 |
Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies
|
Executive Summary
The Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies (HWGT) Working Group was assigned the task of working collaboratively to draw upon the diverse experiences and perspectives of its members in assisting the Department of Defense (DoD) and the service branches to:
* Identify impediments to the development and deployment of innovative environmental technologies and methods that are safer, faster, and more cost-effective
* Offer suggestions that may succeed in overcoming these barriers.
The findings and recommendations of the HWGT Working Group to the DOIT Coordinating Committee are based on carefully crafted and organized technology transfer site demonstrations of various DOIT process enhancements at three military bases and perspectives of work group members offered during group meetings.
The work group uses the term "innovative technology" as defined by the US EPA to mean fully developed technologies for which there is limited cost and performance information.
In general, the work group concluded that environmental technologies that may prove faster, better, and cheaper than conventional approaches are not more widely used because fiscal and schedule pressures make it difficult for project managers to stay current on new technologies and cost and performance data and many project managers are reluctant to accept the risks of new technologies.
Recognizing that such practical impediments are difficult to eliminate, the work group has developed three principal recommendations intended to encourage technology developers to invest in and project managers to consider and use innovative technologies:
* Improve regional coordination through the leveraging of existing resources and organizational structures
* Promote greater stakeholder involvement
* Create incentives for developing and using innovative technologies
The work group proposes two mechanisms to implement its recommendations:
* Designate DoD regional technical coordinators
* Organize an environmental technology forum in each region, launched through a pilot forum organized for EPA Regions IX and X.
Regional Coordination
Studies indicate that there are a multitude of organizations that have been involved in initiatives to demonstrate and commercialize environmental technologies. The competition for sparse funds leads to the inefficient allocation of resources and thus the critical need for better coordination in environmental cleanup processes.
To assist project managers to recognize opportunities to use innovative technologies while also facilitating the transfer of information between service branches, the work group proposes that DoD designates a technical coordinator within each EPA region. In developing the role of regional coordinator, it may be possible to draw upon existing resources and organizational structures. The DoD Regional Environmental Executive (DREC) program currently operating within each of the services is a good model and may be an appropriate entity to implement or oversee these regional coordination efforts.
The responsibilities of the regional technical coordinator would include:
* Identifying regional technology needs and seeking technologies to address these needs
* Promoting the use of new and better technologies for site characterization and remediation
* Linking information from other service branches, federal and state agencies, and research institutions
* Serving as regional points of contact for each services' environmental activities and for technology developers.
The work group also suggests that the services continue their practice of designating single entities within each service (e.g. NFESC or the Navy's regional Engineering Field Divisions and the Centers for Environmental Excellence in the Air Force and the Army Environmental Center) to coordinate and take leadership responsibility for the development and marketing of specific new technologies and methods within the respective services.
Stakeholder Involvement
DoD's support for stakeholder groups cultivates the trust and cooperation of parties affected by cleanup activities, elicits unique insights on cleanup issues, and provides DoD and the services with a powerful and important mechanism for generating support for its activities. The work group recommends that DoD and the services make it as easy as possible for stakeholders to gain access to information and to offer their views in the cleanup decision-making process. The work group also suggests that DoD undertake efforts to ensure that all federal technology development and cleanup policy steering committees are composed of a broad diversity of stakeholder representation.
Incentives
The work group recommends that:
* RPMs and their teams should be recognized for innovation and cost savings
* Congress and the agencies minimize budgetary pressures that encourage activities to expend current year funds to support less effective technologies simply because these funds will expire before more effective technologies can be developed
* A percentage of each service's annual cleanup budget should be allocated for demonstrations of emerging technologies at low-risk cleanup sites
* Through a broad-based, collaborative stakeholder initiative, such as the pilot forum outlined below, federal agencies involved in cleanup efforts and GSA should develop more flexible, innovative approaches for procuring new technologies from vendors, such as a procurement policy that would link successful technology demonstrations to implementation contracts
* Technology development by small technology developers be encouraged by federal agencies establishing and supporting grant and loan programs
* Technology needs be assessed from a potential market perspective for both public and private sector technology developers and implementors, which can be accomplished by providing information on market need, size, and general opportunities
Proposed Pilot Project to Implement HWGT Working Group's Recommendations
The work group recommends that the DoD Environmental Quality Strategic Plan updates and the annual SERDP and ESTCP proposals address regional cleanup issues and technology development needs through an interactive process in which RAB representatives, other community members, industry professionals, regulators, project managers, and academic researchers are invited to participate. Accordingly, the work group proposes that DoD organize and sponsor an environmental technology forum within each EPA region. The forum would provide an opportunity for stakeholders to give presentations, make contacts, gain new ideas and perspectives, and share experiences and case studies. The forum would also recognize projects where the use of innovative technologies and approaches led to safer, faster, and cheaper solutions to environmental cleanup issues.
As a vehicle to implement the recommendations summarized above, the HWGT Working Group proposes as a pilot project to plan and sponsor a regional stakeholder forum in EPA Regions IX and X, similar, though more broadly defined in public participation and substantive scope, than the well-received Hill AFB Bioventing Forum. To fund this project, in whole or part, the work group suggests drawing upon resources allocated for its FY96 DOIT activities. The work group also requests that WGA continue to provide resource management and support beyond the expiration of the DOIT Charter to assist the group in implementing the pilot forum. The work group recommends scheduling the forum early this fall, possibly in connection with the RAB workshops sponsored by San Francisco State University. The Regional Environmental Executive for Region IX has agreed to participate.
The work group envisions that the pilot forum will lead to regular stakeholder forums throughout the country and to an expanded set of forum topics, including other environmental security concerns in addition to environmental technologies, such as pollution prevention and compliance.
Conclusion
The HWGT Working Group concludes that the limited resources available to implement remediation initiatives render efficient and inclusive decision-making strategies more critical than ever to the hazardous waste cleanup process. To succeed in these efforts, public support for DoD's and the services' cleanup activities is essential. Incentives and reward structures must, therefore, be identified and implemented to support the demonstration and use of innovative, cost-effective, and safe methods and technologies for the remediation of contaminated military base sites and to engage stakeholders in a meaningful, reciprocal dialogue aimed at achieving this end.
I. Introduction
The Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies (HWGT) (formerly the Waste Contaminants at Military Bases) Working Group was formed three years ago as a broadly-based DOIT stakeholder initiative. Participants in the HWGT Working Group include representatives from:
* The Navy and Air Force
* Federal and state regulatory agencies
* The public
* Sovereign nations
* Environmental groups
* Private industry
The HWGT Working Group was itself an experiment in the use of stakeholder processes established to solicit the views of parties interested in military base cleanup and environmental technologies. As independent entities, stakeholder groups have a great deal to contribute to the military base cleanup process. DoD's support for these groups cultivates the trust and cooperation of parties affected by cleanup activities. Because of the breadth and depth of views of their membership, stakeholder groups offer unique insights on cleanup issues. Finally, stakeholder groups provide DoD with an important mechanism for generating support for its activities and the momentum and flexibility to implement action.
The HWGT Working Group was assigned the task of working collaboratively to draw upon the diverse experiences and perspectives of its members in assisting the Department of Defense (DoD) and the service branches to:
* Identify the impediments to the development and deployment of efficient, cost-effective environmental technologies, especially innovative technologies
* Offer suggestions that may succeed in overcoming these barriers
In mid-December 1994, funding and other DOIT administrative issues created a situation where the two Department of Defense working groups (Military Munitions Waste and the Waste Contaminants at Military Bases, now the Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies Working Group) experienced nearly a year's hiatus in activities. This break in action disrupted continuity in the implementation of these groups' DOIT enhancement projects at proposed DoD sites. Nevertheless, DoD's funding for HWGT Working Group demonstrations at three military base sites which was distributed in September 1995, allowed the HWGT Working Group to complete most Phase I activities in these projects.
The findings and recommendations of the HWGT Working Group are based on perspectives of work group members offered during group meetings and carefully crafted and organized technology transfer site demonstrations of various DOIT process enhancements at:
Hill AFB, Utah (Bioventing)
At Hill, the site team developed and offered a forum and bioventing site visit at which multiple stakeholders were invited to participate. The site team is also developing a "Train-the-Trainer packet to help participants more easily and effectively disseminate the information provided at the bioventing forum.
Port Hueneme Naval Construction Battalion Center, California (SCAPS-LIF)
The DOIT process enhancements at the Port Hueneme demonstration involved efforts to improve awareness and acceptance of the technology by eliciting the involvement of federal and state regulators and members of the local Restoration Advisory Board in the design and implementation of the technology demonstration, to develop data that would be acceptable to a variety of jurisdictions' regulators, and to improve opportunities for commercializing the technology.
McClellan Air Force Base, California (SVE off-gas treatment systems)
At McClellan, the site time focused initial efforts on seeking participation of state regulators in designing a technology demonstration.
The Hill and Port Hueneme activities proved very successful in achieving their goals of improving stakeholder participation, regulatory cooperation, and sharing of information. While the efforts to seek the involvement of stakeholders in the McClellan demonstration were disappointing, much was learned from the experience. The HWGT Working Group and the site team concluded from the McClellan experience that pro-active, targeted steps must be taken to identify and generate the interest of parties with stakes in technology demonstrations.
The members of the HWGT Working Group acknowledge and express their appreciation to DoD and the services for supporting the group's activities. The Department and the services have made significant strides in achieving their goal of improving cleanup decision-making processes and results. Accordingly, the group viewed its mission, not as one of reinventing existing DoD and service programs, but rather as one aimed at providing insights and suggestions from a variety of perspectives that complement those efforts, leverage existing resources, and hopefully will aid DoD and the services in more fully implementing military base cleanup initiatives.
In general, the work group concluded that environmental technologies that may prove faster, better, and cheaper than conventional approaches are not more widely used because fiscal and schedule pressures make it difficult for project managers to stay current on new technologies and cost and performance data and many project managers are reluctant to accept the risks of new technologies.
Recognizing that such practical impediments are difficult to eliminate, the work group has developed three principal recommendations to the DOIT Coordinating Committee intended to encourage technology developers to invest in and project managers to consider and use innovative technologies:
* Improve regional coordination through the leveraging of existing resources and organizational structures
* Promote greater stakeholder involvement
* Create incentives for developing and using innovative technologies
The work group proposes two primary mechanisms to implement its recommendations:
* Designate DoD regional technical coordinators
* Organize an environmental technology forum in each region, launched through a pilot forum organized for EPA Regions IX and X
In making specific suggestions for possible improvements in certain areas, the group does not want to limit the variety of options available to DoD and the services in developing approaches to implement the group's suggestions. The approaches the group suggests are offered by way of example only and are not intended to constrain DoD in developing methods and models best suited to existing structures that may also address the underlying needs raised in the Working Group and Site Team reports.
The common themes the work group identified to organize the presentation of its lessons learned and recommendations are:
* Communications
and
* Incentives
The "Communications" category includes such issues in the cleanup process connected with:
* Coordination among the services
* Inclusion and participation of potential stakeholders at both the early decision-making and implementation stages,
* Interactions among stakeholders, site managers, regulators, and technology developers, and
* Methods used to identify and transfer information on new technologies.
The "Incentives" category concerns the need to provide mechanisms, clear guidance, recognition, and other encouragements to parties involved in developing policy, providing funding, and designing and implementing military base cleanups to overcome barriers that impede the selection and use of innovative cleanup technologies or methods.
The members of the Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies Working Group respectfully submit to the DOIT Coordinating Committee, the Western Governors' Association, the Department of Defense, and the service branches the following findings and recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of effective innovative and developed technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites on military bases.
II. Findings of the Hazardous Waste Generic Technologies Working Group
A. Lessons Learned
1. Communications
* The McClellan demo made clear that cold calls and mass mailings are ineffective in generating interest or promoting acceptance of cleanup technologies.
* There is a great deal of technical information available on new technologies, but the information is not always easily accessible or readily useable by RPMs in making cleanup decisions.
* The Hill Bioventing Forum proved to be an efficient, effective, and relatively inexpensive method for disseminating accurate and timely information about bioventing as a technology. The attendees represented a diverse mix of stakeholders, which resulted in a very effective setting for information exchange. The result was a significantly increased understanding of the technology's potential and current level of regulatory acceptance.
* The Hill bioventing demonstration successfully illustrated the positive effect of a site visit as a very important component of a technology demonstration meeting. The chance to see an actual site and discuss experiences with site engineers added significant impact to the demonstration.
* Providing "Train-the Trainer" materials in a concise, easily understood format further enhances the value of gathering together diverse interests to participate in a technology demonstration. Such materials afford attendees the ability to share key points on a new technology with coworkers and business associates. As this sharing of information branches out, it mitigates one of the main problems hampering the deployment of new technologies -- the lack of awareness about the existence, use, benefits, and level of acceptance of a new technology.
* Stakeholder processes are a kind of technology, a "technology of communication." Because these groups consist of diverse interests and they operate in a collaborative setting, they are an effective, though not always simple, mechanism for:
* Drawing upon the multiplicity of experiences and perspectives of diverse interests in the cleanup process
* Conveying information
* Reconciling the diversity of views on cleanup issues.
* The Port Hueneme demonstration illustrated the importance of stakeholder participation in the cleanup technology demonstration and selection process. As independent entities, stakeholder groups have a great deal to contribute to the military base cleanup process.
* DoD's support for these groups cultivates the trust and cooperation of parties affected by cleanup activities.
* Because of the breadth and depth of views, stakeholder groups offer unique insights on cleanup issues.
* Stakeholder groups provide DoD with a powerful and important mechanism for generating support for its activities.
* Support from a stakeholder group triggers the momentum and flexibility to implement action. When the public's views are actively sought and considered, DoD and the services are provided with a base of support that can be translated into political action. DoD and the services should, therefore, make it easy for stakeholders to gain access to information and to share their perspectives in the cleanup decision-making process.
* A stakeholder working group needs a clearly defined mission, as well as top management leadership and consistent staff support, to be effective and to generate good outcomes.
* The Port Hueneme SCAPS demo suggested that effective communications must flow in all directions. Good listening skills are as important in the communication process as good speaking skills to promote effective interactions among members of stakeholder groups and between stakeholder groups and other parties. Public stakeholders working with RABs and in other settings on cleanup issues need information and feedback on new technologies and on technology demonstrations, including information on acceptance criteria and performance protocols.
* Due to significant pressures on limited funds and other resources, the need for coordination among the services, other federal and state agencies, and sites in the demonstration and commercialization of environmental cleanup technology is becoming increasingly important. DoD has made important strides in high-level coordination through such efforts as the Multi-Services Environmental Quality Coordinating Group and the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FTRR). Other initiatives, such as DoD's Regional Environmental Centers, have been adopted on paper.
Despite such efforts, existing coordination initiatives appear not to have been fully disseminated to field levels, nor have they been translated into action by RPMs. Moreover, each service branch determines user technology needs through different methods. Thus, more efficient coordination among the services and other federal and state agencies is needed for identifying technology needs, sharing information and experiences, and allocating scarce cleanup dollars.
2. Incentives
* Most barriers to the selection and deployment of new technologies involve practical concerns at the field level, such as time and fiscal pressures.
* Project managers are reluctant to take risks. There appear to be more barriers impeding the use of innovative cleanup technologies at the cleanup stage than at the demonstration stage.
.* The system lacks incentives for site managers, decision-makers, regulators, and the public to accept new cleanup ideas, technologies, and process models.
* There are few incentives for site managers to use innovative technology, even where appropriate and cost-effective. Similarly, there are few incentives for regulators to approve the use of new technology.
* Information alone does not motivate the selection of innovative technologies.
* One of the key findings of the Bioventing Demo was that bioventing has never been disapproved as a site remediation option by any of the regulatory authorities represented at the meeting. As the meeting concluded, it was clear that, as long as appropriate site characterization data and a valid work plan are presented to regulators, there are no major technical or regulatory impediments to bioventing for cleanup of petroleum-contaminated sites. Consequently, the consensus was that bioventing should be made the presumptive remedy under EPA procedures to speed regulatory review and approval at appropriate sites.
* Another important finding from the Bioventing Demo concerned site liability. Though considerable efforts are currently being made to encourage the use of new cleanup technologies, site owners remain concerned about the potential for incurring additional costs if forced to remediate a site twice if a new technology fails to meet the required cleanup levels. The state of Illinois, for example, offers an effective way to solve this problem. Illinois has established an insurance program to pay for multiple cleanups when new technologies fail to meet standards. This proactive approach should be adopted nationally.
B. Recommendations for Actions and Policy Changes
1. Communications
a. Coordination
Studies indicate that many organizations have been involved in attempting to demonstrate and commercialize environmental technologies. However, the competition for sparse cleanup resources leads to inefficient allocation and thus the critical need for better coordination in environmental cleanup processes. To improve coordination of technology needs assessment, technology development, and resource allocation decisions by DoD and the service branches, the work group suggests that steps be taken to:
* Assist project managers to recognize opportunities to use innovative technologies and facilitate the transfer of information between service branches by designating a technical coordinator within each EPA region. In developing the role of regional coordinator, it may be possible to draw upon existing resources and organizational structures. The DoD Regional Environmental Executive (DREC) program currently operating within each of the services is a good model and may be an appropriate entity to implement or oversee these regional coordination efforts. The responsibilities of the regional technical coordinator would include:
* Identifying regional technology needs and seeking technologies to address these needs
* Promoting the use of new and better technologies for site characterization and remediation
* Linking information from other service branches, federal and state agencies, and research institutions
* Serving as regional points of contact for each services' environmental activities and for technology developers
* To develop a centralized information-gathering system, DoD and the services might consider drawing upon the approach used by the USDA in its county agent farm advisor program and make technology field agents responsible for providing information to and gathering it from entities and individuals within each service branch responsible for cleanup, policy, and funding decisions.
* Under a format like the regional forum proposed below, DoD may wish to develop regional public/private stakeholder hubs to elicit views of diverse stakeholders, establish priorities for technology development, and provide recommendations on regional cleanup and technology requirements through broad-based public review and comment.
* An example of such a regional group is the Bay Area Defense Conversion Action Team ( BADCAT). This group is a public/private partnership comprising representatives from US EPA, Cal/EPA, the Bay Area Regional Technology Alliance, and the US Navy Engineering Field Activity West and Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. The goal of BADCAT's Environmental Technology Project is to expedite the cleanup, conversion, and transfer of military properties located within the Bay Area's twelve closing bases by complementing the existing remediation schedule and process with innovative and emerging site characterization, cleanup, and remedy validation technologies. The initial effort is focusing on supporting technology demonstrations at the Bay Area's large number of Naval Bases.
* The services should continue the practice of designating single entities (e.g., NFESC and the regional Engineering Field Divisions for the Navy and the Centers of Environmental Excellence in the Air Force and the Army) within each service to coordinate and take leadership responsibility for the development and use of specific new technologies and methods
* DoD should continue to support the coordination of technology acceptance efforts through such organizations as the ITRC. Coordination among states in verifying, approving, and certifying new technologies will save time and money, and create larger regional markets. Initiatives for standardizing cost and performance data formats for innovative technologies through such organizations as ITRC and the Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable (FRTR) will improve the potential for commercialization of new technologies.
b. Inclusion and communication strategies
* It is not effective to inundate those who may have an interest in new cleanup technologies with volumes of information; personal interactions are critical for effective transfer of innovative technologies.
* DoD should make it as easy as possible for stakeholders to gain access to information they need to fully participate in cleanup decisions.
* DoD and other federal agencies involved in the cleanup process should establish electronic technology updates on the Internet or World Wide Web (WWW):
* Develop and regularly maintain a homepage to provide detailed, straightforward information that is carefully screened for quality and accuracy.
* Use an easily-accessible, commercial graphical interface
* Use marketing efforts to educate the public, private personnel at cleanup sites, and technology developers about the availability of the service and how to access it
* Link to existing technical databases.
* Invite broad-based stakeholder participation in the design and implementation of technology demonstrations at field sites. Educate RPMs and contractors about how to use innovative technologies and to obtain information about a technology's advantages and limitations.
* When planning a technology demonstration, state and federal regulators and site managers should take pro-active measures to involve stakeholders from surrounding communities and from other states with similar technology needs. These measures should be designed to reach the targeted audience and induce them into the process.
* Sovereign tribal nations should be made full-partners in decisions related to new technologies for a site cleanup that could affect their land and they should be included in outreach efforts in the development of new technologies related to sites on tribal lands.
* The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security (DUSD) (ES) Environmental Technology Requirements Strategy should be broadened to include regulators and community groups.
* Federal and state agencies and site managers should continue to encourage the testing and use of broad-based, multiple stakeholder involvement through RABs and other public interest groups to exchange information and views, and aid in decisions on technology demonstration, selection, and development decisions.
* Adequate compensation is necessary to reimburse stakeholders for expenses incurred during participation.
* Federal agencies should actively seek the participation of private foundations and professional organizations to fund stakeholder participation. This will ameliorate any appearance of conflict of interest and allow more DoD funds to be allocated to technology demonstration and cleanup.
* The parties responsible for cleanup decisions should encourage the use of pre-and post-Record of Decision (ROD) modification procedures when new technology alternatives at CERCLA and RCRA Part B sites could result in better, faster, safer, and cheaper cleanups.
* There is language in the NCP on ROD changes and US EPA has a fact sheet addressing pre- and post-ROD modifications. DoD should emphasize the ability to amend RODs by disseminating this information to environmental and Judge Advocate offices.
* To promote flexibility and the potential selection of new technologies in situations where the formal decision-making process occurs before the availability of a potentially more appropriate technology, DoD, the Judge Advocate, and US EPA attorneys should draft common language to be included in a ROD. The clause would allow amendment of a ROD when a new technology promises to exceed the performance and cost objectives of a previously selected technology.
* Community interests should be encouraged to participate in the discussions related to reconsideration of a ROD.
c. Information dissemination and sharing
* The service branches, including bases, division commands, and the Multi-Service Environmental Quality Planning Committee, should meet frequently in addition to or in conjunction with a regional forum, like the one proposed below, to share success stories, including successful site remediation practices on:
* Contracting
* Use of innovative technology
* Resource sharing
* Technology demonstrations, like those held at Hill, McClellan, and Port Hueneme, should be broadened to convey information on new technologies to potential users.
* Market data, especially on federal procurement activities, should be compiled and communicated to the environmental business community.
d. Education and Training
* Services technology teams (for example, the Naval Facility Engineering Tiger Teams), which are created to assist facilities in learning about, selecting, and using new technologies should be interactive and facilitative rather than directive, and should develop ongoing relationships with site teams to encourage consideration of new or suitable developed technologies.
* Early training should be offered to all members of stakeholder groups in teambuilding, effective negotiation, and constructive communication skills. Scientific and technical experts who interact with the public should be trained to communicate more effectively in lay terms.
2. Incentives
a. Facilities and site managers
* To save time and money through innovation, the agencies should develop a program to provide incentives to and recognition of site managers for more efficient and cost-effective cleanups that meet safety requirements and cleanup standards. For example, criteria in contracts for the development of technology can promote the selection and use of new technologies. Measurements for job performance reviews can include incentives to select and use new technologies. Strategy plan implementation guidance can include incentives for innovation.
* Incentives should be created to make it easier for site managers and service branches to exchange information on technologies and cleanup methods.
* A percentage of each service's annual cleanup budget should be allocated for demonstrations of emerging technologies at low-risk cleanup sites.
* Qualitative and quantitative measurement criteria should be established and used to help facilities and the public determine the effectiveness of cleanup decisions and implementation strategies.
* Site managers and decision-makers should be provided strong incentives to:
* Enhance the RAB concept.
* Involve a broader range of public stakeholders in early and frank exchanges concerning contamination problems, public health issues, and the benefits, limitations, and costs of cleanup options.
* Encourage the easy accessibility and the free flow of information between the public and site officials.
* Bioventing should be made the presumptive remedy under EPA procedures for petroleum-contaminated sites to speed regulatory review and approval.
* Federal and state agencies involved in the cleanup process should develop policies to reduce risks and penalties that may be imposed on project managers and contractors when innovative or developed technologies fail to meet cleanup standards. Illinois has adopted a program which insures against the risk of multiple cleanups if treatment technologies fail to meet cleanup levels. EPA is also testing an approach to fund backup technologies in the event an innovative technology fails.
b. Contractor Policies
* Technology needs should be assessed from a potential market perspective for both public and private sector technology developers and implementors, which can be accomplished by providing information on market need, size, and general opportunities. Such information will aid private developers and venture capitalists in making decisions about which technologies to support. Support from the private sector for a new technology will spread the cost, risks, and benefits of technology development across the potential market.
* Through a broad-based, collaborative stakeholder initiative, such as the pilot forum outlined below, federal agencies involved in cleanup efforts and GSA should develop more flexible, innovative approaches for procuring new technologies from vendors, such as a procurement policy that would link successful technology demonstrations to implementation contracts.
* Contracts for complex cleanup tasks should include award fees structured to reward contractors for actions that save money, speed results, or achieve safer or more complete cleanups.
* DoD should explore the feasibility of developing approaches to foster the commercial potential of innovative technologies. Effective commercialization reduces the cost of developing a new technology and its acceptance by private markets will increase the confidence of site managers in selecting the most appropriate technology.
* To encourage technology development, federal agencies should consider establishing, supporting, and making available to small technology developers:
* Grant programs, like SBIR or ARPA
* Loan or loan guarantee programs analogous to the programs offered to small business by the SBA or FHA's mortgage loans for homeowners by FHA
* Loan programs administered by universities for research
c. Agencies and Regulators
* The services should further test the Hill demo approach and the finding that the regulatory sector does not present significant impediments for using new technologies. The principal need in the regulatory area may be one of creating a more efficient process to achieve multi-state regulatory acceptance.
* To encourage time and cost savings in the cleanup process, Congress and the agencies should minimize budgetary pressures that encourage activities to expend current year funds to support less effective technologies simply because these funds will expire before more effective technologies can be developed.
III. Proposed Pilot Project to Implement HWGT Working Group's Recommendations
The HWGT Work Group proposes to plan, organize, and sponsor a prototype regional stakeholder forum in EPA Regions IX and X as a vehicle to implement the recommendations set forth above. The forum would be designed to:
* Ensure that DoD Environmental Strategic Quality Plan updates and the annual SERDP and ESTCP proposals address regional stakeholder cleanup issues and technology development needs through an interactive process in which representatives from DoD and the services, RABs , other community interests, RPMs, contractors, industry professionals, regulators, and academic researchers are invited to participate.
* Use case studies, including the three HWGT demonstration projects, to share with stakeholders the lessons learned about barriers to the use of innovative cleanup technologies and the experiences with DOIT process enhancements in addressing these barriers.
* Elicit input from participants regarding the need for further development, demonstration, and implementation of innovative technologies.
* Develop strategies for the dissemination of information or even the promotion of successfully demonstrated innovative technologies.
* Provide private industry with information and links to technology development market opportunities.
The findings of the forum would be made available to all interested parties, including forum participants, regulators, and contractors. Recommendations arising from the forum would be channeled to DoD through the Regional Environmental Executives (REC) of the participating regions. The Regional Environmental Executive for Region IX has agreed to participate in developing and implementing the project forum.
To fund this project, in whole or part, the work group suggests drawing upon resources allocated for its FY96 DOIT activities. The work group also requests that WGA continue to provide resource management and support beyond the expiration of the DOIT Charter to assist the group in implementing the pilot forum. The work group recommends scheduling the forum early this fall, possibly in connection with the RAB workshops sponsored by San Francisco State University.
The work group foresees that the proposed forum may lead to the development of other forums that foster regional stakeholder interactions between the community, regulators, project managers, and the military, through the appropriate Regional Environmental Coordinators. Future regional forums would be designed to:
* Encourage all participants to share information, perspectives, case studies, and cost and performance data on environmental technologies and other environmental issues
* Give stakeholders an opportunity to influence the service branches' technology needs assessment process and technology selection criteria
* Explore methods to more effectively develop tools to address cleanup, technology selection, compliance, hazardous waste management, and pollution prevention issues.
IV. Future projects
Possible future projects can be designed to:
* Build on the models, approaches, and technologies developed through the Group's work to date
* Propose demonstration of new technologies not used in Phase I
* Develop process enhancement models in areas not previously or fully addressed, such as those related to procurement, technology transfer, and commercialization.
V. Conclusion
The complexity and cost of environmental cleanups on military bases and elsewhere, and the limited resources available to implement remediation initiatives, render efficient and inclusive decision-making strategies more critical than ever in the hazardous waste cleanup process. To succeed in these efforts, public support for DoD and the services' cleanup activities are essential. Incentives and reward structures must, therefore, be identified and implemented to support the demonstration and use of innovative, cost-effective, efficient, and safe methods and technologies for the remediation of contaminated military base sites and to engage stakeholders in a meaningful, reciprocal dialogue aimed at achieving this end.