United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (2271 A)
Washington, DC 20460
&EPA cleanup news
Spring 2000
EPA 300-N-00-006
Issue #4
inside
Short Takes 3
Facilitation Comes 4
to Brownfields;
San Diego's Barrio
Logan 4
In the Courts: 6
Occidental
Broderick
Carlie Lee
Nansemond
Technology Insights: 8
In-Situ Thermal
Stripping
TAG Program Revised 10
On the Web 11
Calendar 12
Koch Industries to Pay
Record Civil Fine
In a settlement filed in January 2000,
Koch Industries will pay the largest
civil fine ever imposed on a company
under a federal environmental law to re-
solve claims related to
more than 300 oil
let you foul spills from its
pipelines and oil facili-
ties in six states.
Koch, the second-
largest privately held
by breaking company in the
, United States, will pay
the law.
Attorney General
Janet Reno
"We will not
our water and
spoil our land
a $30 million civil
penalty, improve its
leak-prevention pro-
grams, and spend $5 million on environ-
mental projects.
"[The] landmark fine against Koch In-
dustries for egregious violations of the
Clean Water Act sends a strong message
that those who try to profit from polluting
our environment will pay the price," said
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner.
The settlement filed in U.S. District
Court in Houston resolves two lawsuits
that charge that Koch illegally discharged
crude oil and petroleum products in
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri,
Louisiana and Alabama. The State of
Texas joined the United States in suing
and the $30 million penalty will be divided
equally between Texas and the federal
government.
Headquartered in Wichita, KS, Koch
continued on page 2
Cleanup News is an occa-
sional newsletter highlighting
hazardous waste cleanup
cases, policies, settlements,
and technologies.
New Amendment
Exempts Recyclers from
Superfund Liability
On November 29, 1999, President
Clinton signed into law the Super-
fund Recycling Equity Act which
exempts certain "generators" and "trans-
porters" who recycle materials in accor-
dance with this law from liability under
CERCLA The statute was passed as part of
the Omnibus Appropriations bill and is the
only Superfund amendment enacted in the
first session of the 106th Congress.
The Superfund Recycling Equity Act
(SREA) has its roots in legislation introduced
back in the 103rd Congress and supported
by this Administration. SREA exempts gen-
erators and transporters who "arranged for
recycling of recyclable materials," from the
generator and transporter liability sections of
CERCLA The new statute outlines the crite-
ria necessary for exemption.
continued on page 2
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Koch Industries
continued from page 1
Industries owns and operates exten-
sive underground and above ground
pipelines that transport crude oil and
related products in the Midwest.
Most of the spills at issue in the set-
tlement occurred in Oklahoma,
Texas, and Kansas. In one case, al-
most 100,000 gallons of oil was
spilled in Texas and caused a 12-mile
oil slick on Nueces Bay and Corpus
Christi Bay.
Complaints filed in 1995 and 1997
alleged that Koch unlawfully allowed
some 3 million gallons of crude oil and
related products to leak from its
pipelines into ponds, lakes, rivers and
streams, or onto adjacent shorelines,
from 1990 to 1997. Most of the spills
were caused by corrosion of pipelines
in rural areas. The governments al-
lege that Koch could have prevented
the corrosion by proper operation and
maintenance.
Under the settlement, Koch must
assess the condition of 2,500 miles of
pipeline that it currently operates and
repair any defects. The settlement also
requires Koch to implement an im-
proved leak-prevention and detection
program, a maintenance and inspec-
tion program, and a training program
aimed at preventing leaks from the
company's pipelines. The company
also must hire an independent auditor
to audit Koch annually for at least three
years and report to the federal govern-
ment and Texas on whether the com-
pany is meeting the requirements of
the settlement and applicable laws.
In addition to changing its opera-
tions, Koch also must spend a total of
$5 million on environmental projects
in the states most affected by its illegal
discharges.
"This record civil penalty sends a
clear message to those who transport
hazardous materials: You cannot en-
danger public health or the environ-
ment," said Attorney General Janet
Reno. "We will not let you foul our
water and spoil our land by breaking
the law."
Oil spills can pose a serious threat
to human health and the environment.
One pint of oil released into the water
can spread and cover an entire acre of
water surface area and can seriously
damage an aquatic habitat. It can take
years for an ecosystem to recover
from damage caused by an oil spill.
For more information, contact the
Office of Regulatory Enforcement,
(202) 564-2220.
Recyders
continued from page 1
SREA defines recyclable materials
as:
scrap paper
scrap plastic
scrap glass
scrap textiles
scrap rubber (other than whole
tires)
scrap metal
spent lead-acid, spent nickel-
cadmium, and other spent
batteries.
This definition does not include:
(1) shipping containers with a capacity
from 30 liters to 3,000 liters that contain
or have hazardous substances adhering
to them; or (2) any item that contained
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in ex-
cess of 50 parts per million.
Transactions that involve the above
recyclable materials are considered
"arranging for recycling" if the
arranger can show that all of the fol-
lowing criteria were met at the time of
the transaction:
the recyclable material met a com-
mercial specification grade
a market for the recyclable mater-
ial existed
a substantial portion of the recy-
clable material was made available
for use as feedstock in the manu-
facture of a saleable product
recyclable material could have
been a replacement or substitute
for a virgin raw material
for transactions occurring 90 days
or more after the enactment of this
statute, the person took reasonable
care to determine that the consum-
ing facility was in compliance with
federal, state, or local environmen-
tal laws or regulations associated
with the recyclable material.
Additional criteria must be met for
scrap metal and spent batteries.
A generator or transporter is not
exempt from CERCLA liability if any of
the following was true:
The person reasonably believed
that at the time of the recycling
transaction that the recyclable ma-
terial would not be recycled, would
be burned as a fuel or incinerated,
or that the consuming facility was
not in compliance with relevant
federal, state or local environmen-
tal laws or regulations.
The person had reason to believe
that hazardous substances had
been added to the recyclable ma-
terial for purposes other than pro-
cessing for recycling.
continued on page 3
2 Cleanup News
-------
Third-Party Audits Eyed
As Compliance Booster
A pilot project aimed at evaluating
market forces to encourage
third parties, such as insurance
companies, to offer small businesses free
compliance audits is expected to boost
compliance under the Clean Air Acf s
chemical accident prevention program
and lower costs for small businesses.
The third-party audit project is being
conducted under a cooperative agree-
ment between EPA and the Wharton
School of Business of the University of
Pennsylvania. The Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Control and the EPA Region
3 office in Philadelphia, also are partici-
pating in the project
Under Section 112(r) of the Clean
Air Act, facilities that manufactured,
used, or stored more than threshold
amounts of 130 hazardous chemicals
were required to file Risk Management
Plans (RMPs) with EPA by June 21,
1999, describing their safety and acci-
dent prevention procedures. Nearly
15,000 facilities filed RMP reports by
the deadline.
The goal of the third-party audit pro-
gram is to develop a model that would
be recognized as an alternative to in-
spections conducted by federal regula-
Recyders
continued from page 2
The person failed to exercise rea-
sonable care with respect to the
management and handling of the re-
cyclable material, such as following
customary industry practices at the
time of the recycling transaction.
For more information on the amend-
ment, contact OSRE's Regional Support
Division, (202) 5644200.
tors. EPA can delegate enforcement au-
thority to states that have been given
the go-ahead to implement the RMP
program, but in these early years, the
major responsibility for compliance as-
surance remains with EPA regional of-
fices. Independent audits are viewed as
a way to relieve EPA regional offices
from compliance assurance problems
that could arise due to a lack of re-
sources.
To date, eight individuals with back-
grounds in law and engineering have
audited several facilities in Delaware to
ensure that on-site chemicals are man-
aged safely. All of the audited facilities
were required to report information
under the federal Risk Management
Program and similar Delaware laws. A
Delaware Dept of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control audit team
also conducted separate safety and risk
management audits at the sites. The
two sets of audits will be compared to
evaluate the adequacy and thorough-
ness of the third-party auditors.
Results of the pilot project will be
shared with insurance companies,
trade associations, public interest
groups and regulatory agencies at a
June roundtable discussion. For more
information, contact the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Preven-
tion Office, (202) 260-8600.
Survey Finds
PRAs Enhancing
Redevelopment
An EPA survey of 85 prospective pur-
chaser agreements (PPAs) negotiated
between 1989 and 1998 found numer-
ous benefits to the agreements. APPA
is a formal legal agreement through
which EPA agrees not to sue the pur-
chaser for the property's pre-existing
environmental condition in exchange
for the purchaser's commitment to un-
dertake or fund some cleanup work,
EPA promises not to sue the purchaser
for existing contamination at the prop-
erty at the time of purchase.
The interim survey results show that
PPAs were instrumental in bringing
about redevelopment at nearly three-
quarters of the properties. The PPAs
covered property ranging in size from
less than an acre to over 50 acres. About
two-thirds of the PPAs covered parcels of
land contained within larger sites, mean-
ing that PPAs are a useful tool for en-
couraging the cleanup and reuse of prop-
erty without necessitating cleanup of the
entire site first Nearly half the proper-
ties were former manufacturing facilities,
and another 18 percent were retail or of-
fice space. Private party respondents ap-
pear satisfied with the results of PPAs; 71
percent reported that the PPA had a pos-
itive impact on the economic viability of
their redevelopment project Benefits to
the public resulting from the 85 PPAs in-
clude economic redevelopment (at 63
percent of the sites), job creation (61%),
increased tax base (60%), infrastructure
development (19%), and restoration of
green space (15%).
As an example, a PPA for the Pub-
licker Industries site in Philadelphia
helped transform one of the worst haz-
ardous waste sites in the Mid-Atlantic
region into a $250 million multi- pur-
pose shipping terminal. Benefits of
the project include 350 permanent full-
time jobs with $10.4 million in total an-
nual income, and hundreds of thou-
sands in annual tax revenues.
For a copy of the survey ("EPA's
Prospective Purchaser Agreements:
How Effective Are They?" EPA 330-R-
99-001, December 2, 1999), contact
OSRE's Policy and Program Evalua-
tion Division, (202) 564-5100.
c
o
(0
Cleanup News 3
-------
m
co
o
Facilitation Comes to Brownfields
8
As brownfleld redevelopment
proceeds in hundreds of com-
munities around the nation,
various stakeholders must come to-
gether residents, community
groups, developers, businesses, city
and state agencies, environmentalists
either as partners or as parties to a
negotiation. What to do when negotia-
tions slow to a crawl or come crashing
to a halt? And what to do when the sup-
posed partners in a brownfield project
fail to build a working relationship to
get the project off the ground?
EPA is taking a leaf from the world
of alternative dispute resolution by
using facilitation to bridge these prob-
lems. Facilitation is a voluntary, infor-
mal, and flexible process of communi-
cation guided by a neutral professional.
In addition to mediating conflicts, facil-
itators can identify stakeholders and is-
sues, clarify roles and responsibilities,
guide parties to a common under-
standing, and build a partnership
among groups with diverse interests.
Currently, EPA is funding facilita-
tion activities at nine pilot brownfield
projects. Each project receives 120
hours of facilitation time. The nine pi-
lots are at New Bedford, MA; San
Diego, CA; Ogden, UT; Hudson
County, NJ; Portland, OR; Shenan-
doah, VA; Milwaukee, WI; Comanche
Nation, OK; Puyallup Tribe, WA. The
effort started as an attempt to help
several brownfield pilots that had
"stalled out" (see accompanying arti-
cle on San Diego's Barrio Logan).
What's next? According to Lee
Scharf, ADR program coordinator in
EPA's Office of Site Remediation En-
forcement, "the idea is to get facilita-
tion into our standard operating proce-
dures on brownfields, as an option in
each cooperative agreement, with
grant monies to fund it. The idea of
spending time and resources up front
to solicit public input is very powerful.
There are up to half a million brown-
field sites around the country. I look at
them as laboratories: this is where peo-
ple can have a say in land use and
remedy selection."
For more information, contact
OSRE's Policy and Program Evalua-
tion Division, (202) 564-5100.
Case Study in Facilitation:
San Diego's Barrio Logan
Emerging Brownfields Site
In San Diego, a brownfields project
is helping the city revitalize the
predominantly Hispanic commu-
nity of Barrio Logan, located south of
downtown San Diego. The neighbor-
hood has a population of about
110,000, 85 percent of whom are of
Hispanic/Latino origin, and one quar-
ter of whom speak only Spanish. The
unemployment rate in 1997 was 15.2
percent, compared to a city-wide rate
of 5.3 percent.
The brownfields project offers the
City of San Diego the opportunity to
eliminate a long-standing problem of in-
compatible land uses in Barrio Logan.
The neighborhood sits on the edge of a
major industrial area and contains resi-
dences and retail stores interspersed
with smaller heavy industries chemi-
cal storage facilities, metal plating shops
that have the potential for releases of
hazardous material.
Round One
In 1997, the Environmental Health
Coalition (EHC), a local environmental
justice group approached the City of
San Diego and a nonprofit affordable
housing organization; together these
partners applied for and received an
EPA grant aimed at "emerging brown-
fields." The idea was that instead of let-
ting a business be run into the ground
and then abandoned along with left-
over environmental contamination, the
community would provide incentives
and money for the company to relocate
to a more suitable, less residential lo-
cation. In 1994, the City of San Diego
had identified six chrome plating
shops and chemical storage facilities
for relocation to approriate industrial
areas due to their proximity to resi-
dences. At the top of the list was "Mas-
ter Plating," a small metal plating shop
located in between three houses. Mas-
ter Plating had also received several
Notices of Violation and had been the
subject of criminal enforcement action.
Although on paper Master Plating
seemed like the best choice, over the
next year the partners' efforts ran into
a series of roadblocks. First and fore-
most, the concept of emerging brown-
fields assumes that the facility in ques-
tion is economically marginal and that
the facility owner has an incentive to
sell and/or relocate. Master Plating,
however, was a tenant business paying
a sizable rent which the property
4 Cleanup News
-------
owner did not wish to lose. Initially,
the partners received an opinion that
the city could use its powers of emi-
nent domain to effect a real estate
transaction; subsequently, however, a
newly asssigned city attorney decided
this was not the case.
In early 1999, when facilitator Lewis
Michaelson was brought on board by
EPA, the local partners in the project
were "spinning their wheels." One of
the first difficulties Michaelson en-
countered was the absence of any sort
of critical path to help the partners un-
derstand where they needed to make
essential "go/no-go" decisions. An-
other problem was the failure of the
groups to coalesce into a genuine work-
ing partnership. Michaelson started
with the basics taking meeting
notes, tracking action items, insisting
on follow-through and accountability.
Soon the partnership began to gel as a
team, and with some prodding by EPA,
Facilitation helped
maintain a strategic
focus on what the
partners were doing
and kept it at the top
of their list
city managers began to accord the pro-
ject priority attention.
By May 1999, however, the situa-
tion had reached an impasse. The city
had authorized front-loading of its
community development block grant
funds so that the city could make the
property owner a conditional offer.
With the offer in hand, the owner
granted the partners access to the site
to assess how much it would cost to
clean it up. Meanwhile, the owner
Barrio Logan
claimed he had engaged real estate
brokers to look around for other pos-
sible locations. He also claimed that a
similar parcel would cost twice as
much money as the city had deter-
mined was fair market value. The
owner then rejected the offer, and the
project was back at square one.
Round Two
With Master Plating out of the picture,
the partners needed to step back and
rethink their objectives. Michaelson re-
calls that it was a "tough lesson to
learn" but that the group understood
there was no point proceeding with an
approach that was no longer viable.
Under a new manager from the city, In-
grid Johnson, the partnership became
newly invigorated. During this period,
says Michaelson, "facilitation helped
maintain a strategic focus on what the
partners were doing and kept it at the
top of their list." Facilitation also helped
give each of the partners a perspective
on the motivations and interests of the
other partners, and thereby helped
align the somewhat disparate interests
of the groups involved.
As part of the regrouping, the part-
ners went back to their original objec-
tive to eliminate incompatible land
uses that posed health and safety
threats to residents of Barrio Logan.
The partners decided that instead of
doing detailed investigations of specific
sites, they should undertake a broader,
area-wide investigation to identify all in-
compatible land uses. The partners also
realized that the real problem was the
size of the "redevelopment area" that
had been designated by the city. Those
boundaries, drawn up years earlier, in-
cluded only a small portion of the area
in Barrio Logan that needed attention.
Over the next few months, the project
obtained an agreement in principle with
the San Diego Unified Port District to
fund the necessary environmental im-
pact report which would permit consid-
eration of an expanded redevelopment
area. In late January 2000, City Council-
man Juan Vargas committed to fund the
remaining shortfall needed for the ex-
pansion process.
Lewis Michaelson believes that de-
spite the numerous setbacks, most of
which were not foreseeable and not
anyone's fault, the project is back on
course. "The bell rings and the partners
keep coming back, round after round,"
he said. "But if it hadn't been for the
commitment and drive of Diane Takvo-
rian of EHC, of Bobbie Kahan at EPA,
and of Ingrid Johnson and Juan Vargas
from the City, this project would have
died several times along the way."
For more information on Barrio
Logan, contact Bobbie Kahan, EPA
Project Manager, (415) 744-2191, or fa-
cilitator Lewis Michaelson, (858) 259-
5666 x23.
Cleanup Hews
-------
J,
t
f >
r,
Third Circuit Reverses
District Court and
Upholds EPA Authority
in Occidental Case
On December 28, 1999, the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit reversed a
district court's dismissal of the govern-
ment's complaint against Occidental
Chemical Corporation. The govern-
ment asked the court to enforce a Uni-
lateral Administrative Order (UAO) re-
quiring Occidental to participate in the
Superfund cleanup at the Centre
County Kepone Site in State College,
Pennsylvania. The complaint also
sought penalties under CERCLA sec-
tion 106(b), reimbursement of unre-
covered past costs, and a declaratory
judgement for future costs.
The cleanup of the site had already
been the subject of a consent decree
between the government and Ruet-
gers-Nease Corporation.
government countered that it could
bring an action against any person not
party to an agreement and because
Occidental was not a party to the ear-
lier consent decree, the government
could seek to enforce the UAO.
In dismissing the government's
complaint, the district court reasoned
that the government had received
complete relief despite the fact that the
cleanup had not been completed and
there remained unreimbursed past
costs. The district court held that EPA
was seeking a double recovery since
EPA had already obtained complete re
lief from its settlement with Ruetgers.
The Court of Appeals disagreed,
holding that "by issuing administrative
orders to non-settling PRPs under §106,
EPAfulfiUs CERCLA's objectives of pro-
moting fairness at multi-party sites, and
accelerating the statute's ultimate goal
site cleanup." The court also agreed
with the government's "reasonable un-
derstanding" of the statute and went on
"... the question of whether an order may be
necessary to protect public health, welfare,
and the environment goes to the status of
the contamination at the site, not to who is,
or who is not, obligated to address it."
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in United States v. Occidental Corp.
On June 26,1998, Occidental filed a
motion to dismiss the government's
complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
because the government had already
obtained "complete relief from Ruet-
gers under the earlier consent decree,
and therefore the UAO was not "nec-
essary" to protect the public health
and welfare and the environment. The
to point out that Section 122 of CER-
CLA provides express authority for the
actions EPA took against Occidental,
and that Section 122's principal purpose
is to ensure that EPA's authority to
issue administrative orders and enforce
them is preserved.
The appellate court also stated that
"the question of whether an order may
be necessary to protect public health,
welfare, and the environment goes to
the status of the contamination at the
site, not to who is, or who is not oblig-
ated to address it" Therefore, the dis-
trict court"s finding that EPA's order was
not "necessary" because of its earlier
settlement with Ruetgers was in error.
The Third Circuit's opinion remands
the matter to the district court for fur-
ther proceedings.
For more information, contact
OSRE's Regional Support Division,
(202) 5644200. [United States v. Occi-
dental Corp., 200 E3d 143, 1999 WL
1268110 (3rd Or. 12/28/99)]
Tenth Circuit Upholds
ERA& Remedy
Decision at Broderick
Superfund Site
On December 21,1999, the Tenth Cir-
cuit reversed the district court and con-
cluded that EPA's remediation decision
to use a cancer risk level of 1 x Ifr5 at
the site was not arbitrary and capri-
cious. It also held that EPA's decision to
not amend the Record of Decision
(ROD) for certain minor deviations in
the remedy was not arbitrary and
capricious. Where the remedy was al-
tered fundamentally with respect to
scope and cost however, the appellate
court held that EPA had acted arbitrar-
ily and capriciously, but emphasized
that in order to prove damages, the de-
fendant had to show that EPA's actions
"resulted in demonstrable excess costs
that would not have otherwise been in-
curred." In addition, the appellate court
held that district court properly re-
duced the judgment against Burlington
Northern (BN) based on a geographic
apportionment of a prior settlement
with other defendants and held BN li-
able for remediation costs incurred be-
fore EPA notified BN of its potential li-
ability at the Site.
6 Cleanup Hews
-------
From 1947 to 1981, the Broderick
Wood Products Company and its suc-
cessor, Broderick Investment Com-
pany (BIC) operated a wood treatment
facility on a 64-acre parcel of land
northwest of Denver. The companies
disposed of process waste on the
northwest portion of the site, using
two unlined impoundments. The site
was placed on the National Priorities
List in 1984 and a cost-recovery case
was initiated in 1986.
A Record of Decision was issued in
1988 for one of the operable units and
subsequently amended in 1991. In the
amendment, EPA changed the initial
remedial plan so that the impoundment
sludge would be remedied through off-
site reclamation rather than on-site in-
cineration. EPA revised the plan be-
cause incineration costs had increased
substantially and equally protective al-
ternatives (off-site reclamation) were
available. However, in the course of im-
plementing the new remedy, the gov-
ernment's contractor, Allied-Signal, en-
countered a number of unanticipated
difficulties that raised the cost of the
remedy by over $1 million.
EPA's 1991 risk assessment for the
site evaluated each current and hypo-
thetical future use of the site against
three potential cancer risk levels: 1 x
104 (a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting
cancer after remediation); 1 x Ifr5 (a 1
in 100,000 chance of getting cancer
after remediation); and 1 x 106 (a 1 in
one million chance of getting cancer
after remediation). However, in select-
ing a risk goal, EPA considered the
starting point risk level, 1 x 106, as in-
appropriate in light of the continuing
industrial and commercial land uses in
the vicinity of the site. The 1 x Ifr5 level
of cancer risk was selected as a more
appropriate remediation goal and is
consistent with EPA's Hazardous Sub-
stance Contingency Plan.
In 1992, EPA added Burlington
Northern as a defendant in the law-
suit. Burlington Northern's liability
arose from Broderick's use of the
pond impoundment, which belonged
to Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Railroad (CBQRK), a predecessor of
Burlington Northern. In the early
1960s, Broderick used the 17.5 acres
tract of land for the impoundment and
disposal of treatment wastes without
CBQRR's permission. When CBQRR
discovered the disposal, it leased the
land to Broderick as a disposal site for
waste for approximately six years.
Eventually, in 1969, CBQRR quit-
claimed the property to Broderick.
For more information, contact
OSRE's Regional Support Division,
(202) 564-4200. [United States v.
Burlington Northern Railroad Co.,
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 33143 (10th Or.
12/21/99)]
Favorable Statute-of-
Limitations Ruling
on Cariie Lee Site,
Alabama
On January 14,2000, the United States
District Court, Northern District of Al-
abama denied a motion for summary
judgment filed by defendants CSX
Transportation, Inc., Lucent Technolo-
gies, Inc., and Thompson Tractor, Inc.
in a cost recovery action brought by
the United States in October, 1998.
Defendants argued that the govern-
ment had failed to file its cost recovery
action within three years of comple-
tion of the removal action at the site.
Defendants argued that the removal
action was complete on September 15,
1994 (when replanting of grass on site
was completed), whereas the United
States determined that the removal ac-
tion was complete on February 6,1995
(when a draft final OSC report was
submitted to EPA). The Court re-
jected the defendants' argument that
the filing of the draft final OSC report
should be ignored for statute of limita-
tions purposes, and denied summary
judgment based on those grounds.
Defendants based their argument,
in part, on CERCLIS information avail-
able on EPA's web page which showed
the date of "actual completion" for the
Cariie Lee site removal as September
15,1994. Citing another case, the court
concluded that the defendants in this
case had not shown any detrimental re-
liance resulting from the information
on the web site, and thus would not find
in favor of defendants on that basis.
Defendants also based their argu-
ments, unsuccessfully, on more recent
case law in which PRPs were success-
ful in finding the government's action
to be time-barred. (See, for example,
United States v. Ambroid Co., Inc., 34
ESupp. 2d 86 (D. Mass. 1999).)
The court's decision included other
important findings, dismissing defen-
dants' arguments that the OSC report
was merely "a bureaucratic exercise"
and reiterating the liberal interpretation
given to the statute of limitations under
CERCLA in favor of the government
For more information, contact
OSRE's Regional Support Division,
(202) 5644200.
Army and ERA Sign a
Time-Critical Removal
Action at Former
Nansemond Ordnance
Depot, Suffolk, VA
On December 30, 1999, the United
States Army and EPA signed an intera-
gency agreement to perform a time-
critical removal action for ordnance and
explosive safety hazards at the former
Nansemond Ordnance Depot located in
Suffolk, Virginia. Like other formerly
used defense sites, Nansemond was
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
continued on page 10
Cleanup News 7
-------
41
In-Sttu Thermal Remediation Technologies
James Cummings, EPA Technology and
Innovation Office
R
! ecentiy developed in-situ ther-
mal remediation technologies
L offer the potential to address a
variety of contamination problems.
These technologies can be deployed
to enhance traditional remediation ap-
proaches, for example, to enhance Soil
Vapor Extraction (SVE). They can also
can be employed to address problems
for which solutions are currently lack-
ing, such as free product contamina-
tion at depth and/or in the saturated
zone, as well as contamination se-
questered in low permeability strata.
In the second class of problems, ther-
mal remediation technologies offer
the potential to actually restore
groundwater, in contrast to the limited
containment goal of most pump and
treat systems.
The principal alternative to remedi-
ating contaminated groundwater has
been pump and treat. Pump and treat
only addresses the component of the
contamination which has dissolved in
the aqueous phase. For sites with a
source term of any magnitude, pump
and treat will be a protracted affair,
with a primary goal of containing
rather than removing the mass of con-
tamination. As an oversimplification,
there has been reluctance to excavate
waste much below 8-10 feet and/or to
attempt to excavate waste below the
water table.
In-situ thermal technologies take
advantage of a number of aspects of
the behavior of chemicals at elevated
temperatures to accomplish contami-
nant recovery or in-situ destruction.
These include:
increased solubility
decreased viscosity
increased vapor pressure
steam distillation
reduced interfacial tension
in-situ oxidation.
Methods of delivering heat to the sub-
surface include steam-enhanced ex-
traction (also known as dynamic un-
derground stripping), electrical-
resistive heating, electrical-conductive
heating, and radio-frequency heating.
Beyond the general class of sites
with NAPL contamination, the types of
facilities for which these technologies
may be suitable include wood treaters,
solvent sites (e.g., involving
trichloroethylene (TCE)), dryclean-
In-Situ Thermal Technologies: Case Studies
Eison (SCE), a utility company, deployed Stem
SGE recovered 100,000 pounds of contamination. To
over 1 million pounds of creosote and pen-
, Based on radio-labelled caifcon studies, SCE estimates
million
approximately $20/pound. SCE
' JRI^BWt 1 «W» $GE and the developers of the Sf E technology re-
cehffid an award from EPA Region 9, the California Department of Toxic
DOE conducted a demonstration project at its Savannah
I (SPH).
SPH heats the subsuface to approximately 100° C and then recov-
ers contaminants in centrally located wells. Over the course of the
demonstration, solvent contaminant concentrations were reduced
by 98% from low permeability clay strata. Since that demonstration,
Current Environmental Solutions, a licensee of the DOE-developed
technology, has deployed the technology at a variety of sites.
SPH was used at a site in Skokie, III., to address TCE hot spots
located 12-14 feet below ground, sitting atop an aquitard in satu-
rated conditions. Cleanup objectives were to meet the state Tier III
industrial use standards. The client was sufficiently pleased with
the performance that the vendor was instructed to continue heating
in an effort to achieve the more stringent 'tier I' standards. Although
tier I standards were not achieved site-wide, by the termination of
the project the standards were met at the majority of the monitor-
ing wells. Approximately 15,000 pounds of TCE were recovered.
SPH was subsequently deployed at a drycleaning site in Seattle
involving "perc" (tetrachloroethylene). SPH heating achieved
cleanup levels that met federal standards in less than two months
of heating. Application of the technology was accomplished with no
disruption of ongoing commercial activity at the strip mall where
the drycleaner was located.
3 Cleanup News
-------
ers, and manufactured gas plants. (See
box for examples.)
In-situ thermal technologies offer
the potential to enhance existing re-
medial approaches and to address cur-
rently intractable DNAPL contamina-
tion problems. There is reason to hope
that we are on the verge of revamping
our understanding of "technical im-
practicability." In the next few years
we expect to see continued improve-
ment in performance and reduction in
cost as the vendors of these technolo-
gies gain additional experience.
New
Publications
Road Map to Understanding Innova-
tive Technology Options for Brown-
fields Investigation and Cleanup,
Second Edition (EPA 542-B-99-009).
The new edition has been expanded
significantly to include new and up-
dated resources and is accompanied
by the Tool Kit of Information Re-
sources for Brownfields Investigation
and Cleanup. The Road Map and Tool
Kit link technology options to the
steps involved in the characterization
and cleanup of a brownfields site. [No-
vember 1999, 96 pages]. View or
download at http://clu-in.org/tech-
pubs.htm. Hard copies are available by
calling (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-
8190 or faxing a request to (513) 489-
8695.
Cost and Performance Reports. The
DOD Environmental Security Tech-
nology Certification Program has re-
cent posted six new remediation tech-
nology cost and performance reports.
All the new reports can be viewed or
downloaded from http://www.estcp.
org/technical_documents.htm. The
specific reports are:
Assessment of the Remote Mine-
field Detection System (REMIDS)
Joint Small Arms Range Remedia-
tion
Multi-Sensor Towed Array Detec-
tion System (MTADS)
Permeable Reactive Wall Remedia-
tion of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
in Groundwater
POL Sensor Validation of SCAPS
The Use of Constructed Wetlands
to Phytoremediate Explosives-
Contaminated
Groundwater at the Milan Army
Ammunition Plant, Milan, Ten-
nessee
Directory of Technology Support Ser-
vices to Brownfields Localities (EPA
542-B-99-005). This directory lists EPA
offices, nongovernment organizations
funded by EPA, and other federal
agencies that may be able to assist in
the selection of technologies to char-
acterize and clean up brownfields
properties. Also includes listings of
relevant documents and Web sites
[November 1999, 28 pages]. View or
download at http://clu-in.org/tech-
pubs.htm. For hard copies, contact
(800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or fax
a request to (513) 489-8695.
Phytoremediation, Anyone? Phytore-
mediation means using plants to take
up pollutants in groundwater. The
most often used plant is poplar or soft-
wood trees which collect pollutants
into the tree when they uptake water
for the natural lifecycle of the tree.
Two new resources on phytoremedia-
tion are available:
Phytoremediation Decision Tree.
Produced by the Interstate Tech-
nology Regulatory Cooperation
0TRC) workgroup, this document
can help you decide if phytoremedi-
ation would be effective at a given
site. Separate decision trees are
provided for three types of contam-
inated media (soil, groundwater,
and sediments). [November 1999,
36 pages]. View or download at
http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm.
Guidelines for Successful Phytore-
mediation. This guidance provides
information that will improve the
chances for success when apply-
ing phytoremediation technology
to real world sites. The report was
prepared by CH2M Hill for the
Center for Waste Reduction Tech-
nologies (CWRT), a non-profit
arm of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE).
Several aspects of phytoremedia-
tion are covered, including evalua-
tion of phytoremediation as a site
strategy, detailed literature re-
views on phytoremediation by
contaminant groups, modeling
phytoremediation systems, and
extensive information on mainte-
nance issues [August 1999, 200
pages]. More information is
posted on the CWRT website at
www.aiche.org/cwrt . The report
is available on CD-ROM at cost
(ISBN No: 0-8169-0806-0, Item No:
Pub C-ll). Contact AIChE at 1-
800-2424363 or (212) 591-7338.
Technology Status Review: In-Situ
Oxidation. Published by the DoD En-
vironmental Security Technology Cer-
tification Program, this report at-
tempts to capture the state of the art
for this very promising technology,
currently in a state of rapid develop-
ment. The report also indicates the
types of information needed to con-
tinue the evolution of in-situ oxidation
and to successfully implement the
technology. The review of past pro-
jects is intended to help site managers
understand the conditions under
which ISO should be used and set re-
continued on page 10
Cleanup News 9
-------
0
O
Superfund Revises TAG Program
Simplified application proce-
dures, no cap on administra-
tive expenses, more flexibility
in determining the length of time over
which funds can be expended, and ac-
cess to advance payment are all fea-
tures of the proposal to revise the Su-
perfund Technical Assistance Grant
(TAG) Program. The intent of the
changes is to make grants for techni-
cal assistance more readily available
to local community groups and to pro-
mote effective public participation in
the Superfund cleanup process. EPA
proposed the changes in the Federal
Register last August, and expects to fi-
nalize the revisions this spring.
EPA awards TAGs to eligible com-
munity groups affected by sites that
are final on the National Priorities List
(NPL) or proposed to the NPL with a
response action underway. The re-
sources a TAG provides allows com-
munities to procure independent tech-
nical advisors to help communities
understand and participate in site deci-
sion making. To date, EPA has
awarded more than 220 TAGs, worth
approximately $16 million.
Initial TAG grant awards are for
$50,000, but under certain circum-
stances, TAG recipients can seek addi-
tional funding. Complex sites and pru-
dent management of previously
awarded funds are some of the typical
circumstances associated with funding
beyond $50,000. Because grants can be
renewed with additional funding, the
average value of a TAG grant is $75,000.
One of the changes reflected in the new
rule makes getting additional funding
easier for recipients.
Other changes to the program re-
flect EPA's practical experience with
the program in recent years as well as
feedback from TAG recipients that the
grants are difficult to apply for and ad-
minister once awarded. The new
changes should streamline both ad-
ministrative and application proce-
dures and improve the overall flexibil-
ity of the program. For more
information, contact the Office of Solid
Waste, (703) 308-8895.
Technology Insights
continued from page 9
alistic goals for the technology. [No-
vember 1999, 50 pages]. View or
download at www.estcp.org/techni-
cal_documents.htm.
For up-to-date Information on publi-
cations, subscribe to TechDirecta
free monthly e-mail service that
brings you capsule summaries of the
latest publications and events related
to site assessment and remediation
technologies. A service of EPA's Tech-
nology Innovation Office, TechDirect
currently reaches over 5000 sub-
scribers in more than 45 countries.
To subscribe, go to http://clu-
in.org/membersh.htm. To catch up on
recently highlighted technology publi-
cations, check out the TechDirect
archive at http://clu-in.org/techdrct.
htm. If you have any questions, contact
Jeff Heimerman at (703) 603-7191 or
heimerman.jeff@epa.gov.
Nansemond
continued from page 7
Defense and owned by, leased to, or oth-
erwise possessed by the United States at
the time of actions leading to contamina-
tion by hazardous substances.
Originally named the Pig Point
Ordnance Depot, Nansemond was ac-
quired by the Department of the Army
between 1917 and 1929. During its pe-
riod of operation between 1917 and
1960, Nansemond was used for the as-
sembly, storage, and destruction of
munitions for the U.S. military. Por-
tions of the site are now owned by the
Virginia Department of Community
Colleges, Dominion Lands, Inc., Gen-
eral Electric Company, and the Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation. A
portion of the site is also being used
for educational purposes by the Tide-
water Community College. A 1987
Army Corps of Engineers ordnance
survey and investigation of groundwa-
ter contamination indicated the pres-
ence of explosive waste, including a
slab of crystalline TNT (trinitro-
toluene) weighing several tons, at the
site.
The December agreement is nation-
ally significant, first, because the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers may not pro-
ceed with work when EPA disagrees
with the Corps' work plans; and second,
because the Army agreed to seek an ap-
propriation to reimburse EPA's over-
sight costs incurred at the site in con-
nection with the agreement In the event
that Congress fails to authorize and ap-
propriate any funds to pay the oversight
costs in FY2001, the Army is required to
submit a formal request to DoD for sub-
mission to OMB as part of DoD's
FY2002 budget request
For more information, contact
OSRE's Regional Support Division,
(202) 564-4200, or the Region 3 Haz-
ardous Waste Management Division,
(215) 566-3000.
1O Cleanup News
-------
On the Web
Cleanup News will be gradually moving into an electronic
format. Currently, we are providing e-mail notification of the
availability of each issue of the newsletter; we will gradually
add online synopses with the hope of decreasing the num-
ber of mailed copies. If you are interested in being part of
this transition to an electronic format, please fax us the form
(301-652-7001) at the bottom of this page and be sure to in-
clude your e-mail address.
Site Remediation Enforcement
www.epa.gov/oeca/osre
Features include:
a short explanation of the enforcement of cleanups
under four statutes (CERCIA, RCRA, OPA, and USD
links to EPA pages dealing with the cleanup and regula-
tory aspects of each statute
Cleanup News current issue as well as back issues of
this newsletter
electronic versions of all publicly-available CERCLA en-
forcement policy and guidance documents from 1983 to
the present.
Brownfields
www.epa.gov/bmwnfields
Features include guidance and deadlines for grant applica-
tions, news and events, and the brownfields "Enviromap-
per" which allows you to view spatial data at the national,
state, and county levels, using Geographic Information Sys-
tem technology (such as displaying multiple spatial layers,
zooming, panning, identifying features, and displaying lati-
tude and longitude). (From the home page, click on BFTax
Incentive Maps.)
To receive updates and press releases on brownfields ac-
tivities, join the brownfields list server. Go to www.epa.gov/
swerosps/bf/listserv.htm for information on how to sub-
scribe.
Superfund Community Advisory Groups
www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/cag/index.htm
A new web site has opened for Superfund CAGs. What's a
CAG? It's an advisory group made up of members of the
community and designed to serve as the focal point for the
exchange of information among the local community and
EPA, the state regulatory agency, and other federal agen-
cies involved in cleanup of a Superfund site. Publications, a
map of CAGs by EPA region or state, and contact informa-
tion are available.
Superfund
www.epa.gov/superfund
The main Superfund web site is
your gateway to detailed site infor-
mation; resources such as training,
software, publications, and more;
program information including the
Superfund redevelopment initiative,
oil spills, and emergency response; Superfund statistics and
history, and links to regional office Superfund web sites.
V)
0)
g
I
£
How to Receive Cleanup News
To reeeiwe a free cow of Cleanup News,
stiramm.com w301-652-7001 (fax). If you
wouM like to be notified by e-mail when
thenextissueofCteanupNewsisavailable Orpnbatton:
for downloading from tte Vfeb, please in-
chHte your e-may address. Cleanup News Address:
is available on the Web at www.epa.
Q
E-Mail:
Cleanup News 11
-------
m
o
01
"i
o
April 9-12, 2000
Recent Advances in the
Environmental Toxicology and
Health Effects of PCBs
Lexington, KY
Contact Larry W. Robertson, tel: (606) 257-3952, fax:
(606) 323-1059, e-mail: Iwrobe01@pop.uky.edu.
April 24, 20OO
Notable Achievement Awards
Ceremony
Washington, D.C.
Sponsored by EPA. Contact Ann Eleanor,
703-603-7199.
June 4-7,2000
State Fund Administrators Conf.
Scottsdale, AZ
Sponsored by EPA. Contact: Peg Rogers,
703-603-7169.
August 28 - September 1,2000
National Community Involvement
Conference
San Francisco, CA
Sponsored by EPA. Contact: Helen DuTeau,
703-603-8761.
^^L^
Prevention
Acronyms
Office of Management and
Budget
OM OK Pollution Act
On-scene Coordinator
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (EPA)
PCB Poiychorinated biphenyls
PW Potentially Responsible Parly
RCflA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (hazardous
waste)
RHff Risk Management Plan
IKT Underground Storage Tank
www. epa.gov/oeca/osre
MckPopiao,Ph.D., editor
EPA Review Board: Rick Popbw, PhJL, Paul
Connot^ Koran BtonborgM, Kan Patterson,
fiHaltUBgner, writer
RoMn Foster, SciComm Inc., designer
M
il: popino.rick@epa.gov.
., 7735 Old Georgetown Rd,
9C-9 'ON HIAIH3d
Vd3
QlVd S33d « 30VlSOd
ssvno
008$
jjEuaj
ssauisng lepgjo
09TOZ DQ 'ucxjSuiqsBM.
(VILZZ)
fB}U3UJUOJlAUg
------- |