3 

Ancient Burial Ground 

Discovered at Virginia 

Superfund Site 

6 

Two Federal Facilities 

Achieve Construction 

Completion in 2001 

8 

ASTSWMO Hosts 

Symposium for Federal 

Facility Managers 

Federal Cleanups That Put Citizens First 

Issue 6 

February 2002 

Take a contaminated military base near a small town, add concerned 

government entities, and throw in an involved citizen’s group. These 

are common ingredients at a federal facility cleanup, but the story of 

environmental remediation at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, and the role of 

local community activist Laurie Nehring is an example of one resident’s 

uncommon determination to make a difference. That’s why EPA honored 

Nehring with the 2001 national Citizen’s Excellence in Community 

Involvement Award. 

“Laurie was a breath of fresh air,” says Jim Byrne, EPA’s remedial project 

manager for Fort Devens from 1990 to 1999. “She got so many people interested and involved. 

She served the residents who will be left to live with whatever we do at the site, and she increased 

<Continued on Page 8> 

The Power of One—EPA Honors a 

Citizen’s Contributions 

The Community 

Connection 

FFRRO Partner Interactions Remain Strong 

Welcome to the sixth issue of Partners in Progress (PIP), a newsletter 

from EPA’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office 

(FFRRO). 

In this issue we highlight exemplary stakeholder interactions, communication breakthroughs, and several innovative meetings and workshops. These 

stories and more show progress being made across a range of issues surrounding 

federal facility closure and cleanup. 

As stated in our mission, FFRRO believes that maintaining positive partnerships is one of the most important elements for keeping remediation at federal 

facilities on track. In this issue, we feature a historic partnership between EPA, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and the Nansemond Tribe. 

Working together, these agencies forged an agreement that will protect artifacts from an ancient 

tribal burial site unearthed while cleaning up a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). 

Even when partner discussions on federal facility issues create conflict, we are working to keep 

open the lines of communication. At the former Joliet Army Ammunition Plant in Illinois, a 

diverse group of stakeholders used a facilitator’s conflict resolution and team-building exercises to 

help bring a controversial issue back into focus. 

At Fort Devens, Massachusetts, it took a single concerned resident to bring community involvement to the forefront of cleanup procedures. EPA is proud to honor community activist Laurie 

Nehring with the 2001 Citizen’s Excellence in Community Involvement Award. 

FromTheDirector 

<Continued on Page 3> 
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant: 

Facilitating Progress 

Celebrating Given the diverse issues and 

Success stakeholders involved in a 

federal facility cleanup, what 

can agencies do when cleanup discussions reach an impasse? When 

faced with this dilemma, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) hired a facilitator to help 

resolve conflict over cleanup at an 

Illinois Superfund site. The facilitator’s team-building and conflict resolution exercises not 

only helped re-establish talks on appropriate cleanup levels, they also helped a group of diverse representatives 

explore and understand one another’s personal and professional points of view. 

The Joliet Army Ammunition Plant in Will County, 

Illinois, was active from 1940 to 1976. The plant is split 

into two sites: the load-assembly-packing area and the 

manufacturing area. The load-assembly-packing area was 

used to put the finishing touches on high-explosive 

artillery shells, bombs, mines, and small arms ammunition, as well as to test ammunition, wash and renovate 

shells, and burn and demolish explosives. 

At the manufacturing area, more than four billion 

pounds of explosives—primarily trinitrotoluene 

(TNT)—were made and stored. 

The manufacturing area was placed on EPA’s 

Superfund National Priorities List in 1987, followed by 

<Continued on Page 10> 

Acronyms Explained 

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office 

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 

ICMA International City/County Management Association 

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan 

NPL National Priorities List 

PCB Poly-chlorinated biphenyl 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROD Record of Decision 

STGWG State & Tribal Government Working Group 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Partners In Progress 

Philosophy 

Stakeholders involved in federal facility cleanups are 

diverse, with differing backgrounds, interests, and 

perspectives. All of these stakeholders, however, share 

a single common goal—progress. Partners In Progress 

(PIP) provides an open forum for stakeholders to 

exchange information, offer solutions, and share stories about what works and what doesn’t. We 

encourage you—our readers—to write to us about 

your activities that foster teamwork, promote innovation, and strengthen community involvement. Only 

by working together can we achieve “federal cleanups 

that put citizens first.” 

Partners In Progress 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5106) 

EPA505-B-02-001 

February 2002 

www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ 

2 
From the Director 

<Continued From Page 1> 

Sharing ideas and information is a key component in 

forming good partnerships, and we have a number of meeting summaries and documents to share that address federal 

facility issues. In this issue you will read about the updated 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, new reports on 

cleanup regulations at U.S. Department of Energy sites, a 

draft policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, and the 

first-ever Federal Facility Managers Symposium. You will 

also find a recently updated list of appropriate U.S. 

Department of Defense contacts dealing with federal facility cleanups. 

As we enter 2002, we hope to continue sharing with you 

the solutions and successes forged by good partnerships. We 

welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. For 

more information, visit us on the Web at <www.epa.gov/ 

swerffrr>. 

—James Woolford, FFRRO Director 

3 Partners In Progress 

Fragments of historic human 

bone and tooth are not typical 

discoveries in the cleanup of a 

Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). 

But the former Nansemond 

Ordnance Depot, near Suffolk, 

Virginia—once a tribal meeting 

place—is not a typical FUDS. In a 

unique case of stakeholder involvement, EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, the Virginia Department 

of Historic Resources, and the 

Nansemond Tribe have signed an 

agreement ensuring that remediation 

activities protect tribal interests, artifacts, and history. 

“Thanks to this agreement, we are 

all now paying attention to the cultural and historical significance of 

this site, which we might not have 

recognized before,” says Rob 

Thomson, the remedial project manager from EPA Region 3. 

The site occupied by the former 

depot encompasses the convergence 

point of the Nansemond and James 

Rivers. In the late 18th and early 

19th centuries, it was a meeting place 

for the Nansemond Tribe, one of the 

remaining Powhatan Confederacy 

tribes officially recognized by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia and the 

state’s General Assembly. The 

Nansemond Tribe’s long history of 

relocation eventually led it away from 

the site, which, in 1917, became 

home to an Army ordnance depot. 

Used for storing and shipping various 

types of munitions during World War 

I and II, the depot was closed in the 

1960s. Areas of the site where contamination does not threaten human 

health now host a community college, General Electric facilities, and 

various other private companies. 

Nansemond’s past military operations resulted in contamination from 

metals, explosives, unexploded ordnance, petroleum products, and 

industrial solvents. Placed on EPA’s 

National Priority List in 1999, 

Nansemond’s six major source areas 

have been removed, and 20 other 

areas of concern have been identified. 

During the cleanup procedures, a 

human burial site was discovered near 

a landfill along the James River 

beachfront. After careful excavation 

and Nansemond tribal approval, the 

remains were removed for further 

study at nearby Radford University. 

In response to this exciting archeological find, and in anticipation of other 

discoveries, EPA recognized the need 

for a new kind of stakeholder involvement at the Nansemond site. The 

agreement, made possible through the 

National Historic Preservation Act, 

was signed in May 2000. According 

to Thomson, it lays the foundation 

for a culturally sensitive, cautious 

approach to cleanup. 

“We now have an 

archeological plan in 

place. If a site is 

found, it must be 

excavated by a professional archeologist to 

determine its historical 

and cultural significance,” he says. If the 

site is determined to 

be significant, a plan 

to avoid or minimize 

disturbance is prepared 

in consultation with 

archeologists, the Nansemond Tribe, 

and the State Historic Preservation 

Officer. In addition, Nansemond 

tribal member Fred Bright now 

retains a permanent seat on the 

Restoration Advisory Board for the 

site. 

“I had never experienced anything 

like this. I think it’s very important 

for other remedial project managers to 

recognize that the possibility of finding culturally or historically significant 

artifacts exists,” Thomson says. “They 

should understand the importance of 

including all interested parties as soon 

as possible, so that everyone has a 

voice and gets on board.” 

The Nansemond agreement is a 

testament to EPA’s commitment to 

involve and hear all communities 

with ties to a Superfund site, whether 

in this century or those past. 

Protecting the Future and Uncovering the Past 

While removing contaminants such as unexploded ordnance 

(pictured), excavators at the Nansemond site in Virginia took 

special care to preserve historic artifacts found on site. 
News Briefs 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance Available 

The 2001 update of the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance is 

now available on EPA’s Superfund 

Web site (www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

resources/5year/index.htm). This guidance is intended to promote consistent 

five-year reviews of cleanup remedies 

at sites. 

The Superfund regulations require a 

five-year review when remedial actions 

leave hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants on-site. The National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 

also requires a five-year review of 

remedial actions where contaminants 

are left in place at levels that limit use 

or restrict exposure. 

The five-year review requirement 

applies to all remedial actions selected 

under Superfund. Like private facilities, federal agencies are responsible for 

ensuring that five-year reviews are conducted at sites where they are required 

or appropriate. The guidance is 

designed to: 

STGWG Releases FY 2001 Annual Report


•	 Provide an approach for conducting 

five-year reviews. 

•	 Facilitate consistency across the 10 

EPA Regions. 

• Clarify current policy. 

•	 Discuss roles and responsibilities of 

various entities in conducting or 

supporting five-year reviews. 

The document also can be accessed 

from the FFRRO Web site at <www. 

epa.gov/swerffrr/whatsnew.htm>. 

lems with DOE policies, including 

confusion about transfer terms and 

role definition, inconsistent terminology and processes, difficulty 

accessing transfer information, 

confusion about federal agency 

ownership of a site, and confusion 

about long-term controls. The 

committee provides background on 

its research methods, as well as several recommendations. 

•	 DOE Long-Term Cost Estimation 

The committee began research into 

the economics and cost-estimating 

procedures for long-term cleanup 

remedies at DOE sites. Initial findings indicate that present cost 

comparison tools are not optimal 

and that optional methods should 

be evaluated. The committee has 

made several recommendations for 

continued research into new costestimating tools, and vows to work 

with DOE and others to establish 

the necessary funding and support. 

For more information on STGWG 

and its involvement in DOE site 

cleanups, visit the group’s Web site at 

<www.em.doe.gov/stgwg>. 

In October 2001, the State & Tribal 

Government Working Group 

(STGWG) released its Fiscal Year 

2001 Annual Report, which highlights 

activities during the past year. 

STGWG is a group of tribes, states, 

and associations appointed by the 

Secretary of Energy to help ensure that 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

facilities and sites are operated and 

cleaned up in compliance with all 

applicable federal and state laws and 

regulations. 

STGWG’s Stewardship Committee 

also released four interim reports on 

initiatives related to environmental 

cleanups at federal facilities: 

•	 Information Management for 

Long-Term Stewardship 

The committee conducted a survey 

of working group members to determine the scope of state and tribal 

information needs for long-term 

stewardship at DOE nuclear sites 

where contamination will remain. 

The committee found that data on 

remedial actions and location and 

inventory of contamination and 

wastes were the most important 

types of information needed. It also 

found that confirming effectiveness 

of a remedy and correcting or compensating for failure were the most 

important purposes for information. 

The committee will follow up its 

research by finding out how information is gathered, managed, and 

made accessible, and how to best 

conduct long-term information 

management. 

•	 Classified Wastes 

The committee conducted a survey 

of working group members to 

determine the level of interest in 

classified waste disposal and its 

effect on long-term stewardship. 

Based on survey responses, 

STGWG will submit a document 

to DOE with its survey results and 

a request that DOE conduct its 

own survey on classified waste. 

STGWG hopes that DOE’s findings will offer an acceptable path 

forward. 

•	 DOE Land Transfers 

The committee conducted a survey 

of working group members to 

determine the effectiveness of 

DOE policies regarding transfer of 

facilities or properties to other 

agencies. The survey and follow-up 

investigations revealed five probPartners In Progress 

4 
Whom to See in the DoD 

You can contact the following DoD employees in the Office of the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) with questions about federal facilities cleanups: 

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 

Environment) 

Raymond F. DuBois 

703 695-2880 

• Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense (Installations and Environment) 

Philip Grone 

703 697-9107 

• Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Environment) 

John P. Woodley 

703 697-7413 

• Cleanup 

Kurt Kratz 

703 697-5372 

• Unexploded Ordnance 

Col. John Selstrom, U.S. Air Force 

703 695-5297 

• Environmental 

Quality 

Kevin Doxey 

703 604-1885 

• Program Integration 

Patrick Meehan 

703 695-7957 

• Housing and Energy 

Peter J. Potochney 

703 614-5356 

• Safety and Occupational Health 

Curtis Bowling 

703 604-1624 

• Explosive Safety Board 

Capt. Bill Wright, U.S. Navy 

703 325-0891 

Comments Sought on Policy for Quality Assurance 

Project Plans 

As part of an ongoing, interagency effort to improve the 

way the federal government collects and manages environmental data, EPA is reviewing comments on a draft policy 

on Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). An interagency data quality task force that includes the U.S. 

Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), and EPA developed this policy, a workbook, and QAPP example for review. EPA has requested 

formal comment on the documents before each agency 

issues a policy directive for future QAPPs. 

QAPPs are plans that EPA requires in any type of environmental data collection project—from Superfund site 

remediation, to general environmental compliance, to longterm stewardship efforts. EPA has been working with DoD 

and DOE on the interagency task force since 1997 to 

develop a Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing 

Environmental Quality Systems, in response to concerns 

over the quality of data used in Superfund decision-making 

(see Partners in Progress Issue #5). These efforts are coordinated agency-wide by EPA’s Office of Environmental 

Information, which has central responsibility for EPA’s 

information management, policy, and technology. 

“The Quality Assurance Project Plans are used to provide 

a baseline and information on how you’re collecting data 

and monitoring the site,” says FFRRO’s Mike Carter, who 

serves on the task force. In addition to being consistent 

with EPA’s requirements, the draft policy reflects the consensus-driven American National Standards Institute/ 

American Society for Quality Control (ANSI/ASQC) E-4 

Standard. 

The deadline for comments is April 30, 2002. Those 

interested in reviewing the draft Interagency Data Quality 

Task Force Policy, QAPP example, and workbook can find 

these documents online at <http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ 

data_quality/reviewqapp.htm>. For additional information 

on EPA’s QAPP requirements, see <http://www.epa.gov 

/quality1/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf>, or contact Mike Carter at 

202 260-5686 or <carter.mike@epa.gov>. 

Partners In Progress 

5 
6 Partners In Progress 

Loring Air Force Base, Maine 

Loring Air Force Base—located in Aroostook County, 

Maine, near the towns of Connor, Caswell, Caribou, and 

Limestone—operated as an active military installation 

beginning in 1952. The 9,000-acre base was used to maintain a combat-ready force capable of long-range 

bombardment operations. Various quantities of fuels, oils, 

lubricants, solvents, and protective coatings were released 

into the surrounding environment. Surface water, soils, 

and sediments were contaminated with volatile organic 

compounds, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, 

and heavy metals. The U.S. Air Force has been conducting 

an environmental cleanup program there since 1983. 

In 1990, the base was added to EPA’s Superfund 

National Priorities List (NPL). In 1991, the Air Force, 

EPA, and the Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection (MEDEP) signed a Federal Facilities Agreement 

establishing the protocols for conducting the cleanup of 

Loring Air Force Base. To speed the cleanup, the Air Force 

organized 53 sites into 15 operable units based on geographic location, groundwater properties, and geologic 

units. 

The base was closed in September 1994 by the 

Secretary of Defense’s Commission on Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRAC). Because of the low levels of contamination in the soil, the BRAC Cleanup Team— 

consisting of EPA, the Air Force, and the MEDEP remedial project managers—decided it was safe to use as fill to 

cap two landfills on the site. This approach was expanded 

to include any contaminated soils from the operable units. 

The cleanup team decided to delay the final capping of 

one landfill to accommodate 150,000 cubic yards from 

one of the operable units, including 2.5 miles 

of stream and wetlands remediation. The 

cleanup team faced additional challenges, such 

as identifying the delineation of the groundwater plumes. This effort was complicated by the 

fractured rock geology, distribution of contamination sources across the 9,000-acre base, and 

the long history of military operations. 

During the removal/remedial actions at 

Loring, contaminated soil and sediments were 

removed from flood plains and streams. About 

one million cubic yards of contaminated soil 

were excavated from around the base and consolidated in landfills, which were investigated 

under the Air Force’s Installation Restoration 

Program as required by Superfund. The Air 

Force also removed and/or evaluated underground storage tanks, trenches, and buildings 

for radioactive contamination. In addition, the 

Air Force restored 51.49 acres of wetlands, and 

the area will be monitored for five years to 

ensure the success of the restoration efforts. All 

remedial construction activities were completed 

in March 2001. 

Two Federal Facilities Make 2001 Cons 

I

n 2001, Loring Air Force Base in Maine and Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland made the 

Superfund construction completion list. A construction completion site is a former toxic waste site 

where physical construction of all cleanup actions is complete, all immediate threats have been 

addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. Construction completion of a site is a significant 

benchmark in the cleanup process. It means contaminants are no longer threatening the health and 

well-being of the surrounding community or spreading uncontrolled through the soil, air, surface water, 

or groundwater. It also means that, even though long-term cleanup actions may still be operating, the 

site is usually ready to be reused for economic, social, or environmental purposes. 
7 Partners In Progress 

truction Completion List 

“Out-of-the-box thinking on the part of the cleanup 

team has expedited the successful cleanup and redevelopment of Loring Air Force Base and has resulted in 

significant cost savings,” says Mike Daly, remedial project 

manager at Loring AFB. “EPA looks forward to continuing our strong partnership with the MEDEP and the Air 

Force to accelerate the transfer of property still retained by 

the Air Force and to optimize environmental restoration 

efforts currently under way so that these sites can be closed 

out in a timely and cost-effective manner.” 

The Air Force has continued environmental restoration 

efforts since the base was closed in 1994 and has transferred most of the former base to the Loring Development 

Authority via a 55-year long-term lease in anticipation of 

an eventual full transfer. Loring also hosts several employers, such as SITEL (a telemarketing firm), the Defense 

Finance Accounting Service, a Department of Labor Job 

Corps facility, and the Maine Air National Guard. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 

The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) is an active 

72,500-acre Army installation located in southern Harford 

County and southeastern Baltimore County, Maryland, 

near the head of Chesapeake Bay. The site is bordered by 

residential areas to the north and a power plant and state 

park to the west and is intersected by the Bush River. 

In 1981, the Harford County Department of 

Health inspected the site and recommended capping the landfill with two feet of relatively 

impermeable material and covering the cap with 

topsoil. The effort failed to function properly, and 

the Army later discovered the presence of hazardous chemicals—including lead, mercury, 

cadmium, and benzene—in groundwater on the 

landfill. The landfill was placed on EPA’s National 

Priorities List in 1989. After observing leachate 

outbreaks in 1991, EPA installed temporary collection drains until a new cap could be put in place. 

In 1992, the EPA Administrator signed a 

Record of Decision (ROD) that proposed 

installing a multilayered cap system as recommended by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment. In addition, the temporary collection system was removed and replaced by a new 

drainage system. Installation of the landfill cap system was completed in 1994. Risks posed by the 

landfill include potential exposure to and/or transport of contaminants that might be associated with 

surface water runoff or surface water infiltration 

and subsequent leachate generation. Maintenance 

activities include routine mowing and inspection 

of the cap and drainage system. 

In 1997, the EPA Administrator signed the ROD for 

groundwater at the site. The ROD identified a potential 

risk from drinking water, and installing drinking water 

wells within a quarter-mile perimeter of the landfill cap is 

prohibited. APG notifies Maryland and EPA annually that 

this restriction is still being enforced. Groundwater, surface 

water, and sediment are monitored bianually. In addition, 

the well installation restrictions would be included in any 

real property documents in the event that the Army sells 

the property. 

Because the local community expressed interest in 

regard to the groundwater contamination at APG, the 

community relations staff implemented an active outreach 

campaign. To keep the community informed of remedial 

activities and groundwater monitoring results at the site, 

APG’s community relations staff held public meetings, distributed fact sheets, and offered site tours. “A lot of work 

was done with participation from the community,” says 

Steve Hirsh, remedial project manager at APG. “Due to 

high public interest, we worked to ensure that the community’s role in the remedial activities would not be 

diminished by site completion.” 

The APG site was placed on the construction completion list in June 2001. In accordance with Superfund 

requirements, a five-year review will be conducted at this 

site, and the final report will be completed by June 2002. 

With remedial construction activities completed at Loring AFB, a cleaner 

environment at this northern New England site is now available to the local 

community, the Loring Development Authority, and the abundant native 

wildlife, such as the moose pictured above. 
The Power of One 

<Continued From Page 1> 

the government agencies’ sensitivity partnership involving EPA, the informing the community and affectto community concerns.” Nehring Department of Defense (DoD), the ing environmental cleanup issues. 

received the citizen’s award from 

EPA’s Office of Emergency and 

Remedial Response, and was honored 

with a plaque at the 2001 

Community Involvement Conference 

in San Antonio, Texas. 

A 9,400-acre former Army base, 

Fort Devens lies 35 miles west of 

Boston, and is surrounded by the 

towns of Ayer, Shirley, Lancaster, and 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, and local 

governments was formed to clean up 

the site and develop a plan for its 

reuse. Adding to environmental concerns is fact that Fort Devens lies 

only two miles from 3,500 households and is intersected by the 

Nashua River, an important resource 

for the area. 

At the same time, Laurie Nehring, 

who was new to Ayer, was looking for 

a way to connect with her community. With an undergraduate degree in 

environmental science and experience 

as an environmental librarian, 

Nehring thought PACE would be a 

perfect fit. A stay-at-home mom with 

a new daughter, Nehring devoted her 

extra time to investigating what 

Harvard. In 1917, Fort Devens was In 1997, members of People of PACE had to do to save the grant, 

established as a temporary training Ayer Concerned About the and she began implementing those 

camp for Army soldiers during World Environment (PACE) faced a diffi- actions. “Laurie was able to step in 

War I and converted to a permanent cult situation. Not only had activities and get the group together,” says Jim 

base in 1931. The base operated for at Fort Devens left environmental Murphy, EPA’s community involvemore than 60 years, hosting a variety damage, but its recent closure had ment coordinator. “She put in the 

of military activities until its closure also left a gaping hole in the local effort to utilize and maintain the EPA 

in 1996, when the land was trans- economy. PACE members, like their grant, which PACE used to hire a 

ferred back to local communities for fellow Ayer residents, were preoccu- very competent consultant who was 

public and private use. pied with the serious financial able to provide valuable technical 

The years of military activity left 

many contaminated areas, and Fort 

Devens was placed on EPA’s 

Superfund National Priorities List in 

1989. More than 80 sites of potentially hazardous soil and groundwater 

contamination were identified, and a 

ramifications of the base’s shutdown, 

but had not utilized an EPA 

Technical Assistance Grant received 

in the early 1990s to address concerns about contamination at Fort 

Devens. Without quick action, the 

group was in danger of losing the 

$50,000 grant—a vital asset in 

insight.” 

Backed by thorough technical 

research, Nehring and PACE began 

speaking out on remediation decisions, bringing a whole new 

perspective to the table. As part of 

<Continued on Page 9> 

Partners In Progress 

ASTSWMO Hosts Federal Facility Managers


In 2001, the Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) hosted the 

first-ever Federal Facility Managers Symposium in Florida. 

The symposium, held from August 20 to 22, focused on a 

variety of issues from institutional controls and environmental justice to Formerly Used Defense Sites and cleanup 

of military ordnance ranges. 

Representatives from states, EPA, the U.S. Department 

of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers attended the event. The primary 

goals of the symposium were to give participants an opportunity to share information with peers from different 

agencies and to update association members on policy 

changes and other news. It also aimed to improve communication between states and federal agencies in order to 

provide efficient cleanup efforts of federal facilities. 

The symposium offered participants numerous sessions 

on issues such as the partnering process, technology and 

information management, property transfer and privatization, and funding, liability, and insurance issues associated 

with site closeout. It also served to showcase the various 

work products (e.g., surveys) developed by ASTSWMO’s 

federal facilities subcommittee. 

For more information, contact Dania Rodriguez of 

ASTSWMO at 202 624-5973 or <daniar@sso.org>. 

8 
Award winner Laurie Nehring with Suzanne Wells of EPA’s Office of Emergency and 

project manager since 1999), nominated Nehring for the award. 

According to Byrne, “This is an 

impressive award for citizens. It 

shows that they are important in the 

Superfund process and sheds light on 

their achievements, providing an 

excellent example for other communities.” The award won valuable 

media attention for PACE and its 

efforts, and it bolstered the group’s 

image as a well-respected contributor 

to the Fort Devens cleanup. As for 

Nehring, the award inspired her to 

continue her work to protect Ayer’s 

environmental interests. PACE has 

already received a renewal of the EPA 

technical assistance grant and has 

shifted its focus to new topics, such 

as the condition and maintenance of 

one of Fort Devens’ largest existing 

landfills. 

Looking back over her five years of 

work with PACE, Nehring can offer 

other concerned citizens valuable 

advice. “Remember that you are 

going to have ups and downs in your 

efforts. No matter how hard it gets, 

don’t forget that there are always 

other people out there, facing similar 

issues, who believe in your cause.” 

Remedial Response. 

one major contribution, Nehring and 

PACE succeeded in changing DoD’s 

initial plan to create a major landfill 

out of six existing ones on a section 

of the Fort Devens site near the 

downtown area of Ayer. By investigating the potential risks, informing 

the public, and mobilizing local congressmen, state senators, and other 

elected officials, Nehring and PACE 

worked with EPA and DoD to reevaluate the proposed landfill 

consolidation. 

“Laurie helped PACE members 

position themselves as key players in 

the process, not just as critics,” says 

Murphy. “They not only presented 

reasonable, well-supported concerns, 

but they also helped to devise realistic alternatives that would satisfy all 

parties involved.” 

When DoD began looking for a 

new site for the landfill, Nehring and 

PACE sustained their involvement, 

meeting frequently with officials to 

review the pros and cons of other siting options. According to Nehring, 

understanding DoD’s perspective and 

trying to be balanced were crucial to 

success. The new landfill, which will 

feature state-of-the-art leak protection technology, is now under 

construction at a location that poses 

little risk to Ayer residents or the surrounding environment. 

Byrne, along with Murphy and 

Carol Keating (Fort Devens’ remedial 

Partners In Progress 

Upcoming Events 

2002 National Community Involvement 

Conference 

<www.epancic.org/2002> 

Where: Portland, Oregon 

When: June 25 to 28, 2002 

This dynamic conference brings together public participation and community involvement professionals from across all EPA programs, as well 

as their federal, tribal, state, and local partners. Conference presentations 

are designed to emphasize the process of public participation and community involvement by focusing on techniques and approaches used in 

EPA’s national and regional programs. 

9 
Facilitating Progress 

<Continued From Page 2> 

Partners In Progress 

the load-assembly-packing area in 1989. Soil 

at the two sites was mostly contaminated with 

explosives and heavy metals, and a number of 

groundwater plumes were contaminated with 

explosives, metals, and volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Army decided to combine 

the sites and turn them into an industrial park, 

so it began conducting research to establish 

appropriate cleanup levels and issue a Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

In 1995, Illinois established the Land 

Conservation Act and designated 19,000 acres 

of the Joliet site for inclusion in the Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie. “When fully 

restored, Midewin will be the largest section of 

native tallgrass prairie east of the Mississippi,” 

says Steve Davis of the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources. In 1997, the Army transferred 15,000 acres of the site to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Forest 

Service. Another 4,000 acres will be transferred once they When overseers at the USDA read a draft of the ROD, 

are cleaned. An additional 5,000 acres of the Joliet site were they realized that the cleanup levels being established were 

designated to become a municipal landfill for Will County, based on data from the Army’s research done prior to the 

a National Veterans Cemetery, and two industrial parks for Land Conservation Act and did not consider the land’s new 

the nearby cities of Wilmington and Elwood. future use. The USDA became concerned that the cleanup 

levels set in the draft ROD might not adequately protect In 1998, EPA, the Army, and the Forest Service were the site’s ecological resources and asked EPA not to sign it working together to finalize the ROD for the two sites. until more appropriate levels were established. The Army, 

however, felt it was too late to make 

changes and stood by the levels set in 

the draft ROD. 

With neither agency able to reach an 

agreement, cleanup procedures at Joliet 

came to a standstill. In September 

1998, EPA hired a facilitator to help 

reestablish communication. Laurel 

Boucher, a contractor with a Marylandbased firm, began by meeting with key 

management personnel to help them 

I-55	

National 

Cemetery 

Industrial 

Park 

Industrial 

Park 

Landfill 

Joliet Army 

Training Area 

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 

identify their individual and common 

goals for the cleanup. She helped the 

group decide on a short-term solution 

in which EPA would sign the existing 

ROD with the condition that the 

cleanup levels would only be interim 

figures and a final plan would be established by 2002. 

Boucher first encouraged the group 

to designate representatives from the 

management staff of each involved 

party who would develop the final Map of proposed future uses for the Joliet site. <Continued on Page 11> 

10 
From the start, she helped the group reach 

decisions on every aspect of their meetings, 

including the agenda, the schedule, and various operating procedures. She even asked the 

group to agree on the roles of a facilitator and 

to rotate some of these roles among themselves so she could separate herself from the 

technical discussions and be seen as an unbiased mediator. 

According to Dr. Mark Tumeo, a USDA 

contactor assigned to Joliet, the facilitator not 

only reinitiated talks, but also helped the 

involved agencies develop better long-term 

relationships for resolving conflict. “We still 

might not see eye-to-eye, but at least she 

helped us deal with our issues in an effective 

and cooperative manner,” he says. 

“Our meetings prior to hiring the facilitator were very contentious,” says Diana Mally 

Cleanup activities at federal facilities across the country are making thousands of EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago. “We 

of acres suitable for redevelopment as well as restoring natural areas such as simply were not making any progress.” Now, wetlands and prairies. 

plan. Once this management group had been created, it 

appointed two technical workgroups, one on human health 

and one on ecological health, comprised of representatives 

from each party. The workgroups met once each month 

with the facilitator to discuss the cleanup levels needed to 

address each topic of concern. 

Boucher did not participate in the technical discussions. 

Instead, she came to meetings to provide the groups with 

team-building activities and conflict resolution training. 

although final cleanup levels are still being 

determined, Mally is optimistic that a fair 

agreement will be reached. “The real success is that we are 

once again able to talk,” she says. 

Three months after their formation, the workgroups presented the management group with their collected data on 

cleanup needs at Joliet. Since then, the management group 

has been reviewing the data and meeting with the facilitator 

to reach consensus on a final plan. Once a final plan is proposed, it will be evaluated by a feasability specialist before 

moving to closure. 

Partners In Progress 

Write To Us 

We encourage your questions, comments, and contributions. Please send your input to Dianna Young by mail at 

U.S. EPA/FFRRO, Mailcode: 5106, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail at 

<young.dianna@epa.gov>; or fax at 202 260-5646. 

Join Our Mailing List 

If you would like to be on the FFRRO mailing list to 

receive future issues of Partners In Progress, please fill 

out and return this form to the address above. 

Name: _____________________________________ 

Agency/Organization:__________________________ 

Street Address: ______________________________ 

City: _______________________________________ 

State: ________ Zip Code:_____________________ 

Phone Number: ______________________________ 

E-mail:_____________________________________ 

11 
ICMA Passes on a Legacy of Information on 

Military Base Reuse 

Individuals involved in military base closure and reuse participated in a workshop in August 2001 to record their 

accumulated experiences for future reference. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) cohosted the workshop with the city of Aurora, Colorado. Approximately 45 attendees participated in discussion groups 

covering topics such as planning for reuse, environmental remediation, community involvement, property transfer, 

land-use controls, and recommendations on the process of future base closure rounds. Participants also toured two former military sites—Lowry Air Force Base and Fitzsimons Army Hospital—that are being converted for residential, 

commercial, and community use. 

The idea for the workshop was based on discussions ICMA’s Military Base Reuse Consortium had with local government officials and others. Additional base closures have been discussed for several years and several pieces of 

legislation have been introduced to allow for more Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds, including the 

recent Department of Defense Efficient Facilities Initiative. 

“The goal of the workshop was to gather a small group of people with a wide variety of experience in a relaxed, academic setting,” says Jacen McMillen of ICMA. “People were able to speak candidly about the issues, and we received a 

lot of positive and beneficial feedback.” 

Results of the workshop are intended to help local governments face the challenges and opportunities created by 

possible future base closures. Information from the workshop will be organized, condensed, and published as a report 

to supplement ICMA’s upcoming Base Reuse Handbook, 2nd Edition. 

For more information, contact Jacen McMillen of ICMA at 202 962-3596. 

2Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent postconsumer fiber. 

Restoration and Reuse Of 

Federal Facilities 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Of

fice 

ficial Business 

1EPA

United States First Class Mail 

Postage and Fees Paid Environmental Protection Agency 

A EP (5106) 

G-35 ashington, DC 20460 W