ISSUE #10
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261 A)
EPA#300-N-00-019
Fall 2000
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
Project XL: NASA White Sands Proposes
Web-Based Electronic Reporting Project
The NASA White Sands Test Facility
(WSTF) has proposed implementing a
centralized, multi-media, web-based
information management and compliance
reporting system, which will be imple-
mented under EPA's Project XL. Project
XL, which stands for "excellence and
Leadership," is a national initiative that
tests innovative ways of achieving better
and more cost-effective public health and
environmental protection.
NASA's web-based system will elec-
tronically provide regulatory reports and
permit information to the New Mexico
Environmental Department (NMED) .in
lieu of paper reports to satisfy existing
EPA and the NMED regulatory require-
ments. In addition, the web-based system
will include a public access section to give
the general public access to historical site
: Continued on page 3
2 Reese AFB Corrective Action
3 Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket Updated
-/
4 The Hammer
5 WasteWise Teams With Federal
Agencies
5 EPCRA Section 313 Q&A for
Federal Facilities,
6 Partnerships
7 Region VI EMRs
8 Yellowstone Cleaning
Products Project
10 Workshops and Conferences
11 Upcoming Events .;;.'.
The signing of the Project XL agreement. The signers of the agreement (sitting, from left
to right); Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region VI; Joseph Fries,
Manager, NASA WSTF; and Paul Ritzma, Deputy Secretary, NMED. Also in attendance
(standing, from left to right): Peter Pache, WSTF Honeywell Team; David Amidei, NASA
WSTF; Timothy Davis, WSTF Honeywell Team; Joyce Stubblefteld, EPA Region VI;Adele
Cardenas, EPA Region VI; John Dupree,EPA HQ Project XL; and Jim Mayer, WSTF Hon-
eywell Team. 7 :i
First Major Enforcement Action Filed in
National Federal Facilities LIST Initiative
The first major enforcement action
resulting from the National Federal
Facilities Underground Storage Tank
(UST) Initiative was filed on September
18, 2000, against the U.S. Army's Fort
Lewis Installation in Washington State.
The proposed penalty of $469,661 - the:
largest penalty ever proposed for viola-
tions of federal UST requirements against
a. U.S. defense installation is contained
in an administrative complaint and com-
pliance order issued by EPA Region X.
The National UST Initiative arid action at
Fort Lewis is intended to. send:a clear
message that EPA is serious in its com-
mitment to prevent the often irrevocable
contamination of aquifers, on which
many families depend for drinking water,
by leaks from underground tanks.
The National UST Initiative was
launched by the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office (FFEO) during the
Spring of 1999 to ensure compliance with
UST requirements, such as the December
1998; tank upgrade requirements. Fed-
eral facilities not meeting these require-
ments are considered by EPA to be a high
Continued on page 9
.Printed on. Recyeiect Paper
-------
Streamlining Corrective Action at
Reese Air Force Base, Texas
The former Reese AFB is located in
northwest Texas, approximately 10
miles from the City of Lubbock. The base
is now known as Reese Center and is
being redeveloped by the Lubbock-Reese
Redevelopment Authority (LRRA). The
base covered 2,987 acres, and the sur-
rounding area is predominately rural,
although the continued residential expan-
sion of Lubbock has brought a large num-
ber of homes within a few miles of the for-
mer base. Reese AFB opened in 1941 and
closed as an Air Force base in 1997.
Currently, 520 acres have been trans-
ferred to the LRRA. Two additional trans-
fers in 2000 will give the LRRA deed to
approximately 75% of the base. The
majority of reuse has been for educational
needs. Texas Tech University established
research laboratories, the local commu-
nity college established a campus, and the
police and fire departments use some
areas for training.
Environmental Background
In 1993, Reese AFB was the first federal
facility to be issued an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment, RCRA Section
7003 Order. The Order addressed off-base
contamination of public water supplies by
a trichloroethylene (TCE) plume. The
Order required sampling of private drink-
ing water wells and irrigation wells in a
36-square mile area around the base.
Reese AFB provided an alternate water
supply to approximately 40 homes.
In 1994, Reese AFB was assessed an
$81,439 penalty by the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission
CTNRCC). The Consent Order required
investigation and remediation of three
areas, including the suspected TCE plume
source area. The Order required Reese to
construct a ground water treatment sys-
tem to address the highest off-site concen-
tration. In 1996, TNRCC issued a Permit
and Compliance Plan requiring the Air
Force to investigate 21 solid waste man-
agement units and two former surface
impoundments. The majority of the correc-
tive action investigation began at this time.
" $2.4 million
$600,000
$550,000-"
$550,000
Two TCE plumes
and a benzene plume
were the major envi-
ronmental concerns
at the facility. One
TCE plume impacts
numerous private
drinking water wells.
An industrial drain
line was used for
storm water drain-
age. Numerous bro-
ken sections of pipe
allowed the contami-
nated water to dis-
charge into the sur-
rounding soil and to
the groundwater. A
pump and treat sys-
tem, consisting of over fifty extraction/
injection wells and over ten miles of piping,
has been installed both on- and off-site.
Corrective Action at Reese
A traditional approach to corrective action
usually involves a 1-3 year time frame to
investigate the site, depending on the pro-
ject's complexity. The approach taken at
Reese has streamlined the sequence of
events and reduced the time frame to 3-9
months. A Base Closure and Realignment
(BRAG) Cleanup Team (BCT) was estab-
lished. The BCT consists of an EPA repre-
sentative, a state representative, and the
DoD installation BRAG Environmental
Coordinator, all of whom have decision
making authority. This team approach fos-
ters partnering, accelerates the environ-
mental cleanup process, and expedites
timely, cost-effective, and environmentally
responsible disposal and reuse decisions.
The Reese BCT reduced the number
of reports and review time. At the
monthly BCT meeting, the site back-
ground is discussed and a decision
matrix is laid out that details in clear
steps how the investigation should be
completed. As the investigation proceeds,
the decision matrix is followed, briefings
are held on the progress, and course cor-
rections are made. A final report is sub-
COST OF THE CLEANUP AND SAVINGS
-Total Spentto Date: $83 million
-Jotal Cost Avoidance to Date: $9.6+ million
- " $5.5 million reducing need for a landfill cap on the golf course "
multiple expedited projects
reduced sampling parameters/frequency
used innovative biotic barrier in RCRA landfill cap
expedited soil removal which allowed for disposal under the
SWJandfill cap ~~ ~~
*~ Current Remaining to Spend (FYOO-FY03): $77 million
1-Total Planned Cost Avoidance: $37-1- million (48%)
$10 million eliminating long-term monitoring at two playa lakes with
J"^~ hot spot removal
$12+million eliminating sampling of private wells through the
t construction of an off-base water line to serve residents
$15 million reduced sampling frequency/number wells
mitted for approval using information
gathered at the monthly meetings. The
regulators provide input on the investi-
gation on at least a monthly basis.
The team's approach to "no Surprises"
has led to open communications and
trust, giving them a high level of credi-
bility to both the government and citi-
zens. In the past, the public did not trust
the Air Force and, to a certain extent,
the regulators. Restoration Advisory
Board meetings involved a lot of finger
pointing and limited information
exchange. The current BCT has
regained the trust and confidence in the
public and the LRRA.
The approach used at Reese has
allowed the Air Force to complete the
majority of investigations and the instal-
lation of the ground water pump, treat-
ment systems, and landfill cap within two
years of base closure. The Reese BCT has
been recognized by the Assistant Secre-
tary of the Air Force for being one of only
four Air Force facilities to meet planned
closure dates. Of these four, the Reese
BCT completed the work faster (within 2
years of closure) than any other Air Force
facility.
For more information, please contact
Gary Miller, EPA Region VI, at (214) 665-
8306.
2 FEDFACS
-------
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket Update Released
The twelfth update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket was released in the Federal Register on
June 12, 2000, which details additions, deletions, and correc-
tions to the previous
docket update. Section
120(c) of the Compre-
hensive Environmental
Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Super-
fund Amendments and
Reauthorizatibn Act of
1986, requires EPA to
establish the docket. ______i^__J,
The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket con-
tains information about federal facilities engaged in hazardous
waste activity or from which hazardous substances may have
been or may be released. The docket lists a total of 2,205 fed-
eral facilities following the twelfth update.
The purpose of the docket is to:
Identify all federal facilities that must be evaluated to
determine whether they pose a risk to human health and
the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the
National Priorities List;
Compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA
on such facilities under the provisions listed in Section
120(c) of CERCLA; and
Provide a mechanism to make information available to
the public.
The initial list of federal facilities to be included in the
docket was published February 1988, and CERCLA requires
that the docket be updated every six months, as federal
agencies report new facilities to EPA. Beginning this year,
the docket will be published twice a year, and the next
update will be published by the end of this calendar year.
For more information, contact Augusta Wills, National
Docket Coordinator, at (202) 564-2468.
PROJECT XL
Continued from page 1
information, ground water database
archives, geographic information system
(GIS) reports, International Organization
for Standardation certification informa-
tion, recycling data, waste minimization
reports, NEPA information, community
right-to-know issues, and other associ-
ated compliance information.
The NASA project will provide EPA,
NMED, and the public with improved
access to higher quality regulatory infor-
mation, scientific data, and analytical
tools. The web-based information system
also will facilitate a more thorough analy-
sis of WSTF's environmental data and
reports by NMED and the general public.
The project also will reduce paper use and
lower staff costs, both at NASA and at the
regulatory agencies.
To implement this project, NASA
WSTF must request regulatory flexibility
from existing EPA and NMED regula-
tions that require a written signature or
paper submission of regulatory reports
and permit information affected under
this project. As part of this project, EPA
will draft site specific rule(s) to facilitate
the electronic transmission of permit
information and compliance reports.
In addition, a formal stakeholder
outreach process has been developed
by NASA WSTF. The outreach effort
will involve public meetings and
comment periods at key points
throughout the project.
The experience and lessons
learned from Project XL will assist
EPA in redesigning its current regu-
latory and policy-setting approaches
for reporting environmental informa-
tion. Project XL encourages testing of
cleaner, cheaper, and smarter ways
to attain environmental results supe-
rior to those achieved under current
regulations and policies. It also
EPA Headquarters and Region VI staff joined
NASA officials in a tour of the White Sands
Test Facility. The site visit capped off a two-day
public meeting and a negotiation session in
August to finalize the XL project agreement.
requires greater involvement by stake-
holders the people and organizations
affected by EPA's decisions. It is vital
that each project test new ideas with the
potential for wide application and broad
environmental benefits. Project XL
offers a tremendous opportunity for
everyone to think "outside the box" of our
current system and to find solutions to
obstacles that limit environmental per-
formance.
Information about NASA's web-based
electronic reporting project or Project XL
is available on the internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ProjectXL, or via Project
XL's Information Line at (202) 260- 5754.
For more information on the WSTF
project, please contact Adele Cardenas,
the regional contact, at (214) 665-7210;
John DuPree, EPA/XL Headquarters, at
(202) 260-4468; or David Amidei, Project
Sponsor, at (505) 524-5024.
-------
F-
Region IV Takes RCRA
3008(a) Action Against
Army's Fort Campbell
Region IV has taken a RCRA 3008(a)
enforcement action against the Army's
Fort Campbell for the improper disposal of
flameless ration heaters (FRH), also
known as meals-ready-to-eat (MRE)
heaters, and a smoke grenade that
resulted in a trash fire. Fort Campbell is
located on the Tennessee-Kentucky bor-
der. The major function of the base is to
support and train the 101st Airborne Divi-
sion and other associated U.S. Army units
in preparation for assigned combat and
combat-related missions.
On June 23,1999, a private solid waste
hauler picked up waste at Fort Campbell
and was en route to the county solid waste
Subtitle D landfill when the load of waste
caught fire. The waste hauler left the load
of trash on a road on the base and the base
fire department extinguished the fire. The
next day, the load of trash was again on
fire and the fire department had to again
respond. MRE heaters and a smoke
grenade were seen in the burned rubbish
pile. In January 2000, MRE heaters were
found by county landfill personnel in solid
iSt
j is published by EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor
SciComm, Inc., Layout
1b receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
5 Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
:U.S;EPA(2261A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044
}..or Fax: 202-501-0069
s Read FedFacs on the Internet
waste loads picked up from Fort Campbell
on two separate occasions.
Fort Campbell was ordered to pay a
$37,000 penalty and submit a plan
describing procedures for complying with
RCRA so that hazardous waste is properly
disposed.
In a May 20, 1999, letter to the U.S.
Army Soldier Systems Command, EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) informed the
Army that unused FRHs are D003 reactive
hazardous wastes under the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act. An OSW
review of the incident was conducted at the
Army's request. OSW found that the mate-
rial in the FRHs "can form potentially
explosive mixtures with water." While rec-
ognizing that a single FRH would not be
much of a threat, a "violent physical reac-
tion or fire could result" if a number of
FRHs were mishandled simultaneously.
For more information, contact David
Levenstein at (202) 564-2591.
EPA Environmental Appeals
Board Reverses and
Remands Tinker Air Force
Base UST Decision
On July 27, 2000, the EPA Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB) reversed the May
19, 1999, Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) Order granting Tinker AFB's
Motions to Dismiss and for Accelerated
Decision, and remanded the case back to
the ALJ. The EAB deferred to the June
14, 2000, Opinion of the Department of
Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
that confirmed EPA's penalty authority
against Federal agencies for underground
storage tank (UST) violations under
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Sections 6001(b) and 9006, and
confirmed the validity of EPA's UST field
citation procedures (see related story on
page 9 for a summary of the DOJ opinion).
The case was initiated in January 1998,
when EPA Region VI filed an Administra-
tive Complaint against Tinker AFB, alleg-
ing violations of the RCRA UST require-
ments. The Administrative Complaint
sought a penalty of $96,703, and was part
of EPA's first set of UST cases against fed-
eral facilities. At the same time the case
was pending before the ALJ, and before the
Order was issued in May 1999, the Depart-
ment of Defense (DoD) referred to OLC the
issue of whether or not EPA has statutory
authority to assess civil administrative
penalties against another federal agency
for UST violations. Shortly after the UST
penalty issue was referred to OLC, the ALJ
issued the May 1999 Order that found that
EPA lacked the statutory authority to
assess civil administrative penalties
against another federal agency under the
RCRA Section 9006 UST provisions. EPA
appealed the ALJ Order to the EAB in
June 1999, and all parties have been wait-
ing for the OLC Opinion.
Given the OLC Opinion and the case
remanded to the ALJ, Tinker AFB and
EPA have recommended settlement nego-
tiations. Although a November 14, 2000,
hearing date has been set by the ALJ, a
settlement in principal has been reached
by both parties. The alleged violations at
Tinker AFB are typical of UST violations
that EPA sees at federal facilities, includ-
ing those found at Barksdale ,AFB in
Bossier City, Louisiana, where EPA issued
a Complaint alleging failure to conduct
release detection in accordance with the
federal and state UST regulations.
EPA has found that most federal facili-
ties have proper UST equipment for release
detection, spill and overfill prevention, and
corrosion protection. Generally, facilities in
violation have deficiencies in properly man-
aging the equipment for release detection
requirements. Federal agencies should
ensure that their personnel are familiar
with proper UST management methods
and are thoroughly trained to operate UST
release detection equipment.
Continued on page 5
-------
WasteWise Teams With
Federal Agencies
Federal agencies are invited to join over
1,000 businesses, governments, and
other organizations that have realized
the environmental and cost-saving bene-
fits of reducing their municipal
solid waste by joining the WasteWise vol-
untary partnership program. Sponsored
by the U.S. EPA, WasteWise assists orga-
nizations of all sizes prevent waste, recy-
cle, and buy recycled-content products.
During a special campaign, EPA is pro-
moting federal agency participation as
WasteWise partners. This effort will help
agencies comply with President Clinton's
Executive Order 13101, which directs
federal agencies to develop a comprehen-
sive waste reduction program.
EPA launched WasteWise in Janu-
ary 1994 as a voluntary partnership
program to help organizations find
practical and cost-effective methods for
reducing their solid waste. WasteWise
provides support in three core program
areas: waste prevention, recycling, and
buying and manufacturing products
with recycled content. Over 1,000 orga-
nizations from across the country par-
ticipate in the program, representing
50 industry sectors ranging from aero-
space to utilities, as well as govern-
ments and institutions. WasteWise has
already helped these organizations save
more than $830 million in avoided dis-
posal costs, prevent the creation of
more than 2.4 million tons of waste, and
recycle 24 million tons of excess mater-
ial. "Waste prevention and recycling at
federal agencies can significantly help
the government save environmental
resources and eliminate unnecessary
expenses," according to Craig Hooks,
FFEO Office Director.
For federal agencies, teaming with
WasteWise "only makes sense; there is a
natural link between WasteWise and
Executive Order 13101," notes Fran
McPoland, the Federal Environmental
Executive. "WasteWise partnership bene-
fits federal agencies by helping them
increase their operational efficiencies
and reduce waste." Participation in
WasteWise helps federal agencies meet
their Executive Order obligations in sev-
eral ways, including providing focused
information, maintaining resources and
staff to help partners, offering a well-
designed program, networking, and
assembling local and national recogni-
tion and award opportunities.
For more information on the Waste-
Wise program, call the WasteWise
Helpline at 1-800-EPA-WISE (372-
9473), e-mail ww@cais.net, or visit the
web site at www.epa.gov/wastewise.
EPCRA SECTION 313
Q&A ADDENDUM FOR
FEDERAL FACILITIES
REVISED
In conjunction with Executive Order 13148,
Greening the Government Through Lead-
ership in Environmental Management the
U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory Program
issued EPCRA Section 313 Questions and
Answers Addendum for Federal Facilities,
Revised 1999 Version (May 2000). This doc-
" ument clarifies reporting requirements for
, fedeiaj ^facilities under Section 313 of the
f Emergency Planning and Community Right-
^fo-Know Act (EPCRA).
Under EPCRA Section 313, facilities are
,. required to report releases and other waste
"""management of specifically listed chemi-
cals. Federal facilities are required to report
jt tegardfess of SIC code if they meetthresh-
sCold,requirements. EPA developed this docu-
ment, which includes 134 questions and
answers and associated appendices, to
^ facilitate reporting and provide an addi-
J tional explanation of reporting require-
t ;ments.
"-"-^This federal facility addendum supple-
^- merits Jthe EPCRA 313 Questions and
'r~Amwers~Revfsed 1998 Version, which
Addresses reporting requirements for all
(,, facilities.,,
Ğsjs£-This^dqcument is available for download
_LaLhttp://www.epa.gov/tri/guidance/htm.
'_ " For more information, call the EPCRA
~ Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
THE HAMMER
Continued from page 4
For more information, please contact
Cheryl Boyd, Region VI, at (214) 665-2161
or Andrew Cherry, EPA Headquarters, at
(202) 564-2589.
Region VI Issues Three Safe
Drinking Water Act Penalty
Actions Against U.S. Forest
Service
On August 17, 2000, EPA Region VI
issued three Administrative Complaints
against the U.S. Forest Service, alleging
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Complaints allege violations of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regu-
lations, including failure to perform col-
iform bacteria monitoring and exceeding
the maximum contaminant level for col-
iform bacteria. The water systems cited
are the Duran and the Canjilon Lakes
Campgrounds in the Santa Fe National
Forest and the Guadalupe Administra-
tive Site in the Lincoln National Forest.
Settlement negotiations between EPA
and the U.S. Forest Service are ongoing.
Microbiological contaminants present
a health issue in drinking water systems
and have long been considered one of the
drinking water program's highest enforce-
ment priorities. Total coliform bacteria are
used as an indicator in drinking water to
assess the sanitary integrity of the treat-
ment processes and distribution system. If
total coliform are present in drinking
water, conditions also exist for the pres-
ence of harmful pathogens. Enforcement
of the microbiological rules is a national
enforcement priority within EPA, and
negotiations have commenced with the
USFS for settlement. USFS has indicated
they intend to submit a Supplemental
Environmental Project Proposal as a
result of the violations at the three afore-
mentioned facilities.
For more information, contact Mau-
rice Rawls at (214) 665-8049 or Efren
Ordonez at (214) 665-2181.
-------
Virginia and DoD Form
First Pollution Prevention
Partnership in Region III
Barb D'Angelo, Director of the Office for
Environmental Innovation for Eegion HI,
represented EPA in the signing of the
first Pollution Prevention Partnership in
the region. Governor James S. Gilmore,
in and Hear Admiral Christopher W.
Cole, Commander of Navy Region Mid-
Atlantic and DoD Regional Environmen-
tal Coordinator for Region HI, were the
key signatories at the Virginia/DoD Pol-
lution Prevention Partnership signing
ceremony, held October 19th in the
Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Rich-
mond, Virginia.
Other participants for the Common-
wealth of Virginia were John Paul Wood-
ley, Secretary of Natural Resources, and
Dennis Treacy, Director of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality. Other
signatories to the agreement included the
commanders, or their representative, for
most of the military installations and
activities in Virginia.
Approximately 20 separate military
installations and activities in Virginia
have been active participants in the part-
nership. The partnership was formed to
identify opportunities, develop solutions
and promote successes, enhance the mis-
sions of the pollution prevention partici-
pants, conserve resources, and improve
the quality of Virginia's environment.
Goals of the partnership are to review
specific practices and processes that can
be transferred among participants,
initiate cooperative projects, and exter-
nally share information through venues
such as conferences, workshops, publica-
tions, and the internet. Through the ini-
tiative of the participants, a number of
work groups have already been formed to
address affirmative pollution prevention
procurement policies and practices; the
decrease or elimination of solvents, uni-
Virginia I DoD Pollution Prevention
Partnership signing ceremony, Capitol
Building in Richmond, Virginia.
versal waste,
and aqueous film
forming foam;
and the manage-
ment of haz-
ardous materi-
als. In addition,
cooperative pro-
jects have been
initiated to
increase member
participation in
the Virginia Nat-
urally 2000 Pro-
gram and the
Businesses for the Bay Program. Other
cooperative efforts involve educating
design engineers on sustainable building
techniques, technologies, and processes,
and an initiative to reduce the discharge
of priority chemicals into Virginia's envi-
ronment. A number of actions to share
information and promote pollution pre-
vention opportunities and programs also
have been initiated.
The signing of the charter formalized a
partnership that has been in the making
for six months and has been character-
ized by the enthusiastic participation of
all the members of the partnership team.
Based on this enthusiasm and the large
number of military activities in Virginia,
tremendous potential exists to implement
successful pollution prevention processes
and programs throughout Region III.
This will improve the overall quality of
the environment at these military activi-
ties and elsewhere within Region III.
For more information, please contact
Bill Arguto, Region III Federal Facilities
Coordinator, at (215) 814-3367.
Region 111/State/DoD
Environmental Colloquium:
Partnerships for a Better
Environment
EPA Region III was joined by the Depart-
ment of Defense, and
agencies of states and
the District of Colum-
bia to host the
Regional Environ-
mental Colloquium on
August 22 - 24, 2000,
in Baltimore, MD.
The well-attended
conference stressed
Partnerships for a
Better Environment.
Speakers included
representatives from
the military services
of the DoD, Civilian Federal Agencies,
and regional state regulators. Keynote
speakers included:
RADM Christopher Cole - Comman-
der, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and
DoD Regional Environmental Coordi-
nator;
Karla Perri - Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environmen-
tal Cleanup;
Bradley Campbell - EPA Region HI
Administrator; and
Tayloe Murphy - Virginia House of Del-
egates member (retired).
Each keynote speaker discussed their
agency's commitment to environmental
excellence, the importance of partnerships,
and future direction for their environmen-
tal program. Mr. Murphy stressed the
importance of partnering and noted the
importance of implementing and achieving
goals once partnerships are established.
Using the partnership theme, speak-
ers presented ideas and concepts used to
accomplish various tasks pertaining to
remediation, auditing, compliance assis-
tance, beyond cleanup, watershed man-
agement, waste and chemical manage-
ment, and pollution prevention and waste
minimization, among others. Speakers
from each session presented useful ideas
and tools for accomplishing environmen-
tal tasks. . .
Continued on page 11
-------
EPA Region VI Conducts Environmental Management Reviews
EPA Region VI conducted four Envi-
ronmental Management Reviews
(EMRs) at federal facilities in FY2000.
EMRs were conducted at the following
facilities:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Arkansas;
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri-
cultural Research Service, Southern
Plains Area, College Station, TX;
ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Live-
stock Insect Research Laboratory,
Kerrville, TX; and
U.S. Department of Treasury,
Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
Fort Worth, TX.
The EMR process reviews seven dis-
ciplines: organizational structure; envi-
ronmental commitment; formality of
environmental programs; internal and
external communication; staff resources,
training, and development; program
evaluation, reporting, and development;
and environmental planning and risk
management. EPA has submitted draft
EMR reports to each facility, and all
reports are expected to be finalized soon.
Region VI is gearing up for its 2001
road trip and is looking for
facilities/agencies to participate in the
next round of EMRs.
EPA Region VI Requests EMR
Feedback
To improve the EMR process, EPA
Region VI has requested EMR partici-
pants to comment on the usefulness of
the EMR conducted at their facility.
Phil Smith, Safety and Health Man-
ager at the USDA ARS, Southern Plains
Area, provided the following comments
after their EMR:
While it's always beneficial to have an
impartial, friendly review of your envi-
ronmental management programs,
this EMR was particularly valuable
in that it came as our agency was
beginning its next round of strategic
planning. The recommendations from
this review will help us keep our labo-
ratories in the forefront of environ-
mental stewardship.
This EMR had both long and
short term positive effects. In the long
term, the recommendations from this
review will pay dividends for years to
come in the development of our envi-
ronmental management programs. In
the short term, the EPA team pre-
sented a seminar on the local water-
shed and geology that led to fresh
thoughts on the relationship between
our research, the community and
water quality.
J.E. (Cody) Partridge, Director of Envi-
ronment, Safety and Health at the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, Jeffer-
son Laboratories, Jefferson, Arizona
provided the following feedback:
The recently completed EPA Region
VI EMR at our facility provided a
quick, capsule review of our environ-
mental management system /pro-
gram. We chose to have an overview
of all seven disciplines rather than
focusing on one or two specific areas.
The two person team was on-site for
approximately 2 and 1/2 days con-
ducting interviews and reviewing
documentation. In addition, the
EMR team had requested and
received our response to a pre-site
visit questionnaire. The EMR report
was concise and straight forward
with an evaluation of each of the
seven disciplines. We have already
begun to institute some of the sugges-
tions and to correct our deficiencies.
We found the EPA Region VI EMR
process to be very helpful, non-
threatening, and time well spent.
Katherine Batiste, Environmental
Coordinator at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Strategic Petroleum Reserve
(SPR), provided the following comments
on the recent EMR of two SPR facilities
and management office:
The EMR performed by EPA in June
of 1999 at the SPR provided good,
independent feedback on the
strengths and opportunities for
improvement regarding our Envi-
ronmental Management System,
and provided a preview of considera-
tions for the subsequent successful
ISO 14001 certification. It is note-
worthy that the EMR was performed
in a manner that created only minor
impacts to the daily facility opera-
tions, but included a sampling
across all levels of job functions, giv-
ing a good basis for evaluating the
implementation of the overall Envi-
ronmental Management System.
This EMR proved valuable in pro-
viding a good sense ofEPA's expecta-
tions in regard to effective Environ-
mental Management Systems and
their implementation, as well as pro-
viding excellent feedback on our
Environmental Management System
from an independent, third-party
perspective, entirely consistent with
EPA's new Performance Track Initia-
tive.
As a suggested process improve-
ment, when reviewing centralized
Environmental Management Sys-
tems, begin the review at the central-
ized headquarters, followed by
review of field locations, in lieu of the
reverse as was done at the SPR, so as
to follow the process flow-down and
more clearly understand demarca-
tion of responsibilities.
Please call Joyce Stubblefield, EPA
Region VI Federal Facilities Coordina-
tor at (214) 665-6430 or e-mail
stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov for more
information.
-------
Cleaning National Parks: A Yellowstone and
Grand Teton Pollution Prevention Project
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks are "greener" as a result of a
joint project funded by EPA Kegion VTH,
the Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality, and the National Park
Service (NFS). Yellowstone and Grand
Teton significantly reduced the toxicity of
janitorial products used in park opera-
tions with help from a Jackson, Wyoming,
company.
First, the consultants inventoried all
the cleaning products at the Parks. At Yel-
lowstone, they identified 130 products.
Another 30 products were on the shelves
but were not used. As they conducted the
inventory at Yellowstone, the consultants
found products containing chemicals such
as 2-butoxyethanol, perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
sodium hydroxide (lye), ammonia, phos-
phoric acid, bleach, naphthalene, toluene,
sylene, and acetone. The large number of
products meant dollars for appropriate
Storage space, hazardous waste disposal
in some cases, and confusion as to what
products did what jobs.
The consultants talked to NFS main-
tenance staff and managers to learn
about their cleaning practices, tools, and
challenges. The consultants then worked
with the NFS Maintenance Office and
two concessionaires - the medical clinics
and service stations to conduct a pilot
implementation project during the winter
season of 1998-1999. During the pilot at
Old Faithful and Mammoth, new clean-
ing products were introduced that were
both effective and met strict bid specifica-
tions issued by the city government of
Santa Monica, California. Most of the
new products are environmentally
preferable for many reasons, including:
They contain ingredients made from
corn or soybeans (renewable
resources);
The general cleaning products do not
contain disinfectants;
They do not contain Toxic Release
Inventory chemicals;
Lexi Marsh, maintenance employee at
Madison Junction, Yellowstone National
Park, is one of the project "champions."
VOC levels meet or exceed California's
VOC regulations for cleaning prod-
ucts;
Products are sold in bulk and mea-
sured in appropriate concentrations
by on-site dispensers; and
Products are not delivered in aerosol
cans.
As part of this project, disinfectants are
used alone where absolutely necessary.
Also, the manufacturer takes back the
larger product containers, while the
smaller five gallon containers can be
recycled. Commercially strong, refillable
bottles are used by the staff, eliminating
disposal of empty pint or quart bottles.
After the pilot, Yellowstone decided to
expand the project to all NPS facilities in
the Park. Grand Teton, a neighboring
park, joined the project. The Yellowstone
Facility Manager said that use of sodium
hypochlorite (bleach) has been dramati-
cally reduced throughout the Park. The
central warehouse began stocking most
of the 18 approved products and the
warehouse manager was enthusiastic
about the new approach. Staff at both
parks said that they felt better after
switching to the new products.
This project also succeeded because
there was top management support.
Introducing the program on a limited
basis allowed Yellowstone to test prod-
ucts for performance and involve the jan-
itorial staff in the decision-making
process on whether to go park-wide. The
consultants guided the project, providing
training on proper disinfection practices,
hands-on cleaning demonstrations, and
oversight. The purchase of cleaning prod-
ucts was simplified. Finally, the "champi-
ons" for this project continued to look for
new applications for environmentally
preferable products.
Lessons learned included the impor-
tance of early coordination with the ware-
house manager and purchasing depart-
ments, who can be effective advocates.
There should be a champion for the pro-
ject at each location. Strong management
commitment is needed and should be reg-
ularly communicated.
A report, Cleaning National Parks:
Using Environmentally Preferable Jani-
torial Products at Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks, is available. The
report documents the process that the
parks and their consultants used to intro-
duce environmentally preferable clean-
ing products. The report is available on
the EPA Region VIII web site at
www.epa.gov/region08 under the Toxics
and Poisons section.
Paper copies of the report will be
available from EPA's Pollution Preven-
tion Information Clearinghouse. Contact
ppic@epamail.epa.gov after December 15,
2000. The report is printed on text grade
paper which is 100% process chlorine free
and is made with 100% post-consumer
content. It has a brightness of 90 and an
opacity of 95.
If you have questions about the clean-
ing project, please call Dianne Thiel at
(303) 312-6389.
-------
FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Continued from page 1
priority for enforcement action. The ini-
tiative involved conducting inspections at
selected federal facilities and performing
follow-up enforcement actions, when
appropriate. EPA Eegions identified can-
didate facilities for inspection based on
several criteria, including proximity to
sources of drinking water or sensitive
ecosystems, compliance history, and age of
tanks. The inspections, which were con-
ducted nationwide during the Summer
and Fall of 1999, were carried out by a
team of experienced state and federal
inspectors.
At Fort Lewis, the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology participated with EPA
in the inspection of the installation's
UST systems during the Fall of 1999.
Numerous violations were identified at
that time, including leak detection prob-
lems at the Fort Lewis Logistics Center,
which is located within one mile of
Sequalitchew Springs, one of several
drinking water sources on or near the
base. Most drinking water in the Fort
Lewis area comes from relatively shallow
ground water sources which are particu-
larly vulnerable to contamination. 'Viola-
tions identified in the complaint involved
over half of the sixty-two regulated UST
systems on the base, with ten of the sys-
tems having more than one violation.
Several of the violations had previously
been brought to the attention of Fort
Lewis during a 1994 inspection.
The complaint and order requires Fort
Lewis to bring its USTs into compliance
with the State of Washington's EPA-
approved UST regulations. The com-
plaint's proposed penalty assessment is
intended to encourage timely resolution
of the violations, and to deter federal
agencies and others from incurring future
violations. EPA's enforcement action had
been delayed pending a decision by the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) on EPA's authority to
assess penalties for noncompliance with
UST requirements. The Fort Lewis action
is the first major penalty action taken
against a federal facility since the DOJ
opinion was issued (see below for a sum-
mary of the DOJ opinion).
"Anyone who lives on or near a U.S.
Army base should expect the same envi-
ronmental safeguards that everyone else
enjoys," said Chuck Findley, Acting EPA
Regional Administrator. "Many of the vio-
lations at Ft. Lewis involved inoperative
or malfunctioning leak detection equip-
ment. Base personnel have had 10 years
to upgrade their facilities and know that
leak detection is our first line of defense
in protecting the purity of our ground-
water and safeguarding the public from
potentially dangerous leaks of gasoline."
For further information on the Fort
Lewis action, contact Tim Hamlin
at (206) 553-1563 or Melanie Garvey
at (202) 564-2579. For information on
the National Federal Facilities UST
Initiative, contact Lance Elson at
(202) 564-2577.
DOJ OPINION CONFIRMS EPA'S PENALTY AUTHORITY AGAINST
FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF RCRA UST REQUIREMENTS
The Department of Justice has resolved a dispute between EPA and the
Department of Defense (DoD) by confirming EPA's authority to require
federal agencies to pay penalties for violations of RCRA UST require--
ments. The Opinion was issued by DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on
June 14,2000. The dispute between EPA and DoD originated from the two
agencies' differing interpretations of whether RCRA Sections 6001(b) and
9006 confer upon EPA authority to assess administrative penalties for
UST violations.
The OLC Opinion confirmed EPA's penalty authority against federal
agencies under RCRA Sections 6001 (b) and 9006 using the clear express
statement standard, and confirmed the validity of EPA's UST field citation
procedures. OLC examined the UST issues and concluded that "RCRA
clearly grants EPA the authority to assess penalties against federal agen-
cies for UST violations and that EPA's UST field citation procedures do
not violate RCRA orthe Constitution." The OLC Opinion also states that "a
straightforward reading of RCRA's statutory text and the relevant legisla-
tive history leads us to conclude that it was clearly Congress' intent to
authorize EPA to assess penalties against federal agencies for violation
of the UST requirements."
This long-awaited confirmation of the validity of EPA's UST field cita-
tion procedures and EPA's UST penalty authority overfederal agencies is
an important development for the Federal Facilities Enforcement Pro-
gram. OLC's UST Opinion is consistent with its July 1997 Opinion that
confirmed EPA's penalty authority under Sections 113(d), 205(c), and
211(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act. In both Opinions, DOJ determined that EPA
has penalty authority against federal agencies under any law, provided
that the statute clearly provides the authority, regardless of whether the
waiver of sovereign immunity would be considered broad enough to sub-
ject federal agencies to penalties assessed by those outside the federal
government. EPA now has administrative order and penalty authority
againstfederal facilities under several environmental laws including the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA (UST and hazardous
waste), and the lead-based paint provisions of Title IV of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
-------
Workshop to Address
Management of
Contaminated Federal
Facilities
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Oakland Operations Office, DOE's Office
of Science and Technology, EPAEegion IX,
and other federal agencies will sponsor a
workshop on land transfer and long-term
stewardship of contaminated federal facil-
ities on December 13-15, 2000, at the
Argent Hotel in San Francisco.
With a focus on the unique policy and
technical issues that affect federal facili-
ties, the workshop will involve a wide
range of stakeholders, such as federal and
state project managers and regulators,
private sector contractors, technology
researchers and vendors, insurance and
finance representatives, and public inter-
est groups and stakeholders.
Guest speakers will address topics
such as:
land transfer;
* managing contamination over the long
term;
liability issues and risk financing;
risk based corrective action;
land use and institutional controls;
post-closure sampling- and monitoring
techniques; and
GIS/infbrmation management issues.
Pacific Rim Enterprise Center, a non-
profit organization that develops innova-
tive, practical solutions to complex
regional, national, and international
environmental problems, is hosting the
workshop. For more information, please
visit the workshop web site at
wwv.pacific-rim.org/calconf.
Region VH's Federal
Healthcare Facilities
Compliance Assistance
Workshop
On September 14, 2000, the EPA Region
VIE Federal Facilities Program conducted
a Federal Healthcare Facilities Compli-
ance Assistance Workshop in Topeka,
Kansas. This workshop was held in con-
junction with the 2000 Region VII Pollu-
tion Prevention Roundtable (P2RT) meet-
ing, which focused on healthcare
facilities. The meeting and workshop pro-
vided the perfect opportunity to coordi-
nate the requirements of environmental
regulations with P2 solutions. The goal of
both the workshop and P2RT meeting
was to assist healthcare facilities in
learning about environmental regula-
tions faced by hospitals and solutions to
managing healthcare waste streams.
Workshop and P2RT presentations
addressed a variety of topics, including
environmental regulations which affect
hospitals, environmental management
systems, P2's relation to the healthcare
industry, infectious wastes, re-useable
sharps container programs, garbage and
cafeteria wastes, and procurement issues.
As a follow-up to the workshop, the
University of Nebraska-Omaha is estab-
lishing a healthcare topic hub to provide
information on compliance and pollution
prevention for the industry.
For more information, please contact
Diana Jackson, Region VII Federal Facil-
ities Program Manager, at (913) 551-7744
or jackson.diana@epa.gov.
Region VI Conducts
Outreach on Using the
Geographical Information
System
EPA Region VI has conducted five out-
reach efforts with the federal community
on the use of the Geographical Informa-
tion System (GIS) for environmental
screening. EPA Region VI is using GIS as
a cumulative risk analytical tool, finding
that GIS opens opportunities to explore
facility operations in concert with the
natural environment. One facility found
that the information presented on its
local watershed and geology led to new
ideas on the relationship between its
research, the community, and water qual-
ity. GIS can be used to index sub-water-
shed level ecological vulnerability data
coupled with facility-specific operational
data.
EPA Region VI discussed the GIS
analysis approach at the following
locations:
U.S. Army Fort Polk, LA (November
'99),
Texas P2 Partnership Meeting, San
Antonio, TX (December '99),
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri-
culture Research Service Knipling-
Bushland, U.S. Livestock Insect
Research Laboratory, Kerrville, TX
(May'00),
Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Dis-
trict Office, New Orleans, LA (August
'00), and
NEPA Training Course, Dallas, TX
(September '00).
To see this tool, please visit http://
www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6en/xp/enxp4a.htm
or contact Dr. Sharon L. Osowski at (214)
665-7506 or Dr. Gerald Carney at (214)
665-6523.
-------
NEPA TRAINING
April 2001 Environmental
Symposium and Exhibition:
A New Era for Federal
Environmental Leadership,
Management and
Technology
The Environmental Systems Division of
the National Defense Industrial Associa-
tion, in cooperation with the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense, the Civil
Engineer Headquarters of the U.S. Air
Force, and EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office, is sponsoring the
27th Environmental Symposium and
Exhibition, A New Era for Federal Envi-
ronmental Leadership, Management and
Technology. The symposium will be held
April 23-26, 2001 in Austin, Texas.
The purpose of the symposium is to pre-
sent issues related to federal agency envi-
ronmental leadership. Discussion at the
symposium will focus on the integration of
environmental accountability managing
impacting activities and the application of
technology to ensure appropriate compli-
ance with Executive Order 13148.. Industry
leaders, practitioners, environmental offi-
cials, and other government agency person-
nel are expected to attend the symposium.
Since EPA was unable to sponsor a
Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) Sympo-
sium this year, FFEO is hosting an EMS
Self-Assessment Workshop on the first day
of the symposium, Monday, April 23,
2001. The workshop will focus on Execu-
tive Order 13148 responsibilities. While
this workshop is designed for CFAs, it is
open to all federal agencies.
Solicitation for papers and exhibitors
has been extended for the Environmental
Symposium and Exhibition. Check the
information on the call for papers at
http://register.ndia.org/interview/regis-
ter.ndia?~Brochure~144.
For additional information, contact
Sarah Hart at (202) 564-2457.
EPA Region VI recently hosted a four-day National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) training
course thatfocused on writing Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact State-
ments, and managing the NEPA process. The course was well received by the federal agencies,
who indicated there are few courses available that cover these topics. Participants were from
several federal agencies including the Department of Energy, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, and'EPA; EPA's goal is to continue offering NEPA training courses to the reg-
ulated community, to keep the lines of communication: open, and to inform federal agencies
abputtraining. Region VI is' developing another course, for the Spring 2001, that will focus on writ-
ing NEPA documents and managing the NEPA process. ;
EPA is soliciting cpmmerits from federal agencies on how to improve NEPA training and other
aspects of information sharing. To comment, please contact Joyce Stubblefield, Region VI Fed-
eral Facilities Coordinator, at (214) 665-6430 or stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov. Jana Harvill may also
be contacted at (214) 665-8369 orharvill.jana@epa.gov. The'.Region VI internal NEPA309 review
-.checklistfor EISs can be found:at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/enxp4b.htm.
PARTNERSHIPS
Continued from page 6
Speakers from EPA Headquarters
included:
James Woolford (FFRRO) - Remedia-
tion policy overview;
Michael Haire (OFW) - TMDLs;
Rob Lischinsky (OECA/OC/METD) -
Sector facility indexing;
Greg Snyder (FFEO) - New Executive
Orders and enforcement and compli-
ance assurance;
Emily Chow (OECA) - Compliance
assistance clearing house;
Ken Shuster (OSW) - Munitions rules;
and
Terrence Slonecker (EPIC) - EPIC/GIS
. at DoD facilities.
Special Partnership Initiatives, such as the
Chesapeake Bay Program and Anacostia
River Toxics Alliance, were cited a pro-
grams that have successfully promoted
partnerships between EPA, DoD, and state
regulators. The programs demonstrate that
agencies can work together to produce sig-
nificant environmental change.
Individual break-out sessions for each
state and military branch focused on
exchanging information pertinent to that
state or military branch. These individual
sessions were well received and informative.
Information on the conference, includ-
ing an attendee list and speakers' notes, is
available on Region Ill's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/reg3esdl/fedfac/index.
html or by calling Bill Arguto at (215) 814-
3367.
December 13-15,2000
Workshop to Address Management of Contaminated Federal Facilities
San Francisco, CA . .
www.pacific-rim.org/calconf
April 23-26,2001
A New Era for Federal Environmental Leadership,
Management and Technology
Austin, TX
http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia7~Brochure~144
-------
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penally for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
LIST OF ACRONYMS
. AFB Air Force Base
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
" BCT BRAG Cleanup Team
BRAC Base Closure and Realignment Act
f CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
r Compensation, and liability Act
. CFA Civilian Federal Agency
'I DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
: DOJ Department of Justice
EAB Environmental Appeals Board
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretations Center
EMR Environmental Management Review
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
'. FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
GIS Geographic Information System
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LRRA Lubbock-Reese Redevelopment Authority
METD
NASA'
NEIC
NEPA
NMED
NFS
OC
OECA
OLC
ORE
OSW
P2
P2RT
RADM
RCRA
SPR
TOE
TNRCC:
UST
WSTF
Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Enforcement Investigation Center
National Environmental Policy Act
New Mexico Environmental Department
National Park Service
Office of Compliance
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Legal Counsel
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Office of Solid Waste
Pollution Prevention
Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Rear Admiral
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act
Strategic Petroleum Reserve -,
Trichloroethylene
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Underground Storage Tank
White Sands Test Facility
------- |