Superfund Bak

<p><font face="Times New Roman">mac recover 3/18</font>

<font face="Times New Roman"> =</font></p><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/">https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/</a></div><div>
</div><div>kilpatrick ---</div><div>
</div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Comprehensive Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or “Superfund”) imposes strict, joint and several liability on responsible parties for remediation of contaminated properties. </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As compared to other federal environmental programs, the CERCLA program was a significant point of emphasis during the Trump Administration.  <b>Notably, both Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrators, held that a key task of the federal EPA is addressing hazardous waste sites and controlling hazardous substances.  Both Pruitt and Wheeler, during their tenures as head of EPA, prioritized the de-listing or partial de-listing of NPL sites by seeking action through private party settlements and remediation, often concentrating on “brownfields” that were ripe for redevelopment.</b>  In addition, both oversaw the convening of experts in a Superfund Task Force, commissioned to develop improvements and streamline the CERCLA process to obtain better and faster results</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.<a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftn1" name="ftnref1" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[1]</a></span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">However, despite continuing action during the past four years, not all has remained rosy for CERCLA.  The number of unfunded sites continued to increase, resulting in the Biden Administration inheriting </b><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">34 unfunded Superfund sites, the greatest backlog in 15 years</b><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"> This backlog is particularly significant because a  2020 EPA study found that a disproportionate number of people of color lived within three miles of Superfund site. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A 2019 Government Accountability Office report identified 945 Superfund sites that are vulnerable to climate change impacts such as hurricanes, flooding, wildfires and rising sea level, approximately 60% of all Superfund sites.  As a large number of  Superfund sites located near Environmental Justice communities are also  potentially impacted by climate change, they are also ripe for action under the Biden Administration’s climate change and Environmental Justice initiatives.</span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">From its beginning, the Biden Administration has highlighted Environmental Justice as one its highest priorities to address throughout the federal government’s regulatory programs.  On January 21, 2021, it  issued <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government | The White House</a></span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. On April 7, 2021, EPA Administrator Michael Regan issued a memorandum, affirming EPA’s </span><a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/regan-messageoncommitmenttoenvironmentaljustice-april072021.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">Commitment to Environmental Justice</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Among other actions, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has issued a series of </span><a href="https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/environmental-justice-enforcement-and-compliance-assurance-initiative" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">memoranda</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> of how OECA will advance  the agency’s Environmental Justice goals through enforcement tools.   On July 1, 2021, Larry Starfield, Acting Assistant Admistrator of OECA, issued a memorandum regarding.  </span><a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/strengtheningenvirjustice-cleanupenfaction070121.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">Strengthening Environmental Justice Through Cleanup Enforcement Actions (epa.gov)</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> (Memorandum).  The Memorandum prioritizes three areas where OECA’s enforcement tools may be used to address concerns faced by communities overburdened by pollution: (1) Early Action and Expedited Cleanup Actions; (2) Robust Enforcement and Oversight; and (3) Increased and Enhanced Community Engagement.</span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">Early Action and Expedited Cleanup Activities. </p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b>The Memorandum recommends that EPA should act to speed the response to hazardous substances in communities overburdened by pollution</b>.  This could include utilizing CERCLA §106 or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) § 703 orders seeking an injunction or other action, including orders for interim relief for acute threats, if EPA finds an actual or threatened release that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.  In less “emergency” situations, the Memorandum recommends several actions to expedite cleanups including speeding up (or bifurcating) the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) negotiations and limit the time of such negotiation to one year, with the possibility of issuance of unilateral administrative orders when negotiations fail or do not result in a timely settlement.  The Memorandum recommends involving Regional Counsel when a potentially responsible party (PRP) requests extensions or misses deadlines; however, notably, the Memorandum does not highlight delays that are often caused by EPA.   Anyone who has been involved in the negotiation and evaluation of CERCLA agreements, assessment, remedial design or remedial action has experienced  long delays caused by  EPA’s review and approval process despite the private party’s attempts to move the process along. It may take more than this Memorandum to significantly accelerate EPA’s standard review practices.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">Robust Enforcement and Oversight.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">The “robust” enforcement and oversight component of the Memorandum focuses on both EPA oversight and a new emphasis on community “involvement” in enforcement.  First, the Memorandum recommends increased oversight of a potentially responsible party’s compliance with a Consent Decree or other enforcement instrument when “overburdened communities may be adversely impacted by noncompliance.”  This oversight may include increased compliance reviews, including assurance that institutional controls are in place and monitored on a regular basis and determination whether the institutional controls are having the intended effect or if new institutional controls are needed.  With regard to increased community involvement in enforcement, the suggested measures focus on the potential need to address “unintended adverse impacts”  on overburdened communities such as odor, dust, traffic or noise.  EPA recommends further evaluation to see if the actions implementing the remedy are having or could have unintended adverse impacts on a community and, if so, whether enforceable language should be included in the Consent Decree or other agreement to minimize such adverse impacts. Interestingly, EPA hints that it may require the inclusion of a “Supplemental Environmental Project” in  Consent Decrees or other agreements, stating that EPA should “consider inclusion of provisions in settlements or agreements that provide for the performance of a specified project in the event of noncompliance with the Consent Decree or other enforcement instrument.<a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftn2" name="ftnref2" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[2]</a>  The Memorandum also suggests that “advanced monitoring equipment” may be needed to demonstrate compliance with remedial goals and that information, along with a detailed schedule of compliance obligation, should be provided to the impacted community.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b>Community Outreach. </b></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">The Memorandum encourages EPA to engage the impacted community in a “proactive, transparent and consistent manner” throughout the cleanup and enforcement process to build trust in an impacted community.  Most of the recommendations in the memorandum are common sense and consistent with best practices for engaging with a community. The Memorandum recommends better communication with affected  communities by improving the accessibility and effectiveness of the communications about remediation activities.  EPA should ensure that it is sharing information with the community in language and a format that is designed for the specific community and should convey site specific information and the benefits of the remedial actions at the site as well as the responsible party’s compliance status. The Memorandum also suggests increased involvement of EPA attorneys with regard to community involvement, including attending public meetings to better understand community needs and concerns and address those concerns in the enforcement instruments with PRPs.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So what does all this mean? </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Maybe a lot or maybe very little in practice. EPA may want to consider the following.</span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">First, most of the announced policies already exist in EPA’s playbook. Further, expedition and focus on CERCLA cleanups has been a key goal of EPA for the last four years.  EPA may simply need to rigorously implement their current policies generally and that effort will capture improvements in Environmental Justice responses across the country.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">Second, delays in CERCLA response actions arise from many considerations.  One not uncommon cause of delay is the time that EPA, or more frequently EPA’s contractor, takes to act at a particular site. The Memorandum provides no recourse for affected communities or private parties to challenge the government’s pace of action.  The policy does recognize this delay with respect to federal facilities, but not sites where EPA has the lead. Further, it is also true that EPA often is slow to act because EPA staff is overburdened with obligations. The Memorandum does not reflect new budget or staffing decisions to address these issues. Finally, science-based decisions require comprehensive and defensible data -- the Memorandum makes no mention or suggests no alternatives to collecting, analyzing, sharing and seeking peer reviewed decisions based upon the science. Importantly, Environmental Justice schedules should respect the science first.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">Third, the Memorandum seems to suggest that they are making these policies up de novo when many relevant state cleanup programs already have been up and running for years. For example, in Massachusetts the state’s cleanup program has for years had a vigorous public involvement program for communities to be informed about and participate in cleanup decisions.<a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftn3" name="ftnref3" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[3]</a>  EPA should seek to adopt best practices from around the country rather than re-inventing new wheels.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;">Fourth, while Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) may indeed provide useful alternatives for actions at particular sites, there must still be a nexus between the SEP and the CERCLA release that is being addressed. Notably, SEP review and approval at EPA’s Regional offices has not, in the past, necessarily proved to be an efficient and prompt process. Once EPA works out the mentioned legal challenge to SEPs, resolving those pre-existing impediments are likely to provide the most relief for overburdened communities.</p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; margin-top: 0px; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><b>It is certainly a good thing if EPA is adopting a sense of urgency in implementing its obligations under CERCLA to address threats to human health and the environment. It has all of the necessary tools already at its command. Let’s see how it goes.</b></p><div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 18px; letter-spacing: 0.2px; font-family: georgia, serif; color: rgb(41, 41, 41); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.618em !important;"><hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 0px; overflow: visible;" /><div id="ftn1" style="box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.2px; line-height: 1.618em !important;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.2px; margin-top: 0px; line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftnref1" name="ftn1" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[1]</a> The Task Force evaluation resulted in a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20412972-2017-superfund_task_force-recommendations-report" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">2017 Recommendations Report</a> with five priorities:  (1) expediting remediation; (2) invigorating responsible party cleanup and reuse; (3) encouraging private party investment; (4) promoting redevelopment and community revitalization; and (5) engaging partners and stakeholders.  The Trump Administration appeared to take many of these recommendations to heart, prioritizing, remediating and delisting over 50 sites, entering into aggressive settlements with private parties to fund the work. </p></div><div id="ftn2" style="box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.2px; line-height: 1.618em !important;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.2px; margin-top: 0px; line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftnref2" name="ftn2" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[2]</a> EPA notes that such a provision may be limited by current DOJ policies and a regulation that are now under review at the Department of Justice.</p></div><div id="ftn3" style="box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.2px; line-height: 1.618em !important;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.2px; margin-top: 0px; line-height: 1.618em !important; margin-bottom: 1em !important;"><a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cercla-epa-sharpens-cercla-enforcement-5859476/#ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none !important; color: rgb(27, 81, 124) !important;">[3]</a> See 310 CMR 40.1400 : Public Involvement- General Approach.</p></div></div></div><div>===</div>

<p><font face="Times New Roman">===

superfund regs led to frack water fail?

CF Correction: epa blew frack call b/c bound by superfund regs? nb desmog role

Back in 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a startling announcement, shaking up the battle over fracking in one of the nation’s highest-profile cases where drillers were suspected to have caused water contamination.

Water testing results were in for homeowners along Carter Road in Dimock, Pennsylvania, where for years, homeowners reported their water had turned brown, became flammable or started clogging their well with “black greasy feeling sediment” after Cabot Oil and Gas began drilling in the area. The EPA seemed to conclude the water wasn’t so bad after all.

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action,” EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a press release.

The drilling industry crowed. “The data released today once again confirms the EPA’s and DEP’s [Department of Environmental Protection] findings that levels of contaminants found do not possess a threat to human health and the environment,” Cabot said in a statement.

“It’s obviously very good news for the folks who actually live there and pretty squarely in line with what we’ve known up there for a while now,” Energy in Depth told POLITICOPro. “It’s not very good news for the out-of-state folks who have sought to use Dimock as a talking point in their efforts to prevent development elsewhere, but I’m sure they’ll be working hard over the weekend to spin it differently, notwithstanding the pretty clear statement made by EPA today.”

Now, a newly published report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR), part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), puts EPA’s testing results into an entirely new light.

The water was not safe to drink after all, the ATSDR concluded, after a lengthy review of the same water testing results that EPA used back in 2012.

“ATSDR found some of the chemicals in the private water wells at this site at levels high enough to affect health (27 private water wells), pose a physical hazard (17 private water wells) or affect general water quality so that it may be unsuitable for drinking,” the ATSDR’s health consultation—launched in 2011 and published May 24—concludes.

The new report lists 10 contaminants, including arsenic, lithium and 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether, that are “chemicals of health concern,” at the levels found in Carter Road wells, found that five homes were at “immediate risk of fire or explosion” because of methane in their water and another dozen showed lower, but still worrisome, levels of methane and found that the water was laced with elevated levels of metals, salts and total dissolved solids.

The underlying data isn’t new to the residents of Carter Road. The EPA provided it to them individually back in 2012, which is why the EPA’s announcement that the water was safe was so baffling at the time.

“I’m sitting here looking at the values I have on my sheet—I’m over the thresholds—and yet they are telling me my water is drinkable,” Nolan Scott Ely, one of the Carter Road homeowners, told ProPublica when EPA made its announcement. “I’m confused about the whole thing … I’m flabbergasted.”

Opposite Conclusions?

So how could two different agencies look at the exact same data and come to opposite conclusions?

“Although the same data set was used, the EPA as a regulatory agency specifically looked at whether or not it was required to take action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly known as Superfund, which governs responses to environmental emergencies,” StateImpact, a National Public Radio project, explained. “The ‘health consultation’ looked at the entire data set from a public health standpoint, assessing whether or not it was safe to drink the water.”

In other words, EPA’s findings, which seemed to show that the water was “safe” and which were promoted by drillers as proof that nothing was wrong in Dimock, instead represented a very carefully parsed legal finding that the water did not reach Superfund levels of contamination for the specific substances EPA focused on.

And the EPA’s 2012 findings had left out some of the very contaminants that had caused locals the most concern—including the natural gas or methane, itself. “EPA’s investigation does not include an evaluation of the risk posed by elevated levels of methane—which continue to exist in some homes in Dimock—and which, at extreme levels and if unaddressed, can lead to explosions,” Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney Kate Sinding wrote in a blog post at the time.

The EPA’s strained official interpretation of the data perhaps shows why EPA staff remained concerned even after the agency dropped its Dimock investigation in July 2012, just months after its testing results had been announced in March and April.

In 2013, a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that EPA’s own staff had disagreed with the agency’s public statements that the water shouldn’t be considered hazardous. An internal EPA Powerpoint presentation, later obtained and published by DeSmog, showed that agency scientists had concluded that the drilling and fracking process “apparently cause significant damage to the water quality.”

The ATSDR’s new report very specifically notes that it does not look at whether the water hazards stem from drilling or pre-date Cabot’s arrival in the area. In part, that’s because of a lack of pre-drilling testing for gas and other common fracking-related chemicals in the water. “It is important to note that methane was not assessed in residential water wells prior to the initiation of natural gas drilling activities in the Dimock area,” the ATSDR wrote.

Cabot Oil and Gas emphasized their belief that methane in the water was “naturally occurring” and pre-dated their arrival in a statement provided to StateImpact. “This data is consistent with thousands of pages of water data collected by both Cabot and the Pennsylvania DEP and does not indicate that those contaminants detected have any relationship to oil and gas development in Dimock,” Cabot said.

The ATSDR report does often note when substances discovered in the Carter Road water are known to be associated with hydraulic fracturing or drilling industry activities, but does not reach any conclusions about whether the chemicals came from Cabot’s operations.

“It’s not their job to look at who caused whatever contamination there is,” Bryce Payne, a Pennsylvania environmental scientist, told E&E News. “It’s their job to see if there are health implications. They did that and concluded there are health implications.”

The new report is also limited to data from four years ago—and conditions have changed, the ATSDR noted, in part because a state moratorium on fracking along Carter Road was briefly lifted after the EPA dropped its investigation and locals quickly reported more changes to their water, including higher levels of methane.

Cabot Oil Settles

In August 2012—right around the time that EPA abandoned its investigation—Cabot Oil and Gas announced it had settled the vast majority of lawsuits against it by Carter Road residents for an undisclosed amount of money and under terms that barred the plaintiffs from speaking negatively about their experiences with the company.

This March, a federal jury handed down a $4.24 million verdict to the remaining two Carter Road families, concluding that the water was in fact contaminated because of the negligence of the drilling company. Cabot has begun the process of appealing that verdict.

But while the legal filings and agency reports continue to stack up, the problem on Carter Road remains the same as it has for many years now.

While those who settled with Cabot had water treatment systems installed by the company, locals familiar with those systems say that even the treated water seems too contaminated to drink and the water treatment systems break down frequently.

The ATSDR’s report provides recommendations that water should have been treated to address dangerous contamination levels—but those recommendations are not binding and the agency noted that while the state government collected samples more recently, the ATSDR did not have access to the newer data.

Community organizers are still calling for the federal government to resume an active role, arguing that the groundwater remains undrinkable.

“We’re demanding that they reopen the investigation,” Craig Stevens, a local organizer, toldDeSmog after the March verdict was announced, “and also get water to these people.”

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/03/dimock-water-unsafe-fracking/

===

11-H2997 on Sep 21, 2011

Bill Sponsorship: Superfund Common Sense Act  Source: H2997/S1729  Congressional Summary:Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to exclude manure from the definition of "hazardous substance" and "pollutant or contaminant" for purposes of such Act. Defines "manure" to mean:

digestive emissions, feces, urine, urea and other excrement from livestock;
any associated bedding, compost, raw materials or other materials commingled with such excrement from livestock;
any process water associated with such items; and
any byproducts, constituents, or substances contained in, or originating from, such items or any emissions relating to such items.

Amends the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to exempt from notification requirements releases associated with manure.

Opponent's Comments (Jim Ruen on AgProfessional.com, Oct. 3, 2011): Since when can a fertilizer dealer operate without concern for environmental regulation and impact? Let's face it, we aren't talking about Ma and Pa Kettle with their six milk cows and three sows here spreading a load of manure on the back 40. We are talking about CAFO units with thousands of animals and tens of thousands or more tons/gallons of manure. While a few maybe spreading on their own land, most are selling it to area farmers. At a time when fertilizer dealers and companies have to be conspicuously careful with how they handle product, why shouldn't mega-livestock operators be equally regulated as they sell their "waste" product for its nutrient and soil building value. Since when do commercial N, P and K producers or handlers get a free ride from the EPA...or Congress?

 </font>

• Topic: Environment

• Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous

• Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous   Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.

• Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)

• Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)

• AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?

◦ A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity

◦ B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected

◦ C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity

◦ D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected

◦ E: Unsure

J. Steven Griles served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior from 2001 until resigning in 2004. In 2004, the DOI’s own inspector general called Griles a “train wreck waiting to happen.” Prior to joining the Bush administration, Griles was a coal industry lobbyist. Griles was the highest ranking member of the Bush administration to be sent to prison during the Abramoff scandal. He was sentenced to a ten months imprisonment after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice. Days after his guilty plea, he would marry his DOI subordinate Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who was part of an ethics scandal involving the purchase of a home with ConocoPhillips lobbyist. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Griles served in the Reagan administration’s DOI then became a coal industry lobbyist with National Environmental Strategies, Inc. Griles continued receiving payment of $284,000 a year from the coal lobbying firm as he served as DOI Deputy Secretary. While at the DOI, he arranged multiple meetings with former oil and gas industry clients and even awarded $2 million in federal contracts to a former client. Griles advised Jack Abramoff on using members of Congress to pressure the DOI and gave him information on internal decision making within the agency. Before his conviction, Griles left the White House to become a lobbyist for ConocoPhillips.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">Sue Ellen Wooldridge

Deputy Chief of Staff for Sec. Gale Norton

• Purchased $980,000 home with J. Steven Griles and a ConocoPhillips lobbyist.

• Delayed $500 million pollution cleanup for ConocoPhillips.</font>

Sue Ellen Wooldridge was the Deputy Chief of Staff for DOI Secretary Gale Norton. During her time at DOI where she provided the agency with ethics advice, Wooldridge became romantically involved with J. Steven Griles. Wooldridge went on to the Department of Justice as an attorney in charge of environmental and natural resources. Wooldridge and her romantic partner and once-superior Griles purchased a $980,000 home in March 2006 in South Carolina along with a third buyer: Don R. Duncan, a lobbyist for ConoPhillips. Less than a year after the three purchased the home, Wooldridge delayed $500 million pollution cleanup of a superfund site run by ConocoPhillips. Three days after Griles plead guilty, Wooldridge and he were married.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">http://thinkprogress.org/report/interior-scandals-under-bush/

RFK: Superfund has gone bankrupt. The Superfund itself, which was raised through a small tax on the chemical and oil industry, was used to clean up orphaned sites -- sites where the responsible party could not be found. But more importantly, it was used to leverage recalcitrant polluters to clean up their own sites, because Superfund includes a triple-damages provision. That gives the EPA power, when a polluter drags its feet, to say to the polluter, “Okay, we’re going to clean up the site ourselves, and then we’re going to charge you triple.” And 90 percent of the Superfund sites that have been cleaned up in America have been cleaned up as a result of that threat. Without that threat, Superfund just becomes a welfare program for corporate lawyers, who can argue forever and ever about who’s responsible and what kind of cleanup should result. So today, with Superfund bankrupt, you’re not going to see many Superfund sites really cleaned up. And if they are cleaned up, it’ll be with taxpayer money, which is absurdly unjust.

rfk2: B2 admin 

took pwer from states to limit offshore drill,   

b2 refused to support Superfund

(hid as reform) but 1:4 Us ppl live near one 112  10c bbl cheap b/c excluded from

liability under cost recovery 112 normally epa can clean site then charge 3x to

polluter, so big leverage ; w/o tax, no cleanup; oct 03 fund went bankrupt, so cost

shifted to public.

---

DC called himself a "pretty good environmentalist"  got rid of superfund (1 in 4 am live within bike ride from site that was blocked/orphaned?) 31, shift burden to us; cut value of human life by 1/3; cut protection of 1/10 by declaring not wetland and ___  

---

strat ignor: 

B2 got rid of superfund (i in 4 am live within bike rid from site that was blocked/orphaned?) 31, shift burden to us; cut value of human life by 1/3; cut protection of 1/10 by declaring not wetland and _ strat ignor

DC once sorta ok on green, but only 1 of 16 ~ ESA; 1 of 26 suppoprt RR ~ Clean water act; ~ superfund, safe drink act; ~ cit suit ~ chem 50

Norton: lead co lobbyist (superfund); prop rights maybe homesteader get right to pollute and make noise; slavery got bad rap; colo AG

Sansonetti corp law in Wyo for extraction ~ superfund then coal lobbyist peabodt and arch etc; pal of DC; rep mining ind ~ Clean air act, promised to uphold in confim hearings but no 56

cafo killed billion fish 1991 in NCaro; aftr Hurr Floyd kiled 30k hods and spread sludge, epa cleaning up, than b2 granted immun from CWA, CAA and superfund in ret for small # to vol mon

SUPERFUND 2K LISTED, 840 CLEANED on track to be done in 15 yrs; 1993 broad consensus on streamline incl CoC, but gop filibuster scuttled b/c no wins before 94 election; then let funding src run out from co. so taxpayers had to pick up.

40-50's Hooker chem dumped 352 mill pounds of haz waste into Love canal [nb gmu guy referred to as mythical?]

DC as sen voted against cit right to sue chemical; haliburton Supefund in MIssouri

partially treated sewage cd be blended and put in rivers; then untreated radioactive waste; 2003 1st time since CWA pollut worse 205

by 1980 mil and dept energy biggest polluters some of

CEI lost on arsenic but won on superfund 227

18B waste in farm bill cd be used to help sm farmers and clean up

req US co in Mex to use US green std  strategic irnorance

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Michigan

What is Superfund?

Superfund is the name given to the environmental program established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA statute, CERCLA overview). This law was enacted in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Times Beach in the 1970s. It allows the EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-lead cleanups.

How Superfund Works

The Superfund cleanup process is complex. It involves the steps taken to assess sites, place them on the National Priorities List, and establish and implement appropriate cleanup plans. This is the long-term cleanup process. In addition, the Agency has the authority

• to conduct removal actions where immediate action needs to be taken;

• to enforce against potentially responsible parties;

• to ensure community involvement;

• involve states;

• and ensure long-term protectiveness.

The blueprint for these activities is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), a regulation applicable to all federal agencies involved in responding to hazardous substance releases.

Over the past 20+ years, we've located and analyzed tens of thousands of hazardous waste sites, protected people and the environment from contamination at the worst sites, and involved others in cleanup.

Who Implements Superfund

EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) in Washington, D.C. oversees the Superfund program. The Office of Emergency Management within OSWER is responsible for short term responses conducted under the authority of Superfund. The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, and the Federal Facilities Response and Reuse Office, also within OSWER, have the lead for managing the long-term Superfund response program, the latter for responses involving Federal Facilities. In addition, OSWER manages the federal Brownfields program.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

wiki

Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a United States federal law designed to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances.[1] Superfund created the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and it provides broad federal authority to clean up releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The law authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, the Agency is authorized to clean up sites itself, using a special trust fund.

Contents

[hide]

• 1 History

• 2 Provisions

• 3 Procedures

• 4 Implementation

• 5 Accessing Superfund data

• 6 See also

• 7 References

• 8 External links

[edit] History

CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 in response to the threat of hazardous waste sites, typified by the Love Canal disaster in New York, and the Valley of the Drums in Kentucky.[2]

The EPA published the first Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in 1981, and the first National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982.[3] The implementation during early years has been criticized as being ineffective due to the Reagan administration's laissez-faire policies. During his two terms, 16 of the 799 Superfund sites were cleaned up, and $40 million of $700 million in recoverable funds from responsible parties were collected.[4]

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), made several important changes and additions to CERCLA including increasing the funding of Superfund to $8.5 billion and providing for studies and the use of new technologies.[5]

In 1994, the Clinton administration proposed a new Superfund reform bill, which was seen as an improvement to existing legislation by some environmentalists and industry lobbyists. However, the effort was unable to gain bipartisan support.[6] Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle, and Congress yielded to corporate pressure.[7]

[edit] Provisions

CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:

Removal actions. These are typically short-term response actions, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. Removal actions are classified as: (1) emergency; (2) time-critical; and (3) non-time critical. Removal responses are generally used to address localized risks such as abandoned drums containing hazardous substances, and contaminated surface soils posing acute risks to human health or the environment.[8]
Remedial actions. These are usually long-term response actions. Remedial actions seek to permanently and significantly reduce the risks associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances which are serious, but lack the time-criticality of removal actions, and include such measures as preventing the migration of pollutants and neutralizing toxic substances. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) in the United States and the territories.[9]

A potentially responsible party (PRP) is a possible polluter who may eventually be held liable under CERCLA for the contamination or misuse of a particular property or resource. Four classes of PRPs may be liable for contamination at a Superfund site:

the current owner or operator of the site;[10]
the owner or operator of a site at the time that disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant occurred;[11]
a person who arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at a site;[12] and
a person who transported a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant to a site, who also has selected that site for the disposal of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants.[13]

The CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).[14] The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the NPL. The NPL, which appears as Appendix B to the NCP, primarily serves as an information and management tool for the EPA, and helps the EPA prioritize sites for cleanup. The NPL is updated periodically.

The identification of a site for the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in:

• determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of the risks to the human health and environment;

• identifying what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate;

• notifying the public of sites which EPA believes warrant further investigation; and

• notifying PRPs that EPA may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.

Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself require PRPs to initiate action to clean up the site, nor does it assign liability to any person. The NPL serves primarily informational purposes, notifying the government and the public of those sites or releases that appear to warrant remedial actions.

Despite the name, the Superfund trust fund lacks sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of the sites on the NPL. As a result, the government will typically order PRPs to clean up the site themselves.[15] If a party fails to comply with such an order, it may be fined up to $25,000 for each day that non-compliance continues. A party that spends money to clean up a site may sue certain other PRPs under the CERCLA.[16] A related provision allows a party that has reimbursed another party's response costs to seek contribution from other PRPs, during or after the original lawsuit. An "orphan share" is the share of waste at a Superfund site that cannot be collected because the PRP is either unidentifiable or insolvent.[17]

[edit] Procedures

Map of Superfund sites in the contiguous United States. Red indicates currently on final National Priority List, yellow is proposed, green is deleted (usually meaning having been cleaned up). This map is as of March 2010.

Upon notification of a potentially hazardous waste site, the EPA conducts a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) which involves records reviews, interviews, visual inspections, and limited field sampling.[18] Information from the PA/SI is used by the EPA to develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score to determine the CERCLA status of the site.[19] Sites that score high enough to qualify for the full program then proceed to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI includes an extensive sampling program and risk assessment in order to define the extent of the site contamination and risks. The FS is used to develop and evaluate various remediation alternatives. The preferred alternative is presented in a Proposed Plan for public review and comment. The selected alternative is approved in a Record of Decision (ROD). The site then enters into a Remedial Design phase and then the Remedial Action phase. Many sites include Long-Term Monitoring and 5-year reviews once the Remedial Action has been completed.

...

As of November 29, 2010, there are currently 1,280 sites listed on the National Priority List, an additional 347 have been delisted, and 62 new sites have been proposed.[23]

Approximately 70 percent of Superfund cleanup activities historically have been paid for by parties responsible (PRPs) for the cleanup of contamination. The only time cleanup costs are not borne by the responsible party is when that party either cannot be found or is unable to pay for the cleanup. For those sites, the Superfund law originally paid for toxic waste cleanups through a tax on petroleum and chemical industries. The chemical and petroleum fees were intended to provide incentives to use less toxic substances. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected, and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The last full fiscal year in which the Department of the Treasury collected the tax was FY1995. At the end of FY1996, the invested trust fund balance was $6.0 billion. This fund was exhausted by the end of FY2003; since that time funding for these orphan shares has been appropriated by Congress out of general revenues.[24]

----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Minnesota

koch, fmc

===

sci corrupt

Love Canal at Niagra Falls

1977 Nov: This was an unfinished canal had become an industrial waste site which leaked chemicals whenever it rained. It had been given to the New York Education Department, which had then sold various parts of it as housing estates. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    After 30 years of indiscriminate dumping and regular reports of seepages and odours, a local reporter began an investigation of possible links between the contamination and resident illnesses. In 1976 toxicology consultants (Calspan Corp. — an ex-Defence-related general lab group associated with Cornell University) reported serious contamination by dioxins, and this fired up local Congressman LaFalce, who turned up at the site with the Environmenal Protection Agency in tow. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    The EPA tested air in basements, and the New York State Health and Environmental personnel sampled sump pumps and storm sewers. Love Canal citizens organised themselves into three large resident's organisations, and began to lobby for remedial action or relocation. [833 families were eventually relocated] </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    In March 1978 the New York health authorities ordered human testing of blood, and a committee of physicians recommended drastic measures. The Governor declaring a State health emergency, closed the school, etc. Over the next years the EPA and New York health authorities expanded their area of concern to 36 residential blocks, and the Congress became involved in Joint Hearings when chromasomal damage was reported. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    This landmark case led, in the last days of the Carter Administration (1980), to passage of the Superfund (CERCLA) laws. These laws required polluting industries to jointly pay to clean up their own mess and they also set aside government funds for sites where it was impossible to identify the culprits. However it took five years of lax Reagan-Repubican administration before the ATSDR (the agency charged with enforcing these rules) to be funded.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">[Love Canal land was later remediated as a new suburb with a new name] 

1980: The Superfund Compromise is being floated, This was (initially) a proposal to limit the number of hazardous waste sites that would be cleaned up, but it was amended out of recognition because of public hostility. A Bill extending the Compromise was only passed in Aug 1986 after five years of long and bitter inactivity during (Reagan's First term) See legal outline 

      Only six dumps were cleaned up during the first five years of Superfund, and it went into limbo after September 30 1985 when its revenue sources dried up, The new compromise became a Bill for Renewal, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to identify for future action 1,600 of the nation's worst sites by 1988. [The agency's national priority list was about half that size.]       The compromise bill also gave citizens living near toxic sites the right to sue polluters to force a cleanup if EPA is not acting against a dump and to require chemical companies to inform communities about emissions of ''acute hazards'' from their plants.]

See US News & World Report article from the 1980s. 

...

1980 Nov: Ronald Reagan is President Elect.   President Carter's "Superfund" clean up legislation [ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)] was enacted during the Reagan transition period. It provided for an initial $1.6 billion Superfund.       However the Reagan Administration during 1981 and 1983 tried to load more of these costs back on the industries that had caused the problems in order to balance the Federal Budget. The Administration also delayed the funding of the regulatory agency (ATSDR) which would have Superfund oversight.       CERCLA gave EPA primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, but the Act also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) under the Department of Public Health...

to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances.

However deregulating zealots now controlled all of the political positions in the Reagan White House, and at the main agencies. So nothing happened in real terms until a crisis developed in mid 1983.

...

   One of Carlo's puff pieces says about this period:

He was integral in writing the enabling legislation that established theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services, a primary group addressing the effects of environmental contaminants.

These ATSDR laws passed in 1980, but were suppressed during most of the first Reagan term between 1981 and 1983 — so nothing much happened at this time.       Only in the approach to Reagan's second term — after the Secretary of the Interior James Watt had been fired, and the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch (Burford) and twenty of her top staff had been forced to resign over non-enforcement scandals — did the Reagan administration take this problem seriously.   [ As an Assistant Professor in Arkansas, Carlo does not register in the dioxin literature from this period, so his claim to have written the ATSDR legislation is dubious... to say the least]

CDC on Toxic Exposure Prevention    ATSDR on dioxins

The scandals of a do-nothing Reagan EPA culminated in the weeks 9-to-25 March 1983 with the resignation of administrator Anne Gorsuch-Burford, John A Todhunter (over dioxins), John Hernandez (over lead), Rita Lavelle (Superfund cleanup), Robert M Perry (General Counsel), and 15 other high-ranking EPA officials; "Taking the axe for the Reagan Administration".</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">1983 Mar 25: Following the March 25 1983 resignation of the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford the EPA became paralysed by on-going scandals. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    The first term of the Reagan Presidency was consumed by public rage at the lack of any reasonable regulatory activity by the Federal Government agencies, mostly because they were stimied by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was part of the White House's Office of Managment & Budget (OMB). </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    Over this five-to-six year period, a group of about 20 top EPA officials were forced to progressively resign... mostly because they sought to block measures to clean up toxic waste dumps under the Superfund laws, but some through obvious corporate bribery.

[The OIRA was run by Jim Tozzi who excelled in blocking any meaningful regulatory activity by the main agencies. Tozzi later helped establish the lobby group MBS /Federal Focus Inc, and in the 1990s he joined forces with Thorne Auchter andGeorge Carlo in a number of ventures for Philip Morris and the cellphone industry. Tozzi's staff at the OIRA also left the White House at the end of the Reagan Presidency to set up the EOP Group, which lobbied for the tobacco and chemical industries withSteve Milloy and Bonner Cohen (both associates of Carlo also).]</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">1983 April 19: While the 1980 CERCLA Act gave Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, it also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">    After two years of Reagan Administration stalling, the ATSDR was created as an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services on April 19, 1983 </font>

Reagan Administration regulatory resignations

• James G Watt the Secretary of the Interior (resigned Nov 1983)

• Anne Gorsuch Burford the head of the EPA (resigned Mar 1983)

• Thorne Auchter the Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), — later both Tozzi and Carlo's partner (resigned Mar 1984)

• Jim Tozzi the head of the Reagan White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB/OIRA), — both an Auchter and a Carlo partner — (resigned May 1983)

• Rita Lavelle, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (ie Superfund). She was jailed in 1984 for perjury during a Congress hearing into corruption in her agency division.

• John Todhunter, EPA Administrator and Head of Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (fired in 1983)

• Eighteen others were forced to, or chose to, resign.

Four young budget examiners working for Tozzi in the OMB.OIRA's environmental branch also chose to leave shortly after (during the Bush Administration). </font>

<font face="Times New Roman">The creation of the EOP Group lobbyfirm:

[In White House-speak EOP = Executive Office of the President]</font>

<font face="Times New Roman">Michael O'Bannon and Ernest Robson initially joined Tozzi's lobby shop (MBS), but they left in 1992. Later they joined with Joseph Hezir, David Gibbons and Assistant Secretary of Energy, Jan Mares, to open the EOP Group — the only lobby firm besides Tozzi's to specialize in lobbying the OMB.

• Michael O'Bannon - from Dept of Interior and OIRA (joined Tozzi in MBS, then left to manage the EOP Group)

• Ernest Robins - OIRA (joined Tozzi's MBS and then the EOP Group)

• Joseph Hezir - OMB/OIRA (joined EOP Group)

• David Gibbons - OIRA (joined EOP Group)

• Jan Mares - Assistant Secretary of Energy, - (brought in later to front the EOP Group)

• Jonathon Gledhill - OMB & OIRA (later joined EOP Group)

--</font></p>