NAVY-EPA MODEL LANGUAGE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

IMPLEMENTING FFERDC CHAPTER 5

While many advisory committees generate reports that simply collect 
dust on the shelf, the work of the Keystone Center-facilitated Federal 
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) has 
been remarkably influential. Most recently, in March, 1997 the Navy and 
U.S. EPA negotiated new model language be used in all future 
interagency agreements (IAGs) governing EPA-supervised Navy cleanup. 
EPA expects to negotiate similar language with the other armed 
services. 

The language covers the following areas: "Deadlines and Contents of 
Site Management Plan," "Budget Development and Amendment of Site 
Management," and "Funding." The purpose of these provisions is to ease 
the resolution of the tension between regulatory requirements and 
annual budget limitations.

For someone who was immersed for years in the "Keystone" dialogue, the 
entire Navy-EPA document is familiar in both tone and content. Some of 
the language, such as definitions for "Near Term Milestones," "Out Year 
Milestones," and "Project End Dates" is directly adapted from the 
April, 1996 FFERDC Final Report. The IAG model provisions implement 
what some people call a rolling milestone process, but which FFERDC 
chose to label otherwise. (To understand this process, I recommend 
reading Chapter 5 of the FFERDC Final Report, not the IAG language.)

Significantly, the IAG language implements the FFERDC recommendation on 
FULL DISCLOSURE of BUDGET-BUILDING SHORTFALLS: If the engineering field 
division's budget submission to the Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command "does not include sufficient funds to complete all work in the 
existing SMP [site management plan], after any agreed-upon 
modifications, the Navy's budget submission shall also include 
supplemental reports that fully disclose the work required by the SMP, 
but not included in the budget request. These supplemental reports 
shall accompany the cleanup budget that the Navy submits from [the 
engineering field division] through successive levels of the Navy to 
the [Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] and to the [Department of 
Defense] Comptroller.

As I recall, the Navy's attorneys were more comfortable with this 
approach than the other services', so it remains to be seen how the 
Army and Air Force will handle the full disclosure recommendation.

Finally, the Navy agrees in the language to seek sufficient funding to 
fulfill its obligations under the interagency agreement, but if cleanup 
appropriations for any year are inadequate to meet the total of its 
obligations, "the Navy will, in consultation with EPA and stakeholders, 
prioritize and allocate that year's appropriation, considering legal 
requirements pertaining to each site, relative risks to human health 
and the environment, and other relevant factors."

Lenny Siegel