SEPA
ISSUE #7
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261 A)
EPA#300-N-99-009
Spring/Summer 1999
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
EPA Settles First SDWA Penalty Case
Against Redstone Arsenal
In the first Safe Drinking Water Act
(
(SDWA) penalty case against a federal
facility, EPA settled with the Army's Red-
stone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama for
a cash penalty of $80,000 and $807,000 in
supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs). The settlement, reached on
December 10, 1998, resolves an EPA
Region 4 administrative penalty order
against the U.S. Army Aviation and Mis-
sile Command, Redstone Arsenal, for
improper management of a drinking
water system that serves the 22,000 peo-
ple at the facility.
This is the first time EPA has imposed
a SDWA penalty against a federal agency
since SDWA was amended in 1996 to give
EPA authority to do so. The Redstone set-
tlement is the largest drinking water
penalty in Region 4's history.
The drinking water violations were
uncovered during a 1997 multimedia
inspection at the arsenal. Redstone failed
to properly operate and maintain its stor-
age tanks and reservoirs, a water main
flushing program, and maintain ade-
quate disinfectant residual in the distrib-
ution system to meet EPA's maximum
contaminant levels for total coliform. The
SEP agreed to in the settlement will
address improvements to Redstone's
water system, including the installation
of a chlorine monitoring system to
enhance water quality by allowing the
facility to measure chlorine residual on
an ongoing basis. In addition, computer
software for one of Redstone's water
treatment plants will be upgraded and
water stagnation problems in some of the
supply lines will be addressed. These
efforts will help ensure that the base's
water supply is safe, while putting less
water purification disinfectant into the
environment.
For more information, contact Lisa
Uhl, Region 4 Water Enforcement
Branch, (404) 562-9789, or Adam Sowatz-
ka, Region 4 Office of Regional Counsel,
(404) 562-9545.
Inside
2 Guest Spot: Edward B. Cohen,
DOI
3 Update on DOI Initiative
4 Green Facilities: Presidio of San
Francisco, New EPA Region 7
Building
6 In the Field: Cherokee BIA, Tipton
Airfield
7 Policies & Guidance
8 The Hammer
10 Conference Update
11 Resources
12 Upcoming Events
Director'sWord: Craig Hooks
A s the Director of EPA's Federal Facil-
^ities Enforcement Office I am con-
stantly asking myself: where is EPA's fed-
eral facility compliance and enforcement
program now, where is it going, and
where do we want it to go? It's easy to say
that each federal agency or department
should go beyond compliance, leading the
way for both the public and private sector
to follow. But determining what strategy
to employ to achieve that goal that
requires looking at our past mistakes and
successes, the present state of environ-
mental conditions at federal facilities,
and solutions to future environmental
problems.
My office is charged with ensuring
that federal facilities take all necessary
action to prevent, control, and abate envi-
ronmental pollution. I realize that this is
no small task. However, I do believe that
we are producing the types of tools that
other federal agencies and departments
can use to improve their environmental
decision-making and ultimately the envi-
ronment in which we all live.
What tools are available to assist fed-
eral agencies in this admittedly difficult
field? First of all, each federal agency
must understand its own environmental
liabilities, be they large or small. To
accomplish this, each agency should be
conducting internal audits and environ-
mental management reviews of its own
programs and facilities. These should
help the agency answer the question of
"What have we done and how well are we
doing?" By way of example, we have
developed the Generic Protocol for Con-
ducting Environmental Audits of Federal
Facilities (EPA-300-B-96-012 A&B)
which includes materials for conducting
environmental audits that can be cus-
tomized to fit each agency's requirements.
We have also issued brochures, poli-
Cont/nued on page 9
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
GuestSpot
Environmental Compliance: It's Good Policy and It's the Law
By Edward B. Cohen, Deputy Solicitor, Department of the Interior
^^^1^^ Oecretary Bruce
f ^W WBabbitt has
referred to the
^.1 Department of the
Interior as the
^^^ Department of the
^^fl I Environment, not
because he has
c i
visions or subsum-
ing the Environmental Protection Agency,
but because the name reflects one of our
principle obligations as stewards of
roughly 500 million acres of public land.
Congress has assigned the Interior
Department a variety of mandates, from
recreation to resource development to
resource conservation. But no mandate is
more important than compliance with the
nation's environmental laws.
As both a federal resource manager
and law enforcement agency, environmen-
tal compliance must be high on our own
agenda. If it is not, we lack the moral
authority and credibility to insist that
users of public lands comply with our envi-
ronmental requirements. Inherent in the
concept of stewardship is doing no harm to
the resources entrusted to our care.
No doubt, there are few in the Depart-
ment of the Interior who would disagree
with the notion that we, as a department,
should comply with environmental laws.
But real life is rarely that simple. In these
days of burgeoning mandates, declining
budgets, fewer staff, and complex proce-
dural requirements, environmental com-
pliance isn't always as achievable as we
would like. Moreover, in a department
such as Interior, compliance obligations
are one of many responsibilities an
employee or an office might have and
not necessarily the one that gets the pro-
motion or the additional infusion of funds.
It is no insignificant challenge to devel-
op programs, systems, and structures
that result in full environmental compli-
ance in a department as diverse as Interi-
or. We have eight bureaus, each with a
different culture and different mandates,
and more than 65,000 employees, work-
ing in 2,000 facilities. Most of the land we
administer is widely accessible to the pub-
lic for various uses, and we frequently
inherit environmental messes made years
before environmental statutes were even
written. Mining wastes, unexploded ord-
nance, severe erosion from overgrazing,
and municipal landfills on public lands
all have left a legacy of environmental
degradation to which we must attend.
Frequently, the perpetrator has long gone,
leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.
A New Emphasis on
Compliance
During Secretary Babbitt's tenure, there
has been a new emphasis placed on meet-
ing our environmental compliance obliga-
tions. Perhaps the most significant step
we have taken was entering into a unique
Compliance Assistance Initiative in part-
nership with EPA (see related story on
page 3). For EPA's part, this was the first
time it offered to provide compliance
assistance across an entire civilian feder-
al agency. For Interior, it was an opportu-
nity to assess strengths and weaknesses
in our programs, and to make changes
where needed.
This partnership has produced facility
level assistance, corrective action projects,
and analyses of environmental manage-
ment systems. One of the most significant
efforts has been a joint and thorough
review of the environmental management
systems within the National Park Ser-
vice, based on the Code of Environmental
Management Principles (CEMP).
Through this review, and by applying the
CEMP principles, we have evaluated
management commitment, compliance
assurance, pollution prevention, enabling
systems, performance, accountability, and
measurement and improvement. We
intend to undertake a similar review of
the management systems of several other
Interior bureaus as well.
The partnership with EPA has pro-
duced other dividends. Improved contacts
between Interior and EPA field personnel
have led to better mutual understanding
and appreciation of the obligations,
resources, and challenges of each agency.
As a result, both agencies are better able
to handle compliance issues when they
emerge.
One indicator of progress is the
Department's compliance with EPA's
requirements for underground storage
tanks. On December 22, 1998, the dead-
line for phase one compliance, all bureaus
of the Department were virtually in full
compliance with the UST rules. For an
agency that began with an inventory of
4,000 tanks, that was a significant
achievement.
A second step the Department has tak-
en to improve environmental compliance
is the creation of a new branch of Federal
Facilities Compliance within the Office of
the Solicitor. The branch is responsible for
providing compliance and enforcement
support across the Department with
respect to cleanup of hazardous substance
releases. Not only will this branch
enhance the Department's ability to com-
ply with CERCLA cleanup requirements,
it will accelerate the pace at which we
identify parties responsible for contami-
nating Department lands and pursue
these parties for financial and other assis-
tance in cleanups.
The Department of the Interior and
EPA should be and are environmental
soulmates. We must build a culture of
environmental compliance, which
requires a sustained effort to assure man-
agement commitment, resources, train-
ing, and accountability at all levels of the
agency. While it cannot happen overnight,
our progress with the assistance of
EPA has been impressive. And that
effort will continue.
2 FEDFACS
-------
Update on EPA-DOI Initiative:
Review of Environmental Management Systems
Conducted at National Park Service
EPA's first effort to
provide compliance
assistance across an
entire federal agency
has yielded useful
progress after a year of
implementation. In
January 1998, EPA
and the Department of
the Interior (DOI)
agreed to work jointly
to enhance compliance
assistance across DOI
Bureaus and facilities
with the overall goal of
raising the level of reg-
ulatory awareness and
compliance.
Perhaps the most
innovative and far-
reaching efforts that
has resulted from the
EPA/DOI compliance
initiative is the analysis of environmental
management systems (EMS) within the
National Park Service (NPS), including an
analysis of support relationships between
NPS field-level facilities and NPS and
DOI headquarters environmental offices.
This analysis was conducted using the
Code of Environmental Management
Principles (CEMP), a collection of five
broad management principles and perfor-
mance objectives that provide a basis for
effective and responsible federal environ-
mental management.
Formal and informal aspects of the
National Park Service's EMS were
reviewed at the field, regional and head-
quarters levels. The review also addressed
portions of the parent DOI organization
which directly influence NPS environmen-
tal management activities (DOI Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance
and additional DOI-level units). The
review covered July-December 1998, a
period during which several changes to
the NPS EMS were either underway or
planned. The assessment team conducted
75 interviews, reviewed 85 EMS-related
records, and made direct observations.
Findings
A set of recommendations was developed
for each of the five CEMP performance
objectives as suggested areas for future
improvement. The findings were designed
to encourage further NPS review of the
applicability of the CEMP in supporting
the overall success of the NPS environ-
mental management system. Principal
findings include:
Management Commitment: While
environmental stewardship and sus-
tainability are part of the fundamental
culture at NPS, environmental compli-
ance also needs to be an integral part
of both. Funding and staffing for envi-
ronmental requirements is somewhat
fragmented and regulation-specific
rather than multimedia (e.g., focused
on hazmat/waste vs. all media). Ser-
vice-wide funding and staffing deci-
sion-making processes should include
explicit recognition of environmental
regulatory compliance requirements.
Compliance Assurance and Pollu-
tion Prevention: Compliance assur-
ance tools, such as the audit protocol,
are planned or being implemented.
Procedures and follow-up should be
provided to ensure that compliance
standards in the tools are current and
that audits include consideration of
pollution prevention opportunities to
achieve and maintain compliance.
Information resulting from compliance
assurance efforts is a valuable plan-
ning tool and should be recognized in
budget planning, staffing, and pro-
grammatic decision-making.
Enabling Systems: Training oppor-
tunities outside of NPS should be
explored to benefit from broad regula-
tory compliance training. Environ-
mental compliance tracking systems
are being implemented. As tracking
protocols are being developed, opportu-
nities to track all relevant information
sources should be explored, including
dissemination and feedback on areas
of concern.
Performance and Accountability:
Media-specific regional environmental
coordinators are designated but have
little direct authority for ensuring
environmental compliance. NPS
should consider a policy to emphasize
management responsibility and staff
authority and responsibility for envi-
ronmental compliance at both facility
and support office levels.
Measurement and Improvement:
Planned audit reviews should be
tracked with root cause and corrective
action response identified and shared
across NPS. Tracking and response
should be used in budgetary and
resource planning.
For more information on the project, con-
tact Will Garvey at (202) 564-2458.
FEDFACS 3
-------
Green Facilities
Partnerships for a Zero
Waste Park
Aimee Vincent
Presidio of San Francisco is a
unique national park. Covering almost
1,500 acres at the northern tip of San
Francisco, the Presidio is an urban park
with varied natural resources, breathtak-
ing views, and over 500 historic struc-
tures. The Presidio Trust, a non-profit
federal corporation, has the daunting
task of maintaining and enhancing the
natural and cultural resources that make
the Presidio worthy of National Park sta-
tus and able to become financially self
sustaining by the year 2013.
As part of our goal to become a model
of sustainable practices, we are searching
for ways to do our business in the most
environmentally sound way possible. A
primary component of this process is
reducing waste in all areas of operations.
Diverting waste from the landfill is one
way that we can strive toward sustain-
ability. Requiring contractors and lessees
to reduce waste is an important step. Our
major waste reduction programs include
park-wide recycling collection and educa-
tion, visitor and special event recycling,
building materials salvage, compost and
tree debris recycling, and an environmen-
tal purchasing program.
All of our programs require help from
local groups and other government agen-
cies. Some of our partners in reducing
waste include:
A local non-profit recycler
A local youth job-training organization
The State of California Department of
Conservation
The San Francisco Solid Waste Man-
agement Program
Local artists and craftspeople
A non-profit environmental advocacy
group
Local volunteers.
By finding partners in this effort we
strengthen our capabilities to get the job
done. By working with us, organizations
gain access to millions of visitors to
spread a waste reduction message to.
State and city agencies move closer to
state-mandated waste diversion goals.
Local businesses and artisans benefit by
receiving materials to use as resources,
which might otherwise have become
waste. Working in the park can also pro-
vide a valuable training opportunity. Any
way you look at it, the environment bene-
fits from reduced waste, reduced pollu-
tion, and preservation of natural
resources.
Deconstructing Building 901
One pilot project conducted at the Pre-
sidio was the deconstruction of Building
901, a warehouse built by the U.S. Army
in the 1940s. Completed in the spring of
1996, this was an early example of how
hand deconstruction can be a better alter-
native than destructive demolition. The
project involved the local waste reduction
community in finding a solution for con-
struction/demolition waste. Partners in
the project included the National Park
Service, The San Francisco Community
Recyclers, Beyond Waste and the Wood
Resources Efficiency Network.
In about six weeks, over 60,000 board
feet of lumber were recovered in their
structural form. Rather than being
chipped for boiler fuel or ground for
mulch (common practices in the demoli-
tion industry), this wood was reused in
value-added projects. The unique quali-
ties of this old growth wood made it espe-
cially valuable. Wood experts admired its
close grain, straightness, and absence of
flaws.
A large portion of the wood was pur-
chased for use in building a custom
"green" home in Marin County. The
builders found the properties of the sal-
vaged wood to be superior to that of most
new framing wood bought new today.
Other buyers of the wood were local arti-
sans making one-of-a-kind art pieces and
crafts people who made the wood into
high-quality furniture and flooring. After
the success of the Presidio deconstruction
project, many other parks and agencies
conducted pilot projects and began decon-
struction programs.
If you are considering building demoli-
tion, follow the following hierarchy:
Adaptive reuse of buildings on-site
Removal of buildings as whole units
for reuse elsewhere
Deconstruction of buildings and value
added reuse of building components
Demolition with source separation and
a high level of reuse and recycling.
Some important lessons:
Have a materials specialist examine
the building and determine the poten-
tial value and salvageability of materi-
als
Reuse as much material as possible
back on the site or elsewhere within
your organization
Plan for a project that will take more
time than a destructive demolition
Consider markets for materials before
you begin the project
Designate a secure space for materials
to be safely and properly stored and
prepared for marketing
Consider alternative labor sources and
the potential to offer skills training
Track where the materials have gone
and tell your story!
For more information about deconstruc-
tion, see the following Web sites:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/case
studies/Presidio Trust and http://www.
nahbrc.org/publist/huddocs.htm.
Aimee Vincent is the Sustainobility Coordi-
nator at The Presidio Trust. She can be
reached at 415-561-5368 or avincentฎ
presidiotrust.gov.
4 FEDFACS
-------
Region 7's New Office
Building Greening the
Heartland
In June 1999, EPA plans to formally
open its new Region 7 office building in
downtown Kansas City, Kansas. With its
wide range of environmental features
from energy efficient windows and light-
ing to an advanced water management
system the approximately 217,500
square foot facility moves closer to build-
ing "green." Built at a projected construc-
tion cost of $32 million, the 5-story facili-
ty is designed to house roughly 900 EPA
regional employees, with 750 scheduled
to move in initially.
"Given the regulatory requirements
and the availability of green products at
the time the Solicitation for Offers was
published, our design team and Koll
Development did an outstanding job in
design and construction of the facility,"
said Marc Matthews of EPA's Region 7.
"With the widespread availability of recy-
cled-content and other environmental
building products today, we hope other
facilities can go even further and build
upon our success."
EPA regional staff worked with the
developer to create an environmentally
sustainable design. Together they estab-
lished several overarching goals:
To create a soft visual impact.
To reduce disturbance to site condi-
tions and surroundings.
To accommodate natural light.
To emphasize EPA's overall mission of
environmental enhancement and sus-
tainability.
The resulting building offers a range of
environmental features in the areas of ener-
gy efficiency, recycling, landscaping, and
water conservation and erosion control.
Energy Efficiency: In an effort to
reduce energy consumption, the build-
ing was designed to qualify for an EPA
Energy Star building rating. The
building uses indirect lighting as the
primary source of light in the open
office areas in the building. Through-
out the building, low emittance (low-e)
windows are recessed two feet to
increase the shading coefficient; T-8
fluorescent bulbs with electronic bal-
lasts provide energy-saving benefits.
All public occupied spaces use motion
sensors to detect occupants for general
lighting, while compact fluorescent
task lighting is used for individual
cubicles to avoid wasteful overhead
lighting grids.
Recycling: Many of the interior fur-
nishings contain recycled-content
including the carpeting, ceiling tiles,
ceramic floors, and paint. The auger
piles, footings, and foundations were
constructed with concrete containing
1,000 tons of coal fly ash, complying
with EPA's Comprehensive Procure-
ment Guidelines requirements. Recy-
clables are stored and consolidated on
each floor in rooms next to the freight
elevators, allowing for a quick and
smooth delivery to the loading dock.
These rooms also provide storage space
for reusable office equipment and
materials.
Landscaping: Both
inside and out, the build-
ing's landscaping is truly
"green." The outside vegeta-
tion, including 30-40 honey
locust trees, primarily con-
sists of native plants, which
require less water than
imported plants. These
plants also require little
maintenance, reducing use
and exposure to harmful
pesticides. Shrub beds
located throughout the site
add visual appeal while aid-
ing in erosion control.
Indoors, ficus trees help
remove indoor air pollutants.
Water Conservation and Erosion
Control: The building offers water
conservation and erosion control
opportunities as well. Plumbing fix-
tures in the building will include Mis-
ter Miser Urinals, Flushometer toilet
adapters, and low-flow shower heads
in the fitness center which provide
water conservation opportunities. An
advanced water management con-
troller operates the building's irriga-
tion system valves. This allows for a
wide variety of water saving measures,
such as water budgeting and program-
mable rain delay. Probes measure the
moisture content of the soil outside the
building to ensure that vegetation is
only watered when necessary. In order
to improve the quality of water runoff,
the designers installed sand oil inter-
ceptors in the parking lot drains to
screen out water contaminants.
Air Quality: Associated with this pro-
ject, the City of Kansas City is con-
structing a half-mile bike path adja-
cent to the new Region 7 office
building. This path, along with the
installation of bike racks and showers
at the facility, will give employees an
alternative means of transportation to
Continued on page 6
FEDFACS 5
-------
In the Field
Multimedia Audits of
BIA Agencies Begin with
Cherokee, NC
Cherokee Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) Agency, located in Cherokee,
North Carolina, will be the first of many
BIA facilities to be audited under the
national multimedia auditing program
created under a Memorandum of Under-
standing (dated August 12, 1998) between
the EPA and BIA. Cherokee was chosen
because of its wide range of activities.
The Compliance Assistance Project
(CAP) to be undertaken will identify com-
pliance problems at BIA facilities through
a series of multimedia audits that will be
carried out at 4-6 representative facilities.
BIA will use the information gained to
improve BIA facilities' overall environ-
mental planning and performance, and
particularly as they relate to Indian trust
resources and BIA facilities on Indian
lands. CAPs can help to ensure that BIA
and Indian trust resources and personnel
are protected from potentially adverse
conditions by identifying compliance
issues, providing means to address them,
and recommending procedures that can
be used at other facilities.
In order to implement the agreement,
Craig Hooks, Director of EPA's FFEO,
requested that each EPA region with
BIA facilities nominate candidate facili-
ties for a national multimedia auditing
program. The selection of Cherokee BIA
Agency was made after consulting with
regional and BIA representatives, and
affected tribes.
FFEO is currently determining the scope
of the audit and identifying procedural
requirements for the audit with BIA Head-
quarters and the Cherokee Agency. FFEO
will use its findings and recommendations
as a guide to identify other BIA facilities for
the national multimedia auditing program.
For more information, contact Anthony
Shelton at (404) 562-9636.
is published by EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor
Gilah Langner,
Stretton Associates, Inc., Writer
Robin Foster,
SciComm, Inc., Layout
To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U. S. EPA (2261), 401M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460
or Fax: 202-501-0069
Or Internet:
http j/www .epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/ann/index.html
GREENING THE HEARTLAND
Continued from page 5
driving. Parking spaces will be
reserved for employees who carpool,
and Region 7 will continue to offer a
transit subsidy program to compen-
sate employees for using public trans-
portation.
With the building almost complete,
regional staff are turning their attention
towards a new environmental laboratory.
"We are partnering with the General Ser-
vices Administration, lab personnel, and
others to ensure that the new lab is as
green as possible," added Matthews.
"We'll be able to take what we've learned
from the office building and go one step
further." Once completed, the lab will be
located across the street and within walk-
ing distance from the new office building.
For more information on the innova-
tive new office building or laboratory, con-
tact Marc Matthews at (913) 551-7517.
EPA Declares Ft. Meade's
Tipton Airfield Free of
Hazardous Waste
In a cooperative effort with the Army, the
Maryland Department of Environment,
and the State of Maryland, EPA complet-
ed all hazardous waste cleanup work at
the Tipton Army Airfield property at Fort
George G. Meade, and issued a "Record of
Decision" saying no further action is nec-
essary.
During the cleanup, drums of haz-
ardous waste were removed and an acid pit
was cleaned out. In addition, over 2,000
ordnance items were recovered and dis-
posed of. (Ordnance items are military
weapons, including artillery and heavy
guns.) Further work remains to be done on
an inactive landfill at the site, situated on
property east of the Little Patuxent River.
Fort Meade was placed on EPA's Super-
fund National Priorities List of the most
hazardous sites in the nation last July.
Sites placed on the list are eligible for long-
term financial, technical, and personnel
support from EPA to clean up the site. The
Tipton Airfield portion of the site is in the
process of being deleted from the list.
Currently, Anne Arundel County has
leased three buildings and a portion of
the Tipton Airfield property to use as an
airport. The Tipton Airfield property will
be transferred to Anne Arundel County by
the fall. Ft. George G. Meade has been a
U.S. Army installation since 1917. It is
located in northwestern Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, along the Little Patux-
ent and Patuxent rivers, midway between
Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
6 FEDFACS
-------
Policies
Final EMR Policy and
Guidance Issued
The two-and-a-half year EMR pilot pro-
I gram is over and the final "Environ-
mental Management Review Policy and
Guidance for Federal Facilities" is avail-
able on EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html.
The final EMR policy and guidance
incorporates lessons learned from 25 pilot
We hope that the new
guidance will encourage
some of your facilities
to request an EPA-
conducted EMR.
EMRs conducted by EPA regional staff at
facilities belonging to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Coast Guard, National
Park Service, EPA, Postal Service, and the
Army Corps of Engineers. These facilities
report improved partnerships with EPA,
building a better foundation for an envi-
ronmental management program, and
identification of opportunities for
improvement.
The final policy modifies the Incidental
Violations Response Policy to be consistent
with EPA's Audit Policy, and adds a provi-
sion that EPA generally will not conduct
inspections at a facility receiving an EMR
for six months afterwards.
A National Report on the EMR Pilot
Program will be posted on the Web site in
May 1999.
Given the success of the pilot program,
EMRs are slated to be an integral part of
EPA's compliance and technical assistance
toolbox for years to come. We hope that
the new guidance will encourage some of
your facilities to request an EPA-conduct-
ed EMR. Remember: EMRs are a volun-
tary, collaborative, inexpensive means by
which a facility can determine the health
of its environmental management system.
Guidance Coming on
RCRA 6002 Inspections
KEO is preparing guidance on conduct-
ig federal facility inspections for com-
pliance with section 6002 of RCRA, as
mandated under a recent Executive
Order (see box). The final guidance docu-
ment will be available on the Envirosense
Web site in May 1999 (www.epa.gov/envi-
ronsense).
For the first year of implementation,
EPA inspections related to this section
will emphasize awareness and compli-
ance assistance, focusing on federal facili-
ty responsibilities under RCRA 6002.
Thus, for example, inspections might
include distribution of a questionnaire to
the facility and a brief inspection of a
facility's motor vehicle maintenance shop
to determine if the facility is using and
purchasing vehicular products designated
under the EPA buy-recycled program.
The inspections would determine
whether the facility is currently using
items such as re-refined lubricants,
retread tires, and engine coolant.
In future years, based on information
learned from inspections conducted over
the next year, EPA will review its
response to non-compliance with section
6002 to ensure federal facility compli-
ance. EPA has determined that violations
of RCRA section 6002 by federal agencies
do not give rise to administrative penalty
actions or orders under RCRA's enforce-
ment authorities. This conclusion does
not, however, limit EPA's authority to
issue a notice of violation (NOV) for viola-
tions of RCRA section 6002 or enter into
compliance agreements at federal facili-
ties that are discovered through the
inspections mandated by Executive Order
13101. It also appears that citizens may
take action pursuant to RCRA section
7002, the citizen suit provision.
BUY-RECYCLED EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED
On September 14,1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13101: "Greening the Govern-
ment Through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition." Section 403 of the Order
directed EPA to develop guidance for inspections of federal facilities for compliance with the
buy-recycled program established under RCRA section 6002. The guidance is to be used by EPA
in conducting RCRA inspections or multi-media regulatory compliance inspections where RCRA
compliance is a component of the inspection.
Recognizing that recycling works best if there are markets for the materials collected. Con-
gress directed the federal government to employ its purchasing powerto help create and sus-
tain those markets by buying products manufactured with the collected materials. Section 6002
of RCRA establishes a federal buy-recycled program and requires EPA to: (1) designate items
that are or can be made with recovered materials and (2) prepare guidelines to assist procur-
ing agencies in complying with affirmative procurement requirements. Once EPA has designat-
ed items, any agency using federal monies to procure those items must purchase items com-
posed of the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable.
To date, the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG) program has designated 36
products in 8 product categories. An additional 19 products will be formally listed in June 1999.
EPA research indicates that the designated items are of high quality, are widely available, and
cost-competitive with products made from virgin materials.
Additional information on the CPG designated items and content recommendations can be
found on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products.htm.
FEDFACS 7
-------
The Hammer
Region 3
Walter Reed Medical Center, DC:
In separate violations, EPA has cit-
ed the U.S. Army for alleged violations of
(1) federal underground storage tank
(UST) regulations at the Army's Walter
Reed Medical Center in Washington D.C.
and the Center's Forest Glen Annex in Sil-
ver Spring, Maryland, (2) RCRA regula-
tions concerning hazardous waste storage
at Walter Reed Medical Center in Wash-
ington, DC. "Leaking underground tanks
are a major source of soil and groundwater
contamination. We have to enforce compli-
ance with UST regulations now, or face
costly cleanups later," said EPA Regional
Administrator W Michael McCabe.
EPA is seeking a total penalty of
$94,101 for UST violations involving five
diesel fuel tanks at Walter Reed's main
hospital facility in D.C., and four diesel
fuel tanks at the Forest Glen Annex.
These tanks range in capacity from 2,000
to 10,000 gallons. District of Columbia
regulations require UST owners to per-
manently close or remove their tanks
within 12 months after the tanks are tak-
en out of service. EPA alleges that the five
USTs at Walter Reed were last used
around December 1993 but were removed
between August 1995 and January 1997.
At the Forest Glen Annex, the Army
allegedly failed to use corrosion-protected
steel piping in one 2,000 gallon tank and
to comply with proper leak detection pro-
cedures in two 10,000 gallon tanks.
EPAfe September 30 complaint proposes
a $201,600 penalty for RCRA violations at
Walter Reed, although none of the violations
poses a health risk to the patients or employ-
ees at the medical center. Joint inspections
by EPA and District officials in 1996 and
1998 found that hazardous waste containers
were improperly labeled and sealed, and the
facility did not have a permit to store haz-
ardous waste. The hazardous wastes includ-
ed mercury, chloroform, acetonitrile,
trichloroacetic acid, phenol, methanol,
xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, and photo fix-
er waste. EPA has ordered the Army to
immediately cease storing hazardous waste
at Walter Reed except in conformance with
requirements. The Army may request a
hearing to contest the violations and EPA's
proposed penalties.
Region 6
Region 4
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
and Fort Campbell, KY/TN: EPA
Region 4 issued a RCRA complaint and
compliance order to the Army and the
Defense Logistics Agency in September
1999. The RCRA order is for violations of
the following areas: (1) OB/OD unit inter-
im status, (2) failure to have personnel
training, (3) security, (4) inspection, (5)
permit. Most of the violations are the
result of improper management of the
OB/OD unit, including the burning
and/or detonation of D003 hazardous
waste in excess of the permit limit. The
proposed penalty is $540,470. The RCRA
order included a notice of opportunity for
a hearing and an invitation to request an
informal settlement conference. The
Region and Fort Campbell have met
informally and are currently in settle-
ment negotiations.
XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort
Bragg, NC: EPA Region 4 issued a
SDWA administrative order to the Army
in March 1999 for the following: (1) Max-
imum contaminant level exceedences for
total trihalomethanes, (2) failure to pro-
vide timely public notice for maximum
contaminant level exceedences for total
trihalomethanes, (3) failure to meet the
monitoring and reporting requirements
for total trihalomethanes, (4) failure to
meet the public education requirements
as a result of exceeding the 90th per-
centile action level for lead, (5) failure to
report the failure to comply with the
national primary drinking water regula-
tions within 48 hours. There is no pro-
posed penalty at the present time. The
Army has requested a meeting to discuss
the order and needed actions.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
Fort Worth, TX: EPA filed an adminis-
trative penalty action on March 31, 1999
against the U.S. Treasury for violations of
the Clean Air Act at the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing (BEP), Western
Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
This is the largest CAA penalty filed in
Region 6 against a federal facility using
recently clarified penalty authority from
the Department of Justice. (The decision
came on July 16, 1997, from DOJ's Office
of Legal Counsel that EPA has penalty
authority under Section 113(d) of the
CAA against federal agencies for viola-
tions of the CAA.) An EPA inspection
revealed that BEP had failed to comply
with regulations which reduce pollution
from volatile organic compounds, sulfur
dioxide, and chromium compounds. In
the administrative complaint, EPA
charged that BEP violated regulations of
the Texas Administrative Code, which
have been incorporated into the Texas Air
Pollution Control Implementation Plan,
and federal regulations concerning two
boilers at the plant and chromium com-
pounds. EPA seeks a $289,800 penalty for
these violations.
In another case, on June 12, 1998, a
multimedia environmental compliance
inspection was conducted at the BEP
Fort Worth facility. From the inspection,
it was determined that nickel had been
"otherwise used" at above threshold
amounts for 1995 and 1996. In addition,
the Bureau failed to maintain records for
nickel for the 1994 reporting year. A
show-cause letter was issued on January
12, 1999, informing the facility of its non-
compliance with EPCRA Section 313.
Additional information was included in
the letter instructing the facility how to
achieve compliance. On February 24,
1999, information was received from the
facility. After reviewing the information it
was determined that BEP had met the
terms of the show-cause letter and was
8 FEDFACS
-------
now in compliance with EPCRA 313. A
confirmation letter acknowledging the
Bureau's compliance with EPCRA 313
was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.
This issue has been closed.
McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant, Department of the Army,
McAlester, OK: On December 2, 1997, a
multimedia environmental compliance
inspection was conducted at the
McAlester facility. From the inspection, it
was determined that chlorine was "other-
wise used" at above threshold amounts for
1994, 1995, and 1996. On January 12,
1999, a show-cause letter was issued
informing the facility of its non-compli-
ance with EPCRA Section 313. Additional
information was included in the letter
instructing the facility how to achieve
compliance. On March 11, 1999, informa-
tion was received from the facility. After
reviewing the information it was deter-
mined that McAlester had met the terms
of the Show-Cause letter and was now in
compliance with EPCRA 313. A confirma-
tion letter acknowledging the Bureau's
compliance with EPCRA 313 was sent to
the facility on April 6, 1999.
Region 10
Kodiak Coast Guard Station, Kodiak
Island, AK: EPA issued a complaint and
penalty on March 24, 1999 against the
U.S. Coast Guard Integrated Support
Command located on Kodiak Island, Alas-
ka. The compliant, seeking $74,250,
reflects alleged federal hazardous waste
violations observed by EPA inspectors at
the facility in August 1998, and violations
which were self-disclosed by the Coast
Guard in a subsequent letter. Violations
include a failure to adequately track and
manage containers that held hazardous
waste. In a separate, self-reported inci-
dent, the Coast Guard also illegally treat-
ed hazardous wastes by detonating excess
ordnance in a remote bunker. By disclos-
ing and correcting this violation in accor-
dance with EPA's self-reporting policy, the
Coast Guard qualified for penalty relief
and avoided an additional penalty of
$74,250.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation, WA:
EPA issued a complaint on February 11,
1999 to the Department of Energy seeking
payment of $367,078 in civil penalties for
alleged RCRA violations at Hanford
Nuclear Reservation in Washington state.
The largest component of the penalty was
for improper storage of 17 drums contain-
ing solvents. The drums were stored out-
doors, some for almost three years, and
the storage area did not have a permit or
comply with storage rules. Abuilding serv-
ing as the receipt and distribution center
for the tank farms was cited for failing to
have an up-to-date contingency plan.
According to EPA Region 10 officials, the
most serious problem found in the multi-
media inspection conducted last year was
Hanford's failure to make a hazardous
waste determination. Although it applied
only to two one-gallon containers of waste,
officials were concerned because of Han-
ford's history of noncompliance with that
requirement.
DIRECTOR'S WORD
Continued from page 1
cies, strategies, and principles on how to
develop, conduct, and implement environ-
mental management systems at federal
facilities so a facility can improve its reg-
ulatory compliance, better manage its
risks and liabilities, and utilize its
resources most effectively. These tools
should help an agency answer the ques-
tion "Where are we going?" Many of our
tools and documents are available via the
Internet on our Web page at
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html.
Next, we soon will have a Compliance
Assistance Center for Federal Facilities
that can assist facility managers who need
information regarding compliance with
environmental regulations. This Center's
Web site will provide a virtual tour of a
typical federal facility and explain how to
tackle various compliance issues. It will
include a questionnaire for users to com-
plete to help update the Center to ensure
its responsiveness to user needs. The Cen-
ter, which will be located on our Web page
in the near future, will be an important
tool to help agencies figure out where they
want to be in the future.
My goal is for all federal agencies to
assume the mantle of true environmental
leadership. Not just compliance but lead-
ership. That leadership won't just be
measured in the compliance status of its
facilities or whether an internal auditing
system has been developed. Environmen-
tal leadership will be accomplished when
the heads of each department or agency
and all of its top career and political lead-
ership view environmental management
as part of their missions not just as
something that EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office worries about.
And last, but certainly not least, is our
enforcement of environmental violations.
My staff director for enforcement once
said during a speech, "We don't want you
to like enforcement. We want the process
to be painful." She was right. As I have
said before, enforcement actions and
penalties deter non-compliance. We do it
because it works. Enforcement will con-
tinue to be an active and vital part of
FFEO's mission. However, embracing
environmental leadership within all fed-
eral agencies and departments will
advance the concept of environmental
stewardship. Our shared environment
will be the ultimate benefactor.
FEDFACS 9
-------
ConferenceUpdate
EPA Region 6 Hosts Second
Wetlands Regulatory
Roundtable
EPA Region 6 hosted its second Wet-
lands Regulatory Roundtable in Janu-
ary 1999, attracting attendance from the
US Army Corps of Engineers District and
Divisional Offices; US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Field Offices; National Marine
Fisheries Service; Natural Resources
Conservation Service; and state environ-
mental offices which have a role in
reviewing wetland permits.
The primary objective of the round-
table is to improve the effectiveness of
the permitting program as it relates to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Workgroups established at the previous
year's roundtable presented summaries
on topics such as: cumulative impacts on
wetlands, watershed approach to pro-
jects, mitigation banking, use of hydroge-
omorphic modeling, review of completed
mitigation sites, stream restoration pro-
jects, and an enforcement strategy.
A roundtable planned for next year
will continue the discussions and new ini-
tiatives that will affect the wetlands pro-
gram. Information concerning the Wet-
lands Roundtable can be reviewed on
Region 6 web page at: http://www.
epa.gov/earthlr6/6wq/ecopro/em/per-
mits. For more information, contact
Wanda Boyd at (214) 665-6696.
P2 Workshop at Coast
Guard Facility
The Coast Guard Training Center in
Cape May, NJ hosted a pollution preven-
tion (P2) environmental workshop in
March 1999, jointly sponsored by Regions
2 and 3. The two day workshop was
designed primarily for civilian federal
agencies, and combined classroom lec-
tures with a pollution prevention opportu-
nity assessment excercise at the automo-
tive maintenance shop of the Coast Guard
facility. Prevention opportunities identi-
fied during the workshop assessment
exercise were discussed in follow-up lec-
tures and with members of the facility. (A
formal pollution prevention opportunity
assessment was conducted at the facility
in August 1997 by Region 2, which formed
the basis of some discussion as well.) The
workshop covered such topics as:
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
and Executive Order 12856;
Integration of P2 concepts into Envi-
ronmental Management Systems;
P2 and Environmental Compliance;
P2 plans, baselines and assessments;
and
Hazardous Material Control Systems.
The workshop was attended by
approximately 40 representative from
such agencies as the U.S. Mint, Federal
Aviation Administration, National Park
Service, Bettis Atomic Power lab, and the
Smithsonian Institute. Feedback was
positive and similar pollution preven-
tion/waste minimization workshops will
be held for the federal facility community
in the future.
Region 8 Sponsors
Environmental Virtual
University Pilot Project
As part of EPA's national compliance
assistance for Department of Interior
employees, Region 8 awarded Front
Range Community College (FRCC) in
Westminster, Colorado a grant to develop
"Introduction to Environmental Science
via the Internet." The EPA grant covers
tuition for up to 30 DOI employees, who
will each earn 3 hours of college credit.
This pilot project utilizes FRCC's Web-
based distance education software and
expertise in environmental training. The
class is a core class in the environmental
curriculum at FRCC, and is designed to
introduce students to scientific and poli-
cy issues underlying current environ-
mental problems in the natural world.
Issues presented include hazardous
waste management, acid mine drainage
and aquatic ecosystems, urban air pollu-
tion, ozone degradation, and pollution
prevention.
The 12-week course started on Janu-
ary 29, 1999, and currently has 13 stu-
dents enrolled.
Each week's reading assignments,
Internet research assignments, home-
work assignments, and/or quizzes are
posted on the class bulletin board. Stu-
dents contact the instructor via e-mail for
answers to questions or for any clarifica-
tions or help needed.
Response from participants in this
class has been positive. One student e-
mailed the instructor "I can't tell you how
much I enjoy this class. I am the safety
officer for our soils engineering lab, and
the information I am picking up from
this class is right in line with some of the
work I have done or even some work I am
now doing." Once the class is complete,
FRCC will provide each student with an
opportunity to evaluate the course con-
tent, instructor, and Internet delivery.
FRCC is planning to offer this class
again in the fall, and has targeted two
additional classes, "Introduction to Envi-
ronmental Laws and Policies" and "Pol-
lution Prevention" to be developed for
Internet delivery. (EPA support for
tuition for these classes is not planned.)
For more information, contact John
Works (EPA) at (303) 312-6196 or Kim
Lewis (FRCC) at (303) 404-5356.
1O FEDFACS
-------
Resources
Who Are the Federal Facilities Coordinators?
Have a question about EPA and don't know whom to call? The
Federal Facilities Coordinators, located in each EPA regional
office, will either answer your query or direct you to the right
location or person.
Have suggestions for a workshop? Need to get together with
your state or tribal representatives on environmental issues of
mutual concern? Need assistance to enhance a pollution preven-
tion program? FFCs plan, coordinate, or conduct inspections or
compliance assistance workshops and work cooperatively with
program staff and managers to ensure that federal facilities are
provided the tools they need to be in environmental compliance.
FFCs have an average of 20 years of government service.
They are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection
specialists. They have work experience with EPA headquarters,
state agencies, and environmental interest groups. And they are
the primary regional points of contact for federal facilities look-
ing for EPA information and referral.
The FFCs and FFEO welcome your suggestions and want to
work with you to strengthen our environmental partnerships!
REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES
COORDINATORS
Region 1: Anne Fenn, (617) 918-1805
Region 2: Jeanette Dadusc, (212) 637-3492
Regions: Bill Arguto, (215) 814-3367
Region 4: Stacy Howard, (404) 562-9633 (DOE Coordinator)
David Holroyd, (404) 562-9625 (DoD Coordinator)
Anthony Shelton, (404) 562-9636 (CFA Coordinator)
Region 5: Lee Regner, (312) 353-6478
Region 6: Joyce Stubblefield, (214) 665-6430
Region 7: Diana Jackson, (913) 551-7744
Region 8: Dianne Thiel, (303) 312-6389
ConnallyMears, (303) 312-6217
Region 9: Sara Segal, (415) 744-1569
Larry Woods, (415) 744-1580
Region 10: Michele Wright, (206) 553-1747
Susan Ennes, (206) 553-6249
On-Line Notes:
HOW DO YOU SPELL "ENVIRO$EN$E?"
You may have noticed that the domain name (URL) address for
FFEO's Enviro$en$e/FFLEX (Federal Facilities Environmental Lead-
ership Exchange) Web site http://www.epa.gov/oeca/
fedfac/fflex.html appears on your browser screen as
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html. As you may have discovered,
you can access Enviro$en$e/FFLEX Web pages using either address.
So what is the significance of "www" versues "es" in the address? The
"www" designation refers to EPA's main server; the "es" refers to the
server currently being used by the Enviro$en$e (E$) network. Within
the year, however, the "es" server for Enviro$en$e will become part of
the larger EPA server system, and typing in the "es"form of the address
will not access the site. Therefore, any time you publish or give out the
Enviro$en$e address, you should always use the "www" form rather
than the "es" designation. The main domain name address for Envi-
ro$en$e itself can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/envirosense.
For more information, contact Isabelle Lacayo, 202/564-2578 or
lacayo.isabelle@epa.gov.
New Yellow Book
Published
^he Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and
I Compliance at Federal Facilities, commonly referred to as the
"Yellow Book," is currently being published and will be available
in hard copy and via the Internet in June 1999. The new Yellow
Book revises and supersedes the 1988 version entitled Federal
Facilities Compliance Strategy.
The Yellow Book is designed to assist federal facilities with
achieving and maintaining compliance with federal environ-
mental requirements as required by Executive Order 12088,
Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, and in
going beyond these requirements to lead the way in minimizing
environmental contamination.
For information on ordering the Yellow Book, contact Priscilla
Harrington of EPA's FFEO at (202) 564-2461 or fax (202) 501-
0069.
FEDFACS 11
-------
UpcomingEvents
August 1999
EPA Region 7 Federal Facilities
Conference
Kansas City, KS
Contact: Diana Jackson at (913) 551-7509 or
Jackson.diana ฉepa.gov.
August 11-12,1999
Great Lakes Regional Pollution
Prevention Roundtable Summer
Meeting
Traverse City, Ml
Contact: Lisa Memfield, (217) 333-8940
merrifld@wmrc.hazard.uiuc.edu.
or
September 20-23,1999
1999 Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention
Conference
Washington, DC
Sponsor: EPA Region 3. Contact: Al Brown, (215) 814-
3302, or go to http://www.epacepp.com.
November 15-18,1999
Third Annual DoD Maintenance
Symposium and Exhibition:
Transforming Maintenance With
Technology
St. Louis, MO
Sponsor: National Defense Industrial Association,
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Contact: Terra
Thomas, NDIA, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arling-
ton, VA, 22201-3061, tel: 703-247-2590, fax: 703-522-
1885, tthomas@ndia.org.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFA Civilian Federal Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DLA Defense Logistics Agency
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
EMR Environmental
Management Review
EPA Environmental Protection
Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and
Community RightTo-Know
Act of 1986
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforce-
ment Office (EPA)
NPL National Priorities List
OECA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (EPA)
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental
Project
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
LIST Underground Storage Tank
Od '
(VILZZ) ฃ>
------- |