&EPA
ISSUE #3
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261A)
EPA300-N-96-001
Fall 1996
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
2 Guest Spot: Al Aim
3 TRI Reporting by Federal
Facilities
4 EMRs Offered to
Federal Agencies
5 In the Field: ENWEST
Comes to Vandenberg AFB
6 SDWA Reauthorized; EPA
Issues Code
7 Reports and Regulations
9 The Hammer
12 Environmental Challenge
Award Deadline Extended
ROCKY FLATS CLEANUP
AGREEMENT SIGNED
On July 19, 1996, after
nearly three years of
intensive negotiations
between EPA, DOE, and
the State of Colorado, the
new Rocky Flats Cleanup
Agreement was signed in
Denver, Colorado. EPA
Deputy Administrator
Fred Hansen praised the
RFCA as "truly a land-
mark agreement for allow-
ing the rapid cleanup of
one of our most important
Superfund sites." The
agreement contains a
number of innovative provisions designed
to expedite cleanup activities at the
Rocky Flats site, which will include
removal of plutonium and other fissile
materials, protection of water quality,
and cleanup and conversion of buildings.
The agreement divides the site into
two areas and designates lead regulators
From left: Jessie Roberson, Rocky Flats site manager; DOE
Assistant Secretary Alvin Aim; Patti Schwayder, Executive
Director, CDPHE; Governor Roy Romer; Lt. Governor Gail
Schoettler; EPA Acting Regional Administrator Jack
McGraw.
— the State of Colorado for the industrial
area, and EPA for the environmental
buffer zone. This clear division of author-
ity gives DOE a single point of contact for
each cleanup activity and should reduce
the potential for overlap and duplication.
The agreement also provides cleanup
Continued on page 10
Director^
CRAIG HOOKS
Dear Reader:
This is my first time contributing to this
column. As many of you may know, a few
months ago, Barry Breen, formerly the
Director of the Federal Facilities Enforce-
ment Office, left to become Director of
EPA's Office of Site Remediation and
Enforcement. It is my privilege to pick up
where he left off.
Compliance assistance and environ-
mental enforcement activities are inher-
ently dynamic, their emphasis changing
with current events. Amendments to
environmental statutes and regulations
prompt new compliance questions and
changes in enforcement actions. Recent
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments,
for example, prompted FFEO to begin
developing interpretative guidance for
federal facilities. FFEO must be vigilant
to interpret regulatory changes and
quickly adjust our compliance assistance
and enforcement work. We welcome your
comments and suggestions.
Barry named this column the Direc-
tor's Word. My word for this issue is
"trust." I hope this FedFacs provokes
thoughts about the relationship between
Continued on page 10
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Guest o
AL ALM
Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE
The Department
of Energy estab-
lished the Environ-
mental Manage-
ment (EM) program
to reduce health
and safety risks
from radioactive
waste and environmental contamination
resulting weapons production, testing,
and research. With 150 sites in over 30
states, the EM program is the largest sin-
gle environmental stewardship program
in the world.
Major changes have taken place over
the last three years to improve the pace of
cleanup, manage projects more effective-
ly, shave inefficiencies, and incorporate
risk into decision-making. All of those
efforts have made EM more successful at
producing on-the-ground tangible results.
Site workouts to reduce costs, perfor-
mance-incentive contracts, and the cre-
ation of site-specific advisory boards have
all helped EM drive down the price of
cleanup over the past three years and
is published by EPA Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Jim Edward, Joyce Johnson, Editors
Isabelle Lacayo, Assistant Editor
Gilah Langner, Writer
Robin Foster, Layout
To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U. S. EPA(2261), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460
or Fax : 202-501-0069
bring the public into our decision-making
process. This has provided a strong foun-
dation for the next steps in the program
— to accelerate cleanup at most DOE
sites and to complete as much work as
possible within a decade.
Since taking over the EM program in
May 1996, 1 have begun to implement our
primary goal of reducing most of the pro-
grammatic risks and, mortgages over a
ten-year period. This goal is incorporated
in our vision statement for the Environ-
mental Management program which will
drive budget decisions, privatization,
sequencing of projects, and actions taken
to meet program objectives— all in con-
junction with regulators and stakehold-
era.
Achievement of the vision will be guid-
ed by the following seven principles:
(1) Reduce mortgage costs to free up
funds for further risk reduction.
(2) Reduce overhead and support costs,
devoting savings to value-added work.
(3) Eliminate and manage the most seri-
ous risks in the system.
(4) Protect worker health and safety
(5) Create a collaborative relationship
between DOE and its regulators and
stakeholders.
(6) Focus technology development on cost
and risk reduction.
(7) Establish a system that is manageri-
ally and financially in control.
The vision and principles will be
implemented through an integrated plan-
ning, budgeting, and management sys-
tem. The purpose of this planning exer-
cise is to develop a creative plan to
complete cleanup at most sites in the for-
mer nuclear weapons production complex
over the course of a decade, as well as to
determine which waste streams will not
be completed in that time, and to decide
how the program will continue to treat
them until work is fully complete.
Stakeholder involvement is central to
devising, implementing and achieving
the Ten-Year Plan. Since our sites sub-
mitted their draft ten-year plans this past
July, I have met with or held conference
calls with stakeholders from each site. In
total, I have communicated with many
hundreds of citizens and public officials.
EM will not modify agreed-upon assump-
tions or final goals without actively
engaging our stakeholders, tribal nations,
and regulators in a deliberative process.
Issues raised in draft versions of the
plans that cannot be resolved with our
stakeholders and regulators will not be
included in the first edition of the Plan.
Rather, we will work with our stakehold-
era to resolve these issues before we incor-
porate them into an updated version of
the Plan. It is critical to understand that
the Plan is a living document which must
be updated periodically to factor in deci-
sions reached on these outstanding issues
and other realistic changes that will occur
over the ten-year time period.
Our move to ten-year site plans may
result in some modifications to previously
existing priorities. But their greatest
effectiveness will lie in specifically com-
municating the status of cleanup at any
given site at any given date over the next
ten years. The ten-year site plans will lay
out these goals for each of the sites over
the next few months. In so doing, we will
establish a long-term framework to guide
the EM program as we proceed to clean
up the environmental contamination
wrought by 45 years of nuclear weapons
production.
Al Aim is the Assistant Secretary of Envi-
ronrnentat Management with the U.S.
Department of Energy.
PAGE 2
-------
TRI REPORTING COMES TO FEDERAL FACILITIES
For the first time, the latest report of
the Toxics Release Inventory includes
information on toxic releases from feder-
al facilities. TRI reporting by federal
facilities was mandated under Execu-
tive Order 12856, signed by President
Clinton in August 1993. The latest
report, published in June 1996, covers
the 1994 reporting year. The goal of the
reporting requirement is to ensure that
the public has access to the most com-
prehensive information possible on
releases and transfers of toxic chemi-
cals, to hold federal facilities account-
able for their activities, and to encour-
age them in reducing their use of toxic
chemicals at the source.
For 1994, 191 federal facilities operat-
ed by 12 federal agencies and located in
43 states became subject to TRI reporting.
The 1994 data show total releases of 9. 8
million pounds. Off-site transfers totalled
10. 4 million pounds. Unlike the private
sector, where transfers are almost twice
the amount of releases, total releases and
transfers for federal facilities are similar.
Federal releases also differ from pri-
vate sector releases in the types of chemi-
cals involved. Only 16 of the top 25 chem-
icals released from federal facilities are
also in the top 25 for total releases from
all facilities. Most of these 16 chemicals,
which typically are used as solvents and
for cleaning equipment, are released pri-
marily to air. The top two chemicals
reported by the government (almost
exclusively by DOD) are dichioromethane
and methyl ethyl ketone, which together
account for nearly one third of all releases
reported by federal facilities. These chem-
icals are commonly used as solvents and
paint strippers.
The top four federal agencies releasing
TRI chemicals were DOD, DOE, U.S.
Enrichment Corp., and Agricultural (see
pie chart). By far the largest number of
federal facilities reporting TRI data are
DOD facilities — 127 facilities, or 73 per-
cent of the amount of releases reported.
Within DOD, the Air Force accounts for
the preponderance of the releases (67%);
the vast majority of Air Force releases are
Th 1 U Releases
1,615,119
696,317
486,120
463,248
385,946
364,760
314,610
304,897
291,383
282,720
280,935
278,544
277,660
236,591
236 5O
215,400
170,830
154,422
148,000
131,865
The top 20 federal facilities with the
largest total TRI releases in 1994 are
shown above.
RELEASES OF TRI CHEMICALS BY FEDERAL AGENCY, 1994
OTHER
U.S. ENRICHMENT CORP
7.6
ENERGY
9.9% -
DEFENSE
72.7
TOP 20 FEDERAL FACILITY RELEASERS
U. S. Air Force, Tinker AFB, OK
U. S. Air Force, Robbins AFB, GA
USDAAgricultural Research Service, Clay Center, NE
U. S. DOE Naval Petroleum Reserves, Thpman, CA
U. S. Enrichment Corp. , Piketon, OH
U. S. Enrichment Corp. , Paducah, KY
U. S. Marine Corps Cherry Pt. Air Station, Cherry Point, NC
U. S. Air Force Plant 06 GA. Marietta, GA
U. S. Navy Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL
U. S. Air Force McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA
U. S. Army Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, AL
U. S. Air Force, Kelly AFB, TX
U. S. Air Force Ogden Air Logistics, Hill AFB, UT
U. S. DOE Idaho National Engr. Lab, Scoville, ID
U. S. Air Force 138th Fighter Group, Tulsa, OK
U. S. Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA
U. S. Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AEB, CA
U. S. Air Force Engr. Devel. Center, Arnold AFB, TN
U. S. Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB,
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
air emissions, largely from air craft main-
tenance, including corrosion control,
structural maintenance, and the cleaning
and repairing of equipment.
AGRICULTURE 4.O9
PAGE 3
-------
ENVIRON MENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEWS
OFFERED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
It’s not an inspection; it’s not an audit.
What is an Environmental Management
Review? In formal terms, an EMR is an
evaluation of an individual facility’s pro-
gram and management systems to deter-
mine the extent to which a facility has
developed and implemented specific pro-
grams and plans which, if properly man-
aged, should ensure compliance and
progress towards environmental excel-
lence. EPA is implementing a pilot pro-
gram in which it is offering to conduct
EMRs at federal facilities that are inter-
ested in gaining an understanding of the
underlying causes of current or potential
compliance problems and develop sug-
gestions for correcting them. Unlike
enforcement inspections, EMRs are con-
sultative technical assistance site visits.
Their focus is on the quality of the pro-
gram and its implementation, not on spe-
cific compliance requirements.
EMRs are a new tool developed by
EPA to help federal agencies improve
their environmental performance. A
series of studies over the last decade by
EPA, Congressional offices, and individ-
ual agency inspector generals have criti-
cized the pace of environmental compli-
ance and cleanup by federal agencies.
EPA’S operating principles for con-
ducting EMRs at federal agencies during
the pilot phase of the program are as fol-
lows:
EMRs FOCUS ON THE
QUALITY OF THE
PROGRAM AND FTS
PLEMENTAT1ON,
NOT ON SPECIFIC
COMPUAN
REQUIREMENTS.
Voluntary participation. ‘ [ he partici-
pation by a federal facility is entirely
voluntary and will not place the facil-
ity on a target list for inspections.
• Advance notification. A federal facility
will be contacted at least one to two
months in advance of a visit to solicit
interest, and to ask for appropriate
written documentation of the facili-
ty’s environmental management sys-
tem.
• Mutually agreeable dates. The EMR
will be scheduled at the convenience
of the federal facility. Information on
the review will be pmvided prior to
the visit.
• Signing of “ground rules letter” The
facility manager and EPA regional
management may co-sign a letter
that lays out the ground rules for the
EMR, including providing EPA staff
with access to appropriate personnel
and documents.
• Exit briefing with facility manage-
men! Each EMR visit will include an
exit briefing or close-out session in
which preliminary EMR results are
shared with the host facility Provi-
sions for additional technical assis-
tance, such as future pollution pre-
vention assessment, can be discussed
at this time.
• EPA report in 60 days. EPA’s written
report will discuss findings and pro-
vide recommendations. If requested,
EPA may share draft findings prior to
issuance of the final report. Any com-
munication from EPA with respect to
incidental violations found will be
conducted separate from the EMR
report.
• Facility response plan in 60 days.
Sixty days after receipt of EPA’s EMR
report, the facility will produce a brief
response plan that explains how it
plans to address the EMR findings.
• Progress report in 6 months. Another
facility report
months after
response plan to
The scope of an EMR is limited, com-
pared to a full-scale audit of environmen-
tal management systems. Each EMR will
likely address one or more elements of an
effective system, such as: organizational
structure, environmental commitment,
formality of program, communications,
staff resources and training, program
evaluation and reporting, and planning
and risk management.
For more information on EMRs, con-
tact Andrew Cherry, FFEO, 202-564-
5011.
will be expected six
submittal of the
EPA.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUANCE STATUS REPORTS
FFEO recently distributed an Environmental Compliance Status Report ECSR)
to civilian federal agencies to keep them apprised of EPA-recorded enforcement
and compliance activities at their facilities. Using data from the Federal Facilities
Tracking System, the first reports covered FY 1995 and the second quarter of FY
1996. Subsequent reports will be provided on a quarterly basis.
ECSRS show if any facilities are in a state of significant noncompliance, provide
a graphic view of inspections and enforcement actions, and give a detailed listing
of inspections and the resulting actions at individual facilities. This information is
used by the recipient federal agency to veri1 r its own recordkeeping and to ensure
the accuracy of EPA’s data. Each agency is asked to complete a Discrepancy Report
Form for any inaccuracies in the data.
For more information, contact Kelly Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459.
PAGE 4
-------
ENVVEST COMES TO
VANDENBERG AFB
This past summer saw the kick-off
event of the joint EPA-DOD pilot pro-
gram “ENVVEST ’ at Vandenberg Air
Force Base in California. The ENVVEST
concept, which is similar to EPA’S Project
XL for non-military facilities, allows mili-
tary installations, in conjunction with
federal, state, and local regulators, to test
cost-effective alternative approaches to
achieving environmental protection. Van-
denberg was the first DOD installation to
sign up for relief from selected EPA regu-
lations, and plans to redirect environ-
mental compliance funds into water con-
servation, air, and water pollution
prevention projects.
Among Vandenberg’s proposals are a
reduction in NOx emissions by a mini-
mum of 10 tons during the five-year life of
the ENVVEST project, and closed-loop
recycling for wastewater and on-site
batch treatment plants at three major
space launch complexes.
DOD will conduct an independent
“You should be prepared to take some
risks to achieve your goals and you must
think thout how creative technologies
developed through ENVVEST can be
shared with others both within and outside
the federal community.”
evaluation of the progress of the pro-
gram. DOD Under Secretary Sherri
Goodman noted that if ENVVEST is suc-
cessful, both DOD and EPA hope to dupli-
cate it nationwide. “ENVVEST opens the
door to creative solutions for local prob-
lems,” she noted. “In twenty years, we
will look back at this event, and wonder
why we didn’t do this sooner. “A final pro-
ject agreement is expected to be
signed in early 1997.
V’ AGREEMENT
fj REACHED ON
‘!tl DISMANTUNG
I1 MINUTEMAN
MISSILE SILOS
Late last year, EPAand the U.S.
Air Force joined forces to save
taxpayers millions of dollars
while developing safeguards to
protect human health and the
environment. The occasion was
the retirement of the Minute-
man II missile system,
announced in February 1990 as
part of the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START). After
much study and public com-
ment, the Air Force decided to
— Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environmental Security Sherri W. C*x.td man
at kick-off event, Vandenberg AFB, July’24, 1996
implode the missile silo
headworks and cap the
silos at two sites:
Ellsworth AFB in
South Dakota and
Whiteman AFB in Mis-
souri. Each site had
150 launch facilities,
each of which included
a silo, and 15 control
centers.
As the first disman-
tling of the missile sys-
tems began, the missile
silos were discovered to
be coated with a weath-
er proofing material
containing varying lev-
els of polychionnated biphenyls (PCBs.
Underground storage tanks were also
discovered to be coated with PCBs as well
as asbestos. Subsequent sampling
showed PCBs present on every type of
structure sampled at the missile site.
In November 1995, EPA and the Air
Force signed a Federal Facilities Compli-
ance Agreement addressing the prob-
lems, with provisions for the develop-
ment of a comprehensive groundwater
monitoring plan, long-term environmen-
tal monitoring, deed restrictions, clo-
sure/removal of underground storage
tanks, and reporting requirements. The
agreement is unique in providing for
affected states to negotiate and execute
their own annex of state requirements in
addition to the general provisions of the
agreement. In case of disputes, final res-
olution rests with the Director of FFEO,
allowing for quick resolution of disputes
without elevating them to the EPA
Administrator. Concurring in the agree-
ment were the states of Missouri, South
Dakota, and North Dakota, and EPA
Regions 7 and 8. This precedent-setting
agreement will serve as a model for
active missile sites as well as other mis-
sile sites slated for closure.
For more information, contact Diane
Lynne, FFEO, at 202-564-2587.
EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Herman at
Vandenberg AFB.
PAGE 5
-------
NEW SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT STRENGTH-
ENS OVERSIGHT OF
FEDERAL FACILITIES
On August 6, 1996, President Clinton
signed the Sale Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996. The bifi was passed
by a strong bipartisan majority of both the
Senate and House of Representatives on
August 2, 1996. Included in the new law
are several provisions designed to
strengthen compliance at federal facilities.
First, the law amends the waiver of
sovereign inununity to make it clear that
federal agencies are subject to penalties
for SDWA violations. (This provision is
similar to the waiver of sovereign immu-
nity in the Federal Facility Compliance
Act of 1992 subjecting federal agencies to
penalties for violations of RCRA.) The
President may still exempt a federal facil-
ity from compliance with any require-
ment, if the President determines it to be
in the paramount interest of the United
States. Second, the new law gives EPA
the authority to assess administrative
penalties against federal agencies of up to
$25,000 per day per violation. This penal-
ty cap is the same as the amount that
EPA may assess against non-federal enti-
ties in civil judicial actions. Before the
penalty becomes final, EPA must provide
the agency notice, an opportunity to con-
fer with the Administrator, and an oppor-
tunity for a hearing on the record in
accordance with the Administrative Pro-
cedures Act.
The law also allows an interested per-
son to obtain judicial review of an admin-
istrative penalty order issued by EPA
against a federal agency in district court.
The order may be set aside or remanded
if there is not substantial evidence in the
record to support the finding of a violation
or if the assessment of the penalty consti-
tutes an abuse of discretion by EPA. The
court also may not impose an additional
penalty for a violation unless it finds that
the assessment by EPA constitutes an
abuse of discretion. Finally, the new law
strengthens the citizen suit provisions of
SDWA by allowing any person to com-
mence a civil action in district court
against any federal agency for the collec-
tion of an administrative penalty
assessed by EPA that is not paid within
18 months after the effective date of the
final order.
EPA ISSUES CODE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPLES
On October 16, 1996, EPA published
the Code of Environmental Management
Principles (CEMP) in the Federal Regis-
ter (61FR 54062, Oct. 16, 1996). The
CEMP is a broad-based set of environ-
mental principles that EPA developed in
consultation with other federal agencies
under Executive Order 12856. EPA is
asking federal agency executives to adopt
the code in a written statement of support
that also describes the agency’s plans for
implementation of the Code at the facility
level. Agencies can choose to directly
implement the CEMP Principles at the
facility level or use another alternative
environmental management system such
as ISO 14001. This flexible approach rec-
ognizes that individual federal facilities
and installations may already have envi-
ronmental management systems in place
or may be considering adoption of the ISO
14001 Environmental Management
Standard.
EPA has been working to develop the
CEMP through the Interagency Pollution
Prevention Task Force, which was creat-
ed by the Executive Order, since January
1995. EPA believes that the federal gov-
ernment should make a public commit-
ment to voluntarily adopt an appropriate
code of environmental ethics or conduct,
which is at least equivalent to the com-
mitment demonstrated by environmental
leaders in the private sector. If federal
agencies are held accountable for imple-
menting these principles, then significant
progress can be made toward improving
public trust and confidence in federal
facility environmental performance.
The five principles embodied in the
Code are as follows:
1. Management Commitment:
The agency makes a written top-man-
agement commitment to improved
environmental performance by estab-
lishing policies which emphasize pol-
lution prevention and the need to
ensure compliance with environmen-
tal requirements. Organizations that
consistently demonstrate manage-
ment support for pollution prevention
and environmental compliance gener-
ally perform at the highest levels and
will be looked upon as leaders that
can mentor other organizations wish-
ing to upgrade their environmental
performance.
2. Compliance Assurance and Pollu-
tion Prevention:
The agency implements proactive pro-
grams that aggressively identify and
address potential compliance problem
areas and utilize pollution prevention
approaches to correct deficiencies and
improve environmental performance.
3. Enabling Systems:
The agency develops and implements
the necessary measures to enable per-
sonnel to perform their fi.inctions con-
sistent with regulatory requirements,
agency environmental policies and its
overall mission. This would likely
include training of personnel as well
as other agency procedures, stan-
dards, programs, and goals.
4. Performance and Accountability:
The agency develops measures to
address employee environmental per-
formance, and ensure full account-
ability of environmental functions.
For example, an agency should
Continued on page 11
PAGE 6
-------
‘ or nd yfl ’rii
STATE OF FEDERAL
FACILITIES UPDATED
EPA and the states performed over
2,600 inspections at federal facilities dur-
ing FY 1993-94, resulting in 979 enforce-
ment actions. This and other statistics
are available in The State of Federal
Facilities:An Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities, FY
1993-94, recently published by FFEO
and available through electronically the
Enviro$en$e bulletin board system (via
the Internet at http//es. mel. gov). This
report is a follow-up to an earlier volume
which covered the environmental com-
pliance status through the end of FY
1992.
The current report provides a two-
year snapshot of federal facility perfor-
mance under eight environmental
statutes, along with enforcement high-
lights and information on EPA’s role in
base realignments and closures. Aver-
aged over the FY 199 1-94 time frame,
compliance by federal facilities was high-
est for the Safe Drinking Water Act (99.
0%), the Clean Air Act (91%), and the
Toxic Substances Control Act (91%) (see
accompanying figure). Lower compliance
rates were achieved for requirements
under RCRA (58%) and the Clean Water
Act (88%). Comparative data from the pri-
vate sector are also provided in the report.
For more information, contact Kelly
Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459.
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION DIALOGUE
COMMITTEE RELEASES
LANDMARK REPORT
A landmark report by the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee was released in
April 1996 detailing the consensus
reached by the committee’s 50 members
on how to improve federal facility
cleanups. Members of the committee
include representatives from EPA, USDA,
Interior, DOE, DOD and its military ser-
vices, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, state, tribal, and
local governments, and numerous other
environmental, community, environmen-
FEDERAL FACIUTY COMPUANCE RATES, FY 1993-94
100
C
E
0
C.,
4
I
90
80
70
60
50
tal justice, and labor organizations. The
report itself represents a mammoth effort
to bring together all parties to improve
the way cleanups are conducted nation-
ally. Various chapters of the report
address community involvement, consid-
erations of local governments and envi-
ronmental justice communities, and the
effective use of advisory boards at sites.
An important component of the final
report was the work done to address the
issue of how to mesh the federal budget
building process with the need to set
enforceable milestones over the life of a
cleanup project. The chief focus of the rec-
ommendations was on promoting a
process that would cause federal facility
cleanups to proceed at a pace that would
ensure protection of human health and
the environment and which would allow
parties to cleanup agreements to address
funding issues (both budget development
and funding shortfalls) in a more open
and productive manner.
Pivotal to the discussion of funding and
priority setting was the discussion of how
to balance Executive Order 12088 —
which has been interpreted as requinng
the heads of federal agencies to request
sufficient funds in their budget submis-
sions to meet all of their environmental
cleanup requirements — with current pol-
icy that agencies submit budgets that meet
certain predetermined budget targets.
The Committee suggested approaches
to both priority setting and milestone set-
ting that can be used and amplified on as
new agreements are developed or exist-
ing agreements modified. First, while
protection of human health and the envi-
ronment are key starting points for set-
ting cleanup funding priorities, the Com-
mittee notes that numerous other factors
should be taken into account in setting
priorities for individual sites, such as the
need to reduce infrastructure cost, envi-
ronmental justice, the need to restore
land for community use, availability of
appropriate technologies, and life cycle
Continued on page 8
FY 1991
FY 1992 FY 1 FY 1994
PAGE 7
-------
ENViRONMENTAL RESTORA11ON
Continued from page 7
cost of the project. Risk ranking schemes
should be considered, but should serve as
a point of departure rather than as a rigid
list of priorities.
For newly negotiated interagency
agreements, the Committee recommend-
ed that near-term, out-year, and project
end date milestones should be set and
funding requested in a time frame appro-
priate to the federal budget process. Once
set, milestones should not be changed
without regulator approval. While regu-
lators agreed to meet at least annually
with regulated Agencies at each site to
finalize milestones following budget allo-
cation, it was recognized that circum-
stances might warrant challenging bud-
get constraints where insufficient funds
were allocated to environmental cleanup.
Throughout, the Committee empha-
sized the importance of stakeholder con-
sultation in making key decisions — both
with respect to priority setting and mile-
stone setting or revision. The recom-
mended process, while strongly focused
on rescoping or rescheduling other activi-
ties or identil ring opportunities for cost
efficiencies prior to amending milestones,
recognizes that the parties to interagency
agreements retain the options of dispute
resolution and enforcement. Finally, the
Committee did not recommend reopening
existing agreements, but noted that
where it was agreed between the parties
that it would be beneficial to do so, the
above approach should be considered.
For more information, contact Darlene
Boerlage, 202-564-2593, or Joyce Olin,
202-564-2582, at FFEO.
FFEO APPLIES ETI GRANT
TO ENFORCEMENT
AGREEMENTS
In coordination with FFEO, the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and
Clean Sites will conduct pilot projects at
selected federal facility sites which are
subject to cleanup and compliance agree-
ments. The pilots will involve a negotiat-
ed effort to apply promising new tech-
nologies at sites for cleanup and/or
pollution prevention, where their applica-
tion may require adjustment of mile-
stones or enhanced flexibility of other
aspects of enforcement agreements.
Pilots may also include the use of innova-
tive technologies for environmental pro-
jects such as Supplemental Environmen-
tal Projects (SEPS). It is anticipated that
an “innovative technology project com-
mittee” will be formed to advise ELI on
the site selection as well as other aspects
of the project.
In addition to the solicitation and com-
mencement of the pilots, ELI will also
compile a manual. The manual will
include instructive materials such as suc-
cess stories derived from situations
involving enforcement flexibility which
yielded the demonstration and applica-
tion of innovative technologies. At the
project’s conclusion, it is anticipated that
ELI and Clean Sites will organize a
national conference to review results.
This project is being undertaken
through a grant from the Environmental
Technology Initiative (ETI). EPA’s ETI
promotes the development, commercial-
ization, and use of environmental tech-
nology to improve environmental quality
while fostering the creation of new jobs
and businesses. This project corresponds
to EPA’s Technology Innovation Strategy
of adapting EPA’s policy, regWator and
compliance framework to promote inno-
vation; strengthening the capacity of
technology developers and users to suc-
ceed in environmental technology innova-
tion; strategically investing EPA funds in
the development and commercialization
of promising new technologies; and accel-
erating the diffusion of innovative tech-
nologies at home and abroad. The goal of
this project is to routinize the use of
enforcement agreements in facilitating
application of innovative technologies for
environmental cleanup and compliance
projects at federal facilities.
For more information on the project or
to be added to the mailing list, please call
Diane Lynne at FFEO at 202-564-2587
(fax: 202-501-0644) or Melinda Holland,
Clean Sites, at 864-457-4202 (fax: 864-
457-5393).
FEDERAL FACILITY COM-
PLIANCE AGREEMENT
REACHED ON PCBs
On August 8, 1996, EPA signed an
agreement with the Department of Ener-
gy and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program (NNPP) addressing their con-
tinued storage of radioactive PCB wastes
beyond the one year limit specified in
TSCA. According to DOE and the NNPP,
the capacity currently available for the
disposal of covered PCB wastes is not suf-
ficient to accommodate their current
inventories of such wastes. Even when
additional treatment facilities are
approved, it will take several years to
process the volume of covered PCB
wastes being stored. DOE and the NNPP
are also unable to comply with certain
outdated Department of Transportation
container requirements also specified in
the PCB regulations.
The agreement, which covers over 20
DOE facilities and three naval shipyards,
is intended as a bridge between the cur-
rent situation and EPA’S final PCB regu-
lations which are expected to be issued in
the next year. Under the agreement,
DOE and the NNPP will submit a joint
Annual Status Report to FFEO and the
affected EPA Regional Offices describing
the covered PCB wastes exceeding the
one-year storage limit, efforts to dispose
of the wastes, and alternative technolo-
gies under development to remove the
wastes.
For more information, contact Diane
Lynne at FFEO, 202-564-2587.
Continued on page 11
PAGE 8
-------
I
Region 1—On July 15, 1996, EPA issued
orders to three separate tenants at the
Massachusetts Military Reservation
(MMR) assessing a total of $222,310 in
penalties for failures to properly conduct
hazardous waste determinations and
comply with land disposal restriction
requirements, among other RCRA viola-
tions. Complaints and compliance orders
under RCRA Section 3008(a) were issued
to the U.S. Air National Guard ($93,710)
for the Otis Air National Guard Base; the
U.S. Army National Guard ($88,600) for
Camp Edwards; and the 1st Battalion
25th Marines ($40,000) for its Marine
Corps Reserve Center. All three orders
result from a multimedia inspection in
August 1995. The actions highlight the
Region’s effort to combat environmental
degradation in the South Coastal water-
shed of Massachusetts. The Massachu-
setts Military Reservation covers some
3,900 acres on a 21,000-acre parcel of
land on Cape Cod. The municipalities of
Bourne and Sandwich and the Air Force
base have an estimated population of
36,000, with drinking water wells and
irrigation wells within three miles of haz-
ardous substances at the site.
Region 2 — On February 22, 1996,
Region 2 issued a complaint, compliance
order, and notice of opportunity for hear-
ing for hazardous waste violations
against the U.S. Army Military Academy
at West Point, NY. The order included a
total assessed penalty of $24,496 for
alleged RCRA storage and manifesting
violations related to hazardous waste
from laboratory training, and vehicle and
equipment maintenance operations. The
violations were discovered during an
August 1995 RCRA compliance evalua-
tion inspection at the facility.
Region 3— EPA Region 3 conducted two
intensive multimedia compliance inspec-
tions in 1995, at the Washington Navy
Yard and the Southeast Federal Center.
Based on the inspection results, EPA has
been meeting with Navy Yard officials to
address outstanding compliance issues in
a 3008(a) enforceable Agreement and
cleanup issues in a Consent Order under
RCRA Section 7003. During early June,
the Navy agreed to contract for the imme-
diate cleanup of contaminated sediments
in three outfall locations and to schedule
additional cleanups in 1997. EPA also
issued two Notices of Violation to the
Navy in June for RCRA underground
storage tank violations at the Navy Yard
and Anacostia Naval Station; both are
pending resolution.
Region 9— On August 22, 1995, Region
9 issued a complaint and compliance
order to the Bureau of Reclamation’s
Yama Desalting Plant, located in Yuma,
Arizona, assessing $265,025 in penalties.
The actions stem from a March 6, 1995
EPA inspection of the facility, during
which inspectors observed 61 containers
(equal to 35 full 55-gallon drums) of haz-
ardous waste at the facility in and
around the storage area. The containers,
which had been stored on site for up to 40
months without a permit, contained
ignitable waste, corrosive waste, reactive
waste, chromium, lead, etc. EPA deter-
mined that the likelihood of release to the
environment and danger to BOR employ-
ees was great. Settlement negotiations
are ongoing.
Region 9— On December 15, 1995, EPA
Region 9 cited the Department of the
Interior’s National Park Service for viola-
tions at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,
proposing a $243,800 penalty. During an
inspection the previous July, EPA deter-
mined that the Hawaii facility had stored
hazardous wastes without a RCRA per-
mit from December 1994 to October
1995. The waste, stored in containers
near a maintenance yard in the park,
contained amounts of acetone, chromi-
um, lead, xylene, phenol, arsenic, mer-
cury, and other hazardous wastes. The
Department of the Interior was also cited
for storing the wastes in rusted or leak-
ing containers. The facility has removed
the waste, developed a comprehensive
waste management plan, and submitted
a closure plan for the waste storage area.
Penalty negotiations are ongoing.
ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTABLE,
SAN ANTONIO, TX
October 17-19, 1996
by Darlene Boerlage, FFEO
I recently had the opportunity to par-
ticipate in the first EPA Office of Enforce-
ment and Compliance Assurance Round-
table held in San Antonio, Thxas. The
Roundtable was intended to enhance the
public’s opportunities for involvement in
EPA’s enforcement process.
The Roundtable began with a tour of
environmental justice sites around San
Antonio. One of the visits on the tour
was to North Kelly Gardens, a small
Latino community of approximately 30
homes just outside of the fence-line from
Kelly Air Force Base. Community repre-
sentatives stated that they were not ade-
quately represented on the Restoration
Advisory Board for the site, that there
was not an adequate emergency evacua-
tion plan, and that the Air Force has not
kept them informed of environmental
actions impacting their community.
The Roundtable meetings provided a
forum for community, environmental
organizations, industry, states, and local
governments to develop recommenda-
tions on aspects of the enforcement
process including: federal and state roles,
inspections, screening, targeting, com-
munity monitoring, community notifica-
tion and resolution of complaints, envi-
ronmental restoration and cleanup
projects, settlements, performance part-
nerships and memoranda of agreement,
environmental impact statements, and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Break-out sessions were highly interac-
Continued on page ii
PAGE 9 ffD
-------
ROCKY RATS
Continued from page 1
standards for surface water, ground
water, surface and subsurface soils, and
buildings to help the parties agree on
appropriate cleanup actions. Important-
ly, the agreement means that EPA, the
State, and stakeholders are now directly
involved in DOE’s budget planning
process. This will allow the parties and
stakeholders to view the site as a whole
and prioritize cleanup actions and regu-
latory milestones to address the highest
risks first.
Finally, the Rocky Flats agreement
contains special provisions to deal with
the stabilization and consolidation of plu-
tomum inside of buildings. Included as
an appendix to the agreement is a Mem-
orandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board (DNFSB), which has statutory
oversight authority over plutomuni activ-
ities at DOE facilities. This MOU, the
first of its kind for DOE, establishes
areas of lead regulation or oversight for
DNFSB, the State, and EPA for cleanup
activities within buildings. The Rocky
Flats agreement also includes a process
whereby DOE consults with EPA, the
State of Colorado, and DNFSB in estab-
lishing “target activities” for plutonium
activities which will then be incorporated
each year into the agreement. The public
will be notified if DOE wishes to modify a
target date or fails to meet it; DOE, in
consultation with EPA, the State, and
DNFSB, will develop a corrective action
plan to address the issue. DOE will then
keep EPA, the State, and DNFSB
informed as to the status of the imple-
mentation of the corrective action plan.
Dates for activities which follow the com-
pletion of a target activity, such as build-
ing decommissioning activities which can
only be initiated after plutonium man-
agement activities within buildings are
completed, will be established under the
Rocky Flats agreement as enforceable
milestones with specific monetary penal-
ties.
DIRECTOR’S WORD
Continued from page 1
environmental compliance and public
trust. The people trust the federal gov-
ernment to properly manage our federal-
ly owned and operated facilities. Has the
federal government earned the public’s
trust?
According to the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee (FFRDC) report discussed in
this issue, over the next 75 years, federal
agencies will be liable for cleaning up
over 61,000 hazardous waste sites, with
cleanup costs ranging around one-third
of a trillion dollars. The FFRDC report
comments that a lack of public involve-
ment in the past, due to national security
concerns, bred significant mistrust
among the public, especially where feder-
al facility environmental problems affect-
ed communities of color and low-income
communities. The report, however, com-
mends federal agencies for making great
progress recently in involving the public
in environmental decision making.
Although the federal government is
responsible for thousands of sites due to
past environmental practices, it is gain-
ing credibility due to its efforts at com-
munity involvement in the cleanup
process.
Does current environmental compli-
ance behavior warrant the public’s trust?
This issue of FedFacs offers several arti-
cles on point. For compliance statistics,
FFEO recently published The State of
Federal Facilities: An Overview of Envi-
ronmental Compliance at Federal Facili-
ties. This report summarizes compliance
results from 2,600 EPA and state inspec-
tions. Also see the results of the first Thx-
ics Release Inventory (TRI) that includes
toxic releases from federal facilities. A
goal of TRI is to hold federal facilities
accountable for their activities and to
encourage them to reduce their use of
toxic chemicals at the source. Accepting
responsibility for toxic releases and
reducing the federal government’s
reliance on toxic chemicals are two very
good ways to demonstrate to the public
we are worthy of their trust.
Another way is to inform the public of
the results of an Environmental Manage-
ment Review (EMR) or environmental
audit. I hope this issue’s article on EMRs
is useful and I urge you to take advan-
tage of the EPAAudit Policy Although an
EMR is more limited in scope than an
environmental audit, each can help in
identifying potential compliance prob-
lems and needed corrections.
Under policies like EPA’s EMR and
audit policies, facilities will disclose the
results of the reviews to the public. By
contrast, some states currently allow
environmental auditing information to
be kept secret and may provide blanket
izmnunity from enforcement actions for
violations uncovered through the confi-
dential audit. The federal government
should not undermine the public’s trust
by relying on these state laws to keep
environmental information secret. In
speaking out against environmental
audit privilege and immunity laws, Vice
President Al Gore, EPAAssistantAdmin-
istrator Steven Herman, and Assistant
Attorney General Lois Schiffer each have
cited the public distrust caused by these
laws.
Sustained future compliance and pol-
lution prevention behavior ultimately
will earn the public’s trust. The success of
programs like ENVVEST, featured in
this issue, presents opportunities for fed-
eral agencies to improve environmental
practices and share important infonna-
tion with the public. Regulatory flexibili-
ty is earned but first, facilities must com-
ply with the law. FFEO will do
everything it can to assist federal agen-
cies with compliance endeavors. By com-
plying with the law, federal agencies will
earn not only the regulators’ trust: they
will gain the trust of the public, thereby
paving the way for greater regulatory
flexibility along the lines of ENVVEST.
In closing, I hope this issue offers
information that is new and useful to
you. Let me know!
Craig Hooks, Acting Director, FFEO
PAGE 10 i
-------
REPORTS AND REGULATIONS
Continued from page 8
EPA CLARIFIES
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
On March 18, 1996, EPA published a
technical revision to its Part 22 adminis-
trative hearing procedures, providing
federal departments and agencies which
are the subject of an EPA administrative
compliance order for RCRA violations
with the opportunity to confer with the
EPA Administrator. The head of the fed-
eral department or agency would have 30
days following an Environmental
Appeals Board ruling to request such a
conference, and the decision made by the
Administrator after such a conference
would constitute the final order. The new
provision brings EPA’s procedures in con-
formance with the Federal Facility Com-
pliance Act of 1992. For more informa-
tion, contact Sally Daizell, FFEO,
202-564-2510.
RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER ANALYSIS
The Plsinning, Prevention, and
Compliance Staff of FFEO is finalizing a
detailed review of 104 RCRAAdministra-
five Orders issued by EPA Regions and
the states from October 1992 (the effec-
tive date of the Federal Facility Compli-
ance Act) through December 1995. The
study objectives are to determine federal
agency areas of non-compliance; time
lines (e. g. , issue and settlement dates);
the frequency of specific violations cited;
penalty amounts assessed and/or paid;
and Supplemental Environmental Project
amounts (if any). The study is expected to
be released in Fall 1996 and is intended
for use by federal agencies and regulators.
Preliminary findings include:
• Average proposed
sistently higher
($348,571) than
($56,732).
• Of the 104 administrative orders, 704
individual violations were identified.
The three most frequent violations
were: (1) failure to label or improper
labeling of containers (91 violations);
(2) incomplete or failure to make a
hazardous waste determination (55
violations); and (3) failure to indicate
accumulation or storage start dates on
containers.
EPA ISSUES GUIDANCE
ON PARTiCIPATiON IN DOE
BUDGET PROCESS
In response to the Department of Ener-
gy’s invitation to stakeholders and regula-
tors to provide input into its FY 1998 bud-
get building process, EPA has issued
guidance to promote involvement by the
EPA Regional Offices. “Guidance for EPA
Participation in DOE FY 1998 Environ-
tion” emphasizes the importance of efforts
to identify and implement cost efficiencies
at DOE field sites and the importance of
complying with existing Interagency
Agreements.
The guidance restates the requirement
contained in Executive Order 12088 that
DOE will seek sufficient funding for com-
pliance with pollution control requirements
and describes the limited circumstances
under which EPA would consider whether
to renegotiate milestones in Interagency
Agreements. It lists the factors to be con-
sidered in making such decisions, induding
the extent of DOE’S collaboration in reach-
ing agreement on priorities and whether
there have been substantive efforts to
obtain the viewpoints of stakeholders
regarding changes to the agreements.
Former FFEO Director Barry Breen
commended DOE for being “much more
open and successful at involving the pub-
lic and regulatory agencies as compared
to past years.” However, he reiterated
EPA concerns about cleanup commit-
ments, cost savings, and the adequacy of
DOE’s Risk Data Sheet process. “We
remain concerned that budget appears to
drive cleanup,” noted Breen. “it is vitally
important that DOE keep the commit-
ments that it has made to the public in its
cleanup agreements.”
Copies of the reports mentioned in this
section may be obtained through Envi-
ro$en$e. See page 12 for access informa-
ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTABLE
Continued from page 9
tive, with participants providing numer-
ous recommendations on each topic area.
I believe the first EPA Enforcement
Roundtable was a huge success and a
milestone for OECA. OECA Assistant
Administrator Steve Herman spent two
days at the Roundtable, taking time to
listen to the stakeholders and to talk with
them about their issues of concern.
OECA is exploring the possibility of host-
ing additional Enforcement Roundtables
at other locations in the future.
NEWS RESOURCES
Continued from page 6
ensure that employee performance
standards, efficiency ratings, or other
accountability measures, are clearly
defined to include environmental
issues as appropriate, and that excep-
tional performance is recognized and
rewarded.
5. Measurement and Improvement
The agency develops and implements
a program to assess progress toward
meeting its environmental goals and
uses the results to improve environ-
mental performance. For example, the
agency might institute a formal bench-
marking program to compare its envi-
ronmental operations with other orga-
nizations and management standards,
where appropriate.
Each of the five principles, which
describe the overall purpose of the step in
the management cycle, is supported by
performance objectives. The performance
objectives provide more details on the
tools and mechanisms by which the prin-
ciples can be implemented.
For more information, contact Andrew
Cherry at 202-564-5011.
penalties were con-
for federal orders
for state orders
mental Management Budget Formula- tion.
PAGE 11
-------
EPA is accepting nominations of mdi-
viduals for the first-ever Executive Order
12856 Environmental Challenge Award
for individuals. These awards wifi recog-
nize individuals that have demonstrated
outstanding leadership in implementing
the pollution prevention provisions of the
1993 Executive Order #12856 on Federal
Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws
and Pollution Prevention. EPA expects to
UST OF ACRONYMS
CAA
CWA
DOD
DOE
EPA
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection
Agency
FFCA Federal Facility
Compliance Act
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforce-
ment Office (EPA)
ISO International Standard Orga-
nization
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRI Tones Release Inventory
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
USDA U. S. Department of
Agriculture
incorporate the EO 12856 Challenge
Awards with the 1997 White House Clos-
ing the Circle Awards. The date for the
Closing the Circle nominations is not
extended by this notice.
Nominations for the Challenge Award
must include the name, location, facility
address, telephone and fax number, e-
mail address (if available), and the name
of the person nominating the individual.
Include a title and abstract of no more
than 100 words and a description of the
individual achievement. The description
should be no longer than three 8.5 x 11”
pages, duplex printed on recycled paper
containing at least 20% post-consumer
content. Challenge nominations already
submitted in coordination with the Clos-
ing the Circle nominations need not be
resubmitted. EO 12856 individual Chal-
lenge nominations must be received by
March 3, 1997 and should be mailed to
FFEO Challenge Awards (2261A), 401 M
St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. E-mail
submissions must contain all the above
information and can be sent to
Garvey.Will@epamail.epa.gov. Attach-
ments to E-mail messages must be in
ASCII format. Any questions regarding
format may be directed to WIll Garvey at
202-564-2458.
CALENDAR
April 7-10, 1997
ADPA
The 23rd Environmental Sympo-
sium and Exhibition of the Ameri-
can Defense Preparedness Associa-
tion will be held in New Orleans on
April 7-10, 1997. Contact Carey M.
Jagels, tel: 703-247-2578, fax: 703-
522-1885, E-mail: cjagels@adpa.org.
May 5-9, 1997
CALL FOR PAPERS — 1997 GLOBAL
DEMLITARIZAT1ON SYMPOSiUM &
EXHIB ON
Organized by the Joint Ordnance
Commanders Group and the Ainer-
ican Defense Preparedness Assoca-
tion, the Symposium will be held in
Reno, NV and will focus on the chal-
lenge of demilitarization and dis-
posal of energetic materials. Dead-
line for submissions: Jan. 15, 1997.
Contact: Jim Wheeler, tel: 815-273-
8084; fax: 815-273-8717.
fr11Li f
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Busines8
Penalty for Private Use $300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE
AWARD DEADLINE EXTENDED TO
MARCH 3, 1997
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Address Correction Requested
------- |