A Business Case for Implementing the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans

1
A Business Case for Implementingthe Uniform
Federal Policy forQuality Assurance Project Plans

• The EPA Region 2 Experience

May 2009
2
Region 2 Contacts

• Robert Runyon, Chief, DESA-HWSB
• [phone] or runyon.robert_at_epa.gov
• Linda Mauel, Chief, DESA-HWSB-HWSS
• [phone] or mauel.linda_at_epa.gov

3
Information Resources

• http//www.epa.gov/region02/qa
• Region 2 Quality Assurance program
• http//www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/quality
• assurance.htm
• Click on Quality Assurance for UFP documents
• http//www.epa.gov/region02/qa/documents.htm
• Quality Assurance Guidance and SOPs

4
Uniform Federal Policy

• Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF)
  (2000)
• DOD, DOE, EPA
• Environmental Quality Systems
• ANSI/ASQ E4 (2004)

5
Uniform Federal Policies

• Components
• Organizational Specification
• Quality Systems (UFP-QS 2003)
• Quality Management Plan (EPA QA/R-2 2001)
• Project Specification
• Systematic Planning Process (EPA QA/G-4 2006)
• Dynamic work plan (ITRC Triad 2003)
• QAPP (UFP-QAPP 2005)

6
UFP Documents

• UFP-Quality System (UFP-QS)
• A high level management document stating QA
  Policy of the Organization
• If UFP is adopted by a Federal Agency, a
  Quality System is Required

Look-- documents based on ANSI/ASQ E-4!!
7
UFP-QAPP Documents

• PART 1 UFP-QAPP Manual
• - Provides instructions and guidance on QAPP
  content and preparation
• PART 2A QAPP Workbook
• -Use not mandatory
• -Facilitates ease of compiling information
  and review
• PART 2B QA/QC Compendium
• -Lists required QC activities for the CERCLA
  process
• Minimum set of requirements
• -Other Programs (e.g. RCRA) can use the
  compendium if agreed by all parties

8
UFP-QAPP

• Easy
• promotes consistency
• reduces amount of text
• Cost Effective
• QA requirements based on data use
• minimizes re-mobilization
• Faster Preparation/Review/Approval
• systematic planning/graded approach
• Defendable data
• criteria are decision dependent

9
How is this Different?

• Project Team - Planning thru Data Usability
• Use of Worksheets - Readily Accessible
• Data Review tied to Project Needs
• RPM ensures process is followed
• QAPP must be signed!

10
Systematic Planning

• Group effort to balance cost vs. amount of data
  needed to make decision
• Understand how the data will be used
• Ensure you get what you pay for by defining
  project needs in detail
• Knowing what was not delivered and why

Better planning may add cost at the beginning of
the project
11
Road to Success

• CHANGE
• RESISTANCE
• COMPLIANCE
• Implementation

12
Keys to Success

• Management Support
• Information/Knowledge
• Project Manager Buy-In
• Institutional Constraints

13
Keys to Success

• Management Support
• Briefing of Regional Haz. Waste Program Mgrs
• Policy Buy In
• Joint Implementation Strategy
• Regional Order
• All Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields

14
Keys to Success

• Information/Knowledge
• TRAINING
• For Managers--On-line course
• For PMs/POs--Regional ½ day course
• For Implementers/Agency Reviewers--On-site,
  intensive 2-3 day course

15
Keys to Success

• Technical Assistance
• QA Open House/Help Sessions
• Site/Project specific participation
• (graded approach)
• Contractor specific feedback
• (meetings/conf. calls)

16
Keys to Success

• Institutional Constraints
• Funding-front loaded for
• process planning takes longer
• project additional participants
• Language for AOCs, IAGs, Contracts

17
Success in Region 2 Implementation

• Review documents in the context of UFP
  requirements
• Track Implementation at the regional level via
  Management Accountability Systems
• Compile feedback for improvements/modifications

18
Region 2 Staged Approach

• Superfund sites and Federal Facilities
• Brownfields
• RCRA sites

19
Initial Success in Region 2

• FY06 FY 07
• 50 reduction of EPA FTE devoted to QAPP review
• 20 increase in QAPP submittals

20
Initial Success in Region 2

• More than doubled use of UFP in 2007 for
  Superfund Federal Facilities as a result of
  implementation strategy

2007 UFP Non-UFP
Quarters 12 12 24
Quarters 34 27 11
21
Continued Success in Region 2

• UFP Compliance for SF/FF continues to grow
• 1st Half of 2009
• Reviewers saw an 80 decrease in the number of
  revisions prior to QAPP approval

Fiscal Year UFP Non-UFP Ratio
2007 39 35 87
2008 42 24 21
2009 27 5 51
22
Continued Success in Region 2

• Implementation has begun for Brownfields as well,
  for which the compliance is not yet mandatory,
  but steadily growing each year.
• 1st half of 2009

Fiscal Year UFP Non-UFP Ratio
2007 2 40 120
2008 6 42 17
2009 12 23 12
23
Continued Success in Region 2

• Region 2 contractors prepare 100 UFP compliant
  QAPPs
• 10 reduction in FTE devoted to QAPP preparation
  once familiar with UFP format
• Decrease in revisions is attributed to use of
  logical tables and generic formatting versus text
  alone.

24
Next Steps for UFP-QAPP

• Feedback
• IDQTF survey users and contractors
• Are they using the UFP format?
• If yes, how can we make it better?
• If no, why? What are the barriers?
• IDQTF data collection and streamlining workgroups
  will incorporate the changes into a national
  streamlined UFP-QAPP
• Region 2 will implement these changes as well

25
Information Resources

• http//www.epa.gov/region02/qa
• Region 2 Quality Assurance program
• http//www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/quality
• assurance.htm
• Click on Quality Assurance for UFP documents
• http//www.epa.gov/region02/qa/documents.htm
• Quality Assurance Guidance and SOPs

26
Region 2 Contacts

• Robert Runyon, Chief, DESA-HWSB
• [phone] or runyon.robert_at_epa.gov
• Linda Mauel, Chief, DESA-HWSB-HWSS
• [phone] or mauel.linda_at_epa.gov