ftEPA
ISSUE #9
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261A)
EPA #300-N-00-009
Spring 2000
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
Federal Facilities Compliance
Assistance Center Opens on the Web
Director'sWord:
EPA has launched
the Federal Facili-
ties Compliance Assis-
tance Center, an Inter-
net-based resource
aimed at helping feder-
al agencies comply with
environmental laws
and regulations. Spon-
sored by FFEO, the new
center is called FedSite
and is the tenth compli-
ance assistance center
opened by EPA.
FedSite links the
user with a wealth of
information. A "virtual
tour" of a fictitious
facility walks the user through compli-
ance issues typically found at federal
facilities, including air emissions, water
discharges, and hazardous waste man-
Inside
2 SFI Project Expands to Include
Federal Facilities
3 New Executive Orders Signed
4 Reports and Policies: Final Audit
Policy Issued, RCRA Administrative
Orders, Compliance Analyses of
NPDES Violations
6 News
7 EMR News
8 The Hammer
10 Partnerships
11 Conference Update
12 Publications
14 VP Highlights Green Achievements
15 Upcoming Events, Success Story
agements. Links to federal agencies, state
compliance programs, other compliance
assistance centers, training resources,
demonstrations, and publications make
FedSite the "first stop" for federal facility
compliance information. Visit FedSite at
www.epa^jov/oeca/fedfec/cfe.
FedSite serves a number of functions:
(1) it provides a centralized resource tool
of environmental compliance information
for federal facilities; (2) it creates tools,
tours, and guides that assist federal
agencies in attaining compliance with
environmental requirements; (3) it makes
environmental regulations easier to
understand for federal agencies; and (4) it
helps federal agencies be environmental-
ly responsible and model leadership and
stewardship to private and public sectors.
Visit FedSite and other compliance
assistance centers at www.assistance
centers.net. For more information, con-
tact Marie Muller at (202) 564-3658 or
Gregory Snyder at (202) 564-4271.
raig HOOK
goal of the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office (FFEO) is to ensure
that the federal government attains a level
of compliance with this country's environ-
mental laws that surpasses the rest of the
regulated community. In this issue of Fed-
Foes, I would like to address FFEO's cur-
rent approach to a successful federal facili-
ties enforcement and compliance program
and outline three priorities for improving
our own effectiveness.
Over the past several years, the Fed-
eral Facilities Enforcement and Compli-
ance Program has undergone significant
changes with the advent of new and clar-
ified enforcement authorities for federal
facilities under SDWA, CAA, UST, and
TSCA. Coupled with our historic ability
to assess penalties under RCRAand stip-
ulated penalties under CERCLA, these
authorities will help us promote a strong
enforcement program at federal facilities.
Much of what FFEO does is either
statutorily required or mandated by
Executive Order. We will continue to ful-
fill those responsibilities, in addition to
implementing new techniques to help
federal facilities attain environmental
compliance. With the continued reduc-
tion of EPA's enforcement budget, we at
FFEO must work with less, but we must
also look strategically at how resources
can be used most effectively to achieve
the largest environmental and public
health benefits. As an organization we
must strive to answer the question,
"what environmental benefits do our
efforts produce?" and target our activi-
ties accordingly.
FFEO has identified three main goals
for FY 2000: (1) improving data manage-
Continued on page 5
Printed on Rent-led Paper
-------
EPA’s Sector Facility Indexing Project Expands to
Include Some Federal Facilities
I n response to widespread stakeholder
interest, EPA is expanding the Sector
Facility Indexing Project (SFIP) to include
a subset of federal facilities. This expan-
sion will mean that communities can
obtain important compliance and inspec-
tion information about local federal facili-
ties, and facilities themselves will be
encouraged to become more accountable.
SFIP is a computerized database of
environmental information that currently
includes approximately 640 facilities in 5
sectors. The sectors currently covered are:
automobile assembly; pulp manufactur-
ing; iron and steel production; petroleum
refining; and primary smelting and refin-
ing of aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc
(nonferrous metals). SFIP collects in one
location the information that facilities
must provide under a number of federal
environmental statutes, including infor-
mation on past inspections and enforce-
ment actions, the size of the facilities and
their annual releases of chemicals into the
environment, and demographic data
about communities near the facilities.
SFIP has been publicly available since
May 1998 and is accessible at
www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi.
Since EPA has chosen to expand SFIP
to federal facilities, the Agency is now
working to determine a subset of the fed-
eral facility universe that is manageable
and provides useful information. Factors
that are taken into consideration when
considering an expansion include: (1)
whether the proposed sector is a current
EPA priority; (2) the size of the sector and
the ability to subdivide it; (3) the ability to
define the sector universe and capture
both large and small facilities; (4) the fea-
sibility of obtaining permit and facility
information for the sector; (5) the avail-
ability of outside information; and (6) the
interest of the various stakeholders.
EPA’s goal is to have the expansion to fed-
eral facilities completed later this year. As
SFIP expands, a primary concern is main-
taining public confidence in the integrity
of the data (see box below). Regions,
states, and affected facilities will be given
the opportunity to review the data and
resolve any data quality issues through a
coordinated EPA/state effort prior to
release.
Additional information on SFIP can be
obtained by logging on to the project’s
website at www.epa.gov/oecalsfi. For
more information, please contact Greg
Snyder, FFEO, at (202) 564-4271 (sny-
der.greg@epa.gov) or Rob Lischinsky,
Office of Compliance, at (202) 564-2628
(lischinsky.robert@epa.gov).
HOW SFIP ENSURES DATA QUALITY
SRP is a prototype for both integrating data from different media pro-
grams and improving data quality, as well as conducting multimedia
analysis to identify industry trends and track success over time. The pro-
ject has multiple uses. Facilities can benchmark their data against other
similar facilities, or simply monitor their own regulatory performance. The
database gives environmental and community groups easier access to
information they can use to learn about the environmental performance
of mdividual facilities. Government agencies can use the information
when planning how to allocate scarce resources.
Prior to the initial release of SFIP, EPA stakeholders, including industry,
environmental groups, and community organizations, commented on the
project EPA worked with stakeholders to establish complete definitions for
each of the data elements along with appropriate caveats so asto minimize
the potential for misinterpretation of the data. Each facility included within
SFIP received a copy of its compliance and enforcement data and was giv-
en the opportunity to submit comments. State agencies also received the
information for review, since a large portion of the data is provided to EPA
by state governments. Each comment was tracked to resolution both to
ensure that all necessary data corrections were made and to obtain an
overall view of data quality. Following the data reviews, a study showed
that the data integrated by SFIP was of high quality, with the data that was
commented on by the facilities having a baseline accuracy of 96%. Since
the project’s release, EPA has attempted to “refresh” or update the data
quarterly and no significant comments on data quality have been made.
Therefore, EPA continues to have confidence in the data.
Users of SFIP may submit comments electronically via the website’s
2 FEVFACS
comment page; by calling the project’s telephone hotline; or by writing to
EPA. Comments can be submitted on any aspect of the project and gen-
eral comments regarding the project are reviewed and acted upon as
appropriate. SFIP facilities may also submit comments concerning the
accuracy of their own data.
When EPA launched the SFIP website, the Agency committed to mon-
itor and eval iate the progress of the project Specifically, EPA wanted to
look at SFIP’s success in providing greater public access to accurate
compliance and facility-level information, as well as improving multime-
dia facility profiling and sector-based analysis. A formal evaluation was
carried out with EPA obtaining inputfrom user groups both inside and out-
side the Agency, including the EPA regions, the states, industry, environ-
mental groups, and trade associations. The results were positive. Exten-
sively used, SFIP has enhanced public access to and knowledge of
facilities’ environmental performance. The project is cited for improving
multimedia facility profiling; providing useful data in a “User-friendly”
website; improving data quality in underlying databases; and serving as
an incentive to achieve and maintain compliance. Furthermore, the
results have shown that the public does understand the data; the data
have been structured in such a way as to minimize any potential misin-
terpretation;, and the explanatory and background information provided
allows users to understand the data in context
The evaluation also identified widespread interest in an expansion of
SFIP that would build upon its success and make the project an even
more valuable analytical tool.
-------
New Executive Orders Signed on Earth Day 2000
P resident Clinton signed a new Execu-
tive Order on April 22, 2000, aimed at
“Greening the Government Through
Leadership in Environmental Manage-
ment.” Executive Order 13148 is intended
to build on the successes of Executive
Order 12856 and other recent orders, and
to move the federal government into a
position of leadership in environmental
stewardship.
“Our Administration’s series of ‘Green-
ing the Government’ Executive Orders
illustrates how the federal government
can operate cleaner while spending less,”
noted Vice President Gore. “This new
Executive Order will mean cleaner com-
munities and safer places to live, particu-
larly for our children.” (See related article
on page 14.
The new Executive Order calls for fed-
eral agencies to meet a voluntary goal of a
40 percent reduction in releases and off-
site transfers of toxic pollutants over the
next four years, from a baseline year of
2001, based on current federal release
data. This would amount to about 3 mil-
lion pounds of toxic chemicals not
released into the environment. The reduc-
tion goals called for by E.O. 12856 were
achieved three years early. By 1997, fed-
eral agencies reported a 58 percent drop
in releases to the environment, compared
to releases reported in 1994. (Results for
1998 and 1999 are not available yet.) The
Fi dFacs
is published by EPA’S Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor
Gilah Langner
Stretton Associates, Inc., Writer
Robin Foster,
SciComm, Inc., Layout
To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
Fed.ral Facilities Enforcement Office
U. S. EPA (2261A), 401 M Street S
Washington, DC 20460
or Fax :202-501-0069
Reed FecFara on the itemet
pThdth&aru eLhth
new baseline will reflect the doubling of
the number of chemicals covered by the
Toxics Release Inventory since 1993 as
well as changes to certain chemical spe-
cific reporting thresholds.
The new Executive Order requires
every federal agency over the next two
years to determine if a pharmacy pro-
gram is feasible to adopt, and if so, to put
it in place as a way of tracking, distribut-
ing, and managing toxic and hazardous
materials. The pharmacy system was
instituted by certain federal facilities
under E.O. 12856 — particularly those
with “industrial” processes such as air-
craft or ship repair and maintenance —
as a way of actively managing supplies of
hazardous materials. The system result-
ed in fewer materials exceeding their
shelf life and having to be disposed of as
hazardous waste. For example, between
1997 and 1998 at Fort Carson in Col-
orado, the hazardous material control
center was responsible for over 1 25
changes that reduced the amount of haz-
ardous materials and toxic chemicals
entering the waste stream by 70 percent.
The pharmacies also brought facilities
increased efficiency in line processes, low-
er costs, a cleaner environment, and a
safer workplace.
In another step forward, Executive
Order 13148 calls for reductions in feder-
al agency use of 15 toxic chemicals to be
identified by a federal workgroup. Use
reduction, as opposed to release reduction,
reflects an emphasis on source reduction
and pollution prevention. The list of chem-
icals will be developed by a federal work-
group and will reflect ongoing efforts to
identify substitute chemicals or processes
for specific applications to reduce environ-
mental damage, risk, and liability. Also
under the Executive Order, federal agen-
cies will have to phase out the procure-
ment of all Class I ozone-depleting sub-
stances by December 31, 2010.
The Executive Order also:
Requires environmental strategies to
be in place in all federal agencies and
encourages all agencies to incorporate
their environmental leadership goals
into the annual government-wide plans
developed under the Government Per-
formance and Results Act of 1993.
• Requires agencies to conduct a self-
assessment using an accepted environ-
mental management system (EMS)
framework, and requires that an EM
be implemented at all appropriate
facilities by the end of 2005.
• Requires each agency to have in place
a process for auditing ts facilities for
compliance with environmental regu-
lations.
Other Orders Signed
Two other Executive Orders were signed
on April 21. 2000:
• “Greening the Government Through
Federal Fleet and Transportation Effi-
ciency” is aimed at improving fleet fuel
efficiency and the use of alternative fuel
vehicles (AFVs) and alternative fuels in
the federal government. Each agency is
required to reduce its entire vehicle
fleet’s annual petroleum consumption
by at least 20 percent by the end of FY
2005, compared with FY 1999 petrole-
um consumption levels. Agencies have
flexibility in determining how to accom-
plish this. Agencies must also reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases that
cause global warming by as much as
120,000 tons per year. E.O. 13149, 65
FR 24595, April 26, 2000)
• “Federal Workforce Transportation” is
aimed at encouraging use of mass tran-
sit and carpooling among federal work-
ers. The Executive Order will allow
federal workers to spend up to $65
pre-tax dollars per month on public
transit. In the Washington metropoli-
tan area, all federal agencies will be
required to help subsidize public
transportation costs for their workers.
And three agencies — the Depart-
ments of Energy and Transportation
and EPA — will offer that benefit
across the country. (E.O. 13150, 65 FR
24595, April 26, 2000
For more information on the Executive
Orders, contact Will Garvey at (202) 564-
245 or visit http://www.whitehouse.gov.
FEOFACS 3
-------
Reportsand oIicies
Final Audit Policy Issued
EPAissued its final Audit Policy on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19617, “Incentives for Self-
Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction
and Prevention of Violations”). The policy
encourages regulated entities to voluntarily
discover, promptly disclose, and expedi-
tiously correct environmental violations.
Among the incentives that EPA offers are
elimination or substantial reduction of the
gravity component of civil penalties, and a
determination not to recommend criminal
prosecution of the disclosing entity. The
final policy also restates EPA’s long-stand-
ing practice of not requesting copies of regu-
lated entities’ voluntary audit reports which
might trigger federal enforcement investi-
gations. Although substantially similar to
the 1995 Audit Policy, the revisions length-
en the prompt disclosure period to 21 days,
clarify that the independent discovery con-
dition does not automatically preclude
penalty mitigation for multi-facility entities,
and clarify how the prompt disclosure and
repeat violation conditions apply to newly
acquired companies. The revised policy
reflects EPA’S experience over the past five
years with implementing the policy, and
was developed in close consultation with the
U.S. Department of Justice, states, public
interest groups, and the regulated commu-
nity For more information, contact Cather-
ine Malimn Dunn at (202) 564-2629 or
Leslie Jones at (202) 564-5123.
Study Shows Similarities in
RCRA Administrative Orders
Violations
EPA recently conducted a thorough review
of RCRA 3008a Administrative Orders
(AOs) imposed on federal agencies from
October 1992 through June 1999. The
study showed clear similarities in the types
of violations among federal agencies. A total
of 247 individual violations were cited in
the final AOs. The majority of the viola-
tions fell into one of five broad categories:
• storage accumulation issues — 19%;
• general operations and maintenance
failures — 18%;
• manifest and transport problems —
12%;
• labeling deficiencies — 10%; and
• incomplete forms and documents — 7%.
EPA issued 45 AOs during the study peri-
od and proposed fines in excess of $10.6
million. A total of 43 AOs were finalized
(two initial AOs were combined into one
final order) and federal agencies actually
paid over $2.9 million in penalties and
$8.2 million for supplemental environmen-
tal projects (SEPs). The average fine posed
against federal agencies was $237,102 per
order. Figure 1 depicts the number of
RCRA AOs finalized by fiscal year.
The ten most frequent specific viola-
tions cited in the AOs were: incomplete or
failure to make a hazardous waste deter-
mination; failure to label or improperly
labeled containers; failure to indicate accu-
mulation or storage start dates on contain-
ers; inadequate training or failure to train
environmental staff; land disposal restric-
tion (LDR) notification failure; failure to
close hazardous waste con-
tainers; incomplete contin-
gency plans; failure to main-
tain or provide records;
storage beyond permitted
time limits; and storage of
hazardous waste without
interim status or permit.
Most violations found
during this study were
administrative and pre-
ventable. Facility managers
must ensure that personnel
are trained properly so that
regulatory requirements
are met during daily opera-
tions.
For more information, 0
contact Kelly Jones at (202)
564-2459.
12
10
$
8
4
2
Analysis Underway of
Federal Facility Water
Permit Violations
Study Shows Over a Third of Major
Federal Facilities in Significant
Noncompliance
FFEO has completed a preliminary analy-
sis of federal water permit violations. EPA
and the states regulate approximately 500
federal facilities under the National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). The FFEO analysis covers only
permittees that are considered “major”
facilities that were in “significant noncom-
pliance” (SNC) during at least one of eight
quarters during the period January 1997
to December 1998.
Under the NPDES program, a facility
may be classified as being in SNC if it has
a violation of significant magnitude and/or
duration to be among the Agency’s priori-
ties for review and/or response. An
NPDES facility is classified as being in
SNC for a given quarter if the facility is:
(1) a major facility; (2) in operation; and 3)
Figure 1
RCRA AOs Finalized at Federal
Facilities, Oct. 92-June 99
N ib.r of AOs *natiz.d=43
]
1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
C.—
‘Thmugh June 1
4 FEDFACS
-------
Figure 2
Top 10 SNC Effluent Violations
classified with a Noncompliance Status for
one of the following: compliance schedule
reporting: compliance schedule violation;
effluent violations; non-month l v reported
effluent violations; or non-
receipt of a Discharge Monitor-
ing Report.
According to draft findings, 49
of 132 (37 ’ 4 major federal per-
mittees were in significant non-
compliance at least once in the
eight quarter study period.
These 49 facilities accounted fbr
a total of 128 quarters of signifi-
cant noncompliance in four code
categories:
• 4:1 quarters of effluent viola-
tions of monthly average limits
(Code lii;
• 41 quarters of latelnonsubmit-
tal of Disharge Monitoring
Reports Code Di;
• 38 quarters of effluent violations of
non-monthly average limits I Code Xi;
and
• 6 quarters of compliance schedule vio-
lations (Code S).
Eleven of the 49 (22 facilities were in
SNC status for four or more of the eight
quarters.
The 49 facilities in SNC represented at
least 680 effluent violations during the
two-year period. (Some facilities had muJ-
tiple SNC violations, such as compliance
schedule violation and effluent violations.
Some effluent violations are of such
magnitude or duration that they trigger
SNC status in and of themselves (Codes
E and Xi. There were at least 199 of these
effluent violations out of the 680 total vio-
lations 129’ ). The most commonly violat-
ed contaminant was suspended solids,
which accounted for 33 of the 199 i17 ”i i
effluent violations. Figure 2 shows the
top ten SNC effluent violations by num-
ber of occurrences.
For more information, contact Kelly
Jones at (202) 564-2459.
DIRECTOR’S WORD
Continued from page 1
ment and targeting; (2) promoting envi-
ronmental management systems; and (3
strengthening relationships with states
and media programs. Let me review each
(if these in turn.
Improving Data Management
and Targeting
As OECA seeks to improve its data sys-
tems — working with states to ensure
compliance with reporting requirements
and developing new tools to promote user
friendliness — FFEO must take full
advantage of these information systems.
Becoming proficient in the use of these
systems will enable us to retrieve perti-
nent information in a timely fashion and
to monitor compliance more effectively.
Better compliance monitoring will help
us identif r the most serious compliance
probkrns and take appropriate responses
to ensure compliance (i.e., compliance
assistance or enforcement’. Last year, we
began to develop scientific targeting
packages for the regions. We will be
working to expand these targeting pack-
ages to look fijr trends, identify focus
areas, and develop profiles of specific fed-
eral facility industry sectors.
Promoting Environmental
Management Systems
Over the past few years, FFEO has been
laying the groundwork for Environmental
Management Systems EMSs by imple-
menting and promoting the (‘ode of Envi-
ronmental Management Principles
ISO 1400th and conducting Environmen-
tal Management Reviews (EMRs at feder-
al facilities across the countr . During the
course of the EMR pilot, we discovered
that at facilities where EMRs were con-
ducted, the personnel acknowledge their
environmental responsibilities and show
evidence of sincerely wanting to protect
the environment. By building on this suc-
cess and with the help of future Presiden-
tial directives in this area, I hope to
encourage a greater commitment from oth-
er federal agencies to implement EMSs
within their departments, agencies, and
facilities. We believe that having a sound
EMS in place in each federal facility will
raise environmental performance and
compliance across the federal government.
Strengthening Relationships with
States and Media Programs
EPA’s co-regulators — state and local
governments — are a huge resource
with whom we must strengthen our
working relationships and support one
another’s efforts to ensure environmen-
tal compliance with the law. As a priori-
ty, FFEO will be looking very closely at
how we communicate with other gov-
ernment offices in compliance and
enforcement activities. At the same
time. FFEO must work closely with
EPA media program offices, ensuring
that as future priorities are developed
within those offices, federal agencies are
recognized as an important part of the
regulated universe. Our ability to work
together is critical to FFEO’s continued
success in assisting agencies with their
compliance issues.
I look forward to taking on these new
challenges and to developing new and
creative solutions to ensure environmen-
tal compliance at federal facilities. Our
goal remains, as Steve Herman, Assis-
tant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, has noted, “to
help build the capacity of federal facilities
to move toward cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter methods of environmental man-
agement and compliance.”
FEDFACS 5
-------
News
Environmental Appeals
Board Rules Against EPA
in Kingsville Lead-Based
Paint Case
On March 17, 2000, the EPA Environ-
mental Appeals Board (EAB) issued a
final order in The U.S. Department of
Navy, Kingsville Naval Air Station, Dock-
et No. TSCAV1-736C(L). The case was on
Interlocutory Appeal to the EAB based on
a motion filed by the Kingsvifle Naval Air
Station (Navy) in response to an order
issued by Administrative Law Judge
(AU) Stephen McGuire. The AlA’s Order
had denied several motions to dismiss
filed by the Navy and granted EPA’s
motions to strike. The Navy was named
by EPA Region 6 as a respondent in a
TSCA administrative penalty complaint
filed in July 1998, for failing to comply
with the Section 1018 Real Estate Notifi-
cation and Disclosure Rule. Oral argu-
ment in the case was heard by the EAB
on October 28, 1999.
One of the central issues on appeal
was whether the Residency Occupancy
Agreements (ROAs) which the Navy
enters into with enlisted military person-
nel at Kingsville are “contracts to lease”
under the Disclosure Rule. The terms
“contract to lease” and “lease” were not
defined by the Disclosure Rule. The Navy
argued, among other things, that it does
not enter into “contracts to lease” with
military personnel and thus the Disclo-
sure Rule is inapplicable. AlA McGuire
ruled that the ROAs were “contracts to
lease” under the Disclosure Rule, and
based his analysis on Texas contract and
property law, which is where the Navy
housing in question is located.
The EAB held that AU McGuire’s
“Order cannot be upheld based upon the
Presiding Officer’s analysis, which relied
on Texas law.” The EAB observed that
there is no definition for “contract to
lease” in the rule, and stated that “it is
not clear that an ROA would necessarily
be included or excluded from any so-
called ordinary definition of the term
lease.” The EAB further stated that
“while the Board does have the authority,
as the Agency’s final decision maker in
this case to fashion through this adju-
dicative proceeding a legally binding
interpretation of the terms ‘lease’ and
‘contract to lease’. . . we decline to exer-
cise that authority here.”
The EAB stated that “if the Agency
intends to regulate ROAs under the Dis-
closure Rule, it needs to develop a work-
able and supportable interpretation of the
Disclosure Rule to that end, and as appro-
priate amend the Disclosure Rule to
reflect that interpretation.” The EAB
specifically did not rule on whether Sec-
tion 408 of TSCA provides the requisite
“express statement” of Congressional
intent that EPA has administrative
penalty authority over another federal
agency.
The EAB concluded by noting DoD’s
memo of February 18, 1997 to the mili-
tary services that states that occupancy of
DoD housing by military members and
their families is considered to be leasing
of housing with regard to the Disclosure
Rule. Given the serious and unquestioned
health effects of lead-based paint, the
EAB stated that it expected the Navy to
comply with the disclosure requirements
as contemplated by the February 1997
DoD Memorandum. For more informa-
tion, contact Andrew Cherry at (202) 564-
2589.
Calculating the Economic
Benefit of Noncompliance
On September 30, 1999, OECA issued
guidance on calculating the economic
benefit of federal agency noncompliance.
The guidance reinforces existing EPA pol-
icy on including the economic benefit
(BEN) or cost savings associated with
noncompliance when calculating penal-
ties against federal violators. The purpose
of the guidance is to encourage consistent
application of EPA’s policies on penalty
calculation in order to treat all regulated
entities in an equitable manner. EPA cal-
culates BEN when it imposes penalties
against private companies as well as oth-
er not-for-profit entities, including state
and local governments. There is no reason
to treat federal agencies differently when
noncompliance occurs at their facilities.
The guidance explains the importance
of including the cost savings in the penal-
ty calculation and provides several exam-
ples. The BEN/cost savings component
recaptures the costs saved by the violat-
ing facility and also provides incentives
for an expeditious return to compliance.
The BEN component factors in the length
of time a facility is out of compliance and
thereby provides another incentive for a
facility to return to compliance as quickly
as possible. If cost savings are not fac-
tored into the penalty, it is possible that a
violator may find it pays to wait and com-
ply only when caught.
Another consideration is that federal
facilities often compete with private com-
panies. For example, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons manages federal prisons. But
there are privately owned prisons as well,
under contract to perform the same func-
tion. It is not uncommon for federal
installations to contract with a private
party to provide environmental services,
such as managing hazardous waste on-
site or running a sewage treatment plant.
If a federal entity does not comply with all
requirements, it can save money on its
environmental budget. This could pro-
vide an unfair competitive advantage
over a private party performing those
same functions which is in compliance.
Penalties serve the purpose of deter-
ring noncompliance with environmental
requirements. Imposition of a substantial
penalty against those who fail to comply
6 FEDFACS
Continued on page 14
-------
EMR National Report
Outlines Lessons Learned
A new report issued by EPA’s Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
reviews the lessons learned in conducting
29 environmental management reviews
(EMRs) at 20 federal agencies between
1996 and 1998. Among the key lessons are
the following:
Some facilities were worried that by
voluntarily allowing an EPA represen-
tative on-site, the facility would
increase the likelihood of incurring a
fine or having an
, , . enforcement
--“ action brought
against it. How-
ever, there
were no cases
where the
Incidental
Violations
Response
Policy was
invoked,
and no
enforcement
actions, fines, or penalties
were issued during the pilot program.
Partial EMRs had difficulty staying
within the defined EME scope, because
of the overlap among the seven disci-
plines that make up an EMR Team
members should be flexible and willing
to alter the scope of the review if all
parties agree.
• Ample preparation time — at least two
months prior to the on-site visit — is
critical. Pre-site visits with site repre-
sentatives are helpful in gathering the
necessary information and in allaying
anxieties. To avoid surprises, give per-
sonnel plenty of information about the
EMR process, and inform them of any
changes in team participants with
Upcoming EMRs in Region 6
EPA Region 6’s Federal Facilities Program has scheduled tour EMRs at federal tacilities
this spring. The facilities which have agreed to these voluntary environmental reviews
are the FDA’S National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas;
USDNAgricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Area Office, in College Station,
Texas; USDA’S Kerrville Laboratory in Kerrville, Texas; and the Treasury Department’s
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Western Currency Facility, in Fort Worth, Texas. For
more information, contact Joyce Stubblefield at (214) 665-6430.
enough time to cancel or postpone the
review.
Post-EMR evaluations help build a
better EMR program. Encourage facil-
ities to incorporate their thoughts on
the value of the EMR into the six-
month facility report submitted to
EPA, or in other formats.
• Use neutral on-site escorts rather than
the environmental manager of the
facility as a way of facilitating candid
discussions among personnel.
• Combine management and technical
expertise in an EMB team for best
results. Although the EMIR focuses on
management activities, technical envi-
ronmental questions often arise during
the course of a site visit.
Comments and feedback received on the
pilot program have led to a number of
changes in the EMR program, some of
which reduce the number of reports and
signatures required of participants, and
others which relate to the handling of vio-
lations discovered during the course of an
EMR. To allay facility concerns that vol-
untarily allowing EPA on-site could sub-
ject them to subsequent inspections, EPA
added a provision stating that EPA gen-
There were no cases where
the Incidental Violations
Response Policy was
invoked, and no enforcement
actions, fines, or penalties
were issued during the pilot
program.
erally will not conduct inspections at the
facility receiving the review for six
months afterwards. On the other hand,
facilities now have only 10 days, rather
than 30, to voluntarily disclose violations
incidentally discovered during an EMI l.
Copies of the report, Environmental
Management Review (EMR) National
Report: Lessons Learned in Conducting
EMRs at Federal Facilities (EPA 315-R-
99-003, November 1999) can be down-
loaded from FFEO’s website at
http://es.epa.gov/oecalfedfaclfflex.html.
FEDFACS 7
-------
Region 4
U.S. Army Fort Bragg, North Caroli-
na: On March 14, 2000, Region 4 issued a
Complaint and Notice and Opportunity
for Hearing against the U.S. Army Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, for violations of
SDWA. The Complaint alleges violations
at Fort Bragg’s drinking water plant,
which serves 65,000 people, and seeks
penalties in an amount not to exceed
$25,000 per day per violation. The SDWA
compliance issues, which include multiple
violations of the maximum concentration
level (MCL) for total trihalomethane
(VFIIM) since 1993, were addressed by a
March 25, 1999 Administrative Order
that sought to return the system to com-
pliance.
At an April 1999 meeting, Fort Bragg
assured the Region that all necessary
steps were being taken to return to com-
pliance. However, Fort Bragg again expe-
rienced 1”l’HM MCL exceedences in Octo-
ber 1999 and January 2000, and will
likely be out of compliance for at least two
more monitoring periods in 2000. A Octo-
ber 1999 internal audit by the Army
revealed significant operation and main-
tenance problems, and called into ques-
tion Fort Bragg’s efforts to comply with
the March 1999 compliance order.
The allegations against Fort Bragg
stem from an April 1998 multi-media
inspection and follow-up investigation. As
a result of the inspection, numerous pub-
lic water system violations were identi-
fied, as follows: 14 TTI-IM MCL violations;
a T1’HM monitoring and reporting viola-
tion for the quarter of October - December
1998; public education violations for fail-
ing to properly perform education
required when lead action levels were
exceeded; public notification violations
because of the system’s failure to provide
adequate and timely public notification of
its violations; and failing to report viola-
tions to the state within 48 hours. For
more information, contact: David Leven-
stein at (202) 564-2591 or Lisa lJhl,
Region 4 at (404) 562-9789.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Prisons: In September 1999, Region 4
settled enforcement actions over Clean
Air Act violations with the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional
Institution, and the Federal Medical Cen-
ter, located in Butner, North Carolina.
The Consent Agreements and Consent
Orders settled complaints over violations
of New Source Performance Standards
and the North Carolina State Implemen-
tation Plan. The respondent agreed to
payment of a civil penalties of $38,500
(for the Butner Correctional Institution)
and $21,200 (for the Federal Medical
Center at the prison). In addition, supple-
mental environmental projects (SEPs)
worth $470,000 will be performed.
The SEPs involve installation of a
compressed natural gas (CNG) pumping
station and replacement of 35 gasoline-
powered vehicles with 35 vehicles that
use CNG. In addition to reducing emis-
sions which impact air quality, this SEP
will serve as a pilot for other Bureau of
Prisons Institutions to encourage use of
CNG-fueled vehicles. The approximate
cost of the SEPs is $275,000 for the CNG
pumping station and $195,000 for the
CNG powered vehicles. For more infor-
mation, contact David Levenstein at (202)
564-2591 or Michiko Kono, Region 4 at
(404) 562-9558.
U.S. Army, Fort Campbell, Ken-
tucky/Tennessee: On September 29,
1999, a Consent Agreement and Final
Order (CAFO) was filed settling a RCRA
Section 3008(a) complaint against DoD’s
Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office in Fort Campbell, KYiTN. The set-
tlement consisted of a cash penalty of
$125,000 and a SEP which includes an
initial cost of $366,000 and annual costs
of $165,700 for three years. Under the
SEP, Fort Campbell will replace a RCRA
hazardous solvent used in 300 parts
washers at the base with a new system
that uses a non-hazardous solvent. This
will eliminate a hazardous waste stream
of approximately 557,500 pounds per
year.
The CAFO also requires Fort Camp-
bell to: certify that the security violations
alleged in the complaint have been cor-
rected; certify that its open burning/open
detonation (OB/OD) unit is no longer in
operation; submit a plan describing how
compliance with training requirements is
being achieved; and submit a plan for
ensuring that modifications to solid waste
management units are not made without
prior notification of EPA or the state.
This settlement resolves a 1998 com-
plaint against Fort Campbell for viola-
tions of several significant requirements
of interim status for its OB/OD unit and
RCRA permit conditions. Specifically,
Fort Campbell exceeded its Part A Permit
Application limits, violated inspection
requirements, violated security require-
ments, failed to provide personnel train-
ing, and failed to provide notification of
planned alterations to a permitted facili-
ty. For more information, contact David
Levenstein at (202) 564-2591 or Kris Lip-
pert, Region 4 at (404) 562-8605.
North Carolina Federal Recreation
Facilities: In September 1999, EPA
Region 4 took enforcement actions under
SDWA against seven drinking water sys-
tems at Federal Recreation Facilities in
North Carolina. SDWA 1414(g) adminis-
trative orders were taken against small
“transient non-community water systems”
located on property owned by the USDA
Forest Service, the National Park Service,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for
failure to conduct required monitoring for
nitrites and failure to provide notification
of violations to the state and public as
required. The names and locations of the
transient water systems are as follows:
8 FEDFACS
-------
USDA Forest Service, Cliffside Lake
Recreation Area Water System
USDA Forest Service, Sunburst Camp-
ground Water System
USDA Forest Service, Cheoah Point Recre-
ation Area Water System
USDA Forest Service, Arrowhead Camp-
ground Water System
National Park Service, Gillespie Gap
Maintenance Water System
Price Park Campground Water System
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Wilkes Skyline
Marina, Wilkesboro NC
EPA’s orders required that proper ttsting
be completed and notifications provided
as required by SDWA. High levels of
nitrites in drinking water can be danger-
ous, especially for babies. For more infor-
mation, contact David Levenstein at (202)
564-2591 or Lisa Uhi, Region 4 at (404)
562-9789.
Region 6
U.S. Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi:
A CAFO was issued under Section 113 of
the Clean Air Act to the U.S. Naval Air
Station in Corpus Christi, Texas on Feb-
ruary 11, 2000. The Naval Air Station
agreed to seek Congressional authoriza-
tion to pay a civil penalty of $5,000. This
CAFO resolves an administrative com-
plaint which EPA issued to the Navy on
September 30, 1998 addressing violations
of the Texas State Implementation Plan
(SIP) discovered during a multimedia
inspection conducted in July 1997. The
Naval Air Station had failed to properly
operate emission control measures
required by the Texas SIP in a spray paint
booth in one of its hangars. The Navy also
had failed to maintain the required mini-
mum face velocity (air flow) at the intake
opening of the paint booth. For more
information, contact Carlos Zequeira at
‘214) 665-8053 or Raymond Magyar at
(214) 665-7288.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
Western Currency Facility: On Janu-
ary 18, 2000, EPA Region 6 issued a
CAFO to the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Western Currency Facility in
Fort Worth, Texas to pay a $14,000 civil
penalty, as well as perform a Supplemen-
tal Environmental Project involving at
least $231,000 worth of environmental
improvements beyond those required by
law. The Bureau was assessed this fine
due to violations of the Texas State
Implementation Plan, New Source Per-
formance Standards, and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. For more information, contact
Toni J. Allen at (214) 665-7271.
Federal Facilities and Voda Petrole-
um: In June 1999, EPA entered into a de
minimis settlement under section 122(g)
of CERCLA in connection with the Voda
Petroleum, Inc. site in Clarksville City,
Texas. Voda Petroleum is a former fuels
blending and waste oil facility that was
used by many North Texas area facilities.
A 1994 site assessment revealed that
some of the containerized waste drums
had high levels of volatile organic com-
pounds including benzene, toluene, and
naphthalene. and high lead concentra-
tions. In addition, some drums contained
corrosive materials with a pH less than 1.
EPA’s CERCLA response costs totaled
$804,260. Federal facilities that have
been linked with Voda through the
arranged transport, disposal, or treat-
ment of hazardous substances include
the U.S. Army’s Defense Reutilization &
Marketing Service in Fort Polk, LA; Kel-
ly Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX; and
Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base in
Kansas City, MO. These installations,
along with other smal] contributors of
hazardous substances to the Voda site,
agreed to pay settlement amounts based
upon the volume of material they sent to
the Voda site. The 116 de minimis party
payments to EPA total $62,203. EPA will
seek to recover its remaining CERCLA
costs from non-de mimmis parties. For
more information, contact Michael
Bodyston at (214) 665-7376.
Region 10
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard: On Feb-
ruary 17, 2000, the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS) in Bremerton, Wash-
ington, entered into a compliance agree-
ment with EPA to address a chronic prob-
lem of copper discharges into Puget
Sound’s Sinclair Inlet, beyond what is
allowed under its water discharge permit.
The compliance agreement outlines the
steps the Navy will take to meet the con-
ditions of its permit and remain in com-
pliance.
As the largest naval shipyard on the
west coast, PSNS is allowed to discharge
wastewater directly into Sinclair Inlet, but
only if it meets the EPA-specified permit
conditions. Discharge monitoring reports
from 1997 to 1999 show that the amount of
copper released from PSNS frequently
exceeded the permitted levels. Some of the
copper in the wastewater comes from dry-
blasting paint from naval vessels.
According to LeRoy Loiselle, manager
of EPA’s water compliance unit in Seattle,
the Navy has already taken some steps to
address the copper discharges, but more
needs to be done. “It’s a matter of fairness
and doing the right thing,” Loiselle said.
“Private businesses spend hard-earned
money to comply with their permits. The
Navy has the same responsibility to keep
local waters clean and must take the
steps necessary to do so. This agreement
shows that they are serious about their
environmental responsibilities.”
Under the compliance agreement, the
Navy will develop and implement proce-
dures for reducing the amount of copper
discharges into Sinclair Inlet. including
conducting dry-blasting within contained
enclosures and operating a collection and
treatment system for the wastewater
from the dry docks.
For more information, contact LeRoy
Loiselle at (206) 553-6901.
DOE Hanford Operation: On March 6,
2000, EPA Region 10 assessed stipulated
penalties totaling $55,000 against DOE
for violations of the Tn-Party Agreement’s
CERCLA requirements at the Hanford
site in southeast Washington State. The
violations involved poor waste manage-
ment practices at the 221-U uranium sep-
aration facility, one of five former chemical
processing facilities in the 200 Area of
Hanford. The penalty included $50,000 for
failure to have an approved Waste Control
Plan prior to the generation of Investiga-
tion-derived” waste (this includes person-
al protective gear, sampling equipment,
and other wastes created during a CER-
Continued on page 14
FEOFACS 9
-------
Partnerships
Partnering Meeting with
International Shipbreaking
Opening a dialogue for the future, the
first Ship Disposal Program (SDP) part-
nenng meeting for International Ship-
breaking Limited, L.L.C. was held at the
Port of Brownsville in Brownsville, TX on
January 28, 2000. Participants of the
meeting included representatives of the
company, EPA, OSHA, Department of
Navy Texas Department of Health, Texas
Land Office, and National Environmental
and Education Training Center (NEETC).
The meeting kicked off with welcoming
remarks from Glen Clarks of Naval Sea
Systems Command (NAVSEA), who out-
lined the purpose of the SDP pilot phase
and the goals of the Partnering Meeting.
Gary Rahl of Booz-Allen & Hamilton
served as the meeting facilitator, dis-
cussing the elements of the SDP partner-
ing process and the desired results of the
meeting. Other speakers included repre-
sentatives from International Shipbreak-
ing, NEETC, the Puget Sound Naval Ship-
yard, and NAVSEA. The representatives
stressed the following goals:
1. creating a cohesive partnership;
2. building teaming relationships among
various parties with responsibilities
related to ship scrapping;
3. developing goals for the SDP projects
and partnering relationships; and
4. sharing lessons learned from the relat-
ed experience in ship recycling.
The group also discussed pursuing a
partnership with the OSHA, specifically
by joining the OSHA Consortium. The
next meeting is planned for July 2000 in
Brownsville, Texas. For more informa-
tion, contact Lou Roberts at (214) 665-
7579 or roberts.lou@epa.gov.
Texas Pollution Prevention
Partnership Meetings
On December
10, 1999 and
February 16,
2000, the
Texas Pollu-
tion Preven-
tion Partner-
ship (P3) held
meetings at
Randolph Air
Force Base in San Antonio, TX and at
Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX. The Partner-
ship’s goal is to bring together represen-
tatives from the Department of Defense,
civilian federal agencies, and the State of
Texas in a working relationship focused
on promoting pollution prevention (P2) in
Texas. The goals of the Partnership are to
promote open dialogue, exchange P2
information, develop new activities, and
integrate P2 into everyday activities
throughout installations in Texas.
The Randolph AFB meeting centered
around air issues. Presentation topics
included the legal status of EPA ’s 1-hour
and 8-hour standard ozone standards;
the Texas CAA Strategy, which reviews
the state implementation plans for vari-
ous Texas cities; and specific Army, Navy,
and NASA air issues and concerns.
A wide variety of topics were dis-
cussed at the Fort Bliss AFB meeting,
including the National P2 Partnership
Crossfeed Forum held in Boston in
March; the Green Base of the Future
Project; and Environmental Manage-
ment Reviews.
The next Texas P3 meeting was sched-
uled for May 4 at Camp Mabray, Austin.
Texas. For more information, contact
Joyce Stubblefield at (214) 665-6430 or
visit the Texas P3 web site at
http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/txp3.
New Mexico P2
Partnership Meeting
A P2 Partnership Meeting was held Janu-
ary 19, 2000 in Albuquerque, NM at the
TVI/Small Business Development Center,
for the purpose of reviving the partnership
originally created by the DoD and the New
Mexico Environment Department
(NMED), and expanding it to include DOE
and NASA. The Partnership is co-chaired
by Thom Rennie from the Region 6 Air
Force Center for
Environmental
Excellence and
Jerry Bober of
NMED’s Green
Zia Environmen-
tal Excellence
Program.
Some of the
items discussed at January’s meeting
included a DoD initiative on P2 and com-
pliance, RCRA Waste Minimization Per-
mit Requirements, and “Red Rags.” Red
Rags are the wipe-rags commonly used in
base cleaning and maintenance opera-
tions. The rags are usually contaminated
with grease, fuel, and other hazardous
substances, and are sent to contracted
laundries for cleaning or disposal,
although the laundries may not be famil-
iar with proper procedures for handling
them.
Another P2 Partnership meeting was
scheduled for April 13, 2000 at the Kirt-
land Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM.
For more information, contact Jerry
Bober at (505) 827-0173 or
jerry_bober@nmenv.state.nm.us.
10 1-EDFACS
-------
Con ferenceUpdate
Region 6 Wetlands
Roundtable Forum
EPA Region 6 hosted its third Wetlands
Regulatory Roundtable in New Orleans,
LA on February 2-3, 2000. In attendance
were representatives from: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers District and Divisional
(I)ffices: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Offices; National Marine Fisheries
Service; and Texas, Arkansas, and
Louisiana state environmental offices, who
have a role in reviewing wetland permits.
The primary objective of the two-day
roundtable was to improve the effectiveness
of the permitting program under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. John Meagher,
Director of the Wetlands Division in the
EPA Office of Water, updated the group on
a number of EPA regulatory activities
designed to increase the quantity and qual-
its’ of wetlands. He emphasized that the
national goal is “no net loss of wetlands.”
The roundtable continued with a sta-
tus report on workgroups established at
previous roundtables. Tepics of discussion
included: creation of a “stream team” to
review stream restoration projects: con-
sideration of a cumulative impact study
for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana;
enforcement issues; and mitigation bank-
ing. Presentations included data collected
from completed mitigation sites, and the
Charleston Method, a tool to determine
compensatory mitigation for impacts to
wetlands. Day two of the forum consisted
of a discussion session with local environ-
mental organizations, and updates from
state and governmental agencies on new
activities concerning wetlands in their
areas.
For more information, contact Wanda
Boyd at (214) 665-6696.
EPA Region 2 Hosts
Roundtable on Mercury
Reduction and P2 in Federal
Health Care Sector
On February 22, 2000, the Region 2 Fed-
eral Facilities Program, in conjunction
with the Region 2 Solid Waste Manage-
ment Team and Pollution Prevention Pro-
gram, held the first Federal Facilities
Roundtable on Mercury Reduction and
Pollution Prevention in the Federal
Health Care Sector. This event marked
the first Region 2 Federal Facilities
Roundtable focusing on a single topic and
the first EPA outreach effort under its
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU
with the American Hospital Association.
More than 30 safety officers and indus-
trial hygienists from various federal insti-
tutions learned about the goals of the 1998
MOU and how they could help achieve
these goals. The MOU calls for virtual
elimination of mercury by the year 2005,
followed by a tiered goal to reduce overall
hospital waste volume — 33 by 2050 and
50°% by 2010 — through voluntary efforts.
Following a discussion of the MOU and
hazardous and universal waste regula-
tions, case studies were presented by rep-
resentatives from the Albany and Beth
Israel Medical Centers. The case studies
demonstrated the advantage of instituting
mercury and medical waste reduction
practices which ultimately resulted in cost
savings. The program continued with a
discussion of mercury resources on the
Internet and a presentation of two related
voluntary programs instituted by EPA:
WasteWise, which addresses the reduction
of solid waste, and Energy Star, which
addresses the efficient use of energy. Both
the WasteWise and Energy Star programs
contain components for recognizing facility
successes, which EPA Region 2 plans to
include in the mercury/hospital waste
reduction initiative.
Attendance at the roundtable included
representatives from the following feder-
al agencies: Veterans Affairs, Army, Air
Force. Federal Bureau of Prison ,
Department of Agriculture, Public Health
Service. General services Administra-
tion. Federal Aviation Administration,
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adrnin i stration. Several attendees
expressed interest in participating in a
focus group to further explore waste
reduction opportunities in the federal
health care sector.
For information about the focus group,
or to obtain information about mercury
reduction, contact Lorraine Graves at
(212 637-4099.
FEOF*CS 11
-------
Publications
Fleet Maintenance
Pollution Prevention
Materials Now Available
From EPA Region 9
Every day fleet maintenance facilities use
chemicals and generate wastes that are
expensive to purchase and manage, and
that create potential environmental and
worker health problems. To avoid these
problems, EPA Region 9’s Pollution Pre-
vention Program has developed a Pollu-
tion Prevention Toolkit: Best Environmen-
tal Practices For Fleet Maintenance. The
toolkit is a set of ten fact sheets and an
accompanying video demonstrating
proven, cost-effective strategies for fleet
Online Update:
New OECA Website Look
The Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA)
website has a fresh, new look.
Visit us at www.epa.gov/oeca.
Working closely with the OffIce
of Environmental Information,
OECA is redesigning its website
to make it more user-friendly,
emphasizing a topical organiza-
tion of material, and making site
navigation easier. The new home
page features eight tabs at the
top of the page, one for each
major OECA topic area, which
link to pertinent sub-topics. As
work on the OECA website con-
tinues, the next step will be
operations to reduce costs, reduce liabili-
tv, and improve environmental perfor-
mance and worker health and safety.
The toolkit is the result two years of
research on the most up-to-date informa-
tion on pollution prevention techniques
and technologies for fleet maintenance
operations. The information was devel-
oped through consultation with a nation-
al advisory panel made up of shop profes-
sionals and pollution prevention experts,
a national literature review of relevant
materials, and more than 25 in-shop
demonstration projects.
The fact sheets provide up-to-date,
practical information on implementing
these pollution prevention best practices:
• aqueous parts washing;
• aqueous brake washing;
- 1I : ; 3 I .4 £ 11
. ,. ,-.-. . •— I ,
: - -
• oil life extension;
• reusable oil filters;
• refillable spray bottles;
antifreeze recycling;
spill prevention and floor cleanup; and
• oil water separators.
Each fact sheet contains an overview of
the best practice; tips on making it work
on the shop floor; information on capital,
operation, and maintenance costs; and
case studies from fleet operations. The
accompanying video, Profit Through Pre-
i’enton: Best Environmental Practices for
Fleet Maintenance, shows how shops are
reducing waste and saving money by
implementing these best practices. The
video was developed in conjunction with
the Partnership for Environmental Tech-
nology Education, a recognized leader in
environmental training for fleet mainte-
nance personnel.
To order the Pollution Prevention
Toolkit, call 1-800-490-9198 and ask for
publication number EPA-909-E-99-002.
For the video, ask for publication number
EPA-V-99-002. More information is avail-
able at the EPA Region 9 Pollution Pre-
vention website: www.epa.gov/regionO9/
p2/autofleet. For more information, con-
tact John Katz at (415) 744- 2150.
Region 6 Publications
The EPA Region 6 FY99 Federal Facili-
ties Compliance Status Report, issued in
February 2000, provides regulatory com-
pliance (inspection and enforcement) and
related information (base closure, Super-
fund) on Region 6 federal facilities. This
report serves as a communication tool
that can be used by all parties including
facilities, EPA, and the states. As with
any report, EPA recognizes that the infor-
mation represents a snapshot in time and
is subject to discrepancies. Facilities
S
redesigning the individual office and regional websites.
Although the FFEO home page has the same URL (http//www.epa.gov/ oeca/fed-
fac/fflex.html) as before, it is accessed via a different route. Th access the FFEO home
page, click on the Federal Government & NEPA tab, the last one at the top of the
OECA home page. Then click on Federal Facilities.
12 FEDFACS
-------
wishing to report discrepancies are
encouraged to contact EPA. For more
information, please contact Joyce Stub-
blefield at (214) 665-6430.
EPA Region 6 Federal Facilities Pro-
gram publishes “Did You Know?” — a
monthly, non-technical fact sheet that
communicates the methods, events, and
ideas that EPA uses in investigating and
resolving environmental issues. The fact
sheet also provides contacts for experts in
the field who are available to answer tech-
nical questions. Some of the topics covered
recently include perchlorethylene, GIS
tools, and underground storage tanks. The
fact sheets are accessible on the Region 6
website at www.epa.gov/regionOfi/fien/xp/
enxp4b.htm.
For more information, contact James
Colon at (214) 665-7457.
Guide for Ship Scrappers
It’s here! A Guide for Ship Scrappers -
TIps for Regulato,y Compliance. The 100-
page guide, published by FFEO in May
2000, provides federal guidance and tips
on environmental, health, and safety
requirements for ship breaking and
scrapping operations.
Not involved in ship scrapping? Well,
you may find this guide of interest any-
way. It describes removal and disposal
information in plain language for seven
processes:
• asbestos removal and disposal;
• sampling, removal, and disposal of
polychiorinated biphenyls;
• bilge and ballast water removal;
• oil and fuel removal and disposal;
• metal cutting and recycling;
• paint removal an disposal; and
• removal and disposal of miscellaneous
ship machinery.
A Guide for Ship Serappers can be
obtained from EPA/NCEPI by calling
(513) 489-8190, contacting FFEO at (202)
564-2461, or visiting the website at:
www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html.
State of Federal
Facilities Report
FFEO has released The State of Federal
Facilities: An Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities, FY
1997-98. The third in a series of such
reports, the report provides a detailed
breakdown of the number and category of
the 14,400 federal facilities regulated
under each of the major federal environ-
mental statutes. Among the major find-
Among the major findings
are a sharp increase in
compliance for RCRA
treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, and a
sharp decline in compliance
of federal facilities with
wastewater regulations.
ings are a sharp increase in compliance
among RCRA treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities, and a sharp decline in
compliance of federal facilities with
wastewater regulations. Specifically:
Compliance rates for federal RCRA
treatment, storage, and disposal facili-
ties (TSDFs) have increased steadily
since FY 1993, from 55(7 to 88 . Fed-
eral facility TSDFs have slightly high-
er compliance rates than private
TSDFs (88 vs. 83’H.
• Compliance rates for federal facilities
under the Clean Water Act NPDES
program have declined steadily since
FY 1993, from 94 to 62c%.
• Compliance rates for federal facilities
under the Clean Air Act have remained
steady in the last five years (87 ’ - in
1993 compared to 89 in 1998).
• Compliance rates for federal facilities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
and TSCA remain high (97-100 .
• in F’Y 1997-98, there were just over
2,600 inspections and about 750
enforcement actions conducted by EPA
and the states at federal facilities
under the RCRA, CAA, and NPDES
programs.
A copy of the report is available for down-
loading from the FFEO website (httpi/es.
epa.gov/oecaifedfaclfflex.html. For more
information, contact Greg Snyder at (202)
564-1271.
FEOFACS 13
-------
Vice President Gore Highlights “Greening the
Government Achievements
In announcing the signing of new
Executive Order spurring the federal
government to a new level of environ-
mental leadership, Vice President Gore
also released a new report entitled,
“Greening the Government: A Report
to the President on Federal Leadership
and Progress.” The report highlights
the progress federal agencies have
made in response to six of President
Clinton’s previous “Greening the Gov-
ernment” Executive Orders.
Those orders have directed federal
agencies to take concrete steps to con-
serve energy and natural resources,
prevent pollution, reduce waste gener-
ation, eliminate usage of ozone deplet-
ing substances, purchase recycled,
energy-efficient, and environmentally
preferable products, and reduce usage
of toxic substances.
Over the last seven years, federal
agencies have made major changes and
accomplishments in sustainable pro-
curement, energy efficiency; and other
greening practices, which demonstrate
the significant impact and leadership of
the federal government. The report
highlights key accomplishments,
including:
Over the last seven years,
federal agencies have made
major changes and
accomplishments in sustain-
able procurement, energy
efficiency, and other greening
practices.
• Federal facilities have reported
an almost 60 percent decrease in
releases of toxic chemicals since
1994.
• Energy consumption in govern-
ment buildings for FY99
decreased 20.5 percent since
1985, saving the taxpayer $2.2
billion in energy costs.
• Federal agencies and government
contractors have dramatically
increased their purchasing of
recycled content products from 5
to more than 50 since 1993.
“The federal government has made
great strides over the last seven
years in reducing impacts to the envi-
ronment, but we can do more,” Vice
President Gore said. “Today, we are
saying that the federal government is
going to lead by example when it
comes to pollution prevention.”
The “Greening the Government”
report can be viewed on the web at
www.ofee.gov.
NEWS
Continued from page 6
in a timely manner is important in efforts
to encourage compliance with the law and
remove the cost savings associated with
delayed compliance. Through the use of
supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs) in settlement agreements, EPA is
often able to work with a facility to obtain
substantial environmental benefits in lieu
of part of a monetary penalty.
For more information, contact David
Levenstein at (202) 564-2591.
ThE HAMMER
Continued from page 9
CLA investigation), and a one-time penal-
ty of $5,000 for failure to sample the
waste before its disposal.
Both penalties address violations of
the sampling and analysis plan that was
agreed upon under the Tn-Party Agree-
ment. The waste was discovered Septem-
ber 16, 1999, during a Washington State
Department of Ecology inspection of a 90-
day waste accumulation area. EPA is con-
cerned that the violations indicate that
DOE had an inadequate understanding
of what wastes were generated by charac-
terization activities at the former urani-
um separation facility.
Mike Gearheard, Director of EPA’s
Region 10 Superfund office, said, “The
Tn-Party Agreement is very clear on
DOE’s responsibilities to follow careful
waste management practices. Continued
missteps at one of the country’s most dan-
gerous sites cannot and will not be toler-
ated.”
EPA continues to investigate waste
management at Hanford. For more infor-
mation, contact Doug Sherwood at (509)
376-9529.
14 FEDFACS
-------
Success Story:
In-Situ Gaseous Reduction
of Chromium
UpcomingEvents
June 20-22. 2000
EPA Region 6 participated in a cooperative effort with DOE,
the U.S. Army, and the New Mexico Environment Depart-
ment’s Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau. A labo-
ratory scale corrective measure study was performed indicat-
ing that reduction and immobilization of chromium in
contaminated soils can potentially be achieved through treat-
ment with a diluted hydrogen sulfide gas mixture. The prima-
ry chemical reaction involves the reduction of Cr(V1 to Cr(111
with the subsequent precipitation of nontoxic Cr(lII)hydroxide
and sulfate or sulfur.
Initial field testing of this approach has been completed at a
Cr(VI)-contaminated site at White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico. The field test was conducted during the spring and
summer of 1998 and involved the in-situ injection of low level
(200 ppm) hydrogen sulfide diluted in air. The gas mixture was
drawn through the waste site by a vacuum applied at extrac-
tion boreholes located at the site boundary during the demon-
stration. Residual hydrogen sulfide was removed from the
extracted gas stream before discharge to the air. Monitoring of
the breakthrough of hydrogen sulfide was utilized as a basis for
assessing treatment progress during the injection phase of the
test. Continuous site monitoring was performed to assure that
any releases of hydrogen sulfide could be identified. No
detectable releases of hydrogen sulfide to the site atmosphere
occurred during the test.
Comparison of ( rVI analyses of soil samples taken before
and after the test indicated that 70 of the Cr (Vfl mass origi-
nally present at the site was reduced by the approach. In par-
ticular, a shallower zone with the highest Cr(Vl) concentration
levels was nearly completely treated. However, a deeper zone of
lower contamination was largely unaffected. It is concluded
that the treatment gas mixture was preferentially channeled
through the upper zone and bypassed the less permeable lower
zone. Treatment of the lower zone could probably be accom-
plished, if necessary, by directing the injection of treatment gas
into this zone. All CrVI concentrations measured in post-test
samples were well below the EPA Region 9 cleanup criteria of
30 mg/kg, however, thus indicating the viability of the technol-
ogy as a remediation approach. Contacts: David Neleigh at
(214) 665-67 4fi. email: neleigh.david@epa.gov or James Harris
at (214) 665-8302, email: harris.jamesa @epa.gov.
EPA Region 4/DoD/State 2000 Environmental Confer-
ence for Federal Facilities
Atlanta, GA
Theme: Environmental Leadership in the New Millennium. Contact: Stacy
Howard, (404) 562-9633 or howard.stacy@epa.gov.
October 2000
Region 6 Pollution Prevention Conference
Dallas, 7X
Contact: Eli Martinez, EPA Region 6,1214)665-2119.
October 15-18, 2000
Texas Recycling Summit
Houston, 1X
Contact: Joyce Stubblefield, [ PA Region 6, (214) 665-6430, wwwtexasrecycling-
summit.com.
OF ACRONYMS
Air Force Base
Administrative Order
Clean AirAct
Consent Agreement and Final Order
Cimiprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act
I)epartment of Defense
Department of Energy
Environmental Management Review
Executive Order
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Compliance Act
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (EPA)
Geographic Infermation System
Memorandum olUnderatanding
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Environmental Policy Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Pollution Prevention
Resource Conservation and Recevery Ad.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Supplemental Environmental Project
Sector Facility Indexing Project
State Implementation Plan
S ficsnt Nonnan
Thxice Release Inventosy
lbxio Substances Control Act
1 eatment Storage, and Disposal Facility
Underground Storage Tank
FEOFACS 15
LIST
AFB
AO
CAA
CAFO
CERCLA
DoD
DOE
EMR
EO
EPA
FFCA
F O
GIS
MOU
NASA
NEPA
NPDES
OECA
P2
RCRA
SDWA
SEP
SFm
SIP
SNC
TSCA
TSDF
UST
-------
United States Environmental
Protection Agency 2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
------- |