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> ------- |