United States
 Environmental Protection
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
                                           April 1999
                                          In   Progress
      EPA Update on  Federal Facility Cleanup  and  Reuse
 Going  Wild
 Bases Find New  Life as  Refuges
          ilitary facilities that once protected our
          nation during the Cold War are now
          being used to protect our wildlife. The
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is transferring
prime real estate once occupied by the military to other
federal agencies for use as wildlife refuges.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), as many as 100,000 acres of military
property could be converted into refuge parks
by the year 2000.
   From coast to coast, communities are reaping the
 benefits of these land transfers. According to the FWS,
 tourists, educators, researchers, bird watchers, and hikers visit
 wildlife refuges in the United States 34 million times a year.
 Refuges contribute to local economies by boosting tourism,
 and enhance the quality of life for residents by improving a
 region's aesthetic beauty and by offering educational

 Stakeholder  to Stockholder
 A Tool for Environmental Justice and  Public Participation
 by John A. Rosen thall

     For years, communities have felt
     alienated from Superfund cleanups,
     military base closures, and
 Brownfields redevelopment projects
 because they were not involved in remedi-
 ation and land use decisions. As a result,
 residents were often unable to change
 unwanted land use patterns, reduce pollu-
 tion levels, or maintain economic and
 employment opportunities.
                       A new business venture is changing this
                     situation, enabling residents to become
                     both stakeholders and stockholders.
                     Community members partner with orga-
                     nizations to purchase stock that allows
                     them to own all or part of a business
                     dedicated to environmental cleanup, com-
                     munity redevelopment,  or related services.
                     As stakeholders, community members
                     gain meaningful participation in decisions
 Federal   Cleanups  That  Put  Citizens   First

Fulfilling  A  Mission

The  Government  Performance

and  Results  Act of 1993

by Renee Wynn

      The principal purpose of the Government
      Performance and Results Act (GPRA), enacted in
      1993, is to hold federal agencies accountable for
achieving results, quality, and customer satisfaction by
requiring them to set goals, measure performance, and
report publicly on their progress. The three major
requirements of the act are:

• Develop and submit a five-year strategic plan to
  Congress by September 30, 1997. The plan must
  cover EPA's mission, general goals, and objectives;
  explain how these will be met; and  discuss any signifi-
  cant factors affecting the achievement of the goals.

• Submit an annual performance plan to the Office of
  Management and Budget each year during the budget
  development cycle beginning with the fiscal year (FY)
  1999 budget. The plan must  outline objectives,
  resources, and performance measures to meet the goals
  and mission of the Agency.

• Prepare annual program performance reports that outline
  the Agency's successes and failures in meeting the perfor-
  mance measures stated in the corresponding plan. The
  report for FY 1999 is due to Congress by March 30, 2000.
                                                  What do the terms mean?

                                                  EPA's Strategic Plan:
                                                    A blueprint for achieving human health and environ-
                                                    mental protection over the next five years.

                                                    Long-term guideposts or building blocks used
                                                    together to achieve the strategic plan.

                                                    Short-term measures for each goal that describe in
                                                    greater detail the specific, tangible results that EPA
                                                    plans to achieve in five years.

                                                  Performance Measures:
                                                    Results or activities to determine whether the Agency
                                                    is making progress towards its objectives.
                                                   Developing the strategic plan was a challenge for the
                                                Agency, given the complexity of environmental statutes and
                                                the number of partners and stakeholders involved (e.g.,
                                                other federal agencies, tribes and tribal governments, state
                                                and local governments, organizations, and citizens). By
                                                working with these partners and stakeholders, however,
                                                EPA can better achieve these goals and more easily develop
                                                future strategic plans, objectives, and performance measures
                                                for protecting human health and the environment. E3

                                                   Renee Wynn is the associate director of FFRRO.

                                                   The first in a series of three, this article introduces
                                                GPRA. Additional articles will outline what the Super fund
                                                Federal Facilities program is doing to comply with the law
                                                and identify ways for stakeholders  to participate.
Acronyms  Explained
ASTSWMO   Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
           Management Officials
BCT        BRAC Cleanup Team
BRAC       Base Realignment and Closure
DERTF      Defense Environmental Response Task Force
DoD        U.S. Department of Defense
DOE        U.S. Department of Energy
EPA        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFRRO      Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FUDS       Formerly Used Defense Sites
FWS        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
NPL        National Priorities List
SWMU 91    Solid Waste Management Unit 91
TCE        Trichloroethylene
UST        Underground Storage Tank
UXO        Unexploded Ordnance
                                                            Partners In  Progress


                                                              Stakeholders involved in federal facility
                                                            cleanups are diverse, with differing backgrounds,
                                                            interests, and perspectives. All of these stake-
                                                            holders, however, share a single common
                                                            goal—progress. Partners In Progress (PIP) pro-
                                                            vides an open forum for stakeholders to
                                                            exchange information, offer solutions, and share
                                                            stories about what works and what doesn't. We
                                                            encourage you—our readers—to write to us
                                                            about your activities that foster teamwork, pro-
                                                            mote innovation, and strengthen community
                                                            involvement. Only by working together can we
                                                            achieve "federal cleanups that put citizens first."
                                                                 not necessarily reflect the views,
                                                               positions, or policies of the Agency.

Hot   Off  the  Presses
  To receive a free copy of any of the following three
FFRRO documents, contact Leo Pineda at 703 841-0893
or . The documents are also available on
FFRRO's Web site at .
    Overview of
    Early Transfer
    U.S. EPA, Solid Waste and
    Emergency Response
    January 1999
       By allowing the trans-
    fer of property that poses
    no unacceptable risks
    before cleanup is com-
    pleted, EPA helps
    communities benefit from
    faster reuse and redevel-
    opment of federal
    facilities. FFRRO devel-
    oped this fact sheet to
    inform communities and
    federal facility cleanup
    teams  of this opportunity
    while ensuring that pro-
    posed  transfer and land
    use decisions protect
    human health and the
    environment. The publi-
    cation answers pertinent
    questions such as who
    benefits from early trans-
    fer; when the early
    transfer guidance applies;
    how the  early transfer
    process works; how a
    property gets considered
    for early transfer; and
    when early transfer
Federal  Facilities
Restoration and
Reuse Office
U.S. EPA, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1998

  Since its establishment
in 1994, EPA's FFRRO
has worked with DoD,
the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), and other
federal agencies to devel-
op creative, cost-effective
solutions to environmen-
tal problems at federal
facilities. This brochure
combines facts and figures
with individual case stud-
ies to demonstrate how
FFRRO is helping to
restore environmental
and economic well-being
to affected communities
through partnerships,
innovative technologies,
and community involve-
                                  F^—^— ~^~~~  . .'.
U.S. EPA, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1998

  FFRRO's new fact sheet,
Strengthening Brownfields
Redevelopment, describes
how various groups and
federal agencies have
teamed up to develop new
outreach strategies to clean
up Brownfields.
Brownfields are aban-
doned, idled, or under-
used industrial and
commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelop-
ment is complicated by
environmental contamina-
tion. Because Brownfields
properties and  contamin-
ated federal facilities face
similar challenges and must
comply with the same
environmental laws, it is
important that EPA offices
and federal agencies work
together to help rebuild
these properties into envi-
ronmentally safe and
economically productive
communities. This fact
sheet explains what
FFRRO is doing to help
achieve that goal.
Environmental Base
Realignment and Closure

  Published by the Naval
Facilities Engineering
Service Center, this
quarterly newsletter
focuses on environmental
cleanup at Navy BRAC
installations. BRAC Talk
has reported on such
issues as covenants and
indemnification in
property transactions,
overlapping environmen-
tal regulations, and
specific actions taken at
various naval facilities.
Also included in the
newsletter is a list of Web
sites and a Navy BRAC
contacts list (provided in
every other issue).
  To receive a copy of
the latest BRAC Talk,
contact Ernestine
Rodriguez at 805 982-
4876 or . The
newsletter also can be
viewed in PDF format on
the Internet at

 Community Dynamics  Explored  at Recent  Conference
 by Marsha Minter

 The January issue of PIP shared highlights from EPA's 1998
 National Community Involvement Conference.  This is the
 second article of a two-part series.
       At EPA's 1998 National
       Community Involvement
       Conference, several workshops
provided techniques and guidelines for
working effectively with communities.
Below are the five "tools of the trade"
summarized from the workshops. I
hope they can assist with strengthen-
ing your community connections.
 Encourage active community

 •  Pick a convenient location within the community rather
   than at the federal facility.
 •  Arrange seating in a circle to facilitate interactive dialogue.
 •  Introduce those in attendance.
 •  Establish a meeting process and set ground rules at the
 •  Provide various ways to participate  (verbal or written
   and public or private).
 •  Take outside concerns such as meeting time, accessibili-
   ty, and child care into consideration when planning the
Validate  public participation:

• Show that public input was used and in what way.
• Initiate procedures to track correspondence and
• Interview stakeholders and tailor the participation
  process accordingly.

Recognize  community knowledge:

• Listen carefully to what is being said and build upon
  what is offered.
• Work with community leaders.

Use the  appropriate cultural approach:

• Provide translators or translated materials when necessary.
• Create a new participation process to reflect the com-
  munity's culture (s).
• Encourage participation through appropriate media
  (e.g., newspapers,  public notices, flyers, letters, and
  radio and television ads).

Maintain honesty and  integrity:

• Articulate goals, experiences, and limitations.
• Show a willingness to discuss tough topics.
• Enhance attendance through personal contact and

  When properly applied, these tools can create a success-
ful community involvement program in which citizens and
 Community Connection Refle
   "The American cityjjwuld be a collect
 ties where every m
      uld be a collection of communi
     r has a right to belong. It should
 be a place where every man feels safe on his stree*
  i the house of his friends. It should be a place \
  ich individual's dignity and self-respect is strengthened
  1 the respect'and affection of his neighbors. It should be
    1   e where each of us can find the satisfaction and
      th which comes from J9reing a member of the com-
  lunity of man. This is what man sought at the dawn of
  '/ilization. It is what we seels: today."
                       — President'tyndon B. Johnsi

                                                                  I e ws
                       Minter speaks about community
                       involvement at an environmental
                      justice symposium.
agencies are seen as
equal partners in
the dialogue on
cleanup issues.  As a
result, those most
affected by federal
cleanups have the
opportunity to be
fully informed  and
to work together
with federal offi-
cials  to develop
cleanup solutions.
Collectively, com-
munity members
can reach reasonable solutions that improve our com-
munities and protect our environment.  E3

   Marsha Minter is FFRRO's Community Involvement
National Program Manager.
           Mark your calender for :

   EPA's 1999 National Community
        Involvement Conference
                 May 24-27, 1999
                   Crowne Plaza
                Kansas City, Missouri
  In response to the Community Connection column
in the January issue, public participation leaders from
across the country have been in touch with the FFRRO
office. Representatives from New York to California, and
involvement programs in their own areas and are looking
for more information. These and other representatives
will be happy to know an abundance of information on
public involvement techniques is available. For a partial
listing of these guides and manuals, please visit the EPA
home page at . I
hope they will be useful in your endeavors. As always,
questions or comments concerning this article or other
community issues can be directed to me at 202  260-
6626  or . Thanks for your
response and keep reading.
< www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/>

  In an effort to make residential and federal buildings
environmentally safer for everyone, the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics' lead Web site offers a comprehen-
sive list of educational and preventive lead poisoning
programs and lead hazard standards. Lead-based paints
were used widely at federal facilities, presenting a potential
health risk to children and adults. Included on this site are
numerous general education documents providing infor-
mation on the health    	
hazards of lead-based
paint and lead dust
and debris, as well as
links to non-EPA
resources for lead
poisoning prevention.
Lasagna™    Is
     o learn about the innovative
     Lasagna" Technology used to
     remove trichloroethylene (TCE)
from clayey soil at the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah,
Kentucky, Partners In Progress
interviewed Carl R. Froedejr., of
EPA Region 4.
                                                 Q: What are your responsibilities at the
                                                 Paducah facility?

                                                 A: The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant can be viewed
                                                 as two separate facilities: the active uranium enrichment
                                                 plant, now operated by the United States Enrichment
                                                 Corporation, which provides fuel for commercial reac-
                                                 tors; and the legacy waste site, currently undergoing
                                                 remediation by DOE. Recently, I had the opportunity to
                                                 work with the Commonwealth of Kentucky and DOE
                                                 on a tough cleanup project involving TCE contaminated
                                                 soil at part of the legacy waste site we identified as Solid
                                                 Waste Management Unit 91 (SWMU 91). DOE used
                                                 the site to test the structural integrity of steel drums used
                                                 to transport uranium ore. This testing resulted in the
                                                 release of large volumes of TCE into the surrounding

                                                 Q: What is TCE and how did the soil and
                                                 groundwater around Paducah become cont-

                                                 A: Before it was known how dangerous it could be to
                                                 human health and the environment, the chemical solu-
                                                 tion TCE was used at many industrial complexes as a
                                                 solvent to clean mechanical parts and components.
                                                 Although its hazardous nature now precludes its use as a
                                                 solvent, years of use and poor housekeeping practices
                                                 resulted in widespread contamination across the Paducah
                                                 facility. At the Paducah SWMU 91 site, TCE contami-
                                                 nation of the soils and underlying groundwater is a
                                                 result of leakage from a concrete cooling tank and
                                                 splashing associated with drop-testing steel containers.

                                                 Q: What is the  goal  for remediation at

                                                 A: Our goal from the start was to find an effective and
                                                 efficient solution for removing TCE contamination from
                                                 the soil while restoring a safe drinking water supply to
                                                 the neighboring community. Removing TCE from the
                                                 soil, the source of the contamination, is our  first priority
                                                 because doing so will alleviate further contamination of
                                                 groundwater. Cleanup options were limited, though,
                                                 involving digging up the soil and either burning it to
                                                 eliminate the TCE or hauling the soil to a remote

location. Neither option is ideal. DOE, EPA, and the
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
sought an innovative solution that would address conta-
mination in ways that reduced toxicity, mobility, and the
volume of waste. That's where Lasagna™ comes in.

Q: How does Lasagna™ help you  achieve
your cleanup goals?

A: Lasagna™ is an innovative technology that remediates
TCE-contaminated soil. Named for the layering of
sands, silts, and clays beneath ground level, Lasagna™
generates an electric field in the soil that drives water
with dissolved contaminants through destruction zones
made of kaolin (a fine white clay) and iron reactive
walls. As the water comes into contact with the iron
filings, the TCE is destroyed by chemical means.

  Lasagna™ performed  well in two rounds of testing. In
fact, the technology showed such promise as a way to
flush contaminants out  of the tight, clayey soil found at
Paducah, we signed a Record of Decision on August 10,
1998, to use Lasagna™ to remediate the SWMU 91 site.
As a result,  two years of full-scale testing to verify the
efficacy of the technology at SWMU 91 has begun and
can be  extended for  another  18 months.

Q: What results  do you anticipate?

A: When Lasagna™ is fully operational, DOE anticipates
complete destruction of the TCE within two to four
years, as opposed to potentially hundreds of years with
conventional treatments. That's why we're excited. We're
not transferring contamination to another media; we're
eliminating it altogether.
                        Hectical ::aential
                           Q: Why is Lasagna™
                           called an "innovative

                           A: An innovative technology is
                           something that has never been
                           done before. Lasagna™ is con-
                           sidered an innovative
                           technology because although it
                           involves an existing technology,
                           its application is entirely new.
                           Electro-osmosis—the process of
                           generating an electric current
                           between a positive and negative
                           pole in the ground—has been
                           used in industry for so long
                           that it gets big yawns from
                           engineers now. But adding
                           iron-filing reactive walls to
                           destroy contamination within the
                           subsurface and driving contaminat-
                           ed water through those walls, that's
                           technology becomes  innovative.
                          Lasagna™ in operation at

                      where the
                           Q: Who developed Lasagna™?

                           A: DOE solicited major industries to test innovative
                           technologies at its facilities. The Lasagna™ group, made
                           up of Monsanto, Dupont, and General Electric corpora-
                           tions, approached DOE with this technology that
                           eliminates TCE. DOE selected Paducah as the most
                           appropriate site to demonstrate that technology and
                           solicited EPA's involvement. We all worked together to
                           test the Lasagna™ technology.

                                     Q: What does this mean for future
A: Lasagna™ gives us technology that results
in effective TCE destruction at a reasonable
cost. The cost of cleaning 1 cubic yard of soil
in this way is estimated to be $190, consider-
ably less than alternatives that require removal
and possible transportation of contaminated
soil. This project also shows that the regulat-
ing community can work with federal
facilities and with  partners in industry to
demonstrate and successfully  implement
innovative technologies across the nation.

   To learn more about the use of Lasagna™ at
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, look for
FFRRO's newest fact sheet, Cooking Up
Solutions: Cleaning Up With Lasagna™, due
to be published in May 1999.  E3

             aves   Million
                        kt a growing number of mili-
                        tary bases, an innovative
                        remediation technology proves
                that it is possible to completely elimi-
                nate munitions-derived contaminants
                found in soil for less money and time
                than traditional treatments. Performed
                on-site, composting cleans up facilities
using naturally occurring microorganisms in the soil, which
digest and break down chemical compounds in explosives
into harmless fragments that are incorporated into the
humus of the soil, creating a potting-soil quality material.
  At both Umatilla Chemical Depot in Hermiston,
Oregon, and Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne,
Nevada, unlined evaporation lagoons held wastewater pro-
duced from cleaning Trinitrotoluene,  Royal Demolition
Explosives, and other explosives out of decommissioned
bombs. After the water evaporated, workers excavated and
burned the residual solids. Over the years, however, the
contaminants in the wastewater seeped into the underlying
soil and groundwater, placing both facilities on the
National Priorities List (NPL) for hazardous waste cleanup.

Testing Composting Efficiency
  In an effort to save time and money, the BRAC
Cleanup Team (BCT) considered a number of innova-
tive treatment methods to address the contamination
problem. The BCT, made  up  of representatives from the
Umatilla Chemical Depot, EPA Region 10, and the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, ulti-
mately chose  composting.  Workers at Umatilla mixed
the contaminated soil with nutrients in the form of hay,
cow manure,  sawdust, and potato scraps to aid in the
composting process.
  Umatilla's use of composting represented the first time
this method was employed to remediate explosives at an
NPL site. The cleanup effort was a success.  A total of
14,800 tons of soil were completely decontaminated of
hazardous substances, and  the composting method saved
the base an estimated $3.8 million—approximately  one-
half the cost of incineration, the treatment method usual-
ly employed. In addition, the combination of composting
and other innovative site assessment and remedial tech-
nologies reduced the cleanup time by three years.

Repeated Success
  Based on the positive results demonstrated at Umatilla,
cleanup officials at Hawthorne Army Depot and the Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection decided that com-
posting should be used to treat contaminated soils there.
They estimated that composting could potentially save the
base $3.6 million in treatment costs. A pilot project focusing
on 2,800 cubic yards of soil was conducted in 1997.
  Workers excavated targeted soils and mixed them with
clean soil. This step was necessary because contamina-
tion levels were as high as  10,000 parts per million,
exceeding allowable levels for soil excavation. The mixed
soil was then combined with wood chips, cow manure,
hay, and potato scraps  to provide the ingredients needed
for successful composting to occur.
  Workers formed the soil mixture into piles, or
windrows, adjacent to the  contaminated area. They facil-
itated the composting process by watering and turning
the windrows daily to provide essential oxygen and water
that the bacteria need to thrive. Also, project managers
monitored moisture and temperature levels regularly to
ensure the proper conditions were maintained through-
out the process. After only 20 days, composting was
completed. Sampling showed that no detectable levels of
explosives remained in the soil. The remediated  soil was
used to backfill the excavated lagoons. The area  was then
seeded with desert plants. Because composting produces
a nutrient-rich product comparable to an enriched top
soil, plant growth occurred easily. Due to the success of
the pilot project, composting of the remaining 41,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil began in late 1998.

Additional Opportunities for Savings
  Promising results at these and other facilities demon-
strate that composting is an effective and practical way
to remediate explosive-contaminated soils. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $200 million
could be saved if composting were  used to clean up the
remaining U.S.  munitions sites. This innovative and nat-
ural decontamination approach also fulfills FFRRO's
goal to ensure faster, more effective, and less costly
   To read more about composting explosives and some
successful cleanup projects, visit these Internet sites: The
Composting Alternative to Incineration of Explosives
Contaminated Soils, ; Innovative Uses of Compost:
Composting of Soils Contaminated by Explosives, .  EH

Going Wild

and recreational  opportunities.
   Hunting, fishing, and hiking are just a few of the activi-
ties the citizens of Laurel, Maryland, now enjoy at
Patuxent Research Refuge, formerly Fort Meade. DoD
turned over more than 8,000 acres of the former Army
munitions testing ground to the refuge in 1991.  The facili-
ty now provides a haven for hundreds of species  of
migratory birds and wildlife, including bald eagles, deer,
and foxes.
           bird refuge where rare species like red-tailed hawks and
           osprey already have taken up residence. A variety of
           other wildlife such as deer,  beavers, owls, foxes, hawks,
           and song birds also call the annex home. According to
           Bud Oliveira, Refuge Manager at the Great Meadows
           National Wildlife Refuge, FWS is working to acquire a
           total of 2,205  acres of the site by the end of 1999.
              On America's west coast, Mare Island Navy Base, a
           major ship construction and repair facility in California,
           has undergone a successful transformation of its own. In
           January 1998, FWS and the California State Lands
           Commission negotiated a lease that added 2,370 acres of
   EPA Remedial Project Manager at Fort
Meade, Nicholas Dinardo, recalled that
citizens did not want the facility developed
into an industrial or commercial area.
"Because of the community's input, Fort
Meade is now a wildlife refuge." "The
community was  very supportive of the
transfer," added  Nell Baldacchino,
Education Team Leader of the Patuxent
Research Refuge.
   In the  neighboring state of Virginia, the former
Woodbridge Research Facility is enjoying  similar success.
Used by the Army as a radio transmission and electromag-
netic research facility for 48 years, it was officially
transferred to FWS in June 1998. Today, the 580 acres of
wetlands, forests, and meadows are part of the Occoquan
Bay National Wildlife Refuge. More than 214 bird species
have already been documented on the refuge, making the
facility one of the richest concentrations of bird life in
Virginia. The tall bluffs of the refuge also  provide havens
for eagles and great blue herons.
   Great blue herons are also finding a home at the Fort
Devens Sudbury Training Annex in
Massachusetts, which is currently
being transferred to FWS. The
acility will primarily be used
for habitat restoration
efforts and as a migratory
   "Because  of the  community's input,
Fort Meade is now a wildlife refuge."
      —Nicholas Dinardo, EPA Regional Project Manager at Fort Meade, MD
           the former Navy base to the San Pablo Bay National
           Wildlife Refuge. This land, comprised of wetlands,
           ponds, and open water, will be used primarily as a habitat
           for migratory birds, waterfowl, and the endangered
           California clapper rail and saltmarsh harvest mouse.
              In addition to the wildlife protected by these refuges,
           dwindling plant life also is reaping the benefits of base
           transitions. Formerly the world's largest TNT factory, the
           Joliet Arsenal in Illinois was cleaned up and transferred by
           the Army in 1997 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
           Forest Service to create the Midewin National Tallgrass
           Prairie. The nation's first federally designated tallgrass
           prairie spreads across 19,000 acres, providing the nearby
           community with recreational opportunities  and conserving
           habitats for plants and wildlife.
              Successful transformation of these military facilities
           benefits communities. EPA, in  cooperation with DoD,
           the U.S. Department of Interior, and local residents,  is
           working to make cleanup efforts more efficient while
           providing a safe environment for both wildlife and the
           public. With continued support from EPA more of
           America's closing military sites will now defend the
           nation's wildlife. E3

Stakeholder to Stockholder

that impact their lives. As stockholders, residents have
greater access to timely and correct information.
  The general principle  behind the Stakeholder to
Stockholder idea is to maintain the proper balance of
professional managers and community members to
ensure sound and profitable practices are carried out in
the best interest of the community. The Stakeholder to
Stockholder strategy enables residents, who might lack
the business skills or capital necessary  to develop and
manage a profitable business, to own all or part of this
new business.  Residents  can buy stocks at a price as low
as $ 1  per share while professional business managers
and others with sufficient capital own  the remaining
shares of stock. Cleanup and redevelopment decisions
and the resulting profits  are therefore shared among all
• Improve communication between business and the
  community: Traditionally, businesses that operate in
  low-income or minority areas do not keep local resi-
  dents informed about company activities. A business
  partially owned by the community provides a model
  for how businesses can interact more positively with
  the surrounding community.
• Create wealth in the community by developing a
  profitable business: Since Stakeholder to Stockholder
  will create  a for-profit business, residents should expect
  the enterprise to turn a profit, of which they will
  receive their fair share. In addition, the enterprise will
  create  other kinds  of wealth such as new job skills,
  opportunities for spin-off businesses, and social connec-
  tions that come from broad-based  community work.
  Stakeholder to Stockholder businesses may be created
on publicly or privately owned Brownfields or military
bases that are being disposed of as part of the base realign-
ment and closure BRAC  process. The individual steps for
  The four goals of Stakeholder to Stockholder are:
  Empower community residents to meaningfully par-
  ticipate in environmental and economic
  development: Residents who own all or part of a for-
  profit business will gain a larger voice in their
  community's cleanup, redevelopment, and sustainabili-
  ty. A business owned in whole or in part by the
  community is in a unique position to help shape the
  commercial development of the neighborhood.
  Empower community residents to meaningfully
  participate in environmental decisionmaking:
  Community residents with a present or future equity
  interest will demand more information about the
  remediation component of a redevelopment project,
  and have a greater influence in how the cleanup and
  redevelopment proceeds.
business formation are identical, but the order of those
steps might differ slightly depending on a variety of fac-
tors. The desired outcome, however, will be the same—a
profitable business owned in whole or part by impacted
community residents and operated in the  best interest of
the community.
  John A. Rosenthall is Director of the Howard University
Urban Environment Institute in Washington, DC.
Stakeholder to Stockholder, a project of Howard University
Continuing Education and Arthur Andersen, LLP, was devel-
oped through a cooperative agreement between Howard
University Continuing Education and EPA's Federal
Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office (FFRRO). Stakeholder
to Stockholder pilot projects are currently in progress at
Brownfields and BRA C sites. For additional information
about Stakeholder to Stockholder contact John Rosenthall at
301-585-2295or . EH

Working  Toward  the

Safe  Reuse  of  FUDS
by Douglas A. Bell and Sean M. Flynn

      Recipients of former  DoD property could unknow-
      ingly be sitting on a former military range. Most
      of the more than 9,000 formerly used defense
sites (FUDS)  scattered across the country are now rest-
ing  in the  hands of private parties. Many of these
properties are former U.S. military ranges, which were
used for everything from testing conventional, chemical,
and biological weapons to training troops.  It is not yet
known how many FUDs are former ranges; however, the
military currently estimates that approximately 2,700  of
these sites contain unexploded ordnance (UXO).

  Many FUDS were transferred by DoD in the 1950s
or 1960s, prior to the introduction of extensive investi-
gation and site characterization requirements by
environmental regulators.  In addition, a significant
number of these sites were located in remote areas and
generally thought to be forever out of reach by the pub-
lic. As cities have expanded outward over time, some of
the  more remote  FUDS have become  prime targets for
development  or redevelopment.
  Such increased public access to these sites concerns
EPA, states, citizens, and other stakeholders, given the
suspected widespread UXO contamination at FUDS
and the uncertainties regarding exposure risks. Former
military ranges represent possibly the greatest cause for
concern because they have been relinquished from
DoD control, in many cases without adequate site
characterization or risk assessment. Since these sites
often are being used for recreational, residential, or retail
purposes, the public might be at risk from exposure to
UXO and other military waste and not even know it.
   Meaningful EPA and state involvement is essential to
ensure the protection of public health and the environ-
ment at these sites. Presently, EPA is working with DoD,
military components, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), which administers DoD's FUDS pro-
gram, to better address UXO contamination nationwide,
especially at former military ranges where UXO is
known or suspected to be present.
   In addition, an internal EPA workgroup continues to
assess the challenges EPA regional offices face when
working with the  Corps to oversee identification and
cleanup of FUDS. The Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) Current Issues Task Force is performing
similar work, recently conducting a survey concerning
the validity of the Corps' cleanup assessments at FUDS.
In the spirit of partnering, EPA and the ASTSWMO
Current Issues Task Force are meeting jointly with the
Corps to discuss key issues and to mutually explore
mechanisms for working together to improve the FUDS
program through  enhanced regulatory participation.
   These and other partnering efforts will result in
greater assurances that former military ranges and  other
FUDS are cleaned up well enough to support safe reuse
of the property. EH
   Douglas A. Bell is an environmental scientist at FFRRO
where he manages military range issues nationwide. Sean
M. Flynn is a program analyst for FFRRO.
  Write  To Us
  We encourage your questions, comments, and contributions. Please send your input to Deborah Leblang by mail at U.S.
  EPA/FFRRO, Mailcode: 5101, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail at ; or fax at
  202 260-5646.
  Join  Our Mailing List
  If you would like to be on the FFRRO mailing list to receive
  future issues of Partners In Progress, please fill out and
  return this form to ERG, c/o Leo Pineda, 2200 Wilson
  Boulevard, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201-3324; or fax to
  703 841-1440. Alternately, you can send your request via
  e-mail to .

Street Address:	

                Zip Code:
                                                       Phone Number:.

Are Your Tanks  In


by Deborah Leblang
      The deadline for complying with EPA's Underground
      Storage Tank (UST) regulations has passed. If you still
      have a substandard UST installed before December
22, 1988 on your federal facility, it is time for action.
  All USTs should now be protected against corrosion,
spills, and overfills. Compliance can be achieved by imple-
menting one of the following remedies!
• Upgrade the UST by adding spill, overfill,  and corro-
  sion protection.
• Replace the  UST with a new tank that has spill, over-
  fill, and corrosion protection.
• Permanently close the UST or temporarily close the
  tank until it can be upgraded or replaced.
  These UST regulations are vital in preventing yet
another generation of substandard tanks from contami-
nating soil, groundwater, and drinking water.  More than
370,000 UST releases have been reported—about half of
which have contaminated groundwater. Such leaks have
Open manway showing catch basin
and pressurized piping (without the
line leak detector yet installed).
caused fires and explo-
sions or released toxic
fumes into schools,
homes, and other build-
ings. Not only can
leaking USTs harm peo-
ple and the environment,
but they produce costly
cleanup bills. The aver-
age cost of a UST cleanup is $125,000; groundwater
cleanups often exceed $ 1  million.
   Failure to meet the above requirements can result in
penalties of up to $11,000 per day, per tank, for each vio-
lation. EPA is focusing inspection resources in areas that
will produce the greatest benefits to the environment and
human health. In particular, EPA is concentrating on fed-
eral facilities, owners and  operators of multiple facilities or
large facilities with multiple USTs, and facilities endanger-
ing sensitive ecosystems or drinking water.
   To learn more about UST policies,  visit the home page
for the Office of Underground Storage Tanks at
. You also can order a free 16-page
booklet entitled Don't Wait Until  1998: Spill, Overfill,
and Corrosion Protection for USTs by calling EPA's
RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346.  E3