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 ------- |