Highlights 2 

Centredale Manor 

Pioneer Smelting 

In the Spotlight 3 

Nease Chemical 

Performance-Based Contracting 

Enforcement News 4 

Employee Pleads Guilty 

Superfund News 5 

Syosset Landfill 

PCC Strategy 

In the Courts 6 

Adobe Lumber v. Taecker 

Syms v. Olin 

Tidbits 7 

ER3 Partners 

Calendar 8 

Glossary 

CleanupNews is a quarterly 

newsletter highlighting hazardous 

waste cleanup cases, policies, 

settlements and technologies. 

inside 

Office of Site Remediation Summer 2005 

Enforcement (2271A) EPA 300-N-05-005 

Washington, DC 20460 Issue #21 

cleanupnews

EPA Places Superfund A Places Superfund

Lien, Hopes to R Hopes to R Hopes to Recover

$27 Million in Costs $27 Million in Costs

EPA has placed liens on 

554 acres of land at a 

former mine in Clear 

Lake, California in order to recuperate $27 million for past 

cleanup costs. EPA’s response actions to-date include stabilizing 

waste piles, erosion control measures, removal of contaminated 

soil, site investigations, and the 

emergency closure of some geothermal exploration wells. The 

Agency estimates that it may cost 

$40 million more to complete the 

remaining 

Mine and is owned by Bradley Mining Company and Worthen Bradley Trust. Mining activities at the 

site began in 1865 and continued 

off and on until the site was abandoned in 1975. Mercury ore was the 

primary product after the site was 

initially mined for sulfur. The remaining waste piles contain heavy 

metals including mercury, arsenic, 

and antimony and are the source of 

mercury polluting the local ground 

and surface water. The site also 

includes an open pit mine known 

as the Herman 

cleanup activi- Liens help recover costs and Impoundment 

ties. ensure PRPs do not benefit where acidic 

Liens are legal 

actions that can from post-cleanup property water contaminated 

bar a property value increases. with heavy 

owner from selling a property without the lien 

enactor’s permission. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 USC 

9607(l) provides EPA with the 

authority to enact a lien against 

the title of the property upon 

which response actions have been 

taken. Liens are placed on 

remediation sites to recover 

cleanup costs already incurred by 

EPA and to ensure that potentially responsible parties do not 

profit from the increased value of 

property improved by EPA through 

the cleanup process. 

The property is part of the 

former Sulphur Bank Mercury 

metals has accumulated. The site has been on 

the National Priorities List since 

1990. 

The impact of contamination 

from the mine on the local environment has been documented primarily through the bioaccumulation of 

mercury found in plants, animals, 

and soils in the nearby Clear Lake 

ecosystem. The State of California 

has issued fishing advisories for 

Clear Lake due to the high mercury 

levels. The heavy metals contaminating the site, including antimony 

and mercury, are toxic to people and 

the environment. 

For additional information, contact 

Larry Bradfish, EPA Region 9, 

bradfish.larry@epa.gov. 

Printed on recycled paper 
Highlights

Settlements Will Help Clean Up

Centredale Manor Restoration

Two proposed settlements 

worth approximately $3.6 

million will help clean up contamination at the Centredale Manor 

Restoration 

The settlement agreements should ensure that the settlors remain financially viable, thereby ensuring that lowcost housing will continue to be availments were constructed on the site 

in 1977 and 1983 respectively. Dioxin contamination was identified in 

the Woonasquatucket River, which is 

adjacent to the site, in 

Project Site in 

sent decrees are sub1996, and the site was 

reduce downstream migraView of the Centredale Manor Restoration Project looking North 

along the Woonasquatucket River. 

North Providence, added to the National Priorities List on February 4, Rhode Island. The 

2000. owners of the 

The Woonasquatucket Centerdale Manor 

River was designated an and Brook VilAmerican Heritage river lage apartment 

in 1998 and has been the buildings—which 

focus of cleanup efforts for provide low-cost 

several contaminants in- housing to the eldcluding dioxin since 1996. erly—agreed to 

To date, EPA has com- the settlement 

pleted several initial re- through separate 

moval actions to limit expo- consent decrees. 

sure to the contaminants and Both proposed conject to a 30-day public comment period. If the consent decrees are finalized, the settlers will “cash out” their 

liability, meaning that EPA will release the apartment complex owners 

of any further responsibility related to 

the existing contamination at the site. 

The settlements will be paid to EPA, 

the State of Rhode Island, and the Department of the Interior; a portion will 

also be placed in an escrow account. 

able for 223 elderly residents. 

From 1943 to 1971, Atlantic Chemical Company (renamed Metro-Atlantic, Inc. in 1953) operated a woolens 

mill on the site. The New England Container Company ran incinerators on the 

site as part of its drum-reconditioning 

operation at different times from 1952 

to 1971. In 1972, a fire burned almost 

all of the existing buildings. The Brook 

Village and Centerdale Manor aparttion. These actions include constructing soil caps, reconstructing a dam, 

and fencing off contaminated areas. 

EPA continues to conduct its remedial investigation for the long-term 

cleanup of the site and seek assistance in cleaning up the site from 

other responsible parties. 

For additional information, contact Eve 

Vaudo, EPA Region 1, vaudo.eve@epa.gov. 

SiteWork Completed a k Completed at Pioneer t Pioneer

Smelting Smelting

EPA has removed 24,000 tons 

of contaminated soil and debris from the Pioneer Smelting site in Chatsworth, New Jersey. 

Although no groundwater contamination was detected, concentrations of 

lead in the surface soil were between 

67 ppm and 18,200 ppm. Cleanup activities began in July 2003 and included the dismantling, decontamination and disposal of several buildings 

and structures as well as the excavation and treatment of lead-contaminated soil. An onsite pug-mill was 

used to treat 24,000 tons of contaminated material. 4,000 tons of waste 

were sent off-site to a regulated hazardous waste disposal facility. 

Cleanup efforts also included recycling 340 tons of scrap metal and removing 300 feet of asbestos containcontinued on page 7 

2 cleanupnews 
Innovative Cleanup Strategies

Proposed for Nease Chemical

EPA Region 5 is advising use

 of nanotechnology to clean up

 ground water contamination 

at the Nease Chemical Site in 

Columbiana County, Ohio. The 

stance to prevent migration of remaining contaminants. The other ponds 

would be covered with plastic to prevent the spread of contaminants, and 

plan involves using iron Iron nanoparticles are a less expensive, 

nanoparticles, which range in highly effective new treatment strategy. 

size from 1/500th to 1/5,000th These microscopic particles come into 

the width of a human hair. contact with contaminants and produce Because of their microscopic harmless by-products. size, nanoparticles can reach 

contamination in small spaces 

more effectively than some traditional 

treatments. When the nanoparticles 

come into contact with ground water 

contaminants, oxidation occurs, producing harmless or less toxic by-products. In addition to the ground water 

remedy, EPA is recommending “stripping/stabilization/solidification” or S/ 

S/S to address contamination in several former ponds. The process involves stripping chemicals and solidifying the soil using a cement-like subshallow groundwater would be pumped 

and treated. Comments on the remedies received during the public comment period, which ended in June, will 

be considered before the cleanup plan 

is finalized. 

From 1961 to 1973, Nease Chemical 

produced household cleaning agents, 

fire retardants, and pesticides at the 

site. Some of the products contained 

mirex, a chemical banned for use in the 

US in 1978 because of detrimental 

health effects. Mirex, volatile organic 

compounds, and other contaminants 

seeped into groundwater and soil 

from unlined ponds and leaking 

drums. In 1977, Ruetgers Organics Corp. acquired the property, 

though the company never used 

the site. Ruetgers has been 

evaluating on-site contamination through EPA and Ohio EPA 

guidance and assisted both agencies in selecting the site remedies. Nease Chemical has been on 

the National Priorities List since 

1983. 

The proposed cleanup strategies 

are explained in a Region 5 fact sheet 

entitled “‘Cutting-Edge’ Techniques 

Proposed for Nease Cleanup” available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region5/sites/neasefs200506.pdf. 

For additional information, contact 

Mary Logan, Remedial Project Manager, (312) 886-4699. 

In the Spotlight

U.S. Army Uses PBC to Clean Up 

Hazardous Waste Sites 

By Janet Kim, U.S. Army Environmental Center’s Technical Lead for PBC Implementation 

The U.S. Army is dedicated to objectives for a fixed price. PBC con- which are detailed in the Performance 

cleaning up contaminated tractors must meet these objectives, Work Statement, as well as comply 

property from past practices with existing Federal Facility Agreeby promoting the use of safe, effective, ment schedules and commitments. 

and efficient cleanup and procure- Contractors have an incentive to work 

ment methods. To that end, the Army proficiently and complete remedial 

has turned to Performance-Based work on or ahead of schedule because 

Contracting (PBC) to expedite por- shorter timeframes generally transtions of its remediation work. late into increased corporate profits. 

Under PBC guidelines, a contrac- Most often the work is awarded to 

tor must achieve identified cleanup 

continued on page 4 

cleanupnews 3
Employee

Pleads Army Uses PBC, continued from page 3

Enforcement News

Guilty to Guilty to

Mail Fraud

and Making and Making

False

Statement

On May 31, 2005, Michael 

Klusaritz of Whitehall, 

Pennsylvania, pleaded 

guilty in district court to mail fraud 

and making false statements. 

Klusaritz could be sentenced to up to 

30 years in prison, a $750,000 fine, 

three years supervised release, and a 

mandatory $300 special victim/witness assessment. 

While an employee of Boyko’s Petroleum Services, Inc., Klusaritz falsified 

laboratory reports, forged signatures, 

and prepared false underground storage tank (UST) closure reports. Between October 2001 and October 2003, 

Boyko’s billed its customers more than 

$110,000 for the false reports. 

Klusaritz had a previous conviction 

for falsifying environmental test results. 

contractors at a price that is lower 

than the Army’s planned cost-tocomplete; as such, PBC allows 

the Army to increase the buying 

power of its annual cleanup budget, which in turn accelerates the 

overall cleanup program as cost 

avoidances can be reinvested to 

clean up 

privatization effort. The Army uses 

these contracts on land that will be 

turned over to local authorities as well 

as land the Army will retain for its own 

use. The Army piloted the program at 

several installations in Fiscal Years 

2000 and 2001. To date, almost 50 PBC 

contracts, covering projects in all 10 

sites at 

other in- By using PBC, the Army has procured 

stalla- more than $400 million in environmental 

tions. requirements and achieved a cost 

Regu- avoidance of approximately 20 percent 

lators while safely conducting cleanup. 

EPA regions, 

have been 

awarded for 

work at Base 

Realignment and 

Closure 

(BRAC) 

sites and acalso 

benefit 

under PBC. For example, benefits 

to regulators include streamlined 

and consistent documentation 

produced by “A-team” contractors 

who have an incentive to finish 

the cleanup work rapidly and correctly. Regulators also have the 

confidence of knowing that the 

Army maintains ultimate liability for the remediation. 

While PBC may be used in 

privatization projects, it is not a 

tive installations. By using PBC, the 

Army has procured more than $400 

million in environmental requirements 

and achieved a cost avoidance of approximately 20 percent while safely 

conducting cleanup. 

PBC provides advantages to the 

three main parties involved in contracted environmental remediation 

projects – the Department of Defense, 

regulators and contractors. 

Want to join us in conserving paper? 

Sign-up to receive CleanupNews by email! 

It’s fast and simple. 

Go to the CleanupNews page at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

listserv/cleanup.html, enter your email address, and click “Submit.” When a 

new issue of CleanupNews comes out, you’ll receive it in HTML—right to 

your desktop! 

Note: Signing up for electronic issues does not automatically cancel your 

hard copy subscription. Send hard copy subscription change requests to 

christine.rueter@dpra.com. 

4 cleanupnews
Syosset Landf osset Landf osset Landfill Deleted fr ill Deleted from

National Priorities List tional Priorities List

On April 28, 2005, EPA removed the Syosset Landfill 

Superfund site in Nassau 

County, New York from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) because the site 

no longer poses a threat to human 

health or the environment. The Town 

of Oyster Bay worked with EPA to 

design and install a synthetic landfill cap, a project that was completed 

in October 1996. The cap covers 6.7 

million tons of contaminated material left onsite. The town also improved the existing gas venting system in order to lower landfill gas emissions to non-detectable levels. EPA 

certified that construction for the 

cleanup was complete at the site in 

September 1998. A fence was installed around the perimeter of the 

property and restrictions put in place 

to prevent human exposure to the 

capped landfill material. 

The Town of Oyster Bay operated 

Syosset Landfill from 1933 to 1975. 

Various types of wastes were disposed at the site, including industrial 

sludges contaminated with heavy 

metals. The landfill stopped accepting waste when Nassau County detected ground water contamination. 

At the time the site was listed on the 

NPL, two private wells and one public 

well had elevated levels of volatile organic compounds. Although the town 

of Oyster Bay continues monitoring 

the local ground water, EPA determined that no ground water 

remediation was necessary because 

limited offsite contamination did not 

pose a threat to the surrounding community. 

For additional information, contact 

Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project Manager, henry.sherrel@epa.gov. 

Superfund News

EPA Outlines Strategies for Ensuring

Post Construction Completion

Activities are Effective 

I

n May 2005, the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) released its recommendations for ensuring the long-term effectiveness of post construction completion 

activities at Superfund 

sites. The draft document, entitled “National Strategy to 

Manage Post Construction Completion 

Activities at Superfund 

Sites” (PCC Strategy), 

has been sent to stakeholders for review and 

protection levels (e.g., ongoing ground- ommending the review of ICs to enwater treatment). Post construction sure they give long-term protectiveness 

completion activities include, but are and are not so restrictive as to prenot limited to, operation and mainte- vent redevelopment of a site, where 

nance, five-year reviews, institutional feasible. With regard to funding, EPA 

Five goals of the draft PCC Strategy 

 ensure that remedies remain protective and cost-effective 

 ensure that institutional controls required as part of the remedy are 

implemented and effective

 assure adequate financing and capability to conduct post

construction completion activities 

 support appropriate reuse of sites while assuring remedy reliability 

 improve site records management to better ensure remedy reliability 

will see that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) fulfill their O&M 

responsibilities 

and that the 

states—who are 

often responsible for guaranteeing that longmay be revised based on comments 

received. The final strategy should be 

released in late summer 2005. 

After a site remedy is constructed, 

post construction completion activities 

are sometimes implemented to ensure 

that the remedy remains protective of 

human health and the environment 

(e.g., site fencing) or to achieve greater 

controls (ICs), NPL deletion, and reuse. The PCC Strategy outlines five 

goals for ensuring post construction 

completion activities are effective. 

First, EPA is encouraging the review 

of remedies over time and to allow for 

changes in remedy decisions where 

appropriate to achieve protection and 

cost-effectiveness. EPA is also recterm O&M occurs at Fund-financed 

sites—have long-term O&M funding 

available. EPA will also support site 

reuse by ensuring that unnecessary 

barriers to reuse are eliminated and 

encouraging the use of “Ready for Reuse” determinations, easy-to-read reports that notify developers of a site’s 

continued on page 7 

cleanupnews 5 
In The Courts 

District Court 

Recognizes 

Private Party 

Contribution 

Claim Under 

Section 107 of 

CERCLA 

Adobe Lumber v. Taecker, (No. CV S02-

186 GEB GGH, E.D. Ca. (May 24, 2005). 

By David Dowton, Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement 

Ruling on cross-motions for partial 

summary judgment, the district court 

for the Eastern District of California 

has recognized that a private party 

may bring a contribution action under 

Section 107 of CERCLA. After dismissing Adobe’s claim under Section 

113 as Adobe had not been the subject of a civil action under Sections 106 

or 107 as required under Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. (125 

S. Ct. 577 (2004)), the Court went on

to address whether Adobe could bring 

a claim under Section 107. The district court found that Adobe could not 

proceed on a claim for joint and several liability under Section 107 but 

noted that Adobe is not prevented 

from pursuing a recovery action on 

some form of liability other than joint 

and several. 

The Court started its analysis by 

pointing out that the Supreme Court 

in Aviall did not rule on whether contribution is available for a private 

party under Section 107 and therefore, 

Ninth Circuit precedent governs. The 

Court turned to the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Pinal Creek Group v. 

Newmont Mining Corp. (118 F.3d 1298 

(1997)), where the Ninth Circuit found 

that “the essence of a claim for contribution . . . is imbedded in the text of § 

107.” This was further explained by 

the Ninth Circuit in Western Properties Service Corp. v. Shell Oil Co. (358 

F.3d 678). Quoting Western Properties 

the district court wrote, “Pinal Creek 

held that the enactment of § 113 in 

1986 did not replace the implicit right 

to contribution many courts recognized in § 107(a); rather, § 113 determines the ‘contours’ of § 107, so that a 

claim for contribution requires the 

‘joint operation’ of both sections.” 

Based on this Ninth Circuit precedent, 

the district court denied defendant’s 

motion for partial summary judgment 

finding that in the wake of Aviall, 

Adobe’s Section 107 claim is construed as it was before the enactment 

of Section 113. The district court, 

however, also denied Adobe’s motion 

as it did not address all the elements 

of a Section 107 contribution claim. 

Second Circuit 

Acknowledges 

Dilemma for 

Parties Seeking 

Contribution 

under CERCLA for 

Voluntary 

Cleanup Costs 

Syms v. Olin, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8885 

(2nd Cir. 2005). 

By David Dowton, Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement 

Finding that plaintiffs had not been 

sued under Section 106 or 107 of 

CERCLA, the Second Circuit ruled 

that plaintiffs were not eligible to seek 

contribution under Section 113(f) pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs. (125 

S. Ct. 577 (2004)). The Court, however, remanded to the district court the 

issue of whether a liable party may 

bring an action under Section 107(a) 

to recover costs. The Second Circuit 

had previously ruled in Bedford Affiliates v. Sills (156 F.3d 416 (1998)) that 

a liable party may not bring a cost 

recovery action under Section 

107(a) but noted that the rule put 

forth in Bedford might no longer 

be viable in light of the Supreme 

Court’s ruling in Aviall. 

In a lengthy footnote, the Court 

acknowledged the dilemma created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Aviall and the Second 

Circuit’s previous ruling in 

Bedford. The Court noted that 

together the two decisions “leave 

a PRP with no mechanism for recovering response costs until proceedings are brought against the 

PRP. This might discourage PRPs 

from voluntarily initiating a 

clean-up, contrary to CERCLA’s 

stated purpose.” The Court went 

on to say that a PRP that 

remediates a facility on its own 

initiative reduces the likelihood 

that it will be the subject of a Section 106 or 107 action and thereby 

jeopardizes its opportunity to 

seek contribution from other 

PRPs. The Court concluded in the 

footnote that if the Bedford decision remains unchanged it would 

“create a perverse incentive for 

PRPs to wait until they are sued 

before incurring response costs.” 

Although the Court acknowledged the dilemma parties like 

the plaintiffs face, they declined 

to rule on whether the Bedford 

decision is still viable in light of 

Aviall due to the fact that Aviall 

was decided after oral argument 

was held and the parties did not 

have an opportunity to brief the 

issue. Therefore, the Court 

elected to vacate the judgment and 

remand the issue to allow the district court an opportunity to address the plaintiffs’ eligibility to 

sue under Section 107(a) of 

CERCLA. 

For additional information, contact David Dowton, OSRE, (202) 

564-4228. 

6 cleanupnews
Partners with 

Expertise in 

Sustainable 

Development 

Sought for ER3 

The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) is organizing a network of organizations with sustainable 

development expertise as part of the 

Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (ER3) Initiative. 

OSRE announced the plan to form the 

network in an April 22, 2005 Federal 

Register notice. ER3, an effort to encourage sustainable redevelopment of 

former contaminated sites, was 

launched in September 2004. The envisioned ER3 partner network will include non-profit organizations, universities, and other entities that will provide assistance to redevelopers wishing to incorporate conservationminded practices. Partners have to 

have experience in various areas of 

sustainable development such as the 

use of renewable resources for energy, 

reduction of pollution and energy use, 

and the promotion of recycling. Participating entities will not be given financial compensation by EPA for the 

assistance they provide. They may 

choose, however, to contract for paid 

services to incorporate recommendations into a project design. 

Organizations wishing to participate 

were asked to submit statements of 

interest by June 22, 2005. These include details on their qualifications to 

help redevelop contaminated land 

with sustainable methods. OSRE will 

select partners in the weeks following 

the deadline and post its partners on 

the ER3 website at: www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/redevelop/er3/ 

For additional information, contact 

Phil Page, Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement, page.phil@epa.gov. 

Pioneer Smelting, continued from page 2 

ing material.

The facility was built in 1939 by the

New Jersey

dence of public use prior to cleanup including motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle tracks. Access to the site continues to be restricted although the contamination and structural hazards 

have been abated. Future site use is 

under consideration by the current 

owner, local government, and EPA attorneys. 

Additional information is available on 

the EPA’s On-Scene Coordinator website at: 

http://www.epaosc.org/ 

site_profile.asp?site_id=SJ. 

Tidbits

Zinc Company, 

Smelting Aerial view of Pioneer Smelting prior to site cleanup. 

which 

conducted zinc 

smelting and 

metal 

reclamation 

activities at 

the site. 

Several 

entities owned 

the facility 

prior to its 

purchase by 

the Pioneer 

Company in 

1973. The facility was used by 

several lessees for various recycling 

and metal recovery operations until 

it was abandoned in 1996. In June 

2001, the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 

responded to a fire and found 

hundreds of deteriorating drums and 

a massive slag pile. NJDEP asked 

EPA to conduct an assessment of the 

site, and in July 2002, EPA’s 

Emergency Response Team 

conducted an Expedited Removal 

Assessment. 

The site is located within the New 

Jersey pinelands, and there was eviEPA Strategies, continued from page 5 

status. And EPA is recommending 

improving recordkeeping through standardizing recordkeeping procedures 

and managing data electronically. 

The draft PCC Strategy is available 

on Superfund’s Post Construction Complete web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/ 

postconstruction/index.htm.

For additional information, contact Tracy 

Hopkins, OSRTI, hopkins.tracy@epa.gov. 

cleanupnews 7
calendar

Glossary 

July 12-15, 2005 

2005 Community Involvement 

Conference and Training 

http://www.epancic.org/2005/ 

overview.cfm 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure OECA Office of Enforcement Compliance and 

Assurance 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

Buffalo, NY 

August 7-10, 2005 

College & University Hazardous 

Waste Conference 

http://center.uoregon.edu/conferences/

CUHW/CUHWC05/

Portland, Oregon

September 19-23, 2005 

20th Annual Hazardous Materials 

Management Conference on 

Household & Small Business 

Waste 

http://www.nahmma.org/ 

2005conference/ 

Tacoma, Washington 

November 2-4, 2005 

Brownfields 2005 

http://www.brownfields2005.org/en/

index.aspx

Denver, CO

DOD Department of Defense 

ER3 Environmentally Responsible


Redevelopment and Reuse


ICs Institutional controls 

NPL National Priorities List 

O&M Operation and maintenance 

cleanupnews

CleanupNews is a quarterly publication of 

EPA’s Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, 

in cooperation with the Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation, Office 

of Underground Storage Tanks, and Office of 

Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and 

PBC Performance-Based Contracting 

PCC Post construction completion 

PRPs Potentially responsible parties 

USAEC US Army Environmental Center 

UST Underground storage tank 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/offices/osre.html 

Richard W. Popino, PhD REM, Editor in Chief 

EPA Review Board; Diane Bartosh, Sandra Connors, 

Karen Ellenberger, Elliott Gilberg, Jeff Heimerman, 

Kenneth Patterson, Neilima Senjalia, Suzanne Wells 

Christine Rueter and Cheryl Mueller, 

DPRA Inc., writers 

Mary Spencer, 

DPRA Inc., designer 

Response. Past issues of CleanupNews can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

resources/newsletters/cleanup 

cleanupnews.html 

To comment on the newsletter contact Richard W. Popino, PhD REM, at MC-2271A, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, email:popino.rick@epa.gov. 

To be added or deleted from the subscriber list, contact Christine Rueter at christine.rueter@dpra.com. 

To receive CleanupNews by email, subscribe at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/listserv/ 

cleanup.html. 

United States 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

(2771A) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use

$300 

FIRST CLASS 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

EPA 

G-35 PERMIT NO.