4 

Federal Facilities Forum 

Members Meet 

5 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

Bids Farewell to Western 

Tier 

6 

Modern Technology 

Speeds Cleanup at Rocky 

Flats 

8 

2002 National 

Achievement Awards: 

Cleanups Prove to Be 

Win-Win Situations 

Federal Cleanups That Put Citizens First 

www.epa.gov/swerffr 

EPA505-B-03-002 

Issue 8 

November 2003 

From the Director 

Welcome to our 8th edition of Partners in Progress (PIP). This issue marks 

the debut of several firsts for the newsletter. Beginning with this issue, 

PIP will be available via online distribution in addition to the printed 

newsletter. This will allow us to save valuable resources as well as help streamline 

delivery. When each issue is published, subscribers will receive an e-mail message 

that contains highlights of the new PIP and links to the online document. For 

those who prefer the paper edition, printed copies will remain available. 

OSWER Assistant Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko has announced 

five major initiatives, including the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC). In support of the 

RCC initiative, we are bringing you Partners in Progress in a more environmentally-friendly, 

efficient way. 

By coincidence, two articles in this issue focus on the two “Rockies,” as we call them. No, we are 

not talking about Colorado’s Major League Baseball team, but about two major federal facility sites: 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and the Army’s 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal. 

The Rocky Flats article represents the first installment of a new PIP feature—the “RPM’s Corner.” 

We will use this space to explore the technical side of federal facilities restoration, with an eye toward 

providing particularly useful information for remedial project managers (RPMs). In this inaugural 

installment of the RPM’s Corner, we examine the technology that has helped to accelerate and 

improve the cleanup of Rocky Flats, a DOE site near Denver, Colorado that manufactured nuclear 

weapons components for nearly 40 years. By embracing new technology, the Rocky Flats cleanup is 

now ahead of schedule. By 2006, we anticipate that the bulk of the 6,500 acre site will be transferred 

FromtheDirector 

<Continued on Page 2> 

Stakeholder Efforts Earn Anacostia 

An Urban River Pilot Project 

On April 21, 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers announced the selection of the Anacostia River as the first of eight urban 

river restoration pilot projects under the Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative. Through a competitive process, reviewers selected the Anacostia project based on its comprehensive restoration plan, 

which includes restoring neighboring wetlands, expanding forest coverage, redeveloping underused 

brownfields properties along the banks, and expanding public and stakeholder involvement. 

The Anacostia, which flows through the District of Columbia and Maryland, is often referred to as 

the region’s “Forgotten River.” While not as well-known as the Potomac, it was never forgotten by the 

members of the Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance (AWTA), who have quietly worked to improve 

the river’s prognosis since 1999. <Continued on Page 3> 
From the Director 

<Continued From Page 1> 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use as a wildlife 

refuge, while another portion will be used to complete a 

beltway around Denver. 

Community involvement has played a key role at Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, also profiled in this issue. As 

with nearby Rocky Flats, much of the former Army installation’s acreage will be converted to a wildlife refuge. However, 

the 940-acre Western Tier of the property is scheduled to be 

transferred to neighboring Commerce City for redevelopment. When the Western Tier was originally scheduled to be 

deleted from the National Priority List (NPL), the community intervened to request additional soil testing at the site. In 

response to community concerns, EPA worked with the 

Colorado Department of Public Health to conduct additional tests on the Western Tier. Based on the results, which 

confirmed that the parcel was safe for its intended reuse, the 

property was deleted from the NPL on January 21, 2003. 

Whether on paper or online, PIP continues to relate the 

key happenings within EPA’s Federal Facility cleanup program and report on accomplishments and activities with its 

many partners. A prime example of such partnerships paying environmental benefits is the formation of the Anacostia 

Watershed Toxics Alliance (AWTA), a group of public and 

private partners, including EPA, who have combined efforts 

to clean up Washington, DC’s Anacostia River. AWTA’s 

efforts recently contributed to the selection of the Anacostia 

by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as one of 

eight urban river restoration pilot programs. You can read 

Finally, this issue highlights the deserving winners of the 

2002 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Notable 

Achievement Awards for Federal Facilities. The awards recognized the achievements of Region 5’s Fernald Team and 

Region 9’s John Chesnutt. The Fernald Team was responsible 

for overseeing the cleanup of the Fernald Superfund site—a 

former DOE site near Cincinnati, Ohio which formerly 

refined uranium for defense purposes. Faced with the challenge of remediating a site with extensive uranium and 

radium contamination, the Fernald Team strengthened the 

relationship between EPA and the Ohio EPA, and reached 

out to the surrounding community to put the cleanup an estimated 4 years ahead of schedule. John Chesnutt was 

recognized for his efforts as the RPM at Fort Ord, an NPL 

site near Monterey, California. John arranged significant outreach programs to promote understanding in the community 

prior to signing of the Interim Action Record of Decision 

(ROD) at the former military base and took a leadership role 

in addressing issues surrounding clearance. 

Fundamental keys to success in federal facilities restoration—at Rocky Flats, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Fernald, 

Anacostia, Fort Ord, and around the country—have been 

stakeholder involvement and cooperation among agencies, 

individuals, and communities. With that always in mind, 

we welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. 

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

gov/swerffrr>. If you would like to receive PIP electronically, please let us know by sending an email to 

<newsletter_ffrro@epa.gov>. Please be sure to let us know if 

you wish to continue to receive the printed version, the 

electronic version, or both by sending in the attached 

Acronyms Explained 

AWTA Anacostia Watershed Toxics Alliance 

CAB Citizens Advisory Board 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESD Explanation of Significant Differences 

FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office 

FOST Findings of Suitability for Transfer 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

NAS National Academies of Science 

NPL National Priorities List 

OSC On-Scene Coordinator 

OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration 

RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPM Remedial Project Manager 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TIO Technology Information Office 

TSP Technical Support Project 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

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 a 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 our goal of “federal cleanups that put 

citizens first.” 

Partners In Progress 

more about the Anacostia’s selection on page 1. response card. 

—James Woolford, FFRRO Director 

Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5106G) 

November 2003 

www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ 

2 
3 Partners In Progress 

Along with efforts to revitalize the river’s waterfront 

community and a $1.3 billion plan to improve the city’s 

environmentally unsound combined sewer system, AWTA 

was cited as one of the keys to the project’s selection as a 

pilot project by EPA. The 

volunteer group is a partnership of over 25 public and 

private organizations which 

seek to address the dangerous 

concentrations of toxins in 

the sediments of the 

Anacostia Watershed (see 

sidebar). To address the sediment problem, AWTA has 

systematically developed and 

implemented a three phase 

plan, funded by a combination of public and private 

funds from AWTA members. 

AWTA’s first phase created 

a baseline ecological and human health risk assessment 

using available existing data and information. Within its 

first year, AWTA had compiled the available data into its 

Phase 1 Interpretive Summary Report, and identified major 

gaps in the information required to take further actions to 

address the river’s toxics problems. 

During the Phase 2 of its plan, completed in January 

2001, AWTA members conducted primary research to fill 

in information that was lacking in Phase 1, performed risk 

assessments, developed hydrodynamic models and identified potential remedies for the Anacostia’s toxic sediments. 

Now in Phase 3, AWTA is in the process of implementing several remedial actions to clean up the river. The first 

major component of this final phase is the placement of a 

reactive cap on key areas of 

the river bottom. This permanent measure, composed 

of a dense clay cap, will filter 

and contain contaminants 

already present and entering 

the river. Construction of the 

cap is scheduled to begin in 

November. Additionally, 

spring and summer of 2003 

saw the implementation of 

several developed low-impact 

development projects, including measures to reduce the 

amount of pavement near the 

river in order to allow for 

more natural ground filtering 

of water and sediment bound for the river. 

As one of the nation’s 10 most polluted rivers, the 

Anacostia continues to face contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, heavy metals, and raw 

sewage discharges from combined sewer overflows. While 

AWTA’s three-phase project may be close to completion, its 

selection as an Urban River Pilot by EPA and USACE is 

sure to increase public awareness of the problems facing the 

Anacostia, and guarantee that it will never again be called 

the capital’s “Forgotten River.” 

Stakeholder Efforts 

<Continued From Page 1> 

“To work together in good faith as 

partners to evaluate the presence, sources 

and impacts of toxic contaminants in the 

Anacostia River with all stakeholders, both 

public and private, and other interested 

parties and to evaluate and take actions to 

enhance the restoration of the Anacostia 

watershed to its beneficial use to the 

community and ecosystem as a whole.” 

—AWTA Mission 

• The Academy of Natural Sciences, Patrick Center 

• Anacostia Watershed Society 

• Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command 

• ATSDR 

• Bolling Air Force Base 

• Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

• District of Columbia Department of Health 

• District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 

• Interstate Commission Water and Sewer Authority 

• Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 

• LANTDIV 

• Maryland Department of the Environment 

• Metropolitan Council of Governments 

• Montgomery County 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

• National Park Service 

• Naval District Washington 

• Naval Research Laboratory 

• Potomac Power and Electric Company 

• Prince George’s County 

• River Keepers 

• University of the District of Columbia 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

AWTA Members 
Federal Facilities Forum Members Meet Face to Face


F

ederal Facilities Forum members 

usually know each other as voices 

on the other end of a speaker 

phone during the forum’s monthly teleconference, but April 21–25 in Seattle, 

Washington, the forum strayed from its 

usual format as members met face-toface during the Technical Support 

Project (TSP) annual conference. 

The TSP, which also includes the 

similarly-structured Engineering and 

Ground Water Forums, was created in 

1987 to provide technical assistance to 

remedial project managers (RPMs), corrective action staff and On-Scene 

Coordinators (OCSs). The conference 

provided a valuable opportunity for 

forum members to meet and discuss 

federal facilities issues. Through the 

annual conference and its monthly teleconferences, the Federal Facilities Forum 

helps to improve communication 

between the Regions and Headquarters 

by providing a regular, structured format for sharing information on current 

FFRRO policies and areas of concern. 

Forum members, who are appointed by regional management, are 

typically senior remedial project managers, scientists, technicians or section 

chiefs. During the TSP conference, 

they discussed a number of issues, 

including: 

•	 National Association of Remedial 

Project Managers (NARPM) 

involvement and coordination 

• Technical Information Management 

Systems (TIMS) 

•	 Formerly Used Defense Sites 

(FUDS) inventory 

•	 Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid 

(DNAPL) characterization 

• Privatization of DoD cleanups 

• Sediment response strategies 

• Asbestos cleanup 

•	 Perchlorate contamination and 

response strategies 

Both at the conference and in the 

monthly teleconferences, perchlorate 

contamination issues have been at the 

fore of the Federal Facilities Forum. 

Perchlorate is produced primarily for 

use as a component of solid rocket propellant used in government munitions. 

It is also used in fireworks. Soil and 

water contamination caused by the 

manufacture and improper disposal of 

perchlorate chemicals is known to affect 

some 25 states. Currently, EPA is evaluating the risks posed by perchlorate 

contamination, having completed a risk 

assessment for perchlorate. Because of 

issues related to the science underlying 

the risk assessment, several questions 

have been recently referred to the 

National Academy of Science (NAS) for 

review. The review is expected to take a 

year to 18 months to complete. 

Federal Facilities Forum teleconferences are held from 1:30–3:00 pm 

Eastern Time on the second Thursday 

of each month. For additional information about Federal Facilities Forum 

calls, please contact your local forum 

member. A list of forum members is 

available online at <www.epa.gov/tio/ 

tsp/ffmember.htm>. 

Online Perchlorate Resources 

EPA Technology Innovation Program 

In furthering its mission to advocate more effective, less costly approaches 

to site cleanups, EPA’s Technology Innovation Program has compiled some 

of the most relevant information on cleaning up perchlorate-contaminated 

groundwater. <www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/default.focus/sec/ 

perchlorate/cat/Overview/> 

Interim Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate 

<www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/interim_guid_perchlorate_6-99.pdf> 

Perchlorate Questions and Answers 

This Q & A document serves to clarify the January 22, 2003 Status of 

EPA’s Interim Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate, issued by Marianne 

Lamont Horinko. <www.epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/perchlorate_qa.htm> 

Partners In Progress 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Five Priorities


OSWER Assistant Administrator Marianne Lamont 

Horinko has set forth “Five Priorities” for EPA’s Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

“My five priorities form the foundation of OSWER’s 

commitment to protect human health and the environment, encourage greater environmental stewardship, and 

promote environmental justice in all programs and policies,” said Horinko. 

OSWER’s Five Priorities are: 

Emergency Response and Homeland Security 

Every year, OSWER’s Emergency Response Program 

conducts or oversees hundreds of emergency responses to 

clean up oil spills and hazardous substance releases. 

OSWER ensures that the cleanup is appropriate, timely, 

and minimizes human and environmental risks. OSWER’s 

Emergency Response Program provides the people and 

skills necessary to respond to national security threats faced 

by this country. The possibility of future terrorist attacks or 

other large-scale disasters necessitate a national response 

that is immediate, protective, and preventive. 

One Cleanup Program 

The One Cleanup Program (OCP) is OSWER’s vision for 

how different cleanup programs at all levels of government 

can work together to improve the coordination, speed, and 

effectiveness of cleanups at the nation’s contaminated sites. 

OCP encourages improved collaboration among EPA cleanup 

programs with state, tribal, local and other federal agency pro4 
5 Partners In Progress 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal Bids Farewell to Western Tier 

The Western Tier parcel of the Rocky Mountain 

Arsenal (RMA) was deleted from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) on January 21, 2003, making a 

positive step for the former defense site. The 940-acre 

Western Tier parcel of RMA was first announced for partial 

deletion in October 1998, but deletion was delayed after 

the comments received during the review period revealed 

substantial public concern regarding the potential for dioxin contamination in the soil. 

Between the initial 1998 deletion announcement and the 

actual 2003 deletion, EPA and the Colorado Department 

of Public Health conducted further tests on the Western 

Tier soil. After examining results, authorities determined 

that the soil indeed did not pose a threat to redevelopment. 

The intent to delete the Western Tier of RMA was 

announced again in the September 23, 2002 Federal 

Register, with the public comment period ending November 

22, 2002. Comments received during this comment period 

focused principally on how contamination or munitions 

discovered during redevelopment would be addressed. 

Fears regarding dioxin are rooted in the site’s remediation 

history. Prior to the 1998 attempt at deletion, the Western 

Tier was not subject to soil remediation. A remedial investigation completed in 1992 examined RMA’s soil, water, 

structures, air, and biota, and determined that the Western 

Tier was exposed to minimal contamination during the 

Arsenal’s 60-year history. Four years later, the On-Post 

Record of Decision (ROD) specified that the Western Tier 

would not require soil remediation since exposure to the 

soil did not pose a risk to humans or biota. 

The determination that the soil posed no risk to humans 

was brought under scrutiny when neighboring Commerce 

City, which has the right of first refusal for the reuse of the 

Western Tier parcel, listed a daycare center among its list of 

possible future commercial uses for the site. Facing a public 

concerned with the possibility of potentially exposing 

infants and children to hazardous chemicals, EPA chose to 

take a cautious route, and withdrew the request for deletion 

until further tests could be conducted. 

The Army established RMA in 1942 to manufacture 

conventional and chemical munitions during World War II, 

and leased portions of the facility to private industrial and 

agricultural chemical producers in the post-war period. 

During that same period, the Army continued to use the 

facility for its own chemical development activities. The 

industrial and waste disposal practices of the post-war years 

led to the first complaints of groundwater contamination in 

the land surrounding the site in 1954. As a result of contamination caused by the Arsenal’s long history of chemical 

production, the whole of RMA was eventually placed on 

the NPL in October 1984. It was among the first federal 

facilities placed on the NPL, and remedial investigation culminated in a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1996. Remedial 

work is expected to cost the Army more than $4 billion by 

the time it is completed. 

The deletion of the Western Tier parcel was another positive step in the remediation of RMA. While the 

remediation of the relatively small Western Tier portion has 

been completed and the parcel deleted from the NPL, the 

remainder of the 5000+ acre RMA continues to undergo 

remediation. Cleanup of this facility will be one of the most 

expensive conducted by the U.S. military. Upon completion, it will be turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for use as a wildlife refuge, as mandated by 

Congress. Currently, the General Services Administration is 

assessing the value of the deleted Western Tier lands. 

Discussions between government entities and Commerce 

City regarding the potential for land purchase and transfer 

to Commerce City will follow. 

grams and stakeholders. You can find information on the One 

Cleanup Program, on the Web at 

<www.epa.gov/oswer/onecleanupprogram>. 

Land Revitalization 

The Land Revitalization Agenda (LRA) promotes the reuse 

of once-contaminated sites in order to revitalize America’s 

communities. Because cleanup and reuse are mutually supportive goals, property reuse should be an integral part of the 

way OSWER does business. To learn more about OSWER’s 

Land Revitalization Initiative, go to <www.epa.gov/oswer/ 

landrevitalization>. 

Energy Recovery, Recycling & Waste 

Minimization 

The Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) is a major 

cross-Agency initiative that identifies innovative, flexible, and 

more protective ways to conserve natural resources through 

(1) material pollution prevention, recycling, and reuse; (2) 

reducing chemicals in all their uses; and (3) conserving energy 

and materials. The RCC also includes a retail component that 

educates consumers about resource conservation opportunities. For more information about the Resource Conservation 

Challenge, go to <www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/>. 

Workforce Development 

OSWER is committed to developing the full potential of 

its workforce by encouraging creativity and innovation, providing career development opportunities, and assuring that a 

diverse pool of qualified candidates is available for all 

OSWER job opportunities. If you would like more information about OSWER’s workforce development, contact Laurie 

May at (202) 566-1918. 
Modern Technology Speeds Cleanup at 

Rocky Flats 

During its heyday in the 1950s 

and 60s, the 6,500 acre Rocky 

Flats site was one of the cornerstones of the United States’ ever 

expanding nuclear deterrence program—the state of the art in weapons 

technology. While Rocky Flats has 

been inoperative since it was closed for safety reasons in 

1989, state of the art technology is again playing an important part in the site’s history by speeding the $7 billion 

cleanup of the former Department of Energy (DOE) site. 

Water to the Rescue (Again) 

at Building 776/777 

Located just 17 miles northwest of metropolitan Denver, 

the nature of the work conducted at Rocky Flats was always 

a potential danger to city. Never was the danger more obvious than in 1969, when Building 776/777, the facility’s 

primary location for plutonium weapons construction, 

caught fire. Contemporary wisdom dictated that using 

water to douse a plutonium fire would release a radioactive 

flash and cloud, but firefighters, facing the potential ignition of the building’s 3.5 tons of plutonium, had only 

minutes to decide to give the water a try. No calamity 

ensued, and sprinkler systems were soon installed in Rocky 

Flats buildings. 

Though the building was extinguished by firefighters 

before the radioactive smoke could affect downtown 

Denver, the fire has continued to have a profound effect on 

the site and on the current cleanup process. Due to the 

volatile nature of the materials used in fabricating the cores 

of atomic weapons, Building 776/777 was constructed of 

steel slats rather than the concrete that was used in many of 

the site’s peripheral buildings. While workers constructed 

plutonium weapons components within the confines of 

sealed glove boxes to limit contamination of the surrounding building, the 1969 fire compromised the containment 

precautions. Contaminated smoke filled the facility, spreading radiation over and between the building’s steel slat 

construction. 

Over 30 years later, the metal slat construction that was 

designed to contain radiation complicates the radiological 

cleanup. Unlike concrete, on which contractors can use 

skabblers to blast off and collect as much surface material as 

necessary before demolishing the structure, the metal building cannot be cleaned sufficiently to reach free-release 

standards. Therefore, the entire structure must be disassembled and disposed of off-site—no small task for the 

224,000 square foot building. 

Fortunately, new technology has accelerated what would 

otherwise be a time-consuming element of cleanup at 

Building 776. Originally, metal structures at Rocky Flats 

were deconstructed with reciprocating saws, which are commonly used to disassemble metal components such as 

storage tanks and glove boxes. However, mechanical cutting 

tools exposed workers to cutting related hazards, including 

breach of protective equipment, and the release of contaminants from the surface material during the cutting process. 

In some cases, thermal plasma-arc cutting torches are used 

for in-situ cutting of metal structures, but require specialized containment and ventilation structures to control dust 

and fumes and to protect workers from contaminants that 

are disturbed in the process. 

6 Partners In Progress 

RPM’s 

Corner 

1950—Congress authorizes expansion of the United 

States’ nuclear weapons program. 

1951—The Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor 

to the Department of Energy, selects Rocky Flats, 

Colorado as a nuclear weapons production site. 

1952—Production begins at Rocky Flats. 

1953—First nuclear components are completed. 

1957—Fire in Building 771 contaminates the structure. 

1967—Storage barrels leak plutonium contaminated 

chemicals into ground at the future site of Pad 903. 

1969—Fire in Building 776/777, the main site for component construction, threatens Denver with radioactive 

smoke. Damage is estimated at $26.5 million. 

1972—“Buffer zone”of 4,600 acres is created around 

Rocky Flats. 

June 1989—FBI and EPA inspect Rocky Flats for environmental violations. 

Rocky Flats Over Time 
7 Partners In Progress 

The High Pressure Water-Jet, or the “Super Squirt Gun” 

as it is known to Rocky Flats remediation staff, is eliminating 

some of the problems associated with other cutting methods. 

Like a giant dental tool, the Water-Jet uses a 55,000 pounds 

per square inch stream of abrasive water that can cut through 

1/4 inch stainless steel at two feet per minute, all while only 

emitting one gallon of wastewater. The small amount of 

water acts as a fixative to contain the contamination that 

would otherwise escape during mechanical or thermal cutting, and is easily collected for safe disposal. The Water-Jet is 

a potential boon to the Building 776/777 project, and 

should allow contractors to more easily disassemble the 

building’s metal slats for offsite disposal, as well as allowing 

them to easily collect wastewater for safe disposal. 

New Cans for Plutonium 

One of the Rocky Flats site’s biggest cleanup problems— 

large and unstable stores of weapons grade plutonium—is 

also being brought under control with the help of new 

technology. In the past, poor protocols for storage of plutonium and plutonium waste resulted in situations like the 

Pad 903 incident, where plutonium-tainted liquids were 

poured into oil barrels and left to the elements until 1967 

and resulted in much of Rocky Flats’ soil contamination. 

The site’s weapons grade plutonium has always been stored 

in stainless steel containers in on-site vaults, but newer 

technology is again providing an added safety margin. 

With the modern cleanup of Rocky Flats, the facility’s 

remaining plutonium stores are being repackaged for shipping to their permanent resting place at Savannah River, 

South Carolina. Rocky Flats’ plutonium must first be heated 

to restabilize the matter and reduce the effects of oxidation. 

Plutonium is then placed in modern “50 year cans”—dual 

wall, stainless steel containers that nestle the radioactive plutonium in a stabilized, vacuum packed environment. 

In August 2003, Rocky Flats shipped its final container 

of weapons grade plutonium off site. 

The Radioactive Handi-Wipe 

During nearly four decades of active use, Rocky Flats relied 

heavily on sealed glove boxes to protect workers and the environment from the harmful radiation produced n forming 

plutonium into atomic weapons components. Filled with 

inert gas to protect against fire and with the contents accessible only through shoulder deep gloves, the glove boxes 

helped define the look of 1950s nuclear science. While Rocky 

Flats’ army of these boxes protected its workers during the 

site’s lifetime, they pose a challenge to remediation efforts. 

Until recently, glove boxes needed to be deconstructed 

with either Zallsaws or arc torches, packaged, and shipped 

off site as true waste due to unremovable plutonium contamination. However, according to EPA project manager 

Tim Rehder, cerium nitrate decontamination has speeded 

the disposal of contaminated glove boxes. The new 

method is similar to cleaning a kitchen—simply spray the 

contaminated surface with the cerium nitrate solution, 

wait 20-30 minutes, and wipe away radiation. Plutonium 

contamination is contained on the wipe, which must be 

properly disposed of, but the glove box surface is reduced 

from true waste to low level waste, facilitating easier and 

less costly disposal. In Building 776/777, use of new 

decontamination technology has saved an estimated $22 

million, based on a rate of $10,000 saved for each cubic 

meter of glove box cleaned. 

These new technologies, combined with reassessments 

of several areas of the site, have combined to put the 

Rocky Flats cleanup ahead of schedule—administrators 

currently expect the project to be completed in December 

2006. This is good news not only for the wildlife that will 

inhabit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refuge 

scheduled for the site, but also for the burgeoning Denver 

population, which anxiously awaits the missing segment of 

the beltway scheduled to be built on the edge of the site. 

October 1989—Rocky Flats placed on National 

Priorities List. 

December 1989—Plutonium operations halted on a 

temporary basis for safety reasons. Operations never 

resume. 

1992—President George H.W. Bush announces the cancellation of the W-88 Trident Warhead Program. 

Production at Rocky Flats is rendered unnecessary. 

1993—Secretary of Energy formally announces the end 

of nuclear production at Rocky Flats. 

1994—Last defense-related shipment leaves Rocky Flats 

as non-nuclear work ceases. 

1996—Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement is signed by the 

Department of Energy, EPA, and the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment. 

1997—2006 is targeted for cleanup completion. 

December 2001—Congress votes to turn the remediated 

Rocky Flats site into a wildlife refuge operated by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 
2002 OSWER National Achievement Awards: 

Cleanups Prove to Be Win-Win Situations 

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) recently honored the Region 5’s Fernald 

Team and John Chesnutt of Region 9 with Federal 

Facility Response Notable Achievement Awards. The awards 

recognize leadership, innovation, progress, community outreach, and multiple-agency partnership during federal 

facility cleanup efforts in 2002. 

Fernald Team Award—Region 5 

Brian Barwick, James Saric, and Eugene Jablonowski 

make up the Fernald Team—the EPA entity responsible for 

overseeing the cleanup of the Fernald Superfund site, the 

first environmental cleanup facility in the Department of 

Energy (DOE) complex. The Fernald site is a 1,050-acre 

facility, located approximately 18 miles northwest of 

Cincinnati, Ohio. The facility was in operation by DOE 

from 1951–1991, where high purity uranium metal was 

produced in support of national defense programs. 

The Fernald cleanup project, which is expected to cost 

an estimated $4 billion at the time of completion in 2006, 

poses a great challenge due to its size, expense, level of contamination, and technical complexity. Over two-thirds of 

the site contains uranium contaminated soil, and a uranium 

groundwater plume measuring one half-mile long and one 

eighth-mile wide exists on and off site. In addition, there 

are two radium-bearing waste silos, representing the single 

largest source of radium and radon gas generation within 

the entire DOE complex. The DOE complex includes 

more than 120 facilities nationwide. 

Region 5’s Fernald Team assumed a substantial leadership 

role, working extensively with DOE to develop and implement various strategies to expedite cleanup activities. The 

two agencies cooperatively developed an efficient and costeffective Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) 

document that allowed for the utilization of existing thermal 

dryers to treat materials from multiple Operable Units within 

the facility. In addition, as a result of revised waste acceptance 

criteria at the offsite disposal facility, EPA has been working 

with DOE to amend a Record of Decision (ROD) to eliminate the requirement that materials be treated to meet the 

toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) prior to 

offsite disposal. These efforts, among others, have significantly contributed to the facility’s expected closure date being 

accelerated from 2010 to 2006. 

The Fernald team faced a monumental challenge in disposing of 8,900 cubic yards of radon-generating material, 

all of which was contained in two silos that were well past 

their constructed life span and in danger of collapsing. To 

avoid the potential hazards of workers treating waste material in unstable structures, EPA and DOE decided to 

construct an interim storage unit next to the two dilapidated silos. The completion of this interim unit was a crucial 

step in the safe remediation of the waste material, as it facilitated remote extraction and transfer of the material into a 

more structurally sound facility for eventual treatment. The 

team expects that all material from the two silos will be successfully transferred to the interim unit by 2004, greatly 

reducing the principal hazard on the site. 

During 2002, the Fernald team also helped oversee the 

completion of a Radon Control System, which siphons 

radon gas from the two silos and the interim storage unit, 

providing additional safety measures to workers performing 

waste treatment. These innovative procedures contributed 

to Fernald workers setting a new safety record for the site, 

with 10 million consecutive safe work hours and 1,000 

consecutive days without a lost time injury or accident. 

This record helped the Fernald site earn the lowest OSHA 

recordable injury rate within the DOE complex. 

Outreach to the Community 

Through extensive community involvement, sponsored 

educational outreach programs, and significant charity 

donations, the Fernald Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) has 

become recognized as a model for community based decision-making, both within the DOE complex and 

internationally. At routine committee and board meetings, 

the CAB works diligently with EPA and DOE project managers, regulators, and citizens to discuss controversial social 

and economic issues. As a result, the CAB has provided balanced solutions that form the foundation of Fernald’s 

cleanup program, cutting years off the original project 

schedule and saving taxpayers billions of dollars. 

The Fernald Team also invited 13,000 teachers and students to their sponsored educational outreach programs. 

To further demonstrate their commitment to the community, Fernald employees and contractors donated a 

combined total of $516,000 during 2002 to charity, 

scholarship funds, and civic, education, arts, and health 

and human services programs. 

Partnering Pays Off 

Throughout the course of this especially challenging 

cleanup effort, the Fernald Team has worked to strengthen 

its relationship with DOE and the Ohio EPA. Through its 

<Continued on Page 10> 

Partners In Progress 

8 
The Fernald Team, recently honored with the 2002 

Federal Facility Response Outstanding AchievementTeam Award (see page 8), shares their Remediation 

Project Manager experiences during the Fernald Cleanup 

Project with PIP... 

One-on-One with the Fernald Team (FT): 

PIP: What has been the greatest challenge thus far during 

the Fernald site cleanup? 

FT: When managing a project of this size, cost, and technical complexity, the biggest hurdle is trying to keep 

things moving. With a large Department of Energy 

(DOE) site, it is often easy to get caught up in all of 

the details. It is important to take a holistic approach 

on a project like this and maintain an end vision of 

how all of the pieces of the puzzle will fit together. At 

the same time, it is important to challenge the traditional timeline and constantly ask yourself and 

others, “How can we accelerate this project?” 

PIP: What has been the most important action that the 

Fernald team has taken to overcome this challenge? 

FT: Without a doubt—our dedication to cooperation 

and open communication with DOE and other 

agencies involved in the cleanup. Clear and consistent communication is the key to maintaining 

progress. When an issue of debate arises, it is also 

extremely important to keep personal agendas out of 

the conversation and realize that all parties are working to achieve a common end result. 

PIP: How much value do you place on community outreach and involvement during a federal facility 

cleanup effort? 

FT: It ultimately depends on the location of the facility 

and the level of interest demonstrated by the community. In almost all cleanup projects, having the 

community involved is extremely important. The 

community’s involvement often lends a different 

perspective and provides valuable feedback on 

important issues. Public confidence and support also 

help to move things along and can often beneficially 

influence budgetary decisions. 

PIP: What is the most valuable thing you have learned 

thus far while managing the Fernald cleanup for EPA? 

FT: We often obsess on trying to understand all of the 

complexities of every single step of every process. 

This technically complex project has taught me that 

it is more important to be a project manager, not a 

technical expert. My time has been made more valuable by coordinating the efforts of those who do 

their job best. 

PIP: What is some advice that you would give to another 

RPM taking on a similar project? 

FT: Establish and maintain open lines of communications with all participating parties and be completely 

upfront with all stakeholders. This facilitates honesty 

and cooperation by all parties and contributes to 

project acceleration. It is also important to have an 

ongoing vision of the project’s end state. This helps 

drive you along the course and keep things moving. 

For more information on the Fernald cleanup, visit 

<www.fernald.gov> or contact James Saric at (312) 886-

0992 or <saric.james@epa.gov>, Eugene Jablonowski at 

(312) 886-4591 or <jablonowski.eugene@epa.gov>, or Brian 

Barwick at (312) 886-6620 or <barwick.brian@epa.gov>. 

In-Depth with the Fernald Team, Region 5 

Fernald Site Highlights 

Acres: 1,050 

Estimated Total Cost Upon Completion: 

Approximately $4 billion 

Number of Completed RODs: Five (one for each 

Operable Unit) 

Number of Completed Removal Actions: 27 

Technical Issues Involved: 

• Uranium contaminated soil covering more than 

2/3 of site. 

• Substantial uranium contamination of the Great 

Miami Aquifer—one of the nation’s largest drinking water aquifers. 

• Two silos containing radium-bearing waste. 

• Structurally unsound silos increasing threat of 

dome collapse and material release. 

Innovative Approaches to Cleanup: 

• Remote extraction of waste materials from Silos 1 

and 2. 

• Installation of Radon Control System—siphons 

radon gas from Silos and interim storage unit. 

9
 Partners In Progress 
National Achievement Awards 

<Continued From Page 8> 

understanding of and commitment to a cooperative 

approach to the cleanup, the Fernald Team and its partners 

learned to identify and implement several opportunities for 

both cost and time savings. In addition, the agencies has 

continuously worked together to obtain and maintain the 

support of citizens that is so critical to the project’s success. 

Proven Progress 

During 2002, the Fernald Team made extensive 

progress towards the beneficial redevelopment and reuse 

of the project site. Over 50 percent of the Fernald site 

is now certified as clean as a result of the following 

remedial actions completed in FY02: 

• Excavation and restoration of the South Field. 

•	 Demolition of 112 structures with waste placed into 

the OSDF. 

• Construction of Radon Control System. 

• Construction of interim storage unit. 

•	 Completion of uranium shipments to DOE’s 

Portsmouth facility. 

• Four natural resource restoration projects. 

John Chesnutt, Region 9, 2002 Individual Federal Facility 

Notable Achievement Award Winner 

Individual Award—John Chesnutt, 

Region 9 

For seven years, John Chesnutt served as EPA’s Remedial 

Project Manager at Fort Ord, a closed National Priorities 

List (NPL) military base of approximately 27,000 acres 

located near Monterey, CA. Cleanup efforts and property 

transfer at Fort Ord are extremely complicated due to large 

quantities of unexploded ordnance (UXO). Due to the 

environmental setting and potential hazards related to 

munitions, the cleanup at Fort Ord has been embroiled in 

controversy. As a result of several lawsuits against Fort Ord, 

the Army was precluded from performing ordnance cleanup 

as part of the Removal Actions, and as a result, an Interim 

Action ROD was proposed for ordnance clearance at only 

the highest risk former ordnance sites. 

As the EPA RPM, Chesnutt assumed a major leadership 

role in resolving the critical issues involved in the Interim 

Action ROD. In addition to the technical issues, such as 

ordnance detection technology, depth of clearance, and disposal alternatives, Fort Ord was faced with an extremely 

volatile issue with the local community regarding how to 

remove the dense vegetation prior to the ordnance removal. 

While prescribed burning is the most effective and safe 

method for vegetation clearance, several community members strongly objected due to concerns about the associated 

health risks of smoke exposure and the risks of the fires 

burning out of control. 

Recognized as a technical expert in the UXO area, 

Chesnutt was the coordinator of the Strategic Management 

Analysis and Requirements and Technology (SMART) 

team—part of an agreement 

Partners In Progress 

that established a partnership 

between the Army and regulators, focusing on UXO issues 

at Fort Ord. Over the past 

year, Chesnutt demonstrated a 

remarkable ability to balance 

several sensitive and complex 

issues, ultimately culminating 

in the signature of the Interim 

Action ROD, which was a 

critical step in allowing the 

Army to initiate ordnance 

cleanup. 

With an understanding of 

the complex issues associated 

with UXO cleanup and a 

desire to address all of the 

concerns of the community, 

Chesnutt was instrumental in 

convincing the Army that significant outreach efforts were 

necessary before EPA could 

10 
Detonation Using Innovation 

As part of the SMART team’s efforts, Chesnutt 

helped develop and implement a technology matrix 

used to evaluate various UXO detonation methodologies. The team also developed other innovative 

processes and criteria to reduce the hazards and expedite the UXO clearing process, including: 

•	 Methodology for establishing a safe buffer zone for 

areas adjacent to UXO 

•	 More stringent UXO clearance requirements that 

allow for early property transfer, while still assuring 

its safe reuse 

•	 Alternatives to open detonation, minimizing noise, 

frag, and potential emissions. 

sign the Interim Action ROD and initiate ordnance clearing. In addition to monthly meetings on the Proposed 

Plan, EPA and the Army sponsored a series of comprehensive symposia on the specific issues of ordnance clearing 

and prescribed burning, in which Chesnutt presented EPA’s 

official position. Also included in Chesnutt’s outreach strategy was an Army-funded voluntary relocation program for 

community members concerned about the potential health 

effects during the burn. This unprecedented initiative, 

along with the other extensive outreach culminated in community acceptance that vegetative burning was necessary to 

adequately prepare the ordnance areas for clearance. 

A critical factor that has contributed to the overwhelming progress and success at Fort Ord is the amount of 

interagency communication and cooperation. As the RPM, 

Chesnutt participated in all of the meetings and negotiations with the multiple agencies involved in the cleanup 

and was often relied upon to present controversial positions. Using his technical expertise and leadership, 

Chesnutt was instrumental in convincing the various agencies that the alternatives proposed in the Interim Action 

ROD were most effective for safe and efficient ordnance 

clearing while maintaining community support. 

Fort Ord—A Year of Accomplishments 

During FY 02, Chesnutt’s leadership and innovation 

culminated in: 

• Completion of two Remedial Actions 

•	 Finalization of two Findings of Suitability for 

Transfer (FOSTs) 

• Completion of first Five-Year Review at Installation 

•	 Signature of Interim Action ROD for Ordnance 

Clearing 

•	 Transfer of 7,000 acres for use by the Fort Ord Reuse 

Agency and California State University—Monterey 

Bay 

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: 5106G, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail at 

<young.dianna@epa.gov>; or fax at 703 603-0043. 

Join Our Mailing List And/Or Sign 

Up to Receive PIP Electronically 

Beginning with this issue, PIP will be available in both 

print and online electronic formats. If you wish to 

receive e-mail notification of new online PIP issues, 

please send an email to <newsletter_ffrro@epa.gov>. If 

you would like to be on the FFRRO mailing list to 

receive future printed 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: _____________________________________


❐ I wish to receive PIP electronically.


❐ I wish to receive PIP in printed form.


❐ I wish to receive PIP both electronically and via mail.


11 
1EPA

United States 


Environmental Protection Agency


(5106G)


Washington, DC 20460


First Class Mail


Postage and Fees Paid


EPA


G-35


Restoration and Reuse Of 

Federal Facilities 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Of

fice 

ficial Business 

2Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper.