E

PA’s Office of Site Remediation Enf o rcement has provided guidance to

the regional offices on the exerc i s e

of enforcement discretion between now

and October 2, 2000 when EPA moves to a

full cost accounting approach to allocating

costs at Superfund sites. (See notice in the

Federal Register,June 2, 2000, pp. 35339-

3 5 3 4 5 . )

E PA’s current indirect cost accounting

methodology allocates to Superfund sites

only about one-third of the indirect costs

that are incurred by EPA and properly allocable to sites. Full cost accounting will

bring Superfund into compliance with cost

accounting standards issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory

B o a rd in 1995 and the re q u i rements of the

Federal Financial Management Impro v ement Act of 1996.

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement (2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Summer 2000

EPA 300-N-00-011

Issue #5

inside

Awards 2

In the Courts 4

Atlas 

Aronowitz 

CEPPO News 5

OERR News 6

Technology Insights 7

Calendar 8

Printed on recycled paper

c l e a n u pn e w s

The effect of applying the revised rates

will vary from site to site. The new

method allocates indirect costs in pro p o rtion to direct costs, instead of in pro p o rtion to the number of Superfund staff

hours charged to a site. As a result, sites

with large direct federal expenditure s

c o m p a red to the number of Superf u n d

s t a ff hours will generally see the larg e s t

i n d i rect cost increases, and few if any dec reases. Sites with smaller federal expend i t u res compared to the number of Superfund staff hours, such as sites cleaned up

by potentially responsible parties (PRPs)

w h e re EPA’s costs are largely for oversight perf o rmed by EPA staff, will generally see smaller indirect cost incre a s e s ,

and are also more likely to see decreases. 

E n f o rcement Discretion 

After October 2, 2000, site costs, including

oversight costs, will be calculated using

the revised rates. Here are some of the issues of particular enforcement intere s t

and EPA’s intended approach to ensure a

fair and efficient transition to the re v i s e d

accounting methodology. 

• Concluded Matters:E PA recognizes the

i m p o rtance of finality and has no plans to

re-open any concluded cases to apply the

revised rates to claims for past costs that

w e re presented and resolved in those matE PA Moves to Full Cost 

Accounting at Superfund Sites

Guidance Issued on Enforcement Discretion During 

Transition Period 

Cleanup News is an occasional newsletter highlighting 

h a z a rdous waste cleanup

cases, policies, settlements,

and technologies. 

continued on page 3

Until the revised rates are

issued, EPA will entert a i n

settlement offers re s o l v i n g

claims for CERCLA 

response costs based on the

c u rrent indirect rates.
2 Cleanup News

At a ceremony in Wa s h i n g t o n

on April 24, the year 2000 National Notable Achievement

Aw a rds were presented to outstanding

E PA Regional Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Superfund Enf o rcement staff. Here are a few examples of excellence in action.

RCRA Corrective Action

Aw a rd for Outstanding

Stakeholder Involvement:

Gary Miller, Region 6

G a ry Millerreceived this award for his

work as the corrective action enforc ement project manager at a hazard o u s

w aste facility with substantial contamination that was partially destroyed by

an explosion and fire. Gary worked effectively with the concerned surrounding community as well as with

the state agency, EPA headquart e r s ,

and the facility owner to ensure that

p roper actions were taken to clean up

the site. 

After the Chief Supply Company

was partially destroyed by an explosion and fire in March 1997, enviro nmental samples detected chlorinated

solvents, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene contamination. Gary

assembled the community, the state,

and EPA headquarters for numero u s

discussions re g a rding community

c o n c e rns, the best way to appro a c h

the facility, the purpose of EPA’s actions, and the safety of the facility’s operations. In addition, he opened an ongoing dialogue with the community

via e-mail. 

G a ry continues to work with the

state agency and the facility owner to

complete the cleanup. In a recent letter to the Regional Administrator and

local Congressmen, a member of the

community thanked EPA for its continued eff o rts and specifically for

G a ry ’s exceptional work.

S u p e rfund Aw a rd for

On-Scene Coord i n a t o r

(OSC) of the Year:

Martha A. Wolf, Region 8 

As one of two recipients of the OSC

a w a rd, Martha Wolf was re c o g n i z e d

for her professionalism, dedication,

and high-quality work inspecting refineries and large-scale petro l e u m

storage facilities located on the banks

of pristine rivers in the Rocky Mountain area. In addition, she org a n i z e s

and directs diverse and sometimes difficult stakeholder groups in Area Contingency Plan (ACP) negotiations, and

establishes national regulations and

policy for EPA’s oil program. 

M a rtha supervises the FRP and

SPCC programs that compel facility

owners to identify their vulnerabilities

and change their practices to pre v e n t

spills, and to be well pre p a red for any

that do occur. In FY99, she managed a

workload of more than 100 SPCC and

FRP inspections and reviews, and conducted negotiations for five separate

river environments, bringing groups together to resolve conflicts and pre p a re

ACPs despite their often

contentious histories. In addition, she initiated an eff o rt

to incorporate all inform ation and maps in the plans

into a computerized geographic information system.

On-Scene Coord i n a t o r s

need to exercise diplomacy,

and Martha has demonstrated an amazing ability to communicate effectively with uncooperative

facility owners. Mart h a ’s patience has

helped achieve the goal of safer, wellp re p a red facilities.

S u p e rfund Enforc e m e n t

Aw a rd for Team of the Year:

Casmalia Enforcement Team,

Region 9

For its successful implementation of

several key administrative re f o rms to

achieve the largest de minimis s e t t l ement in the history of the Superf u n d

p rogram, the Casmalia Enforc e m e n t

Team received the 2000 Superf u n d

E n f o rcement Team of the Year Aw a rd .

These re f o rms included expedited settlement; increasing fairness in the enf o rcement process; reducing transaction costs; and providing a meaningful

f o rum for stakeholder concerns.

T h rough the team’s eff o rts, EPA

settled with more than 400 small waste

generators, providing special legal

p rotections to de minimis c o n t r i b utors. These de minimis p a rties have

contributed a re c o rd $26.5 million tow a rd cleanup of the site. The Casmalia

Disposal site in Santa Barbara County,

CA, is one of the largest hazard o u s

National Notable Achievement Aw a rd s

Given in April 2000

Legal Enforcer of the Year Thomas P. Turner accepts

congratulations from OECA Assistant Administrator

Steven Herman and OSRE Director Barry Bre e n .
Cleanup News 3

waste sites in the nation. During a fouryear period in the early 1990s, EPA

spent more than $17 million taking

e m e rgency response actions to stabilize the site.

The team used several innovative

a p p roaches to achieve settlement, including: (1) utilizing a sophisticated

management information system to enhance communication with the de mini m i s p a rties; (2) conducting special outreach eff o rts to the de minimisp a rt i e s ;

and (3) expediting the settlement

p rocess by consolidating payment with

the submittal of signature pages. 

The case team actively encouraged

de minimis p a rties to contact EPA

using a dedicated toll-free number. In

addition, the team hosted an inform ational meeting attended by 350 people

after the settlement offer was distributed. And throughout the ard u o u s

p rocess of producing the settlement,

team members maintained their sense

of humor and a strong sense of camaraderie. 

The Wi n n e r s !

RCRA Corrective Action Aw a rds: 

Outstanding Stakeholder Involvement:

G a ry Miller, Region 6 

Outstanding Use of Environmental 

Indicators: Raphael J. Cody, EPA - N e w

England 

Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanup:

Matthew R. Hoagland, EPA-New 

England 

Outstanding Team:

• Anniston PCB Work Group Te a m ,

Region 4 

• S t reamlining Team for RCRA 

E n f o rcement CA, Region 6 

• C o rrective Action Environmental Indicator Evaluation Team, Region 9

S u p e rfund Aw a rd s :

On-Scene Coordinator: Vincent E.

Zenone, Region 3; Martha A. Wolf, 

Region 8 

Remedial Project Manager: Randy 

S t u rgeon, Region 3 

Site Assessment Manager: Cynthia 

G u r l e y, Region 4 

Community Involvement Coordinator: P a t

Seppi, Region 2; Sherryl A. 

C a r b o n a ro, Region 4 

Exceptional Merit Award: Earl Liverm a n ,

Region 10 

L e a d e r / M e n t o r : R o b e rt W. Feild, Region 7

Superfund ROD: Sally Thomas, Region

10 (Pacific Sound Resources Site)

Superfund Team:

• H u rricane Floyd Response Te a m ,

Region 4

• Oklahoma To rnadoes Team, 

Region 6

S u p e rfund Enforcement Aw a rd s :

Legal Enforcer: Thomas P. Tu rn e r, 

Region 5 

Technical Enforcer: Lois Elaine Gre e n ,

Region 9 

Enforcement Team: Casmalia 

E n f o rcement Team, Region 9 

For more on the awards, go to:

w w w. e p a . g o v / s u p e rf u n d / n e w / a w a rd s /

i n d e x . h t m

ters. This includes consent decrees, litigated judgments, and administrative

o rders on consent. It also includes ceilings established in settlements and

judgments for oversight or other response costs that the Agency can bill

to PRPs under those existing settlements or judgments.

• Oversight Billings: E PA has no

plans to recompute oversight bills that

w e re pre p a red and sent to PRPs bef o re the revised rates are issued. 

• Claims in Litigation Prior to October 2, 2000: T h e re may be special circumstances in these cases, especially

if the litigation is at an advanced stage,

that cause the case team to decide not

to seek to amend the claim by applying

the revised indirect rates. An example

might be certain cases in which costs

have already been presented to the

c o u rt and the parties are awaiting the

c o u rt ’s decision. These decisions will

be made by the EPA / D e p a rtment of

Justice case team on a case-by-case

b a s i s .

• Interim Settlement Policy in Anticipation of the Revised Rates:One purpose of EPA giving advance notice of

the change in rates is to provide PRPs

who have unresolved cost re c o v e ry liabilities an opportunity to settle with

the United States at the current rates.

Until the revised rates are issued, EPA

will entertain settlement offers re s o l ving claims for CERCLA response costs

based on the current indirect rates.

• P roving Indirect Costs:I m p l e m e n ting the new accounting method will

not alter the burden of proof that EPA

must meet when seeking re c o v e ry of

i n d i rect costs. EPA will continue to

p rovide evidence acceptable in a court

of law to prove that the indirect costs

sought are allocable to the site that is

the subject of the enforcement action.

• National Consistency/Coord i n a -

t i o n : E PA has a substantial interest in

p romoting a nationally consistent app roach during this transition period.

As always, EPA will exercise its disc retion to ensure that resulting settlements are fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA.

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Policy and Program Evaluation Division at 202-564-5100.

S u p e rfund Accounting

continued from page 1
4 Cleanup News

to adequately document costs, had imp roperly billed non-site-specific costs,

and was not entitled to recover attorn e y ’s fees incurred in defending the

d i s p u t e .

A d d ressing each type of cost separ a t e l y, the court broadly interpreted the

p rovisions of the CD to permit the collection of all contested costs (including

a t t o rn e y ’s fees, annual allocation costs,

and indirect costs). The court did fin d

that in some instances EPA had failed

to provide enough supporting documentation, and failure to remedy this

d e ficiency would prevent the re c o v e ry

of those costs (roughly $67,000). 

The opinion included very favorable language re g a rding EPA’s use of

its annual allocation and indirect cost

methodologies. Although the court acknowledged that EPA employs a

“complicated methodology” to apportion indirect and annual allocation

costs, the court did not find EPA’s

methodology arbitrary or capricious.

In addition, the court was not persuaded by the argument that EPA was

not entitled to recover non-site-spec i fic costs. The court found that the

CD unambiguously re q u i res the private parties to pay indirect costs, and

although the CD does not specific a l l y

mention annual allocation costs, the

c o u rt held that “these costs are inc u rred in connection with the Site”

and there f o re are re c o v e r a b l e .

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

202-564-4200 [U.S. v. Atlas Corp. and

Vinnell Mining, E.D. Cal., 1/12/00].

Corporate Offic e r

Held Individually 

Liable in U.S. v.

A ro n o w i t z

On January 31, 2000, the U.S. District

C o u rt for the Southern District of

Florida held that Jack L. Aro n o w i t z ,

p resident and owner of Te c h n i c a l

Chemicals & Products, Inc. (TCP) was

individually liable as an operator and

a rranger under CERCLA Sections

107(a)(2) and (a)(3), as was his company TCP. EPA filed a cost re c o v e ry

action against Aronowitz and TCP for

response costs incurred in re s p o n d i n g

to release problems at the Lauderd a l e

Chemical Wa rehouse site in Bro w a rd

C o u n t y, Florida. The court held that

A ronowitz and TCP were jointly and

severally liable for $401,177 plus postjudgement interest. 

F rom 1985 to 1992, TCP operated

the site when hazardous substances

(toxic and volatile chemicals) were disposed of, and arranged for the disposal

of hazardous substances located at the

site. The court held TCP and

A ronowitz liable because of the spec i fic activities TCP conducted at the

site and because Aronowitz dire c t e d ,

managed, and controlled the enviro nmental operations of TCP. 

The court found that Aro n o w i t z ’s

actions met the criteria for direct operator liability under CERCLA, as art i c ulated by the Supreme Court in United

States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998).

The Supreme Court in Bestfoods add ressed the issue of pare n t / s u b s i d i a ry

liability under CERCLA. In fin d i n g

A ronowitz individually liable as an ope r a t o r, the court applied the same stand a rd of control for operating a facility

to corporate officers as was used in

Bestfoods, where a parent corporation

was alleged to have operated facilities

owned or operated by its subsidiary.

The court also held that Aro n o w i t z ’s

actions in operating TCP were sufficient to find him liable as an arr a n g e r

under CERCLA. 

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

202-564-4200 [United States v.

A ronowitz, No. 98-6201 (S.D. Fla.

2000)]. 

District Court 

Upholds EPA’s Cost

R e c o v e ry at Atlas 

Asbestos Mine

I

n August 1992, the United States

e n t e red into a consent decree (CD)

with potentially responsible part i e s

(PRPs) Atlas and Vinnell Mining to perf o rm a cleanup at the Atlas Asbestos

Mine Superfund Site. The CD re q u i re d

the PRPs to reimburse EPA for all fut u re response costs, including oversight costs and indirect costs. The CD

p e rmitted Atlas to contest payment of

any future response cost on one of

t h ree grounds: (1) an accounting erro r

was made by the government; (2) costs

billed were inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan; or (3) costs

billed were not actually incurred in connection with the site.

In August 1994, EPA sent its fir s t

bill to the PRPs, for costs incurred between December 1990 and December

1993. The PRPs disputed these costs,

The opinion included very 

favorable language re g a rd i n g

E PA’s use of its annual 

allocation and indirect cost

m e t h o d o l o g i e s .

placed the disputed funds in an escro w

account, and requested additional documentation from EPA. In December

1997, EPA sent a second bill. Again,

the PRPs disputed these costs, but did

not establish an escrow account for the

disputed amount until ord e red by the

district court in June 1998. Following a

period of informal, and then form a l

dispute resolution, EPA issued a decision requiring the PRPs to pay ro u g h l y

$641,000 of the roughly $677,000 originally billed. The PRPs challenged

E PA’s ruling in district court alleging,

amongst other things, that EPA failed
Cleanup News 5

A

series of counter-terrorism

drills conducted on May 20-25,

2000 at the behest of Congre s s

helped federal planners assess national

readiness in the event of a terrorist attack. Code-named “TOPOFF” for To p

O fficial, the Federal Disaster Drill was

m a s t e rminded by the Department of

Justice and the Federal Emerg e n c y

Management Agency to measure the

integrated capabilities of federal, state,

district, and local re s o u rces — including personnel, pro c e d u res, dire c t i o n

and control, communications, facilities,

and equipment — in the event of a

Weapons of Mass Destruction terro r i s t

incident. EPA has formal re s p o n s i b i l i t y

for cleanup of any hazardous materials

releases in such an event. 

Personnel from EPA headquart e r s

(OERR, CEPPO, Radiation and Indoor

Air) and regional counterparts worked

closely with local emergency re s p o nders to ensure that quick local and federal responses would hold civilian casualties down to a minimum during

the simulated exercise. Part i c i p a t i n g

responders were not informed of the

s p e c i fic scenarios in advance.

The thre e - p a rt exercise began

when a simulated explosion occurre d

in Portsmouth, NH, on May 20 at the

s t a rt of a charity race. The re s p o n s e

was complicated by the simultaneous

release of a chemical agent, determined to be mustard gas. Local law enf o rcement officials, fire fighters, and

rescue crews scrambled to deal with

fake deaths and injuries.

A similar scene took place in Denver where a simulated attack involving

a biological agent, first thought to be

anthrax, was subsequently determined to be the pneumonic plague.

The nation’s capital was also pulled

into the mix when simulated explosions laced with uranium occurred at

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Wa s h i n gton, D.C. and at the U.S. Airw a y s

A rena in Largo, MD. 

The exercises aimed to assess the

n a t i o n ’s ability to manage crises and

consequences, and to highlight are a s

in which more training might be

needed to fend off the possibility of terrorist attacks and to respond quickly

and effectively in their aftermath. For

m o re information, contact CEPPO at

2 0 2 - 2 6 0 - 8 6 0 0 .

E PA Participates in CounterTe rrorism Drills

continued on page 6

Mutual Aid Personnel Treat Simulated Victims in Portsmouth, NH.

A Snapshot of Risk Management Plans

I

n June 1999, an EPA re g u l a t i o n

called the Risk Management Program (RMP) prompted 15,000 U.S.

facilities that use hazardous chemicals

to submit re p o rts describing their potential risk to surrounding communities. The Risk Management Pro g r a m

c a p t u res information from businesses

such as cold storage ware h o u s e s ,

water utilities, oil re fineries, fert i l i z e r

makers, and farm suppliers as well as

chemical manufacturers. One of the

most valuable pieces of data in the rep o rts is the history of actual chemical

accidents that occurred at these facilities in the past five years.

E PA’s Chemical Emergency Prep a redness and Prevention Offic e

(CEPPO), industry associations, state

and local emergency managers, and

others are reviewing the data to find accident frequencies by industrial sector,

c o rrelations between facility characteristics and accidents, findings about potential consequences of accidents to off -

site populations, and significant tre n d s

in chemical industry hazards and accidents. Pre l i m i n a ry data from the RMP

accident histories indicate that over a

five-year period, there were :

• 1,900 serious accidents among

these 15,000 facilities;

• 33 deaths and 8,300 injuries; and 

• Evacuation or sheltering of 221,000

individuals. 
6 Cleanup News

T

he decision to permanently re l ocate residents away from are a s

near Superfund sites was the

topic of discussion at the Relocation

F o rum Stakeholder Meeting held

M a rch 2-3, 2000, in Washington, DC.

R e p resentatives from industry, state

and local government, public health,

e n v i ronmental justice and other federal agencies convened to re v i e w, discuss, and give input on the I n t e r i m

Final Policy on the Use of Perm a n e n t

Relocation as Part of Superfund Remedial Actions. 

The interim final policy, issued

June 30, 1999, states EPA’s pre f e re n c e

to clean up and re s t o re pro p e rty so

people can live safely in their homes.

The policy explains when to consider

p e rmanent relocation as part of a

cleanup at an NPL site, and gives examples of situations where perm a n e n t

relocation could be considere d .

The policy, which emerged out of a

1995 request by the National Enviro nmental Justice Advisory Council, also

recognizes the importance of early, direct, and meaningful public involvement in relocations. EPA re c o m m e n d s

that Community Advisory Groups be

f o rmed to engage all interested part i e s

in a dialogue about cleanup and how

with re p resentatives from various

stakeholder gro u p s .

E PA’s next steps include developing

case studies of five sites where perm anent relocations have taken place; 

issuing mini-guidance on issues that

need to be addressed quickly, such 

as the release of appraisals, advisory

s e rvices, etc.; and disseminating the

n e c e s s a ry information to regional offices, federal agencies, and all those

responsible for the successful implementation of re l o c a t i o n s .

For more information, contact

OERR at 703-603-8960. Access our website for the Interim Final Policy and related documents, at www.epa.gov/ 

s u p e rf u n d / t o o l s / t o p i c s / re l o c a t i o n / i n d

ex.htm. 

relocation fits into a community’s longt e rm vision and plans. In the last few

years, EPA has undertaken a number

of initiatives to widen its understanding of the issues associated with re l oc a t i o n :

• A national relocation pilot was selected in Pensacola, Florida at the

Escambia Wo o d t reating Site.

• E PA reviewed sites where

cleanups were done in re s i d e n t i a l

a reas, then sponsored a series of

f o rums to hear stakeholder views

and experience on the subject of

relocation. 

• In 1996, a Relocation Forum was

held in Pensacola, Florida, with

community and environmental justice groups. Seven additional forums were held in 1996 and 1997

To Permanently Relocate or Not?

by Pat Carey, OERR

E PA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emerg e n cy Response has released a new report 

titled I n n ovations in OSWER: Making Safer, M o re Livable Communities. P re p a re d

for key customers in states, t r i b e s , other agencies, i n d u s t ry, and communities, t h e

report describes a range of new stra t e g i e s , new partnerships, and new approach e s

to help make communities safer and more liva b l e. The report is available on

O S W E R ’s W h a t ’s New page at: w w w. e p a . g ov / s w e r r i m s / w h a t s n e w. h t m .

S a f e r, M o re Livable Communities

Higher accident rates were found

at facilities with ammonia re f r i g e r a t i o n

units (35.4%), followed by water utilities (22.7%), re fineries (19.3%), fert i lizer manufacturers (11.6%), and farm

suppliers (11.0%).

The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania also is studying

the data. Wharton has issued a working paper that presents pre l i m i n a ry

findings on accident frequencies and

severities available from RMP*Info,

the database set up to store Risk Management Plans and accident history

data. The paper analyzes which facilities actually filed plans, and then presents results for various segments of

the U.S. chemical industry on obs e rved accident frequencies between

June 21, 1994 through June 20, 1999.

The re p o rt is available at www. e p a .

g o v / c e p p o / a p _ a rc s . h t m

In the future, we can expect to see

i n d u s t ry sector- s p e c i fic and chemical

p ro c e s s - s p e c i fic studies. The key

question remains whether there are

p redictors of accident frequency and

severity and, if so, how can industry,

CEPPO, and others work together to

lower the risk to communities.

R M P s

continued from page 5
Cleanup News 7

F

aced with a bro w n fields re d evelopment opportunity and a

variety of complicated re c o mmendations from contractors, bro w nfields decision-makers now have a

place to go for help. The Bro w n fie l d s

Technology Support Center helps decision-makers become aware of the

full range of technologies available in

o rder to make informed, “smart technology” decisions for their sites. Te c hnologies that lower costs, decre a s e

time frames, and/or positively impact

other decision considerations (e.g.,

community acceptance, logistics, etc.)

can signific a n t l y

a ffect the re d evelopment potential of bro w nfields sites. 

At no cost to

localities, the Bro w n fields Center offers unbiased assessments on options

relevant to specific sites. The center

can also provide a technology-oriented

review of investigation and site-specific

cleanup plans. Operated by EPA’s

Technology Innovation Office, the center provides five types of assistance: 

• Document re v i e w s : The center can

review sampling and analysis

plans, quality assurance pro j e c t

plans, feasibility studies, engineering designs, or work plans, and

evaluate the documents in term s

of technology options, implementation processes, or other factors. 

• Technology scoping:Using inform ation provided by EPA Regional

s t a ff for specific bro w n fields pilot

sites, the center can pre p a re lists

of potentially applicable technologies, along with brief analyses of

their advantages and disadvantages under specific conditions at a

site and in light of the specific feat u res and needs of a site. 

• Technology descriptions:The center

can develop a brief “layman’s ”

guide describing a specific technology or technique. The guides

can help decision-makers fully understand the principles of the technology (along with the cost and

time necessary to implement it)

and communicate inform a t i o n

about the technology to constituents and stakeholders. 

• Review of literature and electro n i c

re s o u rc e s :The center can provide a

list and description of available inf o rmation re s o u rces for technologies relevant to specific decisions

at a site. This can help stakeholders broaden their understanding of

the technology options available

for use at their sites. 

• Demonstration support: D r a w i n g

upon the expertise of the EPA Sup e rfund Innovative Te c h n o l o g i e s

Evaluation (SITE) program, the

center provides planning assistance and technical review capabilities to localities seeking to arr a n g e

demonstrations and evaluations of

innovative sampling, analytical, and

t reatment technologies. 

For more information, contact the

E PA Regional Bro w n fields Coord i n ators, or the center directly at 1-877-838-

7220 (toll-free), or www. b ro w n fie l ds t s c . o rg. 

B ro w n fields Tech Center Supports 

Local Decision-Makers

SWITCH TO E-MAIL!!!

Cleanup News is trying to move to an electronic format. If you send us

your e-mail addre s s , we will notify you when each issue of Cleanup News

is available on the We b, and you can read it or download it at your conven i e n c e. Please fill out this form , and fax it to 301-652-7001, or e-mail the

i n f o rmation to rfrance@scicomm.com. Cleanup News is available on the

Web at www. e p a . g ov / o e c a / o s re.

N a m e : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O rg a n i z a t i o n : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A d d re s s : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

E - M a i l : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cleanup News is a publication of EPA’s Office 

of Site Remediation Enforcement, in cooperat i o n

with the Office of Emergency Response and 

R e m e d i at i o n ,O f fice of Underground Storage Ta n k s ,

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention

O f fic e , and the Te c h n o l o gy Innovation Offic e .

Rick Popino, Ph.D., editor

E PA Review Board : Rick Popino, P h . D. ,P a u l

C o n n o r, Karen Ellenberger, Ken Patterson,

Helen DuTe a u , Jeff Heimerman, Carole Macko

C a m e r o n

Gilah Langner, writer

Robin Foster, SciComm Inc.,designer

To comment on the newsletter, contact Rick Popino, Ph.D. (MC-2271A), U.S. EPA,401 M

Street SW, Washington,DC 20460,e-mail:popino.rick@epa.gov.

For mailing list inquiries,contact Robert France, SciComm Inc.,7735 Old Georgetown Rd,

Bethesda,MD 20814,fax:301-652-7001,e-mail:rfrance@scicomm.com.

c l e a n u pn e w s w w w. e p a . g o v / o e c a / o s r e

Aug 14-16, 2000

ATSWMO Superfund Managers

Meeting 

Phoenix, AZ

C o n t a c t : Jim Konz, 7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 8 8 4 1 .

Aug 28-Sept 1, 2000

National Community Involvement 

San Francisco, CA

C o n t a c t : Helen DuTe a u ,7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 8 7 6 1 .

October 11-13, 2000

B ro w n fields 2000 

Atlantic City, NJ

h t t p : / / w w w. b r o w n fie l d s 2 0 0 0 . o r g .

November 1-3, 2000

Health Risk Communication 

Symposium: Uncert a i n t y, Stakeholders, and Public Health Action

Bethesda, MD

S p o n s o r s :D O E ,E PA ,H H S . Focus on risk communicat i o n

issues in U.S. and in developing and transitioning nat i o n s . Includes half-day breakout sessions analy z i n g

case studies. C o n t a c t : Lisa Carroll, 8 6 5 - 5 7 6 - 2 2 6 6 ,

c a r r o l l e @ o r a u . g o v.

A D R A l t e rnative Dispute Resolution

A C P A rea Contingency Plan

C D Consent Decre e

C E P P O Chemical Emerg e n cy Pre p a redness and 

P revention Offic e

CERCLA C o m p rehensive Environmental Response,

C o m p e n s a t i o n , and Liability Act (Superfund law) 

D o D Department of Defense

F E M A F e d e ral Emerg e n cy Management A g e n cy

F R P Facility Response Plan

I T T I n n ovative Treatment Te ch n o l o g i e s

N P L National Priorities List (Superfund) 

O E R R O f fice of Emerg e n cy and Remedial Reponse (EPA )

O M B O f fice of Management and Budget

O PA Oil Pollution A c t

O S C On-Scene Coord i n a t o r

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

P C B P o l y chorinated Biphenyls

P R P Potentially Responsible Party 

R C R A R e s o u rce Conservation and Recov e ry A c t

( h a z a rdous waste) 

R M P Risk Management Plan

S I T E Superfund Innovative Te chnologies Eva l u a t i o n

S P C C Spill Prevention Control and Counterm e a s u re

T C P Te chnical Chemicals & Products, I n c.

A c ro n y m s