I

n a settlement filed in January 2000,

Koch Industries will pay the larg e s t

civil fine ever imposed on a company

under a federal environmental law to resolve claims related to

m o re than 300 oil

spills from its

pipelines and oil facilities in six states.

Koch, the secondl a rgest privately held

company in the

United States, will pay

a $30 million civil

p e n a l t y, improve its

l e a k - p revention programs, and spend $5 million on enviro nmental projects. 

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement (2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Spring 2000

EPA 300-N-00-006

Issue #4

inside

Short Takes 3

Facilitation Comes 4

to Brownfields; 

San Diego’s Barrio

Logan 4

In the Courts: 6

Occidental

Broderick

Carlie Lee

Nansemond

Technology Insights: 8

In-Situ Thermal 

Stripping

TAG Program Revised 10

On the Web 11

Calendar 12

Printed on recycled paper

c l e a n u pn e w s

“[The] landmark fine against Koch Industries for egregious violations of the

Clean Water Act sends a strong message

that those who try to pro fit from polluting

our environment will pay the price,” said

E PA Administrator Carol M. Bro w n e r. 

The settlement filed in U.S. District

C o u rt in Houston resolves two lawsuits

that charge that Koch illegally discharg e d

c rude oil and petroleum products in

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri,

Louisiana and Alabama. The State of

Texas joined the United States in suing

and the $30 million penalty will be divided

equally between Texas and the federal

g o v e rnment. 

H e a d q u a rt e red in Wichita, KS, Koch

Koch Industries to Pay 

R e c o rd Civil Fine

Cleanup News is an occasional newsletter highlighting 

h a z a rdous waste cleanup

cases, policies, settlements,

and technologies. 

continued on page 2

“ We will not 

let you foul 

our water and

spoil our land

by breaking 

the law.” 

— A t t o rney General 

Janet Reno

New Amendment 

Exempts Recyclers from 

S u p e rfund Liability 

O

n November 29, 1999, Pre s i d e n t

Clinton signed into law the Superfund Recycling Equity Act which

exempts certain “generators” and “transp o rters” who recycle materials in accordance with this law from liability under

CERCLA. The statute was passed as part of

the Omnibus Appropriations bill and is the

only Superfund amendment enacted in the

first session of the 106th Congre s s .

The Superfund Recycling Equity Act

(SREA) has its roots in legislation intro d u c e d

back in the 103rd Congress and support e d

by this Administration. SREA exempts generators and transporters who “arranged for

recycling of recyclable materials,” from the

generator and transporter liability sections of

CERCLA. The new statute outlines the criteria necessary for exemption.

continued on page 2
2 Cleanup News

SREA defines recyclable materials

a s :

• scrap paper

• scrap plastic

• scrap glass

• scrap textiles

• scrap rubber (other than whole

t i re s )

• scrap metal 

• spent lead-acid, spent nickelcadmium, and other spent 

b a t t e r i e s .

This definition does n o t include: 

(1) shipping containers with a capacity

f rom 30 liters to 3,000 liters that contain

or have hazardous substances adhering

to them; or (2) any item that contained

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in excess of 50 parts per million. 

Industries owns and operates extensive underground and above ground

pipelines that transport crude oil and

related products in the Midwest.

Most of the spills at issue in the settlement occurred in Oklahoma,

Texas, and Kansas. In one case, almost 100,000 gallons of oil was

spilled in Texas and caused a 12-mile

oil slick on Nueces Bay and Corpus

Christi Bay.

Complaints filed in 1995 and 1997

alleged that Koch unlawfully allowed

some 3 million gallons of crude oil and

related products to leak from its

pipelines into ponds, lakes, rivers and

s t reams, or onto adjacent shore l i n e s ,

f rom 1990 to 1997. Most of the spills

w e re caused by corrosion of pipelines

in rural areas. The governments allege that Koch could have pre v e n t e d

the corrosion by proper operation and

maintenance. 

Under the settlement, Koch must

assess the condition of 2,500 miles of

pipeline that it currently operates and

repair any defects. The settlement also

re q u i res Koch to implement an imp roved leak-prevention and detection

p rogram, a maintenance and inspection program, and a training pro g r a m

aimed at preventing leaks from the

c o m p a n y ’s pipelines. The company

also must hire an independent auditor

to audit Koch annually for at least thre e

years and re p o rt to the federal government and Texas on whether the company is meeting the re q u i rements of

the settlement and applicable laws. 

In addition to changing its operations, Koch also must spend a total of

Koch Industries 

continued from page 1

$5 million on environmental pro j e c t s

in the states most affected by its illegal

d i s c h a rges. 

“This re c o rd civil penalty sends a

clear message to those who transport

h a z a rdous materials: You cannot endanger public health or the enviro nment,” said Attorney General Janet

Reno. “We will not let you foul our

water and spoil our land by bre a k i n g

the law.” 

Oil spills can pose a serious thre a t

to human health and the enviro n m e n t .

One pint of oil released into the water

can spread and cover an entire acre of

water surface area and can seriously

damage an aquatic habitat. It can take

years for an ecosystem to re c o v e r

f rom damage caused by an oil spill. 

For more information, contact the

O ffice of Regulatory Enforc e m e n t ,

(202) 564-2220.

Recyclers 

continued from page 1

Transactions that involve the above

recyclable materials are considere d

“ a rranging for recycling” if the

a rranger can show that all of the following criteria were met at the time of

the transaction:

• the recyclable material met a comm e rcial specification grade

• a market for the recyclable material existed

• a substantial portion of the re c yclable material was made available

for use as feedstock in the manuf a c t u re of a saleable pro d u c t

• recyclable material could have

been a replacement or substitute

for a virgin raw material

• for transactions occurring 90 days

or more after the enactment of this

statute, the person took re a s o n a b l e

c a re to determine that the consuming facility was in compliance with

federal, state, or local enviro n m e ntal laws or regulations associated

with the recyclable material.

Additional criteria must be met for

scrap metal and spent batteries.

A generator or transporter is not

exempt from CERCLA liability if any of

the following was tru e :

• The person reasonably believed

that at the time of the re c y c l i n g

transaction that the recyclable material would not be recycled, would

be burned as a fuel or incinerated,

or that the consuming facility was

not in compliance with re l e v a n t

federal, state or local enviro n m e ntal laws or re g u l a t i o n s .

• The person had reason to believe

that hazardous substances had

been added to the recyclable material for purposes other than processing for re c y c l i n g .

continued on page 3
Cleanup News 3

T h i rd - P a rty Audits Eyed

As Compliance Booster

A

pilot project aimed at evaluating

market forces to encourage

t h i rd parties, such as insurance

companies, to offer small businesses fre e

compliance audits is expected to boost

compliance under the Clean Air Act’s

chemical accident prevention pro g r a m

and lower costs for small businesses.

The third - p a rty audit project is being

conducted under a cooperative agre ement between EPA and the Whart o n

School of Business of the University of

Pennsylvania. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the EPA Region

3 office in Philadelphia, also are part i c ipating in the pro j e c t .

Under Section 112(r) of the Clean

Air Act, facilities that manufacture d ,

used, or stored more than thre s h o l d

amounts of 130 hazardous chemicals

w e re re q u i red to file Risk Management

Plans (RMPs) with EPA by June 21,

1999, describing their safety and accident prevention pro c e d u res. Nearly

15,000 facilities filed RMP re p o rts by

the deadline.

The goal of the third - p a rty audit program is to develop a model that would

be recognized as an alternative to inspections conducted by federal re g u l ators. EPA can delegate enforcement authority to states that have been given

the go-ahead to implement the RMP

p rogram, but in these early years, the

major responsibility for compliance assurance remains with EPA regional offices. Independent audits are viewed as

a way to relieve EPA regional offic e s

f rom compliance assurance pro b l e m s

that could arise due to a lack of res o u rc e s .

To date, eight individuals with backg rounds in law and engineering have

audited several facilities in Delaware to

e n s u re that on-site chemicals are managed safely. All of the audited facilities

w e re re q u i red to re p o rt inform a t i o n

under the federal Risk Management

P rogram and similar Delaware laws. A

D e l a w a re Dept. of Natural Resourc e s

and Environmental Control audit team

also conducted separate safety and risk

management audits at the sites. The

two sets of audits will be compared to

evaluate the adequacy and thoro u g hness of the third - p a rty auditors.

Results of the pilot project will be

s h a red with insurance companies,

trade associations, public intere s t

g roups and re g u l a t o ry agencies at a

June roundtable discussion. For more

i n f o rmation, contact the Chemical

E m e rgency Pre p a redness and Pre v e ntion Office, (202) 260-8600.

• The person failed to exercise re asonable care with respect to the

management and handling of the recyclable material, such as following

c u s t o m a ry industry practices at the

time of the recycling transaction.

For more information on the amendment, contact OSRE’s Regional Support

Division, (202) 564-4200.

Recyclers 

continued from page 2

S u rvey Finds 

P PAs Enhancing 

R e d e v e l o p m e n t

An EPA survey of 85 prospective purchaser agreements (PPAs) negotiated

between 1989 and 1998 found numerous benefits to the agreements. A PPA

is a formal legal agreement thro u g h

which EPA agrees not to sue the purchaser for the pro p e rt y ’s pre - e x i s t i n g

e n v i ronmental condition in exchange

for the purc h a s e r ’s commitment to und e rtake or fund some cleanup work,

E PA promises not to sue the purc h a s e r

for existing contamination at the pro pe rty at the time of purc h a s e .

The interim survey results show that

P PAs were instrumental in bringing

about redevelopment at nearly thre e -

q u a rters of the pro p e rties. The PPA s

c o v e red pro p e rty ranging in size fro m

less than an acre to over 50 acres. About

t w o - t h i rds of the PPAs covered parcels of

land contained within larger sites, meaning that PPAs are a useful tool for encouraging the cleanup and reuse of pro pe rty without necessitating cleanup of the

e n t i re site first. Nearly half the pro p e rties were former manufacturing facilities,

and another 18 percent were retail or office space. Private party respondents appear satisfied with the results of PPAs; 71

p e rcent re p o rted that the PPA had a positive impact on the economic viability of

their redevelopment project. Benefits to

the public resulting from the 85 PPAs include economic redevelopment (at 63

p e rcent of the sites), job creation (61%),

i n c reased tax base (60%), infrastru c t u re

development (19%), and restoration of

g reen space (15%).

As an example, a PPA for the Publicker Industries site in Philadelphia

helped transform one of the worst haza rdous waste sites in the Mid-Atlantic

region into a $250 million multi- purpose shipping terminal. Benefits of

the project include 350 permanent fulltime jobs with $10.4 million in total annual income, and hundreds of thousands in annual tax re v e n u e s .

For a copy of the survey (“EPA’s

P rospective Purchaser Agre e m e n t s :

How Effective Are They?” EPA 330-R99-001, December 2, 1999), contact

O S R E ’s Policy and Program Evaluation Division, (202) 564-5100.
4 Cleanup News

cation guided by a neutral pro f e s s i o n a l .

In addition to mediating conflicts, facilitators can identify stakeholders and issues, clarify roles and re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,

guide parties to a common understanding, and build a partnership

among groups with diverse intere s t s .

C u rre n t l y, EPA is funding facilitation activities at nine pilot bro w n fie l d

p rojects. Each project receives 120

hours of facilitation time. The nine pilots are at New Bedford, MA; San

Diego, CA; Ogden, UT; Hudson

C o u n t y, NJ; Portland, OR; Shenandoah, VA; Milwaukee, WI; Comanche

Nation, OK; Puyallup Tribe, WA. The

e ff o rt started as an attempt to help

several bro w n field pilots that had

“stalled out” (see accompanying art icle on San Diego’s Barrio Logan). 

W h a t ’s next? According to Lee

S c h a rf, ADR program coordinator in

E PA’s Office of Site Remediation Enf o rcement, “the idea is to get facilitation into our standard operating pro c ed u res on bro w n fields, as an option in

each cooperative agreement, with

grant monies to fund it. The idea of

spending time and re s o u rces up fro n t

to solicit public input is very powerf u l .

T h e re are up to half a million bro w nfield sites around the country. I look at

them as laboratories: this is where people can have a say — in land use and

remedy selection.” 

For more information, contact

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

A

s bro w n field re d e v e l o p m e n t

p roceeds in hundreds of communities around the nation,

various stakeholders must come together — residents, community

g roups, developers, businesses, city

and state agencies, enviro n m e n t a l i s t s

— either as partners or as parties to a

negotiation. What to do when negotiations slow to a crawl or come crashing

to a halt? And what to do when the supposed partners in a bro w n field pro j e c t

fail to build a working relationship to

get the project off the ground? 

E PA is taking a leaf from the world

of alternative dispute resolution by

using facilitation to bridge these pro blems. Facilitation is a voluntary, informal, and flexible process of communiFacilitation Comes to Brownfields

I

n San Diego, a bro w n fields pro j e c t

is helping the city revitalize the

p redominantly Hispanic community of Barrio Logan, located south of

downtown San Diego. The neighborhood has a population of about

110,000, 85 percent of whom are of

Hispanic/Latino origin, and one quarter of whom speak only Spanish. The

unemployment rate in 1997 was 15.2

p e rcent, compared to a city-wide rate

of 5.3 percent. 

The bro w n fields project offers the

City of San Diego the opportunity to

eliminate a long-standing problem of incompatible land uses in Barrio Logan.

The neighborhood sits on the edge of a

major industrial area and contains re s idences and retail stores interspersed

with smaller heavy industries — chemical storage facilities, metal plating shops

— that have the potential for releases of

h a z a rdous material. 

Round One

In 1997, the Environmental Health

Coalition (EHC), a local enviro n m e n t a l

justice group approached the City of

San Diego and a nonpro fit aff o rd a b l e

housing organization; together these

p a rtners applied for and received an

E PA grant aimed at “emerging bro w nfields.” The idea was that instead of letting a business be run into the gro u n d

and then abandoned along with leftover environmental contamination, the

community would provide incentives

and money for the company to re l o c a t e

to a more suitable, less residential location. In 1994, the City of San Diego

had identified six chrome plating

shops and chemical storage facilities

for relocation to approriate industrial

a reas due to their proximity to re s idences. At the top of the list was “Master Plating,” a small metal plating shop

located in between three houses. Master Plating had also received several

Notices of Violation and had been the

subject of criminal enforcement action. 

Although on paper Master Plating

seemed like the best choice, over the

next year the partners’ eff o rts ran into

a series of roadblocks. First and foremost, the concept of emerging bro w nfields assumes that the facility in question is economically marginal and that

the facility owner has an incentive to

sell and/or relocate. Master Plating,

h o w e v e r, was a tenant business paying

a sizable rent which the pro p e rt y

Case Study in Facilitation: 

San Diego’s Barrio Logan 

Emerging Brownfields Site
Cleanup News 5

owner did not wish to lose. Initially,

the partners received an opinion that

the city could use its powers of eminent domain to effect a real estate

transaction; subsequently, however, a

newly asssigned city attorney decided

this was not the case. 

In early 1999, when facilitator Lewis

Michaelson was brought on board by

E PA, the local partners in the pro j e c t

w e re “spinning their wheels.” One of

the first difficulties Michaelson enc o u n t e red was the absence of any sort

of critical path to help the partners understand where they needed to make

essential “go/no-go” decisions. Another problem was the failure of the

g roups to coalesce into a genuine working partnership. Michaelson start e d

with the basics — taking meeting

notes, tracking action items, insisting

on follow-through and accountability.

Soon the partnership began to gel as a

team, and with some prodding by EPA ,

city managers began to accord the project priority attention. 

By May 1999, however, the situation had reached an impasse. The city

had authorized front-loading of its

community development block grant

funds so that the city could make the

p ro p e rty owner a conditional off e r.

With the offer in hand, the owner

granted the partners access to the site

to assess how much it would cost to

clean it up. Meanwhile, the owner

claimed he had engaged real estate

b rokers to look around for other possible locations. He also claimed that a

similar parcel would cost twice as

much money as the city had determined was fair market value. The

owner then rejected the off e r, and the

p roject was back at square one.

Round Tw o

With Master Plating out of the picture ,

the partners needed to step back and

rethink their objectives. Michaelson recalls that it was a “tough lesson to

l e a rn” but that the group understood

t h e re was no point proceeding with an

a p p roach that was no longer viable.

Under a new manager from the city, Ingrid Johnson, the partnership became

newly invigorated. During this period,

says Michaelson, “facilitation helped

maintain a strategic focus on what the

p a rtners were doing and kept it at the

top of their list.” Facilitation also helped

give each of the partners a perspective

on the motivations and interests of the

other partners, and thereby helped

align the somewhat disparate intere s t s

of the groups involved. 

As part of the re g rouping, the partners went back to their original objective — to eliminate incompatible land

uses that posed health and safety

t h reats to residents of Barrio Logan.

The partners decided that instead of

doing detailed investigations of specific

sites, they should undertake a bro a d e r,

a rea-wide investigation to identify all incompatible land uses. The partners also

realized that the real problem was the

size of the “redevelopment area” that

had been designated by the city. Those

boundaries, drawn up years earlier, included only a small portion of the are a

in Barrio Logan that needed attention.

Over the next few months, the pro j e c t

obtained an agreement in principle with

the San Diego Unified Port District to

fund the necessary environmental impact re p o rt which would permit consideration of an expanded re d e v e l o p m e n t

a rea. In late January 2000, City Councilman Juan Va rgas committed to fund the

remaining shortfall needed for the expansion process. 

Lewis Michaelson believes that despite the numerous setbacks, most of

which were not foreseeable and not

a n y o n e ’s fault, the project is back on

course. “The bell rings and the part n e r s

keep coming back, round after ro u n d , ”

he said. “But if it hadn’t been for the

commitment and drive of Diane Ta k v orian of EHC, of Bobbie Kahan at EPA ,

and of Ingrid Johnson and Juan Va rg a s

f rom the City, this project would have

died several times along the way.” 

For more information on Barr i o

Logan, contact Bobbie Kahan, EPA

P roject Manager, (415) 744-2191, or facilitator Lewis Michaelson, (858) 259-

5666 x23. 

Facilitation helped 

maintain a strategic

focus on what the 

p a rtners were doing 

and kept it at the top 

of their list.

B a rrio Logan
6 Cleanup News

T h i rd Circuit Reverses

District Court and 

Upholds EPA Authority

in Occidental Case 

O

n December 28, 1999, the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit reversed a

district court ’s dismissal of the governm e n t ’s complaint against Occidental

Chemical Corporation. The government asked the court to enforce a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) requiring Occidental to participate in the

Superfund cleanup at the Centre

County Kepone Site in State College,

Pennsylvania. The complaint also

sought penalties under CERCLA section 106(b), reimbursement of unrec o v e red past costs, and a declaratory

judgement for future costs. 

The cleanup of the site had alre a d y

been the subject of a consent decre e

between the government and Ruetgers-Nease Corporation. 

On June 26, 1998, Occidental filed a

motion to dismiss the govern m e n t ’s

complaint for lack of jurisdiction and

because the government had alre a d y

obtained “complete relief” from Ruetgers under the earlier consent decre e ,

and there f o re the UAO was not “nece s s a ry” to protect the public health

and welfare and the environment. The

g o v e rnment countered that it could

bring an action against any person not

p a rty to an agreement and because

Occidental was not a party to the earlier consent decree, the govern m e n t

could seek to enforce the UAO. 

In dismissing the govern m e n t ’s

complaint, the district court re a s o n e d

that the government had re c e i v e d

complete relief despite the fact that the

cleanup had not been completed and

t h e re remained unreimbursed past

costs. The district court held that EPA

was seeking a double re c o v e ry since

E PA had already obtained complete relief from its settlement with Ruetgers. 

The Court of Appeals disagre e d ,

holding that “by issuing administrative

o rders to non-settling PRPs under §106,

E PA fulfills CERCLA’s objectives of promoting fairness at multi-party sites, and

accelerating the statute’s ultimate goal

— site cleanup.” The court also agre e d

with the govern m e n t ’s “reasonable understanding” of the statute and went on

to point out that Section 122 of CERCLA provides express authority for the

actions EPA took against Occidental,

and that Section 122’s principal purpose

is to ensure that EPA’s authority to

issue administrative orders and enforc e

them is pre s e rv e d .

The appellate court also stated that

“the question of whether an order may

be necessary to protect public health,

w e l f a re, and the environment goes to

the status of the contamination at the

site, not to who is, or who is not, obligated to address it.” There f o re, the district court ’s finding that EPA’s order was

not “necessary” because of its earlier

settlement with Ruetgers was in erro r.

The Third Circ u i t ’s opinion re m a n d s

the matter to the district court for further pro c e e d i n g s .

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

(202) 564-4200. [United States v. Occidental Corp., 200 F.3d 143, 1999 WL

1268110 (3rd Cir. 12/28/99)]

Tenth Circuit Upholds

E PA’s Remedy 

Decision at Bro d e r i c k

S u p e rfund Site 

On December 21, 1999, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and concluded that EPA’s remediation decision

to use a cancer risk level of 1 x 10- 5 a t

the site was not arbitrary and capricious. It also held that EPA’s decision to

not amend the Record of Decision

(ROD) for certain minor deviations in

the remedy was not arbitrary and

capricious. Where the remedy was alt e red fundamentally with respect to

scope and cost, however, the appellate

c o u rt held that EPA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, but emphasized

that, in order to prove damages, the defendant had to show that EPA’s actions

“ resulted in demonstrable excess costs

that would not have otherwise been inc u rred.” In addition, the appellate court

held that district court properly reduced the judgment against Burlington

N o rt h e rn (BN) based on a geographic

a p p o rtionment of a prior settlement

with other defendants and held BN liable for remediation costs incurred bef o re EPA notified BN of its potential liability at the Site. 

“... the question of whether an order may be 

n e c e s s a ry to protect public health, welfare, 

and the environment goes to the status of 

the contamination at the site, not to who is, 

or who is not, obligated to address it.” 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in United States v. Occidental Corp.
Cleanup News 7

F rom 1947 to 1981, the Bro d e r i c k

Wood Products Company and its succ e s s o r, Broderick Investment Company (BIC) operated a wood tre a t m e n t

facility on a 64-acre parcel of land

n o rthwest of Denver. The companies

disposed of process waste on the

n o rthwest portion of the site, using

two unlined impoundments. The site

was placed on the National Priorities

List in 1984 and a cost-re c o v e ry case

was initiated in 1986. 

A Record of Decision was issued in

1988 for one of the operable units and

subsequently amended in 1991. In the

amendment, EPA changed the initial

remedial plan so that the impoundment

sludge would be remedied through off -

site reclamation rather than on-site incineration. EPA revised the plan because incineration costs had incre a s e d

substantially and equally protective alt e rnatives (off-site reclamation) were

available. However, in the course of implementing the new re m e d y, the gove rn m e n t ’s contractor, Allied-Signal, enc o u n t e red a number of unanticipated

d i fficulties that raised the cost of the

remedy by over $1 million. 

E PA’s 1991 risk assessment for the

site evaluated each current and hypothetical future use of the site against

t h ree potential cancer risk levels: 1 x

1 0- 4 (a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting

cancer after remediation); 1 x 10- 5 (a 1

in 100,000 chance of getting cancer

after remediation); and 1 x 10- 6 (a 1 in

one million chance of getting cancer

after remediation). However, in selecting a risk goal, EPA considered the

s t a rting point risk level, 1 x 10- 6, as ina p p ropriate in light of the continuing

industrial and commercial land uses in

the vicinity of the site. The 1 x 10- 5 l e v e l

of cancer risk was selected as a more

a p p ropriate remediation goal and is

consistent with EPA’s Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan.

In 1992, EPA added Burlington

the filing of the draft final OSC re p o rt

should be ignored for statute of limitations purposes, and denied summary

judgment based on those gro u n d s .

Defendants based their arg u m e n t ,

in part, on CERCLIS information available on EPA’s web page which showed

the date of “actual completion” for the

Carlie Lee site removal as September

15, 1994. Citing another case, the court

concluded that the defendants in this

case had not shown any detrimental reliance resulting from the inform a t i o n

on the web site, and thus would not fin d

in favor of defendants on that basis.

Defendants also based their arg uments, unsuccessfully, on more re c e n t

case law in which PRPs were successful in finding the govern m e n t ’s action

to be time-barred. (See, for example,

United States v. Ambroid Co., Inc., 34

F.Supp. 2d 86 (D. Mass. 1999).)

The court ’s decision included other

i m p o rtant findings, dismissing defendants’ arguments that the OSC re p o rt

was merely “a bureaucratic exerc i s e ”

and reiterating the liberal interpre t a t i o n

given to the statute of limitations under

CERCLA in favor of the government. 

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

(202) 564-4200.

A rmy and EPA Sign a

Time-Critical Removal

Action at Form e r

Nansemond Ord n a n c e

Depot, Suffolk, VA 

On December 30, 1999, the United

States Army and EPA signed an interagency agreement to perf o rm a timecritical removal action for ordnance and

explosive safety hazards at the form e r

Nansemond Ordnance Depot located in

S u ffolk, Vi rginia. Like other form e r l y

used defense sites, Nansemond was

under the jurisdiction of the Secre t a ry of

N o rt h e rn as a defendant in the lawsuit. Burlington Nort h e rn ’s liability

a rose from Bro d e r i c k ’s use of the

pond impoundment, which belonged

to Chicago, Burlington and Quincy

R a i l road (CBQRR), a predecessor of

Burlington Nort h e rn. In the early

1960s, Broderick used the 17.5 acre s

tract of land for the impoundment and

disposal of treatment wastes without

C B Q R R ’s permission. When CBQRR

d i s c o v e red the disposal, it leased the

land to Broderick as a disposal site for

waste for approximately six years.

E v e n t u a l l y, in 1969, CBQRR quitclaimed the pro p e rty to Broderick. 

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

(202) 564-4200. [United States v.

Burlington Nort h e rn Railroad Co.,

1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 33143 (10th Cir.

1 2 / 2 1 / 9 9 ) ]

Favorable Statute-ofLimitations Ruling 

on Carlie Lee Site, 

A l a b a m a

On January 14, 2000, the United States

District Court, Nort h e rn District of Alabama denied a motion for summary

judgment filed by defendants CSX

Tr a n s p o rtation, Inc., Lucent Te c h n o l ogies, Inc., and Thompson Tr a c t o r, Inc.

in a cost re c o v e ry action brought by

the United States in October, 1998.

Defendants argued that the government had failed to file its cost re c o v e ry

action within three years of completion of the removal action at the site.

Defendants argued that the re m o v a l

action was complete on September 15,

1994 (when replanting of grass on site

was completed), whereas the United

States determined that the removal action was complete on Febru a ry 6, 1995

(when a draft final OSC re p o rt was

submitted to EPA). The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that continued on page 10
8 Cleanup News

James Cummings, EPA Technology and

Innovation Office 

R

ecently developed in-situ thermal remediation technologies

o ffer the potential to address a

variety of contamination pro b l e m s .

These technologies can be deployed

to enhance traditional remediation app roaches, for example, to enhance Soil

Vapor Extraction (SVE). They can also

can be employed to address pro b l e m s

for which solutions are currently lacking, such as free product contamination at depth and/or in the saturated

zone, as well as contamination seq u e s t e red in low permeability strata.

In the second class of problems, thermal remediation technologies off e r

the potential to actually re s t o re

g ro u n d w a t e r, in contrast to the limited

containment goal of most pump and

t reat systems.

The principal alternative to re m e d iating contaminated groundwater has

been pump and treat. Pump and tre a t

only addresses the component of the

contamination which has dissolved in

the aqueous phase. For sites with a

s o u rce term of any magnitude, pump

and treat will be a protracted aff a i r,

with a primary goal of containing

rather than removing the mass of contamination. As an oversimplific a t i o n ,

t h e re has been reluctance to excavate

waste much below 8-10 feet and/or to

attempt to excavate waste below the

water table.

In-situ thermal technologies take

advantage of a number of aspects of

the behavior of chemicals at elevated

t e m p e r a t u res to accomplish contaminant re c o v e ry or in-situ destru c t i o n .

These include: 

• i n c reased solubility

• d e c reased viscosity

• i n c reased vapor pre s s u re

• steam distillation

• reduced interfacial tension

• in-situ oxidation.

Methods of delivering heat to the subs u rface include steam-enhanced extraction (also known as dynamic und e rg round stripping), electricalresistive heating, electrical-conductive

heating, and radio-frequency heating.

Beyond the general class of sites

with NAPL contamination, the types of

facilities for which these technologies

may be suitable include wood tre a t e r s ,

solvent sites (e.g., involving

t r i c h l o roethylene (TCE)), dry c l e a nSteam Enhanced Extra c t i o n

S o u t h e rn California Edison (SCE), a utility company, d e p l oyed Steam

Enhanced Extraction (SEE) at the V i s a l i a , CA Pole Ya rd NPL site. SCE had

been conducting pump and treat at the site for 20 years and had been

re c overing approximately 10 pounds per week. In the first six weeks of

steam opera t i o n , SCE re c ov e red 100,000 pounds of contamination. To

d a t e, SCE has re c ov e red over 1 million pounds of creosote and pent a chlorophenol. Based on radio-labelled carbon studies, SCE estimates

that 15-20% of the contamination was destroyed in-situ by the process

of hydrous pyrolysis oxidation (HPO).

SCE has spent approximately $20M to date. With more than 1 million

pounds re c ov e re d ,S C E ’s costs come out to approximately $20/pound. SCE

estimates that pump and treat was costing $4500/pound.

In August 1999, SCE and the developers of the SEE technology received an awa rd from EPA Region 9, the California Department of To x i c

Substances Control, and EPA’s Te chnology Innovation Office for their efforts to remediate a site with significantly impacted gr o u n d wa t e r.

Electrical Resistive Heating

DOE conducted a demonstration project at its Savannah 

River facility to evaluate six-phase electrical resistive heating (SPH).

SPH heats the subsuface to approximately 100° C and then recovers contaminants in centrally located wells. Over the course of the

demonstration, solvent contaminant concentrations were reduced

by 98% from low permeability clay strata. Since that demonstration,

Current Environmental Solutions, a licensee of the DOE-developed

technology, has deployed the technology at a variety of sites. 

SPH was used at a site in Skokie, Ill., to address TCE hot spots

located 12-14 feet below ground, sitting atop an aquitard in saturated conditions. Cleanup objectives were to meet the state Tier III

industrial use standards. The client was sufficiently pleased with

the performance that the vendor was instructed to continue heating

in an effort to achieve the more stringent ‘tier I’ standards. Although

tier I standards were not achieved site-wide, by the termination of

the project the standards were met at the majority of the monitoring wells. Approximately 15,000 pounds of TCE were recovered.

SPH was subsequently deployed at a drycleaning site in Seattle

involving “ p e rc ” ( t e t ra ch l o r o e t hylene). SPH heating ach i e v e d

cleanup levels that met federal standards in less than two months

of heating. Application of the technology was accomplished with no

disruption of ongoing commercial activity at the strip mall where

the drycleaner was located.

In-Situ Thermal Technologies: Case Studies

In-Situ Thermal Remediation Te c h n o l o g i e s
Cleanup News 9

ers, and manufactured gas plants. (See

box for examples.)

In-situ thermal technologies off e r

the potential to enhance existing remedial approaches and to address currently intractable DNAPL contamination problems. There is reason to hope

that we are on the verge of re v a m p i n g

our understanding of “technical imp r a c t i c a b i l i t y.” In the next few years

we expect to see continued impro v ement in perf o rmance and reduction in

cost as the vendors of these technologies gain additional experience. 

New 

P u b l i c a t i o n s

Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup,

Second Edition ( E PA 542-B-99-009).

The new edition has been expanded

s i g n i ficantly to include new and updated re s o u rces and is accompanied

by the Tool Kit of Information Res o u rces for Bro w n fields Investigation

and Cleanup. The Road Map and To o l

Kit link technology options to the

steps involved in the characterization

and cleanup of a bro w n fields site. [November 1999, 96 pages]. View or

download at http://clu-in.org / t e c hpubs.htm. Hard copies are available by

calling (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-

8190 or faxing a request to (513) 489-

8 6 9 5 .

Cost and Performance Reports. T h e

DOD Environmental Security Te c hnology Cert i fication Program has recent posted six new remediation technology cost and perf o rmance re p o rt s .

All the new re p o rts can be viewed or

downloaded from http://www. e s t c p .

o rg/technical_documents.htm. The

s p e c i fic re p o rts are :

• Assessment of the Remote Minefield Detection System (REMIDS) 

• Joint Small Arms Range Remediation 

• Multi-Sensor Towed Array Detection System (MTADS) 

• P e rmeable Reactive Wall Remediation of Chlorinated Hydro c a r b o n s

in Groundwater 

• POL Sensor Validation of SCAPS 

• The Use of Constructed We t l a n d s

to Phytoremediate ExplosivesC o n t a m i n a t e d

• G roundwater at the Milan Arm y

Ammunition Plant, Milan, Te nn e s s e e

Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities ( E PA

542-B-99-005). This dire c t o ry lists EPA

o ffices, nongovernment org a n i z a t i o n s

funded by EPA, and other federal

agencies that may be able to assist in

the selection of technologies to characterize and clean up bro w n fie l d s

p ro p e rties. Also includes listings of

relevant documents and Web sites

[November 1999, 28 pages]. View or

download at http://clu-in.org / t e c hpubs.htm. For hard copies, contact

(800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or fax

a request to (513) 489-8695.

Phytoremediation, Anyone? P h y t o remediation means using plants to take

up pollutants in gro u n d w a t e r. The

most often used plant is poplar or softwood trees which collect pollutants

into the tree when they uptake water

for the natural lifecycle of the tre e .

Two new re s o u rces on phytore m e d i ation are available: 

• P h y t o remediation Decision Tre e .

P roduced by the Interstate Te c hnology Regulatory Cooperation

(ITRC) workgroup, this document

can help you decide if phytore m e d iation would be effective at a given

site. Separate decision trees are

p rovided for three types of contaminated media (soil, gro u n d w a t e r,

and sediments). [November 1999,

36 pages]. View or download at

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

• Guidelines for Successful Phytorem e d i a t i o n . This guidance pro v i d e s

i n f o rmation that will improve the

chances for success when applying phytoremediation technology

to real world sites. The re p o rt was

p re p a red by CH2M Hill for the

Center for Waste Reduction Te c hnologies (CWRT), a non-pro fit

a rm of the American Institute of

Chemical Engineers (AIChE).

Several aspects of phytore m e d i ation are covered, including evaluation of phytoremediation as a site

s t r a t e g y, detailed literature reviews on phytoremediation by

contaminant groups, modeling

p h y t o remediation systems, and

extensive information on maintenance issues [August 1999, 200

pages]. More information is

posted on the CWRT website at

w w w. a i c h e . o rg / c w rt . The re p o rt

is available on CD-ROM at cost

(ISBN No: 0-8169-0806-0, Item No:

Pub C-11). Contact AIChE at 1-

800-242-4363 or (212) 591-7338.

Technology Status Review: In-Situ

Oxidation. Published by the DoD Env i ronmental Security Technology Cert i fication Program, this re p o rt attempts to capture the state of the art

for this very promising technology,

c u rrently in a state of rapid development. The re p o rt also indicates the

types of information needed to continue the evolution of in-situ oxidation

and to successfully implement the

t e c h n o l o g y. The review of past projects is intended to help site managers

understand the conditions under

which ISO should be used and set recontinued on page 10
10 Cleanup News

S

i m p l i fied application pro c ed u res, no cap on administrative expenses, more fle x i b i l i t y

in determining the length of time over

which funds can be expended, and access to advance payment are all feat u res of the proposal to revise the Sup e rfund Technical Assistance Grant

( TAG) Program. The intent of the

changes is to make grants for technical assistance more readily available

to local community groups and to promote effective public participation in

the Superfund cleanup process. EPA

p roposed the changes in the Federal

Register last August, and expects to finalize the revisions this spring. 

E PA awards TAGs to eligible combeyond $50,000. Because grants can be

renewed with additional funding, the

average value of a TAG grant is $75,000.

One of the changes re flected in the new

rule makes getting additional funding

easier for recipients. 

Other changes to the program reflect EPA’s practical experience with

the program in recent years as well as

feedback from TAG recipients that the

grants are difficult to apply for and administer once awarded. The new

changes should streamline both administrative and application pro c ed u res and improve the overall fle x i b i lity of the program. For more

i n f o rmation, contact the Office of Solid

Waste, (703) 308-8895.

munity groups affected by sites that

a re final on the National Priorities List

(NPL) or proposed to the NPL with a

response action underw a y. The res o u rces a TAG provides allows communities to pro c u re independent technical advisors to help communities

understand and participate in site decision making. To date, EPA has

a w a rded more than 220 TAGs, wort h

a p p roximately $16 million.

Initial TAG grant awards are for

$50,000, but under certain circ u mstances, TAG recipients can seek additional funding. Complex sites and prudent management of pre v i o u s l y

a w a rded funds are some of the typical

c i rcumstances associated with funding

S u p e rfund Revises TAG Pro g r a m

Defense and owned by, leased to, or othe rwise possessed by the United States at

the time of actions leading to contamination by hazardous substances.

Originally named the Pig Point

O rdnance Depot, Nansemond was acq u i red by the Department of the Arm y

between 1917 and 1929. During its period of operation between 1917 and

1960, Nansemond was used for the ass e m b l y, storage, and destruction of

munitions for the U.S. military. Portions of the site are now owned by the

Vi rginia Department of Community

Colleges, Dominion Lands, Inc., General Electric Company, and the Vi rginia Department of Tr a n s p o rtation. A

p o rtion of the site is also being used

for educational purposes by the Ti d ewater Community College. A 1987

A rmy Corps of Engineers ord n a n c e

s u rvey and investigation of gro u n d w ater contamination indicated the pre sence of explosive waste, including a

slab of crystalline TNT (trinitrotoluene) weighing several tons, at the

s i t e .

The December agreement is nationally significant, first, because the U.S.

A rmy Corps of Engineers may not proceed with work when EPA disagre e s

with the Corps’ work plans; and second,

because the Army agreed to seek an app ropriation to reimburse EPA’s oversight costs incurred at the site in connection with the agreement. In the event

that Congress fails to authorize and app ropriate any funds to pay the oversight

costs in FY2001, the Army is re q u i red to

submit a formal request to DoD for submission to OMB as part of DoD’s

FY2002 budget re q u e s t .

For more information, contact

O S R E ’s Regional Support Division,

(202) 564-4200, or the Region 3 Haza rdous Waste Management Division,

(215) 566-3000.

alistic goals for the technology. [November 1999, 50 pages]. View or

download at www. e s t c p . o rg / t e c h n ic a l _ d o c u m e n t s . h t m .

For up-to-date information on publications, subscribe to TechDirect — a

f ree monthly e-mail service that

brings you capsule summaries of the

latest publications and events re l a t e d

to site assessment and re m e d i a t i o n

technologies. A service of EPA’s Te c hnology Innovation Office, Te c h D i re c t

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

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

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

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

htm. If you have any questions, contact

J e ff Heimerman at (703) 603-7191 or

h e i m e rm a n . j e ff @ e p a . g o v. 

N a n s e m o n d

continued from page 7

Technology Insights

continued from page 9
Cleanup News 11

Cleanup Newswill be gradually moving into an electro n i c

f o rmat. Curre n t l y, we are providing e-mail notification of the

availability of each issue of the newsletter; we will gradually

add online synopses with the hope of decreasing the number of mailed copies. If you are interested in being part of

this transition to an electronic format, please fax us the form

(301-652-7001) at the bottom of this page and be sure to include your e-mail addre s s .

Site Remediation Enforc e m e n t

w w w. e p a . g o v / o e c a / o s re 

F e a t u res include:

• a short explanation of the enforcement of cleanups

under four statutes (CERCLA, RCRA, OPA, and UST)

• links to EPA pages dealing with the cleanup and re g u l at o ry aspects of each statute

• Cleanup News — current issue as well as back issues of

this newsletter

• e l e c t ronic versions of all publicly-available CERCLA enf o rcement policy and guidance documents from 1983 to

the pre s e n t .

B ro w n fields 

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

F e a t u res include guidance and deadlines for grant applications, news and events, and the bro w n fields “Enviro m a pper” which allows you to view spatial data at the national,

state, and county levels, using Geographic Information System technology (such as displaying multiple spatial layers,

zooming, panning, identifying features, and displaying latitude and longitude). (From the home page, click on BF Ta x

Incentive Maps.) 

To receive updates and press releases on bro w n fields activities, join the bro w n fields list serv e r. Go to www. e p a . g o v /

s w e ro s p s / b f / l i s t s e rv.htm for information on how to subs c r i b e .

S u p e rfund Community Advisory Gro u p s

w w w. e p a . g o v / s u p e rf u n d / t o o l s / c a g / i n d e x . h t m

A new web site has opened for Superfund CAGs. What’s a

CAG? It’s an advisory group made up of members of the

community and designed to serve as the focal point for the

exchange of information among the local community and

E PA, the state re g u l a t o ry agency, and other federal agencies involved in cleanup of a Superfund site. Publications, a

map of CAGs by EPA region or state, and contact inform ation are available.

S u p e rfund 

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

The main Superfund web site is

your gateway to detailed site information; re s o u rces such as training,

s o f t w a re, publications, and more ;

p rogram information including the

S u p e rfund redevelopment initiative,

oil spills, and emergency response; Superfund statistics and

h i s t o ry, and links to regional office Superfund web sites.

How to Receive Cleanup News

N a m e :

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

A d d r e s s :

E - M a i l :

To receive a free copy of Cleanup News,

please notify SciComm, I n c. , at rfra n c e @

scicomm.com or 301-652-7001 (fax). If you

would like to be notified by e-mail when

the next issue of Cleanup News is ava i l a b l e

for downloading from the We b, please include your e-mail address. Cleanup News

is available on the Web at www. e p a .

g ov / o e c a / o s re / .

❑ Check here if you do NOT want to receive

future issues of Cleanup News.

On the Web
Cleanup News is a publication of EPA’s Office 

of Site Remediation Enforcement, in cooperat i o n

with the Office of Emergency Response and 

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

Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention

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

Rick Popino,Ph.D., editor

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

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

Helen DuTe a u , Jeff Heimerman, Carole Macko

Gilah Langner, writer

Robin Foster, SciComm Inc.,designer

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

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

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

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

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

April 9-12, 2000

Recent Advances in the 

E n v i ronmental Toxicology and

Health Effects of PCBs

Lexington, KY

Contact Larry W. R o b e r t s o n , t e l : (606) 257-3952, f a x :

(606) 323-1059, e - m a i l : lw r o b e 0 1 @ p o p . u k y. e d u .

April 24, 2000

Notable Achievement Aw a rds 

C e re m o n y

Washington, D.C.

Sponsored by EPA . Contact Ann Eleanor,

7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 7 1 9 9 .

June 4-7, 2000

State Fund Administrators Conf.

Scottsdale, AZ

Sponsored by EPA .C o n t a c t : Peg Rogers,

7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 7 1 6 9 .

August 28 - September 1, 2000

National Community Involvement

C o n f e rence 

San Francisco, CA 

Sponsored by EPA .C o n t a c t : Helen DuTe a u ,

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

A D R A l t e rnative Dispute Resolution

C E P P O Chemical Emerg e n cy 

P re p a redness and Pre v e n t i o n

O f fic e

CERCLA C o m p rehensive Emerg e n cy

R e s p o n s e, C o m p e n s a t i o n ,a n d

Liability Act (Superfund law) 

D o D Department of Defense

I S O I n t e rnational Standards 

O rg a n i z a t i o n

N P L National Priorities List 

(Superfund) 

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

Remedial Reponse (EPA )

O M B O f fice of Management and

B u d g e t

O PA Oil Pollution A c t

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

O S R E O f fice of Site Remediation 

E n f o rcement (EPA) 

P C B P o l y chorinated biphenyls

P R P Potentially Responsible Party 

R C R A R e s o u rce Conservation and

R e c ov e ry Act (hazard o u s

waste) 

R M P Risk Management Plan

U S T U n d e rground Storage Ta n k

A c ro n y m s