United States
                         Environmental Protection
                         Agency
Off ice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-4011

     September 1990
                           CORAS  Bulletin
 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
 Office of Program  Management     OS-240
                               Intermittent Bulletin
                               Volume 1  Number 9
  Ve tvoufd like to take this time to thank, the Contracts Management Division. Research Triangle Park
  far the fallow ino, article on Personal Services.
     The Government is normally required to obtain its em-
ployees by direct hire under competitive appointment or
other procedures required by civil service laws. Obtaining
personal services by contract, rather than by direct hire.
circumvents those laws unless Congress has specifically au-
thorized acquisition of the services by contract. Work per-
formed by our dedicated team contractors (TAT, FIT and
ESAT) are particularly susceptible to developing into orbeing
managed as personal service contracts. Personal services
contract means a contract that, by its express terms, or as
ADMINISTERED, makes the contractor personnel appear,
in effect, to be Government employees.

     The major test of whether or not a personal services
contract exists is whether or not the relationship between the
contractor and the Government can be characterized as an
employee/employer relationship.  An employee/employer
relationship exists when either by the terms of the contract
itself, or BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
CONTRACT IS MANAGED, contractor personnel are sub-
ject to the day-to-day supervision and control of Government
personnel.

     The Federal Acqufetton  Regulation (FAR) provides
descriptive elements wnfch should be used as a guide in
assessing whether or not a contract is a personal services
contract.

   These elements are:

1. Performance on site.

2. Principal tools and equipment furnished by the Gov-
   ernment.

3. Services are applied directly to the integral  effort of the
   Agency or an organizational subpart in furtherance of
   assigned function or mission.
4.  Comparable services, meeting comparable needs,
    are performed in the same or similar manner using
    civil service personnel.

5.  The need forthe type of service provided can reasona-
    bly be expected to last beyond one year.

6.  The inherent nature of the services, or the manner in
    which it is provided reasonably requires (directly or in-
    directiy) Government direction or supervision of con-
    tractor employees to:

    (0  Adequately protect the Government's interest;

    (ii) Retain control of the function involved, or

    (iii) retain full personal responstoility for the function
       supported in a duly authorized Federal officer or
       employee.

    The existence of one or more of the first five elements
does not necessarily indicate a personal services contract.
These elements Nghflght areas where potential problems
could arise. The sixth element, however, gets to the heart
of the  concept of personal services. If, in order to protect
the governments interests, it is necessary for government
employees to directry supervise contractor employees, it is
ftely that those employees are providing personal serv-
ices. Thefirstfrveelementsarepresenttovaryingdegrees
in some of our contracts and there is very yttle that can be
done to lessen their presence.  Maximum effort must be
exerted in relation to the sixth element to ensure that we do
not cross the One.
    The sixth element pertains to supervision and control.
Compliance with the following guidelines will lessen the
chances that a reviewer could conclude that the sixth

-------
 element is present. They are important because each such
 piece of circumstantial evidence may contribute to a later
 conclusion that the services are personal.

    -   Let the contract, TID, TDD, or work assignment
 define the job. These documents must provide a detailed
 description of the job to be done and the finished product to
 be delivered.  It is not  enough to write something like,
 furnish such assistance as is or may  be necessary to
 support the overall mission of the activity,' or "perform
 document review for 16 documents in accordance with oral
 instructions." The TID, TDD, or work assignment should
 adequately describe the job to  be done  so that further
 informal direction is unnecessary. Further formal direction
 via amendment or modification is permissible.

    -   EPA employees generally cannot instruct,  super-
vise, or control a contractor's employee in how he performs
his work. When the job definition requires interpretation of
the work description, the direction should be issued from the
Deputy Project Off fcer (DPO) to the team manager, prefera-
bly in writing. Generally  (except  in emergency situations)
oral or written instructions given  deliberately to individual
contractor employees should be avoided.

   -  AH requests for contractor follow-up or  touch-up
services should be directed from the DPO to the team
manager.  Likewise, contractor employees should operate*
through the team manager to obtain any information needed
to complete the work product.

    -- Strictly avoid intervention with respect to the hiring on
firing  of contractor employees.  EPA personnel should not
participate in any manner in the interviewing of prospective
employees.

    - Strictly avoid intervention with respect to the as-
signing of particular employees to specific tasks.

     - Strictly avoid situations in which the contractor pro-
vides support to another EPA on-site contractor.

    - All EPA occupied space and all contractor occupied
space should be readily identifiable. Contractor employees
should be physically located in separate areas from EPA em-
ployees.  In isolated cases where a general area must be
occupied or used by both EPA and contractor employees,
some sort of physical separation, identification of space, and
scheduling of equipment usage should be arranged.

    It is imperative that the above guidlines be followed.  If
they are not, the only conclusion available is that the contracts
are for personal services since all six elements would be pres-
ent including the major test of employee/employer relation-
ship.
      ma e a H m-m u m:s-m e a D-B-B B-E.S e e n Q-E-
      CONTRACTOR  PERFORMANCE
   "      EVALUATION CRITERIA     '
    if other Regions have developed useful approaches n
 award fee, please provide examples to CORAS for consid-
 eration in future bulletins.
    One of the recommendations in a recent Inspector Gen-
eral report on Superfund award fee contracts was that con-
sistent procedures should be established in order to provide
award fees in a uniform manner. We agree that opportunities
exist for a more standardized approach in various aspects of
the award fee process. One of these aspects is in the area
of ratings and rating definitions. Each of our major programs
uses the 1-5 rating system to inibaNy evaluate the perfomv
ance of the contractor*, however, definitions of the individual
ratings do not exist ki Him cases and  are inconsistent in
others. In an effort tosfttn some improvements in this area,
CORAS wiH pertoda% pubfeh items brought to our atten-
tion that you may find uMfuL One example is the attached
ARCS rating definitions developed by Region IX. We con-
sider this documert to be a useful guide that should contrib-
ute to uniformity and documentation in the award fee proc-
ess, it is recommended that ARCS Project Officers in other
regions consider this example.  WhBe al region definitions
may not be identical (as a resuR of differences in regional
perspective, etc.) the fact that aH regions have established
definitions is a step in the right direction.
           xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
           KXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-------
       SCOPING  AND MANAGING
                   THE RI/FS
              PROJECT BUDGET
    A great deal has been written about the design and
conduct of RI/F" projects, but relatively little has been devel-
oped on the be Bating and financial management associated
with carrying out the project.  Two methods have been
devised to assist the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in
developing an RI/FS project budget, and to evaluate the cost
impacts of decisions made during project scoping and prepa-
ration of the Workptan.

    One method is the use of a small informal workbook as
a guide in budgeting the fourteen standard tasks that make up
a RI/FS project. This workbook is titled 'Scoper's Notes' and
contains a series of checklists and tables which present dis-
tilled experience data as a range of most likely costs of the
various tasks as a function of site complexity. Since the cost
and quality  of past RI/FS projects have varied widely, the
workbook stresses the need for careful planning and man-
agement to control project expenditures.  The guide  ad-
dresses the maximum utilization of existing data, careful
consideration of the number of water sampling wells to be
installed, increased use of on-site sample analysis, etc. as
primary cost driving factors.

    The presentation used in Scoper's Notes is oriented
toward giving the new RPM a starting point to evaluate site
complexity and the factors expected to materially affect the
level of effort and the resources needed to complete the
project. Using this guide, ft should be possible to prepare an
initial estimate of costs that can be the base against which
contractor bids may be evaluated. The data in the workbook
must be supplemented with all special site conditions not en-
countered at conventional waste sites. The level of effort and
costs shown in the tables  are meant to be starting points for
a refinement of the Workptan estimate. Regional factors can
be introduced by having the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG) review the iillmam prepared and compared to site
data and experience grintd at similar sites.
    The second maMtf to the use of a computer-based
model entitled Suptrfand Cost Estimating Expert System*
(SCEES).  unlke Sooptf  Notes, SCEES relies heavily on
technically oriented data about the site. To get the most out
of a modelling session, the RPM should have prepared in
advance a SCEES data questionnaire. Most of the requested
information is available from the  Hazard Ranking System
(MRS) scoring package.  For those cases where the in-
formation is not available SCEES includes instructions to
help the RPM estimate the correct answer, or the model
will provide default data values and conditions. It takes
about an hour to step through the modeling exercise.

    The model was built using an experience data base
developed from a regional REM contractor's data files.
expert opinion obtained from experienced RPM's. and
workptan reviews.  The model output consists of four
summary report tables constructed from the data entered
and internal algorithms. One table presents a best esti-
mate of the Level-of-Effort (in manhours) and cost for
each of the 14 standard tasks included in a RI/FS project.
The model will ask for prevailing hourly billing rates for all
skill categories or default to nominal 1989 values for cal-
culating labor costs.

    A second table presents a Site Data Report which
rates the site complexity, estimates the number of media
samples, surveys, and tests to be carried out during the
Reid I nvestigatton Task. The cost of this Task is generally
more than half of the total RI/FS cost. The model will list
the remedial technologies that are indicated for evalu-
ation.  The third table is a Drilling Details Report summa-
rizing the number, casing, depth, and sampling require-
ments for the welte to be installed. The table presents an
estimate of tevel-of-effort and cost forthe drilling program.
The ground water sampling well installation program is a
high cost item.

    The fourth table is an RI/FS Summary Cost Report.
This report combines labor, equipment, travel, subcon-
tract costs, etc. that are Ifcery to be required to complete
the project.  The model will also estimate the CLP costs
implied by the number and types of samples planned.

    SCEES, like Scoper's Notes, is designed to give the
new RPM a starting point for planning and evaluating. It
is not designed to be a substitute for hard work or good
judgement. The modeloutput should always be analyzed
carefully and  be reviewed by an experienced  RPM  to
insure the reasonableness of estimates.
    For addition Information on this topic, ptease
Bontact Chad Uttttton on 475-7294 or Pau/ Wllklns
an 382-2462.

-------
      '.CORflS      BULLETIN      BORRDi
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTOL DIVISION
   Dallas' Hilton Hotel has been selected as the location for
the upcoming May 1-3, 1991 "Conference on Design and
Construction Issues at Hazardous Waste Sites.* This confer-
ence will provide a forum for the exchange of technical
information within and between federal and state agencies,
PRPs, and the contracting community. Technical papers will
be presented, in conjunction with panel discussions, on
policy/technical issues and case studies. Topics will include:
Policy for RD/RA Activities; Planning Phase Impacts on
Design and Construction; Remedial Design Activities; Reme-
dial Construction Activities; and Post-Construction Activities
(Operation and Maintenance, Deletion from NPL, Long term
Response Actions.) A call for abstracts was made in Septem-
ber 1990.
PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS
MANAGEMENT  DIVISION
ACT's  System  Update

   As of July 20,1990, the ARCS Contract Tracking (ACT)
System has been installed in each of the regions or zones
requesting the system. We expect that regional personnel will
spend the next several weeks gathering and entering all of the
basic contract information, work assignments, and invoices
needed to make the database functional.

   By the end of October, ACTs ad-hoc reporting mecha-
nism will be fully operational. This feature wiB aHow users to
create and save  reports which are not standardized in the
system. Eartyinthenextflscalyear.wehopetohavethe read-
only access feature completed, thus allowing system users
other than the cognianl Contract Off icers and Contract Spe-
cialists to view screens vMttut Jeopardizing the integrity of the
data.  A Headquarttfi ACT component which colates re-
gional data and which wfl contain HQ-spedfic reports is also
in the planning stage. The HQ component should be ready
in early 1991.

   Anyone having questions concerning ACT installation or
our plans for ACT in the near future should contact fififlOiS
Cunningham at the Superiund Regional Coordination Staff at
FTS 475-9479.
PCMD  TIDBITS

      PCMD, in cooperation with OERR and Office of
Small and Disadvantage Business Utilization (OSDBU),
has prepared and submitted a final response to the In-
       Genofsl's audit             lddlno snd
award process. PCMD and OSDBU have undertaken
several initiatives to highlight the responsibilities of our
ARCS contractors in making good faith efforts to achieve
Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business Enter-
prises (SB/SDBE) goals contained in each  contract.
OSDBU will be undertaking a more aggressive regional
role in meeting with Performance Evaluation Boards and
regional contracting and program officials to increase
awareness of the importance of SB/SDBE plans in the
award fee evaluation process.
  If you are Interested In receiving back
  issues of the COR A 5 Bulletin.pleasecali
  Ja Ian la Ellis,FTS 475-65 JJ.
  Forchangestothe"KeyReglonalPersonnel
  InSuperfundContracthanagem ent'chart,
  pleasenotlfyJalaniaEIHsf 75475-8533.

-------
  CONTRACT  RELATED MEETINGS. CONF E R E NC ES  AND  TRAINING
       True
    Data
Location
Contact
 Removal Managers
 National OSC Meeting

 CLP Busmen Meeting
Superfond Analytical Sa>iLec
OrienubonConfa
  Oct 30-31.1990     Washington. DC
  Nov 05-06.1990     Albuquerque, NM
  Nbv07-08,t990    Albuquerque. MN
Supernnil990HMCfUU*       No* 26-28,1990
National Conference and Exhibition
Animal Piucuiemeut Meeting
FIT Site Assessment
Cuufeieuce*

Annual CORAS Confi
Doign & Couttuction latuea
at Haxardoui Wane Site*
* Tentative Ktaeduk
                  Shemon Waahmgton
                  Hotel
                  Waihington. DC
  Now 28-30.1990     San Antonio, TX
  Jan 13-15.1991     Santa Fe, NM
  Jan 15-17.1991     Santa Fe, NM
 May 01-03,1991     Dallas. TX
                    Bruce Engelbert
                    FTS 382-2188

                    Pat Wiltshire
                    FTS 382-7943

                    HoWakTQ ITlblVD
                    FTS 382-2239

                    Carolyn Offutt
                     FTS 308-8320
                    SuaanSawlcr
                    FTS 382-6326

                     David Cook
                     FTS 475-8106

                     KayWatm
                     FTS 245-4025

                     Sow Fredericks
                     FTS 308-8346
          FV 1990 CUMULflTIDE  SUPERFUND  OBLIGRTIONS
                                 (eHtramural only)
    700  

    600  

-.  500  
e
S  400  

I  300  
e
~   200  
=   100
o
$173.0
                  $1.5
                         $355.0
             $244.0
                                     $520.0
                                               $595.9
                 February  March       April        June       July     Rugust

                 Note:  May figures are unavailable.

-------
     RATING
                             CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
                            PROJECT PLANNING
                                          TECHNICAL COMPETENCE &
                                                INNOVATION
  OUTSTANDING
       5
Aways develops workplans with
minimum  cost/time which  were
used to base these estimates are
explicitly conveyed.  Planned  vs
actual performance does  not  re-
sult in delays or unjustified cost
increases.  Identifies problems
early on  and  ensures involvement
of EPA.
Technical analysis are thorough
with no reworks and  technically
justified  recommendations  are
always submitted.   Solutions
result in  state of art approaches
which can be applied to  similar
environmental problems.
    EXCEEDS
 EXPECTATIONS
       4
Always develops workplans  with
reasonable  cost/time estimates.
Assumptions which  were used
to base these  estimates are con-
veyed. Planned vs  actual per-
formance does  not result in  any
significant  project  delays or
unjustified cost increases.
Technical  analyses are thorough
with no reworks and technically
justified recommendations  are
always  submitted for all routine
types of work as well as for work
on  more  complex projects.
 SATISFACTORY
       3
Workplans are adequate to address
requirements in the  SOW with
reasonable cost/time  estimates
for the required  level  of effort.
Technical  analyses are thorough
with  no reworks and technically
justified recommendations  are
always submitted for all routine
type  of work.
   MARGINAL
       2
Workplans do not adequately
address all of the requirements
in  the SOW.  Cost/time estimates
are disproportionate  to the re-
quired  level of effort.
Technical  analyses  often are in-
complete-and require reworks.
Recommendations are not always
accepted due to an incomplete
technical  analysis.
UNSATISFACTORY
       1
Make incorrect  identification in
M workplan of the  requirements
needed to meet the SOW. Inadequate
costfiime  estimates are made  for
the required  level of  effort.
Major elements in the technical
analysis are missing and require
significant reworks.  Recommen-
dations are not accepted due to
major deficiencies in the technical
analysis.                         I
  Please include an evaluation of the contractor's management of the subcontractor(s) for these
   categories if an award fee is also given for subcontractor management.
                                            Pagel

-------
    RATING
                            CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
                   SCHEDULE & COST CONTROL
                                      RESOURCE UTILIZATION
 OUTSTANDING
       5
Tasks are completed ahead or on
schedule in spite of impediments,
and services are completed below
or at  budget ensuring that costs
are minimized.   Government is
informed in  advance of  progress
on meeting the  schedule and
budget.
Contractor consistently  utilizes
resources in a manner which
minimizes cost and  time expendi-
tures while  utilizing the appro-
priate professional mix  to  ensure
that  the  overall  work quality  re-
mains  exceptional.
 EXPECTATIONS
       4
Original schedule is  met in spite
of impediments, and services  are
completed  within budget  at mini-
mum costs.  Government  is in-
formed in advance of progress on
meeting the schedule and budget.
Contractor utilizes  resources  in
a manner which minimizes costs
and  time  expenditures, while
utilizing the  appropriate  profes-
tonal  mix  to ensure that the over-
all work quality is acceptable to
to the Government.
 SATISFACTORY
       3
Project is  completed within
schedule and budget  In those cases
where slippages occur,  adequate
justification is  provided and prior
government approval  is obtained.
Efforts are taken to ensure that
costs are  minimized.
Contractor utilizes resources  and
an  appropriate professional mix
to meet project and  contract
requirements.
   MARGINAL
       2
Original  schedule slips without
adequate warning  or justification,
or services are completed at an
increased cost to the Government
without  adequate  justification.
One or a few of the contractor
resources are not used efficiently
resulting in occasional minor
cost overruns and time delays.
UNSATISFACTORY
        1
Original schedule slips so as to
have resulted in delays which
negatively impact the project,
or services are completed at a
significantly  increased  cost to
the Government.
Consistent poor  utilization  of  re-
sources  results  in significant
cost overruns and time delays.
  Please include  an evaluation of the  contractor's management of the subcontractor(s) for these
   categories if an award fee is also given for subcontractor management.
                                            Page 2

-------
     RATING
                             CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA
    SCHEDULE AND COST CONTROL
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
  OUTSTANDING
       5
Tasks are completed ahead or on
schedule in spite of impediments,
and services are completed below
or at  budget ensuring that costs
are minimized.  Government is
informed in  advance of  progress
on meeting the  schedule and
budget.
Contractor consistently   utilizes
resources in a manner which
minimizes cost and  time  expendi-
tures while  utilizing the  appro-
priate professional mix to ensure
that  the  overall work  quality
remains  exceptional.
 EXPECTATIONS
       4
Original schedule is  met in  spite of
impediments, and services are
completed  within budget  at mini-
mum costs.  Government is
informed in  advance of progress
on meeting the schedule and
budget.
Contractor  utilizes resources in a
manner which minimizes costs  an
time expenditures, while  utiliz-
ing the appropriate professional
mix to  ensure that the overall
work quality is acceptable to the
Government.
                                                                                         '.
 SAT1SFA CTORY
       3
Project  is completed within  sche-
duel and budget In those cases
where slippages occur, adequate
justification  is  provided  and prior
government  approval is obtained.
Efforts are taken to  ensure that
costs are minimized.
Contractor utilizes  resources
and an  appropriate professional
mix to meet  project and -contract
requirements.
   MARGINAL
       2
Original schedule  slips without
adequate  warning or  justifica-
tion, or services are completed
at an increased cost to the Govern-
ment without adequate  justification.
One or a few of the contractor re-
sources are  not used efficiently
resulting  in  occasional  minor
cost overruns and  time  delays.
UNSATISFACTORY
        1
Original schedule slips so as to
have resulted  in delays which
Mgatively impact  the project, or
Mivicas  are completed at a signi-
ficantly  increased  cost  to  the
Government.
Consistent poor utilization of
resources  results  in significant
cost overruns and  time  delays.
  Please include  an evaluation of  the contractor's management of the subcontractor(s) for these
   categories if an award fee is also given for subcontractor management.
                                            Page 3

-------
Contract
Hoedquertere
(PP. DPO It posstole)
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
1
*$

-------
                                      liUP
Contract Region s
(Region 6
I Region 7
I Region 8
I Region 9
1 Region  10
'^SSSsv ^^^^^PS


A


11
P

HI
1
1
1
PI
Gall Nabasny
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. IL 60604
353-1056
Steven Nathan
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
886-5496
Charles Brasher
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-
Duane Heston
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-1788
Gall Nabasny
U.S.EPA
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
353-1056
Lorraine Koslk
U.S. EPA
[230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. II- 60604
353-6431
Jay Thakkar
U.S. EPA, (5SCRL)
536 South Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60605
886-1972
Helen Newman
U.S. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75270
255-6720
Cariene Chambers
UAEPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75270
255-6720
Chris Peterson
US EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
Chris Peterson
US EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
Ed Sierra
US. EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
Karen Wltten
US EPA
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
255-6720
Michael Daggett
US EPA
10625 Fallstone
Houston, TX 77099
730-2107
Karen Flournoy
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7782
Rebecca Thomas
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
276-7593
Ron McCutcheon
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66'01
276-
Paul Doherty
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
276-
Peter Culver
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
276-7707
Maureen Hunt
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
276-7722
Harold Brown
U.S. EPA
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
757-3881
Lisa Beasley
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver. CO 80202
330-1282
Jeff Mashburn
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-
Mlke Zimmerman
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver. CO 80202
330-7134
Jim Knoy
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7162
Gerry Snyder
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7505
Sam Marquez
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7151
Steve Calllo
U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
330-7509
Rob Stern
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-2339
Peter Rubensteln
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-
Chris Weden
U.S. EPA
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-2291
William Lewis
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-2292
Doug Frazer
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-2338
Judy Walker
U.S. EPA - (T-4-8)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-2334
Terry Stumph
U.S. EPA - (P-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco. CA 94103
484-1534
Joanne LaBaw
U.S EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-2594
Joanne LaBaw
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle. WA 98101
399-2594
William Longston
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle. WA 98101
399-1196
Carl Kltz
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle. WA 98101
399-1263
John Osborn
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle, WA 98101
399-0837
Mike Slater
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle. WA 98101
399-0455
Gerald Muth
U.S. EPA
1200 6th Street
Seattle. WA 98101
399-0370

-------