FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE MEETING
Arlington, Virginia
May 13,1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
REMEDY SELECTION AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 2
Remedy Selection Process: The Key to Moving Technologies from Development to the Field ... 2
The Concept of Performance-Based Remedy Selection: Case Studies 4
Performance-Based Contracting at DOE 5
The DOE Technology Deployment Initiative 6
EPA Efforts to Promote Performance-Based Remedy Selection at Federal Facilities 7
ACCELERATED SITE CHARACTERIZATION 8
Promoting an Understanding of Accelerated or Expedited Characterization Processes 8
Interagency Training/Opportunities 8
Presumptive Characterization and Expedited Process Inventory and Evaluation 8
EPA Training: Field-Based Characterization Technology Workshop 8
American Society for Testing Materials Standards for Expedited and Accelerated Site
Characterization 8
DOE Training on Expedited Characterization 9
Accelerated or Expedited Characterization Efforts at Underground Storage Tank Sites 9
Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Rapid Site Assessment Program 9
DoD Efforts to Promote Expedited Site Characterization 9
Opportunities for Cooperation 10
FIELD ANALYTICAL CHARACTERIZATION 11
Navy/EPA Matrix on Available Field Analytical and Sampling Technologies 11
Update on the Consortium for Site Characterization Technology Verification Program 11
ONGOING ROUNDTABLE BUSINESS/PROJECTS 12
Update on Cost and Performance Subgroup Activities: New Case Studies 12
Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix/Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Homepage 13
Updates/Distribution of Roundtable Publications 13
FEDERAL AGENCY SUPPORT FOR BROWNFIELDS 14
White House Report: Action Agenda on Federal Agency Support for Brownfields 14
Federal Technology Development and Applications Support for Brownfields 14
WRAP-UP 15
Announcement/Discussion of Special Roundtable Meeting on Phytoremediation 15
Wrap-Up/Next Meeting 15
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 16
-------
FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE MEETING
Arlington, Virginia
May 13,1997
INTRODUCTION
John Kingscott, EPA/Technology Innovation Office (TIO), welcomed all participants and introduced
meeting chair Patricia Rivers, Deputy Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental
Restoration. Federal agencies represented included:
A complete list of participants is attached to this summary (see Attachment 1).
Ms. Rivers opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda and giving attendees a preview of the events
planned for the meeting. She said that she has not been involved directly with the Roundtable over the
years, but is very familiar with the valuable role played by the Roundtable and the products it has
issued, especially the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and the Cost and Performance
Reporting guidelines. She also noted that the Roundtable homepage provides an important link to
information on remediation technologies, and cited the Roundtable's other significant outreach work,
especially in working with states through the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation
(ITRC) workgroup and the private sector through the Remediation Technology Development Forum
(RTDF). Mr. Kingscott noted that his office has recently issued a publication entitled Testing and
Demonstration Sites for Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies that provides profiles of
such sites around the U.S. and Canada.
REMEDY SELECTION AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Remedy Selection Process: The Key to Moving Technologies from Development to the Field
Bob Furlong (U.S. Air Force, substitute for Col. John Selstrom) presented Col. Selstrom's briefing on
the Air Force's plan to move to performance-based contracting for environmental restoration (see
Attachment 2). This move is based on Principle #5 of the final report of the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee, which reads: "Federal facility environmental cleanup
contracts should be managed as efficiently as possible by using contract mechanisms that specify,
measure, and reward desired outcomes and efficiencies rather than simply reimburse for effort or pay
for an end product." Mr. Furlong said the DoD contracting community is not very creative or open to
new ideas such as performance-based decision documents. The current system places a number of
burdens, such as allocation of risk, wholly on the government and results in relatively few
opportunities for market efficiencies to operate.
The Air Force would like to move to a system of firm fixed price contracts under which the Air Force
negotiates to purchase a solution (a cleanup) and gets out of the business of selecting remedies and
negotiating contracts to implement a particular solution. The goal in moving to the system is to see
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Navy
U.S. Army
National Aeronautical and Space
Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
2
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
better, faster, and cheaper cleanups through the introduction of market-based incentives into the
system.
Issues raised to be answered under the revised system include:
who selects the technical solution?
who decides completion?
what is the role of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)?
how are risks allocated?
With the government no longer selecting the remedy, the lines between the parties with an interest in
the management of the cleanup contract shift. The current management arrangement places the
regulator (EPA) and the public on one side of the table, with the Air Force (with sole accountability for
performance) and the Air Force's contractor on the other. By shifting accountability to the contractor
under the performance-based management alternative, the Air Force in effect moves over to the same
side of the table as the regulator and the public.
Mr. Furlong reviewed two alternative views on how performance-based cleanups could operate: either
through a performance-based contract or a performance-based Record of Decision (ROD). Under
performance-based contracting, the technical solution is proscribed and the contractor offers a price for
implementing that solution. Under this approach, the only risk carried by the contractor is for the
award fee. Under the performance-based ROD approach, the regulator establishes solution
performance criteria and the contractor determines the particular technical solution. The contractor
carries the risk of solution performance. This latter approach should promote the use of innovative
technologies over the current system, which tends to favor the use of proven, relatively risk-free
solutions (selected by regulators) and provides few incentives for opting for potentially more efficient
remedies.
Mr. Furlong reviewed a number of outstanding issues. He recognized that smaller contractors with
viable technical solutions may not be able to bear the risk of an entire cleanup and thereby be
precluded from bidding. The details of who bears what burden in the event of solution failure need to
be addressed. Regulator and public buy-in to an approach wherein contractors are selecting solutions is
needed. The performance-based approach currently does not adequately cover issues such as the
allocation of natural resource damages, the particulars of contract administration, or the allocation of
bonding and insurance costs.
Regarding implementation of the approach, the Air Force has initiated discussions with a few
installations and expects it will have two or three pilot sites operating under the approach within the
next year. Ms. Rivers noted that Tim Fields (Acting Assistant Administrator, OSWER) has voiced his
support for a performance-based ROD pilot for a generic site such as a firefighting training area.
Dennis Bernia (USAF/Armstrong Laboratory) asked whether the approach will be less expensive or
more expensive in the long run. Mr. Furlong said that they expect the approach to save money once it
has been operational for a while and the "bugs" in the systems are resolved. Scott Edwards (U.S. DoD)
added that his office believes that the operation of competitive forces will lower costs and shorten the
length of cleanups. John Riley (U.S. EPA) noted that contractors could opt for remedies that the public
may not accept, such as incineration, and asked how EPA can ensure public buy-in. He said that this is
3
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
a major hang-up in obtaining EPA buy-in to the approach. Mr. Furlong acknowledged the issue and
said it represents a major test for the approach. Ms. Rivers said the approach is meant to shift the
current RI/FS paradigm. Rather than selecting a particular remedy at the end of the RI/FS process, a set
or menu of remedies is selected, within which an acceptable solution should be available. Mr. Edwards
said technically feasible solutions that are otherwise unacceptable (such as incineration) could be
excluded.
Mr. Furlong was asked whether they expect award fees to increase, since contractors would now be
assuming more risks. Stephen Warren (U.S. DOE) responded that technically there is no award fee that
is severable from the contract price under the performance-based approach advocated by DOE. The
government is buying a product (a cleanup), rather than covering a contractor's costs plus paying a fee.
The profit realized by the contractor is not the government's concern. The government just wants to
buy a cleanup at the least cost. Ms. Rivers said the approach allows the government a lot of flexibility
in providing incentives such as awards for coming in under schedule or using innovative technologies.
She noted that DoD is not necessarily doing away with cost-plus contracting, just restructuring it to
increase the impact of market incentives. Mr. Warren said anything that can get innovative
technologies deployed at more than the current 10% of sites nationwide will improve the system. The
performance-based approach allows technology providers to become directly involved in cleanup
deals. Johnette Shockley (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) said the Corps' Alaska District has had some
success using the performance-based approach.
Dan Powell (U.S. EPA/TIO) asked whether adopting the approach will require any changes to the
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) or existing Federal Facilities Agreements (FFAs). Mr. Furlong
said the approach can be implemented under the existing regulations. He noted that language on final
ROD selection in existing FFAs will need to be re-worked. Mr. Warren said changes are needed in the
regulatory framework and EPA policy. EPA guidance that states that one solution must be selected in a
ROD as written may only apply to fund-lead sites. In addition, a "decision" under CERCLA may
encompass determining an acceptable set of solutions. The approach will also require some re-thinking
of the role and timing of the ROD document. Mr. Warren offered three alternatives: 1) issue RODs that
set the requirements of the cleanup and present a menu of technical alternatives, allowing contractors
to select from this menu; 2) issue RODs that select a particular remedy after allowing contractors to
fashion solutions based on criteria issued in the FS; 3) issue RODs according to the existing practice
and use ROD amendments to accomplish the goals of the performance-based approach.
The Concept of Performance-Based Remedy Selection: Case Studies
Gary Hinkle (Air National Guard) said there are many ways to implement a performance-based
approach, and presented a relatively simple two-step process similar to other construction contracts
that the Air National Guard (ANG) has procured with success (see Attachment 3). Under the approach,
the ANG issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and then a Request for Cost Proposal. The initial RFP,
similar to any other issued to obtain professional civil engineering services, described the site, the level
of contamination, the level of site characterization, the required cleanup levels to be achieved, and
other regulatory requirements. The information sought was technical and was to describe how the
contractor would accomplish the cleanup while meeting the requirements. Essentially, the ANG
presented the problem (in this case, cleanup of a firefighting training area) and asked the bidders for a
solution. Contractors who survived the technical "cut" were invited to submit cost proposals. Cost
proposals were received and reviewed by the same committee. The contract was for a firm fixed price.
4
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Cost proposals ranged from approximately $682,000 to $1,600,000. The low bid was selected and
awarded in May 1995. Actual cleanup work was in operation for 30 days and the final inspection was
completed in August 1995. A NFRAP decision document for the site is being drafted. The total time
from the day the RFP was issued to the final inspection was 150 days; however, Mr. Hinkle noted that
it took a year prior to the issuance of the RFP to get the needed buy-in from regulators and added that
ANG plans to continue using the approach.
Mr. Hinkle offered several suggestions on effective administration of the approach:
Representatives of relevant regulatory agencies should sit on the committee that reviews the
proposals.
The award need not go to the low bid: technical proposals may be ranked and a balance may be
struck between cost and technical approach.
A flexible, well-run contracting office is a key to success when using the performance-based
approach.
Mr. Edwards said the approach described by Mr. Hinkle is the approach for procuring professional
services used by the government for everything except environmental cleanup. Unlike most other civil
engineering work contracted by the government, the government specifies most of the technical
approach for environmental cleanup. He suggested that government contracting for environmental
cleanup should be more similar to government contracting for other professional engineering services.
In response to a question from Ms. Rivers, Mr. Hinkle said the state regulatory agency with
jurisdiction helped write the RFP but chose not to be involved in the selection of a contractor. He noted
that the membership of the selection board can be quite broad and include community representatives
such as Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). In response to another question, Mr. Hinkle
acknowledged that getting buy-in from the contracting office is necessary but not always easy.
Mr. Bernia asked who bears the risk of project failure. Mr. Hinkle said the selected contractor and all
bidders must be bonded for the full dollar amount of the contract. In the event of failure either the
contractor fixes the problem or the bonding company pays for a fix. This is standard for construction
contracts. Mr. Hinkle added that this does not include indemnification for liability for injuries
stemming from the failure. That liability is shared since the government owns the site and selects the
contractor. Mr. Edwards added that the contractor is free to seek insurance if it chooses; what the
contractor does with its overhead expenses is not the government's concern.
In response to a question from Ms. Rivers regarding unforeseen site conditions, Mr. Hinkle said the
standard construction contract approach applies: the contract is renegotiated to account for actual site
conditions. In response to a question on the promotion of innovative technologies, Mr. Hinkle said the
ANG was not selecting a technological approach, it was selecting a proposal. The only requirement is
that it meet the technical criteria.
Performance-Based Contracting at DOE
Stephen Warren said DOE plans to move toward performance-based contracting for environmental
cleanup, using its Preferred Alternatives Matrices (P.A.M.s) to guide its work in bringing market
solutions to the cleanup process (see Attachment 5). Under the P.A.M.s approach, future land use and
5
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
cleanup levels are determined upfront and inserted into the feasibility study. Then a range of existing
technical alternatives are assembled based on criteria such as technical practicality, acceptability, etc.
Each alternative is assigned a level of confidence based on cost and performance reports from other
sites issued in accordance with the Roundtable's guidelines that are worked into the P.A.M.s. For
example, a set of alternatives would not include incineration because it is not acceptable to the public.
If that circumstance changes, the exclusion can change. Mr. Warren noted that the decision support
data that underlie the P.A.M.s are available on the DOE homepage at http://www.em.doe.gov/define.
Mr. Warren briefly reviewed the contents of the homepage.
Mr. Warren also reviewed the issues that have been raised during Congressional testimony on the work
of his office. Specifically, the subcommittee chaired by Congressman Bliley has taken a detailed look
at the consideration and selection of innovative technologies across the DOE complex. Information has
been requested on technologies considered or under consideration, whether any of those are
innovative, and the cost savings associated with using innovative technologies. DOE is scheduled to
report to Congress on these issues on May 30. Mr. Warren said DOE's priority is to get the right
technology at the right time to the right site via performance-based contracting. Innovative
technologies are neither preferred nor rejected; they receive the same consideration as any other
technology. The key is to create a process that allows the market to satisfy required performance under
the regulatory framework. Mr. Warren added that he thinks DOE has enough data in hand to move
forward with the approach.
Mr. Riley asked about the upfront investment required to enter into performance-based contracts. Mr.
Warren said DOE believes the new approach will lead to cost savings in the long run, although upfront
costs may be higher. Significant savings should be realized as the mechanisms of the contracts become
"standardized" across projects such that the players do not have to "re-learn" the same things at each
new site, as is the case under the current system. Mr. Warren said he sees the regime of cost-plus
contracts as tantamount to an entitlement program for cleanup contractors. Rather, the government
should balance the risks, establish bounding conditions, and let the market arrive at solutions.
Mr. Edwards agreed, noting that while the approach is not a "magic bullet," it should be a better way
to do business, at least for more routine activities such as tank removals. The cost-plus approach may
still serve more complex sites and activities where the conditions to be negotiated are largely unknown
or unknowable until site work begins. Ms. Rivers said performance-based contracting needs to be
distinguished from performance-based decision-making, as described by Mr. Furlong and others. Mr.
Edwards added that a range of different decision-making approaches are needed: one for simple,
generic sites (similar to EPA's presumptive remedy approach); one for complex sites (e.g., Rocky
Flats); and others dealing with the range of sites in between.
Tim Mott (U.S. EPA/OERR) asked how the P.A.M.s approach compares to issuing technologically-
neutral RODs. Mr. Warren said in an ideal world DOE would issue technologically-neutral RODs, but
in reality regulators and the public are not comfortable with the idea of letting DOE or their contractors
make that call. RODS that include a menu of technologies to choose from should provide enough
specificity and comfort.
The DOE Technology Deployment Initiative
6
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Kurt Gerdes (U.S. DOE) gave a briefing on DOE's Technology Deployment Initiative (TDI) (see
Attachment 6). TDI objectives include achieving multiple deployments of cleanup technologies and
processes that expedite DOE's environmental management effort, obtaining third party validation of
cost savings, facilitating the reinvestment of cost savings to increase participation in the program, and
breaking down barriers to the implementation of new technologies. Mr. Gerdes reviewed the process
through which candidates are selected for deployment and the composition of the proposal selection
team. Proposals are screened through a number of criteria. The proposal must support DOE's
environmental management mission, provide for multiple applications, include a Pricing Proposal that
compares an estimated cost with that of a baseline technology, and accelerate or reduce the cost of that
referenced baseline. The proposal must also include a written commitment from the proposing DOE
site manager. TDI funding is for deployment rather than demonstrations.
Mr. Gerdes also reviewed the ranking criteria for applicants that are not screened, which are divided
into four areas: impact/technical approach; business/management approach; stakeholder/regulatory
management approach; and cost. Incentives to participate in TDI include the availability of funds to
accelerate deployment and cleanup, increased visibility for the technologies through deployment and
the generation of validated cost savings, multiple state acceptance of the technology, and the
opportunity for reinvestment of cost savings. Information on TDI is available on the World Wide Web
.
EPA Efforts to Promote Performance-Based Remedy Selection at Federal Facilities
Bruce Means (U.S. EPA/OERR) reviewed the work EPA has done to promote performance-based
remedy selection at federal facilities. He noted that the concept is still new to EPA Headquarters staff
and there has been minimum investment in considering a framework for the approach, but he did have
some observations on the subject.
Mr. Means said CERCLA does not proscribe a process for selecting technologies, nor does it identify
risk targets or guidelines for future land use. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) provides processes
in these areas, but no mandated approaches. The NCP also defines methods for obtaining input from
states and localities, but does not mandate an approach. A Superfund reauthorization statute will
probably include language bolstering "meaningful" community involvement. The task for EPA is to
design an approach to performance-based remedy selection that can function under the rules and
guidelines presented by the NCP (including the nine remedy selection criteria) and remain sensitive to
community reactions.
Regarding ground water cleanup, EPA has released a two-stage presumptive response strategy for
ground water contamination. The first priority is containment and characterization of ground water
contaminants. Cleanup strategies are to be developed once the first step is completed. A performance-
based remedy selection approach will have to be squared with this presumptive response strategy.
Mr. Means then introduced the subject of instituting administrative reforms to account for post-ROD
technological advances that allow remedies to be improved without necessarily re-opening the ROD.
He then passed the discussion to John Riley, who described a meeting he attended last January at the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During that meeting, OMB representatives said they would
like to see EPA get involved in performance-based contracting at federal facilities as part of the current
comprehensive government procurement reform effort. OMB recommended that EPA initiate two
7
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
performance-based contracting pilots (one for a removal project and one for a remedial project). EPA
suggested issuing performance-based work assignments under existing contracts, and identified some
candidate sites. OMB developed a draft checklist for selecting such sites (see Attachment 4). Mr. Riley
will meet again with OMB next week to discuss progress. In response to a question, Mr. Riley said the
pilot sites will be fund-lead sites contracted to the Corps of Engineers rather than DoD or DOE-lead
sites since those agencies have made progress beyond the pilot stage in issuing performance-based
contracts. Mr. Riley said EPA has yet to form a workgroup on the subject, and anyone interested in
participating in the pilots should contact him directly.
8
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
ACCELERATED SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Promoting an Understanding of Accelerated or Expedited Characterization Processes
Guy Tomassoni (U.S. EPA/OSW) facilitated a discussion on accelerated and expedited site
characterization processes that included brief presentations from representatives of various Roundtable
member-agencies.
Interagency Training/Opportunities
Mr. Tomassoni opened the discussion by describing the work he has been recently tasked with to
develop interagency training opportunities. He said his experience within the RCRA Corrective Action
program has left him with two impressions of the current effort to characterize sites: the jobs take too
long and result in too many expensive non-detects. He also believes the current approach misses a lot
of contamination in heterogeneous areas. Mr. Tomassoni said he hoped the discussion today would
lead to the formation of a Roundtable subgroup on expedited site characterization.
Presumptive Characterization and Expedited Process Inventory and Evaluation
Mike Hurd (U.S. EPA/OERR) described the pilot project he is heading to gather and analyze
information and create an inventory of completed and ongoing expedited site characterization projects
undertaken within the public and private sectors. The inventory will catalog what has been done, what
has worked, and what has not worked and will be used to develop a generic expedited site
characterization strategy if feasible. Mr. Hurd stressed that this is not geared toward developing
presumptive approaches, but rather meant to guide expedited site characterization at generic sites
through the issuance of fact sheets. Examples of generic site types include paint shops, steel working,
and dry cleaning operations.
EPA Training: Field-Based Characterization Technology Workshop
Dan Powell described the Field-Based Characterization Technology Workshop, offered by EPA's
CERCLA Education Center (CEC). CEC also offers a course on innovative treatment technologies.
These courses provide training on the tools and options available for using new technologies. Mr.
Powell noted that attendance at the initial offering of the course was around 30. Two more deliveries of
the course are planned for 1997. Information on the course was included in the meeting package.
American Society for Testing Materials Standards for Expedited and Accelerated Site Characterization
Russell Boulding (American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)) said ASTM has been working on
two new provisional guides: The ASTM Provisional Guide on Accelerated Site Characterization (ASC)
for Confirmed or Suspected Petroleum Releases', and The ASTM Provisional Guide for Expedited Site
Characterization (ESC) of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Sites. The ASC guide was approved in
1995 and soon will be available as a full consensus standard. The ESC guide was approved in
December 1996; ASTM expects it to be available as a full consensus standard in January 1998.
Development of the ESC guide was facilitated by DOE funding, and received an unprecedented degree
of review, including review by the full ITRC membership, which gave the guides the imprimatur of the
states on that panel. Development of the ASC guide was facilitated by funding from the petroleum
9
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
industry, and went through a more typical ASTM review. The goal of issuing these guides is to inject
sound science into these processes to optimize their effectiveness. Mr. Boulding said current
technology allows for characterizations that can be completed in two mobilizations for most sites, and
the guides are meant to provide users with the information and expertise needed to achieve that
objective.
DOE Training on Expedited Characterization
Guy Tomassoni, substituting for Caroline Purdy (U.S. DOE), announced that DOE has developed a
course on expedited site characterization that was held last January with two more course deliveries
planned for 1997. The course parallels the expedited site characterization guide issued by ASTM. Mr.
Tomassoni said DOE also supports partnering and other joint efforts. The training course is designed to
resolve some needs within the DOE Operations Offices, including the basic need to provide their staff
with information to help them deal with contractors better. The course is not meant to direct anyone
toward particular technologies. Rather the focus is on improving the decision process.
Accelerated or Expedited Characterization Efforts at Underground Storage Tank Sites
Robert Hitzig (U.S. EPA/OUST) announced that his office has release a new manual on expedited site
assessment tools for underground storage tank sites (see Attachment 7). The manual is written
primarily for state regulators to familiarize them with expedited site characterization tools and
technologies. Mr. Hitzig reviewed the subjects covered by the manual and noted that OUST also is
conducting training in the states in conjunction with the manual.
Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Rapid Site Assessment Program
John Wilkinson (Exxon Research and Development Co.), who had presented background information
on the work of the Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (PERF) at previous Roundtable meetings
(see minutes of the 6/21/95 Roundtable meeting) presented a concept that has been floated by PERF to
its members for instituting a Rapid Site Assessment Program (see Attachment 8). The goal of the effort
would be to work the process down to one site assessment mobilization. Tufts University and ABB
Environmental have completed studies of potential cost savings associated with rapid site assessment.
Both studies came up with savings estimates of around 60%. Mr. Wilkinson said that PERF hopes to
be able to work with an existing program (such as ASTM) in developing an approach. He noted that
the members of PERF can provide a wide variety of sites for conducting research on both
characterization technologies and associated "enabling" technologies such as data collection and
decision support tools. Proposed deliverables under the program include a Rapid Site Assessment
Guide for Petroleum Sites and a process for identifying innovative tools to enhance rapid site
assessment.
DoD Efforts to Promote Expedited Site Characterization
Ted Zagrobelny (U.S. Navy/NAVFAC) reviewed DoD's work in promoting expedited site
characterization. He said he was most aware of the Navy's work but hoped he could cover all of the
military services. He described DoD's ability to engage in this and related environmental management
efforts as a function of the interaction of funding, risk management priorities, and legal requirements.
Mr. Zagrobelny said he has seen significant improvements within DoD's environmental management
10
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
structure, with a new emphasis on partnering, using measures of merit to close projects, improved data
quality objectives to focus sampling, and better communication with the field installations. He noted
that DoD has been "stealing" a lot of ideas from EPA and other agencies, especially in regard to
underground storage tanks and verification programs like the Consortium for Site Characterization.
Opportunities for Cooperation
Guy Tomassoni polled the representatives of other agencies for updates on other work being done to
promote expedited site characterization. Mr. Boulding mentioned that the Argonne National
Laboratory will hold a two-day training course on expedited site characterization. He noted that
regulators and parties responsible for cleanups need to be the driving force behind promotion of
expedited site characterization since consulting engineers have few incentives for promoting cheaper,
faster, better site assessment techniques. Mr. Wilkinson disagreed to some extent, noting that the
consulting engineers who embrace new products that save their clients money will wind up getting the
work. John Powell (U.S. Geological Survey) said the USGS toxics hydrology program has come up
with some scientific findings that support deployment of field characterization techniques. USGS has
conducted seminars and workshops on various technologies.
Mr. Tomassoni suggested that the review of the ASTM guides could be broadened to gather more
input and publicize the documents. He noted that EPA has had much success working with ASTM on
similar issues, such as underground storage tanks. Ms. Rivers noted that ASTM does not cover issues
such as training and acceptance by regulators and said that the ASTM standards could serve as an axle
around which to wrap technology transfer and other efforts to promote expedited site characterization.
Dan Powell suggested three action items that an expedited site characterization subgroup could
undertake:
interagency assistance in the creation of an inventory of initiatives/processes as discussed by Mr.
Hurd
compilation of case studies and lessons learned in a format similar to TIO's annual status report on
remediation technologies
development of a joint training course or curriculum
Mr. Warren agreed but emphasized the need to go beyond TIO and get all of EPA on board before
embarking on the effort. He cited the example of performance-based contracting, which is a concept
that has been around for years but which has only recently been acknowledged by EPA program
offices other than TIO. Mr. Tomassoni assured Mr. Warren that the RCRA program wants to see
increased use of expedited site characterization and noted that the other relevant EPA program offices
were present at the meeting and have the same interest. Donna Kuroda (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) asked whether the CSCT was covering these issues. Dan Powell said CSCT focuses on
technology verifications. The subgroup would focus on "next steps" such as training and technology
transfer.
Jim Hansen (Argonne National Laboratory) said his laboratory has succeeded in getting regulatory
approval but noted that they have to "start over" in obtaining regulatory approval each time they try to
deploy the same technology at a different site. Mr. Tomassoni agreed, adding that he has seen cases
where the same product has to be sold to each individual RPM. He said training should help the matter,
but it will also require a culture change in the way technologies are selected and deployed.
11
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Ms. Rivers polled the member-agencies on whether they felt it was worthwhile to take a next step
down this path. All of the member-agencies agreed that it is a step worth taking. Mr. Kingscott said he
hoped the subgroup could move beyond coordination into cooperation similar to the Roundtable
subgroup on cost and performance data reporting. Mr. Zagrobelny added that he would like to see a
tie-in to expedited decision-making. Mr. Warren said the regulator community must be a major player
and the subgroup should not become merely a convenient place for someone to park a pet project.
John Powell said he felt that a failure to act at this point would be a step backward and stressed the
need to get state regulators, who hold the real power to make the plan work, on board. Ms. Rivers said
DoD has a panel that works with the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and can establish
links with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to
address Mr. Powell's concern. She asked Mr. Tomassoni to develop an announcement for gathering
points of contact within the member-agencies to develop a new subgroup on expedited site
characterization. Ms. Rivers closed the discussion by noting that the member-agencies are moving into
a post-NPL world. She encouraged the subgroup to consider expanding the scope of their work to
include programs such as brownfields and voluntary cleanup.
FIELD ANALYTICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Navy/EPA Matrix on Available Field Analytical and Sampling Technologies
Ted Zagrobelny gave an update on progress in the development of the Field Sampling and Analysis
Technologies Matrix and Reference Guide. The Matrix is designed to support decision-making at base
closure and other cleanup sites that require characterization and could benefit from the deployment of
field techniques. The Matrix is designed to be used by entry-level project managers (RPMs and others)
who only have a basic understanding of the range of field tools available. The Matrix includes both
conventional and newer technologies for comparisons. The only limit is that the technology must be
commercially available.
Mr. Zagrobelny said the current draft Matrix is about 90% completed. The Reference Guide is not as
far along. The Matrix is actually two posters: one on sample access and collection tools, the other on
sample analysis tools. The format is similar to the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix poster.
Mr. Zagrobelny described the membership of the expert panel that has guided development of the
Matrix, which included representatives from EPA, the Navy, other Roundtable member-agencies
(USACE, USGS) and states (CalEPA).
Mr. Edwards asked whether the expert panel sought participation or approval of groups such as ITRC
or ASTSWMO. Dan Powell said the Matrix is a reference tool rather than guidance, hence they have
not sought "approvals." The Matrix, as a resource, will be made available to ITRC member-states. Mr.
Edwards suggested that EPA and the Navy do more than mail it out and hope people use it. The
members discussed distribution strategies and the possibility of accessing the Matrix via the World
Wide Web. Mr. Warren noted that DOE's Preferred Alternatives Matrices may seem very similar to
the Matrix, but actually contain different information for a different purpose. He added that DOE did
not produce paper versions of the P.A.M.'s deliberately, as printing is expensive and updates of the
information in the P.A.M.'s occurs frequently. Dan Powell mentioned that a pilot workshop on
technology information resources for Navy RPMs and contractors will be held in August.
12
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Update on the Consortium for Site Characterization Technology Verification Program
Dan Powell gave an update on activities of the Consortium for Site Characterization Technology
(CSCT) and recent progress of the CSCT's Technology Verification Program (see Attachment 10),
which has issued the initial sets of Technology Verification Statements and Reports. Verification
Statements and Reports are available for two laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) technologies.
Statements are available for seven X-ray fluorescence (XRF) technologies. Statements for gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) technologies are due in the coming weeks. Each project
consists of two separate demonstrations of the technology with independent verification and reporting.
Demonstration plans for technologies in six new areas are under development. These areas include:
soil/soil gas sampling decision support software
PCB analysis field extraction
wellhead monitoring for VOCs ground water sampling
Future solicitations for vendors will be worked around six technology tracks:
on-site chemical analysis physical characterization
in-situ monitoring decision support tools
sampling technologies contaminated structure assessment
CSCT also has made progress on the information management and outreach front. The CSCT has
established a network of representatives in the EPA Regions and coordinated efforts with the ITRC's
Accelerated Site Characterization workgroup. Also, CSCT is near completion of the first Site
Characterization Technology Annual Status Report, which is similar to the annual report on
remediation technologies and will include information on about 100 sites.
In response to a question from Stanley Chanesman (U.S. Department of Commerce), Dan Powell noted
that verification demonstrations differ from conventional demonstrations, such as proof-of-concept.
Rather, these are demonstrations of latter-stage technologies that are approaching commercial
availability if they are not already there.
ONGOING ROUNDTABLE BUSINESS/PROJECTS
Update on Cost and Performance Subgroup Activities: New Case Studies
Prior to Mr. Kingscott's update on activities of the Cost and Performance Subgroup, Ms. Rivers asked
Mr. Zagrobelny whether NAVFAC is stressing the need for cost and performance reporting to its
installations. Mr. Zagrobelny said the installations have been encouraged but not required to report
cost and performance data. He said NAVFAC Headquarters has started to look for trickle of reports.
Ms. Rivers asked whether the Corps of Engineers is reporting data for the work it is doing for others.
Ms. Kuroda cited the guide specification issued by the Corps and said the Corps is reporting data when
it can. Ms. Shockley said eleven projects are reporting data. Mr. Furlong said the Air Force completed
a first round of cost and performance data reports, but in the future, if reporting is not required and
funded, it could go by the wayside. He said reporting requirements could be built into performance-
based contracts, but under the current system, he did not expect a lot of reporting. He added that the
advantage of placing the requirements into contracts upfront is that the data is reported as it is issued.
13
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Backtracking and gathering the data after the project is complete is expensive and time-consuming.
Mr. Warren suggested that the reporting system include some sort of profit motive and a means of
plugging numbers in as they are generated. Ms. Shockley added that a feedback mechanism is also
needed.
Mr. Kingscott proceeded with the update and reviewed the origins and initial activities of the
Subgroup, including the cost and performance data reporting guidelines and case studies. The
Subgroup was recently reconstituted and met to consider next steps on May 1. The original focus of
the Subgroup's work was on full-scale projects, with goals of defining the baseline information needed
to document project cost and performance information, issuing case studies, and developing means of
electronic access to the information via the Roundtable homepage. The May 1 meeting was intended to
build on that work. The agenda included presentations on the experience of the members in applying
the reporting guidelines, consideration of the adequacy of the current project scope and specific
provisions of the Subgroup mission, enhanced means of electronic distribution, and next steps.
Mr. Kingscott said the Subgroup agreed that the project scope should expand to include technologies at
the demonstration stage and containment technologies. Reporting on soil technologies should increase.
Mr. Kingscott said the Subgroup expects to be near completion of revised reporting guidelines by the
time of the next general Roundtable meeting. As for case studies, the Subgroup is ready to issue
another round that includes 17 studies in two volumes: one on soil vapor extraction (SVE) and other
in-situ technologies; the other on bioremediation and vitrification. Mr. Kingscott noted that one goal of
reconstituting the Subgroup was to gather new commitments from the member-agencies to issue cost
and performance reports. He had hoped to have many more studies to report. Ms. Rivers said DoD will
focus more attention on the issue. Mr. Kingscott said the revision of the guidelines will include finding
ways to simplify reporting without losing valuable data.
Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix/Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Homepage
Johnette Shockley gave an online demonstration of the Roundtable homepage and reviewed some
statistics on homepage use. She then turned the discussion over to Dennis Teefy (U.S. Army
Environmental Center) and Julie Van Dueren (L.G.S. Turner & Associates) who gave an update on
revisions to the Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix (see Attachment 11) and gave an online
demonstration of the draft electronic version of the Matrix. He noted that the revision is a joint effort
of Roundtable member-agencies, including all three DoD services, DOE-EM, EPA/TIO and NRMRL,
and USGS. Release of version 3 of the Matrix is scheduled for October 1997. Mr. Teefy reviewed the
milestones in the release schedule. Version 3 only will be published electronically since a print version
would exceed 1,000 pages.
Mr. Teefy said they are still gathering reviewers and invited the attendees to contact him if they are
interested in reviewing draft versions. The draft version can be found on the World Wide Web at
http://www.lgst.com/matrix/welcome.html. During the demonstration of the draft, Ms. Van Dueren
noted that information in the accompanying reference guide will be linked to other relevant
information on the World Wide Web, including the Roundtable Cost and Performance Reports.
Updates/Distribution of Roundtable Publications
14
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
Naomie Smith (U.S. EPA/TIO) proposed that the next editions of the Roundtable bibliography and
guide to databases be combined into a single information resource document that is available
electronically. The other Roundtable publication on federal programs and initiatives would be revised
as a separate document. Ms. Rivers said the emphasis should be on an electronic version rather than
mass production of a paper version and suggested that the document present a "quick hit" gateway to
resources of the member-agencies. A one-page flyer should also be issued that describes the document.
After a brief discussion, the attendees agreed that all three Roundtable publications should be
combined into the new Roundtable information resource document.
FEDERAL AGENCY SUPPORT FOR BROWNFIELDS
White House Report: Action Agenda on Federal Agency Support for Brownfields
Beau Mills (U.S. EPA/OERR) noted that Vice President Gore was announcing the National
Brownfields Action Agenda that day in a White House ceremony attended by Administrator Browner,
Treasury Secretary Rubin, and a number of city mayors (see Attachments 12 and 13). He reviewed
EPA's definition of brownfields and noted that most are urban. GAO estimates up to 450,000
brownfields around the country. 113 grants have been awarded under the pilot so far. The government
has also dealt with related issues of liability associated with brownfield contamination (through
administrative reforms) and has established tax incentives for brownfield development. EPA plans to
issue grants to establish revolving loan funds to finance existing brownfield projects. Mr. Mills gave
the URL for the website maintained by his office (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields) and also noted
EPA's plan to establish a Brownfield Showcase Communities program.
Federal Technology Development and Applications Support for Brownfields
Dan Powell held up a copy of Roadmap to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for
Brownfield Investigation and Cleanup and said the document was intended to supply information on
technologies to localities dealing with brownfields. The document ties technologies to specific
resources. He also mentioned the National Brownfield conference to be held in September in Kansas
City. He asked the attendees to consider what the Roundtable can do to pull together the technical and
other information held by the member-agencies that could support brownfields redevelopment into a
package that could be distributed at the Kansas City meeting. Mr. Warren said the issues related to
brownfields may be too broad to make this a useful exercise, and suggested that a needs statement that
identifies 10 or 12 issues be prepared first. Mr. Powell cited DOE's Technology Deployment Initiative
as an example of an approach. Mr. Mills said there is a profile of site types that may serve as a guide to
the needs of the brownfields program.
Ms. Rivers said DoD has shared lots of information with localities as part of the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) program effort and suggested using the BRAC paradigm, which provides two-way
channels for access to information and feedback between DoD and the local community. For example,
the government should go beyond simply presenting a tool like the screening matrix and provide
technical support in the use of the tools. She also noted that an important issue for the member-
agencies is the answer to the question 'what's in it for me?' The message the members need to take
back to their home agency should focus on how support provided to brownfields redevelopment will
be used in a meaningful way. The members should also recognize that the support they provide will be
limited since it will be mostly 'voluntary.' One idea is to find ways to transfer information about
15
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
ongoing agency work that matches up with similar brownfields issues. Mr. Powell cited the example of
lead paint removal, which the Air Force does all the time and which will have widespread applicability
at brownfield sites, and asked the members to consider how can those two efforts be brought together
to share the information. He also cited the example of expedited site characterization at building
decontamination sites.
Ms. Rivers suggested that the Roundtable form a panel that will go to meetings such as the Kansas
City conference and make presentations on what the various federal agencies can provide. She said she
could link it to DoD's BRAC effort and thereby get DoD buy-in. Mr. Warren said his office has a
brownfields specialist on staff who would be the appropriate panelist. Mr. Powell said one of TIO's
main missions is to show that technologies are being deployed and where the markets are. Anything
that would promote deployment of innovative technologies at brownfields would be a boon to his
office.
WRAP-UP
Announcement/Discussion of Special Roundtable Meeting on Phytoremediation
Dan Powell said that EPA would like to see the Roundtable convene a special meeting or workshop in
the late summer or early fall on phytoremediation. He noted that the issue was going to be on the
agenda for this meeting, but there would not have been enough time to cover the issue and get to the
other Roundtable business. He added that he believes there is enough interest in the subject to make a
special meeting worthwhile. Mr. Powell was asked whether phytoremediation has become acceptable
to regulators and if he expects it to become a presumptive remedy. Mr. Powell said there is a lot of
interest within EPA. Mr. Kingscott added that EPA believes regulators should be comfortable with
phytoremediation. In response to a question from Mr. Warren, Mr. Kingscott said the purpose of the
meeting is for member-agencies to exchange information on current applications rather than research
and development. Dan Powell added that it should be an excellent opportunity for networking. Ms.
Rivers suggested that the meeting be sponsored by a DoD facility and said she expects the Army to
provide a lot of "demand pull" in the area. John Powell added that USGS is very interested in the
subject. Mr. Powell said the names of possible meeting sponsors should to sent to Naomie Smith.
Wrap- Up/Next Meeting
Ms. Rivers said the next general meeting of the Roundtable should occur around mid-November and
noted that it may be DOE's turn to chair the meeting. She thanked everyone for attending.
The meeting adjourned.
16
-------
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Meeting, Arlington, Virginia, May 13, 1997
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Attachment 10:
Attachment 11:
Attachment 12:
Attachment 13:
Attendees
Air Force Cleanup/Performance Based Cleanup
Air National Guard Environmental Division Performance Based Contracting
Draft Performance-Based Service Contracting (PBSC) Contract Review Checklist
Moving Toward Performance-Based Contracting (DOE)
The New DOE-OST Deployment Initiative
New Product News: New Manual on Expedited Site Assessment
Potential PERF Rapid Site Assessment Program
Field Sampling And Analysis Technologies Matrix and Reference Guide
Activities Report: EPA Efforts to Advance the Use of Innovative Site
Characterization Technologies
FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
Update
Press Release: Vice President Gore Announces Expansion of Brownfields
Initiative
Brownfields National Partnership Action Agenda (EPA 500-F-97-090)
17
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTENDEES
FEDERAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES ROUNDTABLE
May 13,1997
Name:
Aeencv/Oreanization:
Telephone:
Maria Bayon
NASA
202-358-1092
mbayon@hqsops.nasa.gov
Paul Beam
U.S. DOE
301-903-8133
Dennis Bernia
USAF/Armstrong Laboratory
904-283-6275
dermis bernia@ccmail.aleq.tyndall.af.mil
Mike Boeck
EMS, Inc.
301-589-5318
mboeck@emsus.com
Russell Boulding
Global Environmental Technology Foundation 812-336-8396
jtbsoil@iquest.net
Skip Chamberlain
U.S. DOE
301-903-7248
grover.chamberlain@em.doe.gov
Stanley Chanesman
U.S. Department of Commerce
202-482-0825
s. chanesman@doc.gov
Chester Clark
U.S. Navy
301-743-6599
cclark@pilot. ih. navy. mil
Subijoy Dutta
U.S. EPA
703-308-8608
dutta. subij oy @epamail. epa.gov
Scott Edwards
DoD
703-697-5372
edwards@acq.osd.mil
Doug Elstrodt
U.S. Navy
301-743-4871
delstrodt@pilot.ih.navy.mil
Ed Engbert
U.S. Army Environmental Center
410-612-6867
eengbert@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
Ollie Fordham
U.S. EPA
703-308-0493
fordham. ollie@epamail. epa. gov
Bill Foshett
U.S. EPA/OUST
703-603-7153
foshett. bill@epamail. epa. gov
Bob Furlong
U.S. Air Force
703-697-3445
Kurt Gerdes
U.S. DOE
301-903-7234
kurt. gerdes@em. doe.gov
Mike Goldstein
U.S. EPA
703-603-9045
goldstein.mike@epamail.epa.gov
Tom Ham
HAZWRAP
423-435-3430
James Hansen
Argonne National Laboratory
202-488-2453
Robert Hitzig
U.S. EPA
703-603-7158
hitzig.robert@epamail.epa.gov
Mike Hurd
U.S. EPA
703-603-8836
hurd.michael@epamail.epa.gov
James Jenkins
Bregman and Co., Inc.
703-693-0644
j enkins@pentagon-acsim. army.mil
John Kingscott
U.S. EPA/OSWER/TIO
703-603-7189
kings cott. j ohn@epamail. epa. go v
Gayle Kline
Radian International LLC
703-713-1500
Donna Kuroda
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
202-761-4335
-------
Nick Lailas
U.S. EPA/ORIA
202-233-9371
lailas.nick@epamail.epa.gov
Daniel Lopez
U.S. EPA
703-603-8769
lopez.daniel@epamail.epa.gov
Todd Margrave
U.S. Navy/NAVFAC
703-325-6460
tamargrave@hq.navfac.navy.mil
Bruce Means
U.S. EPA
703-603-8815
means.bruce@epamail.epa.gov
Jane Mergler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
202-260-4468
Terry Messenger
ESTCP
703-412-7408
Tim Mott
U.S. EPA/FFRRO
202-260-2447
mott.tim@epamail.epa.gov
John Murphy
L.G.S. Turner & Assoc.
703-916-7987
jmurphy@lgst.com
Francis Murray
Global Environment & Technology Foundation 703-750-6401
frank, murray @gnet. org
Robert Nash
U.S. Navy/NFESC/Port Hueneme
805-982-5070
rnash@nfesc.navy.mil
Carlos Pachon
U.S. EPA/OSWER/TIO
703-603-9904
pachon.carlos@epamail.epa.gov
Jim Peterson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
402-697-2612
Dan Powell
U.S. EPA/OSWER/TIO
703-603-7196
powell.dan@epamail.epa.gov
John Powell
U.S. Geological Survey
703-648-4169
jdpowell@usgs.gov
Clem Rastatter
Versar, Inc.
703-750-3000
John Riley
U.S. EPA/OERR
703-603-8733
riley .j ohn@epamail. epa. gov
Pat Rivers
U.S. DoD
703-697-5371
Bonnie Robinson
U.S. EPA
703-308-8429
robinson. bonnie@epamail. epa.gov
Caroline Roe
USDA/Farm Service Agency
202-720-9964
croe@wdc.fsa. usda.gov
Henry Schuver
U.S. EPA/OSW
703-308-8656
s chuver. henry @epamail. epa. go v
Brendan Shane
Walcoff
703-578-6149
bshane@walcoff com
Johnette Shockley
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
402-697-2558
shockley@usgs.gov
j ohnette. shockley @usace. army .mil
Ken Skahn
U.S. EPA/OERR
703-603-8801
skahn.ken@epamail.epa.gov
Francis Slavich
Radian International LLC
919-461-1100
francis slavich@radian.com
Christine Spanard
Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
803-652-1851
christine.spanard@srs.gov
Dennis Teefy
U.S. Army Environmental Center
410-612-6860
dateefy @aec. apgea. army.mil
Guy Tomassoni
U.S. EPA/O SW
703-308-8622
tomassoni.guy@epamail.epa.gov
Debbie Tremblay
U.S. EPA/OSWER/FFRRO
202-260-8302
-------
Julie Van Dueren
Paul Waesche
Karen Waldvogel
Ming Wang
Charles Warburton
Stephen Warren
Richard Weisman
John Wilkinson
Stan Wolf
Ted Zagrobelny
William Zobel
Fred Zoepfl
L.G.S. Turner & Assoc.
Clean Sites, Inc.
USDA
Mitretek
CFW Associates
U.S. DOE
Radian International LLC
Exxon Research and Engineering Co.
U.S. DOE/EM-54
U.S. Navy/NAVFAC
U.S. EPA
Mitretek
tremblay.deborah@epamail.epa.gov
703-916-7987
jvan@lgst.com
703-739-1271
202-260-6565
karen.waldvogel@usda.gov
703-610-1743
mwang@mitretek. org
301-493-6191
cf_war@worldnet. att.net
301-903-7673
Stephen. warren@em. doe.gov
703-713-6444
rich_weisman@radian. com
201-765-1633
j ohn. b. wilkinson@exxon. sprint, com
301-903-7962
Stanley. wolf@em. doe.gov
703-325-8176
tzagrobelny @hq. navfac. navy. mil
703-603-8809
zobel. william@epamail. epa. gov
703-610-1757
------- |