United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency
                   Office of Site Remediation
                   Enforcement (2271 A)
                   Washington, DC 20460
&EPA     cleanupnews
                                      Summer 2000
                                      EPA300-N-00-011
                                      Issue #5
 inside

 Awards          2
 In the Courts       4
   Atlas
   Aronowitz
 CEPPO News       5
 OERR News        6
 Technology Insights   7
 Calendar          8
 Cleanup News is an occa-
 sional newsletter highlighting
 hazardous waste cleanup
 cases, policies, settlements,
 and technologies.
    EPA Moves to  Full  Cost
    Accounting at  Superfund Sites
    Guidance Issued on Enforcement Discretion During
    Transition Period
         EPAs Office of Site Remediation En-
         forcement has provided guidance to
         the regional offices on the exercise
    of enforcement discretion between now
    and October 2,2000 when EPA moves to a
    full cost accounting approach to allocating
    costs at Superfund sites. (See notice in the
                                The effect of applying the revised rates
                              will vary from site  to site. The new
                              method allocates indirect costs in propor-
                              tion to direct costs, instead of in propor-
                              tion to the number  of Superfund staff
                              hours charged to a site. As a result, sites
                              with large direct  federal expenditures
                              compared to the number of Superfund
                              staff hours will generally see the largest
                              indirect cost increases, and few if any de-
                              creases. Sites with smaller federal expen-
                              ditures compared to the number of Super-
                        .     fund staff hours, such as sites cleaned up
          Offe TS0SO IVing  by potentially responsible  parties (PRPs)
                 „,     „,   .  where EPAs costs are largely for over-
                O-Lv/CUlVT.  sight performed by EPA staff, will gener-
                     7     ,r  ally see smaller indirect cost increases,
       G t/o to U 6to e Cl O rl III tand are ajso more likely to see decreases.

current indirect rates.
 Until the

1SS Ue d, EPA Will
                                                          Ore
    Federal Registerjune 2, 2000, pp. 35339-
    35345.)
      EPAs current indirect cost accounting
    methodology allocates to Superfund sites
    only about one-third of the indirect costs
    that are incurred by EPA and properly al-
    locable to sites. Full cost accounting will
    bring Superfund into compliance with cost
    accounting standards issued by the Fed-
    eral Accounting  Standards Advisory
    Board in 1995 and the requirements of the
    Federal Financial Management Improve-
    ment Act of 1996.
                              Enforcement Discretion
                              After October 2,2000, site costs, including
                              oversight costs, will be calculated using
                              the revised rates. Here are some of the is-
                              sues of particular enforcement interest
                              and EPAs intended approach to ensure a
                              fair and efficient transition to the revised
                              accounting methodology.
                              • Concluded MaftercEPArecognizes the
                              importance of finality and has no plans to
                              re-open any concluded cases to apply the
                              revised rates to claims for past costs that
                              were presented and resolved in those mat-
                                                         •3
                                                                                 Printed on recycled paper

-------
i
National  Notable  Achievement Awards
Given  in  April 2000
      At a ceremony in Washington
      on April 24, the year 2000 Na-
      tional Notable Achievement
Awards were presented to outstanding
EPA Regional Superfund, RCRA Cor-
rective Action, and Superfund En-
forcement staff. Here are a few exam-
ples of excellence in action.

RCRA Corrective Action
Award for Outstanding
Stakeholder Involvement:
Gary Miller, Region 6
Gary Miller received this award for his
work as the corrective action enforce-
ment project manager at a hazardous
w aste facility with substantial contam-
ination that was partially destroyed by
an explosion and fire. Gary worked ef-
fectively with the concerned sur-
rounding community as  well as with
the state agency, EPA headquarters,
and the facility owner to ensure that
proper actions were taken to clean up
the site.
   After  the Chief Supply Company
was partially destroyed by an explo-
sion and fire in March 1997, environ-
mental samples detected chlorinated
solvents, benzene, toluene, ethylben-
zene, and xylene contamination. Gary
assembled the community, the  state,
and EPA headquarters for numerous
discussions regarding  community
concerns, the  best way  to approach
the facility, the purpose  of EPA's  ac-
tions, and the safety of the facility's op-
erations. In addition, he opened an on-
going  dialogue with the community
via e-mail.
   Gary  continues to work with the
state agency and the facility owner to
complete the cleanup. In a recent let-
ter to the Regional Administrator and
                                               Legal Enforcer of the Year Thomas P. Turner accepts
                                               congratulations from OECA Assistant Administrator
                                               Steven Herman and OSRE Director Barry Breen.
                                               local Congressmen, a member of the
                                               community thanked EPA for its con-
                                               tinued  efforts  and specifically for
                                               Gary's exceptional work.

                                               Superfund Award for
                                               On-Scene Coordinator
                                               (OSC) of the Year:
                                               Martha A. Wolf, Region 8
                                               As one of two recipients of the OSC
                                               award,  Martha Wolf was recognized
                                               for  her professionalism, dedication,
                                               and high-quality work inspecting re-
                                               fineries and large-scale petroleum
                                               storage facilities located on the banks
                                               of pristine rivers in the Rocky Moun-
                                               tain area. In addition, she organizes
                                               and directs diverse and sometimes dif-
                                               ficult stakeholder groups in Area Con-
                                               tingency Plan (ACP) negotiations, and
                                               establishes national regulations and
                                               policy for EPA's oil program.
                                                 Martha supervises the FRP and
                                               SPCC programs that compel facility
                                               owners to identify their vulnerabilities
                                               and change their practices to prevent
                                               spills, and to be well prepared for any
                                               that do  occur. In FY99, she managed a
                                               workload of more than 100 SPCC and
                                               FRP inspections and reviews, and con-
                                               ducted  negotiations for five separate
                                                                            river environments, bring-
                                                                            ing groups together to re-
                                                                            solve conflicts and prepare
                                                                            ACPs despite their often
                                                                            contentious histories. In ad-
                                                                            dition, she initiated an effort
                                                                            to incorporate all informa-
                                                                            tion and maps in the plans
                                                                            into  a  computerized geo-
                                                                            graphic information system.
                                                                               On-Scene  Coordinators
                                                                            need to exercise diplomacy,
                                                                            and  Martha has  demon-
                                                                    strated an amazing ability to commu-
                                                                    nicate effectively with uncooperative
                                                                    facility owners. Martha's patience has
                                                                    helped achieve the goal of safer, well-
                                                                    prepared facilities.

                                                                    Superfund Enforcement
                                                                    Award for Team of the Year:
                                                                    Casmalia Enforcement Team,
                                                                    Region 9
                                                                    For its successful implementation of
                                                                    several key administrative reforms to
                                                                    achieve the largest de minimis settle-
                                                                    ment in the history of the Superfund
                                                                    program, the Casmalia Enforcement
                                                                    Team received the 2000 Superfund
                                                                    Enforcement Team of the Year Award.
                                                                    These reforms included expedited set-
                                                                    tlement; increasing fairness in the en-
                                                                    forcement process; reducing transac-
                                                                    tion costs; and providing a meaningful
                                                                    forum for stakeholder concerns.
                                                                      Through the team's efforts, EPA
                                                                    settled with more than 400 small waste
                                                                    generators, providing  special legal
                                                                    protections to  de minimis  contribu-
                                                                    tors. These de minimis parties have
                                                                    contributed a record $26.5 million to-
                                                                    ward cleanup of the site. The Casmalia
                                                                    Disposal site in Santa Barbara County,
                                                                    CA, is one of the largest hazardous
      2 Cleanup News

-------
waste sites in the nation. During a four-
year period in  the  early 1990s, EPA
spent more than $17  million taking
emergency response actions to stabi-
lize the site.
   The team used several  innovative
approaches to achieve  settlement,  in-
cluding:  (1) utilizing a sophisticated
management information system to en-
hance communication with the de min-
imis parties; (2)  conducting special out-
reach efforts to  the de minimis parties;
and (3)  expediting the  settlement
process by consolidating payment with
the submittal of signature pages.
   The case team actively encouraged
de  minimis parties  to contact EPA
using a dedicated toll-free number. In
addition,  the team hosted an informa-
tional meeting attended by 350 people
after the  settlement offer was  distrib-
uted.  And throughout the arduous
process of producing the  settlement,
team members maintained their sense
of humor and a strong  sense of cama-
raderie.
  The Winners!
  RCRA Corrective Action Awards:
  Outstanding Stakeholder Involvement:
  Gary Miller, Region 6
  Outstanding Use of Environmental
  Indicators:Raphael]. Cody, EPA-New
  England
  Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanup:
  Matthew R. Hoagland, EPA-New
  England
  •  Anniston PCB Work Group Team,
     Region 4
  •  Streamlining Team for RCRA
     Enforcement CA, Region 6
  •  Corrective Action Environmental In-
     dicator Evaluation Team, Region 9

  Superfund Awards:
  flu-Scene Coordinator: Vincent E.
  Zenone, Region 3; Martha A Wolf,
  Region 8
  Remedial Project Manager: Randy
  Sturgeon, Region 3
  Site Assessment Manager: Cynthia
  Gurley, Region 4
Community Involvement Coordinator: Pat
Seppi, Region 2; Sherryl A
Carbonaro, Region 4
Exceptional Merit Award: Earl Liverman,
Region 10
Leader/Mentor: Robert W  Feild, Region 7
Superfund ROD: Sally Thomas, Region
10 (Pacific Sound Resources Site)
Superfund Team:
•  Hurricane Floyd Response Team,
   Region 4
•  Oklahoma Tornadoes Team,
   Region 6

Superfund Enforcement Awards:
Legal Enforcer:Thomas P. Turner,
Region 5
Technical Enforcer: Lois Elaine Green,
Region 9
Enforcement Team: Casmalia
Enforcement Team, Region 9

For more on the awards, go to:
www.epa.gov/superfund/new/awards/
index.htm
Superfund Accounting
continued from page 1

ters. This includes consent decrees, lit-
igated judgments, and administrative
orders on consent. It also includes ceil-
ings established in  settlements and
judgments  for oversight  or other re-
sponse costs that the Agency can bill
to PRPs  under those existing settle-
ments or judgments.
•   Oversight Billings: EPA  has no
plans to recompute oversight bills that
were prepared and sent  to PRPs be-
fore the revised rates are issued.
•   Claims  in Litigation Prior to Octo-
ber 2, 2000: There may be special cir-
cumstances in these cases, especially
if the litigation is at an advanced stage,
that cause the case team to decide not
to seek to amend the claim by applying
the revised indirect rates. An example
might be certain cases in which costs
have already been presented  to the
court and the parties are awaiting the
court's decision. These decisions will
be made by the EPA/Department  of
Justice case team on a  case-by-case
basis.
•   Interim Settlement Policy in Antici-
pation of the Revised Rates.'One pur-
pose of EPA giving advance notice  of
the change in rates is to provide PRPs
who have unresolved cost recovery li-
abilities an opportunity to settle with
the United States at the current rates.
Until the revised rates are issued, EPA
will entertain settlement offers  resolv-
ing claims for CERCLA response costs
based on the current indirect rates.
 •  Proving Indirect CostsImplement-
 ing the new accounting method will
 not alter the burden of proof that EPA
 must meet when seeking recovery of
 indirect costs.  EPA will continue to
 provide evidence acceptable in a court
 of law to prove that the indirect costs
 sought are allocable to the  site that is
 the subject of the enforcement action.
 •  National  Consistency/Coodina-
 tion: EPA has a substantial interest in
 promoting a nationally consistent ap-
 proach during  this transition period.
 As always, EPA will exercise its dis-
 cretion to ensure that resulting settle-
 ments are fair, reasonable, and consis-
 tent with CERCLA.
   For more  information,  contact
 OSRE's Policy  and Program Evalua-
 tion Division at 202-564-5100.
                                                                                                      Cleanup News 3

-------
         District Court
         Upholds  EPA's Cost
         Recovery at Atlas
         Asbestos Mine
            In August 1992, the United States
            entered into a consent decree (CD)
            with potentially responsible parties
         (PRPs) Atlas and Vinnell Mining to per-
         form a cleanup at the  Atlas Asbestos
         Mine Superfund Site. The CD required
         the PRPs to reimburse EPA for all fu-
         ture  response  costs,  including  over-
         sight costs and indirect costs. The CD
         permitted Atlas to contest payment of
         any future  response cost  on one of
         three grounds: (1)  an accounting error
         was made by the government; (2) costs
         billed were inconsistent with the Na-
         tional Contingency Plan; or (3)  costs
         billed were not actually incurred in con-
         nection with the site.
           In August 1994, EPA sent its first
         bill to the PRPs, for costs incurred be-
         tween December 1990  and December
         1993. The PRPs disputed these costs,

     The opinion included very
favorable language regarding
         EPA's use of its  annual
   allocation and indirect cost
                     methodologies.

         placed the disputed funds in an escrow
         account, and requested additional doc-
         umentation from EPA In December
         1997, EPA  sent a second  bill. Again,
         the PRPs disputed these costs, but did
         not establish an escrow account for the
         disputed amount until ordered by the
         district court in June 1998. Following a
         period of informal, and then formal
         dispute resolution, EPA issued a deci-
         sion requiring the PRPs to pay roughly
         $641,000 of the roughly $677,000 orig-
         inally billed.  The PRPs  challenged
         EPAs ruling in district court alleging,
         amongst other things, that EPA failed
to adequately document costs, had im-
properly billed non-site-specific costs,
and was not entitled to recover attor-
ney's fees incurred in defending the
dispute.
  Addressing each type of cost sepa-
rately, the court broadly interpreted the
provisions of the CD to permit the col-
lection of all contested costs (including
attorney's fees, annual allocation costs,
and indirect costs). The court did find
that in some instances EPA had failed
to provide enough supporting docu-
mentation, and failure  to remedy this
deficiency would prevent the recovery
of those costs (roughly $67,000).
  The opinion  included very favor-
able language regarding EPA's use of
its annual allocation and indirect cost
methodologies. Although the court ac-
knowledged that  EPA  employs a
"complicated methodology" to appor-
tion  indirect  and annual allocation
costs, the court did not find EPA's
methodology arbitrary or capricious.
In addition, the  court was not per-
suaded by the argument that EPA was
not  entitled to  recover non-site-spe-
cific costs. The  court found that the
CD  unambiguously requires the  pri-
vate parties to pay indirect costs, and
although the CD does not specifically
mention annual  allocation costs,  the
court held  that  "these costs  are in-
curred in  connection  with the Site"
and therefore are recoverable.
  For more information,  contact
OSRE's Regional Support  Division,
202-564-4200 [U.S. v. Atlas Corp. and
Vinnell Mining, E.D. CaL, 1/12/00].


Corporate Officer
Held Individually
Liable in U.S. v.
Aronowitz
On January 31, 2000, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of
Florida held that Jack L. Aronowitz,
president  and owner of Technical
Chemicals & Products, Inc. (TCP) was
individually liable as an operator and
arranger under  CERCIA Sections
107 (a) (2) and (a) (3), as was his com-
pany TCP. EPA filed a cost recovery
action against Aronowitz and TCP for
response costs incurred in responding
to release problems at the Lauderdale
Chemical Warehouse site in Broward
County,  Florida. The court held that
Aronowitz and TCP were jointly and
severally liable for $401,177 plus post-
judgement interest.
   From 1985 to 1992, TCP operated
the site  when hazardous substances
(toxic and volatile chemicals) were dis-
posed of, and arranged for the disposal
of hazardous substances located at the
site.   The  court  held TCP  and
Aronowitz liable because of  the spe-
cific  activities TCP  conducted at the
site and because Aronowitz directed,
managed, and controlled the environ-
mental operations of TCP.
   The court found that Aronowitz's
actions met the criteria for direct oper-
ator liability under CERCIA, as articu-
lated by  the Supreme Court in United
States v.  Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998).
The Supreme Court in Bestfoods ad-
dressed  the issue of parent/subsidiary
liability  under CERCIA In finding
Aronowitz individually liable as an op-
erator, the court applied the same stan-
dard of control for operating  a facility
to corporate officers as was used in
Bestfoods, where a parent corporation
was alleged to have operated facilities
owned or operated  by its subsidiary.
The court also held that Aronowitz's
actions in  operating TCP were  suffi-
cient to find him liable as an arranger
under CERCIA
   For  more  information,  contact
OSRE's  Regional  Support Division,
202-564-4200   [United  States  v.
Aronowitz, No. 98-6201  (S.D. Fla.
2000)].
 4 Cleanup News

-------
EPA  Participates in Counter-
Terrorism  Drills
A       series  of  counter-terrorism
       drills conducted on May 20-25,
       2000 at the behest of Congress
helped federal planners assess national
readiness in the event of a terrorist at-
tack. Code-named "TOPOFF" for Top
Official, the Federal Disaster Drill was
masterminded by the Department of
Justice and the  Federal Emergency
Management Agency to measure the
integrated capabilities of federal, state,
district, and local resources — includ-
ing personnel, procedures, direction
and control, communications, facilities,
and equipment — in the event of a
Weapons of Mass Destruction terrorist
incident. EPA has formal responsibility
for cleanup of any hazardous materials
releases in such an event.
   Personnel from EPA headquarters
(OERR, CEPPO, Radiation and Indoor
Air) and regional counterparts worked
closely with local emergency respon-
ders to ensure that quick local and fed-
eral responses would hold civilian ca-
sualties down  to a minimum during
the simulated  exercise. Participating
responders were not informed of the
specific scenarios in advance.
   The three-part  exercise began
when a simulated explosion occurred
in Portsmouth, NH, on May 20 at the
start of a charity race. The response
was complicated by the simultaneous
release of a chemical agent,  deter-
mined to be mustard gas. Local law en-
forcement officials, firefighters, and
rescue crews scrambled  to deal with
fake deaths and injuries.
   A similar scene took place in Den-
ver where a simulated attack involving
a biological agent, first thought to be
anthrax,  was  subsequently deter-
mined to be the  pneumonic plague.
The nation's capital was also pulled
Mutual Aid Personnel Treat Simulated Victims in Portsmouth, NH.
into the mix when  simulated explo-
sions laced with uranium occurred at
St. Elizabeth's  Hospital in Washing-
ton, D.C. and  at the U.S.  Airways
Arena in Largo, MD.
   The exercises aimed to assess the
nation's ability to  manage crises and
consequences, and to highlight areas
in which more training might be
needed to fend off the possibility of ter-
rorist attacks and to respond quickly
and effectively in their aftermath. For
more information, contact CEPPO at
202-260-8600.
A Snapshot of Risk Management Plans
   In June 1999,  an EPA regulation
   called the Risk Management Pro-
   gram (RMP) prompted 15,000 U.S.
facilities that use hazardous chemicals
to submit reports describing their po-
tential risk to surrounding communi-
ties. The Risk Management  Program
captures information from businesses
such as  cold storage warehouses,
water utilities, oil refineries, fertilizer
makers, and farm suppliers as well as
chemical manufacturers. One of the
most valuable pieces of data in the re-
ports is the history of actual  chemical
accidents that occurred at these facili-
ties in the past five years.
   EPA's Chemical Emergency Pre-
paredness and   Prevention  Office
(CEPPO), industry associations, state
and local emergency managers,  and
others are reviewing the data to find ac-
cident frequencies by industrial sector,
correlations between facility character-
istics and accidents, findings about po-
tential consequences of accidents to off-
site populations, and significant trends
in chemical industry hazards and acci-
dents. Preliminary data from the RMP
accident histories indicate that over a
five-year period, there were:
•  1,900 serious  accidents  among
   these 15,000 facilities;
•  33 deaths and 8,300 injuries; and
•  Evacuation or sheltering of 221,000
   individuals.
                con
                                                                           I
                                                                           0)
                                                                           o
                                                                           a
                                                                           a
                                                                           8
                                                                                              Cleanup News

-------
I
0)
0)
o
To  Permanently  Relocate  or  Not?

by Pat Carey, OERR

     The decision to permanently relo-
     cate residents away from areas
     near Superfund sites was the
topic of discussion at the  Relocation
Forum Stakeholder  Meeting  held
March  2-3, 2000, in Washington, DC.
Representatives from industry,  state
and local government, public health,
environmental justice and other fed-
eral agencies convened to review, dis-
cuss, and  give input on the Interim
Final Policy on the Use  of Pemanent
Relocation as Part of Superfund Reme-
dial Actions.
  The interim final policy,  issued
June 30,1999, states EPA's preference
to clean up and restore property  so
people  can live safely in their homes.
The policy explains when to consider
permanent relocation as  part  of a
cleanup at an NPL site, and gives ex-
amples of situations where permanent
relocation could be considered.
  The policy, which emerged out of a
1995 request by the National Environ-
mental  Justice Advisory Council, also
recognizes the importance of early, di-
rect, and meaningful public involve-
ment in relocations. EPArecommends
that Community Advisory Groups  be
formed to engage all interested parties
in a dialogue about cleanup and how
relocation fits into a community's long-
term vision and plans. In the last few
years, EPA has undertaken a number
of initiatives to widen its understand-
ing of the issues associated with relo-
cation:
•  A national relocation pilot was se-
   lected in Pensacola, Florida at the
   Escambia Woodtreating Site.
•  EPA   reviewed  sites   where
   cleanups were done in residential
   areas, then sponsored a series of
   forums to  hear stakeholder views
   and experience on the subject of
   relocation.
•  In 1996, a Relocation Forum was
   held in Pensacola, Florida, with
   community and environmental jus-
   tice groups. Seven additional fo-
   rums were held in 1996 and 1997
   with representatives from various
   stakeholder groups.

EPAs next steps include developing
case studies of five sites where perma-
nent relocations have taken place;
issuing mini-guidance on issues that
need to be addressed quickly, such
as the release of appraisals, advisory
services, etc.; and disseminating the
necessary information to  regional of-
fices, federal agencies, and all those
responsible for the successful imple-
mentation of relocations.
   For   more  information,  contact
OERR at 703-603-8960. Access our web-
site for the Interim Final Policy and re-
lated  documents, at www.epa.gov/
superfund/tools/topics/relocation/ind
ex.htm
                                                      Safer, More Livable Communities
                                                     EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has released a new report
                                                     titled Innovations in OSWER: Making Safer, More Livable Communities.  Prepared
                                                     for key customers in states, tribes, other agencies, industry, and communities, the
                                                     report describes a range of new strategies, new partnerships, and new approaches
                                                     to help make  communities safer and  more livable. The report is  available on
                                                     OSWER's What's New page at: www.epa.gov/swerrims/whatsnew.htm.
              RMPs
              continued from page 5

                Higher accident rates were found
              at facilities with ammonia refrigeration
              units (35.4%), followed by water utili-
              ties (22.7%), refineries (19.3%),  fertil-
              izer manufacturers (11.6%), and farm
              suppliers (11.0%).
                The Wharton School at the Univer-
              sity of Pennsylvania also  is studying
                                    the data. Wharton has issued a work-
                                    ing paper that presents preliminary
                                    findings on accident frequencies and
                                    severities  available from RMP*Info,
                                    the database set up to store Risk Man-
                                    agement  Plans and  accident history
                                    data. The paper analyzes which facili-
                                    ties actually filed plans, and then pre-
                                    sents results for various segments of
                                    the U.S.  chemical industry on ob-
                                    served accident frequencies between
                                    June 21, 1994 through June 20, 1999.
                                    The  report is available at  www.epa.
                                    gov/ceppo/ap_arcs.htm
                                       In the future, we can expect to see
                                    industry sector-specific and chemical
                                    process-specific  studies.  The  key
                                    question remains whether there are
                                    predictors  of accident frequency and
                                    severity and, if so, how can industry,
                                    CEPPO, and others work together to
                                    lower the risk to communities.
          Cleanup News

-------
Brownf ields  Tech  Center Supports
Local  Decision-Makers
     Faced with a brownfields rede-
     velopment  opportunity and  a
     variety of complicated recom-
mendations from contractors, brown-
fields  decision-makers now have  a
place to go for help. The Brownfields
Technology Support Center helps de-
cision-makers become aware of the
full range of technologies available in
order to make informed, "smart tech-
nology" decisions for their sites. Tech-
nologies  that lower  costs, decrease
time frames, and/or positively impact
other  decision considerations (e.g.,
community acceptance, logistics, etc.)
can significantly
affect  the rede-
velopment poten-
tial of   brown-
fields sites.
   At no  cost to
localities,  the Brownfields Center of-
fers unbiased assessments on options
relevant to specific sites. The center
can also provide a technology-oriented
review of investigation and site-specific
cleanup  plans. Operated  by EPA's
Technology Innovation Office, the cen-
ter provides five types of assistance:
•  Document Kviews:The center can
   review sampling  and  analysis
   plans, quality  assurance project
   plans, feasibility studies, engineer-
   ing designs, or work plans, and
   evaluate  the documents in terms
   of technology options, implemen-
   tation processes, or other factors.
•  Technology scoping\3smg informa-
   tion provided  by EPA Regional
   staff for specific brownfields pilot
   sites, the center can prepare lists
   of potentially applicable technolo-
   gies,  along with brief analyses of
   their  advantages  and  disadvan-
   tages under specific conditions at a
   site and in light of the specific fea-
   tures and needs of a site.
•  Technology descriptionS:he center
   can  develop a brief "layman's"
   guide describing  a specific tech-
   nology or technique. The guides
   can help decision-makers fully un-
   derstand the principles of the tech-
   nology  (along with the cost and
   time necessary to implement  it)
   and  communicate  information
   about  the technology  to  con-
   stituents and stakeholders.
•  Review of literature and electvnic
   resourcesfThe center can provide a
   list and  description of available  in-
   formation  resources for technolo-
   gies relevant to specific decisions
   at a site. This can help stakehold-
   ers broaden their understanding of
   the  technology  options  available
   for use at their sites.
•  Demonstration support: Drawing
   upon the expertise of the EPA Su-
   perfund Innovative Technologies
   Evaluation  (SITE) program, the
   center provides planning assis-
   tance and technical review capabil-
   ities to localities seeking to arrange
   demonstrations and evaluations of
   innovative sampling, analytical, and
   treatment technologies.
  For more information, contact the
EPA Regional Brownfields Coordina-
tors, or the center directly at 1-877-838-
7220 (toll-free), or www.brownfield-
stsc.org.
                 SWITCH  TO E-MAIL!!!

  Cleanup News is trying to move to an electronic format If you send us
  your e-mail address, we will notify you when each issue of Cleanup News
  is available on the Web, and you can read it or download  it at your conve-
  nience. Please fill out this form, and fax it to 301 -652-7001, or e-mail the
  information to rfrance@scicomm.com. Cleanup News is available on the
  Web at www.epa.gov/oeca/osre.
  Name:
  Organization:

  Address:
  E-Mail:
 o
"o
1
                                                                                           Cleanup News 7

-------
8
Aug 14-16,2000
ATSWMO Superfund Managers
Meeting
Phoenix,  AZ
Contact: Jim  Konz, 703-603-8841.

Aug 28-Sept 1,2000
National  Community Involvement
San Francisco, CA
Contact: Helen DuTeau,703-603-8761.

October  11-13,2000
Brownf ields 2000
Atlantic City, NJ
http://www.brownfields2000.org.

November 1-3,2000
Health Risk Communication
Symposium: Uncertainty, Stakehold-
ers, and  Public Health Action
Bethesda, MD
Sponsors:DOE,EPA,HHS. Focus on risk communication
issues in U.S. and in developing and transitioning na-
tions.  Includes half-day breakout sessions analyzing
case studies. Contact:  Lisa Carroll,  865-576-2266,
carrolle@orau.gov.
                                                                                           Acronyms
ADR    Alternative Dispute Resolution
AGP    Area Contingency Plan
CD     Consent Decree
CEPPO   Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
       Prevention Office
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
       Compensation, and Liability Act {Superfund law)
DoD    Department of Defense
FEMA   Federal Emergency Management Agency
FRP    Facility Response Plan
ITT     Innovative Treatment Technologies
NPL    National Priorities List (Superfund)
OERR   Office of Emergency and Remedial Reponse (EPA)
                                                              cteanupnews
                                                              Cleanup News is a publication of EPA's Office
                                                              of Site Remediation Enforcement, in cooperation
                                                              with the Office of Emergency Response and
                                                              Remediation,Office of Underground Storage Tanks,
                                                              Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
                                                              Office, and the Technology Innovation Office.
OMB    Office of Management and Budget
OPA    Oil Pollution Act
OSC    On-Scene Coordinator
OSRE    Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (EPA)
PCB    Polychorinated Biphenyls
PRP    Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
       (hazardous waste)
RMP    Risk Management Plan
SITE    Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation
SPCC    Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
TCP    Technical Chemicals & Products, Inc.
                                                   www, epa.gov/oeca/osre
                                        Rick Popino, Ph.D., editor
                                        EPA Review Board: Rick Popino, Ph.D.,Paul
                                        Connor, Karen Ellenberger, Ken Patterson,
                                        Helen DuTeau. Jeff Heimerman, Carole Macko
                                        Cameron
                                        Gilah Langner, writer
                                        Robin Foster, SciComm lnc.,designer
                                                                 To comment on the newsletter, contact Rick Popino, Ph.D. (MC-2271A), U.S. EPA.401 M
                                                              Street SW, Washington.DC  20460,e-mail:popino.rick@epa.gov.
                                                                 For mailing list inquiries.contact Robert France, SciComm Inc.,7735 Old Georgetown Rd,
                                                              Bethesda.MD  20814,tax:301 -652-7001 ,e-mail:rfrance@scicomm.com.
                                                                                                                                         ooe$
                                                                                                                                         Eua<£
                                                                                                                                sssirisng IEPUJO
          99-0 'ON
                  Vd3
      dlVd S33d ^ BOVlSOd
            SSNTIO ISdld
                                                                                                          09TOS 0(1 'u
                                                                                                                        (VUZZ)
                                                                                                              AouaSy uopoajojj

-------