SEPA
       ISSUE #13
                              United States
                              Environmental Protection
                              Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261 A)
EPA 300-N-02-007
Spring 2002
                              an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
 Feds  Give  High Marks  on  EPA Advice
   Federal  facilities use  EPA's Environmental Management
   Reviews - or EMRs - to make big strides in improving their
 overall environmental performance. An EMR is a review of a
 facility's environmental programs and its management systems
 to determine the extent to which it has developed and imple-
 mented specific environmental protection programs and plans
 which should ensure  compliance with environmental laws and
 regulations and make  progress toward environmental excellence.
 Recent federal facility EMR success stories demonstrate that
 EMRs are successful,  with EPA providing useful advice to help
 federal facilities deal with everyday environmental concerns and
 to advance their environmental objectives.
   An EMR is a consulting service that EPA provides to federal
 facilities to help them improve their Environmental  Manage-
 ment Systems (EMSs).  EMRs are voluntary and free  to the
 reviewed facility. The  reviews are typically conducted by a team
 of experts from EPA with assistance from an EPA contractor. The
 team commonly spends one to three days at the facility, depend-
 ing on the scope and breadth of the EMR.
   Federal facilities use EMRs to improve their Environmental
 Management Systems. Whether the federal facility is looking for
 ways to improve its existing EMS  or wants guidance and infor-
 mation on how to develop its own system, EPA is ready to assist.
   For ease of organization, an EMS can be separated into sev-
 eral components. EPA's Generic Protocol for Conducting Envi-
 ronmental Audits of Federal Facilities - Phase 3, organizes an
 EMS into seven parts or disciplines (Figure 1). Many EMRs are
 structured similarly, with the reviewed facility receiving  recom-
 mendations in one  or more of these disciplines. As part of an
 EMR, the  EPA team and the federal facility staff determine the
 scope of the review to  be conducted at the facility. In past years,
  Inside
 2   Environmental Management Reviews
 3   FFCA Workshop and DoD-State MEG Meeting
 4   News: Mercury Assessment, RCRA Cleanup Initiative,
    National Environmental Performance Track and Clean
    Texas Programs
 5   FUDS Pose Potential Threats
 6   Workshops/Training
 7   TX Environmental Partnership
 Figure 1
  ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
                SEVEN DISCIPLINES
 Total EMRs: 38
 Total Recommendations: 547
                                   Organization
                                    Structure
                       Environmental
                        Planning and
                      Risk Management
                           22%
    Program Evaluation
      Reporting, and
     Corrective Action
         11%
             Formality of
            Environmental
             Programs
               22%
                          Staff Resources,
                         Development, and
                            \Training
                             22%
               V
                                           \
                                         Internal & External
                                          Communications
                                              7%
EMRs tended to focus on only two or three of the seven disci-
plines, due primarily to time limitations. More recently and espe-
cially since Executive Order 13148 was issued (April 21, 2000),
requiring federal facilities to have EMSs in place by December
31, 2005, facilities and EPA teams are willing to take the time
and effort required for  a  more comprehensive  approach and
review of all seven disciplines.
   In preparation for the EMR, the facility staff typically provide
the EPA team with background information on  organizational
structure, operations conducted on-site, and overall mission of
the facility. With this information, the EPA team  can determine
which operations have the potential to most significantly impact
the environment.  The information also helps the team to orga-
nize the review to be as beneficial  as possible to the facility as
well as to determine what staff should be interviewed as part of
the EMR. A schedule for the EMR is developed, including what
the review will focus on, the  dates of an on-site visit by the
review team, and the personnel to  be interviewed by the team.
This planning allows the EMR team to maximize its time with
the facility's personnel and to gather the required  information to
make a  proper assessment while minimizing disruption to the
facility's day-to-day operations.
                                        Continued on page 3
                                                                                                Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
Hinton Environmental  Management Review
 In January  2001, EPA Region VII  con-
 <
 I ducted an Environmental Management
Review  (EMR) of Western Area Power
Administration's  (Western) Hinton Sub-
station and Maintenance facility located in
Hinton, Iowa. The EMR team consisted of
seven people who conducted on-site facility
reviews, interviews and assessment of doc-
uments. Western requested that the EMR
provide assistance in improving Western's
Environmental   Management  System
(EMS) that was being reviewed  for compli-
ance with  Executive  Order 13148, Green-
ing the  Government  Through Leadership
in Environmental Management.  Therefore,
the EMR reviewed seven disciplines (see
Figure 1, page 1).
   The preparation for the EMR was
important to the quality of the informa-
tion obtained. Areas of both strength and
improvement were identified.
   EPA staff learned about Western's mis-
sion as well as details concerning opera-
tions of the Hinton facility. A briefing by
Western staff helped EPA determine what
skills and expertise would  be needed for
the EMR  team. EPA also invited the State
of Iowa environmental staff to participate.
   Western  found  communications  dur-
ing the EMR process extremely helpful.
Specifically, EPA staff provided valuable
input regarding pollution prevention and
waste reduction that has resulted in addi-
tional recycling initiatives.
   The EMR team conducted interviews
across all levels and job functions includ-
ing managers and craft  personnel. After
the EPA report was finalized, Western
developed an action plan that addressed
recommendations from  the  EMR. The
information from the EMR is being used
to enhance and further develop Western's
EMS. For  example,  recommendations
that have  been implemented  include
tracking and trending of collected envi-
ronmental data.
   Western staff is certain that the EMR
process will lead to improvements in pro-
tecting the environment.
   For  more information, contact Nick
Stas at (406) 247-7399 or stas@wapa.gov.
EMRs  Well-Received  and  Viewed as Valuable
Region VI -  USDA
The EMR made recommendations for improving our environ-
mental management programs, which we've been implementing.
A major accomplishment is that "green" design in contracting
was made one of the prime selection criteria in our recent solici-
tation for architect/engineering services.  The incorporation of
environmentally friendly materials and designs in our new con-
struction will yield environmental benefits for years to come.
   In addition to practical benefits, the EMR had intangible pos-
itive effects. The EMR was partially conducted at one of the U.S.
Department of Agricultural (USDA) Agricultural Research Ser-
vice's (ARS) Southern Plains Area's nineteen research laborato-
ries. Word of their favorable impression of the review and its out-
come has spread to the other laboratories, leading to increased
appreciation of and commitment to the  seven  environmental
management principles evaluated in the EMR. Our overall posi-
tive experience from the review has led to EMRs being consid-
ered or conducted in other Areas of our agency.
                                                Phil Smith
                                   Area Safety & Health Manager
                                 USDA ARS Southern Plains Area

Region VI -  Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Region VI contacted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the midst
of our preparation for ISO 14001 Certification. The EMR gave our
Management Team a benchmark against which to assess our
progress  towards implementing  and ultimately attaining  ISO
14001 Certification.
                                                BillBozzo
                               Manager, Environmental Department
                            DynMcDermott Petroleum Operation Co.

Region X - NOAA
In January of 1999, EPA Region X performed an Environmental
Management  Review at National  Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                           Administration (NOAA), Office of Marine and Aviation Operations,
                                                           Marine Operations Center - Pacific (MOC-P).  The marine center
                                                           provides support for NOAA's pacific fleet of seven vessels with four
                                                           vessels homeported in Seattle. EPA Region X Federal Facilities
                                                           Coordinator, Michelle Wright contacted James Schell, Environ-
                                                           mental Compliance Officer, and requested if we would volunteer to
                                                           have an EMR performed at the site. This would be the first federal
                                                           site in Region X and NOAA site in the country to be reviewed. This
                                                           was an opportune time for the marine center as we were research-
                                                           ing the development of an Environmental Management System for
                                                           the site according to the EPA's Code of Environmental Manage-
                                                           ment Principals (CEMP) for federal facilities. We had developed a
                                                           P2 Plan for Washington State Department of Ecology in 1994 and
                                                           an update was due. Having an EMR performed voluntarily at our
                                                           site benefited our program. The review of our program showed the
                                                           weaknesses and strengths of our program.
                                                              One area needing improvement was our training program.
                                                           Our vessels average between six to eight months away from
                                                           Seattle. Training is difficult to provide to all employees. A list was
                                                           compiled for relevant environmental training required and incor-
                                                           porated into our  revised Environmental Compliance and Guid-
                                                           ance Manual. We researched ways to provide interactive, multi-
                                                           media  training  for the vessels underway. Computer-based
                                                           training that could be customized to meet the needs of each ves-
                                                           sel was purchased. Even though the programs were developed
                                                           for shore side facilities, the  training provides information vessel
                                                           crewmembers can use while their vessels are underway.
                                                              The EMR process is a valuable, informative, and comprehen-
                                                           sive technical assistance program provided by EPA. If your site
                                                           is in the  process or has just completed an EMS, I recommend
                                                           having an EMR performed.
                                                                                                           Jim Schell
                                                                                          Environmental Compliance Specialist
                                                                                           NOAA Marine Operations Center—
                                                                                                    Pacific Director's Staff
 2 FEDFACS

-------
Region Vll's  FFCA  Workshop and  DoD-State  MEG  Meeting
   Region VII hosted the Federal Facilities
   Compliance Assistance Workshop  at
the Regional Office from December 11-12,
2001.  The  theme was "Environmental
Management for the 21st Century."
   The workshop  welcomed all  federal
facilities in Region VII. The conference
was highly successful in achieving its goal
of focusing on the Environmental Man-
agement System (EMS), which is a sys-
tem that helps an organization to develop,
implement, achieve, and maintain a suc-
cessful environmental policy.  Approxi-
mately 70 attendees participated in the
two-day event. Will Garvey, FFEO, gave
an overview of Executive Orders 13101
and 13148.
   Andy Teplitzky, Office of Policy, Econom-
ics and Innovation,  spoke  on National
Environmental Achievement Track, a vol-
untary program  that  recognizes  and
rewards top environmental performers
that go beyond legal requirements.
   Denise Rayborn, of the  National Re-
newable Energy Laboratory,  described the
history and components of an EMS. She also
discussed the  similarities  and differences
between the ISO 14001 and the CEMP.
   Alice Beecher  Reeves  (President) and
Karen Hamilton (CEO) from Paragon Busi-
ness Solutions, Inc., reviewed several soft-
ware programs available to  assist federal
agencies to develop and implement an EMS.
   Nicholas Stas, of the Western Area
Power Administration (WAPA) and  Ruben
McCullers, EPA Region VII EMS Coordina-
tor, discussed the  Environmental Manage-
ment  Review  conducted in the  Upper
Plains Region for WAPA in January 2001.
   The Workshop was followed immedi-
ately by a region-wide DoD-State Military
Environmental Group (MEG)  meeting.
The two events were  scheduled back-to-
back to promote partnering and  maxi-
mum participation by DoD organizations
in both forums. The program for the MEG
meeting continued the theme of "Envi-
ronmental Management for the 21st Cen-
tury,"  and featured the Honorable John
Paul  Woodley,  Jr.,  Assistant  Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Environ-
ment,  as the keynote speaker. The MEG
agenda also included a panel on EMSs,
presentations on the Army's concept for
Centralized  Installation Management;
the Affirmative Procurement Program;
lead-free ammunition; a lead based paint
update; and an overview of "Cleanup Lev-
els for Missouri" (or CALM).
   The MEG meeting offers an excellent
opportunity for DoD representatives and
environmental regulators to share infor-
mation and address issues.
   Planning will begin shortly on the next
conference,   tentatively  scheduled  for
Summer  2002. Please  forward  sugges-
tions or comments for future conferences
and workshops to Diana Jackson at (913)
551 -7744 or jackson.diana@epa.gov.
FEDS GIVE HIGH MARKS ON EPA ADVICE
Continued from page 1

   A few months following the on-site visit, the facility generally
receives a draft EMR Report from EPA for review. After receiving
facility comments, the team finalizes the EMR Report and sends
it to the facility. The report summarizes the review, notes the
strong points of the facility's environmental systems, and makes
recommendations for further improvements.
   The most common recommendations include developing envi-
ronmental policies, improving procedures to ensure that the facil-
ity remains in compliance with legal and permit requirements,
and including environmental standards in position descriptions
and performance evaluations. Other common recommendations
include conducting  environmental  training for  facility staff,
improving emergency  planning and implementation of emer-
gency plans, and establishing corrective action plans when defi-
ciencies are found. The facility  is asked to report  to EPA in six
months on its response to the report's recommendations.
   Since 1994, EPA conducted EMRs at 83 different federal facil-
ities. Thirty-eight federal facilities reported  on their implemen-
tation of 547 recommendations. They reported to EPA that 81%
of the recommendations were either implemented (43%) or are
planned to be implemented (38%) (Figure 2). Facilities reported
they took no action on 19% of the recommendations. This shows
that EMRs are hitting the mark and are addressing environ-
mental management issues. It also shows that the  recommenda-
tions are "real world," practical, and useful for federal agencies.
   EMRs give federal facilities useful and practical suggestions
for developing and  implementing environmental  management
                    systems. Facilities report that EMRs are a valuable tool to
                    heighten the  awareness  of  environmental matters as they
                    undertake their daily operations and that EMRs give them a
                    blue print to advance their environmental systems. We invite
                    you to read just a few of many EMR success stories and lessons
                    learned (see related article on page 2).
                      For additional information, please contact Gregory Snyder at
                    snyder.greg@epa.gov.
                     Figure 2
                     ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
                             PERCENTAGE OF ACTIONS TO
                                  RECOMMENDATIONS
                     Total EMRs: 38
                     Total Recommendations: 547
                                             No Action
                                         102 recommendations
                                               19%
                                            Actions Planned
                                          210 recommendations
                                                38%
                                                                                                      FEDFACS 3

-------
   News
Region VI Discusses
Mercury Assessment

The U.S. Army Center for Health Promo-
tion and Prevention Medicine (USACH-
PPM) Hazardous and Medical Waste Pro-
gram  conducted a mercury assessment
that included developing an inventory of
facilities, compiling findings, recommend-
ing actions, and forecasting the future of
mercury use at medical facilities.

Inventory
•   Developed a checklist, surveyed loca-
   tion of all Army  military  treatment
   facilities in CONUS, and entered into
   database and evaluated data.

Findings
•   All laboratories had mercury-contain-
   ing chemicals.
•   No pure  mercury compounds were
   found  but  mercury  thermometers,
   sphygmomanometers, and cathode ray
   oscillosocopes were found in most facil-
   ities.
•   Few facilities  had implemented  low
   mercury fluorescent  tubes,  mercury
   thermostats were found in many facili-
   ties, and mercury switches were found
   in most all facilities.
•   Unexpected items found containing
   mercury were Formalin  25.8  ppb,
   Bouins Solution 46.6 ppb, B-% Fixative
   148.4 ppb, TB Decolorizer 65.6 ppb,
   Blood Bank Reagants 14,300 ppb, Soft
   Cide Soap (Baxter) 8.1  ppb, Dove Soap
   0.0027 ppb, and Ajax Powder 0.17 ppb.

Actions
•   Reduction by using less mercury con-
   taining compounds and elimination by
   removing  mercury containing items/
   compounds,  substituting items/prod-
   ucts, training personnel, and commu-
   nicating with the medical command to
   remove mercury items from the supply
   system completely.
The Future
•   Recognition that not all items can be
   replaced/eliminated (patient care takes
   precedence),  Material  Safety Data
   Sheets should be checked closely and/or
   manufacturers contacted directly, and
   commanders,  supervisors, and person-
   nel must take responsibility.

   The Federal Medical  Center, Bureau
of Prisons in Fort Worth, Texas, the Vet-
erans Administration in  Alexandria,
Louisiana, and the Academy of Sciences
in Fort Sam Houston, Texas provided pos-
itive feedback, indicating that they  are
aware of environmental and  health
impacts  of mercury.  Mercury inventories
were  conducted,  flourescent  bulbs  are
now treated as universal waste, mercury
use is given consideration in the purchas-
ing process, and  the facility is aware of
"greening" Executive Orders.
   Examples that showed mercury reduc-
tion were replacing mercury-containing
equipment,  purchasing   non-mercury
flourescent lamps and  light ballasts, and
training  dental  assistants  to not mix
metal with mercury.
   For more information, contact Joyce
Stubblefield at stubbleifeld.joyce@epa.gov.
RCRA Cleanup Reforms
Initiative

Randolph Air Force Base (AFB) in San
Antonio, Texas  has been selected as a
RCRA Showcase Pilot under EPA's RCRA
Cleanup Reforms Initiative. A total of 31
facilities nationwide have been chosen to
illustrate innovative efforts in RCRA Cor-
rective Action Cleanup and to stimulate
others to explore similar efforts to speed
progress toward cleanup goals. The selec-
tion of Randolph AFB is particularly sig-
nificant because it is the only federal
facility selected as a pilot.
   This pilot program provides an excellent
opportunity  to   showcase  innovative
approaches  that have been taken as  the
base approaches closure of all its IRP sites.
The  cooperative and  coordinated effort
between  Randolph AFB,  Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission, Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence,
and  EPA to expedite  the completion of
RCRA Corrective Action activities at Ran-
dolph AFB will serve as an ideal  demon-
stration on how other  military bases can
move through the corrective action process
and  benefit from the associated savings.
The summary table of the pilots, fact sheets,
and  other  pilot  program  materials are
posted on the RCRA Corrective Action web
site: http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.
EPA's National Environmental
Performance Track and
Clean Texas Programs
EPA and TNRCC recently signed a Mem-
orandum of Agreement (MOA) to align the
National  Environmental Performance
Track  and Clean Texas  programs.  The
MOA was signed at the Clean Texas Part-
nership Annual Conference in San Anto-
nio, Texas, on February 20, 2002, by EPA
Region VI Regional Administrator, Gregg
Cooke; Deputy Associate  Administrator
for Office of Policy, Economics, and Inno-
vation, Jay Benforado; and TNRCC Exec-
utive Director, Jeffery Saitas. This is the
first agreement of its kind between the
Agency and a state, nationally. In doing
so, EPA and TNRCC commit to creating
the best value for our customers; reducing
the  resource  requirements of both  the
EPA and TNRCC staff and the adminis-
trative burden of member organizations;
creating the  greatest amount of  incen-
tives, flexibility, and recognition for  pro-
gram  members;  and  reinforcing  and
encouraging continual improvement in
environmental   performance.   While
encouraging each program to maintain its
own identity, EPA and TNRCC pledge to
coordinate the application process, make
the system transparent to participants,
and coordinate the delivery of incentives.
For additional information, contact Craig
Weeks at (214) 665-7505 or weeks.craig®
epa.gov.
 4 FEDFACS

-------
Many  Region  VI  FUDS  Pose Potential  Threats
  In January, EPA Region VI completed a
  three-year project to develop an inventory
and initial screening of all formerly used
defense sites (FUDS) in its area, becoming
the first region to do so. The EPA FUDS
policy directs the regions to complete this
process by September 30, 2003.
   To begin the project, Region VI hosted
a  kick-off meeting of  stakeholders to
explain the goals, procedures and work
products, and coordinate issues of access
to files, review of draft reports, and poten-
tial benefits. In addition to their own files,
the region reviewed information in files
located at the U.S. Army Corp of Engi-
neers (the Corps) District Offices, as well
as supplemental information the Corps
provided  from other sources. The  sites
were evaluated using criteria similar to
the CERCLA (commonly known as Super-
fund) Site Assessment Program's Hazard
Ranking System (HRS), and ranked  into
groups according to  their  potential for
proposal to the CERCLA National Priori-
ties  List (NPL).  The draft report  and
database were also reviewed by the Corps
and states.
   The final report identified 902 FUDS in
the Region. Of these, 89 were located in
Arkansas, 87 in Louisiana, 239 in New
Mexico,  116 in Oklahoma, and  371  in
Texas. The report concluded only 8 sites
had "high" potential for proposal to the
NPL,  33 had  "medium" potential, 501
were  "low" potential,  and  268 were
"unknown." An additional 92  sites were
not evaluated because  they were either
determined not to be FUDS properties,
were found to be duplicates sites, or were
already  on the NPL. The 41  sites with
either "high" or "medium" NPL proposal
potential were referred to the Site Assess-
ment Team for further consideration.
   However, many other FUDS had envi-
ronmental concerns that did not rise to
the level of being NPL caliber, but would
benefit from regulator oversight. Of spe-
cific concern were many of the 347 sites
with  either  ordnance and  explosive
wastes (OEW) and/or chemical warfare
materials  (CWM)  potentially on them.
Unfortunately, the HRS criteria do not
consider explosive safety.  Therefore,  in
order to avoid ranking sites that may
have imminent threats from exposure to
OEW/CWM as having a potentially mis-
leading "low" score, a decision was made
to include many of these sites in the
"unknown" category.
   Overall, the report recommended 373
of the FUDS should receive further review
by either EPA or the state environmental
agencies, and that an additional 83 of the
sites did not have sufficient information to
make a  recommendation.  Restoration at
some of these sites may have actually
been completed by the Corps,  but docu-
mentation of  closure  approval by  an
appropriate regulator was not available at
the time of the review,  and so they were
carried forward.
   One  critical  point  to understand
regarding the region's report is that it rep-
resents a "snapshot in time." Much of the
information about the numbers of FUDS
changes due to the discovery of new sites
and new information about existing sites.
Therefore, the specific numbers in the
report cannot be considered definitive, but
are definitely representative of the overall
situation.
   Questions on FUDS in Region VI can
be referred to Michael Overbay, Regional
FUDS coordinator, at (214) 665-6482.
  REGION VI  EMR  FY  2002
  VOLUNTEERS
  EPA Region VI would like to thank Tinker Air
  Force Base,  Oklahoma; the Texas Army
  National Guard; and the U.S.  Forest Service,
  Carson National Forest, New  Mexico for vol-
  unteering to be a part of the EPA Environ-
  mental Management Review  program.
  Region VI  is in the report review  stage for
  both Tinker and Army National Guard and are
  planning the on-site portion of Forest Service
  EMR for July 2002. The EMR program  is a
  "free"  technical assistance  opportunity
  available  to  the  federal   community to
  strengthen their facility environmental man-
  agement systems. The EMR program  falls
  well within Executive Order 13148,  Greening
  the Government Through Leadership in Envi-
  ronmental Management, April 22, 2000.  The
  EMR Team members are Jana Harvill (EPA),
  Robert Clark (EPA), Gary Chiles (SAIC),  and
  Joyce Stubblefield (EPA), and guest EMR
  Team member Mary Simmons (EPA).
 INTERNET LINKS TO COMPLIANCE MONITORING/
 ASSISTANCE TOOLS: CLEAN AIR ACT MACT STANDARDS
 Over the past several years, EPA has published various Maximum Achievable Control Technology
 (MACT) standards for a variety of sources which release hazardous air pollutants. Numerous com-
 pliance assistance tools, fact sheets, and websites have been developed to assist the regulated
 community comply with these regulations. The following websites are valuable resources for facil-
 ities that  are  required  to  comply  with MACT standards:  www.epa.gov/ttn/atw or
 www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnl.html.
  UpcomingEvents
May 21-23,2002
Region VI Wetlands Training
Workshop
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: Troy Hill at (214) 665-6647.
May 8, June 5, June 19, & July 17,2002
Region VI Benchmark Software
Training
EPA Region VI, Dallas, Texas
Contact: Patrick Kelly at (214) 665-7316.
                                                                                                       FEDFACS 5

-------
                                                                     Workshops/Training
Region VI Wetlands
Training Workshop
EPA Region VI Wetlands Section will be
hosting its fifth Annual Regulatory Train-
ing Workshop,  entitled "Protection of
Riparian Areas" in Santa Fe, New Mexico
on May  21-23, 2002. Scheduled to attend
are representatives from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers District  and Divi-
sional Offices, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice Field Offices, National Marine Fish-
eries  Service,  and  Texas, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana
state environmental offices who  have a
role in reviewing wetland permits.
   For  More  information, contact Troy
Hill at (214) 665-6647.
Jackson at (913) 551-7744 or Wes Hartley
at (913) 551-7632.
Affirmative Procurement
Program Presentation
Wes Bartley, Region VII Solid Waste and
Pollution Prevention, gave a presenta-
tion at the General Services Administra-
tion (GSA) Hardware Superstore Confer-
ence held in February  2002 in Kansas
City, Missouri. The audience included
local GSA employees, federal acquisition
officers from federal facilities across the
region, and customers and suppliers for
GSAs Hardware  Superstore center  in
Kansas  City. Mr. Bartley's presentation
covered  environmentally preferable pur-
chasing  and emphasized the Affirmative
Procurement Program under RCRA Sec-
tion 6002. His presentation focused on
the statutory and regulatory basis for the
requirements and the historical develop-
ment of these programs. Randy Schober,
an environmental engineer at GSA, also
gave a presentation on  environmentally
preferable purchasing,  which outlined
specific  GSA  and  Federal  Acquisition
Regulation requirements. GSA holds this
conference on an  annual basis and plans
are in progress to coordinate these pre-
sentations again next year.
   For more information,  contact Diana
USFS Provides Drinking
Water System Operator
Training

As part of the EPA Region VI  enforce-
ment settlement against one of its water
systems, the United States Department
of Agriculture - Forest Service Region III
(USFS) initiated an operator training tai-
lored   toward  public  water  system
requirements under the  Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The training empha-
sizes small seasonal systems that are typ-
ical of the USFS  water systems. Class
attendees include USFS employees, those
who  operate USFS systems ("permit-
tees"),  and other employees from other
federal  agencies  with similar  public
water system responsibilities. One class
has been held in Albuquerque, and future
classes are scheduled in Phoenix, Santa
Fe, Flagstaff, and Las Cruces.
  In addition to these three-day training
classes, the USFS has scheduled ten sep-
arate one-day sessions—one for each for-
est management team located in Arizona
and New Mexico.  The sessions have a
two-pronged  approach.  Mornings are
dedicated to  raising  awareness  of the
responsibilities and risks associated with
providing safe drinking water. Afternoons
are dedicated to developing action items
for improving drinking water programs.
The training sessions for the manage-
ment teams include representatives from
the  states as well as the U.S. Public
Health Service,  and  a tele-video  confer-
ence and training with Linda Hutchison
of EPA Region VI Public Water  Supply
Enforcement.
  The response to  this  training, both
operator and management, has been very
positive. Every USFS facility  trained
thus far has identified ways to improve
their individual programs and has been
receptive to new ways of doing business.
Forest managers have contacted Joyce
Stubblefield, the EPA Region VI Federal
Facilities Program Manager, regarding
Environmental  Management Reviews
and one has been scheduled for July.
   One  of the positive  results  of  the
enforcement actions against the USFS is
enhanced  communication between  the
EPA and the USFS. The communication
between the two agencies has increased
the USFS' awareness regarding its water
systems that have been targeted by the
EPA as in need of corrective actions, and
has allowed the USFS to make decisions
regarding the systems (i.e., closing  the
systems until  problems  are corrected)
prior to any enforcement actions being
initiated. It also has allowed the USFS
the opportunity to inform  and educate
Forest managers outside of  Region III of
problems with  their  (non-Region  III)
water systems that EPA considers to be
significant non-compliers.
Looking for Volunteers...
EMS Discussion Modules
With  contractor support, EPA Region
VIII is developing two discussion mod-
ules for helping senior federal facility
managers  to come to  grips with their
roles and responsibilities within an Envi-
ronmental Management System (EMS).
These modules are being designed to pro-
mote a dialogue  among senior managers.
The objectives of the modules are to:

•    show top management how an EMS
    can  support  their organizational
    goals,
•    help federal facility managers lead
    their  organization  to  successful
    implementation of an EMS by defin-
    ing and carrying out actions that ful-
    fill their EMS responsibilities, and
•    enable federal facility managers  to
    effectively demonstrate and commu-
    nicate their support for EMS develop-
    ment and implementation.

                     Continued on page 7
 6 FEDFACS

-------
TXP3  Evolves  into the  TX  Environmental  Partnership
   The Texas Pollution Prevention Partner-
   ship formally changed its name to the
Texas Environmental Partnership (TXEP)
at its February 28, 2002 meeting at Fort
Hood, Texas. The name change reflects the
expanded focus of the  partnership to
include all environmental and  compliance
issues of interest to military installations
in Texas, not just pollution  prevention
issues.  Future  meetings  will  include
updates from the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), EPA
Region VI, and joint service representa-
tives on all regulatory  and media issues
that are relevant to DoD installations.
   The meeting was preceded by a tour of
Fort Hood's  1st Cavalry Museum, 7.2
miles of motor pools, Close Combat Tacti-
cal Trainer  (CCBT), Apache Longbow
Helicopter  Static Display, Classification
Unit, Soil  Bioremediation  Facility, and
Recycling  Center.  The  CCBT  tour
included  a mission brief and gave the
TXEP members hands-on experience with
heavy tactical equipment simulators.
   The meeting was hosted by Fort Hood
TXEP Meeting hosted by U.S. Army, Ft Hood, Texas. Agencies represented are DoD,
TNRCC, DOE, NASA, EPA Region VI, and EPA Headquarters.
and opened with a welcome by Fort Hood
Garrison Commander, Colonel Bill Parry.
COL Parry spoke on  the III Corps  and
Fort Hood mission and the significance of
September  11th and  subsequent U.S.
Armed Forces involvement. COL Parry
presented a command video on the Fort
Hood  mission and  ended his welcome
with a Hoah!!! The meeting had a full
agenda and was well attended.  Special
guests were Andrew Cherry, FFEO,  and
Duncan Stewart,  TRNCC Air Permits.
Mr. Cherry gave a national perspective on
a variety of federal facility issues and Mr.
Stewart  presented  topical air media
updates.  Attendees  discussed numerous
environmental  regulations  and issues
affecting DoD  installations. The  next
meeting  of the  TXEP will be hosted by
TNRCC on May 8, 2002, during its Envi-
ronmental Trade Fair and Conference in
Austin.  The  TXEP  Co-Chairs are Dr.
Thomas  Rennie,  DoD REC Region  VI
(214/767-4678),  and  Mr. Israel Anderson,
TNRCC (512/239-5318).
   For details about the meeting, please
contact   Linnea  Wolfe@hood.army.mil
(254) 288-5256 or the TXEP co-chairs.
WORKSHOPS/TRAINING
Continued from page 6

   The first module will focus on the role
of a senior manager and milestones in
EMS development where his/her involve-
ment is critical. There will also be a sec-
tion on potential EMS pitfalls. The second
module will cover creating  an  EMS
vision,   defining    roles,   providing
resources, and measuring progress. The
amount of time allotted for these modules
is flexible, depending in part on the
amount of discussion anticipated and the
EMS background of the participants.
   The  audience   for  this  program
includes regional administrators,  BLM
state  office  directors,  park  superinten-
dents,  regional  directors, and  other top
level managers.
   If your agency is interested in having
the EMS modules for  senior managers
presented at one of your facilities, please
contact Dianne Thiel,  EPA Region VIII
Federal Facilities Program Manager, at
(303) 312-6389.
  BENCHMARK  SOFTWARE TOOL TRAINING-REGION  VI
  Benchmark is a software tool that is used to statistically measure performance in terms of energy
  consumption and on the side — cost of operation. Benchmark toolkit was developed from studies
  performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), Lawrence
  Berkeley Laboratories, American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineer's
  Inc., and American Refrigeration Institute. The studies were performed from 1992 through 1999 and
  were the basis for EPA/DOE Building Benchmark and Building Labeling standard. EPA Region VI is
  scheduled to provide five training sessions on the Benchmark software starting in April with the
  last session in July. The training classes which will cover technical details of commercial office
  buildings, schools (public and  private), hospitals, hospitality (hotels primarily), supermarket and
  convenience stores, federal/state/local government office buildings, building modeling, where dif-
  ferent commercial standards fall on the curve, and how to use DOE/EPA's analysis software to
  obtain an Energy Star statement of energy performance on old and new commercial and soon on
  industrial buildings. The target audience for this training is federal facilities, state/local govern-
  ment, schools, supermarkets, hospitals, hotels, office buildings, allies, Energy Service Companies,
  and property management companies. The benchmark training sessions will help federal facili-
  ties comply with Executive Orders to demonstrate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and
  energy consumption reductions. Training is provided at no cost. Those who could attend the dif-
  ferent sessions include environmental scientists, environmental engineers, construction profes-
  sionals and appropriate technicians, government (state and local) regulatory authorities,  inter-
  ested professional engineers, and technical support staff.
    For more information regarding the Benchmark software training dates and information, see
  the section on Upcoming Events or contact Patrick Kelly at (214) 665-7316.
                                                                                                           FEDFACS 7

-------
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261 A)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address  Service Requested
     LIST  OF ACRONYMS
    AFB         Air Force Base                    MEG
    ARS         Agricultural Research Service        MOA
    BLM        Bureau of Land Management        MOC - P
    CALM       Cleanup Levels for Missouri
    CCBT       Close Combat Tactical Trainer       NASA
    CEMP       Code of Environmental
                 Management Principles             NOAA
    CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental
                 Response, Compensation and        NPL
                 Liability Act                      OEW
    CONUS      Continental United States           P2
    CWM        Chemical Warfare Materials         RCRA
    DoD         Department of Defense
    DOE        U.S. Department of Energy          SDWA
    EMR        Environmental Management        TNRCC
                 Review
    EMS        Environmental Management        TXEP
                 System
    FUDS       Formerly Used Defense Sites        USACH-PPM
    GSA         General Services Administration
    HRS         Hazard Ranking System
    ISO         International Organization for       USDA
                 Standardization                   USFS
    MACT       Maximum Achievable Control        WAPA
                 Technology
Military Environmental Group
Memorandum of Agreement
Marine Operations Center -
Pacific
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
Ordnance and Explosive Wastes
Pollution Prevention
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
Texas Environmental
Partnership
U.S. Army Center for Health
Promotion and Prevention
Medicine
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
Western Area Power Association
  is published by EPA's Federal Facilities
           Enforcement Office.

      Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor
         SciComm, Inc., Layout
 To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. EPA (2261A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044

or Fax: 202-501-0069

Read FedFacs on the Internet
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/ann/index.html

-------