Supreme Cour eme Court To Decide o Decide

Contrib Contribution Rights f ution Rights for

Voluntar oluntary Clean y Cleanups

Leavitt Cuts Rib vitt Cuts Ribbon for

New Emergency

Operations Center tions Center

Office of Site Remediation

Enforcement (2271A) EPA 300-N-04-002

Washington, DC 20460

Spring 2004 

Issue #16 

cleanupnews


inside 

Spotlight 3

Contiguous Property Owner

Guidance

Highlights 4

Poudre River Cleanup

O’Brien Redevelopment

OSWER News 5

RCC Annual Report

In the Courts 6

Bunker Hill

Tidbits 7

Service Station Dealers Liability

Calendar 8

Glossary

CleanupNews is a quarterly 

newsletter highlighting hazardous 

waste cleanup cases, policies, 

settlements and technologies. 

Supreme Court To Decide 

Contribution Rights for 

Voluntary Cleanups 

On January 9, 2004, the 

Supreme Court agreed 

to hear to hear the case 

of Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services (also known as Aviall). In 

Aviall, the Supreme Court will 

decide whether a potentially responsible party (PRP) under 

CERCLA Section 107(a) who has 

neither been sued under Section 

106 or 107(a) of CERCLA nor resolved its CERCLA liability 

through an administrative or judicially approved settlement may 

conduct a voluntary CERCLA 

cleanup and then seek contribution from other PRPs under 

CERCLA Section 113(f). 

On February 23, 2004, the United 

States filed an Amicus brief with 

the Supreme Court asserting that 

under CERCLA Section 113(f)(1) a 

prerequisite for PRPs seeking contribution under CERCLA Section 

113(f)(1) is being sued under 

CERCLA Section 106 or 107(a). On 

March 3, 2003, the Supreme Court’s 

calendar of cases scheduled for oral 

arguments in the April 2004 session was made public, and it does 

not include the Aviall case. It is 

anticipated the Court will hold this 

continued on page 6 

Leavitt Cuts Ribbon for 

New Emergency 

Operations Center 

By Bryan Byrd, Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response 

On January 14, 2004, EPA 

Administrator Mike 

Leavitt and Assistant 

Administrators Morris Winn, 

Kim Nelson, and Marianne 

Horinko cut the ceremonial ribbon 

celebrating the opening of EPA’s 

new Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The opening concluded 

a collaborative effort by the Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Environmental Information, and Office of Administration and Resource Management to transform EPA’s EOC into 

one of the most technologically-advanced centers in the nation. 

The EOC’s improved technology 

and capability resulted from “lessons learned” from large national 

events, including the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the 

continued on page 2 

Printed on recycled paper 
Leavitt, continued from page 1 

anthrax response. Experience in these 

events showed the need for EPA to 

strengthen internal communication 

and interaction with other federal 

agencies. The new EOC was designed 

to be used by numerous offices within 

the EPA. 

EPA is involved in a wide range of 

emergencies from almost-daily routine spills of hazardous substances to 

nationally-significant incidents, such 

as the response to the Columbia 

Shuttle recovery mission last year. 

The EOC receives about 30,000 incident notifications a year. Of these, EPA 

responds to 250 hazmat incidents and 

300 oil spill responses. In addition, 

EPA’s role in homeland security, critical infrastructure protection, and preparedness has increased. 

Design and Construction of the 

Center 

“Lessons learned” from recent 

events drove the design of the new 

EOC. One lesson was that during a 

large complex event, additional space 

is needed for multiple organizational 

elements to work with breakout capaWorkstations in the new Emergency Operations Center 

Capabilities/Utilization 

The EOC will be used for all aspects

of emergencies including preparedness

and critical infrastructure protection.

During daily operations, the EOC

handles incident notifications, gathers

intelligence, analyzes the information,

and rapidly shares the information

with appropriate Agency personnel.

EOC staff

is in conin the operations center. The Response Support Corps is made up of 

volunteers from the Offices of Water, 

Air and Radiation, and Public Affairs 

and others who have made it a priority to help in time of an emergency. 

RSC staff will have access to work 

stations fully equipped with the latest technology. They will have the 

ability to communicate with each 

other, the field, and other agencies. 

With video-conferencing ability, 8 x 

20 video wall, 9 screens, and potential to hold responders from offices 

across the Agency as well as interagency staff, the EPA’s new EOC is 

fit to handle any crisis. 

During a nationally significant 

event or in the course of daily operations, the EOC is a resource that will 

improve and support decision-making for the entire Agency. Having the 

latest technology enhances Agency efforts to analyze data, communicate 

with the field, and to be prepared for 

the unexpected. 

For additional information, contact 

Bryan Byrd, Office of Emergency 

Prevention, Preparedness and Response, 

(202) 564-9499. 

“This center is to be a resource for the entire Agency.” stant contact with 

— Debbie Dietrich, Director of the Office of Emergency Regional Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Response 

bility. To address this need for space, 

the new EOC was designed with an operations center accommodating 12 

workstations, a watch officer post, and 

a data management station. Three 

separate breakout rooms each holding 

up to 10 additional people and a separate 30 person executive conference 

room are connected to the operations 

center. The addition of the breakout 

rooms and executive conference room 

provide the EOC with fully functional, 

partitioned capacity allowing independent meeting space. 

Centers, 

On-Scene 

Coordinators, and the Environmental 

Response Teams as well as other federal agency EOCs, including the Department of Homeland Security Operations 

Center. Classified information is 

handled through the EOC’s Secure Access Facility and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. 

As part of EPA’s National Approach 

to response, during a Nationally Significant Incident, members of the 

Agency’s developing Response Support 

Corps will assemble and work together 

2 cleanupnews

Releases Guidance on eleases Guidance on

“Contiguous Pr “Contiguous Property Owner ty Owners”

OSRE Releases Guidance on 

“Contiguous Property Owners” 

By Cate Tierney, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

On January 13, 2004, EPA 

issued an interim 

guidance entitled Interim 

meet in order to be a contiguous property owner and evidences EPA’s intent 

to implement the new landowner liabilowners that EPA did not generally 

pursue, through the exercise of its enforcement discretion, prior to the pasEnforcement Discretion Guidance Re- ity provisions in a manner that provides sage of the Brownfields Amendments. 

garding Contiguous Property Owners real and meaningful liability protection The guidance points out that these 

(“Contiguous Property Owner guid- to landowners. For example, the guid- previously-existing policies are still 

ance”). This guidance addresses ance provides that, in exercising its en- in effect and, to the extent that they 

CERCLA § 107(q), the “contiguous forcement discretion, EPA may treat a are broader (i.e., apply to more landproperty owner” liability protection landowner as a protected Section 107(q) owners) than Section 107(q), EPA 

added to CERCLA by the 2002 party even if he owns property that is may still apply these policies through 

Brownfields Amendments. not immediately adjacent to the source the exercise of its enforcement dis-

“Contiguous property owners” are of the contamination. cretion. 

those who Congress identified as vic- Second, the guidance discusses the Finally, the guidance discusses the 

tims of their neighbor’s pollution. These application of Section 107(q) to current mechanisms EPA may provide, in its 

landowners own property that is not and former owners of property and pro- discretion, to resolve the remaining 

the original source of the hazardous vides that EPA may treat former own- liability concerns of contiguous propsubstance contamination, but whose ers of property as contiguous property erty owners. These mechanisms inproperty is or may be contaminated owners as long as they met the statu- clude no action assurance letters and 

due solely to the actions of a different tory criteria of Section 107(q) while they settlements under Section 107(q). 

property owner. EPA’s guidance fo- owned the property. The guidance and a reference sheet 

cuses on the most common questions Third, the guidance discusses the re- are available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

and big picture issues EPA has heard lationship between new Section 107(q) compliance/resources/policies/ 

about contiguous property owners. and EPA’s Residential Homeowner and cleanup/superfund/. 

First, the Contiguous Property Contaminated Aquifers Policies. The 

Owner guidance discusses some of the guidance notes that Section 107(q) pro- For additional information, contact Cate 

statutory criteria a landowner must tects from CERCLA liability many land- Tierney, OSRE, (202) 564-4254. 

In the Spotlight 

On January 29, 2004, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt announced that President Bush’s 2005 budget proposal includes $45 million for cleaning up contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. 

announcement while visiting Belle Isle, one of 31 “Areas of Concern” within the Great Lake system. 

of Concern” are areas where the sediments are heavily contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). 

The Great Lakes Legacy Act, signed in November 2002, authorizes up to $270 million between 2004-2008 to 

clean up the contaminated sediments. 

Great Lakes Legacy Act funding. 

preserving and protecting these Great Lakes” and that “accelerating the cleanup of these contaminated areas 

will help keep the pollution from moving out into the lakes where cleanup becomes dramatically more difficult.” 

The proposed 2005 funding will address between four and six of the Areas of Concern. 

the states, tribes, and stakeholders to determine which cleanup projects to fund with the funding. 

Additional information about the Great Lakes Legacy Act and the Great Lakes Program are available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/glla. 

Bush Administration Proposes $45 Million for Great 

Lakes Cleanup 

Leavitt made the 

The “Areas 

The proposed amount represents a $35 million increase over the 2004 

Leavitt said that the increase “demonstrates the President’s commitment to 

EPA will partner with 

cleanupnews 3

Poudre River Investigation and

Cleanup Begin

I

n September 2002, a contractor 

for the City of Fort Collins 

assisting with a Brownfields piof Colorado (doing business as Xcel 

Energy) owns a portion of the gas 

plant site and has agreed to fund 

During the project, temporary fencing will be in place, and air and water 

monitoring will be performed to enlot study noted an oily sheen on the the estimated $1.5 million cleanup sure public health and safety. Also, a 

Cache la Poudre River, a river that runs project. portion of the Poudre River Trail will 

through Fort Collins, Colorado. In January 2004, EPA and Xcel be re-routed, and one of the parking 

Since that discovery, EPA’s Office of Energy signed an administrative lots for the Gustav Swanson Natural 

Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelop- order on consent to implement the Area will be closed. The Aztlan Comment has studied the 1/8-mile section investigation and cleanup of the munity Center, United Way facility, 

of the river where the substance—coal Poudre River. Through the collabo- and skate park located near the 

tar—was identified and 19 acres of rative efforts of EPA, Xcel, and the worksite will not be affected. Fortuadjacent commercial and residential City of Fort Collins, the work be- nately, the drinking water intakes for 

property. Investigation results have gan the week of January 26, 2004. the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley 

not pointed to a definitive source for The investigation and cleanup in- are located upstream from the conthe contamination, but analysis of the volves diverting a portion of the tamination, and it does not appear 

river sediments has revealed that the river through pipes to avoid contact that anyone is using the groundwater 

tar is similar in composition to waste with contaminated sediments and at or around the worksite. 

at the nearby former Poudre Valley replacing removed sediments. To The work, including re-vegetation, 

Gas Plant. The coal gasification plant, help determine the source of the will be completed by May 2004. 

which operated from 1904 to 1926, con- contamination, new monitoring For additional information, contact 

verted coal into fuel for heat and elec- wells will be installed, and a trench Jennifer Lane, EPA Region 8, 

tricity. The Public Service Company will be dug to the bedrock. lane.jennifer@epa.gov. 

Highlights 

O’Brien Machinery Project: 

Enforcement Working to Redevelop 

Property 

by Jocelyn Scott, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

Main Street Village—an 

exciting new townhome 

community in Downington, 

Pennsylvania—is a far cry from the 

contaminated industrial site that 

was once owned by O’Brien Machinery Company. The 10.6-acre parcel is 

now the site of a recently developed 

160-unit housing development with 

a beautiful creek and newly landscaped surroundings. EPA’s 

Superfund enforcement program recognized the benefits of this project to 

human health and the environment, 

and made significant efforts that 

helped bring redevelopment of this 

site to fruition. 

4 cleanupnews 

During the 1980s, the O’Brien 

Machinery Co. operated a manufacturing plant that built and repaired large electrical generators 

used in industrial processes. The 

site was abandoned after the owner 

of the property went bankrupt owing over $1 million in unpaid back 

taxes. The site turned from a productive facility into an abandoned 

contaminated property riddled 

with drug dealers and dilapidated 

buildings. When EPA discovered 

the site in 1992, it found transformers leaking PCB-containing fluids 

onto the site and subsequently conducted removal activities. The 

Agency attached a $1.5 million 

CERCLA lien against the property for 

costs it incurred in performing these 

removal activities at the site. Although EPA’s cleanup efforts were 

sufficient to prevent an endangerment 

posed by high levels of PCBs, further 
EPA Details R A Details Resource Conser ce Conservation

Challenge Accomplishments Challenge Accomplishments

EPA Details Resource Conservation 

Challenge Accomplishments 

E PA recently published the 

first annual report on the 

Resource Conservation 

Challenge, a major cross-Agency initiative that identifies and uses innovative, flexible, and protective ways to conserve natu1,300 members, and new partnerships like the National Waste Minimization Partnership Program, the 

Coal Combustion Products Partnership, Plug-In to eCycling, and the 

85 percent of newly generated scrap 

tires and to reduce the number of tires 

in existing stockpiles by 55 percent 

within four years. 

•In 2002, WasteWise partners collectively reduced 

greenhouse gas emisOSWER News 

ral resources and energy. “This report shows us that the old ways of doing sions by 2.4 million 

RCC works to (1) prevent business are too slow and discouraging, and that tons. 

pollution and promote recy- the RCC is a successful, collaborative tool for “I’m thrilled at the 

cling and reuse of material; achieving future progress on the environment.” energy and enthusi-

(2) reduce the use of toxic asm surrounding the 

chemicals; and (3) conserve –Marianne Horinko, EPA Assistant Administrator for the RCC–and the real 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response energy and materials 

through partnerships and 

programs that protect human health and the environment; save 

energy and reduce greenhouse gases; 

create jobs; and grow the economy. 

The report outlines major RCC 

achievements, including measurable 

environmental benefits and an increase in the number of new partnerships. Nearly all the RCC environmental benefits result from voluntary public-private partnerships. In 2003, existing RCC partnerships with federal 

and state governments, tribes, and 

industry grew, and new ones were 

formed. The Agency’s long-standing 

partnership, WasteWise, grew to over 

sense of ownership by 

EPA nationwide,” 

said Marianne Horinko, 

EPA Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. “It’s a true collaboration 

among diverse stakeholders. We’ll accomplish more in less time than years 

of regulatory development and litigation could ever do.” 

The RCC annual report is available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/ 

conserve/resources/rcc-rpt1.pdf. Complete information about the Resource 

Conservation Challenge is also on the 

Web at: http://www.epa.gov/rcc. 

For additional information, contact Diane 

Bartosh, Office of Solid Waste, (703) 308-

7895. 

GreenScapes Alliance grew from the 

ground up. RCC’s partners identified 

environmentally beneficial solutions 

to specific problems and implemented 

them. For example: 

•A Waste Minimization Partner in 

Texas is working to reduce polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in 

tank bottom wastes by 32,000 pounds 

and benzene by 70,000 pounds. 

•Plug-In to eCycling partners safely 

recycled 26.4 million pounds of electronic equipment in 2003. 

•The tire partnership is committed 

to reduce, recycle, or otherwise recover 

Want to join us in conserving paper? 

Sign-up to receive CleanupNews by email! 

It’s fast and simple. 

Go to the CleanupNews page at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/listserv/cleanup.html, enter 

your email address, and click “Submit.” When a new issue of CleanupNews comes out, you’ll receive it 

in HTML—right to your desktop! 

Note: Signing up for electronic issues does not automatically cancel your hard copy subscription. 

Send hard copy subscription change requests to Christine Rueter, christine.rueter@dpra.com. 

cleanupnews 5

In The Courts 

Cooper, continued from page 1 

case over for oral argument until October 2004. 

Background: 

Cooper Industries (“Cooper”) operated an aircraft maintenance business 

that contaminated the property with 

hazardous substances. In 1981, Aviall 

Services (“Aviall”) purchased Cooper’s 

business and its operation. Aviall’s 

operation of the business also resulted 

in the deposition of hazardous materials. When Aviall found hazardous 

substance contamination, it notified 

Texas authorities, and cleaned up the 

property without an order from state 

or federal authorities. Aviall subsequently sought contribution from Cooper under section 113(f) of CERCLA, 

which allows parties to seek contribution from other parties responsible for 

the contamination of the site. 

The district court rejected Aviall’s 

claim holding that Aviall voluntarily 

cleaned up the site and that CERCLA 

113(f) only applies where a cleanup 

action occurs pursuant to a lawsuit or 

settlement involving the federal or 

state government. Aviall appealed the 

district court’s decision to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit. In November 2002, the Fifth 

Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and found that Aviall could seek 

contribution from Cooper under 

CERCLA Section 113(f) even though 

Aviall cleaned up the site voluntarily. 

In December 2003, Cooper filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme 

Court to review the case. The Supreme 

Court invited the United States to file 

an Amicus brief on whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari 

and hear the case. On December 12, 

2003, the United States filed an Amicus brief recommending that the 

Court review the case. On January 9, 

2004, the Supreme Court decided to 

review this case. The United States 

filed an Amicus brief on the merits of 

the case on February 23, 2004. 

For additional information, contact 

Clarence Featherson, OSRE, (202) 564-

4234. 

Bunker Hill 

Superfund Site 

Notice of Appeal 

Filed 

In two court decisions issued on September 3, 2001 and November 18, 

2003, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Idaho awarded a $7 million 

reduction in remaining financial responsibilities of a 1994 consent decree 

at the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Site to the defendants, Asarco, 

Inc. and Hecla Mining Company. The 

court determined the modification of 

the agreement was appropriate because factual circumstances had 

changed since the lodging of the 1994 

decree. 

From the late 1800s to the 1970s, 

mining activities upstream and a lead 

smelter in the Coeur d’Alene Basin 

contaminated the groundwater, soil, 

air, and Coeur d’Alene River with lead, 

arsenic, zinc, and cadmium. The affected area is divided into three 

cleanup projects. Operable unit 1 

(OU1) and OU2 are within the “Box,” 

a 21-square-mile area within the 

Coeur d’Alene Basin comprised of historic smelter and mining areas as well 

as residential areas containing 5,000-

6,000 residents. OU3 is the “Basin,” 

which runs along the Coeur d’Alene 

River through Lake Coeur d’Alene and 

into the Spokane River. Since 1994, 

over 2,200 residential and community 

areas have been cleaned up and blood 

lead levels in children have been reduced significantly through the efforts of EPA and Upstream Mining Group, a syndicate of mining 

companies including Asarco and 

Hecla. 

The Box was the area of focus 

for remediation pursuant to the 

1994 decree. The court found that 

EPA’s recent decision to use 

CERCLA remedial authorities to 

deal with environmental issues 

outside of the Box but inside the 

Coeur d’Alene Basin represented 

a departure from EPA’s previously announced plans and an increase in the total potential financial exposure of the movants. According to the court, EPA made it 

more difficult for the defendants 

to obtain credit backing to meet 

the financial requirements of the 

1994 agreement by permitting 

cleanup efforts on the mining 

wastes outside of the Box. To comply with the court order, EPA and 

the State of Idaho will confer with 

the defendants about the most 

efficient way to accomplish a $7 

million cut in financial obligations. 

Within the 1994 decree, EPA 

reserved their authorities for any 

contamination outside of the Box 

while allowing a covenant not to 

sue for OU2. EPA and the Department of Justice are considering an 

appeal. In the meantime, they 

have filed a notice of appeal, preserving the right to lodge an appeal in the future. 

The U.S. District court ruled in 

favor of EPA in a similar suit for 

cleanup costs in OU3. In that ruling, Hecla and Asarco were held 

liable for 31% and 22% of the cost, 

respectively. 

For additional information, please 

contact Ted Yackulic, Region 10, 

(206) 553-1218. 

6 cleanupnews

O’Brien, continued from page 3 

remediation of remaining contamination was necessary to make the site 

viable for redevelopment and reuse. 

Fortunately, Gary Silversmith, 

President of SERENA, Inc. was willing to tackle such an undesirable site 

and approached the Borough of 

Downington with a plan to acquire the 

O’Brien site and redevelop it into a 

townhouse neighborhood after 

remediation. The plan required that 

EPA coordinate closely with 

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, Chester 

County, the Borough, and SERENA. 

Their willingness to work together and 

invest resources into this project allowed several activities to occur, including: (1) a $1 million grant from 

Pennsylvania’s Industrial Sites Reuse 

Fund; (2) a prospective purchaser 

agreement (PPA) between EPA and 

SERENA for the additional cleanup 

activities including the remediation of 

residual PCB contamination to residential levels and a controlled demolition of existing structures; and (3) 

proper remediation of the site that was 

protective of human health and the 

environment. In addition to negotiating the PPA, EPA’s enforcement program worked hard to arrange a way to 

resolve its CERCLA lien against the 

O’Brien site to allow this project to 

move forward. Without these collaborative efforts, the site would have remained a contaminated unused piece 

of property. 

In 2001, SERENA completed the 

redevelopment of the O’Brien Machinery site into an attractive upscale 

townhome community. While there 

were several major hurdles along the 

way, the property was remediated and 

returned to productive reuse for the 

community. This project is evidence of 

the great work EPA’s Superfund enforcement program has been performing to ensure the revitalization of 

brownfield properties. It is also an 

excellent example of how a sound redevelopment plan and strong partnership between federal, state, local and 

private entities can transform a site 

from a brownfield to a redevelopment 

success. 

For additional information, contact 

Jocelyn Scott, OSRE, (202) 564-4795. 

House Bill Seeks 

Service Station 

Liability Limits 

House Resolution 3543, introduced 

by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) this 

past November, seeks to limit liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) for 

service station dealers with respect to 

the release or threatened release of 

recycled oil. The bill would amend 

CERCLA Section 114(c) to add a new 

paragraph. The new paragraph would 

explain that response costs or damages may not be recovered from service station dealers that properly 

managed and disposed of recycled oil 

in the period between November 8, 

1986 and the effective dates of regulations and standards promulgated 

under Section 3014 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act. 

Currently, CERCLA Section 114(c) 

allows certain liability exemptions for 

service station dealers meeting specific requirements. The exemptions 

are intended to promote the collection 

of used motor oil from do-it-yourselfer 

recyclers (e.g., individuals changing oil 

in personal-use vehicles). To be eligible for an exemption, a service station dealer (SSD) must meet three criteria: the dealer meets the definition 

of a service station dealer as defined 

in CERCLA Section 101(37); the collected used oil has not been mixed 

with a CERCLA hazardous substance; 

and the used oil has been “managed in 

compliance with the regulations and 

standards promulgated pursuant to 

Section 3014 and other applicable authorities.” 

The bill seeks to expand the third 

requirement for exemption by amending the exemption period to include 

management and disposal activities 

occurring on or after the effective start 

date of the Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

(SARA). The used oil management 

standards included in SARA were not 

codified (as 40 CFR Part 279) until 

1992. The effective date for these standards under RCRA is March 8, 1993. 

Thus, an SSD can still be liable under 

CERCLA for actions taken prior to 1993. 

The bill, which has gained a number 

of co-sponsors, has been referred to the 

House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

For additional information, contact Susan 

Boushell, OSRE, boushell.susan@epa.gov. 

OSRE Completes

Second Printing

of

PRP Search

Manual

The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) has done a second 

printing of the September 2003 PRP 

Search Manual. The purpose was to 

provide copies to State and Tribal staff 

who perform potentially responsible 

party (PRP) search activities and to 

give extra copies to Regional staff who 

requested them. 

As previously announced, the manual 

is also available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/cleanup/ 

superfund/prpmanual/index.html. 

If you have any questions, please contact 

Nancy Deck, OSRE, (202) 564-6039. 

Tidbits 

cleanupnews 7

calendar

April 27, 2004 

1:30-3:30pm National Notable 

Achievement Awards Ceremony 

Sheraton, Crystal City, VA 

Contact: Ann Eleanor, eleanor.ann@epa.gov 

April 28-29, 2004 

2004 ASTSWMO Mid-Year 

Meeting 

Savannah, GA 

Contact: Jocelyn Scott (202) 564-4795 

http://www.astswmo.org 

May 11-12, 2004 

2004 National Corrective Action


Conference


Orlando, FL


Contact: Lael Butler (404) 562-8453 or 

Karen Tomimatsu (703) 605-0698 

http://www.nationalcaconf.com/ 

default.html 

July 12-14, 2004 

ASTSWMO 2004 State


Hazardous Waste Managers


Conference


Washington, DC


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. 

of CleanupNews can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

newsletters/cleanup 

cleanupnews.html 

To comment on the newsletter contact Dr. Richard W. Popino, at MC-2271A, U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, email:popino.rick@epa.gov. To be added or 

deleted from the mailing list, contact Christine Rueter, DPRA Inc., 1300 North 17th Street, 

Suite 950, Arlington, Virginia 22209, Fax: (703) 524-9415, email:christine.rueter@dpra.com 

Richard W. Popino, PhD REM, editor 

EPA Review Board; Diane Bartosh, Paul Connor, 

Karen Ellenberger, Jeff Heimerman, Kathleen 

Johnson, Kenneth Patterson, 

Suzanne Wells 

Christine Rueter, DPRA Inc., senior writer 

Betsy Anderson, DPRA Inc., writer 

Sarah Heberling, DPRA Inc., writer 

Ruth Colville, DPRA Inc., senior designer 

Lauren Grantham, DPRA Inc., designer 

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

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EOC Emergency Operations Center 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

OU Operable unit 

PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls 

PPA Prospective purchaser agreement 

RCC Resource Conservation Challenge 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SARA Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act 

Past issues 

Neilima Senjalia, 

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