Passaic River Superfund Community Advisory Group Monthly Meeting

Passaic River Superfund Community Advisory Group Monthly Meeting Thursday January 12, 2012 6 PM - 9 PM St. James Church Rear Parking lot at the corner of Madison and Elm

Draft Agenda

6:00 PM Agenda Review, Introductions

6:15 PM Project Updates and Discussion  Phase 1 removal  Lower 8 mile modeling  CPG activities

6:45 PM Discussion of the CAG Consensus-Building Process

7:00 PM Overview of Decisions and Decision Process for Lower 8 Miles

7:15 PM Discuss CAG Approach for Developing Input on the Lower 8 Mile  General discussion  Should we weigh in on each of these five areas, what kinds of specific input and at what level of detail do we expect to provide for each? What additional information or speakers do we anticipate in order to provide meaningful input?  Does the proposed order of decisions make sense for CAG discussion and deliberation?  Should we create a subcommittee to support this activity?  What other activities or actions are needed in support of this process?

8:30 PM Wrap-up and Review of Action Items

8:45 PM Adjourn

Next Meetings: Thursday, February 9 Thursday, March 8 Passaic River Superfund Community Advisory Group Reaching Consensus

The CAG is a consensus-based organization, we will seek to find common ground and provide EPA with generally agreed recommendations wherever possible.

What is Consensus? Consensus means general agreement, it does not necessarily mean unanimity. For the purposes of CAG conversations, we will try to find those ideas, values, and choices that everyone can support. This does not mean that everyone will be thrilled with the outcome or it will be their very first choice, but that it represents the best balance of interests and protects the community values.

What Happens When We Can’t Reach Consensus? In most cases where consensus is not possible, it means that one or a few members simply cannot live with the generally-agreed solution or recommendations. In such cases, a minority opinion can be added to any communication or recommendation that moves forward to EPA. In cases where there is no identified agreement at all, then the CAG can provide an overview of all the concerns and issues of the CAG members and recognize that there is no clear community direction on the issue. Of course, CAG members are always free to provide input and recommendations to EPA directly as individuals or as part of other groups they represent.

What is the Process for Exploring Consensus? Agreement is not easy and it takes time. Good agreement processes rely on several factors and activities and conducting dialogue in a logical order:  A clear understanding of the challenge to be addressed  Comprehensive and trusted information  Asking the right questions and clearly framing the intent of the group product  In-depth dialogue to explore issues, concerns, preferences, and priorities of the group without immediate bias toward a solution  Developing values and criteria that are essential to any solution  Exploring and building possible solutions together to identify those that best meet the groups values and criteria.

How Will the CAG Proceed? Step 1. Scope of Input. Identify the level of expected detail for CAG input on each of the five decisions Step 2. Criteria. Discuss each decision in detail using CAG values as a guide to understand issues, concerns, preferences, and priorities of the CAG and prepare a consensus document on resulting CAG criteria prior to making any specific choices regarding the final decision. Identify any minority views. Step 3. Detailed Recommendations. Discuss and evaluate available choices against criteria and identify best fits and/or key reservations about available choices. Passaic River Superfund Community Advisory Group Key Decisions and Issues to be Considered in the Passaic River Lower 8 Mile Cleanup, Draft, 1/11/11

The Decisions to be Made:

Decision 1. Extent and volume of sediment to address Choices will include cleanup of hot spots or specific areas of contamination up to edge- to-edge scope.

Decision 2. Dredging vs. capping The remedy could include either or some combination of these two. This will likely be done in combination with extent and volume determinations.

Decision 3. Capping technologies employed, if selected A type of cap will need to be identified. More than one type of capping may well be used to match different river conditions.

Decision 4. Treatment technologies employed, if selected Treatment of material removed from the river can be important in reducing toxicity and the volume of material requiring disposal. It might also create materials that can be reused in a productive way. More than one type of treatment could be employed. Key choices associated with treatment decisions include:  What type of treatments to select, multiple treatment processes could be used  Siting of any local treatment facility  Transportation of materials to treatment facility (rail, truck, pipeline, barge)  Potential for reuse of materials

Decision 5. Disposal type and location Even if treatment is selected. there will almost certainly be large amounts of residues that require disposal, it is unlikely that everything will be able to be reused or clean enough for free release. Key choices associated with disposal decisions include:  What material goes where, different streams of material may go to different types of disposal  Land Disposal vs. Water Disposal  If water disposal: type, size, location of facility  If land disposal: existing facility vs. new local site-specific facility implications (environmental, safety, EJ, public health, economic issues)  Transportation of materials to disposal facility (rail, truck, pipeline, barge) EPA Decision-Making Process These decisions will not be made in any precise order, rather EPA will be considering a great deal of information and input, including that of the CAG, to make its final comprehensive decision. By law, EPA must make its decision based on the following nine criteria:  overall protection of human health and the environment;  compliance with ARARs;  long-term effectiveness and permanence;  reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;  short-term effectiveness;  implementability;  cost;  State acceptance; and  community acceptance.

Role of the CAG The CAG would like to weigh in on each of these key decisions in a meaningful and informed way. Over the coming months, the CAG will engage in detailed discussions regarding these five key decisions and applying this and other criteria to develop recommendations to EPA. Recommendations of the CAG will include:  Preferences, concerns, and values that the CAG would like to see considered and/or implemented as part of the decision,  Specific community or technical considerations that are important to the final decision,  Where appropriate, specific recommendations on choices regarding the decisions to be made,  Articulation of areas of broad community agreement and description of minority opinions to accurately represent the diverse input from the community where consensus cannot be achieved.

The CAG will use its existing statement of values to help guide its input and recommendations. For each of the five key decisions outlined above, key criteria important to the community may include:  Environmental and public health protection actually achieved  Construction impacts on the river, communities, and shoreline  EJ and Cumulative impacts of a local facility on public health and the environment  Impacts to air and water quality  Opportunities for natural resource restoration  Impacts on navigation  Enhancements to the local economy and jobs  Long-term potential for recontamination, new sources of pollution, or spread of contamination during construction  Reliability, proven effectiveness, and potential for successful application on any technologies used  Time and money required to achieve cleanup.