»EPA
United States •;..
Envir[onmental Protection
Aaerlcy ' ?: '
.Office of Enforcement and EPA 300-R-98-002b
;Compliance Assurance • June 1998
(2261 -A)
Th£ State of Federal
Facilities
Ah Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities,
FY 1095-96
Program Reports
-------
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
ACRONYMS iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS vii
I. INTRODUCTION i-i
n. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL FACILITIES n-1
m. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS m -1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ffl-3
Clean Water Act m -17
Clean Air Act m - 27
Safe Drinking Water Act m - 39
Toxic Substances Control Act & Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act m - 45
Toxic Release Inventory m - 51
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act DDE - 57
Base Realignment and Closure Act m - 67
Environmental Compliance Indicators Summary m - 75
IV. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS IV-1
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
11
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Acronym
AIRS
BACT
BCTs
BRAG
CAA
CEI
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERFA
CFA
CME
CWA
CWS
DOD
DOE
DOI
DSMOA
EPCRA
ERP
ESI
FFCs
FFCA
FFEO
ACRONYMS
Definition
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
Best Available Control Technology
BRAC Cleanup Teams
Base Realignment and Closure Act
Clean Air Act
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
Civilian Federal Agency
Compliance Monitoring Evaluation
Clean Water Act
Community Water System
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
Defense State Memorandum of Agreement
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Enforcement Response Policy
Expanded Site Inspection
Federal Facilities Coordinators
Federal Facility Compliance Act (Agreement)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
111
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Acronym
FFIS
FFRRO
HFRA
FRDS
FUDS
GOCO
HAPs
HRS
IAG
IDEA
JOCO
LAER
LQG
MACT
NAAQS
NCDB
NEPA
NESHAP
NFRAP
NON
NOV
NPDES
NPL
NSPS
NSR
OECA
Definition
Federal Facilities Information System
Federal Facilities Reuse and Restoration Office
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Reporting Data System
Formerly Used Defense Site
Government-Owned Contractor-Operated
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Hazard Ranking System
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
Jointly-Owned Contractor-Operated
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Large Quantity Generator
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Compliance Data Base
National Environmental Policy Act
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No Further Remedial Action Planned
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
New Source Performance Standard
New Source Review
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
IV
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Acronym
O&M
PA
PCS
POGO
POTW
PSD
PWS
PWSS
RA
RABs
RCRA
RCRIS
RD
Rl/FS
ROD
SARA
SDWA
SDWIS
SEPs
SI
SIPs
SNC
SQG
STPs
TRI
TRIS
Definition
Operation and Maintenance
Preliminary Assessment
Permit Compliance System
Privately-Owned Government-Operated
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Public Water System
Public Water System Supervision
Remedial Action
Restoration Advisory Boards
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Information System
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Site Inspection
State Implementation Plan
Significant Noncompliance (Noncomplier)
Small Quantity Generator
Supplemental Treatment Plans
Toxics Release Inventory
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Acronym
TSCA
TSDF
UIC
Definition
Toxic Substances Control Act
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Underground Injection Control
VI
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Page
Overview:
Federal Facilities by Agency Category n - 1
Distribution of Domestic CFA Facilities by Agency n - 2
RCRA:
Universe of RCRA Federal Facilities by Agency Category , m - 4
RCRA Facilities by Handler Type ... ffl - 5
RCRA Inspections at Federal Facilities in - 6
RCRA Inspection Leads at Federal Facilities ... IE - 7
RCRA Inspections at Federal Agencies ffl - 7
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations by Agency Category ffl-8
Federal vs. Non-Federal RCRA Compliance Rates .. ffl - 9
RCRA Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category ffl - 10
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for RCRA .. ... ffl - 11
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities ffl -12
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Agencies ffl - 13
RCRA Enforcement Leads ffl - 13
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement Actions by EPA Region '< ffl - 14
CWA:
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by Agency Category ffl - 18
NPDES Inspection Leads at Major Federal Facilities ffl -19
NPDES Inspections at Major Federal Facilities by Agency Category ffl - 19
NPDES Compliance at Major Federal Facilities ffl - 20
Major Federal NPDES Facilities in SNC by Agency Category « . ffl - 21
Federal vs Non-Federal NPDES Compliance Rates ffl - 22
NPDES Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category ffl - 23
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for NPDES ffl - 23
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Agencies ffl - 24
Type of NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities ffl - 25
NPDES Enforcement Leads at Federal Facilities ffl- 25
CAA:
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency Category ffl - 29
CAA Inspection Leads ffl - 29
CAA Inspections by Agency Category ffl - 30
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates at Federal Sources ffl - 31
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category ffl - 32
Vll
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
CAA (Continued):
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources m - 33
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for CAA in - 34
CAA Enforcement Actions by Federal Agency Category HI - 35
CAA Enforcement Leads at Federal Sources IE - 35
Federal Facilities Reporting Under Asbestos NESHAP ffl - 36
Federal Facility Asbestos NESHAP Program Data m - 37
1995-1996 Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities m - 37
SDWA:
Universe of Federally-Owned Public Water Systems HI - 40
PWSS Program Compliance at Federally-Owned Systems ffi-41
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for SDWA m - 42
PWSS Enforcement at Federally-Owned Systems m - 43
TSCA7FIFRA:
TSCA Inspections by Federal Agency Category ffl - 46
FEFRA Inspections by Federal Agency Category in - 47
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for TSCA m - 48
TRI:
TRI Releases by Environmental Media at Federal Facilities ffl - 52
TRI Off-Site Transfers at Federal Facilities ffl - 53
TRI Releases and Off-Site Transfers at Federal Facilities ffl - 54
EPCRA §313 Inspections by Federal Agency Category ffl - 55
CERCLA:
Total Number of Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket ffl - 58
Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket by Agency ffl - 59
DOD Sites on the Docket by Agency ffl - 59
Cumulative Remedial Action Program Accomplishments for Federal Facility Sites ffl - 61
Federal Facilities on the NPL ffl - 63
Final CERCLA lAGs/FFAs Signed by EPA Region ffl - 64
BRAC:
BRAC Selection Process ffl - 68
Number of Fast Track Cleanup Locations ffl - 69
BRAC IV Fast Track Locations by EPA Region ffl- 70
BRAC IV Cleanup Teams by State ffl - 71
vm
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Compliance Indicator Summary:
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for Selected Indicators in - 75
Percent Changes in Federal Facility Compliance Indicators ffi - 76
Inspection and Enforcement Highlights:
Federal Facility Inspections IV - 2
Multi-Media Inspections by Agency Category IV - 3
Federal Facility Enforcement Actions IV - 4
FFCA/RCRA EPA Orders and Penalties IV - 5
IX
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
I. INTRODUCTION
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), within the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA), periodically assesses federal facility performance with
respect to environmental statutes and programs. The last assessment, The State of Federal
Facilities: An Overview of Environmental Compliance Status at Federal Facilities, FY1993-94,
was published in December 1995. This current State of Federal Facilities report examines
federal facility environmental performance during FY 1995 and FY 1996. Where appropriate
and when data are comparable, this report also examines pre-FY 1995 data.
Federal facilities are generally subject to the same environmental statutes and regulations
as commercial entities. EPA, in conjunction with the states, has oversight responsibility for
federal facility environmental programs. To fulfill its oversight responsibility, FFEO conducts a
broad range of activities, including:
>• Compliance oversight and enforcement;
>• Training and compliance assistance; and
>• Review of federal agency environmental plans and programs.
Through its network of Regional Federal Facilities Coordinators (FFCs) and state contacts, FFEO
works with appropriate facility personnel to ensure that they take the necessary actions to
prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution.
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) - RCRA Subtitle C
and its associated amendments regulate the generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and final disposal of hazardous waste.
> Clean Water Act (CWA) - Under the CWA, EPA or approved states issue
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that
establish effluent limits for all municipal and industrial wastewater
discharges.
1-1
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
>• Clean Air Act (CAA) — The CAA authorizes EPA to establish emission
control standards to achieve the air quality goals set forth in the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
> Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - The Public Water Supply
Supervision (PWSS) program authorized by SDWA enables EPA to set
standards to control both manmade and naturally occurring contaminants.
In most cases, states have primary responsibility for oversight and
enforcement under SDWA.
>• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - Under TSC A, EPA identifies
and controls the manufacture, process, distribution, use, and disposal of
existing and new chemical substances and mixtures.
>• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — Under
FIFRA, EPA has the authority over the sale, distribution, and use of
pesticide products.
>• Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) — Under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) TRI program, EPA provides
information about toxic chemicals to the public through an annual report
of releases of such chemicals by industrial and other facilities.
>• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) - CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), created the Superfund program to
respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants
resulting from accidents or uncontrolled/abandoned hazardous waste sites.
>• Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) — The Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990 provide for the closing of
selected military installations. To assist in meeting the environmental
restoration needs under the BRAC program, the Community
Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) was enacted in 1992
to facilitate the transfer of uncontaminated and remediated parcels.
The information contained in this report is drawn from many sources within and across
the various EPA environmental program offices. The starting point for the analysis is the
Integrated Database for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA), which is a mainframe information
management system that draws upon several other EPA data bases, including:
1-2
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
>• RCRIS — The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
is the mainframe data base that tracks hazardous waste handlers under
RCRA.
>• PCS — The Permit Compliance System tracks EPA Regional and state
compliance and enforcement data for the NPDES under the CWA.
>• AIRS — The Aerometric Information Retrieval System manages
aerometric emissions and compliance data on point sources tracked by
EPA, state, and local governments in accordance with the CAA.
>• NCDB — The National Compliance Data Base is the national repository
for compliance and enforcement data collected by EPA under FIFRA,
TSCA, and §313 of EPCRA.
>• CERCLIS — The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System is the primary data base
used under the Superfund program.
In addition, this report also obtained data from the following "stand alone" systems:
> SDWIS - The Safe Drinking Water Information System is a national data
base that tracks public water supply system compliance and enforcement
data collected by EPA Regions and states under the PWSS program of
SDWA.
>• TRIS — The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System tracks releases of
chemicals listed in the TRI according to chemical type, quantity, and
nature of the release.
Organization of the Report
The remainder of this report is divided into three sections. Section n provides an
overview of the scope of federal faculty activities related to environmental compliance issues.
Section ffi presents individual summaries for each of the nine environmental statutes and
programs outlined above. For most programs, the data are organized to address the following
issues:
>• What is the universe of federal facilities that are regulated/affected?
>• What is the level of inspection activity at regulated federal facilities?
>• How is compliance measured? (i.e., compliance indicators)
1-3
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
>• What actions were taken to address noncompliance? (i.e., enforcement
actions)
For other environmental programs, however, compliance indicators such as the number of
violations or the number and type of enforcement actions are less appropriate measures of federal
facility performance. Instead, these programs focus on such issues as the quantity of toxic
chemicals released into the environment, or the progress of remediation and/or decommissioning
activities. The following program summaries contained in this report are organized according to
these alternative issues:
>• TRI -- The TRI program summary discusses the quantity of releases of
chemicals to various environmental media, off-site transfers, and
prevention and management of chemicals in waste at federal facilities.
>• CERCLA - The CERCLA program summary highlights the status of
federal facilities within the remediation process. It describes the number
of sites potentially and actually awaiting cleanup, as well as the number of
sites at which cleanup has begun or been completed.
>• BRAC — The BRAG program summary contains information on the
number and location of military installations slated for closure and their
cleanup status.
Lastly, Section IV of this report presents inspection and enforcement highlights of actions taken
by EPA.
1-4
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
II. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
The federal government defines federal facilities as all buildings, installations, structures,
land, public works, equipment, aircraft, vessels, and other vehicles and property owned by or
constructed or manufactured and leased to the federal government. The size of the federal
government, in terms of personnel and real estate holdings, is substantial. For example, the
federal government currently employs more than 2.6 million people and owns about 30 percent
of the nation's total surface area (approximately 650 million acres).1 Four federal entities (Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service)
within two federal agencies (Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior) are
responsible for managing 95 percent of these lands. The majority of the remaining land is
managed by Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD).
Although all federal facilities are potentially subject to environmental regulations, most
are not involved in activities that would trigger requirements to comply with regulations.
According to IDEA, there are approximately 15,000 federal facilities that engage in some type of
activity directly affected by environmental requirements. These facilities can be grouped into six
broad categories ~ DOD, DOE, Civilian Federal Agencies (CFAs), Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS), federal facilities located in foreign lands, and unidentified federal facilities (see Exhibit
n- 1 below).
Exhibit II -1
Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1996)
Located in Foreign Lands (5.1%) 771
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
1 U.S. GAO, "Land Ownership: Information on the; Acreage, Management, and Use of Federal and Other
Lands," RCED-96-40,1996. Personnel figure obtained from FY 1996 Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
n-i
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
DOD and DOE facilities typically include large installations (e.g., military bases, storage
depots), manufacturing/fabrication plants, and laboratories/research facilities. The universe of
CFA facilities is somewhat more diverse and includes organizations such as the Department of
the Interior, General Services Administration, Department of Justice, Tennessee Valley
Authority, NASA, Environmental Protection Agency, and many others.
Exhibit n - 2 shows the distribution of CFA facilities according to individual agencies.
Department of Transportation facilities comprise the largest single share (20.3 percent) of all
CFAs, followed by the Department of Interior (15.9 percent), the Postal Service (13.8 percent),
and the Department of Agriculture (12.4 percent).
Exhibit II-2
Distribution of CFA Facilities by Agency
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Missions of the Federal Agencies
DOD is charged with defending the interests of the United States anywhere in the world.
As such, DOD maintains thousands of installations to provide the necessary infrastructure for the
armed services to meet this mission. Installations range in size from a few acres to thousands of
square miles; their missions range from logistics and training to manufacturing and rebuilding
aircraft and ships. Many of these installations are the equivalent of small cities, and thus they
E-2
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
possess all of the infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, sewage treatment plants, roads, airports)
associated with city environments. Much of the support activity associated with DOD's mission
is industrial, therefore, DOD installations face compliance issues relating to air and water
pollution and solid/hazardous waste generation.
DOE is involved in electric power generation and transmission, fossil and non-fossil fuel
research, petroleum storage, nuclear weapons research, and nuclear weapons production. Many
of DOE's approximately 400 installations are dedicated to laboratory research. DOE laboratories
work on a variety of issues including solar energy, battery development, energy transmission
methods, atomic energy, fossil fuels, and nuclear weapons. Some laboratories are located on
large compounds such as Savannah River, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, while others are part of
university systems such as the Fermi Lab in Chicago. Like DOD, the large-scale manufacturing
and industrial nature of many DOE activities presents DOE with a broad range of environmental
compliance issues.
CFA facilities range in size and scope from single-purpose buildings to extensive multi-
purpose compounds. Activities include vehicle fleet management, construction, facility
operation, scientific and medical research, materials storage and shipment, and many others. On
an individual facility basis, many CFA facilities have fewer environmental concerns; however,
the diversity of CFA activities implies that as a group, they face environmental compliance issues
as extensive as those faced by DOD and DOE facilities.
When discussing the entire community of federal facilities, it is important to recognize
that not all federal facilities are owned and operated by the federal government. At numerous
federal facilities and on many public lands, a private party or private parties are involved. Thus,
in addition to traditional government-owned government-operated (GOGO) facilities, the federal
facility community includes government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities, privately-
owned and leased by the government (POGO) facilities, jointly-owned and contractor-operated
(JOCO) facilities, as well as many other ownership/operating arrangements.
E-3
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
jl^bit Title'
Federal Facilities by Agency Category
Distribution of Domestic CFA Facilities
by Agency
Information
Sonree
IDEA
IDEA
Date of
Data Pull
6/18/97
6/18/97
* * , .' s
Comments - ° ' ,
—
-
n-4
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
HI. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS
This section presents environmental compliance summaries for the following statutes and
programs:
>• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
> Clean Water Act;
>• Clean Air Act;
>• Safe Drinking Water Act;
>• Toxic Substances Control Act;
> Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act;
> Toxics Release Inventory;
>• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; and
>* Base Realignment and Closure.
m-i
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
m-2
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
RCRA Subtitle C provides a regulatory framework for ensuring that the following
objectives are met:
X Protecting human health and the environment from potential adverse
effects of improper hazardous waste management; and
>• Reducing or eliminating the generation of hazardous waste as
expeditiously as possible.
To achieve these objectives, RCRA authorizes EPA to regulate the generation, treatment,
storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste (referred to as the "cradle to grave"
management system).
Generators of RCRA-regulated waste must obtain an EPA ID number; prepare hazardous
waste for transport; and comply with the accumulation and storage, record keeping, and reporting
requirements. They are also responsible for tracking waste through a manifest system. The
manifest system creates a written record of the chain-of-custody from the time a waste leaves a
generator until it reaches its final disposal site. Transporters must obtain an EPA ID number,
comply with the manifest system, and address any hazardous waste discharges. Treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are subject to record keeping and reporting requirements
and technical standards covering treatment and disposal methods, as well as the location,
construction, and operation of disposal sites. Finally, both generators and TSDFs may be subject
to land disposal restrictions requiring treatment of the waste before it is land-disposed.
Applicability of RCRA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have broad compliance responsibilities under RCRA. The most
sweeping of these is RCRA §6001, which subjects federal facilities to RCRA civil,
administrative, and criminal penalties and makes federal employees personally liable for RCRA
criminal penalties. Other relevant RCRA responsibilities for federal facilities include overseeing
contractor-operated facilities and cooperating with EPA inspections.
RCRA Universe
In 1996, there were 309,893 facilities in the RCRA universe. The 3,685 federal RCRA
facilities represent approximately 1.2 percent of this total. As shown below in Exhibit IE - 1,
42.2 percent of the federal facilities are DOD facilities, 5.2 percent are DOE facilities, 49.6
m-3
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
percent are CFA facilities, and another 3.0 percent are unidentified by agency. Since FY 1994,
the number of RCRA federal facilities has increased from 2,580.3
Exhibit ra-1
Universe of RCRA Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1996)
CFA (49.6%) 1,827. ___
ti^jjir* i, ^ "w.
™ '""vv
jfc/i. -'X
DOE (5.2%) 193
Other(3.0%) 111
Total = 3,685 RCRA Federal Facilities
DOD(42.2%) 1,554
RCRA facilities can be subdivided into three categories or handler types: generators,
transporters, and TSDFs4. In addition, a small number of facilities are classified as non-notifiers.
Non-notifiers are RCRA facilities that have been identified through sources other than
notification and are suspected of engaging in RCRA-regulated activities without proper authority.
Generators make up the largest share of all RCRA facilities (94.6 percent), followed by
transporters, and TSDFs (3.6 percent and 1.1 percent respectively).
J The State of Federal Facilities FY 1993-94
4 EPA frequently further subdivides TSDFs into combustion facilities, land disposal facilities, and
treatment/storage facilities.
m-4
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
As can be seen in Exhibit HI - 2, the distribution of federal facilities by handler type
differs from non-federal facilities in at least three important respects. First, the share of the
universe comprised by TSDFs is eight times greater among federal facilities than among non-
federal facilities. Second, transporters are more than twice as common within the non-federal
sector than they are within the federal sector. In addition, Large Quantity Generators (LQGs)
account for the majority (55.1%) of handler types at federal facilities, whereas Small Quantity
Generators (SQGs) account for the majority (74.7%) at non-federal facilities.
Exhibit ffl-2
RCRA Facilities 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
RCRA Inspections
RCRA inspections range in intensity from complex comprehensive compliance
evaluation inspections (CEI) to financial and non-financial record reviews. Exhibit HI - 3 shows
that CEIs were the single most common type of inspection performed, followed by record
reviews and compliance schedule inspections. Multi-media inspections and ground water
monitoring inspections, which include comprehensive ground water evaluations (CMEs), were
far less common, each constituting under two percent of RCRA inspections during FY 1995 and
FY 1996. Inspections collectively classified as "All Other Types" include corrective action
oversight inspections, case development inspections, and operations and maintenance
inspections.
ffl,-.5
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit in - 3
RCRA Inspections at Federal Facilities
600
500
400
300 -
200
100
Legend
CEI
Record Review
Compliance Schedule
CME
Multi-media
All Other Types
FY 1995
Total = 919 Inspections
FY 1996
Total = 848 Inspections
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. Although it
still maintains significant policy-setting and oversight responsibilities, EPA has delegated
authority to implement and administer the base RCRA program to 47 of the states and the
District of Columbia. Therefore, the states took the lead on the majority of RCRA inspections
during FY 1995 and 1996, including those conducted at federal facilities (see Exhibit HI - 4). A
breakdown of the number of inspections performed during this period within EPA Regions can
be found in Exhibit m -13.
m-6
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit III-4
RCRA Inspection Leads at Federal Facilities
FY1995
FY1996
EPA (12.3%) 113
EPA (11.3%) 96
State (87.7%) 806
State (88.7%) 752
Total = 919 Inspections
Total = 848 Inspections
As shown in Exhibit m - 5, DOD's share of inspections declined by 3.8 percent of the
total from FY 1995 to FY 1996, and CFA's share increased by approximately the same amount.
DOE's share of RCRA inspections remained fairly constant over the same time period.
Exhibit III - 5
RCRA Inspections at Federal Agencies
FY 1995 FY 1996
DOE (16.0%) 147 DOE (15.9%) 135
CFAs(20.3%) 187,
CFAs(24.2%) 205
DOD (63.7%) 585
Total = 919 Inspections
DOD (59.9%) 508
Total = 848 Inspections
m-7
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
RCRA Compliance; Class I Violations
RCRA Class I violations represent
deviations from regulations or other relevant
operating requirements that could
significantly increase the risk of improper
hazardous waste management; result in
releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents to the environment; or decrease
the effectiveness of responses to such
releases. In FY 1995 and FY 1996, there
were a total of 132 and 103 facilities,
respectively, that were cited for Class I RCRA
violations. Exhibit IE - 6 presents the
percentage of facilities receiving Class I
violations according to agency.
Both DOE and CFAs showed
decreases in terms of their share of federal
facilities with Class I violations; the
percentages dropped from 9.8 percent to 7.8
percent at DOE facilities and from 25.8
percent to 18.4 percent at CFA facilities. In
contrast, the percentage of DOD facilities
with Class I violations increased from 64.4 percent to 73.8 percent.
RCRA Class I violations are deviations, ,
from regulations or provisions of
compliance orders, consent agreements,
consent decrees, or pen^conditlons that
could result in a failure to: '
• assure that hazardous waste is
destined for and delivered to ;
authorized TSDFs;/ '" \ ;VV
• prevent releases of hazardous waste
qr constituents, both during the
active and any appEcable post;
closure pe,nods pfthe facility ' ,
operation where^ appropriate;
} ** * * > j" ^ f! !
• assure early detection of such
•' ' releases: or . '' "
« perform emergency cleanup,, ,
operations or other cpnective^tions
forxeleases. " "'' „ '
Exhibit III-6
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
Total = 132 Facilities
DOE (7.8%) 8
CFAs (18.4%) 19
Total = 103 Facilities
m-s
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
RCRA Compliance Indicator
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.
The RCRA Compliance Indicator is the percent of inspected TSDFs not cited for Class I
violations. 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 IE - 7 graphically
presents this comparison.
Exhibit HI-7
Federal vs. Non-Federal RCRA Compliance Rates
(% of Inspected TSDFs not Cited for Class I Violations)
100.0% -r
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0% -
60.0%
50.0%
Legend
Federal TSDFs
Non-Federal TSDFs
FY 1995
FY 1996
m-9
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit in - 8 presents these compliance rates according to agency category. For both FY
1995 and FY 1996, compliance rates at DOD facilities were fairly constant (75 percent and 74.2
percent, respectively) and very close to the overall compliance rate for federal facilities. In FY
1995, the CFA compliance rate (78.3 percent) was slightly higher than the overall rate, while in
FY 1996, the CFA compliance rate was substantially higher (94.1 percent). In contrast, RCRA
compliance rates at DOE facilities were far below (58.3 percent and 69.6 percent) the overall
federal facility rates for both years.
Exhibit HI -8
RCRA Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category
Agency
DOE
CFAs
DOD
Total
FY199S
Inspected
TSDFs
24
23
224
271
TSDFs With
Class!
Violations
10
5
56
71
TSDFs
Without
Class I
Violations
14 (58.3%)
18 (78.3%)
168 (75%)
200 (73.8%)
FY 1596
Inspected
TSHFs
23
17
217
257
TSDFs With
' • Class I
Violations *
7
1
56
64
- ' TSDFs »
Without
Class!
Violations
16 (69.6%)
16 (94.1%)
161 (74.2%)
193 (75.1%)
m-io
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit El - 9 below presents federal facility compliance indicator rates for RCRA from
FY 1991 through FY 1996.
Exhibit III-9
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for RCRA
100.0%
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0% -
60.0% -
50.0%
1 I T
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
Enforcement Actions
There were a total of 321 and 269 enforcement actions taken by EPA and states against
federal facilities in FY 1995 and FY 1996, respectively. Exhibit in - 10 presents a breakdown of
informal versus formal enforcement actions, as well as proposed versus final penalties assessed
and costs attributed to Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). SEPs can be used, at
EPA's discretion, as part of a settlement for projects above and beyond those required to come
into compliance for cited violations and that are not already required by law or regulation.
For both years, approximately three-fourths of enforcement actions taken were informal
(e.g., warning letters). Formal actions taken against federal facilities include: civil actions,
consent decrees, Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs), referrals to other
m-n
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
enforcement authorities, judicial orders, notices of noncompliance, administrative orders,
corrective action orders, and imminent hazard orders. The most commonly used formal
enforcement action is the RCRA §3008(a) administrative order; approximately 78 percent (65
out of 83) and 71 percent (44 out of 62) of formal enforcement actions taken in FY 1995 and FY
1996, respectively, were administrative orders.
Proposed penalties under RCRA increased by $189,657 (12.3 percent) from FY 1995 to
FY 1996. In contrast, final penalties dropped from $1,601,213 to $794,631, a decrease of over
50 percent. Final SEP costs rose from $355,831 to $622,195 over the same time period,
representing an increase of nearly 75 percent.
Exhibit III -10
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 fetal
238 (74.1%)
83 (25.9%)
321
$ 1,536,776
$ 355,831
$ 1,601,213
mnn Total ,
207 (77.0%)
62 (23.0%)
269
$ 1,726,433
$ 622,195
$794,631
.
Exhibit in - 11 reveals that from FY 1995 to FY 1996, DOE saw its share of enforcement
actions increase, while DOD and CFA facilities experienced modest declines. As one might
expect, the distribution of enforcement actions across agencies correlates fairly well with the
distribution of Class I violations at federal facilities (see Exhibit in - 6).
m-12
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI-11
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Agencies
FY1995
FY1996
DOE (7.5%) 24
CFAs(18.7%) 60
DOE (13.0%) 35
CFAs(18.6%) 50
DOD (73.8%) 237 DOD (68.4%) 184
Total = 321 Enforcement Actions Total = 269 Enforcement Actions
As shown in Exhibit HI -12, the vast majority of enforcement actions at federal facilities
are taken under state lead. In FY 1995, 87.2 percent (280 out of 321) enforcement actions were
led by states; in FY 1996 the state share decreased slightly to 84.8 percent (228 out of 269).
Exhibit in -12
RCRA Enforcement Leads
FY 1995 FY 1996
EPA (12.8%) 41
State (87.2%) 280
State (84.8%) 228
EPA (15.2%) 41
Total = 321 Enforcement Actions
Total = 269 Enforcement Actions
m-13
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
For the two-year period FY 1995 and FY 1996, most enforcement actions taken at federal
facilities occurred in Regions 4, 6, and 9. These three Regions also were among the top in terms
of the number of inspections conducted. Exhibit HI - 13 presents a breakdown of inspection and
enforcement activity by Region. The greatest number of inspections occurred in EPA Region 4;
this Region also had the greatest number of enforcement actions.
Exhibit III -13
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement Actions by EPA Region (FY 1995-96)
Legend
Inspections (State & EPA)
Enforcement Actions (State & EFA)
567
EPA Regions
Total = 1,767 Inspections & 590 Enforcement Actions
10
m-14
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
V: , ' f'sT-^-i •''••& '•• 'l^r-;}'^ ,? y. *i',.y.}iZ™&'^'?,J};f&ixln£ V'-?'!
Universe of RCRA Federal Facilities by
Agency Category
RCRA Facilities by Handler Type
RCRA Inspections at Federal Facilities
RCRA Inspection Leads at Federal
Facilities
RCRA Inspections at Federal Agencies
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations
by Agency Category
Federal vs. Non-Federal RCRA
Compliance Rates
RCRA Compliance Indicator Rates by
Agency Category
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
RCRA
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal
Facilities
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal
Agencies
RCRA Enforcement Leads
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement
Actions by EPA Region
5S{^ft^';S:
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA&
FFEOData
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
*Mm$mi>
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
iv ' '"?; *tvsy%%f°%;£$°; ?~*'''%°f?';-*TiK'? '&>'• ' SKft;'<'
f,s ^.-^Vt'^Sfe^ "•'-"•> 'vi'./5 ^i&tv'^Cfc^
-
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
Pre-FY96 data was drawn from earlier
SOFF reports
-
-
—
-
m-15
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
m-16
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
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. Its
principal objectives are to:
>• Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into U.S. navigable waters;
>> Achieve an interim goal of water quality which, wherever attainable,
provides for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on the water; and
>• Prohibit the discharge of pollutants in toxic amounts.
To achieve these objectives, CWA authorizes EPA and states to regulate, implement, and enforce
compliance with guidelines and standards to control the direct and indirect discharge of
pollutants to U.S. waters.
Point source dischargers of wastewater must submit an application for a NPDES permit.
NPDES permits contain water quality-based and/or technology-based standards for effluent
discharges, compliance schedules, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Federal facilities
generating stormwater point source discharges may be required to have a NPDES permit. In
addition, federal facilities that discharge to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are
subject to national pretreatment standards, categorical pretreatment standards, and state or local
pretreatment standards. This chapter, however, focuses on the NPDES permit program. As of
FY 1996, 36 states were authorized to regulate the NPDES program at federal facilities.
Applicability of CWA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have broad compliance responsibilities under CWA. The most
sweeping of these is CWA §313, which waives the traditional immunity of federal agencies and
requires federal facilities to comply with federal, state, interstate, and local requirements.
Important CWA responsibilities for federal facilities include complying with EPA inspections
and procedural and substantive requirements (including recordkeeping, reporting, payment of
service charges and permits). In addition, §313 subjects federal employees to criminal, but not
civil penalties.
m-17
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
NPDES Universe
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 in -14, of these 126
facilities, 69.0 percent were DOD, 11.9 percent
were DOE, and 19.0 percent were CFA
facilities.
Major facilities are defined as those that
contribute a larger share of pollutants
discharged to surface waters. Designation
of major (versus minor),facilities allows the
NPDES program to focus its resources
effectively and efficiently.
Exhibit HI-14
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1996)
DOD (69.0%) 87
CFAs(19.0%) 24
DOE (11.9%) 15
Total = 126 Facilities
NPDES Inspections
The number of NPDES inspections at federal facilities decreased by 15.5 percent, from
187 in FY 1995 to 158 in FY 1996. Historically, most NPDES inspections are conducted by the
states. As shown in Exhibit HI -15, this remained the case in FY 1995 and FY 1996, with more
than 80 percent of inspections led by states.
m-18
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI -15
NPDES Inspection Leads at Major Federal Facilities
FY 1995
FY1996
State (87.2%) 163
Joint (3.7%) 7
EPA (9.1%) 17
State (82.3%) 130
Joint (6.3%) 10
EPA (11.4%) 18
Total = 187 Inspections
Total =158 Inspections
Exhibit m - 16 presents a breakdown of NPDES inspections at federal agencies. The
distribution of inspections by agency remained relatively constant during FY 1995 and FY 1996.
Exhibit ffl-16
NPDES Inspections at Major Federal Facilities by Agency Category
FY1995
DOE (12.3%) 23
CFAs (15.5%) 29
FY1996
DOE (15.8%) 25
CFAs (13.9%) 22
DOD (72.2%) 135 - DOD (70.1 %) 111
Total =187 Inspections Total = 158 Inspections
m-19
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
NPDES Compliance Indicator
Exhibit in - 17 shows that the number of major federal facilities determined to be in
significant noncompliance (SNC) increased from 30 in FY 1995 to 34 in FY 1996. As a
percentage of major federal facilities, this represents an increase from 23.8 to 27.0 percent. The
NPDES Compliance Indicator is the percentage of major facilities not in SNC.
SNC is characterized by a violation of significant magnitude and/or duration to be
considered among the EPA's priorities for review and/or response. There are several categories
of violations that can be considered "significant;" this report includes all categories noted in the
NPDES permit compliance system. Because the definition of SNC is EPA policy, it can change
or evolve as the NPDES program changes.
Exhibit ffl -17
NPDES Compliance at Major Federal Facilities
FY1995
FY1996
SNC (23.8%) 30
SNC (27.0%) 34
Not in SNC (76.2%) 96 Not in SNC (73.0%) 92
Total = 126 Facilities Total = 126 Facilities
m-20
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m - 18 presents federal facilities in SNC according to agency. For FY 1995 and
FY 1996, DOD facilities comprised 60 percent and 76.5 percent, respectively, of federal facilities
in SNC. Both the number of CFA and DOE facilities in SNC and their relative share decreased
from FY 1995 to FY 1996.
Exhibit IH-18
Major Federal NPDES Facilities in SNC by Agency Category
FY 1995
FY 1996
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
m-2i
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI - 19 compares the percentage of major federal facilities not in SNC against the
corresponding percentage for the universe of major non-federal NPDES facilities. As shown in
the Exhibit, in FY 1995, the percentage of major federal facilities not in SNC was 76.2 percent,
7.9 percent lower than for major non-federal facilities. In FY 1996, compliance rates for all
major facilities declined slightly, though major federal facilities still experienced lower
compliance rates compared to the non-federal universe (73.0 percent vs. 79.0 percent).
Exhibit III-19
Federal vs Non-Federal NPDES Compliance Rates (% not in SNC)
100.0% —
90.0% -
80.0%
70.0%
Legend
Major Federal Facilities
Major Non-Federal Facilities
FY 1995
FY 1996
Exhibit HI - 20 presents NPDES compliance rates by agency category. DOD facilities
exhibited a significant decrease in the percentage of facilities not in SNC from FY 1995 to FY
1996 (79.3 percent to 70.1 percent). In contrast, both DOE and CFA facilities experienced
improvements in their respective compliance rates over the same period; however, the relatively
large share of all major federal NPDES facilities accounted for by DOD tended to bring down
overall compliance rates.
m-22
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit III - 20
NPDES Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category
TBI
Agency
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Total
FY1995
Major
Facilities
87
24
15
126
"SNC
18
5
1
30
Not in
• ' SNC
69 (79.3%)
19 (79.2%)
8 (53.3%)
96 (76.2%)
FY 1996
Major
Facilities
87
24
15
126
SNC
26
4
4
34
Not in
SNC
61 (70.1%)
20 (83.3%)
11(73.3%)
92 (73.0%)
Exhibit IH - 21 below presents federal facility compliance indicator rates for NPDES
fromFY 1991 through FY 1996.
Exhibit HI-21
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for NPDES
100.0% •-
90.0% -
80.0% -
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
ffl-23
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
NPDES Enforcement Actions
Exhibit m - 22 shows the distribution across federal agencies of formal and informal
enforcement actions taken under NPDES by EPA and states. Because the majority of federal
facility NPDES permittees are DOD facilities, as expected, the majority of enforcement actions
were taken against DOD facilities. However, DOD facilities' share of enforcement actions
decreased by 8.9 percent from FY 1995 to FY 1996.
Exhibit HI- 22
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Agencies
FY1995
FY 1996
DOE (12.7%) 9
CFAs(1.4%) 1
DOD (85.9%) 61
Total = 71 Enforcement Actions
DOE (23.0%) 14
DOD (77.0%) 47
Total = 61 Enforcement Actions
Overall, EPA and states took 61 enforcement actions in FY 1996 to address NPDES
noncompliance at federal facilities. This represents a decrease of approximately 14 percent
relative to FY 1995.
As shown in Exhibit in - 23, the share of informal enforcement actions (i.e., phone calls,
warning letters, and informal NOVs) remained fairly constant from FY 1995 to FY 1996, while
the percentage of formal actions (i.e., FFCAs, Administrative Orders, and formal NOVs)
decreased from nearly one-third to slightly more than one-tenth of the total for the year. The
percentage of other enforcement actions (i.e., unspecified pending actions and referrals)
increased slightly over the same period.
m-24
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit III -23
Type of NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
•* f i
Type of Enforcement Action .
Informal
Formal
Other
TOTAL
Number of Actions in
FY1995
42 (59.2%)
20(28.2%)
9 (12.7%)
71
« ' Number of Actions in -.
IYI996 „
43 (70.5%)
7(11.5%)
11 (18.0%)
61
_
Between FY 1995 and FY 1996, there was a substantial decrease in the share of
enforcement actions taken by EPA relative to the states. As shown in Exhibit in - 24, in FY
1995 more than 53 percent of enforcement actions were EPA led; however, in FY 1996 the
distribution nearly reversed itself, with nearly 56 percent of all actions being led by the states.
Exhibit HI-24
NPDES Enforcement Leads at Federal Facilities
FY1995
FY1996
State (46.5%) 33
State (55.7%) 34
EPA (53.5%) 38
Total = 71 Enforcement Actions Total = 61 Enforcement Actions
EPA (44.3%) 27
m-25
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by
Agency Category
NPDES Inspection Leads at Major
Federal Facilities
NPDES Inspections at Major Federal
Facilities by Agency Category
NPDES Compliance at Major Federal
Facilities
Major Federal NPDES Facilities in SNC
by Agency Category
Federal vs Non-Federal NPDES
Compliance Rates
NPDES Compliance Indicator Rates by
Agency Category
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
NPDES
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal
Agencies
Type of NPDES Enforcement Actions at
Federal Facilities
NPDES Enforcement Leads at Federal
Facilities
Information
Source
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
Date of
Date Pull
04/23/97
03/27/97
03/27/97
04/23/97
04/23/97
04/23/97
04/23/97
04/23/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
04/17/97
5 -* > '
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pre-FY96 data was drawn from earlier
SOFF reports
-
-
-
m-26
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
CLEAN AIR ACT
The CAA was passed and later amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990, with the goal of protecting and enhancing the nation's air resources. Title 1 of the CAA
establishes the statutory authority for EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
that are to be applied uniformly throughout regions in the United States. The Air Quality Act of
1967 required the designation of AQCRs based on "jurisdictional boundaries, urban industrial
concentrations, and other factors including atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate
implementation of air quality standards" [Section 107(a) (1967)]. Today, the United States is
divided into 247 AQCRs. Many AQCRs are subdivided into smaller areas based on municipal
boundaries, latitudes and longitudes, and other boundaries. A complete list of AQCRs (and their
attainment status) is codified at 40 CFR Part 81.
To meet NAAQS, states have historically required sources of air pollution to obtain
preconstruction permits. The type of permit and subsequently the level of control required by the
permit is dependent on the attainment status of NAAQS, which establishes primary and
secondary standards for six criteria pollutants (SO2, NOX, VOC, PM, CO, Lead). Areas meeting
the NAAQS are considered in "attainment," while areas not meeting the NAAQS are in
"nonattainment." Sources wishing to begin construction must go through the construction permit
review process under one of two programs, depending on whether the NAAQS is in attainment
or nonattainment.
>• New Source Review (NSR) allows for industrial growth in nonattainment areas if
certain stringent requirements are met for new major sources and new major
modifications, including emissions offsets, state-wide compliance for all sources,
public notification, and installation of control equipment to meet the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER^: and
>• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) allows for industrial growth in
attainment areas while protecting air quality. The program applies to new major
sources and new major modifications and requires installation of the Best
Available Control Technology CBACT). establishment of maximum allowable
emissions increases or increments, performance of impact analyses by source, and
notification of the public.
There are three other major programs that may apply to federal sources depending on the nature
and size of their operations. These programs are described below.
X New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are technology-based emission
limits for new, modified, or reconstructed stationary sources of emissions
promulgated under the authority of Section 111 and codified at 40 CFR Part 60;
m-27
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
X National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) are
codified at 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 under the authority of Section 112. NESHAPs
codified hi Part 61 are health-based standards that apply to new and existing
sources at specific source categories. NESHAPs codified in Part 63 are referred
to as "MACT" (for Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards, and are
technology-based for new and existing sources within specific categories; and
>• Title VPermit Program requires all major sources of air pollutants to submit a
permit application and obtain a permit to control emissions. Major sources are
defined as sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than threshold
amounts. Before the inception of the Title V permit program, states required
various preconstruction, operating, and other permits. Title V permits are
designed to address all sources of emissions for major sources under a single
consolidated permit.
Applicability of CAA to Federal Sources
Federal sources have broad compliance responsibilities under the CAA. Section 7418 of
the CAA requires that federal sources comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local
requirements, as well as the applicable provisions of a valid inspection and maintenance
program.
CAA Universe
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 m - 25,60.9
percent of these federal sources were DOD,
8.5 percent were DOE, and 30.7 percent were
CFAs.
Major Sources - The defiftftioil differs by
program; under NSPS/NSR, a source is
considered major jf it emiirs or has the
potential to emit over 100 tons' per year
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI-25
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency Category (FY 1996)
DOD(60.9%) 280
Total = 460 Major Sources
DOE (8.5%) 39
CFAs(30.7%) 141
CAA Inspections
Exhibit in - 26 below reveals that states continued to take a lead role on the vast majority
of CAA inspections in FY 1995 and FY 1996 (96.9 percent and 94.7 percent, respectively).
Exhibit III - 26
GAA Inspection Leads
FY1995
FY1996
EPA (3.1%) 12
EPA (5.3%) 23
State (96.9%) 381 ' '•" " State (94.7%) 407
Total = 393 Inspections Total = 430 Inspections
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
in-29
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
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. As shown in Exhibit IH - 27, the
distribution of EPA and state inspections across agencies remained relatively unchanged from FY
1995 to FY 1996.
Exhibit III-27
CAA Inspections by Agency Category
FY1995
FY1996
DOD (66.7%) 262
DOE (7.1%) 28
DOD (67.9%) 292
CFAs(26.2%) 103
DOE (7.0%) 30
CFAs(25.1%) 108
Total = 393 Inspections
Total = 430 Inspections
CAA Compliance Indicator
Under the CAA, federal sources may
be subject to compliance requirements under
multiple programs (e.g., NESHAP and
NSPS). 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. As shown in Exhibit in - 28,
compliance rates for major federal sources
remained fairly constant from FY 1995 to FY 1996. Slightly more than 88 percent of federal
sources remained in compliance with all applicable provisions of the CAA. 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. In
addition, for both FY 1995 and FY 1996,22 sources were not considered for compliance rate
purposes due to a lack of applicable state regulations against which to assess compliance.
Out of Compliance — Sources that have
exceeded emissions standards and/or
violated procedural requirements^g.,
failing to meet a compliance schedule, or
failing to follow monitoring, jrecordkeepiiig
and reporting protocols) are deemed, out of
compliance.
m-30
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit III - 28
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates at Federal Sources
FY1995
FY1996
Out of Compliance (9.3%) 39
Unknown (1.9%) 8
Out of Compliance (10.0%) 44
Unknown (2.5%) 11
In Compliance (88.8%) 374
In Compliance (87.4%) 383
Total = 421 Major Sources
(443 major sources less 22
with no applicable State regs)
Total = 438 Major Sources
(460 major sources less 22
with no applicable State regs)
Exhibit HI - 29 presents CAA compliance data across agencies for FY 1995 and FY 1996.
DOD compliance rates were higher than both DOE and CFA compliance rates for FY 1995.
CFA and DOD compliance rates both decreased by approximately 1.5 percent from FY 1995 to
FY 1996. DOE compliance rates remained unchanged.
m-31
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI - 29
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates by Agency Category
Agency
FY1995
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Total
Number In
Compliance
•
243 (92.0%)
98 (81.0%)
33 (91.7%)
374 (88.8%)
Number Out
of Compliance
Unknown
Total
^ j « *' ° *• t>® & •*>
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
As shown in Exhibit m - 30, during FY 1995 and FY 1996, federal sources experienced
slightly lower compliance rates (88.8 percent and 87.4 percent, respectively) than the rest of the
regulated community. CAA compliance rates for the same two years for major non-federal
sources were 89.3 and 89.9 percent, respectively.
Exhibit III-30
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources
(% in Compliance)
95.0%
90.0% -
85.0%
80.0% -
75.0%
FY 1995
Legend
Major Federal Sources
Major Non-Federal Sources
1
FY 1996
in-33
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI - 31 below presents federal facility compliance indicator rates for CAA from
FY 1991 through FY 1996.
Exhibit III - 31
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for CAA
(% in Compliance)
100.0%
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
CAA Enforcement
EPA and states issued 21 and 25 NOVs at federal sources during FY 1995 and FY 1996,
respectively, for failure to comply with provisions of the CAA. Noncompliance may involve
violations of emissions standards; procedural requirements; monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting; and/or failure to meet established compliance schedules. As shown in Exhibit HI - 32,
the majority of NOVs were issued against DOD sources. DOE sources were not issued any
NOVs in 1995 or 1996. In addition, the distribution of enforcement actions for both years was
fairly consistent with the level of inspection activities (Exhibit IE - 27).
Although relative compliance rates were highest among DOD sources in FY 1995 and
second only to DOE in FY 1996, (note: DOD compliance was still above 90 percent - see
m-34
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m - 29), because they comprise a much larger portion of the universe of federal sources,
DOD sources tend to receive the majority of the enforcement actions.
Exhibit III - 32
CAA Enforcement Actions by Federal Agency Category
FY1995
FY1996
DOD (57.1%) 12
CFAs (42.9%) 9
DOD (60.0%) 15
CFAs (40.0%) 10
Total = 21 Enforcement Actions
Total = 25 Enforcement Actions
Exhibit m - 33 shows that during FY 1995 and FY 1996, states typically played a lead
role on most enforcement actions, particularly during FY 1995, where the states led all
enforcement actions of that year.
Exhibit III-33
CAA Enforcement Leads at Federal Sources
FY 1995
FY 1996
EPA (4.0%) 1
State (100%) 21 State (96.0%) 24
Total = 21 Enforcement Actions Total = 25 Enforcement Actions
m-35
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
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. Under the program, facilities reporting planned asbestos abatement
activities maybe subject to inspections to ensure the use of proper equipment and procedures.
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. Exhibit
HI - 34 shows the distribution of reporting facilities according to agency. 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.
Exhibit III-34
Federal Facilities Reporting Under Asbestos NESHAP
Navy (14.8%) 50
Air Force (27.8%) 94
Total = 338 Facilities
Army (23.7%) 80
DOE (2.7%) 9
CFA(31.1%) 105
Based on these notifications, EPA and the states conducted 278 inspections, with the vast
majority (93.5 percent) being led by state authorities. The level of inspection activity increased
only slightly (4.4 percent), from 136 inspections in FY 1995 to 142 in FY 1996. Exhibit in - 35
shows the number of inspections, violations, and follow-up enforcement actions for each year.
m-36
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit HI- 35
Federal Facility Asbestos NESHAP Program Data
Year
FY 1995
FY 1996
Inspections
136
142
, > Violations '^f-t^t
Substantive
5 ,
4
Notification
.10
9
' Enforcemen|A«ti0iis ,
Warning
1
0
„ MX? .
13
14
Order,
0
0
Violations are classified either as substantive
violations or notification deficiencies (i.e., minor
violations). Approximately two-thirds of violations
were notification deficiencies during both FY 1995
and FY 1996. In addition, enforcement actions taken
to address these violations were distributed fairly
consistently in FY 1995 and FY 1996. In both years,
the number of warnings and NOVs were roughly the same, and there were no administrative
orders issued during either fiscal year. Exhibit ffi - 36 shows how these enforcement actions
were distributed according to agency.
Substantive Violation, .under the
asbestos ,NESHAP program, are
defined as a violation of proper
: abatement practices (e.g., failure to;
v\^ear protective, equipment)., , '
Exhibit HI-36
1995-1996 Asbestos NESHAP Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Navy (35.0%) 7
Air Force (30.0%) 6
Total = 20 Enforcement Actions
Army (10.0%) 2
DOE (5.0%) 1
CFA(20.0%) 4
m-37
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Titte
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency
Category
CAA Inspection Leads
CAA Inspections by Agency Category
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates at
Federal Sources
CAA Compliance Indicator Rates by
Agency Category
CAA Compliance Rates for Major
Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
CAA
CAA Enforcement Actions by Federal
Agency Category
CAA Enforcement Leads at Federal
Sources
Federal Facilities Reporting Under
Asbestos NESHAP
Federal Facility Asbestos NESHAP
Program Data
1995-1996 Asbestos NESHAP
Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Information
Source
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
IDEA
NARS
NARS
NARS
Date of
Data Pull
3/26/97
3/26/97
3/26/97
4/25/97
4/25/97
4/25/97
A/25191
3/26/97
3/26/97
7/16/97
7/16/97
7/16/97
- < " Comments ,
-
—
—
-
-
-
Pre-FY96 data was drawn from earlier
SOFF reports
-
-
-
~
-
m-38
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The SDWA is the basis for protecting public drinking water systems from harmful
contaminants. Its principle objectives are to:
> Protect human health and ensure the aesthetic quality of drinking water;
>• Protect underground sources of drinking water; and
>• Establish programs to protect sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection
areas.
To reach these objectives EPA established the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Program. Under the 1986 Amendments5, EPA set primary and secondary drinking water
standards to protect human health and ensure the aesthetic quality of drinking water. The
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program protects underground sources of drinking water
through the establishment of state wellhead and sole source aquifer protection programs. This
chapter focuses on federally-owned systems regulated under the PWSS program.
States are primarily responsible for enforcing the public water regulations, called
"primacy states," provided they adopt regulations at least as stringent as the national
requirements, develop adequate procedures for enforcement, maintain records, and create a plan
for providing safe drinking water under emergency conditions. In addition, if the state permits
variances and exemptions, they must grant them in accordance with the SDWA.
Applicability of SDWA to Federal Facilities
According to tife^DWA, a Jfcblfc Water
J conlfi^tioH to at least 15 service
conmectiotts or serves an average of *& Teast
25'podple ibX*"* least 6&,days each year. A^
Federal facilities have ample
compliance responsibilities under the Act.
SDWA §1447 requires compliance with all
federal, state, and local requirements and
administrative authorities to the same extent
as any nongovernmental entity. Federal
facilities supplying water that are subject to
primary drinking water regulations or to
underground injection control standards are
required to conduct certain activities,
including establishing and maintaining
records, making reports, and conducting monitoring activities. In addition, they must provide
a
.
PWS ttet provides w^ter toftoe same
population year-rourtdl
5 1996 Amendments have since been implemented; for more information, contact the SDWA Hotline at
800-426-4791 or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov.ogwdw/.
m-39
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
information required by EPA to assist in establishing regulations, determining whether the
facilities are complying with SDWA, evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants,
and advising the public of such risks. Any person may commence a civil action against a federal
facility that is alleged to be in violation of any SDWA requirement.
PWSS Program Universe
As shown in Exhibit El - 37, in FY 1996, federally-owned systems comprised
approximately 2.6 percent (4,496) of the total universe of 173,279 systems regulated under the
PWSS program.
Exhibit in-37
Universe of Federally-Owned Public Water Systems (FY 1996)
Federally-Owned Systems (2.6%) 4,496
Non-Federally-Owned Systems (97.4%) 168,783
Total = 173,279 Systems
A Significant Noncomplier (SNC) is
defined as a PWS that is found to have more
serious, frequent, or persistent violations.
SDWA Compliance Indicator
Exhibit IE - 38 shows by FY the
number of systems with violations and the
number considered significant noncompliers
(SNC). The number of federally-owned
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 in FY 1993 to 24.3 percent in FY 1996. Systems in
SNC increased from 0.8 percent in FY 1993 to 3.6 percent in FY 1996. The SDWA Compliance
Indicator is the percentage of PWSS systems not in SNC. Therefore, as shown below, the
corresponding percentages for systems not in SNC for FY 1995 and FY 1996 were 93.0 percent
and 96.4 percent, respectively.
in-40
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m-38
PWSS Program Compliance at Federally-Owned Systems
6,000
Federally-Owned Systems
Systems with Violations [% of total with violations]
Significant Noncompliers [% of total in SNC]
o -* 1 -= 1 r
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)
m-4i
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m - 39 below presents federal facility compliance indicator rates for SDWA from
FY 1991 through FY 1996.
Exhibit III - 39
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for SDWA
(% not in SNC)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0% -
70.0%
60.0% -
50.0%
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
PWSS Program Enforcement
Few federally-owned systems received formal enforcement actions for violations under
the PWSS program, either from EPA or the states. EPA formal actions include Administrative
Orders and §1431 Emergency Orders, while state formal actions include Administrative Orders,
Bilateral Compliance Agreements, Civil Referrals, and Criminal Cases filed.
Exhibit IE - 40 shows that the total number of federal systems receiving formal
enforcement actions decreased from 18 in FY 1995 to ten in FY 1996. For the two year period,
the share of enforcement actions taken was dominated by states (88.9 percent in FY 1995 and
100 percent in FY 1996) which is reflective of the large number of primacy states. Of the 16
formal enforcement actions issued by states in FY 1995, 10 were Bilateral Compliance
Agreements and six were Administrative Orders, while all EPA formal enforcement actions were
m-42
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Administrative Orders. In FY 1996, the 10 formal enforcement actions issued were split evenly
between Bilateral Compliance Agreements and Administrative Orders. No federally-owned
systems received Civil Referrals or had Criminal Cases filed against them during either year.
Exhibit m-40
PWSS Enforcement at Federally-Owned Systems
FY 1995
FY1996
State Actions (88.9%) 16
State Actions (100.0%) 10
EPA Actions (11.1%) 2
Total =18 Enforcement Actions
Total =10 Enforcement Actions
m-43
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Universe of Federally-Owned Public
Water Systems
PWSS Program Compliance at Federally-
Owned Systems
*.
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
SDWA
PWSS Enforcement at Federally-Owned
Systems
Information
Source
SDWIS
SDWIS
SDWIS
SDWIS
Date of
Data Pull
03/16/97
03/16/97
03/16/97
03/16/97
* " ' ^ * ^
, . Comments
-
-
Pre-FY96 data was drawn from earlier
SOFF reports
-
m-44
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
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. To achieve this objective, TSCA authorizes EPA to:
>• Gather certain kinds of basic information on chemical risks from entities
that manufacture or process chemicals;
>• Require companies to test selected existing chemicals for toxic effects;
>• Review most new chemicals before they are allowed to be manufactured
and distributed; and
>• Prevent unreasonable risks by selecting control actions ranging from warning
labels to outright bans on the manufacture or use of certain chemicals.
The control actions that may be taken by EPA under TSCA cover the manufacture,
processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures.
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. FIFRA enables EPA to achieve the following goals:
>• Evaluate the risks posed by pesticides through a registration system;
>• Classify and certify pesticides for specific uses and thus control exposure;
>• Set standards for the certification of pesticide applicators;
>• Suspend, cancel, or restrict pesticides that pose threats to the environment; and
>• Enforce requirements through inspections, labeling notices, and regulation
by state authorities.
Under FIFRA, a manufacturer wishing to make a new pesticide must register it with EPA
and submit extensive test data, information on proposed uses, and suggested labeling in support
of the application for registration. In addition, the statute enables EPA to ban, control, or
otherwise restrict the manufacture, use, import, or disposal of a pesticide.
in-45
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Applicability of TSCA and FIFRA to Federal Facilities
Unlike many other federal environmental statutes, TSCA and FIFRA do not specifically
address federal facility responsibilities. However, there are many provisions under TSCA that
affect federal facilities, including: testing, reporting and information retention requirements,
abatement surveys, and managing materials regulated under TSCA. Under both TSCA and
FIFRA, federal facilities are subject to inspections and, if appropriate, enforcement actions.
TSCA and FIFRA Universe
TSCA and FIFRA are not permit-based compliance programs like RCRA, nor do they
involve formal listing procedures whereby facilities meeting certain criteria are identified and
tracked until they no longer meet these criteria (e.g., CERCLA). In addition, the number and
identity of facilities subject to TSCA or FIFRA may change substantially from year to year. As a
result, there are no readily definable TSCA or FIFRA universes. Federal facilities subject to
TSCA or FIFRA are identified and targeted for inspections through a variety of less formal
means, including: self-reporting by entities of their intent to manufacture regulated substances,
third-party requests/complaints, and EPA/state evaluation of publicly available data.
TSCA and FIFRA Inspections
The number of TSCA inspections conducted at federal facilities decreased by nearly 15
percent from FY 1995 to FY 1996 (47 to 40). As shown in Exhibit HI - 41, the distribution of
inspections according to agencies changed slightly over the same period. DOD's share of TSCA
inspections declined slightly whereas the level of inspection activity at CFA facilities showed a
modest increase.
Exhibit III - 41
TSCA Inspections by Federal Agency Category
FY1995
FY1996
DOD(31.9%) 15
DOE (2.1%) 1
CFAs(66.0%) 31
Total = 47 Inspections
DOD(30.0%) 12
CFAs(70.0%) 28
Total = 40 Inspections
m-46
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
As shown in Exhibit in - 42, the number of FIFRA inspections conducted at federal
facilities was relatively small; two inspections occurred during FY 1995, while only one occurred
during FY 1996. In FY 1995, all inspected facilities were DOD, while the lone
inspectionconducted during FY 1996 occurred at a CFA facility.
Exhibit HI - 42
FIFRA Inspections by Federal Agency Category
FY1995
FY1996
DOD (100.0%) 2
CFAs (100.0%) 1
Total = 2 Inspections
Total = 1 Inspection
TSCA and FIFRA Compliance
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. Therefore
the TSCA/FIFRA Compliance Indicator, defined as the percentage of inspected federal facilities
not in SNC, is 100 percent for FY 1995 and FY 1996.
m-47
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit DI-43 below presents federal facility compliance indicator rates for TSCA from
FY 1991 through FY 1996.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0% -
70.0% -1
60.0%
50.0%
Exhibit III - 43
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for TSCA
(% not in SNC)
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
m-48
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
TSCA Inspections by Federal Agency
Category
IDEA
04/15/97
FIFRA Inspections by Federal Agency
Category
IDEA
04/15/97
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
TSCA
IDEA
04/15/97
Pre-FY 96 data was drawn from
earlier SOFF reports
m-49
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
m-so
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Toxics RELEASE INVENTORY
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), established under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, is a publicly available data base containing specific
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities throughout the United
States. The TRI is intended to promote planning for chemical emergencies and to provide
information to the public regarding the presence and release of toxic and hazardous chemicals in
their communities. 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 the private sector, manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities in Standard Industrial
Classification codes 20 - 39) having ten or more full-time employees and exceeding certain
chemical use thresholds are required to report under the TRI. The threshold for manufacturing
and processing of listed chemicals is
25,000 pounds per year for each chemical,
and 10,000 pounds per year for each listed
chemical for other uses.
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 the data available to the public in a
printed report, in a computerized data base,
and through a variety of other information
products (e.g., CD-ROM). These products
are usually released during the early spring
of the year following the 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.
Applicability of TRI to Federal Facilities
In August of 1993, President
Clinton signed Executive Order 12856,
which required Federal facilities to begin
submitting TRI reports for calendar year
^J^<f&x^^Su'ic Si'ii'jMii :^-^-A&i'^U>^i-«i.'Ss>^1ji*1i'
'• ^^^'X^s<^^^'!'^^Mf^^^^-f^^^'^^^^y^ff^K^'^K^^i^':
'•^^^^^^^^^^^^^j^i^B^C^^^^i
ft*" 2'j»" %3sv\ife?''Sii*';S''-'fi^l/iV';?:',- j»'• '-?»c-«;S»«M»'r-' •:£°'if»~< '•„'•. •:' y*
:i|fcffi1|$0;tt^^
m-si
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
1994 activities.6 Unlike private sector facilities, however, Federal facilities meeting the TRI
chemical thresholds are required to file TRI reports, whether or not they are engaged in
manufacturing. Prior to 1994, only government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) 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 Federal facilities has
changed, comparisons of pre- and post-1994 data may not be entirely valid.
TRI Releases at Reporting Federal Facilities
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 nearly six percent. Exhibit in - 44 presents the
distribution of releases according to various environmental media. Of the releases to
environmental media other than air, the majority were accounted for by releases to land, followed
by releases to water and releases to underground injection wells.
Exhibit HI - 44
TRI Releases by Environmental Media at Federal Facilities in pounds (1995)
Fugitive Air (35.8%) 2,836,432
Water (6.4%) 506,786
Land (13.3%) 1,057,682
Underground Injection (4.1%) 325,767
Totals 7.923.399 pounds
Stack Air (40.3%) 3,196,732
Off-Site Transfers at Reporting Federal Facilities
In 1995, Federal facilities transferred more than 6.3 million pounds of TRI chemicals to
off-site locations for the purposes of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal. Exhibit
in - 45 presents these off-site transfers according to waste management activity.
TRI data are submitted on a calender year rather than a fiscal year basis.
m-52
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Off-site transfers for recycling were the
most common at Federal facilities in 1995 (66.7
percent), followed by treatment (14.1 percent),
disposal, and energy recovery (11.7 and 7.1
percent, respectively). Transfers of wastewater
for treatment was fairly uncommon at Federal
facilities — transfers to POTWs comprised less
than 0.5 percent of the total in 1995.
Off-Site Transfers include transfers of
toxic chemicals in wastes (e,g.,,for ',
recycling, energy recovery, Jxeatment; or
disposal) to a facilityJfaat is geographically
or physically separate from the facility
reporting under the TRI. -,C „
Exhibit HI-45
TRI Off-Site Transfers at Federal Facilities in pounds (1995)
Recycled (66.7%) 4,220,613^
Disposal (11.7%) 741,356
POTW(0.3%) 21,067
Treatment (14.1%) 893,997
Energy Recovery (7.1%) 451,092
Total = 6,328,125 pounds
Trend Analysis of TRI Data
As noted earlier, the universe of Federal facilities required to report TRI releases broadened
in 1994 after the issuance of E.O. 12856. Therefore, it is not entirely valid to compare pre- and
post-1994 release and transfer data. With this in mind, Exhibit in - 46 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.
m-53
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit III - 46
TRI Releases and Off-site Transfers at Federal Facilities (1992 -1995)
Legend
Off-site Transfers
Releases
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 reviews, although
the process of verifying the accuracy of TRI reporting may involve some on-site field evaluations.
Exhibit in - 47 shows the number of EPCRA §313 inspections conducted at Federal facilities during
FY 1995 and FY 1996. Per §5-502 of E.G. 12856, EPA Regions acted as the lead on all inspections
during this period.
EPCRA §313 Enforcement Actions
Per §5-502 of E.O. 12856, Federal agencies are not subject to the enforcement provisions of
§325 and §326 of EPCRA.
IE-54
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m- 47
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
Information Sources
The following is a listing of additional information on TR1/EPCRA that can be obtained at
no charge:
4 1995 TRI Public Data Release (annual report), EPA 745/R-97-005: available
through the U.S. EPA EPCRA Hotline (800) 535-3333
4 1995 State Fact Sheets, EPA 745/F-97-001: available through the U.S. EPA
EPCRA Hotline (800) 535-3333
4 TRI Information Kit, EPA 749/F-94-002: available through NCEPI (800) 490-9198
4 Right to Know Network (RTKNET): provides online public access to TRI and
related environmental data bases to community groups concerned about toxics.
Phone: (202) 797-7200; Internet: http://www.rtk.net
4 U.S. EPA Internet Server: provides access to a variety of reports, data files, and
TRI information from EPA. Phone: (202) 260-1531; Internet: http://www.epa.gov
m-55
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
TRI Releases by Environmental Media at
Federal Facilities
TRI Off-Site Transfers at Federal
Facilities
TRI Releases and Off-Site Transfers at
Federal Facilities
EPCRA §313 Inspections by Federal
Agency Category
Information
Source
TRIS
TRIS
TRIS
IDEA
Date of
Data Pull
03/25/97
03/25/97
03/25/97
04/15/97
'''<• ' ? . ,, ', '' '
1 , ' • Comments /
-
-
-
-
m-56
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
CERCLA authorizes the federal government to respond to situations involving past
disposal of hazardous substances. The primary emphasis of CERCLA is to protect human health
and the environment through the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Under CERCLA, parties
causing or contributing to contamination are held responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.
Applicability of CERCLA to Federal Facilities
Section 120 of CERCLA states that federal facilities must comply with all applicable
provisions of CERCLA to the same extent as a private entity. To promote compliance, CERCLA
also contains broad waivers of sovereign immunity to permit individuals and states to sue federal
agencies for recovery of their response costs and to bring citizen suits if an agency is not
adhering to a CERCLA mandate.
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
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. The docket represents a regularly updated inventory of
facilities that may be subject to more advanced stages of the CERCLA cleanup process. All
facilities on the docket will at least receive a Preliminary Assessment (see Site Screening and
Assessment) to determine if there is a need for further action.
A facility is removed from the docket when:
>• The facility is a small quantity generator;
>• The facility is not federally-owned or -operated; or
>• It is listed more than once (only redundant listings are removed).
In addition, a facility that has been removed from the docket can be relisted at any time if its
status changes.
Exhibits IE - 48 through HI - 50 illustrate the number of sites at federal facilities listed on
the docket and the agencies that own and manage these facilities. As shown in Exhibit in - 48,
from its inception in February of 1988 to the most recent update in>October of 1996, the number
of sites at federal facilities listed on the docket has nearly doubled, from 1,094 to 2,104.
m-57
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m-48
Total Number of Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket
2500
"i 1 r
Initial I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
February 1988 Update Number October 1996
As shown in Exhibit HI - 49, the 925 DOD sites comprise the largest single share (44.0
percent) of sites on the docket. Other agencies with substantial numbers of sites include the
Department of the Interior (DOI - 451 sites or 21.4 percent) and DOE (85 sites or 4.0 percent).
Together, DOI sites combined with all other CFA sites comprise over half (52.0 percent) of sites
listed on the docket.
m-58
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit in - 49
Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket by Agency
Department of Defense (44.0%) 925
Department of Interior (21.4%) 451
Department of Energy (4.0%) 85
Total = 2,104 Sites
Other Federal Agencies (30.6%) 643
As shown in Exhibit HI - 50, the Navy, Army, and Air Force owned or managed similar
shares (between 28 and 36 percent) of the total number of DOD sites presently listed on the
docket.
Exhibit III-50
DOD Sites on the Docket by Agency
Army (36.3%) 336 Defense Mapping Agency (0.3%) 3
Defense Logistics Agency (2.2%)
Air Force (28.0%) 259
Navy (28.6%) 265
Other DOD (4.5%) 42
Total = 925 DOD Sites
m-59
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Site Screening and Assessment
The first phase of assessment involves identifying, evaluating, and ranking hazardous
waste sites. There are at least three steps in this phase: Preliminary Assessment (PA), Site
Inspection (SI), and Expanded Site Inspection (ESI).
The PA is the first step an agency takes in the site screening and assessment phase. It
involves a review of all available reports and documentation about the site and a site visit. At the
conclusion of a PA, a projected numerical rating of potential hazards is developed which serves
as a way to screen out sites early in the process. These are sites where no further action is
planned (NFRAP). The PA also provides data for subsequent priority-setting. Sites considered
to present an immediate danger to human health and the environment or that can be quickly
remediated may be referred for Removal Action. The remaining sites move on to the SI stage in
the site assessment process.
The SI is designed to collect more
extensive information by conducting a site
visit and collecting samples to further define
and characterize the problems at a site. Sites
are scored using the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS). The HRS enables EPA to assess the
risk posed by sites hi the CERCLIS data base,
and to determine which sites should be listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL). Sites
receiving a score of 28.5 or above are listed
on the NPL. ESIs are sometimes required to
provide additional data to support scoring of a
site and to provide additional data to support
an anticipated Remedial Investigation.
Remedial Action Process
A Site is a specific location at a federal
facility from which a release of hazardous •/
substances has occurred. A facility may
encompass orte site dr multiple sites.
EPA uses the Hazard Ranking System to
evaluate and rank the relative potential
•^ » /, s -' < $ *•
The National Priorities List is EPA's list
of the highest priority sites for'cleanup.
Sites are proposed for the NPL,based,oit ;
thek score usmg the Hazard Ranlkiag
'
System. ,
The first phase of the remedial action
process is the Remedial Investigation (RT)
that defines the nature and extent of problems at a site and provides information needed to
develop and evaluate cleanup alternatives. It requires a more detailed and comprehensive
analysis than the initial site inspection. The Feasibility Study (FS) assists in this analysis by
developing possible alternatives for cleanup and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of
each approach. Once the cleanup alternatives are defined, the FS determines their effectiveness
by examming each alternative according to specific criteria. A Rl/FS may address all or a
portion of the sites at a single federal facility.
m-60
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
After all criteria have been examined and options weighed, a proposed approach to
conduct cleanup is selected and is summarized in a proposal to the public. The proposed plan
summarizes the process leading to the decision including the analysis of alternatives in the FS,
the preferred alternative, and the rationale for that preference. The public is then given the
opportunity to discuss issues related to the site in a public meeting. Interested parties may also
submit oral and written comments during a 30-day public comment period. Once comments
have been received and considered, a plan is selected and explained in the Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROD describes the remedial action plan for a site, discusses the technical details of
the plan, and provides the public with a consolidated source of information about the site.
The last three phases of the remedial action process are: Remedial Design (RD),
Remedial Action (RA), and Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The RD stage involves
developing technical plans and specifications for the RA phase as outlined in the ROD. When
these plans and specifications are completed, the construction or RA phase begins. The O&M
phase begins when the RA phase is complete and the plan is operational and functional. O&M
activities are defined as those activities required for maintaining the effectiveness of the plan
and/or monitoring site conditions to determine the occurrence of a new or recurring
environmental threat. Monitoring air and ground water, inspecting and maintaining treatment
equipment, and maintaining security measures (e.g. fencing and signs) are a few examples of
O&M activities. Exhibit HI - 51 shows the progress of federal facilities through the Remedial
Action "pipeline."
Exhibit III - 51
Cumulative Remedial Action Program Accomplishments
for Federal Facility Sites (FY 1996)
1OOO -I
800 -
1 600 H
•s
&
I 400 -
200-
Legend
Starts
Completions
RI/FS
RA
m-6i
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
As of FY 1996, 826 sites at federal facilities had started the Rl/FS phase. Of these,
approximately 45 percent (375 of 826) had signed RODs. Nearly 90 percent (337 of 375) of
these sites had begun the RD phase. The remaining sites had either exited the pipeline at the
completion of the Rl/FS phase (i.e., a no-action ROD was signed) or were awaiting
commencement of the RD phase. A portion of facilities presently undergoing an Rl/FS could
exit the pipeline upon completion of their Rl/FS.
Of the sites beginning the RD phase, approximately 80 percent (268 of 337) had
completed the process. Upon completion of the RD phase, RD sites may be split into multiple
RA sites. For this reason, there are actually more sites that have begun the RA phase than have
completed the RD phase. Approximately 47 percent (135 of 286) of sites entering the RA phase
had completed the process. In all, therefore, roughly 16 percent (135 of 826) of sites at federal
facilities entering the pipeline had progressed through every stage of the remedial action process.
It should be noted, however, that a number of sites at federal facilities may not progress through
the entire pipeline, because at an interim phase, EPA has determined that they no longer pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment.
Removal Action Process
In contrast to a Remedial Action, which can take months or even years to implement and
complete, a CERCLA removal action is an immediate, short term response taken to control direct
threats to human health and the environment from a release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance. The federal agency with jurisdiction over the site will generally manage removal
actions.
There are three types of removals determined by the site screening and assessment and
the urgency of the situation:
>• Emergencies — removals where the release, or threat of release, requires
that onsite cleanup activities begin within hours of the lead agency's
determination that a removal action is appropriate.
>• Time-Critical — removals where, based on the site evaluation, the lead
agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and there are less
than six months available before cleanup activities must begin.
>• Non-Time Critical -- removals where, based on the site evaluation, the
lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there
is a planning period of more than six months available before on-site
activities must begin. The lead agency must undertake an Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis, or its equivalent, for non-time critical removals.
m-62
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Removal actions may also be used to stabilize and mitigate the worst problems at NPL
sites until the Remedial Action program can implement complete cleanups. Since removal
actions are managed by federal agencies with responsibility for the site, EPA does not track
removal actions at federal facilities in the CERCLIS data base. Exhibit in - 52 presents the
status of sites on the NPL as of FY 1996.
Exhibit III - 52
Federal Facilities on the NPL (FY 1996)
DOD final sites (75.0%) 123
Total = 164 Facilities
Deleted Sites: 3.7%
3 DOD
2 DOE
1CFA
DOD proposed sites (4.3%) 7
CFAs(6.1%) 10
DOE (11.0%) 18
Of the 164 federal facility NPL sites, 130 or 79.3 percent are at DOD facilities. DOE
sites make up 11.0 percent and all other federal agencies comprise 6.1 percent of the total.
Facilities deleted from the NPL comprise an additional 3.6 percent.
CERCLA Enforcement
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/federal facility agreements
(lAGs/FFAs). 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.
I&Cfe/FFAs are bmding cleanup agreements-
^between EPA, federal agencies, .ah'd, in most
cases; states. lAGs/FFAs define roles,
responsibilities, and milestones, and provide
, opportunities for public involvement.
m-63
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
There were three federal facility CERCLA lAGs/FFAs executed in FY 1995 and two in
FY 1996. Of the federal sites listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1996, 134 are now covered by
125 IAGs.7 Exhibit HI - 53 shows the number of lAGs signed by Region from FY 1987 to FY
1996.
Exhibit in - 53
Final CERCLA lAGs/FFAs Signed by EPA Region FY 1987-96
30-
25-
320
5=10-
5 -
0
I
2
I
4
I I
5 6
EPA Region
I
10
Information Sources
Additional information on CERCLA and Superfund can be obtained from the following
sources:
EPA's Superfund Home Page: http//www.epa.gov/superfund/
Superfund Hotline: obtain answers to questions concerning CERCLA as well as
up-to date information and copies of regulations (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-
9810
Superfund Docket: responds to requests for access to docket files and provides
copies of Superfund program publications (703) 603-9232
An IAG may cover activities at more than one site and be signed by more than one agency.
IE-64
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
';^'^i^fif^^^
^^^^^•^r^SWS^'ftrfv^'rt^j^V^j^Syv^*
Total Number of Federal Facility Sites
Listed on the Docket
Federal Facility Sites Listed on the
Docket by Agency
DOD Sites on the Docket by Agency
Cumulative Remedial Action Program
Accomplishments for Federal Facility
Sites
Federal Facilities on the NPL
Final CERCLA lAGs/FFAs Signed by
EPA Region
Docket
Docket
Docket
CERCLIS
CERCLIS
CERCLIS
10/24/96
10/24/96
10/24/96
10/24/96
10/24/96
10/24/96
V^^XA^*1'*"* !f'4!^*\ '" ~liSl*t,> S^^fiV* •&'•* ^W'^1 ^V^vi^^t!?*
J^/* 'S**^ ' ?•"!$&$ 'tf&P,*. '^f'^/i.'^fKT-'v
'•''2, *'"*;'•& ^^/v'^^^V^-sV^KVv'^ V-^' ' V^'X^ f*>^? '; ' V?
-
-
-
—
-
-
in-65
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
m-66
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACT
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 bases be chosen for closure or realignment in 1988 (BRAC I), 1991 (BRAG IT),
1993 (BRAC HI), and 1995 (BRACIV).
Installations recommended by DOD for closure or realignment are submitted to the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission that reviews the list to ensure that DOD did
not substantially deviate from the selection
criteria (i.e., military value, economic, and
environmental considerations). The
Commission could recommend changes for
those installations where a substantial
deviation was established. The Commission's
list is subject to Presidential approval and
Congressional action. If the President
approves the Commission's recommendations,
the list is forwarded to Congress for its
consideration. Congress must either pass a
joint resolution blocking the entire list or the
entire list becomes law. Congress has 45
legislative days to act.
Base Closure is an action taken at a military
.installation to tenmaate active onreserve
installation's real property to another '
authority (i,&, aatipnal^ard, omerjederal
agency, "state, or commercial entity).
Base Realignment is any action taken at a
military installation that both reduces andx- •
relocates Anetions and civilian personnel
positions, but.doe^not iEclode a redaction
m force resuMng'frortt workload ', ,
adjustments.'reduced personnel or fiinding
levels,orskjillimbalances*. "* £' - " '-'"•.
In terms of implementation, the
Legislation requires DOD to begin all
realignments and closures within two years of the date the President transmitted his approval to
Congress and to complete them no later than six years after the same date. Exhibit HI - 54
provides an overview of the BRAC selection process.
In an effort to facilitate base closure and reuse, CERCLA Section 120 was amended by
the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) in 1992. CERFA requires
that DOD identify "uncontaminated parcels." For BRAC IV bases on the NPL, the identification
by DOD and concurrence by EPA was completed in March 1997.
Under CERCLA Section 120(h)(4), "uncontaminated" parcels are those on which no
hazardous substances and no petroleum products or their derivatives were known to have been
released, or disposed of. EPA issued revised guidance on the implementation of CERCLA
Section 120(h)(4) on March 27, 1997. The guidance allows, in certain cases, for parcels to be
identified as uncontaminated although some limited quantity of hazardous substances or
petroleum products has been released or disposed of, if there is no indication that the activity
associated with the release or disposal has resulted in a threat to human health or the
environment.
m-67
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit m-54
BRAC Selection Process
Base Closure Commission transmits its
recommendations to the President
President returns recommendations to
Commission for reconsideration
President approves Commission
recommendations
Commission transmits revised
recommendations to the President
President approves
President rejects
Congress considers recommendations
No closures occur
If no action taken,
closure actions begin
J
If joint resolution of rejection
passes, no closures occur
Parcels with potential for reuse are identified as early in the process as possible and given
priority in the cleanup process as appropriate. DOD is required to apply the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during the process of property disposal and reuse. Under
NEPA, DOD must define the environmental impact of the proposed reuse, document any
unavoidable adverse effects, and identify alternatives to the proposed action.
For parcels requiring remediation, CERFA clarifies CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) to allow
transfer by deed once a remediation action has been completely constructed and installed, but
before the cleanup objectives have been met, provided that the federal agency can demonstrate to
EPA that the action is "operating properly and successfully". Since the effects of closing these
federal facilities often extend well beyond the federal sector, impacting local and regional
economies and livelihoods, the transfer of base closure property to communities and businesses
in advance of cleanup completion allows for early access to the property and speeds the
economic redevelopment process.
A plan to mitigate economic dislocation and speed economic recovery of communities
near BRAC Installations was announced by the Clinton Administration in July of 1993. Rapid
redevelopment and job creation are the top goals of this community reinvestment program,
commonly referred to as the Five Point Plan.
m-68
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
The Fast Track Cleanup Program at installations with environmental contamination and
where property will be available for transfer to the community is an essential component of the
President's Five Point Plan. EPA, DOD, and the states are charged with creating a working
partnership to implement the Fast Track Cleanup Program with the objectives of quickly
identifying clean parcels for early reuse, selecting for appropriate leasing parcels where cleanup
is underway, and hastening cleanup.
The number of Fast Track Cleanup locations is a subset of the total number of bases
selected for closure or realignment. Fast Track Cleanup locations are identified by DOD as
locations where there is environmental contamination and where property will be available for
transfer to the community. During FY 1997,108 locations were part of the Fast Track Cleanup
Program; 17 are BRAC I, 27 are, BRAC E, 31 are^BRAC m, and 33 are BRACIV. Of these
locations, 32 are Superfund NPL sites, and their breakup according to BRAC round is presented
in Exhibit m - 55.
Exhibit HI-55
Number of Fast Track Cleanup Locations
35 -
30 -
Legend
I I NPL Sites
B Non-NPL Sites
1995
BRAC IV
As shown in Exhibit in - 56, Region 9 contained the greatest number of Fast Track
Cleanup locations (6 locations, which represents 18.2 percent) during the BRAC IV round.
Region 1 had the second largest number of locations (5 locations, 15.2 percent), followed by
Regions 2, 3, and 6 (4 locations and 12.1 percent, each).
m-69
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit in-56
BRACIV Fast Track Cleanup Locations by EPA Region
10 -I
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
4567
EPA Region
10
Breaking the traditional model for site cleanup, DOD, EPA and state regulators have
forged BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) to deal with the complex environmental problems at Fast
Track Cleanup installations. BCTs are in place at all active Fast Track Cleanup installations and
work to expedite cleanup efforts and integrate them with potential reuse options. 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 m -
57 presents the location of round IV BCTs throughout the country.
As part of this new approach, EPA and state regulators bring a cadre of technical and
legal experts to support the BCTs. For example, EPA provides in-house technical expertise in
the areas of hydrogeology, health risk assessment and toxicology, ecological risk assessment,
engineering, environmental legal expertise, community relations, field work support (sampling
and site assessment), and uncontaminated parcel identification. This leads to real-time decision
making, reduction in documents and identification of innovative ways to accomplish faster
cleanup.
m-70
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit ffl-57
BRACIV Cleanup Teams by State
x
Camp Bonneville
Sierra Army Depot
Mcdellan
Oakland Fleet
Industrial Center
Oakland Army Bui
linghamCohasset
*
•Sudbury Annex
NAS South
•Weymouth
Stratford Army
Engine Plant
FortTotten
Military Ocean Terminal
•Fort Dix v
Lettertenny Army Depot
IAWC White Oak
Ritchie
Fort Pickett
:e Station
Legend
*• Navy/Marine Installations
• Air Force Installations
A Army Installations
• DLA Installation
EPA works with other members of the BCT in the following general areas:
>• Accelerating the identification of uncontaminated parcels under CERFA;
>• Promoting community involvement in restoration and reuse decision
making;
>• Completing site assessment and characterization processes and
procedures;
X Supporting up-front planning and scoping;
>• Preparing and reviewing documents;
m-71
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
>• Reviewing the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Design,
and Remedial Action study and sampling data, and related remedy
selection documents;
>• Reviewing demonstration that the remedy is operating properly and
successfully; and
>• Expediting review of environmental documentation relating to deeds and
leases to accelerate economic revitalization through reuse.
The Fast Track Cleanup Program recognizes the importance of stakeholder involvement
hi the process of making decisions about environmental cleanup and the transfer of property.
Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) are the
primary means for the community to provide
input to the cleanup process. EPA and DOD
issued joint guidelines on the implementation of
RABs on September 27,1994. RABs are a
forum for exchange of information and
partnership among citizens, the installation,
DOD, EPA, and the state. RABs serve to
improve DOD's cleanup program by increasing
community understanding and support for
cleanup efforts, improving the soundness of
government decisions, and ensuring cleanups are
responsive to community needs. In FY 1997,
there were approximately 76 RABs at the 108
active Fast Track Cleanup installations. In
addition, EPA is working with DOD to
implement Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice to ensure that no group
suffers a disproportionate share of any adverse
health and environmental effects associated with
the restoration and reuse of closing bases.
The BCTs have identified a number of
potential measures to be considered for
accelerating cleanups and effectively
implementing the Fast Track Cleanup Program.
These include:
>• Joint, up-front scoping of
projects;
d remedial implementation at federal sites
,FFRIk<
m-72
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
>• Concurrent review of documents;
>• In-person review of comments and resolution of issues;
>• Interim remedial actions and non time critical removal actions to eliminate
hot spots;
•>• Recognition of parity between RCRA corrective actions and CERCLA
remedial actions;
>• Cleanup standards based on existing and reasonably anticipated uses of property;
>• Coordination and communication between environmental restoration and reuse
planning;
X Improved technology transfer, reviewing technology for application of expedited
solutions;
X Innovative management, coordination, and communication techniques (e.g.,
partnering);
>• Identification of opportunities for application of presumptive remedies; and
>• Flexible contracting procedures.
The substantial benefits achieved through this teaming approach are made possible
through EPA and state participation. Team members are able to participate through funding
provided by DOD through Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with EPA and through the Defense
State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) program authorized by Congress. The resources
and workyears provided to EPA reside primarily in the Regions. National direction for EPA's
participation in the Fast Track Cleanup Program is provided by the Federal Facilities Restoration
and Reuse Office in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Information Sources
Additional information on BRAC be found on the Internet at the following sites:
4 FFRRO Home Page .http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr
<* DOD BRAC Home Page http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/envbrac.html
•f U.S. Army BRAC Web Site http://www.hdqa.mil/acsimweb/brac/braco.html
m-73
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
BRAG Selection Process
Number of Fast Track Cleanup Locations
BRAG IV Fast Track Locations by EPA
Region
BRAG IV Cleanup Teams by State
Information
Source
FFRRO
FFRRO
FFRRO
FFRRO
Date of
Data Pull
NA
06/06/97
06/06/97
06/06/97
' , ' ' , '. , Conttofeofeh- • , - ', , ,
N < -^V< 1 > •> '* ' ^ "'
—
—
-
-
m-74
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INDICATORS SUMMARY
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 compliance
indicators over time can reveal how federal facilities are performing with respect to individual
programs. Exhibit in - 58 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 TSDFs not cited for Class I violations
CWA Percent of major federal facilitiesnel in SNC
CAA Percent of major federal sources in compliance
SDWA Percent of federal systems not in SNC
TSCA Percent of inspected federal facilities not in SNC
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 III - 58
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for Selected Indicators
Statute
RCRA
CWA
CAA
SDWA
TSCA
FY1991
54.2%
80.3%
94.4%
99.1%
92.4%
jRfiawH
62.7%
90.4%
95.6%
99.0%
90.1%
jnrij^a
55.4%
94.2%
87.0%
99.2%
93.5%
•fcTMKMU
61.6%
88.5%
87.9%
98.7%
87.5%
'•FIT IMS
73.8%
76.2%
88.8%
93.0%
100.0%
^FlhBM?
75.1%
73.0%
87.4%
96.4%
100.0%
in-75
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
To compare the preceding compliance rates with FY 1991, the base year, 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
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 El - 59, the level of federal facility compliance with most major
environmental statutes/programs has been somewhat mixed since FY 1991. Under CWA,
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. Ibi contrast, RCRA
compliance at federal facilities increased by 38.6 percent, and TSCA compliance increased by
8.2 percent relative to FY 1991.
Exhibit III -59
Percent Changes hi Federal Facility Compliance
Indicator Rates Relative to FY 1991
30.0 ~
r~
£ 10.0-
0.0
FY 1991 (Base Year)
36-
0,0
-10.0
5."
TT
:!•;
i
I
i
3J
^
1
1
8.<
y/
i
I
.
i
Legend
• FY91
H FY92
B FY93
C3 FY94
^ FY95
M FY9«
17J
jj 1 S.2S.2
1! ^ Hs^
0.0 If 0.0-O.lO.l.n 4 O.OfHl 0.0 •! ^/X
M'j/ iH^I 9 IH^ 111
^ r mi u
1 1 1
RCRA CWA SDWA CAA TSCA
m-76
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
Selected Indicators
Multiple data
bases
Various
Data drawn from sections of Section
III of this document.
Percent Changes in Federal Facility
Compliance Indicators -
Multiple data
bases
Various
Data drawn from sections of Section
IH of this document.
m-77
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This page intentionally left blank
ffl-78
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
IV. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
This section provides a broad overview of the inspection and enforcement functions and
activities of EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office and discusses selected inspection and
enforcement highlights at federal facilities during FY 1995 and FY 1996.
The Federal Facility Enforcement Office
EPA's federal facility enforcement and compliance program, managed by FFEO, helps
ensure the federal government is accountable to the public for its environmental record. In
recognition of the public's vital interests, FFEO works to further engage the public with the
federal sector in the decision making process for management and cleanup of environmental
contamination at federal facilities.
In FY 1995 and FY 1996, FFEO continued to ensure federal government compliance with
all environmental laws. The federal government manages a vast array of industrial activities at
its installations. These activities present unique management problems from the standpoint of
compliance with federal environmental statutes. Although federal facilities are only a small
percentage of the regulated community, many federal installations are larger and more complex
than private facilities and often present a greater number of sources of pollution in all media.
The federal government is investing significant resources in addressing environmental cleanup
and compliance issues at federal facilities.
Specific FFEO responsibilities address every aspect of federal facility compliance and
enforcement, from planning to implementation. On a strategic planning level, FFEO works with
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance on enforcement and inspection
targeting at federal facilities, oversees the federal agency environmental management planning
program, and participates on interagency pollution prevention and compliance assistance
working groups. In addition, FFEO reviews
proposed federal legislation and develops
EPA positions on appropriate federal
responsibilities under such legislation. FFEO
also is involved in developing federal facility
enforcement strategies and in preparing
guidance to assist Regions in their
implementation.
On an implementation level, FFEO is
directly involved in enforcement negotiations,
including CERCLA interagency agreements
(lAGs) and Memoranda of Understanding,
and in litigation and enforcement oversight at federal facilities. FFEO also tracks compliance at
federal facilities; promotes pollution prevention, multi-media enforcement/compliance, and
IV-1
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
environmental justice at federal facilities; and encourages the use of innovative technologies to
attain pollution prevention, compliance, and cleanup goals.
Inspections Summary
Exhibit IV - 1 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
decreased by nearly one-fourth, and taken collectively, TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA inspections
declined by 12 percent.
Exhibit IV -1
Federal Facility Inspections (FY 93 - FY 96)
1000-1
750-
500-
250-
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
RCRA
CWA/NPDES
CAA
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
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 RCRA8 (e.g., Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluations, Compliance Evaluation
Inspections, Record Reviews). Some of these are resource-intensive field inspections, while
8 There are also several different types of inspections under the CAA and CWA/NPDES programs.
IV-2
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
others are simply reviews of documents. For a more detailed discussion of inspection activity,
see the statute/prograni-specific summaries contained in Section ffi of this document.
Multi-Media Inspection Summary
EPA established the Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Program
(FMECP) in FY 1993. Recognizing that federal facilities are a highly visible sector of the
regulated community and have historically demonstrated lower rates of compliance with
environmental laws than their private sector counterparts, the FMECP employs comprehensive
multi-media assessments as a tool to promote improved long term environmental compliance.
During FY 1995 and 1996, nine of ten EPA Regions participated in the FMECP;
conducting a total of 69 inspections (42 in FY 1995 and 27 in FY 1996). Exhibit IV - 2 presents
the distribution of multi-media inspections according to agency category. The majority of these
inspections occurred at DOD facilities, although DOD's share decreased from 66.7 percent in FY
1995 to 55.6 percent in FY 1996. The number of CFA inspections declined slightly over the
same period (13 to 11), but this represented a substantial increase, in percentage terms, of the
total number of inspections conducted each year. For both FY 1995 and FY 1996, one DOE
facility received a multi-media inspection.
Exhibit IV-2
Multi-Media Inspections by Agency Category
FY 1995
FY 1996
DOD (66.7%) 28
DOD (55.6%) 15
DOE (2.3%) 1
CFA (31.0%) 13
DOE (3.7%) 1
CFA (40.7%) 11
Total = 42 Inspections
Total = 27 Inspections
IV-3
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Summary ,
As shown in Exhibit IV - 3, 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 IV -1 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
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA enforcement actions dropped to zero in FY 1996, albeit from a fairly
small number (i.e., five) 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 IH of this document.
Exhibit IV-3
Federal Facility Enforcement Actions (FY 93 - FY 96)
CWA
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
IV-4
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facility Compliance Act
The Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), amending RCRA, became effective on
October 6,1992. The primary purpose of the FFCA is to ensure that federal facilities are treated
in the same manner as privately-owned facilities with respect to RCRA compliance. The law
greatly enhances state and EPA enforcement authorities against federal facilities. In the past,
when EPA discovered RCRA violations at federal facilities, EPA relied primarily on negotiated
Compliance Agreements to bring the facility back into compliance. States and EPA can now
assess and collect penalties for violations of RCRA requirements, as well as issue Administrative
Orders against federal facilities for enforcement of RCRA.
Exhibit IV - 4 summarizes FFCA/RCRA Administrative Orders and proposed penalties
issued against federal facilities by EPA for FY 1993 through FY 1996. The number of EPA
issued Orders increased from nine in FY 1993 to 12 in FY 1996, while proposed penalties
decreased from $3.7 million to $1.35 million (63.5 percent). The average penalty decreased from
approximately $410,000 in FY 1993 to 112,000 in FY 1996.
Exhibit IV - 4
FFCA/RCRA EPA Orders and Penalties
y ?\*:'>ck*
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facilities Enforcement Highlights for FY 1995 and FY 1996
The following section presents selected enforcement highlights at federal facilities during
FY 1995 and FY 1996. Much of the material for this section of the State of Federal Facilities
Report is drawn from the annual EPA Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
Boston Veterans Affairs - RCRA
On August 2,1996, Region I issued a complaint and compliance order under Section
3008 (a) of RCRA to the South Huntington Avenue Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Boston,
Massachusetts. The complaint alleged eight violations and assessed a penalty of $76,550.
Violations included a failure to safely store incompatible hazardous wastes and/or materials
incompatible with hazardous wastes; storage in containers that were not compatible; the failure
to appropriately label containers; and the failure to provide proper certification for land disposal
restrictions. During a multimedia inspection, inspectors found that jars of caustics were stored
with jars of acids and also that jars of explosives were stored with caustics in cardboard boxes.
Such storage could trigger an explosion, putting Veterans Administration employees and veterans
at risk. They found 240 glass and plastic jars of waste chemicals stored in cardboard boxes
labeled as hazardous waste containers.
Region n issued a complaint, compliance order, and notice of opportunity for hearing
February 22,1996 for hazardous waste violations against the U.S. Army Military Academy at
West Point, New York. The order included a total assessed penalty of $24,496 for alleged
RCRA storage and manifesting violations, which involved "a large quantity generator that
generates hazardous waste from laboratory, training, and vehicle and equipment maintenance
operations." EPA discovered the violations during an August 11,1995, RCRA compliance
evaluation inspection at the facility.
Fort Campbell - RCRA
Region IV issued a RCRA complaint and compliance order, assessing a $48,700 penalty,
against the Fort Campbell Army base on the Kentucky/Tennessee border. Fort Campbell has had
repeated violations, including: failure to make hazardous waste determination, failure to correctly
label containers, failure to remove hazardous waste from satellite accumulation areas in a timely
manner, and failure to maintain emergency equipment. In September 1994, EPA issued an order
and imposed penalties against Fort Campbell for similar violations.
IV-6
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Memphis Depot -- RCRA
Region IV issued a Compliant and Compliance Order assessing a $20,000 penalty against
the Defense Logistics Agency's Memphis Depot in Memphis, Tennessee for RCRA violations.
The facility violated the conditions of its permit by improperly storing incompatible wastes,
creating potentially dangerous conditions. Local citizens have raised environmental justice
issues about this facility.
Region IV reached settlement with Lockheed Martin Energy Systems for failure to
adequately inspect hazardous waste tank systems in one area at DOE's Oak Ridge, Tennessee
facility. The RCRA Consent Agreement and Consent Order imposed a $22,500 penalty for
improper inspection procedures. The facility now properly performs the tank inspections. The
facility originally noted the violation during a Martin Marietta internal audit conducted in June
1994 and the DOE Inspector General's Office discovered it to still be a problem in January 1995.
EPA, DOE, and the State of Colorado, signed the new Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement
(RFCA) in Denver, Colorado on July 19,1996, after nearly three years of negotiations. The
signatories to the RFCA were EPA's Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen and Acting Region VIE
Administrator Jack McGraw, Under Secretary of Energy Tom Grumbly and site manager Jesse
Roberson, and Lieutenant Governor Gail Schoettler and Tom Looby, Director of Colorado's
Office of the Environment. The RFCA contained many innovative provisions designed to speed
up cleanup activities at the Rocky Flats site. The RFCA streamlined the regulatory process by
dividing the site into two areas - the industrial area, where the state is the lead regulator, and the
environmental buffer zone, where EPA is the lead regulator.
EPA Region X negotiated an agreement with the Alaska Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQJand the USAF to establish a framework for carrying out the selected interim
remedial action at the site according to CERCLA. EPA's role is to provide technical assistance
and consultation to the US AF and ADEQ in carrying out the agreement. EPA does not have a
direct enforcement role in this agreement. King Salmon Airport was a barrel, metal and wood
disposal area. Contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water and sediments with PCB, TCE,
arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury are present. Remedial action requires that a cap be designed
and installed, along with groundwater monitoring. This agreement is unique in that the facility
would be cleaned up using CERCLA protocol since the Governor of Alaska would not agree to
place this facility on the NPL.
IV-7
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Port Hadlock - CERCLA
On July 16,1996, an IAG between EPA Region X, the U.S. Navy and the State of
Washington was reached in addressing remedial actions to be conducted at the Naval Ordnance
Center Pacific Division, Port Hadlock Detachment, Hadlock, Washington. This agreement was
significant since it provided the lead for regulatory oversight to the State of Washington. The
agreement also had unique CERCLA 109 penalty provision and dispute resolution.
Region n issued a compliance order May 15, 1996, to the U.S. Army Armament
Research, Development, and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal, in northern New
Jersey for noncompliance with requirements under the Clean Air Act regarding prevention of
significant deterioration in air quality (PSD). The Arsenal was subject to the PSD requirements
because operation of two boilers on the facility caused significant net emissions increases of
NOx. Stack tests in November 1994, and January 1995, were made on two boilers that had been
converted from coal to natural gas as a primary fuel and #6 fuel oil as a secondary fuel. Test
results showed that net emissions of NOx from the Arsenal using fuel oil vs. natural gas would
increase "significantly" using natural gas — by more than 40 tons per year — above the level of
emissions from fuel oil as it existed before the modification of the two boilers. The order
directed the Army to display the PSD non-applicability of the #6 fuel oil to natural gas
conversion within 60 calendar days or comply with the requirement of the PSD regulations.
Region JJ reached a final Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) on June 25,
1996, which required the Seneca Army Depot in New York to comply with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule under the SDWA. The FFCA, signed by EPA and Seneca Army Depot, in
Romulus, New York, required the facility to comply by eliminating its unfiltered surface water
source and connecting to a water supply being developed by the Town of Varick, New York.
Minuteman II Compliance Agreement -
RCRA/TSCA
FFEO led an EPA-state effort to develop, coordinate, and execute a compliance
agreement with the US AF addressing Minuteman JJ missile silo implosions in support of the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Solid-matrix PCBs were a component in the
weatherproofing on missile silos and support buildings as well as a rust-proofing agent, along
with asbestos on underground storage tanks. With the assistance of the Office for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPT) and OECA's National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC), a sampling and analysis plan was developed and implemented which served as
the basis for compliance agreement discussions. When the final Agreement was executed, it
IV-8
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
included provisions for the development of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan, long-
term environmental monitoring, a Hardened Intersite Cable System (HICS) Sampling Plan, deed
restrictions, closure/removal of underground storage tanks and reporting requirements. The
Agreement was very unique in that it provided for affected states to negotiate and execute their
own state annex of distinct state requirements in addition to the provisions in the EPA/USAF
Compliance Agreement. This precedent-setting agreement will serve as a model for active
missile sites as well as other closing missile sites. Implementation of this Agreement is expected
to save U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Letter of Enforcement Discretion -- TSCA
FFEO developed and negotiated the Letter of Enforcement Discretion (LOED) between
MARAD and EPA in the first Agreement of its type governing ship scrapping activities. After
extensive coordination with other EPA program offices and the State Department, the LOED
provides an EPA-approved process by which MARAD and their designated ship scrappers can
test, analyze and remove regulated PCBs so that a vessel can be exported for scrap recycling
overseas where the profits to MARAD are much greater than domestic scrap sales. The
development of the LOED included FFEO's request for OPPT development of a technical policy
for sampling vessels for PCBs as well as the development of a subsequent policy for sampling
paint on vessels.
The LOED included provisions for financial assurance; determination of MARAD as a
"generator" for purposes of continuing liability during the vessel scrapping process;
determination that the shipyard was not a temporary storage facility under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) but permitted enforcement discretion of certain storage requirements;
itemization of known PCB uses on older vessels; international notification provisions;
certification of PCB removal; notification provided to EPA by or their Co-Generators; inspection
of PCB removal; and addressing asbestos and lead-related issues. FFEO obliged MARAD's
request that the LOED be expanded to include ten more vessels bringing the number of vessels
covered in the LOED to twelve.
Facilities--TSCA
FFEO directed the EPA negotiations with DOE concerning the status of unauthorized
PCBs at DOE uranium enrichment facilities and in February 1992, executed this Compliance
Agreement. FFEO coordinated with Region IV as they developed an agreement with the DOE
that will remove Oak Ridge from the TSCA FFCA and incorporate the Oak Ridge K-65 site into
Region IV's overall strategy to ensure that available environmental funds are used to address the
greatest environmental risks. Implementation meetings with DOE have been reduced from
quarterly meetings to one annual meeting that coincides with the release of the annual progress
IV-9
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
reports for Oak Ridge, Paducah and Portsmouth. FFEO continues implementation of the
Agreement.
FFEO developed, coordinated, and executed an agreement with the Navy providing for
the target practice and sinking of up to eight vessels, pursuant to all existing permits issued by
EPA as well as the requirements of the agreement. Navy preparation for SINKEX included the
removal, to the maximum extent practicable, of all materials which may degrade the marine
environment, including the emptying of fuel tanks and lines, flushing tanks and lines, and
removing from the hulls other pollutants and all readily detachable material capable of creating
debris or contributing to chemical pollution. Removal of all transformers and capacitors
containing three pounds or more of dielectric fluid was required as well as reasonable efforts to
remove capacitors containing less than three pounds of fluid, and the draining and flushing of
hydraulic equipment and heat transfer equipment. The Agreement referenced a modeling study
performed by the Navy in 1993, which was conducted to assess the potential for impacts to the
marine environment from SINKEX. The Navy study predicted that no unacceptable impacts
would result from sinking these ships in cold, deep water. The Agreement also referenced the
Navy's current implementation of a field study to verify the model predictions from the 1993
study.
Discretion -- TSCA
FFEO coordinated with EPA Region V and other EPA Program Offices when the Navy
requested transfer of tugboats with unauthorized PCBs to the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad
Transportation Commission for lease to the Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad Company. The
Letter of Enforcement Discretion served as the precedent for all transfers of ownership and
subsequent lease of unauthorized PCB-contaminated property for reuse. The PCBs in such
things as rubber mounts, cables, and gaskets could not be removed without destroying the vessel.
In addition to terms of use, the letter addressed ultimate decontamination and disposal of the six
Cherokee class tugboats. On July 16, 1996, an IAG between EPA Region X, the U.S. Navy and
the State of Washington was reached in addressing remedial actions to be conducted at the Naval
Ordnance Center Pacific Division, Port Hadlock Detachment, Hadlock, Washington. This
agreement was significant since it provided the lead for regulatory oversight to the State of
Washington. The agreement also had unique CERCLA 109 penalty provision and dispute
resolution.
FFEO worked with OECA-TEPD in the development of a Letter of Enforcement
Discretion concerning the transfer of former Naval vessels with unauthorized PCBs to CPM for
use as mobile electrical generating stations. The letter addressed terms of use and disposal of
IV-10
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
these vessels since removal of the PCB applications in such things as rubber mounts, cables, and
gaskets would render the vessel useless.
Charleston Navy Shipyard -- TSCA
FFEO worked with EPA Region IV to issue Letters of Enforcement Discretion leasing
Navy crane-barges to private concerns at the closed Charleston Navy Shipyard. The crane-barges
were contaminated with unauthorized PCBs.
Museum Transfer Ships -- TSCA
FFEO continues to provide on-going counsel to regional PCB coordinators and ORCs in
jurisdictions where former Naval aircraft carriers and similar vessels are donated to a city for
display as a museum. The first agreements used to transfer the USS Lexington to Corpus Christi,
Texas, and continued use of the vessel as a museum have been used as a model by Region I in
the transfer of the USS Salem. The Agreements addressed the transfer, continued use and
ultimate disposal of these vessels with unauthorized PCBs where removal of the PCBs would not
be feasible.
Fort Defiance - RCRA
On September 27,1995, EPA issued a complaint and compliance order to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) for RCRA violations at the Fort Defiance Arizona, facility, including:
operating a storage facility without a permit, storing LDR was beyond allowable deadlines, and
failure to file a notice of hazardous waste activity. Total civil penalties assessed for the
violations were $269,019.
RCRA
In September of 1995, EPA transmitted five consent orders to the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program (NNPP) for final negotiation and signature. On October 5 and 6, 1995, EPA
and the NNPP signed all five consent agreements and compliance orders for facilities in Regions
I, HI, and IX in accordance with the requirements of RCRA as amended by the FFCA of 1992.
The facilities involved were Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory-Windsor Site in Connecticut,
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pennsylvania, the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia, and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii.
The FFCA also provided a limited three-year exemption from the assessment of fines and
penalties for Section 3004(j) land disposal restriction storage prohibition violations involving
radioactive mixed waste at DOE facilities. The FFCA specified that DOE must develop an
inventory of mixed waste and develop comprehensive site treatment plans (STPs) for mixed
waste. All the Naval Nuclear Propulsion facilities and DOE facilities that generate or store
mixed waste were required to develop and submit STPs to EPA or an authorized state for
IV-11
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
approval. The STPs were required to: (1) identify the appropriate treatment facilities which will
treat each mixed waste stream, and (2) develop schedules for treating each identified waste
stream generated by the facilities.
The FFCA further provided that EPA or a state with the requisite RCRA authority had to
approve the site treatment plan and issue an Order pursuant to Section 3008(a) of RCRA by
October 6, 1995, that required adherence to and implementation of the approved site treatment
plan. The failure of a facility to have an approved site treatment plan would result in the loss of
sovereign immunity for fines and penalties.
On May 19, 1995, the Director of the FFEO and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force signed a memorandum of agreement ensuring that EPA has continued access to the
operating location near Groom Lake for administering environmental laws. Moreover, due to
national security concerns, the Air Force agreed to provide reasonable logistical assistance to
EPA. Finally, EPA agreed that any classified information obtained by EPA would be treated in
accordance with applicable laws and executive orders regarding classified materials.
RCRA
On June 19, 1995, a consent order was signed by the Army for violations of RCRA land
disposal restrictions pursuant to a multimedia inspection conducted by NEIC at APG in June of
1993. The Army was assessed with a penalty of $100,000 for the violations and reached a
settlement amount of $92,000 as part of the order.
Altus Air Force Base -- RCRA
On March 24, 1995, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order under Section 3008(h)
for RCRA corrective action, including a RCRA facility investigation and corrective measures, if
needed. Altus requested a hearing on the order. In July 1995, a hearing was held, with the
Regional Judicial Officer presiding.
U.S. Army Natick Research Facility --
CERCLA
The U.S. Army has agreed to pay a $49,000 penalty for mishandling hazardous wastes at
its Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Massachusetts. The facility
specializes in food engineering, aero-mechanical engineering, and clothing, materials, and
equipment engineering. The Army failed to properly identify wastes generated on site, and failed
to label, date, and mark hazardous waste containers. The facility was recently named to the
National Priority List.
IV-12
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal ~
CERCLA
The Army manufactured chemical weapons, such as napalm bombs, mustard gas, and
conventional munitions, until the 1960s and destroyed weapons at the Arsenal through the earlv
1980s. In addition, the Amy leased a portion of the Arsenal to the Shell Oil Company from 1952
to 1987 to produce herbicides and pesticides. The Arsenal has been described by courts as "one
of the worst hazardous waste pollution sites in the country" due to extensive soil and
groundwater contamination from more than 750 different hazardous wastes spilled or improperly
disposed of in several areas. Three plumes of contaminated groundwater migrated off-site before
intercept systems were installed, contaminating local wells and forcing EPA and local authorities
to provide residents with bottled water. The Arsenal was placed on the NPL in 1987, and in
1989, a CERCLA cleanup agreement was signed between EPA, the Army, and other
stakeholders. However, the state did not sign the agreement because of ongoing litigation with
the Army and Shell.
On June 13, 1995, EPA's Region VIE Administrator, the Lieutenant Governor of the State
of Colorado, the U.S. Army, the Shell Oil Company, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
signed a conceptual agreement for the cleanup of the Arsenal. Based on the agreement, the Army
estimates the cleanup will cost $2.1 billion and will be completed in about 2010. Prior to the
agreement, the Army estimated cleanup would cost $2.8 billion to $3.6 billion. Once the cleanup
is certified completed by EPA, the arsenal is to become a national wildlife refuge managed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
-- CERCLA
EPA and the Army agreed on the terms of a Federal Facility Agreement for the Army
Materials Technology Lab (AMTL) in Watertown, Massachusetts. AMTL is a BRAC 1, fast
track base, slated for closure in September 1995. The Army and EPA agreed on ways to
accelerate the schedule of the remedial process at this BRAC I base to reach a ROD date of
August 30,1996. The Army and EPA also agreed on new language in the FFA on the land
transfer issue that addressed EPA's concern regarding protecting the ongoing cleanup and
ensured the activities of subsequent transferees did not interfere with cleanup efforts. The FFA
was accompanied by a side letter from the Army reinforcing its commitment to ensure that the
substance of protective language worked out with EPA was actually included in the appropriate
land transfer documents. The AMTL site was placed on the NPL in May 1994. In anticipation
of NPL listing and because it was a BRAC site, EPA became actively involved in the fall of
1993.
IV-13
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Defense Distribution Depot Memphis,
Tennessee (DDMT) -- RCRA/CERCLA
A three party CERCLA Section 120 cleanup agreement addressing cleanup at the DDMT
NPL site was finalized during FY 1995. The three parties were EPA, the State of Tennessee, and
the Defense Logistics Agency. DDMT encompasses 642 acres, four miles from Memphis's
central business district in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial land use area of Shelby
County, Tennessee. This agreement, entered into under both RCRA and CERCLA authorities,
was significant in that it gave the state authority to assess a penalty, and if a dispute cannot be
resolved at the Regional level, the Regional Administrator may delegate resolution to the
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
As a result of contamination of ground water, surface water, and soils, F.E. Warren Air
Force Base was listed on the NPL in 1990. EPA, Wyoming, and the Air Force subsequently
signed a FFCA in 1991. In the fall of 1993, the Air Force violated the terms of the cleanup
agreement. EPA discovered these violations in December and notified the Air Force that it was
assessing stipulated penalties for failure to containerize and test sampling and field investigation-
derived wastes. The Air Force has agreed to undertake a supplement environmental project
implementing a recycling program for glass, newsprint, aluminum, plastics, and steel/tin cans and
to pay a cash penalty of $10,000.
IV-14
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
/ ^'o^a^'V-'AsX^ ftrfc*(~*~2'^"!*'*^fC£*^''*c£ '<;'* 'W*** ^^?^y('J'*v '*•'
^^?irf's^ A ,-i''™:'j',> " /.£.",'•*,»<*;!•'•';*•;•?'< it-it'1 V^' $?''•
>X«!--Vv "^%!;%-^
Federal Facility Inspections
Multi-Media Inspections by Agency
Category
Federal Facility Enforcement Actions
FFCA/RCRA EPA Orders and Penalties
^^^V>^,V^, X'^£,'v^':
^v^M&'4r\'j
Multiple data
bases
FFEO
Multiple data
bases
FFEO
^Ita'jfeiii;'
Various
Various
Various
—
f$?^: jC/^V^vv -\^ ,-?• -'5 ?'S \K, -,'^v S;;Sr ,
^l->*^!M^-^4'>*^J'-'^^"'*4^^-^*^'.''''^t:i^>-
Data drawn from sections of Section
HI of this document.
~
Data drawn from sections of Section
HI of this document.
Data drawn from FY 1995 and FY
1996 Enforcement Accomplishment
Reports
IV-15
State of Federal Facilities Report
-------
------- |