Office of Inspector General
g vW Report of Review
%
SPECIAL REVIEW OF REGION 10's
SUPERFUND ADMTNISTRATTVE IMPROVEMENTS
Audit Report: E1SFG4-10-0078-5400035
January 31, 1995
-------
INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION
CONDUCTING THE AUDIT:
REGION COVERED:
PROGRAM OFFICE INVOLVED:
WESTERN AUDIT DIVISION
SEATTLE BRANCH OFFICE
REGION 10
HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t&/ OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS
<* WESTERN DIVISION
75 HAWTHORNE STREET
19TH FLOOR, MAIL CODE 1-1
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-3901
January 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Region 10's Superfund Administrative
Improvements for the Allocation Tools, Environmental
Justice, and Community Involvement Initiatives
Report No. E1SFG4-10-0078-5400035
FROM: Truman R. B_^_^^ -»^__-
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
Western Audit Division
TO: Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 10
PURPOSE
We have completed a special review of Region 10's implementation
of Superfund Administrative Improvements (SAI) for the Allocation
Tools, Environmental Justice, and Community Involvement
Initiatives. Our objectives were to: (i) gain an understanding
of the work performed under the initiatives; (ii) determine how
performance was measured; and (iii) evaluate the adequacy of
communications between Headquarters and Region 10.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Our special review was limited to three out of six Region 10 SAI
Initiatives with a total of seven pilot projects at five cleanup
sites. The initiatives that we reviewed were: Allocation Tools,
Environmental Justice, and Community Involvement.
This review was not an audit and, therefore, does not comply with
all Governmental Auditing Standards. Instead, the work
represents a special review to evaluate selected SAI Initiatives.
We conducted the work according to provisions in OIG Manual
Chapter 150 - Reports of Review. We conducted our fieldwork from
April 4, 1994 through June 23, 1994.
We met with and discussed the implementation of the SAI
Initiatives with officials of Region 10's Hazardous Waste
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
Division Superfund Remedial Branch, the Program Management
Branch, and the Office of Regional Counsel. We reviewed
documentation including Headquarters' guidance and Region 10's
SAI Plan, quarterly SAI reports, and site cleanup files.
Our review was made in coordination with other OIG reviews of. SAI
Initiatives. The OIG has performed reviews at EPA Headquarters
and at Regions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The Headquarters Audit
Division is the control point for the reviews.
BACKGROUND
EPA's Superfund Program has received criticism because of the
slow pace and high cost of site cleanups, the degree to which
sites are cleaned, the fairness of the program, the role of the
States in the process, and the role of the community,
particularly disadvantaged communities.
In response to this criticism, the Deputy Administrator announced
on June 23, 1993 an initiative, known as the Superfund
Administrative Improvements (SAI), to improve the Superfund
Program within the current statutory authority. The SAI
Initiative was a 15-month program (June 1993 to September 1994)
to determine if certain types of actions and techniques can
reduce the problems of the Superfund Program. A task force
prepared an Implementation Strategy which required the regions to
implement 17 initiatives and report the results to Headquarters
on a quarterly basis.
EPA guidance for the SAI Initiatives was included in the SAI
Report and the SAI Implementation Strategy. The SAI Report,
which accompanied the Deputy Administrator's announcement, stated
that the administrative improvements would have an immediate
impact at Headquarters, as well as in the field at Superfund
sites. The Report described the overall program and the 17
initiatives to be implemented. The SAI Implementation Strategy
described the responsibilities of Headquarters and regional
offices and gave general milestones for implementing the
initiatives.
Each region prepared its own implementation plan stating its
level of participation in the 17 initiatives. The regions
identified the initiatives they would implement and the pilot .
projects for the initiatives. The regions' plans were reviewed
and approved by Headquarters.
The Region 10 Implementation Plan, dated September 7, 1993,
stated that 6 (out of a possible 17) initiatives would be
implemented. To implement the 6 initiatives, the Region
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
identified a total of 16 pilot projects. We reviewed three of
the initiatives that had a total of seven pilot projects. See
Appendix B for a description of the seven pilot projects that we
reviewed.
The three initiatives that we reviewed are described in the
following paragraphs.
Allocation Tools is an initiative that attempts to reduce
transaction costs (litigation) incurred in reaching settlements
on cleanup liabilities. One of the aims of the initiative is to
demonstrate the effectiveness of mediation to assist private
parties in reaching allocation agreements. This method is known
as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through ADR, EPA
provides the services of an external, neutral professional to
assist in organizing Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) for
negotiations and reaching settlement on cleanup responsibilities
and costs.
Environmental Justice is an initiative that attempts to better
assess potential areas of inequity at Superfund sites and
identify appropriate solutions. Some studies have indicted that
people of color and the poor may be exposed to greater health
risks than the general population and may be more susceptible to
the effects of environmental hazards. The regions were required
to identify sites where environmental justice is a concern,
assess the key issues, and take proactive measures to deal with
them effectively.
Community Involvement is an initiative to address the lack of
support for cleanup among the communities around Superfund sites.
Specific community relations problems include difficulties in
obtaining Technical Assistance Grants, difficulties in obtaining
and interpreting health studies, and inaccessibility to both key
information and site decision makers. The initiative will
attempt to achieve earlier and more effective public involvement
which would enhance community buy-in and increase equity and
fairness. The Regions are to identify Superfund sites where
innovative community involvement approaches and techniques are
being applied and will be applied.
RESULTS OF REVIEW
We found that communication from Headquarters did not specify how
performance measures should be defined and the measures of
success included in Region 10's SAI Plan were vague and
incomplete. As a result, Region 10 was allowed considerable
discretion in its selection of pilot projects and in its
reporting of successes.
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
Within the guidance from Headquarters, Region 10 was successful
in the implementation of its SAI Plan, reported significant
results, and accomplished these activities without additional
funding and staff. The Region implemented the SAI by preparing
an implementation plan, participating in selected initiatives,
identifying pilot project sites for the initiatives, and
reporting the pilot project results to Headquarters on a
quarterly basis. However, we noted that substantial progress had
already been made before most of the pilot projects were selected
for SAI, vague performance measures allowed for easier
achievement of success, there were some impediments to additional
.successes, and some reported accomplishments were overstated.
The Selection of Pilot Projects Was a Key for Success
Region 10 selected cleanup sites for most of its pilot projects
where activities related to SAI type initiatives were already
being performed. By its choices of sites as pilot projects, the
Region was able to report results that had already been achieved
as SAI successes. The reporting of successes that had already
been achieved was consistent with Region 10's interpretation of
the SAI Initiatives.
Four of the five sites that Region 10 selected for pilot projects
were ones where initiative types of activities were already
occurring before the June 23, 1993 announcement of the SAI
Initiative. The results of our review for each initiative show:
Allocation Tools. An offer of ADR to PRP's was considered a
measure of success under this initiative. At the 12A Well
site, ADR was offered to the Department of Defense (DOD) in
May 1993, prior to the start of the SAI Initiative.
At the Hylebos Waterway site, ADR was offered to two groups
of private PRPs during a conference call on
January 25, 1994. Although the offer was not successful,
the fact that the Region made the offer and that it occurred
during the period of the initiative, the Region considered
it an accomplishment of the initiative.
Environmental Justice. At the Coeur d'Alene Basin site, a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that included the Coeur
d'Alene Tribe was signed on November 9, 1992, prior to the
start of the SAI Initiative. The activities continuing
under this MOA were reported in the quarterly SAI reports as
accomplishments under this initiative.
At the Moses Lake Wellfield Superfund site, the Region was
translating documents into Spanish during July 1992 and was
conducting meetings with community members before the start
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
of the SAI Initiative. The continuation of these activities
were reported in the quarterly SAI reports as
accomplishments under this initiative.
Community Involvement. For the Asarco Smelter site,
community outreach activities associated with cleanup of the
smelter had begun prior to the start of the SAI Initiative.
Continuing outreach activities associated with this site
were reported as accomplishments under this initiative.
Region 10's interpretation of the intent of the SAI Initiatives
also had a significant effect on the sites selected as pilot
projects. The Region selected four of five sites where SAI types
of activities were already underway due largely to the Region's
interpretation of the SAI Initiative as.primarily a reporting and
tracking system. Region 10 personnel stated that the start of
the SAI. Program set up a tracking system so that the regions' use
of initiatives could be seen. They also stated that the SAI
Program provides visibility between the regions so that one
region can see what the other regions are doing and that the SAI
Program tracks existing initiatives and shares good ideas.
The Region placed the emphasis of its program on reporting its
good ideas and successful results in the tracking system as
contrasted to implementing new initiatives at cleanup sites.
With the exception of the Hylebos Waterway site, the reported
successes were the result of activities that had been initiated
by Region 10 prior to the SAI and were not the direct result of
activities initiated under the SAI.
Vague Performance Measures Allowed Easier Successes
Vague performance measures allowed easier success but limited the
significance of successful activities. The guidance from
Headquarters did not specify how performance measures should be
defined and measures of success included in Region 10's SAI Plan
were vague and incomplete. These weaknesses allowed Region 10
considerable discretion in what it could report as a success.
Headquarters' Guidance. The directions from Headquarters did not
specify how performance measures should be defined. The
Implementation Strategy gave general descriptions of the
initiatives and required the regions to prepare an implementation
plan. According to the Strategy:
The regions will need to specify (in their
implementation plans) detailed information
regarding the demonstration projects they intend
to initiate in FY93 . Data needed will include ...
measures of success ...
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
Region IP's Performance Measures. The limited descriptions in
Region 10's performance plan allowed for relatively easy
achievement and reporting of successes. According to Region 10
personnel, the performance measures for the initiatives were in
the SAI Implementation Plan. The Region's plan gives
descriptions of each pilot project site, including previous and
ongoing initiative activities. We found that the plan did not
explicitly identify performance measures. The following are some
performance measures included in the Region's SAI Plan:
Allocation Tools. ADR will be offered during the first
quarter (fiscal 1994) at two Superfund sites. No other
measures of success were included in the plan.
Environmental Justice. EPA will evaluate whether there is
sufficient interest among Skyline residents to support
convening of a focus group (for the Moses Lake Wellfield
Superfund Site). No other measures of success were
described in the plan.
Community Involvement. Region 10 plans to continue its
efforts to reach beyond the basic requirements for public
involvement and experiment with new approaches for involving
the public earlier and in more meaningful and constructive
ways in the remedy selection process. The plan indicates
that future activities will include meetings and forums to
determine public concerns and provide information and public
participation in decision making.
The Region's measurement of performance was primarily limited to
reporting the ongoing activities at the pilot sites. Below are
some examples of reported accomplishments from the December 1993
Quarterly Report sent to Headquarters:
Allocation Tools. Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) procedures have been offered to facilitate
negotiations at two of our sites ... In one instance
(Hylebos Waterway) the offer was initially
declined by the potentially responsible parties ...
ADR mediation continues to be a viable option at a
second site (12A Well) involving the Department of
Defense ...
Environmental Justice. The Moses Lake Wellfield
Contamination site and the Coeur d'Alene Basin
Restoration Project were targeted under this
initiative.
For the Moses Lake site ... fact sheets describing
the EE/CA (engineering evaluation/cost analysis)
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
were prepared in Spanish and English ... EPA will
continue to provide information in a bilingual
format and have a translator available for this
site ...
... EPA continues to meet once every two months with
the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the State of Idaho to
steer environmental restoration efforts in the
3,700 square mile area of the Coeur d'Alene
watershed. At the December meeting, senior
officials from the Tribe, State and EPA outlined
goals for 1994. These included developing a 5-
year priority list for nine waste remediation
projects and continuing cleanups in the upper
reaches of the Coeur d'Alene River ...
Community Involvement. Region 10 has been working
to implement the ASARCO Tacoma Smelter outreach
strategy since the Summer of 1993. (Region 10
hired an Outreach Specialist in November, 1992 as
part of a pilot project for the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-up Model (SACM) ) ... To date EPA
has conducted a number of community outreach
activities. Meetings with the Ruston/North Tacoma
Coordinating Forum began in July 1993 ...
Impediments to Additional Successes
There were some limitations which had an influence on the
Region's selection of sites with ongoing activities. These
limitations were primarily related to resource and time
constraints.
Limited Resources. The lack of resources was recognized by both
Headquarters and the Region during the planning of the Region's
SAI Implementation Plan. The Headquarters SAI Report recognized
that the SAI Program was being implemented in a climate of budget
and workload constraints. According to the, June 1993, Report:
It must be kept in mind that the current
Superfund workload is quite demanding,
and several Superfund reforms are
currently underway ... EPA will have to
establish priorities for the utilization
of available Superfund resources.
Although tradeoffs will be required, we
will work with the Office of Management
and Budget and Congress to assure that
sufficient resources are made available
to carry out these very important
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
Superfund Administrative Improvements
and to maintain a continued
effectiveness of the program.
However, the July 1993, SAI Implementation Strategy indicated
that resources to implement SAI would have to come from existing
regional sources. The agenda for the National Implementation
Meeting listed the regions' options for finding the resources to
implement the SAI Initiative. They included:
Potential Areas for Disinvestment;
Resource Shifts;
Delegation of Authority; and
Integration of Superfund Priorities.
Region 10 personnel stated that Headquarters did not provide
resources for the SAI Initiative and that activities were
performed using regional resources. In our opinion, limited
resources had a significant effect on the Region's approach to
SAI and its level of participation in the initiatives.
Limited Time. The SAI Initiative was announced in June 1993 and
was not planned to extend beyond the end of fiscal 1994. This
allowed 15 months for activities to be performed at cleanup sites
and show significant results. The Region's SAI Implementation
Plan was not prepared until September 7, 1993, which left only 12
months for implementation of the SAI. It does not appear
reasonable to expect the Region to implement the initiatives and
show significant results in such a short period of time.
Limited Number of Sites. According to Regional personnel, after
the sites had been selected and identified in the Region's plan,
the plan was approved by Headquarters which set the scope of the
Region's SAI Initiative. We asked if additional sites could be
selected after the plan was approved. Regional personnel advised
this would occur only if Headquarters asked. When the program
started, Headqua?"ters asked for initiatives and set numerical
limits on the number of sites to include. The Region picked the
best sites for reporting. Increases in the number of sites will
depend on whether Headquarters decides to expand the program.
Reported Accomplishments Were Overstated
The Region overstated its participation in SAI by three of seven
pilot projects reviewed. The 'Headquarters' SAI Report and the
Implementation Strategy describes the selection criteria for the
pilot projects of each initiative. The Region did not follow the
guidance for selection of two pilot projects and made an apparent
error in the reporting of a third. As a result, the Region over-
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
reported initiative successes in its Implementation Plan and
Quarterly SAI reports.
According to the Headquarters' SAI Report and Implementation
Strategy, the regions were to identify candidate sites/cases for
demonstration/pilot projects for each of the SAI Initiatives.
The regions were to identify the sites in their Implementation
Plans and starting in October 1993 were to report on .the progress
of their field activities on each initiative, both as they apply
to the pilot and demonstration projects and changes to sites
already in the pipeline.
We reviewed the number of pilot projects in Region 10's SAI
Implementation Plan and Quarterly reports and compared them to
the SAI guidance. The results are as follows:
REGION 10 SAI PILOT PROJECTS
Initiative
Allocation
Tools .
Environmental
Justice
Community
Involvement
Totals
Reported
Pilot Projects
2
2
3
7
SAI Selection
Criteria
1
2
1
4
Difference
1
0
2
3
The above differences, were due to the Region's interpretation of
the selection criteria and an apparent error in selecting a pilot
project. The differences are described below.
Allocation Tools. ADR activities associated with DOD's 12A
Wellfield site were included in the Region's SAI
Implementation Plan, and in the October and December 1993
Quarterly SAI reports to the Superfund Revitalization Office
(SRO).
An offer of ADR was made to DOD in May 1993 which was before
the.start of SAI. Also, the offer was between two Federal
agencies instead of two private parties as required by the
SAI ADR Initiative Procedures (August 20, 1993). The ADR
activities associated with the 12A Wellfield site were
outside the scope of.the initiative and should not have been
reported as SAI activities.
-------
Region 10's Superftmd Administrative Improvements
Community Involvement. Accomplishments for two pilot
projects should not have been reported under this
initiative. Community Involvement activities associated
with the Outreach Pilot were included in the Region's SAI
Implementatidn Plan and in the October and December 1993
Quarterly SAI reports to Headquarters. The Outreach Pilot
should not have been included as part of this initiative.
It addresses Superfund community involvement on a region-
wide basis, is not associated with a specific demonstration
or pilot project, and is beyond the scope of the SAI
Initiative. The pilot, however, was successful as a part of
SACM.
The Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project was included as
a Community Involvement pilot and also as an Environmental
Justice pilot in Region 10's SAI Implementation Plan. We
asked Region 10 personnel if this project should be listed
under both initiatives. They said that this pilot should be
under the Environmental Justice Initiative and that it was
listed under Community Involvement Initiative in error.
CONCLUSIONS
Because the performance period for the SAI ended in
September 1994, we are not making recommendations for specific
corrective actions as a result of this special review. We
identified some opportunities for improvements that, we believe,
could have been made to make the SAI more meaningful. We are
summarizing our observations below for the Region's information
and use in the event that similar initiatives are performed in
the future.
• Initiative Objectives. The plan objectives should be
clear about the purpose and selection of pilot sites.
It should specify whether pilot sites are ones where
the initiative activity has not previously been done,
or sites where the initiative activity has already been
successful and the current initiative is for the
reporting of those successes.
• Performance Measures. The performance measures should
be clearly defined and measurable so that outcomes can
be measured and the significance of the effects of the
initiatives can be determined.
• Adequate Resources. Adequate resources and time should
be provided in order for the initiatives to have a
reasonable chance of success.
. 10
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
• Accurate Reporting. Reported accomplishments should be
tied to performance measures and controls should be in
place to ensure accuracy of the reports.
AGENCY COMMENTS
In its response, dated December 22, 1994, Region 10 stated that
it is in substantial agreement with most of the observations
noted in the draft report. It agreed that the SAI purpose and
objectives lacked sufficient clarity with regard to the role of
reporting and tracking versus the goal of identifying new pilots.
The Region also agreed that performance measures were not clearly
defined but stated that this observation is less salient given
that SAI were intended to initiate and "test-drive" possible
administrative reforms, not bring them to some definitive,
measurable endpoints. Adequate time and resources were not
provided to the regions by Headquarters and disinvestment and
tradeoffs by the regions were necessary to allow participation in
these national initiatives. And finally, reporting accuracy
could have been improved upon in the case of Coeur d'Alene.
The Region did not concur that ADR activities associated with
DOD's 12A Wellfield site are necessarily outside the scope of the
SAI. While Headquarters' guidance envisions the principal use of
ADR to be between private parties, the use of this allocation
tool at mixed party sites with both federal agency and private
party involvement was not precluded in special circumstances.
The Region also does not concur that the Outreach Pilot was
improperly reported as a Community Involvement accomplishment.
While this initiative was indeed an ongoing one under the
auspices of SACM, it nevertheless fit the intent, if not the
letter of the Headquarters' guidance, and therefore was included
in the SAI.
The response concluded with a positive statement that our
observations are helpful to the Region in assessing its
performance and providing a basis for continuous quality
improvement.
OIG EVALUATION OF AGENCY'S COMMENTS
We are pleased that the results of this special review are
helpful to the Region. We continue to believe that ADR
activities at DOD's 12A Wellfield site and Community Involvement
activities under the Outreach Pilot should not have been reported
as SAI accomplishments.
11
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
While Region 10 initiated several constructive activities related
to DOD's 12A Wellfield site, we believe this site does not meet
the reporting requirements as an SAI accomplishment for the
following reasons: (i) Office of Regional Counsel personnel
stated that ADR had not been formally offered by EPA to the
Boeing Company, one of the PRPs; (ii) EPA's offer of ADR to DOD
was made several months prior to Region 10's SAI Implementation
Plan; (iii) the offer was to DOD, a federal agency, not private
parties as stated in SAI ADR Initiative Procedures
(August 20, 1993) ; and (iv) a settlement was reached through the
services of a court offered ADR specialist, not through EPA
provided ADR services.
We believe the Outreach Pilot project does not meet, the reporting
requirements as an SAI accomplishment under Community Involvement
because:
• It was not site specific. The Superfund Administrative
Improvements, Final Report, dated June 23, 1993, states:
"In order to further encourage community involvement in
decision-making, the Agency will identify Superfund sites
where innovative community involvement approaches and
techniques are being applied and will be applied."
• It was established as a SACM pilot, not an SAI pilot.
The Status of Regional Superfund Pilots: End-of-Year Report,
dated December 8, 1993, states: "The goal of the Outreach
Pilot project was to enable the public to make informed
judgments about the Superfund program and to develop an
understanding of SACM within the Region."
ACTION REQUIRED
As we stated in the CONCLUSIONS section above, we are not making
recommendations for specific corrective actions as a result of
this special review because the performance period for the SAI
ended in September 1994. Therefore, no written response is
required for this final report. We have no objections to the
further release of this report to the public.
This report contains findings that describe problems the Office
of the Inspector General has identified and potential corrective
actions for future consideration. This report represents the
opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in this
report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the
findings described in this report do not necessarily represent
the final EPA position, and are not binding upon EPA in any
12
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of
Justice.
Should you have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (415) 744-2445 or Charles Reisig of our Seattle Office at
(206) 553-4032.
13
-------
APPENDIX A
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
December 22, 1994
Reply To
Attn Of: HW-113
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 10 Comments on the Draft Office of Inspector
General for Audits Report on the Special Review of
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
FROM: Randall Smith, Director
Hazardous Waste Division, EPA Region 10
TO: Charles H. Reisig
Branch Manager
We are in receipt of your draft Special Review of Region
10's Superfund Administrative Improvements (SAI), Audit Report
E1SFG4-10-0078. The draft report specifically does not make any
recommendations for corrective action but rather seeks to
identify opportunities for process improvement.
It is important to understand that many of the SAI were
intended to merely initiate and 'test-drive' possible
administrative reforms to Superfund which would have the
potential of redressing some of the long-standing criticisms of
the program. There was no shared expectation that the SAI would
result in certain outcomes by specific dates. It was very much .a
'do what we can with the time and resources we have' mentality
which made perfect sense given the impending reauthorization and
associated uncertainties.
OBSERVATIONS AND REGIONAL RESPONSE
Initiative Objectives: The draft report observes that the
Region was able to identify many ongoing activities as surrogate
pilot projects for the SAI. The Region concurs with this
observation. The SAI performed the dual purpose of identifying
and initiating new pilot projects and, where appropriate,
tracking and reporting out on regional projects where SAI-like
approaches were already being utilized. Given the significant
overlap between some of the ongoing Region 10 work and the SAI,
it is not surprising that the SAI took on greater importance
regionally as a reporting and tracking system.
Performance Measures: The draft report correctly states that
EPA/HQ did not specify to the Regions how performance measures
should be defined leaving the reporting of successes up to the
Printed on Recycled Paper
14
-------
APPENDIX A
discretion of the Regions. The report is also correct in stating
that within the guidance that was issued from HQ, Region 10 was
successful with its implementation of the SAI, reported
significant results and accomplished these activities without
additional funding or staff.
Adequate Resources: The draft report is accurate in opining
that limited resources had a significant effect on the Region's
approach to SAI and its level of participation in the
initiatives. All of the Regions had made their resource concerns
known to HQ on several occasions to no effect. The limited
timeframe for the SAI also severely limited the number of sites
which could qualify for inclusion in the SAI as correctly noted
in the draft report.
Accurate Reporting: We agree with the conclusion of the
draft report that reported accomplishments should be tied to
performance measures, and controls should be in place to ensure
the accuracy of reports. Region 10 concurs with the observation
in the draft report that the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration
Project was inappropriately listed under the Community
Involvement Initiative. It should have been tracked under the
^Environmental Justice Initiative.
However, Region 10 does not concur with the conclusion of
the draft report that the ADR activities associated with Time Oil
Well 12A are necessarily outside the scope of the SAI. The offer
of ADR was actually between the Department of Defense and the
Boeing Company, not between two federal agencies as noted in the
draft report. The enforcement fact pattern of this site was
known to HQ and they approved of the offer to use ADR at this
site. While the HQ 'guidance' envisions the principal use of ADR
to be between private parties, the use of this allocation tool at
mixed party sites with both federal agency and private party
involvement was not precluded in special circumstances.
Further, Region 10 does not concur with the conclusion of
the draft report that the Outreach Pilot should not have been
included under the Community Involvement SAI. While this
initiative was indeed an ongoing one under the auspices of SACM,
it nevertheless fit the intent if not the letter of the HQ
'guidance' and therefore was included in the SAI. The Outreach
Pilot spawned a community education effort that extended beyond
the finite bounds of the SACM pilot, e.g., a geographically-based
approach to reporting on hazardous waste cleanup activities
in the Puget Sound Basin.
In summary, Region 10 is in substantial agreement with most
of the observations noted in the draft report. We agree that .the
SAI purpose and objectives lacked sufficient clarity with regards
the role of reporting and tracking vs the goal of identifying new
pilots. We also agree that performance measures were not clearly
15
-------
APPENDIX A
defined; however, this observation is less salient given that the
SAI were intended to initiate and 'test-drive' possible
administrative reforms, not bring them to some definitive,
measurable endpoints. We agree that adequate time and resources
were not provided to the Regions by HQ; disinvestments and
tradeoffs by the Regions were necessary to allow participation in
these national initiatives. And finally, reporting' accuracy
could have been improved upon in the case of Coeur d'Alene. The
Region does believe it acted appropriately in the matters of Well
12A and the Outreach Pilot.
Thank you for your efforts in compiling this Special Review.
Your observations are helpful to the Region in assessing its
performance and providing a basis for continuous quality
improvement.
16
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF PILOT PROJECTS REVIEWED
The seven pilot projects and activities that we reviewed were
included in the Allocation Tools, Environmental Justice, and
Community Involvement Initiatives.
Allocation Tools
Region 10 identified two sites for the Allocation Tools
Initiative.
The 12A Well site was once a drinking water well used by the
City of Tacoma and is now an operable unit of the
Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site. In
September 1981 contaminants were detected in the 12A Well
and use of the water was discontinued. By 1987, EPA had
identified two major PRPs for the 12A site, Boeing Aircraft
and the Department of Defense (DOD). However, the PRPs were
reluctant to pay for the costs of cleanup. So, EPA sued
.Boeing to recover costs. Boeing, in turn, sued DOD for
cleanup costs. The court date for the Boeing suit was
scheduled for June 1994.
During May 1993, EPA offered ADR services to DOD to assist
in reaching a settlement with EPA. On June 15, 1993, DOD
accepted the ADR offer. However, EPA's contract for ADR
services had expired and ADR was not pursued.
On September 7, 1993, Region 10's SAI Implementation Plan
was transmitted to Headquarters. The Region's plan for the
Allocation Tools Initiative stated that an effort to pilot
ADR at two sites had already been initiated. One of the
sites was identified with the following statement:
While these sites do not satisfy all of the
selection criteria, they do represent the
only potentially viable candidates for this
initiative. One of these demonstration
projects is considered uniquely appropriate
for the following reasons: (1) the mediation
involves DOD; ... and (2) DOD has tentatively
agreed to mediation in this case.
Region 10 personnel later identified the DOD site as the 12A
Wellfield site. Quarterly SAI reports for October and
December, 1993 stated:
17
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
ADR mediation continues to be a viable option
at a second site involving Department of
Defense, but ADR has not yet been scheduled.
EPA Headquarters has agreed to the use of ADR
at this site.
Negotiations (without ADR) between -EPA and DOD continued and
resulted in a draft settlement on February 3, 1994. On
March 22, 1994, a settlement of Boeing's suit against DOD
was reached through the services of a court offered ADR
specialist. The settlement was for $10.0 million with
Boeing Aircraft agreeing to pay $2.3 million and DOD
agreeing to pay $7.7 million.
The Hylebos Waterway is one of .seven waterways in the
Commencement Bay harbor of Tacoma. The waterway was
contaminated during years of industrial operations. The
Hylebos Waterway is now part of the Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund site which was listed on
September 8, 1983 to the National Priority List.
The PRPs for the Hylebos Waterway have organized into two
groups that .have not been able to reach an agreement on the
allocation of responsibilities or cleanup costs. One group
calls itself the Hylebos Cleanup Committee or HCC and
consists of six major PRPs. The second group calls itself
the Hylebos Minor PRP group and consists of 40 PRPs who
claim to have a very minor responsibility for the cleanup of
the site. To help solve the impasse between the two groups,
EPA suggested in September 1993 that the Minor PRP group
hire, in conjunction with the HCC, an independent allocation
consultant to assist in performing an allocation analysis of
responsibility for the waterway.
In the Region's September 7, 1993 SAI implementation plan,
the Region stated that ADR had already been initiated at two
sites. The plan did not identify the Hylebos Waterway site
by name. However, Region 10 personnel later confirmed that
one of the sites in the plan was the Hylebos Waterway.
EPA continued to negotiate with the PRPs and on
November 29, 1993, EPA signed an agreement with the HCC for
Pre-Remedial Design of the cleanup. The Quarterly SAI
report for December, 19.93 stated:
18
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
In one instance, the offer was initially
declined by the potentially responsible
parties. In further discussions, the PRP
groups showed more interest and agreed that
an allocation specialist and/or mediator
(either through ADR or contracted by the PRP
group) will be necessary to resolve
allocation issues. An information session on
ADR will be made to the PRPs in late January.
On January 25, 1994, EPA assisted ADR was offered during a
conference call with both groups of PRPs. However, in a
letter dated January 31, 1994, the Minor PRPs stated that
they would hire their own consultant to assist in reaching
an allocation settlement. The Quarterly SAI report dated
April 14, 1994 stated:
The Hylebos Waterway major and minor
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) groups
have chosen not to pursue Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) through EPA. They have
instead been interviewing, and have made a
preliminary selection, of a third party
mediator/allocation consultant to assist them
in reaching an agreement on an allocation.
Environmental Justice
The regions were to identify sites where environmental justice is
a concern, assess the key issues, and take proactive measures to
deal with those issues effectively:
According to Region 10 personnel, two sites were selected for the
SAI Initiative because the activities occurring at the sites most
closely fit the activities included in the Environmental Justice
Initiative. The Region considered the continued performance of
Environmental Justice types of activities at these sites to be
part of the SAI Environmental Justice Initiative. Region 10
identified the Moses Lake Wellfield and the Coeur d'Alene Basin
Restoration Project as sites for the Environmental Justice
Initiative.
The Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination site is located about
three miles northwest of the City of Moses Lake, Grant
County, Washington. The site comprises several water supply
wells located on the former Larson Air Force Base and the
privately-owned Skyline Water District. Since 1988, several
agencies have conducted studies at the site to determine the
19
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
extent of contamination. The Skyline Water District has two
contaminated wells and is part of the Moses Lake Superfund
site. The site was listed on the NPL in 1992. The EPA
Project Team determined that the Skyline Water District
portion of the site would be appropriate for early action
under SACM (Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model).
According to the 1990 Census, the area is a mixture of low
to low-middle income families. The Hispanic population of
Grant County is 10 to 18 percent within the City of Moses
Lake. The City of Moses.Lake asked that EPA provide Spanish
translation of fact sheets to the community early in the
process. EPA sent out a fact sheet translated into Spanish
dated July 9, 1992.
During 1992, EPA held meetings with the community. In
February 1993 the Region conducted interviews to determine
the community's concerns. The Community Relations Plan,
dated July 1993, describes the ways EPA plans to keep the
community informed about and involved in the cleanup
activities at the Moses Lake site. A notice for Spanish
translation was in the plan.
In the Region's September 7, 1993 SAI implementation plan,
the Region stated:
In July 1993, EPA sent letters to Skyline
Water District customers inviting them to
participate in a bottled water program ... All
families within the Skyline area will be
contacted in person to set up the alternative
water supply program. During these contacts,
EPA will evaluate whether there is sufficient
interest among Skyline residents to support
convening of a focus group ...
The Region's December, 1993 Quarterly SAI report stated:
At the Moses Lake site ... Fact sheets
describing the EE/CA (engineering
evaluation/cost analysis) were prepared in
Spanish and English. There has been no
indication that a focus group or other
special activities are needed at this time.
EPA will continue to provide information in a
bilingual format' and have a translator
available for this site.
20
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
The Region's April 14, 1994 Quarterly SAI report stated:
It has been, and will continue to be, EPA's
goal to provide all affected citizens in the
community with information concerning the
site in the native language of the recipient
... EPA will continue to provide information in
a bilingual format as the site cleanup
progresses. Fact sheets will be produced in
both Spanish and English and a translator
will be available for all future public
meetings concerning the site ...
The Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project was started in
the fall of 1991 to address water quality, hazardous waste,
human health, and fish and wildlife habitat concerns in the
Coeur d'Alene Basin. The Coeur d'Alene basin is
approximately 3,700 square miles of land within the
panhandle area of Idaho. The basin includes a number of
lakes and rivers. The basin has been impacted by a long
history of agriculture, forestry, and mining in watersheds
throughout the basin as well as development along its
shores. Past practices have led to water quality problems
due to heavy metals and nutrients such as fertilizers. The
Coeur d'Alene basin is not a Superfund site.
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), the U.S. EPA, the Coeur d'Alene
Tribe, members of the Coeur d'Alene Interagency Group, and
the Clean Lakes Coordinating Council are involved in the
restoration of the basin. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
was signed on November 9, 1992 between the State of Idaho
DEQ, the U.S. EPA and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. The purpose
of the MOA is to identify and coordinate the respective
activities, roles, and responsibilities of the Tribe, Idaho
DEQ, and EPA with respect to restoration of the Basin. The
Interagency Group and the Clean Lakes Coordinating Council
are the main organizations currently involved in the basin
project.
In the Region's September 7, 1993 SAI implementation plan,
the Region stated:
Recently, in recognition of the important
role of the Tribe in managing natural
resources of the Basin, EPA and the State of
Idaho entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe which creates a
21
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
partnership of sovereign governments within
the Basin to direct efforts to restore and
protect the natural resources of the Basin
for use by all citizens of Idaho.- This
historic agreement ... creates a new climate
where the interests of the Tribe are now
acknowledged and welcomed as restoration
efforts in the Coeur d'Alene Basin move
forward ...
The Region's December, 1993 Quarterly SAI report states:
EPA continues to meet.once every two months
with the Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the State of
Idaho to steer environmental restoration
efforts ... At the December meeting, senior
officials from the Tribe, State and EPA
outlined goals for 1994.
The Region's April 14, 1994 Quarterly SAI report stated:
EPA continues its meetings with the Coeur
d'Alene Tribes and the state of Idaho to
steer environmental restoration efforts ... EPA
continues to fund a representative of the
Coeur d'Alene Tribes as part of the Basin
Project Office.
Community Involvement
According to the Region 10 SAI Implementation Plan:
EPA Region 10 has utilized a variety of
innovative community relations
approaches to foster earlier and
meaningful public involvement at
Superfund sites ... Region 10 plans to
continue its efforts to reach beyond the
basic requirements for public
involvement and experiment with new
approaches for involving the public
earlier and in more meaningful and
constructive ways in the remedy
selection process.
The Region 10 SAI Plan identified two sites and one activity for
this initiative; the Asarco Smelter, the Coeur d'Alene Basin
22
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
Restoration Project (previously described under Environmental
Justice above), and an Outreach Pilot Project.
The Asarco Smelter is an operable unit of the Commencement
Bay Nearshore Tideflats Superfund site. The site was listed
on the NPL on September 8, 1983. Stack emissions, slag, and
fugitive dust from the Asarco facility are the confirmed
sources of contaminants such as arsenic and other hazardous
substances. The contaminated area includes the smelter
site, private and public property in the surrounding
community, and the adjacent shoreline. The smelter operated
for almost 100 years before closing in 1985 for economic
reasons.
According to the Record of Decision dated September 1989,
Region 10 had engaged in a number of community involvement
activities. Five main and 12 satellite information
repositories had been established. Proposed action plan
notice and analysis had been published in the Tacoma News
Tribune. Two public meetings were held for public comment
on proposed plan and cleanup alternatives.
According to Region 10 personnel, community involvement for
the residential cleanup had already been completed prior to
SAI. The second phase, the smelter site cleanup, was a good
site for SAI. By September 1993, Region 10 had put together
a Communications Plan. The goal of the plan was to maximize
community involvement prior to the development of a proposed
plan for'the smelter site. Activities included preparation
of fact sheets, holding availability sessions, conducting
community interviews, coordinating forum sessions,
conducting briefings and keeping the local media apprised of
the process and progress.
In the Region's September 7, 1993 SAI implementation plan,
the Region stated:
One example of upcoming activities for
earlier public involvement is on the Asarco
Tacoma Smelter site ... EPA has initiated an
outreach strategy for selection of the
cleanup remedy for the smelter. The strategy
calls for significant public input prior to
developing a Proposed Plan ... Regional staff
have released the RI/FS (Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study) and Risk
Assessment reports for public review and will
be holding availability sessions, community
23
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
interviews, and small group meetings to get
feedback on the findings in the reports ...
Another component of the strategy is to form
a Coordinating Forum ... to discuss the issues
of community concern ...
The Region's December, 1993 Quarterly SAI report states:
Three subcommittees of the Coordinating Forum
have been formed to discuss specific
technical and land use issues and meet at
least monthly. Individual Community
interviews have been conducted and EPA has
made presentations to several small community
groups and local government organizations ...
In addition, Asarco, the Town of Ruston, the
City of Tacoma, and the Metropolitan Parks
district have formed a "land use group" in
order to develop a Master Plan for future
development of the site.
The Region's April 14, 1994 Quarterly SAI report stated:
On April 7, 1994, the new Regional
Administrator for Region 10 participated in a
round table discussion with the Land Use
Subcommittee representatives and several
citizens from the community surrounding the
Asarco Tacoma Smelter Site. The community
members expressed its strong support for the
land use process which has been initiated.
The Outreach Pilot was another type of community involvement
activity which Region 10 considered to be part of the SAI
Initiative. The Outreach Pilot was actually a part of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). The pilot
started in fiscal 1992 and ended December 30, 1993. The
goal of the Outreach Pilot project was to enable the public
to make informed judgements about the Superfund program and
to develop an understanding of the SACM within each Region.
The Pilot identified target audiences and established
methods of communication such as fact sheets, press
releases, networks, meetings and workshops. The pilot did
not select specific sites to focus on.
According to Region 10 personnel, the Outreach Pilot was
already started prior to SAI but, the SAI was a way for them
to continue the pilot and report on it in the SAI quarterly
24
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX B
reports. Region 10 and Headquarters believed that some
positive things came out of this pilot and the SAI provided
a formal way to continue and track what was happening.
Regional personnel believed the Region would have continued
the pilot even without the SAI because they believe it was
worthwhile. However, with SAI, they could share their
success with other regions. According to the Region 10 SAI
Plan:
Region 10 has also been conducting an
outreach pilot project designed to ensure
that the public routinely receives factual
information about the success or failure of
the program. Under this pilot the Region is
preparing site-specific success stories and
updated Regional Superfund Progress Report to
provide additional information to communities
on the progress of Superfund. The goal of
this pilot is to establish a public
involvement culture that extends beyond site-
specific community relations ...
The Region's December, 1993 Quarterly SAI report states:
The Region 10 outreach pilot final report is
attached to this progress report. Activities
at the Asarco Tacoma Smelter site include
implementation of the outreach strategy
involving issuance of a fact sheet and
offering to conduct community interviews.
25
-------
Region 10's Superfund Administrative Improvements
APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
EPA Headquarters Office
Agency Followup Official (3101), Attn: Assistant
Administrator for Administration and Resources Mgmt.
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304), Attn: Director,
Resource Management Division
Audit Coordinator (5101), Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Audit Coordinator (2221), Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5201)
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (5501)
EPA Region 10
Regional Administrator
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Audit Followup Coordinator
Region '10 Library
26
------- |