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 ------- |