G

eneral Electric has agreed in principle to spend between $150 and

$250 million on cleanup of PCBs

and other hazardous substances re l e a s e d

by its Pittsfield plant into the Housatonic

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement (2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Winter 1998

EPA 300-N-98-009

Issue #1

inside

Short Takes 2

MSW Policy 3

About OSRE 4

In the Courts 5

TechDirect 6

OERR Celebrates

5000 Removals 7

National Notable 

Awards 8

ADR,SEPs at 

Brownfields 10

Reports and Guidance 11

Calendar 12

Printed on recycled paper

c l e a n u pn e w s

River in Massachusetts. In announcing

the agreement in principle on September

24, 1998, John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 1, re m a r k e d :

“ With this agreement, we have moved the

cleanup onto the fast track. We have hono red our most important responsibility —

to protect the health and environment of

P i t t s field and Berkshire County. ”

Under the mediated agreement, GE

will remove contaminated sediments fro m

the one-half mile of the Housatonic River

n e a rest the GE plant. Through a costsharing agreement, GE will also fund

much of the anticipated cost of an additional mile-and-one-half of river cleanup to

GE to Spend $200 Million

on Cleanup of

Housatonic River

continued on page 4

w e l c o m e

W

elcome to the first issue of

Cleanup News! Our goal is to

keep you up-to-date with the latest happenings in Superfund cleanups,

RCRA corrective actions, and other re m edial eff o rts related to underg round storage

tanks and oil spills. We’ll be covering policy developments, case studies, technology advances, new re s o u rces and

publications, court decisions, and more .

This first issue features articles on the GE

cleanup agreement for the Housatonic

R i v e r, EPA’s municipal solid waste policy,

supplemental environmental projects at

b ro w n fields, and much more. We look forw a rd to bringing you the latest inform ation from the cleanup world. Write to Rick

Popino with your comments at C l e a n u p

N e w s , U.S. EPA (2271A), 401 M Stre e t

S W, Washington, DC 20460.

Cleanup News is an occasional newsletter highlighting 

h a z a rdous waste cleanup

cases, policies, settlements,

and technologies. Published

by EPA’s Office of Site 

Remediation Enforc e m e n t ,

jointly with EPA’s Office of

E m e rgency and Remedial 

Response, Office of Solid

Waste, Technology Innovation

O ffice, and Office of Underg round Storage Tanks. 
2 Cleanup News

Cleanup 2000 

U n d e rw a y

E

PA’s Office of Solid Waste has

launched CLEANUP 2000 in an

e ff o rt to improve the RCRA corrective action program through administrative re f o rms by December 31,

2000. The goals are to speed up

cleanups, enhance the role of state

p a rtners, promote innovative but practical approaches, and foster gre a t e r

public involvement in cleanup decisions. Overall, the intent is to make corrective action more “re s u l t s - d r i v e n ”

rather than “process-driven.” That

means moving away from the lock-step

p rocess of RCRA facility investigation,

c o rrective measures study, and corre ctive measures implementation to a

m o re fluid, compressed approach. 

Several projects are underway to

f u rther the CLEANUP 2000 eff o rt .

E PA is developing National Corre c t i v e

Action Perf o rmance Standards which

emphasize results, rather than pro c e s s

goals. A new training program will disseminate approaches that have pro v e n

their effectiveness at corrective action

sites. For more information, contact

R o b e rt Hall at 703-308-8432.

ATSDR Looking 

at Medical 

Monitoring Sites

The Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry is considering the

medical monitoring of populations that

face increased health risks as a re s u l t

of exposure to hazardous substances

released from facilities. The medical

monitoring program would pro v i d e

medical evaluations and re f e rrals to

t reatment specialists. AT S D R ’s database on hazardous waste sites shows

that about 50% of all NPL sites re p reS u p e rfund Opens Risk Assessment Web Site

E

PA’s Office of Emerg e n cy and Remedial Response has launched a new Web site

to provide stakeholders with a consistent fra m e work to evaluate and communicate the risks posed by hazardous waste sites. The Web site offers “tools of the tra d e ”

useful to risk professionals as well as the general public. Introductory material is

available for users with a non-technical back gr o u n d , who can learn about the role of

risk assessment at each step in the Superfund “ p i p e l i n e.” The “ I m p r oving the Scie n c e ”f e a t u re highlights EPA’s efforts to improve Superfund and A g e n cy-wide risk assessments. In “Ask Your Question,” E PA staff (or other experts) will answer questions

on risk assessment within 7-14 days. Links to guidance, p o l i c i e s ,d a t a b a s e s ,s o f t wa re,

and other technical tools for conducting risk assessment are provided. Access the site

a t :h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g ov / s u p e r f u n d / p r o gra m s / r i s k / i n d ex . h t m .

Check out the following Web sites

for more information and links to

p u b l i c a t i o n s :

h t t p : / / e s . e p a . g ov / o e c a / p o l g u i d / e n f d o ck . h t m l

OECA Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Info r m ation Center

h t t p : / / e s . e p a . g ov / o e c a / o s re. h t m l

OSRE home pag e

h t t p : / / e s . e p a . g ov / o e c a / o s re / o s re d o c. h t m l

OSRE documents

h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g ov / s u p e r f u n d

Superfund home pag e

h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g ov / o u s t

OUST home pag e

h t t p : / / c l u - i n . o rg

TIO homepag e

sent public health hazards, with 5% categorized as urgent. 

ATSDR is currently initiating medical monitoring at the Bunker Hill

Mine and Metallurgical Site in Idaho,

w h e re future screening will be done

for hypertension, kidney disease, and

other disorders among an eligible population of 8,500 that may have been exposed to lead, cadmium, and arsenic.

ATSDR is considering other sites for

monitoring as well. For more inform ation, contact Bruce Kulpan, EPA, 202-

564-4252, or Dr. Pam Tu c k e r, AT S D R ,

4 0 4 - 6 3 9 - 6 2 0 4 .
Cleanup News 3

E

PA’s MSW CERCLA Settlement

P o l i c y, signed in Febru a ry 1998, is

intended to provide a fair, consistent, and efficient settlement methodology

for resolving the liability of parties at co-disposal sites on the National Priorities List.

The policy re a ffirms EPA’s practice of not

seeking cleanup costs from generators and

t r a n s p o rters of municipal solid waste

(MSW) at NPL sites. However, in re c o g n ition of the strong public interest in re d u cing the burden of contribution litigation,

E PA has proposed to offer settlements to

any MSW generators and transport e r s

who wish to resolve their potential Superfund liability. In addition, the policy sets a

p resumptive settlement range for municipal owners and operators of co-disposal

sites on the NPL who desire to settle their

l i a b i l i t y. 

C u rre n t l y, about one quarter (appro x imately 250) of NPL sites are “co-disposal”

l a n d fills that accepted both MSW and

other wastes, such as industrial wastes,

containing hazardous substances. Many of

these landfills were or are owned or operated by municipalities to provide sanitation

and trash disposal services to re s i d e n t s

and businesses. EPA recognizes the diff e rences between MSW and the types of

wastes that usually give rise to the enviro nmental problems at NPL sites. Although

MSW may contain hazardous substances,

they are usually present in only small concentrations. Landfills at which MSW alone

was disposed of are not typically serious

enough to be designated as NPL sites, and

the costs of remediating MSW are generally lower than the cost of remediating haza rdous waste. Nevertheless, the pre s e n c e

of small concentrations of hazardous substances in MSW has resulted in contribution claims by private parties against MSW

g e n e r a t o r s / t r a n s p o rt e r s .

MSW Policy Aims at Resolving Munis’ Liability

Settlement Share for MSW

G e n e r a t o r s / Tr a n s p o rt e r s

E PA’s settlement method involves multiplying the known or estimated quantity of

MSW contributed by the generator or

t r a n s p o rter by $5.30 per ton. The unit cost

methodology is based on the costs of clos u re / p o s t - c l o s u re activities at a “clean”

MSW landfill and increased slightly if certain site conditions exist. 

Settlement Offers to 

Municipal Owner/Operators

Under EPA’s proposal, the govern m e n t

will offer settlements to municipal

owner/operators of co-disposal facilities

who wish to settle; those municipal

owner/operators who do not settle with

E PA will remain subject to site claims by

E PA and other parties. 

In developing a standardized settlement amount for municipal owner/operators, EPA examined the data from past

settlements of CERCLA cost re c o v e ry

and contribution cases with municipal

owner/operators at co-disposal sites

w h e re there were also PRPs who were potentially liable for the disposal of nonM S W, such as industrial waste. EPA also

evaluated public interest considerations

relating to municipalities, including their

unique public health obligations to provide waste disposal services to their citizens, their non-pro fit status, and the

multi-year fiscal planning cycle that municipalities re q u i re. 

As a baseline presumption, EPA has

p roposed that 20% of the total re s p o n s e

costs for a site be considered as the settlement amount for an individual municipal owner/operator to resolve its liability

at the site. EPA’s Regional Offices will

have the discretion to deviate from the

p resumption (but not to exceed 35%),

based on the following factors: 

( 1 ) whether the municipality perf o rm e d

s p e c i fic activities that exacerbated env i ronmental contamination or expos u re; and

( 2 ) whether the owner/operator re c e i v e d

operating revenues in excess of waste

system operating costs during ownership or operation of the site that are

substantially higher than the

o w n e r / o p e r a t o r ’s presumptive settlement amount pursuant to this policy.

The MSW policy is available electro n ically at http://www. e p a . g o v / o e c a /

o s re.html. Copies can be ord e red fro m

the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Comm e rce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfie l d ,

VA 22161, re f e rence # PB98-118003, tel:

703-487-4650 or 800-553-NTIS. Send email orders to: ord e r s @ n t i s . f e d w o r l d . g o v.

E PA recognizes the diff e rences between MSW

and the types of wastes that usually give rise to

the environmental problems at NPL sites.
4 Cleanup News

E

PA’S Office of Site Remediation

E n f o rcement (OSRE) strives to

p rotect human health and quality

of the environment by providing dire ction, evaluation, oversight and assistance

for remediation enforcement at non-federally owned sites subject to Superf u n d ,

RCRA, the Oil Pollution Act, and the Und e rg round Storage Tank program. We

s u p p o rt and provide the means for EPA

regions and states to vigorously and effectively enforce these statutes. We are

advocates for enforcement perspectives

in national program policies and re g u l ations. Our goals are to achieve pro m p t

site cleanup and maximum liable part y

p a rticipation in perf o rming and paying

for cleanup in ways which promote environmental justice and fairness. 

About Us Each issue of Cleanup News will highlight one of the participating offic e s

Major OSRE Objectives

• Maximizing private part y

c l e a n u p s . C u rre n t l y, appro x i m a t e l y

70 percent of long-term cleanup actions are financed by potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The goal of

the Superfund enforcement pro g r a m

is to maintain that level by maximizing PRP participation in conducting

or funding new remedial work.

• Enhancing fairn e s s . F a i rness to the

d i ff e rent parties involved is enhanced

t h rough numerous re f o rms and policies, including orphan share compensation, de minimis settlements,

cash-out, mixed funding, mixed work,

a l t e rnative disupte resolution, abilityto-pay settlements, and intere s t - b e a ring special accounts, where applicable. 

• Maximizing cost re c o v e ry. E PA intends to seek cost re c o v e ry at all NPL

and non-NPL sites with a statute of

limitations on total past costs equal to

or greater than $200,000. By re c o v e ring costs from PRPs and by getting

PRPs to conduct or fund cleanups,

E PA is able to focus Superfund res o u rces on sites where PRPs do not

exist, or where the known PRPs lack

the funds or the capability to conduct

the cleanup. Over the life of the Sup e rfund program, PRPs have committed over $7 for every dollar obligated

for Superfund enforcement. 

be conducted by EPA. These river

cleanups will include contaminated river

banks and soils in pro p e rties in the flo o d -

plain along the river. Later, after a cleanup

plan is selected for downstream port i o n s

of the river, GE will perf o rm that cleanup

as well. In addition, GE will remedy contamination at the Pittsfield plant and other

nearby areas, including a school and several commercial pro p e rt i e s .

The agreement will also address claims

that hazardous substances released fro m

the GE plant caused injuries to natural res o u rces in the Housatonic River downs t ream of the plant, extending thro u g h

Massachusetts and into Connecticut. In

addition to cleaning up the injured res o u rce, GE has agreed to pay $15 million

in damages and to conduct a number of

p rojects designed to acquire or enhance

wildlife habitat. The damages payment will

be used by the natural re s o u rce tru s t e e s

— the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and agencies of Massachusetts and Connecticut — to re s t o re ,

replace, or acquire the equivalent of the inj u red natural re s o u rces. Finally, the agre ement provides for a process to determ i n e

whether remediation will be re q u i red in an

additional 12-mile stretch of the river.

“This settlement will enable the gove rnments and GE to begin restoring the

ecological integrity of a truly valuable natural re s o u rce — the Housatonic River, ”

said Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We expect restoration to enhance the biological

diversity of the Housatonic River 

Va l l e y, and to create significant re c reational and economic benefits for the 

people of We s t e rn Massachusetts and

C o n n e c t i c u t . ”

The City of Pittsfield will benefit, too,

f rom the agreement. GE has agreed to a

“ b ro w n field” redevelopment project on a

p o rtion of the defunct plant, including a

multi-million dollar investment in Pittsfield, in conjunction with the new Pittsfield Economic Development Authority

(PEDA). PEDA will commit up to $4 million of anticipated revenues from the redevelopment to further enhancement of

natural re s o u rces. 

GE and the government agencies involved will now turn their attention to negotiating a consent decree that will give

legal effect to the agreement in principle.

The consent dcree will be submitted for

public comment and approval to a federal

judge before becoming finally eff e c t i v e .

For more information, contact Rich

C a r a g n e ro, 617-918-1251, or Tim Conway,

617-565-3349, of EPA Region 1.

GE Cleanup

continued from page 1
Cleanup News 5

I

n a major victory that affects the

cleanup of hazardous waste sites

a round the country, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of

Arkansas ruled on October 23, 1998

that Hercules, Inc. and Uniro y a l

Chemical Ltd. must reimburse the federal government $102.9 million for past

costs incurred in cleaning up the Ve rtac Superfund site in Jacksonville,

Arkansas. Under the Superfund law,

the money must be re t u rned to the Sup e rfund Trust Fund, where it can be

used to clean up other hazard o u s

waste sites across the country. 

The Ve rtac site was one of the worst

dioxin-contaminated sites in the count ry. Operated as an herbicide manufacturing plant by Hercules and Ve rt a c

Chemical Corp. from the 1960s to the

1980s, its products included Agent Orange, a defoliant used in the Vi e t n a m

Wa r. The facility’s operations caused

w i d e s p read contamination of soil,

g ro u n d w a t e r, and surface waters on

the site and in surrounding areas, including the yards of neighboring

homes. When the facility closed in

1987, more than 28,000 leaking dru m s

of corrosive, ignitable hazard o u s

wastes were left at the site, pre s e n t i n g

an imminent danger to the surro u n ding community. 

E PA incurred approximately $105

million in cleaning up and incinerating

the drummed dioxin waste, as well as

s u p e rvising Hercules’ perf o rmance of

a series of remedial actions ord e red by

E PA to clean up contaminated soil and

g ro u n d w a t e r. The state of Arkansas inc u rred an additional $10.7 million for

incineration of the drum waste, which

was paid for by a trust fund created by

a prior settlement with Ve rtac Chemical Corp. Other defendants in the case

also reached earlier settlements with

the United States, totaling $7.6 million.

The two remaining defendants,

H e rcules and Uniroyal, declined to

settle and vigorously challenged the

g o v e rn m e n t ’s right to recover EPA’s

costs. Hercules and Uniroyal arg u e d

to the court that EPA had overe s t imated the health hazards of dioxin,

that a less thorough cleanup should

have been done, and that they shouldn ’t have to pay for the costs of incineraton of drummed wastes.

District Judge George Howard overruled the defendants’ arguments and

a w a rded the United States summary

judgment for the full amount of the

costs it has incurred to date plus prejudgment interest. In addition, the

c o u rt awarded the United States a dec l a r a t o ry judgment for future costs,

which are estimated at appro x i m a t e l y

$5 million. [United States v. Ve rt a c

Chemical Corp., et al., CA # 80-109,

E.D. Ark.] 

“This ruling means we can clean

up more hazardous waste sites and

make our communities safer and

m o re livable,” said Lois J. Schiff e r, Assistant Attorney General for Enviro nment and Natural Resources at the

D e p a rtment of Justice. “Companies

thinking about fighting their Superfund obligations ought to think again.

If you don’t settle, we will use the full

f o rce of federal law to hold you acc o u n t a b l e . ”

For more information on the case,

contact James Tu rn e r, EPA Region 6,

2 1 4 - 6 6 5 - 3 1 5 9 .

(left) View of process area cleanup from atop Mt. Ve rtac, September 1997. 

(right) Demolishing the chlorination plant, September 1997.

“Companies thinking about fighting their 

S u p e rfund obligations ought to think again.”

H e rcules and Uniroyal Ord e red to Pay

$102.9 Million for Ve rtac Site 
6 Cleanup News

Check Out Te c h D i rect 

T

e c h D i rect is a free monthly email service that brings you capsule summaries of the latest

publications and events related to site

assessment and remediation technologies. A service of EPA’s Technology Innovation Office, Te c h D i rect is

c u rrently delivered to over 5000 subscribers in more than 45 countries.

Once a month, subscribers to

Te c h D i rect receive an e-mail message

that identifies recent publications, describes their contents, and pro v i d e s

hotlinks to document locations on the

I n t e rnet or ordering information. For

c o n f e rences and events, re g i s t r a t i o n

and contact information is pro v i d e d .

To subscribe, go to http://clui n . o rg/membersh.htm. To catch up on

recently highlighted technology publications, check out the Te c h D i re c t

a rchive at http://clu-in.org / t e c h d rc t .

htm. If you have any questions, contact

J e ff Heimerman at 703-603-7191 or

h e i m e rm a n . j e ff@epa. gov.

New from TIO

Information Resources for Innovative

Remediation and Site Characterization

Technologies ( E PA 542-C-98-003, July

1998). TIO’s new CD-ROM assembles

in one place most of the publications

and databases produced by TIO over

the last few years. The CD operates on

Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 systems.

For copies, contact 1-800-490-9198 or

513-489-8190 or fax your request to 513-

8 9 1 - 6 6 8 5 .

Site Remediation Technology InfoBase: A

Guide to Federal Programs, I n f o rm a t i o n

R e s o u rces, and Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Te c h n o l o g i e s

( E PA #542-B-98-006, August 1998, 70

pages). This document was pre p a red by

member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Vi e w

or download it from http://clui n .o rg/techpubs.htm. For copies, contact 1-800-490-9198 or 513-489-8190 or

fax your request to 513-891-6685.

Technology Developers and Ve n d o r s

Note!!! CLU-IN is beta testing a new

Vendor Support area. The idea is to direct technology developers and vendors to funding sources and technical

s u p p o rt for all stages of product development, from bench-scale to full implementation and commerc i a l i z a t i o n .

We have tried to identify public and

private programs and re s o u rces to assist vendors with: Market Analysis, Res e a rch and Development, Testing and

Demonstration, Permitting and Regul a t o ry Assistance, Marketing Assistance, and Contracting Opport u n i t i e s .

I m p rovements will be made based on

your comments, so please visit and let

us know what you think: http://clui n . o rg/vendweb/vendrspt.htm. 

New Case Studies 

on Remediation 

Te c h n o l o g i e s

At the November meeting of the Air &

Waste Management Association Federal Facilities Compliance Confere n c e ,

the Federal Remediation Te c h n o l ogies Roundtable announced the availability of over 80 new cost and perf o rmance case studies for re m e d i a t i o n

technologies. They are available in a

s e a rchable database at http:// www.

f rt r.gov or in seven volumes available

t h rough NCEPI. (Call 1-800-490-9198

or 513-489-8190 or fax your request to

513-891-6685.) The seven re p o rts (all

dated September 1998) are as follows:

Volume 7: Ex Situ Soil Treatment --

B i o remediation, Solvent Extraction,

T h e rmal Desorption (EPA 542-R-98-

011, 272 pp.)

Volume 8: Soil Vapor Extraction

( E PA 542-R-98-012, 298 pp.)

Volume 9: G roundwater Pump and

Treat - Chlorinated Solvents (EPA 542-

R-98-013, 251 pp.)

Volume 10: G roundwater Pump and

Treat - Nonchlorinated Contaminants

( E PA542-R-98-014, 256 pp.)

Volume 11: Innovative Gro u n d w a t e r

Treatment Technologies (EPA 542-R98-015, 281 pp.)

Volume 12: On-Site Incineration

( E PA 542-R-98-016, 272 pp.) 

Volume 13: Debris and Surf a c e

Cleaning Technologies, and other

Miscellaneous Technologies (EPA

542-R-98-017, 196 pp.)

About TIO

T

he U. S. EPA Te chnology Innovation Office (TIO) acts as an advocate for furthering

new technologies for site assessment and cleanup. TIO produces numerous

publications to help cleanup professionals understand advances in new tech n o l o g i e s .

TIO strives to provide information that is re l e vant to technology developers, a c a d e m i c s ,

consulting engineers, t e chnology users, and state and federal re g u l a t o r s .

Most of T I O ’s information is available on the Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) home

page at http://clu-in.org. CLU-IN contains information on policies, p r o gra m s ,o rg a n i z at i o n s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , and databases useful to re g u l a t o r s , consulting engineers, t e ch n o logy developers, re s e a rch e r s , and remediation contractors. The site contains tech n o l o g y

descriptions and reports as well as current news on business aspects of waste site rem e d i a t i o n , as well as links to other sites important to managers interested in site ch a racterization and soil and gr o u n d water remediation tech n o l o g i e s .
Cleanup News 7

E PA usually takes the lead on removal actions, but often encourages responsible parties to shoulder the eff o rt .

Of the 5,000 removal actions start e d

since 1980, about 3,600 have been led by

the Superfund program; about 1,200

have been undertaken by the re s p o n s ible party under EPA’s oversight, and

the remainder have been managed by

the U.S. Coast Guard, states, and other

E PA Celebrates 5,000 Removal Actions

O

n September 15, 1998, EPA’s Office of Emergency and Remedial Response celebrated the

5000th removal action conducted by the

S u p e rfund program since it began in

1980. The occasion was marked by a

typical quick-response removal action at

the Great Lakes Container Corporation

in St. Louis, Missouri. 

The Superfund removal pro g r a m

averages about 340 removal actions

per year, handling fires, explosions,

contaminated drinking water, toxic

fumes, and other immediate and timecritical threats from hazardous substances. In addition to pro t e c t i n g

people from immediate health thre a t s ,

the program also reduces chronic and

acute health risks, curtails enviro nmental damage, and re t u rns land to

b e n e ficial use.

federal agencies. 

By moving quickly to prevent or

clean up an emerg e n c y, lives are protected, the environment is pro t e c t e d

AND there is greater opportunity for

sites to be re t u rned to a community for

redevelopment. In marking the occasion, Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response,

commended the staff on federal, state,

and local removal response teams, noting: “Being part of an emergency response team means sacrificing family

time, and holiday time. It can mean

putting your own lives on hold and in

danger to protect others. All of you

should be very proud of the work you do

to make the Superfund pro g r a m

s t ronger and to make the lives of citizens

safer and the environment healthier. ”

N

othing is more central to the success of the Superfund progra m

than active, engaged communities. That fact was the impetus

behind the first annual National EPA Community Involvement Conf e re n c e, held in Boston, M a s s a chusetts on August 3-7, 1998. T h e

purpose of the conference was to provide training and netwo r k i n g

opportunities for public participation experts at EPA in order to serv e

communities better. More than 250 participants attended, i n c l u d i n g

s t a t e, other federal agencies and citizen re p resentatives. 

Among the presentations were three keynote addresses highlighting the importance of working with communities to ach e i v e

better environmental decisions. Susan Seacre s t ,P resident of the

G r o u n d water Foundation, focused on the “ P ’s : ”P r o m i s e, P r o c e s s ,

Partnerships and Products. Greg Watson of the Dudley Stre e t

Neighborhood Initiative in Boston spoke about an environmental

re n e wal project that was realized by “tapping into the wisdom of

the community.”And Ernie Barn e t t ,with the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, s p o ke about Florida’s Ecosystem Management Initiative which focuses on the importance of developing

partnerships with communities.

Among the most popular sessions at the conference wa s

“ Talking with and Learning from Our Critics.” This session provided an opportunity for gov e rnment and citizens to engage in a

dialogue about community involvement. The goal was to ch a llenge traditional assumptions about citizen inclusion and to stimulate ideas that may help EPA move towa rd ensuring the public a

m o re genuine voice in environmental decision-making.

Among the training sessions offere d , “Community Involvement

and Collaborative Problem Solving with a Cross-Cultural Focus,”

was particularly well attended. The training focused on developing community involvement skills to use in cross-cultural settings. Through understanding differe n c e s , c o l l a b o rative problem

s o l v i n g, and interest-based negotiation skills, attendees took

a way skills they can be applied in the fie l d .

The 1999 National Community Involvement Conference will be

held in Kansas City, Missouri on May 24-27. For more inform a t i o n

about the confere n c e, please contact Helen DuTe a u , E PA / O E R R ,

7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 8 7 6 1 .

First National EPA Community Invo l vement Conference Held

Michael J. Sanderson, Superfund Division Dire c t o r, EPA Region 7; Timothy Fields, Acting

Assistant Administrator, OSWER; Nathaniel

S c u rry, Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA

Region 7; and Dennis Grams, Regional Adm i n i s t r a t o r, EPA Region 7.
8 Cleanup News

T

he 1998 National Notable

Achievement Aw a rds cere m o n y

was held in Arlington, Vi rg i n i a ,

on May 7, 1998. Created in the late

1980s to recognize exemplary perf o rmance in Regional Superfund programs, the awards were expanded in

1998 to included the RCRA and Enf o rcement components of waste management and remediation. At this

y e a r ’s cere m o n y, 52 award re c i p i e n t s

received honorary plaques and cash

a w a rds for outstanding accomplishments. Congratulations to all of the

a w a rd recipients for contributions to

the Agency and its mission, and to

communities across the country! 

S u p e rf u n d

On-Scene Coordinators of the Ye a r : D o n

R i g g e r, Region 4; Te rry Stilman, Region 4; and Greg Fife, Region 6 — for

handling EPA’s largest removal action—the evacuation of 1,700 people

due to methyl parathion in Jackson

C o u n t y, Mississippi.

Site Assessment Manager of the Ye a r :

Mark Ader, Region 10 — for the listing

of approximately 70 federal facility

sites on the 1997 Federal Facilities

Docket Update. 

Remedial Project Manager of the Ye a r :

A rt u ro Palomares, Region 8 — for

work on the F.E. Wa rren Air Forc e

Base in Wy o m i n g .

Community Involvement Coordinator of

the Ye a r : Cynthia B. Peurifoy, Region 4

— for coordinating the operation of

the Community Coordination Center,

and other activities. 

Leader/Mentor of the Year Aw a r d : D a v i d

Williams, Region 7 — for training new

On-Scene Coordinators and managing

some of the most complex sites in Region 7.

Technical Support Aw a r d : M a r i a n

Olsen, Region 2 — for her chemical exp e rtise and technical support in Region 2 and across the nation. 

Superfund Team of the Year Aw a r d : O h i o

River Valley Flood Team, Kevin Koob,

Dennis Matlock, William Steuteville,

Region 3; Charles Eger, Gordon Goff ,

Bill Joyner, John Nolen, Fred Stro u d ,

Region 4; Stavros Emmanouil, Steven

R e n n i n g e r, Kenneth Theisen, Kevin

Tu rn e r, Sonia Vega, Region 5; Jim

Kudlinski, Region 7; ERT: John

G i l b e rt and Greg Powell — for a twomonth response eff o rt to floods in 13

s o u t h e rn Indiana counties, and 23

counties and 25 towns in Ohio and

K e n t u c k y, covering more than 750

miles of waterways. (See box.)

Superfund Team of the Ye a r : J a c k s o n

County Methyl Parathion Site Te a m ,

Region 4 (Elmer Akin, Tony Best, Wa rren Dixon, Frank Garcia, Carol Monell, Cynthia B. Peurifoy, Don Rigger,

R o b e rt Rosen, Paul Schwartz, Steve

Spurlin, Te rry Stilman, Matt Ta y l o r,

Samantha Urq u h a rt-Foster) — for responding to the illegal application of

methyl parathion (MP) in homes along

the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, including sampling more than 2,500 stru ct u res, cleaning up more than 450

residences, and relocating more than

1,700 people.

S u p e rfund 

E n f o rc e m e n t

Legal Enforcer of the Ye a r : James Doyle,

Region 2 —for simultaneous negotiation of Superfund consent decrees for

t h ree separate National Priority List

EPA Recognizes 1998 National 

Notable Achievement Award Winners

S u p e r f u n d

Superfund Team of the Year Aw a r d : Ohio River Valley Flood Te a m

An exceptional team effort of four Regions and the Environmental Response Team was mobilized in response to

the federally declared natural disaster. In some are a s

water rose more than 50 feet in 12 hours. During a two -

month period, c rews maintained a continuous pre s e n c e

with re s o u rces to identify, re c ov e r, and dispose of approximately 6,000 drums, cy l i n d e r s , t a n k s , and containers. The Ohio River Valley cleanup totaled $1.9 million— making it the most significant effort in

Region 4 Federal Response Plan activation to date. 

This massive emerg e n cy effort entailed developing innovative approaches for land-based and

floating operations and establishing complex coordination among federa l , s t a t e, and contra c t o r

personnel. Adverse conditions during the effort varied from difficult terra i n , cold and wet weather,

continuous demand for movement of base stations, and physical communication problems. 

The Team established open relationships by thoroughly informing community residents and officials of re m oval plans and ideas, and encouraging feedback and involvement in the process. By

assessing the needs of each disaster area on an individual basis and managing the allocation of

re s o u rces coopera t i v e l y, the Team was able to simultaneously run multiple re c ov e ry operations in

g e o graphically distinct areas. Their efforts were enhanced by the development and implementation

of continuous data collection efforts, and an extensive planning/tra cking topographic map system.
Cleanup News 9

sites: Barceloneta Landfill, Kentucky

Avenue We l l field, and Sealand Restoration, without the need for litigation.

Technical Enforcer of the Ye a r : G re g

A rm s t rong, Region 4.

Enforcement Team of the Ye a r : B e nnington Landfill Case Team, Region 1,

Ed Hathaway, Marilyn Goldberg, and

Hugh Martinez — for a settlement at

the Bennington Landfill Superf u n d

site in Ve rmont that incorporated the

orphan share initiative.

RCRA Corrective 

A c t i o n

Outstanding Friend of the State: D o n n a

Wilkinson, Region 4 — technical assistance resulting in the first Subpart

X permit applications issued in Florida

and Georg i a .

Outstanding Stakeholder Involvement:

A n d rew Fan, Region 3 — for achieving

full community buy-in on the risk assessment and proposed remedy for

the Pickett Road Tank Farm site in

F a i rfax, Vi rg i n i a .

Superfund Enforc e m e n t

Technical Enforcer of the Ye a r : Greg A r m s t r o n g, Region 4

In 1997, G reg A rmstrong used a number of administrative re f o rm tools and tech n i q u e s

to achieve several site settlements. Mr. A rmstrong maximized cost re c ov e ry, a d d re s s e d

f a i rness issues, and reduced transaction costs at three sites in Florida. His ability to int e r p ret and implement the re f o rms resulted in settlements without the need for litigat i o n , and addressed more than $35 million of future work and $10 million in past costs.

M r. A rmstrong also re p resents Region 4 on national wo r k groups to develop and interp ret policy and procedures on administrative re f o rms. 

M r. A rmstrong maximized cost re c ov e ry on CERCLA sites by developing an ov e r s i g h t

t ra cking and billing system to re c over $27 million in unbilled costs at the beginning of

FY 1997. To reduce transaction costs and increase protection of de minimis and de micromis parties, M r. A rmstrong developed a “de minimis cost matrix,” w h i ch was used

initially to determine a fair allocation for a very complex de minimis settlement with

input from all parties. The matrix is now widely used in Region 4, among the PRP comm u n i t y, and at EPA Headquarters.

Outstanding Administrative Innovation:

E rnest R. P. Wa t e rman, Region 1.

Outstanding Stabilization and Environmental Indicator: Wesley S. Hard e g re e ,

Region 4 (for control of contamination

at the Dames & Moore / B rookhill 

Facility) and Kenneth Scott Ritchey,

Region 7 (for eff o rts to stabilize Farml a n d ’s Coffeyville, Kansas re fin e ry and

c o n t rol of contamination at Farm l a n d ’s

P h i l l i p s b u rg, Kansas re fin e ry ) .

Outstanding Team of the Ye a r : E n v i ro nmental Indicators/Perf o rmance Partnership Grant, Region 2, OSW, and

NJDEP (Anthony Kahaly, Richard

K r a u s e r, Agathe Nadai, Barry To rnick, Henry Schuver, OSW, Janine

M a c G re g o r, NJDEP Site, Remediation

PPG Lead, John DeFina, NJDEP,

Technical/GIS Lead) — for development of Quantitative Enviro n m e n t a l

Indicators of Contamination (QEICs),

an environmental media-measuring

and decision-making tool vital to project managers. 

RCRA Corre c t i ve

A c t i o n

Outstanding Administrative 

I n n o v a t i o n : Ernest R. P. Wa t e r m a n ,

Region 1

E rnest Wa t e rman initiated Region 1’s

first voluntary Corrective Action A gre ement and then took this innovation a

step further with multisite agre e m e n t s

that have resulted in significant cost

s avings to the gov e rnment. The agre ements offer better schedule control,a re

m o re focused on achieving real goals

than on procedural questions, t y p i c a l l y

do not re q u i re attorney support, give facilities incentives to initiate cleanup act i o n s , and can be implemented in as

little as one to two months, rather than

the typical six to 12 months associated

with permits and orders. 

The voluntary agreements also shift

E PA’s oversight burden from detailed

compliance evaluation to an eva l u a t i o n

of actual data gaps at completion of the

RCRA facility investigation (RFI). T h e

a greements focus the efforts of the facilities on achieving specific goals and

answering the important questions

about the site, rather than merely meeting specific terms and conditions of a

p e rmit or ord e r. This approach enhances the quality of the work EPA reviews and ultimately produces better

environmental re s u l t s .

Call for 1999 

N o m i n a t i o n s !

The nomination process has begun for

the 1999 National Notable A ch i e v e m e n t

Awa rds. For more inform a t i o n ,c o n t ra c t

Ann Eleanor at 703-603-7199.
10 Cleanup News

Tackling Bro w n fie l d s

I

n settling environmental enforc ement cases, EPA encourages defendants and respondents to

include Supplemental Enviro n m e n t a l

P rojects (SEPs) in their settlements.

SEPs are environmentally benefic i a l

p rojects that parties agree to undertake in settling a civil penalty action,

but which they are not otherw i s e

legally re q u i red to perf o rm. In re t u rn ,

a percentage of the SEP’s cost is cons i d e red as a factor in establishing the

final cash penalty. SEPs enhance the

e n v i ronmental quality of communities

that have been put at risk due to the violation of an environmental law.

Because of their connection to the

c o m m u n i t y, EPA is encouraging SEPs

that facilitate the reuse of “bro w n fie l d ”

p ro p e rties. “Bro w n fields” are abandoned pieces of land — usually in

inner city areas — that are lightly contaminated from previous industrial

use. These sites do not qualify as NPL

sites because they do not pose serious

public health risks. However, because

of the stigma of contamination and

legal barriers to redevelopment, businesses do not buy the land and sites

remain roped off, unproductive and

v a c a n t .

SEPs at bro w n fields may involve

investigating or monitoring the environmental media at the pro p e rt y, removing or remediating contamination,

or creating conservation land. If you

a re considering undertaking a SEP at

a nearby bro w n field pro p e rt y, here

a re some of the considerations you

should keep in mind. First, SEPs at

b ro w n fields cannot include action that

the defendant/respondent is otherwise legally re q u i red to perf o rm

under federal, state, or local law or

regulation. As a general rule, if a part y

owns a bro w n field or is re s p o n s i b l e

for the primary environmental degradation at a site, assessment or cleanup

activities cannot constitute a SEP.

Second, the SEP must be within

the same ecosystem or within a 50-

mile radius of the site from which the

violation occurred, and the enviro nment where the bro w n field is located

must be affected or potentially thre a tened by the violation. 

T h i rd, SEPs at bro w n fields cannot

include action that the federal government is likely to undertake or compel

another to undertake. Thus, for example, because of EPA’s statutory obligations, SEPs are inappropriate for NPL

sites or other sites where the federal

g o v e rnment is planning or conducting

a removal action.

F o u rth, SEPs may be perf o rmed at

b ro w n fields involuntarily acquired by

municipalities, but they are not likely

to be approved if they provide additional funds to a municipality, state, or

other entity to perf o rm tasks for which

they have received a federal Bro w nfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot

or other federal bro w n fields grant.

F i n a l l y, local communities should

be aff o rded an opportunity to comment on and contribute to the design

of a proposed SEP at a bro w n field site. 

For more information, contact

David Gordon at 202-564-5147 or go to

w w w. e p a . g o v / b ro w n fie l d s .

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

O

ne of the unheralded successes of the GE settlement

(see story on page 1) has been

the role of alternative dispute re s o l ution (ADR) in achieving a long-sought

a g reement among the nine government agencies involved and GE. 

ADR is a short-hand term encompassing a wide range of techniques involving the use of neutral parties to

resolve disputes and to facilitate a

m o re meaningful community role in

e n v i ronmental decision-making. ADR

can play many roles in dispute re s o l ution, including mediation, arbitration,

f a c t - finding, and allocation of re l a t i v e

responsibilities. It is EPA policy to consider the use of ADR in every dispute

and to use ADR whenever it may result in a more efficient or equitable

resolution. ADR has been used in over

150 cases, with 30 cases currently und e rw a y. All EPA regions have ADR

specialists who offer a wide range of

consultation and support services on

the use of ADR. 

In the GE case, mediators Howard

Bellman and Greg Sobel were bro u g h t

in after negotiations reached an impasse on the cleanup of the river. The

mediators were jointly selected by the

p a rties after an extensive search. In

addition to helping the parties negotiate the settlement, the mediators facilitated an unusual one-day public input

session at which re p resentatives of citizen, environmental, and business

g roups were invited to present their

c o n c e rns to the negotiators. ADR is

continuing to be used in finalizing a

consent decree and in the launching of

a Citizens Coordinating Council which

will serve as a focal point for community participation in the cleanup. 

For more information on ADR, contact David Batson, EPA Headquart e r s ,

202-564-5103, or Ellie Tonkin, Region

1, 617-565-1154.
Cleanup News 11

I

n March 1998, OERR issued the

Plan to Enhance the Role of States

and Tribes in the Superfund Program (EPA 540-R-98-012, PB98-

963221) with recommendations that

came out of a collaborative eff o rt with

states and tribes. As state and tribal

roles and capabilities have grown over

the last decade, the goal of the plan was

to allow for an equitable sharing of Sup e rfund program responsibilities with

i n t e rested states and tribes, to enable

quicker cleanup of more sites. The

plan delineates a series of principles —

including maintaining EPA’s “enforc ement first” policy and the import a n c e

of public involvement — to ensure

c o n s i s t e n c y, fairness, and fle x i b i l i t y.

The basic framework for enhancing

state and tribal roles in Superfund includes the following points:

• C o m m u n i c a t i o n : E PA should

hold general discussions with state

and tribal Superfund pro g r a m

managers to explore their intere s t

in an enhanced role in the Superfund program. 

• R e a d i n e s s : When a state or a

tribe expresses interest in an enHow to Receive Cleanup News

N a m e :

O r g a n i z a t i o n :

A d d r e s s :

E - M a i l :

hanced role in the Superfund program, EPA and the state or tribe

should meet to discuss the full

range of program activities that it

would like to implement. The EPA

region works with the state or

tribe to identify the program criteria by which to evaluate the state

or tribal program, and works with

that state or tribe to gauge the

level of readiness to assume program responsibilities. 

• A s s i s t a n c e : The state or tribe and

region should identify and discuss

the technical and financial assistance needed for the state or tribe

to perf o rm the negotiated activities. Assistance needs are identified for activities the state or tribe

can begin conducting in the near

t e rm (i.e., when the state or tribe

meets the readiness criteria), as

well as activities that the state or

tribe hopes to implement in the

long term (i.e., developing capacity to meet the readiness criteria in

s p e c i fic program areas). 

• A g re e m e n t s : The region and

state or tribe should negotiate and

sign a program agreement to formally establish and document

their roles and responsibilities in

an enhanced partnership to implement Superfund. 

• Tribal Pro g r a m s : E PA has learn e d

that there are diff e rent concern s

and priorities when working with Indian tribes rather than states. Wa y s

to address these diff e rences will be

incorporated into the implementation process to ensure that tribes, as

well as states, are fully involved in

developing and implementing Sup e rfund programs. 

The re p o rt may be obtained by contacting the National Technical Information Service at 703-487-4650 or fro m

the Internet at http://www. e p a .

g o v / s u p e rf u n d / o e rr / i n i _ p ro / s t a t _ t r i

/ t o c . h t m .

The next step is to pilot this initiative. EPA has been discussing pilot options with states and tribes. Once

pilots are selected, readiness assessments will be conducted and agre ements delineating roles and

responsibilities for EPA and the states

or tribes will be signed.

To be placed on the mailing list for a free

copy of Cleanup News, please mail or fax this

form to: Rick Po p i n o , Cleanup News ( 2 2 7 1 A ) ,

U . S .E PA , 401 M Street SW, Wa s h i n g t o n , D C

2 0 4 6 0 ,f a x :2 0 2 - 5 6 4 - 0 0 9 4 . Or e-mail the inf o r m ation to cl e a n u p @ s c i c o m m . c o m .

If you would like to be notified by e-mail

when the next issue of Cleaup News is av a l iable for downloading from the We b , p l e a s e

i n clude your e-mail address.

❑ Check here if you do NOT want to receive

future issues of Cleanup News.

S u p e rfund Eff o rt to Enhance the 

Role of the States and Tribes 
G l o s s a r y

C E R C L A C o m p rehensive 

E m e rg e n cy Response,

C o m p e n s a t i o n , and 

Liability Act 

(Superfund law)

E P C R A E m e rg e n cy Planning

and Community RightTo - K n ow Act of 1986 

M S W Municipal Solid Wa s t e

N P L National Priorities List

( S u p e r f u n d )

O E R R O f fice of Emerg e n cy 

Response and 

Remediation (EPA )

O PA Oil Pollution A c t

O S R E O f fice of Site Remediation Enforcement (EPA )

P R P Potentially Responsible

P a r t y

R C R A R e s o u rce Conserva t i o n

and Recov e ry Act 

( h a z a rdous wa s t e )

S DWA Safe Drinking Water A c t

S E P Supplemental Environmental Project

T I O Te chnology and

I n n ovation Office (EPA )

J a n u a ry 20-21, 1999 

1999 Mid-Atlantic Pollution 

P revention (P2) Conference 

Baltimore, MD

S p o n s o r : R e gion 3 Pollution Prevention Roundt ab l e . C o n t a c t : Michele Russo, N ational Pollution

Prevention Roundtab l e , Te l : 2 0 2 - 4 6 6 - P 2 P 2 , F a x :

2 0 2 - 4 6 6 - 7 9 6 4 , E - m a i l : m i c h e l e r u s s o @ c o mp u s e rve.com 

F e b ru a ry 2-4, 1998 

6th International Forum on 

E n v i ronmental Te c h n o l o g i e s :

Entering the Global Remediation

M a r k e t p l a c e

Dallas, TX 

S p o n s o r s : US Dept of Commerce and EPA . C o nt a c t : 1 - 8 0 0 - 7 8 3 - 3 8 7 0

M a rch 3-4, 1998 

G reat Lakes Regional Pollution

P revention Roundtable 

Chicago, IL 

S p o n s o r : E PA Region 5. C o n t a c t : Lisa C. M o r r is o n , Waste Management and Research Center,

Te l : 217-244-6061; Fax: 217-333-8944; E-mail:

morrison@wmrc.hazard.uiuc.edu 

M a rch 8-11, 1999 

I n t e rnational Oil Spill 

C o n f e rence 1999

Seattle, WA

S p o n s o r s : E PA , Coast Guard, A P I ,I P I E C A , IMO 

C o n t a c t : D avid Lopez, 703-603-8707 or

h t t p : / / w w w. i o s c . o r g

M a rch 29-31, 1998 

P robabilistic Risk Assessment

Workshop 

Sarasota, FL

S p o n s o r s : E PA , N ational Institute for Environmental Health (NIEHS), University of Florida.

C o n t a c t : 3 5 2 - 3 9 2 - 4 7 0 0 ,e x t .5 5 0 0

C l e a n u p N e w s is a publication of EPA’s Office of

Site Remediation Enforcement, in cooperation with

the Office of Emergency Response and Remediat i o n ,O f fice of Solid Wa s t e ,O f fice of Underground

S t o r age Ta n k s , and the Te c h n o l o gy and 

I n n o v ation Offic e .

E PA Review Board : Rick Popino, Paul Connor,

Reggie Cheatham, Suzanne We l l s ,

Jeff Heimerman

Gilah Langner, w r i t e r

Robin Foster, SciComm Inc. ,d e s i g n e r

To receive copies of the newsletter, write us at Cleanup News ( M C - 2 2 7 1 A ) , U. S. EPA , 401 M Street SW,

Wa s h i n g t o n , DC 20460, f a x :2 0 2 - 5 6 4 - 0 0 9 4 , e-mail swa l l i s @ s c i c o m m . c o m .

c l e a n u pn e w s

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

( 2 2 7 1 A )

Washington, DC 20460

O f ficial Business

Penalty for Private Use 

$ 3 0 0

Address Service Requested

FIRST CLASS

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35