Re: STREAMLINED OVERSIGHT

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

(signed December, 1996)

OSWER Directive No. 9230.0-75

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Federal Facilities Streamlined Oversight Directive

 From Jim Woolford, Director
 Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, OSWER

 Craig Hooks, Acting Director
 Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, OECA

TO: Director, Office of Site Remediation and
 Restoration, EPA - New England
 Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
 Division, Region II
 Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
 Regions III, IX
 Director, Waste Management Division, Region IV
 Director, Superfund Division, Regions V, VI, VII
 Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Ecosystems
 Protection and Remediation, Region VIII
 Director, Environmental Cleanup Office, Region X
 Regional Counsels, Regions I - X

PURPOSE

 On October 2, 1995, Administrator Browner announced several 
Superfund Reforms including one to reduce oversight activities at sites 
where there are cooperative private parties that are performing quality 
work. Consistent with this Reform, for federal facilities on the 
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), we are pursuing a similar 
initiative to streamline our oversight activities.

 EPA is responsible for overseeing the Superfund remedial 
activities at NPL federal facility sites. EPA's oversight is shaped by a 
variety of factors including statutory requirements, regulations, 
guidance, Federal Facility Agreements (FFA), Site Management Plans 
(SMP), and common practice. EPA's oversight activities of federal 
facilities include ensuring that, generally, work conducted by federal 
facilities is equivalent to work that EPA would conduct if that site 
were EPA-lead.

 This Directive focuses on streamlining the regulatory oversight 
processes at federal facilities in a systematic, planned manner based on 
site-specific factors and general streamlining techniques. The intent of 
streamlining the oversight is to improve the efficiency and overall 
effectiveness of the oversight for the regulators and the federal 
facilities, while ensuring protection of human health and the 
environment. Additionally, a streamlined process may facilitate more 
effective community participation and involvement in the cleanup 
process by making the process more accessible to the public.

 EPA Regions are already implementing components of 
streamlined oversight at several federal facilities. As such, the 
concepts described below are not new. What is required is a more 
systematic approach to ensure that EPA, federal agencies, states, and 
citizens impacted by contamination at federal facilities and associated 
activities secure benefits of a streamlined oversight approach. It is 
important to realize that the streamlined approach may not be 
applicable at each site or facility, but each facility should be evaluated 
for opportunities to streamline the oversight process.

BACKGROUND

 There are currently estimated to be more than 61,000 
contaminated sites at over 2,000 federal facilities in the United States. 
As of June 1, 1996, there are 160 proposed and final federal facilities 
on the NPL. The Department of Defense (DOD) currently is 
responsible for about 82% of the federal facilities on the NPL. The 
Department of Energy (DOE) has 11%, but far more releases/sites on 
each of its facilities than does the military or other federal agencies 
(e.g., DOI, USDA, NASA). According to EPA's CERCLIS 
information system, there are currently over 450 ongoing Remedial 
Investigation/ Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs), over 100 Remedial 
Designs (RDs) and over 100 ongoing Remedial Actions (RAs). In 
parallel, there are also several time-critical and non time-critical 
removal actions ongoing. Regional programs may or may not be 
overseeing these removal actions.

 Relative to federal facilities, the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (CERCLA) as 
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 
1986 (SARA), provides the framework for Superfund federal facilities 
cleanup. Section 120(a) requires that federal facilities comply with 
CERCLA requirements to the same extent as private facilities. Section 
120(d) sets forth requirements for facility site assessment, evaluation 
and NPL listing. Section 120(e) establishes remedial cleanup and 
cleanup agreement requirements.

 Section 120(e) of CERCLA requires the federal facility to enter 
into a negotiated Interagency Agreement (IAG) with EPA within 180 
days of EPA's review of the RI/FS. (As a matter of policy and where 
resources permit, EPA tries to negotiate the IAG after final listing on 
the NPL. In this context, the IAG is also known as a Federal Facility 
Agreement, and will be referred to as FFA in the text that follows.) 
Under CERCLA Section 120 and the FFA, EPA oversees all of the 
phases of remedial activity (RI/FS, RD, RA, operation and 
maintenance)to be undertaken at a federal facility NPL site. States are 
usually signatories to the FFA. The FFA provides the technical, legal, 
and management framework to conduct the federal facility activities. 
The FFA is an enforceable document and contains, among other 
things, a description of the remedy selection alternatives, procedures 
for submission and review of documents, schedules of cleanup 
activities, and provisions for dispute resolution.

 In addition to EPA, the states and Indian tribes, as regulators, 
also may have an oversight role. The particulars of these roles are 
established in the FFA at each facility.

 In 1988, after agreement from DOD and DOE, EPA issued model 
provisions for FFAs for DOD and DOE (Attachment) to guide the 
oversight relationship between the federal facilities and EPA. The 
model FFA identifies primary documents and secondary documents. 
In addition, a specific consultation process is outlined both with 
regard to EPA comments and federal facility response to comments on 
primary and secondary documents, as well as other aspects of the 
cleanup process.

 Oversight activities traditionally involve the production of a 
document by a federal agency or their contractor, delivery of the 
document, EPA review and written comments, revision of the 
document, another round of review and comment, ultimately ending 
with Agency concurrence on the document. At times there are 
multiple rounds of comments and revisions to these documents. 
Specific time frames for review, comment and response to comment 
are usually laid out in the FFA. Analysis has revealed that more than 
half of the time spent on the RI/FS process may be involved in this 
comment and review process.

 EPA's oversight at federal facilities consists of ensuring that the 
federal facilities comply with CERCLA, the National Contingency 
Plan (NCP), the signed FFA and other agreements; and other statutes, 
as appropriate (e.g., RCRA); assisting in the determination of cleanup 
remedies or potentially selecting the remedies; concurring that there is 
consistency with all relevant guidances and policies determined by 
EPA to be appropriate for the facility; and determining that decisions 
protect human health and the environment and are technically sound.

 Additional EPA activities include promoting community 
involvement through the community advisory boards, providing 
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), providing technical advice and 
assistance (e.g., assisting in identifying and implementing the 
sampling strategies and analytical requirements), identifying cleanup 
actions that are not justified based on risk, reviewing design 
documents and federal agency pollution abatement plans, and 
resolving disputes regarding noncompliance. There are several 
EPA and other agency initiatives that are designed to improve (i.e., 
modify, streamline, etc.) how cleanup and oversight of cleanup is 
performed at NPL sites. This Directive incorporates aspects of several 
of these initiatives, especially Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model 
(SACM), Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process, Reduced Federal 
Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable Parties, 
Variable Oversight (a DOD pilot), Streamlined Approach for 
Environmental Restoration (SAFER, a DOE pilot). All of these 
initiatives address the interaction between regulators and federal 
facilities, with partnership and/or cooperation emphasized in the 
Reduced Oversight, Variable Oversight, and SAFER models. The 
SACM, DQO Approach, Variable Oversight, and SAFER initiatives in 
particular stress upfront planning and scoping to optimize remediation 
and data collection. This Directive builds on the Variable Oversight 
model with the emphasis on partnership, upfront scoping and 
planning, and streamlined document review but also includes 
principles from other initiatives.

PROPOSAL

 This guidance applies to all federal facilities on the NPL. It 
requires that EPA Regions evaluate opportunities for streamlining 
oversight of the remedial process for NPL federal facility sites and 
discusses key areas for process implementation. Where all parties 
agree on streamlining activities that will affect requirements and/or 
milestones in an existing FFA, changes to the FFA and/or the Site 
Management Plan (SMP) should be implemented, as appropriate.

 Streamlining regulatory oversight will tailor requirements in a 
systematic, planned manner based on site-specific factors and 
streamlining approaches. These site-specific factors include the 
relationship among the federal facility, the regulators, and community; 
the complexity of the site cleanup; the current status of the cleanup; 
and the rate of progress that has been made. The streamlined process 
should improve the efficiency of both the oversight and the site 
cleanup actions, enhance public involvement by highlighting issues of 
greatest interest to the public, and ensure that these issues are not 
obscured by excessive paper and discussions of methodologies.

Problems with Current Process

 For CERCLA cleanup activities, a framework of extensive 
government regulation and guidance (federal and/or state) outlines the 
cleanup process and the associated requirements. Although the 
regulations and guidance provide flexibility, it is not clear that full 
advantage is taken of the flexibility. The traditional oversight system 
tends to place heavy emphasis on end-of-process activities such as 
inspection, review, and comment of documents and deliverables, and 
not as much on early planning and collaborating. Many documents 
repeat the same information (e.g., site descriptions) that regulators 
will comment on time and time again. Significant time and money 
may be spent on generating more data and documents than necessary.

 In addition, the large number and size of documents inhibits 
public participation as the general non-technical public is overwhelmed 
by the documents. One outcome of a streamlined process could be 
more effective public participation in the federal facility cleanup 
process. Many members of restoration advisory boards and site-
specific advisory boards have indicated that streamlined documents are 
very desirable and will facilitate their participation.

Identifying Sites for Streamlining Oversight

 This guidance applies to all NPL federal facility sites requiring 
EPA oversight. Effective immediately, the Regions should use the 
criteria below to identify those facilities or, as appropriate, sites on the 
facility, where the oversight can be streamlined without reducing the 
level of protection at the site. This evaluation should be done at every 
site where the federal facility is performing the RI/FS, the RD/RA, or 
the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) and response action 
for non-time critical removals. If a facility (or site) does not currently 
meet the criteria, the facility may be reconsidered at an appropriate 
later date for application of streamlined oversight.

 The regulated federal agencies may propose possible sites as 
candidates for streamlined oversight. The Regions should work with 
the federal agencies to identify appropriate sites.

Criteria for Evaluating Federal Facility Sites

Cooperativeness/Compliance (Federal Facility/Agency Relationship)

* Federal facility has agreed to reasonable time frames for 
completing site work (including deliverables), and has historically 
completed such work on a timely basis.

* Federal facility has been and remains substantially in compliance 
with the terms of the FFA, other agreements, and environmental laws 
and regulations.

* Federal facility follows through on commitments made to EPA.

Technical Capability (Based on Site Complexity)

* Federal facility consistently produces technically sound 
documents.

` The following are some additional criteria that should be 
considered when determining the appropriate oversight at a federal 
facility site.

Site-Based Criteria

* The community has reason to believe additional oversight is 
necessary. In response, EPA may increase site monitoring. At a 
minimum, EPA should discuss with the federal facility and the 
affected community at the site the Agency's plan concerning the site.

* At sites where the remedy involves a complex technical model, 
EPA may decide to carefully monitor all critical site work.

* The severity of risk to human health or environment posed by 
the site will be considered in determining applicable oversight.

IMPLEMENTATION

 EPA believes that at sites that may be amenable to streamlining 
oversight after applying the criteria above, Regions should work with 
the federal facilities, states, local governments, and communities, as 
appropriate, to develop an effective partnership in implementing this 
reform. The FFA and/or the SMP may also need to be revised to 
implement this reform but opportunities should be examined that will 
not require formal renegotiation. Streamlining the oversight activities 
should be implemented as soon as possible. This streamlining of 
monitoring activities should lead to a reduction in oversight costs and 
also decrease the time needed to complete that phase of the response 
action.

Opportunities for Streamlining Oversight

 The following is a list of some activities that can be instituted, 
modified or streamlined, as appropriate, to facilitate streamlining the 
oversight and cleanup process. They are dependent on each other in 
that success in one area will increase the chances for success in the 
other areas. In particular, an effective working partnership lays the 
groundwork and fosters cooperation that leads to progress in the other 
areas. The activities can be separated into four broad categories 
although there is overlap between the categories. Activities that may 
be implemented include, but are not limited to:

Partnering

* Developing partnerships among federal facility, EPA, state, 
tribes, and stakeholders

Early and Substantial Regulator Involvement

* Engaging in installation-wide joint planning efforts

* Developing common cleanup "vision" with goals and objectives

* Participating in federal facility budget formulation and execution 
process

* Establishing cleanup standards on the basis of existing and 
reasonably anticipated future land use as soon as possible in the 
remedial process

* Improving scoping and planning

* Optimizing the data review process

* Utilizing computerized file/document transfer

Defining Each Regulator's Role

* Clearly defining role of EPA and state in terms of oversight 
responsibilities including establishing a lead regulator, wherever 
possible

* Eliminating or otherwise mitigating RCRA/CERCLA overlap

* Developing appropriate side agreements to facilitate 
environmental restoration process (e.g., memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with EPA Region, state, and the Defense 
Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB))

Streamlining Documentation and Review

* Using standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standard 
document formats

* Reducing production of documents by increasing the use of in-
person meetings, briefings, and other communication methods to 
identify issues early on and resolve identified issues

* Eliminating interim deliverables or milestones, where applicable, 
while continuing accountability to produce an acceptable end product

 The FFA/SMP should incorporate the above activities to the 
extent practical depending on the site. These elements are not 
necessarily enforceable portions of the FFA.

 Some of these activities are described below.

Partnership

 One key to streamlining oversight is creating and then 
maintaining a framework for partnership between EPA, the federal 
facility, state, tribes and the community. The history of federal 
facilities cleanup has been one marked with considerable distrust 
between the communities, the regulators, and the federal facility. One 
outcome of this distrust was a need for extensive regulator and 
community oversight of cleanup activities. At some facilities, the 
atmosphere of distrust has changed or is being changed. At other 
facilities, much needs to be done and, in some cases, this section may 
not be appropriate for these facilities.

 Creating and maintaining an effective working relationship often 
requires extensive interaction at both a site (RPM) level and at a 
Regional (supervisory) level. Additionally, training to support 
effective partnering is often required. Where this approach has been 
successfully implemented, the result has been to dramatically improve 
the cleanup process. Communication is key among partners. In 
addition to planned meetings, the use of informal and technology-
assisted communication (e.g., telephone, e-mail, fax) is encouraged.

 One goal of the partnership is to establish a long-term working 
relationship in which the parties can commit to up-front agreements 
designed to produce savings in terms of time and resources needed for 
cleanup. The participants work together to define the site problems 
and develop potential options for addressing the problems. The 
direction of investigation and cleanup work by a working partnership 
allows parties to focus on key issues that are critical and provides a 
means to resolve substantive issues prior to action. The partnership 
approach recognizes that there may be significant initial differences of 
opinion concerning decisions affecting site cleanup. The partnership 
should acknowledge that each individual is responsible for 
representing their agency. The ground rules require that the team 
agree on the goal, such as site remediation, and that consensus must 
be reached to achieve the agreed upon goal. The partnership promotes 
the building of trust and the confidence that important issues are 
addressed and resolved at appropriate times.

 An effective partnership requires working relationship at all 
levels of the decision chain and a clear understanding of individual 
roles, scopes of authority, and responsibilities within each 
organization. Participants in partnerships must: communicate the 
workings of their organization, the decision-making process within 
their organization, and the boundaries of their authority; understand 
and respect each other's expectations and constraints; be empowered 
to make decisions within the scope of their authority, bring others to 
the table when necessary, and be supported by their organization; and 
be sufficiently trained and experienced to exercise professional 
judgment as appropriate to the needs of the site.

Early and Substantial Regulator Involvement

Develop Common 'Vision' with Goals, Objectives and Priorities

 Even without 'partnering', it is generally productive to develop a 
common vision for the near-term to long-term future for the facility 
and related cleanup objectives, activities, and priorities. The vision 
may include concrete goals and objectives that direct the remediation 
efforts. The vision should be integral to the scoping and planning 
efforts for the site. It should be verified on a recurring basis that the 
scoping and planning and the progress at the site are consistent with 
the vision.

 As part of developing this vision, EPA and other stakeholders 
need to continue to participate in the application and evaluation of the 
outcomes of DOD's and DOE's 'relative risk' evaluation models. The 
results of these models are being used as the point of departure for 
establishing site cleanup priorities but other factors must be 
considered. EPA participation is critical to ensuring that our mission 
to protect human health and the environment is part of the 
prioritization process.

Budget Formulation and Execution Process

 Consistent with the consensus principles and recommendations 
of the April 1996 Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental 
Restoration Dialogue Committee, EPA Regions should be actively 
engaged in the budget formulation and execution process surrounding 
DOD and DOE site cleanup activities. Such involvement facilitates 
EPA's understanding of how and why funding decisions are made 
and affords EPA the opportunity to influence these decisions. EPA's 
participation on the budget could include an annual review of federal 
facility cleanup progress on a basewide level in relation to the current 
and planned budget, in sufficient time to be able to influence the 
process and decisions. In addition, meetings/phone contacts should 
include a frequent (i.e., monthly) discussion on the current status of 
site budget issues. Discussions could include what projects have been 
put out to bid, what projects have been awarded, the potential for end-
of-year funding and forward funding projects, and the results from 
prioritization dialogues.

Improve Project Scoping and Planning

 The purpose of project scoping and planning is to reach cleanup 
decisions and actions in the most efficient manner. By effectively 
tying data collection to a specific decision, scoping and planning 
activities streamlines the oversight process. The time and expense of 
planning, producing, and reviewing excess data and additional 
superfluous material, (e.g., site descriptions repeated in each 
deliverable) can be minimized through efficient project definition.

 The streamlined process should focus on upfront scoping and 
identification of what is actually needed at a particular site to make a 
particular decision. Various alternatives to focus project planning are 
commonly used, such as the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process, 
the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER), 
Expedited Site Characterization, the Observational Approach, 
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), etc. The DQO and 
SAFER processes emphasize teamwork and consensus building 
whereas the Expedited Site Characterization and the Observational 
Approach do not necessarily stress communication. However, all the 
various approaches develop answers to the same basic questions and 
can contribute to streamlining activities:

1) What questions do you want to answer?
2) What data are necessary to answer the question?
3) What degree of uncertainty is acceptable?
4) What is the strategy to gather information?

Focusing on the definition of the problem and the decision that will be 
made is critical to support an environmental action and to frame the 
necessary degree and specific mechanism of the oversight role.

 Data collection is typically planned during scoping and conducted 
as part of the RI. Defining the review requirements (i.e., parameters, 
limits, quality assurance, etc.) upfront and focusing on data elements 
that will affect decisions (e.g., contaminants of concern at or above 
action limits) saves time and resources for all parties. The review 
process should concentrate on the data that will be used in decision-
making at the site. For example, exhaustive review of detection limit 
level contaminants two to three orders of magnitude below or above 
an action level uses valuable resources but does not add value or 
contribute to the decision-making process. In this case, the relatively 
high uncertainty will not change the decision. However, questionable 
presence or high uncertainty at an action level should trigger rigorous 
evaluation.

 As part of the planning process, the participants need to consider 
alternative investigative approaches, such as the use of on-site 
analytical measurements with or without field labs, and innovative 
sampling methods and well installation techniques. Additionally, the 
RPMs need to participate and be available in field decisions to 
accommodate changes in the sampling plan.

 The last step of the scoping phase is to ensure that all participants 
understand and reach a consensus on the planning process. 
Consensus building may be a time-consuming and taxing process. 
However, the investment upfront at the scoping stage of a project will 
generally provide significant savings later in terms of shorter review 
and revision cycles, and a final product that addresses participants' 
concerns.

Optimizing the Data Review Process

 Current interagency efforts to develop required data sets and an 
electronic transmission standard offer significant opportunities to 
improve quality and efficiency of the review processes. 
Standardization allows efficient sharing of site information and 
automation of the review process through the use of software 
developed by EPA for Superfund analytical data. This data review 
software has been adapted by DOE (and potentially by DOD) to meet 
broader program needs (e.g., radionuclides and RCRA compliance).

Defining Each Regulator's Role

 The role of EPA and state in terms of oversight responsibilities 
should be clearly defined, including establishing a lead regulator, 
wherever possible. Having a lead regulator conserves regulator 
resources, and minimizes duplicative requirements and conflict 
between the regulators. However, EPA is still responsible for 
ensuring that the remedy is protective of human health and the 
environment and that, ultimately, the site can be deleted from the 
NPL. Therefore, effective communication between regulators is 
especially important in implementing the lead regulator concept.

 The EPA RPM should assume the responsibility to serve as 
liaison between RCRA and CERCLA and assure that CERCLA 
actions will satisfy RCRA concerns and that fundamental RCRA 
requirements are integrated into the FFA process and schedules and 
visa versa. In non-authorized states, the RPM can be granted RCRA 
corrective action and decision-making authority.

Streamlining Documentation and Review

Standard Operating Procedures and Document Formats

 In addition to reaching up-front agreements, developing Standard 
Operating Procedures once that will cover all cleanup activities for the 
federal facility will streamline the oversight process. These may 
include: a Health and Safety Plan; Quality Assurance Plan; Field 
Sampling and Analysis Plan; Investigation Derived Waste Plan; 
ARARs list; and a stand alone background document describing the 
environmental setting of the facility, as well as the history. In 
addition, for the sake of consistency, document formats can be 
developed for: RI/FS work plans and reports; Risk Assessment 
Reports; RD/RA work plans and reports; and RODs. These will 
ensure that all the required components of each document will be 
included the first time around.

Eliminating Interim Deliverables or Milestones

 A large number of documents are typically generated on a site-
specific(or operable unit specific) basis to describe and support site-
specific decisions. Regions should evaluate opportunities to eliminate 
interim deliverables and to generate more focused documents that 
answer specific questions. In some cases, drafts may be eliminated, 
or an entire deliverable may be eliminated, depending on the site-
specific project needs. Attached is the Model FFA list of primary and 
secondary documents. There may be situations where some of these 
deliverables can be eliminated, such as when a presumptive remedy is 
being utilized.

CONCLUSION

 Streamlined oversight can enhance cooperation among the 
stakeholders; expedite the cleanup of federal facilities; and avoid the 
unnecessarily high cost of the current oversight process with no 
decrease in protection to human health and the environment.

 The major statutes and regulations that implement cleanup 
requirements at NPL sites establish the involvement of numerous 
institutions and individuals in that process. The roles of EPA, the 
states, the tribes, the federal facility, and community groups and other 
external stakeholders are carefully prescribed. Guidance and 
regulations establish the framework in which cleanup is to be carried 
out. Nonetheless, there is a wide range of flexibility in the details of 
the cleanup action and how individual responsibilities are carried out. 
It is up to all the participants in the federal facility remediation process 
to use the flexibility to conserve resources while ensuring adequate 
environmental protection.

NOTICE: This Directive is primarily for the use of U.S. EPA 
personnel. EPA reserves the right to change this Directive at any time, 
without prior notice, or to act at variance to this Directive. This 
Directive does not create any rights, duties, or obligations, implied or 
otherwise, in any third parties.

Attachment

cc: Elliott Laws
 Tim Fields
 Steve Luftig
 Barry Breen
 Federal Facilities Leadership Council, Regions I-X 
ATTACHMENT

 MODEL FFA LIST OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 
DOCUMENTS**

 PRIMARY DOCUMENTS

 1) RI/FS Scope of Work
 2) RI/FS Work Plan - including Sampling and Analysis Plan and 
QAPP
 3) Risk Assessment
 4) RI Report
 5) Initial Screening of Alternative
 6) FS Report
 7) Proposed Plan
 8) Record of Decision
 9) Remedial Design
10) Remedial Action Work Plan

 SECONDARY DOCUMENTS

 1) Initial Remedial Action/Data Quality Objectives
 2) Site Characterization Summary
 3) Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
 4) Post-screening Investigation Work Plans
 5) Treatability Studies
 6) Sampling and Data Results

 ** This list may be modified based on individual partnership needs.

 Generally, secondary documents are seen as 'feeder' documents and 
are not subject to dispute resolution as are primary documents.