Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 1:15 pm to 2:45 pm
Presenters:	Melanie Hoff, EPA HQ Trina Martynowicz, EPA HQ Janet Weiner, EPA HQ

The Overview of Performance Measurement and Reporting for the Superfund Remedial Program information session will demystify the processes associated with performance measurement. A comprehensive summary of Superfund's suite of performance measures and the data systems used to record performance targets, baselines, and accomplishments will be provided. Participants will come away with a better understanding of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA's fiscal year 2006 through 2011 Strategic Plan, and EPA's annual Performance and Accountability Report (PARS). The information session will provide an overview of how EPA's senior management monitors programmatic performance through reports such as the Quarterly Management Report (QMR), the Organizational Assessment, Regional Reviews, and the conduct of periodic briefings for the Deputy Administrator (the "Marcus Reports"). With a focus on RPMs, the session will conclude with an in-depth discussion of several key performance measures and the RPM's role in ensuring consistency in their implementation across the regional offices.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Presenters:	Jean Balent, EPA HQ Mark Heare, EPA HQ Julie Roemele, EPA HQ

The Computer Lab – Open House information session will provide an opportunity for attendees to conduct hands-on demonstrations of EPA’s QuickPlace, Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS), and complete an online survey on inorganics by EPA’s Contract Laboratory Program.

• QuickPlace allows users to create a team workspace to gain access to timely information and to seamlessly bring together geographically and organizationally dispersed team members. ERT members and Jean Balent, EPA OSRTI, will be available to help RPMs learn out to set up their own workspace.
• The Clinger Cohen Act directed all federal agencies to keep training records on their acquisition work force, including all EPA contracting officer’s technical representatives (COTR) (Work Assignment Managers and Task Order Project Officers on EPA contracts. In response, the Federal Acquisition Institute developed a web-accessible database system,ACMIS, and all COTRs must be registered in this system by July 1, 2007. Mark Heare, EPA Office of Acquisition Management, will be available to assist RPMs with ACMIS. This federal wide system is not particularly user friendly so stop in to register in ACMIS and get some tips from Mark.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Steven Kinser, Region 7
Presenters:	Carolyn Acheson, EPA HQ David Reisman, EPA HQ Hilary Thornton, Region 3

Over the last year, the Engineering Forum and EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) have issued a series of engineering issue papers on various remedial technologies. The Engineering Forum Remedial Technology Update information session will cover the latest technical developments in three of the engineering issue papers published after the 2006 NARPM Annual Training Conference: In Situ and Ex Situ Biodegradation Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Management and Treatment of Water from Hard Rock Mines, and In Situ Chemical Oxidation. Each halfhour update will begin with a brief overview of the technology, include examples of how the technology is being applied at sites and lessons learned from the field, and close with a question and answer period.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 8:45 am to 10:15 am
Moderators:	Dan Forger, Region 2 Marcia Knadle, Region 10
Presenters:	Marcia Knadle, Region 10 Jonathan Williams, Region 10 Kevin Willis, Region 2

Five-year reviews are an integral part of post-ROD management of Superfund sites. RPMs and hydrogeologists at EPA-lead sites need to evaluate whether the constructed ground water remedy is proving to be adequately protective and effective. EPA needs to review 5-year reviews prepared by the lead agency for other CERCLA sites. RPMs must either concur with the lead agency's conclusions on protectiveness and effectiveness or independently evaluate and develop an EPA protectiveness statement. The Ground Water Issues and Five-Year Reviews information session will focus on commonly observed problems identified by hydrogeologists in conducting 5-year reviews and evaluating 5-year reviews prepared by other agencies to identify possible solutions. An illustrative case study and a moderated question and answer session will be included in the session.

This session was developed by the EPA Ground Water Forum.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 1:15 pm to 2:45 pm
Moderators:	John Smith, EPA HQ
Presenters:	John Smith, EPA HQ

The Remedial Action Contracting information session will discuss the various aspects of developing a contracting strategy for implementing remedial action. The following topics will be covered:

• Relevance of site characteristics.
• Appropriate type of design.
• Appropriate contract type.
• Characteristics of contract types.
• Procurement methods.
• Contract management considerations.
• Cost risk management.

After the information session, two RPMs will discuss their experiences with both fixed price and cost reimbursement contracts at Superfund sites. Open discussion will follow these presentations.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 10:15 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Robert Alvey, Region 2
Presenters:	Diana Cutt, Region 2 Mark Dannenberg, Region 2 Jennifer Hovis, EPA HQ Jeff Johnson, Region 7 Bernie Zavala, Region 10

The Remedial System Evaluation (RSE) process, also referred to as pump and treat optimization, provides a format for evaluating the operation of long-term remedial actions that involve ground water at Superfund sites. On "Fund lead" sites, EPA provides funding for operation of the treatment facilities for a 10-year period until the site is transferred to the states for continued operation. Many sites require an annual budget of well over $500,000 to operate, maintain, and monitor. The RSE process involves a review of operation, maintenance, and monitoring actions and their costs, as well as conducting a re-evaluation of the characterization of the plume and potential contributing sources. The information gained in this evaluation provides significant benefits towards the cleanup of ground water. The RSE process helps identify areas where (1) costsaving measures can be implemented, (2) increased efficiency of operations and maintenance can be recommended, and (3) new technologies might be applied to help reduce the need for long-term operation of the plants. The RSE process helps ensure remedial goals are achieved based on the increased understanding of current site conditions. The Remedial System Evaluation in 2007 information session will cover the following topics:

• Where the RSE is most applicable during the long-term response action.
• The steps involved in an RSE.
• Planning by the RPM for an RSE.
• Understanding and using the recommendations from an RSE.
• Quantifying the savings of an RSE.
• Case studies of RSEs at EPA sites.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Presenters:	Melissa Friedland, EPA HQ Trina Martynowicz, EPA HQ Brendan Roache, EPA HQ

The Superfund and Federal Facilities Cross-Program Revitalization Measures information session will summarize the new reporting requirements for identifying EPA's Superfund and Federal Facilities Universe, Acres Protective for People under Current Conditions (acres PFP) and Acres Ready for Anticipated Use (acres RAU). Discussion during the session will familiarize regional program managers with the new Guidance for Documenting and Reporting Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization developed by EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and EPA’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), data collection requirements, and the CERCLIS module. The procedures for identifying eligible acreage, evaluating when entire sites or portions of sites satisfy the measures, and clarifying how these new performance measures relate to existing metrics will be outlined. In addition, the new CERCLIS screens for the measure will be demonstrated.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 10:15 am to 12:00 pm
Presenters:	Sherry Fielding, EPA HQ Michael Torres, Region 6

The We Want You! Why the Response Support Corps (RSC) Needs RPMs information session will address the crucial roles filled by RPMs, both historically and with a view for the future. This information session will discuss why RPMs are key components and especially well suited for membership with the RSC. Current RPMs who have been involved in past responses – or who will hold key leadership positions in future responses – will discuss their experiences. In addition, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will provide the latest information regarding the RSC, including contact information for regional RSC coordinators. The following topics will be discussed:

• Emergency response – it’s an agency responsibility
• Homeland security performance measures and the link to the RSC
• RPMs who are also RSCs – and glad they are!
• How RPMs can be involved in future incidents of national significance
• Potential involvement in training and exercises

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Joe Foran, Computer Sciences Corporation
Panelists:	Phil Cocuzza, EPA HQ Elizabeth Holman, EPA HQ Michael S. Johnson, EPA HQ Bruce Means, EPA HQ John Nebelsick, EPA HQ Keith Stewart, EPA HQ

The Analytical Services Branch panel session will focus on the analytical laboratory and support services that are available to RPMs to characterize sites. RPMs can access a number of different resources to obtain fixed-laboratory services, including EPA's regional laboratory services, the national Contract Laboratory Program, state laboratory services, and laboratory services accessed under sub-contracts from field sampling contractors. This panel session will provide a venue for RPMs to be briefed on available services and an opportunity to discuss areas where needs are not being met. The panel will discuss the following topics:

• Overview of the available fixed-laboratory services, electronic tools, and support services.
• The regional perspective and experiences in using different services.
• An overview of the benefits and issues that may arise using different approaches.
• A discussion of future needs and the tools and guidance needed to address them.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 8:45 am to 10:15 am
Moderators:	Jennifer Wendel, Region 4
Panelists:	Brian Brass, EPA Arnold Den, Region 9 Aubrey Miller, Region 8 Chuck Nace, Region 2

Historically, asbestos has been addressed in the Superfund program using the definition of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) described in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) program (that is, greater than 1 percent by weight). An OSWER Directive (Clarifying Cleanup Goals and Identification of New Assessment Tools for Evaluating Asbestos at Superfund Cleanups, OSWER Directive 9345.4) released in August 2004 indicated that the 1 percent definition should not be used and that a risk-based, site-specific action level should be developed instead when the need for removal or remedial actions is evaluated. This directive pointed investigations toward a risk-based approach to site evaluation; however, it did not present a detailed framework for investigating asbestos sites. This information session will provide a decision tree and framework that can be used at removal and remedial sites, detailed standard operating procedures (SOP), and technical information to allow flexibility in using the decision tree and framework. Additionally, this session will describe sampling and analytical techniques for asbestos in air, soil, water, and bulk materials. The focus of the discussion will be on activity-based sampling (ABS) and collection of air samples to characterize potential exposure. The main purpose of ABS is to disturb the media of interest — generally soil — so that fibers that are contained within the media are released into the air, which can then be measured by collecting and analyzing an air sample. ABS can be accomplished in the laboratory or in the field , and the associated methods will be discussed further in this session. It is important to use a sampling methodology that will provide a measure of airborne asbestos. Finally, risk assessment methods and toxicity assessments will be discussed.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Moderators:	Kim Hoang, Region 9
Panelists:	Rosemarie Caraway, Region 9 Michael Gill, EPA HQ Penelope McDaniel, Region 9 Martin Zeleznik, Region 9

The goal of the Cleanup – Clean Air (CCA) Initiative is to encourage, facilitate, and support the use of cleaner heavy-duty diesel equipment and renewable energy technologies at Superfund cleanup and redevelopment sites. CCA was launched in early 2006 in the Region 9 Superfund Division and is a joint effort with the Air Division. Currently, efforts encompass Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10. The goal is to involve all regions involved and assign at least one person to work on CCA by the end of 2007.

The presentation will provide an overview of CCA, including near- and long-term goals such as development of (1) contract and grant language that encourages use of cleaner diesel equipment and renewable energy technologies, (2) pilot projects at various Superfund sites, and (3) the Smart Energy Resources Guide (SERG). SERG will be a one-stop-shop for EPA and state project managers and contractors to help evaluate the feasibility of using sources of renewable energy to help augment energy demands at cleanup sites, as well as reducing diesel emissions from the equipment used at these sites. The SERG will cover all relevant technical and economic aspects of (1) three main renewable energy sources, namely photovoltaic, wind, and biogas, and (2) diesel construction equipment retrofits (diesel particulate filters [DPF] and diesel oxidation catalysts [DOC]), and alternative and cleaner fuels (biodiesel, biodiesel blends, and ultra low sulfur diesel, or ULSD).

Success stories, as well as current pilot projects, and a brief overview of the upcoming SERG will be presented.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 8:45 am to 10:15 am
Moderators:	Mary Cooke, EPA HQ
Panelists:	Paul Hatzinger, Shaw Environmental, Inc. Andrea Leeson, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

This panel session will describe recent research and development efforts by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on the treatment of emerging contaminants. DoD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) have been funding research and development on several emerging contaminants over the past several years, including 1,4-dioxane, Nnitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), perchlorate, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. Early work on understanding microbial degradation of perchlorate has led to several field demonstrations to validate in situ biotreatment technologies. Recent work on perchlorate is focusing on development of innovative technologies for wellhead treatment in drinking water applications. In 2005, SERDP initiated research into understanding the degradation of 1,4-dioxane, NDMA, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. Research to date is demonstrating the conditions most favorable to degradation of these contaminants. Research and development under SERDP is expected to lead to innovative technologies for treatment of ground water contaminated with these emerging contaminants. During this presentation, a summary of the recent work on perchlorate will be presented, followed by a discussion of preliminary results from the research on 1,4-dioxane, NDMA, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. The target audience is RPMs and consulting engineers.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Jim Cummings, EPA HQ
Panelists:	Andrea Leeson, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Charles Newell, Groundwater Services, Inc. Thomas Sale, Colorado State University

The objective of this panel discussion is to provide the Department of Defense's (DoD's) recent information on the management and remediation of DNAPL source zones. The DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) have been funding research and development on DNAPL source zones over the past several years. This discussion will cover the results from a recent SERDP workshop. The workshop was designed to identify the current state of DNAPL site management, and the most pressing research and development needs. Recent progress in this area has led to advancements in the field that DoD believes will enhance decision-making by utilizing current knowledge regarding best practices for management of chlorinated solvent releases.

The DoD is in the process of finalizing their guidance on selecting remedies for chlorinated solvent releases that includes access to frequently asked questions (FAQs). This panel will present the status of the draft DoD Decision Guide. The draft document is scheduled for peer review during 2007 and release in 2008. It is intended as a guide to help DoD's RPMs make decisions regarding the management of chlorinated solvent sites. This presentation is intended to brief EPA's RPMs on the draft document and solicit input prior to finalizing it for external peer review. Contributors to the draft document include researchers and practitioners from organizations such as Arizona State University (Paul Johnson, Ph.D.), Colorado State University (Tom Sale, Ph.D.), IST (Rob Hinchee, Ph.D.), and Groundwater Services, Inc. (Chuck Newell, Ph.D.). Materials provided will include the SDERP/ESCTP DNAPL workshop report (http://docs.serdp-estcp.org/viewfile.cfm?Doc=DNAPLWorkshopReport.pdf), FAQs (scheduled for publication in April 2007), and a draft copy of the Remedy Selection Guidance (scheduled for publication in June 2007). The target audience would be Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and consulting engineers.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 10:15 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Monica McEaddy, EPA HQ
Panelists:	Gail Cooper, EPA HQ Monica McEaddy, EPA HQ John Reeder, EPA HQ

The Federal Facilities panel session will offer an update on current initiatives and “hot” topics that affect federal facility sites. Managers from the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) will provide insights into current activities and issues in the program, including updates on emerging contaminants, the Record of Decision (ROD) improvement project, the Federal Facility Docket, and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Time will also be set aside for discussion among participants about issues and concerns they are experiencing.

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 8:45 am to 10:15 am
Moderators:	Sheri Bianchin, Region 5 Dante Rodriguez, Region 9
Panelists:	Michael Bellot, EPA HQ Sheri Bianchin, Region 5 Michael Hendershot, Region 3 Derek Matory, Region 4 Dante Rodriguez, Region 9 Gregory Sullivan, EPA HQ

Institutional Controls (IC) are non-engineered components of a remedy. Examples of ICs include deed restrictions, local city ordinances, restrictions on ground water use, base-use plans, and fishing bans. The use of ICs is often a key component of Superfund remedies. If a site is not cleaned up to unrestricted use levels, as specified in the site plan, an IC is required to ensure that the restricted uses do not occur. The national IC Workgroup meets monthly to track IC-related issues, share information, and identify solutions to the often vexing IC issues that face Superfund site managers. The group holds an annual roundtable workshop in April with its partner agencies and associations that also deal with IC implementation issues. Attendees at the annual workshop raise the challenging issues of the day for discussion and attempted resolution. NARPM members who serve on the IC Workgroup, along with national experts from around the country, will bring these issues to the NARPM conference to share their experiences with Superfund RPMs who may be facing similar issues. Participants are invited to come to the panel session, present their IC issues, and receive some expert advice and valuable feedback.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 1:15 pm to 2:45 pm
Moderators:	Matthew Charsky, EPA HQ
Panelists:	Matthew Charsky, EPA HQ Robert Ford, EPA

The Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) panel session will provide an update on the selection and implementation of MNA as a response action for sites under CERCLA remedial authority. Historically, MNA has been selected at more than 200 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) as either the sole response or in combination with other response actions to address ground water contamination. However, limited information has been collected on the performance of MNA actions. The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) are coordinating efforts to close this data gap.

Today, the Superfund program is being challenged to show progress and results. Parties within EPA and outside the agency are looking for data to show that remedies are performing as designed. This session will:

• Provide RPMs with a national summary of MNA policy.
• Roll out ORD's new documents, "MNA for Inorganics."
• Present examples of the use of MNA and success stories.
• Provide RPMs with an opportunity to shape future MNA

Date and Time:	Thursday, May 24, 8:45 am to 10:15 am
Moderators:	Alana Lee, Region 9
Panelists:	David Bartenfelder, EPA HQ Raphael Cody, Region 1 Helen Dawson, Region 8 Alana Lee, Region 9 Michael Sivak, Region 2

Still got vapor intrusion (VI) questions? You are not alone. For those of you who are not yet VI'd (vapor intrusioned) out, we have the session for you!

In this panel session you will be able to ask those complicated VI questions and discuss those difficult VI issues you were told to save for later.

Do you need a forum to voice your VI concerns and would appreciate some support from other regions, HQ and ORD? We need you too. During this session, the revitalization and redevelopment of a National Vapor Intrusion Workgroup will be discussed. The workgroup would provide a forum for RPMs and others to share lessons learned, ask questions of each other, discuss VI issues and news, hear about the latest guidance Regions are using, and provide a network for information exchange. We will ask participants if revitalizing this workgroup is a good idea, who would be interested in participating, and how often. A few questions for participants to ponder include:

• Do we need to develop regional or national "best practices" in the interim while no revised OSWER VI guidance is in place?
• Do we have additional training needs or possible research ideas?

Please come to this panel session and bring your ideas, suggestions, and other VI topics that RPMs and other VI enthusiasts would like to hear about and discuss.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 10:15 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Marla E. Wieder, Region 2
Panelists:	Ben Bahk, EPA HQ Damian Duda, Region 2 Dion Novak, Region 5 Marla E. Wieder, Region 2

What are the biggest challenges RPMs and attorneys face with files and records management (electronic and hard copy), data collection, and database management? This panel session will examine data and file management issues that confront RPMs and attorneys on a regular basis. The panel members will also solicit input from participants on how to better manage site records. The primary goal of the session is to develop a simple guide and systematic approach, including useful hints and techniques, to assist EPA staff in improving records management. Participants will be given an easy-to-use handout that provides tips on how to resolve some of the main issues with e-mail and electronic document retention by establishing a level of consistency in the overall files and records management system. The panel will also examine EPA’s Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS) and its effect on e-mail management.

The full extent of electronic discovery can be overwhelming, ranging from e-mail, hard drives, and databases to hard copy reports. Common complaints involve the following:

• Inconsistent direction and guidance among the regional offices.
• Software updates that affect archived files.
• Dates that can change.
• The lack of effective procedures for ensuring smooth site transitions, for example, when RPMs or attorneys change.
• The lack of consistency in removing drafts (letters and documents) from electronic files.
• The need for more management input and guidance on this issue.

In response, the panel will address:

1. EPA’s information "overload."
2. Problems with EPA’s current records management systems.
3. EPA’s records management guidance.
4. An overview of documents that RPMs typically create.
5. Procedures for retention (for such items as draft documents, electronic records, and e-mails) (What to save? How long to keep? What to recycle?).
6. Electronic data management (Who is responsible? What are the various regional approaches? What are the pros and cons?).
7. EPA’s databases (What are they? Where are they? Which are most critical?).
8. Administrative Records (ensuring accuracy and timeliness).

As a follow up to this session, members of the panel will consider developing a national workgroup to examine this issue of securing a consistent approach to files and records management.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 10:15 am to 12:00 pm
Moderators:	Kathy Davies, Region 3
Panelists:	Brad Bradley, Region 5 David Cooper, EPA HQ Helen Dawson, Region 8 Alana Lee, Region 9 Henry Schuver, EPA HQ Michael Sivak, Region 2

The TCE Toxicity/Vapor Intrusion panel session will update RPMs on the status of the draft TCE toxicity value, present the National Research Council's major review findings on TCE, and provide a forum for the exchange of information about how the various regional offices are handling vapor intrusion and lessons learned. Panel members, made up of RPMs, toxicologists, and experienced vapor intrusion specialists, will discuss how they have been using the TCE inhalation toxicity value and how it applies to evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway. The panelists will also share site examples of the challenging issues that influence evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway, what they have done, and the lessons learned.

It is expected that TCE will be the primary contaminant that prompts further evaluation of the potential health risks from the vapor intrusion pathway, for two reasons. First, TCE is the most common volatile organic compound (VOC) at Superfund ground water sites; and second, there is debate about which TCE values to use when evaluating the vapor intrusion pathway. RPMs whose sites may have been affected by TCE and are evaluating the vapor intrusion pathway should attend, and are invited to share challenges at their sites with the panelists and other participants.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Moderators:	Yvonne Fong, Region 9
Presenters:	Pauletta France-Isetts, Region 7 Gary Riley, Region 9 Eric Yunker, Region 9

In Situ Oxidation of 1,4-Dioxane with Ozone and Hydrogen Peroxide
Presenter: Eric Yunker, EPA Region 9

A pilot-scale field evaluation was carried out to assess the effectiveness of an innovative in situ oxidation

process (using ozone with and without hydrogen peroxide) for remediation of 1,4-dioxane and chlorinated volatile organic compounds. These contaminants were detected in ground water at the Cooper Drum Company Superfund site in South Gate, Los Angeles County, California.

The ozone/hydrogen peroxide generation and delivery systems were installed in mid-July 2005 and the system operated continuously until early May 2006, a period of 10.5 months. Ozone alone was injected into the subsurface in the initial operation phase. Injection of hydrogen peroxide was initiated after 5 months to evaluate the effectiveness of combined ozone/hydrogen peroxide injection in remediating the recalcitrant compounds present in the site ground water. Some conclusions of the field pilot test are as follows:

• Ozone injection alone can significantly reduce the concentrations of the site chemicals of concern (COC), including trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and 1,4-dioxane.
• The effect of hydrogen peroxide on destruction of COCs is not clear. However, ex situ testing of the site ground water does indicate that it is likely that injection of stoichiometric (0.7–to–1 mole: mole) or less of hydrogen peroxide to ozone is required to achieve optimal results and to increase oxidation kinetics.
• The presence of high levels of secondary constituents in the ground water (such as iron, bicarbonates, and organic matter) may have enhanced the effectiveness of oxidation by ozone.

Response to Contaminated Buildings in Proposed Redevelopment Areas
Presenter: Pauletta France-Isetts, EPA Region 7

This paper discusses non-typical responses to contamination, the importance of EPA involvement and presence during response actions, and the benefits of cleanup to the community. The PCB Treatment, Inc. (PTI), sites were located in highly visible areas of Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas. The PTI sites operated, pursuant to a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) permit, during the mid-1980s to treat, store, and dispose of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Two multi-story buildings and surrounding soils were contaminated with PCBs at concentrations above health risk-based levels. The Kansas City, Missouri building was located in the Freighthouse District, an area undergoing intense redevelopment. Residential lofts were located east and west of the PTI building. The Kansas City, Kansas building was located between two buildings in the West Bottoms District. The PTI building shared a wall with the building to the south, and fewer than 6 inches separated the PTI building and the structure to the north. Former PTI customers were deemed potentially responsible. More than 1,500 information request letters were issued, and an allocation formula was developed. More than 99 percent of all responsible parties settled; de minimis parties “cashed-out” with EPA or the Steering Committee. Action memoranda identified controlled dismantlement of the buildings and soil excavation as the response action. The cost for both buildings was estimated at $34 million. Additional studies to quantify TSCA and non-TSCA wastes and segregation of the building debris for disposal were performed. The response actions were completed on or ahead of schedule, under budget, and with no loss of time accidents. Both properties are now under contract for purchase, and will be redeveloped in the near future.

Get SMARTe: Electronic Tools for Revitalization Planning
Presenter: Gary Riley, EPA Region 9

Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tools electronic (SMARTe) is an online resource to help overcome obstacles to site revitalization. EPA developed this tool after evaluating model sites across the country and around the world as part of the U.S.-German Bilateral Working Group.

SMARTe (http://www.smarte.org) consists of:

• Best Practices and Education: Information, Resources, Case Studies, Links; Checklists; Identification of Key Questions
• Analysis Tools: Technical and Non-Technical
• Search Engine: Find Specific Information

This information can benefit a number of groups including community members, local governments, developers, and revitalization process managers. The presentation will emphasize the portions of SMARTe that may be useful to RPMs and the stakeholders we come into contact with while facilitating land reuse. The presentation will also provide an overview of the "beta test" sites where SMARTe is being applied to a real-world EPA removal action, and will show the new features coming in the fall 2007 release of SMARTe.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Moderators:	John Lucey, Region 9
Presenters:	Anne Dailey, Region 10 Mark Purcell, Region 6 Ken Wangerud, Region 8

Monitoring Hydrodynamic and Geochemical Processes in a Valley-Fill ARD Waste-Rock Repository
Presenter: Ken Wangerud, EPA Region 8

Acid mine site remediation is a significant problem, both in the U.S and globally. Due to the volume of acid producing rock the only practical solution is minimizing acid production by reducing or eliminating water flow through the rock. Typically, this is achieved through emplacement of a cap over the waste rock. The Ruby Gulch repository at the Gilt Edge Mine NPL site is such a capped waste rock repository. Eliminating discharge from valley-fill capped waste-rock repositories is difficult and multiple factors can cause continuing oxidation and ARD discharge. Consequently, early in the cap-cover design EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation design-build team recognized the need for a long-term monitoring system which would provide actionable information on the repository performance and behavior. Specifically, the following objectives were defined for a monitoring system: 1) provide information on the integrity and performance of the newly constructed surface cover and diversion system; 2) continuously assess the waste's hydrological and geochemical behavior, such that rational decisions can be made for the operation of this cover and liner system; 3) provide easy and timely information access on system performance to a variety of stakeholders; and 4) generate information and insights which can be used to enhance future cover and monitoring discussions between EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation and DOE Idaho National Laboratory. A long-term monitoring system was designed and integrated into the multi-layered geomembranerock- soil cap-cover over the 65-acre, 450-feet high, sulfide waste-rock dump to provide information to meet these objectives. The system consists of tensiometers, lysimeters and thermocouples in four wells, a 523-electrode resistivity system installed below the cap and in the wells, a weather station, and a precision outflow-meter at the toe-discharge of the repository. Continuous data from this system as well as auxiliary manually collected samples is parsed into a web accessible central server. Automated and on demand data processing allows for 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D resistivity tomography and user controllable data mining. The philosophy underlying this system is that it should provide both for effective automated and autonomous data collection and for a cost effective way for multiple stakeholders to use this data.

Paper was written by Ken Wangerud (Remedial Project Manager in the Superfund Remedial Program at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO 80202); Roelof Versteeg (Senior Advisory Scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID 83415); Gail Heath (Principal Scientist at the INL, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415); Rich Markiewicz (scientist at the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO); and Alex Richardson (scientist at the INL, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 83415).

Origin of Ground Water Contamination at the Molycorp Mine Site
Presenter: Mark Purcell, EPA Region 6

This paper will focus on the origin of ground water contamination at the Molycorp molybdenum mine, located along the Red River Valley near Questa in Taos County, New Mexico. Molycorp is conducting a CERCLA investigation at its mine under a consent order with EPA. Approximately 328 million tons of acid-generating waste rock was placed in piles at the site from historical open-pit mining. Many of the tributary drainages within the valley, including some at the mine site, contain areas of hydrothermally altered rock that resulted in steep, highly erosive, sparsely vegetated scars (hydrothermal scars). Alluvial ground water at and upgradient of the mine site contains elevated concentrations of metals and acidic pH values. Molycorp believes the source of the ground water contamination is primarily the naturally occurring hydrothermal scars. Molycorp funded the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a baseline study at a nearby analog drainage to assess pre-mining water quality. The USGS findings confirm that scars impair ground water quality. The EPA-directed CERCLA investigation also demonstrated that acid rock drainage within the waste rock piles contaminated ground water. The naturally occurring background levels of metals in ground water exceed state ground water standards and will affect the cleanup levels EPA ultimately selects for the site.

Use of a Conservation Easement to Address Mine Waste Impacts
Presenter: Anne Dailey, EPA Region 10

This paper will discuss the use of a conservation easement used to address mine waste impacts, specifically in the Couer d' Alene Basin. Migrating waterfowl winging their way across Idaho's Panhandle will have a safe new place to rest and feed, thanks to a newly forged Conservation Easement Agreement in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The agreement was developed by EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and a willing private property owner. This easement agreement uses an innovative approach and is an integral part of the comprehensive mine waste cleanup under way in the basin. In an unusual partnership, federal, state, tribal, and private parties have come together with a non-profit wetland conservation organization to launch a cost-effective project to reduce waterfowl mortality in the Lower Coeur d'Alene Basin.

More than a century of mining and ore processing upstream in the historic Silver Valley have contaminated the Coeur d'Alene River and its floodplain with sediment that contains high concentrations of lead and other metals. Concentrations of lead in more than 18,000 acres of wetland are above levels toxic to waterfowl. As a result, waterfowl frequently ingest leadcontaminated sediment and suffer serious toxic effects or die. The problem has become so pervasive that an annual "die-off" of waterfowl has occurred in the area for decades. This project is an important first step in addressing contaminated wildlife feeding areas within the Coeur d'Alene Basin. In its recent final report on the Bunker Hill Superfund Site, the National Research Council encouraged EPA's efforts to secure agricultural lands, stating that converting them to high-quality feeding grounds and reestablishing wetland in these areas is a laudable effort (NRC 2005).

The agreement was established within the framework of the EPA's 2002 Bunker Hill Record of Decision, which charts the course for mine waste cleanup in the Coeur d'Alene Basin over the next 30 years. EPA, FWS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will conduct a Superfund cleanup action on the easement area over the coming months, converting the existing agricultural land to clean wetland waterfowl feeding habitat. FWS will implement a wetland restoration project at this site in the coming years. By returning the area to a more natural state, the partnership predicts it will become an attractive feeding alternative and provide safer habitat for both resident and migratory waterfowl.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 1:15 pm to 2:45 pm
Moderators:	Sandra Bourgeois, Region 8
Presenters:	Paul Mushovic, Region 8 Rich Muza, Region 9 Mark Purcell, Region 6

Evapotranspiration or Extraterrestrials - Which One Will Win Out at Monticello?
Presenter: Paul Mushovic, EPA Region 8

This paper will focus on the successes of the cover, lingering problems, and the lessons learned at a site in Monticello, Utah. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA collaborated on the design, construction, and monitoring of an alternative cover for a uranium mill tailings disposal cell at Monticello. The disposal cell was designed to satisfy the minimum technology guidance specified in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the radon attenuation and the 200- to 1,000-year longevity requirements in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978. Environmental conditions — including relatively low precipitation, high evapotranspiration potential, and thick unsaturated soils — favor longterm hydrologic isolation at semi-arid sites such as Monticello. The cover was designed to mimic the natural soil-water balance at the site. As a result, the cover relies on the water storage capacity of a thick, fine-textured layer of soil that overlies a sand-and-gravel capillary barrier to store precipitation while plants are dormant. It also relies on evapotranspiration (ET) to remove stored water during the growing season. The cover was constructed in 1999 and 2000, and there are now 6 years of data and study on the performance of the cover and the establishment of vegetation. Recently, an invasion of voles has further jeopardized the performance of the cover by significantly stressing shrub species necessary for removing water from the soil storage layer.

Historic Mine Water Discharges Hinder EPA's Cleanup Effort at Former Uranium Mill, Church Rock, New Mexico
Presenter: Mark Purcell, EPA Region 6

This paper will discuss EPA's cleanup effort at a former uranium mill located in Church Rock, New Mexico that was hindered by historic mine water discharges. Historical mine water discharges to a local arroyo significantly resaturated and contaminated three shallow waterbearing zones beneath the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Superfund site, a former uranium mill and tailings disposal site near Church Rock, New Mexico. The site is also adjacent to the Navajo Indian Reservation. When milling operations began, leachate from acidic tailings seeped from three unlined tailings disposal cells and mixed with the mine water discharges, resulting in increased concentrations of radionuclides, metals, and sulfate. The contaminated ground water migrated under Tribal Trust and Indian Allotment lands and threatens to affect the Reservation. In a 1989 record of decision (ROD), EPA selected an extraction and evaporation remedy to clean up the contaminated ground water. EPA also selected a post-mining, pre-milling water quality as the background conditions for the site.

The extraction system was shut off several years ago because pumping rates declined as a result of insufficient natural recharge. Furthermore, saturation of these units by mine water discharges dissolved gypsum and other evaporitic minerals, hindering EPA's effort to achieve site cleanup levels for sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). EPA is evaluating the merits of a technical impracticability (TI) waiver for state ground water standards for TDS and sulfate, along with institutional controls (ICs) to prevent exposure to contaminated ground water on tribal lands.

Treatment Cell Supplement to a Permeable Reactive Barrier: Performance Monitoring at a Former Uranium Milling Site near Monticello, Utah
Presenters: Rich Muza, EPA Region 9, and Paul Mushovic, EPA Region 8

A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) that contains 300 tons of zero valent iron (ZVI) filings was installed in June 1999 at a former uranium milling site near Monticello, Utah. The PRB includes three zones, consisting of (from upgradient) 2 feet of a mixture of gravel and ZVI, 4 feet of ZVI, and 2 feet of gravel. Ground water samples and water-level data have been collected at regular intervals from more than 50 wells in the PRB. Satisfactory performance of the PRB requires that (1) contaminant concentrations are lowered to regulated levels, (2) a high proportion of the ambient ground water flow is treated, and (3) there are no adverse affects to land use. Contaminant concentrations have remained low in most wells in the ZVI zone to satisfy the first criterion. Attainment of the second and third criteria is less certain, considering a continuously rising ground water mound behind the PRB. This occurrence is likely coupled to an order-ofmagnitude loss of permeability in the PRB, as measured by serial gas-injection slug tests. The decline in permeability is presumably a result of the mineral precipitation observed in the ZVI zone. As a result, the proportion of treated ground water may have decreased significantly from an initial mass-balance estimate of 4 to 5 gallons per minute (gpm), and the rising water table now threatens crop production. Flux estimates based on Darcian principles are limited by high spatial and temporal variability. A supplemental treatment cell was installed in June 2005 to alleviate the ground water mounding and provide additional treatment capacity. This cell is currently (as of October 2006) treating about 4.5 gpm and, since construction, has treated in excess of 2.5 million gallons of ground water. Performance data (flows, pressures, and pH) collected and transmitted daily to operations personnel indicate that the cell is operating normally. In August 2006, an infiltration gallery was constructed downgradient of the PRB to reintroduce treated ground water into the alluvial aquifer with the hope of improving water quality downgradient of the original PRB. Effluent concentrations of uranium remain less than the ground water standard. The costs of construction and operation of the treatment cell are favorable, and long-term maintenance costs for the treatment cell are relatively minor. Furthermore, the amount of data required to confirm the performance of the treatment cell is much less than was required to confirm the performance of the existing PRB at a similar level of confidence.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Moderators:	Jamey Watt, Region 9
Presenters:	Jane Dolan, Region 1 Kristine Koch, Region 10

Anatomy and Physiology of a DoD Training and Testing Range
Presenter: Jane Dolan, EPA Region 1

Initial intrusive investigations of a range on the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) resulted in trace detections of explosive compounds, even though greater potential impacts were suggested by the signs present. Range features included firing points, impact areas and backstop berms, open burn/open detonation areas, a melt-pour facility, and disposal areas. Additional records review and exploratory work expanded on the delineation effort. Symptoms of range contamination were manifested in ground water monitoring wells after the accumulated information could be examined and common sense judgments applied to the existing evidence. This paper will present the lines of evidence that were developed based on a records review, witness interviews, soil sampling, geophysical surveys, ground water monitoring well installation and sampling, and modeling. All these lines of information were holistically analyzed to delineate the nature and extent of contaminatio n on and emanating from a range on the MMR. The target audience is federal, state, and local government employees, citizens, and contractor personnel interested in the investigatory approach, results, and lessons learned from a remedial investigation of a federal facility site.

Multi-Incremental Sampling: An Innovative Approach for Site Characterization at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site
Presenter: Kristine Koch, EPA Region 10

This paper will discuss the methodology and findings of the multi-incremental sampling in contract with the previous sampling methodologies and findings at a property located within the Portland Harbor Superfund site. Since the early 1900s, there has been a very lengthy history of diverse industrial operations at the site. The State of Oregon oversaw the environmental studies conducted at the site prior to 2006 and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for soil contamination at the site in February 2005. Based on historical soil sampling conducted at the site, the following soil constituents of concern (COCs) have been identified: metals including antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); diesel and heavy oil range petroleum hydrocarbons; pentachlorophenol (PCP); tributyltin (TBT); and dioxins/furans. As part of a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (BFPP) agreement for this property, EPA Region 10 has applied the concept of multi-incremental sampling for the property. The multi-incremental sampling concept is partially based on EPA's guidance document, Guidance for Obtaining Representative Laboratory Analytical Subsamples from Particulate Laboratory Samples (USEPA 2003). Multiincremental sampling is an innovative approach to evaluate whether soils at a site can be considered "clean" for COCs.

This approach, which is being disseminated to EPA technical staff throughout the U.S., involves collecting multi-incremental samples composed of 30 or more sub-samples within each designated sampling area, which results in a high sampling density. The multi-incremental sampling approach is considered more representative of areas with no known source of hazardous constituents. This approach has been developed using statistical analysis to assess the representativeness of sampling; its effectiveness has been confirmed by empirical testing. The number of samples required for characterization of a surface using the multi-incremental sampling approach is based on statistical analysis and is independent of the area of the surface. Therefore, the number of samples collected from any one area may not appreciably differ from the number of samples collected from an area half the size of the first area. However, more samples may be necessary to delineate the contamination in that area for a removal action.

Date and Time:	Monday, May 21, 1:15 pm to 2:45 pm
Moderators:	Marie Lacey, Region 9
Presenters:	David Dickerson, Region 1 Marie Lacey, Region 9 Sharon Lin, Region 9

Consideration of Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells and Underwater Capping for a Cleanup in New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts
Presenter: David Dickerson, EPA Region 1

This paper will discuss confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cells and considerations in underwater capping used in a cleanup in New Bedford Harbor. The 1998 record of decision (ROD) for New Bedford Harbor calls for the removal of approximately 900,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment highly contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the upper and lower harbor. Fullscale hydraulic dredging, dewatering, and off-site disposal began in 2004 and, together with earlier accelerated cleanups, approximately 125,000 cy of contaminated sediment has been remediated to date. At the current funding rate of $15 million per year, it is estimated that it will take many decades to complete the harbor cleanup with this approach, with huge impacts on the overall cleanup cost. As a result, the project team has initiated a planning-level analysis of potential alternative approaches that would involve CAD cells and underwater capping in combination with dredging. This presentation will discuss the alternatives developed to date and summarize the main “pros and cons” of each. The presentation will also focus on CAD cells and their potential as an increasingly important tool in the toolbox for remediating contaminated sediments. For example, the presentation will explain the potential for use of the clean sand and gravel created during the excavation of CAD cells as a source of underwater capping material.

Lessons Learned from Southern California Coastal Fish Survey – Palos Verde Shelf Superfund Site
Presenter: Sharon Lin, EPA Region 9

This paper will discuss the lessons learned from EPA’s fish monitoring effort for the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund site and the importance of using Standard Reference Material (SRM) of the same matrix in fish tissue analysis. EPA and the natural resources trustees jointly conducted the fish monitoring effort in Southern California coastal waters from 2002 through 2004. About 900 fish tissue samples were analyzed for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, chlordane, and mercury. The process involved a rigorous study design and an extensive and careful laboratory selection process. After finding that the results for the fish tissue SRM (a critical quality assurance and quality control [QA/QC] indicator) were consistently biased low in the analysis or organic constituents, the issue of underreporting the contaminant levels was carefully considered. Researchers worked with the laboratory to identify the underlying problems and correct them. The presentation will share the details of the steps that have been taken to ensure the laboratory delivers reliable analytical results. The experience sheds some light on the importance of having a SRM of the same matrix when fish tissue is analyzed. The research indicates that most analysis during projects does not use an SRM based on fish tissue on a per-batch basis as a key QA/QC measure.

The results indicate that DDT and PCB contaminant levels are about 5 to 10 times higher in whole fish than in fish fillets for white croakers (soft bottom species) and kelp bass (hard bottom species). The presentation will share details of the whole body and fish fille