EPA ON PERFORMANCE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>

I received the following comments about Peformance-Based cleanup from 
some people at EPA. The cover note said, "Please excuse the EPA Speak."

Lenny
__________________________________________
Comment 1:
I believe that if we want to do them, performance based systems are doable
under the present rules. For example, agreements could reflect investigation
complete and construction complete, instead of RIFS report completion or
Shakeout Report. RODs can contain contingencies to allow for changes in
technology. Finally, most of our ARCs contracts are cost plus award 
fee. So don't let the buzzwords confuse matters. Take the concepts 
you like and we can make them work!
__________________________________________
Comment 2:
I sort of disagree with a few of Lenny's premises, although my position may
reflect my being still a bit new to the federal facilities side of things.
1) I believe our agreements already include a balance of both document
tracking and performance basis. Very few of us are in pursuit of a "perfect"
RI or FS, but rather, look for a "good enough" document as part of the means
for getting to the clean up. Of course, there has to be some balance, 
as the reports provide the analysis to justify why we are doing what we are 
doing in the way we are doing it. Certainly our national tracking focus has 
moved much more toward cleanup performance and completion.
2) While I think there is some leeway in going to performance-based 
RODs, I would really proceed with caution on this. I would argue that the 
issue here is largely about our attitude about changing RODs. If we 
have clear and strong justification for changing a ROD, we should be able to do so 
in about three months without much problem (faster for just an ESD). 
If it takes longer than this, I would suggest it is because there is something 
about the change that some interested party considers a bona fide 
issue, in which case the performance-based ROD clearly would have been 
even LESS palatable. (If we have assurance that all stakeholders at a site have bought into the
performance-based approach, I would be more comfortable, but I think there's
still a diversity of positions on this....) There is a matter of 
degree here, and better use of contingency RODs with well-defined 
triggers may present some opportunity for compromise.