United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency
                      Solid Waste and
                      Emergency Response
                      (5106)
              EPA505-B-01-002
              May 2001
              www.epa.gov/swerffrr/
                      Part
                               In  Progress
                     EPA  Update on  Federal Facility Cleanup and  Reuse
EPA issues the first
national guidance on
institutional controls.
DoD and EPA work
together on explosives
cleanup.
Seven Superfund federal
facilities reach a major
milestone.
           ires
          le Army
re-think formerly used
defense sites.
     Issue 5
Citizens Award  Recognizes
Contributions of Tri-Valley CARES
Celebrating       ne U.S. Environmental Protection
                 Agency (EPA) presented its first
                  er Hazardous Waste Citizens
             Award to Tri-Valley Communities
             Against a Radioactive Environment
             (Tri-Valley CARES) in 2000 for its con-
             tributions to the cleanup of two U.S.
             Department of Energy (DOE) Superfund
             sites in California. Tri-Valley CARES is
             a community group based in
Livermore, California, that has been actively involved with
DOE's two Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLN
sites in the local area for almost 20 years.
        yiembers of Tri-Valley CARES accept the award
        from EPA representatives.
                       Founded in 1983, the group currently comprises more than 2,600 active members from a wide
                     cross section of the community, including artists, teachers, biologists, and engineers. According to
                     Tri-Valley CARES executive director Marylia Kelly, the group has participated in researching the
                                                                 
 FFRRO  Moves Forward on Challenges
                      FromTheDirector
                                       Ireetings! We're
                                       pleased to bring
                                       you another issue
                                  of Partners in Progress
                                  (PIP), a newsletter pub-
                                  lished by EPA's Federal
                                  Facilities Restoration
                                  and Reuse Office
                                  (FFRRO).
  It has been a while since our last issue of
 PIP, so we wanted to include updates on sev-
 eral major challenges that face us as we work
on the environmental cleanup and reuse of
federal facilities. In this issue are articles on
institutional controls (ICs), ordnance and
explosives (OE), and formerly used defense
sites (FUDS).

 For those of you who routinely follow fed-
eral facility cleanup issues, these topics are
no surprise. As remedies are being selected,
constructed and completed, we are faced
with the challenge of how best to ensure
protection of human health and the environ-
ment when contamination is left in place
above levels suitable for unrestricted use.
             
                      Federal   Cleanups  That   Put  Citizens  First

-------
 From the  Director
 

 This is the case at the majority of federal facilities, not
 just Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations.
 One of the significant challenges at facilities that remain
 under federal  jurisdiction is how to ensure ICs will con-
 tinue to work, since we don't have many of the usual
 "property control" mechanisms found in the private sec-
 tor, such as deed restrictions, easements, and zoning
 ordinances.
   Around the time this issue of PIP is published, the
 Department of Defense will be sending to Congress a
 report on ordnance and explosives. That report will show
 what we have intuitively known for quite some time-we
 have just scratched the surface of what needs to be done
 nationally. EPA will be moving forward over the next six
 months to put in place a Guidance for Addressing Ordnance
 and Explosives  and publish an EPA Handbook on the
 Management of Ordnance and Explosives at Closed, Transferred,
 and Transferring Ranges (CTTs). This issue of PIP provides
 a snapshot of where we currently are in the national
 debate.
   Finally, EPA, the states,  the U.S. Army Corps of
 Engineers, the Army, and the Tribal Association on Solid
 Waste  and Emergency Response have been working to
 improve the FUDS environmental investigation and
   cleanup program. Good progress is being made and
         changes are in the offing, but  much more work
               remains. Meanwhile, in order to establish
a consistent EPA national approach to privately-owned
FUDS that are not on the Superfund National Priorities
List, an EPA Headquarters/Regional  workgroup is draft-
ing a FUDS policy that we are expecting to finalize late
this spring.

  We are also highlighting areas where, along with our
state and federal partners, we are making progress. You'll
see a summary of the seven federal facilities that achieved
the "construction completion" milestone in Fiscal Year
2000 and an article about efforts to create a Uniform
Federal Policy for the improvement of environmental
quality data systems.

  Two other stories feature stakeholder involvement. One
is an article about a California citizens' group, Tri-Valley
CARES, which received an award for public participation
activities at two U.S. Department of Energy sites. Tri-
Valley CARES is to be congratulated for the positive
impact it has had on environmental decision-making and
community awareness for nearly 20 years. The other story
tells about a new Federal Facilities Working Group,
formed under the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Committee (NEJAC).

  We hope you will find this issue interesting and infor-
mative. As always, we welcome your comments,
questions, and suggestions. For more information,  please
visit our Web site at . U

-James Woolford, FFRRO Director
                   Acronyms  Explainei
BRAC      Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA   Comprehensive Environmental Response,
           Compensation, and Liability Act
CTT       Closed, Transferring, and Transferred
DoD       U.S. Department of Defense
DOE       U.S. Department of Energy
EPA       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FCOR      Final Close-out Report
FFRRO    Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FUDS      Formerly Used Defense Sites
1C         Institutional Controls
MOU       Memorandum of Understanding
NEJAC     National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
NPL       National Priorities List
OE        Ordnance and Explosives
PCOR      Preliminary Close-out Report
RCRA      Resource Conservation and Reuse Act
ROD       Record of Decision
SSAB      Site-Specific Advisory Board
USAGE    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UXO       Unexploded Ordnance
VOC       Volatile Organic Compounds
         Partners  In Progress
         Philosophy
         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."

-------
Interagency  Task  E
                            Environm
                                                                                            a aecision-
  Failure to come up with quality data has occurred at a
number of federal facilities during the past 10 years,
according to a 1997 EPA Inspector General report. For
example, an agency would gather data from one area of a
site undergoing cleanup. The data gathered might char-
acterize conditions in that particular area of the site, but
did not reflect conditions in other sections of the site.
Thus, the data gathered was accurate, but not fully rep-
resentative of the site conditions as a whole. Data that
cannot be validated or verified might mean that result-
ing agency decisions  lack a sound, objective foundation.
  "Because of the problems with EPA oversight and fed-
eral quality assurance systems, it is our opinion that
laboratory analyses conducted to date at DoD and DOE
sites cannot be presumed to be of appropriate quality for
cleanup decision making," concluded the EPA Inspector
General report, Laboratory Data Quality at Federal
Facility Superfund Sites. "This should be a national con-
cern, since DoD and  DOE have over 90 percent of the
160 federal facility Superfund sites on or  pending inclu-
sion on the National  Priorities List."
  The task force, which was formed in 1997 in response
to the Inspector General's report, addressed both real and
perceived inconsistencies or deficiencies within "Quality
Systems" in governmental organizations.  The term
"Quality Systems" refers to a process agencies employ to
make sure that the products they provide are actually
meeting the requirements of their customers. In addition
to gathering of questionable data, deficiencies in the
Quality System can also result in increased costs, project
delays, and  a higher potential risk of flawed decisions
where site cleanups take place.
  "EPA, DoD and DOE lacked a consistent understand-
ing on how to obtain and manage environmental data,"
said FFRRO Director Jim Woolford, the  task force chair-
man. "The Uniform Federal Policy puts a structure in
place to assure agencies are gathering data of known and
reliable quality."
  EPA Regions and  various sectors of DoD and DOE
reviewed the policy, and the task force carefully consid-
ered numerous comments from the agencies as it was
drafting the policy.
  The new policy benefits all the partners by:
• Making environmental data gathering more credible
  to the public, by focusing on results, quality of data
  and services, and customer satisfaction.
• Promoting improved and consistent Quality Systems
  across EPA Regions, DoD, and DOE.
• Permitting flexibility, or graded quality assurance
  approaches, so data collection can be tailored to meet
  the desired end uses of the data.
• Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each agency
  in managing environmental data and environmental
  technology efforts.
• Improving confidence that the system can produce
  quality data and technology to reduce duplication of
  oversight efforts.
  The policy is consistent with  EPAs Quality Order
and, like EPAs order, is based on the American National
Standards Institute/American Society for Quality Control
(ANSI/ASQC) E-4 Standard, Specifications and
Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data
Collection and Environmental Technology Programs.
The policy provides guidance on how to set up the pro-
gram and reflects the needs of other federal agencies
besides EPA. Use of consensus standards such as E-4 is
strongly encouraged by the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act.
  EPA offices participating on the task force include the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the
Quality  Staff of the Office of Environmental Information,
and four EPA regions.
  At the same time, FFRRO is  represented on EPAs
Data Quality Strategic Plan Work Group so efforts at the
program level are being coordinated with Agency-wide
initiatives.
                             

-------
 Institutional   Controls:
 Effectiveness Is Key to  Remedy
By Allison Abernathy, FFRRO

   nstitutional controls are nonengineering measures
   designed to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous
   substances left in place at a site, or assure effective-
ness of the chosen remedy.

  EPA believes that institutional controls (ICs) and their
effectiveness go to the heart of the very protectiveness of
the remedy. To the extent that the ICs are not reliable, the
remedy may fail. Even to consider a cleanup to less than
"unrestricted use," we must focus on what makes the reme-
dy protective, and those are the ICs.

  In a keynote speech at the Eastern Land Use Control
(LUC) Stakeholder Forum in Washington D.C., Tim
Fields, EPA's former Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, presented the fol-
lowing points about ICs:

• ICs are remedies if they are used to limit or prevent
  exposure to hazardous substances,  or prevent  actions
  that could damage engineered remedies.

• Like other CERCLA remedies, an  1C remedy must be
  evaluated under criteria established by the National
  Contingency Plan (NCP)-including  "long-term effec-
  tiveness."

• ICs are described in the NCP as a "limited action"
  alternative; therefore, the Record of Decision (ROD)
  isn't considered a "no-action" ROD.

• ICs must be evaluated as rigorously as other remedial
  alternatives. Incomplete consideration of the  reliability
  of an 1C remedy increases the likelihood that a failed
  remedy will have to be revisited, and that  additional
  costs will be incurred that could have been prevented by
  a thorough evaluation early in the process.

• Coordination with state and local governments  and
  stakeholders early in the process is essential. Neighbors
  can be impacted by ICs, and, to varying degrees, imple-
  mentation and monitoring and enforcement may be
  done at the state/local level.
  The acceptability and reliability of ICs should be evalu-
  ated very early in the process, long before a remedy
  decision is made, so that the use of ICs is not considered
  "a given."

  It is imperative to have agreement on roles and responsi-
  bilities of all parties responsible for implementing the
  ICs before they are selected as part of a remedy.

  Cleanup to levels permitting unrestricted use should be
  considered in risk assessments, to allow evaluation of the
  true cost of restricted use decisions. The incremental
  cost of cleanup to  unrestricted use may be less costly
  than anticipated, as well as allow for higher and better
  land use. Also, the cost of monitoring and enforcement
  of an 1C should be weighed, as should the continuing
  potential liability  in the event of failure of the 1C.
ICs must  be evaluated as rigorous-
ly as other remedial  alternatives.
EPA Guidance
  In January 2000, EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration
and Reuse Office (FFRRO) issued EPA's first national
guidance on ICs. This guidance, Institutional Controls and
Transfer of Real Property under CERCLA Section 120
(h)(3)(A),(B) or (C), addresses all federal property transfers
subject to CERCLA 120(h)(3)-the section of CERCLA that
addresses all transfers of contaminated real  properties to
non-federal entities. The guidance outlines information
that EPA needs from the transferring federal agency to
determine that ICs will perform as expected in the future.
The guidance is available from the FFRRO Web site at
.

-------
                                                        Stakeholders  Discuss
                                                        Land-Use  Controls
  In September 2000, EPAs Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OERR) issued a fact sheet,
Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to
Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls
at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. This
fact sheet focuses on evaluation and selection of ICs
and discusses implementation, monitoring and
enforcement issues. It provides a detailed matrix of the
different types of ICs and some of their relative
strengths and weaknesses. It also points out differences
between federal  facility and private sites in the devel-
opment and implementation of ICs. This fact sheet can
be found at EPAs Web site at .
Future EPA Efforts
  Two national efforts are underway. FFRRO is devel-
oping a national 1C guidance for active federal
facilities. Currently, EPA Regions 4 and 10 have
regional 1C guidance for active federal facilities. This
national guidance will provide uniform guidelines
across all 10 EPA regions. FFRRO is in the scoping
process now-evaluating the implementation of the
Region 4 and 10 guidances for active facilities and
conducting a study of federal facility RODs to see how
to best craft this national guidance. FFRRO expects to
circulate a draft in 2001.
  OERR will develop a fact sheet on Implementing,
Monitoring, and Enforcing ICs in 2001. While both of
these efforts are chaired by a particular office, they are
a team effort involving expertise and input from
FFRRO, OERR, the Offices of General Counsel and
Solid Waste, and all 10 of EPAs regional offices.
.



      he first large-scale effort to gather input on land-
      use controls from a variety of diverse stakeholders
      occurred last year, when the International
City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the
Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO)
held two forums, one on each coast. ICMA and CPEO
invited major stakeholder groups from the military ser-
vices, EPA,  state environmental departments, local reuse
authorities and governments, communities and restora-
tion advisory boards, native American groups,
consultants, insurance providers, and academia to share
information and discuss their priorities.

  Land-use controls are defined broadly as legal and
administrative measures that restrict activities and uses,
as well as limit exposure and access to properties with
contamination. Although consensus was not clearly
reached at the forum, several ideas for improving the
effectiveness of land-use controls were discussed:

• Conduct a thorough and open process that includes
  all relevant stakeholders.

• Design durable land-use controls to address the
  nature of the contamination.

• Include a detailed description of the land-use control
  in the cleanup documents.

• Ensure that deed restrictions and covenants apply to
  future owners and tenants.

• Determine how the land-use controls will be record-
  ed and made available to the public.

• "Layer" land-use controls by not relying on a single
  entity or type of control.

• Determine funding responsibility before implement-
  ing the land-use controls.

• Create an advisory/oversight board.

• Undertake programs to educate communities and
  other affected stakeholders.

  In addition to the stakeholder forums, ICMA's Base
Reuse Consortium is creating a Web site to disseminate
information related to land-use controls at military
bases and other federal facilities.

  For more information, contact Jacen McMillen at
ICMA at .

-------
 FFRRO  Offers   Publications
 on   Ordnance  and  Explosives
     Project managers looking for help on managing ord-
     nance and explosives (OE, which includes
     unexploded ordnance, or UXO) at former military
 ranges can look to two forthcoming FFRRO publications
 for guidance. In coordination with EPA regional offices,
 FFRRO has developed the Guidance for Addressing
 Ordnance and Explosives and the EPA Handbook on the
 Management of Ordnance and Explosives at Closed,
 Transferred, and Transferring Ranges (CTTs). They build on
 the DoDIEPA Interim Final UXO Management Principles
 for Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferred, and
 Transferring Ranges issued in March 2000.
   While the EPA/DoD Interim UXO Management
 Principles provide a good framework, more specific guid-
 ance has been sought by EPA regional offices, especially
 in regard to site characterization and cleanup of OE at
 CTT ranges. The U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
 (USAGE) and the services also have internal guidance
                      concerning explosives safety, but there is a lack of guid-
                      ance concerning OE response that has regulatory agency
                      and stakeholder support.

                      Range Rule Withdrawn
                        Since March 2000, the proposed Range Rule, intend-
                      ed to define a process for addressing risk to human
                      health and the environment through characterization and
                      cleanup of OE at CTT ranges, had been under intera-
                      gency review with the Office of Management and
                      Budget. On November 13, 2000, Sherri Goodman, for-
                      mer Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
                      Environmental Security, formally withdrew the Range
                      Rule from the rule-making process.  Federal consensus
                      could not be reached on the following areas:

                      • How explosives safety would be handled under the rule.
                      • The use of emergency responses.
 DoD  and  EPA  Define  Management  Princ
      DoD and EPA have
      agreed that human
      and environmental
health and explosives safety
need to be evaluated and
addressed at the many closed,
transferring, and transferred
(CTT) military ranges that
are set to enter the public
domain. These agencies and
other stakeholders, however,
have had differing views on
which processes they should
follow to effectively conduct
such activities. To resolve
these differences, DoD and
EPA worked together to
develop a set of management
principles to assist DoD per-
sonnel, regulators, tribes,
states, and other stakeholders
with reaching agreement on a
common approach to
response actions at CTT sites.
To address specific concerns
with respect to response
actions at CTT ranges prior
to implementation of the
Range Rule, DoD and EPA
agreed to the following gen-
eral management procedures:
• When necessary, DoD will
conduct response actions
on CTT ranges that take
into account human
health, the environment,
and explosives safety.

DoD will communicate
explosives safety informa-
tion to regulators and the
public to the maximum
extent practicable.

DoD and EPA will
attempt to resolve issues
at the lowest level.

Legal authorities support-
ing site-specific response
actions at CTT ranges will
include, but are not limited
to: CERCLA, the Defense
Environmental Restoration
  Program, and the DoD
  Explosives Safety Board.

Additional principles include:
• Allowing for substantive
  involvement of tribes and
  states throughout the
  response action processes.
• Providing adequate site
  characterization through a
  variety of methods.
• Sharing information on
  relevant technological
  advances.
• Clearly defining land use
  controls.
• Seeking adequate
  funding.
                                               From left to right: Open burn disposal at an Army
                                               depot in California. Excavated UXO.

-------
            From left to right: Open burning
            grounds at a former Army depot in
            Illinois. A picking conveyor, one of
            the excavation technologies used to
            clean up OE sites. Deer grazing at a
            wildlife refuge established on a for-
            mer Army depot in Illinois.
            •  Repeated actions to address a site.
            •  Remedy selection authority.
            •  Consistency with CERCLA and the NCR
            •  Community involvement.
              Despite the inability to reach agreement, DoD stated
            in its withdrawal letter that the agency believes it is
            good government to have a Range Rule and expects to
            re-propose the rule applying the knowledge learned from
            interaction with tribes, states, and the public. DoD will
            continue to conduct a range response program to reduce
            risk at CTT ranges. To support this effort, DoD also will
            provide internal guidance to its field personnel on how
            to proceed with a CTT response program.

            Range Response Training
              Experiences in the field have demonstrated a need for a
            training course on military munitions and cleanup.
            Ordnance and explosives response training is urgently
            needed by all remedial project managers (RPMs) (EPA,
iples  for  CTT   Ranges
        • Determining removal
          depths through evalua-
          tion of site-specific data
          and risk analysis based
          on reasonably anticipat-
          ed future land use.

        • Determining the nature
          and extent of other con-
          stituent  contamination.

        • Conducting CERCLA
          response actions and/or
          involving current and
          prospective federal land
          managers to address
          explosives safety hazards
          when appropriate.

          DoD and EPA agreed
        that preferred response
        actions will be consistent
with these management
principles, CERCLA, and
any applicable RCRA cor-
rective action requirements.
These principles, however,
do not affect federal, tribal,
or state regulatory or
enforcement powers or
authorities concerning haz-
ardous wastes, hazardous
substances, pollutants, or
contaminants, nor do they
expand or constrict the
waiver of sovereign immu-
nity by the United States
contained in any environ-
mental law.
DoD, federal land managers, tribes, and states) to address
OE site characterization and cleanup safely. Ordnance and
explosives site characterization and cleanup present chal-
lenges and issues for all RPMs, but information for
handling them has not been widely disseminated.
  FFRRO is currently developing an OE pilot training
session. The training will be designed to provide RPMs
and others the latest guidance concerning characteriza-
tion and cleanup. Topics to be covered by the training
include the use of the conceptual site model (CSM) and
statistical sampling methods; current technology advan-
tages and limitations will be explored.

Conceptual Site Model (CSM)
  To date, range responses have not generally employed
a conceptual model to frame response actions. This short-
coming has promoted wide variability in the response
process and concern from the public and regulatory com-
munity as to whether actions taken are sufficient.  A
model or series of models is needed by field personnel to
better frame necessary range responses from planning to
closeout.
  EPA Region 10, in conjunction with the EPA National
Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), is leading an effort
with USAGE and the states to develop a CSM or series of
models. The long-term objective of this effort is to issue
guidance on the development of CSMs and their use for
OE sampling. Questions should be directed to Harry
Craig, Region 10 RPM, at 503 326-3689.

Range Risk Methodologies
  Assessing and characterizing the risk from ordnance
and explosives are challenging. In 1996, DoD estab-
lished a workgroup to develop a risk methodology that
specifically identified risks associated with OE. A quali-
tative approach was adopted that attempted to define: (1)
when further investigation is required; (2) when addi-
tional response actions are necessary; and (3) when no
action should be considered. The workgroup developed
an Interim Range Rule Risk Methodology (iR3M),
which was made available for public comment in March
2000. However, several parties, including EPA,
expressed reservations about iR3M. As a result, DoD
convened the last meeting of the iR3M workgroup in
March 2001. At this meeting, the Army took comments
and suggestions from workgroup members on how to
move foward on a risk methodology, while DoD is
rethinking its approach to a new Range Rule.
                                                                                              

-------
 2000   Construction   Completions
FY  2000  Federal Facility
Construction  Completions
Fort Devens-
Sudbury
Training Annex,
Massachusetts

      The Sudbury
      Training Annex is
      a former Army
installation covering
2,750 acres, including
portions of the towns of
Maynard, Stow, Hudson,
and Sudbury,
Massachusetts. Established
in 1942, the annex has
served as an ammunition
depot, an ordnance testing
station, a troop training
and research area, and  a
laboratory disposal area.
The Annex was selected
for closure in 1995.

  Portions of the Annex
contain volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pes-
ticides, and inorganics in
amounts that surpass safe
drinking water standards.
According to the site's
FCOR, the Army has con-
ducted initial cleanup
actions, as well as long-
term remedial actions for
specific sections, includ-
ing the Old Gravel Pit
Landfill, a former fire
training and flame retar-
dant clothing testing area,
and smaller areas that
contained some contami-
nated soil.

  In 1991, the Army
began investigating the
extent of the site contami-
nation on the landfill and
completed construction of
a landfill cap by 1996. A
record of decision (ROD)
regarding groundwater
was finalized in 1997. In
1987, the Army began
removing contaminated
soil from the fire training
area, and it removed an
underground storage tank
used to store fuel in 1992.
Contaminated soil
removal action took place
from 1995 to 1996. After
a supplemental ground-
water investigation in
  In Fiscal Year 2000, seven federal facilities on the Superfi
  struction completion. This achievement represents the h
  for any single fiscal year, increasing the total number to
complex, each construction completion represents a signific

  A construction completion site is a former toxic waste si
complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and a
ed the Construction Completions List (CCL) to simplify its
the successful completion of cleanup activities.

  Construction completion of a site is a significant benchn
longer threatening the health and well-being of the surroui
soil, air, surface water, or groundwater. It also means that, t
ing, the site is usually ready to be reused for economic, soc

  "Recognizing the magnitude and complex issues associat
community should be proud of this significant accomplish!
completion coordinator.

  The following federal facility sites achieved construction
(FCOR) was filed, which means that site has reached comp
required before the site can be deleted from the NPL. Othe
complete before achieving their FCOR, have filed prelimin
construction related to the cleanup must have been comple
example of this may be an ongoing pump-and-treat operati
site and the schedule for site completion.

  The "construction completion" determination was achie\
with the signing of a PCOR. Future issues of Partners in Pr
facilities that reach this milestone during FY 2001.

  For more information on construction completions, cont;
 or visit 
-------
   Include   Seven   Federal   Facilities
ind National Priorities List (NPL) were brought to con-
ighest number of federal facility construction completions
29 sites. As the cleanups on the NPL become increasingly
:ant milestone for the federal facilities involved.

te where physical construction of all cleanup actions is
11 long-term threats are under control. In 1993, EPA creat-
system of categorizing sites and to better communicate


lark in the cleanup process. It means contaminants are no
iding community or spreading uncontrolled through the
:ven though long-term cleanup actions may still be operat-
lal, or environmental purposes.

ed with federal facility site cleanups, the federal facility
nent," said Richard Jeng, EPA's national construction


completion in 2000. At one site, a final close-out report
liance with all statutory requirements. This report is
r sites, which may have had more complicated activities to
ary close-out reports (PCORs). With a PCOR, all physical
ted, but operation and treatment may be ongoing. One
on. The PCOR identifies activities  still remaining on the


red at Loring Air Force Base, Maine, on  March 23, 2001,
ogress will include information on Loring and other federal


ict Richard Jeng at 703 603-8749 or
resources/closeout/index.htm>.
           Pease Air Force
           Base, New
           Hampshire
                Pease Air Force Base
                maintained aircraft
                from the 1950s on
           a 4,365-acre site in
           Rockingham County,
           New Hampshire, during
           which time contaminants
           from fuels, oils, lubri-
cants, solvents, and pro-
tective coatings were
released into the environ-
ment. The base was closed
in 1991, and the Air
Force has been conducting
an environmental cleanup
program there since  1983.

  According to the Pease
PCOR, operable units on
the site were organized
into eight different zones
                         encompassing 49 different
                         sites, based on geographic
                         location, similar ground-
                         water properties, and
                         geologic units. The Air
                         Force identified  38 differ-
                         ent areas of concern and
                         undertook dozens of reme-
                         dial actions, including:
                         landfill consolidation and
                         capping; excavation and
                         off-base disposal of conta-
                         minated soils and
                         sediments; in-situ treat-
                         ment of contaminated
                         soils using vapor extrac-
                         tion/air sparging;
                         pump-and-treat systems;
                         in-situ treatment of conta-
                         minated groundwater
                         using permeable reactive
                         barrier technology; and
                         monitored natural attenu-
                         ation. A total of 11 RODs
                         were signed.

                           "The many cleanup
                         and redevelopment suc-
                         cesses that have  been
                         achieved to date at this
                         site have been the result
                         of a dedicated team effort
                         by the Air Force Base
                         Conversion Agency, New
Trench excavation for Pease AFB Site 49 groundwater
treatment system.
                         Hampshire Department of
                         Environmental Services,
                         Pease Development
                         Authority, and EPA," said
                         Mike Daly, remedial pro-
                         ject manager for the site.
                         "Maintaining this team
                         approach will ensure
                         timely and successful
                         completion of the large
                         property transfer and site
                         closeout workload which
                         remains for Pease."

                           The Pease airfield is
                         now a fully operational
                         commercial airport, while
                         other property is currently
                         being used or developed
                         for light commercial and
                         industrial facilities. A
                         large portion of the base
                         was also transferred to the
                         U.S. Department of
                         Interior for use as a
                         national wildlife refuge.

-------
Naval Air
Warfare Center
(NAWC),
Pennsylvania
      PAWC is an 824-
      acre facility in
      Warminster,
Pennsylvania, that was
used for military aircraft
assembly and modifica-
tion during the 1940s and
closed in 1996 under the
Base Realignment and
Closure Act. NAWC was
placed on the National
Priorities List due to a
threat that eight disposal
areas posed to groundwa-
ter quality. The area
surrounding NAWC is
completely dependent on
groundwater for both
public and private water
supplies.
  The facility was divid-
ed into 10 operable units
to address contaminated
surface and ground water,
soils, and sediment.  The
Navy investigated 53
areas of concern as part of
an Environmental
Baseline Survey and  took
short-term removal
actions to excavate and
dispose of contaminated
waste, soil, and debris and
to extend existing public
water supplies. A total of
12 RODs were signed.
  In 1997, a removal
action was conducted at
sites that contained a
series of disposal tenches
and pits. In 1998 and
1999, soil contaminated
with cadmium, lead, and
other heavy metals was
removed from three other
sites. Erosion controls are
in place at one of the
sites, and two other sites
have been covered with
clean, vegetated soil.
  According to the site's
PCOR, the Navy demon-
strated that final
groundwater remedies
were operating properly
and successfully. The Navy
also put in place plans for
stream monitoring and
ongoing groundwater
monitoring, operation and
maintenance, and imple-
mentation of institutional
controls. With  the excep-
tion of a Navy housing
area, the property has been
transferred to the private
sector, and is surrounded
by homes, commercial and
industrial activities, and a
golf course.
  "The success of the
cleanup is evidenced by
the fact that all of the
wells once believed to  be
threatened by groundwater
contamination now have
been connected to the
public water supply," said
Darius Ostrauskas, reme-
dial project manager for
Region 3.
Tobyhanna
Army Depot,
Pennsylvania
       Tobyhanna Army
       Depot is a 1,293-
       acre military
facility established in
1909 in northeastern
Pennsylvania that was
used for machine gun and
field artillery training, an
ambulance and tank regi-
ment training center, and
an ordnance storage depot
during World War I. The
depot later was used as a
Civilian Conservation
Corps camp area and for
storage and supply uses.
Tobyhanna  is currently a
communication/electron-
ics maintenance and
supply depot.
  The Army first discov-
ered VOCs  on the site in
1981. The state sampled
nearby wells in the mid-
1980s and identified
VOC contamination,
which led the Army to
conduct numerous inves-
tigations to find the
potential source areas of
these contaminants. The
facility was placed on the
NPL in 1990.
  According to the site's
PCOR, as of September
2000, RODs have been
signed for five operable
units, some of which were
used for hazardous waste
burning and storage and
others that contained
PCBs, unexploded
artillery shells, or housed
an inactive sanitary land-
fill. In addition to these
five areas, the Army initi-
ated a number of
CERCLA removal actions
and also investigated 58
additional potential areas
of concerns, all of which
have been formally closed
out and require no further
action.
  The Army has been
sampling both onpost
monitoring wells and resi-
dential wells since 1988,
which show that the VOC
concentrations have been
steadily decreasing over
time. In 1995, the Army
excavated VOC-contami-
nated soil thought to be
the major source of VOCs
found in the groundwater.
The Army is also supply-
ing residents served by
contaminated  wells with
alternative sources of water.
   "Although  the areas of
the base that house
groundwater will remain
on the National Priorities
List, our goal  is to be able
to remove a section of the
base from the NPL within
the next year," said Mark
Stephens, remedial project
manager with EPA
Region 3.
10
                                                                                     
-------
2000 Construction Completions

Yuma Marine
Corps Air
Station (MCAS),
Arizona
   In 1928, the federal
   government leased 640
   acres of land from
Yuma County, Arizona,
for an airfield. Yuma
MCAS is still an active air
station, occupying
approximately 3,000 acres
of land near the southeast
corner of Yuma and shar-
ing runway privileges
with Yuma International
Airport. While the facili-
ty has been used for a
variety of DoD missions
over the years, its current
mission is to provide ser-
vices and materials
support operations to the
Marine Aircraft Wing and
its subordinate units. Due
to both past and current
activities, the groundwa-
ter in and around the site
is contaminated with
chlorinated solvents. In
addition, the soil is conta-
minated with asbestos
from landfills on the site.
Yuma MCAS was placed
on the NPL in 1990.

  The Navy investigated
18 areas of concern and
completed two RODs for
Yuma MCAS. According
to the Yuma PCOR, all
major construction activi-
ties have been completed
for treatment of impacted
groundwater beneath the
site, with the possible
exception of the installa-
tion of additional
monitoring wells if
required.

  "The groundwater
remediation is proceeding
much more rapidly than
we thought it would,"
said Martin Hausladen,
EPA site manager for
Yuma MCAS. "We have
been very pleased by the
success of the system, and
I would  be highly sur-
prised if we had to put
more wells in." To ensure
                                                       that the treatment meth-
                                                       ods continue providing
                                                       adequate protection of
                                                       human health  and the
                                                       environment, the Navy
                                                       will conduct a review of
                                                       the site every five years.
                                                       No significant change
                                                       and/or redevelopment of
                                                       the site is planned for the
                                                       near future.
Luke Air Force
Base, Arizona

     Luke Air Force Base
     is an active, 4,198-
     acre base in
Glendale, Arizona, that
has been used to provide
advanced flight training
to fighter pilots since
1941. The base is home to
4,900 military personnel
and their dependents and
has a daily population of
approximately 8,000 peo-
ple. Phoenix and other
nearby cities depend on
the groundwater basin
underneath the site for
drinking water.
   Aircraft maintenance
and light industrial opera-
tions generated
potentially hazardous
wastes such as petroleum
residues, cleaning sol-
vents, and other materials.
The base was placed on
the NPL in 1990 because
plane discharges and
waste disposal practices at
the base resulted in waste
oils and VOCs contami-
nating the soil and
possibly groundwater.
  The U.S. Air Force
signed a Federal Facilities
Agreement (FFA) with
EPA and Arizona's
Departments of
Environmental Quality
and Water Resources to
investigate  the site. The
FFA parties organized the
site into two operational
units, and RODs were
signed for both. The FFA
parties identified a total
of 33 areas of concern,
many of which were
determined to require no
action, but  in five areas
contamination such as
lead, VOCs, and liquid
wastes required remedial
action. According to the
PCOR, actions taken
included a cap, surface
controls, extraction,
groundwater monitoring,
mechanical sifting, and
institutional controls.

  "The pace of progress
at Luke AFB has been
accelerated  as a result of
the  cooperative approach
adapted  by  the Air Force,
the  State of Arizona and
EPA," said James Ricks,
EPAs regional project
manager for the site. "The
next step will be initiat-
ing  the documentation
process to delist the site
from the NPL in FY
2001."

-------
             Naval Undersea
             Warfare Center
             (NUWC)
             Division,
             Washington
                    NUWC is a 340-
                    acre site in
                    Keyport,
             Washington, that the U.S.
             Navy acquired in 1914 to
             develop a still-water tor-
             pedo testing range.
             Activities at the site
             include torpedo mainte-
             nance, fuel storage,
             welding, painting, carpen-
             try, plating, and sheet
             metal work. Chlorinated
solvents, PCBs, and heavy
metal contamination put
the site on the NPL in
1989.
  According to the
PCOR, an FFA was
signed in 1990 between
EPA, the Navy, and the
Washington State
Department of Ecology,
which handles remedial
project management
through an understanding
with EPA Region 10. The
groups organized two
operational units, signed
two RODs, and identified
seven areas of concern.
The four major remedial
actions taken included
soil remediation, capping,
and monitoring, as well as
sediment removal from a
creek bed contaminated
with PCBs.

  Perhaps the most inter-
esting remedial action,
however, was the phytore-
mediation system used to
address chlorinated solvents
that were contaminating
groundwater under the
site's former landfill.
Approximately 1,000
hybrid poplars were plant-
ed over two "hot spots"  on
the landfill to remediate
the contaminated ground-
water naturally with their
roots.

  "The key to this
cleanup was the opportu-
nity Mother Nature gave
us," said Bruce Cochran of
the Washington State
Department of Ecology,
who served as remedial
oversight manager. "The
hydrology of the site is
keeping the contaminated
groundwater away from
drinking water resources,
and the marsh conditions
under and around the
landfill are causing a nat-
ural dechlorination of the
solvents. This gives us
time to apply an innova-
tive technology-the
trees-to capture and
process the contaminated
groundwater in the source
areas. "Ulil
12
             Ordnance and Explosives
             
             Statistical Methodologies
               Statistical methodologies currently used or proposed
             by USAGE for defining the nature and extent of OE con-
             tamination need to be evaluated due to significant
             concerns raised by EPA, tribes, states, and the public. In
             January 2001, FFRRO distributed to EPA regional
             offices a guidance memorandum entitled Interim Guidance
             on the Use of SiteStats/GridStats and Other Army Corps of
             Engineers Statistical Techniques Used to Characterize Military
             Ranges.
               USAGE currently uses several geophysical field sam-
             pling, exposure characterization, and analytical techniques
             at military ranges. These include SiteStats, GridStats,
             UXO Calculator, and Ordnance and Explosives Cost
             Effectiveness Risk Tool. NERL is jointly working with
             USAGE and the states to critically review and evaluate
             their effectiveness. A report is expected soon.

             Other Efforts
               The Strategic Management Analysis, Requirements, and
             Technology (SMART) Team at Savannah Army Depot in
             Illinois is a partnership among the Army, EPA, the Illinois
             Department of Natural  Resources, and the Jo-Carroll
                            Depot Local Redevelopment Authority. The SMART Team
                            meets monthly to provide a forum for dialogue and consen-
                            sus among the various stakeholders to develop innovative
                            solutions to cleanup issues at the site, especially regarding
                            the identification and removal of OE.

                              Since forming in September 2000, the SMART Team
                            has worked to prioritize the cleanup and transfer of
                            parcels to facilitate the economic reuse potential of the
                            base. The group has also worked to develop a conceptual
                            site model and data quality objectives for  the investiga-
                            tion and characterization of OE at a small arms disposal
                            area that will serve as a pilot for investigating the larger
                            and more problematic firing range. The group's next
                            meeting is scheduled for May 2001.

                              Finally, the DoD Strategic Environmental Research
                            and Development Program (SERDP) is sponsoring sever-
                            al research projects on OE detection, site
                            characterization, and cleanup. For a full listing, see the
                            SERDP home page .

                              For more information or copies of the two new
                            FFRRO documents on managing OE at CTTs, contact
                            FFRRO at 202 260-9924.

                              Contributors to this article were James Woolford and Vic
                            Wmzek, FFRRO. BT3

-------
NEJAC  Charters
Federal   Facilities
Working  Group
   In May 2000, the National Environmental Justice
   Advisory Council (NEJAC) chartered a new working
   group to address environmental justice issues and
concerns at sites that are currently or formerly owned or
managed by the federal government. These sites include,
but are not limited to, military bases,      	
artillery ranges, and research labs.
            "Our ultimate goal is to publish a document with policy
          recommendations that provide a baseline for understanding
          the issues and highlight best practices," Carter said. The
          group held the first of three planned face-to-face meetings
          in Arlington, Virginia, on January 24, 2001, where they
          finalized an agenda for activities and agreed on their
          methodology.
            Aside from Carter, the multi-stakeholder group com-
          prises 13 other members representing tribal, state, and
          local governments; affected communities; non-govern-
          mental organizations; and businesses.
            The group is also structured to include substantial
          representation from EPA, the U.S. Department of
  "People have come to NEJAC
meetings calling for a specific forum
for federal facility issues," said
Brandon Carter of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the designated federal official
for the working group.                   	
  In response to these public com-
ments, NEJAC tasked the working group to:
• Identify and evaluate key issues of concern to environ-
  mental justice communities regarding activities and
  operations at and around federal facilities.
• Formulate a set of national policy recommendations to
  address community concerns.
• Provide a forum  for dialogue with communities.
• Compile a list of available resources to communities
  and stakeholders to increase public participation.
• Produce a report to be presented to the NEJAC Executive
  Committee at the conclusion of these activities.
  The working group began in November 2000; it will
continue for 18 months. The working group will use a
case study methodology to evaluate and review specific
federal facility sites and/or policies. Their collected data
will help them develop an understanding of common
factors for success and failure at these sites.
The participation of our federal part-
     ners  in  this process has truly been
                                           historic."
                   —Brandon Carter, EPA, designated federal official for
                             NEJAC federal facilities working group
          Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S.
          Department of Interior. Representatives from these agen-
          cies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
          memorialize this partnership at the December 11, 2000,
          NEJAC meeting.

            "The participation of our federal partners in this process
          has truly been historic," Carter said. "The departments of
          Defense, Energy, and Interior have really stepped up to the
          plate and showed their commitment to environmental jus-
          tice by signing the MOU and participating in the
          working group at the level  that they have. I really expect
          that when the project is finished, some definite good will
          come of this effort."
            NEJAC is a federal advisory committee that was
          established by charter in 1993 under the Federal
          Advisory Committee Act to provide independent advice,
          consultation, and recommendations to the EPA
          Administrator on environmental justice matters.
13
Interagency Task Force


  "The Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force is an
excellent example of an interagency partnership that is
operating by consensus to improve the way it manages
environmental data," Carter said. "The task force adopted
this policy with full group consensus and will issue it as
         an interim final document after all three agencies issue
         formal approval."
           For more information, contact Mike Carter at 202 260-
         5686 or  or visit the FFRRO Web
         site at .


-------
            Policy  and  Working   Group to  Address  Pr
14
                   Cver the past several years, EPA has had concerns
                   about the handling of environmental investiga-
                   tions and cleanups at formerly used defense sites
            (FUDS)—those facilities throughout the country which
            the Department of Defense (DoD) has owned, operated
            or otherwise controlled. The concerns stem from a lack of
            communication and coordination between the U.S. Army
            Corps of Engineers  (USAGE) and regulators. The con-
            cerns include USAGE actions at FUDS that are
            inconsistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
            Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act (CERCLA), a
            lack of appropriate  community involvement, and "no
            further action" decisions made without regulator input.
            EPA is also concerned that efforts to address FUDS with
            contamination caused by other parties are not being
            coordinated with regulators. To address these issues, EPA
            is developing a new FUDS policy and participating on
            an interagency working group empowered to make rec-
            ommendations to improve the investigation and response
            at FUDS.
            Background
              After the passage of CERCLA in December 1980, the
            President delegated authority to DoD to clean up haz-
            ardous waste sites at active and formerly used defense
            properties. In 1983, the Defense Appropriations Act initi-
            ated environmental restoration activities at FUDS, and in
            1984 execution of the program was delegated by DoD to
            the Army, with USAGE serving as the executing agent.
            This delegation made USAGE the chief executor and man-
            ager for environmental restoration activities at FUDS.
            Because DoD no longer owns or uses the FUDS properties,
            a USAGE district commander serves as  each property's
            installation commander, executing environmental restora-
            tion projects and fulfilling associated responsibilities.
              The scope and magnitude of the FUDS program are
            significant, with 9,100 properties identified for possible
            inclusion in the program. The properties include mili-
            tary bases, experimental laboratories, recruitment
            outposts, missile sites, distribution depots and bombing
            ranges. They have been returned to private ownership,
            given to states, or transferred to other  federal agencies
            because DoD no longer needed the properties. According
            to USAGE, approximately 8,700 preliminary assessments
            have been completed at these properties. USAGE esti-
            mates that about 5,600 properties require no further
            action on behalf of USAGE and about  3,100 properties
            have been determined to need remediation by USAGE.
            Since 1984, the FUDS program has spent more than $2
            billion on cleanup activities.
FUDS Improvement Working Group
  To improve working relationships with EPA, tribes,
and states, the Army established a steering committee,
called the FUDS Improvement Working Group (FIWG)
in October 2000. The committee, chaired by the Army,
evaluates concerns about FUDS and makes recommenda-
tions to address them. Other FIWG members include
   EPA  Region 9  Tackles
        Regional EPA offices also deal with FUDS issues in
        the U.S. territories under their jurisdiction.
        USAGE is currently working with EPA Region 9
   under a RCRA 7003 enforcement order to clean up poly-
   chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Tanapag Village on the
   island of Saipan, the capitol of the U.S. Commonwealth
   of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Once a proper-
   ty of Japan, Saipan was occupied by U.S. forces during
   World War II and used as an airbase. Shortly after the
   Japanese surrender, the United Nations recognized Saipan
   as a trust  territory of the United States. It became a self-
   governing U.S. commonwealth in 1978. Tanapag's PCB
   contamination—up to 20,000 ppm in the soil—occurred
   when capacitors used in DoD operations were brought to
   Saipan in  the 1960s and began to leak.
     The CNMI originally requested EPA assistance in 1989,
   and remediation of the site became part of the FUDS pro-
   gram administered by USAGE, although progress on the
   cleanup has been started and stopped several times over the
   past decade. In addition, many residents of Saipan expressed
   concerns that USAGE was not providing adequate informa-
   tion about the cleanup process and demanded more vigorous
   pursuit of community involvement.

      Although USAGE initially contested the enforcement
   action, it  later agreed to follow the order and to form a
   working group to address community concerns about
   FUDS problems in the Pacific. Spearheaded by USAGE'S
   Pacific Ocean Division in partnership with  EPA Region
   9, the group will review and discuss more than 500
   known sites and the identification of new ones, as  well  as
   allowing the parties to address and resolve issues of con-
   cern. The working group includes representatives from
   Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the CNMI, and  various
   federal agencies.

     For more information on Region 9 FUDS, contact
   Kathleen  Shimmin at 415  744-2216 or
   .

-------
ivately  Owned  FUDS
           representatives from USAGE, the Association of State and
           Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
           (ASTSWMO), the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and
           Emergency Response (TASWER), DoD, and EPA. The
           FIWG meets monthly and has already made several rec-
           ommendations: establish a statewide Management Action
           Plan process for four pilot states; allow the re-opening of
           three to five historic Inventory Project Reports (INPRs)
           per year per state to be funded through the Defense-State
                             Memorandum of Agreement
                             (DSMOA) program, and coordinate
                             all INPRs with a regulator.
                             EPA's FUDS  Policy
                                EPA has been also working on a
                             policy to provide guidance on how
                             the Agency will undertake its
                             obligations and responsibilities to
                             address privately used FUDS not on
                             the National Priorities List (NPL).
                             The draft policy focuses on:
                             •  EPA's role in site assessment.
                             •  EPA's role in overseeing and
                                implementing response actions
                                at FUDS.
• EPA's framework for coordinating activities with the
  USAGE.

• EPA's enforcement alternatives for ensuring that
  known or threatened releases of hazardous substances
  at FUDS are addressed in accordance with CERCLA or
  other applicable authorities.
  Recognizing that tribal, state, or other agencies oversee
most FUDS, EPA's intention under this policy is to be
consistent with existing deferral and coordination policies
and to minimize potential duplication of effort from
tribes, states, USAGE, or other responsible parties. The
draft policy was officially released for comment on July
26,  2000, with final release expected in FY 2001. EPA has
agreed to delay issuing the final policy until after a 90-day
assessment of FIWG's progress.
  The FUDS program has  a long history of
Congressional  interest, from site-specific issues to pro-
grammatic concerns (e.g., adequate funding). Most
recently, Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) has
requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to do a
study on FUDS and former military ranges. As part of
the  study, GAO will be assessing the FUDS cleanup
process and regulator involvement.  FFRRO is participat-
ing  in the GAO study.
  For more information, contact Renee Wynn
(202 260-8366) or Sean Flynn (202 260-3199).
  Contributors  to this article  include James Woolford, Renee
Wynn, and Vic  Wmzek, FFRRO. 33
15
           EPA  Region  6 and  USAGE Tally Together
                  One of the most important steps in the FUDS cleanup effort is identifying the sites and evaluating their risks.
                  In EPAs Region 6, this effort has been made easier through cooperation. In January 2001, Region 6 complet-
                  ed a draft inventory and preliminary evaluation of risks for all the FUDS in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
           Oklahoma, and Texas. This project began in 1997, when EPA visited each of the USAGE district offices and reviewed
           FUDS files. "Within Region 6, we are utilizing a team approach—coordinating the efforts of the RCRA New Mexico
           and Federal Facilities Section, RCRA Enforcement Section, and the Superfund Site Assessment Team—to achieve the
           most impact with the fewest resources," said Michael Overbay, regional FUDS coordinator.
             Region 6 identified 907 FUDS, mostly in New Mexico and Texas. Of these, 415 were recommended for further action, and
           42 were identified has having significant potential for listing on the Superfund National Priorities List. Due to a lack of file
           information, EPA was unable to complete the environmental evaluation of another 165 sites. "To put the regional universe of
           FUDS in perspective, at the November 2000 meeting of the Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials
           in Austin, Texas, USAGE presented information that Region 6 had the second highest number of sites, and the second highest
           'cost-to-complete' in the country, exceeding that of three other Regions combined," Overbay noted.
             USAGE and each of the state environmental agencies received a copy of the  draft inventory for review and comment.
           In March 2001, Region 6 invited each state environmental agency and their respective USAGE district and division
           offices to a series of meetings to discuss the report and identify any mistakes EPA had made in identifying or evaluat-
           ing each site. The report is scheduled for May 2001.
             For more information on the Region 6 FUDS inventory, contact Michael Overbay at 214 665-6482 or
           .

-------
              TheCommunity
              Connection
                      Conference  Discusses  Tribal  Strategy

                           he International Institute of Indigenous Resource Management held a
                           DoD/DOE/EPA-sponsored conference in November 2000 on the basic principles of
                           the Federal Indian Trust Obligation, Agency Indian Policies, and Indian Law as it
                      applies to federal facilities cleanup in Indian country. FFRRO presented its Tribal Strategy
                      that describes its role in promoting the involvement of tribal governments in environmental
                      cleanup at and around federal facilities. DoD and DOE presented their agencies' Native
                      American policies and programs. Small workgroups met for facilitated discussion of potential
solutions to the numerous challenges and impediments to the cleanup process that were identified during conference
presentations. The group's top three priorities are:  improved communication between tribes and federal agencies; con-
sideration of cultural impacts and traditional knowledge in the risk assessment process; and increased knowledge of the
government-to-government consultative process and the U.S. trust obligation.
                          EPA FFRRO
16
                                          Talking  Stick
                                         What is a "talking stick?" A talking stick is a device often used by tribal
                                         organizations to identify the person who has the right to speak at a
                                v  v   given moment, while others listen. Used within the context of a meet-
                              ing or council, it is often handed to requesters by a leader or elder in a given order,
                              so members can provide their input into a discussion or council meeting.  You can
                              see FFRRO's Talking Stick brochure, which illustrates our initiatives with tribes
                              and exchange ideas, on our Web site at  , or write to
                              Dianna Young at the address on the back of this newsletter to request copies.
            EPA  Extends  Comment  Period
            for Public  Involvement Policy
                PA has extended the public comment period on its Draft 2000 Public Involvement Policy through July 31, 2001.
                The draft is based on a 1981 policy that was never fully implemented, and will provide guidance and direction to
                EPA officials on effective ways to involve the public in the Agency's regulatory and program decisions and activi-
            ties, including cleanup plan selection for hazardous waste sites. The policy's main goals are to:
            • Strengthen EPA's commitment to early and meaningful public involvement.

            • Ensure that environmental decisions incorporate the interests and concerns of affected people and entities.

            • Use many different techniques to create opportunities for public involvement in Agency decisions.,

            • Establish clear and effective procedures for public involvement in EPA's decision-making processes.

              The draft policy can be viewed at  or received via e-mail by contacting
            . Printed copies can be requested from Loretta Schumacher at 202 260-3096. Comments should
            be e-mailed to  or sent to Patricia Bonner, EPA Office  of Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
            Mail Code  1807, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. .•

              In addition to gathering official comments on the draft policy, EPA will host a two-week online dialogue in July,
            when 500 participants can exchange messages about the policy and 1,000 others can observe. To receive an invitation
            to the dialogue with instructions on how to register, e-mail Patricia Bonner at .

-------
Hazardous Waste Citizens Award

  Originally intended as a supplement to the nuclear
facility at Los Alamos, LLNL is a nuclear weapons lab
run by DOE and the University of California (UC). As
times have changed, however, it has also become a
world-class science center for its breakthrough develop-
ments in magnetic and laser fusion energy, non-nuclear
power, biomedicine, and environmental science.

  Due to its nuclear testing activities, LLNL's main site
has been on EPAs Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL) since 1987, and has been identified as one of the
worst contaminated sites in the country. LLNL's Site 300,
a 7,000-acre high-explosives testing range in the hills
between Livermore and the nearby town of Tracy, made
the NPL in 1990. Both sites have been active since the
1950s and are now heavily contaminated with hazardous
waste, including chemical solvents and uranium. Tri-
Valley CARES became formally involved with LLNL's
Superfund efforts as each site was listed on the NPL.

  "Tri-Valley CARES members put in a tremendous
number of hours to educate themselves and  the commu-
nity on all aspects of the Superfund cleanup,"  said Kathy
Setian, EPA Region  9 Superfund project manager. "Their
persistence and dedication have ensured that community
needs are met."

  In 1989, Tri-Valley CARES became the first communi-
ty group in EPA Region 9 to win a Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG), which provided financial resources to con-
tinue and expand its Superfund community involvement
efforts. According to David Cooper, EPA Region 9 com-
munity involvement coordinator, Tri-Valley CARES used
the TAG to keep the community informed about the tech-
nical and global issues of the cleanup. Members also acted
as effective spokespeople by expressing community con-
cerns and making specific technical comments to LLNL
and EPA during all stages of the cleanup effort.

   "Community involvement is very important to
Superfund cleanups," Cooper said. "Not only does EPA
have a regulatory responsibility to get the public
involved, but the public has a right to know how their
money is being spent, what  the potential risks are, and
how they can contribute to the  decision-making process."

   Tri-Valley CARES helped the public participate in
decision-making by developing and circulating a set of
12 criteria for community acceptance of the Site 300
cleanup plan. The plan was  initially developed by LLNL
and will serve as the legal basis for all future aspects of
the cleanup. To achieve EPA approval, the plan must
meet nine Agency criteria, including community accep-
tance. Tri-Valley CARES outlined acceptance criteria
with community preferences for the cleanup schedule,
cleanup levels and methods, future land use, budget
planning,  and levels of public involvement.

   "Part of our work as I see  it is to take technical data and
translate it into plain language to empower the communi-
ty to become involved," Kelly said. "EPA and Livermore
Labs each look at the cleanup through different lenses—
they are interested in budget issues and following
regulations. Our job is to press EPA to do the most they
can, fulfilling our role in the mosaic of interested parties."

   As part of its continuing  community efforts, Tri-
Valley CARES hosts monthly meetings open to the
public to discuss the latest LLNL activities. The group
also disseminates information via a monthly newsletter
and a Web site  () and pro-
vides Spanish translations of LLNL's environmental
publications. U
17
  Write  To Us
  We encourage your questions, comments, and contributions. Please send your input to Dianna Young by mail at
  U.S. EPA/FFRRO, Mailcode: 5106, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 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 issues of Partners In Progress, please fill
  out and return this form to ERG, c/o Victoria Jaggard,
  2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201-
  3324; or fax to 703 841 -1440. Alternately, you can send
  your request via e-mail to .
Name:
Agency/Organization:.

Street Address:	

City:	
                                                       State:
               .Zip Code:.
                                                       Phone Number:.

                                                       E-mail:	
                                                il

-------
DOE  Streamlines  Guidance

for  Advisory  Boards

   In an effort to involve affected communities more directly in its planning
   and decision-making processes for cleanup of nuclear weapons complexes,
   the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management
(OEM) posted new Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB) guidance on the Web
in December 2000.
  The SSABs' main function is to provide the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management and other DOE officials with policy information,
advice, and recommendations concerning OEM's environmental restoration,
waste management, nuclear material and facility stabilization and disposition, integration, site closure, project comple-
tion, and science and technology activities. Additionally, the SSAB provides input and recommendations on strategic
decisions that impact future use, long-term stewardship, risk management, transportation, budget priorities, and any
other projects or issues  that affect environmental management.
  The new guidance, which takes a more streamlined approach to SSABs, includes:
• Renewed emphasis on SSAB membership composition, including DOE policy on ethnic and gender diversity on its
  advisory boards.
• Revision and clarification of the conflict of interest, compensation, and reimbursement policies for SSAB members.
• Guidance for local SSAB termination.


                                                     ~&f) Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent postconsumer fiber.
                                                              80IHO asnay pue
                                                                          00£$ asfl aieAUd Joj
                                                                                    ssawsng
                                                                               09170Z DC 'uoi6u!U|se/\A
                                                                                            (90 LS)

-------