A FORUM CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A CLEARINGHOUSE
FOR CERCLA/RCRA CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
HELD AT THE ANDOVER INN
ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
April 22-23, 1987
Sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Managed by:
Center for Environmental Management
Tufts University
Curtis Hall, 474 Boston Avenue, Medford, MA 02155
June 1987
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the information in this document has been funded
wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency under assistance agreement CX-811592-01-A to the Center
for Environmental Management at Tufts University, it may not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
This report is a compendium of positions about the
proposed structure and operation of a Clearinghouse made at a
forum sponsored by the EPA. The statements expressed in this
report reflect the positions made by the participants and they
do not necessarily reflect the position of the Center for
Environmental Mangagement.
-------
The Tufts University Center for Environmental Management
(GEM) was established in 1984 to develop an effective
multidisciplinary approach to environmental problems through
innovative health effects and technology research, policy
analysis, education programs and information transfer
activities. CEM also acts as a neutral and independent forum
center where citizens and representatives from government,
academia, industry, and public interest/environmental groups
can meet to discuss and resolve critical policy issues. The
Center's activities are performed by a staff of scientists,
engineers, policy analysts and numerous faculty from the many
schools and resource centers of Tufts University. The Center
also sponsors research at other universities. Funding for the
Center's projects is derived from state and federal grants,
awards from foundations, and contributions from industry to the
Center's Corporate Affiliates Program.
Further information on the enclosed report or on the
activities and publications of the Center can be obtained by
writing to the Center for Environmental Management, Tufts
University, Curtis Hall, 474 Boston Avenue, Medford, MA 02155,
or by calling the Center at (617) 381-3486.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
II INTRODUCTION 1
III THE FORUM AND OVERVIEW 6
IV POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A CLEARINGHOUSE 8
Central Reference Library 8
The Clearinghouse Hotline 9
Specialized Publication Services 11
Technical Information Network 11
Data Base Overview 12
ACTION and WIN Data Bases 13
Case History File and Countermeasure Selection
System 16
V DISCUSSION GROUPS 17
Introduction 17
Question 1: Would You Find a CERCLA/RCRA Cleanup
Technology Clearinghouse Useful? 17
Question 2: What Conponents of a Clearinghouse
Would Be Most Useful? 18
Question 3: What Types of Information Would You
Need from a Clearinghouse? 18
Central Reference Library. 20
Clearinghouse Hotline 20
Specialized Publications 21
Computerized Data Bases 22
Question 4: In What Forms Should the Information
Be Presented? 25
Question 5: How Should the Agency Obtain the
Information? 26
Question 6: Should the Agency Guarentee Quality
Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
of the Data? ...27
Other Issues and Recommendations 29
VI CONCLUSIONS OF THE FORUM 32
VII FUTURE DIRECTIONS 35
IX Appendix A - Agenda 37
Appendix B - Group Composition 39
Appendix C - Participants List 40
PRELIMINARY BACKGROUND MATERIALS (in a separate packet)
111
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 311(b)(8) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 required the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a "central reference
library" to collect and disseminate information on alternative
or innovative treatment technologies. EPA identified an
existing collection within its headquarters library which could
serve as the nucleus for the mandated "central reference
library". In addition, EPA recognized the need for additional
sources of information about hazardous waste treatment
technologies.
On April 22 and 23, 1987, the Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology Demonstration (Office of Research
and Development) and the Office of Program Management and
Technology (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response)
convened a forum of interested parties to discuss
recommendations about an information transfer system.
The EPA requested that the Center for Environmental
Management (GEM) at Tufts University organize and manage this
forum. Potential users and contributors from the EPA, other
Federal agencies, state governments, potential responsible
parties (PRP's), technology vendors, Superfund contractors,
environmental group representatives, and citizen groups were
identified and asked to attend the forum. Prior to the forum,
IV
-------
the Agency identified the following as potential components of
an information transfer system:
o a library
o specialized publications
o a hotline
o a database
Collectively, these components were identified as a
RCRA/CERCLA Cleanup Technology Clearinghouse.
The forum addressed the following questions:
1. Would you find a Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act/Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (CERCLA/RCRA) Cleanup
Technology Clearinghouse useful?
2. What components of a Clearinghouse would be most useful?
3. What types of information would you need from a
Clearinghouse?
4. In what forms should the information be presented?
5. How should the Agency obtain the information?
6. Should the Agency guarantee Quality Assurance and
Quality Control (QA/QC) of the data?
The participants also evaluated components of a potential
Clearinghouse of information about hazardous waste cleanup
technologies and recommended to EPA the factors they believed
would maximize information transfer.
-------
Computerized data bases were demonstrated to illustrate
their value as Clearinghouse components. Following
presentations of potential components, participants were
divided into four discussion groups A, B, C and D. Each group
was provided with a facilitator and was instructed to discuss
the six major questions. Then each group would report back to
all the attendees. It should be noted that each group did not
discuss all of the questions in the same manner or with the
same amount of detail. An effort has been made to present all
information discussed in a neutral and balanced manner based
upon reports submitted to CEM by each group's facilitator.
Participants in the forum concluded that the purpose of a
Clearinghouse would be to provide readily accessible,
quality-controlled, objective data to serve the needs of the
following user groups: (See Table I).
TABLE I
USER GROUP
APPLICATION
EPA/State Officials
Community organizations,
local officials and citizens
Potential Responsible Parties
(PRP's), and other private
industry
Researchers, academics,
manufacturers, and investors
to facilitate sound cleanup
and permit decisions
to enhance the ability to
understand, evaluate, and
comment upon cleanup plans
and permits.
to improve the basis for
decision-making about
cleanup alternatives and
equipment selection
to provide a better
understanding of finished
and ongoing development and
demonstration work
VI
-------
Most participants agreed that the first activity of a
Clearinghouse should be collecting existing data since a broad
range of materials, information, and data bases about CERCLA
and RCRA cleanup technologies already exists. Many specialized
publications are also available. There is a need for
centralization of this material at the EPA headquarters library
and throughout the EPA library system. The EPA library system
could be a readily-accessible source of hard copies of
summaries, fact sheets, and final data, reports, and rules.
Computerized data are ever increasing in volume and breadth of
coverage, but they are not available from a single accessible
source.
Many people are still reluctant or unable to use
computers. A decision should be made to identify the most
effective way to disseminate each type of information. There
should be a hierarchy of levels of information to enable users
to access data in a form that meets their needs. The selection
should be well-publicized so that new data will be directed
through the appropriate channels. Not everything needs to be
computerized, and no one system can meet everyone's needs. The
utility of a particular method of data storage and retrieval
will depend upon the user and the need. A process should be
developed to regularly review the effectiveness, utilization,
and quality of data in the Clearinghouse.
vn
-------
Several groups of participants recommended that initially
the Clearinghouse should have limited scope and focus. The
Clearinghouse should not attempt to be "all things to all
people." Efforts should be made to expand the existing EPA
library's Hazardous Waste Collection and the current
RCRA/CERCLA hotline. Also, a computerized data base similar to
the current Department of Energy (DOE)/EPA model should be
constructed. The Clearinghouse should be a vehicle for
disseminating quality-controlled data on the development and
demonstration of hazardous waste treatment/remedial
technologies. This information should include cost data
whenever feasible, but safeguards should be taken to ensure
that the Clearinghouse does not become a public relations
vehicle for manufacturers of such technologies.
Group A did not determine the most important component or
establish a priority ranking, but Groups B, C, and D ranked the
importance of each of the components of a potential
Clearinghouse. (See Table II).
Vlll
-------
TABLE II
PRIORITY RANKING BY GROUP
CLEARINGHOUSE COMPONENT
Reference Library
Hotline
Specialized Publications
Computerized Database
Directory for Technical Assistance
II
—
1
-
-
2
III
1
-
-
2
—
IV
1
3
-
2
—
1 High Priority
2 Medium Priority
3 Low Priority
- Not ranked as one of the three most
important components of a Clearinghouse
The quality control issue received much spirited
discussion. Basically, there were two perspectives. First,
information must be totally accurate, complete, and verified by
peer review and formal EPA approval. Second, QA/QC would
severely limit the amount of data that would be in the data
base, thus, defeating the purpose of a Clearinghouse. The
group that supported the latter position believed that the
sources of data should be identified. Protocols and testing
methods should likewise be specified. This approach allows the
user to evaluate the validity of the information. Refining
different levels of QA/QC may satisfy the needs of both user
groups.
The report which follows describes the presentations and
computer demonstrations. It examines each question discussed
at the forum, and summarizes the responses from each group.
IX
-------
EPA will circulate the findings of this forum, and accept
further comments about the proposed Clearinghouse.
It should be understood that the findings of this forum,
priority ranking, and guidelines for development do not have
any binding obligation upon EPA. The suggestions, however,
will be carefully reviewed.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ACT (SARA) of
1986 directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish a "central reference library" to compile information
about Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. The SITE demonstration program, established in
Section 311(b) of SARA, develops, collects, evaluates,
coordinates, and disseminates information about specific
innovative and alternative treatment technologies for hazardous
waste response actions. SARA Section 311(b)(8), quoted below,
requires that the central reference library shall be made
available to the public. No other requirements were specified.
"(8) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.—In carrying out the program, the
Administrator shall conduct a technology transfer program
including the development, collection, evaluation,
coordination, and dissemination of information relating to
the utilization of alternative or innovative treatment
technologies for response actions. The Administrator shall
establish and maintain a central reference library for such
information. The information maintained by the
Administrator shall be made available to the public,
subject to the provisions of section 552 of title 5 of the
United States Code and section 1905 of title 18 of the
United States Code, and to other Government agencies in a
manner that will facilitate its dissemination..."
-------
The EPA felt that technology transfer about treatment
technologies for response actions could be enhanced by
providing more types and sources of information than a central
reference library; therefore, they convened a group of
potential contributors and users of such information to design
an effective informational system for cleanup technologies.
The Agency identified a library, specialized publications, a
hotline, and a data base as possible components of an
information transfer system. Collectively/ these components
were identified as a Clearinghouse.
The Center for Environmental Management (CEM) of Tufts
University was asked by the EPA to organize and manage a two
day forum which was convened in April 1987. The participants
of this forum included potential users and contributors from
the EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, potential
responsible parties (PRP's), technology vendors, Superfund
contractors, environmental group representatives, and citizen
groups. (See Appendix A for the agenda, and Appendix C for a
list of attendees.) They were invited to evaluate components
of a potential Clearinghouse of information about hazardous
waste cleanup technologies. They were also asked to recommend
the factors which would maximize information transfer.
-------
Experts were invited to demonstrate the possible
Clearinghouse components to the forum. These presentations
included descriptions of the following:
o A Central Reference Library - Loretta Marzetti, USEPA
o A Clearinghouse Hotline - Patricia Conn, Geo/Resources
Consultants, Inc.
o Specialized Publication Services - Beverly Campbell,
Technical Resources, Inc.
o Technical Information Network composed of:
- Treatment Technology Data bases - C.C. Lee, EPA/HWERL
(Hazardous Waste and Environmental Research
Laboratories) - Cincinnati
DOE Waste Information Network - Cathy S. Fore, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory
Case History File and Countermeasure Selection System
- Richard Griffiths, EPA/HWERL - Edison.
Following these presentations, participants were divided
into four discussion groups, each of which was provided with a
facilitator. Each group was instructed to discuss these six
major questions:
1. Would you find a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Recovery Act/Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (CERCLA/RCRA) Cleanup Technology
Clearinghouse useful?
-------
2. What components of a Clearinghouse would be most useful?
3. What types of information would you need from a
Clearinghouse?
4. In what forms should the information be presented?
5. How should the EPA obtain the information?
6. Should the EPA guarantee Quality Assurance and Quality
Control (QA/QC) of the data?
Upon completion of the individual group discussions, each
facilitator reported back to all forum participants.
The following is an overview of activities at the forum, a
summary of all findings, and reports of major discussion points
and conclusions reached by each of the individual workshop
groups. It should be noted that not all of the groups
discussed each of the topics in the same manner or with the
same amount of detail. An effort has been made to present all
information discussed in a neutral and balanced manner based
upon the reports submitted to CEM by each facilitator.
It was soon apparent that the group did not have a common
language. To some individuals 'hotline' meant the existing
RCRA/CERCLA hotline. To others it meant personnel provided to
respond to telephone inquiries made to the EPA central
reference library, and to still others it meant the telephone
response component to provide guidance about how to access and
use the computerized databases, or to provide expert
recommendations for cleanup technologies.
-------
'Data base', likewise, had different meanings. To some it
meant expansion of the existing EPA case history and
countermeasure files or the DOE/EPA Thermal Treatment
Technology data base. To others it meant the development of a
new system housed to the EPA central reference library. To
still others data base meant an entirely new system, designed
exclusively for the Clearinghouse, which would be operated by
an independent contractor. This latter system might be located
at a university or a commercial facility. The forum did not
adopt a formal definition of either of these terms.
-------
THE FORUM AND OVERVIEW
On April 22, 1987 a group of experts on cleanup
technologies and treatment of hazardous wastes were convened to
exchange information, review progress in areas of potential
Clearinghouse components, and express needs. (See Appendix A
for the agenda and Appendix C for a list of attendees).
Alfred Galli, USEPA, a key player in the organization of
the forum, welcomed the group. To provide participants with a
better understanding of existing computerized data bases,
demonstrations were provided which included presentations by
the US Department of Energy (DOE), EPA's Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory (EPA/HWERL-Edison and
Cincinnati), the Maryland Hazardous Waste Siting Board/Waste
Exchange, and the EPA headquarters library. The presentation
included descriptions of each data base and a demonstration of
how it operated. At the conclusion of the formal
demonstrations, participants were invited to ask questions or
to briefly experiment "hands on" with the system.
On the following day, the group was greeted by Thomas
Devine, USEPA and David Standley, Tufts University. Alfred
Lindsey of EPA explained that the meeting was jointly sponsored
by the Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Demonstration (Office of Research and Development (ORD)) and
the Office of Program Management and Technology (Office of
-------
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)). Representatives
of EPA headquarters and regional staff, contractors, potential
responsible parties, state governments, environmental groups,
citizens, and other federal agencies had been invited to
discuss the formation of a proposed Clearinghouse for hazardous
waste cleanup technologies.
The agenda included summaries of the status of information
presently available, and descriptions of relevant systems which
were proposed. Each participant, briefed on potential
Clearinghouse technologies, had the opportunity to discuss
these components and to recommend the services which EPA could
provide given the limitations of its budget.
-------
POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A CLEARINGHOUSE
Each potential component of a Clearinghouse, a central
reference library, a hotline, a specialized publication
services, and a technical information network, was described by
an expert. Some of these components already exist either
within the EPA or in the public sector.
CENTRAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
Loretta Marzetti, Chief, Information Services Branch, EPA,
described the EPA library's special Hazardous Waste Collection
and the commercial hazardous waste databases to which the
library has access.
In 1986, the EPA Headquarters library developed a special
hazardous waste collection and database for the EPA library
network. The collection includes materials on remedial and
emergency removal activities, groundwater, landfills,
incineration, underground storage tanks, enforcement and
alternative technologies.
As of March 30, 1987, the collection contained over 1,200
bibliographic records. Additions are being made at roughly 200
records a quarter. The hazardous waste collection and database
are currently available in the EPA headquarters and regional
libraries, as well as the National Enforcement Investigation
Center and the Ada, Cincinnati, Edison, Las Vegas, and Research
Triangle Park (RTF) laboratories of EPA.
-------
The entire collection is accessible on a data base, using
an IBM PC/AT. It provides automated search and retrieval
capability by the following access points: key word/subject
heading, abstract, title, author, sponsoring organization or
office, project manager's name, and contract number. The
database and hard copy printouts of the database are updated
and distributed quarterly to the EPA network libraries cited
above. The. data base is available through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), PB87 - 152690.
Emma McNamara, Head Librarian of EPA Headquarters Library,
described the Hazardous Waste Collection file structure for
monographs, periodicals, and the commercial data base file.
Sample keyword searches were demonstrated. The system is
compatible with d-base III software systems and is
"user-friendly." The menus for the library reference system
prepared by EPA/HWERL-Edison enable extraction by users who are
not computer professionals.
THE CLEARINGHOUSE HOTLINE
. The existing RCRA/CERCLA hotline was described by Patricia
Cohn of Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc., (the firm which
manages the hotline). The major federal hotlines include
RCRA/CERCLA, Small Business, US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Poultry, and Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The
major purpose of any hotline is to answer questions. The
hotline can respond to dynamic events, such as revisions to
regulations or status
-------
of RCRA/CERCLA projects. Many hotlines presently exist. The
users of the existing RCRA/CERCLA hotline have requested
information about a variety of hazardous waste regulations.
Seventy-three percent of the calls were about RCRA, 15% about
Underground Storage Tanks (UST), and 12% of the questions
concerned CERCLA.
Information dissemination and feedback examples were
presented. Other aspects of the hotline that were explained
included integration of the hotline into the EPA program,
training of staff, automation, feedback mechanisms, operational
needs, and advertising and promotion.
Some of the forum participants suggested that a proposed
Clearinghouse Hotline could be designed to provide information
about cleanup technologies, and it could perform a variety of
additional functions. The principal function would be to
disseminate information. It could also provide a
technical/regulatory interface for facilities that must comply
with RCRA. The Clearinghouse Hotline could also respond to
requests for written material.
Patricia Cohn proposed that a Clearinghouse Hotline could
serve as a reference or access point. The Hotline could inform
potential users about the type of information available in the
Clearinghouse and how to access it. The Clearinghouse Hotline
could also serve as the vehicle for distribution of a manual
for data base users.
10
-------
SPECIALIZED PUBLICATION SERVICES
Newsletters and technology fact sheets were identified by
Beverly Campbell of Technical Resources, Inc. as the most
important types of specialized publication services. There are
a number of specialized publications and data bases which
presently exist within EPA and DOE. Presently, these
specialized publications and data bases include a Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) vendor list, a disposal
facility list, a remedial response contracts list, and an
inventory of analytical laboratories.
Many commercial hazardous waste newsletters already exist,
however, there is no centralized or accessible inventory. A
fact sheet about EPA°s SITE program presently exists, and a
corresponding fact sheet for each of the demonstration projects
will be available soon. Site-specific, technology-specific,
and project-specific fact sheets produced by the EPA will also
be available.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION NETWORK
A technical information network composed of a variety of
computerized data bases was proposed as a potential
Clearinghouse component. The existing and potential.data
bases, which could be included in a cleanup technology
Clearinghouse network, were also discussed by C.C. Lee, Cathy
Fore, and Richard Griffiths.
11
-------
Several computerized data base management systems have
already been designed to make new technical information more
readily available to cleanup personnel and researchers. There
is no centralized repository for these systems which is readily
available to all potential users. EPA projects currently
include a case history file on hazardous spills and hazardous
waste sites, and a countermeasure selection system on
recommended response technology. A library search system for
locating useful technical publications, and a data base on
innovative technology have been established. The newest
project is a data base for on-site mobile treatment equipment.
This data base will allow access to performance and cost data.
HWERL is currently developing six expert systems to provide
advice concerning hazardous waste questions/issues for use by
Agency decision makers. These systems are designed to emulate
the same decision logic used by knowledgeable persons (experts)
and are prescribed in EPA regulations or guidance documents.
Systems currently under development will assist in evaluation
of the chemical compatibility of flexible membrane liners with
waste materials, evaluation of the waste analysis plan
specified in Part B permits, evaluation of closure plans for
land disposal facilities, and screening of containment,
removal, or treatment technologies for Superfund sites.
Data Base Overview
Three data base technology systems were described. C.C.
LEE, EPA/HWERL-Cincinnati, provided a conceptual description of
12
-------
how an existing thermal treatment technology data base, jointly
funded by EPA and DOE, could be expanded to incorporate
detailed data on other treatment technologies. The data base
concept could support both RCRA and CERCLA technology transfer
needs, and it would provide a basis for matching hazardous
wastes with applicable technologies.
ACTION and WIN Data Bases
Cathy S. Fore, DOE (Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions
Program, Support Contractor Office), presented a conceptual
description of a computerized Clearinghouse network approach,
(ACTION) and an overview of the existing Waste Information
Network (WIN). She discussed three data bases that have been
developed to support technology transfer within DOE and EPA.
Any Clearinghouse data base network would be composed of a
central location for the collection and intrepretation of data
and accessed by individual users. This information would be
electronically retrievable through personal computers at EPA
Headquarters and regional EPA libraries, or through a user's
personal computers and telephone modems. Clearinghouse data
base software should be "user-friendly". The purpose of a
conceptual network would be to serve as a central and
comprehensive resource for the use of alternative or innovative
technologies. The major benefit of this proposed data base is
that it would provide a centralized resource for technology
transfer information.
13
-------
This conceptual network could accommodate major user
applications. Among the many options which it might perform
are developing and tracking permit conditions, determining
future research strategies for EPA and DOE, and conducting
similarity analyses for comparing technologies. It could
support the waste disposal hierarchy of elimination/reduction;
recycle, reuse, and recovery; treatment; destruction; and
disposal.
The conceptual network could decide upon major on-line data
base applications. Some possibilities that have been
identified include RCRA/CERCLA available technologies, and
EPA/Department of Defense (DOD)/DOE cooperative efforts, waste
characterization, and research directories.
The Waste Information Network (WIN), an existing national
communications network developed by DOE's Hazardous Waste
Remedial Action Program of Support, was described by Cathy
Fore. It is designed to function as an information tool for
conducting data analyses in support of hazardous waste
minimization efforts. It also helps to promote technology
transfer within the hazardous waste community. WIN represents
a central resource for detailed data on hazardous waste
technologies which provides rapid communications through
sophisticated interactive programs. It also offers direct user
interface with raw data for purposes of conducting on-line
analyses and report generation.
14
-------
Some of the major applications of the WIN system include
identifying and tracking hazardous wastes from generation to
final destination, and identifying available commercial
resources. WIN can also be used to generate user-specified
on-line data reports and to determine technology alternatives.
WIN is also frequently used to perform data analyses to support
waste minimization programs, or to locate experts in the field
to respond to specific needs. In addition to general on-line
data bases, the WIN system encompasses interactive information
exchange tools consisting of electronic mail, file transfer,
and an electronic bulletin board.
The current EPA/DOE Hazardous Waste Control Technology Data
Base System is designed to aid permit writers, researchers,
industry, and decision-makers by providing detailed information
on thermal treatment technologies for managing, analyzing, and
comparing similar waste components and technologies. Major
applications include tracking permit conditions, research and
development, determining future research strategies, and
identifying key parameters to support data submission
standards. The system also supports regulatory standards and
procedures, and implements on-line report generation features.
Data for this system have been collected from numerous resource
documents currently covering 90 facilities. For any given
facility, information pertaining to design, installation,
operating conditions, waste characteristics, and trial burn
results can be obtained. Retrieval can be made for either
15
-------
summary reports or user-defined reports. On-line reports can
be generated about general facility information, operating
conditions, waste characteristics, design installation, and
trial burn results.
Case History File and Countermeasure Selection System
Richard Griffiths of EPA/HWERL-Edison described the data
bases developed by his office or under his direction. The
Countermeasure File exists as a practical working system which
details response measures to hazardous waste spills. This data
base system is based on the technology which was in common use
in 1982, and it could be updated. Data about newer
technologies also could be incorporated into this system.
A Mobile Treatment Unit File will be available in the
coming months. This data base will contain performance and
cost data about mobile and portable systems developed by EPA
and private industry.
Obtaining useful information from state and local EPA's
on-scene coordinators (OSC's) is a major problem when there is
no requirement to submit these data. If the OSC has a
contractor, however, there can be a stipulation placed in the
contract requiring submission of this data. The OSC data
requires continuous updating; consequently, it is very
personnel-intensive. The value of a computerized data base for
OSC's is that it would serve as a means for field personnel to
communicate with each other.
16
-------
DISCUSSION GROUPS
INTRODUCTION
Following the demonstrations and briefings, four groups
were formed. Each group, composed of members representing
diverse backgrounds and interests, discussed the same wide
range of issues relating to establishing a CERCLA/RCRA Cleanup
Technology Clearinghouse (See Appendix B). Although the group
members expressed varied opinions, the discussion generally
resulted in consensus among the members.
The conclusions and priority ranking of issues varied
slightly from group to group, but extensive common ground was
established both within each group and common to all groups.
Participants were cooperative and constructive. Many
insightful comments and ideas were added to the pre-established
common agenda. The six questions posed to each group are
summarized in the sections which follow.
QUESTION 1: WOULD YOU FIND A CERCLA/RCRA CLEANUP TECHNOLOGY
CLEARINGHOUSE USEFUL?
Each group agreed that there is a clear and demonstrated
need for a CERCLA/RCRA Cleanup Technology Clearinghouse. A
wide range of potential users were identified, each with
differing applications and levels of use. The groups agreed
that Clearinghouse can be planned most effectively by
identifying user groups and then selecting the most appropriate
components to meet these needs.
17
-------
Group A identified Clearinghouse users according to the
following classification system:
Users 1 - Public Interest Groups
Citizens
Users 2 - States
EPA Regions
Other Federal Agencies: DOD, DOE, Department of
Transportation (DOT)
Users 3 - Contractors
Potential Responsible Parties (PRP's)
Vendors
Other Private Entities (Including Academics)
Within each of the three user categories there are members with
divergent needs, interests, and priorities. These internal
variations should be acknowledged during planning. [Note that
EPA headquarters and laboratories inadvertantly were excluded
from Group A's classification system.]
QUESTION 2: WHAT COMPONENTS OF A CLEARINGHOUSE WOULD BE MOST
USEFUL?
QUESTION 3: WHAT TYPES OF INFORMATION WOULD YOU NEED FROM A
CLEARINGHOUSE?
(In the workshop groups' discussions and responses,
Question 2 and Question 3 were usually combined; therefore,
they are combined in this summary).
18
-------
Four major components of a Clearinghouse system were
discussed. The degree of interest in each component, as it
varied by the user categories defined by Group A, is shown
below.
UTILITY RANKING BY CATEGORY OF USER
CLEARINGHOUSE COMPONENT
Reference Library
Hotline Very High
Specialized Publications
Computerized Databases
USERS 1
Public
Medium
Medium
Low
High
USERS 2
States
Medium
Medium
Low
High
USERS 3
Contractors
Medium
Low
High
According to Group D, the Clearinghouse should primarily
provide information for the user groups identified below:
o federal and state officials legally responsible for
remediating hazardous waste sites
o federal and state officials responsible for developing
hazardous waste standards and regulations
o citizens and community organizations affected by
hazardous waste sites and facilities
o private industry members responsible for addressing and
correcting hazardous waste problems
o public and private sector research and development staff
19
-------
Group IV presented this classification of users to the
other groups at the general session, but no one from the other
groups made any comment either about this system as a whole or
about any specific component. Each group discussed the
relative merits of each of the potential Clearinghouse
components. Their comments have been summarized under each of
the component headings.
Central Reference Library
The information must be readily and easily accessible,
because the user is unlikely to spend much time in the search.
An expansion and upgrading of the existing reference library
would be sufficient to meet these needs of the Clearinghouse.
It was agreed among the groups that the rate of expansion of
documents could be accelerated, and hard copies of documents
should become more readily available.
Clearinghouse Hotline
Group IV stated that a Clearinghouse Hotline is most
valuable to members of the public, who have limited
understanding of hazardous wastes and limited familiarity with
the programs which address these problems. A Clearinghouse
Hotline could be a useful starting point for
information-gathering by even the most sophisticated
researchers. The current RCRA/CERCLA hotline has been
particularly helpful to keep the states current about
regulations and to provide hazardous waste generators with
current regulatory information.
20
-------
A hotline would be only as good as the information
available to it from other components of the Clearinghouse.
The most logical means of providing this service would be by
extension of the existing hotline. Group B considered the
Clearinghouse Hotline to be its highest priority. The primary
function, given limited resources, would be to refer a caller
to an expert source or a written resource. A secondary
Clearinghouse Hotline person, according to Group D, should be a
trouble-shooter for either a field problem or a computer search
problem.
Group C suggested incorporating the Clearinghouse hotline
into the reference library and providing a toll-free number and
a publication service. This system would locate information,
and build on the strengths of the current system. (An
emergency response hotline was not strongly supported by Group
C, as this requires both 24-hour staffing with legal and
technical expertise). Group C, however, believed a user should
be able to know how to obtain specific types of clean-up
technology information.
Specialized Publications
Because many specialized publications are already
available, the need for additional specialized publications as
a component of a Clearinghouse was low. The need for
centralization of the available materials was recognized to be
very important. Group B identified a computerized directory
21
-------
for technical assistance as its second priority. If a
directory is developed, help must be available to search for
information. Not all potential users know how to access data.
The proposed directory should contain information on
alternative technologies, evaluations of projects, and
approaches to cleanup that have been completed. The data could
include identification of the responsible party, methodology,
and cost. There was strong support in Group B to expand the
information base beyond alternative technologies to include:
Development phase treatment techniques
Existing treatment technologies (experience-based)
Innovative land disposal
Capping of landfills
Community and site information
Group B was especially interested in learning whether each
technology was operational or evaluated. This information
would be useful for feasibility studies particularly when cost
data are included.
Computerized Data Bases
Group A felt that a hybrid data base is needed. It would
focus on remedial measures and corrective actions. (It should
be similar to the countermeasure selection system data base but
with an emphasis on long term treatment solutions, including
existing, alternative, and innovative technologies.)
Initially, the data base could consist of short narratives on
22
-------
treatment options and descriptions of current application
sites. This initial data base could be expanded to include
more detailed data about testing of applicability and
performance of each of the technologies. The expanded base
should be patterned after the EPA/DOE incineration data base,
but it could be broadened to include other technologies as
well. This type of database is currently being developed by
some of EPA's remedial contractors.
The data base could be expanded to include general
information about cleanup technologies. Such data can be used
by interested parties, and the public when reviewing the type
of action they believe is most appropriate for a specific
site. The data base would also contain information about the
latest technological developments and the costs of treatments.
These components would enable contractors and vendors to keep
abreast of the market. Eventually, the data base could also
contain more detailed performance data for use by states and
EPA regional staff. This more detailed data would assist them
in selecting technologies.
The screening of input was considered a difficult, resource
intensive problem by Group A. They viewed an interactive
system as useful, but limited by the quality of data entered.
Group B was concerned that a lack of computer hardware and
expertise would limit access to the data. EPA personnel as
23
-------
well as individuals desiring to access the data, would need
both training and equipment. The group concluded that the
crucial components for effective use of the database are a
well-publicized telephone number and highly-trained personnel
to trouble shoot computer problems.
Group C limited its discussion of a Clearinghouse to a
computer-based system. They specified the proposed computer
data base must be both easy to access, consistent with existing
data bases, and provide technical assistance to users. It was
suggested that this support could be modeled after the Office
of Solid Waste (OSW) Permit Assistance Teams (PAT's).
Sources of data, defined by Group B, include the following:
1. EPA Activities
o SITE program concerning demonstrations and research
(including applications of technologies)
o ORD research and demonstration tests (including
actual and developmental technologies)
o Alternative technology studies
o Superfund pilot projects, treatability studies, bench
scale studies, and field experience reports
2. Industry
o RCRA permit trial burns
o Consultants (to industry or EPA)
o SITE, Superfund, permit application, developmental
work by PRP's, pilot studies, and feasibility studies
24
-------
o RCRA corrective action
o Private cleanup efforts. Although companies and
vendors are reluctant to report unsuccessful
experiences, failures should be documented.
3. DOD/DOE site work. (This source, was not enumerated by
Group B, but contributed by a reviewer).
4. Academia
o Research and development funded by EPA through state
funds or by industry
5. States
o Research and development funded by EPA, state, or
industry
o Cleanups funded by EPA
6. Citizen Groups and Environmental Groups
7. Experience from foreign countries should be tapped to
identify new technologies and effective types of site
management.
QUESTION 4: IN WHAT FORMS SHOULD THE INFORMATION BE PRESENTED?
This topic was not discussed explicitly, but Group B
suggested case studies and bibliographic abstracts as an
initial format. It was assumed by each of the groups that the
25
-------
form of presentation depended upon the type of information, its
source, and most importantly upon the user and the user's needs.
QUESTION 5: HOW SHOULD THE AGENCY OBTAIN THE INFORMATION?
All groups agreed that the effort of gathering information
for a Clearinghouse varied with the data source. They also
agreed that contractors to the EPA should be required to gather
and submit data as a part of their contract. Regions and
states could be strongly encouraged to provide information when
it becomes available. PRP's could have conditions written into
consent decrees. Information from privately funded cleanups,
however, is extremely difficult to gather. Group C suggested
that a staff of at least one or two people would be needed to
ensure consistent quality and coordination of materials
collected.
In addition to sources identified above, Group C and Group
D cited EPA research results and vendor proposals. Group D
also included other federal agencies, specifically DOE, DOT,
and DOD, as potential sources of information for the
Clearinghouse. The inclusion of case studies was strongly
supported.
Group D focused upon potential conflict that could arise
from a Clearinghouse providing technical information. The need
for factual data and evaluations of technologies must be
counterbalanced by EPA's current efforts to develop treatment
26
-------
standards under statutory mandates. Consequently, the Agency
should not compromise rulemaking by processing "evaluations"
through a Clearinghouse. Official Agency evaluations can occur
only through formal rulemaking, otherwise, EPA could be subject
to legal challenge. However, quality-controlled data without
EPA value judgment could be disseminated through a
Clearinghouse provided that it was clear that such
dissemination did not imply endorsement. A Clearinghouse could
provide impartial technical information without making
technical judgements.
QUESTION 6: SHOULD THE AGENCY GUARANTEE QUALITY ASSURANCE AND
QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) OF THE DATA?
Systems of QA/QC which already exist for the reference
library were considered adequate, but procedures for the
computer database were questioned. The consensus was that it
is virtually impossible to require consistent QA/QC procedures
for all material to be entered.
Group A suggested reporting the specific procedures used
and providing a list of sources to accompany each data entry.
This documentation will provide sufficient information to users
which could allow them to judge the validity of the information
for themselves. Group B determined that the EPA should
encourage consistency by establishing a QA/QC format. Group C
believed that a rigorous method of ensuring the accuracy of
data entry was essential for users to have confidence in the
27
-------
system and a strong desire to use it. Group D recommended that
EPA establish a 'filter1 process to ensure that QA/QC is
applied prior to Clearinghouse data entry. That group also
suggested that QA/QC data be included with any information
provided to prospective users.
According to Group C, potential engineering design users
did not want to limit the availability or timeliness of
information by the delays necessitated by extensive peer review
or quality control. For Remedial Investment/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS) type evaluations, all data has some value to
the decision-making process. For new technologies, no peer
reviewed data may be available for a few years. Some
indication of the level of QA/QC and of peer review could be
indicated for each data set entered. Then the user can
evaluate the data for his own needs.
Furthermore, Group C believed that establishing burdensome
requirements for contributing data to the system would
discourage private researchers and developers from entering
data. Speed of entering data and completeness were judged the
most important data characteristics. Technical users familiar
with sources and the level of review or quality assessment
should be able to judge the utility and applicability for their
intended use.
28
-------
Group D believed EPA's "peer review" system would
unreasonably expand the time required for data entry. Except
for its own projects and reports, EPA should not be responsible
for performing QA/QC. The responsibility for performing QA/QC
procedures could be the responsibility of the originators of
data and reports. As a compromise for the sake of timeliness
and accuracy, guidelines could include possibly as many as four
levels of stringency. This would allow inclusion of
preliminary data and reports as well as final reports. EPA
evaluation, by contrast, would only be included in a
Clearinghouse as a final Agency document, report, or rule.
OTHER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
o User fees and/or charges would help to determine budget
requirements, staffing needs, and the frequency of use.
Group A assumed that if a charge for access were .
imposed, it might hinder public use of a Clearinghouse.
Consequently, Group A recommended that there should be
no charge for use of the Clearinghouse hotline or the
reference library. To defray operating expenses, a fee
should be charged for more detailed information. A fee
could be charged for either computer access or for
consulting information.
o A 900 hotline telephone number was suggested as an
alternative to an 800 number. The purpose of imposing a
charge was to reduce the incidence of frivolous calls.
29
-------
Group B believed that industry would gladly pay to use a
Clearinghouse, but that data input might possibly be
accepted as their "currency" for access. Citizen
groups, by contrast, should not be charged anything, or
they could be required to pay only a nominal fee.
o Funding - A recommendation was made by Group A to
allocate 10% of the SITE program budget to the proposed
Clearinghouse activities. This would provide immediate
funds for a pilot project. Additional funding could be
budgeted in successive years.
o Prototype Clearinghouses - The EPA was encouraged to use
existing Clearinghouses as models (provided that they
have operated successfully). Competition for users
among the data bases that already exist was noted.
o Two-Tier Referral - This first-tier should consist of a
trained Clearinghouse hotline staff member who refers a
caller to a consultant, a field worker, or an
appropriate service representative. The second-tier
person should be a troubleshooter who can respond to
either a field problem or to a computer search problem.
o Minimal Response - Group B suggested the following
alternative approach if sufficient funding for a
full-scale program is not available, or if industry is
unwilling to input information.
30
-------
1. A bibliography
2. A data base of appropriate types of treatment, or
chemical, or site.
o Ultimate Response - Fact sheets should analyze each
technology and make projections about its efficiency and
cost. The fact sheets should be supplemented with a
technical resource person who can back up and amplify
the information provided with a telephone conversation.
o In addition to technical data, and contract terms and
conditions, a Clearinghouse should also include internal
directives, policies, and procedures.
o The proposed system should be capable of instant
response, and should also be able to be updated quickly
and regularly.
31
-------
CONCLUSIONS OF THE FORUM
The principal conclusions and recommendations from the
forum include the following:
Would you find a Clearinghouse useful?
o The group concluded that a Clearinghouse for information
about hazardous waste cleanup technologies should be
established.
What components would you find most useful?
What types of information would you need from a Clearinghouse?
o The most useful components of a Clearinghouse would be a
central reference library and a hotline. These should
be established as soon as possible, and they should
build on existing systems.
o A technical information network of computerized data
bases would also be useful.
o There was limited interest for additional specialized
publication services, but the need to collect existing
publications of data, and preference for different data
components varies according to need.
32
-------
o Whenever possible information about hazardous waste
treatment and remedial technologies should include cost
data.
In what form should the information be presented?
o Information should be presented through a library
collection, a hotline, specialized publication services,
and new and existing data bases.
o Initially, the Clearinghouse should have a limited scope
and focus rather than attempting to be "all things to
all people."
How would EPA obtain the information?
o Information about hazardous waste cleanup technologies
should be obtained from the SITE program, government
agencies, contractors, industry and academics.
o There should be a hierarchy of levels of information
available from a Clearinghouse.
o A Clearinghouse should provide impartial technical
information without making technical judgements.
33
-------
Should EPA QA/QC the data?
o EPA was encouraged to established QA/QC procedures for
the detailed technical information to be included in a
clean-up technology data base.
o It is virtually impossible to require consistent QA/QC
procedures for all data to be entered in a Clearinghouse,
o Since all treatment technology information was thought
to have some potential value, information with little or
no QA/QC could also be included in a technology data
base provided the source of the data was identified.
o A process must be developed to regularly review the
effectiveness/ utilization/ and quality of data of
whatever system or systems are established.
What other conclusions were made?
o User fees or charges should vary according to the level
of detail provided and the ability to pay.
o Public use of the Clearinghouse should be encouraged
through publicity, simplicity, and little or no charges.
34
-------
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Alfred Lindsay, EPA/OEET, ORD, concluded the forum by
discussing future directions of a Clearinghouse. Efforts to
create a RCRA/CERCLA Clearinghouse have benefitted from the
input of regional EPA staff, contractors, PRP's, other Federal
agencies state governments, environmental groups, and
citizens. This forum has provided EPA with valuable expertise
and insight about the specific needs of cleanup technology
information users.
Information obtained from the forum will help EPA
understand a variety of views and needs of potential users of a
Clearinghouse. Because funding for a Clearinghouse is limited,
it is important that EPA understand the priorities and
attitudes of the conferees about user fees. Participants would
receive the draft report. After their comments were
incorporated, a final report would be distributed.
Knowledge from the forum will help EPA to determine the
nature and scope of the Clearinghouse. EPA plans to further
evaluate responses, develop options, and make a decision about
what, it any, actions will be taken to supplement the central
reference library. If an expanded program is approved a
coordinator could be selected, allocation of resources
determined, and schedules set. The expanded system could be
one that incorporates phone-in access.
35
-------
Mr. Lindsey concluded the forum by thanking participants on
behalf of EPA.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
AGENDA OF THE CERCLA-RCRA CLEANUP TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE
April 22, 1987
Reception
Dinner
Greetings: Alfred Galli, USEPA
Computerized Data Base Demonstrations
DOE
HWERL/Edison
Maryland Hazardous Waste Siting Board
USEPA Library
April 23, 1987
Breakfast
Greetings: Thomas Devine, US EPA;
David Standley, Tufts University
Purpose of the Meeting: Alfred Lindsey, USEPA
Assessment of Needs
Clearinghouse Composition
Types of Wastes Included
Types of Technologies Covered
Potential Clearinghouse Components
Central Reference Library: Loretta Marzetti, USEPA
Clearinghouse Hotline: Patricia Conn, Geo/Resources
Specialized Publication Services: Beverly Campbell
Technical Resources
Newsletters
Fact Sheets
Site Specific
Technology Specific
Project Specific
TSDF Vendors
Remedial Contractors
Resource Directory
37
-------
Technical Information Network
Data Base Overview: C.C. Lee, EPA/HWERL-Cincinnati
Data Bases: Cathy S. Fore, DOE HAZWRAP
Case History File: Richard Griffiths, EPA/HWERL-Edison
Countermeasure Selection System: Richard Griffiths,
EPA/HWERL-Edison
Break
Discussion Group Sessions
Would you find a Clearinghouse useful?
What components would be most useful?
What types of information would you need from a
Clearinghouse?
Lunch
Continuation of Discussion Groups:
In what form should the information be presented?
How would the EPA obtain the information?
Should the EPA QA/QC the data?
Break
Discussion Group Reports
Future Directions for Establishing a Clearinghouse:
Alfred Lindsey, USEPA
38
-------
APPENDIX B
CERCLA/RCRA CLEARINGHOUSE MEETING DISCUSSION GROUPS
Group A
3 Charles Gardner
0 Doris Cellarius
2 Clarence Clemens
Alfred Galli
5 Jud Hill
2 Maggie Lesher
4 Steven Paquette
3 Kim Wilhelm
Group B
3 Susan Shaer
2 Bill Hagel
Alfred Lindsey
Loretta Marzetti
Jane Powers
0 Susanne Schmidt
Jack Stanton
3 David Thomas
Group C
3 Susan Wiltshire
Thomas Devine
4 Tom Donley
Dana Duxbury
Jannette Hansen
6 William MacDonald
Greg Ondich
9 William Porter
7 Matthew Prastein
3 William Sloan
Group D
3 Barry Jordan
Jim Berlow
6 Norine Brodeur
2 William Cawley
8 John Lehr
8 O.S. Ratterman
David Standley
u>
VO
4 Beverly Campbell
4 Patricia Conn
8 Cathy Fore
RESOURCE PEOPLE
2 Dan Greathouse
4 Rich Griffith
Eileen Schell
2 C.C. Lee
Emma McNamara
Barbara Roth
PERSONNEL CODING
EPA Headquarters
2 EPA Regions
3 State Government
4 Superfund/RCRA Contractor
5 Vendor
6 Citizen Group
7 Department of Defense (DOD)
8 Department of Energy (DOE)
9 Potential Responsible Party (PRP)
0 Environmentalist
Academia
2 EPA - Cincinnati Laboratory
3 Facilitator
4 EPA - Edison Laboratory
-------
APPENDIX C
CLEARINGOJSE MEETING ATTENDEES LIST 4/22-23/87
it Berlow
.ief, Treatment Technology
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW, (WH-565A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7917
Norine Brodeur
Ayer City Homeowners Association
3 Waverly Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
(617) 454-5792
Beverly Campbell
Technical Resources,
3203 Monroe Street
Rodcville, MD 20852
(301) 231-5250
Inc.
William Cawley
Deputy Director, HWERL
USEPA, Office of Research & Development
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7896
Doris Cellarius
Toxics Laws Implementation Campaign
Sierra Club
2439 Crestline
Olympia, WA 98502
f206) 943-6875
Clarence Clemens
CERI, USEPA
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7391
Patricia Cohn
Director, RCRA/CERCLA Hotline
Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc.
401 M Street, SW, Room 5212 (WH-562)
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 488-1487
Thomas Devine
Director, Office of Program Mgmt & Tech.
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Respon
401 M Street, SW, Room S-306
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-8716
John W. Donley
Manager, Government Division
AT Kearney, Inc.
699 Prince Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 836-6210
Dana Duxbury
Senior Environmental Analyst
Tufts University, CEM
Curtis Hall, 474 Boston Avenue
Medford, MA 02155
(617) 381-3486
Cathy S. Fore
"<•:. HAZWRAP
J. Box Y
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(615) 574-7769
Alfred Galli
Chief, Air and Energy Staff
USEPA, Env. Eng. & Tech. Dev.
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5753
(RD-681)
40
-------
^rles Gardner, Facilitator
.- Tower Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
(617) 367-6058
Daniel Greathouse
Project Officer
USEPA, HWERL
26 West St. Glair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7859
Richard Griffiths
Physical Scientist, USEPA
Releases Control Branch, HWERL
Woodbridge Avenue, Rariton Depot, Bid 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(201) 340-6629
William Hagel
Regional Project Manager
USEPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Street, Mailcode 3HW24
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-0517
Jannette Hansen
Permits and State Programs Division
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (WH-563)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
'•>02) 382-4754
A. Judson Hill
Regional Vice President
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
6 Montgomery Village Avenue, Suite 620
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
(301) 670-6300
Barry Jordan, Facilitator
President
Jordan Communications, Inc.
121 Mt. Vernon Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 742-2763
C.C. Lee
Research Program Manager, HWERL
USEPA, Alternative Technologies Division
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-7520
John C. Lehr
Environmental Engineer
US Department of Energy (DP-124)
Washington, DC 20545
(301) 353-3007
Robb Lenhart
Environmental Technology Division
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
P.O. Box 286, Mail Bin #37
Madison, PA 15663-0286
(412) 722-5248
Margaret Leshen
"PA, Region I
..nn F. Kennedy Bldg, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Alfred Lindsey
Deputy Director,
USEPA, Env. Eng. & Tech. Dev. (RD-681)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4073
41
-------
\liam MacDonald
i.jss Toxics Network
761 Berkely Street
Berkley, MA 02780
(617) 823-2200
Loretta Marzetti
Chief, Information Services Branch
USEPA Office of Information Resources
401 M Street, SW, Room 2005 (PM211D)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-8710
Emma McNamara
Head Librarian
USEPA Headquarters Library (PM-221A)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5922
Gregory Ondich
Chief, Hazardous Waste & Superfund Staff
USEPA, Env. Eng. & Tech. Dev. (RD-681)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-&6S3
J. Steven Paquette
COM Federal Programs Corporation
7611 Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 642-0544
William M. Porter
Engineering Department
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
P.O. Box 6090
Newalk, DE 19714-6090
(302) 366-4439
Inc.
Jane Powers
Office of Program Mgt. & Technology
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste (WH-54SA)
401 M Street, SW, Room M2003
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-8710
S. Matthew Prastein
Special Assistant to the Director of
Environmental Restoration
The Pentagon, Room 3D.833
Washington, DC 20301-8000
(202) 695-7820
0.S. Ratterman
Monsanto Corporation
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., F2WJ
St. Louis, MO 63167
(314) 694-6729
Barbara Roth
Information Services Branch (PM-211D)
USEPA Office of Information Resources
401 M Street, SW, Room M-2003
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7879
Eileen Schell
ets Unversity, CEM
w-rtis Hall, 474 Boston Avenue
Medford, MA 02155
(617) 381-3486
Susanna Schmidt
Natural Resources Defense Council
122 E. 42nd Street, 45th Floor
New York, NY 10168
(212) 949-0049
42
-------
;an Shaer, Facilitator
rresident
League of Women Voters of MA
2 Seminole Circle
Andover, MA 01810
(617) 470-1133
William Sloan
Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities
Siting Board
60 West Street, Suite 20
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 269-3432
David Standley
Tufts University, GEM
Curtis Hall, 474 Boston Avenue
Medford, MA 02155
(617) 381-3486
Jack Stanton
Office of Regional Operations (A-101)
USEPA, Office of the Administrator
401 M Street, SW, Room 1222-West Tower
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4123
David L. Thomas
Director of Hazardous Waste
Research & Information Center for IL
1808 Woodfield Drive
Savoy, IL 61874
333-8940
Kim Wilhelm
Sr. Engineer, Alternative Technologies
Department of Health Services
744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-5347
Susan Wiltshire
Facilitator
77 Fox Run Road
S. Hamilton, MA 01982
(617) 468-2702
John Zipeto
Environmental Engineer
USEPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building, Mailcode HRR-CAUS
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-1353
43
------- |