^tosr% (w) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Luu 1 9 2016 NOW THE OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Quick Tips: Superfund Site A ssessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites FROM: James E. Woolford, Director Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation TO: National Superfund Program Managers The attached document. Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites, summarizes effective coordination practices when conducting Superfund remedial assessments at non- Federal sites. These practices are based on individual input of experienced site assessors from nine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions, 30 states and five tribes. The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) worked with EPA, state and tribal site assessors to gather and summarize these practices. The document contains no requirements; however, a new section describing coordination points to consider when assessing sites has been added to Chapter VI, "Remedial Site Assessment," of EPA's Superfund Program Implementation Manual (https://semspub.epa.uov/work/l 10/190517.pd0. I encourage regional Superfund site assessment managers and staff to periodically review the practices described in this document and consider whether existing coordination practices can be improved. In closing, I want to thank the following individuals who collaborated with my staff to develop this document: Gabriele Hauer (IN), Dale Urban (UT), Tedd Yargeau (CA), Jason White (Cherokee Nation), Cathy Moyik and James Desir (EPA Region 2), Lorie Baker (EPA Region 3), Ralph Howard (EPA Region 4), David Brauner (EPA Region 5), LaDonna Turner (EPA Region 6), and Victor Ketellapper (EPA Region 8). If you have questions regarding this document, please contact Dana Stalcup, Director of the Assessment and Remediation Division in OSRTI (703-603-9702, stalcup.dana@epa.go v). or have your staff contact Randy Hippen (703-603-8829, hippcn. randy@epa. go v) or Melanie Keller at (703-603-8706, kelleiMnelanie@eDa.uov). Attachment Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov QPMQ Rnr |R 1*1 1 QfiRHR Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Flw^ReVySiedH'aper' '' ' ~ ' 3UOUU ------- cc: Reggie Cheatham, OLEM/OEM Barnes Johnson, OLEM/ORCR David Lloyd. OLEM/OBLR Cyndy Mackey, OECA/OSRE John Michaud, OGC/SWERLO ------- d EPA Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Publication Number 9200.2-162 Office of Land and Emergency Management December 2016 Introduction EPA, along with its state and tribal partners, conducts site assessments to identify and evaluate releases of hazardous substances. These assessments determine whether cleanup may be warranted under a Superfund-managed or -monitored program. These tips promote stronger coordination throughout the Superfund remedial site assessment process. This document discusses practices and techniques EPA, state and tribal site assessors use to coordinate the workload of non-federal sites needing assessment. Site- assessment program managers are encouraged to review this tip list and consider how they can improve workload coordination. To develop this document, a workgroup of EPA, state and tribal site assessors independently gathered coordination experiences and opinions from experienced site assessment colleagues. These experiences and opinions informed the document's content. We have also provided quotes from site assessors in key places to illustrate the difference that coordination has made in their work. Coordination between EPA, states and tribes throughout the Superfund site-assessment process is essential. Effective coordination conserves resources, accelerates assessment, and unifies goals and expectations during all phases of the site-assessment process. This document does nof establish a regulation or policy and does not create any new requirements. Coordination is a fundamental component of the EPA, state and tribal partnership. Opportunities for coordination occur throughout the site-assessment process from site notification through final site disposition. This document organizes elements of effective coordination into the following sections: • Coordination Basics; • Strategic Program Management; • Site Notification and Data Collection; • Report Writing and Decision Making; • Transitioning Agency Lead; and • Public Outreach. Coordination Basics The following elements help form the foundation of effective coordination: Communication Skills Assessors cited the following communication skills as being associated with highly effective coordination: • Willingness to engage in a timely, collaborative manner; • Awareness of what information is important to share, when to share it, and who to share it with; • Support for an open, straight and constant line of communication; and • Willingness to actively participate in face-to- face meetings. Agreements Agreements are a building block for a successful working relationship between EPA and its state and tribal partners. The agreement types are: • Site assessment cooperative agreement; • Superfund memorandum of agreement or memorandum of understanding; and • State deferral agreement. Elements of Effective Coordination Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 1 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Several assessors feel existing non-funded agreements could be brought up-to-date, offer more detail, and be used more widely. Assessors felt coordination is more effective when agreements are: • Communicated to staff to promote awareness of them and how they can support a stronger, long- lasting partnership; • Based on input provided by all parties; • Detailed enough to include: o Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and expectations; o What each party will do and when (e.g., specific reporting requirements, defined timelines for reviews and addressing comments); and o Specific terms and conditions; • Flexible enough to accommodate changing priorities; • Regularly updated to incorporate new terms, objectives and schedules, with changes communicated to all program staff; • Evaluated for improvement by partners in an open and cooperative fashion; and • Limited in terms of reporting requirements to only essential elements. Where funding agreements exist, EPA works with states and tribes to provide funding for site assessments. Like other phases of Superfund, funding for assessments is constrained, and the program is under continual pressure to find and implement efficiencies. Effectively coordinating with partners on resource allocation decisions can be especially challenging when both staff and funding are limited. Site assessors felt coordination on resource allocation decisions is most effective when there is: • An open and timely discussion of funding needs; • A consistent and transparent funding process discussion (this may help create solutions to working with limited resources); • Use of allocation models (to avoid any appearance of arbitrary funding); • Discussion with partners on leveraging resources to use them efficiently and minimize downtime, including: o Mix of state, tribal and EPA contractor-led work, including consideration of data collection costs and program strengths; o Resource sharing, including: ¦ Equipment (e.g., mobile analytical, drill rigs); ¦ Labs; and ¦ EPA contractor resources (e.g., deep well sampling by EPA contractor at a state-led expanded site inspection); • Discussion of whether and how state capabilities can be enhanced to offer more efficient options for assessing sites; and • Discussion of complementary funding from other federal, state or tribal programs (e.g., EPA removal) to assess sites of common interest and yield more comprehensive data. "The option to conduct investigations through either organisation allows us to adjust for fluctuations in contractor and agency personnel workload to achieve the best fit at any given time." — State site-assessment manager "Close coordination helps identify best methods for analysis, standard practices and timeframes for requesting site analysis and lab assignments, sharing work plans and communication on lab issues." — EPA site-assessment manager 'Additional training in field sampling techniques would help to make the most of available resources." — State project Collaboration Tools Site assessors use a combination of methods to communicate site information to partners. In general, "MODs for cleanup sites are an effective [tool]for leveraging funding resources for tribes." — Tribalproject coordinator "The [state] CA [cooperative agreement] is very simple and direct. There was quite a bit of discussion and agreement on various tasks before the CA was drafted; thus there are clear expectations and understanding of what will occur." — State Resources Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 2 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site assessors reported that regularly scheduled in- person meetings are beneficial in strengthening the atmosphere of cooperation and teamwork among stakeholders. Site assessors named the following tools as essential components of strong coordination: • Phone calls and emails (e.g., weekly or biweekly discussions on site progress); • Meetings (as funding and schedules allow), especially when attended: o On a regularly scheduled basis; o In person (this is beneficial in strengthening the atmosphere of cooperation and teamwork among stakeholders); o By staff and management; and o Both individually (e.g., EPA Region and single state or tribe) and in a group setting (e.g., EPA Region and all its states and tribes); • SharePoint and FTP (File Transfer Protocol) for transferring files; • Database access by partner(s) to view site information; and • Site visits. "Phone calls: best tool to stay up-to-date with EPA partner on site status and strategy. In-person meetings are always effective to discuss process and responsibilities." — State staff person "Emails are fine but in-person training or communication for the more complex issues is better." — Tribal director 'Phone calls are effective but the most effective coordination tool is conference trainings and meetings, there must be face- to-face interaction..." — EPA site-assessment manager Guidance Documents Site assessor opinions varied significantly on this subject. Some felt coordination rests with people, not with guidance. Others felt guidance covering coordination steps would be helpful and recommended the following activities: • Address coordination as guidance is developed or revised; and • Create a reference tool of coordination points throughout the site-assessment process. Strategic Program Management EPA implements annual operating plans and a five- year strategic plan. These plans establish goals for completing site assessments and other activities. EPA Regions commit to meeting a portion of each goal. They are responsible for working through staff, federal contractors and/or states and tribes to complete assessments. States and tribes often administer their own cleanup programs independent of EPA and that is where most sites assessed under Superfund eventually reside. States and tribes have consistently performed about 50 percent of Superfund assessments each year, but this percentage varies greatly across EPA Regions (from 0 to 100 percent). A smaller portion of states and most tribes do not receive funding from EPA to conduct Superfund assessments. When funded, communication of goals and priorities is essential to effectively managing the Superfund site-assessment program. Site assessors felt coordination on strategic management issues is more effective when timely, regular, open and collaborative discussions occur with a focus on: • Each partner's goals and priorities to identify optimal strategies to address EPA, state and tribal priorities; • Emerging issues; • Expectations; • Efficient handling of workloads; and • Flexibility, should program or site priorities change during the year. "Our monthly update calls provide for communication of changes that are not urgent. We typically exchange email and have separate calls when neededfor other topics or when more urgent issues arise." — State program coordinator Current national site assessment guidance contains limited discussion of specific coordination steps with states and tribes. "We negotiate our deliverables before the work year begins... terms and conditions allow the work between the state and Region to be renegotiated in the e vent of different priorities.EPA staff person Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 3 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Site Notification and Data Collection Site-specific workload coordination can begin as soon as one or more partners become aware of the need to assess a site. Effective coordination ensures site notification and data collection activities run smoothly, and that the lead agency is determined and has the latest available site information. Site assessors felt the following practices support highly effective coordination on site notification and data collection: 'EPA informs le state of new sites via monthly calls with state environmental and health agencies.EPA site- assessment manager "The state typically verbally notifies the [EPA] SAM [site-assessment anager] andfollows itp with a preemptive email before sendi ng the discovery or referralpackage to the EPA SAM."- State site-assessment manager "The ability to lei wage contractor resources (drillers, labs, etc.) from EPA elps preserve limited cooperative agreement finding and reduces the amount of time neededfor procurement if the state had to obtain those same services." — State manager • Collaborating with partners to discuss and implement site discovery projects; • Establishing and adhering to a joint notification process that includes: o Points of contact in each agency; o Process for assigning the lead agency; o Method and timeframe for informing appropriate EPA, state and tribal partners; and o Opportunities to discuss site issues; and • Before data collection begins, discussing new sites and site strategies with partners helps identify the most efficient use of available resources and clarifies: o Agency lead; o Initial site strategy; o Work plans; o Data collection methods; o Applicable and current standards in place for each agency; o Field sampling data objectives; o Use of data quality objectives; o Standard practices and timeframes for requesting site analysis and lab assignments; and o Expectations, including timeline, for completing assessments. Report Writing and Decision Making Report Writing Site assessors developing assessment reports should clearly understand applicable reporting requirements for their respective EPA Region to avoid rework and downtime. This includes: • Report formats (e.g., document structure, use of specific software, etc.); • Required content; and • The submission and approval process. Site assessors associated the following elements with highly effective coordination when writing reports: • Frequent discussions and training on current document preparation and the review and approval process, including: o Required content; o Structure and format, including flexibility; o Submission and approval (including transmission method and feedback loop); o Timelines; and o Distribution; • Joint development of report templates that meet the needs of both agencies; • Online collaboration tools such as SharePoint that facilitate transmittal of draft and final documents; and Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 4 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Email and phone calls, which can significantly speed up the editing process. 'Extensive discussion of report contents andformat has allowed our state to de velop a template that works for EPA's needs." — Sta fe site-assessment manager "We have agreed-upoi workflowprocesses for the report review and appro val cy cle, as well as standardised report formats." — State mat 'ager Decision Making Effective coordination and communication during the cleanup decision-making process can facilitate faster decisions and smoother transitions to these cleanup programs. Cleanup program options should be clearly understood, and opportunities for input should be established as appropriate. Cleanup decisions should be communicated in a timely and effective manner. Site assessors associated the following elements with highly effective coordination when making site assessment decisions: • Partner agencies have a clear and consistent understanding of the criteria used to make decisions, including: o Site data; o Site risks and cleanup needs; o Cleanup options; o State, tribal and federal concerns; o Political support; and o Expectations; • Timely notification of new site information; • Timely notification when decision-making is impacted by changes to policies, procedures or guidance; • Collaborative decision-making, including: o Understanding each agency's needs; o Early and frequent cooperative discussions with a willingness to openly and directly discuss issues and solutions; o Good project management and communication skills; and o Timely notification of final decisions to appropriate partner agencies. "Pre-decisional meetings need to occur on sites which are likely to need cleanup so that allparties are comfortable with the array of potential outcomes... rather than wait until the end of the assessment to have these conversations and address concerns.EPA manager "Both EPA and states allow us to review the remedial site assessment work at certain Superfund sites. We can make comments and suggestions as needed [and] feel comfortable enough to voice our concerns if needed." — Tribal staff person 'EPA allows our state to review and comment on draft reports before they are finalised, which allows the state to requestfurther information or clarification of the contents to obtain information that is useful to us.State site Transitioning Agency Lead Agency lead changes commonly occur in the site assessment process. This happens when a site assessed by EPA is referred to a state or tribal program based on a No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) decision or Other Cleanup Activity referral. It also happens when a site assessed by a state or tribe is referred to EPA for potential National Priorities List (NPL) listing or further assessment. When lead changes occur, timely transfer of the latest relevant site information facilitates the transition and enables the lead agency to continue activity at the site with less downtime. Partner agencies should have a consistent awareness of applicable documentation, communication and coordination requirements at sites transitioning from one lead to another. Site assessors noted the following characteristics of highly effective coordination during lead changes: • Constant, open communication on sites that may need to be transitioned, including stakeholder and site complexities; • An established referral process that is agreed to by all parties and addresses: o Roles and responsibilities; o Clear expectations for transferred sites; o Notification methods and associated timeframes; o Central points of contact; Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 5 ------- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency o Documentation (e.g., transition memo, site reports, site history, sampling data, maps); and o Document transfer methods (e.g., SharePoint, FTP). • Regular updates of site progress, including access to lead-agency database or database reports; and • Early notification of further lead changes. "The state and EPA have developed an effective transfer and referralprocess that assures a referralpackage with necessary information to support the referral and site decision is fonmrded. The centralpoint of contactfor both EPA and the state is vital to assuring transfers are consistent and fast, and the products are of acceptable quality.State site assessment manager "Transitions are highly effective due to use of 1) EPA decision forms; 2) state site transfer memorandums to the applicable programs to make sure sites do not linger orfall through the cracks." — EPA manager • Jointly review products (e.g., flyers, brochures, fact sheets, website content) and address issues before finalizing; • Keep partners informed of and involved in upcoming meetings as much as possible; • Coordinate responses to the public; • Defer unanticipated questions to the appropriate agency or jointly respond; • Ensure community outreach with residents and public officials is made a priority by agency managers and project officers; and • Make sure EPA and states work closely and effectively with individual tribes and the Inter- Tribal Environmental Council. ' Prior to any public outreach meeting, we have conference calls and/ or meetings to discuss talking points and share presentation content. This is very important especially when dealing with public health concerns and peaking as one voice." — State staffperson "State and local agencies better understand the needs of their community and are more successful in targeting the correct audience." — EPA manager Public Outreach Public outreach may be required at various points in the site-assessment process depending on site conditions, level of awareness, and interest. Community involvement activities should be well coordinated and communicated in a timely and effective manner. More Information For more information about the Superfund Site Assessment process, visit: https://www.epa.aov/superfund/superfund-site- assessment-process. "This is the most important aspect of workload coordination. Working with the state, EPA and the community is critical in the work we do for our Superfund program." — Tribal staffperson Site assessors indicated highly effective public outreach coordination occurs when EPA, states and tribes apply strong collaboration techniques. These techniques include the following steps: • Clearly identify roles and responsibilities; • Identify lead agency and points of contact; • Collaborate early and regularly throughout the process, from initial planning through final follow-up; • Develop a unified, consistent message for the public and Potentially Responsible Parties; Quick Tips: Superfund Site Assessment Coordination at Non-Federal Sites 6 ------- |