National Award

Recipients Honor ecipients Honored

EPA Releases Guidance eleases Guidance

on Ability to P Ability to Pay and De

Minimis Minimis Amendments Amendments

Office of Site Remediation

Enforcement (2271A) EPA 300-N-04-005

Washington, DC 20460

Summer 2004 

Issue #17 

cleanupnews


inside 

Spotlight 3

CASES

Highlights 4

Guam UST Facilities Fined

Power of Change

OSWER News 5

RCRA CA Conference

In the Courts 6

Non-Settlor Challenges

U.S. Responsible for Costs

Tidbits 7

Performance Track

Compost Awareness

Calendar 8

Glossary

CleanupNews is a quarterly 

newsletter highlighting hazardous 

waste cleanup cases, policies, 

settlements and technologies. 

National Award 

Recipients Honored 

E PA recognized the 

achievements of individuals and teams in 

Regional waste management programs at the Notable Achievement Awards ceremony on April 

27, 2004. Thirty-three awards 

were presented in 10 categories 

including Superfund, Superfund 

Enforcement, and RCRA Corrective Action. Other award categories include Assistant Administrators Priorities, Brownfields, 

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Federal Facilities Response, Regional 

Science, Resource Conservation, 

and the Underground Storage Tank 

Program. 

Attending her last ceremony as 

Assistant Administrator (AA) of 

OSWER, Marianne Horinko gave a 

welcome speech and presented the 

Assistant Administrator’s Priorities Award to Charles K. Eger for 

his work for Operation River City, 

a 60-hour mock terrorism exercise 

conducted last year in Louisville, 

Kentucky. 

The Acting AA of the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Thomas V. Skinner, introcontinued on page 2 

EPA Releases Guidance 

on Ability to Pay and De 

Minimis Amendments 

By Susan Boushell, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

On May 17, 2004, EPA 

issued the Interim 

Guidance on the Ability 

to Pay and De Minimis Revisions 

to CERCLA § 122(g) by the Small 

Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

This guidance addresses changes 

made to CERCLA § 122(g) by the 

2002 Brownfields Amendments, 

which generally fall into two categories: 1) those that apply to potentially responsible parties 

(PRPs) that are de minimis and 

demonstrate a limited ability, or 

inability, to pay their entire liability 

at a site; and 2) those that apply to 

all de minimis parties regardless of 

their financial status. 

First, the guidance discusses existing EPA policy regarding ability to 

pay (ATP) and de minimis parties. 

The guidance clarifies that, for the 

most part, the ATP and de minimis 

amendments to Section 122(g) do not 

change EPA’s existing guidances and, 

therefore, these documents will remain in effect. 

Second, the guidance discusses the 

ATP amendments and their relationcontinued on page 3 

Printed on recycled paper 
Awards, continued from page 1 

duced the four awards in the Superfund 

Enforcement category, which were presented by Elliott Gilberg, Deputy Director of the Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement. Mike Stephenson of 

Region 4 was honored with the Legal 

Enforcer of the Year Award. As the 

lead Regional attorney, Mike was instrumental in achieving a consent decree (CD) for the complex Anniston 

PCB Superfund Site in Anniston, Alabama. The settlement provides for 

funding of a $3.2 million educational 

foundation for children, conduct of both 

a time-critical and a non-time critical 

removal action, and completion of a 

remedial investigation/feasibility 

study. 

Cliff Davis, a Civil Investigator for 

Region 9’s Superfund Program, received the Technical Enforcer of the 

Year Award. In FY03, Cliff provided 

enforcement support services at eight 

Superfund sites, provided financial 

assurance training and financial consultation services, and developed an 

innovative enforcement system that 

combines data from several databases. Cliff also was recognized for 

mentoring new staff, participating in 

national workgroups, and managing 

Region 9’s Superfund enforcement support contract. 

Linda Baric and Barbara Borden, 

the Region 3 Office of the Controller 

Superfund State Contracts (SSC) 

Team, won the Financial Management 

Team of the Year Award. Region 3 

ranks number one among all EPA regions for SSC revenue utilization and 

manages the second largest number 

of SSC accounts and dollars. The Region 3 Team developed the Superfund 

State Contract Billing System 

(SSCBS) to track and manage accounts receivables from Superfund 

Sites. The team also developed an 

SSC spreadsheet to manage SSC revenue and report on progress that has 

been adopted by EPA HQ for use nationwide. The SSCBS helped the Region 3 SSC Team collect $49.2 million 

in revenue. 

The NL/Taracorp Enforcement Team 

(Brad Bradley, Sheri Bianchin, and 

Larry Johnson) of Region 3 received the 

Enforcement Team of the Year Award. 

The Team successfully negotiated 

three major CDs, valued at over 

$63,000,000, for the NL/Taracorp 

Elliott Gilberg presents the Legal Enforcer of the Year Award to Mike Stephenson, 

Region 4, for his work at the Anniston PCB Site in Anniston, Alabama. Also 

pictured are Marianne Horinko and Thomas V. Skinner (far right) 

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. 

subscription change requests to anne.politis@dpra.com. 

Send hard copy 

Superfund Site in Granite City, Illinois. 

Because of the Team’s efforts, the 

cleanup of 1,600 lead-contaminated 

residential yards and the $2 million in 

funding for a lead paint abatement program in homes near the site is assured. 

For more information on the Notable 

Achievement Awards visit: 

http://www.clu-in.org/awards/ or contact 

Ann Eleanor, (703) 603-7199. 

2 cleanupnews

“Smart Enforcement” Strategy

In the Spotlight 

Announced 

By Tricia Buzzell, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

At the recent National RCRA tor by 2005. 

Corrective Action Conference The strategy applies the elements of 

in Orlando, Florida, Steve Shimberg, EPA’s Smart Enforcement initiative to 

Associate Assistant Administrator a specific task. As Shimberg stated in 

of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance As- CASES is a strategy to ensure that EPA is 

for example, complex technical factors. 

OECA is working closely with the 

EPA Regional offices to develop and 

implement facility-specific plans for 

these 16 targeted facilities. 

The plans vary widely, reflectsurance (OECA), announced using its enforcement authorities, where 

ing CASES’ flexible approach 

a new targeted strategy to

better control human expo- appropriate, to meet performance goals.

sure at or near hazardous 

waste facilities that were identified 

as high priorities for cleanup in 1999. 

The Corrective Action Smart Enforcement Strategy (CASES) is one of several approaches EPA is using to get 

almost 2,000 facilities to address 

contamination that is potentially 

harmful to human health. CASES is 

a strategy to ensure that EPA is using its enforcement authorities, where 

appropriate, to meet performance 

goals. 

CASES focuses efforts on meeting 

the human exposure environmental 

indicator (EI) goal because it directly 

relates to protection of public health. 

There is little room for slippage in the 

projections for achieving this indicahis remarks at the conference, “Targeting enforcement attention to the 

situations where it can really help move 

cleanups along, and exercising flexibility in what tools we use, is what Smart 

Enforcement is all about and is the way 

we will be doing business.” 

CASES is truly a targeted approach 

aimed at success. EPA developed a list 

of 16 candidate facilities after reviewing several factors, including when the 

facilities were projected to meet the human health EI and whether EPA had 

the lead for making the EI determination. EPA then further refined the list by 

removing sites that were clearly 

unable to meet the EI due to site 

specific issues unrelated to compliance – 

to enforcement. EPA believes 

that even with a relatively low 

level of effort (and possibly 

without even a formal enforcement action), the enforcement program can 

have a significant impact on meeting 

the 2005 Corrective Action performance goals. According to Shimberg, 

“CASES is already starting to have a 

real impact at sites. We have issued 

several orders under the strategy and 

already are starting to see more 

cleanup. At some facilities where we 

merely considered enforcement, companies got the message and agreed to 

clean up voluntarily.” 

For more information about Corrective 

Action enforcement, see the compliance 

website at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/cleanup/rcra/index.html. 

Guidance, continued from page 1 

ship to EPA’s existing ATP policy. The 

amendments specifically authorize 

EPA to negotiate settlements based 

on a PRP establishing an inability or 

limited ATP rather than on its full 

liability at the site, and require ATP 

applicants to promptly provide EPA 

with the information necessary for the 

Agency to assess the PRP’s inability 

or limited ATP. The amendments 

also direct EPA to consider appropriate alternative payment methods 

when ATP PRPs are unable to pay the 

“total settlement amount at the time 

of settlement.” 

Third, the guidance explains the de 

minimis amendments and their impact on EPA’s existing policy. Under 

these amendments, EPA will: 

• Determine if a PRP is eligible or 

ineligible for a CERCLA §122(g) 

settlement 

• Notify a PRP of a de minimis 

eligibility determination 

• Consider a PRP’s degree of 

cooperation when making a 

settlement eligibility determination 

• Impose a waiver of claims 

requirement on CERCLA § 122(g) 

settlers 

• Impose on settlors a continuing 

obligation of cooperation at the site 

• Notify non-settlors about a final 

CERCLA §122(g) settlement 

Finally, the guidance provides four 

model notice letters for use by Regional staff. Two of the model letters, “Model Notice of Eligibility to 

Receive a De Minimis Party Settlement” and “Model Notice of Ineligibility to Receive a De Minimis Party 

Settlement”, apply to all de minimis 

parties. The “Model Notice Approving Reduction in Settlement Amount 

Based on Inability to Pay” and the 

“Model Notice Denying Reduction in 

Settlement Amount Based on Inability to Pay” specifically address ATP. 

The guidance and models are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/. 

For additional information, contact Susan 

Boushell, OSRE (202) 564-2173. 

cleanupnews 3

 Highlights 

Four Guam Facilities Fined for 

Underground Storage Tank Violations 

In February 2004, EPA issued field mon, easily corrected violations forcement measures with potentially 

citations resulting in total fines of that carry a penalty. The Office of much higher fines. Owners and op-

$1,800 to four Guam facilities for fed- Underground Storage Tanks erators who fail to settle a field citaeral underground storage tank (UST) (OUST) established a framework tion could receive penalties up to 

violations. These facilities are the for addressing specific UST viola- $11,000 per violation per tank per 

AAFES Service Station at day in addition to the costs 

Anderson Air Force Base, “Owners and operators who fail to settle a associated with the cleanup 

the Hotel Palmridge, the field citation could receive penalties up to of leaking tanks. 

MCI Agana, and the Tumon $11,000 per violation per tank per day in EPA’s use of field citations 

Bay Capital Hotel. The vio- addition to the costs associated with the expedites the enforcement 

lations included failure to cleanup of leaking tanks.” process for these targeted vioproperly maintain release lations. Field citations are isdetection systems, failure to give tions with field citations. The sued on-site, with a minimum of leGuam EPA 30 days notice prior to framework, outlined in the Federal gal paperwork and procedural rebringing an UST system into use, fail- Field Citation Enforcement Guid- quirements. This allows EPA to conure to install overfill prevention ance (April 1992, Revised October centrate enforcement staff time and 

equipment on existing tanks, and fail- 1993), establishes the scope and resources on addressing releases or 

ure to obtain adequate pollution in- procedures for issuing field cita- violations that can not be addressed 

surance. tions. For example, facilities cited through the field citation program. 

EPA and Guam EPA intend to in- for violations have 30 days from In addition to EPA and state respect all UST systems in Guam by the date of issuance to pay fines. sources, the field citation program 

2005 to make sure that the systems Within that 30-day period, facility also saves owners and operators time 

can prevent and detect leaks and re- owners and/or operators must per- and resources. Rather than spendleases to the environment. Because form and document any necessary ing money on the litigation process, 

Guam has a limited fresh water sup- corrective action. If either compli- the owners and operators focus on corply, ensuring safe, reliable UST system ance is not achieved or payment is recting the violation and achieving 

operation is critical. not made within that 30-day pe- compliance. 

EPA imposed the Guam fines under the UST federal field citation 

program, which encourages EPA to issue field citations to address comriod, or an extension has not been 

obtained, the field citation is automatically withdrawn, leaving 

EPA free to pursue additional enFor further information, contact 

Norwood Scott, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-

3373. 

Power of Change: A New Education Campaign for

Older Americans 

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER) 

launched a new education campaign, 

called the Power of Change, on April 

14, 2004, at the Joint Conference of 

the American Society on Aging and 

the National Coalition on Aging in 

San Francisco, CA. The Power of 

Change will help older Americans 

learn how to reduce waste and make 

better environmental decisions. 

4 cleanupnews 

The campaign is part of EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge, a 

nationwide program finding more effective ways to reduce waste by conserving natural resources and energy. The Power of Change is also 

part of the Agency’s Aging Initiative, 

which is intended to improve the 

health of older Americans. 

The Power of Change campaign 

offers a tool kit that provides information on making good environmental decisions when moving, traveling, 

and using health care products. The 

resources offered in the Power of 

Change tool kit can be ordered or 

downloaded directly from http:// 

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/aging/ 

index.htm. 

For more information, contact Diane 

Bartosh, Office of Solid Waste (703)-308-7895. 
National Cor tional Corrective Action Conf Action Conference,

Orlando, FL - May 11-12, y 11-12, 2004

National Corrective Action Conference, 

Orlando, FL - May 11-12, 2004 

OSWER News 

By Karen Tomimatsu, Office of Solid Waste 

Over 350 people representing states, 

EPA regions, consultants and industries gathered in Orlando, Florida for 

the annual National Corrective Action Conference. Marianne Horinko, 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, gave the keynote address announcing the 2020 RCRA Corrective 

Action Challenge. Horinko said, 

“Cleaning up more than 3800 sites 

with a RCRA corrective action obligation is no small matter, but I believe 

the RCRA clean-up program can be reshaped to achieve that goal. The 2020 

Challenge is forcing us to rethink how 

we implement the corrective action 

program, and we have to look far beyond the traditional corrective action 

process, and consider novel approaches 

in a way we never have before. We need 

to pursue innovative ideas such as selfimplemented, self-certified cleanups 

with audits – a ‘trust but verify’ model; 

use of third party professionals to oversee clean-up processes; enrollment of 

RCRA facilities in streamlined state 

response programs; and development 

of an ‘oversight light’ model that outlines a few key check-in points where 

discussion of clean-up decisions may 

be important.” 

Ms. Horinko presented awards to 

companies who recently took the Environmental Indicator (EI) Pledge: 

BeazerEast, Inc., Dow Chemical Company, Dupont Engineering, Koppers, 

Inc., and Safety-Kleen. By taking the 

EI pledge, these companies have committed to achieving “yes” determinations for both human exposure and migration of contaminated groundwater 

EIs at all of their facilities by September 30, 2005. These companies are 

considered model partners with EPA 

and the states in working to help 

achieve important RCRAcleanup goals. 

Dwight Bedsole, representing Dow Chemical Company, accepts EPA’s 

Environmental Indicator Pledge Certificate from Marianne Horinko, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

The following industry, state and regional programs also were recognized. 

• Hamilton Sundstrand facility, in 

Denver, CO, received the Industry 

EI Leadership Award for rapidly 

addressing residential indoor air 

contamination and groundwater 

contamination. 

• The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation received the State EI Leadership 

Award for their consistent leadership in the corrective action program. 

They were particularly successful in 

attaining positive EI determinations for high-priority facilities in 

New York. 

“Cleaning up more than 3800 sites with a RCRA corrective 

action obligation is no small matter, but I believe the RCRA 

clean-up program can be reshaped to achieve that goal.” 

-Marianne Horinko, Assistant Administrator for 

the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

• The Dow Chemical Company received the Industry Streamlining 

Award for their work at their site 

in Gales Ferry, CT. This facility 

moved from starting the investigation to remedy selection in 6.5 years. 

Dow also created a standing 

Citizen’s Advisory Panel to involve 

community stakeholders at the 

site. 

• The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality received the 

State Streamlining Corrective Action Award for their outstanding 

leadership in implementing the corrective action program, embracing 

RCRA Reforms, and for setting the 

standard for an effective federalstate partnership. 

continued on page 6 

cleanupnews 5 
U.S. Held

Responsible

for Superfund

Costs at Costs at

DuPont Site in

Morgantown,

WV

In The Courts 

Corrective Action continued from page 5 

• EPA Region 7 received the Regional 

EI Leadership Award. Region 7 

made excellent progress in meeting 

EI goals, with projected expectations 

of reaching between 98-99 percent 

for the human exposure EI and over 

80 percent for the groundwater migration under control EI by the end 

of 2005. 

• EPA Region 9 received the Regional 

Leadership in Streamlining Corrective Action Award. While facing major challenges at some of their largest facilities, dedicated personnel conducted significant streamlining efforts to maximize environmental results in both EI and final cleanups. 

EPA, in consultation with the states, 

is developing a comprehensive implementation strategy for the 2020 

Challenge. Participants attended 

workgroup sessions in which they 

brainstormed the “top four things 

needed to achieve the 2020 Challenge,” 

and the “top two things that need to 

be done to meet the 2020 Challenge.” 

The strategy will be available later 

this year. 

All conference presentations and 

abstracts will soon be available at: 

http://www.nationalcaconf.com. 

For further information contact Karen 

Tomimatsu, OSW, (703) 605-0698. 

Courts Differ on 

Non-Settlor 

Challenges to 

Consent Decrees 

By David Dowton, Office of Site 

Remediation Enforcement 

Two recent decisions highlight the 

difference of opinion regarding a nonsettling party’s right to intervene and 

challenge a lodged consent decree 

(CD). In United States v. Acorn Engineering, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8282 

(C.D. Ca., Mar. 23, 2004), a California 

district court denied Carrier 

Corporation’s motion to intervene and 

challenge the fairness of the CD lodged 

for the Puente Valley Operable Unit 

of the San Gabriel Valley Site. The 

district court held that a non-settling 

potentially-responsible party’s (PRP) 

contribution claim does not provide a 

right to intervene under CERCLA or 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The court reasoned that allowing nonsettlors to intervene would undermine 

one of CERCLA’s main goals to encourage settlement. The court noted 

that the notice and comment procedures found in Section 122(d)(2) of 

CERCLA are the proper avenue for a 

non-settling PRP to raise concerns regarding the consent decree. 

Reaching the opposite conclusion, a 

New York district court held in United 

States v. City of Glen Cove, 2004 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 7496 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 

2004), that a non-settling PRP’s contribution claim did give it an interest 

in the action as the public review and 

comment process did not adequately 

protect its interest. The non-settling 

PRP, TDY Industries, brought a contribution claim against a number of 

Federal PRPs. Subsequently, the 

United States entered into a CD with 

a private party, a municipality and the 

Federal PRPs. TDY moved to intervene and challenge the CD arguing that 

entry of the CD would extinguish its 

contribution claims against the Federal PRPs. The court acknowledged 

that most jurisdictions have found 

that a loss of a contribution right is 

not enough to warrant intervention, 

but elected to align itself with the 

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that 

has held that a contribution right is 

enough to warrant intervention if the 

settlement purports to cut off the 

rights of a party not present in the litigation. The court noted that intervention was particularly appropriate 

in this case since “the federal government was on both sides of the 

negotiation table and essentially 

reached a settlement with itself.” 

For further information, contact 

David Dowton, OSRE, (202) 564-

4228 

U.S. Held 

Responsible 

for Superfund 

Costs at 

DuPont Site in 

Morgantown, 

WV 

By David Dowton, Office of Site 

Remediation Enforcement 

In DuPont v. United States, 2004 

U.S. App. LEXIS 8368 (Fed. Cir., 

Apr. 28, 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has 

ruled that the U.S. must reimburse DuPont for Superfund costs 

incurred by DuPont to investigate 

and clean up a munitions plant in 

Morgantown, WV. 

In 1940, the U.S. contracted 

with DuPont to design, construct 

and operate a munitions plant in 

Morgantown. The contract included an indemnification clause 

protecting DuPont from any loss, 

expense, or damage arising out of, 

or in connection with, the performance of work under the contract. 

In 1946, the U.S. terminated the 

contract and entered into a 

supplemental agreement with 

DuPont that preserved the indemnification clause. 

More than 50 years later, 

DuPont brought an action to recover costs incurred under 

CERCLA. The Court of Federal 

Claims held that, although the 

6 cleanupnews

Raising Compost Raising Compost

Awareness

U.S. agreed to indemnify DuPont, the 

open-ended indemnification clause 

violated the Anti-Deficiency Act and 

barred any recovery. (The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits an executive 

agency from entering into a contract 

for future payment of money in excess 

of the congressional appropriation for 

that fiscal year unless the contract is 

authorized by law.) The Court of Appeals reversed holding that, in this 

particular case, the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, which allowed the 

military to terminate the bulk of its 

contract duties entered into during 

World War II, authorized the U.S. to 

preserve the indemnification clause. 

The Court went on to find that the 

indemnification clause was written 

broadly enough to include the costs of 

future environmental liability. The 

decision means the U.S. will have to 

reimburse DuPont for investigating 

and cleaning up the site. The Court 

remanded the case to the trial court 

for an exact cost determination, but it 

is believed DuPont incurred roughly $2 

million in costs at the site. 

The decision could potentially subject the U.S. to similar claims at the 

many other plants operated during 

World War II. 

For further information, contact David 

Dowton, OSRE, (202) 564-4228 

Performance Track 

Rule Increases 

Participant 

Incentives 

On April 14, 2004, EPA Administrator Mark Leavitt signed the Performance Track Rule, expanding the 

administrative and regulatory incentives of this voluntary, performancebased environmental compliance program. The rule builds on the incentives already offered by the National 

Environmental Performance Track 

program, begun in 2000 and managed 

by EPA’s National Center for Environmental Innovation. 

The rule, proposed in August 2002, 

became effective on April 22, 2004. It 

states that facilities participating in 

the Performance Track program are 

not required to submit reports under 

the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) provisions of the 

Clean Air Act as frequently as nonparticipants. In addition, participants who are large quantity hazardous waste generators and meet specific conditions are now allowed to 

accumulate hazardous waste for up 

to 180 days without a RCRA permit 

or interim status. Generators having 

to transport hazardous waste over 

200 miles for disposal are allowed up 

to 270 days to accumulate waste under this rule. 

Currently, the Performance Track 

program has 344 members. To qualify 

as a participant in the program, each 

member must meet the following criteria: have implemented an Environmental Management System; have 

demonstrated past, current, and future commitment to environmental 

improvements, public outreach and 

reporting; and have demonstrated certification of and commitment to environmental compliance. 

The benefits of participating in this 

program include: public recognition by 

EPA through awards, website listings, and networking opportunities; 

increased information exchange to 

improve environmental performance 

via seminars, roundtable discussions, 

and mentoring programs; and administrative and regulatory incentives, 

such as decreased priority of participant 

facilities for routine inspections and 

more flexible permitting procedures. 

More information on the National 

Environmental Performance Track 

program can be found on EPA’s website: 

http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/index.htm. 

Raising Compost 

Awareness 

During May 2-8, 2004, the US 

Composting Council, a national non-profit 

organization, promoted International 

Compost Awareness Week to raise 

awareness of composting as an effective way to reduce municipal solid 

waste (MSW) destined for landfills. 

Composting advocacy groups in the US 

and Canada held a variety of community 

events, including compost give-aways, 

sales, and demonstrations to raise 

awareness. 

Composting is a natural method of recycling organic wastes (e.g., yard trimmings and kitchen wastes). Through 

controlled decomposition, utilizing time, 

heat and microorganisms, these wastes 

are diverted from the waste stream and 

converted into compost, a soil enhancement that can be used in gardens and 

landscaping. Many kinds of household 

wastes including yard trimmings; food 

scraps (e.g., fruit and vegetable wastes, 

egg shells, coffee grounds); fireplace ash; 

and even wool or cotton rags can be 

composted. Food scraps and yard trimmings make up approximately 25 percent of all household waste, while 67 percent of the total MSW generated in the 

U.S. can be composted. This means that 

composting can significantly reduce the 

total amount of MSW going to landfills. 

Compost has several uses including 

bioremediation and pollution prevention, suppression of plant diseases, pest 

and erosion control, landscaping, reforestation, and wetlands and habitat restoration. The use of compost reduces 

the need for expensive chemical fertilizers and pesticides, increases the health 

and longevity of plants, and increases the 

conservation of natural resources. 

From individual backyard compost heaps 

to community-wide compost drop-off 

facilities, there are many ways to 

participate in composting to reduce 

municipal waste. 

For more information on composting, see 

EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/ 

epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/compost.htm. 

Tidbits 

cleanupnews 7

calendar

June 23 & 24, 2004 

Restoring Greenspace: Using 

Ecological Enhancements at 

Regions 2 and 3 

Contaminated Sites 

Philadelphia, PA 

Contact: greenspace@wildlifehc.org or 

301-588-8994 

http://www.wildlifehc.org/events/ 

restoringgreenspace.cfm 

July 12-14, 2004 

ASTSWMO 2004 State


Hazardous Waste Managers


Conference


Washington, DC


Contact: Jocelyn Scott (202) 564-4795 

http://www.astswmo.org 

August 16-18, 2004 

ASTSWMO 2004 State


Superfund Program Managers


Symposium


Scottsdale, AZ


Contact: Jocelyn Scott (202) 564-4795 

http://www.astswmo.org 

September 20-22, 2004 

Brownfields 2004: “Gateway to


Revitalization”


St. Louis, MO


http://www.brownfields2004.org 

Glossary 

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 

Response. 

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

cleanup.html. 

The print edition of Cleanup News is delivered to subscribers via U.S. Mail and/or electronically, depending 

on subscriber preference. 

The supplement, CleanupNews II, is delivered electronically to subscribers four times a year. 

Richard W. Popino, PhD REM, editor 

EPA Review Board; Elliott Gilberg, Diane Bartosh, 

Paul Connor, Sandra Connors, Karen Ellenberger, 

Jeff Heimerman, Kenneth Patterson, Neilima 

Senjalia, Suzanne Wells 

Anne Politis, Sarah Heberling, DPRA Inc., writers 

Lauren Grantham, DPRA Inc., designer 

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

AA Assistant Administrator 

ATP Ability to Pay 

CASES Corrective Action Smart Enforcement 

Strategy 

CD Consent Decree 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

EI Environmental Indicators 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MSW Municipal Solid Waste 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance 

OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

OSW Office of Solid Waste 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks 

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls 

PRPs Potentially Responsible Parties 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

SSC Superfund State Contracts 

SSCBS Superfund State Contract Billing System 

UST Underground Storage Tank 

Past issues of CleanupNews can 

We also produce an electronic supplement to the Cleanup News print edition. 

United States FIRST CLASS

AID AGE & FEES P POST Environmental 

A EP Protection Agency 

G-35 PERMIT NO. (2771A) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use

$300