S

peaking at the Avtex Superfund site

in Front Royal, Vi rginia on July 23,

1999, EPA Administrator Carol M.

B rowner announced a new pilot program —

the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative —

to help communities re s t o re toxic waste

sites to productive use. Nearly $1 million in

grants will be awarded to 10 communities in

the first round of grants, with about $5 million in grants going out by the end of next

year to 50 communities around the country.

“ T h rough this initiative, we will cre a t e

jobs and encourage economic re d e v e l o pment in communities that are saddled with

old abandoned hazardous waste sites,”

said Bro w n e r. “We will work cooperatively

with local governments and businesses to

clean up old toxic waste sites and transf o rm them into new parks, neighborh o o d s ,

or thriving commercial districts.” The initiative aims to encourage development on

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement (2271A)

Washington, DC 20460

Fall 1999

EPA 300-N-99-008

Issue #3

inside

Short Takes 2

U.S.,FMC Settle Avtex 3

Brownfields Summit 4

Technology Insights 5

In the Courts 6

About OUST 8

New RMP Law 9

SF Reauthorization 10

Superfund Relocation 

Policy 11

Calendar 12

Printed on recycled paper

c l e a n u pn e w s

existing industrial sites rather than in undeveloped areas. It is designed to empower states, local government and communities to develop public/private

p a rtnerships that re s t o re abandoned sites

to new uses, thereby increasing pro p e rt y

values, stimulating tax revenues, and re v italizing communities. 

One pilot site is the Escambia Tre a t i n g

Company in Pensacola, Florida — a 26-

a c re abandoned wood pre s e rving facility.

During its period of operation, from 1942

to 1982, excess wood pre s e rvative was allowed to drain from the treated pro d u c t s

along drip tracks before on-site storage.

Soils at the site are contaminated with

dioxin and benzo(a)pyrene. The site was

placed on the NPL in 1994 and EPA has

excavated about 225,000 cubic yards of

contaminated materials that are now

New Initiative to Restore Superfund Sites to Productive Use

continued on page 7

Cleanup News is an occasional newsletter highlighting 

h a z a rdous waste cleanup

cases, policies, settlements,

and technologies. 

continued on page 2

A

fter 21 years of cleanup work, in

September 1999 EPA completed

all construction activities at the

Love Canal site in New York State. “The remediation is in place. Homes in the Love

Canal neighborhood have been re h a b i l itated and more than two hundred families

have moved back into this revitalized are a

which has been more closely monitore d

than probably any other area in the count ry for environmental safety,” said Damian

Duda, EPA’s Project Manager for the site.

Love Canal played a key role in the enactment of the original Superfund legislation. Located in the southeast corner of

the City of Niagara Falls, appro x i m a t e l y

70,000 people live within three miles of the

site, originally built as a channel or canal

by William T. Love in the late 1800s for a

p roposed hydroelectric power project. Between 1942 and 1952, the Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (now Occidental

Chemical Corporation) disposed of apLove Canal Cleanup Completed
2 Cleanup News

p roximately 22,000 tons of dru m m e d

and liquid chemical wastes in the canal,

t u rning it into a landfil l .

After two Presidential Declarations

of Emerg e n c y, several evacuations,

years of investigation and re m e d i a t i o n ,

and a five-volume habitability study, the

site is ready for rehabilitiation. Numerous remedial activities have taken place

over the period, culminating in the tre a tment and disposal of sewer and cre e k

sediments in 1998-99. The state agency

in charge of revitalizing the Love Canal

a rea has sold 239 homes in the are a s

slated for residential use and has established a master plan for the areas slated

for commercial/industrial use. An extensive array of nearly 200 monitoring

wells currently exists around the containment area indicate that the containment system is working eff e c t i v e l y. Ongoing maintenance and monitoring will

continue at the site, and a five-year review of the site will be conducted by

September 2004. For more inform a t i o n ,

contact Damian Duda at 212-637-4269.

ATSDR Public Health

A s s e s s m e n t s

T

he ATSDR (Agency for To x i c

Substances and Disease Regi s t ry) issued public health assessments between April 1 and June 30,

1999 for 18 sites (see below) that are

listed or proposed for inclusion on the

National Priorities List. At some of these

sites, the assessments were pre p a red in

response to requests from the public. 

Completed public health assessments and addenda are available for

public inspection at the Division of

Health Assessment and Consultation,

ATSDR, Building 33, Executive Park

Drive, Atlanta, Georgia (not a mailing

a d d ress), between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday except legal

holidays. The completed public health

assessments are also available by mail

t h rough the U.S. Department of Comm e rce, National Technical Inform a t i o n

S e rvice (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

S p r i n g field, Vi rginia 22161, or by telephone at 703-605-6000. For more information, contact Robert C. Wi l l i a m s ,

ATSDR, 404-639-0610.

M

ore Superfund sites have

been cleaned up in the past

five years than in all prior

years of the program combined. As of

October 21, 1999, EPA reports the

following achievements:

• 9 1 % of sites on the final Superfund National Priorities List (1,289

out of 1,412) are either underg o i n g

cleanup construction (remedial or

removal), are completed, or have

been deleted.

• 6 7 0 S u p e rfund sites have had all

cleanup construction completed

(48% of sites on the final NPL).

• 4 4 3 (438 Final/5 Proposed) Sup e rfund sites (31% of sites on the

final NPL) have cleanup constru ction underw a y. An additional 197

(172 Final/25 Proposed) sites

Love Canal Cleanup

C o m p l e t e d

continued from page 1

FY99 Shows Significant Accomplishments

have had or are undergoing a removal cleanup action (12% of sites

on the final NPL).

• Over 1,000 sites have all fin a l

cleanup plans appro v e d .

• Over 5,900 removal actions have

been taken at hazardous waste

sites to immediately reduce the

t h reat to public health and the env i ro n m e n t .

• M o re than 3 1 , 7 0 0 sites have

been removed from the CERCLIS

waste site list to help promote the

economic redevelopment of these

p ro p e rt i e s .

Love Canal site in 1993. Leachate treatment facility is to the right of the containment

a rea, Niagara River at the top. 
Cleanup News 3

F

MC Corporation will clean up

one of Vi rg i n i a ’s largest Superfund sites under a consent dec ree entered on October 21, 1999. The

Avtex Fibers Superfund site in Fro n t

Royal, VA, will undergo a cleanup project estimated at $63 million, and FMC

also will reimburse the EPA $9.1 million for its past costs associated with

the pro p e rt y. The site is located in the

foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

“This agreement to clean up

blighted pro p e rty on the banks of the

Shenandoah River is a terr i fic example

of how the Superfund program works

e ffectively now to re s t o re contaminated land,” said Lois Schiff e r, Assistant Attorney General for the Enviro nment and Natural Resources Division.

Under the oversight of EPA and the

Vi rginia Department of Enviro n m e n t a l

Q u a l i t y, FMC will be responsible for remediation at the 440-acre site, consistent with redevelopment plans by the

Town of Front Royal and Warren

C o u n t y. The Avtex facility manufact u red synthetic fibers for 49 years.

FMC operated the plant from 1963 until

1976. The facility, built by the American

Viscose Corporation in the 1930s, supplied material to the U.S. Armed Forc e s

during World War II and for many years

was the largest rayon manufacturer in

the United States. The last owner,

Avtex Fibers-Front Royal, closed the facility in 1989 after being cited for more

than 2,000 violations of Vi rginia environmental laws, primarily associated

with wastewater discharges into the

Shenandoah River.

Since the site was listed in 1986 on

U.S., FMC Settle AVTEX 

Fibers Lawsuit for $63 Million

Cleanup Paves the Way for Community Redevelopment 

the National Priorities List, EPA has

dismantled more than 740,000 square

feet of building space at the site. FMC

has spent an estimated $20 million on

cleanup activities, which addre s s e d

water quality degradation, re m o v e d

tons of hazardous substances, and decontaminated buildings. As part of the

c u rrent cleanup plan, FMC will add ress the remaining building decontamination and demolition issues; dispose of demolition debris, sludge,

liquids and other wastes; remove

a b o v e - g round and underg round tanks;

remove hazardous substances in certain building basements; continue

waste water treatment; control ero s i o n

and sedimentation on the site; and

clean up some 220 acres of waste lagoons, basins and waste disposal units. 

To settle prior lawsuits brought by

FMC, a number of federal agencies

a g reed to pay FMC about one-third of

its cleanup costs. The govern m e n t ’s liability is associated with its control of

rayon manufacturing operations during World War II and production of

specialized fibers for aerospace applications through the 1970s and ‘80s.

Avtex is one of the pilots for EPA’s

“ S u p e rfund Redevelopment Initiative”

(see article on page 1). Through the

resolution of the Avtex Fibers Bankruptcy (expected by 12/31/99), the

local Economic Development Authority will receive title to the Avtex Fibers

Site. A Prospective Purchaser Agre ement is being negotiated with the

town and county to coincide with

transfer of the pro p e rty to the localities, eventually making the entire site

available for redevelopment. 

“ We ’ re pleased that this settlement

will enable EPA and FMC to focus

only on cleaning up the entire site, and

not on the court room,” said EPA Regional Administrator W. Michael McCabe. “A successful cleanup will remove this land from the Superf u n d

priority list and re t u rn it to the community for commercial, re c re a t i o n a l ,

and conservancy uses.”

For more information, contact

M e redith McLean, 202-564-4216.
4 Cleanup News

East Palo Alto, CA, and Stamford, CT.

B ro w n fields are abandoned, idled,

or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or re d evelopment is complicated by real or

p e rceived environmental contamination. The 16 Showcase Communities

a re: Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; East Palo Alto, CA; Eastward

Ho!, FL; Glen Cove, NY; Kansas City,

KS/MO; Los Angeles, CA; Lowell,

MA; Portland, OR; Providence, RI;

Saint Paul, MN; Salt Lake City, UT;

Seattle/King County, WA; Stamford ,

C T; and Trenton, NJ.

The summit highlighted some of the

e ffective partnerships the Showcase

Communities are developing with participating federal agencies. For example, Kansas City has worked extensively with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and received planning, engineering, and technical assistance in

s u p p o rt of the Riverf ront Heritage Tr a i l

p roject. The U.S. Department of Ene rgy designated the City of Chicago a

B r i g h t fields pilot and awarded $200,000

in technical assistance to locate solar

collecting stations on bro w n fie l d s .

First Brow n fields Revolving Loan Issued. Although several dozen

cities have been awa rded Superfund money to set up revolving loan

funds for brow n field re d e v e l o p m e n t , cities have found it difficult to

actually issue loans. In October 1999, t h o u g h , S t a m f o r d ,C o n n e c t ic u t a wa rded the first loan made in the nation under EPA’s Brow nfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) program to help clean

up a Stamford Harbor waterfront property. The $250,000 loan wa s

a wa rded to Southfield A s s o c i a t e s , L L C, a real estate developer, f o r

cleanup of the site. The 15.1 acre project will be redeveloped into a

residential community, including 320 housing units, a marina facili t y, and a board walk system.

“ P r i vate development companies have a key role in addre s s i n g

the brow n fields challenges within our communities,” said Seth Wei n s t e i n , Managing Partner of Southfield Associates and Chairman of

C l e a rview Investment Management. “I have been very pleased to

work effectively with the City of Stamford and the U. S. Environmental Protection A g e n cy to clean up one of the key brow n fields sites

on the Stamford Wa t e r f r o n t .”

S t a m f o rd was selected as a BCRLF pilot in September 1999. EPA

p r ovided the city with $500,000 to capitalize its revolving loan fund

to leverage funds to clean up three major sites in its South End and

Waterside neighborhoods. For more inform a t i o n , contact Sandy

Dennies with the City of Stamford at 203-977-4190, or Barbara Bassuener with EPA at 202-260-9347.

FY2000 Pilots. E PA is accepting proposals for 50 new National

B r ow n fields Assessment Pilots, e a ch funded up to $200,000 over two

years. An additional $50,000 may be awa rded to assess contamination if the brow n field will be used for green space purposes. All applications must be postmarked no later than Fe b .1 6 ,2 0 0 0 . Copies of

the application package can be obtained from 1-800-424-9346 or

7 0 3 - 4 1 2 - 9 8 1 0 , or downloaded at: h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g ov/ brow n fie l d s .

CUED Study Yields Brow n fields Cost Data. E PA’s brow n fields program has been criticized by Congress for not producing measura b l e

results. Now a study of 107 completed brow n fields re d e v e l o p m e n t

projects conducted by the Council for Urban Economic Development

(CUED) has come up with hard numbers on the progra m ’s costs,

funding sourc e s , and demographics. The study found that the median amount of private funds leveraged per public dollar spent is

$2.48. The median remediation cost per acre was $56,945, with the

cost per square foot running at $4.46. Within a one-mile radius of

the brow n fields sites, the residents were 35% minority (compare d

to the national av e rage of 24%), and 25% below the poverty level

(twice the national av e rage of 12.6%), indicating that the sites are

indeed serving environmental justice objectives. To order the study,

contact CUED at 202-223-4735 or http:// www. c u e d . o rg. 

Environmental Justice Complaints. E PA recently conducted six

case studies to determine whether the redevelopment of brow n fie l d s

h ave been impeded by Title VI environmental justice complaints and

whether these complaints are deterring businesses from re d e v e l o ping brow n fields. The study showed that community residents were

not likely to file Title VI complaints because they were actively involved in the redevelopment process and could identify and addre s s

their concerns; and residents were more interested in the economic

b e n e fit. A l s o, most brow n field sites did not re q u i re environmental perm i t s ,t h e re f o re limiting the chance of a Title VI complaint being fil e d .

(Under Title VI of the Civil Rights A c t , a person can file a complaint alleging discriminatory environmental and health effects from actions

t a ken by recipients of EPA financial assistance, including environmental (pollution control) permits.) Copies of the case studies can be

accessed at http://www. e p a . g ov / b r ow n fields or by calling the hotline

at 1-800-424-9346.

Don’t miss Brownfields ‘99! on December 6-8 in Dallas, T X !

For information on the conference or other brownfields topics,

go to: http://www. e p a . g ov / b r o w n fie l d s .

Showcase 

Communities Share

Successful Models 

O

n October 18-20, 1999, 16

B ro w n fields Showcase Communities and 90 federal officials shared models of successful localfederal bro w n fields collaboration at

the second Brownfields Showcase

Community Summit. Hosted by the

National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the

summit featured EPA Administrator

C a rol Bro w n e r, re p resentatives fro m

20 federal agencies, and the mayors of

B ro w n fields Update

continued on page 5
Cleanup News 5

tem, at http://www. e p a re a c h i t . o rg .

The re p o rt also is available electro n ically at http://clu-in.org or can be ord e red by calling the EPA National Service Center for Enviro n m e n t a l

Publications at 1-800-490-9198.

Innovative Remediation

and Site Characterization Technologies 

R e s o u rc e s

This revised CD-ROM contains many

new publications, easy access to the

new EPA REACH IT database, and the

ability to do simple searches. The res o u rces on this CD can help federal,

state, and private-sector site managers

evaluate alternatives among innovative

technologies for site assessment and

cleanup. The ability to gain access to

re s o u rces that provide inform a t i o n

about innovative site characterization

and remediation technologies will inc rease understanding of those technologies and of the cost and perf o rmance factors related to them. Such

understanding is essential to the consideration of those technologies for

use in addressing contamination at

h a z a rdous waste sites.

The new CD should be available in

late November. To order a copy, call

Annual Tre a t m e n t

Technology Report

Av a i l a b l e

I

n f o rmation about treatment technologies being used at more than

900 hazardous waste sites aro u n d

the United States is available in a rep o rt issued in June 1999, Tre a t m e n t

Technologies for Site Cleanup Annual

Status Report - 9th Edition (#EPA - 5 4 2 -

R99-001). This year’s re p o rt includes a

b road range of treatment technologies, such as control technologies and

innovative groundwater tre a t m e n t

technologies being used at Superf u n d

sites, RCRA corrective action sites,

and Departments of Defense and Ene rgy sites. The re p o rt updates projects included in the 8th edition, and

i n f o rmation on projects derived fro m

79 Records of Decision signed in 1996

and 1997. It also now includes information on 217 incineration and solidification/stabilization projects not previously covered. For the most

f requently selected technologies, the

re p o rt analyzes selection trends over

time, contaminant groups addre s s e d ,

quantities of soil treated, and pro j e c t

implementation status.

Detailed project information is now

available in a new searchable elect ronic database, EPA REACH IT sysNSCEP 1-800-490-9198 and re q u e s t

document number 542-C-99-001.

E PA and DoD Agree to

Evaluate New Enviro nmental Te c h n o l o g i e s

In July, EPA and the Department of Defense signed an agreement to collaborate on testing new commerc i a l - re a d y

e n v i ronmental technologies. EPA and

DoD are now joining forces to verify

technologies through EPA’s Enviro nmental Technology Ve r i fication program (ETV) and DoD’s Enviro n m e n t a l

Security Technology Cert i fication program. This will allow companies that

develop new pollution prevention, cont rol, and monitoring technologies to obtain objective third - p a rty testing and

will help superior technologies penetrate markets of interest to both EPA

and DoD. After the technology is

tested, the companies will receive a veri fication re p o rt that they can use in

marketing their products. Results of

the testing will also be made available

on the Internet. This agreement will

save time and expense for both agencies, while supplying the public with inf o rmation on new technologies which

is currently unavailable. More inform ation on this program is found at:

h t t p : / / w w w.epa. gov/etv.

A number of communities are moving rapidly on their re d e v e l o p m e n t

goals. In Salt Lake City, Utah, an 18-acre

r a i l y a rd in the center of the District has

been purchased by Salt Lake City for

the development of an Interm o d a l

Tr a n s p o rtation Hub to serve Amtrak,

G reyhound, City bus, future light rail

and future commuter rail. Amtrak has

a l ready relocated to the new site. Fort y

million dollars in funding for this project was authorized in TEA-21. The Dep a rtment of Tr a n s p o rt a t i o n ’s re c e n t

policy allowing federal funding to be

used, on a site-specific basis, at pro p e rties with environmental contamination,

was instrumental in making this pro j e c t

possible. Another 30-acre railyard behind the historic Union Pacific Depot

Gateway District has been sold to a private developer for a $250 million mixeduse development. This project is expected to create 7,300 to 10,000 new

jobs. Construction of the first phase

will begin in the summer of 1999 and is

scheduled for completion in 2001.

The summit identified numero u s

obstacles that showcase communities

have encountered, including lack of

a w a reness of the benefits of bro w nfields development, the need for extensive time and coordination with

each constituency group, and fin a n cing issues, including the lack of gap

funding and the scarcity of local

matching re s o u rces. In addition, gove rnment regulations on the use of federal funds (e.g., Superfund monies

cannot be used on petroleum contamination) limit fle x i b i l i t y. 

For more information on the summit, contact NALGEP at 202-638-6254.

B R O W N F I E L D S

continued from page 4
6 Cleanup News

Findett Corporation:

U.S. District Court 

Upholds EPA’s Annual

Allocation Costs 

[United States v. Findett Corp.,

No. 4:97-CV-1557-CDP (E.D.

Mo., Sept. 15, 1999)]

O

n September 15, 1999, the

United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri filed a memorandum and ord e r

granting the United States’ motions

for summary judgment on CERCLA liability and re c o v e ry of response costs

against Findett Corporation. The

c o u rt held that Findett was a liable

p a rty at the Findett/Hayford Bridge

Site and that CERCLA’s six-year

statute of limitations did not bar the

United States’ action. The court also

found that the government was entitled to recover all of its response costs

(including the costs of non-site-spec i fic response activities of contractors,

i.e., annual allocation costs).

The site is located in St. Charles,

Missouri and for over ten years

housed a recycling operation owned

by Findett. Operations ceased in 1976.

In the early eighties, EPA began an investigation and determined that the

site was contaminated with PCBs and

volatile organic compounds, substances disposed of by Findett in its recycling operations. Findett entere d

into a consent decree for cleanup of

the site in May 1990 and agreed to pay

E PA’s oversight costs. At that time,

h o w e v e r, the United States re s e rv e d

its right to seek re c o v e ry of all other

past and future costs incurred at the

site. 

In 1994, an existing share h o l d e r

bought all of Findett’s shares and acq u i red a 100 percent ownership interest. On July 25, 1997, the United States

b rought an action for re c o v e ry of its

past and future response costs, and

subsequently filed motions for summ a ry judgment on liability and re c o ve ry of response costs. In re s p o n s e ,

Findett argued that: (1) the governm e n t ’s liability claim was barred by

C E R C L A’s six-year statute of limitations; (2) it was no longer a liable part y

and/or a third party was liable for the

United States’ response costs; and (3)

the govern m e n t ’s costs were inadequately documented and inconsistent

with the National Contingency Plan

because the United States failed to follow the NCP and a Superfund fin a ncial management directive. 

Findett argued that the United

States’ cost re c o v e ry action was

b a rred by the statute of limitations

under Section 113(g)(2)(B) of CERCLA. This section re q u i res the gove rnment to file an “initial” action for

re c o v e ry of costs no later than six

years after the initiation of physical onsite construction. Findett claimed the

e n t ry of the 1990 consent decree was

not an “initial” action because Section

113(g)(2)(B) re q u i red any such action

to include a declaratory judgment on

liability for future response costs or

damages. Because the court did not

enter a declaratory judgment when

the consent decree was entered, it

could not be an “initial” action. Thus,

the United States “initial” action was

b rought in July 1997 and was too late.

The district court disagreed. It

stated that the purpose of the language in Section 113(g)(2)(B) was to

avoid the need to relitigate liability

questions and did not mandate that

e v e ry “initial” action include a declarat o ry judgment. There f o re, the court

held that the entry of the consent dec ree in 1990 was an “initial” action

under Section 113(g)(2)(B) and that

the 1997 cost re c o v e ry action was a

“subsequent action” and was not time

b a rre d .

Findett also argued that it was no

longer a liable party after a shareholder purchased all of its stock. The

c o u rt again disagreed and held that

the successor cases cited by Findett

w e re inapposite because in this case

the shareholder had purchased with

knowledge of the environmental contamination at the site. Thus, Findett retained its liability. Though Findett also

claimed it had a third party defense,

the court determined that Findett did

not prove the release was caused

“solely” by a third part y.

The court also granted the United

States’ motion to recover $3,293,909 in

past response costs. Findett had argued that most of these costs were not

recoverable because the govern m e n t

had failed to follow an EPA dire c t i v e ,

“Financial Management of the Superfund Program” (EPA Dire c t i v e

2550D). On summary judgment, the

c o u rt held that Section 107(a)’s language limited Findett’s defenses, stating, “even assuming the govern m e n t

failed to comply with the EPA Dire ctive 2550D, that failure does not bar its

re c o v e ry in this action.” The court

also found that the govern m e n t ’s

costs were not inconsistent with the

NCP because it provided detailed

costs summaries and related affid a v i t s

to support its costs.

In upholding EPA’s annual allocation costs, the court explained:

T h rough the annual allocation

p rocess, a contractor who works on

multiple sites under a single contract with the EPA allocates to a

given site the costs of a non-sites p e c i fic response activities that are

n e v e rtheless necessary to support

its site-specific response actions

(e.g., rent on a regional office fro m

which a contractor oversees work

at several sites). Allocation to a particular site is made on the basis of

the ratio of that site’s direct costs to

the total cost of all site and non-site
Cleanup News 7

activities. By totaling the site-spec i fic costs with the allocated nonsite specific costs, the govern m e n t

endeavors to develop the real total

cost of the site work perf o rmed by

the contractor.

Because the government off e red a

t h o rough and detailed explanation of

its contractor allocation process, the

c o u rt concluded that inclusion of

these costs was pro p e r. Contacts: Ben

Lammie, OSRE, 202-564-7126; Audre y

A s h e r, EPA Region 7, 913-551-7255.

Keystone Sanitation

L a n d fill: Court 

Enters De Micro m i s

S e t t l e m e n t s .

[United States v. Keystone 

Sanitation Co. et al., Civ No.

1 : C V-93-1482] 

On July 28, 1999, Judge Sylvia H.

Rambo granted the United States’ motions to enter three “de micromis” consent decrees. The first consent decre e

involved 95 “de micromis” parties and

was lodged with the court on April 5,

1996. A second consent decree, involving 72 de micromis parties, was lodged

with the court on May 23, 1996, and a

t h i rd consent decree, involving 28 de

m i c romis parties, was lodged on Noe red. In the agreement, EPA had used

a maximum limit of 55 gallons or 100

pounds of hazardous substances as a

c u t - o ff. The court also cited the gove rn m e n t ’s use of questionnaires and

c e rt i fications to determine a part y ’s

contribution to the site. It noted the

United States had conducted additional investigations and had cro s s -

checked the cert i fication with existing

i n f o rmation. It also noted that the reopener provision in the agreements allowed the United States to reopen a

settlement if information is discovere d

that a part y ’s cert i fication was false or

that it no longer qualifies for de mic romis status. The court stated it was

s a t i s fied that the de micromis settlements met the statutory re q u i re m e n t s

of CERCLA, SARA and the case law.

The Keystone Sanitation Landfil l

has been the subject of a large amount

of publicity both in the national new

media (CBS’ 60 Minutes) and in Cong ress during the Superfund re a u t h orization hearings. With the de mic romis settlements being entered by

the court, the United States has reduced transaction costs and obtained

finality for the truly small waste contributors at the site.

Contacts: Mary Rugala, EPA Region 3, 215-814-2686; Carolyn LaneWe n n e r, OSRE, 703-242-9647. 

vember 24, 1998. This last consent dec ree was unopposed by the de maximus

defendants. The de micromis part i e s

resolved their Superfund liability with

nominal $1.00 settlements. These parties were all brought into the litigation

by other defendants, and none were

sued by the United States. Most of the

de micromis settlers are small businesses — including apartment buildings, pizza shops, and theaters — that

could not aff o rd the legal expenses of

p rotracted Superfund litigation. 

The Keystone Sanitation Landfill is

located on a 40-acre pro p e rty in Union

Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania. It accepted municipal, industrial

and construction debris from 1966 to

1990. The landfill is located in an area of

hilly terrain above fractured bedro c k .

Leachate from the landfill has contaminated the local aquifer, which is a

s o u rce of drinking water in the area. 

Judge Rambo ruled that EPA has

the statutory authority pursuant to

Section 122(g) of CERCLA to define a

de minimis p a rt y ’s eligibility on a caseby-case basis. The court noted that the

United States had reasonably determined a 0.1% volumetric cut-off in acc o rdance with EPA’s 1993 de mic romis policy and had ensured that

only the smallest amounts of haza rdous substances could be considbeing stored at the site under secure

c o v e r. The site may be redeveloped as

a commercial, light industrial, and/or

a commerce center. 

Other pilot sites include: Pownal

Ta n n e ry, Pownal, VT; Roebling Steel,

Roebling, NJ; Avtex Fibers, Fro n t

Royal, VA; Tar Lake, Mancelona, MI;

Many Diversified Interests, Houston,

TX; National Mine Tailings, Park Hills,

MO; Midvale Slag, Midvale, UT; Fro ntier Fert i l i z e r, Davis, CA; and McC o rmick and Baxter Creosoting Comp a n y, Portland, OR. 

Each community will receive up to

$100,000 in the form of a cooperative

a g reement with the local govern m e n t

or a comparable level of support fro m

private responsible parties, to conduct

reuse assessments and public outre a c h

to help determine the likely future use

of the site. The national focus on re d eveloping Superfund sites builds on the

success the Administration has

achieved in its Bro w n fields Economic

Redevelopment Initiative and relies on

many of the tools that have been developed over the last six years under the

S u p e rfund Administrative Reforms. 

For more information about the initiative, visit EPA’s web page at:

h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g o v / s u p e rf u n d / p rog r a m s / recycle/index.htm or call the

S u p e rfund hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or

7 0 3 - 4 1 2 - 9 8 1 0 .

S u p e rfund 

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

continued from page 1
8 Cleanup News

L

eaking underg round storage

tanks (USTs) can thre a t e n

human health and the enviro nment, especially by contaminating

g ro u n d w a t e r. About half of the U.S.

population depends on gro u n d w a t e r

as a source of drinking water. In 1984,

C o n g ress responded to the incre a s i n g

t h reat to groundwater posed by leaking USTs by adding Subtitle I to the

R e s o u rce Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Subtitle I re q u i red EPA to

develop a comprehensive re g u l a t o ry

p rogram for USTs. EPA’s Office of Und e rg round Storage Tanks (OUST)

was established to carry out those

C o n g ressional mandates.

In 1988, EPA issued re g u l a t i o n s

setting minimum standards for new

U S Ts installed after December 22,

1988 and requiring owners of existing

s u b s t a n d a rd USTs to upgrade, replace, or close them by December 22,

1998. In addition to compliance with

the preventive re q u i rements for spill,

o v e rfill, and corrosion protection, all

UST sites must meet re q u i rements for

release detection, notification, installation, corrective action, re p o rting, and

re c o rd k e e p i n g .

Early in the underg round storage

tank program, EPA recognized that,

because of the large size and great diversity of the regulated community,

state and local governments were in

the best position to oversee USTs .

Subtitle I of RCRA allows state UST

p rograms approved by EPA to operate

in lieu of the federal program, and EPA

sets objectives for state programs to

meet. As of September 1999, 28 states,

the District of Columbia, and Puert o

Rico have received final state pro g r a m

a p p roval to operate the UST pro g r a m

in lieu of the federal program. 

As of April 1999, more than 824,000

active USTs are regulated by the federal

UST re q u i rements, while appro x imately 1.3 million substandard USTs

have been closed. An underg round storage tank system is a tank and any und e rg round piping connected to the tank

that has at least 10 percent of its combined volume underg round. Federal

UST re q u i rements apply only to tanks

storing petroleum and certain haza rdous substances. Approximately half

of USTs are owned by marketers who

sell gasoline, while the remaining USTs

a re owned by noncommercial entities,

such as local governments, largely to

p rovide fuel for service vehicles. 

OUST estimates that, as of April

1999, over 80 percent of USTs met the

p reventive re q u i rements for spill, overfill, and corrosion protection. Compliance rates have risen from about 60

p e rcent in November 1998 to the current level, and all indicators show that

compliance continues to impro v e .

H o w e v e r, EPA still has more work to

do to ensure that all owners comply

with the technical re q u i rements, including leak detection re q u i re m e n t s .

For example, EPA is concerned that,

although owners installed leak detection equipment on their tanks, a significant percentage of leak detection systems may not be operated or

maintained pro p e r l y. Nevert h e l e s s ,

owners and operators and those nonmarketers who are responsible for

UST sites should be pre p a red to

demonstrate compliance with state

and federal UST re q u i rements or risk

the likelihood that their UST sites may

be found to be in violation and subject

to potentially costly penalty fines — or

in some states, non-delivery of fuel.

C o n g ress created the Leaking Und e rg round Storage Tank (LUST)

Trust Fund in 1986 by amending Subtitle I of RCRA. The Trust Fund, which

OUST administers, provides money

for overseeing corrective action taken

by a responsible party who is the

owner or operator of the leaking UST.

The Fund also provides money for

cleanups at UST sites where the owner

or operator is unknown, unwilling, or

unable to respond, or which re q u i re

e m e rgency action.

When releases of product do occur,

the UST regulations re q u i re owners

and operators to re p o rt the release, remove the source, investigate the extent

of the contamination, and clean up the

soil and gro u n d w a t e r. As of April 1999,

385,927 releases have been confirm e d ;

327,210 cleanups have been initiated;

and 211,637 cleanups have been completed. However, there is still more

work to be done in the corrective action area. Approximately 170,000

cleanups have not yet been completed,

and EPA estimates that as many as

80,000 additional releases may be confirmed before 2005. Priorities for

O U S T ’s eff o rts over the next few years

a re: evaluating UST systems; impro ving operation and maintenance of UST

systems; carrying out and overseeing

c o rrective actions; and implementing

the UST program in Indian country. 

For more information about the

UST program, refer to the OUST web

site at h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g o v / O U S T / .

The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 

1-800-424-9346 can provide free compliance assistance materials and answer

questions about the UST pro g r a m .

Priorities for OUST’s 

e ff o rts over the next few years

a re: evaluating UST systems;

i m p roving operation and

maintenance of UST systems; 

c a rrying out and overseeing

c o rrective actions; and 

implementing the UST 

p rogram in Indian country. 
Cleanup News 9

New Law Require s

RMP Facilities To Hold

Public Meetings

O

n Aug. 5, 1999, President Clinton signed the Chemical Safety

I n f o rmation, Site Security and

Fuels Regulatory Relief Act. This law

primarily concerns the public availability of the Off-Site Consequence

Analysis (OCA) sections of the Risk

Management Plans submitted by companies under Section 112(r) of the

Clean Air Act. Such companies include

chemical plants, petroleum re fin e r i e s ,

paper mills, water treatment plants,

w a rehouses, and food businesses with

l a rge ammonia refrigeration systems.

OCA information addresses the worst

possible accident that could occur at a

facility if all safety systems failed.

The new law prohibits govern m e n t

o fficials from disclosing to the public

the off-site analyses sections of the Risk

Management Plans until at least Aug. 5,

2000. By that date, the federal government must complete an assessment

and rulemaking to address future public availability of those materials. 

H o w e v e r, the law does n o t bar facilities from sharing the OCA data with

the public. More o v e r, appro x i m a t e l y

95% of the 14,800 facilities that rep o rted RMP information by the June

21 deadline must provide the public

with at least a summary of that information. A public meeting must be

held by Feb. 1, 2000. Small businesses that qualify as a small business

s t a t i o n a ry source under the Clean Air

A c t ’s Section 507 (c) technical assistance program may post a summary of

their OCA information instead of holding a public meeting. 

Reasonable notice to the public

must be given before the meeting is

held. At the meeting, facilities must

talk about the local implications of the

plan submitted by the facility, including a summary of the OCA portion of

the plan. The small percentage of facilities (5%) that have no potential for off -

site consequences are not re q u i red to

host a meeting. Facilities that hosted

meetings between Aug. 5, 1998, and

Aug. 5, 1999, get credit for that meeting if it was publicly advertised and if

the local impact of a worst-case accident was discussed

By June 5, 2000, the owner or operator of the facility must send the FBI a

c e rt i fication statement that the public

meeting has been held, or the OCA

s u m m a ry posted. The FBI will document receipt, and provide the documentation to the EPA .

Many plant managers and business

owners say that sharing RMP data

openly has been a springboard to a better relationship with their community.

The public meeting gives these businesses an opportunity to get acquainted

with their Local Emergency Planning

Committees, fire chiefs, or elected local

o fficials. Other facilities have chosen diff e rent forums, such as the PTA and

local school board meetings, to talk to

the public about their RMPs.

For more information, tap into EPA’s

Chemical Emergency Pre p a re d n e s s

and Prevention Office at http://

w w w.epa. gov/ceppo. RMPs can be accessed at http://www. e p a . g o v / e n v i ro .

Technical Outre a c h

S e rvices for Communities Proves Its Wo rt h

T

he 1999 Technical Outre a c h

S e rvices for Communities

(TOSC) National Confere n c e

and Training was held in Potomac,

M a ryland, on September 27-29, 1999,

bringing together university re p re s e ntatives, EPA community involvement

s t a ff and citizen leaders, involved with

TOSC projects at cleanup sites. Wi t h

115 projects undertaken, the TOSC

p rogram provides free, independent

technical assistance to citizens who

want to be involved in understanding

h a z a rdous waste issues at hazard o u s

waste cleanup sites. Two citizen

speakers provided the keynote add re s s e s .

Tony Davenport, re p resenting four

Chicago communities, described

TOSC as a “godsend” that pro v i d e d

both technical help and peace of mind.

He stressed that because TOSC was

independent and had no stake in the

outcome, the community could and

did readily accept the analysis and int e r p retations produced by TOSC, even

though some of the information was

not what they expected. 

Rosa Hilda Ramos of Cataño,

P u e rto Rico, a member of the National

E n v i ronmental Justice Action Committee, noted that the TOSC program can

help rebuild trust when citizens have

become disillusioned and shut out of

the re g u l a t o ry process. In her case,

the community received assistance

f rom the New Jersey Institute of Te c hn o l o g y, which worked directly in the

community and through a part n e r s h i p

with a local university. Ms. Ramos

u rged that the program expand beyond toxics to more general enviro nmental issues, and stressed that EPA

should seek out smaller, more community-oriented universities for the

p rogram. Both speakers re c o mmended that universities part i c i p a t i n g

in TOSC expand their services to include mediation or other dispute re s olution assistance. 

Other topics included skillbuilding,

the role of Community Advisory

G roups, cultural risk assessments in

tribal communities, and Internet res o u rces. For more information on the

c o n f e rence, contact Helen DuTeau at

7 0 3 - 6 0 3 - 8 7 6 1 .
10 Cleanup News

Cleanup Notes 

July 8, 1 9 9 9 — N ew Reforms Will A c c e l e rate Cleanups at More Than 1,700 RCRA

Hazardous Waste Management Sites. The re f o rms include annual cleanup goals and

guidance to encourage creative and flexible approaches to ensuring cost-effective

cleanup progress. Under the re f o rm s , E PA , the states, and the involved industries will

continue to assess and address contamination from toxic and other materials at some

3,000 RCRA facilities, focusing on the most highly contaminated areas first. EPA alre a dy

has assessed many of these sites and believes that these facilities do not pose immediate health threats. At 255 sites, cleanups alre a dy have been completed, and early actions

h ave been taken at more than 800 sites to protect against any immediate threats to public health or the environment. The contamination at the 1,712 facilities targeted under the

re f o rms is primarily the result of past toxic pollution that occurred prior to modern RCRA

p ractices. Cleanups are expected to proceed at an av e rage rate of 200 per year through

2005. For more inform a t i o n , go to: h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g ov/epaoswer/osw/ cleanup.htm or

call the RCRA hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or 703-412-9810.

October 21, 1999 — EPA Adds 10 Sites and Proposes 9 Sites to NPL. The primary

purpose of the National Priorities List is to guide EPA in determining which sites wa rrant further investigation. Currently there are a total of 1,221 final sites and 57 proposed sites. The 10 recent additions include: Basin Mining A re a ,B a s i n ,M T; Upper Te nmile Creek Mining A re a , Lewis and Clark County, M T; Georg i a - P a c i fic Corp. Hard wo o d

S a w m i l l ,P l y m o u t h , NC; Iceland Coin Laundry A rea Ground Water Plume, V i n e l a n d ,N J ;

Lightman Drum Co. ,W i n s l ow Tow n s h i p, NJ; Fruit Avenue Plume,A l b u q u e rq u e, NM; Garland Cre o s o t i n g, L o n g v i e w, TX; State Road 114 Ground Water Plume, L e v e l l a n d , TX; V ienna Te t ra ch l o r o e t h e n e, V i e n n a ,W V; and one federal facility, M c G u i re Air Force Base

# 1 ,W r i g h t s t ow n ,N J. More information about these and the proposed sites is ava i l a b l e

at http://www. e p a . g ov / s u p e r f u n d / s i t e s / i n d ex . h t m # d e s n q ry.

T

he last few months have seen

continuing eff o rts on Capitol

Hill to move forw a rd on a Sup e rfund Reauthorization bill. Unfort un a t e l y, as EPA officials have testifed in

hearings on several diff e rent bills, the

p roposed legislation would actually

weaken the Superfund pro g r a m

rather than strengthen it. H.R. 1300,

H.R. 2580, and H.R. 2247 are all “fatally

flawed” in that they address pro b l e m s

that have already been fixed thro u g h

S u p e rfund Administrative Reforms. 

tion, and undermine the curre n t

p ro g ress of the program. As a re s u l t ,

the Clinton Administration believes

only provisions that provide narro w,

t a rgeted liability relief for qualifie d

p a rties that builds upon the curre n t

success of the Superfund program are

a p p ro p r i a t e . ”

S p e c i fic a l l y, the provisions that

E PA supports — in addition to legislation to reinstate the Superfund taxes,

— would be limited to: 

• p rospective purchasers of contaminated pro p e rty 

• innocent landowners 

• contiguous pro p e rty owners, and 

• the liability of small part i e s .

The problems with the pro p o s e d

bills include: liability provisions that

could increase litigation, underm i n e

the critical “polluter pays principle,”

and exempt many parties who should

pay for cleanup; replacing the curre n t

goal of restoring contaminated

g roundwater to beneficial uses, wherever practicable, with a much lower

s t a n d a rd; and new risk assessment

t e rms and re q u i rements that would req u i re EPA, states, and contractors to

change the way a Superfund cleanup

remedy is chosen and thereby delay

cleanups; reduced incentives for responsible parties to settle, and an

overly burdensome allocation pro c e s s

that could discourage settlements.

E PA continues to support re i n s t a t ement of the Superfund taxes and enactment of narrowly targeted Superfund legislation that builds upon the

success of Superf u n d ’s administrative

re f o rm s .

As Timothy Fields stated in testimony before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials of the

House Committee on Commerc e

(Sept. 22, 1999), EPA believes that “as

the result of the pro g ress made in

cleaning up Superfund sites in re c e n t

years, and the program impro v e m e n t s

resulting from administrative re f o rm s ,

t h e re is no longer a need for comprehensive legislation. Compre h e n s i v e

legislation could actually delay

cleanups, create uncertainty and litigaSuperfund Reauthorization
Cleanup News 11

E PA Issues Superf u n d

Relocation Policy

E

PA issued for public comment a

new relocation policy that provides direction to EPA staff on

when to consider permanent re l o c ation of residents and businesses near

or on Superfund sites. The “Interim

Policy on the Use of Permanent Relocations as Part of Superfund Remedial

Actions” issued in July 1999 outlines

some of the circumstances under

which permanent relocation may be

c o n s i d e red to protect human health

and the enviro nment. 

E PA’s pre f e re n c e

is to clean up and res t o re pro p e rty so

that people may remain safely in their

homes and businesses. The primary

reasons for conducting permanent re l ocations at Superf u n d

sites would be to address an immediate risk to human health (where an engineering solution is not readily available) or where the stru c t u res (homes

or businesses) are an impediment to

implementing a protective cleanup. In

the limited cases where permanent relocation may be deemed appro p r i a t e ,

the policy demands that EPA must

“make every eff o rt to implement actions in an expeditious, thoughtful and

fair manner. ”

The interim relocation policy was

developed in response to a re q u e s t

made by the National Enviro n m e n t a l

Justice Advisory Council’s Waste and

Facility Siting Subcommittee. Specific a l l y, NEJAC asked EPA to determ i n e

when citizens should be re l o c a t e d

away from residential areas near or affected by Superfund sites. NEJAC

based its request on concerns it had

h e a rd from communities affected by

S u p e rfund sites. These communities

wanted to be relocated because they

f e a red the potential effects sites pose

to their health, pro p e rty values, and

overall quality of life. 

As part of the groundwork for developing the policy, EPA undert o o k

several eff o rts to understand the issues associated with relocation. One

e ff o rt entailed establishing the Escambia Wood Treating Company site in

Pensacola, Florida, as a national re l ocation pilot. A second eff o rt involved

an EPA review of a number of sites

w h e re cleanups in residential are a s

had been conducted. The findings of

that review revealed that EPA cleans

up the overwhelming majority of Sup e rfund sites in residential areas without the need to permanently re l o c a t e

residents and businesses. Finally, EPA

s p o n s o red a series of stakeholder forums to solicit views and experiences

on the subject of relocation. Stakeholders stressed the importance of

E PA working closely with community

members to address their issues, involve the community in the site decision-making process, and communicate openly and honestly. 

E PA is seeking public comment on

this interim policy and will addre s s

these comments before issuing a fin a l

p o l i c y. A multi-stakeholder meeting is

scheduled to be held in March 2000 to

hear comments on the policy. The interim policy is available on the Web at

http:// www. e p a . g o v / o e rr p a g e / s up e rf u n d / t o o l s / t o p i c s / relocation or by

calling the Superfund hotline at 1-800-

424-9346 or 703-412-9810. 

Negotiation and 

E n f o rcement 

Strategies Memo

O

n June 17, 1999, Barry Bre e n ,

D i rector OSRC signed a memorandum on “Negotiation and

E n f o rcement Strategies to Achieve

Timely Settlement and Implementation of Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action at Superfund Sites.” The memorandum is a product of a workgro u p

with re p resentatives from all ten EPA

Regions, OSRE, OGC, and the U.S. 

D e p a rtment of Justice. 

The memo recommends strategies

which can be used to encourage PRPs

to enter into a settlement using the

model RD/RA Consent Decree. It discusses the current model Unilateral

Administrative Ord e r, and suggests

practical alternatives to expedite Superfund settlements and the cleanup

p rocess. The memo relies on existing

guidance to identify incentives available

to PRPs for settling with EPA and disincentives for not settling. It also highlights how EPA can ensure that

cleanups being perf o rmed under a settlement are not delayed and what EPA’s

e n f o rcement options are when settlement negotiations fail. Contacts: Ben

Lammie, OSRE, 202-564-7126; Baerbel

S c h i l l e r, EPA Region 7, 913-551-7257.

E PA’s pre f e rence is to clean

up and re s t o re pro p e rty so

that people may remain 

safely in their homes and

b u s i n e s s e s .
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 Solid Wa s t e ,O f fice of 

Underground Storage Ta n k s , Chemical Emergency

Preparedness and Prevention Offic e , and the

Te c h n o l o gy and Innovation Offic e .

EPA Review Board: Rick Popino, Ph.D.,

Paul Connor, Karen Ellenberger, Ken 

Patterson,Helen DuTeau,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,fax: 202-564-0094,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

December 6-9, 1999

4th Annual Joint Services Pollution

P revention / Hazardous Wa s t e

Management Conference and 

E x h i b i t i o n

San Antonio, TX 

An open forum for exchanging ideas, success stories,

case histories, and technologies related to pollution prevention and hazardous waste manag e m e n t . The conference will cross federal, a c a d e m i c , and industry lines. F o r

more info r m at i o n , visit http://www. s e r d p . o r g / s y m p os i u m s / s y m p o s i u m s . h t m l .

December 6-8, 1999 

B ro w n fields ‘99

Dallas, Texas 

B r o w n fields ‘99 will provide discussions, o p p o r t u n i t i e s

for critical networking, and a forum for making deals

t h at will change the face of A m e r i c a . For info r m at i o n ,g o

t o :h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g o v / b r o w n fie l d s .

A D R A l t e rnative Dispute 

R e s o l u t i o n

AT S D R A g e n cy for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry

C E P P O Chemical Emerg e n cy Pre p a re dness and Prevention Offic 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

DOE Department of Energy 

N C P National Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List 

(Superfund) 

N S C E P National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications 

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

Remedial Response (EPA )

O G C O f fice of General Counsel (EPA )

O S R E O f fice of Site Remediation 

E n f o rcement (EPA) 

O U S T O f fice of Underground Stora g e

Tanks (EPA )

P C B P o l y chorinated biphenyls

PRP Potentially Responsible Party 

RCRA R e s o u rce Conservation and 

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

waste) 

A c ro n y m s