United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5101)
EPA505-B-99-002
April 1999
www.epa.gov/swerffrr/
In Progress
EPA Update on Federal Facility Cleanup and Reuse
Going Wild
Bases Find New Life as Refuges
Celebrating
Success
M
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.
Goals:
Long-term guideposts or building blocks used
together to achieve the strategic plan.
Objectives:
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
Philosophy
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
Guidance
U.S. EPA, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA505-98-007
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
occurs.
Federal Facilities
Restoration and
Reuse Office
Introductory
Brochure
U.S. EPA, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA505-B-98-003
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-
ment.
F^—^— ~^~~~ . .'.
Strengthening
Brownfields
Redevelopment
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.
BRAC Talk
Environmental Base
Realignment and Closure
News
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.
TheCommunity
Connection
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
participation:
• 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
beginning.
• 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
meeting.
Validate public participation:
• Show that public input was used and in what way.
• Initiate procedures to track correspondence and
responses.
• 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
sincerity.
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
I
'/ilization. It is what we seels: today."
— President'tyndon B. Johnsi
UUWUP2
•wUttrli
-------
Cyber
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
j/*"~~
hazards of lead-based
paint and lead dust
and debris, as well as
links to non-EPA
resources for lead
poisoning prevention.
-------
Lasagna™ Is
Served!
FromTheField
T
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
soils.
Q: What is TCE and how did the soil and
groundwater around Paducah become cont-
aminated?
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
Paducah?
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.
Technology
Hectical ::aential
around
CQfltiminaLcd
Hi
-.
Q: Why is Lasagna™
called an "innovative
technology?"
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
Paducah.
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
cleanups?
••'"IV
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
-------
Compostmg
aves Million
KaMaturally
BreakingNews
A!
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
cleanups.
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
stockholders.
• 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 .
Agency/Organization:
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Phone Number:.
E-mail:_
-------
Are Your Tanks In
Compliance?
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
------- |