United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste Site Remediation EPA530-N-00-00^
(5306W) Enforcement (2271 A) Fall 2000
www.epa.gov/coirrectiveaction
ORRECT1VE MOTION PlEWS
Ni
A Record of Success
RCRA Brownfields Pilots Are a Success
On March 2,2000, four RCRA
Brownfield sites were selected to
participate as RCRA Brownfields
pilot projects. Since then, these
pilots have made major strides
toward meeting their goals of
achieving protective outcomes by
focusing on effective and efficient
reuse/redevelopment opportuni-
ties, using creative solutions to
redevelopment barriers and coor-
dinating with federal/state/local
I cleanup authorities.
) CBS/Viacom, Bridgeport, CT
The CBS/Viacom site is sched-
;,: uled to be transferred to the City
j| of Bridgeport for redevelopment.
The site is required to meet the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection's Property Transfer Act and EPAs RCRA
Corrective Action program requirements. A key challenge in this pilot
has been to combine and streamline the state and federal cleanup
requirements in a way that protects human health and the environ-
ment, while enabling the site redevelopment.
CBS/Viacom has already initiated active remediation at the site. A
soil vapor extraction and air sparging system have been installed.
CBS/Viacom also recently installed and is operating a pilot-scale
groundwater recovery and treatment system. Meetings with stakehold-
ers occur frequently and a fact sheet has been drafted that includes
all pertinent site information. CBS/Viacom has agreed to work with
the ultimate developer of the site to incorporate remediation technol-
ogy in the building design, if necessary. EPA Region 1 has worked
'RB Treats Contaminated Plume at
}oast Guard Facility—Page 3
abidance Update—Page 3
Corrective Action Web Site
Jpdated—Page 5
Region 3's Facility-Lead Program-
Page 5
cooperatively with the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection's Property Transfer Act program
(a non-delegated state program) to achieve the goals not
only of the EPA RCRA Corrective Action program, but also
the goals of the state program, the City of Bridgeport's rede-
velopment office, the facility owner, and the community
Bethlehem Steel, Laekawanna, NY
The Bethlehem Steel workgroup, which includes
Bethlehem Steel, Erie County, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, EPA Region 2,
and EPA Headquarters has been successful in meeting the
goals established at the beginning of the pilot project. The
workgroup focused on a 108-acre area of a former 2,000-
acre steel manufacturing facility Its main goal is to
remove this area from an EPA RFI order, since EPA issued
"no further action" letters for the solid waste management
units in this area in the early 1990's. For due diligence pur-
poses, the county redevelopment agency and Bethlehem
Steel would like to perform additional assessment of the
108-acre area under the State's Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP).The NY VCP doesn't allow RCRA facilities to partici-
pate in the VCP, but they are crafting a voluntary consent
order to serve a similar purpose.
Since March, the workgroup has successfully removed
the RFI order and is now focused on the voluntary con-
sent order and assessment for the site. The workgroup is
also trying to develop a process for removing the 108-acre
area from the RCRA facility definition.
PECO Energy, Chester, PA
PECO owns and is redeveloping an 88-acre parcel of
land along the Delaware River in Chester, PA. PECO has
Continued on page 2
Additional RCRA Corrective Action Reforms Planned
Corrective action remains a high pri-
ority for EPA. Progress continues on the
RCRA Corrective Action Reforms
announced in July 1999 (see "RCRA
Cleanup Reforms: Guidance Update" on
page 3). EPA is gearing up for additional
RCRA Corrective Action Reforms and
may announce them by January 2001.
As part of that effort, the Agency plans to
have discussions with its various stake-
holder groups in November.
On September 27,2000, in
Washington, DC,Tim Fields, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, met
with senior corporate environmental
managers from 28 companies that have
the largest representation on the RCRA
Cleanup Baseline. Also participating
were other representatives from EPA
Headquarters, EPA Regional Offices and
States. The meeting was an opportunity
to discuss accomplishments and impedi-
ments to implementation of the RCRA
Corrective Action Reforms. Also dis-
cussed at the meeting was how achieving
the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) goals by 2005 is an important
step toward final site cleanup (see "El
Successes Move CA Program Closer to
2005 Goals" on page 8). The main topics
of discussion focused on: integration of
environmental indicator assessments into
cleanup activities; consistency between
Regions, and States and incentives for
States; the tension between RCRA flexibil-
ity and enforceability; and groundwater
cleanup issues.
Additional meetings have been held
with EPA regional staff, various states and
representatives from environmental
organizations.
-------
Continued from page 1
applied to the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for
a release of environmental liability
under Pennsylvania's Land Recycling
and Environmental Remediation
Standards Act (known as Act 2) to be
Aerial view of the Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawanna,
New York.
applied to a portion of the acreage. EPA
and PADEP are evaluating PECO's pro-
posed remediation and reuse plan.
PECO has since created a remedia-
tion plan to meet RCRA Corrective
Action and Act 2 requirements, submit-
ted to EPA in June. After approval of the
plan, the region will prepare a Statement
of Basis to explain the final remedy to
the community EPA also held an infor-
mational meeting with members of the
Chester community A developer has
contacted PECO and indicated a strong
interest in the property.
Blue Valley Redevelopment
Project, Kansas City, MO
The Blue Valley is an historic heavy
industrial area along the flood-prone
Blue River on the east side
of Kansas City Missouri.
Several former businesses
have moved due to repeat-
ed flooding. There currently
are a number of RCRA and
Superfund sites in the area.
The Blue Valley has
been targeted by the city for
investigation, cleanup, and
redevelopment. The area is
within the boundaries of
the City of Kansas City
Missouri, which is a desig-
nated Brownfields
Showcase Community The
Blue Valley Redevelopment
Team is conducting several brownfields
redevelopment support initiatives that
dove-tail with a rechannelization project
undertaken by the city and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The team is developing an extensive
set of Geographic Information System
(CIS) maps with information about the
ownership of area properties and back-
ground concentration ranges of haz-
Brownfields 2000 Conference Held
The conference,"Brownfields 2000 —
Research and Regionalism: Revitalizing
the American CommunityTwas held in
Atlantic City, New Jersey, on October 11-
13,2000. More than 2,000 advance regis-
trations were received.A broad spectrum
of stakeholders were in attendance. Six
session tracks were offered: Brownfields
Fundamentals; The Three E's: Economics,
Environment and Equity (E3); Creating
Value and the Future Use; Former Uses
and Managing Liability and Risk;
Marketplace of Ideas; and Lessons from
the Field. The EPA Corrective Action
Programs Branch presented a session,
"Brownfields Beyond Superfund: The
RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative".
EPA Administrator Carol Browner was
one of the featured speakers of the open-
ing plenary session. Her remarks includ-
ed the announcement of 12 new
Brownfields Showcase Communities:
Mystic Valley Development Commission
(cities of Everett, Maiden, Medford, MA);
New Bedford, MA; Niagara Region, NY;
Cape Charles.VA; Jackson, MS; Milwaukee,
WI; St. Louis, MO, and East. St. Louis, IL;
Houston.TX; Des Moines, IA; Denver CO;
Gila River Indian Community, AZ; and
Metlakatla,AK.She also mentioned that
the EPA Brownfields Initiative was a final-
ist for receipt of the Innovations in
Government Award, 2000, from the
Harvard University John E Kennedy
School of Government and the Council
for Excellence in Government. The very
next day the EPA Brownfields Initiative
was named one of ten recipients of the
Award.
Brownfields 2001 is planned for
September 24-26 in Chicago.
ardous constituents. The goal is to con-
duct an area-wide background study and
ecological risk assessment using the
state's Cleanup Levels for Missouri
(CALM) guidance document.
Experience in this area has indicated
that naturally occurring background con-
centrations for some metals, especially
arsenic, exceed CALM levels.
Existing site environmental data
from several sources have been collect-
ed and reviewed. To overcome data
comparability issues and produce a
document that facilitates redevelop-
ment of Blue Valley sites, the team has
decided to compile a "Redevelopment
Opportunity Portfolio," which merges
the environmental data collection effort
(regulatory status, type and concentra-
tion of contaminants, etc.) with the
business information (developable
acreage, leasing rates, etc.) developed
by the Kansas City Economic
Development Corporation in its Urban
Revitalization Plan. The portfolio is
expected to assist and facilitate area
a**'! ft* ?* Sf
iture RCRA
L^^i^^mm^ V^fr^, ji^ s®- humpiufti
iro^wjifielcls Pilots
£. «tfe* ,f-- , rfSJi,_ *£««
Srownfiejds pilots come to a close,
, ig, developing a document of
gessons Igiajned^and wil^mak^e it
"r available Also, the Agency is ~ j
Planning a second round of six new
ICRA Brownfields pilots, possibly
jCfor jsachJ1PA Region not repre-
"~v_f [ the current pilots TTie ^ ~_J
bsplttive time line for the secojid
t of plTots'is^a cairforlnomina- "^
Sarly 5'i.cember 20SOiwitfi
_ Dlicatio"hs accepted through 'early
Ebruary 2001 and selections * *
S&fcft&ujjijaaJW jifc M"««* * *W UMUnt .U.W*!" i|ii..lHI..|llB
ntoimced^by late February .-
tdtGejRCRA BrownSds activP
^^JD^planned by EPA include^ ^
pargjeted'site efSrts for which " ^ ,
c^sjd,atteritraijvould bej^royid- ""
nu^hortofffiat for the pi]pts, ^
rni§3putreach 19 spread the ^_ !
i about success stories and les-
I ftt - * W w —-•"^i-w^lial'id'^™'
jjsjgtive i
r and
an<4a|fl prospective purchaser
'*" ' a
-------
PRB Treats Contaminant
Plume at Coast Guard Facility
Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)
are a new technique for treating and con-
taining contaminated plumes in ground
water. PRBs, also known as treatment
walls, are installed across the flow path of
a contaminated plume and are often
keyed into lower permeability material.
Water flows through the wall while con-
taminants are degraded or retained in
place. Zero-valent iron (ZVI) is the most
common treatment agent used in PRBs.
In June 1996 a PRB was installed at
the US Coast Guard (USCG) Support
Center in Elizabeth City North Carolina, to
treat ground water contaminated with
chromium and trichloroethylene (TCE)
discharging from an old chrome plating
shop on the base. The chromium originat-
ed from an electroplating shop that oper-
ated for more than 30 years before closing
in 1984. TCE came from several sources,
including the shop. Initial maximum con-
centrations entering the wall were more
than 4,320 micrograms per liter (ug/L) for
TCE and over 3,430 ug/L for Cr6+.
At the time it was constructed, the
USCG PRB was the longest PRB on
record. The wall is about 150 long and 2
feet thick, begins about 3 feet below
ground surface, and extends to a depth of
24 feet. It was installed more rapidly and
inexpensively by using an innovative
trenching technique. A 60-ton trencher
used to install drainage pipes in landfills
was used to install the treatment wall.
The trencher is a track-mounted vehicle
that uses a large cutting chain excavator
system to create the trench. As native
material is excavated, granular zero-
valent iron is simultaneously placed in
the trench.
This was the first time that direct
trenching was used to install ZVI. 2 The
wall was installed in only one day and
contains about 450 tons of granular iron.
The PRB was constructed down-
gradient of the source area to use the nat-
ural groundwater hydraulic gradient to
transport the contaminants to the treat-
ment zone. Contaminants are chemically
reduced while passing through the iron
filings. The wall cost $500,000 to install,
including design, construction, materials,
and iron, which cost about $175,000.
According to the USCG, the use of the
PRB will save nearly $4,000,000 over a tra-
ditional pump-and-treat system. In six
years of operation, the PRB has required
no maintenance. The average annual cost
for monitoring over 4 years is $50,000.
The goal of the treatment wall is to
contain and treat the plume emanating
from the old plating shop at the base.
This has successfully been accomplished,
with the complete removal of the chromi-
um and reduction of TCE to below treat-
ment goals (0.05 mg/L for Cr6+ and 5 ug/L
for TCE) for the plating shop plume..
Monitoring data indicate, however, that
some TCE may be located lower than the
depth of the wall and migrating under the
wall. TCE contamination also may be
present west of the PRB and outside its
influence. Additional characterization of
other sources of TCE are now required to
extend the system to fully treat all sources
of TCE at the base.
To address the source of the chromi-
um contamination. U.S. EPAs Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Center con-
ducted a pilot-scale test injecting sodium
dithionate to reduce the Cr+6 to Cr+3.
This test was successful, and the USCG is
now considering a full-scale remedy for
the source area.
For further information contact Robert
Puls at 580 436-8543.
RCRA Cleanup Reforms: Guidance Update
HANDBOOKOFCROUNDWATEK
POLICIES FOR
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
(updated 4/20/2QOO)
farrirtuln 5«Wm I* CHitofci Auto* lUfcr
Z53J
The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Cleanup Reforms announced on July 8,1999, included mention of three
specific guidances: the Handbook of Groundwater Policies for RCRA Corrective Action, Results-Based Approaches
to Corrective Action, and the Completion Guidance. The current status of these guidances is as follows:
Handbook of Groundwater Policies for RCRA Corrective Action:
This Handbook serves to summarize our current guidance and recommendations, and provide further clarifi-
cation of EPAs groundwater policies. Available in draft form on the Internet at www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.
Results-Based Approaches to Corrective Action:
This guidance takes the form of an overview and a series of supporting documents. The draft
"Overview" and "Tailored Oversight" sections are now available for public review. The "Overview"
defines results-based corrective action and lists some of the approaches recommended to help
stakeholders achieve program goals. The "Tailored Oversight" section provides a recommended
framework for project managers and owner/operators to develop an oversight plan tailored to
facility-specific conditions. It is also available at the corrective action Web site: www.epa.gov/
correctiveaction.
Corrective Action Completion:
This document will guide the Regions and the authorized States through issues that arise at the
end of the corrective action process at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF).
EPA expects to have it available for public review in 2001.
Results-Based Approaches
to Corrective Action
d 7/26/00)
-------
University of Delaware
Demonstrates NAPL Migration
Funded by an EPA-sponsored
National Network for Environmental
Management Studies (NNEMS) student
fellowship grant, environmental engi-
neering major Amy Sawicky supervised
the construction and operation of a
series of laboratory sand tank demon-
strations.
hazardous waste disposal sites. Media
was placed in the tank to simulate an
aquifer underlain by a relatively imper-
meable aquitard. NAPL movement over
time was documented visually with a
digital camera. Dissolved aqueous phase
contaminant migration was determined
analytically by measuring ground-water
9 ®i_£_®__O <§ o! © ;o: :O .Q_,_ o '© 5
The University of Delaware built this tank to demonstrate the mobility and migration potential of
large-scale releases of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in a porous media such as what might
be expected at past (pre-land ban) hazardous waste disposal sites.
Working under the tutelage of Dr. Paul
Imhoff at the University of Delaware dur-
ing the 1999-2000 school year, Ms.
Sawicky's work was designed to demon-
strate the mobility and migration poten-
tial of large-scale releases of non-aqueous
phase liquid (NAPL) in a porous media
such as what might be expected at past
(pre-land ban) hazardous waste disposal
sites. Preliminary results of this work
were presented recently at the RCRA
National Meeting in Washington, D.C.
Two different sizes of sand tanks were
constructed for the NAPL demonstra-
tions and a one-dimensional sand
column was utilized for measuring dis-
solved aqueous phase transport. Both
sand tanks were approximately 18 inches
tall and 3 inches thick, but the width
ranged from 3Vfc feet wide on the small
tank to 8 feet wide for the larger size.
The demonstration was designed to
mimic field conditions typical of past
samples with a gas chromatograph.
A mixture of five organic fluids, akin
to hazardous wastes, was selected for the
demonstration. Although the specific
gravity of the total mixture was heavier
than water (making it behave as a dense
non-aqueous phase liquid or DNAPL),
one of the individual components
(toluene) had a specific gravity less than
that of water. Additionally, each com-
pound of the mixture exhibited a differ-
ent affinity for organic matter in the
aquifer material, resulting in varying
amounts of retardation of the dissolved
phase when compared to actual ground-
water velocity
In designing the setup of the demon-
stration it quickly became apparent that
it would be imperative to scale certain
of the parameters before operation of
the tank. Only by doing this would it be
possible to extrapolate any results to
field scale.
For example, by scaling the media for
entry pressure, the demonstration was
able to simulate several feet of hydraulic
head of NAPL (and therefore the driving
force that would be present at an actual
large-scale hazardous waste disposal
site).That would be impossible to dupli-
cate in an eighteen-inch tall laboratory
tank if scaling were not done. Few, if any
previous NAPL experiments that we are
aware of have included scaling, thus
resulting in the consistent and expected
failure to show significant NAPL move-
ment over time.
By incorporating scaling, the
University of Delaware demonstration
was able to simulate in its eight-foot
sand tank the equivalent of a large-scale
NAPL release in the field of 67 days and
continued NAPL migration for a mini-
mum of 1,131 days or at least 16 times
the release period. Frequently thought
of as occurring only at NAPL source
areas, the demonstration showed that
the pure phase of the contaminants
(i.e., the DNAPL) was capable of migrat-
ing for a significant period after the
cessation of its introduction into the
tank, at a speed greater than that of the
ground water, and many times greater
than the slowest of the dissolved phase
contaminants.
Because this work was specifically
designed to demonstrate large-scale
NAPL releases, it should not necessarily
be assumed that it also represents site
conditions present at the many clean
up sites with smaller scale releases.
The results of this demonstration, how-
ever, do have potential implications for
site characterization, remedy selections,
and El determinations for large-scale
NAPL release sites. As always, site-
specific conditions will have a profound
impact on actual fate and transport of
contaminants.
A final report on the demonstration is
due to be submitted to EPA by the uni-
versity shortly Those interested in this
work should contact either Mark Mercer
703 308-8652, or Mike Fitzpatrick 703 308-
8411, in EPAs Corrective Action Programs
Branch or Dr. Paul Imhoff of the
University of Delaware, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at
302 831-0541.
-------
Corrective Action Web Site Updated
EPAs Corrective Action Programs Branch has revamped its Web site. Now
you can find guidances, rules, and facility information all in one place.You can
also find out about upcoming meetings, access the RCRA Corrective Action
Workshop modules, and link to all EPA regional and state offices.There also is a
section devoted entirely to corrective action success stories throughout the
regions and states. Whether you're a concerned citizen trying to find informa-
tion on a specific facility or a project manager needing policy information, this
site is for you.
SEPASSs., Hft»»tS»W»St8
RCRA CQHRECTlVe ACTION
Facility-Lead Corrective Action in Region 3
In March 1998, a new process was developed in EPA Region
3 to address RCRA corrective action. The "Facility-Lead"
approach encourages a high priority RCRA facility to take the
lead in addressing corrective action using a streamlined admin-
istrative process. Good candidates include facilities that meet
several of the following factors: corrective action has started,
good enforcement record, state approval, limited units, financial
and technical capability and willingness to work with EPA. The
major advantages of a Facility-Lead agreement include reduced
administrative burden, more focus on environmental indicators,
reduced oversight, flexibility reduced costs, and quicker
cleanups. After sending a letter of commitment to EPA, facilities
implement corrective action under a Facility-Lead Agreement..
The Agreement includes goals, workplan development, interim
measures, final remedies, public participatio, and a reservations
of rights. The Region has had 13 facilities join the Facility-Lead
Program since 1998.Workplans have been submitted by 10 of
the facilities. By the end of 2000, the Region hopes to have 20
facilities in the Facility-Lead Corrective Action Program.
FACILITIES IN EPA REGION HI'S
FACILITY-LEAD PROGRAM
1. Allied Signal—Chesterfield,VA
2. Allied Signal—Marcus Hook, PA
3. BASF—Huntington,WV
4. Bingham & Taylor—Culpeper,VA
5, ElfAtochem—Bensalem.PA
6. Hercules—Franklin,VA
7. Hercules—Hopewell.VA
8. International Paper—WaverlyVA
9. Union Carbide PTO—S. Charleston, WV
10. Union Carbide—S.Charleston,WV
11. Union Carbide Tech Center—S. Charleston, WV
12. U.S.Army's Ft.A.P—Hill.VA """"
FACILITY-LEAD SUCCESSi STORY
HJniversity of Virginia
Rharlottesviile, Virginia
EPA Region 3's first Facility-Lead Agreement was with the University of Virginia (UVA) in Charlottesville,Virginia. A site visit in
i September 1999 proved that the university was a good candidate for the Facility-Lead Corrective Action Program.The university
Fhad already voluntarily completed a preliminary investigation of several Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs). EPA Region
III), and the Commonwealth of Virginia believed that the Facility-Lead Program at UVA would result in a streamlined process for
Hthe: attainment ofthe environmental goals and overall facility cleanup. Since the September 1999 evaluation, UVA has submitted
fa Corrective Action Workplan for investigating the two remaining SWMUs, and field work was initiated in September 2000:
^Approximately four months from the date of the initial site visit, UVA submitted a letter of commitment, developed a workplan
2and initiated the investigations. In as few as 15 months, cleanup at UVA may be completed.
-------
Region 4 Develops El Strategy
To Improve Schedules
Environmental Indicators (Els) are
measures being used by the RCRA
Corrective Action program to track
changes in the quality of the environ-
ment. A positive "Current Human
Exposures Under Control" El determina-
tion indicates that there are no "unaccept-
able" human exposures to "contamina-
tion" (i.e., contaminants in concentra-
tions in excess of appropriate risk-
based levels) that can be reasonably
expected under current land- and
groundwater-use conditions at a facility.
A positive "Migration of Contaminated
Groundwater Under Control" El deter-
mination indicates that the migration of
"contaminated" groundwater has stabi-
lized, and that monitoring will be con-
ducted to confirm that contaminated
groundwater remains within the origi-
nal "area of contaminated groundwa-
ter"site-wide.
Defining a clear strategy for reach-
ing positive El determinations is impor-
tant because many facilities have yet
to reach a positive El determination
and the period of time in which an El
must be achieved is short. Region 4's El
Strategy involves the development of an
El Project Schedule, with Milestones, for
each facility. The El Project Schedule for
a facility estimates when human expo-
sures and migration of groundwater con-
tamination will be controlled and out-
lines El Interim Milestones. The El Project
Schedule is a planning tool-not an
enforcement document.
The importance of establishing
schedule dates for the completion of
each El Interim Milestone is that it allows
for the periodic comparison to actual
completion dates. Hence, each facility's
(and EPA or State project manager's)
progress toward a positive El determina-
tion can be monitored and appropriate
action can be taken to correct unaccept-
able project delays. In addition .accu-
rately tracking and analyzing success in
meeting positive El determinations is par-
ticularly important because by 2005, 70
percent of high-priority RCRA sites will
have migration of contaminated ground-
water controlled, and 95 percent will
have current unacceptable human expo-
sures controlled.
The RCRA Information System
(RCRIS) will be used to track the El
Interim Milestones in the unauthorized
states in Region 4 (TN, FL, and MS).
RCRIS is also being used to identify
which of the three RCRA branches with-
in the Regional Office is responsible for
the RCRA Cleanup Baseline Facility
and/or responsible for tracking an
authorized State's progress toward a
positive El determination.
For authorized states in Region 4
(AL, GA, KY NC, SC), the Regional Office
will obtain and track each State's esti-
mates for attaining their GPRA Goals.
As in unauthorized states, if problems
are observed that might lead to a State
not meeting its annual or cumulative
fiscal year goals, then the problem can
be identified and, where feasible,
action can be taken to correct the
delay
Because of the relatively short
amount of time given to meet these
two Els, Region 4 decided that these El
Project Schedules should not be unilat-
erally determined without input from
the facilities. Therefore, Region 4 sent
each facility a copy of their draft El
Project Schedule. Each owner/operator
can provide comments and suggestions
on the Interim Milestones and estimated
completion dates to the EPA or State
Project Manager prior to finalization of
the El Project Schedule. The regional
office maintains that active, ongoing, and
open communication with the RCRA
facilities is essential if the agencies are to
protect human health and the environ-
ment in a timely manner.
Region 3 Creates Unique CA Permit
For Army Ammunition Plant
Radford Army Ammunition Plant
(Raclford AAP) is a govemment-
owned/contractor-operated (GO/CO)
industrial complex located in Radford,
Virginia. Construction of the production
facilities began in 1940 with the impend-
ing participation of the United States in
World War II and the need for increased
ammunition production. Since the
demand for ammunition has decreased
in recent years, the Army is trying to
diversify the operating capabilities of
the facility
Radford AAP is a RCRA permitted
facility which is subject to corrective
action and, due to the magnitude and
extensive operating history, maintains
areas potentially subject to cleanup via
the Superfund program. While cleanup
of federal facilities is typically done
under CERCLA authority, in this particu-
lar instance, there were concerns that an
NPL listing would decrease the econom-
ic development potential for this GO/CO
facility
Recognizing this problem, EPA
Region 3 worked cooperatively with facil-
ity representatives and the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
and developed a unique RCRA
Corrective Action Permit that addressed
Continued on next page
6
-------
Visions for the Future: 2000 National
RCRA Program Meeting & El Forum
This year's National RCRA Program meeting
was held in Washington, DC, August 15th
through the 18th at the Hyatt Regency Capitol
Hill. Late summer in our nation's capital pro-
vided the backdrop for yet another successful
National RCRA Meeting.
The meeting drew a record 800-plus atten-
dees from a wide group of RCRA stakeholders.
The plenary sessions, which were open to all
stakeholders, provided a wide range of views
as representatives from EPA, States, Tribes,
Industry, Community Groups, and Government
spoke on the current state of RCRA and their
future plans. In addition to the plenary ses-
sions, more than 90 breakout sessions focused
on current issues affecting the RCRA Program.
Topics ranged from Brownfields to WasteWise
and covered the entire RCRA program. The
breakout sessions served to educate and pro-
mote discussion amongst all who operate with-
in RCRA. USEPA will hold the next RCRA
National Meeting in January 2002, in Washington, DC.
Running concurrently with the breakout sessions was the
RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (El) Forum.
The purpose of the El Forum was to bring together public and
private stakeholders to hear presentations and discuss issues
associated with achieving two environmental indicators at
facilities subject to RCRA Corrective Action.
The El Forum was divided into the following four segments:
1. Indoor Air and Vapor Migration.
2. Controls that get to "yes" for the Human El.
3. Controls that get to "yes" for the Groundwater El.
Bruce DiGrazia,
RCRA National
Jim Burke, Matt Hale, and Sue Bromm (1-r) spoke at a plenary session at the
Meeting.
4. Groundwater El evaluations involving discharges of
contaminated groundwater into surface water.
For those who could not join us at the El Forum in
Washington, DC, please join us via the Web at http://clu-
in.org/EIforum2000. There, archived audio files of each
presentation are posted.
Pictures and biographies of the presenters and abstracts
have also been posted to this site. For most of the presenta-
tions, you will be able to view the presenter's slides while listen-
ing to the audio from the August 15-17 presentation.
both RCRA and CERCLA concerns yet
allowed economic development to con-
tinue at the site. In an effort to reduce
duplication of effort and investigation
costs, the Permit contains provisions that
closely parallel those typically found in
Federal Facilities Agreements negotiated
in the CERCLA program. In addition,
remediation of the site will be integrated
under the direction of one Project
Manager in the Region's Superfund
program.
The economic development of
underutilized Army plants is paying off,
under the Armaments Retooling and
Manufacturing Support (ARMS)
Initiative. At Radford, 19 commercial ten-
ant activities have located, relocated, or
expanded there. These businesses
include commercial powders, pyrotech-
nics, metalworking, wholesalers of pipe,
valves & fittings, hardware, tools and fas-
teners, a wellness center, and office activ-
ities. A total of 360 tenant jobs have been
created, of which over 300 are manufac-
turing. This philosophy of diversification
has brought new jobs to the surrounding
community. For each new manufacturing
job created, an estimated one to three
indirect support jobs for the community
are created.
Radford AAP is owned by the U.S.
Department of the Army and is operated
by Alliant Ammunition and Powder
Company LLC under a facility use
agreement. It contains approximately
1,969 buildings and occupies more than
6,900 acres. The facility is located in
Pulaski and Montgomery counties about
10 miles west of Blacksburg and 47 miles
southwest of Roanoke. Radford AAP
manufactures solid propellants used in
small arms (sporting and military), anti-
aircraft, tanks, artillery, and small rockets.
Radford AAP also loads, assembles, and
packs medium caliber ammunition and
mortar cases.
-------
Environmental Indicator Successes Move Corrective
Action Program Closer to 2005 Goals
In July 1999,1,714 facilities were chosen to be on
the RCRA Cleanup Baseline. These are mainly high pri-
ority facilities (more than 85 percent of the Baseline
consists of high priority sites), which means they are
facilities where early cleanup progress would be appro-
priate. While full remediation of these sites remains the
ultimate goal of the RCRA Corrective Action Program,
the program is monitoring intermediate progress by
tracking two Environmental Indicators (Els): the human
exposure and ground-water Els. These Els are the main
focus of the corrective action GPRA goals and measure
progress in environmental terms rather than the admin-
istrative process steps that were previously monitored.
The corrective action program's 2005 GPRA goals
are to verify that human exposures and migration of contami-
nated ground water are controlled at 95 percent and 70 per-
cent of the Baseline facilities, respectively. The program is well
on its way to meeting these goals. EPA regions and states have
successfully verified that human exposures are controlled at
642 facilities (38 percent), and at 565 facilities (33 percent), the
migration of contaminated ground water is controlled (see
chart). Additionally, annual milestones have been set. For
Progress Toward Meeting Our 2005 Goals
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Human Exposure El
Groundwater El
FY2000,the annual goal was to verify that both Els are con-
trolled at 10 percent of the Baseline facilities. The FY2000
annual goals were met for both indicators.
Reaching these milestones is key in moving towards our
ultimate 2005 GPRA goals.
To view a map that plots the El progress at facilities
throughout the country, go to the Corrective Action Web site at
www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/eis/eimap.htm.
•jsqjj jaiunsuoDjsod juaDjad 0£ »SE3| je SUJEJUOD ieq; jaded
OOS$ ssn
ssainsng
09WZ OQ 'uoi6uii|SBM
(M90SS)
Aoua6v uouoajojd l
------- |