United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency
             Solid Waste and
             Emergency Response
             (5106)
                                                         EPA505-B-00-001
                                                         March 2000
                                                         www.epa.gov/swerffrr/
 F3ft  In  Progre.
 EPA Update  on  Federal  Facility  Cleanup  and  Reuse
  Community  Relations
  Plan  Wins  Praise
Celebrating
Success
A
                     Lre you aware of the cleanup effort underway at Fort Pickett? What would
                     be the best way to keep the community informed? These are just two of
                    Ithe questions posed to community members as part of the development
               of the Community Relations Plan (CRP) for the cleanup efforts recently initiated
               at Fort Pickett in Blackstone, Virginia. By soliciting input early in the cleanup
               effort, the plan's creators directly addressed the community's needs and helped
               establish a positive relationship between cleanup officials and the local communi-
               ty. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3  staff believe the Fort
               Pickett CRP is "one of the most comprehensive and thorough" they've seen, and
               they plan to use it as a model for other federal facility cleanup projects.

    Designed to facilitate communication among the Army, public officials, residents, the media,
 and other interested parties, the Fort Pickett CRP was based on input obtained during interviews
 with local residents and community leaders. Twenty-eight local residents were interviewed by phone
 and in person in August 1998, including representatives of city government,  businesses, environ-
 mental groups, and community leaders.  Most of these individuals live within two miles of the base.
 Interview respondents answered questions in three categories, including general community-related
 questions, questions specific to Fort Pickett, and questions about community relations. Information
                                                             


 New  Guidance Will  Help  Bring Closure
BreakingNews
w;
                       hen the Air Force Base Conversion Agency (AFBCA) was nearing
                       completion of the remediation phase for some of its Superfund
                       national priority list (NPL) sites and Base Realignment and Closure
              (BRAC) installations, it wanted to ensure correct and legal procedures for final site
              closeout. While remediation plans were well underway at several bases, none had
              reached the point of closeout yet. The cleanup teams for these sites began looking
              for guidance on how to proceed. While they discovered various closeout instruc-
              tions, there was no single source of information on closing out an environmental
              remediation site at federal  facilities.

    This discovery planted the seed for the development of the Environmental Site Closeout
 Procedures for National Priorities List Sites and BRAC Installations, a comprehensive source of
 requirements for closeout of environmental restoration sites at military facilities. This guidance
 document was designed by a working group comprised of representatives from each military
 branch, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) environ-
 mental office, EPA, and the California and Illinois environmental protection agencies. The group
                                                           

Federal   Cleanups  That   Put   Citizens   First

-------
A  Decade  of  Progress  in  Cleanup
Of  Federal   Facilities
            n eafly December 1999, I had the fortune of
I            attending a meeting of the People of
          I Color/Disenfranchised Community
          (POC/DC) Environmental Health Network. As
          we mulled over the federal responses to 16
          POC/DC requests for environmental assistance,
          I was struck by the thought that ten years ago
          we could not have had such a meeting and as
          little as five years ago, if we would have had
such a meeting, it would have been fairly contentious. Now
I was sitting in a crowded EPA conference room in Crystal
City, Virginia, with federal officials, environmental justice
advocates, ministers, tribal representatives, and other
activists, cooperatively working toward finding common
solutions to environmental and health problems in affected
communities. What's more, there was a general recognition
that we needed to enlarge the circle to bring in more people
and resources to  provide more and better solutions. This
meeting and all that came before it are evidence of the
progress we have made.
   The 1990s witnessed considerable progress in federal
facility cleanup. Just before the decade started, we witnessed
what might have been one of the lowest points in federal
environmental stewardship with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation raid on the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Rocky Flats facility. More than any other, I think
that event provides us with a reference point to assess how
far we've come.
   The decade started with the phrase "decide, announce,
and defend" when it came to federal facility cleanups. As it
ends, words like "partnering" and "collaboration" describe
the general cleanup approach. Cleanup methods and federal
agencies' relationships with states, local governments, tribes,
and various affected communities are improved overall. Of
course, not all facilities or programs have made the same
progress. We see problems from time  to time but compared
to a decade ago, the difference is considerable. Our collective
task, however, is still very much a "work in progress" and we
must continue to build on and learn from our successes and
failures.
   People began to  recognize the potentially tremendous
cleanup workload at federal facilities in the late 1980s and
early 1990s. Few had a good sense of the magnitude of the
challenge, but most intuitively understood it to be over-
whelming. At that time, EPA was in the process of adding
more than 100 federal facilities to its Superfund National
                    Acronyms  Explained
   AFBCA     Air Force Base Conversion Agency
   BCT       BRAC Cleanup Team
   BRAC      Base Realignment and Closure
   CERCLA   Comprehensive Environmental Response,
              Compensation, and Liability Act
   CRP       Community Relations Plan
   DoD       U.S. Department of Defense
   DOE       U.S. Department of Energy
   DU        Depleted Uranium
   EPA       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   ETV       Environmental Technology Verification
   FFRRO     Federal  Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
   GPRA      Government Performance and Results Act
   HUD       U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
   IAP2       International Association for Public Participation
   NPL       National Priorities List
   POC/DC    People of Color/Disenfranchised Community
   RAB       Restoration Advisory Board
   RCRA      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
   SSAB      Site-Specific Advisory Board
   TSCA      Toxic Substance Control Act
   UXO       Unexploded Ordnance
          Partners In  Progress

          Philosophy
          Stakeholders involved in federal facility cleanups
          are diverse, with differing backgrounds, interests,
          and perspectives. All of these stakeholders, how-
          ever, share a single common goal—progress.
          Partners In Progress (PIP) provides an open
          forum for stakeholders to exchange information,
          offer solutions, and share stories about what
          works and what doesn't. We encourage you—our
          readers—to write to us about your activities that
          foster teamwork, promote innovation, and
          strengthen community involvement. Only by
          working together can we achieve "federal
          cleanups that put citizens first."
            positions, or po
                           licies of the As

-------
Priorities List (NPL). Few will recall the first EPA federal
facilities office in existence at that time, the Federal Facilities
Hazardous Waste Task Force in the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement. The 1994 reorganization of EPA
lead to the creation of the two current offices focusing on
federal facilities, (FFRRO and the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office [FFEO]).  Over the same time
frame, many EPA regional offices created their own
individual units, sections, or branches to focus on
the cleanup  of federal facilities.
    The last  decade has experienced many signifi-
cant events and achievements.  From my perspec-
tive, the 1993 Interim Report and later 1996 Final
Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee (also known as the
"FFERDC Report") was the most significant. The
significance  is not only in the report's "Principles
and Recommendations" for improving federal facil-
ity cleanup,  which are now being implemented,
but also in the dialogue process itself which
brought together individuals with a diversity of perspectives
and experiences. It forged a foundation for building cooper-
ation  and trust. The relationships and friendships developed
during the FFERDC process have helped us find solutions
to issues that have arisen since the reports publication. It has
proven to be a document we can return to for guidance
when facing tough issues and it has really changed for the
better the way the federal government works.
    Also noteworthy is the 1995 Report of the Federal
Facilities Policy Group on Improving Federal Facilities
Ckanup. This report was the Executive Branch's first system-
atic recognition of the environmental cleanup challenge on
federal lands. The report recognized the legacy of the  cold
war and past failures  of federal facilities to protect the envi-
ronment. It  remains the only report  to include an estimated
funding requirement for complete cleanup of federal govern-
ment sites. Though many were initially shocked at the $234
to $389 billion estimate, that figure  may have been an
under-estimate as it did not account for cleanups that may
be required for closed, transferring, and transferred military
ranges, formerly-owned contaminated federal properties,
and natural  resource damages.
    A third major achievement was the passage of the
Federal Facilities Compliance Act in 1992, which amended
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
waived sovereign immunity for violations of the hazardous
waste statute. It also addressed mixed waste issues and
required the promulgation of regulations  on unexploded
ordnance.
    From the perspective of Superfund cleanup, we have
made tremendous progress. A decade ago, toxic waste sites
on federal facilities were still being discovered and character-
ized. Compared to work at private sites, federal facilities
lagged behind in remediation. That changed in the 1990s
with a rapid evolution in cleanup programs. Many federal
facilities are now in the design and construction phases of
cleanup. The profile of work at the NPL sites dramatically
underscores this progress.
1990
Projects (end of year)
Proposed/Final NPL Sites
Ongoing Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study projects
Ongoing Remedial Design projects
Ongoing Remedial Action projects
All Remedial Action Projects Completed
NPL Deletions
121
275
17
13
0
0
1999
(end of year)
165
477
76
204
23
9
   But where do we go from here? As the FFERDC report
notes, the relationships among regulated agencies, the regu-
lators, and affected communities are tenuous and fragile. As
in most relationships, when money gets tight, tension tends
to increase. Federal fiscal constraints pose a tremendous
challenge to maintaining our current pace of progress
toward completing site cleanup. New contaminated sites are
being discovered and new challenges are emerging. To con-
tinue the core cleanup work at federal facilities, the federal
government must find solutions to the new challenges on
the horizon. The principal challenges that I  see are:
   •   Addressing closed, transferring, and transferred
      military ranges.
   •   Continuing to improve community involvement  in
      all phases of cleanup and reuse efforts with a focus on
      environmental justice communities.
   •   Building a viable program across all federal agencies
      for "long-term stewardship" of the cleaned up sites to
      ensure continued protection of human health and the
      environment.
   •   Addressing contaminated formerly-owned federal
      properties.
   •   Putting contaminated federal properties to
      productive reuse.
   •   Addressing contamination at the non-DoD, non-
      DOE federal facilities.

   I am looking forward to  building on the foundation we
have put together and working with all the parties that share
an interest in solving these and other, yet to be discovered
challenges. It will take our collective talents  to come up with
workable solutions. EI3

-------
Improving  the  Practice  of  Public  Participation
By Martha A. Rozelle

      The International Association for Public Participation
      (IAP2), a nonprofit corporation, is committed to
      improving decision-making processes by promoting
public participation and making it more professional.
Established in 1990, IAP2 takes a leadership role in estab-
lishing high standards for public processes by developing
and sharing personal values, and it is the most comprehen-
sive source of information, tools, and training needed to
improve decisions that affect the public.

   IAP2 has more than 1,000 members  from 25 countries
and all levels of government and industry, including electric
utilities, industry, engineering and environmental consulting
firms, law enforcement, health care,  and public participation
practitioners. Last year,  IAP2 entered a partnership with
EPAs Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(FFRRO) to help foster improved public participation in
federal facility cleanups. Marsha Minter,  FFRRO's
Community Involvement National Program Manager, was a
member of IAP2's Board of Directors for 1999.

   In its leadership role, IAP2 has defined a set of core val-
ues that its members use to guide the development and
implementation of public participation processes. These core
values were developed over a two-year period with broad
international input and have been adopted by other entities,
such as the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council. These core values ensure that the interests and con-
cerns of potentially affected  people and entities are reflected
in decisions. The core values are:

1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions
   that affect their lives.
 2.  Public participation includes the promise that the
    public's contribution will influence the decision.

 3.  The public participation process communicates the
    interests and meets the process needs of all participants.

 4.  The public participation process actively seeks out and
    facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected.

 5.  The public participation process involves participants in
    defining how they participate.

 6.  The public participation process provides participants
    with the information they need to participate in a
    meaningful way.

 7-  The public participation process communicates to
    participants how their input affected the decision.

    Decision-makers, public officials, and the public can
 achieve mutual expectations by treating each other with
 respect and by recognizing the IAP2 core values in the
 design of public participation processes. FFRRO intends to
 incorporate these values into its own participation planning.
 By showing stakeholders that they do have a voice in matters
 that concern them and that their concerns will  be taken into
 consideration in decision-making will improve  trust and
 communication—vital ingredients to successful public
 participation. IJIJ

   Martha A. Rozelle, Ph.D., is the president ofIAP2. She is
 also the president of a participatory decision-making consult-
 ing firm, The Rozelle Group, Ltd.,  in Phoenix, Arizona. For
 more information about IAP2 or to karn how to become a
 member, visit the program's Web site at .
A  Risk  Management  Approach  for UXO
       Over the past four years, FFRRO has been involved in
       the development of the U.S. Department of Defense
       (DoD) Range Rule and related supporting activities.
Critical to the success of the Range Rule (and EPAs concur-
rence) are the ongoing efforts to develop a risk assessment or
risk management approach. This effort, now in its third year,
will yield a much different approach for addressing military
munition and unexploded ordnance (UXO) risks at closed,
transferred, or transferring ranges than is currently in use.

   Initially, DoD developed an approach that was very
quantitatively driven. Given the wide application the
methodology would have, EPA urged DoD to create a part-
nering team comprised of representatives from EPA, states,
tribes, and other federal agencies and stakeholders. Originally
formed in  1997, the partnering team today involves approxi-
mately 40  individuals and combines insights from both DoD
and non-DoD parties. The overall approach has evolved
toward more qualitative risk management, recognizing the
uncertainty involved in the detection and clearance of UXO.
The Range Rule Risk Methodology will be the subject of a
comprehensive article to appear in a future issue of
Partners In Progress. QH

-------
 Community Relations  Plan
 

 obtained from the interviews included the community's cur-
 rent awareness level about the cleanup, primary sources of
 information on community news, and specific types of
 information they would like to receive about the cleanup
.activities.

    The Fort Pickett CRP outlines specific community rela-
 tions activities and a time line for implementing these activi-
 ties. Several of the activities relate directly to the interview
 responses. The plan, for example, calls for the BRAC
 cleanup team (BCT) to make presentations to local civic
 organizations highlighted by respondents. To make the CRP
 more useful to the community, it includes contact informa-
 tion for all the BCT and Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
 members as well as other pro-
 ject contacts, including local
 media,  Fort Pickett contacts,
 elected  officials, and area clubs
 and organizations.

    The BCT for Fort Pickett
 initiated the CRP in July
 1998, and it was completed by
 September 1998. The BCT is
 comprised of representatives
 from the Army Corps of
 Engineers, EPA Region 3, and
 the Virginia Department of
 Environmental Quality. The
 BCT members expressed their
 desire for a thorough CRP to
 the contractor who prepared
 the plan. They conveyed the
 specific components they
 wished  to see in the plan, one
 of which was the need to solic-
 it the community's input prior
 to the plan's development. In
 addition, the BCT provided
 feedback on the interview
 questions when they were in
 the draft stage. As a member
 of both the BCT and the
 RAB, EPA was instrumental in
 creating an exemplary plan.
 EPA Region 3 staff assisted in
 conducting interviews. In
 addition, staff took the initia-
 tive and asked RAB members
 for their recommendations for
 respondents. This resulted in a
 well-balanced pool of commu-
 nity members.
                            Fort Pickett, located in a rural area of southern Virginia, operated
                            mainly as a combat training facility from its creation until it was
                            designated for realignment in  1995. Restoration efforts began in
                            1996. Current cleanup efforts are focused on a 3,500-acre area of
                            the base that is being readied for transfer to the Local
                            Redevelopment Authority. Approximately 95 percent of these
                            3,500 acres were found to be free of environmental concerns and
                            suitable for transfer and/or lease. Cleanup activities for the
                            remainder of the affected area are currently  in the remedial
                            investigation phase.
Shell casings like those pictured above were
recently cleaned up from an area under investi-
gation at Fort Pickett. More than 8,000 shell cas-
ings were found. According to the Army Corps of
Engineers Huntsville District, some of the shells
showed evidence of residual contamination and
need to be  detonated and  rendered residue free
prior to disposal at a recycling facility.
   Before the CRP was developed, community involvement
in the Fort Pickett cleanup consisted primarily of participa-
tion in the RAB meetings. Public notices were placed in area
                            newspapers before each meet-
                            ing, and meeting minutes and
                            agendas were mailed to
                            approximately 60 interested
                            parties before each meeting.
                            The CRP interview responses
                            indicated a particular newspa-
                            per in which to put meeting
                            notices and expanded the
                            mailing list to 125 persons.
                            Also, it proved to be an excel-
                            lent way to raise awareness
                            about the cleanup efforts
                            since participants were briefed
                            on the project in conjunction
                            with the interview.


Two 55-gallon drums containing unidentified
substances. These drums were sampled, properly
characterized, and disposed of.
                               EPA staff believe that
                            because the CRP was devel-
                            oped in the early stages of the
                            cleanup effort, the BCT can
                            address any concerns that may
                            arise more effectively. Indeed,
                            few concerns are anticipated
                            precisely for this very reason.
                            Due to its comprehensiveness,
                            simplicity, and incorporation
                            of community opinion, EPA
                            Region 3 plans to use the Fort
                            Pickett CRP as a model for
                            other cleanup projects.

                               To learn more about the
                            Fort Pickett Community
                            Relations Plan, contact Don
                            Mclaughlin of EPA Region 3
                            at 215 814-5323. EH

-------
         Five-Year  Review  Guidance
              People often think that once a cleanup action is in
              place at a contaminated site, the work is done. But
              remedy selection is only the first step in making a
         closed, transferred, or transferring federal facility safe for
         human exposure. In order to ensure that a cleanup remedy
         eliminated the contamination or is still working to protect
         human health and the environment, the participants must
         conduct a five-year review. A review is an on-site inspection
         of remediation activities that includes testing contamination
         levels. While it sounds like an easy process, it can be diffi-
         cult to determine who conducts the review, when the review
         should take place, and what actions should be taken as a
         result. New guidance developed by EPA and slated for
         release in April 2000 helps clear up that confusion.

            EPA has defined two types of five-year reviews at all
         National Priority List (NPL) sites: statutory, meaning it is a
         mandatory action required by the Comprehensive
         Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
         (CERCLA), or policy, meaning that it is required by EPA
         policy. Both, however, may be conducted at any federal
         facility site where 'the President' (i.e., EPA or delegated fed-
         eral agencies acting on the President's authority) has selected
         CERCLA remedial actions that leave waste in place at levels
         that do not allow for unrestricted use,  to ensure that cleanup
         actions are working as planned  (i.e., remain  protective of
         human health and the environment). But how does a pro-
         ject manager know what type of review is needed and when
         it should be given?

            "It sounds like it should be routine, but it's not some-
         thing that can be summarized in one sentence," explained
         Mark Stephens of EPA Region 3. "There are some complex-
         ities to the who, what, when, and why." Answers to these
         issues, however, can be found in a new Five- Year Review
         Guidance. Stephens was one of the collaborators on the
         effort, working primarily on a chapter defining roles and
         responsibilities of the various parties involved in a CERCLA
         cleanup.

            Carol Bass of the Office of Emergency and Remedial
         Response, headed the five-year review team. Not only did
the team collect and compile previous guidance, but they
also worked to eliminate contradictions in earlier docu-
ments, defined terms, and clarified ambiguous or confusing
information.

   "It really was a multioffice effort," said Bass. "We needed
expertise from several EPA offices." After many months of
refining the text, the document is currently under review by
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense
(DoD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department
of Justice, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, as well as states and tribes.


Guidance  Features
   The purpose of five-year reviews is to determine whether
a remedy is or is expected to be protective, to document any
deficiencies identified during the review, and to recommend
specific actions to ensure that a remedy will be or will con-
tinue to be protective.

Who?
   The guidance goes into great detail as to who should
conduct the review. For federal facilities, this is determined
by the site-specific conditions: such as whether the site is a
NPL site; whether the site is a DoD, DOE, or Coast Guard
site; whether there is a federal facilities agreement (FFA) in
place; and  if there is an FFA, what does it say.  In many
cases, EPA has some role in the review.

What/When?
   Once it is determined who will conduct the review, it is
necessary to identify the kind of review needed. A statutory
review is required for those sites that upon completion will
leave contamination in levels higher than those allowable for
unlimited access or use. These reviews are conducted no less
than every five years based on the start date of a remedial
action. EPA policy reviews are required  for a number of
other sites  based on the guidance. These reviews take place
no less than every five  years based on the construction com-
pletion date of the remedy. The guidance also addresses
CyberNews
                      www.epa.gov/etv/
                      Managed by EPA's Office of Research and Development, the
                      Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program was created to
                      accelerate the introduction of new environmental technologies into the
                      domestic and international marketplace. The program's Web site explains
                      the process through which these new technologies are verified, including
                      pilot projects in development and testing events. This site also contains
                      the list of technologies verified and the ETV quality management plan,
                      tal and private sector participants in the ETV program. ETV articles and
                      press releases, links to partners and related Web sites, state and regional
                      outreach activities, and a list server are also available.

-------
other situations, including what is required if there are
RCRA actions or deferrals involved; monitoring, monitored
natural attenuation, institutional controls, 'no further action',
or multiple operable units.

How?
   Finally in addition to planning the review,  forming a
team, and compiling data, a reviewer needs to ask several
questions to determine the protectiveness of the remedial
actions at a site. The three primary questions are:

   •    Is the remedy functioning as intended by the deci-
        sion documents?
   •    Are the assumptions used at the time  of the remedy
        selection still valid?
   •    Has any other information come to light that could
        call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

   Depending on the responses to these questions, several
followup questions reviewers should ask also are included  in
the guidance document.

   The guidance is accompanied by a five-year review report
template, a sample report, and a site inspection checklist.
"The samples allow someone who's never conducted a five-
year review to get a good idea of what information is needed
and what a finished report should look like," Bass said.


Finalizing the Guide
   Bass and her team will carefully review the  other agen-
cies' comments, responding to each and deciding how to
incorporate them into the guidance. "This is a document
that people really need. They're looking forward to its
release," Bass said. "It's been a lengthy process but it has been
well worth the effort."

   The finalized guidance will be released in April 2000.

   For more information on the Five-Year Review Guidance,
e-mail Carol Bass at .
                                                               Community Involvement
                                                               On  the  Web
                                                                In keeping with its commitment to public participation, the
                                                                Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO)
                                                                unveiled its new Web page dedicated to community
                                                               involvement. Located within the office's main site at
                                                               , the new page is divided into several
                                                               topics containing information on the Federal Facilities
                                                               Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee, Restoration
                                                               Advisory Boards and Site-Specific Advisory Boards,  public
                                                               forums and workshops, tribal nations, environmental justice,
                                                               state and local government, environmental restoration issues,
                                                               and FFRRO partnerships.

                                                                 The community involvement site is still being developed
                                                               according to Jeff Stinson, FFRRO's acting Internet coordina-
                                                               tor. Phase 1, which is currently available on the Internet, went
                                                               online in November 1999. Phase 2 will include interactive
                                                               components such as community and site-specific forums in
                                                               which stakeholders, project managers, advisory board mem-
                                                               bers, and others can exchange information and suggestions for
                                                               facility cleanup. This portion of the site is expected to go
                                                               online in the near future. Stinson encourages readers to view
                                                               the site at 
                                                               and send their comments by e-mail to
                                                               .
www.afbca.hq.af.mil
The Air Force Base Conversion Agency (AFBCA) is committed to making sure that closing
and realigning Air Force installations are cleaned up and made available for reuse as quickly
and efficiently as possible. The agency's Web site helps further this mission by providing visi-
tors with progress reports, newsletters,  fact sheets, and training materials. The online version
of the Base Conversion Handbook helps personnel understand how their individual efforts
directly contribute to the overall conversion process and helps communicate the AFBCA's
mission, roles,
and those in affected communities. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) contact informa-
tion and site-specific data might also be of particular interest to Air Force base stakeholders.
The site also contains general regulations, guidance, and other information applicable to all o
the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) BRAC sites.
                                                                                                             --

-------
 EPA  and  DoD  Approve  Field  Guide
 On   Lead-Based  Paint
by Monica L. McEaddy and Sandra Cotter

^^^™he main objectives of any action implementing a
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
     (BRAC) recommendation are to eliminate threats to
human health and the environment that might be present
on the closing installation and to transfer the property to
communities quickly and efficiently. One threat that could
be present on a closing installation is lead-based paint (LBP)
contamination. This threat is easier to evaluate and clean up
thanks to the new interim Field Guide (EPA and DoD
signed off on the Interim Field Guide on December 15,
1999) developed by a team of Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Department of Defense (DoD) staff.
This break-through effort will help the agencies achieve
their goal of faster cleanup and property transfer.

   After collaborating for two years on how to address LBP
hazards at DoD sites, the two agencies signed a plan of
action in March 1999, and pursuant to that plan of action
the agencies began developing the Field Guide. The guide
provides a framework for EPA and DoD project managers
to manage and control LBP hazards at BRAC facilities. The
document combines existing  regulations such as Title X of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
and its implementing regulations, the EPA Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA)  Section  403 proposed rule, and the
Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD)
Section 1013 final rule, with  additional DoD policy require-
ments. The focus of Title X and the Field Guide is on pro-
tecting the health of children at residential properties. Title
X requires that hazards from LBP be abated in housing con-
structed prior to I960. While a federal agency may transfer
the implementation of abatement to the transferee, the fed-
eral agency must perform an  inspection and risk assessment
of all target housing prior to transfer.  In addition, as a mat-
ter of policy, DoD has included a number of requirements
that exceed Title X to ensure  that actions taken are protec-
tive of children. The Field Guide policy requirements
include:

   •  Soil surrounding housing constructed between I960
     and 1978 that contain  soil lead hazards (concentration
     of lead in bare soil equal to or exceeding 2,000 ppm
     or 400 ppm in bare soil in children's play area) caused
     by the use of LBP must be abated. The purchaser may
     be required to perform the abatement activities as part
     of the transfer agreement.

   •  Soil surrounding housing constructed between I960
     and 1978 that contains potential lead hazards (con-
     centration of lead in bare soil between 400 and 2,000
     ppm, except children's  play area) caused by the use of
     LBP will be evaluated on a site-by-site basis to deter-
     mine whether no action, interim controls, or abate-
     ment is appropriate based on risk and non-risk
     factors.

   •  Specific areas of the residential parcel or structure
     intended to be reused as a child-occupied facility will
     be evaluated for LBP hazards. LBP hazards (deterio-
     rated painted surfaces, dust lead hazards, and soil lead
     hazards) are required to be abated prior to the  use as a
     child-occupied facility.

   •  Target  housing that will be demolished and redevel-
     oped as residential property following transfer will be
     evaluated and abated by the transferee for soil lead
     hazards after demolition and prior to occupancy of
     any newly constructed dwelling units.

What's Covered and What's Not

   The interim Field Guide only applies to property that is
or will be reused as residential real property. HUD defines
residential real property as property where people reside or
will reside, such as houses and apartment buildings. As a
matter of policy, DoD includes child-occupied facilities
within the definition of residential real property for the pur-
pose of this guide.  Child-occupied facilities are defined as
day-care centers, preschools, and kindergarten classrooms
regularly visited by children under six years of age. This
guide is not applicable to non-residential properties such as
single room occupancy dwellings like Bachelor Housing,
and schools.

   The Field Guide does not supersede any state laws or
regulations regarding lead hazards. Therefore, any sampling
and abatement  requirements identified in state laws or regu-
lations must  be met. This guide is an interim final as it
reflects the proposed TSCA 403 rule and has not yet been
reviewed by states, tribes, and others potentially affected by
this field guide. Once the TSCA 403 rule is finalized and
additional comments are received, evaluated, and incorpo-
rated in the document as appropriate, the guide will  be
finalized. EPA and DoD will continue to work together on
other LBP issues, such as developing model language for a
non-residential  POST (finding of suitability to transfer). EH

   Monica McEaddy is a Chemical Engineer for EPA's Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office. Sandra Cotter is a Risk
Assessment Program Manager for the Environmental Division,
Headquarters Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

-------
 Setting  and  Achieving  Goals  With  GPRA
 by Renee Wynn
   This is the second installment of a three-article series on
FFRRO's efforts to comply with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
      mission is to protect human health and to safeguard
      the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon
which life depends. To remain focused on this mission and
to establish guideposts for EPAs leaders today and in the
future, the Agency has developed a series of 10 strategic,
long-term goals. These goals supported by EPAs objectives
and performance measures have become the framework for
the Agency's planning, budgeting, and accountability
process.

   FFRRO concentrates its efforts on Goal 5, "Better Waste
Management and Restoration of Contaminated Waste
Sites," including the oversight of Superfund cleanup activi-
ties on federally owned and operated properties containing
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. These sites
were created when chemicals and other wastes where
dumped in the open and left to seep into the ground, flow
into rivers and lakes, and contaminate soil and groundwater.
   FFRRO is responsible for providing oversight and tech-
nical assistance to other federal agencies for their uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites that are listed on the National
Priority List (NPL). These facilities range from nuclear
weapons plants and military bases to landfills and fuel distri-
bution stations and contain environmental contamination
from hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance, radioactive
wastes, or other toxic  substances.

   Goal 5 has several objectives and underlying compo-
nents. The following objective states EPA's plan of action,
while the response provides more specific information as to
how FFRRO is going to achieve these long-term goals at
federal facilities.

   Objective: Reduce or Control  Risks to Human Health:
By 2005, EPA and its partners will reduce or control the risk
to human health and  the environment at over 375,000  con-
taminated Superfund, RCRA, UST, and brownfield sites.
 The Agency s 10 Goals Are:
1. Clean Air
2. Clean and Safe Water
3. Safe Food
4. Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in
   Communities,  Homes, Workplaces, and
   Ecosystems
5. Better Waste Management and Restoration
   of Contaminated Waste Sites
6. Reduction of Global and Cross-Border
   Environmental Risks
   Response: Respond to Superfund Hazardous Waste
Sites: By 2005, EPA and its partners will reduce the risks the
Superfund sites pose to public health and the environment
by: 1) completing construction at a total of 1,200 NPL sites,
2) conducting 2,400 additional removal actions, 3) deter-
mining if Superfund cleanup is needed at 85 percent of the
sites entered into the Superfund site database, 4) maximizing
Potentially Responsible Party participation in
conducting/funding response actions, and, 5) meeting statu-
tory deadlines for federal facility activities. EPA will collabo-
rate with states and tribes to enhance the federal, state, and
tribal Superfund programs,  reduce overlap among the pro-
grams, and leverage public and private resources to promote
cost-effective, efficient cleanups at Superfund sites.

   These overarching measures are further broken down
into performance measures that are reviewed and updated
on an annual basis to reflect program changes. The 1999
performance measures for federal facilities included:

   •  EPA and its partners conducted 335 Superfund
     removal response actions.

   •  EPA accelerated the pace of Superfund cleanups by
     completing 136 cleanups and will achieve 900 con-
     struction completions  by the end of the year 2001.

   •  In recognition of the importance of community
     involvement in the cleanup decision-making process,
     the Superfund Federal Facilities Program created a
     measure for public participation.

   •  EPA established 100 Restoration Advisory
     Boardss/Site-Specific Advisory Boardss at federal facili-
     ties on the NPL.

   •  EPA commented or concurred on  100 base closure
     documents.

   EPA's efforts to develop  a strategic plan, goals, objectives,
and performance measures help link environmental regula-
tions and policies to the budget and hold EPA accountable
to the public.  EH

   Renee Wynn is the associate director of FFRRO.
 7. Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About
    Their Environment
 8. Sound Science, Improved Understanding of
    Environmental Risk, and Greater Innovation to
    Address Environmental Problems
 9. A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater
    Compliance with the Law
10. Effective Management

-------
                                                                 Closure
                                                                 

                                                                 met monthly for one and a half years, identifying and com-
                                                                 piling existing guidance and defining terms.

                                                                     In addition to providing a single resource for available
                                                                 closeout information, the document aligns and identifies
                                                                 both EPA and DoD milestones for the Comprehensive
                                                                 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
                                                                 (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
                                                                 (RCRA) programs,  making it easier for cleanup teams to
                                                                 stay on track. Further, it breaks new ground by defining the
                                                                 work to be done after a remedial action decision has been
                                                                 made, the point at which most cleanup guidance has ended.
                                                                 Specific steps involved in a variety of cleanup remedies and
                                                                 advice and examples based on real life situations, con-
                                                                 tributed by EPA regional members of the workgroup, round
                                                                 out this section of the guidance.

                                                                    According to Mario lerardi of the AFBCA, the guidance
                                                                 is focused on "streamlining cleanup and closeout activities at
                                                                 federal facilities across the country." As soon as a facility gets
                                                                 a cleanup remedy in place, lerardi  explained, it needs to start
                                                                 looking at closeout  procedures, even if remediation is
10
         FFRRO  Leads  the  Way  in  Promoting  Citizen Interests
         TheCommunity
         Connection
P
                         Iarticipating in two multi-
                         agency meetings on public
                         involvement in summer 1999,
                    EPA spoke out on several Superfund
                    site issues that affect surrounding
                    communities. Working closely with
                    citizen groups and restoration adviso-
                    ry boards (RABs), EPA tackled sever-
                    al issues including lead-based paint,
                    depleted uranium (DU) contamina-
                    tion, and the strength and effective-
ness of public involvement in federal cleanups.

   At a citizen caucus held in Washington, DC, in July
1999, the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(FFRRO) addressed the issue of lead-based paint at federal
cleanup sites. Because military structures are not covered by
Housing and Urban Development Department laws for resi-
dential buildings, they are allowed to deteriorate, contami-
nating soil and groundwater with lead. Also, access to these
buildings has not been consistently controlled, increasing
risks to individuals who might come in contact with the
paint. For more information on the remediation of lead-
based paint hazards at federal facilities, see the article on
page 8.
   Another issue presented at the citizen caucus was the
issue of depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive substance.
Used widely at military sites,  DU is a contamination risk to
humans and the environment. The caucus urged the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) to provide a list of sites
where DU is or has been used and a history of that use. The
caucus also requested samplings of soil and groundwater at
these sites to evaluate the extent of DU contamination.

   At both the citizen caucus and an EPA Region 8 citizen
workshop held in Denver last August, the issue  of public
participation was scrutinized  in the wake of DoD's dissolu-
tion  of the RAB at Fort Ord  in California. Citizens called
for the reinstatement of the Restoration Advisory Board,
arguing that communities must be recognized as an equal
participant in cleanup decisions.

   The success of these meetings led EPA and DoD to
agree to attend more community meetings, including exist-
ing community forums and tribal sessions. Community rep-
resentatives attending the meetings are hoping that such a
commitment will allow communities a bigger voice in the
decision-making process from start to finish.

   Background information for this article came from Defense
Environment Alert.

-------
expected to go on for several years.

   The guidance outlines several phases in preparing for site
closeout including:

•  Operation of Remedy: The BRAC Cleanup Team
   (BCT) determines which cleanup remedies to use and
   implements them.

•  Response Complete: The cleanup objectives have been
   or are being met.

•  Long-Term Monitoring/Maintenance: Ensures that the
   cleanup remedy remains in place as long as necessary and
   continues to be effective.

•  Site Closeout: This phase signifies that the response
   actions at the site were successful; all cleanup levels and
   other requirements have been achieved for all pathways
   of exposure, and no  further Superfund response is
   required to protect human  health and the environment.
   In many instances, however, a site will never be com-
   pletely closed out because it will always require some
   kind of monitoring.
    In January 1999, an interim guidance document encom-
passing all the existing closeout information was released as a
joint EPA/DoD and Military Service Guide. During a six-
month review and implementation period at military facili-
ties, BCTs had the chance to apply the guidance and
provide comments. These comments helped the working
group make final revisions to the document so it will be
effective in covering all the issues that might arise in a site
closeout situation.

    "We have not received many comments on the informa-
tion contained in the guidance," lerardi said. "We've tried to
find out what's missing and work to fulfill that need."

    A final EPA/DoD and Military Service Guide was to be
issued in spring 2000. LJU

    Additional information concerning site closeout can be
found on the Environmental Site Closeout Web site at
< urww. afbca. hq. af.millcloseout>.
Write To Us
We encourage your questions, comments,  and contributions. Please send your input to Dianna Yiung by mail
at U.S. EPA/FFRRO,  Mailcode: 5106, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; e-mail at
; or fax at 202 260-5646.
       Join  Our Mailing  List
       If you would like to be on the FFRRO mailing list to receive future \ssuesitfidPiaProg      sgs
       please fill out and  return this form to Dianna Yiung at U.S. EPA/FFRRO, Mailcode: 5106, 1200
       Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; e-mail at ; or
       fax to  202 260-5646.
           ~
                                                       Name:
                                                       Agency/Organization:

                                                       Street Address:	
                                                       State:
                                                                      Zip Code:
                                                       Phone Number:_

                                                       E-mail:	


-------
       Agenda
                  March 27 to 30, 2000
                 [26th Environmental
                  Symposium  and Exhibition
                  Long Beach, California
This year's conference focuses on the impact of DoD activi-
ties on the global environment and how to integrate envi-
ronmental issues in sustaining DoD readiness. For more
information, visit the conference Web site at
environment, ndia.org/>.

April 4 to 6, 2000
HAZMAT 2000 Spills Prevention Conference
St. Louis, Missouri
The HAZMAT 2000 Spills Prevention Conference pro-
vides an opportunity for communities, industry, states, and
nations to examine existing policies and tools that foster
hazardous material accident prevention, preparedness, and
response activities. For more information or to register elec-
tronically, visit the conference Web site at .
May 1 to 3, 2000
IAP2 2000
Washington, DC
This International Association for Public Participation con-
ference will explore the use and advancements of public par-
ticipation in the 1990s and into the new millennium.
Registration information is available on the Web at
 or call 703 971-0090.

May 2 to 4, 2000
The UXO/Countermine Forum
Anaheim, California
DoD's pre-eminent conference will examine the technolo-
gies, issues, and policies surrounding the UXO/
Countermine arena, including environmental remediation,
UXO disposal, humanitarian demining, and more. For
more information visit the Web site at  < 128.174.5.51/
denk/Public/News/UXOCOE/Conference/ForumOO/uxo
2000.html#summary>.
    •jequ jewnsucDjsod jueDjed o£ tsee| te SUJBJUOD (Bin jeded uo petnuj (Y1^
                                                                          80UJO  ssney  pue  uoiiBJOjsay
                                                                                          00£$
                                                                                                    sssmsng
                                                                                      Aous6v
                                                                                              091/02 DO 'uo}6mqse/v\
                                                                                                            (90IS)

-------