United States :; :,,;*;;.;:'
Environmental Protection'
Office of. Enforcement and
^Goftipliarice1 Assurance ;",
(2261-A) i
EPA 300-R-98-002a
June-1998
The State of Federal
fm -!_
Facilities
An Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities,
FY 1995-96
Executive Summary
-------
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) within the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance prepared this third State of Federal Facilities Report to provide a
snapshot of environmental compliance and enforcement data regarding federal facilities. The
report also helps FFEO and the regulated community assess compliance assistance strategies.
Environmental Requirements
Environmental requirements potentially affecting federal facilities range from federal
statutes and their implementing regulations to state and local laws and ordinances. This report
summarizes federal facility data during FY 1995 and FY 1996 with respect to the following nine
major environmental statutes and programs:
> Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Subtitle C
> Clean Water Act (CWA) - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program
>
>
>
>r
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) program
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
> Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) -
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
> Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
> Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Before discussing specific environmental programs, it is necessary to provide some background
information on the universe of federal facilities.
Overview of Federal Facilities
Federal facilities typically comprise a fairly small portion (i.e., less than five percent) of
the universe of private and public facilities regulated under the environmental statutes and
ES-l
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
programs covered by this report. However, the nature of environmental issues federal facilities
face is different than the private sector and highlights the importance of promoting environmental
awareness and leadership at federal facilities.
According to the Integrated Database for Enforcement Analysis, as of FY 1996 there were
approximately 15,000 federal facilities engaged in some type of activity regulated by
environmental requirements. These facilities can be grouped into six broad categories
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Civilian Federal Agencies (CFA),
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), federal facilities located in foreign lands, and unidentified federal
facilities. A breakdown of federal facilities by agency category is presented in Exhibit ES - 1.
Exhibit ES -1
Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1996)
Located in Foreign Lands (5.1%) Ti'1
FUDS (9.8%) 1,472
Unidentified (2.6%) 383
DOE (2.9%) 429
DOD (34.9%) 5,223
Total = 14,974 Federal facilities
CFAs(44.7%) 6,696
DOD and DOE facilities typically include military bases, manufacturing plants, and
laboratory facilities. The universe of CFA facilities is more diverse and reflects the range of
activities conducted by these agencies. Examples of CFA facilities include: Coast Guard
installations, USDA agricultural research stations, DOJ penitentiaries, EPA environmental
laboratories, electric power generation stations, and various storage facilities.
Measuring Environmental Compliance; Compliance Indicators
Because of differences in how EPA and states define and assess compliance under
different environmental programs, it is not feasible to develop a single compliance indicator
that yields meaningful comparisons across programs. However, evaluating selected
ES-2
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
compliance indicators over time can reveal how federal facilities are performing with respect to
individual programs. Exhibit ES - 2 presents compliance indicators that measure the level of
relatively serious noncompliance at major federal facilities. The definitions of the indicators are
summarized below:
Statute
Compliance Indicator
RCRA Percent of inspected federal treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) not cited for Class I violations
CWA Percent of major federal facilities not in significant noncompliance (SNC)
SDWA Percent of federal systems not in SNC
CAA Percent of major federal sources in compliance
TSCA Percent of inspected federal facilities not in SNC
These compliance indicators have been measured since FY 1991. Exhibit ES - 2 presents
actual values for the compliance indicators discussed above. From FY 1991 to FY 1996, RCRA
compliance increased, CWA compliance increased and then steadily decreased, SDWA
compliance fluctuated but remained high, CAA compliance decreased from the mid-90 percent
range to the high 80 percent range, and TSCA compliance remained at a high level.
Exhibit ES - 2
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for Selected Indicators
Statute
RCRA
CWA
CAA
SDWA
TSCA
WX 1991
54.2%
80.3%
94.4%
99.1%
92.4%
FY1992
62.7%
90.4%
95.6%
99.0%
90.1%
FY1993
55.4%
94.2%
87.0%
99.2%
93.5%
FY 1994
61.6%
88.5%
87.9%
98.7%
87.5%
FY199S
73.8%
76.2%
88.8%
93.0%
100.0%
FY1996
75.1%
73.0%
87.4%
96.4%
100.0%
_
To measure changes in compliance rates since FY 1991, standardized compliance
indicators are derived by dividing the annual rate for each indicator listed above by the FY 1991
value. These standardized indicators measure changes in compliance rates for the various
programs relative to FY 1991 in the same way the consumer price index measures
ES-3
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
changes in the rate of inflation relative to a given base year. The purpose of standardization is to
avoid potentially misleading comparisons of the absolute level of .compliance, and instead focus
on measuring changes in compliance over time.
As shown in Exhibit ES - 3, the level of federal facility compliance with most major
environmental statutes/programs has been somewhat mixed since FY 1991. Under CWA,
Exhibit ES-3
Percent Changes in Federal Facility Compliance Indicator
Rates Relative to FY 1991
FY 1991 (Base Year)
40.0
W
p
b
ent Chan
N
o
b
>-
o
b
o
b
-10.0
:
12
i
1
0.0 v
.7
' 2.2
'fflj
3J
3
«.:
TJ
[
1
Legend
B FY91
SB FY92
FY93
21
*
1
1
1 1 FV »4
H FY95
73
3 0.2
9 8.28.2
"1 0.0-O.lO.l.n i 0.0170 0.0 S3 ^
1 r u "u
1,
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
CAA
TSCA
SDWA, and CAA the level of compliance at federal facilities decreased by 9.1, 2.7, and 7.4
percent, respectively, during the FY 1991 to FY 1996 time period. In contrast, RCRA
compliance at federal facilities increased by 38.6 percent, and TSCA compliance increased by
8.2 percent relative to FY 1991.
Inspections
Exhibit ES - 4 summarizes inspection activity at federal facilities from FY 1993 - FY
1996. Note that because the PWSS program under SDWA relies on self-reporting, there are no
inspection data for this program. The total number of inspections at federal facilities conducted
under all programs increased from 1,334 in FY 1993 to 1,480 in FY 1996. The level of
inspection activity increased most dramatically under the CAA (54.6 percent), while RCRA
inspections increased by a more modest 6.3 percent. In contrast, CWA/NPDES inspections
ES-4
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
decreased by nearly one-fourth, and taken collectively, TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA inspections
declined by 12 percent.
It should be noted that these overall totals are not necessarily indicative of the level of
resources expended on inspection activities within a given program because they do not
distinguish between inspection types. For example, there are many different types of inspections
under RCRA (e.g., Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluations, Compliance Evaluation Inspections,
Record Reviews). Some of these are resource-intensive field inspections, while others are simply
reviews of documents. For a more detailed discussion of inspection activity, see the
statute/program-specific summaries contained in Section in of this document.
Exhibit ES-4
Federal Facility Inspections (FY 93 - FY 96)
1000 -
750-
500-
250-
FY1993
FY1994
FY 1995
FY1996
RCRA
CWA/NPDES
CAA
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
Enforcement
As shown in Exhibit ES - 5, the total number of enforcement actions taken against federal
facilities decreased by more than 18 percent (448 to 365) from FY 1993 to FY 1996. The total
number of RCRA enforcement actions taken against federal facilities decreased by 22.5 percent
from FY 1993 to FY 1996. This substantial decrease occurred despite the overall increase in
RCRA inspection activity (see Exhibit ES - 4 above). CWA/NPDES enforcement also declined
by 16.4 percent, although as shown above, the decline in inspections was much more
pronounced. Over the same period, CAA enforcement actions at federal facilities actually
increased by nearly 80 percent, paralleling an increase of more than 50 percent in inspections.
SDWA enforcement actions remained fairly constant during this time frame, while
ES-5
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA enforcement actions dropped to zero in FY 1996, albeit from a fairly
small number (i.e., 5) in FY 1993.
As was the case for inspections, these aggregate enforcement action totals do not account
for differences in the type of enforcement action (i.e., a warning letter and an administrative
order each count as one action). For a more detailed discussion of enforcement activity, see the
program-specific summaries contained in Section IE of this document.
Exhibit ES - 5
Federal Facility Enforcement Actions (FY 93 - FY 96)
The remainder of this Executive Summary presents summary data for federal facilities
under the RCRA, CWA, CAA, EPCRA, SDWA, TSCA/F1FRA, CERCLA, andBRAC
programs, while the full report contains more detailed compliance information.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 3,685 federal RCRA facilities represent a fairly small portion of the entire RCRA
universe in FY 1996, approximately 1.2 percent. Of the 3,685 facilities, 42.2 percent are DOD,
5.2 percent are DOE, and 49.6 percent are CFA, and 3.0 percent are unidentified by agency.
RCRA facilities can be further subdivided into four categories: small quantity generators (SQGs),
large quantity generators (LQGs), transporters, and TSDFs. As can be seen in Exhibit ES - 6, the
distribution of federal facilities by handler type differs from non-federal facilities in that:
ES-6
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
> The share of the universe comprised by TSDFs is eight times greater
among federal facilities;
> Transporters are more than twice as common within the non-federal
sector; and
> LQGs account for the majority (55.1 percent) of federal handlers, while
SQGs account for the majority (74.7 percent) of non-federal facilities.
Exhibit ES - 6
RCRA Facility by Handler Type (FY 1996)
Federal Facilities Non-Federal Facilities
TSDFs (8.6%) 318
Transporters (1.7%) 62
SQGs (33.2%) 1,222
Non-Notifier(1.4%) 52
LQGs (55.1%) 2,031
SQGs (74.7%) 228,829
Transporters (3.6%) 10,938
TSDFs (1.1%) 3,406
LQGs (19.9%) 60,857
Non-Notifier (0.7%) 2,178
Total = 3,685 Facilities
Total = 306,208 Facilities
To assess compliance with RCRA requirements, federal and state inspectors conducted
919 and 848 inspections at federal facilities in FY 1995 and FY 1996, respectively. Of these,
132 and 103 facilities, respectively, were cited for Class I RCRA violations. Exhibit ES - 7
presents the percentage of facilities receiving Class I violations according to agency.
ES-7
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 7
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations by Agency Category
FY 1995 FY 1996
DOD (64.4%) 85 DOD (73'8%) 76
DOE (9.8%) 13
CFAs(25.8%) 34
DOE (7.8%) 8
CFAs(18.4%) 19
Total = 132 Facilities
Total = 103 Facilities
Of the federal facilities cited for Class I violations in FY 1995 and FY 1996,71 and 64,
respectively were TSDFs, which are generally considered major federal facilities under RCRA.
Therefore, of the total number of inspected federal TSDFs (271 in FY 1995 and 257 in FY 1996),
73.8 percent and 75.1 percent were not cited for Class I violations in FY 1995 and FY 1996,
respectively. The corresponding Class I violation "compliance rates" for the non-federal
universe of inspected TSDFs were 66.8 percent and 72.8 percent. Exhibit ES - 8 graphically
presents this comparison.
ES-8
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 8
Percentage of Inspected TSDFs not Cited for RCRA Class I Violations
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0% -
60.0% -
50.0%
Legend
Federal TSDFs
Non-Federal TSDFs
FY 1995
FY 1996
There were a total of 321 enforcement actions taken against federal facilities in FY 1995
and 269 taken in FY 1996. Exhibit ES - 9 presents a breakdown of informal versus formal
enforcement actions, as well as proposed versus final penalties assessed and costs attributed to
Supplemental Environmental Projects.
ES-9
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 9
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Type of Action
Informal
Formal
All Enforcement Actions
Proposed Penalties
Final SEP Cost
Final Penalties Collected (excluding
SEP costs) (04/17/97)
FY 1995 Total
238 (74.1%)
83 (25.9%)
321
$ 1,536,776
$ 355,831
$ 1,601,213
, |Tj99
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Clean Water Act
The CWA and its 1987 amendments are the primary statutes governing the restoration
and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Dischargers of point source wastewater must submit an application for a NPDES permit.
At the end of FY 1996, federal facilities comprised approximately 1.9 percent (126) of
the total universe of 6,630 major facilities regulated under the NPDES program. As shown in
Exhibit ES - 10 of these 126 facilities, 69.0 percent were DOD, 11.9 percent were DOE, and 19.0
percent were CFA facilities.
Exhibit ES-10
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1996)
DOD (69.0%) 87
CFAs(19.0%) 24
DOE (11.9%) 15
Total =126 Facilities
The number of NPDES inspections (both EPA- and state-led) at federal facilities
decreased by 15.5 percent, from 187 in FY 1995 to 158 in FY 1996. Exhibit ES - 11 presents
federal facilities in SNC with NPDES according to agency. For FY 1995 and FY 1996, DOD
facilities comprised approximately 60 percent and 76 percent, respectively, of federal facilities in
SNC. Both the number of CFA and DOE facilities in SNC and their relative share decreased
during this time period. For FY 1995 and FY 1996, therefore, the percentage of major federal
facilities not in SNC was 76.2 percent and 73.0 percent, respectively.
ES-11 State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES -11
Major Federal NPDES Facilities in SNC by Agency Category
FY1995
FY1996
DOD(60.0%) 18
«
DOE (23.3%) 7
DOD(76.5%) 26
CFAs(16.7%) 5
Total = 30 Facilities Total = 34 Facilities
DOE (11.8%) 4
CFAs(11.8%) 4
Exhibit ES -12 compares the percentage of federal facilities not in SNC against
corresponding compliance rates for the universe of major non-federal NPDES facilities. During
both FY 1995 and FY 1996, the percentages of major federal facilities not in SNC were lower
than for non-federal facilities.
Exhibit ES-12
Federal vs non-Federal NPDES Compliance Rates (% not in SNC)
100.0% "1
90.0%
80.0% -
70.0%
Legend.
Major Federal Facilities
Major Non-Federal Facilities
I
FY 1995
I
FY 1996
ES-12
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
As shown in Exhibit ES - 13, EPA and states took 71 and 61 enforcement actions in FY
1995 and FY 1996, respectively, to address NPDES noncompliance at federal facilities.
Exhibit ES - 13
Type of NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
0 * *
' Typeof Enforcement Action
Informal
Formal
Other
TOTAL
Number of Actions ia
' " W1995-' -
42 (59.2%)
20 (28.2%)
9 (12.7%)
71
Number of Actions in
*Y1996
43(70.5%)
7(11.5%)
11(18.0%)
61
-
ES-13
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Clean Air Act
The CAA, as amended in 1990, is the primary federal statute regulating air emissions. To
fulfill its mandate of air pollution protection, the CAA establishes four types of health, welfare,
and technology-based standards and programs to prevent and control air pollution:
X National Ambient Air Quality Standards
> National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
> New Source Performance Standards
> Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.
In FY 1996,460 major federal sources existed within the universe of 36,834 major
sources regulated under all programs within the CAA. As shown in Exhibit ES - 14, 60.9 percent
were DOD, 8.5 percent were DOE, and 30.7 percent were CFAs.
Exhibit ES -14
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency Category (FY 1996)
DOD (60.9%) 280
DOE (8.5%) 39
CFAs (30.7%) 141
Total = 460 Major Sources
EPA and state inspectors conducted a total of 430 CAA inspections of major federal
sources during FY 1996, an increase of almost ten percent relative to FY 1995. Some of these
sources were inspected more than once during the year ~ the actual number of major federal
sources inspected was 244 in FY 1995 and 224 in FY 1996. Under the CAA, federal facilities
may be subject to compliance requirements under multiple programs. A major source found to
be in compliance with the provisions of one program, yet out of compliance with those of
another, is considered to be out of compliance.
ES-14
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
The overall compliance rates for major federal sources during FY 1995 and FY 1996
were 88.8 percent and 87.4 percent, respectively. As shown in Exhibit ES - 15, federal facilities
experienced slightly lower CAA compliance rates than their non-federal counterparts.
Exhibit ES -15
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources
95.0% -i
90.0% -
85.0% -
80.0% -
75.0%
Legend
Major Federal Sources
Major Non-Federal Sources
FY 1995
FY 1996
Exhibit ES - 16 breaks down individual CAA compliance data across agencies for FY
1995 and FY 1996. DOD and DOE compliance rates were both much higher than CFA
compliance rates for FY 1995 and FY 1996. DOE compliance rates remained unchanged during
this time period. Note that sources identified as "unknown" indicate that EPA or the state was
unable to determine the compliance status of the source due to a lack of data, malfunctioning
monitoring equipment, or other reasons.
ES-15
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 16
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category
Agency
In Compliance
Out of
Compliance
Unknown
Total
'' ^\'?'rI';:>:<-^H^'"'v:;;a'.?<.^
FY1995 ' - ' -"£/^;';^V';';.:^2^^^^
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Total
243 (92.0%)
98 (81.0%)
33 (91.7%)
374 (88.8%)
21 (8.0%)
17 (14.0%)
1 (2.8%)
39 (9.3%)
0 (0.0%)
6 (5.0%)
2 (5.6%)
8 (1.9%)
264
121
36
421
FY1996 " ' '' ^ / ;' v/':" '", ' /; ' * ' . '"-%., ' -.:.
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Total
249 (90.5%)
101 (79.5%)
33 (91.7%)
383 (87.4%)
24 (8.7%)
19 (15.0%)
1 (2.8%)
44 (10.0%)
2 (0.7%)
7 (5.5%)
2 (5.6%)
11(2.5%)
275
127
36
438
J
EPA and states issued 21 and 25 NOVs at federal facilities during FY 1995 and FY 1996,
respectively, for failure to comply with provisions of the CAA. The majority of NOVs were
issued against DOD facilities. Although relative compliance rates were high among DOD
facilities (see Exhibit ES - 16), because they comprise a much larger portion of the universe of
federal facilities, DOD facilities still tend to receive the majority of the enforcement actions.
Asbestos Abatement at Federal Facilities
Due to the significant potential health hazards posed by asbestos abatement activities (i.e.,
removal, encapsulation), as well as the ubiquitous nature of asbestos in buildings constructed
during the first half of this century, the asbestos NESHAP program has particular relevance for
federal facility compliance.
During the period from the first quarter of FY 1995. to the fourth quarter of FY 1996, 338
federal facilities provided 1,301 notifications of planned asbestos abatement activities.
Collectively, DOD facilities outnumber all other reporting facilities by more than a two-to-one
margin, with Air Force installations comprising the largest share among DOD facilities.
ES-16
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Based on these notifications, EPA and the states conducted 278 inspections, with the vast
majority (93.5 percent) being led by state authorities. Exhibit ES - 17 shows the number of
inspections, violations, and enforcement actions for both years.
Exhibit ES- 17
Federal Facility Asbestos NESHAP Program Data
*y«w
FY1995
FY1996
f \
Inspections
136
142
* mjaljoiis
Substantive
5
4
Notification
10
9
*.-, Enforcement Actions
Warning !
l
0
HOV<
13
14
. bjrder
0
0
L
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA is the basis for protecting public drinking water systems from harmful
contaminants. To implement the law, EPA established the PWSS Program, which regulates all
public water supply systems, as well as the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, which
specifically protects underground sources of drinking water through the establishment of state
wellhead and sole source aquifer protection programs.
In FY 1996, federal systems comprised approximately 2.6 percent (4,496) of the total
universe of 173,279 systems regulated under the PWSS. Exhibit ES -18 shows that overall
compliance at federal systems under the PWSS has decreased since FY 1993. The number of
federal systems cited for violations increased from 1,022 in FY 1993 to 1,094 in FY 1996.
Moreover, because the number of federal systems actually declined, the percentage of systems
with violations increased from 22.0 percent to 24.3 percent over the same period. Systems in
SNC increased from 0.8 percent in FY 1993 to 3.6 percent in FY 1996. The corresponding
percentages for systems not in SNC for FY 1995 and FY 1996 were 93.0 percent and 96.4
percent, respectively.
ES-17
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES -18
PWSS Program Compliance at Federally-Owned Systems
6,000 -
5,000 -
4,000 -
C/3
«g 3,000 -
;§ 2,000 -
1,000 -
Legend
Federally-Owned Systems
Systems with Violations [% of total with violations]
Significant Noncompliers [% of total in SNC]
1 ' 1 = 1 1
FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
(99.2% not in SNC) (98.7% not in SNC) (93.0% not in SNC) (96.4% not in SNC)
Few federal systems received formal enforcement actions for violations under the PWSS,
either from EPA or the states. The total number of federal systems receiving enforcement actions
decreased from 18 in FY 1995 to 10 in FY 1996. No federal systems received Civil Referrals or
had Criminal Cases filed against them during either year.
Toxic Substances Control Act & Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The purpose of TSCA is to protect human health and the environment by requiring that
specific chemicals be tested and that their processing and use be controlled or restricted as
appropriate. FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to oversee the registration and use of
pesticides and other similar products intended to kill or control insects, rodents, weeds, and other
living organisms.
TSCA and FIFRA are not permit-based compliance programs (e.g., RCRA), nor do they
involve any formal listing process whereby facilities meeting certain criteria are identified and
tracked until they no longer meet these criteria (e.g., CERCLA). Moreover, the number and
identity of facilities subject to TSCA change substantially from year to year, and many of the
activities that subject an entity to FDFRA do not occur at a fixed location (e.g., a single firm
ES-18
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
spraying pesticides, herbicides, etc. on agricultural land located throughout a wide geographical
area). As a result, there are no readily definable TSCA or F1FRA universes. Facilities subject to
these programs are identified and targeted for inspections through a variety of less formal means,
including: self-reporting by entities of their intent to manufacture toxic substances or pesticides,
third-party requests/complaints, and EPA/state evaluation of publicly available data (e.g., annual
reports).
There were relatively few TSCA and FIFRA inspections at federal facilities during FY
1995 and FY 1996. Exhibit ES - 19 presents the number of inspections conducted under TSCA
and FIFRA during FY 1995 and FY 1996.
Exhibit ES-19
TSCA and FIFRA Inspections at Federal Facilities
1995
1996
1995
1996
TSCA
HFRA
By definition, all federal facilities found in SNC with TSCA are subject to formal
enforcement actions. The type of action taken is referred to as a Notice of Noncompliance
(NON). Under both TSCA and FIFRA, federal facilities, unlike commercial facilities, are not
subject to penalties. EPA did not find any federal facilities to be in SNC with either TSCA or
FIFRA during FY 1995 or FY 1996. In other words, there were no violations of TSCA or FIFRA
at federal facilities that triggered an enforcement response at an administrative complaint level.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act TRI Reporting
The TRI, established under EPCRA, is a publicly available data base containing specific
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities throughout the United
ES-19
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
states. In addition, following the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990, the TRI was
expanded to include reporting of additional waste management and pollution prevention
activities.
In August of 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order (E.O.) 12856, which
required federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports for calendar year 1994 activities.
Federal facilities meeting the TRI chemical thresholds are required to file TRI reports, whether or
not they are engaged in manufacturing. Government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) federal
facilities, however, are required to submit TRI reports, irrespective of the Executive Order.
TRI reports for each calendar year are submitted to EPA by July 1 of the following year.
After completing data entry and quality assurance activities, EPA makes data available to the
public in a printed report, in a computerized database, and through a variety of other information
products. These products are usually released during the early spring of the year following
submission of data; thus the information contained in this report, which is derived from data
released in May of 1997, presents TRI reporting activity for calendar year 1995.
Prior to 1994, only GOCO federal facilities were required to submit TRI reports. These
same facilities would continue to submit after 1994, assuming they met TRI thresholds, although
they would be identified as federal facilities, not GOCOs. It should be noted, however, because
the universe of reporting facilities has changed, comparisons of pre- and post- 1994 data may not
be entirely valid.
Federal facilities reported releases of approximately 7.9 million pounds of TRI chemicals
in 1995, most of which (76.1 percent) consisted of releases to the air. Releases to air from stack
air emissions exceeded fugitive sources by approximately 4.5 percent. Of the releases to
environmental media other than air, the majority (13.3 percent) were accounted for by releases to
land, followed by releases to water (6.4 percent) and releases to underground injection wells (4.1
percent).
Exhibit ES - 20 shows that TRI off-site transfers in the FY 92-93 timeframe decreased
from 14.3 million pounds to 4.8 million pounds with 57 GOCO facilities reporting, then
decreased from 10.2 million pounds to 6.3 million pounds with 142 federal/GOCO facilities
reporting.
TRI releases decreased from 11.2 million pounds to 7.2 million pounds in the FY 92-93
timeframe, then decreased from 10.2 million pounds to 7.9 million pounds in the FY 94-95
timeframe.
ES - 20 State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 20
TRI Releases and Off-site Transfers at Federal Facilities (1992 -1995)
Legend
Off-site Transfers
Releases
§ 15.OOO.OOO
o
P-.
1992
1993
1994
1995
EPCRA §313 Inspections
In addition to the standard reporting requirements of the EPCRA TRI program (EPCRA
§313), EPA conducts a limited number of inspections at reporting federal facilities. Given the
nature of the program, inspections conducted under EPCRA §313 tend to involve document
reviews, although the process of verifying the accuracy of TRI reporting may involve some on-
site field evaluations. Exhibit ES - 21 shows the number of EPCRA §313 inspections conducted
at federal facilities during FY 1995 and FY 1996. Per section 5-502 of E.G. 12856, EPA
Regions acted as the lead on all inspections during this period. In response to E.G. 12856,
begining in FY 1997, FFEO increased EPCRA §313 inspection activity at federal facilities.
EPCRA §313 Enforcement Actions
Per section 5-502 of E.G. 12856, federal agencies are not subject to the enforcement
provisions of §325 and §326 of EPCRA.
ES-21
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 21
EPCRA §313 Inspections by Federal Agency Category
FY1995
CFAs (20.0%) 1
FY1996
CFAs (66.7%) 2
DOD (80.0%) 4
Total = 5 Inspections
DOD (33.3%) 1
Total = 3 Inspections
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA authorizes the federal government to respond to situations involving past
disposal of hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, parties causing or contributing to
contamination are held responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.
Section 120(c) of CERCLA requires EPA to establish a list of federal facilities that report
hazardous waste activity under RCRA or §103 of CERCLA. The list, known as the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, is a key component in identifying potentially
contaminated sites at federal facilities. From its inception in February of 1988 to the most recent
update in March of 1995, the number of sites at federal facilities listed on the docket has nearly
doubled, from 1,094 to 2,104.
The National Priorities List (NPL) is EPA's listing of the highest priority sites for
cleanup. Exhibit ES - 22 presents the status of sites on the NPL located at federal facilities as of
FY 1996.
ES-22
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ES - 22
Federal Facilities on the NPL (FY 1996)
DOD proposed sites (4.3%) 7
CFAs(6.1%) 10
DOD final sites (75.0%) 123'
* -^wamiiiiiiiP1 ,!_
DOE (11.0%) 18
Total = 164 Facilities
Deleted Sites: 3.7%
3 DOD
2 DOE
1CFA
At the start of EPA's federal facilities enforcement program, EPA directed its resources
largely to the completion of negotiations for CERCLA §120 interagency agreements (lAGs).
These agreements made up the cornerstone of the enforcement program addressing the 151 final
and seven proposed federal facilities listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1996. Each agreement
contained specific schedules for the study and cleanup of hazardous substances at these facilities.
There were three and two additional federal facility CERCLA lAGs executed in FY 1995
and FY 1996, respectively. Of the federal sites listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1996, 134 are
now covered by 125 lAGs.
Base Realignment and Closure
The Base Realignment and-Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990 provide for the realignment or
complete closure of military installations based on revised force structure needs. The Acts
stipulate that installations be chosen for closure or realignment in 1988 (BRAC I), 1991 (BRAC
IT), 1993 (BRAC HI), and 1995 (BRAC IV).
EPA, DOD, and the states are charged with creating a working partnership to implement
the President's Fast Track Cleanup Program at installations with environmental contamination
and where property will be available for transfer to the community. The objectives of the Fast
Track Cleanup Program are quick identification of clean parcels for early reuse, selection of
appropriate leasing parcels where cleanup is underway, and hastening cleanup. The number of
ES - 23 State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Fast Track Cleanup locations is a subset of the total number of installations selected for closure
or realignment.
DOD, EPA and state regulators have forged BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) to deal with
the complex environmental problems at Fast Track Cleanup locations. The BCTs are
empowered to make decisions locally to the maximum extent possible and have the ability to
raise issues immediately to senior level officials for resolution should the need arise. Exhibit ES
- 23 presents the location of round IV BCTs throughout the country.
Exhibit ES - 23
BRAC IV Cleanup Teams by State
Skna Array Depot
McCIcltanAFB
Oakland Fleet
Industrial Center
O.VU=«1 Atmy B«,iT
Naval Station
Reserve Facility, GU
<**
[ingham Cohasset
t
ludbury Annex
NAS South
'Wcymouth
Stratford Army
Engine Plant
Fort Totten
ilitary Ocean Terminal
'ortDix
Letterkenny Army Depot
FAWC White Oak
Fort Ritchie
Fort Picket!
Legend
It Navy/Marine Installations
Air Force Installations
A Army Installations
DLA Installation
Conclusions and Next Steps
Continued assessment of compliance problems confronting federal facilities will provide
EPA and states with the ability to strengthen their oversight programs. Future compliance
assessments need to analyze the root causes of noncompliance to achieve environmental
compliance goals within the federal sector.
ES-24
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
EPA will continue to work with states, Indian Tribes, other federal agencies, and the
public to achieve federal environmental leadership. Specifically, EPA will focus on the
following key objectives:
> Determining the causes of noncompliance with environmental laws.
> Integrating multi-media inspection and enforcement strategies into
standard environmental program requirements for federal facilities.
> Working with federal agencies to incorporate pollution prevention into
their environmental management planning efforts.
> Involving the public in each stage of the federal government's
environmental decision-making process.
> Applying the full range of enforcement authorities available under
environmental laws.
> Ensuring compliance with negotiated enforcement agreements at federal
facilities.
> Implementing a process for accelerating the cleanup of military
installations slated for closure.
> Reducing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of environmental
technologies.
> Training federal agency staff in the objectives and approaches for
environmental cleanup and compliance.
ES - 25 State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
------- |