’

8 

United States Solid Waste and EPA505-B-01-002 

Environmental Protection Emergency Response May 2001 

Agency (5106) www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ 

1EPA

4 

EPA issues the first 

national guidance on 

institutional controls. 

6 

DoD and EPA work 

together on explosives 

cleanup. 

Seven Superfund federal 

facilities reach a major 

milestone. 

14 

Two new measures 

help EPA and the Army 

re-think formerly used 

defense sites. 

Issue 5 

Celebrating

Success The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) presented its first 

ever Hazardous Waste Citizens 

Award to Tri-Valley Communities 

Against a Radioactive Environment 

(Tri-Valley CARES) in 2000 for its contributions to the cleanup of two U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) Superfund 

sites in California. Tri-Valley CARES is 

a community group based in 

Citizens Award Recognizes 

Contributions of Tri-Valley CARES 

Members of Tri-Valley CARES accept the award 

Livermore, California, that has been actively involved with from EPA representatives. 

DOE’s two Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

sites in the local area for almost 20 years. 

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 

environmental impacts of labs and enhancing LLNLs environmental oversight since its inception. 

<Continued on Page 17> 

FFRRO Moves Forward on Challenges 

FromTheDirector Greetings! We’re 

pleased to bring 

you another issue 

of Partners in Progress 

(PIP), a newsletter published 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 several 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 federal 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 environment when contamination is left in place 

above levels suitable for unrestricted use. 

<Continued on Page 2> 

Federal Cleanups That Put Citizens First 
2 

From the Director 

<Continued From Page 1> 

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 continue to work, since we don’t have many of the usual 

“property control” mechanisms found in the private sector, 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

Partners In Progress 

a consistent EPA national approach to privately-owned 

FUDS that are not on the Superfund National Priorities 

List, an EPA Headquarters/Regional workgroup is drafting 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. TriValley 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 informative. As always, we welcome your comments, 

questions, and suggestions. For more information, please 

visit our Web site at <www.epa.gov/swerffrr>. 

–James Woolford, FFRRO Director 

Acronyms Explained 

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 

IC	 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 

USACE	 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

UXO	 Unexploded Ordnance 

VOC	 Volatile Organic Compounds 

Partners In Progress 

Philosophy 

Stakeholders involved in federal facility cleanups 

are diverse, with differing backgrounds, interests, 

and perspectives. All of these stakeholders, however, 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.” 
3 Partners In Progress 

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 characterize 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 representative of the site conditions as a whole. Data that 

cannot be validated or verified might mean that resulting agency decisions lack a sound, objective foundation. 

“Because of the problems with EPA oversight and federal 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 concern, since DoD and DOE have over 90 percent of the 

160 federal facility Superfund sites on or pending inclusion on the National Priorities List.” 

reviewed the policy, and the task force carefully considered 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. 

Atask force has developed a policy that will allow federal agencies to improve the way 

they collect environmental data and manage environmental technology programs. As 

its first major project, the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force, an interagency 

partnership among EPA, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy 

(DOE), recently completed the Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental 

Quality Systems in response to concern over the quality of data used in Superfund decisionmaking. Adaptation of a single policy as the basis of Quality Systems at EPA, DoD, and DOE 

is a vital step in achieving consistency in environmental data operations. 

Interagency Task Force Goal: 

Getting Better Environmental Data 

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 understanding on how to obtain and manage environmental data,” 

said FFRRO Director Jim Woolford, the task force chairman. “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 

The policy is consistent with EPA’s Quality Order 

and, like EPA’s 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 program 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 EPA’s 

Data Quality Strategic Plan Work Group so efforts at the 

program level are being coordinated with Agency-wide 

initiatives. 

<Continued on Page 13> 
4 

Institutional Controls:


Partners In Progress

Effectiveness Is Key to Remedy 

By Allison Abernathy, FFRRO 

I

nstitutional controls are nonengineering measures 

designed to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous 

substances left in place at a site, or assure effectiveness 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 remedy 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 following 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 IC remedy must be 

evaluated under criteria established by the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP)–including “long-term effectiveness.” 

•	 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 IC 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, implementation and monitoring and enforcement may be 

done at the state/local level. 

•	 The acceptability and reliability of ICs should be evaluated 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 responsibilities 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 IC should be weighed, as should the continuing 

potential liability in the event of failure of the IC. 

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 

<www.epa.gov/swerffrr/>. 
In September 2000, EPA’s 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 development and implementation of ICs. This fact sheet can 

be found at EPA’s Web site at <www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/institut/guide.pdf>. 

Future EPA Efforts 

Two national efforts are underway. FFRRO is developing a national IC guidance for active federal 

facilities. Currently, EPA Regions 4 and 10 have 

regional IC 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 EPA’s regional offices. 

Stakeholders Discuss 

Land-Use Controls 

The first large-scale effort to gather input on landuse 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 services, EPA, state environmental departments, local reuse 

authorities and governments, communities and restoration 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 recorded 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 implementing 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 <jmcmillen@icma.org>. 

Partners In Progress 

5 
6 

FFRRO Offers Publications 

on Ordnance and Explosives 

Project managers looking for help on managing ordnance 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 DoD/EPA 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 guidance 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 

(USACE) and the services also have internal guidance 

concerning explosives safety, but there is a lack of guidance concerning OE response that has regulatory agency 

and stakeholder support. 

Range Rule Withdrawn 

Since March 2000, the proposed Range Rule, intended 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 interagency review with the Office of Management and 

Budget. On November 13, 2000, Sherri Goodman, former 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. 

Partners In Progress

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 personnel, 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 general 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 information to regulators and the 

public to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

•	 DoD and EPA will 

attempt to resolve issues 

at the lowest level. 

•	 Legal authorities supporting 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 former Army depot in Illinois. 

•	 Repeated actions to address a site. 

•	 Remedy selection authority. 

•	 Consistency with CERCLA and the NCP. 

•	 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


DoD, federal land managers, tribes, and states) to address 

OE site characterization and cleanup safely. Ordnance and 

explosives site characterization and cleanup present challenges 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 characterization and cleanup. Topics to be covered by the training 

include the use of the conceptual site model (CSM) and 

statistical sampling methods; current technology advantages 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 shortcoming has promoted wide variability in the response 

process and concern from the public and regulatory community 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 USACE 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 established a workgroup to develop a risk methodology that 

specifically identified risks associated with OE. A qualitative approach was adopted that attempted to define: (1) 

when further investigation is required; (2) when additional 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. 

Partners In Progress 

•	 Determining removal 

depths through evaluation of site-specific data 

and risk analysis based 

on reasonably anticipated future land use. 

•	 Determining the nature 

and extent of other constituent 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 corrective action requirements. 

These principles, however, 

do not affect federal, tribal, 

or state regulatory or 

enforcement powers or 

authorities concerning hazardous wastes, hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants, nor do they 

expand or constrict the 

waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States 

contained in any environmental law. 

<Continued on Page 12> 

7 
8 

2000 Construction Completions

FY 2000 Federal Facility 

I

n Fiscal Year 2000, seven federal facilities on the Superfu Construction Completions struction completion. This achievement represents the h 

Fort DevensSudbury 

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

Partners In Progress 

laboratory disposal area. 

The Annex was selected 

for closure in 1995. 

Portions of the Annex 

contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and inorganics in 

amounts that surpass safe 

drinking water standards. 

According to the site’s 

FCOR, the Army has conducted initial cleanup 

actions, as well as longterm remedial actions for 

specific sections, including the Old Gravel Pit 

Landfill, a former fire 

training and flame retardant clothing testing area, 

and smaller areas that 

contained some contaminated soil. 

In 1991, the Army 

began investigating the 

extent of the site contamination 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 groundwater investigation in 

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 sit 

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 benchm 

longer threatening the health and well-being of the surroun 

soil, air, surface water, or groundwater. It also means that, e 

ing, the site is usually ready to be reused for economic, soci 

“Recognizing the magnitude and complex issues associat 

community should be proud of this significant accomplishm 

completion coordinator. 

The following federal facility sites achieved construction 

(FCOR) was filed, which means that site has reached compl 

required before the site can be deleted from the NPL. Othe 

complete before achieving their FCOR, have filed prelimina 

construction related to the cleanup must have been complet 

example of this may be an ongoing pump-and-treat operati 

site and the schedule for site completion. 

The “construction completion” determination was achiev 

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, conta 

<jeng.richard@epa.gov> or visit <www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

1996, it was determined hard at creatively crafted, 

in September 1997 that appropriate investigations 

no further action was nec­ with the buy-in of the 

essary at the former fire regulatory project mantraining area. agers and the public 

“To answer the public’s 

many questions and to 

successfully demonstrate 

to the regulators that all 

remediation work necessary has been completed 

at the Annex, the Army 

through the Technical 

Review Committee,” said 

Christine Williams, an 

environmental engineer 

with the Federal Facility 

Superfund Section of EPA 

New England. 

and its contractors worked 
 Include Seven Federal Facilities


und National Priorities List (NPL) were brought to conhighest number of federal facility construction completions 

29 sites. As the cleanups on the NPL become increasingly 

cant milestone for the federal facilities involved. 

te where physical construction of all cleanup actions is 

ll long-term threats are under control. In 1993, EPA creatsystem of categorizing sites and to better communicate 

mark in the cleanup process. It means contaminants are no 

nding community or spreading uncontrolled through the 

even though long-term cleanup actions may still be operatial, or environmental purposes. 

ted with federal facility site cleanups, the federal facility 

ment,” 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 

er 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 

ved at Loring Air Force Base, Maine, on March 23, 2001, 

rogress will include information on Loring and other federal 

act Richard Jeng at 703 603-8749 or 

/resources/closeout/index.htm>. 

encompassing 49 different 

sites, based on geographic 

location, similar groundwater properties, and 

geologic units. The Air 

Force identified 38 different areas of concern and 

undertook dozens of remedial actions, including: 

landfill consolidation and 

capping; excavation and 

off-base disposal of contaminated soils and 

sediments; in-situ treatment of contaminated 

soils using vapor extraction/air sparging; 

pump-and-treat systems; 

in-situ treatment of contaminated groundwater 

using permeable reactive 

barrier technology; and 

monitored natural attenuation. A total of 11 RODs 

were signed. 

“The many cleanup 

and redevelopment successes 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 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services, 

Pease Development 

Authority, and EPA,” said 

Mike Daly, remedial project 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. 

Partners In Progress 

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, lubricants, solvents, and protective coatings were 

released into the environment. 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 

Trench excavation for Pease AFB Site 49 groundwater 

treatment system. 

9 
Naval Air	 and pits. In 1998 and Tobyhanna
 1999, soil contaminated
 Warfare Center with cadmium, lead, and Army Depot, 

(NAWC), other heavy metals was Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania removed from three other 

Tobyhanna Army 

P

sites. Erosion controls are 

AWC is an 824- in place at one of the Depot is a 1,293­

acre facility in sites, and two other sites acre military 

Warminster, have been covered with facility established in 

Pennsylvania, that was	 clean, vegetated soil. 1909 in northeastern 

used for military aircraft According to the site’s Pennsylvania that was 

assembly and modifica- PCOR, the Navy demon- used for machine gun and 

tion during the 1940s and strated that final field artillery training, an 

closed in 1996 under the groundwater remedies ambulance and tank regiBase Realignment and were operating properly ment training center, and 

Closure Act. NAWC was and successfully. The Navy an ordnance storage depot 

placed on the National also put in place plans for during World War I. The 

stream monitoring and depot later was used as a Priorities List due to a


threat that eight disposal ongoing groundwater Civilian Conservation


monitoring, operation and	 Corps camp area and for areas posed to groundwa­
 maintenance, and imple- storage and supply uses.
 ter quality. The area mentation of institutional 

surrounding NAWC is controls. With the excep- Tobyhanna is currently a 

completely dependent on tion of a Navy housing communication/electrongroundwater for both area, the property has been ics maintenance and 

public and private water transferred to the private supply depot. 

supplies. sector, and is surrounded The Army first discov­ by homes, commercial and ered VOCs on the site in The facility was divid- industrial activities, and a 1981. The state sampled ed into 10 operable units golf course.
 to address contaminated nearby wells in the mid-


surface and ground water, “The success of the 1980s and identified


soils, and sediment. The cleanup is evidenced by VOC contamination,


Navy investigated 53 the fact that all of the which led the Army to


areas of concern as part of wells once believed to be conduct numerous inves­


an Environmental threatened by groundwater tigations to find the


Baseline Survey and took contamination now have potential source areas of


short-term removal been connected to the these contaminants. The


actions to excavate and public water supply,” said facility was placed on the


dispose of contaminated Darius Ostrauskas, reme- NPL in 1990.


waste, soil, and debris and dial project manager for According to the site’s


to extend existing public Region 3. PCOR, as of September


water supplies. A total of 2000, RODs have been


12 RODs were signed. signed for five operable


In 1997, a removal	 units, some of which were 

used for hazardous waste action was conducted at 

sites that contained a	 burning and storage and 

series of disposal tenches	 others that contained 

PCBs, unexploded 

artillery shells, or housed 

an inactive sanitary landfill. In addition to these 

five areas, the Army initiated 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 residential wells since 1988, 

which show that the VOC 

concentrations have been 

steadily decreasing over 

time. In 1995, the Army 

excavated VOC-contaminated soil thought to be 

the major source of VOCs 

found in the groundwater. 

The Army is also supplying 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. 

Partners In Progress 

<Continued on Page 11> 

10 
11 Partners In Progress 

that the treatment meth- The U.S. Air Force 

ods continue providing signed a Federal Facilities 

adequate protection of Agreement (FFA) with 

human health and the EPA and Arizona’s 

environment, the Navy Departments of 

will conduct a review of Environmental Quality 

the site every five years. and Water Resources to 

No significant change investigate the site. The 

and/or redevelopment of FFA parties organized the 

the site is planned for the site into two operational 

near future. units, and RODs were 

signed for both. The FFA 

parties identified a total 

Luke Air Force	 of 33 areas of concern, 

many of which were 2000 Construction Completions Base, Arizona determined to require no <Continued From Page 10> 

Luke Air Force Base action, but in five areas 

contamination such as 

Yuma Marine chlorinated solvents. In is an active, 4,198- lead, VOCs, and liquid 

addition, the soil is conta- acre base in wastes required remedial Corps Air minated with asbestos Glendale, Arizona, that action. According to the

Station (MCAS), from landfills on the site. has been used to provide PCOR, actions taken 

Arizona	 Yuma MCAS was placed advanced flight training included a cap, surface 

on the NPL in 1990. to fighter pilots since controls, extraction,

I

n 1928, the federal 1941. The base is home to groundwater monitoring, 

government leased 640 The Navy investigated 4,900 military personnel mechanical sifting, and 

acres of land from 18 areas of concern and and their dependents and institutional controls. 

Yuma County, Arizona,	 completed two RODs for 

Yuma MCAS. According has a daily population of “The pace of progress for an airfield. Yuma to the Yuma PCOR, all approximately 8,000 peo- at Luke AFB has been 

MCAS is still an active air major construction activi- ple. Phoenix and other accelerated as a result of 

station, occupying ties have been completed nearby cities depend on the cooperative approach 

approximately 3,000 acres for treatment of impacted the groundwater basin adapted by the Air Force, 

of land near the southeast	 groundwater beneath the underneath the site for the State of Arizona and 

corner of Yuma and shar-	 site, with the possible drinking water. EPA,” said James Ricks, 

ing runway privileges exception of the installa- EPA’s regional project 

with Yuma International tion of additional Aircraft maintenance manager for the site. “The 

monitoring wells if and light industrial opera- next step will be initiat- Airport. While the facili-	 tions generated ing the documentation ty has been used for a required. potentially hazardous process to delist the site variety of DoD missions “The groundwater wastes such as petroleum from the NPL in FY 

over the years, its current remediation is proceeding residues, cleaning sol- 2001.” 

mission is to provide ser- much more rapidly than vents, and other materials. 

vices and materials we thought it would,” The base was placed on 

support operations to the said Martin Hausladen, the NPL in 1990 because


Marine Aircraft Wing and EPA site manager for plane discharges and


its subordinate units. Due Yuma MCAS. “We have waste disposal practices at


to both past and current	 been very pleased by the the base resulted in waste


success of the system, and oils and VOCs contami­
 activities, the groundwa-	 I would be highly sur- nating the soil and ter in and around the site prised if we had to put possibly groundwater.
 is contaminated with more wells in.” To ensure

12 

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 torpedo testing range. 

Activities at the site 

include torpedo maintenance, fuel storage, 

welding, painting, carpentry, plating, and sheet 

metal work. Chlorinated 

solvents, PCBs, and heavy and monitoring, as well as nity Mother Nature gave 

metal contamination put sediment removal from a us,” said Bruce Cochran of 

the site on the NPL in creek bed contaminated the Washington State 

1989. with PCBs. Department of Ecology, 

who served as remedial 

According to the Perhaps the most interesting remedial action, oversight manager. “The PCOR, an FFA was	 hydrology of the site is signed in 1990 between	 however, was the phytoremediation system used to keeping the contaminated EPA, the Navy, and the groundwater away from Washington State address chlorinated solvents 

that were contaminating drinking water resources, Department of Ecology, and the marsh conditions 

which handles remedial groundwater under the under and around the 

project management site’s former landfill. landfill are causing a nat­ through an understanding Approximately 1,000 ural dechlorination of the 

with EPA Region 10. The	 hybrid poplars were plant- solvents. This gives us groups organized two ed over two “hot spots” on time to apply an innova­ operational units, signed the landfill to remediate tive technology–the two RODs, and identified the contaminated ground- trees–to capture and seven areas of concern.	 water naturally with their process the contaminated The four major remedial	 roots. groundwater in the source actions taken included “The key to this areas.” 

soil remediation, capping, cleanup was the opportuPartners In Progress 

Ordnance and Explosives 

<Continued From Page 7> 

Statistical Methodologies 

Statistical methodologies currently used or proposed 

by USACE for defining the nature and extent of OE contamination 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. 

USACE currently uses several geophysical field sampling, 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 

USACE 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 consensus 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 investigation 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 several research projects on OE detection, site 

characterization, and cleanup. For a full listing, see the 

SERDP home page <http://www.serdp.org/research/>. 

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 

Wieszek, FFRRO. 
NEJAC Charters 

Federal Facilities 

Working Group 

I

n 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, 

“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 comprises 13 other members representing tribal, state, and 

local governments; affected communities; non-governmental organizations; and businesses. 

The group is also structured to include substantial 

representation from EPA, the U.S. Department of 

artillery ranges, and research labs. “The participation of our federal part­

“People have come to NEJAC 

meetings calling for a specific forum	 ners in this process has truly been 

for federal facility issues,” said historic.” Brandon Carter of the U.S.


Environmental Protection Agency —Brandon Carter, EPA, designated federal official for 
 (EPA), the designated federal official NEJAC federal facilities working group for the working group. 

In response to these public comments, NEJAC tasked the working group to: 

•	 Identify and evaluate key issues of concern to environmental 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. 

Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. 

Department of Interior. Representatives from these agencies 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 justice 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. 

Partners In Progress 

Interagency Task Force 

<Continued From Page 3> 

“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 <carter.mike@epa.gov> or visit the FFRRO Web 

site at <www.epa.gov/swerffrr>. 

13 
14 

Policy and Working Group to Address Pr

Over the past several years, EPA has had concerns 

about the handling of environmental investigations 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 (USACE) and regulators. The concerns include USACE 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 recommendations 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 hazardous waste sites at active and formerly used defense 

properties. In 1983, the Defense Appropriations Act initiated environmental restoration activities at FUDS, and in 

1984 execution of the program was delegated by DoD to 

the Army, with USACE serving as the executing agent. 

This delegation made USACE the chief executor and manager for environmental restoration activities at FUDS. 

Because DoD no longer owns or uses the FUDS properties, 

a USACE district commander serves as each property’s 

installation commander, executing environmental restoration 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 military 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 USACE, approximately 8,700 preliminary assessments 

have been completed at these properties. USACE estimates that about 5,600 properties require no further 

action on behalf of USACE and about 3,100 properties 

have been determined to need remediation by USACE. 

Since 1984, the FUDS program has spent more than $2 

billion on cleanup activities. 

Partners In Progress 

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 recommendations to address them. Other FIWG members include 

EPA Region 9 Tackles


FUDS Issues Overseas


Regional EPA offices also deal with FUDS issues in 

the U.S. territories under their jurisdiction. 

USACE is currently working with EPA Region 9 

under a RCRA 7003 enforcement order to clean up polychlorinated 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 property 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 selfgoverning 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 program administered by USACE, 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 USACE was not providing adequate information about the cleanup process and demanded more vigorous 

pursuit of community involvement. 

Although USACE 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 USACE’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 concern. 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 

<shimmin.kathleen@epa.gov>. 
’

ivately Owned FUDS • EPA’s framework for coordinating activities with the 

USACE. 

•	 EPA’s enforcement alternatives for ensuring that 

known or threatened releases of hazardous substances representatives from USACE, the Association of State and at FUDS are addressed in accordance with CERCLA or Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO), the Tribal Association on Solid Waste and other applicable authorities. 

Emergency Response (TASWER), DoD, and EPA. The Recognizing that tribal, state, or other agencies oversee 

FIWG meets monthly and has already made several rec- most FUDS, EPA’s intention under this policy is to be 

ommendations: establish a statewide Management Action consistent with existing deferral and coordination policies 

Plan process for four pilot states; allow the re-opening of and to minimize potential duplication of effort from 

three to five historic Inventory Project Reports (INPRs) tribes, states, USACE, or other responsible parties. The 

per year per state to be funded through the Defense-State draft policy was officially released for comment on July 

Memorandum of Agreement 26, 2000, with final release expected in FY 2001. EPA has 

(DSMOA) program, and coordinate agreed to delay issuing the final policy until after a 90-day 

all INPRs with a regulator. assessment of FIWG’s progress. 

The FUDS program has a long history of 

EPA’s FUDS Policy Congressional interest, from site-specific issues to programmatic concerns (e.g., adequate funding). Most 

EPA has been also working on a recently, Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) has 

policy to provide guidance on how requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to do a 

the Agency will undertake its study on FUDS and former military ranges. As part of 

obligations and responsibilities to the study, GAO will be assessing the FUDS cleanup 

address privately used FUDS not on process and regulator involvement. FFRRO is participatthe National Priorities List (NPL). ing in the GAO study. 

The draft policy focuses on: For more information, contact Renee Wynn 

• 	EPA’s role in site assessment. (202 260-8366) or Sean Flynn (202 260-3199). 

• 	EPA’s role in overseeing and Contributors to this article include James Woolford, Renee 

implementing response actions Wynn, and Vic Wieszek, FFRRO. 

at FUDS. 

EPA Region 6 and USACE 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 completed 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 USACE 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, USACE 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. 

USACE 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 USACE district and division 

offices to a series of meetings to discuss the report and identify any mistakes EPA had made in identifying or evaluating 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 

<overbay.michael@epa.gov>. 

Partners In Progress 

15 
16 

TheCommunity Conference Discusses Tribal Strategy Connection 

The 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; consideration 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. 

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 

given moment, while others listen. Used within the context of a meeting 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 <www.epa.gov/swerffrr>, or write to 

Dianna Young at the address on the back of this newsletter to request copies. 

Partners In Progress 

EPA Extends Comment Period 

for Public Involvement Policy 

EPA 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 activities, 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 <www.epa.gov/stakeholders/policy.htm> or received via e-mail by contacting 

<kahn.lisa@epa.gov>. Printed copies can be requested from Loretta Schumacher at 202 260-3096. Comments should 

be e-mailed to <stakeholders@epa.gov> 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 <patricia.bonner@epa.gov>.

Hazardous Waste Citizens Award 

<Continued From Page 1> 

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 developments 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 EPA’s 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. TriValley 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 community 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 community group in EPA Region 9 to win a Technical Assistance 

Grant (TAG), which provided financial resources to continue and expand its Superfund community involvement 

efforts. According to David Cooper, EPA Region 9 community involvement coordinator, Tri-Valley CARES used 

the TAG to keep the community informed about the technical and global issues of the cleanup. Members also acted 

as effective spokespeople by expressing community concerns 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 acceptance. 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 community 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, TriValley 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 (<www.igc.org/tvc/index.htm>) and provides Spanish translations of LLNL’s environmental 

publications. 

Partners In Progress 

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 <young.dianna@epa.gov>; 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 <vjaggard@erg.com>. 

Name: _____________________________________ 

Agency/Organization:__________________________ 

Street Address: ______________________________ 

City: _______________________________________ 

State: ________ Zip Code:_____________________ 

Phone Number: ______________________________ 

E-mail:_____________________________________ 

17 
ficial Business Of

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Federal Facilities 

fice Restoration and Reuse Of 

DOE Streamlines Guidance 

for Advisory Boards 

I

n 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. 

2Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent postconsumer fiber. 

1EPA

United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(5106) 

Washington, DC 20460