25 Years of RCRA:

Building on Our Past to Protect Our Future

Twenty-five years ago, hazardous waste was an enigma. We did not know how much waste was produced or what ultimately happened to it. By the middle of 20th century, the American people stood up

and demanded that something be done about the dangers posed by pollution from industrial waste.

And Congress listened. On October 21, 1976, Congress passed the most sweeping legislation on

waste ever enacted: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

When signing the legislation, President Ford called hazardous waste disposal “one of the highest

priority environmental problems confronting the nation,” and tasked EPA with solving the problem. In

the past 25 years, RCRA has made great strides in pollution prevention and waste minimization. Americans have updated and improved their methods of waste management and are cleaning up past contamination. Today, individuals, organizations, and businesses are not only working to reduce the

amount of waste they generate, but to prevent it altogether. People and businesses are reducing risk

from waste by practicing safer, smarter, and more economical waste management than ever before.

The success we have achieved in the last century is only a springboard to the challenges of the

new century. We must continue our strong commitment to pollution prevention efforts and to introducing innovation and efficiency into our waste management systems. We must also continue to seek

partnerships with industry, government, and the public. By working together, we will achieve resource

conservation and eliminate threats from waste. 

To commemorate RCRA’s anniversary, EPA is preparing a report highlighting the successes of

RCRA’s protective framework. It acknowledges the vital roles that states, tribes, industry, and communities have played in that success. The report, 25 Years of RCRA: Building on Our Past to Protect

Our Future, will be available in hard copy and on the Office of Solid Waste website

(www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw) in December.

For more information, or to order hard copies of the report, call the RCRA Call Center. Callers within

the Washington Metropolitan Area, call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). Longdistance callers, call 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-553-7672. Address written requests to: RCRA Information Center (5305W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

On September 25th, EPA took the

long-awaited step of deleting Times

Beach, Missouri from the Superfund National Priorities List of hazardous

waste sites. EPA and the State of Missouri

have determined that the site no longer

poses a significant threat to public health

or the environment and that no further

remedial measures are needed. 

United States

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement (2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Fall 2001

EPA 300-N-01-009

Issue #8

inside

News 2

TIO: The Triad 

Approach 4

Superfund Reforms 5

In the Courts: 6

Irvington Tire Fire 

Dico/Des Moines TCE

Caldwell Trucking

Bob’s Beverage

Deadlines 8

Printed on recycled paper

cleanupnews

Times Beach Deleted from

National Priorities List

CleanupNews is a quarterly

newsletter highlighting 

hazardous waste cleanup

cases, policies, settlements,

and technologies. 

continued on page 3

Along with Love Canal and the Valley

of the Drums sites, Times Beach captured the nation’s attention in the early

1980s and focused public concern on

environmental matters. Over the past 18

years, all residents and businesses of

Times Beach were permanently relocated, the land was purchased and con-
2 cleanupnews

EPA Contributes

Emergency Support 

Administrator Christie Whitman and employees of the

United States Environmental

Protection Agency have expressed

their deepest condolences to everyone affected by the terrible tragedy of

September 11th. At the request of

FEMA in the aftermath of the attacks,

EPA has worked closely with state,

federal, and local authorities to provide expertise on cleanup methods for

hazardous materials, as well as to

monitor the presence of contaminants

in samples of ambient air, drinking

water sources, and runoff near the

disaster sites. EPA and OSHA have

been analyzing samples for the presence of pollutants such as asbestos,

radiation, mercury and other metals,

pesticides, PCBs, or bacteria that

might create health hazards. 

While careful not to impede the

search, rescue, and cleanup efforts

at the World Trade Center or the

Pentagon disaster sites, EPA’s primary concern has been to ensure

that rescue workers and the public

are not being exposed to elevated

levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris, especially where practical solutions are

available to reduce exposure. Among

other activities, EPA brought ten

3,000-gallon capacity HEPA (highly

efficient particulate air) filter vacuum trucks into lower Manhattan to

help safely clean streets, vehicles,

and buildings of potentially hazardous dust. 

OERR’s Environmental Response

Team Center continues to support

FEMA New York and the New York

City Emergency Operations Center.

Members of EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention

Office have assisted FEMA in staffing

the Emergency Support Function

desk, which is responsible for hazardous material issues. EPA has been

tasked to monitor air, debris, and

water for presence of hazardous material, help identify personal protection

equipment needed by the emergency

responders, and organize decontamination stations for the emergency

responders. EPA has also been

involved in debris disposal issues. 

On the Legislative

Front

Brownfields and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) have been receiving

attention on Capitol Hill in recent

months. A number of brownfields bills

were introduced in Congress this year.

S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization

and Environmental Restoration Act of

2001, was introduced in February by

Sen. Lincoln Chafee. It was passed

with an amendment by the Senate on

April 25th by a vote of 99 to 0, and sent

to the House.

H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, was introduced in the

House of Representatives on September 10, 2001, by Rep. Paul E. Gillmor

with seven co-sponsors. It would similarly promote the cleanup and reuse of

brownfields, provide financial assistance for brownfields revitalization,

enhance state response programs, and

provide relief for small businesses

from liability under Superfund. The

bill was referred to subcommittees of

the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

On MTBE, the Federal Reformulated Fuels Act of 2001 (S. 950), introduced by Sen. Bob Smith in May 2001,

was approved without amendment by

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on September

25th. The bill would require EPA to

conduct studies of health problems

related to MTBE. It would authorize

the use of the Leaking Underground

Storage Tank Trust Fund to carry out

corrective actions in cases of MTBE

releases, and to conduct inspections,

issue orders, or bring actions under

the underground storage tank regulation program. The bill would authorize

certain states to impose controls on

any fuel or fuel additive for the purpose of water quality protection, and

would require the EPA Administrator

to ban the use of MTBE in motor fuel

within four years. 

USTfields Pilots

On August 23, 2001, Administrator

Whitman announced $4 million in

financial assistance to clean up contamination from leaking underground

storage tanks (USTs) around the

nation. EPA expects to select up to 40

pilot projects to help states and cities

clean up these properties and return

them to productive economic and

public use. Modeled on the successful brownfields program, the new

USTfields program involves abandoned or under-used industrial and

commercial properties with perceived or actual contamination from

petroleum from underground storage tanks (which brownfields cannot

address under CERCLA).

Each selected pilot will receive up

to $100,000 in Leaking Underground

Storage Tank Trust Fund monies. The

deadline for submitting proposals for

the USTfields Pilots has been

extended to November 19, 2001.

For more information, go to http://

www.epa.gov/oust/ustfield/index.

htm#pilots.

news 
cleanupnews 3

veyed to the State of Missouri, structures at the site were demolished,

dioxin-contaminated soils were excavated and incinerated, and the site was

restored to a state park.

Background

Times Beach was formerly an incorporated city in southwest St. Louis

County, approximately 20 miles

southwest of the City of St. Louis.

The unpaved roadways of Times

Beach were sprayed for dust control

in the early 1970s with dioxin-contaminated waste oil. 

The presence of dioxin contamination was initially confirmed by EPA

through sampling conducted in

November 1982. In response to the

discovery of dioxin contamination

and a health advisory issued by the

Centers for Disease Control, EPA

announced the permanent relocation

of the nearly two thousand residents

of Times Beach in February 1983.

The Times Beach site was added to

the NPL later that year. 

In 1988, EPA approved a temporary incinerator to be located at

Times Beach for the treatment of

dioxin-contaminated materials from

Times Beach and other eastern Missouri sites. In 1990, a consent decree

was entered between EPA, the State

of Missouri, and the primary PRP

group. 

Under the consent decree, EPA

was responsible for excavation and

transportation of dioxin-contaminated soils from eastern Missouri

dioxin sites to Times Beach for incineration. The State was responsible

for long-term management of the

Times Beach site. The settling defendants were responsible for demolition and disposal of structures and

debris remaining after the permanent relocation, construction of a

ring levee to flood-protect an incinerator subsite, construction of a temporary incinerator, excavation of contaminated soils at Times Beach,

operation of the incinerator, and

restoration of Times Beach upon

completion of response actions. 

Full-scale operation of the incinerator between March 1996 and June

1997 treated a total of 265,354 tons of

dioxin-contaminated materials from

27 eastern Missouri dioxin sites,

including 37,234 tons of dioxin-contaminated materials from the Times

Beach site itself. Solid treatment

residue from the incineration of

these materials was land disposed

on-site after testing confirmed that

required treatment levels had been

achieved. Site restoration was completed by the settling defendants in

accordance with a design approved

by the State and EPA.

In September 1999, the State of

Missouri announced the opening of

Route 66 State Park, which encompasses the former Times Beach site.

The newly created park has been

among the most visited of all state

parks in eastern Missouri.

Times Beach will remain eligible

for Superfund-financed remedial

actions following deletion from the

NPL. In the event that a significant

release of a hazardous substance is

identified at the site, Times Beach can

be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.

For more information, contact Bob

Feild, Remedial Project Manager, EPA

Region 7, 913-551-7697.

Times Beach Now a

State Park

continued from page 1

And now. 

news

Then: Times

Beach incinerator in the

mid-1990s... 
4 cleanupnews

T

he Technology Innovation

Office (TIO) of the Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency

Response (OSWER) is supporting a

streamlined approach to the monitoring and measurement activities that

occur throughout the waste site

cleanup process. The support

reflects a growing trend towards

using smarter and faster technologies and work strategies. TIO is coordinating with offices inside and outside OSWER and EPA (DOD, DOE,

states, etc.) to inform regulators,

practitioners, site owners, and others

involved in site cleanup decisions

about the benefits of a streamlined

approach.

The new approach can significantly reduce the total cost and time

for site cleanup while providing decisionmakers with better information

on site conditions. The focus is on

aligning the selection of sampling

and analytical methods with the decisions and site objectives they support. Field analysis and rapid sampling technologies allow users to

actively and economically manage

the major sources of uncertainty in

environmental data, namely, sampling error and sample representativeness. 

The trend towards modernization

and streamlining focuses on three

main aspects, thus TIO is referring to

it as the “triad” approach. The three

prongs of the triad are:

• Systematic planning for all site

activities. Rather than relying 

on prescriptive, one-size-fits-all

approaches to method selection

and sampling strategies, systematic planning requires site decisionmakers to clearly define end

goals for the site and objectives

for data collection. Systematic

planning then involves charting

the most resource-effective

course to reach those end goals.

A team of multi-disciplinary,

experienced technical staff translates the project’s goals into realistic technical objectives.

• “Dynamic” work plans allow project teams to make decisions 

in the field about how subsequent

site activities will progress. This

approach uses a regulatorapproved decision-tree, and is

supported by the rapid turnaround of data collected, analyzed, and interpreted in the field.

Success hinges on the presence

of an experienced field team

leader empowered to “call the

shots” based on the decision logic

developed during the planning

stage. Dynamic work plans allow

users to fully realize the benefits

of real-time data analysis and to

reduce the number of mobilizations necessary to meet the data

needs of decisionmakers. 

• On-site analytical tools, rapid sampling platforms (e.g., direct push

technologies), and on-site data

interpretation and management

are the key technology components making dynamic work

plans possible. During the planning process, the team identifies

the type, rigor, and quantity of

data needed. Those decisions

then guide the design of sampling regimens and the selection

of analytical tools and methods. 

The emphasis on aligning methods and data to the decisions and

objectives they support is essential 

to managing uncertainty. It helps

remove biases against new technologies vs. “approved” approaches,

The Triad Approach to Site Cleanup

By Dan Powell, Deana Crumbling, OSWER/Technology Innovation Office

The “Triad” Approach Embodies Concepts Advanced by Other/Past Efforts

1. Performance Based Measurement Systems or PBMS (EPA, Agency-wide effort)

2. Data Quality Objectives Guidance (EPA, Agency-wide)

3. Expedited Site Characterization, Accelerated Site Characterization (ASTM Guide)

4. Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model and Dynamic Field Activities Guidance (EPA,

Superfund Program)

5. Dynamic Work Plans (Tufts University, EPA Region 1 Project)

6. Rapid Site Characterization (Petroleum Industry)

continued on page 7

Success hinges on

the presence of 

an experienced 

field team leader

empowered to 

“call the shots”...

technology insights
cleanupnews 5

superfund reforms

E

PA has issued an unusual

prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) as part of the

Agency’s commitment to protecting

greenfields by removing the liabilities

associated with redeveloping contaminated properties. The PPA in question

was for the Center Star Manufacturing

Superfund Site in Oxford, Calhoun

County, Alabama. What made it

unusual was that a mortgage holder

requested the PPA on behalf of an

unknown prospective bidder at a

scheduled foreclosure auction. The

PPA enabled the mortgage holder,

First Commercial Bank, to foreclose

on the site property and protect the

highest bidder at the foreclosure sale

from incurring Superfund liability. 

The site is the location of a defunct

fabric processing facility operated by

Center Star Manufacturing, Inc. Operations ceased in 1996 when the corporation filed for bankruptcy protection.

Title to the site is currently vested in

the Industrial Development Board of

the City of Oxford (IDB). The IDB

leased the property to Center Star

Manufacturing, Inc. EPA has determined that the IDB is not a liable party

due to the Lender Liability Exemption.

In 1999, EPA conducted a removal

action at the site in which various

drums containing hazardous substances, contaminated debris, and

other waste materials were removed.

EPA conducted a preliminary assessment in December 1999, a site investigation in September 2000, and an

expanded site investigation into the

extent of ground water contamination

in early 2001. As of January 12, 2001,

EPA had incurred $188,799.49 in

response costs. 

“Foreclosure” Prospective 

Purchaser Agreement

The Center Star PPA 

The usual PPA process involves an

agreement between EPA and a

known purchaser. However, First

Commercial Bank was in a situation

where the only means of recovering

its security was through the foreclosure process. EPA Region 4 drafted a

PPA, negotiated an appropriate consideration amount (the bank agreed

to reduce the security it received

from the foreclosure funds),

obtained the United States’ signature, and offered the PPA for public

notice and comment in advance of

offering the PPA to the highest bidder at the conclusion of the sale.

Notice of the federal Superfund interest and offer of the PPA was placed in

the foreclosure sale notices, and a

copy of the PPA was made available

to the public at the local library. 

On June 5, 2001, the EPA staff

attorney attended the foreclosure

auction and prior to the sale,

explained the potential Superfund liability, the PPA process, the PPA contract terms, and answered questions

posed by the bidders. The property

was purchased by the City of Oxford

for redevelopment. Immediately after

the sale (prior to taking title), the

City of Oxford became a signatory to

the PPA and cut a check to EPA for

$87,500. Absent this innovative PPA,

the bank would not have been able to

successfully foreclose on the property and the site would have

remained abandoned and a blight

within the community for years. 

For more information, contact

Kathleen Wright, EPA Region 4, 404-

562-9574. 

Allocating shares of costs for cleaning up Superfund sites among potentially responsible parties has long been a source of controversy. A settlement reached recently at the

Whitehouse Oil Pits site in Jacksonville, Florida, marks the successful completion of an

initial round of “allocation pilots.”

EPA offered participation in allocation pilots to PRPs at 12 sites beginning in 1995.

The pilots were part of a package of Superfund administrative reforms that EPA was

testing to determine its feasibility and its impact on settlements. 

Under the pilot, allocation parties were initially given the opportunity to nominate

additional parties. The parties then selected a neutral “allocator” to conduct a non-binding, out-of-court process resulting in an allocation report. The allocation report detailed

each allocation party’s assignment of shares of responsibility. Parties were offered an

opportunity to settle with EPA based on their allocated share. Under the pilot, EPA was

responsible for 100 percent of the orphan share (i.e., shares of insolvent or defunct parties), as well as the shares of non-settling parties.

For sites that went through the entire process, it took approximately 18-24 months

to complete the complicated settlement negotiations. The most difficult issue was getting the PRPs to agree to perform the response action under a consent decree.

For more information, contact Gary Worthman, EPA/OSRE, 202-564-4296.

Allocation Pilots Completed
6 cleanupnews

EPA Sets Precedent

in Successfully 

Pursuing Generators

of Used Tires at 

Irvington

F

or the first time in the history of

the Superfund program, EPA

has successfully pursued an

enforcement action against generators

of used tires. Each year, EPA and state

agencies expend millions of dollars in

responding to tire fires. Usually, the

owner/operator of the facility is insolvent and as a result, the taxpayer bears

the financial burden of cleanup. For

the first time, an EPA enforcement

team has pursued the generators of

the used tires under the theory that

they were arranging for the disposal of

a hazardous substance. The enforcement strategy against the generators

is novel and was developed in Region 4

with the full concurrence of EPA

Headquarters and the Department of

Justice. Other EPA regions and state

agencies have followed this case

closely and are interested in pursuing

similar enforcement activities. The settlement will greatly impact EPA’s

approach to enforcement actions at

tire recycling facilities/dumps that

require Superfund response actions. 

In 1997, Region 4 responded to a

fire involving 100,000 to 300,000 tires

stockpiled at a site in Irvington,

Alabama. EPA suppressed the fire and

removed thousands of gallons of

pyloric oil runoff from the fire that was

threatening a wildlife sanctuary, incurring approximately $230,000 in

response costs. After investigation,

EPA determined that the owner/operator was insolvent. 

In the past, EPA’s cost recovery

efforts at similar sites have been limited to pursuing owners and operators

who typically had few financial

resources. However, because of recent

rulings in the law and the exclusion of

whole tires under the Superfund Recycling Equity Act, EPA Region 4 and

DOJ decided to pursue the tire generators at this site. Initially, the major generators balked, claiming that their disposal of used tires did not constitute

disposal of a CERCLA “hazardous substance.” Region 4 and DOJ persisted,

however, and the tire generators

agreed to settle their liability with EPA.

The Region relied on a Second Circuit case that held that a finished product that contained hazardous substances was hazardous and that the

intervening force of an event such as a

fire that caused the release did not create a liability barrier. While the Second

Circuit’s holding could be applied to

most consumer products, EPA exercised its enforcement discretion and

has only applied this reasoning to tire

fires where the Agency routinely

expends fund money on large stockpiles of finished products. This settlein the courts 

In Brief

• Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Caldwell Trucking Company: On September

19, 2001, the United States filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendants in this

private party action brought by plaintiff in state court for contribution and related

relief. The United States argued that, because it had entered into a consent decree

resolving defendants’ liability for CERCLA cleanup costs at the site and extending to

defendant contribution protection as provided in CERCLA Section 113(f)(2) for all

site-related costs, a suit by plaintiffs for contribution toward cleanup costs and similar relief would be proscribed by CERCLA Section 113(f)(2) when and if that consent

decree is entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. 

Accordingly, the United States asked the state court to stay its proceeding until

the U.S. District Court had an opportunity to decide whether to enter the consent

decree. The United States further argued that, since maintenance of a state court

contribution action directly conflicted with the intent of CERCLA Section 113(f)(2) to

promote settlements by extending contribution protection to settling parties, such

state court action was preempted by CERCLA Section 113(f)(2). (ESX-L-9812, N.J.

Super. Law Div.) Contact: Steve Botts, EPA/RSD, 202-564-4217.

• Sixth Circuit Holds That Passive Migration of Hazardous Substances Does Not

Constitute Disposal Under CERCLA: On September 4, 2001, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a private-party contribution action under CERCLA

(Bob’s Beverage, Inc. v. Acme, Inc., 2001 WL 1011894 (6th Cir. 2001)) affirmed a district court’s decision and held that: (1) a previous owner was not liable for response

costs incurred by the present owner and operator; (2) that the previous owner who

replaced a septic system did not cause the disposal of hazardous waste; and (3)

that passive migration of hazardous substances does not constitute disposal within

the meaning of CERCLA. 

The Sixth Circuit stated that under CERCLA a disposal is not the same as a

release; the term release is broader than disposal. According to the Sixth Circuit’s

interpretation of CERCLA’s provisions, disposal requires evidence of active human

conduct and addresses activity that precedes the entry of a substance into the environment. The decision in this case is consistent with the Court’s prior decision in

United States v. 150 Acres of Land, 204 F.3d 698 (6th Cir. 2000). Contact: Clarence

E. Featherson, EPA/RSD, 202-564-4234. 

continued on page 7
cleanupnews 7

ment also enhances environmental

protection by giving notice to

arrangers for tire disposal that there is

potential liability for tire fires and that

they should take precautions to ensure

that the tires are disposed of at responsible and secure facilities. 

For more information, contact

Kathleen Wright, Region 4 Assistant

Regional Counsel, 404-562-9574.

Eighth Circuit Affirms

District Court’s Award

of Oversight Costs,

Indirect Costs and

Attorney’s Fees

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

has held that the district court did not

err in granting summary judgment to

the United States, awarding it over $4

million in cleanup costs in connection

with the Des Moines TCE site. (United

States v. Dico, Inc., 2001 WL 1094944

(2001))

The defendant, Dico, Inc., argued

that the definitions found in CERCLA

do not permit the recovery of indirect

and oversight costs. Dico relied on the

Third Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Rohm

& Haas (2 F.3d 1265 (1993) which held

that the government is not entitled to

recover oversight costs in the context

of a removal action. The Court disagreed and declined to accept the “narrow approach” adopted by the Third

Circuit. Rather, the Court was persuaded by the Tenth Circuit which

found that Rohm & Haas “departed significantly from prior case law that had

construed the cost recovery provisions

of CERCLA broadly.” Putting aside the

Rohm & Haas decision, the Court

looked at the broad definition of “remedial action” and concluded that oversight activities are included in the definition and, therefore, are a recoverable

cost under Section 107(a) of the statute. 

Dico also argued that CERCLA

does not authorize the recovery of the

government attorney’s fees and even if

it did, the government bears the burden of proving that its attorney fees

are reasonable. The Court rejected

both arguments, finding that the

terms “response,” “removal,” and

“remedial action” all include the language “enforcement activities related

thereto” that allows for the recovery of

attorney’s fees. In addition, the Court

noted that the language of CERCLA

creates a conclusive presumption that

all costs incurred by the government

that are not inconsistent with the

National Contingency Plan (NCP) are

reasonable costs. Therefore, the

Court concluded that Dico bears the

burden of proving that the government’s costs – attorney’s fees or otherwise – are inconsistent with the NCP. 

Although the Court found “attractive” the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

U.S. v. Chapman (146 F.3d 1166

(1998), holding that the United States

is only entitled to “reasonable” attorney’s fees), the Court rejected that

court’s analysis, noting that all CERCLA requires is that response costs

not be inconsistent with the NCP. 

For more information, contact

David Dowton, EPA, 202-564-4228.

Triad Approach

continued from page 4

In the Courts

continued from page 6

reduces confusion (and confusing,

unnecessary data), and decreases

the need for multiple sampling

events.

The results, which TIO is now documenting in case studies, show faster,

cheaper, yet still protective resolution

of contaminated sites. If used correctly,

innovative rapid-turnaround field analytical and software tools coupled with

on-site decisionmaking can significantly condense a project’s overall

budget and lifetime, while increasing

the likelihood that the gathered data

will guide transparent, scientifically

defensible decisions.

EPA, along with a number of other

federal agencies and state organizations, is accelerating the development of policies and information

resources to support site decisionmakers as they shift to newer,

streamlined approaches. An array of

educational, training, and guidance

resources already exists and additional ones are under development.

Access to these resources is provided through TIO’s Internet site at

http://clu-in.org web site (under

“Site Characterization and Monitoring”). The “Perspectives” area of this

section includes a number of papers

and resources more fully describing

the concepts covered briefly above.

The Superfund program is now

developing guidance in this area as

well (go to http://www.epa.gov/

superfund/programs/dfa).

Updating hazardous waste site

practices to accommodate these new

tools and strategies has broad ramifications for both practice and policy.

Revising institutional and regulatory

barriers will take time and effort.

Nevertheless, the benefits offered by

“smarter strategies” make the effort

worthwhile.
deadlines

CleanupNews is a quarterly publication of EPA’s

Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, in cooperation with the Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, Office of Underground Storage Tanks,

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention

Office, and the Technology Innovation Office.

Rick Popino, Ph.D., editor

EPA Review Board: Rick Popino, Paul Connor,

Karen Ellenberger, Ken Patterson, Helen

DuTeau, Jeff Heimerman, Carole Macko

Cameron

Gilah Langner, writer

Robin Foster, SciComm Inc., designer

To comment on the newsletter, contact Rick Popino at MC-2271A, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street

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

For mailing list inquiries, contact Debra Kemp, SciComm Inc., 7735 Old Georgetown Rd,

5th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814, fax: 301-652-7001, e-mail: dkemp@scicomm.com.

cleanupnews www.epa.gov/oeca/osre

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

(2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use 

$300

FIRST CLASS

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

CEPPO Chemical Emergency Preparedness

and Prevention Office

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (Superfund law) 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community

Right-To-Know Act 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Administration

MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether

NCP National Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List (Superfund) 

OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response (EPA)

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

PPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement

PRP Potentially Responsible Party 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (hazardous waste) 

RSD Regional Support Division (OSRE/EPA)

SREA Superfund Recycling Equity Act 

TCE Trichloroethylene

UST Underground Storage Tank

Glossary

Let CleanupNews Come

to You on E-MAIL!

CleanupNews has been gradually shifting to an electronic format. Now CleanupNews is being made available on e-mail to all EPA recipients and others on our

e-mail list. To get CleanupNews via e-mail, please

send your name and e-mail address to Debra Kemp at

dkemp@scicomm.com or fax to 301-652-7001.

CleanupNews is also available on the Web at www.

epa.gov/oeca/osre.

November 15, 2001

Applications for FY 2002 Brownfields

Cleanup and Revolving Loan Fund

Pilots. 

Download guidelines from www.epa.gov/

swerosps/bf/applicat.htm#guide.

November 19, 2001

Applications for USTfields Pilots. 

$4 million available for up to 40 projects to

clean up properties with petroleum contamination from leaking USTs. Go to www.epa.

gov/oust/ustfield/index.htm#pilots.