Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
EPA 300-R-94-007
November 1994
c/EPA
Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Initiative:
Interim National Report
-------
Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
Interim National Report
November 1994
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently completed its FY1993-1994 Federal
Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI). The FMECI was
designed to assess the compliance status of Federal facilities with environmental laws
using a multi-media approach. This Interim Report presents a preliminary analysis and
enforcement highlights from multi-media inspections conducted during FY 1993. A final
report highlighting both years of the initiative will be developed during the coming year.
FMECI FY 1993
HIGHLIGHTS
• The 41 FMECI inspections in FY 1993 represent a significant invest-
ment in the Federal facility sector by EPA and participating States.
• Approximately 76 percent of the inspected facilities received a total of
75 EPA or State enforcement actions.
• Slightly more than half of all inspected facilities violated multiple
statutes. Of the facilities receiving enforcement actions, 68 percent
violated more than one statute.
• EPA and States took a variety of enforcement actions appropriate to
the significance of or level of non-compliance they encountered at
facilities.
• Seven out of ten Regions proposed a total of more than $2.1 million in
penalties.
• EPA and States began to encourage facilities to adopt Pollution Pre-
vention strategies as first-choice measures to return to and maintain
compliance.
• EPA documented significant levels of and benefits from State involve-
ment in the FMECI.
• EPA's procedures and approach to conducting multi-media inspec-
tions can be effective, regardless of the size or operating agency of the
facilities involved.
E-l
-------
EPA established the FMECI as a priority for FY1993-1994 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. It
also provided EPA an opportunity to pilot multi-media compliance and enforcement ap-
proaches within one sector of the regulated community — Federal facilities. The goals of the
FMECI are to:
• Foster improved Federal agency compliance with and awareness of
environmental laws and regulations;
• Help reduce environmental risks posed by Federal facilities through a
multi-media inspection and enforcement approach;
• Achieve a more efficient use of enforcement authorities and resources;
and
• Expand the application of pollution prevention approaches to compli-
ance problems so that facilities can exceed baseline compliance.
With most follow-up activities associated with the FY 1993 FMECI multi-media inspections
having been completed, EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) conducted a
survey of all ten EPA Regions to assist in compiling this Interim Report.
This Interim Report highlights first year initiative activities across the nation and examines
five key areas of the FMECI:
• Compliance and enforcement results
• Pollution Prevention efforts
• Administration, protocol, and resource issues
• Regional/State coordination levels and
• Overall impacts of the multi-media approach.
The remainder of this executive summary presents the key findings of the survey with
respect to these five areas.
EPA Regions and participating States conducted 41 multi-media compliance inspections
during FY 1993. All Regions conducted at least two inspections, with nnp Region (IV)
conducting 12 multi-media inspections.
E-2
-------
a
2
MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS BY REGION
s a
REGION
Total = 41 Facilities Inspected
More than 80 percent (33 of 41) of the inspections were conducted at DOD facilities. The
remaining multi-media inspections consisted of two DOE installations and six Civilian
Federal Agency (CFA) facilities.
INSPECTED FACILITIES BY AGENCY
CFAs
14.6%
The CFA facilities included two USDA research facilities, a DOJ penitentiary, a Coast Guard
installation, and a NASA space flight center. Inspectors also conducted a multi-media audit
of the White House and Old Executive Office Building.
E-3
-------
NUMBER OF INSPECTED FACILITIES BY AGENCY
Number of Facilities
Together, EPA and States issued 75 enforcement actions at 76 percent (31 of 41) of the in-
spected facilities. These actions ranged from warning letters to formal administrative or-
ders with penalties. Inspectors noted violations of nine different environmental statutes.
The four most frequently violated statutes (RCRA, TSCA, CAA & CWA) accounted for more
than 80 percent of all violations.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN ACCORDING TO STATUTE
SPCC
EPCRA
UST 1% SDWA
4°/c
TSCA
1%
RCRA
CAA
CWA
The most common enforcement actions were NOVs and Administrative Orders. In keeping
with the intent of FMECI Implementation Guidance, two Regions (II and V) pursued multi-
media enforcement settlements that addressed violations of multiple statutes with a single
enforcement action.
E-4
-------
TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION PER STATUTE VIOLATED
Warning Letter
Notice of
Violation*
Notice of Non-
Compliance
Administrative
Order
Field Citation
FFCA**
TOTAL
RCRA
3
12
0
11
0
0
26
CWA
3
1
1
3
0
1
9
CAA
5
7
0
2
0
0
14
TSCA
0
4
6
1
0
1
12
F1FRA
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
SPCC
2
1
0
0
2
2
7
vsf-;
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
EPCRA
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
SDWA
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
15
27
8
18
3
4
75
* Region V issued a single NOV for violations of CAA, CWA, FIFRA and TSCA.
** Region II negotiated a FFCA covering TSCA and CWA violations.
Approximately 51 percent (21 of 41) of all inspected facilities violated more than one statute.
Of the facilities receiving enforcement actions, 68 percent (21 of 31) violated more than one
statute.
VIOLATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
Inspected Facilities
Violating Four or More
Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Violating Three
Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Violating Two Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Not Receiving
Enforcement Actions
Inspected Facilities
Violating One Statute
E-5
-------
EPA reported a significant level of State involvement throughout the FMECI process. States
participated in 88 percent (36 of 41) of FMECI inspections and took the lead in 34 percent (14
of 41). On average, inspection teams included 11 members and the average duration of
inspections was 4.8 days.
FMECI INSPECTION LEADS
EPA-Only
Inspections
EPA-Led
Inspections
State-Led
Inspections
EPA took the lead on 57 percent (43 of 75) of enforcement actions, with States taking the lead
on 36 percent (27 of 75). Shared enforcement leads accounted for 5 percent (4 of 75) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers led 1 percent (1 of 75) of enforcement actions.
STATE VS REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT LEADS
Army Corps of
Engineers
Joint Lead
Regional
Lead
State Lead
E-6
-------
Although EPA and participating States did not widely incorporate pollution prevention in
their enforcement actions during FY1993, most EPA Regions noted the importance of pollu-
tion prevention and its impact on Federal facility compliance. Inspectors identified and
discussed pollution prevention opportunities with managers during 50 percent of the in-
spections, and 30 percent of the facilities had pollution prevention programs in place.
Four EPA Regions reported pursuing Supplemental Environmental Projects as part of envi-
ronmental settlements, and two EPA Regions successfully included pollution prevention
remedies and conditions into settlements.
The results outlined in the FMECI Interim Report highlight EPA and State multi-media
inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1993 and related follow-up activities. Analysis to date
indicates that EPA and State utilization of multi-media approaches at Federal facilities can
be effective, regardless of the size or operating agency of the selected facilities. Effective
enforcement across statutory programs and prevention oriented compliance assistance can
be achieved via the multi-media approach.
E-7
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Executive Summary E-l
Acronyms and Other Definitions ii
Introduction 1
1. FMECI National Highlights 5
2. Regional Reports 31
Appendix A: Air Force Guide A-l
Appendix B: Sample Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile B-l
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS
Several measures relevant to the category of inspections conducted, statutes/regulations
checked, and enforcement actions taken appear throughout the Regional reports. The in-
spection categories, statutes/regulations, facility names, and enforcement actions are sum-
marized below and presented with the acronym for each.
ACRONYM
AFB
ANL
CAA
CC
CFA
CWA
DLA
DRMO
EA
EPA
EPCRA
(F)
FFCA
FFEO
FIFRA
FMECI
NAS
NEIC
NON
NOV
NPDES
OCE
OFFE
(P)
P2
RCRA
RREL
SDWA
SEA
SEP
SPCC
TSCA
USAKA
USDA
UST
DEFINITION
Air Force Base
Argonne National Laboratory
Clean Air Act
Civil Complaint
Civilian Federal Agency
Clean Water Act
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office
Enforcement Action
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act
Final Penalty
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (or Act in some cases)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (formerly OFFE)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Facility Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
Naval Air Station
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Notice of Non-Compliance
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Office of Federal Facility Enforcement
Proposed Penalty
Pollution Prevention
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Enforcement Agreements
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
Toxic Substance Control Act
United States Army Kwajalein Atoll
United States Department of Agriculture
Underground Storage Tank
u
-------
Definitions
The FMECI Survey asked Regions to report on the category of multi-media inspections
they performed, the size and type of facilities inspected, and the complexity of compliance
issues they encountered. The following are general definitions of terms relating to these
reporting requests.
Category A. B. C. and D are different types of environmental compliance inspections
conducted at the facilities. Category A is a single media inspection. Category B is a single
media inspection during which inspectors screen for other program areas. Category C is a
coordinated inspection of several program areas. Category D is a comprehensive facility
inspection that uses a team representing each of the various media programs at the same
time.
Facility size is classified as either small, medium, or large. A small facility has minimal
regulated units. A medium facility has multiple regulated units or activities of varying
levels of complexity, for example, Langley Air Force Base or Fort Gordon. A large facility
has numerous and/or complex regulated units or activities, as is the case with Aberdeen
Proving Ground or DOE Hanford.
Complexity levels of compliance issues range from low to high. A low level of complexity
indicates that compliance requirements are straightforward and fairly easily managed by
the facility, either because the technical nature of the operation entails few waste streams or
potential pollution discharge points or because control measures and administrative capa-
bilities are in place and adequate to meet those requirements. High complexity signifies
that facilities have extensive operations, affecting multiple media, and necessitating dedi-
cated effort in person-hours to monitor, manage, and communicate with facility personnel
regarding environmental compliance. Medium complexity indicates a middle condition,
for example where processes may be complex but the facility is organized to handle them,
or technical aspects are more straightforward but administrative issues prevail, such as
inconsistent environmental standards between EPA and a particular State.
Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) refers to a facility, other than a DOD or DOE facility, whose
operations entail technical and physical processes that present significant environmental
compliance issues.
in
-------
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Interim report presents Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 national results of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) Federal Facility Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI). EPA
established the FMECI as an Agency priority for FY 1993 and FY 1994 in recognition of the fact that
Federal facilities are highly visible and have a mandate and commitment to address environmental
problems in the Federal sector. Traditionally, however, Federal facilities have demonstrated lower
rates of compliance with environmental laws than have private sector facilities.
BACKGROUND
The FMECI is a national initiative designed to assess compliance of Federal facilities with environ-
mental laws using multi-media inspections and enforcement to address areas of non-compliance. The
initiative consists of a series of coordinated multi-media team inspections conducted by all ten EPA
Regional Offices, in concert with appropriate State officials, at highest risk Federal facilities through-
out the nation.
OBJECTIVES
In the past few years, EPA and Federal facilities have stepped up efforts to ensure that environmental
compliance is thorough, expedient, and just. Pursuant to those goals, and underscored by the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, the FMECI seeks to:
• Foster improved Federal agency compliance with environmental laws and regulations;
• Help reduce environmental risks posed by Federal facilities by increasing the use of
multi-media inspections;
• Achieve efficient use of enforcement authorities by consolidating efforts; and
• Expand the application of pollution prevention measures so that facilities can exceed
baseline compliance.
The next section explains EPA's approach to the design and implementation of the FMECI.
GUIDANCE/TARGETING CRITERIA
EPA Regions performed their field activities in accordance with the FY 1993-1994 FMECI Imple-
mentation Guidance Document prepared by the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (now named
and hereinafter referred to as the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office or FFEO). The guidance
specified that each Region conduct at least two multi-media inspections during FY 1993. The
guidance also provided a set of criteria for the Regions to use in targeting inspections of Federal
facilities. The criteria were designed to be adjusted by the Regions to account for Region-specific
factors. These criteria include:
-------
• Compliance record
• Regional Risk Ranking (including NEIC ranking or other identified impacts to human
health and the environment
• Other national, Regional, or State environmental priorities/initiatives
• Environmental equity and
• Opportunities for pollution prevention.
Regions select facilities for multi-media inspections from a list of candidates by applying the first
four criteria to identify the most significant Federal facilities. The Regions make their final selections
using P2 and waste minimization data to evaluate facilities.
Once the facilities are selected, inspectors from EPA and State media-specific environmental protec-
tion programs form the teams and conduct the inspections. The team concept is designed so that
facilities can:
• Comprehensively evaluate environmental management and compliance performance;
• Take advantage of combined expertise to identify pollutants that affect various envi-
ronmental media; and
• Identify pollution prevention opportunities.
In designing the FMECI, FFEO consulted with EPA Regions, EPA Headquarters Program Offices,
and State organizations. EPA issued inter-agency communication to other Federal agencies to launch
the initiative, which has produced tools and achieved effects consistent with FMECI goals. A U.S.
Air Force Air Combat Command, for example, developed a guide for installations on preparing for
multi-media inspections (See Appendix A).
POLLUTION PREVENTION
FFEO assisted each EPA Regional office and facilities potentially/actually targeted for inspection by
preparing Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles. As the name implies, the profiles identify
processes, measures, operation and maintenance functions, and technologies that facilities can ex-
plore to prevent the creation or release of pollutants during facility activities. FFEO compiles the
profiles, using a hybrid approach that combines facility mission and facility-specific environmental
data. Figure 1 presents a profile for a generic facility.
-------
FIGURE 1: POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES AT
THE XYZ FEDERAL INSTALLATION
WASTE DESCRIPTION
AND EPA WASTE CODE
Ignitable liquid used as cold
cleaning solvent (D001)
Organic solvent from
surface coating operations
EPA 33/50
PROGRAM
TARGET
(Y/H/I)
N
I
ANNUAL
WASTE
QUANTITY
(YEAR)
2 tons (1989)
from three
sources;
largest source
generates
1.25 tons
79 tons (1991)
from 14
separate
operations
ASSUMPTIONS
ON WASTE
ORIGIN OR
COMPOSITION
OF WASTE
Mineral spirits
used as
degreasing
agents in aircraft
repair activities
Losses from
volatile
emissions
POTENTIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES
> Eliminate all nonessential degreasing operations
• Eliminate any unnecessary dragout from degreasing baths
• Reduce the number of different solvents to enhance recycling
opportunities
• Segregate the solvents from other waste streams and investigate
recycling options on and of site
• Determine if spent solvents from one cleaning process can be reused in
another, less rigorous cleaning process
> Determine if solvents used in one or more degreasing processes can be
replaced with hot caustic or water
• Install high-efficiency paint transfer equipment
• Eliminate all non-essential surface coating operations
• Switch to less volatile coating products
• Replace oil-based paints
DATA
SOURCE
Mission
statement
and BRS
Mission
statement
__.-! AIQO
and A! Ho
FFEO analyzes each facility mission and identifies P2 opportunities generically associated with
mission-oriented processes. FFEO then extracts information on each specific facility, drawing from
several technical data bases. FFEO evaluates P2 measures considering both sets of information, and
provides the profiles to the Regional multi-media inspection teams. (See Appendix B for a detailed
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile.)
REGIONAL SURVEY
This report describes national results from a survey that FFEO administered to the ten EPA Regional
Offices in the second Quarter of FY 1994. The survey queried each Region regarding its experience
during the FY 1993 portion of the FMECI.
The survey examined key FMECI facets, including:
• Compliance/Enforcement: the number of multi-media enforcement inspections
conducted in FY 1993; type, number, and status of enforcement actions taken;
amount of proposed and final penalties associated with particular enforcement ac-
tions; and State enforcement leads;
• Pollution Prevention: the degree to which the inspected facilities used pollution
prevention measures or to which inspectors incorporated such measures into enforce-
ment actions;
Administration, Protocol, and Resources: the procedures, approach, and resources
involved in conducting the inspections;
-------
• Regional/State Coordination: the level and nature of interaction that occurred
between the Regions and States during all phases of the inspections, as well as the
Regions' perceived benefits and obstacles to increased State involvement; and
• Overall Impact of the Multi-Media Approach: outcomes or effects of a multi-
media effort across or within agencies or the inspected facilities.
In short, FFEO is assessing whether multi-media inspections and enforcement efforts serve facilities,
the Regions, and the States and hold promise for achieving FMECI environmental compliance goals.
REPORT OVERVIEW
The information assessed from the Regions is based on completion of 41 multi-media inspections
nationally in FY 1993. Each Region completed at least two inspections, as required in the FY 1993-
1994 FMECI Implementation Guidance. The survey included: Section I, which consists of a matrix
for collecting data on inspected facilities (e.g. name, size, violations noted, complexity of environ-
mental issues faced); Section II, which includes facility-specific supplementary information (e.g.
Inspection categories and the status of enforcement actions, and Section III, which includes regional
perspectives on resources, objectives and measurements of success, targeting of facilities, Regional/
State coordination, and communication.
This document is an interim report and, as such, presents a "snapshot" of Federal facility compliance
and experience with multi-media inspections. Due to the short time encompassed by the evaluation
(FY 1993), findings attained are not to be considered conclusive. As EPA continues the second year
of the FMECI, this interim national report will serve EPA program managers, EPA Federal facility
Coordinators, State agency personnel, and Federal facility personnel. By providing a snapshot of
compliance during the first year of the FMECI, the report offers a focal point for discussion whereby
the Regions can examine differences as well as similarities observed among them. In some cases,
this examination will lead to shared innovations and progress toward compliance goals. In other
cases, the Regions may point out weaknesses in the FMECI Survey instrument or its interpretation,
which may have resulted in misrepresentation of Regional circumstances. In that case, the report will
promote clearer communication across EPA and with other agencies enabling each to clarify Federal
facility environmental goals and FMECI goals.
In FY 1995. EPA will prepare a final FY 1993-1994 report of the results of the FMECI. This report
will describe lessons learned from the initiative, barriers to improving environmental compliance at
Federal facilities, and potential next steps to address those barriers.
This report consists of three major parts. Part One contains national highlights for the FMECI in FY
1993. Part Two presents Region-specific summaries and Part Three contains appendices.
-------
Part One: FMECI FY 1993 National Highlights
-------
-------
FMECI FY 1993 National Highlights
EPA Regional Offices
C*0 Multi-media Inspections conducted
EPA conducted 41 multi-media compliance inspections during FY 1993, the first year of the Federal
Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative. This represents at least two inspections in
each Region and as many as 12 in Region IV.
All Regions performed at least two multi-media inspections.
The next section summarizes the results of compliance and enforcement efforts nationally.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
The Department of Defense (DOD) operates 33 of 41, or more than 80 percent, of the facilities exam-
ined in FY 1993 of the FMECI. The inspected DOD facilities include 14 Air Force, 10 Navy, and
nine Army installations. The remaining eight inspected facilities include two DOE laboratories and
six Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) facilities (two USDA research facilities, a DOJ penitentiary, a
NASA space flight center, and a DOT Coast Guard installation). In addition, as requested by Presi-
dent Clinton in his Earth Day 1993 address, inspectors conducted a multi-media audit of the White
House and Old Executive Office Building (referred to herein as the White House Complex.) Exhibits
1-1 and 1-2 present, respectively, the percentage and number of inspected DOD, DOE, and CFA
facilities by agency.
-------
Slightly more than ten percent of the inspected facilities are government-owned, contractor-operated
(GOCO). Three GOCOs are DOD facilities and the remaining two are DOE facilities.
EXHIBIT 1-1: INSPECTED FACILITIES BY AGENCY
DOE
4.9%
CFAs
Air Force
DOD
The vast majority of inspections occurred at DOD facilities.
EXHIBIT 1-2: NUMBER OF INSPECTED FACILITIES BY AGENCY
14
NASA
DOI
Number of Facilities
Inspected CFA facilities were drawn from a variety of Agencies.
-------
EPA classified most inspected facilities as either large (39 percent) or medium-sized (59 percent), with the
remainder (2 percent) classified as small. Exhibit 1-3 presents inspected facilities according to size.
EXHIBIT 1-3: INSPECTED FACILITIES ACCORDING TO SIZE
Small
2.0%
Large
Medium
Most inspected facilities were classified as medium-sized.
Inspected DOD facilities are more likely to be large than inspected CFA facilities. In addition, some
correlation appears between facility size and operating agency (see Exhibit 1-4 below). For ex-
ample, of the facilities inspected during the FMECI, Navy installations are far more likely to be of
medium size than are Army or Air Force facilities. All DOE inspected facilities are classified as large.
EXHIBIT 1-4: FACILITY SIZE AND OPERATING AGENCY
10-,
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
FACILITY SIZE
0 CFA
H NAVY
0 ARMY
DOE
Navy facilities tended to be medium-sized; DOE facilities were categorized as large.
-------
The intensity or level of resources devoted to the inspections varied across facilities. The Regions
conducted slightly more Category D, than Category C inspections. As portrayed in Exhibit 1-5,
within each of the medium and large facility size classifications, the Regions conducted the same
number of Category C and Category D inspections. The category of inspection a facility receives
may be influenced by the Region's approach to inspections. For example, in five Regions, all FMECI
inspections were of the same category, regardless of the size of the facility.
EXHIBIT 1-5: FACILITY SIZE AND CATEGORY OF INSPECTION
0
Category C
Category D
Small
Medium
Large
EPA conducted almost the same number of category C and D inspections.
States participated in 88 percent (36 of 41) of inspections and assumed a lead role on 34 percent (14
of 41). Exhibit 1-6 presents a breakdown of multi-media inspection leads.
10
-------
EXHIBIT 1-6: FMECI INSPECTION LEADS
EPA-Led
Inspections
EPA-Only
Inspections
State-Led
Inspections
States played an active role in multi-media inspections.
Inspection teams identified 75 violations warranting enforcement action during the FY 1993 FMECI.
The enforcement actions consisted of:
• Warning letters
• Notices of Violation (NOV)
• Notices of Non-compliance (NON)
• Field Citations
• Administrative Orders and
• Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCA).
Of these enforcement actions, 26 addressed RCRA violations. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-7 below,
the four most frequently violated statutes warranting enforcement action (RCRA, TSCA, CAA, and
CWA) accounted for more than 80 percent of all such violations.
11
-------
EXHIBIT 1-7: ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN ACCORDING TO STATUTE
EPCRA
1% SDWA
4% / 1%
SPCC
FIFRA
3%
TSCA
RCRA
CAA
CWA
A total of 75 enforcement actions were taken under nine different statutes.
Exhibit 1-8 provides additional detail on the specific types of enforcement actions taken to address
violations of environmental statutes.
EXHIBIT 1-8: TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY STATUTE VIOLATED
RCRA
CWA
CAA
TSCA
FIFRA
SPCC
UST
EPCRA
SDWA
TOTAL
Warning Letter
15
Notice of
Violation*
12
Notice of Non-
compliance
Administrative
Order
11
18
Field Citation
FFCA"
TOTAL
26
14
12
75
* Region V issued a single NOV for violations of CAA, CWA, FIFRA and TSCA.
** Region II negotiated a FFCA covering TSCA and CWA violations.
12
-------
Exhibit 1-9 depicts the relationship between facility size and the statute violated. The relative
proportion of statutes violated appears to be the same whether the facilities are medium or large.
EXHIBIT 1-9: FREQUENCY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ACCORDING TO FACILITY SIZE
3% 3%
SDWA
QirjEPCRA
• SPCC
jfftfi FIFRA
EZTSCA
I IRCRA
CAA
Large Facilities
Medium Facilities
Statutes violated did not vary substantially according to facility size.
Exhibit 1-10 compares the number of facilities at which enforcement actions were taken to the total
number of inspected facilities. Of the facilities inspected, 24 percent (10 of 41) were not subjected to
any enforcement actions.
EXHIBIT 1-10: PERCENT OF INSPECTED FACILITIES RECEIVING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Inspected Facilities
Violating Three
Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Violating Four or More
Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Violating Two Statutes
Inspected Facilities
Not Receiving
Enforcement Actions
Inspected Facilities
Violating One Statute
Approximately one-half of all inspected facilities violated multiple statutes.
13
-------
In all, EPA and States issued enforcement actions at approximately 76 percent (31 of 41) of
the facilities they inspected. Region n issued the most actions, handing down 21 among five
facilities. Exhibit 1-11 demonstrates how inspections and enforcement actions were distrib-
uted across the Regions.
REGION
Total
EXHIBIT 1-11: NATIONAL SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INSPECTIONS
ENFORCEMENT
AVERAGE ACTIONS
PER INSPECTION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
6
5
4
12
2
3
2
3
2
2
10
21
10
14
5
4
3
2
1
5
1.7
4.2
2.5
1.2
2.5
1.3
1.5
0.7
0.5
2.5
41
75
1.8
On average, mult-media inspections resulted in 1.8 enforcement actions.
Exhibit 1-12 below presents the average number of statutes violated at facilities receiving enforce-
ment actions and the average number of enforcement actions taken to address those violations.
EXHIBIT 1-12: STATUTES VIOLATED & ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PER FACILITY
ALL FACILITIES
WITH VIOLATIONS
FACILITIES WITH
MULTIPLE
VIOLATIONS
Average
Number of
Enforcement
Actions Facility
Average
Number of
Statutes
Violated/Facility
Average
Number of
Enforcement
Actions/Facility
Average
Number of
Statutes
Violated/Facility
Most facilities with violations were subject to enforcement actions under multiple statutes.
14
-------
Exhibit 1-13 depicts the number and type of enforcement actions taken, and proposed or final penal-
ties associated with Administrative Orders that EPA issued.
EXHIBIT 1-13: NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PENALTIES
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Notice of Non-compliance
Administrative Order
FFCA
Field Citation
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
15
27
8
18
4
3
75
PROPOSED
PENALTIES
None
None
None
Region I $101,062
Region II $64,150
Region III
Regional $115,000
State $25,000
$5,000
$10,000
Region IV $285,000
Region V $250,000
Region IX $10,800
Region X $1.3 million
None
None
$2,166,012
PENALTIES
COLLECTED
TO DATE
None
None
None
Region I $57,223
Region II Under Review
Region III
Regional $92,500*
State $25,000
$5,000
Under Review
Region IV $75,000*
Region V Under Review
Region IX $10,800
Region X Under Review
None
None
$235,523**
* Final Penalty includes negotiated SEP
**Total penalties as of September 30, 1994; others remain under review.
Seven often Regions issued penalties as a result of multi-media inspections.
In addition to participating on the inspection teams, States actively enforced requirements under the
FMECI. Of the 75 enforcement actions taken, States led 27. Exhibits 1-14 and 1-15 show how these
State actions were distributed among the various types of actions.
15
-------
EXHIBIT 1-14: STATE VS REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT LEADS
Army Corps of
Engineers
Joint Lead. 1%
Regional
Lead
State Lead
Regions led more than half of all enforcement actions; States led 36 percent.
EXHIBIT 1-15: NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WITH STATE LEADS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION (EA)
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Notice Of Non-compliance
Administrative Order
Field Citation
FFCA
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
STATE
LEAD
6
10
1
9
1
NA
27
REGIONAL
LEAD
9
16
7
5
2
4
43
JOINT
LEAD
0
1
0
3
0
0
4
OTHER (Army
Corps of
Engineers)
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
For those Regions reporting, the average time elapsed from inspection to report completion was just
over five months. The average time required to initiate an enforcement action following a multi-
media inspection ranged from less than two weeks to nearly fourteen months. In general, enforce-
ment actions that are initiated and issued simultaneously (e.g.. NOVs. warning letters) took less time
to issue than did actions that involve a period of negotiation or comment between their initiation and
issuance (e.g., Administrative Orders, FFCAs).
16
-------
Exhibit 1 -16 below presents the average time required to issue various enforcement actions at
Federal facilities following a multi-media inspection. FFCAs took an average of nearly 14 months
while, on average, Administrative Orders took almost 7 months. NOVs were also fairly time consum-
ing, taking an average of almost 9 months from the inspection to issuance. During FY 1993 of the
FMECI, two FFCAs and one Administrative Order were not issued within one year. The next longest
period was slightly more than 7 months. Among other enforcement actions, the vast majority (71
percent) took less than 5 months to issue. As one might expect, warning letters and field citations
were the most expedient of all enforcement actions.
Several Regions observed that the time required to prepare the multi-media inspection reports may
have delayed the issuance of enforcement actions. As shown in Exhibit 1-16, the average inspection
report preparation time was nearly five and one-half months.
EXHIBIT 1-16: AVERAGE TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Administrative
Order
FFCA
Field
Citation
Warning
Letter
NON
NOV
Average Report
Preparation Time
6 8
Months
10
12
14
The timeliness of some enforcement actions may have been
affected by inspection report preparation.
Cross-media enforcement involves issuing actions under one statute to address environmental viola-
tions or problems ostensibly covered by another statute. For example, if hazardous waste manage-
ment practices at a facility result in CWA violations, and if in this particular situation, CWA enforce-
ment authorities are more limited than those available under RCRA, a Region might choose to issue a
RCRA action rather than a CWA action to address the problem.
17
-------
The Regions were equally divided with respect to their experience with cross-media enforcement
opportunities. Four Regions indicated that they had explored such opportunities at inspected facilities
and four stated that they did not. Where Regions responded affirmatively, they noted that their initia-
tive consisted of encouraging cross-media coordination or promoting awareness rather than issuing
enforcement actions. Regions cited the following reasons for the lack of substantial cross-media
enforcement coordination:
• The discovered violations were straightforward, single-program violations;
• Parties who were encouraged to take multi-media enforcement actions saw no benefit
that would off-set the extra time required to coordinate such an effort; and
• Pursuing cross media coordination was difficult because of varying authorities and the
lack of substantial violations.
Regional evaluations of the effect of the FMECI on multi-media inspections were more consistent.
Eight of the nine Regions responding noted that the FMECI increased the number of such inspections.
Less clear was the FMECI's effect on the number of Administrative Settlements. Only two Regions
saw an increase in such settlements; seven either did not include information or reported no change
as a result of the FMECI.
With respect to the FMECI effect on Federal Facility compliance:
• Seven Regions observed a positive impact, or at least an enhanced awareness of com-
pliance, at inspected facilities;
• Some Regions noted a positive impact on the entire Federal facility regulated commu-
nity; and.
• Three Regions noted that the attention and time accorded by facility environmental
managers and command staff to multi-media inspections reflected an enhanced aware-
ness of environmental compliance.
One Region referred to significant newspaper coverage of the inspections as a key factor in increased
awareness. This Region, however, was among only three to have reported issuance of a press
release(s) related to the FMECI.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Regions reported the beginning of efforts to help Federal facilities identify and implement pollu-
tion prevention activities pursuant to Executive Order 12856. The Regions did not widely use pollu-
tion prevention as an enforcement tool during FY 1993, but most noted the importance of pollution
prevention and the expectation that pollution prevention would become prominent in future.
18
-------
As noted in Exhibit 1-17 below, four Regions have begun to pursue Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs). In addition, two Regions have included pollution prevention remedies and condi-
tions in settlements. Several Regions did not provide specific information to explain which of the
inspected facilities incorporated pollution prevention remedies or information regarding SEPs.
EXHIBIT 1-17: REGIONS PURSUING SEPS
Regions Not
Pursuing SEPs
Regions
Pursuing SEPs
Regions need to be more proactive in incorporating pollution prevention activities
and/or SEPs into enforcement efforts.
Two Regions reported incorporating pollution prevention measures informally as part of the settle-
ments or enforcement actions. One Region, for example, did not include pollution prevention condi-
tions in the FMECI settlement, but following the multi-media inspection, the Region's hazardous
waste compliance and sampling programs jointly conducted a pollution prevention opportunity
assessment of the facility. Similarly, another Region encouraged and initiated pollution prevention
activities at facilities, independent of the FMECI.
As shown in Exhibit 1-18 below, inspection reports from eight Regions revealed that inspectors
identified pollution prevention opportunities, or at least discussed pollution prevention with manag-
ers, at slightly more than half (21 out of 41) of the inspected facilities. Three Regions did not identify
pollution prevention opportunities at the facilities during inspections.
EXHIBIT 1-18: IDENTIFICATION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
Pollution
Prevention Not
Identified or
Discussed ^ ^^^^^^_
Pollution
Prevention
Identified or
Discussed
Inspectors identified or discussed pollution prevention opportunities at half of the facilities.
19
-------
Regions reported that approximately 30 percent of the inspected facilities have effective pollution
prevention programs already in place. Inspectors in five Regions found that 29 percent (12 of 41) of
facilities have pollution prevention or waste minimization programs in place (See Exhibit 1-19). This
statistic includes an informal program and a currently developing program.
EXHIBIT 1-19: POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS
Facilities without
Pollution
Prevention
Programs in Place
Facilities with
Pollution
Prevention
Programs in Place
Approximately one-third of inspected facilities have pollution prevention programs in place.
Six Regions responding projected reductions in pollutant emissions and discharges based upon Re-
gions' efforts in waste minimization, pollution prevention, and negotiations of SEPs as part of the
Initiative.
Six Regions provided pollution prevention resources to the facilities at the time of the multi-media
inspections. This included Regions that provided each facility with a Pollution Prevention Opportu-
nity Profile prepared by the EPA Federal Facility Enforcement Office, at the time of the inspection.
One Region provided six of its 12 inspected facilities with resources in addition to the Profile, such as
the Facility Pollution Prevention Guide, 1992 Pollution Prevention Resources and Training Opportu-
nities Handbook, and 1993 Reference Guide to Pollution Prevention Resources.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Recognizing that the FMECI entails administrative, procedural, and resource demands for Regions
and States, the FFEO survey asked Regions about their experiences in selecting facilities, composing
and organizing teams, actually conducting the inspections, and concluding enforcement actions.
When selecting facilities for inspection, Regions considered the five suggested FMECI criteria,
namely:
• Compliance history
• Regional risk ranking
20
-------
Other regional priorities and initiatives
Opportunities for pollution prevention, and
Environmental equity.
At the time FFEO issued the FMECI Implementation Guidance, environmental equity was a recent
Agency initiative. Consequently, not all Regions were able to incorporate environmental equity in
their FY 1993 selection process. The Supplemental Guidance for FY 1994 adds emphasis to environ-
mental equity considerations.
The relative weights Regions assigned to these factors in selecting facilities are noted in Exhibit 1-20
below:
EXHIBIT 1-20: TARGETING CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE
Compliance
History
Regional Risk
Ranking
Other Priorities/
Initiatives
Opportunity for
Pollution
Prevention
Environmental
Equity
Very Important
Moderately Important
Slightly Important
Most Regions considered compliance history to be the most important targeting criterion.
One Region noted that it did not consider pollution prevention opportunities as a determining crite-
rion because it was unclear how this could be measured.
Six of the nine Regions responding also noted that the five targeting criteria set forth in the Imple-
mentation Guidance did not result in the exclusion of Civilian Federal Agencies (CFA) from multi-
media inspections and one Region reported having intentionally targeted CFAs. Regions reported
that typically, however, CFAs did not score high enough for inclusion. Regions also applied other
criteria when selecting inspection sites. Three Regions, for example, noted the consideration of State
priorities as a key targeting criterion, and one Region mentioned the concerns and interests of the
individual programs and pending closure of bases. Another Region also included costs to EPA of
conducting the multi-media inspections among its targeting criteria.
21
-------
Regional experience with organizing and conducting the inspections revealed several factors. With
respect to assistance in conducting the initiative, the nine Regions responding to the survey cited a
total of eight cases in which they sought assistance from the National Enforcement Investigation
Center (NEIC), FFEO, or the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (REEL), or in which they
referred cases to the Office of Criminal Enforcement. Noting other sources of assistance, the Re-
gions mentioned the participation of the Environmental Services Division Laboratories, either on
inspections or in analyzing samples taken during inspections.
The Regions perceived, overall, that the facilities involved in multi-media inspections were profes-
sional, cooperative, and positive in responding to the FMECI. Five Regions especially noted the
cooperation they had received from facilities. This included cases in which facilities initially re-
sponded with shock to the arrival of inspections teams.
Exhibit 1-21 below illustrates a comparison of Regional experience with respect to team sizes,
inspection durations, advance notifications, conduct of briefings, and whether Regions provided
facilities with FMECI overview information.
EXHIBIT 1-21: CONDUCT OF INSPECTIONS
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIM
IX
X
National Avg.
AVG. SIZE OF
INSPECTION
TEAM
11
10
19
No data available
No data available
7
10
One Team: 1 7
8
9
11
AVG.
DURATION
2 Days
4.2 Days
7.75 Days
2.1 Days
Multi-day
7 Days
2 Days
3.5
7.5
7
4.8
NOTICE
No
No data
available
Yes
No
No
No data
available
Yes
Yes
No
No
BRIEFINGS HELD
In-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In-briefing at one of four
out-briefing at
half of facilities
No data available
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
!n- and out-briefing
FMECI
BROCHURE
PROVIDED
Yes
Yes
Yes
No data
available
No data
available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
22
-------
Most Regions experienced some impact on resource allocation associated with the FMECI. Three
Regions referred to limited travel funds, a factor to which two of the Regions adapted by inspecting
sites nearby. One Region noted a need to shift resources, for example, from private inspections to
federal facility inspections, and another reported that the use of Regional staff for inspections, instead
of NEIC, prompted complaints that the FMECI was "stealing" from non-Federal cases. In contrast,
two Regions successfully set aside funds during the budget planning process to cover the FMECI.
Exhibit 1 -22 summarizes the Regions' findings with respect to resources and timing. Five Regions
reported that they were able to issue enforcement actions within one year. Five stated the opposite.
EXHIBIT 1-22: RESOURCE ALLOCATION/ FINALIZING IN 1-YEAR
REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
IMPACT ON RESOURCES
Some; travel $ limited
Shift from private to Federal sites
Drained those for other Regional/
State inspections
No, because of Regional planning
No data available
Insignificant because of Regional planned
set-aside at start of FY
Drained those for other Regional/State
enforcement priorities
Significantly; drained those for other
Regional/State enforcement priorities;
travel $ limited
Region planned around limited travel
$ by facility choices
Yes; concern raised by single-media program
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ISSUANCE WITHIN 1-YEAR
TIME FRAME
No
Yes for 12 of 19
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Five Regions responding indicated that they were able to issue enforcement
actions within one year.
23
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The levels of interaction shown by the Regions and States throughout FMECI, particularly during
inspections and enforcement actions, demonstrates that Regional/State coordination is significant.
As illustrated in Exhibit 1-23 below, Regions reported interaction levels between Regional and State
offices as more intensive during the inspection and enforcement phases of the FMECI than during the
targeting phase.
EXHIBIT 1-23: LEVEL OF STATE INTERACTION
Targeting
Inspection
Enforcement
10
Regions noted a fairly high level of involvement by States in FMECI activities, but also noted that
more inclusion of States could exist in all phases.
Three Regions reported that no interaction occurred during the targeting of facilities; three reported a
moderate level of interaction; and two reported a significant level. In contrast, one Region noted that
interaction occurred on a moderate-to-significant level during targeting and inspection of facilities.
Five Regions reported significant coordination levels between EPA and States during the inspection
stage, and three Regions described interaction during that stage as moderate. During enforcement,
six Regions noted significant levels of interaction, two reported moderate levels of coordination, and
one Region indicated that the level of interaction was not applicable.
The Regions showed no indication of the States being uncooperative with EPA Regional Offices.
While Regions led inspections in more than half the cases, and led approximately 60 percent of the
enforcement actions, State representatives participated on inspection teams in 88 percent, or 36 of
41, of the FY 1993 inspections. This participation included all inspection teams in seven Regions,
and at least some in the remaining three Regions.
24
-------
States led enforcement efforts in 36 percent, or 27 out of 75 enforcement actions. State actions most
frequently consisted of Warning Letters, NOVs, and Administrative Orders. Regions and the States
exercised joint lead in four enforcement actions, an NOV in one Region and three RCRA §3008(a)
orders in another. Three Regions reported that State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs) enhanced
States' ability to participate in FMECI. The remaining Regions either did not report, or stated that
SEAs did not affect State participation. One Region described SEAs as providing a framework for
joint inspections which facilitated coordination between Regional and State program staff. Another
Region stated that SEAs are beginning to include the multi-media enforcement concept. In contrast,
another Region stated that it has not used SEAs for many years.
Nine Regions reported benefits to State and Regional involvement, citing most frequently: enhanced
communication, training opportunities; mutual understanding; cooperation; and sharing of data and
technical assistance. The Regions reported other benefits including: thorough inspections; State
familiarity with facilities as assisting Regions with inspections; joint assessment of compliance
problems; improvement of State relationships; and opportunities for joint partnerships.
The Regions also reported several obstacles to Regional and State coordination. Two Regions named
scheduling as a primary obstacle. Other obstacles included political problems; difficulty in identify-
ing appropriate participants; the need to meet security and access requirements; extra time required
for State enforcement decisions; difficulty in agreeing to "lead" responsibilities for delegated pro-
grams; and different inspection protocols (e.g., announced vs. unannounced inspections).
Seven of the Regions responding indicated that the FMECI had no negative ramifications for Region/
State relations. Of the two Regions that perceived problems, one cited different enforcement philoso-
phies within EPA and the States. As an illustration, this Region referred to one agency issuing a
penalty to a facility and the other a mild enforcement action for a comparable violation at another
facility. Another Region noted that States do not perceive added value from multi-media inspections.
According to this Region, the States would rather refer inspections to other program offices. The
Region also stated that multi-media considerations delay enforcement actions. Exhibit 1-24 summa-
rizes these benefits and barriers.
25
-------
EXHIBIT 1-24: BENEFITS AND BARRIERS TO REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Benefits
Communication and Improved Relationships
Training and Partnership Opportunities
Mutual Understanding and Cooperation
Joint Assessment of Compliance Problems
Thorough Inspections
Barriers
Scheduling
Political Problems
Identifying Appropriate Participants
Security and Access Requirements
Time Required for State Decision-making
Reaching Agreement on Lead Responsibilities
Different Inspection Protocols
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI- MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Six of nine Regions responding stated that the FMECI resulted in increased interest in using multi-
media inspections, although one Region commented that it could only allocate the necessary re-
sources for a small number of inspections. The Regions viewed the inspections as an effective en-
forcement tool, which expands the knowledge of inspectors.
Specifically, the Regions noted benefits and barriers to using a multi-media, as opposed to a single
media inspection approach. Principal benefits were:
• Multi-media inspections provide a comprehensive review of a facility's environmental compli-
ance status;
• The multi-media approach strengthens EPA-State relationships; and
° Multi-media inspections focus the attention of top-level managers on environmental compli-
ance.
The Regions also perceived barriers to using multi-media inspections. These include:
• T .imitp.H travel fnnrls and
• Time and logistical/procedural coordination required to involve all the team players.
26
-------
Exhibit 1- 25 shows a breakdown of these perspectives.
EXHIBIT 1-25: BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Encourages upper-level management to focus on environmental compliance matters
Provides comprehensive compliance examination of facility
Allows determination of strengths and weaknesses of environmental programs
Allows identification of technical needs of facility
Provides the Region and States an opportunity to exchanges information
Barriers
Travel funds are limited
Initiatives are time-consuming and require extensive resource, logistical, and decision-making
coordination
The Regions perceived facilities involved in multi-media inspections, overall, to be professional,
cooperative, and positive in responding to the FMECI. Five Regions especially noted the cooperation
they received from facilities. This included cases in which facilities responded initially with shock to
the arrival of the inspection teams.
Regions also noted that facility environmental staff often welcomed the inspections because the
attention inspections brought to environmental management reinforced the importance of their efforts.
Three Regions mentioned the effectiveness of the FMECI in involving upper management staff at
facilities and one Region noted the responsiveness of base commanders, stating that frequently com-
manders will send follow-up letters outlining the corrections made as a result of inspections.
Upon considering the FMECI overall in its first year and factors relevant to successes with the initia-
tive, Regions reported a mixture of perspectives. Significant success factors varied among the Re-
gions from the notable support of a high level administrator to the effectiveness of carefully delivered
in-briefings and out-briefings at facilities. In addition, one Region noted that the timing of the FMECI
fits well with DOD trends toward providing more resources to compliance and to involving senior
commanders in the compliance process. At all inspections, this Region emphasized to facilities the
importance of persisting with competent self-assessments. In that context the Region noted one
commander's decision to develop a single-tracking system for all compliance problems, regardless of
the authority or source of identification of those problems.
Regions also described concerns that surfaced when focusing on the FMECI. These concerns ranged
from possible difficulty with sustaining multi-media inspections once the FMECI concludes, to a
possible relationship between compliance inspections and criminal investigations, and concern on the
part of facility personnel about criminal liability.
Finally, two Regions articulated the concern that the FMECI should not measure success based on a
tally of violations and enforcement actions; the Regions stated that the lack of violations is an indica-
tor of success.
27
-------
One Region identified measures to enhance the effectiveness of the FMECI, such as issuance of
national press releases to place Federal Facility compliance and enforcement in a national context. In
addition, the Region recommended linking the A-106 system to the FMECI and eventually sharing
data bases with other agencies to present Federal agencies with a coherent picture of EPA's Federal
Facilities program.
SUMMARY
EPA experience in the first year of the FMECI indicates preliminary findings that merit attention as
EPA and facilities complete FY 1994 and evaluate the potential for multi-media inspections. The
initiative's first year demonstrates the following.
FMECI FY 1993
• The 41 FMECI inspections in FY 1993 represent a significant investment in the
Federal Facility sector by EPA Regions and participating States.
• Approximately 76 percent of the inspected facilities received a total of 75 EPA or
State enforcement actions.
• Slightly more than half of all inspected facilities violated multiple statutes. Of
the facilities receiving enforcement actions, 68 percent violated more than one
statute.
• EPA and States took a variety of enforcement actions appropriate to the signifi-
cance of or level of non-compliance they encountered at facilities.
• Seven out of ten Regions proposed a total of more than $2.1 million in penalties.
• EPA and States began to encourage facilities to adopt Pollution Prevention
strategies as first choice measures to return to and maintain compliance.
• EPA documented significant levels of and benefits from State involvement in the
FMECI.
• EPA's procedures and approach to conducting multi-media inspections can be
effective, regardless of the size or operating agency of the facilities involved.
28
-------
The first year of the FMECI suggests promising possibilities. Additional experience by Regions and
States in cooperating on multi-media inspections may, for example, lessen resource constraints on
such efforts for each, while it promotes team-building and achieves local input to environmental
compliance efforts.
Part Two, to follow, presents Regional Reports on the FMECI.
29
-------
30
-------
Part Two: Regional Reports
31
-------
32
-------
Region I
EPA Region I, with Headquarters in Boston, MA,
consists of six States in the Northeast: Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. Region I has been conducting
Federal facility multi-media inspections since 1990.
During the first year of the FMECI, it conducted six
multi-media inspections at the following facilities:
South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA; U.S.
Coast Guard Academy, CT; Naval Submarine Base
New London, CT; Brunswick Naval Air Station,
ME; Naval Construction Battalion Center, RI; and
Westover Air Force Base, MA. All multi-media
inspections conducted in Region I were Category D
inspections. All inspected facilities were medium-
sized, and complexity levels for compliance issues
at the facilities varied from low to high.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region I used a variety of enforcement tools, initiating 10 enforcement actions. As seen in Table 1, Region I
issued NOVs, NONs, warning letters, and RCRA §3008(a) Administrative Orders.
The Region recently assessed a final penalty of $57,223 at the Naval Construction Battalion Center for
RCRA violations pertaining to hazardous waste identification, land disposal restriction notifications, and
personnel training. Region I cited RCRA violations at all inspected facilities, but also subjected facilities to
enforcement actions under TSCA and CWA (see Table 2).
The Region led FMECI inspections and shared enforcement leads with the States. For example, the Region
took the enforcement lead for the TSCA violation at Brunswick Naval Air Station and the RCRA violation at
the Naval Construction Battalion Center. Respective States led enforcement actions related to the CWA
violation at South Weymouth Naval Air Station, Massachusetts; the CAA violation at the Naval Submarine
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Non-Compliance
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
1
3
4
2
10
33
-------
Base New London, Connecticut; and for the RCRA violation at Brunswick Naval Air Station, Maine. The
Region referred RCRA enforcement actions against the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut; the Naval
Submarine Base New London, Connecticut; and Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts, to the States. The
Region and Massachusetts shared the lead for the RCRA action at South Weymouth Naval Air Station. As
seen in Table 3, the States exercised the enforcement lead for six actions.
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
South Weymouth
Naval Air Station, MA
U.S. Coast Guard
Academy, CT
New London Naval
Submarine Base, CT
Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Rl
Westover Air Force
Base, MA
Brunswick Naval Air
Station, ME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
NON
NOV
NOV
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
NOV
NON
NOV
NON
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
CWA
RCRA
RCRA
CAA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
TSCA
RCRA
TSCA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
None
None
$101,062(P)
and $57,223 (F)
None
None
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Notice of Non-Compliance
Administrative Order
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
a
1
1
6
The Region has not yet explored cross-media enforcement opportunities but has noted an enhanced environ-
mental compliance, and a major increase in the awareness of compliance at facilities receiving multi-media
inspections under the FMECI.
34
-------
Region I stated that the FMECI resulted in additional multi-media settlements, but did not indicate if the
FMECI influenced the number of administrative settlements.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region reported that no pollution prevention remedies were incorporated into settlements. The Region
indicated that the potential to include a SEP in the settlement with the Naval Construction Battalion Center had
been explored, but the facility rejected that option. Region I has been diligent in identifying possible correc-
tive measures to be taken at facilities, such as additional training, posting of signs, installation of filters, and
establishment of containment or collection systems. The Region noted such measures in the "Areas of Envi-
ronmental Concern" discussion in the individual inspection reports.
Region I reported that inspectors provided all facilities with Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles at the
time of each inspection.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When selecting facilities for inspection, the Region places great importance an environmental equity, compli-
ance history and the Regional risk ranking. The Region commented that it is unsure how to measure the
"opportunities for pollution prevention," thus the Region does not currently include this factor in the selection
process. The Region's emphasis on the above targeting criteria did not result in excluding Civilian Federal
Agency facilities from the Region's list of facilities to be inspected.
The Region obtained the assistance of OFFE, NEIC, and RREL. The Region also notified the Regional Office
of Criminal Enforcement (OCE) of all multi-media Federal facility inspections and participated in the follow-
up criminal investigation of the Naval Submarine Base in New London, CT. Typically, Region I's Lexington
Environmental Services Division sends a representative to inspections to assist with sampling and with in-
specting conditions related to media programs not otherwise represented.
Because only six Federal facility inspections occurred during the year, the FMECI had no impact on the
availability of staff for enforcement efforts. Region I noted that during FY 1993, its travel budget was limited;
consequently Region I targeted facilities for inspection in FY 1994 that are nearest the Regional office. In FY
1993, an average of 11 people participated in Region 1 multi-media inspections, including State inspectors.
Each inspection took two days, and the elapsed time between the inspection and completion of the inspection
report averaged 4.7 months.
Region I suggested accelerating the development of the inspection report, shortening negotiations, and obtain-
ing a quicker response from the facility to requests for information so that enforcement cases could be final-
ized within the one-year FMECI time frame. None of Region I's enforcement efforts were issued during the
one-year time frame.
The Federal Facilities Program Manager contacted the facility the afternoon before each of the inspections.
The Region noted that facilities were cooperative and forthcoming with information an held an in-briefing or
opening conference on the first morning of each inspection and an exit briefing with the Base Commander and
his or her staff.
35
-------
REGIONAUSTATE COORDINATION
In general, a high level of interaction took place between Region I and the States during the targeting, inspec-
tion, and enforcement stages of the FMECI. In addition, all six of the inspections of facilities included State
representatives on the inspection teams.
Region I does not consider the FMECI to have had a negative impact on EPA/State coordination, in part
because enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) presented an effective tool for encouraging
cooperation. Furthermore, Region I recognized several benefits and no obstacles to Regional/State coordina-
tion (see Table 4). Before passage of the FFCA, State RCRA personnel were viewed as less interested in
participating in inspections because they lacked the authority to assess penalties. Now, with stronger enforce-
ment powers, States believe that their participation in inspections will have an impact. Region I views State
participation as important because State enforcement staff tend to be more familiar with the facilities and have
inspected the facilities more frequently than their Federal counterparts. The Region also noted that the coordi-
nated multi-media inspections enable EPA and State inspectors to share information immediately, resulting in
expedited compliance determinations.
Region I did not indicate if State Enforcement Agreements (SEA) enhanced or impaired States' ability to
participate in the FMECI.
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region I noted an increased interest in conducting multi-media inspections as a result of the FMECI. Region I
indicated many benefits to using multi-media inspections as opposed to single-media inspections (see Table 5).
The Region believes that a multi-media approach focuses upper management attention on the inspection, more
so than single-media inspections. After the inspection, the base commander receives a complete environmental
compliance "snapshot" of his/her facility. Often this is the first time the commanders focus on their environ-
mental programs as a whole; they can easily see the strengths and weaknesses (e.g., organization, staffing,
training) of their programs and thus, the multi-media inspection can lead to enhanced overall environmental
compliance. Likewise, the multi-media inspections provide Region with a comprehensive compliance exami-
nation of the facility and allow for identification of the technical assistance needs.
Multi-media inspections also provide for Regional and State enforcement staff with the opportunity to ex-
change compliance information about the different media programs. In almost every case in Region I, a multi-
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased Involvement
• States more familiar with facilities
• Regional and State inspectors able to share information immediately
• Expedited compliance determinations
Obstacles To increased involvement
• None reported
36
-------
media inspection had an immediate impact at a facility: either a reorganization of the environmental office
(Naval Construction Battalion Center), or closing of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Organization
(DRMO), which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) at the Naval Submarine Base in New London.
Region I credited much of its success with the FMECI to the unequivocal support and enthusiasm demon-
strated by the former Acting Regional Administrator, Paul Keough. The Region noted that Mr. Keough
supported the program and FMECI from the beginning, and the success of its activities is largely due to his
committed energy.
As noted in a previous section of this report and Table 5 below, Region I indicated only one barrier to using
multi-media inspections; travel funds have become limited.
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Encourages upper-level management to focus on environmental compliance matters
Provides facilities with "snap shot" of environmental compliance
Allows assessment of strengths and weaknesses of environmental programs
Provides comprehensive compliance examination of facility
Allows identification of technical needs of facility
Provides the Region and States an opportunity to exchange information
Barriers
Travel funds are limited
37
-------
38
-------
Region II |:
3«S3sM«E53M«««w5sw5:vvww«v5e5vv«55^^^^^^^^^^^™^^S3«^
EPA Region II, with Headquarters in New York
City, New York, consists of two States in the
Northeast and two Territories: New Jersey, New
York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Region
II conducted five multi-media inspections as part
of the FMECI in FY 1993: Watervliet Arsenal,
NY; U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, PR;
USDA - Plum Island Animal Disease Center, NY;
Air Force Plant #59/ Martin Marietta, NY; and
U.S. Army Armament Research and Development
Command - Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. Region II
typically conducted Category D multi-media
inspections, with the exception of the Plum Island
Animal Disease Center, which was a Category C
inspection. Sizes of the facilities ranged from
medium to large. Three of four facilities posed
medium complexity levels concerning compliance
issues; one posed a low levels of complexity.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
All five inspected facilities have been subject to enforcement actions. Under the FMECI, 21 enforce-
ment actions were issued in Region II (see Table 1). Region II used a variety of enforcement tools such as
warning letters, NOVs, NONs, administrative compliance orders, information request letters, and informal
conflict resolution. In addition, the Region pursued and signed a multi-media enforcement settlement in the
form of a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement with Plum Island to address both TSCA and CWA viola-
tions. In addition, the Region signed an Administrative Order with the Navy to address CWA violations at
U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Non-Compliance
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Field Citation
FFCA'
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
2
3
7
3
2
4
21
1 The single FFCA signed with Plum Island represents two enforcement actions because it addresses viola-
tions of two separate statutes.
39
-------
Region II identified violations of CAA, CWA, EPCRA, RCRA, TSCA, UST, and SPCC during the inspec-
tions. Region II most often cited violations of RCRA, CAA, and SPCC (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
USDA Plum Island Animal
Disease Center, NY
U.S. Army Armament
Research & Development
Command — Picatinny
Arsenal, NJ
Watervliet Arsenal, NY
U.S. Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, PR
Air Force Plant #59/
Martin Marietta, NY
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
NOV
FFCA
2NOVs
NON
2 Administrative Orders
2 FFCA
Field Citation
2NOVs
NON
Warning Letter
2NOVs
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Field Citation
NON
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTfON
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
RCRA
TSCA, CWA
RCRA, CAA
TSCA
RCRA, CAA
SPCC, CWA
SPCC
RCRA, UST
TSCA
SPCC
CAA, SPCC
UST
CWA
SPCC
EPCRA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
$64,150(P)
for RCRA
violations
None
None
Penalties
dropped
The Region led all FMECI inspections and enforcement actions (see Table 3). Region II noted an increased
awareness of environmental compliance at facilities subjected to multi-media inspections and observed that
these inspections provide environmental and command/management staff with an increased understanding of
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
None Noted
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
NA
0
environmental regulations. The number of multi-media inspections and the number of administrative settle-
ments have increased as a result of the FMECI. However, because the Region already includes multi-media
inspections as part of its program, no additional interest in employing such inspections has been generated as a
result of the FMECI.
"4D~
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region did not include pollution prevention conditions or remedies in settlements resulting from the
FMECI, but the Region's hazardous waste compliance and sampling programs did conduct a pollution preven-
tion opportunity assessment of Watervliet Arsenal following the multi-media inspection. The Region does not
project additional reductions in pollutant emissions and discharges at Federal facilities due to the FMECI.
Thus far, the Region has not incorporated pollution prevention SEPs into settlements because the cases have
neither included proposed penalties nor otherwise warranted the inclusion of "settlement terms" such as SEPs.
However, the Region is considering the inclusion of SEPs in several pending cases.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When targeting facilities for inspection, the Region has placed the greatest emphasis on compliance history
and Regional risk ranking, with a slight emphasis on opportunities for pollution prevention. The Region
generated a list of potential targets using these criteria, and made the final selections using a Multi-Program
Enforcement Steering Committee, which includes representatives of each of the Region's enforcement pro-
grams. Thus, the concerns and interests of the individual programs were used to select facilities at which
multi-media inspections were conducted. In addition, the pending closure of several bases in the Region was
considered a factor by some programs. The States were not involved in targeting facilities for inspection.
Although CFAs were not excluded when deciding which facilities to inspect, only two out of the top twenty
facilities identified as candidates for multi-media inspections were CFAs. The majority of "environmentally
significant" Federal facilities in Region II are Department of Defense facilities.
Region II did not request enforcement assistance from FFEO, NEIC, RREL, or OCE. The Region did receive
assistance from NEIC in investigating sumps and other discharges at the request of the Regional RCRA
program. In addition, the Regional laboratory assisted by analyzing ground water samples collected for the
RCRA Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluations (CME) conducted at Watervliet Arsenal and Picatinny Arsenal.
Prior to the FMECI, the Region was already conducting approximately 12 multi-media inspections per year,
including one of a Federal facility. Because the Region already had allocated resources for multi-media
inspections, the Region had only to shift them from inspections scheduled at one or two private sites to Federal
facilities. The Region noted that multi-media inspections can place somewhat of a burden on the Region
because they necessitate a rapid, unexpected rearrangement of facility staff schedules and priorities. Facilities
are usually notified on Friday afternoon and most inspections begin on Monday morning. In addition, the
coordination efforts required by staff from the Federal Facilities Compliance Program can be time-consuming.
Inspections conducted by Region II lasted an average of 4.2 days, and on average, a team of 10 people per-
formed the inspections.
The Region issued most administrative enforcement actions within one year. The Region's time frame for
completing the inspection report averaged 7.5 months following the inspection.
The Region typically began an inspection by conducting an in-briefing with the Facility Environmental
Coordinator and environmental staff, as well as the Facility Director/Base Commander if they asked to be
included. The briefing was led by the lead inspector from the Federal Facilities Compliance Program and was
41
-------
attended by the inspectors scheduled for the first day. The briefing was used to introduce inspectors and
facility staff members, discuss the proposed inspection schedule, and explain EPA's multi-media compliance
program and the goals and objectives of the inspection. The Facility Environmental Coordinator and the
Facility Director/Base Commander were provided with copies of the FMECI overview brochure and the
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy (Yellow Book) at the inspection in-briefing. The Region did not,
however, provide a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile. To conclude an inspection, an out-briefing was
held to discuss preliminary findings with the Facility Director/Base Commander, Environmental Coordinator
and some facility staff. This approach helped foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, atmosphere for the
inspection and any resulting enforcement action. Furthermore, the out-briefing notified facility personnel of
potential violations that were discovered before the initiation of an enforcement action. The Region believes
that this approach contributed to the relatively rapid correction of violations and close-out of enforcement
actions at inspected facilities, and has adopted it as standard Regional policy for both Federal and private site
multi-media inspections.
Region n did not report any difficulties regarding national security or facility access while conducting the inspec-
tions.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region II reported a moderate level of interaction with New York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico. No interac-
tion occurred during the targeting phase, while a moderate level of interaction occurred during inspection and
enforcement.
The Region II report noted no obstacles or benefits to EPA/State coordination posed by the FMECI. Five of
the FY 1993 multi-media inspections included State environmental and/or health agency representatives. In
addition, a county health department representative was involved in the development and settlement of an
enforcement action.
One State in particular has encountered difficulties in bringing enforcement actions against Federal agencies,
and this State encouraged the Region to use multi-media inspections of Federal facilities. The same State is
developing a multi-media compliance program and is seeking primacy (i.e., less EPA involvement) on multi-
media inspection targeting, inspection, and enforcement. The other States in which inspections have been
conducted have not offered an opinion on the FMECI.
Overall, the Region believes that SEAs have enhanced the ability of States to participate in the FMECI. Aside
from the involvement of multiple programs, the individual media inspections do not differ greatly from
standard Compliance Evaluation Inspections. Accordingly, the SEAs, which provide a framework for joint
inspections, have facilitated coordination between Regional and State program staff.
-------
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased involvement
• None reported
Obstacles To Increased Involvement
• None reported
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region II indicated several benefits and barriers to using the multi-media approach as opposed to a single-
media approach. The multi-media inspections provided a comprehensive view of a facility's environmental
compliance program that captured the attention of Base Commanders and Facility Directors and raised aware-
ness of specific environmental programs and facility problems. Through coordination of multi-media inspec-
tions, EPA was presented as a team that communicates with the facilities. As a result, the facilities' opinion of
EPA as an enforcement organization and a resource for compliance/environmental information improved.
Region II indicated that the multi-media approach helped foster cooperative rather than adversarial relation-
ships. The Region also suggested that the approach led to a faster return to compliance.
Region II experienced several barriers to using the multi-media approach. One obstacle was the rapid, unex-
pected rearrangement of facility staff schedules and priorities. The coordination efforts required of the staff
from the facilities were time-consuming.
The Region noted that most facility staff were fairly cooperative throughout the multi-media inspection
process, including those who tended to be guarded at the outset. In one instance, facility staff reacted posi-
tively to the prospect of a multi-media inspection because it meant that additional inspections by EPA would
be less likely in the near future. In addition, facility personnel perceived the high visibility of multi-media
inspections as useful for highlighting the success of their programs or gaining additional management atten-
tion, support, and funding for environmental concerns.
43
-------
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/ BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Provides comprehensive view of facility compliance programs
Captures the attention of Base Commanders and facility directors
Enhances facility perception of Region II as an enforcement organization and a resource or
information source
Results in inspection of facilities that might not otherwise be inspected
Opens channel of communication between Region and facilities
Helps foster a cooperative relationship
Contributes to rapid correction of violations
Barriers
Requires rapid, unexpected arrangement of facility schedules and priorities
Requires time-consuming effort to coordinate with facility staff
-------
Region III
EPA Region III, with Headquarters in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, consists of six States: Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and '
Washington, DC. Region III, together with the State
agencies, conducted four Category D multi-media
inspections under the FMECI. The Region consid-
ered the White House audit, completed in FY 1993,
as a Category D inspection in scope and effort, for '
comparison purposes. Region in routinely conducts
Category A or B single-media inspections. Region HI
mentioned that it might conduct a Category C multi-
media inspection for FY 1994 because a less labor
intensive effort would be more attractive for future
inspections. The facilities inspected include the U.S.
Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Dover Air
Force Base, DE; Fort George G. Meade, MD; and the
White House Complex (and Old Executive Build-
ing), District of Columbia. The National Security
Agency, located at Fort Meade, was included in that
facility's inspection. Included in this group of
Federal facilities are a research/arsenal facility, two
military bases, and the White House Complex. The
inspected facilities spanned the range of facility sizes
and complexity levels of compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region HI issued 10 enforcement actions as a result of the FMECI (seeTable 1). Region III used the full array
of enforcement tools, including orders, NOVs, NONs, and a field citation.
Aberdeen Proving Ground was subject to six enforcement actions: three RCRA §3008(a) orders one order for
CWA violations, one for UST violations, and one NOV for TSCA violations. In addition, the Region sent an
TABLE 1
__^_ NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
^^•M^M^^M
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Notice of Non-Compliance
Field Citation
Total Number of Actions
10
45
-------
information request letter for detailed SDWA/UIC information for a case where no specific violations were
cited. The RCRA enforcement actions at Aberdeen and Fort Meade involved penalties. Dover Air Force Base
received one Delaware State field citation for FIFRA violations and one NOV for RCRA violations. No
penalties were proposed for the RCRA violations at Dover. Fort Meade received a NON for TSCA violations
and an Administrative Order for RCRA violations. A proposed penalty of $10,000 was issued for Fort Meade.
President Clinton invited EPA and the District of Columbia to lead an environmental, multi-media audit of the
White House Complex in FY 1993. EPA applied its environmental auditing policy as published in the 1986
Federal Register. The White House Complex is not subject to any enforcement actions due to the audit. EPA's
auditing policy states that though the findings cannot be used as the sole basis for taking enforcement actions, if
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
U.S. Army Aber-
deen Proving
Ground, MD
Dover Air Force
Base, DE
Fort George G.
Meade, MD
White House (and
Old Executive
Building),
Washington, DC
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
3 Administrative Orders
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
NOV
Field Citation
NOV
Administrative Order
NON
None
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
STATUTE
VIOLATED
RCRA
CWA
UST
TSCA
FIFRA
RCRA
RCRA
TSCA
None
PENALTIES
ISSUED
$92,500(F)
$25,000 &
$5,000 from
State
SEP Negoti-
ated
None
1 0,000 (P)
None
violations are discovered, significant findings must be submitted to the EPA. The auditors provided the audit
findings and recommendations to the White House Complex staff.
RCRA violations were cited most often in Region ill. However, enforcement actions were also taken for
TSCA, CWA, FIFRA, and UST violations. Region III, the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the
NEIC participated as the inspection leads for the four inspections. Maryland participated in inspections of
Aberdeen and Fort Meade; NEIC and the Region were the inspection leads for the Aberdeen and Fort Meade
facilities, the Region and State of Delaware acted as inspection leads for Dover Air Force Base; and the Region
and the District of Columbia served as the inspection leads for the White House audit.
In enforcement, the State of Maryland, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Region jointly issued actions for
CWA, RCRA, TSCA, and UST violations at Aberdeen. At this facility, Maryland acted as the enforcement lead
for UST and delegated RCRA violations and Region III exercised the lead for non-delegated RCRA land
disposal restriction violations. Region III has served as the enforcement lead for violations of TSCA, while the
Army Corp of Engineers has acted as the lead, for CWA wetlands violations. Delaware has taken two enforce-
46
-------
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (£A)
Field Citation
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
1
5
7
ment leads for the FIFRA and RCRA violations at Dover Air Force Base. At Fort Meade, Maryland and the
Region acted as enforcement leads for violations of RCRA and TSCA, respectively. In Region III, States have
acted as the enforcement lead for seven enforcement actions.
The Region explored cross-media enforcement opportunities but did not corporate such opportunities when
identifying violations or developing enforcement actions. Region III stated that the violations discovered have
been fairly straightforward, single-media violations. However, Region III stated that it was and remains alert for
this kind of opportunity.
Region III believes that the inspections have resulted in both an awareness of compliance as well as enhanced
compliance at Federal facilities. The Region attributes this to the extraordinary attention the multi-media
inspections have received from facility commanders and other top management. The Region also noted that,
most large facilities seem to expect multi-media inspections. The FMECI did not change the number of admin-
istrative and multi-media settlements compared to the Region's Federal facility activities prior to FY 1993.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region identified numerous site-specific pollution prevention opportunities in the inspection reports as a
result of the FMECI. The Region typically described its recommendations in the inspection reports' discussion
of areas of concern at the particular facility. Region III noted that pollution prevention provisions and SEPs
were incorporated into settlements at some inspected facilities.
The Region indicated that as a result of FMECI's activities, a reduction in pollutant emissions and discharges at
Federal facilities is likely. One mechanism that will be used to achieve this goal will be the pursuit of pollution
prevention SEPs. Region III sought to use SEPs based on Regional and State initiatives, not those based on
facility proposals or pollution prevention technical assistance. For example, in response to a RCRA enforce-
ment action, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground is participating in a SEP as well as paying associated
penalties. In response to being asked why it did not use SEPs, Region III indicated that Aberdeen presented the
only RCRA penalty case, and that an SEP was under negotiation. One facility, Dover Air Force Base, had a
pollution prevention plan in place at the time of the inspection. Dover Air Force Base personnel noted that task
forces had been successful in identifying wastes for reduction and in implementing programs to achieve reduc-
tions.
47
-------
The inspection team made numerous recommendations for the White House complex as a result of the audit.
For example, it recommended the development of a comprehensive White House Complex Pollution Preven-
tion Plan. Specifically, it encouraged the consolidation of White House painting operations and the construc-
tion of a new painting facility. The team also recommended eliminating or reducing chemical use in mainte-
nance operations, and implementing various water conservation activities.
The inspection teams presented a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile and FMECI Overview Brochures to
each Federal facility at the time of inspection, helping to raise the awareness of facility managers.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When targeting facilities for inspections, Region III considered compliance history to be one of the most
important criteria. Other criteria consisted of Regional risk ranking, opportunity for pollution prevention, and
other priorities/initiatives. Region III rated Regional risk ranking and pollution prevention as "moderately
important," while other priorities were ranked as "very important." Another criterion included State assess-
ments regarding which facilities would benefit most from the special attention associated with multi-media
inspections. Region III recognized that this criterion was subjective, but considered it legitimate for consider-
ation.
The targeting criteria led to the exclusion of Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) facilities from the FMECI-related
inspections because the history and operation of Region Ill's CFA facilities did not generally yield high scores.
For FY 1994, Region HI may select a CFA for an inspection.
When conducting the inspections, Region III did not seek assistance from the RREL of the OCE. It did,
however, request assistance from NEIC to conduct the multi-media inspections and write reports for Fort G.
Meade and the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground. Region III considers this working relationship to be
very positive. States also have been another source of assistance to the Region as were members of FFEO staff
who participated in in-briefing activities during two multi-media inspections.
Region III indicated that the allocation of resources needed to meet the FMECI's requirements significantly
impacted the availability of resources for other Regional and State enforcement priorities. When the Region,
instead of NEIC, staffed the inspections, the Region frequently heard that it was "stealing from other (non-
Federal) cases" to participate in the FMECI. The Region noted a concern that once the FMECI ended, coordi-
nation and participation with the States might diminish as a result of resource constraints.
On average, 19 participants were involved in each inspection. Inspections generally lasted four to eleven days,
with 7.75 days the average length. Following the inspection, the average time required by the Region to
prepare an inspection report was 6.8 months. The Region noted that the considerable time required to develop
these reports may have constrained the Region's capability to perform more inspections.
The Region noted having difficulty in finalizing administrative enforcement cases within the 1-year time frame
established under the FMECI. This primarily was due to the time elapsed between the inspection and receipt
of the inspection report by enforcement staff (until they receive the report, they generally do not take any legal
action). In addition, because the Region provides the States with the opportunity to take the lead on enforce-
ment actions, the Region must wait for completion of the State enforcement process before it takes action.
48
-------
Region III gave facilities a three working day notice of inspection. Inspectors held opening and closing brief-
ings for one of four facilities in which they discussed inspection objectives, logistics, and results. The White
House inspection involved several brief pre-audit tours and meetings to review background information and to
discuss efficient audit methods for the facility.
During the Fort Meade inspection, access to some National Security Agency locations was restricted. The
Region, however, chose not to follow up with an additional site visit, due to the low environmental significance
of the restricted sites.
REGIONAUSTATE COORDINATION
Overall, the Region reported a moderate to significant level of coordination with Delaware, Maryland, and the
District of Columbia. The Region involved them in every phase of the FMECI activities, including targeting,
inspections, and enforcement. A moderate level of interaction occurred during the targeting stage and a signifi-
cant level of coordination occurred during inspections and enforcement. Region III stated that targeting and
inspection coordination is fairly easy. The Region noted that SEAs apparently have not enhanced or impaired
States' ability to participate in the FMECI. The Region has not entered into SEAs for many years and, instead,
relies primarily on grant agreements and informal coordination with each program.
Region III indicated one benefit to Regional and State activities as a result of the FMECI. The Region noted
that at the management and inspector levels, interaction with the States was effective and generally helpful in
team building. In some cases, this was the first time State inspectors were involved in multi-media inspections
(see Table 4). State inspectors viewed the inspections as an important learning experience.
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased Involvement
• Interaction is effective and helpful in team building
• State Inspectors viewed FMECI as learning experience
Obstacles To Increased Involvement
• Extra time taken by State to make enforcement decisions
The Region reported one coordination obstacle: the extra time States occasionally required to decide on an
enforcement action. Region III commented, however, that this is not unique to the FMECI. The Region also
noted that different enforcement philosophies exercised by the States and the Region could present barriers to
multi-media inspections. The Region cited as examples the disparity between the EPA and State penalty
assessments for Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and the State's mild enforcement action at Dover Air
Force Base. The Region noted that although this difference has been evident for years, it was demonstrated
once again in both cases. Region III did not provide suggestions to correct this situation.
49
-------
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
In Region Ill's view, the multi-media inspections have had a significant impact on the overall environmental
performance at the facilities. Region III found the facilities to be cooperative, except for a few minor access
problems. Facility environmental offices , in fact, welcomed the inspections as an opportunity to indicate the
importance of environmental compliance to upper level management and commanders.
Region III reported increased interest in using multi-media inspections because it was a good experience,
especially because it expanded inspector expertise and allowed Regional inspectors to work with State inspec-
tion teams. Another benefit from using multi-media inspections, as opposed to single-media inspections, was
the greater impact multi-media inspection had on facilities than did single media inspections. The FMECI
also provided Region III facilities with a benchmark for assessing performance (see Table 5).
As a result of the FMECI, Region III discovered related problems that might be the root causes of compliance
and pollution prevention deficiencies and stated that the multi-media inspections provided a "learning experi-
ence" for the Region and State inspectors (see Table 5).
Region III noted barriers to multi-media inspections as well. Those barriers included the major effort required
by EPA and the States to conduct the inspections, and the greater travel costs involved. Both factors made it
difficult for Region III to obtain commitments to staff the inspections. This, in turn, limited the number of
multi-media inspections the Region could conduct overall. In addition, it took longer to write the inspection
reports because many people had to provide information to the team leader. The resource commitments
prohibited the Region from conducting more than four multi-media inspections (see Table 5).
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Allows for a greater impact on facilities
Provides a benchmark for assessing performance
Permits discovery of related problems that might be the root causes of compliance and pollution
prevention deficiencies
Provides a learning experience for Region and State inspectors
Expands inspectors' expertise
Provides a good working experience with State inspection team
High level of effort required
Greater travel costs
Many people required to provide input for reports
Resource commitment too high for more than a small number of inspections
Region III also indicated that more national publicity about the FMECI might help the overall effort because it
would place Federal facility compliance in a national context.
50
-------
Region IV
EPA Region IV, with Headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia, consists of eight Southeastern States:
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Florida. All States, except for Tennessee and
Mississippi, participated in at least one
FY 1993 multi-media inspection. In support of
the FMECI, the Region conducted 12 Category C
multi-media inspections of bases, arsenals, a space
flight center, and one military depot. Most of the
facilities inspected were medium-sized and, in a
few cases, large-sized. The inspected facilities
posed low to high complexity levels of compli-
ance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region IV issued 14 enforcement actions at eight of the twelve inspected facilities. The enforcement actions
included ten warning letters, three NOVs, and one administrative order (see Table 1).
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
10
3
1
14
Warning Letters were split between CAA, CWA, and RCRA violations, with the exception of one SPCC
violation. The NOVs were issued for CAA and RCRA, and a RCRA §3008(a) Administrative Order was
issued.
The number of administrative settlements and multi-media inspections in Region IV increased due to the
FMECI. In addition, the Region was able to finalize its administrative enforcement cases within the 1-year
time frame.
51
-------
*!W
According to the Region, the team members were encouraged to take multi-media enforcement actions, but did
not do so because of the extra time required to coordinate the enforcement actions, but did not do so because of
the extra time required to coordinate the enforcement activities.
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
Air Force Plant #6,
GA
U.S. Army Redstone
Arsenal, AL
NASA Marshall
Space Flight
Center, AL
U.S. Naval Air
Station, Key West, FL
U.S. Marine Corps
Logistics Base, GA
Pope Air Force
Base, NC
Seymour Johnson
Air Force Base, NC
MacDill Air Force
Base, FL
U.S. Army Armor &
Fort Knox, KY
Charleston U.S.
Air Force Base, SC
U.S. Marine Corps
Recruit Depot, SC
U.S. Army Fort
Bragg, NC
U.S.
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
2 Warning Letters
Administrative Order
NOV
None
3 Warning Letters
2 Warning Letters
NOV
Warning Letter
Warning Letter
None
NOV
Warning Letter
None
None
None
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
Issued
Issued
None
None
None
STATUTE
VIOLATED
CAA, CWA
RCRA
RCRA
None
CAA, CWA,
SPCC
RCRA, CAA
CAA
CWA
CAA
None
CAA
RCRA
None
None
None
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
$285,000(P)
$75,000(F)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
mm
Although violations of CWA, CAA, RCRA, and SPCC were cited by Region IV, CAA violations were cited
more often than violations of the other statutes. Only one facility, Air Force Plant #6, was subject to a proposed
penalty of $285,000 and a final penalty of $75,000 (see Table 2).
52
-------
Region IV noted that both environmental compliance, and awareness of compliance at Federal facilities have
been enhanced as a result of the multi-media inspections under the FMECI.
Region IV, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and Kentucky all acted as the inspection leads at the
inspected facilities. The States served as the enforcement lead at six facilities: Air Force Plant #6, U.S. Army
Redstone Arsenal, U.S. Marine Corps. Logistic Base, Pope Air Force Base, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base,
and U.S. Army & Fort Knox. In total, the States took the lead for eight enforcements actions (see Table 3).
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Notice of Violation
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
4
1
3
8
Cross-media enforcement opportunities were explored during the identification of violations or development of
enforcement actions.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Each inspection report documented pollution prevention opportunities and contained discrete recommenda-
tions. For example, in the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal inspection report, inspectors recommended that the
facility implement a comprehensive facility-wide pollution prevention program. The Regional reports also
noted facilities with successful pollution prevention programs and identified additional opportunities. Region
IV also provided many of the facilities with pollution prevention resources and/or guidance, such as Pollution
Prevention Opportunity Profiles.
The Region has incorporated pollution prevention conditions or remedies into settlements as a result of the
FMECI. For example, Air Force Plant #6 was required to submit a pollution prevention action plan, setting
forth actions and dates for reduction of pollutants, as part of the enforcement action. Air Force Plant #6 submit-
ted a formal pollution plan to Georgia as a result of FMECI. The plan was discussed and approved by Georgia.
Georgia didn't reduce the penalty after the plan was submitted because Georgia State law requires all RCRA
facilities to have pollution prevention plans. The Region anticipates a reduction in pollutant emissions and
discharges as a result of these and similar activities. Region IV also is pursuing SEPs based on Regional/State
initiatives, not facility proposals or pollution prevention technical assistance.
53
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When selecting facilities for inspection, Region IV ranked compliance history and risk ranking as "very impor-
tant." The Region also considered criteria such as opportunities for pollution prevention and dates of the
previous multi-media inspection as important. The Region did not, however, include Civilian Federal Agencies
on the list of facilities to be inspected because they did not rank
sufficiently high.
In the course of the inspection activities, the Region did not seek assistance from either OFFE, NEIC, RREL, or
the OCE. The Region provided each Federal facility with the FMECI overview brochures and names of
inspectors and Regional coordinators.
Region IV indicated that there was no impact resulting from the specific allocation of Regional resources
needed to meet the FMECI's requirements, because the Region took special steps to ensure the availability of
resources. Region IV coordinated inspection activities to ensure that the inspections to fit within the normal
inspection program.
The Region indicated that the number of multi-media inspections has increased due to the FMECI and that
multi-media inspections are less costly, or at least the same cost, than the single-media inspections because they
use resources more efficiently.
Inspections, on the average, lasted 2.1 days. The average time required by the Region to prepare the inspection
report was three months for 11 of the 12 facilities.
In almost all cases, the Region gave the facilities two days prior notice of the inspection. At the beginning of
the inspections, however, an in-briefing was held. In addition, in roughly half of the inspections, the Region
held an out-briefing. The Region noted that inspection personnel experienced no difficulties related to national
security access.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Overall, Region IV and the States experienced moderate to significant interaction during the FMECI. State
Enforcement Agreements (SEAs) have further enhanced the States' ability to participate. Nine out of 12 inspec-
tions included State representatives as part of the inspection team. Region IV noted that the States want to
protect their position in leading inspections and enforcement actions. Region IV did joint and overview inspec-
tions when State inspectors were involved.
Region IV noted a few benefits from, and obstacles to, coordination with the States (see Table 4). The Region
noted that the Region/State relationship improved as a result of the FMECI. However, scheduling remains to be
an obstacle to Regional and State coordination in multi-media inspections. The FMECI did not result in any
negative impacts to the Region/State relationships.
54
-------
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased involvement
• Improved Regional/State relationships
Obstacles To increased involvement
• Scheduling
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region IV noted that the multi-media inspections have received positive attention from Facility Commanders
and environmental staffs. In addition, the facilities were conducted in a professional and cooperative manner.
Several benefits and barriers to using the multi-media inspection were identified by Region IV. One benefit
was the building of the Region and State relationships. The Region concluded that Federal facilities generally
benefit from combined inspections by State and Federal regulators who comprehensively assess the environ-
mental status of the facility. Region IV also indicated that multi-media inspections are a more efficient use of
resources and cost less than single-media inspections.
On the other hand, Region IV noted that coordination has been a barrier to the use of multi-media inspections.
Region IV stated that every program performs its own inspection and takes its own enforcement action or
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Encourages Regional/States relationship building
Costs less than single-media inspections
Uses resources more efficiently
Provides facilities with complete environmental status
Barriers
Requires demanding coordination
States take actions. However, to implement to FMECI Region IV developed a cross-trained core team that can
conduct or lead multi-media inspections.
55
-------
56
-------
Region V
EPA Region V, with Headquarters in Chicago,
Illinois, consists of six States in the Midwest:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. Only Illinois and Ohio
participated in the multi-media inspections.
This Region conducted two multi-media
inspections in FY 1993, one at Argonne
National Laboratory (ANL), IL, and the other
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
As a result of two multi-media inspections, Region V identified many potential violations of environmental
requirements and is taking formal action at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
As shown in Table 2, Region V issued an Administrative Order to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for RCRA
violations and a multi-media enforcement settlement (an NOV for violations of numerous environmental
statutes). The Administrative Order involves a proposed penalty of $250,000. Region V's inspection of
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Administrative Order
NOV1
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
1
4
5
The NOV addressed violations of four separate statutes; therefore, it represents four enforcement actions.
Argonne National Laboratory identified numerous areas of concern but only found clear violations of the
CWA. According to the Region, recent improvements in the facility's CWA compliance status make it unclear
as to what benefits would be achieved by proceeding with formal enforcement actions.
57
-------
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
Argonne National
Laboratory
Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base
TYPE OF I
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
None
NOV
Administrative Order
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTiON
None
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VJQtATED
None
CAA, CWA,
FIFRA, TSCA
RCRA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
$250,000 (P)
Region V took the lead in the inspection at ANL, while NEIC took the inspection lead for Wright-Patterson.
States did not take a lead role on any enforcement actions taken as a result of the FMECI (see Table 3).
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (£A>
None Noted
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
NA
0
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Based on input from inspections conducted prior to FMECI inspections, Wright-Patterson AFB implemented
pollution prevention measures, such as anti-freeze recycling and substitution of citrus-based degreasers for
chlorinated solvents degreasers, by the time of the FMECI-related inspection. A Pollution Prevention Oppor-
tunity Profile was provided to the Base at the time of inspection. The inspection also identified several oppor-
tunities for additional pollution prevention activities opportunities that would address noncompliance issues.
The inspection report for ANL indicated that a well-established waste minimization program is operational at
the facility. Through this program, ANL monitors chemical inventory, recycles many of the chemical by-
products, and recycles 95 percent of its solid waste on-site. According to the Region, due to the complexity of
the facility and the comprehensive nature of the pollution prevention program, the inspectors did not attempt
to identify additional pollution prevention opportunities.
Region V did not state if it projects any reductions in pollutants emissions or discharges at the Federal facili-
ties within its jurisdiction. Also, Region V did not clarify if it incorporated pollution opportunities or remedies
into settlements. It also is not clear if Region V is pursuing any SEPs.
58
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region V selected facilities to participate in the multi-media inspections based on a number of criteria. How-
ever, Region V, did not state which criteria were relevant to selection. In addition, Region V did not state
whether it specifically excluded CFA facilities.
Region V sought assistance from NEIC and NEIC has led the inspection of at least one facility.
Region V did not give ANL notice prior to conducting the inspection. Because of the size and scope of the
Argonne facility, multiple visits over the span of four days, were necessary to complete the inspection. Fur-
thermore, because of the time of year, one coal-fired boiler believed to have a history of opacity problems was
not in operation. Region V took visible emissions readings from the boiler in March of 1994 and found no
opacity when it was in operation. Therefore the Region has no basis for bringing an enforcement action under
the CAA.
The size of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also necessitated a multi-day inspection, which was held over 12
days. Region V and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency combined efforts in the inspection. The
facility required inspection personnel to attend a two-hour orientation and safety training session, which,
because the inspection was unannounced was held on the second day.
Region V required an average of 11 months from completion of the inspection to completion of the inspection
report. It is unclear if Region V anticipates meeting the 1-year time frame for completing enforcement ac-
tions.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region V did not describe the level of interaction between the States and Region during the stages of the
FMECI. However, the Region indicated that States played a particularly useful role in the inspection of
Argonne National Laboratory's public water supply system.
Region V did not provide specific information relating to the benefits and obstacles to Regional and State
coordination (see Table 4).
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased Involvement
No information available
Obstacles To Increased involvement
No information available
59
-------
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region V did not provide information related to the overall impact of the FMECI.
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
No information available
Barriers
No information available
60
-------
Region VI
EPA Region VI, with its headquarters in Dallas,
Texas, consists of five States: Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Region VI,
together with the individual State agencies, inspected
three Federal facilities as part of FMECI: Kelly Air
Force Base, TX; Air Force Plant #3, OK; and Los
Alamos National Laboratory, MM. Each multi-
media inspection involved some state participation.
All facilities posed medium to high complexity
levels of compliance issues. Two of three facilities
received Category D multi-media inspections, while
one received a Category C inspection. All facilities
were large in size.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Three inspected facilities were the subject of four enforcement actions to date (see Table 1). Region VI sent a
warning letter for to Air Force Plant #3 for RCRA violations that were satisfactorily resolved. The Region also
sent an Administrative Order for CWA (NPDES) violations to the University of California contractor-operator
at LANL. A State warning letter also was sent to LANL for SDWA violations. A State NOV was sent to Kelly
Air Force Base for CAA violations that were satisfactorily resolved.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
2
1
1
4
Violations of RCRA, CWA, CAA, and SDWA were identified in Region VI. No penalties were assessed in
connection with any violations or enforcement actions for the inspected facilities in Region VI.
Region VI was the inspection lead for Kelly Air Force Base. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, NEIC acted
as the inspection lead for all statutes except FIFRA, for which the State of New Mexico took the lead. At Air
Force Plant #3, the Region acted as lead inspector for all statutes except SDWA, which was led by the State of
Oklahoma.
61
-------
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
Kelly Air Force Base,
TX
Air Force Plant #3,
OK
Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
NOV
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Warning Letter
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
CAA
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
None
None
None
In terms of enforcement, the Region has acted as the enforcement lead for actions taken to address RCRA
violations at Air Force Plant #3 and CWA violations at LANL (see Table 3). Two enforcement actions, for
SDWA violations at LANL and CAA violations at Kelly AFB, involved State lead.
Cross-media enforcement opportunities were explored by Region VI multi-media inspectors while on-site
through daily planning coordination meetings and through coordinated unit-specific inspections by all appli-
cable single media inspectors.
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
1
2
.
The Region noted that discussions with the environmental staff during the inspections and during out-briefings
with facility management enhanced environmental compliance and awareness of compliance issues at the
inspected facilities. Region VI believes that the Air Force and DOE have incorporated environmental struc-
tures that assist individual facilities in dealing with environmental compliance issues. The Region undertook
more multi-media inspections at Federal facilities related to the FMECI than were taken prior to FY 1993.
There has been no change in the number of administrative settlements as a result of the FMECI.
62
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Region VI projects reductions in pollutant emissions and discharges at Federal facilities within its jurisdiction
based upon its efforts in waste minimization, pollution prevention, and negotiation of SEPs. Information
provided does not clarify whether Region VI incorporated pollution prevention opportunities or remedies into
settlements. Region VI states that it is pursuing pollution prevention SEPs under the FMECI based on facility
proposals and Regional and State initiatives.
Region VI inspectors identified some pollution prevention opportunities. For example, at Air Force Plant #3,
the inspectors discovered a waste minimization plan in place, albeit an informal one, about which an employee
was able to elaborate. Region VI also provided a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile on LANL to the
NEIC for relay to the facility.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region VI selected facilities for inspection based primarily on the criteria in the FMECI Implementation
Guidance for FY 1993. Compliance history was considered "very important," while Regional risk ranking,
other priorities/initiatives, and opportunities for pollution prevention were ranked "moderately important."
Region VI also identified environmental justice as another criterion for selecting facilities for inspections, but
considered it only "slightly important." CFA facilities were not excluded from the Region's list of targeted
facilities as a result of the application of the targeting criteria.
Region VI sought assistance from NEIC with respect to enforcement actions in connection with the FMECI.
NEIC helped Region VI by acting as the inspection lead for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and assisting
in the preparation of the final inspection report. Region VI stated that cooperation from NEIC has always been
available when requested.
Region VI indicated that the specific allocation of resources to meet the FMECI requirements did not have a
significant impact on the availability of resources for other Regional and State enforcement priorities. To help
ensure that this would be the case, most of the Region's media programs set aside a percentage of inspection
resources for Federal facilities at the beginning of FY 1993.
On average, seven people participated on the multi-media inspection teams, with the largest and smallest teams
consisting of 11 and four, respectively. The inspections lasted between two and 11 days, with the average
length enduring seven days. At least one inspector noted in the inspection report that the two-day inspection
was not enough time to observe all of the facility's operations. The average length of time between the
completion of inspections and preparation of the reports for two of the three inspections was two-and-one-half
months. Region VI indicated that the task of collecting and compiling the inspection report information was
"resource-intensive" and "took longer than anticipated."
Overall, the inspectors had positive experiences at the facilities. Only one inspector from the State of New
Mexico experienced minor difficulties concerning facility access while conducting an inspection. The inspec-
tor was initially denied entry into a technical area at the Los Alamos National Laboratory because the inspector
lacked security clearance. EPA inspectors proceeded with the inspection.
Region VI conducted opening and closing briefings for all the inspected facilities. Information has not been
provided on whether notice was given to any of the facilities prior to conducting the inspections.
63
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The Region concluded that, overall, interaction between Region VI and the States in connection with the
FMECI occurred at a moderate level. Interaction between the Region and State offices increased as the
stages of the FMECI progressed from targeting to enforcement actions. Interaction apparently did not
occur at all during the targeting phase; Region VI made all of the decisions regarding the selection of
facilities for multi-media inspections. A moderate level of interaction occurred during the inspection
stage. For example, representatives from New Mexico and Oklahoma were included as part of the
inspection teams for two of the five facilities. A significant level of coordination and interaction took
place during the enforcement action stage. Region VI did not indicate whether State Enforcement
Agreements (SEAs) impaired or enhanced the States' participation in the FMECI.
Region VI noted a few obstacles to, and benefits from, Regional and State coordination (see Table 4).
One obstacle is that Regional and State communications occur primarily below the top level manage-
ment. This may appear as a positive feature, but key decisions are being made by top level managers and
are not immediately conveyed to the Regional and State staff. The States' ability to consult with Region
VI on issues is then hindered by the delay in communication. On the other hand, Region VI suggests
that the three-way understanding and cooperation between the State, EPA, and a Federal facility is a
benefit of the multi-media inspection and should be promoted. In addition, according to Region VI, the
FMECI has not resulted in any negative ramifications for Regional and State relations.
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To Increased Involvement
• Increases understanding and cooperation between State, Region, and Federal facilities
Obstacles To Increased Involvement ;
• Level at which communication occurs delays discussion of decisions and impedes States' ability
to consult on issues
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region VI is positive about using multi-media inspections. Region VI reported many benefits and no barriers
to the use of the multi-media inspections as opposed to single-media inspections (see Table 5). Region VI
found the facilities to be cooperative during the inspections. Region VI suggested that one benefit of the
multi-media approach was the additional expertise provided by other team members. This sharing of expertise
and knowledge was particularly helpful to less experienced inspectors. Region VI noted an increased interest
in utilizing multi-media inspections as a result of the experience with the FMECI. Region VI expects the use
of multi-media inspections to increase in the future because it perceives the inspections as an effective enforce-
ment tool and as a natural extension of multi-media inspections in the private sector.
64
-------
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Facilities cooperative
Team members provided additional knowledge and expertise
Sharing of expertise helped less experienced inspectors
Barriers
None reported
65
-------
66
-------
Region VII
EPA Region VII, with Headquarters in Kansas City,
Kansas, is comprised of four States: Nebraska,
Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Kansas and Nebraska
participated in the multi-media inspections. Region
VII and State agencies inspected two Federal facili-
ties as part of the FMECI: U.S. Penitentiary-
Leavenworth, KS and USDA Roman L. Hruska
Meat Animal Research Center, NE. The sizes of the
inspected facilities ranged from medium to large,
and the facilities posed medium to high complexity
levels of compliance issues. Both facilities were
subject to Category C inspections. Region VII
reported that it usually conducts Category B or C
inspections, but routinely performs Category B
inspections at major Federal facilities.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Inspections at the two Region VII facilities resulted in the issuance of three enforcement actions (see Table 1).
Region VII issued two NOVs, a NON, and an informal verbal warning. At the U.S. Penitentiary in
Leavenworth, Kansas, a NON, NOV, and an informal warning were issued for violations and potential violations
of TSCA, RCRA, and FIFRA, respectively. At Hruska, inspectors issued an NOV for violations of RCRA/
CERCLA. Both facilities promptly corrected the violations so no further action was necessary.
Region VII did not levy penalties in connection with the violations or enforcement actions. RCRA was cited
most frequently, with two of the three violations occurring under that statute.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Notice of Non-Compliance
Notice of Violation
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
1
2
3
67
-------
The Region acted as the inspection lead for both facilities and for all statutes (see Table 3).
Region VII reported an increased level of environmental compliance and awareness of compliance at both
facilities as well as other potential target facilities. The FMECI resulted in an increased number of multi-
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
U.S. Penitentiary
Leavenworth, KS
USDA Roman L.
Hruska Meat Animal
Research Center, NE
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION :
NON
NOV
NOV
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
TSCA
RCRA
RCRA/
CERCLA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
None
media inspections, but did not change the number of administrative settlements in Region VII's Federal
facilities as compared to enforcement activities prior to FY 1993.
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
None Noted
Total Number of EAs with State
Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
N/A
0
FOLLUTSON PREVENTION
Region VII stated that it did not pursue SEPs based on facility proposals, Regional/State initiatives, or pollu-
tion prevention technical assistance, because enforcement actions were not taken. In addition, the facilities
returned to compliance without the application of SEPs or penalties. However, the Region stated that it will
use SEPs, if applicable, in the future.
Inspectors provided a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile to both facilities during the inspections. One
inspection team noted that the facility made an effort to implement pollution prevention techniques in several
operations. The inspection team recommended that the facility coordinate pollution prevention activities
through a central office and develop a comprehensive pollution prevention strategy. For the other facility.
pollution prevention recommendations were noted throughout the inspection report. For example, the inspec-
tion team suggested stricter control of the purchase of laboratory reagents.
68
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region VII selected Federal facilities for multi-media inspections using a number of criteria. The
Region considered factors such as compliance history, Regional risk ranking, and the FMECI itself.
Another criteria used by Region VII included identifying and targeting smaller Federal facilities, one
per State. As a result of the targeting criteria, Civilian Federal Agency facilities (CFAs) were not
excluded from Region VII's target list.
During the multi-media inspections, the Region provided each facility with an FMECI Overview
Brochure. Region VII provided other information to the facilities, including a pollution prevention
check list and a follow-up call for assistance. Region VII did not find it necessary to seek assistance
from OFFE, NEIC, RREL, or the Office of Criminal Enforcement.
Region VII reported that the allocation of resources needed to meet the FMECI's requirements im-
pacted significantly the availability of resources for other Regional/State enforcement priorities.
Region VII indicated that multi-media inspections were resource intensive and directly competed with
single-media inspection resources.
On average, inspection teams consisted of ten people and each inspection lasted two days. The time
between the completion of the inspection and the report was, on average, four months. Enforcement
actions were issued during the inspection.
Region VII conducted opening and closing briefings for both facilities. One facility, the Penitentiary,
received notice of the inspection the previous afternoon. Notice was necessary because security
checks were required and because there was a need to minimize potential delays. The Region reported
that it did not experience difficulties regarding national security or facility access while performing
the inspections.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region VII reported a moderate level of general interaction and coordination with the States as a
result of the FMECI. State representatives participated in the inspection teams for both FY 1993
multi-media inspections. Region VII indicated that the level of interaction with the State increased
throughout the stages of the FMECI. During the targeting phase, interaction did not exist, while a
moderate level of interaction occurred during the inspection stage.
Region VII indicated the State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs) enhanced rather than impaired the
States' ability to participate in the FMECI. The Region noted that SEAs are beginning to include the
multi-media concept.
Region VII reported several obstacles to, and benefits from, Regional and State coordination. Ob-
stacles to coordination included scheduling and identifying appropriate participants. The Region
indicated that the benefits of Regional and State activities included enhanced cooperation, and training
opportunities for both the Region and State. Although Region VII indicated that the FMECI resulted
69
-------
in no negative impacts regarding Regional/State relations the Region noted that the States lacked the
resources to implement these efforts.
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To increased involvement
• Increases thoroughness of inspections
• Enhances cooperation with States
• Provides training opportunities
Obstacles To Increased Involvement
• Requires complex scheduling
• Necessitates early identification of inspection team participants
• Raises potential political problems
• Requires use of limited State resources
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
In general, Region VII found the Federal facilities cooperative during the multi-media inspections. As
a result of the FMECI, the Region experienced an increased level of interest in the multi-media ap-
proach. However, the Region noted that it is unclear whether the multi-media approach will become a
priority compared to the single-media approach.
Region VII identified many benefits from, and barriers to, using the multi-media approach (see Table
5). One benefit reported by Region VII was that the holistic, coordinated effort resulted in a compre-
hensive review of facilities. In addition, the multi-media approach enhanced awareness of regulatory
requirements, improved coordination among Regional enforcement personnel, provided on-the-job
training for inspectors, and promoted deterrence and compliance among Federal facilities. On the other
hand, the Region viewed the time and effort needed to coordinate the inspection and enforcement
efforts as barriers to utilizing a multi-media approach. Facility representatives found the multi-media
approach to be overwhelming, and the Region experienced difficulty in coordinating with the specific
media programs.
70
-------
TABLE 5
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Enables a comprehensive review of facilities due to holistic approach
Provides enhanced regulatory presence at Federal facilities
Improves coordination among Regional enforcement staff
Provides on-the-job training for inspectors
Increases compliance and deterrence among Federal facilities
Barriers
• Requires extensive time and effort to coordinate
• Overwhelms facilities
• Necessitates difficult coordination with media programs
71
-------
72
-------
Region VIII
Region VIII, with Headquarters in Denver, Colo-
rado, is comprised of six Midwestern States:
Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Colorado. In support of the activities
under the FMECI, the Region inspected three
Department of Defense facilities, including F.E.
Warren Air Force Base (AFB), WY; Hill Air Force
Base (AFB), UT; and Grand Forks Air Force Base
(AFB), ND. Regions conducted Category C
inspections. F.E. Warren and Grand Forks are
large facilities with medium complexity levels of
compliance issues, while Hill Air Force Base is a
large facility with a high complexity level of
compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region VIII initiated two enforcement actions: an NOV and a RCRA §3008(a) Administrative Order (see
Table 1). One of the three inspected facilities was subject to both these actions. No penalties resulted from
these actions and all enforcement actions have been issued.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Administrative Order
Notice of Violation
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
1
1
2
The Region and State of Wyoming acted as the inspection lead for F.E. Warren AFB. The Region acted as the
inspection lead, with support from the States at Hill AFB and Grand Forks AFB. In Region VIII, the States
acted as the enforcement lead for all enforcement actions (see Table 3).
Region VIII noted that cross-media enforcement opportunities were explored when determining enforcement
actions and violations.
73
-------
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
F.E. Warren
Air Force Base, WY
Hill Air Force Base, UT
Grand Forks
Air Force Base, ND
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
None
Administrative Order
NOV
None
STATUS FOR
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
None
Issued
Issued
None
STATUTE
VIOLATED
None
RCRA
RCRA
None
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
None
None
Region VIII indicated that environmental compliance, and awareness of compliance at the inspected facilities
has been enhanced. Region VIII stated that inundating the facilities with inspectors caused the heightened
awareness.
As a result of the FMECI, Region VIII increased enforcement activities at Federal facilities, as compared to
activities prior to FY 1993, and increased the number of multi-media inspections. The FMECI did not, how-
ever, affect the number of administrative settlements.
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
1
2
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Daring the inspections, the inspectors provided pollution prevention recommendations relating to the current
processes. For example, the State of North Dakota suggested that the Grand Forks AFB change its use of
cleaning materials. In addition, the inspection team recommended that the Hill AFB exercise caution when
selecting the pesticides, and limit the storage of pesticides to one year. The Region also provided the facilities
with relevant Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles and other information, including points of contact and
applicable regulations.
74
-------
The Region has not yet incorporated pollution prevention remedies into settlements that have resulted from the
FMECI enforcement activities. The Region has, however, pursued pollution prevention SEPs at other facilities,
(e.g. Rocky Flats).
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When choosing facilities for inspection, Region VIII considers facility compliance history, initiatives, and
opportunity for pollution prevention as the most important criteria. The Region also coordinates with the States
with respect to State priorities, and looks at factors such as size and nature of facility. The Region did not
exclude CFAs from the facilities selected for inspection as a result of the targeting criteria established in the
FMECI Implementation Guidance.
Region VIII noted that the specific allocation of resources within the Region to meet the FMECI's requirements
had a significant impact on the availability of resources for other Regional/State enforcement priorities. In
particular, travel was a concern for Region VIII.
The Region sought assistance from OFFE and the RCRA Enforcement Division when conducting enforcement
activities. Assistance was also sought regarding site access issues. The Region reported that although the
Region VIII inspector was fully cleared, the Air Force refused access based on "Need to Know." Despite some
obstacles, the Region finalized its administrative enforcement cases within the established 1-year time frame.
The access issue with the base was not resolved.
The Region also noted that some facilities were overwhelmed by the size of the inspection team. One inspec-
tion team was documented as consisting of 17 participants. In some cases, the inspection team personnel
experienced facility access difficulties relating to national security. The inspections lasted for three and four
days. The time interval between the inspections and completion of the reports was not available for two
inspections because the reports have not been finalized.
When conducting the actual inspection, the Region provided the facilities with prior notice. In addition, the
Region held informational in-briefings and closing conferences.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region VIII included State representatives as part of its inspection team for all multi-media inspections con-
ducted. In fact, the level of interaction between the Region and State during all stages (targeting, inspection,
and enforcement action) was significant. According to Region VIII, SEAs have neither enhanced nor impaired
the States' ability to participate in the FMECI.
Region VIII noted a few benefits from and obstacles to Regional and State coordination (see Table 4). The
Region stated that cross-media communication increased due to the Region/State coordination. Although the
relationship with the States is strong, the Region noted that many competing priorities and diverse communica-
75
-------
tions at different layers of management challenged coordination efforts. The FMECI has resulted in negative
ramifications for Regional/State relations. According to the Region, difficulties have arisen because the States
see no added value to the "mega inspection" approach. In this situation, referral to other programs is pre-
ferred.
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To Increased Involvement
• Provides greater cross-media communication
Obstacles To Increased involvement
• Requires balancing of competing priorities and mixed-message communication at different
management levels
• State perceptions of no added value from this approach
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region VIII noted that the facilities benefited from the "holistic" coordinated effort of the multi-media
approach (see Table 5). Multi-media inspections allowed an entire facility to be viewed in a comprehensive
manner and to identify where various statutes interconnected. Citing evidence of this fact, the Region referred
to enhanced environmental compliance after the multi-media inspections. Region VIII indicated an increased
interest in conducting additional multi-media inspections as a result of the FMECI. However, in general, the
States have resisted this approach.
On the other hand, Region VIII noted obstacles to performing multi-media rather than single-media inspec-
tions (see Table 5). In Region VIII's view, the significant resources required to coordinate and facilitate the
inspections is a barrier to using the multi-media approach. The Region noted that it lacks the resources
required to conduct numerous multi-media inspections.
TABLE b
BENEFITS/BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Provides comprehensive view of facility
Supports ability to identify where Statutes interconnect
Barriers
Requires significant resources for coordination of inspection and for follow-up decisions
Highlights Region's lack of resources
Mechanisms for multi-media enforcement actionbs are not readily available
76
-------
Region IX
EPA Region IX, with Headquarters in San Francisco,
California, consists of Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific. California and the Marshall Islands partici-
pated in multi-media inspections. Region IX and Califor-
nia State agencies inspected Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
while the Region and the U.S. Army inspected the U.S.
Army Kwajalein Atoll base (USAKA) at the Republic of
the Marshall Islands. Region IX included an Environmen-
tal Compliance Assessment System Audit conducted for
USAKA as one of the two required multi-media inspec-
tions. Both facilities inspected were medium in size and
had low complexity levels of environmental compliance
issues. The facilities were subject to Category C and D
inspections. The Region's use of Category D inspections
depended on resource availability. Region IX cited
Category C inspections as typical.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
The Region issued one Administrative Order for TSCA violations at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard (see Table
1), pursuant to which the State assessed a penalty of $10,800. At USAKA, inspectors identified FIFRA, SPCC,
TSCA, and UST violations, but determined that the violations did not warrant enforcement actions (see Table
2). Region IX led the inspection at Mare Island and the State of California acted as the enforcement lead. The
U.S. Army Environmental Health Agency led the inspection of USAKA (see Table 3).
Region IX noted that the audit at USAKA was comprehensive, but questioned how effectively U.S. standards
could be applied in a Trust Territory — in this case, the Marshall Islands —because of uncertainty surrounding
adherence to the Compact of Free Association. In this situation, U.S. environmental laws were used as a
guideline to determine compliance. Although USAKA was not subject to enforcement actions, a report is
expected that will identify needed corrective actions at the base.
The Region noted that two multi-media inspections were conducted as a result of the FMECI. Region IX was
unable to determine at the time of the survey whether the FMECI resulted in increased environmental compli-
ance, or awareness of compliance at Federal facilities.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
1
1
77
-------
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
USAKA, Republic
of Marshall Islands
Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, CA
TYPEOI^
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
None
Administrative Order
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
None
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
None
TSCA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
$10.800
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA)
Administrative Order
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
1
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region did not provide facilities with a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile. Pollution prevention
conditions or remedies were not incorporated into settlements resulting from the FMECI during FY 1993. In
addition, the Region does not project any reduction of pollutant discharges or emissions at Federal facilities
based on waste minimization efforts, pollution prevention, or the negotiation of SEPs. The Region's inspec-
tion report does not state whether pollution prevention opportunities were identified during the inspections or
if the facilities had already implemented a pollution prevention program. Region IX has not pursued pollution
prevention SEPs based on facility proposals, Regional/State initiatives, or pollution prevention technical
assistance.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region IX selected facilities to participate in the multi-media inspections based on the survey criteria. Region
IX ranked compliance history, Regional risk ranking, and other priorities/initiatives as "moderately impor-
tant." The opportunity for pollution prevention was rated as "slightly important." Region IX also considered
cost to the Agency as a factor in selecting facilities. The Region did not exclude CFA facilities from the list as
a result of the targeting criteria established in the FMECI.
78
-------
Region IX did not receive assistance from FFEO, NEIC, RREL, or the Office of Criminal Enforcement. It
did, however, receive assistance from other sources. At Mare Island, the State of California helped Region
IX by acting as the enforcement lead. At USAKA, the Army paid for the inspection, but the effort involved
multi-Federal agency support. In addition, the Region provided the facility with an FMECI Overview
Brochure.
The Region did not indicate whether resources allocated to meet the FMECI's requirements impacted the
availability of sources for other Regional/State enforcement priorities. Special steps taken by Region to
ensure the availability of resources included that no significant travel was needed for the Mare Island inspec-
tion and that the Army paid for the USAKA inspection.
The time frame for inspections varied from two to 13 days, the average being 7.5 days. The Regional report
did not indicate the number of participants on the inspection teams. Region IX stated that the 1-year time
frame for finalizing enforcement actions was unrealistic. The State of California issued an informal action
shortly after the Mare Island inspection. However, Region IX believes that a final, formal administrative
action will take longer, especially for multi-media actions. Regions did not provide information to determine
the average time from the inspections to the completion of the inspection reports.
Region IX reported no difficulties related to national security or facility access while performing inspections
under the FMECI. The Region did not state if any notice of the inspection was given to either facility prior to
the inspection. Information regarding the FY 1993 inspections did not indicate whether opening or closing
briefings occurred at either facility.
REGIONAUSTATE COORDINATION
The Region reported that it and the States interacted and coordinated at a moderate to significant level during
each stage of the FMECI. In one of the two inspections, State personnel participated on the inspection
teams.
The Region reported an improvement in its State relations resulting from joint Regional and State activities.
In addition, the FMECI had no negative impact on for Regional and State relations. SEAs also had no effect
on the State's ability to participate in the FMECI. Region IX did not cite any obstacles to Regional and State
coordination (see Table 4).
OVERALL IMPACT OF THE MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region IX noted that, overall, the facilities' response to the inspections conducted under the FMECI was
positive. Region IX also noted increased interest in using multi-media inspection as a result of the FMECI,
specifically in using multi-media approaches to target inspection/ enforcement efforts.
79
-------
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To Increased involvement
• Improves relationships with State
Obstacles To Increased Involvement
• None reported
As shown in Table 5 below, Region IX indicated benefits of, and barriers to, using the multi-media inspection
approach as compared to single-media inspections. A benefit noted was the strengthening of State-EPA
partnerships and increased inter- and intra-agency cooperation. However, the time consumed in lead and
support negotiations across the agencies was seen as a barrier to the multi-media approach. The Region also
saw a barrier in the logistical and resource demands imposed to meet EPA's definition of the 90-day window.
Region IX stated that the 90-day window is arbitrary. Region IX also noted that its multi-media approach is
moving toward a targeting strategy rather than actual multi-media inspections.
TABLE 5
BENEFITS AND BARRIERS TO MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Benefits
Strengthens Regional/State partnerships
Enhances inter- and intra-agency cooperation
Barriers
Requires extensive commitment of time to lead and support negotiation across agencies
Logistics and resources needed to FMECI requirements
80
-------
Region X
EPA Region X, with Headquarters in Seattle,
WA, has responsibility for four States: Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Region X
conducted two multi-media inspections in FY
1993: one at U.S. Army Garrison-Fort
Richardson, AK, and the other at the U.S. Navy
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WA. The Region
conducted Category D inspections at both
facilities. These inspections involved extensive
coordination with appropriate State and local
authorities. Both facilities posed high levels of
complexity in terms of compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Both facilities were subject to enforcement actions as a result of the FMECI (see Table 1 and 2). In addition,
each has a history of enforcement actions that have affected the nature and extent of actions taken as a part of
the FMECI.
As seen in Table 2, Region X issued TSCA NOVs to both facilities. The Region also issued an Administra-
tive Order to Fort Richardson for CAA violations and a RCRA Administrative Order that included a proposed
penalty of $1.3 million.
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
NUMBER
3
2
5
Cross-media enforcement opportunities were explored during settlement with U.S. Army Garrison-Fort
Richardson. The Region indicated that the FMECI has resulted in an enhanced awareness of compliance
issues at facilities, demonstrated by the sharing of information about the FMECI between Federal facilities, as
81
-------
TABLE 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
SITE NAME
Fort Richardson, AK
U.S. Navy Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard,
WA
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
NOV
NOV
NOV
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
RCRA
CAA
TSCA
TSCA
CAA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
$1.3million(P;
None
well as the significant media interest. The State issued one NOV to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for CAA
violations (see Table 3).
The Region noted that the FMECI has resulted in an increased number of Category D multi-media inspections,
but did not indicate if the number of administrative settlements has also increased.
TABLE 3
STATE LEAD ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (EA> i
Notice of Violation
Total Number of EAs with State Lead
NUMBER OF STATE ENFORCEMENT LEADS
1
1
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution Prevention has also been a significant part of the FMECI effort in Region X. Waste minimization is
required under the 1991 RCRA enforcement agreement between Region X and the Army. During settlement
discussions pursuant to the current Fort Richardson and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard cases, supplemental envi-
ronmental projects (SEPs) were explored. For example, discussion between the facilities and TSCA staff are
resulting in both facilities disposing of equipment in order to become PCB-free.
82
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
In selecting facilities for inspection, the Region places emphasis on a number of factors such as: facility
compliance history, Regional risk ranking protocols, environmental justice concerns, opportunities for
pollution prevention, and Regional and state enforcement priorities.
There have been concerns expressed about the allocation of resources for Federal facility multi-media
inspections, and the impact of these types of inspections on single-media inspection program resources.
However, as the Region gains more experience in the multi-media process, it expects these concerns will be
addressed.
Region X was successful in final settlement of the RCRA matter at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard within one
year after the second inspection, and the TSCA program issued both TSCA actions within 7-8 months. The
Region reports that the process tends to be slower due to the multiple agency review of inspection reports
and the length of time needed to decide on appropriate follow-up activities. The Region is committed to
shortening the period of time for enforcement follow-up as a result of participation in the FMECI.
Normally Region X performs its multi-media inspections unannounced, with some limited exceptions. At
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the Region anticipated some problems in gaining access and requested
Headquarters assistance to resolve the problem quickly. The Region has had success in using multi-media
Requests for Information that are given to the facility at the initiation of its inspections. This process is
used because document review is an integral part of the inspection. Normally, multi-media inspections are
staged over a number of days (7-10 days), and the Region routinely performs opening and closing briefings
for the inspected facilities. The Region encourages the highest level of base command attendance at the
closing briefing to ensure that the environmental concerns are identified and resolved quickly.
REGIONAUSTATE COORDINATION
Region X does not believe that the FMECI has had a negative impact on Regional/State relations; both
inspections conducted in FY 1993 included State personnel. Region X ranked the level of interaction
between Regional and State offices with regard to enforcement actions as moderate, and as moderate to
significant during the targeting of facilities to be inspected as well as the actual inspections.
Region X noted a few benefits from, and obstacles to, Regional and State coordination (see Table 4). The
Region cited benefits from the FMECI as joint partnership opportunities, improved communication, access
to technical assistance, and a visible and substantial presence in the Federal facility community.
83
-------
TABLE 4
STATE INVOLVEMENT
Benefits To Increased Involvement
• Provides joint partnership opportunities
• Provides technical assistance
• Improves communication
• Visible and substantial presence in Federal facility community
Obstacles To }ncrease
-------
Part Three: Appendices
85
-------
APPENDIX A:
AIR FORCE GUIDE
A- 1
-------
Preparing for
the Multimedia
Inspection
Prepare for a multimedia Inspection as you
would for any programmatic or external
compliance inspection. You can also do
the following: f' :
• Review your latest internal and external
ECAMP assessments and your progress
toward resolving noted deficiencies. Pay1.
special attention to Items that could
result In regulatory enforcement actions.
For more Information about these Hems.
contact IIQACC/CEVPO. ' ' ' :
• Review and apply the guidance in
the pamphlet Managing CotnfMance
Inspections, distributed by the Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence ,
(AFCEE). ; ' 5 •' :
• To identify current deficiencies, arrange
for an ACC Tiger Team inspection of
your base through MQ ACC/CEVPO.
j If time allows, followup visits by the
ECAMP Team and by other technical '
support teams can also be arranged. :
Evaluate your facility against the ;
inspection protocols contained in the
EPA's Mti/fimrdfn Investigation Manual
['.' ' (EPA-330/9-R9-003-R. Marcli 1992).
• Develop a briefing on your base's
environmental program for the EPA i |
inspection team, with particular |; ; ;
emphasis on pollution prevention, ; j
resource recovery, control of the : I i
hazardous materials inventory, • '•
and waste minimization. Mi , '
' '' '• I
• Have a P2 effort ready to demonstrate '
and an unfunded P2 project ready to be
proposed to the EPA for their consider- :
at ion to fund.
Questions
and Assistance
HQACC/CEVPO
(Langley AFB, Virginia) .
(804) 764-2272 or DSN 574-2272
EPA Regional Federal
Facility Coordinators.
V,1
I
. 1 -Anne Fenn;,.,.„.......;.....„ (617) 565-3927
2 - Bob Hargrove .i......;.,,,;^.(212)'264-1892^
3 - Larry Telle/>>.i.;iV^ii>»'.-ii»"i.(216) 597-1269 ,,,J
4 - Arthur Lintbn>.....,.'.t...V.y (404) 347-3776, ^
5 -Lee Regner...:........:.:..'..Vl (312) 353-6478 \.'\
6 -Jim Highland;&;^-.iu^(214) 655-7452 >y|
7 - Craig Burnstein.^......;;v.. (913) 551:7688 J/?
8 - Elmer Chenaiilt .^:..^S^(3p3);2940982 ^
• (404) 331-6776 Or DSN 797-1001
(ask operator for number),;":
'.eaeriaMiP^;^
;(^^^"^^^'V1^^^^
^w^^./'-J
r:-:~p-«-.^.^VV I 1' -
S'..'.Sii-.s "f t*i
$•'••'*$;**•-' i r
**-iS.ffi.-i"ti.:\fJLj
I^,M^,, ,
^f:^^*^"-
Enfbrcement^l
Inspections
'•:. A guide for :'-;>
understanding '
what they are,
..•v$
>;<{
••'••;:i
•:-i.-^
'i- .'• '• •• - ..*,'•••• '.' ••'••''•;•. *' '•••• ••/"*•• •;. .:-••,.•. •..,••' ••y>r>n
.•:•. • • •"•', , when you can •;;4'^"-'%|
.V ;;/; .';:•.> ex^ct one;, vV"'!; ' ' v '
; - • United States Air Force J;
., "• Air Combat Command
tr: Programs Division,,?.^-(^^J|^S?\! -^
* •' '•'•'".-' • \ • '" •/" •'''•'
-------
Goals and
Objectives
Scope and
The EPA's Multimedia Enforcement/
Compliance Initiative focuses on the overall
environmental compliance of federal facili-
ties. The Initiative also increases environ-
mental awareness while expanding the
levels of the EPA's techn eal assistance to
federal facilities.
The InitialIvc officially began in Febru-
ary 1993 and is scheduled to end In 1995.
Under the Initiative. Ihc EPA expects to
perform multimedia Inspections at 75
federal facilities (4-10 per EPA region).
The primary object ive is to
determine a facility's regulatory
compliance with all applicable
requirements.
Emphasis Is on compliance with the
Resource Conservation a nd Recovery Act
(RCRA). the Clean Water Act. the Clean Air
Act. the Toxic Substance Control Act, and
the Emergency Planning nnd Community
RJght-to-Know Act. In addition, Ihc Initia-
tive goes beyond compliance by seeking to
identify pollution prevention opportunities
and by evaluating the overall effectiveness
of a facility's program in management of
environmental risk, control of cross-media
pollutant transfers, and conservation and
protection of resources.
Benefits Include more efficient use of
EPA inspection resources, improved
compliance, better integration of environ-
mental protection programs across envi-
ronmental media, and more sensitivity I"
environmental equity.
Targeting SIrategies
All federal facilities arc subject to multi-
media enforcement/compliance inspections.
Inspections will be scheduled and
coordinated by the EPA's regional offices,
with teams composed of both federal and
slate Inspectors. Advance notice may or
may not be given.
Simultaneous programmatic regulatory
compliance inspections may include
environmental or waste stream sampling.
with emphasis on identifying threats to the
environment resulting from cross-media
transfers of pollutants.
All available EPA and state enforcement
authorities will be applied to correct noncom-
pllances. In addition, the EPA will help In
identifying and implementing fully inte-
grated solutions to noncompliances and in
exploiting opportunities to prevent pollution.
Facilities will be selected for imilllmcdla
inspections by their EPA regional offices, /
through application of each region's unique
targeting formula. These formulas con-
sider compliance history: overall environ-
mental risk: national, regional, and/or
state priorities; pollution prevention oppor-
tunities: and environmental equity.
ur Facility's Vulnerability
'''''' ' '
THe greater the number of "yes" answers, the higher the priority.
-• • •
Does your facility have any open enforcement actions? .• . '
Within the last two years, has your base had a release of oil, petroleum products, or CERCLA
hazardous substances in excess of their respective reportable quantities? : '
Does your base own or operate a RCRA-permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility that is subject
to interim or final groundwater monitoring provisions? . : ,
Has more than a year passed since your base received a RCRA inspection?
Does your base encompass sensitive environmental areas such as sole-source aquifers, wetlands,
flood plains, Karst topography, or habitats of threatened or endangered species?
Does your base own or operate a public water supply subject to provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act? i
-'* *'
PV
Is your base located in a nonattainment area for any of the primary ambient air quality standards?
i • •. • - -. - •
Do any air pollution sources at your facility emit hazardous air pollutants?
Does your facility own or operate a waste water treatment facility permitted under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)?
Over the last two years, have the contaminant discharge limits of your NPDES permit
been exceeded?
-------
APPENDIX B:
SAMPLE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY PROFILE
B- 1
-------
GUIDE TO POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
AT
NAVAL BASE USA (NBU)
As part of the Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement Compliance Initiative
(FMECI), the EPA Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) is providing this
guidance package to assist enforcement personnel in identifying and documenting
pollution prevention (P2) opportunities that can be incorporated into settlement
agreements with the above-mentioned Federal facility. This package consists of two
parts: a "Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Field Reporting Form" (Attachment A),
and a "Pollution Prevention Opportunities Profile" (Attachment B). Both of these parts
are specifically prepared for use at the above-mentioned Federal facility.
PART I. FEDERAL FACILITY POLLUTION PREVENTION FIELD REPORTING
FORM
The field reporting form presented in Attachment A provides a mission
statement for the facility, which can be used by inspectors to predict the types of
processes and wastes that may be present at the facility. In addition, this reporting form
provides a consistent format for inspectors to record information on pollution
prevention activities and opportunities at the facility. Parts I through IV of this form
are provided by FFEO, and include the facility name, address, and identification
number, and a facility mission statement. Parts V through VIII are filled out by the
inspector, and are to be maintained as part of the inspection record.
Part V.A is used by the inspector to record information about wastes that may
present opportunities for pollution prevention. Part V.B. allows inspectors to record the
types of pollution prevention opportunities that they know or suspect are relevant to
each waste identified in Part V.A. Inspectors may use the Pollution Prevention
Opportunities Profile (Attachment B) as an aid in completing Part V of the field
reporting form.
Part VI of the field reporting form allows the inspector to record detailed
information about ongoing pollution prevention activities at the subject facility. This
information may be used by EPA to propose the wider application of certain pollution
prevention techniques implemented at the facility.
Part VII of the field reporting form allows inspectors to record violations
occurring at those waste generation activities that have pollution prevention potential as
determined pursuant to Part V of the field reporting form. These types of violations
may allow the EPA to introduce pollution prevention requirements into settlement
agreements.
-------
Part VIII of the field reporting form allows inspectors extra space to nominate
one or more pollution prevention opportunities at the subject facility that are most
likely to be incorporated into a settlement agreement.
PART II. FEDERAL FACILITY POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY
PROFILE
FFEO investigated a number of EPA information sources to identify potential
pollution prevention opportunities at NBU. These sources and the types of data they
provided are listed below:
• RCRA 3016 database: Annual quantities for each RCRA hazardous
waste.
• Aeronomic Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database: Annual
quantities of Federal air pollutants.
• Permit Compliance System (PCS) database: Annual quantities of Federal
water pollutants.
• RCRA Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database: Types and annual
quantities of hazardous wastes.
• Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) database: NBU was not found on
this data base.
Data from the above-mentioned sources were used to prepare the profile for
NBU which is presented in Attachment B. This profile does not represent all wastes
that may have pollution prevention potential at NBU. Furthermore, this profile may
include wastes that have little or no potential for pollution prevention. This profile was
prepared to provide the inspectors with an initial list of wastes that, based on data from
the above-mentioned sources and the information depicted by the facility mission,
appear to present the best opportunities for pollution prevention. The inspector is
encouraged to investigate these potential opportunities during upcoming inspection. If
the opportunities in the profile are confirmed during the inspection, the inspector
should obtain as much, additional information as possible on these opportunities and
record all such findings in Parts V through VIII of the field reporting form (Attachment
A).
-------
ATTACHMENT A
FEDERAL FACILITY
POLLUTION PREVENTION FIELD REPORTING FORM
I. Facility Name: Naval Base USA
II. Facility Address:
Anytown
Alaska
City
State
III. EPA ID No.: AK 1240098136
IV. Mission Description:
Naval Base USA is involved in the overhaul and maintenance of surface ships up to
attack carriers, attack submarines, and ballistic missile submarines. NBU services
include conversion, overhaul, repair, alterations, and drydocking. The base also
provides support for air and submarine warfare weapons systems. NBU is the homeport
to an aircraft carrier, two cruisers and two ammunition ships. NBU occupies 1.760
acres in Anytown Alaska and employs approximately 16.200 permanent staff (270
officers. 4,390 enlisted personnel, 11,520 civilians, and 20 students V
V. Wastes with P2 Potential (observed):
A.
Waste Description (include waste sources,1
chemical compositions, physical properties, and
quantities)
B. P2 Opportunities (See Attachment B)
1 Waste source descriptions should include the locution of the waste generating activity (e.g., building number), and the process that generates the wastes (e.g., degrcasing of aircraft
motor parts).
-------
VI. Current P2 Activities:
A. Waste Description (Sources1 and Quantities) B. Initiative Description
VII. Violations affecting Waste Sources1 with P2 Potential (see Part V of this form):
A. Waste Source B. Violation C. Status of Violation
VIII. Recommendations for Modifications to Current Programs:
' Waste source descriptions should include the location of the waste generating activity (e.g., building number), and the process that generates the wastes (e.g., degreasing of aircraft
motor parts).
-------
ATTACHMENT B: FEDERAL FACILITIES
POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) OPPORTUNITIES PROFILE AT NAVAL BASE USA (NBU)
Waste Description2
Spent hydraulic fluid
(propylene glycol)
Ignitable wastes
(DO01)
Spent isopropyl
alchohol (DOO1)
Mixtures of spent
xylenc. methyl
isobutyl keytone, and
toluene
Cyanide wastewater
containing cadmium
and chromium, as
well as chromium
waslewaler
Acid mixtures
contaminated with
metals
Mixtures of
inethylcne chloride,
xylenc. methyl
isobulyl keytone, and
metals (DOO5,
FOO2. POO3. and
F005)
EPA
33/50
Program
Target
(Y/N)3
N
N
N
N
1
N
1
Annual Waste
Quantity
1.55 tons (1989)
6.6 tons (1989)
3 tons (1989) of spent
isopropyl alchohol
from 8 sources and
0.45 tons of a solution
containing hydrochloric
acid, isopropanol, and
xylene from 2 sources
59.18 tons (1989) from
15 sources
2198 tons (1989)
140 tons (1989)
28 tons (1989); one
waste stream
accounted for 17.8 tons
in 1989
Assumptions on Waste Origin
and/or Composition4
Hydraulic fluid drained from
equipment during routine
service
Mineral spirits from degreasing
operations
Degreasing agents for
electronic equipment
Degreasing agents or waste
paints, paint thinners, and
other materials
Rinse water from
electroplating operations
Spent acids from acid cleaning
operations
Paint stripping wastes
; Potential Pollution Prevention Opportunities
• Determine whether hydraulic fluid can be replaced in the
equipment after servicing has been completed
• Identify secondary uses for spent hydraulic fluids
• Minimize rates of solvent use
• Replace organic solvents with water-based solvents
• Extend solvent life by filtering or setting accumulated
solids
• Explore on-site recycling (distillation, filtration, or other
means)
• Minimize rate of solvent use
• Explore on-site recycling (distillation, filtration, or other
means)
• Minimize rate of solvent use
• Install countercurrent rinsing
• Use spent acids to neutralize spent caustics
• Extend life of acid baths through setting or filtration
• Use mechanical cleaning or replace acids with hot water
or biodegradeable detergents
• Eliminate all noncssential paint stripping operations
• Replace oil-based paints with water-based paints
• Adjust painting operations to minimize waste of paint
• Recycle organic paint strippers
• Use mechanical paint strippers
Data
Source5
BRS
BRS
BRS
BRS
BRS and
PCS
BRS and
PCS
BRS and
PCS
-------
ATTACHMENT B: FEDERAL FACILITIES
POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) OPPORTUNITIES PROFILE AT NAVAL BASE USA (NBU)
(Continued)
Waste Description2
Liquid cleaners
containing metals
(DOO6, DOO7,
DOO8, and FOO2)
Lead work debris
(DOO6, DOO7,
DOO8, and DO1O)
Activated cvarbon
contaminated with
metals (DOO7 and
DO11)
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
from surface coating
operations (acetone,
methyl ethyl keytone,
naphtha, and xylene)
EPA
33/50
Program
: Target
(Y/N)1 :
Y
Y
N
Y
Annual Waste
Quantity
82 tons (1989) from 4
major sources (18-23
tonstyear each)
25 tons
0.5 tons
87.23 tons (1991)
Assumptions on Waste Origin
and/or Composition4
De greasing
Scrap lead
None
None
Potential Pollution Prevention Opportunities
• Eliminate nonessential cleaning operations
• Replace halogenated degreasers with nonhalogenated
degreasers
• Switch to less volatile degreasers and cleaners
• Send to an off-site secondary smelter
• Send to an off-site activated carbon recycler
• Eliminate all nonessential surface coating operations
• Change to water-based paints whenever possible
Data
Source*
BRS and
PCS
BRS and
PCS
BRS and
PCS
AIRS
; Waste descriptions are derived from the data sources provided in the last column of this matrix. RCRA wastes in reported quantities below 500 Ibs (0.25 tons) per year are not
included in the matrix. No limits were placed on waste generation quantities for non-RCRA wastes.
' A voluntary national program to reduce releases of pollutants and off-site transfers of 17 toxic chemicals by 33 percent by the end of 1992 and by 50 percent by the end of 1995. Y
= Yes; N = No; I = Insufficient Data. (The 17 chemicals include: benzene; cadmium and cadmium compounds; carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; chromium and chromium
compounds: cyanide and cyanide compounds; lead and lead compounds; mercury and mercury compounds; methylene chloride; methyl ethyl keytone; methyl isobutyl ketone; nickel
and nickel compounds; tetrachloroethylene; toluene; 1,1.1-trichloroothane; and trichloroethylene).
1 Assumptions based on professional judgment.
5 BRS = RCRA Biennial Reporting System; AIRS = Aeornomic Information Retrieval System; PCS = Permit Compliance System; and TRIS = Toxic Release Inventory System.
------- |