United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency
                            Office of Site Remediation
                            Enforcement (2271 A)
                            Washington, DC 20460
©EPA    cleanupnews
                                       Winter 2001
                                       EPA300-N-01-002
                                       Issue #6
 inside
 CEPPO:EPCRA Regulatory
   Revisions Ahead     3
 Hudson River Cleanup
   of PCBs Proposed     4
 Pump and Treat
   Optimization        5
 In the Courts: RCRA Pre-
   enforcement Reviews,
   Retroactive Application
   of SREA          6
 News and Notes
 Calendar
7
8
 Cleanup News ;s an occa-
 sional newsletter highlighting
 hazardous waste cleanup
 cases, policies, settlements,
 and technologies.
              Superfund Celebrates 20th
              Year of Achievement
    Transportation centers. Shopping
    malls. Wildlife habitats. These aren't
    the first things you think of when
you hear the word "Superfund," but twenty
years after its enactment into law, Super-
fund is routinely turning abandoned haz-
ardous waste sites into soccer fields, golf
courses, shopping malls, and office build-
ings. By September 2000, construction and
cleanup had been completed at over 750
sites nationwide.
  The pace  of Superfund achievements
picked up in the mid-nineties after a series
of reforms in 1993, designed to make the
Superfund program "faster, fairer, and
more efficient." Three times as  many
Superfund sites have been cleaned up in
the past seven years than in all the prior
years of the program combined.  The
reforms aimed at expanding state and
public involvement in cleanup decisions,
reducing litigation and transaction  costs,
encouraging  the  redevelopment  of
cleanup sites, encouraging innovative
technologies, and addressing stakeholder
criticisms. Examples of these reforms are
described below.
                continued on page 2
                                Historic  Settlement  Reached
                                on Iron Mountain  Mine
                                Agreement Will Clean Up One of Country's Most Toxic Superfund Sites
                   On October 19, 2000, the United
                   States and the State of California
                   announced a settlement with Aven-
              tis Crop Sciences USA, Inc. that could
              approach $1 billion for future cleanup of
              the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site
              located nine miles northwest of Redding,
              California.
                The settlement, on behalf of the  U.S.
              EPA the U.S. Department of the Interior,
              the U.S. Department of Commerce, and
              several state agencies, is one of the largest
              settlements with a single private party in the
              history of the federal Superfund program. It
              is also one of the biggest environmental set-
              tlements for state environmental agencies.
                                 The agreement, achieved after nine
                               years of  litigation and negotiation, will
                               ensure long-term control of more than 95
                               percent of the releases from Iron Moun-
                               tain, historically the largest point source of
                               toxic metals in the country and the source
                               of the most acidic mine drainage in the
                               world. Prior to remediation, the mine dis-
                               charged an average of a ton a day of toxic
                               metals into the Upper Sacramento River, a
                               critical salmon spawning habitat and a
                               central feature in the state's water system.
                                 Aventis, formerly known as Rhone
                               Poulenc,  Inc., has arranged for The IT
                               Group to operate and maintain the site
                                              continued on page 3
                                                                               Printed on recycled paper

-------
     20 Years of Superfund
     continued from page 1

     •   Superfund Cleanups: To ensure
        that cleanups are cost-effective and
        reflect the latest technology, the
        Superfund Innovative Technology
        Evaluation (SITE)  Program  was
        established. The  SITE Program's
        demonstrations of new technolo-
        gies have led to cost  savings  of
        over 70 percent per site. The total
        cost savings for  innovative treat-
        ment as opposed to conventional
        treatment is estimated at $2.1 bil-
        lion. To streamline the remedy
        process  and make  it  consistent
        across sites,  EPA now uses stan-
        dard or "presumptive" remedies at
        four types of sites: municipal land-
        fills, wood treater sites, contami-
        nated  groundwater, and volatile
        organic chemicals in soils.
     •   Superfund  Enforcement:  For
        every dollar spent on enforcement,
        EPA has achieved over $6 in pri-
        vate cleanup  commitments  and
        cost recovery. With an "Enforce-
        ment First" policy in effect, respon-
        sible parties have performed over
        70 percent of the new cleanup work
        at Superfund  sites.  Some of the
        reforms EPA has implemented  to
        achieve more efficient and  equi-
        table  settlements include:  getting
        the "little guys" out  of Superfund
        enforcement by  reaching settle-
        ments with de minimis parties,
        removing legal barriers to eco-
        nomic development,  and reducing
        the need for litigation  by using
        mediated settlements  and other
        forms of alternative dispute resolu-
        tion.
     •   Community Participation  and
        Partnerships:  Through Commu-
        nity Advisory Groups and Techni-
        cal Assistance Grants  of up  to
          Superfund  Successes  on  its
                  20th Anniversary
                        (as  of 10/3/2000)

 Over 6,400 removal actions have been taken to reduce immediate threats.
 757 Superfund sites have had all cleanup construction completed.
 Of the 1,450 final National Priorities List (NPL) sites:
 • 219 are deleted.
 • 1,200 have all final cleanup plans approved.
 • 1,330 are either undergoing cleanup construction or have been deleted.
 Of the 59 sites proposed for listing on the NPL, 28 have had or are undergoing
 cleanup.
 Since 1992, responsible parties have performed over 70 percent of all  new
 cleanups at NPL sites.
 Over the life of the Superfund program, the estimated value of private party settle-
 ments is $18 billion.
 Over 460 de minimis settlements have been reached -allowing 22,800 small waste
 contributors relief from the burdens of Superfund litigation.
 EPA and its state and tribal partners have assessed more than 41,000 sites. More
 than 32,000 sites have been removed from the CERCLIS waste site list to help pro-
 mote the economic redevelopment of these properties.
$50,000 for expert advisors,  EPA
offers  communities meaningful
opportunities for involvement  early
in the cleanup process and involve-
ment throughout  site cleanup. A
number of partnership programs
have been developed with commu-
nities, local businesses, large cor-
porations,  and state, local,  and
tribal governments.  For example,
the Superfund Jobs Training Initia-
tive creates local economic benefits
from site cleanup in disadvantaged
areas.
Encouraging  Economic  Rede-
velopment: Successful  reuse  of
once-contaminated  properties  is
happening all  over the country,
changing   the  perception  that
"once a hazardous waste site, for-
ever a  wasteland." The Brown-
fields Initiative, started in 1993,
   has leveraged over $2.3 billion in
   private  investment and awarded
   over 500  grants to communities
   nationwide. The Superfund Rede-
   velopment Initiative, announced in
   1999, is a coordinated national pro-
   gram to ensure that communities
   have  the tools and information
   needed to realize the potential of
   reusing Superfund sites.

   Because of Superfund, hundreds of
sites that were once dangerous have
now been made safe. Wastelands have
become productive — and sometimes
even beautiful — again. And,  most
important of all, Superfund continues
to prevent new sites and new dangers
from occurring in the first place.
   For a  special 20th  anniversary
report   on   Superfund,  go   to
http://www. epa.gov/superfund.
Cleanup News

-------
 EPCRA  Regulatory  Revisions  Ahead
     I acilities that report information
     I under the Emergency Planning
      and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) should expect  to see
some changes for emergency planning,
accidental chemical  release notifica-
tions,  and hazardous chemical inven-
tory reports by Fall 2001. The changes
are expected to reduce reporting bur-
dens for the small business community
by  streamlining reporting require-
ments, while still preserving the pub-
lic's health and "right-to-know."
   New  regulations will  address
remaining issues from EPAs proposed
rule of June 8,1999. Reporting thresh-
olds for gasoline and diesel fuel  at retail
gas stations were included in a separate
final rule  (64 FR 7031, Feb. 11,1999).
   Issues that remained following the
1999 final rule included: reporting
thresholds for rock salt,  sand, gravel,
and other chemicals that pose  a mini-
mal  risk;  clarification of mixtures
reporting and changes to the interpre-
tation of the existing hazardous chemi-
cal exemption for solids under EPCRA
§311; guidance on state flexibility; and
revision of reporting thresholds  for
facilities with similarities  to gas sta-
tions (motor pools, marinas, rental car
facilities, and van and bus lines).
  Not all  issues will necessarily be
addressed via rulemaking. EPA wants
to give state and local governments
more flexibility to implement the exist-
ing requirements of EPCRA §311/312.
  In the future, companies may find
that much of their EPCRA reporting
could be handled  electronically. The
proposed rule discussed several flexi-
ble approaches to reduce the burden
of reporting and managing informa-
tion. Arizona and Florida already have
or are piloting programs that promote
streamlined submission  of  EPCRA
§311/312 reports.
   But states  must ensure that any
data management system  complies
with the statutory requirement that
the SERC, LEPC, and local fire depart-
ment receive the required information
by March 1. The  goal of streamlined
submission  must be  to reduce the
reporting burden for facilities without
diminishing timely and full access to
reported information. In addition, elec-
tronic data submission programs must
continue to collect, at a minimum, the
identical information required on Tier
1 or Tier 2 forms.
   Timeline: Look for a rulemaking
in Fall 2001. Guidance and Q&As will
be available in Spring 2001. Proposed
regulatory changes will be posted on
EPAs Chemical Emergency Prepared-
ness and Prevention Office website at
www.epa.gov/ceppo/lr-regs.htm*
epcra.
Iron Mountain
continued from page 1

cleanup over the next 30 years, and for
payment to the federal and state gov-
ernments of $514 million in 2030 to fund
site costs for subsequent years. This
unique funding mechanism enables
Aventis —  which is securing the fund-
ing through a financial assurance and
insurance vehicle specifically tailored
for this settlement —  to pay roughly
$160 million to fund the long-term oper-
ation and maintenance at the site (an
estimated cost of $200 to $300 million),
a payment  to the U.S. EPA of approxi-
mately $8 million, and a payment to the
natural resource trustees to fund nat-
ural resource restoration projects ($10
million). The settlement also waives
$150 million in past costs, bringing the
total amount to close to $1 billion.
   'This innovative settlement is good
news  for people, fish, and  animals
from the northern headwaters of the
Sacramento River all the way down to
San Francisco  Bay," said  U.S.  EPA
Regional Administrator Felicia Mar-
cus. 'The discharge from Iron Moun-
tain is so toxic that when workers inad-
vertently left a shovel in  the green
liquid flowing from one of its portals,
the next day half the shovel had been
eaten away completely. You can imag-
ine what damage this type of drainage
could wreak on the local ecosystem.
Now, thanks to a  true team effort on
the part of a myriad of federal and state
agencies, we have the funding and the
resources in place to dramatically cur-
tail the damage this site has imposed
on our natural resources."
   From the late nineteenth  century
through 1963, the Mountain Copper
Company, Ltd. mined the site for vari-
ous minerals - including iron, gold, sil-
ver, copper, zinc, and pyrite. The min-
ing operations fractured the mountain,
changing the hydrology and exposing
the mineral deposit to oxygen, water,
and bacteria According to scientists
from  the  U.S.  Geological  Survey,
waters in the abandoned copper and
zinc mines of Iron Mountain are the
most  acidic ever measured — even
more concentrated than battery acid.
   Additional  information  on Iron
Mountain Mine is available on the
web  at http://www.epa.gov/region
09/fe atur es/ir onmountain. html.
                                                                                                Cleanup News

-------
    Hudson   River  PCB  Cleanup   Proposed
    EPA Proposal Based on 10-Year Study of PCB Risks to People and Wldlife
     (:	,,	I  fter a ten-year, exhaustive sci-
     i— ">. entific study of the contamina-
    ,'—,'""=tion of the Hudson River from
    polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), on
    December 6,2000, U.S. EPA Adminis-
    trator Carol  Browner announced a
    $460 million proposed plan to dredge
    portions of the river and protect public
    health.
       'The Hudson  River  is  among
    America's great  natural  treasures,"
    said Browner,  calling the proposed
    plan "one of the most aggressive envi-
    ronmental  efforts ever proposed to
    restore a contaminated river and pro-
    tect the public's health." The proposal
    targets the worst PCB  hot spots for
    cleanup  and recognizes the  need for
    stepped-up containment of new PCB
    contamination from active sources.
       PCB contamination of the Hudson
    dates back to the thirty years before
    1977 during which the General Elec-
    tric Company  (GE)  discharged  as
    much as 1.3 million pounds of PCBs
    directly into the river from its facilities
    in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward, NY.
    Abatement  and removal  actions
    directed by state and federal authori-
    ties related to  Hudson River  PCBs
    date back to 1976-77.
       People who eat PCB-contaminated
 fish face an increased risk of cancer
 and other serious medical conditions
 including developmental, immune sys-
 tem, thyroid, and reproductive prob-
 lems. The  chemicals pose a special
 risk to the health of children.
   The cleanup would remove  over
 100,000 pounds of PCBs  that could
 contaminate people, fish, and wildlife
 through the food chain. It would
 reduce risks to public health and fish
 by five times immediately following
 the cleanup. New York State would be
 able to relax fish consumption  advi-
                sories  two years
                after cleanup is com-
'r^/rv/       pleted.
                The     scientific
•'"> (l.Tlil       reassessment found
               that  without  tar-
:V /'.'/){' (•-if.i)  geteddredging,con-
                centrations  of PCBs
                are not expected to
               reach   acceptable
..  \ij-li ••('{• \:  health and safety
                levels as  a result of
               natural breakdown.
 PCBs now buried in the river's  sedi-
 ments are not remaining in place, the
 assessment found, and instead are
 moving downstream. Limited burial
 has not stopped  the sediments  from
 contaminating Hudson River  fish,
 which still have PCBs far in excess of
 safe levels.
   EPA has extensive experience with
 successful dredging projects. The pro-
 posed cleanup plan targets for dredg-
 ing the most contaminated portion of
 the river — about 12 percent of the 40-
 mile stretch of the upper Hudson from
 Fort Edward downstream to  the Fed-
 eral Dam at Troy. The plan calls for the
 removal of over 2.6 million cubic yards
 of contaminated sediment,  backfilling
with clean material, then disposal and
ongoing monitoring. After treatment,
the dredged material would be trans-
ported  away from river communities
by rail  for disposal. The plan recog-
nizes the need for stepped-up  contain-
ment of PCBs still entering the river
through  fractures in  the bedrock
beneath the GE Hudson Falls Plant.
EPA will consider public comment on
this plan and  expects to  finalize an
approach to the Hudson River cleanup
in August 2001.
   EPA evaluated a capping alternative
for the river as a whole to contain PCB
sediments, but found it would be unre-
liable. Another alternative of  bank-to-
bank dredging was also rejected, in
favor of targeted dredging of the cont-
aminated areas. The dredging project,
which would require GE responsibility
for cleanup under the Superfund law,
would take an estimated five years to
complete and  is estimated  to cost
about $460 million.
   To address public participation for a
project  of this magnitude, EPA has
implemented  a unique Community
Interaction Program  (CIP),  a tiered
process composed of  six working
groups  at three levels. To ensure that
cleanup efforts are sensitive to the
needs of local  communities, EPA has
already held several open houses and
public meetings to present the  cleanup
proposals, and has opened a  website
(www.epa.gov/hudson) to make infor-
mation  continually available.
   The  public comment period on the
cleanup proposals runs until April 17,
2001; comments should be sent to: Ali-
son Hess/Doug Tomchuk,  Hudson
River PCBs Public Comment, U.S.
EPA, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New
York, NY 10007.
Cleanup News

-------
Pump  and  Treat  Optimization
••' ''*): / i uperfund   managers   have
'•^/~ "•"-', .....
 '"'"-.._  . made use of over 700 pump
v. y V and  treat  (P&T) systems at
various stages of site work. P&T sys-
tems can be extremely costly to run
and many will need to stay in opera-
tion for decades. Until recently much
of EPA's focus has been on  remedy
selection, design, and construction; as
Superfund  moves into  its  third
decade,  it is appropriate  to review
long-term operation,  maintenance,
and monitoring issues across all sites.
   In July 2000, the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response out-
lined a commitment to optimize Fund-
lead P&T systems (OSWER Directive
No. 9200.0-33). The Optimization Ini-
tiative is intended  to encourage sys-
tematic review and modification of
existing P&T  systems  to enhance
overall remedy effectiveness and cost
effectiveness, without compromising
protectiveness or other objectives of
the Superfund program. It provides
EPA an opportunity to demonstrate its
commitment to effective management
of long-term remedies. This effort rec-
ognizes that remedial  approaches
should not remain static, that site con-
ditions change over time, and that bet-
ter tools and strategies have  evolved
which  allow for improved  perfor-
mance.
Background
Over  the  past year,  the  Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) and the Technology Innova-
tion Office (TIO) worked together to
develop,  pilot,  and  implement  a
process to optimize  ground water
P&T systems. Conducted in coopera-
tion with the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, the pilot included identification
of all Fund-lead P&T sites in the EPA
Regions and subsequent optimization
analysis of four sites in Regions 4 and
5. Results from the pilot indicated that
there  is a potential to improve our
operating Fund-lead P&T systems and
a definite need for continuous evalua-
tion of system operation and mainte-
nance.
  Recommendations for the pilot
sites included changes in P&T system
operation and maintenance, remedia-
tion technology modifications, above-
ground treatment technology modifi-
cations, and  changed  or reduced
monitoring  data needs.  Implementa-
tion of some of the recommendations
will require additional capital expendi-
tures; others  are relatively  low-cost
adjustments.  Overall,  the   pilots
demonstrated that optimization can
reduce  long-term remedial action
costs, accelerate cleanup times, and
enhance  protectiveness  of human
health and the environment.


Initiative Goal and
Schedule
The primary goal of the initiative is to
assist the EPA Regions in  optimizing
Fund-lead P&T systems by expanding
the pilot project to all ten Regions. An
additional goal  of this  effort  is to
increase awareness of the benefits and
the need  for routine optimization
analysis as a part of the ongoing man-
agement responsibilities for long-term
Superfund  remedies. In  year one,
Headquarters, in collaboration with
the Regions, will identify all Fund-lead
P&T  systems, collect  baseline cost
and performance data on  those sys-
tems,  prioritize  sites based  on opti-
mization potential, and further evalu-
ate the optimization opportunities for
up to two high-priority sites in each
Region.  The  effort will  use  an
approach  called  Remedial  Systems
Evaluation (RSE), in which an inde-
pendent expert team works collabora-
tively with the regional project man-
ager  (RPM) and  site contractor to
evaluate the performance of all major
components of the operating system.
The  RSE team will consist  of senior
technical staff from EPA,  technical
experts from the  U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and selected support con-
tractors.
  The site RPMs will have the essen-
tial  role  of determining  which  opti-
mization recommendations are appro-
priate,  and  working with  Head-
quarters  to secure any funding and
technical assistance needed for imple-
mentation. Headquarters is committed
to providing technical, administrative,
and monetary support for this project
in FY 2001. A system will be set up to
document any cost savings or changes
in remediation time frame associated
with optimization recommendations.
  The anticipated  schedule for the
initiative is as follows:

December 2000 - March 2001:
Identify all Fund-lead P&T sites.
February - September 2001:
Complete one or two RSEs per Region.
November 2001:
Prepare report summarizing project
findings.

  For more information on this pro-
ject, please contact Kathy Yager (TIO),
732-321-6738, or Paul Nadeau (OERR),
703-603-8794.
                                                                                                Cleanup News

-------
    EPA Upheld  in Two
    RCRA Pre-enforce-
    ment Review Cases:
    Mohave County, AZ,
    and Amoco Oil Co.,
    Casper, WY
     V^i n September 26,2000, the U.S.
     A  ^5 District Court for the District
      f*i & \
     ""5 * ' ot Arizona granted the govern-
    ment's Motion  to Dismiss Mohave
    County's  complaint  seeking  pre-
    enforcement  review  of a unilateral
    administrative order (UAO), issued by
    Region 9 under §7003 of RCRA. The
    Court held that "both the  statutory
    structure  and legislative  history  of
    RCRA compel the conclusion that the
    statute precludes judicial review of the
    preenforcement order in this case."
       Mohave County, along with 12 other
    Arizona counties, had entered into an
    agreement in which Maricopa County
    would arrange for the disposal of tires
    from the 13 counties. Maricopa County
    then  contracted with Colinas  Tire
    Recovery, Inc. to dispose of the tires.
    Colinas contracted with Blackwater
    Industrial Corporation to temporarily
    store the tires on the Gila River Indian
    Community  Reservation.  However,
    Colinas' successor breached its  con-
    tract with Maricopa County and aban-
    doned the tires on the reservation.
       In August 1997, about two million
    tires  caught fire,  and it  took  three
    months to bring the fire under control.
    Because of air  quality concerns, the
    Gila River Indian Community Reserva-
    tion, Final County, and the State of Ari-
    zona  declared  a state of  emergency
    and evacuated more  than 300 people.
    Using the statutory authority under
    RCRA §7003, the EPA Gila River team
    successfully  negotiated a settlement
    with all of the potentially responsible
    counties  except  Mohave County.
    Under the settlement, the counties
    have removed and properly disposed
    of all of the unburnt tires and are now
evaluating, under EPA oversight, how
best to address the burnt tire piles.
   In May 1999, EPA issued a unilat-
eral order under  RCRA  §7003 to
Mohave County, directing the County
to participate in the remediation plan
being developed by the other counties.
Mohave County did not comply with
the Order and commenced the District
Court action challenging the issuance
of the Order.
   In the second case  involving RCRA
pre-enforcement review,  the 10th Cir-
cuit, in  Amoco Oil Co. v. USEPA,
affirmed a decision of the District Court
for the District of Colorado not to vacate
its  earlier order holding that RCRA
§3008 (h)  is not subject to pre-enforce-
ment review. In 1996, EPA issued a
UAO  to  Amoco under §3008 (h) of
RCRA  related  to Amoco's  Casper,
Wyoming, refinery and associated facil-
ities. Amoco challenged the  UAO, and
the District Court dismissed the chal-
lenge, holding  that there is  no pre-
enforcement review of UAOs issued by
EPA under §3008 (h) of RCRA. Amoco
appealed to the 10th Circuit.
   Contacts:   Lewis   Maldonado,
Region  9  (Mohave), 415-744-1342;
Chuck Figur, Region 8 (Amoco), 303-
312-6915; Tracy Gipson, Headquarters
RSD, 202-5644236.

Retroactive Applica-
tion of SREA: Gould,
Inc. v. A & M  Battery
& Tire Service, et al.
On October 31, 2000, the Third Cir-
cuit, ruling on an appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the  Middle  District
of Pennsylvania, held that the post-
judgment enactment of the Superfund
Recycling Equity Act (SREA) required
the reversal of the judgments  entered
against the appellant  PRPs in lower
court contribution actions, finding that
the SREA applies retroactively to judi-
cial actions initiated by private parties
prior to November 29,1999, and pend-
ing at the time of enactment. The appel-
lant PRPs had earlier been held liable
for contribution of costs in connection
with contamination at a battery recy-
cling site.
   This decision finding that the SREA
applies retroactively to pending judicial
actions between  private parties (and
not initiated by the United States) falls
in line with two  other court decisions
on the retroactive  application of the
SREA,  Department  of  Toxic  Sub-
stances Control v. Interstate Non-Fer-
rous Corporation, 99 E Supp. 2d 1123
(E.D. Cal.  2000)  (addressing pending
litigation initiated by a state) and Mor-
ton International v. AE. Staley Manu-
facturing Co., 106 F.  Supp. 2d  737
(D.N.J. 2000)  (addressing pending liti-
gation initiated by a private party). In
the case at hand, Gould, which remedi-
ated the battery recycling site, lost its
argument that its lawsuit was part of a
judicial action initiated by the United
States because it was an EPA adminis-
trative  action that caused Gould  to
incur response costs necessitating its
cost recovery action.
   This ruling also  addressed other
issues  regarding interpretation and
implementation of the SREA, whether or
not application of the SREA violates due
process guaranteed by the Fifth Amend-
ment for lack  of rational basis, and the
definition of "recyclable material." Hav-
ing found the SREA to apply, the Third
Circuit remanded the case to the District
Court for it to determine whether appel-
lants satisfy the Act's requirements for
exemption  from liability. The  decision
upon remand may be the first to address
substantive issues pertaining  to what
materials are or are not covered by the
exemption  (e.g., whole batteries vs. bat-
tery components, etc.).
   Contact: Meredith  McLean, 202-
564-4216   [No.   99-3294,  2000 WL
1635392 (3rd Cir. 2000)].
Cleanup News

-------
Improving  Superfund
Fiscal  Management
I  | mprovements in fiscal manage-
|  j ment of the Superfund program
1	1 were the subject of a memo to the
EPA Regional Administrators issued in
September 2000 by OECA Assistant
Administrator Steve Herman. The five
key areas  in the cost  recovery and
accounting  process   to   receive
renewed focus are:
•  implementing revised indirect cost
   rates (see Cleanup News #5),
•  maintaining timely billing of PRPs
   for oversight,
•  improving the data in information
   systems,
•  managing and collecting overdue
   accounts receivables, and
•  improving site-specific charging.
Regional Offices were asked to update
their  plans for  addressing overdue
accounts receivable, including desig-
nating a single  point of contact for
Superfund accounts receivable man-
agement, instituting procedures for
timely recording, tracking, review, and
follow-up on accounts receivables, and
conducting an initial case by  case
review of all overdue receivables.
  Also announced in the memo is a
new award to be added to the Notable
Achievement Awards, for Superfund
Financial Manager of the Year. The cri-
teria for the award will focus on devel-
oping, implementing, and sharing best
practices to ensure accurate site-spe-
cific charging.
  For more information on these fiscal
measures,  contact Bruce Pumphrey,
OSRE, 202-564-6076.

USTf ields Pilots
Announced
EPA has announced grants for ten
communities in  a new initiative to
clean  up  abandoned  underground
petroleum tanks. The new program
places special emphasis on communi-
ties  with  environmental  problems
caused by the fuel additive MTBE.
Like the successful Brownfields pro-
gram, the new program, called UST-
fields, will provide grants to states for
community  pilot projects to  plan
cleanups,  stop  contamination  of
groundwater, protect  public health,
and allow for future economic devel-
opment of the sites.
   Communities in ten states are tar-
geted to  receive $100,000 each for
assessment  and cleanup  of these
abandoned tanks. The ten communi-
ties include: Nashua, NH; Trenton,
NJ; Wilmington,  DE; Anderson, SC;
Chicago, IL; Kansas City, MO; Albu-
querque,  NM; Salt Lake  City,  UT;
Oakland, CA; and Portland, OR.  EPA
plans to select forty more USTfields
pilot projects in 2001. These  UST-
fields pilots are intended to be a sup-
plement or attachment to an existing
EPA cleanup  and redevelopment
pilot such as a Brownfields assess-
ment .
   Like a Brownfield, an USTfield is a
site or a portion of a site that has actual
or perceived  contamination, as well as
an active potential for redevelopment
or reuse. Petroleum contamination is
generally  excluded from cleanup
under EPAs Superfund and Brown-
fields programs due to the petroleum
exemption under the Superfund law.
As a result, the cleanup and redevel-
opment of properties containing aban-
doned underground storage tanks are
either not  occurring or are delayed.
Under the new USTfields Initiative,
local communities  can  use federal
grant money to  interest  developers
and  citizens  in  helping to   plan
cleanups of these tanks, as well as to
leverage new funds to complete the
job. In addition to protecting public
health  and  the  environment,  such
actions will  create new commerce,
new jobs, and  local neighborhood
improvements.
   Special consideration is given in the
awarding of grants to cities experienc-
ing problems from MTBE contamina-
tion. MTBE is a fuel additive that ful-
fills a provision required by Congress
under the Clean Air Act. A Blue Rib-
bon Panel assembled by EPA has
determined that MTBE poses special
risks to groundwater. EPA has subse-
quently called on Congress to elimi-
nate MTBE from reformulated gaso-
line and, as a backstop measure, is also
beginning regulatory action aimed at
eliminating MTBE  under the  Toxic
Substances Control Act.
   For more  information  about  the
USTfields Initiative,  go  to www.epa.
gov/oust and look under  "What's
New."


Brownfields
Showcases  Selected
Twelve new Brownfields Showcase
Communities were  selected in Octo-
ber 2000  to demonstrate the benefits
of collaborative activity on Brown-
fields. The 15 federal agencies partici-
pating  in the  Brownfields National
Partnership  will offer  coordinated
technical, financial, and other assis-
tance to  the selected communities.
The showcase communities include
nine federally designated Empower-
ment Zones/Enterprise Communities,
four small/rural communities, two
tribes, and one Base Realignment and
Closure Community (BRAC).
   The first  round of 16 Showcase
Communities, announced in  March
1998, has leveraged more than $900
million in economic  redevelopment
funds. For more information, call 202-
2604039 or visit the EPA Brownfields
website  at:   http://www.epa.gov/
brownfields/showcase.htm.
                                                                                                 Cleanup News

-------
June  10-13, 2001
2001 International Containment &
Remediation Technology
Conference and  Exhibition
Orlando, FL

State-of-the-art and innovative technologies for contain-
ment, remediation, and long-term monitoring of conta-
minated sites, with a particular focus on issues of impor-
tance DOE  and  other  federal  agencies  conducting
defensible assessments of the present and post-closure
cumulative effects of radioactive and chemical contam-
ination at hazardous waste sites.
Contact:http://www.containment.fsu.edu
  Cleanup News is trying to  move to an elec-
  tronic  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 convenience.
  Please send your name and e-mail address to
  Robert France at rfrance@scicomm.com or fax
  to 301-652-7001. Cleanup News is  available
  on the web at www.epa.gov/oeca/osre.
                                                              CEPPO     Chemical Emergency Preparedness and
                                                                        Prevention Office
                                                              CERCLA    Comprehensive Emergency
                                                                        Response, Compensation, and Liability
                                                                        Act (Superfund law)
                                                              EPCRA     Emergency Planning and Community
                                                                        Right-To-KnowAct
                                                              LEPC       Local Emergency Planning Committee
                                                              MTBE      Methyl-tert-butyl ether
                                                              NPL       National Priorities List (Superfund)
                                                              OERR      Office of Emergency and Remedial
                                                                        Reponse (EPA)
                                                              PCB       Polychorinated biphenyls
                                                              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 and Innovation Office.
 PRP

 RCRA


 RPM

 RSD

 SERC


 SREA

 UAO

 UST
Potentially Responsible Party
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (hazardous waste)
Regional Project Manager
Regional Support Division (OSRE/EPA)
State Emergency Response
Commission
Superfund Recycling Equity Act
Unilateral Administrative Order
Underground Storage Tank
Rick Popino,Ph.D., editor
EPA Review Board : Rick Popho, Ph.D., Paul
Connor, Karen Ellenberger, Ken Patterson,
Helen Duleau, Jeff Heimerman, Carole Macko
Cameron
Gilah Langner, writer
Robin Foster, SciComm Inc., 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,
                                                              5th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814, fax: 301-652-7001, e-mail: rfrance@scicomm.com.
aivd
   'ON
     Vd3
          aovisod
         isaid
                                                                                                                                         ooe$
                                                                                                                          asfl ajBAUj joj jCueuaj
                                                                                                                               sssmsng reprfjQ
                                                                                                                            09KK 3d '

-------