcast live on the internet, so please keep that in mind during today's proceeding.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I would also ask unanimous consent that all members who wish have their opening statements entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
    I now turn to the distinguished Ranking Minority Member and my good friend, Mr. Costello, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank you for calling this hearing today. I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses on Superfund research and development.
    As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and as a member representing a district that has struggled with the cleanup of Superfund and brownfield sites, I know the importance of having a responsive, cost-effective Superfund program to affected communities. It is also important that the EPA be responsive to the concerns of the affected citizens in those communities. This has not always been the case.
    At the end of the day, what we all want is to see these sites cleaned up and put in productive us. We have made progress in addressing contamination issues on many of the sites on the National Priorities List. However, cleanups still take too long and they are too expensive. I know our Superfund program can be more effective. I also know from experience in my district in southwestern Illinois that Superfund does not work if the public is not involved.
    I am pleased that we have Mr. Tony Davenport from my State of Illinois with us today to speak about the aspect of the Superfund program that I am particularly interested in—community involvement in site assessment, remediation and redevelopment.
    Certainly, we cannot achieve the goals of the Superfund program without the development of cost-effective assessment, remediation and monitoring technologies, but this is not enough. These technologies must be utilized on sites in our affected communities, and the affected communities must have the confidence that these technologies applied to sites in their areas are effective in addressing their concerns about the present and future uses of these sites.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I welcome all of our witnesses today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
    Chairman CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
    Ladies and gentlemen, it's our policy to swear in all the witnesses or anyone who may be assisting any of our witnesses today, so if you'll all please stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Dr. NOONAN. I do.
    Dr. BERKEY. I do.
    Dr. LEDERMAN. I do.
    Mr. DAVENPORT. I do.
    Mr. LUFTIG. I do.
    Mr. OPPELT. I do.
    Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. You may be seated.
    Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    Without objection, the full written testimony of all the witnesses will be entered into the record. However, I would ask that you please summarize your remarks in 5 minutes or less so we'll have ample time for questions.
    I will note that the pre-hearing questions sent to the EPA last week have not been answered, and I will be taking the opportunity to ask some of them today during the Q&A session. However, I do ask EPA to answer all the written questions and return them to the Committee in a timely manner.
    Without further delay, Dr. Noonan, you may begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NORINE E. NOONAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY: STEPHEN D. LUFTIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE; AND DR. E. TIMOTHY OPPELT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Dr. NOONAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say that we are assiduously working on those questions and will get them to you in as timely a manner as possible.
    Let me summarize my testimony by saying first that research to remediate contaminated sites has been a key component of our program since CERCLA was passed in 1980. Our FY 2000 budget proposed $37.3 million for this program, and we will devote nearly 125 people to the Superfund research program.
    The objectives of our program are to reduce cost and accelerate cleanup of contaminated sites through research in three basic areas: improvement of risk assessment methods; development and demonstration and evaluation of new and improved site characterization and remediation methods, and remediation technology research.
    In the area of risk assessment research, we are developing better risk assessment tools and databases to enhance methods for site-specific risk assessment. We have developed an exposure factors handbook which is available widely, and that handbook provides key risk assessment guidance to decisionmakers. One example of our work is that site-specific bioavailability factors at Salt Lake City saved 50 percent of the cost with equivalent public health protection.
    In the area of site characterization research, we are working to improve the accuracy of exposure estimates and develop faster and cheaper site characterization. Two examples: At a Missouri dioxin site we were able to save $6 million through improved sampling design, and our field-portable instruments that have been developed as part of this program have reduced sampling and analysis times at many sites from days or weeks to hours.
    In the area of remediation technology research, the point there is to demonstrate or develop effectiveness of soil and groundwater remediation technologies. The SITE program is a key element of this aspect of our research. In the SITE program, 142 innovative technologies have been already demonstrated at a total cost savings, at 46 sites, up to $780 million. That's an average of 70 percent cost savings per site.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    One example of a technology that's being demonstrated now in the SITE program is Permeable Reactive Barriers, or PRBs, for groundwater bioventing. For soils that offers, this technology offers significant cost savings. The Coast Guard has used it, and there are many examples of this, but at one site the Coast Guard has used it and has been able to save $3 million at that site alone.
    We don't do this work alone. We work in partnership. We can leverage our expertise and our resources with a large number of organizations, including our sisters in the federal family, DOE, DOD, NIEHS, and also with private industry.
    We also work very hard at providing technical support. Our technical support activities assure the rapid dissemination and use of our research findings through a series of EPA technical support centers that provided direct assistance to over 200 sites in FY '99 through our regional contacts.
    For FY 2000, we will be guided by our peer-reviewed waste research plan. We plan to continue the SITE program. We plan to improve monitoring and remediation for nonaqueous phase liquids or NAPLs in complex hydrogeologic conditions. This is a key issue facing us. And we will continue to develop in place or in situ treatment technologies such as permeable reactive barriers.
    Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my testimony, and in the interests of time, I understand that my full written statement will be entered and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The statement and biography of Dr. Noonan follow:]

Insert offset folio 16 here 61206A.001

Insert offset folio 17 here 61206A.002

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 18 here 61206A.003

Insert offset folio 19 here 61206A.004

Insert offset folio 20 here 61206A.005

Insert offset folio 21 here 61206A.006

Insert offset folio 22 here 61206A.007

Insert offset folio 23 here 61206A.008

Insert offset folio 24 here 61206A.009

Insert offset folio 25 here 61206A.010

Insert offset folio 26 here 61206A.011

Insert offset folio 27 here 61206A.012

Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Dr. Noonan.
Dr. Berkey.

TESTIMONY OF DR. EDGAR BERKEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF SCIENCE OFFICER, CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (CTC), PITTSBURGH, PA, AND MEMBER, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE, EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB); ON BEHALF OF DR. WAYNE MICHAEL KACHEL, PROGRAM MANAGER, MELE ASSOCIATES, BROOKS AFB, TX, AND CHAIR, SITE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE, SAB

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Dr. BERKEY. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. I am here this afternoon representing the Environmental Engineering Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board. It's important to note that this group and this committee is composed of external individuals who do not work for the EPA, so what I offer today is an independent external view of some work that our board did several years ago in evaluating the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program that Dr. Noonan described briefly.
    Before continuing, however, I must acknowledge that I'm sorry that Representative Doyle, an esteemed member of your Subcommittee, is not here. I'm a constituent of his and a friend of his, and I want to indicate that we very much appreciate the support that he has provided to us in Western Pennsylvania on energy and environmental programs across the board, and through the Federal Energy Technology Center, that impact the Nation in a very positive way.
    The Science Advisory Board of EPA is often a critic of what EPA has done, and 15 years ago we indicated that the agency and in fact the Nation needed a stronger scientific and technical base for the Superfund program. The SITE program was one program that was developed in response to that.
    Well, this afternoon I'm pleased to report, on behalf of the committee members and particularly Dr. Kachel, who was not able to be here, who headed the committee that did this evaluation, that the SAB believes that the SITE program is an excellent program. Its accomplishments are impressive, and it has had a dramatic impact on the ability of projects in this country to go to complete cleanups.
    It has resulted in the increased use of innovative technology that is less costly and more effective, and it has been true in dozens and dozens of cases. Moreover, it has encouraged other agencies in the Federal Government, particularly the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, to accelerate their own innovative technology development programs and to promote increased use of those technologies in their cleanup programs.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    It is clear that the United States still has many cleanups to accomplish over the next many years. New technologies will continue to be needed across the board in communities and industrial areas, in federal facilities, and these technologies can only come from a vigorous research and development program that leads not only to assisting embryonic and emerging ideas to flourish, but also technology to be fully developed at full size and then tested where they ought to be, in the field under rigorous conditions, and that's what the SITE program did.
    The Science Advisory Board believes that there is a compelling need for the continued existence at a healthy level of this program and its improvement. Naturally, we didn't miss our opportunity to provide a few helpful suggestions to the agency following our review. We believe that several improvements are necessary, and we'll be tracking the agency's response to our recommendations.
    We think that better information is going to be needed on cost savings. They need to do a better job in that area, and to track all the hazardous constituents that are moving through a particular process so that there are no or fewer uncertainties as to what is really happening.
    There is also a continuing need to make sure that the information that is developed is disseminated broadly and widely to those people that need the information and have the decisionmaking capability to put those new technologies into place. In short, the metrics of the program need to be improved so that some years in the future when people are before the Congress and talking about how this program has been effective, that we have a good set of quality metrics that can state the story unequivocally.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon and to share the Science Advisory Board's thoughts with you on this subject. Thank you.
    [The statement of Dr. Kachel and biography of Dr. Berkey follow:]

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 33 here 61206A.013

Insert offset folio 34 here 61206A.014

Insert offset folio 35 here 61206A.015

Insert offset folio 36 here 61206A.016

    Chairman CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
    Dr. Lederman? Is that how you pronounce that, Lederman?
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Lederman.
    Chairman CALVERT. Lederman. Okay. Excuse me. Go ahead, doctor.

TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER B. LEDERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER

    Dr. LEDERMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you.
    Chairman CALVERT. Would the gentleman please just push that little green button? There you go.
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Nation's five Hazardous Substance Research Centers, the HSRCs. I'm the Executive Director of the Center for Environmental Engineering and Science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, which is the lead institute for one of those centers that consists of five—seven other universities. There are five HSRCs in the Nation, and they serve the entire Nation, having 29 universities in the various consortia covering 17 states and the District of Columbia.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    These centers are unique, and the Congress in 1986 amended Superfund law to create those centers, and they were actually created in 1989. They were established on a competitive peer-reviewed basis that was unique at the time. They provide—and they were there to provide unbiased research and technical support to Superfund to solve its environmental problems.
    They were based on integrating research, demonstration and technical transfer, which again was a new paradigm for universities. That paradigm still exists, but it has increased significantly with an outreach program that covers half of our funds. We have served over 125 communities that are affected by Superfund sites, and provided assistance to 50 communities in the last 2 years that have brownfields challenges.
    The technical accomplishments have not been neglected, however. We have done over 200 projects in the last year. Many of those are detailed in your written—in the written testimony which is part of the record. We have also demonstrated over 20 technologies in the field, which is so important to their acceptance. We have over 325 students working in the program at the present time, and have had over 4,000 students over the course of the period.
    Other federal agencies contribute to the work. They include DOD, DOE, Department of Agriculture, and USGS. The program is celebrating its 10th anniversary at a meeting that is being held as I speak to better determine what we need to do to meet the challenges of the next millennium.
    Our program we believe empowers communities through science education so that the communities can participate with government in making the decisions. You'll hear more about that later from Mr. Davenport. We believe this is a successful program. After 10 years of this program, it will be competed again on a peer-reviewed basis.
    It is important that this effective program continue. We believe that to attract the best university teams that bring credibility to the program and are recognized as unbiased, the HSRC seeks continued authorization of the program. Specifically, we would have some suggestions.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    We need a balance to be maintained between outreach and research. One, you can't have one without the other. We believe that the centers need to be funded at a little bit higher level than they are now, that is, at about $10 million per year for 5 years or $2 million per center per year.
    We suggest that you continue the 20 percent match for the research program. Universities are used to that and do that regularly. However, where we have large tech transfer demonstrations, that kind of match becomes very burdensome to universities and you should consider providing guidance that is significant—that these significant additional funds be provided without that match requirement.
    We at the centers stand ready to assist you and your staff to craft a program that meets the needs of the Nation, EPA, in this important area. We believe that the economic and environmental dividends will be manyfold the investment, as they have been in the past, about a tenfold or more investment onto the investment. These dividends include particularly more land being recycled into productive economic use, to the betterment of the communities and the Nation.
    I want to thank you for your time and support in the past and in the future, and I understand my written comments will be in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement, biography, and financial disclosure statement of Dr. Lederman follow:]

Insert offset folio 42 here 61206A.017

Insert offset folio 43 here 61206A.018

Insert offset folio 44 here 61206A.019

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 45 here 61206A.020

Insert offset folio 46 here 61206A.021

Insert offset folio 47 here 61206A.022

Insert offset folio 48 here 61206A.023

Insert offset folio 49 here 61206A.024

Insert offset folio 50 here 61206A.025

Insert offset folio 51 here 61206A.026

Insert offset folio 52 here 61206A.027

Insert offset folio 53 here 61206A.028

Insert offset folio 54 here 61206A.029

Insert offset folio 55 here 61206A.030

Insert offset folio 56 here 61206A.031

 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 57 here 61206A.032

Insert offset folio 58 here 61206A.033

Insert offset folio 59 here 61206A.034

Insert offset folio 60 here 61206A.035

Insert offset folio 61 here 61206A.036

Insert offset folio 62 here 61206A.037

Insert offset folio 63 here 61206A.038

Insert offset folio 64 here 61206A.039

Insert offset folio 65 here 61206A.040

Insert offset folio 66 here 61206A.041

Insert offset folio 67 here 61206A.042

Insert offset folio 68 here 61206A.043

Insert offset folio 69 here 61206A.044

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 70 here 61206A.045

Insert offset folio 71 here 61206A.046

    Chairman CALVERT. Thank you.
    Mr. Davenport. Mr. Davenport, please flip your mike on. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF TONY DAVENPORT, COCHAIRPERSON, VICTORY HEIGHTS/MAPLE PARK ADVISORY COUNCIL, CHICAGO, IL

    Mr. DAVENPORT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for having me here today. I appreciate the opportunity to come in and give a little bit of a unique perspective on this situation.
    My name, again, is Tony Davenport, and I'm currently the chairperson or co-chairperson of the Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council from Chicago, Illinois. I'm here today to provide some testimony about the TOSC program, which is the Technical Outreach Services for Communities program.
    This particular program has helped our community immeasurably, in that it has given us the ability to have full participation in the cleanup and the subsequent redevelopment of a brownfield and also a Superfund site. I think this program is very worthwhile. It's something that should be continued. It's something that should be expanded.
    Currently, each of the centers that participate have on the average, I believe, about six or seven states that they cover, and only by the grace of God and geography are we close enough to one that is—we're close enough in proximity that we're able to travel back and forth without an enormous cost factor being weighed into the situation. So we're very grateful that this program exists, and we're very grateful that you've given us the opportunity to come here today and present our side of the story from a community perspective.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    One of the things that I wanted to touch on is, the TOSC program provided qualified, independent, unbiased advice on technical issues. If I can give you just a brief background on the Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council, we're kind of an ad hoc group that's been put together of four community-based organizations within the Chicago area, and we came together because we had a common goal. The common goal that we had was that the remediation and the redevelopment of the former Dutch Boy and International Harvester dump sites, which is what they currently are right now.
    And one of the things that we stated up front as our mission statement was, we wanted to create a clean, healthy environment which also promotes economic revitalization by forming a real partnership with community residents, governmental agencies, and private sector businesses to ensure that economic growth does not occur at the expense of public health and safety, and we feel very strongly about that. My community is pretty much a middle class community, but as in all middle class communities, there is some economic suffering and there is some economic revitalization that needs to occur.
    But, at the same time, we are very cognizant of the fact that we have contamination there. It has been there for at least a period of, an identified period of some 20 years, and we need to make sure that our community is going to be safe, it's going to be healthy for our residents, especially for our children in the coming years.
    One of the things that the TOSC program did for us is, we are unique, my advisory council, in the respect that most of us are college-educated. The vast majority of us are college-educated. However, we did not have expertise in areas such as environmental engineering, toxicology, and actuarial sciences which is very critical to try to make determinations on how you need to clean up a site and what the best use, best future use to serve the community is going to be.
    So I want to applaud that program. I'd like you to take a closer look at that program and all of the other programs that the gentlemen and the lady have stated to you, you know, before me. We feel that it's very critical that you look at this, and we feel that it's very critical that we have more outreach to the communities.

 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    One of the things that our community wanted to do, again, was have a real partnership, not only with our community and surrounding communities but also with the governmental agencies, the city, the State and the Federal Government, to make sure that we have some type of hand in crafting what happens in our community.
    Having said that, Mr. Chairman, again I recognize that my testimony, the full testimony, will be part of the record. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to come here today and state the perspective of our community. Thank you.
    [The statement, biography, and financial disclosure statement of Mr. Davenport follow:]

Insert offset folio 77 here 61206A.047

Insert offset folio 78 here 61206A.048

Insert offset folio 79 here 61206A.049

Insert offset folio 80 here 61206A.050

Insert offset folio 81 here 61206A.051

Insert offset folio 82 here 61206A.052

Insert offset folio 83 here 61206A.053

Insert offset folio 84 here 61206A.054

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 85 here 61206A.055

Insert offset folio 86 here 61206A.056

Insert offset folio 87 here 61206A.057

Insert offset folio 88 here 61206A.058

Insert offset folio 89 here 61206A.059

Insert offset folio 90 here 61206A.060

Insert offset folio 91 here 61206A.061

Insert offset folio 92 here 61206A.062

Insert offset folio 93 here 61206A.063

Insert offset folio 94 here 61206A.064

Insert offset folio 95 here 61206A.065

Insert offset folio 96 here 61206A.066

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 97 here 61206A.067

Insert offset folio 98 here 61206A.068

Insert offset folio 99 here 61206A.069

Insert offset folio 100 here 61206A.070

Insert offset folio 101 here 61206A.071

Insert offset folio 102 here 61206A.072

    Chairman CALVERT. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's testimony.

ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS ACHIEVED THROUGH SUPERFUND RD&D TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS

    Dr. Noonan, you cite some impressive cost savings that were achieved at the Superfund sites through the use of technologies and methods evaluated by the EPA. How were these costs or these savings estimated?
    Dr. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, that was—that's part, those statistics are part of our 1997 SITE report to the Congress. Essentially, the way in which those cost savings are projected is that we—how can I explain this easily? We project what decision we might have made in the absence of the technology that was actually used. In other words, if that technology weren't available, what would we have used in terms of a more traditional technology? Then we estimate the cost, the cost that it actually was in using the real technology, using the Records of Decision from the Superfund program, the RODs. From those two estimates, we can then project the savings.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    You might argue that that's a bit artificial. The problem is, is once the cleanup is actually completed, there's no way to go back and run the experiment again, so what we have to do is essentially project the savings that we would have achieved based on either the use of a conventional technology, and then look at the innovative technology that was used, that was actually used at the site.

INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF COST SAVINGS

    Chairman CALVERT. Has an independent assessment been made of some of these estimated cost savings? Someone else come out and verify those numbers, that is, traditional versus new technology?
    Dr. NOONAN. It's EPA's cost estimates, but these are Records of Decision for Superfund sites, so this is what actually happened at the site.
    Chairman CALVERT. But don't you think it would be helpful to bring in some outside evaluation group to evaluate your information, see if they come up with the same conclusion?
    Dr. NOONAN. Well, that would be up to the Superfund program, I think, to decide if they wanted to do that.
    Chairman CALVERT. You could make that——
    Dr. NOONAN. And the SAB has also looked at the cost savings. When they reviewed the SITE program, that was one of the estimates, in fact, that was the basis for some of their recommendations that dealt with getting better cost information from the vendors over time as to the effectiveness of the commercialization of their technologies, and we're in the process of doing that and of making that information available.
    Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Berkey, you have any comment on that, just to——

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Dr. BERKEY. Yes. It's clear that new technologies that are implemented always save money because they're better than the technologies that they replace. They're more effective. They provide a better overall solution.
    The problem comes when you try to quantify that with a high degree of accuracy. The Science Advisory Board feels that not sufficient effort has gone into making that quantitative estimate and understanding just what the level of accuracy really is, but we are very confident that there has been significant savings nevertheless through the use of these technologies.
    There is just a natural trend in the evolution of history here, that as new technologies come into being, they do lead to savings, and then over time, as they're used, the learning curve drives costs down. And so we're very confident that these new technologies have done the cost savings job, but we wouldn't nevertheless put a high degree of real accuracy on the numbers as yet in all cases. Not every project has really had a full cost analysis done.

SITE SPECIFIC BIOAVAILABILITY STUDIES AND RISK ASSESSMENT

    Chairman CALVERT. I see. Dr. Noonan, in your testimony you discuss site-specific bioavailability studies. An understanding of the bioavailability is critical to any toxicity risk assessment. If a toxic chemical is present but exposure or absorption capacity is limited, then the risk is reduced. Has this concept been expanded nationwide to all National Priority List and other Superfund sites?
    Dr. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the site-specific risk assessment process, and that's the—essentially the direction that the program has been going, to produce site-specific risk assessments, because we agree that it is important to characterize the conditions at that—at a particular site, rather than trying to generalize nationwide. That is not an appropriate approach to take.

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Chairman CALVERT. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE SITE PROGRAM

    Dr. Noonan, let me ask with regard to the SITE program, how do you select the technologies to be tested?
    Dr. NOONAN. There are two ways, Mr. Costello. For the SITE program, the sites that are selected can propose specific technologies. If the site proposes a specific technology, if the site owner proposes a specific technology to be used, we evaluate that proposal as a package.
    We do turn proposals down in this category, based on our evaluation of the technical merit and the appropriateness of the technology to the site. So not all technologies that are proposed by the site owner are actually the ones selected.
    We also use broad solicitations to solicit technologies for sites where no specific one has been proposed by the site owner. This is generally a longer process because it takes more time to evaluate and to solicit broadly in the community, and there also we use technical criteria and merit evaluation to select the technologies.
    The peer panel that does this selection is comprised of EPA ORD researchers; the region, folks from the region; folks from the state; the site owner; and other stakeholders such as community groups.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Can you give us a couple of examples right now of technologies that are being tested through the program?
    Dr. NOONAN. Yes, sir, I'm happy to. In one case in Texas—or in Ohio, rather—we are testing, we are demonstrating a technology developed by Star Organics. This is actually being tested in Crooksville, Ohio, at an old lead-based—an old pottery site that has a lot of lead from the glazing that was used. And in addition to that, we are also testing phyto-remediation of groundwater contamination containing trichloroethylene. We're testing a soil leaching process, and in fact in San Diego we're testing a vapor stripping technique for groundwater that was developed by a small company.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    There are a number of examples. If you'd like a complete list, we'd be more than happy to provide a complete list for the record.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Are the evaluations produced by the SITE program made available by EPA to the vendor of the technology only, and then the individual vendor market their products, or does EPA also make evaluations available to the community that would be selecting among alternative cleanup technologies?
    Dr. NOONAN. Actually, all of the above and more. Once the data supporting the evaluation have been analyzed and reviewed for quality—we go through an extensive quality assurance process on this data—the evaluations are made public. They are posted on the internet site for this program.
    They're essentially made available as broadly as possible through that internet site so that anyone, the community, the states, the other communities who might have similar kinds of issues, other agencies, other vendors, and industry as a whole who might have their own set of cleanup problems, has the opportunity to use this information. We provide a lot of information about the evaluation, including performance information and cost analysis, about which we've already spoken.
    And, quite frankly, while this is not the purpose of the evaluation or the cost information, the data often gives information to the vendor that assists that vendor in making improvements. And this might be especially helpful to vendors whose technologies don't pan out.

    Mr. COSTELLO. Do you provide that information to citizens' groups like Mr. Davenport's?
    Dr. NOONAN. Yes. It's part of the evaluation package that is essentially made public.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I realize we have several votes, and I would yield at this time and hopefully come back and follow up with questions.
    Chairman CALVERT. With the gentleman's concurrence, we will suspend this hearing for, I believe we have five votes plus final passage, so I assume that will be about 40 minutes. We'll get back sooner if we can, but we'll recess this hearing for 40 minutes and reconvene.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman CALVERT. The hearing will come to order. Sorry for the delay, but those things happen.

POSSIBLE SHORTCOMINGS OF TECHNOLOGY SELECTION WITHIN THE SITE PROGRAM

    Dr. Noonan—or Dr. Berkey, in his submitted testimony Dr. Kachel stated that the SITE program is doing some very good things. However, his SAB committee—subcommittee was concerned that ''the scientific rigor of the program, coupled with a natural reluctance to appear in favor of any technology or vendor, has constrained the conclusions which SITE has drawn.''
    Could you comment on that statement and its implications for the rapid adoption of innovative technology and methods at Superfund sites? And Dr. Noonan, you could start, and then Dr. Berkey, or either way. Whatever.
    Dr. NOONAN. Please.
    Dr. BERKEY. One of the concerns that the SAB had was in the timeliness with which information is developed, and this relates to an issue that Mr. Costello raised earlier in getting information out to the public and to communities. If it takes a long time to do it because the program is rigorous and has a lot of checkpoints and quality assurance steps and things of that nature, it does delay the adoption of technologies, it delays the information release, the acceptance of those technologies.

 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    There is somewhere in all of this a tradeoff or a balance that has to be achieved. We would not support a program that didn't have technical rigor, that didn't have the ability to release information and fully disclose it to everybody involved. When you put those kinds of constraints on the system, it is naturally going to translate into some time requirement before that information becomes available.
    Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Noonan.
    Dr. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we always have to be cognizant of striking a balance between a focus, appropriately so, on the scientific rigor of a program, and the enthusiasm with which not only the agency embraces the program but the enthusiasm with which we present the program to the public. It's vital that we not overpromise, that we be rigorous in our evaluation but that we disseminate, I think the results of our evaluations so that others, including stakeholders, can decide for themselves how they wish to approach the value of the information that has been brought to them through SITE.
    And we don't disagree with the SAB. I think it's really two sides of the same coin. We are enthusiastic about SITE. We believe it has brought a lot of benefits, but we believe that we have to be careful in not overpromising the broader—through sweeping generalizations, which I have to tell you my 8th grade social studies teacher always cautioned me about—in not overpromising the benefits of those technologies in the wider marketplace.
    We are acting on one of the recommendations that the SAB made, which is to collect information from vendors on essentially the impact of their technologies at other sites. What success have they had in commercializing the technologies in other places? And we are collecting that information and disseminating it so that others can measure the value.

CHANGES NEEDED WITHIN SUPERFUND RD&D OR RISK ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Chairman CALVERT. To all the panelists, in the event that CERCLA is reauthorized, do you believe that any substantive chances are required in the RD&D or risk assessment provisions of the law? And, Mr. Davenport, you can start with that. Do you think we need any major changes?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. Well, I would say probably the major change from a community perspective that I would like to see is more involvement with the community. That means earlier detection from the—from EPA and other sources, and getting the—presenting more opportunities for the community to become involved. One of the things that——
    Chairman CALVERT. In the form of what, public hearings, or——
    Mr. DAVENPORT. In the form of public hearings. One of the things that we—we had a specific problem with early on in my site was, no one was giving us the information that you have a Superfund site here or you have a potential Superfund site here. And it's very important that that information, again, be disseminated to the community so that we know what's out there, and that at some point during the process we have an opportunity to look at the different technologies, for example, and make some type of determinations for ourselves.
    Not only are our health and our—not only is our health and our safety at stake at that point, but we also have other considerations such as our property values, so that we need to make sure that we're getting the type of information that we need in order to make some determinations for ourselves. So I think from a community aspect, one of the changes I'd like to see is more opportunities for the community to become involved.
    Chairman CALVERT. Okay. Mr. Lederman.
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I already gave you in my oral testimony and written testimony some comments regarding the independent nature of the university programs and why they should be supported.

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I would add to that, that I think it's important that we start doing some studies on early remediation, early results-oriented cleanups where the community gets involved at the beginning, as well as an unbiased group, whether that be university or other, that can facilitate the parties coming together in a cleanup scenario and then letting the people clean up and proving at the end that they have done that, to—in order to mitigate the great amount of time and money that is spent in process.
    And I think universities play a part in that, I think the EPA plays a significant part in that, but the key to that is really providing good assistance to communities so that they feel they are part of the decisionmaking process at the very beginning. I would add one more thing. And we need to evaluate that carefully.
    Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Berkey.
    Dr. BERKEY. Yes, and I believe that the SAB would strongly support any activity that would enhance the dissemination of information on as timely and understandable a basis as possible. Whether it's risk assessment information, whether it is information on how technologies perform, whether it's information on how those technologies perform under different conditions.
    EPA, one let's say sort of side product of the SITE program and other related efforts has been the establishment of technology verification centers, so that—that technology—the claims that technology vendors make about technologies can be verified and validated in an objective atmosphere, and this is something that we would very strongly support and like to see reflected in any reauthorization language.
    Chairman CALVERT. Doctor.
    Dr. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, our experience so far has been that the statute in its current form gives us the sufficient authority and flexibility that we need to carry out a very high quality Superfund research program. At the moment we haven't identified any areas that need improvement, but we are looking at your questions very carefully. That's part of the reason why you don't have the answer, because we are analyzing it section-by-section as you've asked us to do, and we will provide you with some detailed written answers.

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    However, I think our belief is that, knowing that you're interested in improvements that can be made, we very much appreciate that. I want to stress, though, that the authority that we have enables us to support research, either within EPA or using outside performers, that is of the highest scientific merit.
    We have to maintain the strongest possible system of peer review for our research, including the competitive processes we have initiated to select outside performers, such as the Hazardous Substance Research Centers. And through this rigorous process of competition and scientific merit review, we can assure that this program remains not only scientifically strong but closely linked to the highest priority needs of the program. We believe that the current statute allows us to do that, and we don't have any specific areas to suggest to you for improvement today.

ROLE OF THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTERS IN BRINGING NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS INTO THE FIELD

    Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Lederman, you—you looked a little shocked there, so I'll let you comment on that, but also I have a question.
    You mentioned billions of dollars in cost savings that may be derived from the aggressive use of innovative remediation techniques in the future. Can you elaborate on how the Hazardous Substance Research Centers have helped bring these technologies and methods into the field?
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Well, let me just comment on one, Mr. Chairman.
    No, I'm not shocked at Dr. Noonan's statement. I applaud it.
    One of the technologies that we have developed is called pneumatic fracturing, and we have developed it to be able to remediate underground without digging on tight formations, and I'm getting a little bit technical. But one of the places where we showed that technology is at Hanford, where there is a carbon tetrachloride plume at about 600 feet, and using this technology and then vitrification, we can vitrify that plume underground. Now, if you can do that with that plume, you can do that with radioactive plumes and other things. Just that particular technology, if you look at what the cleanup, potential cleanup costs are for radioactive waste sites and in depth, it's probably worth several hundred million dollars at a minimum.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Chairman CALVERT. By the way, when I said ''shocked,'' I mean when Claude Raines was telling Humphrey Bogart, ''Shocked.'' Oh. Excuse me. [Laughter.]
    The gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EPA'S OPINION ON THE SAB'S 1997 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITE

    Dr. Noonan, the Science Advisory Board recommendations on the SITE program were given to the agency, I believe, in 1997. First, do you agree with the assessment of the committee?
    Dr. NOONAN. Yes, we do. Yes, we do, Mr. Costello. I've already addressed a couple of the recommendations that the Science Advisory Board made to us in 1997. Essentially, let me try to categorize them.
    They asked us to look at the way that we report cost information on the technologies that we're evaluating. Over the past two years since the report, we've been working with the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group—it's call the ITRC Work Group—as well as internally to improve both our methodologies and the presentation of cost information, because this is critical.
    They also asked us, as you've heard, I think, to collect more information from vendors with regard to developing metrics for the longer term impact of commercialization of these technologies, and disseminate that, and we're doing that. At the time that that report was written, we didn't have an internet web site for this program. We do now, and that has provided a tremendous opportunity for not only information transfer to be done inside EPA and with our Federal family, but it enables stakeholder groups like Mr. Davenport's and others to have wide access to the information that comes out of our Superfund research program and SITE program in particular.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    The other thing they asked us to do was to look at emerging technologies, and while we don't have an explicit program to look at emerging technologies, what we're trying to do is leverage efforts in other areas, such as the Small Business Innovation Research Program, to address emerging technologies that aren't quite ready for SITE but may be at an earlier stage in their development. And by using programs like SBIR we can bring those programs, those technologies, forward, so that when they're ready for SITE, we're ready for them.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SAB'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SITE PROGRAM

    Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask you, of the number of recommendations that were made, how many have been implemented as of this date?
    Dr. NOONAN. I—the emerging technologies? All of them, Mr. Costello, with the exception of the specific recommendation to have an emerging technology program specifically. We're trying to address that in other ways.
    Mr. COSTELLO. So all but that, that one recommendation?
    Dr. NOONAN. That's correct.

EPA FLEXIBILITY AFTER ISSUANCE OF A ''RECORD OF DECISION''
    Mr. COSTELLO. I had an experience in my district with a Superfund site that was not a pleasant experience for the citizens or the local elected officials, but let me just say that it involved digging up literally dozens of residential and commercial, actually yards, in a downtown area of a community in my Congressional District, and all of this soil that contained a high level of lead was taken to a pile, a lead pile in my Congressional District, and actually used to cap that pile with a polyurethane cover.
    The local elected officials, the local citizens group, everyone questioned and wondered if there was an alternative technology or another method of disposal. EPA continued to say, ''Well, we have the Record of Decision and we're going to stick by the Record of Decision.''

 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    And so I guess my question to you is, with all of the developing technology, at what point in time—first of all, when a Record of Decision is made by EPA, do you ever open that Record of Decision again to consider new technology after an ROD has been placed on the record?
    Dr. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman—Mr. Costello, what I'd like to do is—actually I should have done this at the very beginning—I'd actually like to acknowledge the two people, professionals, experts from EPA who are here with me, and I'm going to ask one of them to address your question particularly.
    To my left is Mr. Stephen Luftig, who is the Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and to my right is Dr. Timothy Oppelt, who is Director of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory for ORD. I'm going to ask Mr. Luftig, if you don't mind—he was sworn in at the beginning—to answer your question specifically, since he is familiar with that site and the Record of Decision process.
    Mr. COSTELLO. The specific question is, after the ROD has—was made in this case, or in any case in the future, if there is technology that is either developed or there is a better alternative to the method entered into the ROD, can it and have you ever opened the ROD to either implement or explore another alternative?
    Mr. LUFTIG. The answer is, yes, sir, we have, and in about 200 cases, a little over 200 cases over the last 3 or 4 years we have gone back and taken a second look, either at the request of the responsible parties cleaning up the site or citizens or a state, or through our own knowledge after trying to implement a remedy that didn't succeed and needing to change it. We have actually looked at over 200 of those, reopened over 200, and in many cases have saved a great deal of money by using newer technologies than the ones that we selected perhaps in the 1980s when the first remedy would have been selected.

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you give me a recent example, a specific site or location where that was done, where the ROD was already—the Record of Decision was made, where you in fact reopened it and employed a different type of remedy?
Mr. LUFTIG. Yes, sir, and I'd be able to provide for the record, if that's okay, our report on remedies revisited for fiscal year 1998, where we list each of the ones that we looked at, what was there when we first picked the remedy, what change we made, why we made it, who requested the change, and how much money we think the change either saved or cost. Some of the changes are more expensive, if we encounter something that doesn't work, but on net through the last 3 years of changes we've saved well over $1 billion in private sector and public sector monies, in upgrading our remedies.

Insert offset folio 122 here 61206A.073

Insert offset folio 123 here 61206A.074

Insert offset folio 124 here 61206A.075

Insert offset folio 125 here 61206A.076

Insert offset folio 126 here 61206A.077

Insert offset folio 127 here 61206A.078

Insert offset folio 128 here 61206A.079

 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 129 here 61206A.080

Insert offset folio 130 here 61206A.081

Insert offset folio 131 here 61206A.082

Insert offset folio 132 here 61206A.083

Insert offset folio 133 here 61206A.084

Insert offset folio 134 here 61206A.085

Insert offset folio 135 here 61206A.086

Insert offset folio 136 here 61206A.087

Insert offset folio 137 here 61206A.088

Insert offset folio 138 here 61206A.089

Insert offset folio 139 here 61206A.090

Insert offset folio 140 here 61206A.091

Insert offset folio 141 here 61206A.092

 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 142 here 61206A.093

Insert offset folio 143 here 61206A.094

Insert offset folio 144 here 61206A.095

Insert offset folio 145 here 61206A.096

Insert offset folio 146 here 61206A.097

Insert offset folio 147 here 61206A.098

Insert offset folio 148 here 61206A.099

Insert offset folio 149 here 61206A.100

Insert offset folio 150 here 61206A.101

Insert offset folio 151 here 61206A.102

Insert offset folio 152 here 61206A.103

Insert offset folio 153 here 61206A.104

 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 154 here 61206A.105

Insert offset folio 155 here 61206A.106

Insert offset folio 156 here 61206A.107

Insert offset folio 157 here 61206A.108

Insert offset folio 158 here 61206A.109

Insert offset folio 159 here 61206A.110

Insert offset folio 160 here 61206A.111

Insert offset folio 161 here 61206A.112

Insert offset folio 162 here 61206A.113

Insert offset folio 163 here 61206A.114

Insert offset folio 164 here 61206A.115

Insert offset folio 165 here 61206A.116

Insert offset folio 166 here 61206A.117

 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 167 here 61206A.118

Insert offset folio 168 here 61206A.119

Insert offset folio 169 here 61206A.120

Insert offset folio 170 here 61206A.121

Insert offset folio 171 here 61206A.122

Insert offset folio 172 here 61206A.123

Insert offset folio 173 here 61206A.124

Insert offset folio 174 here 61206A.125

Insert offset folio 175 here 61206A.126

Insert offset folio 176 here 61206A.127

Insert offset folio 177 here 61206A.128

Insert offset folio 178 here 61206A.129

 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 179 here 61206A.130

Insert offset folio 180 here 61206A.131

Insert offset folio 181 here 61206A.132

Insert offset folio 182 here 61206A.133

Insert offset folio 183 here 61206A.134

Insert offset folio 184 here 61206A.135

Insert offset folio 185 here 61206A.136

Insert offset folio 186 here 61206A.137

Insert offset folio 187 here 61206A.138

Insert offset folio 188 here 61206A.139

Insert offset folio 189 here 61206A.140

Insert offset folio 190 here 61206A.141

Insert offset folio 191 here 61206A.142

 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 192 here 61206A.143

Insert offset folio 193 here 61206A.144

Insert offset folio 194 here 61206A.145

Insert offset folio 195 here 61206A.146

Insert offset folio 196 here 61206A.147

Insert offset folio 197 here 61206A.148

Insert offset folio 198 here 61206A.149

Insert offset folio 199 here 61206A.150

Insert offset folio 200 here 61206A.151

Insert offset folio 201 here 61206A.152

Insert offset folio 202 here 61206A.153

Mr. COSTELLO. And in all of those cases that was after the ROD was determined?

 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. LUFTIG. That's correct.

TIME TO COMPLETE A SITE PROGRAM EVALUATION

    Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Berkey, let me ask you, how long on average does a SITE program evaluation take?
    Dr. BERKEY. I don't know the precise, accurate, quantitative length, but it can vary. It is from start to finish, if we include the time it takes to get the report out, we're typically looking at several years of time. Two to 3 years would not be out of the question to have a full activity completed. And I don't know if Mr. Oppelt would have a different figure in mind. He would certainly be more familiar with the exact amount of time. But that, it is our impression it is on that order of time.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Lederman, first, if we haven't thanked you already for leaving the conference to come over to be with us today, we appreciate it.
HISTORY OF THE TECHNICAL OUTREACH SERVICE TO COMMUNITIES (TOSC)
    Let me ask you, when was the Technical Outreach Service to Communities program instituted?
    Dr. LEDERMAN. I believe it was started about 4 years ago, Mr. Costello. It has really reached a very significant number of activities in the last 2, 2 and a half years.
    Dr. COSTELLO. In your opinion, has the program been successful?
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Yes, I think it is very successful. I think Mr. Davenport's comments attest to that. I have a number of other communities that we serve that have that opinion. There probably is a cry for more, not less.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Probably the most difficult part of this program is getting the communities to know that it's available. Right now, we don't go out and sell our services, if you will. The communities come to us through EPA or through word-of-mouth, and so there are communities that obviously don't avail themselves of the service.
    It's also we have a limited number of people who can do that, and most of them are experts. In our particular case we have professors as well as a number of retired EPA folks who have expertise in this area.

DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION FROM LAB TO THE FIELD

    Mr. COSTELLO. That was going to be my next question, is how do you get the word out to communities that in fact this service is available?
    Dr. LEDERMAN. Well, it's primarily word-of-mouth, it really is. And communities do talk to the EPA, to the site managers, and they get it that way.
HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF THE VICTORY HEIGHTS/MAPLE PARK ADVISORY COUNCIL
    Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I hope they had better cooperation than the people who live in my Congressional District that contacted EPA.
    Let me ask Mr. Davenport, first, how long have you been involved with the Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Costello, I've been involved since 1996. The Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council, as I stated before, is an ad hoc group of community organizations, actually four community-based organizations, but we coalesced around a common goal in 1996.
    Mr. COSTELLO. I noticed in reading your testimony earlier today that you indicated that you were elected by the community. What do you mean by that?

 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. DAVENPORT. I mean elected by the community in the sense that, again, there's four different community organizations that are represented in the Victory Heights/Maple Park Advisory Council. My specific organization is the Maple Park Homeowners Association, which has about 300—a membership of about 300 households. I'm an elected official of that organization.
    Typically, the members of the Advisory Council were likewise—and let me say this, as an elected official of my specific organization, I was thus appointed by that organization to represent the Advisory Council in any matters that were germane to our community, and likewise the other members of the Advisory Council were elected by their specific organizations and then appointed to that Advisory Council.
    Mr. COSTELLO. And the Advisory Council was created as a result of the site that you referred to earlier?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. That's correct. We initially, one or the other of the groups had been trying to contact EPA or the city or the State, one of those agencies since as early as probably about 1985. There had been a preliminary phase one done, I think, in 1986.
    There was a quick cleanup done that took care of some of the surface lead and some of the debris that was left behind on the Dutch Boy site, and pretty much that was all that was done at that point, and it was kind of left dormant. It became what we call in Chicago a ''fly dumping'' area, where you have trucks that come by in the middle of the night or during the day and they just drop garbage there.
    So it had been an eyesore, it had become a health hazard, and not—that plus the fact that it's adjacent to a school, it's also adjacent to a park, and it's completely surrounded by residential areas, a residential neighborhood. Some of the houses are no further away than about 100 to 150 feet.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTORY HEIGHTS/MAPLE PARK ADVISORY COUNCIL AND THE EPA

 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. COSTELLO. When the council was first formed, how would you describe the—either the reception or the relationship that you had with EPA?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. I would say it was tenuous at best. One of the things that you have to understand, Mr. Costello, is at some point some type of trust has to be developed. But in order for that trust to be developed, we have to make sure that we're getting good information, that the information is
—one of the things that I believe Dr. Noonan discussed earlier was, you have to make sure that you have site-specific information so that you have a baseline from which to go from. And from there, plus a little education from our friends at TOSC, we were able to determine what was good information and what was not good information.
    And then from that point on, getting together with the Federal, the State and the city government and making sure that there was an exchange of ideas, there was an exchange of information, that the information that we were getting was good, and at that point, once we were confident that this was happening, then we were able to develop some trust and there was a better working relationship from that point on.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Did the council reach out to EPA, or did EPA seek citizen involvement and the council's involvement initially?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. The EPA was reached out to before there was actually a council in place. We probably had meetings for probably 6 months before there was actually a council in place.

    One of the things that EPA has is what they call community advisory groups, and they have a strong representation of those in Region 5, which is—which encompasses our area. So this was something, we had a very good community organization coordinator in our specific case, who was very interested in our community and—and made a real effort to make sure that we got represented to the best of our ability.

 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTORY HEIGHTS/MAPLE PARK ADVISORY COUNCIL AND UNIVERSITIES AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY
    Mr. COSTELLO. You indicated in your testimony that the council attempted to obtain technical assistance from private companies as well as the universities, but they were reluctant to offer assistance because, I take it, they were concerned that they may in fact become vendors or contractors on some of these sites. Are there any other reasons why the universities and the private companies did not or were not willing to lend technical assistance at that time?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. Well, Mr. Costello, that was—that was the basic reason, and actually after making numerous phone calls to engineering firms who did environmental work, first of all, there aren't a whole lot of them in the City of Chicago or the State of Illinois, so they have their hands full, the ones that are available.
    The universities, and after making numerous phone calls, actually some of them began to tell me, ''This is why we're not going to do it,'' and you know, I could only respect them for doing that, for at least telling me, ''This is why I won't do it. I may have, I've had prior business with the responsible party. I've had prior business or I have current contracts with the city, the State or the Federal Government, and quite honestly, I'm not willing to jeopardize that for a one-shot deal.''
    And while it may sound a little callous just coming out that way, I actually respected them for at least telling me that this is why you're not going to do it.
    Mr. COSTELLO. Have you had, your council, have you had contact with other citizen organizations in other areas of the State of Illinois, specifically?
    Mr. DAVENPORT. More in the State of—I'm sorry, more in the City of Chicago than in the State of Illinois, although I am familiar with the site that you're alluding to because the project manager that works on that is the same one that we have, that works on that site. So some of that information has been relayed to us, so we are aware of that situation.

 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. First—and, Mr. Chairman, before I—I know I'm out of time here. But let me compliment you, Mr. Davenport, on your council, and I would encourage you to continue to stay active and involved and to reach out to citizen groups in downstate Illinois, as well, who might need and might benefit from your suggestions and your help. And I thank all of the witnesses for testifying today.
    Chairman CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
    I thank the witnesses for attending this hearing today and for your answers to our questions. We will have some written questions for EPA and hopefully will receive some answers back, and the record will be held open for additional information which was brought up earlier. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Insert offset folio 01 here 61206A.412

Insert offset folio 211 here 61206A.154

Insert offset folio 212 here 61206A.155

Insert offset folio 213 here 61206A.156

Insert offset folio 214 here 61206A.157

Insert offset folio 215 here 61206A.158

Insert offset folio 216 here 61206A.159

 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 217 here 61206A.160

Insert offset folio 218 here 61206A.161

Insert offset folio 219 here 61206A.162

Insert offset folio 220 here 61206A.163

Insert offset folio 221 here 61206A.164

Insert offset folio 222 here 61206A.165

Insert offset folio 223 here 61206A.166

Insert offset folio 224 here 61206A.167

Insert offset folio 225 here 61206A.168

Insert offset folio 226 here 61206A.169

Insert offset folio 227 here 61206A.170

Insert offset folio 228 here 61206A.171

 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 229 here 61206A.172

Insert offset folio 230 here 61206A.173

Insert offset folio 231 here 61206A.174

Insert offset folio 232 here 61206A.175

Insert offset folio 233 here 61206A.176

Insert offset folio 234 here 61206A.177

Insert offset folio 235 here 61206A.178

Insert offset folio 236 here 61206A.179

Insert offset folio 237 here 61206A.180

Insert offset folio 238 here 61206A.181

Insert offset folio 239 here 61206A.182

Insert offset folio 240 here 61206A.183

Insert offset folio 241 here 61206A.184

 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 242 here 61206A.185

Insert offset folio 243 here 61206A.186

Insert offset folio 244 here 61206A.187

Insert offset folio 245 here 61206A.188

Insert offset folio 246 here 61206A.189

Insert offset folio 247 here 61206A.190

Insert offset folio 248 here 61206A.191

Insert offset folio 249 here 61206A.192

Insert offset folio 250 here 61206A.193

Insert offset folio 251 here 61206A.194

Insert offset folio 252 here 61206A.195

Insert offset folio 253 here 61206A.196

 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 254 here 61206A.197

Insert offset folio 255 here 61206A.411

Insert offset folio 256 here 61206A.198

Insert offset folio 257 here 61206A.199

Insert offset folio 258 here 61206A.200

Insert offset folio 259 here 61206A.201

Insert offset folio 260 here 61206A.202

Insert offset folio 261 here 61206A.203

Insert offset folio 262 here 61206A.204

Insert offset folio 263 here 61206A.205

Insert offset folio 264 here 61206A.206

Insert offset folio 265 here 61206A.207

Insert offset folio 266 here 61206A.208

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 267 here 61206A.209

Insert offset folio 268 here 61206A.210

Insert offset folio 269 here 61206A.211

Insert offset folio 270 here 61206A.212

Insert offset folio 271 here 61206A.213

Insert offset folio 272 here 61206A.214

Insert offset folio 273 here 61206A.215

Insert offset folio 274 here 61206A.216

Insert offset folio 275 here 61206A.217

Insert offset folio 276 here 61206A.218

Insert offset folio 277 here 61206A.219

Insert offset folio 278 here 61206A.220

 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 279 here 61206A.221

Insert offset folio 280 here 61206A.222

Insert offset folio 281 here 61206A.223

Insert offset folio 282 here 61206A.224

Insert offset folio 283 here 61206A.225

Insert offset folio 284 here 61206A.226

Insert offset folio 285 here 61206A.227

Insert offset folio 286 here 61206A.228

Insert offset folio 287 here 61206A.229

Insert offset folio 288 here 61206A.230

Insert offset folio 289 here 61206A.231

Insert offset folio 290 here 61206A.232

Insert offset folio 291 here 61206A.233

 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 292 here 61206A.234

Insert offset folio 293 here 61206A.235

Insert offset folio 294 here 61206A.236

Insert offset folio 295 here 61206A.237

Insert offset folio 296 here 61206A.238

Insert offset folio 297 here 61206A.239

Insert offset folio 298 here 61206A.240

Insert offset folio 299 here 61206A.241

Insert offset folio 300 here 61206A.242

Insert offset folio 301 here 61206A.243

Insert offset folio 302 here 61206A.244

Insert offset folio 303 here 61206A.245

 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 304 here 61206A.246

Insert offset folio 305 here 61206A.247

Insert offset folio 306 here 61206A.248

Insert offset folio 307 here 61206A.249

Insert offset folio 308 here 61206A.250

Insert offset folio 309 here 61206A.251

Insert offset folio 310 here 61206A.252

Insert offset folio 311 here 61206A.253

Insert offset folio 312 here 61206A.254

Insert offset folio 313 here 61206A.255

Insert offset folio 314 here 61206A.256

Insert offset folio 315 here 61206A.257

Insert offset folio 316 here 61206A.258

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 317 here 61206A.259

Insert offset folio 318 here 61206A.260

Insert offset folio 319 here 61206A.261

Insert offset folio 320 here 61206A.262

Insert offset folio 321 here 61206A.263

Insert offset folio 322 here 61206A.264

Insert offset folio 323 here 61206A.265

Insert offset folio 324 here 61206A.266

Insert offset folio 325 here 61206A.267

Insert offset folio 326 here 61206A.268

Insert offset folio 327 here 61206A.269

Insert offset folio 328 here 61206A.270

 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 329 here 61206A.271

Insert offset folio 330 here 61206A.272

Insert offset folio 331 here 61206A.273

Insert offset folio 332 here 61206A.274

Insert offset folio 333 here 61206A.275

Insert offset folio 334 here 61206A.276

Insert offset folio 335 here 61206A.277

Insert offset folio 336 here 61206A.278

Insert offset folio 337 here 61206A.279

Insert offset folio 338 here 61206A.280

Insert offset folio 339 here 61206A.281

Insert offset folio 240 here 61206A.282

Insert offset folio 341 here 61206A.283

 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 342 here 61206A.284

Insert offset folio 343 here 61206A.285

Insert offset folio 344 here 61206A.286

Insert offset folio 345 here 61206A.287

Insert offset folio 346 here 61206A.288

Insert offset folio 347 here 61206A.289

Insert offset folio 348 here 61206A.290

Insert offset folio 349 here 61206A.291

Insert offset folio 350 here 61206A.292

Insert offset folio 351 here 61206A.293

Insert offset folio 352 here 61206A.294

Insert offset folio 353 here 61206A.295

 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 354 here 61206A.296

Insert offset folio 355 here 61206A.297

Insert offset folio 356 here 61206A.298

Insert offset folio 357 here 61206A.299

Insert offset folio 358 here 61206A.300

Insert offset folio 359 here 61206A.301

Insert offset folio 360 here 61206A.302

Insert offset folio 361 here 61206A.303

Insert offset folio 362 here 61206A.304

Insert offset folio 363 here 61206A.305

Insert offset folio 364 here 61206A.306

Insert offset folio 365 here 61206A.307

Insert offset folio 366 here 61206A.308

 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 367 here 61206A.309

Insert offset folio 368 here 61206A.310

Insert offset folio 369 here 61206A.311

Insert offset folio 370 here 61206A.312

Insert offset folio 371 here 61206A.313

Insert offset folio 372 here 61206A.314

Insert offset folio 373 here 61206A.315

Insert offset folio 374 here 61206A.316

Insert offset folio 375 here 61206A.317

Insert offset folio 376 here 61206A.318

Insert offset folio 377 here 61206A.319

Insert offset folio 378 here 61206A.320

 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 379 here 61206A.321

Insert offset folio 380 here 61206A.322

Insert offset folio 381 here 61206A.323

Insert offset folio 382 here 61206A.324

Insert offset folio 383 here 61206A.325

Insert offset folio 384 here 61206A.326

Insert offset folio 385 here 61206A.327

Insert offset folio 386 here 61206A.328

Insert offset folio 387 here 61206A.329

Insert offset folio 388 here 61206A.330

Insert offset folio 389 here 61206A.331

Insert offset folio 390 here 61206A.332

Insert offset folio 391 here 61206A.333

 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 392 here 61206A.334

Insert offset folio 393 here 61206A.335

Insert offset folio 394 here 61206A.336

Insert offset folio 395 here 61206A.337

Insert offset folio 396 here 61206A.338

Insert offset folio 397 here 61206A.339

Insert offset folio 398 here 61206A.340

Insert offset folio 399 here 61206A.341

Insert offset folio 400 here 61206A.342

Insert offset folio 401 here 61206A.343

Insert offset folio 402 here 61206A.344

Insert offset folio 403 here 61206A.345

 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 404 here 61206A.346

Insert offset folio 405 here 61206A.347

Insert offset folio 406 here 61206A.348

Insert offset folio 407 here 61206A.349

Insert offset folio 408 here 61206A.350

Insert offset folio 409 here 61206A.351

Insert offset folio 410 here 61206A.352

Insert offset folio 411 here 61206A.353

Insert offset folio 412 here 61206A.354

Insert offset folio 413 here 61206A.355

Insert offset folio 414 here 61206A.356

Insert offset folio 415 here 61206A.357

Insert offset folio 416 here 61206A.358

 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 417 here 61206A.359

Insert offset folio 418 here 61206A.360

Insert offset folio 419 here 61206A.361

Insert offset folio 420 here 61206A.362

Insert offset folio 421 here 61206A.363

Insert offset folio 422 here 61206A.364

Insert offset folio 423 here 61206A.365

Insert offset folio 424 here 61206A.366

Insert offset folio 425 here 61206A.367

Insert offset folio 426 here 61206A.368

Insert offset folio 427 here 61206A.369

Insert offset folio 428 here 61206A.370

 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 429 here 61206A.371

Insert offset folio 430 here 61206A.372

Insert offset folio 431 here 61206A.373

Insert offset folio 432 here 61206A.374

Insert offset folio 433 here 61206A.375

Insert offset folio 434 here 61206A.376

Insert offset folio 435 here 61206A.377

Insert offset folio 436 here 61206A.378

Insert offset folio 437 here 61206A.379

Insert offset folio 438 here 61206A.380

Insert offset folio 439 here 61206A.381

Insert offset folio 440 here 61206A.382

Insert offset folio 441 here 61206A.383

 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 442 here 61206A.384

Insert offset folio 443 here 61206A.385

Insert offset folio 444 here 61206A.386

Insert offset folio 445 here 61206A.387

Insert offset folio 446 here 61206A.388

Insert offset folio 447 here 61206A.389

Insert offset folio 448 here 61206A.390

Insert offset folio 449 here 61206A.391

Insert offset folio 450 here 61206A.392

Insert offset folio 451 here 61206A.393

Insert offset folio 452 here 61206A.394

Insert offset folio 453 here 61206A.395

 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 454 here 61206A.396

Insert offset folio 455 here 61206A.397

Insert offset folio 456 here 61206A.398

Insert offset folio 457 here 61206A.399

Insert offset folio 458 here 61206A.400

Insert offset folio 459 here 61206A.401

Insert offset folio 460 here 61206A.402

Insert offset folio 461 here 61206A.403

Insert offset folio 462 here 61206A.404

Insert offset folio 463 here 61206A.405

Insert offset folio 464 here 61206A.406

Insert offset folio 465 here 61206A.407

Insert offset folio 466 here 61206A.408

 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 467 here 61206A.409

Insert offset folio 468/700 here 61206A.410

Insert offset folio 02 here 61206A.413

Insert offset folio 03 here 61206A.414

Insert offset folio 04 here 61206A.415

Insert offset folio 05 here 61206A.416

Insert offset folio 06 here 61206A.417

Insert offset folio 07 here 61206A.418

Insert offset folio 08 here 61206A.419

Insert offset folio 09 here 61206A.420

Insert offset folio 010 here 61206A.421

Insert offset folio 011 here 61206A.422

 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 012 here 61206A.423

Insert offset folio 013 here 61206A.424

Insert offset folio 016 here 61206A.427

Insert offset folio 017 here 61206A.428

Insert offset folio 018 here 61206A.429

Insert offset folio 015 here 61206A.426

Insert offset folio 014 here 61206A.425

Insert offset folio 019 here 61206A.430

Insert offset folio 020 here 61206A.431

Insert offset folio 021 here 61206A.432

Insert offset folio 022 here 61206A.433

Insert offset folio 023 here 61206A.434

Insert offset folio 024 here 61206A.435

 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 025 here 61206A.436

Insert offset folio 026 here 61206A.437

Insert offset folio 027 here 61206A.438

Insert offset folio 028 here 61206A.439

Insert offset folio 029 here 61206A.440

Insert offset folio 030 here 61206A.441

Insert offset folio 031 here 61206A.442

Insert offset folio 032 here 61206A.443

Insert offset folio 033 here 61206A.444

Insert offset folio 034 here 61206A.445

Insert offset folio 035 here 61206A.446

Insert offset folio 036 here 61206A.447

 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 037 here 61206A.448

Insert offset folio 038 here 61206A.449

Insert offset folio 039 here 61206A.450

Insert offset folio 040 here 61206A.451

Insert offset folio 041 here 61206A.452

Insert offset folio 042 here 61206A.453

Insert offset folio 043 here 61206A.454

Insert offset folio 044 here 61206A.455

Insert offset folio 045 here 61206A.456

Insert offset folio 046 here 61206A.457

Insert offset folio 047 here 61206A.458

Insert offset folio 048 here 61206A.459

Insert offset folio 049 here 61206A.460

 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 050 here 61206A.461

Insert offset folio 051 here 61206A.462

Insert offset folio 052 here 61206A.463

Insert offset folio 053 here 61206A.464

Insert offset folio 054 here 61206A.465

Insert offset folio 055 here 61206A.466

Insert offset folio 056 here 61206A.467

Insert offset folio 057 here 61206A.468

Insert offset folio 058 here 61206A.469

Insert offset folio 059 here 61206A.470

Insert offset folio 060 here 61206A.471

Insert offset folio 061 here 61206A.472

 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

Insert offset folio 062 here 61206A.473

Insert offset folio 063 here 61206A.474

Insert offset folio 064 here 61206A.475

Insert offset folio 065 here 61206A.476

Insert offset folio 066 here 61206A.477

Insert offset folio 067 here 61206A.478

Insert offset folio 068 here 61206A.479