Environmental Protection
Agency
of Office of Site
Spring 2000
(5306W) Enforcement (2271 A) www.epa.gov/osw/cleanup,htm
ORRECTIVE L ACTION J JEWS
A Record of Success
£&,
;";;;ms:fa. Ji 5-bil .^if sea—several regions and states
have launched pilot projects to promote coordination,
develop creative approaches, and showcase RCRA's
regulatory flexibility.
-•:;••*:"£K ;:; ; %; ££'.# :iv-;r:w;:;v^ -'-a.;;&.;;; "Sxgr:,* a new
set of individuals and teams are recognized for out-
standing performance.
il-ovs r.'; S^i^a;;^;: ifis'mJ:::&:s:; EPA, working
with state and local partners, settles with New Mexico
Company for remedial action.
this interactive, results-oriented workshop has been
applauded by participants in 8 regions.
On July 8,1999, EPA announced that it was implementing a set of admin-
istrative reforms, know as the RCRA Cleanup Reforms, to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program.The
reforms are designed to achieve faster, more efficient cleanups at RCRA sites
that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and have actual or potential
contamination.
EPA identified three guidances that would follow the reforms announce-
ment. To check the status of these documents please visit the Corrective
Action Website at . Individual Federal
Register notices will announce the availability of these documents for public
comment.The draft Handbook of Groandwater Policies is now available for
public comment.The others will follow in the coming months.
The draft guidance documents discussed above are significant due to
EPAs announcement in October 1999, that a vast majority of the 1990
Proposed Subpart S regulations will not be finalized. EPA withdrew most of the
proposed rule because the Agency determined that such regulations are not
necessary to carry out its duties under sections 3004(u) and (v). Additionally
attempting to promulgate a comprehensive set of RCRA regulations could
unnecessarily disrupt the state and territorial programs already authorized to
carry out the Corrective Action Program in lieu of EPA, as well as the addition-
al state programs currently undergoing review for authorization.This decision
ended uncertainty related to this rulemaking for state regulators and owners
Continued on page 7
On February 11,2000, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Environmental Defense, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the
Environmental Technology Council
reached a settlement agreement on the
pending litigation over the Corrective
Action Management Unit (CAMU) regula-
tion for remediation waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under the settlement, if EPA
promulgates amendments to the CAMU
rule described in the settlement and cer-
tain other conditions are met, the CAMU
lawsuit will be dropped.
The 1993 rule was written to address
the potential disincentives to cleanup cre-
ated by RCRA rules when applied to the
management of RCRA hazardous remedi-
ation wastes during cleanup.Amendments
to the 1993 rule specified in the settle-
ment would establish CAMU-specific treat-
ment and design standards. Among other
things, the amendments would impose
minimum treatment standards for princi-
pal hazardous constituents in CAMU
wastes and minimum liner and cap stan-
dards for CAMUs.
Timothy Fields Jr., EPA Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, said this "landmark
settlement on CAMU is critical to sustain
the success of the RCRA Cleanup Reform
agenda.The settlement significantly
reduces the cloud of legal uncertainty
over the CAMU rule that has discouraged
hazardous waste cleanups. As a result, this
settlement will allow cleanups already
underway to proceed, and it will encour-
age the cleanup of thousands of other
hazardous waste sites across the nation."
The Agency has been in discussions
for the better part of a year in an effort to
settle litigation over the CAMU rule. In con-
junction with the settlement process, EPA
obtained feedback from many stakehold-
ers, including industry and state govern-
ments, to help inform the settlement.The
settlement calls for EPA to propose
amendments to the existing CAMU rule by
August 7,2000, and to publish a final rule
by October 8,2001. While not part of the
settlement, EPA also intends to include in
the proposed amendments provisions for
expediting state authorization of these
amendments and will take public com-
ment on all of the proposed changes.
For more information see:
-------
A major component of the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative has been
launched: the selection of RCRA
Brownfields pilots. On December 3,1999,
the Assistant Administrators (AA) of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) issued a memorandum request-
ing Regional/State RCRA Brownfields
Pilot Projects.The memorandum
explained that EPA would like to capital-
ize on state or regional pilot projects to
promote regional and state coordination;
develop creative approaches to address
RCRA brownfields issues; utilize the inher-
ent statutory and regulatory flexibility of
RCRA to address common reuse/redevel-
opment issues; and gather information on
policy changes for RCRA corrective
action and other RCRA programs that
impact reuse/redevelopment.
The purpose of the non-funded pilot
program is to advance the application of
brownfields solutions in the RCRA arenas.
The RCRA Brownfields regional and/or
state pilots will serve to :
Achieve protective outcomes while
focusing on effective and efficient
reuse/redevelopment opportunities;
Evaluate streamlined/tailored/innova-
tive cleanup and redevelopment
strategies or those that promote
resource conservation;
Identify and use creative solutions to
redevelopment barriers including the
inherent flexibility in RCRA and other
recent regulatory and policy changes,
e.g.,HWIR-media;
Facilitate coordinated federal/state/
local cleanup and redevelopment;
Provide information useful to develop
strategies to prevent RCRA sites from
becoming "brownfields" or Superfund
sites.
An evaluation panel consisting of rep-
resentatives of EPA headquarters offices,
regional staff, and two states reviewed the
pilot applications that were received.The
evaluation panel determined how the
pilot project would demonstrate innova-
tive approach efforts, provide evidence of
the need for the project, and demonstrate
the likelihood of success to fulfill the ini-
tiative's objectives.
On March 2,2000, members of the
RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative
Workgroup presented information about
the RCRA Brownfields pilot projects to
OSWER AA Tim Fields, Jr. who selected
the following pilots: Bethlehem Steel in
Lackawanna, NY, Blue Valley Redevelop-
ment Team in Kansas City MO, CBS in
Bridgeport, CT, and PECO Energy Co. in
Chester, PA.
Selected pilots will coordinate with
their regional work group members for
assistance in achieving project mile-
stones, tracking pilot reporting, and pro-
viding periodic updates to the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative work
group.The work group will also serve as
problem-solver, provide technical support
and expertise, and continue its coordina-
tion and information-sharing efforts as
work progresses. An update on the pilots
achievements will be presented at the
Brownfields 2000 Conference in October.
For additional information on the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative, please
contact Marjorie Buckholtz or Bob Silva
at 202-260-9605.
The Bethlehem Steel Corp (BSC) facil-
ity in Lackawanna, New York, contains a
former integrated steel plant occupying
approximately 2.5 square miles (1600
acres) extending one mile along the east-
ern shoreline of Lake Erie. Steel was man-
ufactured on the site from the early 1900's
to 1983, when manufacturing operations
were significantly reduced. In August
1990, an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) was issued to BSC to perform a
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI).
The RCRA/Brownfields pilot imple-
mentation process will work to facilitate
the removal of approximately 600 acres
from the RFI order so that this land can
be redeveloped. As this RCRA/Brown-
fields pilot is implemented, it has the
potential to test policy as well as several
regulations. Some of the types of actions
that could come into play include risk-
based corrective action at RCRA facilities,
flexibility of land disposal restriction
(LDR) soil cleaup standards, and possibly
hazardous waste identification rule
(HWIR)-media regulations for remedia-
tion of contaminated soils.
Under BSC's proposed redevelopment
plan, the existing property would be used
for a gateway trade center and port, medi-
um industrial and trans-shipment distribu-
tion center, a business and commercial
center, light industrial areas, and recre-
ational areas such as a marina, open
buffer space, fishing areas, and trails.
The Blue Valley area is on the east
side of Kansas City Missouri, along the
Blue River.The area currently is consid-
ered "blighted" because many of the busi-
nesses that formerly were located there
have moved due to past flooding.The
Blue Valley area has been identified by
Kansas City for investigation, cleanup, and
redevelopment as a part of its
Brownfields Demonstration Assessment
Pilot cooperative agreement with the EPA.
The Blue Valley Redevelopment Team
consists of representatives from Kansas
City the Kansas City Economic
Development Corporation,the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers, Missouri Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR),and EPAs
Region 7.The metropolitan Kansas City
area is also a designated Brownfields
Showcase Community.
Most of the larger properties in the
Blue Valley area are RCRA permitted facil-
ities including two former wood treating
facilities with post-closure permits, a steel
manufacturing facility an active pesticides
production facility as well as a number of
generators of hazardous waste. As part of
the pilot's implementation plan, the rede-
velopment team intends to use the inher-
ent flexibility in the RCRA program, where
possible, to promote creative solutions to
environmental problems and liability con-
cerns to facilitate redevelopment efforts.
For example, MDNR has committed to
redefining "facility" under one of the facili-
ty's post-closure permit to remove uncont-
aminated and cleaned portions to allow
for redevelopment.
-------
For 100 years, from 1888 through 1988,
the CBS Corporation site in Bridgeport CT
(formerly Westinghouse Electric
Corporation - Bryant Electric) was a man-
ufacturing facility for wiring devices. It is
ranked as a "high priority site" due to its
high National Corrective Action
Prioritization System (NCAPS) ranking. In
1994, EPA awarded a Brownfields pilot
grant to the City of Bridgeport for the
"West End Redevelopment Project" to revi-
talize this economically depressed sec-
tion of the city
Under a 1995 Lease and Sale
Agreement,Westinghouse/CBS leased the
site property to the City of Bridgeport,
Department of Planning and Economic
Development, for the purpose of demol-
ishing the site building. Ownership of the
CBS site is scheduled to be ultimately
transferred to the City of Bridgeport for
redevelopment. As part of the state
Property Transfer Process, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
(CT DEP) and EPA have been working
together to ensure that the site is investi-
gated and remediated in compliance with
the State of Connecticut Remediation
Standards (CT DEP RSRs) and applicable
EPA Corrective Action requirements.
EPA has worked closely with CT
Property Transfer staff in reviewing CBS'
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) work
plans and reports and in determining
issues/deficiencies common to both pro-
grams.This pilot is seen as having not
only a substantial impact on the success-
ful completion of an ambitious redevelop-
ment plan undertaken by the City of
Bridgeport, but will also serve to identify
and resolve important issues concerning
the implementation of RCRA Corrective
Action in the state of Connecticut in con-
cert with a non-delegated remediation
program currently being implemented in
the state.
The PECO Energy Company's Chester
Facility is an 88 acre site located at Jeffrey
Street and Delaware Avenue in Chester,
Pennsylvania and includes 3,200 feet of
waterfront. Since 1993, the facility has
been subject to an EPA Consent Order
under RCRA to characterize and address
hazardous waste contamination on 17 of
the 88 acres including 2,600 feet of water-
front. Based on the results of the site char-
acterization, PECO has put measures in
place to remove petroleum products
found floating on the groundwater and on
the Delaware River. Currently PECO is
preparing a document explaining their
cleanup plans for the entire site.
The challenge is to clean up the
remaining contamination at the PECO site
while accommodating economic redevel-
opment activities.To accomplish this, the
pilot will use the administrative flexibility
available under RCRA and re-emphasized
in the RCRA Reforms Initiative. Following
EPAs approval of PECO's cleanup plans,
the City of Chester hopes to turn the site
into a waterfront park with a marina,
sports/entertainment center, public exhi-
bition hall and retail shops.
Aerial view of PECO Energy Co.
Under a court settlement that
became final on March 3,2000,Sparton
Technology Inc. will clean up soil and
groundwater contamination at their
Albuquerque, New Mexico,site. Both the
soil and groundwater were found to be
contaminated by hazardous metal plat-
ing wastes and waste metal cleaning sol-
vents, including trichloroethylene and
trichloroethane, which are considered
probable carcinogens, as a result of envi-
ronmental investigations that were con-
ducted at the facility under a 1983 RCRA
§ 3013 Order and a 1988 RCRA §
3008(h) Order. The contamination was
caused by the manufacturing of elec-
tronic circuit boards at the facility from
1961 to 1994.The contaminant plume
extends at least one-half mile from the
facility The affected groundwater is part
of a group of aquifers that is the sole
source of drinking water for the
Albuquerque area.
EPA and Sparton were unable to
reach agreement on either the appropri-
ate remedy or interim measures for the
facility and EPA issued its Final Decision
on the selected remedy in June 1996.
When negotiations on a RCRA 3008(h)
Corrective Action Order failed, EPA and
state and local agencies filed coordinat-
ed enforcement actions in the United
States District Court in New Mexico on
February 19,1997, under the Safe
Drinking Water Act § 1431, RCRA §§ 7002
and 7003 and state authorities. Over the
next two years the governmental parties
attended frequent court-ordered media-
tion sessions and coordinated their
efforts through meetings, correspon-
dence, and teleconferences.
In a January 18,2000, press release,
Gregg A. Cooke, the Regional
Administrator for EPA Region 6 in Dallas,
said "EPA worked closely with state and
local officials to develop a comprehen-
sive and effective strategy for cleaning
up contamination at the Sparton plant.
This Consent Decree and the cleanup
which will follow demonstrates EPAs
commitment to work with its state and
local partners to ensure protection of the
environment."
The Consent Decree requires Sparton
to take corrective actions which will pre-
vent further migration of the contami-
nant plume; reduce the quantity of
chemical sources in the soil to prevent
further groundwater contamination; and
restore the contaminated aquifer to fed-
eral and state drinking water standards.
For more information about this case,
contact Michael Hebert (at 214-665-
8315) or Gloria Small Moran (at 214-665-
3193) in the EPA Region 6 Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Division.
-------
OF
PCB
4
JH : ' J :
,~j- • . .: .."'.
Jim
This year, the Anniston PCB Work
Group is receiving the Outstanding Team
of the Year Award for their work in identi-
fying and implementing approaches for
dealing with PCB contamination at the
Solutia, Inc. facility in Anniston, AL.
The Solutia, Inc. (formerly Monsanto)
facility in Anniston, AL is one of two facili-
ties in the U.S. that produced PCBs. In
February 1999, the regional office received
a letter from the West Anniston Environ-
mental Justice Task Force, otherwise
known as Citizens Against Pollution, asking
for EPA action in regard to the PCB con-
tamination in Anniston.This led to a meet-
ing of approximately 60 people including
30 residents, their lawyers, EPA, Alabama
Department of Environmental Manage-
ment (ADEM),Alabama Department of
Public Health (ADPH),and Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) officials.Through investigations
regulated under the RCRA program, it was
determined that the Solutia facility the
adjacent community the drainage ditches
exiting the property and various down-
stream waterways were contaminated with
PCBs. Contamination has also been found
in areas not directly linked to Solutia facil-
ity storm water runoff (i.e., remote soil
contamination).
As a result, Solutia, Inc. has evaluated
and determined the extent of the con-
tamination and has instituted interim
measures to eliminate further releases
and minimize human exposure.
Currently the downstream waterways are
being assessed for impacts to human
health and environmental exposure.
The collaborative efforts of this team
have resulted in the efficient assessment
of the contamination occurring in
Anniston.The innovative approaches they
have taken to solving environmental prob-
lems include: drafting community- based
health surveys; working with ATSDR and
ADPH experts to review samples to elimi-
nate current exposures to contaminants
and gaining community involvement so a
faster more focused environmental bene-
fit could be achieved.
'M
OF
•
Environmental
iayior,
'/u,
In February 1999,Tim Fields, the
OSWER Assistant Administrator, sent out
two memos to the regions. One requested
the improvement of the accuracy of
RCRA Corrective Action program data
and the second stated the importance of
meeting the GPRA El goals. In response to
these memos, the Corrective Action
Environmental Indicator Evaluation Team
was formed.The Team planned, organ-
ized, and implemented a multi-faceted
effort to: 1) update corrective action infor-
mation; 2) complete the remaining El
evaluations; and 3) develop a strategy for
attaining the GPRA El goals by 2005.
Working collaboratively with the states,
the Team conducted El evaluations at 69
sites and updated their information in the
national RCRIS database. As a result,
Region 9 exceeded their annual El goals
for FY99 and can better track its progress
in achieving Els in the future to attain the
2005 goals.
To complete the El evaluations and
update RCRIS in an efficient manner, the
Team developed a plan to effectively
leverage state and federal resources as
well as a comprehensive three-hour train-
ing curriculum for state and EPA offi-
Award winner Gary Miller from Region 6 is congratulated
Clifford (Deputy RA, Region 6), Steven Herman (AA, OE(
cials.The training course served to
enhance stakeholder involvement by
providing an opportunity for both state
and federal project managers to discuss
challenges and complex site remedia-
tion issues. In addition, the training high-
lighted the importance of regulators and
facility managers collaborating to
achieve positive environmental results.
Well-received by all parties, the training
reduced the time typically required to
document environmental results and
determine El status.
Recognizing that state involvement is
crucial to progress, team members
worked closely with their counterparts to
keep states informed about Els and
RCRA Cleanup Reform development
through meetings, conference calls, let-
ters, guidance documents, and briefing
papers. In addition, the Team designed
an innovative approach to completing El
forms in cooperation with state officials.
Through its collaborative efforts, the
Team not only finalized 69 El evaluations
and updated RCRIS, but also developed
a strategy that increases assessment effi-
ciency and facilitated states' involvement
and commitment to help EPA achieve
RCRA cleanup goals.
-------
by (from left) Elizabeth Cotsworth (OD, OSW), Jerry
;A), and Tim Fields (AA, OSWER).
1
This year, the /""""',.
Outstanding ;, 'J
Environmental Indicator
Award is being given to
Ray Cody for his work in
the RCRA Corrective
Action Section of EPA Region 1. Ray is a
RCRA Facility Manager who is currently
responsible for 17 sites on the RCRA
Cleanup Baseline. Ray has been very suc-
cessful in achieving the El goals at these
facilities, while also establishing positive
working relationships with the owners
and operators of his assigned sites. Almost
half of Ray's assigned facilities have met
both of their Els, and 18 percent achieved
both during FY99.Those that have not
met both Els yet are on a clear track to do
so in the near future. His success is attrib-
utable to his ability to set clear and
achievable goals, communicate specific
technical requirements, and serve as a
credible representative of EPA.
Ray is one of the best advocates in
his section for promoting the use of envi-
ronmental indicators. In his interactions
with stakeholders such as facility owners
and operators, consultants, his state
counterparts and peers, he sells the Els
as measures that facilities can use to
affirmatively state that their properties
are safe from a public health perspec-
tive. Ray is an effective promoter of the
environmental indicators because he
believes strongly in what he does — he
is a credible voice for EPA. He is able to
convince owners and operators that he
is working on their behalf by willingly
articulating why certain data is needed.
An expert in his section, Ray is gener-
ally known as the one to go to for infor-
mation and help. He is experienced and
knowledgeable on such topics as vacu-
um extraction technology chemistry nat-
ural attenuation of contaminants in
groundwater and subsurface soils, and
policy Additionally he consistently shows
genuine concern and interest for those
he works with, which is reflected in the
work he produces.
•V,M OF
Action
6
tliflfiUSSf,
The Streamlining Team for RCRA
Corrective Action Enforcement was
awarded the RCRA Outstanding Team of
the Year Award for its achievements in
developing several very effective tools
for expediting corrective action in the
Region 6 enforcement program.The
process for this accomplishment
involved several parts, including the
development of tools to shorten the
negotiation process on what needs to be
cleaned up, approaches for reduced
oversight, and an enforcement tool that
expedites the legal negotiation process
while not compromising the corrective
action program's goals.The Team was
instrumental in developing a
Streamlined Risk Evaluation (SLRE)
process, a Letter Agreement for coopera-
tive parties; and an application of tech-
niques to reduce oversight of facilities in
agreements with EPA for facility cleanup.
Because the preparation of traditional
corrective action enforcement orders is
very time consuming and has the poten-
tial to become confrontational, the Team
developed the SLRE to decrease the time
and costs associated with negotiations of
agreements with the facility as well as
oversight of the implementation of facili-
ty activities. Designed to reduce the time
it takes to establish cases, the SLRE uses
all known information about the facility
to develop a preliminary risk evaluation.
Once risk is established, the corrective
action team and state officials determine
who will lead the corrective action activi-
ties, thereby reducing conflicts and
implementation time. By developing and
implementing the SLRE process, as well
as the sampling plans, the Team was able
to expedite corrective action activities,
which illustrates a result-oriented rather
than a process-oriented focus.
In addition, the Team developed the
Letter Agreement process, which is
designed for proactive and cooperative
facilities that want to expedite corrective
action requirements. It is a prescriptive
letter outlining the scope of work, a work
schedule, and a reservation of rights to
issue an Order should the facility not
perform work as agreed.The reservation
of rights contingency not only reduces
the time required to complete each
phase of the process, but decreases tradi-
tional oversight requirements as well.
This innovative approach has been suc-
cessfully used on several occasions
under RCRA Section 7003, Section 3013,
and Section 3008(h), which led to effec-
tive cleanup much sooner than with tra-
ditional methods.
INVOLVEMENT
6 t ' • I
* *J* •-, j
M. Gary Miller is being
awarded the Outstanding
Stakeholder Involvement
Award for his work as the cor-
rective action enforcement project manag-
er at a facility with substantial contamina-
tion partially destroyed by an explosion
and fire. Gary worked effectively with the
Continued on page 6
-------
Continued from page 5
concerned surrounding community as
well as with the state agency, EPA Head-
quarters, and the facility owner to ensure
that proper actions were taken to cleanup
the site.
The Chief Supply Company began
operations in 1978 to treat, store, and
recycle a wide variety of hazardous
wastes. After the RCRA-permitted facility
was partially destroyed by an explosion
and fire in March 1997, environmental
samples detected chlorinated solvents,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylene contamination. In May and June
1997, the Region 6 enforcement correc-
tive action group issued two Unilateral
Administrative Orders under Section
7003 - one to stop the fuel blending oper-
ations at the facility and the other to
clean up the hazardous waste contami-
nation and ensure proper storage of the
wastes still being stored at the facility
Subsequent to receiving the orders, the
facility was purchased by Greenway
Environmental which took over the oper-
ations at the site.
As the corrective action enforcement
project manager, Gary effectively assem-
bled and worked with diverse stakehold-
er groups, including the community the
state, EPA Headquarters, and the facility
owners. Immediately after the explosion
and fire at the facility Gary inspected the
facility and met with local citizens to
explain the situation and how and what
the EPA RCRA enforcement program
could do to rectify the problems. He also
coordinated efforts with the state, which
was pursuing the facility in state court
regarding numerous environmental vio-
lations. Gary assembled the community
the state, and EPA Headquarters for
numerous discussions regarding the best
way to approach the facility and the nec-
essary course of action.
Although the surrounding communi-
ty had been concerned about facility
operations prior to the fire, they became
increasingly worried after the fire and
subsequent issuance of the RCRA
Section 7003 Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment orders. Gary conducted
several community meetings as a forum
to gather information on community
concerns and to explain EPAs actions
and intentions, as well as the safety of
the facility's operations. In addition, he
opened an ongoing dialogue with the
community via e-mail.
Gary continues to work with the state
agency and the facility owners to com-
plete the cleanup as required by the EPA
orders, and to ensure that the first order
is upheld and that there is a viable com-
pany on the property that can complete
all required activities. In a recent letter to
the Regional Administrator and local
Congressmen, a member of the commu-
nity thanked the Agency for their contin-
ued efforts and specifically for Gary's
exceptional work. One community mem-
ber stated that Gary is "an asset to the
Agency" while another stated that "his
efforts have given the community the
hope that the reckless disregard in which
this facility has operated will not be
allowed to continue in the future."
^^
v\j
1
Matt Hoagland, the
EPA-New England RCRA Corrective
Action Section first line supervisor, is this
year's recipient of the Faster, Focused,
More Flexible Cleanup Award. At the
beginning of the decade, the New
England program was reputed internally
for managing unwieldy risk-averse
processes, and externally for its weak
command and control process. However,
as the decade came to a close, the New
England program has become known for
its innovations that have led to more effi-
cient and effective site cleanups.
Because of Matt's management and lead-
ership, Region 1 is known as a success in
the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
This success is the result of the imple-
mentation of many changes, both small
and large. Although much of the work
was actually accomplished by the staff of
the section, it was Matt who provided the
atmosphere for change and the leader-
ship for innovation. He encouraged cre-
ative thinking, questioned whether to
continue past practices, set new goals for
the regional program, and demanded
more from the staff to achieve these
goals. Change involves risk, and Matt
took the necessary risks for his ideas and
goals to become reality
Matt is known nationally for the out-
standing technical and policy support
that he provides. Much of the work that
he and his team does meets or exceeds
expectations. For example, Matt and his
staff have initiated a very successful facil-
ity lead program.To date, there are 55
facilities who are moving forward on a
facility lead basis in Region l.In May
1999, an innovative 3013 order, known as
the Short-Order, was completed and
issued. It is geared toward those facilities
who are lagging in their facility lead
commitments to meet the GPRA goals.
The "short"-order is more than 100 pages
shorter than pre-existing versions.
In addition, Matt has made outstand-
ing efforts to work with the states to cre-
atively use appropriate Federal/State
authorities and resources to implement
the Corrective Action Program. Matt and
his staff utilize the state Performance
Partnership Agreements and Performance
Partnership Grants. Goals are set before
the fiscal year begins and the progress is
tracked throughout the year.Vermont and
New Hampshire, two of the three states in
New England who have attained
Corrective Action authorization, have
already achieved the 2005 GPRA goals as
a result of the PRA/PPG process.
These are but a few examples of the
dramatic changes he has made across the
board, and how Matt has made a differ-
ence in the management of his section.
The new and improved Region
5 Corrective Action Home Page is
completed and on the Internet.
This new Web page, created by
Kristen Tyrpin.OPA, is easier to
navigate and use and can be
found at
-------
Continued from page 1
and operators of hazardous waste man-
agement facilities. As a result, the guid-
ance documents will provide some of the
suggested direction on how EPA, the
states, and industry should perform the
cleanup, or "corrective action," of contami-
nation at RCRA facilities.The three guid-
ances are as follows:
This document defines results-based
corrective action and lists a sampling of
approaches that the Agency feels will
help stakeholders achieve program
goals.This list includes approaches such
as tailored oversight, presumptive reme-
dies, performance standards, innovative
technologies, targeted data collection,
and facility-lead corrective action.
Program implementors are encouraged
to take advantage of these approaches at
all facilities but particularly at those sites
on the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) cleanup baseline.
The Results-Based Approaches to
Corrective Action Overview broadly
defines results-based approaches and
serves as an umbrella document for spe-
cific guidances that will deal with imple-
mentation of some of the approaches
mentioned above.
The "Results-Based Approaches to
Corrective Action:Tailored Oversight"
section provides a national framework
for applying tailored oversight to facili-
ties subject to corrective action and
encourages tailored oversight at facilities
on the RCRA Cleanup Baseline.
tiC
This guidance discusses how EPA
regional and state regulators, as well as
facility owner/operators, can document
completion of corrective action at facili-
ties. It addresses how to terminate per-
mits and interim status where corrective
action is complete; how to determine
whether corrective action is complete at
part of a facility; and the importance of
public involvement in corrective action.
Once finalized, this guidance will allow
for a more predictable completion
process and provide facility owner/oper-
ators with reasonable assurance that reg-
ulatory activities can be completed at
their facility
EPA has compiled in a single hand-
book all important policies concerning
groundwater at facilities subject to correc-
tive action under RCRA.This handbook
will help reduce time-consuming uncer-
tainties and confusion about EPAs expec-
tations for groundwater protection and
clean up. It offers considerable flexibility
in existing policies, particularly to those
states that have distinguished the relative
value and priority of their groundwater
resources.The handbook also encourages
states to take a lead role in protecting
their groundwater resources.
Topic areas discussed in the guidance
include: Groundwater Use Designations,
Short-Term Protectiveness Goals, Final
Remediation Goals, Cleanup Levels, Point
of Compliance, Source Control, Monitored
Natural Attenuation,Technical Imprac-
ticability and Completing Remedies.
EPA continues to seek feedback from
all stakeholders on the need for addition-
al reforms to the RCRA Corrective Action
Program. Based on stakeholder input and
our ongoing assessment of the program,
we will continue to refine the RCRA
Cleanup Reforms, add reforms as needed,
and communicate program changes
including those resulting from stakehold-
er input.
For more detailed information on spe-
cific aspects of the RCRA Cleanup
Reforms, contact Kevin Donovan, Office
of Solid Waste, 5303W, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW,Washington, D.C. 20460, (703 308-
8761), (donovan.kevin-e@epa.gov).
is : .ge
It is
The RCRA Corrective Action Workshop
for Results-Based Management has trav-
elled to eight regions in the past year and
is being heralded as a huge success by
those who attended.The workshop has
benefitted a wide variety of stakeholders
involved with RCRA Corrective Action
including management, project managers,
and individuals providing geo-technical,
engineering, risk and legal support.
Representatives from other cleanup pro-
grams (e.g.,Superfund) have also taken
advantage of this workshop because it
deals with many issues pertaining to inves-
tigation and remediation.
The workshop provides an interactive
environment where instructors and partic-
ipants share tools/approaches focused on
efficiently achieving Environmental
Indicators and Final Remedies at facilities
on the Internet. Check the workshop Web
site to obtain more information about the
availability of these modules.
the in r, . * / ars at the a
on to up"
—
subject to RCRA Corrective Action.The pri-
mary message conveyed throughout the
workshop is that facilities should focus on
desired results, not process, through effec-
tive communication, uncertainty
management, and administrative
flexibility
If you haven't had a chance : :
to catch the workshop yet, you
still have a few chances. It will
be in Kansas City MO (Region 7) Coming in August, an on-line system will
June 12-16; Boston, MA (Region be available that you can use to organize site-
1) July 11-14; and a workshop specific information on remediation waste
will also be held by the State of and get direct access to existing EPA remedi-
Florida in Orlando May 16-18.To ation waste rules,policies, and guidance that
get more information, or to regis- might apply to your site. According to early
ter, visit wwwcorrectiveaction- feedback, the on-line computer program is
wksp.org. an "excellent idea to help people better man-
Interactive workshop mod- age these wastes."
ules are also being introduced
-------
to Be in
The National RCRA Program Meeting
will be held at the Hyatt Regency on
Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. from
August 15-18,2000.The meeting is con-
ducted by EPAs Office of Solid Waste and
will combine RCRA Corrective Action,
Federal, State & Tribal Programs,
Permitting, Municipal, Non-Hazardous
Industrial and Special Waste, and Waste
Minimization and Pollution Prevention
issues into one four-day meeting. EPA
Headquarters and Regional staff, along
with our co-implementors in the States
and Tribes, are encouraged to attend the
meeting. Similar to last year's meeting, the
public will be invited to attend the plena-
ry sessions held on the mornings of
August 15th and 17th.
Plenary sessions, smaller breakout ses-
sions, and poster sessions will be con-
ducted during the four days. As with last
year's meeting, we will have presenters
from Headquarters, Regions, States and
Tribes for the breakout and poster ses-
sions. Issues that involve overlap with the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and Superfund will be incor-
porated into the meeting agenda.
Register on-line at .This Web site will be
available in May
A 3-day Environmental Indicator (El) Forum will be held on August 15,16,17,
2000, in Washington, D.C. in conjunction with the RCRA National Meeting.The El
Forum will be open to regulators, facility owner/operators, and other interested
stakeholders and will be focused on "Getting to Yes" for both the Human
Exposures and Groundwater EIs.The forum will consist of a Monday morning
review of the El portions of the RCRA Corrective Action Workshop and both
afternoon sessions will consist of presentation and discussion of examples of
ways that either have been used, or could be used, to demonstrate that condi-
tions are "Under Control." Instructors/panels will include State, Regional and HQ
personnel. For more information or to register on-line visit .This Web site will be available at the end of May
Penalty for Private use
------- |