ISSUE #4 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2261 A) EPA #300-N-97-002 Summer 1997 x-,EPA FedFst an environmental bulletin for federal facilities ul 2 Guest Spot: Sherri W. Goodman 3 TRI Drops for Feds' Second Year of Reporting 4 In the Field: Groundwater Testing in Nebraska, Washington Navy Yard 6 The Hammer 7 Congratulations to Pollution Prevention Environmental Challenge Winners! 8 Reports and Regulations 10 Conferences 12 Calendar EPA ORDERS CEASE-FIRE ON CAPE COD BASE EPA ordered a cease-fire, effective May 19, 1997, at one of the largest National Guard training areas in the Northeast in an effort to protect Cape Cod's drinking water from contamination. On April 10, 1997, EPA Region 1 ordered Army Nation- al Guard to suspend all training activities at Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) that could release contaminants to the air, soil, and water on Upper Cape Cod. This is the first time that EPA has ever stopped military training to protect human health. EPA also ordered the National Guard to imme- diately begin cleanup of lead and unex- ploded ordnance from firing ranges and impact areas on base. "This is a home run day for EPA, but more especially for the citizens of the Cape," said EPA Regional Administrator John DeVillars. "Their air will be cleaner, their drinking water more secure, and their health better protected as a result of this action." Continued on page 10 Contractors search for buried unexploded ord- nance in the impact area at Camp Edwards on Cape Cod using a magnometer device. DirBctor's CRAIG HOOKS The United States Government has embarked on a long and costly voyage in coming to grips with its own environmen- tal legacy. The federal government repre- sents the single largest environmental program in the world, with the largest set of problems and challenges in the west- ern hemisphere. For some time the federal government has claimed that it intends to be a leader in environmental protection. At the same time, the federal government historically has resisted attempts to hold itself accountable to environmental laws to the same extent that municipalities, state governments, and the private sector are held accountable. These two messages are inconsistent. Until the federal govern- ment accepts voluntarily the concept of a "level playing field" for all environmental laws, it will only be a pretender to the leadership throne. One step towards achieving this lead- ership and reestablishing faith in the gov- ernment is to assure the public that the federal government is accountable to the citizens, states, and the Congress for its environmental record. In a previous col- umn, I talked about trust and whether Continued on page 11 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- SHERRI W. GOODMAN Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security It has become increas- mgly clear to me that pre- serving our Nation’s nat- ural heritage requires a commitment, and team- work. A commitment to conducting business in an environmentally sustainable manner, and teamwork to make that vision a reality To protect people and environment, and to promote economic development across the globe, all sectors of society must integrate environmental considera- tions into their activities. The Depart- ment of Defense (DOD) is making an extremely important contribution to what has become a global effort to balance envi- ronmental protection and development. This global effort, often framed in the con- text of “sustainable development” empha- sizes managing growth, developing tech- nologies to prevent pollution from the outset, protecting air and water quality, as well as historic sites and natural areas, and strengthening communities. These same underpinnings form the basis for DOD’s environmental program. The Office of Environmental Security is responsible for protecting and maintaining our access to land, sea and air so that we can sustain the military mission. This involves managing the natural and cultur- al resources under our stewardship, clean- ing up sites that have been contaminated in the past, developing programs and tech- nologies to prevent pollution from the out- set, protecting the safety and health of our troops, and complying with the law. DOD manages over 25 million acres, is subject to environmental laws and regu- lations, and invests nearly 2% of its bud- get in environmental security Our 435 installations operate like small cities, fac- ing many of the same challenges. Base commanders play a leadership role in their community, setting policy in every area, from infrastructure development and maintenance (roads, schools, housing, etc.), to waste management, environinen- tal protection and community develop- ment. Our environmental commitment was well expressed by the Secretary of Defense William Cohen who issued an Earth Day Proclamation which stated, “Environmen- tal protection is our responsibility as good citizens, neighbors, and managers.” He proclaimed that “...environmental protec- tion is critical to the Defense Department mission and environmental considerations shall be integrated into all defense activi- ties.” That is an excellent sunirnary of what we are trying to achieve with DoD’s environmental program. Today, environ- mental factors are in the mainstream of DoD activities. Environment, safety and health activi- ties now enhance, rather than burden, productivity and competitiveness. Our strategy is to reduce operational costs, increase operational flexibility, and reduce liabilities. Efforts have focused on looking for ways to substitute existing materials or processes with environmen- tally sound alternatives, or to treat and dispose of contaminated emissions and effluents in a safe and environmentally sound manner. About 80% of the haz- ardous materials used by DOD is attrib- utable to the acquisition process. So it’s the acquisition process, from the research and development, to production, to actual operations and support, that can benefit the most from eliminating pollutants. It’s a simple concept: pollution is waste, and waste is wasted money. Below is a snap- shot of our progress to date: (1) The number of enforcement actions are down 80% even though the number of inspections by regulators has remained the same. (2) This year DOD made sub- stantial progress toward meeting its goal to reduce disposal of hazardous waste by 50% by 1999 from a 1992 baseline. DOD already reduced hazardous waste 50 between 1985 and 1992. (3) DOD com- pleted its second Toxic Release Inventory public data report and toxic release reductions are down 30% in the first reporting year (1994/95). (4) Environmen- tal considerations and costs have been integrated into the design of new weapons systems. For example, the Navy’s New Attack Submarine is reduc- ing its future hazardous waste generation 90% below levels currently generated by submarines. (5) DOD now purchases only recycled content copier paper as long as the cost is below that of virgin paper. DOD use of recycled paper will save 150,000 trees each year, and 60 million gallons of water—the amount one million Americans use in a day. (6) DOD has com- pleted 62% of all biological inventories of plants and animals found on lands under DOD jurisdiction. These successes are the result of sys- tematic efforts to integrate environmen- tal education and training at every level of the work force and throughout our mil- itary academic institutions, by establish- ing policy for aggressive self.assessment programs, and by creating incentives for environmental stewardship. A common thread runs through our best programs. That common thread is partnership. We have strong programs to jointly develop constructive solutions to common challenges — both environmen- tally and economically. Meaningful com- munication and cooperation with Federal, State and local agencies, tribal nations and communities near our installations is key to ensuring that we are operating efficient installations, promoting effective military training and protecting the environment. Achieving sustainablity requires all individuals and organizations to adopt a new view toward the environment and the way we live and do business. We have found that making these changes is help- ing us to fulfill the military mission while improving the quality of life for our Ser- vice men and women. PAGE 2 ffD: ------- FEDERAL FACILITIES REPORT SIGNIFICANT DROP IN TRI RELEASES Federal facifities reported to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for the second time in 1995, and the data show nearly a 25% decline in total amounts of toxic chemicals released in 1995, and nearly a 35% decline in transfers, com- pared to 1994. However, the source of the decreases is not yet clear. It may be due to the adoption of pollution prevention mea- sures or to the fact that fewer facilities reported in 1995 (144 rather than 193). The most recent Tifi data for federal agencies are summarized in the accompa- nying table. Half of the 2-million-pound reduction in releases is due to the Air Force’s efforts, while nearly 80% of the 3.4- million-pound reduction in transfers comes from the Army. Note that the per- centage changes between 1994 and 1995 shown in the table relate only to chemicals reported in both those years, not to the actual 1995 release and transfer numbers. Information on obtaining TRI data is available from EPA’s EPCRA hotline at 1- 800-535-0202(703-412-9810 in the Wash- ington, D.C. area) or online from the TRI home page at httpi/www.epa.govl opptintr/tri. TRI data can also be accessed through the Right-to-Know Computer Network (httpi/www.rtk.net). Federal Agency 1995 Releases Agriculture Defense Air Force Army Army Corps of Engineers Defense Logistics Agency Marines Navy Energy Health & Human Services Interior Justice Transportation Treasury Veterans Affairs EPA NASA Tennessee Valley Authority US. Enrichment Corp. Total 7,927.0 April 1997). 1994-1995 1995 Transfers 1994-1995 Change (%) Change (%) 0 5,694.1 1,065.0 3,672.7 0.3 2.8 560.6 392.7 103.1 55.1 25.8 0 6.3 441.7 91.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT FEDERAL FACILITIES: A NEW INITIATIVE Over the past few years, FFEO has been attempting to integrate considera- tions of environmental justice into poli- cies and guidance governing federal facil- ities, in particular linking voluntary pollution prevention activities with envi- ronmental justice. “Environmental jus- tice” is a response to the disproportionate environmental impacts faced by many communities made up predominantly of people of color and/or low income. A new report discusses the preliminary results of FFEO’s Federal Facilities Environ- mental Justice Enforcement Initiative which is aimed at identifying federal facilities that may pose environmental justice concerns and emphasizing enforcement efforts at such facilities. The initiative highlighted 44 facilities as potential environmental justice sites. The majority of them are located in Regions 4, 6, and 9. Of the 44 sites, 779k belong to DOD, l8 to DOE, and 5 to civilian federal agencies. Twelve of the sites have recent violations, 13 are in sig- nificant noncompliance, and 17 are listed on the National Priorities List (Super- fund). FFEO used four criteria for target- ing sites: relative health risks posed by the facility to populations in the immedi- ate vicinity (using the TRI Indicator Model); compliance history; community and other reports of EJ concerns; and geographic distribution. To determine whether the 44 facilities listed in the report are in fact EJ sites, further inves- tigation is needed. FFEO is encouraging each EPA Region to include at least one targeted facility in its annual multi- media inspections and to engage regional EJ coordinators and federal facility coor- dinators in joint targeting efforts. For snore information or a copy of the report, contact Darlene Boerlage, FFEO, 202- 564-2593. 1995 TRI DATA FOR FEDERAL FACIUT1ES 474.9 5,615.3 3,651.8 917.6 22.4 5.3 375.0 643.1 581.9 0 4.8 32.5 16.5 37.6 0 0 474.0 13.6 675.7 -26.7 -25.5 -29.1 0.2 -83.1 -26.5 -28.9 -7.7 -100.0 316.5 -64.8 -30.7 493.3 -45.0 -13.7 -100.0 -11.7 -23.6 -38.9 -23.3 -42.3 -82.3 -28.4 -48.1 22.8 -60.6 -100.0 0.0 119.4 -25.2 -100.0 -34.7 0 78.1 0 0 6,495.3 Releases and transfers reported in millions of pounds Source: EPA, 1995 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release (EPA 745-R-97-005, PAGE 3 ------- Ill theFllá7 THE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD: EPA’S MULTI- MEDIA ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA by Darlene Roerlage The Washington Navy Yard, a 66-acre facility in Southeast Washington on the banks of the Anacostia River, has been working with EPA for the expedient cleanup and return to compliance of the facility Due to its 150 years of naval industrial activities the Navy Yard is on track to be listed on the Superfund National Priorities List within the next several years. EPA Region 3 issued four significant enforcement actions on September 30, 1996, two at the Washington Navy Yard and two at the Anacostia Naval Station. Multi-media inspections had previously been conducted at the facilities as part of the Region’s Anacostia River Initiative. Two of the complaints were the first ever issued under the Underground Storage Tank program (RCRA Section 9006) against a federal agency for violations of federal underground storage tank regu- lations. The Navy answered the com- plaints and requested a hearing on Janu- ary 7, 1997. Negotiations are ongoing to resolve these complaints. The other two actions were for violations of RCRA Sub- title C (hazardous waste) involving sites that were contaminated,which assessed penalties in the amount of $302,000 for the Washington Navy Yard and $310,000 at the Anacostia Naval Station. The Region and the Navy are working togeth- er as a team to resolve these counts. On March 6, 1997, EPA Region 3 and the Department of Navy signed a RCRA 7003 cleanup order. This order requires comprehensive hazardous and solid waste cleanup at the installation. As part of a team effort, EPA Region 3 has assigned both a Superfund and RCRA (hazardous waste) project manager to the facility to fully integrate the cleanup of the site once it becomes final on the National Priorities List. Meanwhile, the Navy has been conducting cleanup activ- ities at the installation. Under the Clean Water Act, the Navy has applied for a National Pollution Dis- charge Elimination System (NPDES permit for management of its storrnwater and discharges into the Anacostia River. At last check, the District of Columbia has not concurred on the NPDES permit. Under requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Navy held a public meeting on Janu- ary23, 1997,to discuss the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the relocation activities pro- posed at the facility. The Washington Navy Yard will be receiving approxi- mately 4,100 new person- nel transferring from a location in Arlington, Vir- ginia. Reportedly, commu- nity members and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund focused on the ongo- ing cleanup at the Navy Yard as well as the need for more accessible infor- mation from the Navy on the progress of cleanup. The Navy has responded to the community by forming a Restoration Advisory Board comprised of community members and other stakeholders to advise the Navy on the cleanup process. The Navy Yard remediation is part of a broader community-based approach by EPA Region 3 and the Navy to conduct cleanup under the Anacostia River Initia- tive. Darlene Boerlage can be reached at 202-564-2593. EPA REGION 2 REVIEW OF DOE BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY EPA Region 2 conducted a major multi- media inspection of DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in Upton, NY The inspection took place May 5-14, 1997, with assistance from EPA’s National Enforcement Investigation Center. Twen- ty-five inspectors representing eleven programs participated in the inspection. BNL was identified as an inspection candidate because of its size and complex and variable operations. Of particular interest to EPA was the controversy sur- rounding the waste management prac- tices at the site, and the fact that nurner- ous violations had been found during EPA’s earlier multi-media inspection of BNLin 1991. To complement the multi-media inspection, Region 2 will be conducting two additional reviews of the facility. First, an evaluation of BNL’s major processes (both operational and research) will be conducted to provide EPA and BNL with a comprehensive understand- ing of all waste generation at the facility And second, an Environmental Manage- ment Review ‘EMR) will be conducted to determine whether the facility’s manage- ment system is adequately designed to sustain a viable environmental compli- ance program. Both reviews will begin this summer with NEIC assistance. Washington Navy Yard PAGE 4 ------- GROUNDWATER SAMPLING UNDERWAY IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS EPA Region 7, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and Nebras- ka Health and Human Services have begun testing private wells and ground- water near USDA-operated grain storage sites to identi1 r possible carbon tetrachlo- ride (CC14) contamination. A history of finding CC14-contaminated groundwater near former grain storage facilities in Nebraska and Kansas has compelled EPA to push for testing of approximately 400 still untested sites in these two states. EPA has committed over half a million dollars to support sampling at these sites in order to ensure that private well users nearby are not using contami- nated water. The money is being con- tributed by the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, Region 7’s Super- fund Program, the Office of Water, and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Sampling will take place over a period of approximately 15 months, with the states conducting much of the work. EPA estimates that this effort will address the approximately 400 sites that currently need to be sampled in Kansas and Nebraska, with about $200,000 needed to complete sampling in these states. Grain bin sites in Iowa, which appear to have a significantly lower detection rate, may be addressed in future sampling projects. No sites have been sampled in Missouri. The Commodity Credit Corporation, an agency of USDA, operated approxi- mately 4,500 grain storage sites national- ly from the 1940s until 1970. Of these, about 1,800 known sites are located in Region 7 (Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa). USDA fumigated stored grain at these sites with CCI4, a probable human carcinogen. For some time, EPA has sought to have USDA perform wide- spread sampling in order to identify potential users of CCI4-contaminated groundwater. Recently, USDA has expressed interest in sampling activities and a willingness to contriubte $110,000 of its FY97 funds toward a sampling effort of its own. Also, in 1997, USDA completed a survey of its field offices in Kansas and Nebraska and located 75 sites not previously identified. For additional information con tact Lance Elson at 202-564-2577. REGION 6 REPORTS FIRST TRANSFER OF BASE CLO- SURE TO CIVILIAN USE On May 23, 1997, EPA Region 6 approved final transfer of NAS Chase Field to the Beeville/Bee County Redevel- opment Authority This is the first base closure in Region 6 that has been com- pletely converted to civilian use. NAS Chase Field was placed on the Base Closure list in 1991 (BRAC II). To speed the economic recovery of communi- ties impacted by the closing of the base, an innovative partnership was created among EPA, the State of Texas, and Navy environmental personnel. A goal-oriented process was established to fast-track environmental cleanup and to ensure that cleanup of old hazardous waste sites at the base does not interfere with rede- velopment of this property. Significant amount of solid waste management units were identified and investigated at the base. Major sites investigated and rome- diated include landfills, firefighting train- ing areas, waste oil tanks, solvent tanks, waste storage areas, and oil-water sepa- rators. The success of environmental cleanup and reuse at NAS Chase Field is attrib- uted to team work among staff from EPA, the Texas Natural Resource Conserva- tion Commission, and the Navy, as well as the direct involvement of the Base Commander in promoting reuse of the facility and a close working relationship with the local Redevelopment Authority. For further information, contact Mr Sing Chin, EPA Region 6,214-665-8301. F is published by EPA’S Federal Facilities Enforcement Office. Joyce Johnson, Editor Gilah Langner, Writer Robin Foetei Layout To receive FedFaes in the mail, contact: Federal Facilities Enforcement Office U & EPA (2261 , 401 M Street S Washington, DC 20460 or Fax: 2(Y2-5010069 ON ThE INTERNE1 ENVIROSENSE AND BEYOND... A wide variety of information on federal facilities is available through EPA sites on the Internet: To reach Enviro$en$e, EPA’s environmental electronic information system: • Through EPA’s server, go to httpitwww.epa.gov/enviroeense (No dollar signs!!) • Through the INEL server, go to httpil/esineLgov ‘ To go directly to Federal Facilities Information on Enviro$en$e go to http//esJneLgov/oecatfedfac/fedfac_info.html To reach FFEO’s home page (also the Federal Facilities Environmental Lead- ership Exchange home page), go to httpil/es.ineLgov/oeca/fedfaeffflex.html To reach EPA’s home page, go to httpil/www.epa.gov To read this or past issues of FedFacs on the Internet, go to httpil/es.meL gov/oecaFfedfaciannlindex.html For information on FFLEX/Enviro$en$e, contact Isabelle Lacay4 FFEO, 202-564-2578. See you on the Internet! PAGE5 ------- The/#Ei wuiarw REGION 1: Actions Against Veterans Affairs Facility. On March 31, 1997, Region I reached a settlement with the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Westhaven, CT on a complaint and compliance order under RCRA Sec- tion 3008(a). The penalty assessed in the complaint was $82,375 with a settlement penalty of $61,550. The VA will pay $15,388 (25%) in cash and will perform SEPs costing some $48,000. The VA will install and operate, as part of the x-ray film processing operations, a closed-loop silver recovery system arid automatic batch system for four x-ray developer units. In addition, the VA will purchase necessary computer hardware and haz- ardous materials software to be used by the VA Safety Office personnel for haz- ardous materials and waste manage- ment information. The VA also will hire a consultant to conduct an environmental compliance audit at the facility The audit will identify opportunities to maintain compliance with RCRA regulations, ways in which the RCRA program at the VA can be improved, efficient ways to manage haz- ardous waste generated at the VA, and opportunities to reduce the use, produc- tion, and generation of hazardous maten- als and waste. The audit will require a detailed inspection of all chemical use areas, satellite accumulation areas, and the hazardous waste accumulation shed. Finally, the VA will provide eight-hour RCRA hazardous waste management training to all members of the Fire & Safe- ty Office, appropriate members of the Facilities Management Service, and research laboratory principle investiga- tors. Among the violations outlined in the complaint was the failure to make haz- ardous waste determinations. EPA inspectors found that the facility had sent hazardous wastes off-site designat- ed as nonhazardous wastes. The facility also failed to operate so as to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned release of hazardous waste constituents. EPA inspectors found con- tainers holding acids and caustics that could result in heat generation and vio- lent reaction if mixed together or thrown out in a trash barrel. A similar action was settled earlier in the year against VA medical facilities in Boston, MA. In September 1996 the Veterans Administration agreed to spend $16,800 to design and implement an environmen- tal training program for all nine VA med- ical facilities throughout New England. The training included instruction on management of hazardous waste and rec- ognizing opportunities for pollution pre- vention. The VA also agreed to pay a cash penalty of $47,725 to settle an EPA com- plaint regarding violations of federal and state hazardous waste management laws at the VA’s medical center on South Huntington Ave. in Boston, MA. REGION 4: Agreement with DOE on Paducah Plant. Region 4 reached agreement with DOE to clean up the NPL-listed Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The interagency agreement (JAG) reflects an expectation that the groundwater at the site will be cleaned up by 2010. The lAG was issued for public comment in Spring 1997 and is expected to be finalized in the fall. Final agreement on a major modification to the JAG covering cleanup at the DOE’s Oak Ridge Reservation NPL site was also reached. The modification provides for milestones which are more enforceable than those of the original agreement. RCBA Cases. Region 4 continues to work toward resolution of administrative complaints issued late in 1996 against the Army’s Fort Campbell in Kentucky, where a $48,700 penalty was proposed, and the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Memphis Depot, which was assessed a $20. 000 penalty The Fort Campbell violations includ- ed: failure to make hazardous waste determinations, failure to correctly label containers, failure to remove hazardous waste from satellite accumulation areas in a timely manner, and failure to main- tain emergency equipment. The DLA Memphis, Tennessee facility violated the conditions of its permit by improperly storing incompatible wastes, creating potentially dangerous conditions. Region 4 also took a RCRA enforce- ment action against Lockheed Martin Energy Systems in late 1996, for failure to adequately inspect hazardous waste tank systems at DOE’s Oak Ridge, Ten- nessee facility. The RCRA Consent Agree- ment and Consent Order imposed a $22,500.00 penalty for improper inspec- tion procedures. The tank inspections are now being properly performed. REGION 9: Air Force Agreement to Pay Stipu- lated Penalty at McClellan Air Force Base in California. On April 25, 1997, the Air Force agreed to pay a $15,000 fine and accepted full responsi- bility for exceeding effluent limitations for its groundwater treatment system for a three-day period, and discharging groundwater contaminated with TCE, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1, 1,-dichloroethylene in greater concentrations than allowed in the interim record of decision. In addition, the Air Force failed to sample the effluent on a weekly basis (which would have indi- cated that the carbon filters needed replacing). REGION 10: RCRA Consent Agreement and Consent Order Signed for Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright. On April 29, 1994, EPA issued two com- plaints and compliance orders under RCRA Section 3008(a) to the Army for hazardous waste violations at Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright in Alas- ka assessing $1.34 million and $650,000, respectively. On November 21, 1996, a consent agreement and consent order Continued on page 7 PAGE 6 ffD: ------- CONGRATULATIONS!! AWARD WiNNERS MEET ThE CHALLENGE OF POLLUTiON PREVEFfl1ON On May 5, 1997, the second annual Closing the Circle award ceremony was held, honoring super environmen- tal achievers in the federal govern- ment. This year’s award ceremony included the Envi- ronmental Pollu- tion Prevention Challenge Awards which were presented to individuals in federal agencies for outstanding achievements in implementing the provisions of the 1993 Executive Order 12856 on Federal Com- pliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention. The winners of these awards were: Cathy Andrews, Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, IN, for effective outreach to facil- ity stakeholders and team-building efforts, including a pollution prevention “stand down’ where over 3,000 Navy employees learned about the environ- mental benefits of pollution prevention. Mary Jo Bieberich, Department of the Navy, Carderock Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock, MD, for leadership in the Navys Pollution Pre- vention Afloat Program which integrates pollution prevention activities into ship- board activities at sea. Her “at sea” oppor- tunity assessments identified over 40 pol- lution prevention opportunities while ships were deployed. Edward Cooper, Department of the Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, TX, for designing a broad range of process changes and mod- ifications, some of which include design criteria requiring virtually zero pollution from various chemical processes. Ronald Barnett, Department of the Army, United States Field Artillery Center and Fort Sifi, Fort Sill, OK. As Direc- tor of Environmental Quality for Fort Sill, Mt Barnett provided unique pollution prevention out- reach and training materials to facility personnel, the Fort Sill community, and the public at large. Ronald Robbins, U.S. Postal Service Northeast Area Office, Windsor, CT. As Chair of the US. Postal Service Pollution Preven- tion Task Force, Mr. Robbins guided the development of pollution prevention pro- grams affecting the Postal Service nationwide; at postal facilities in the Northeast, his efforts resulted in a reduc- tion of hazardous waste by over 90 per- cent. Russell P. Schaefer, U.S. Postal Ser- vice, Portland, ME, for establishing effective pollution prevention programs at District of Maine facilities and for implementation of a highly effective haz- ardous waste amnesty plan. THE HAMMER Continued from page 6 was signed to settle the two complaints. The settlement calls for the Army to pay a penalty of $200,000 and to perform two supplemental environmental projects worth over $1.0 million. Under the SEPs, the Army will obtain hazardous waste storage lockers for use at US Army installations in Alaska and establish a Joint Regional Environmental Training Center making environmental training available to federal and state agencies in Alaska. RCRA Consent Agreement and Consent Order Signed for Coast Guard’s Kodiak Facility. A Consent Agreement and Consent Order was signed by the Region 10 Administrator on January 23, 1997, for this Alaska facility, settling a complaint and compliance order issued on July 12, 1994. The com- plaint sought over $1 million in penalties for violations of RCRA, including the fail- ure to monitor groundwater and illegally burning waste piles of debris. A penalty of $602,260 has been agreed to for the spe- cific violations alleged in the complaint. INEEL Settlement for CERCLA Agreement Violations. On March 18, 1997, a settlement was signed for viola- tions of the CERCLA 120 Federal Facility Agreement/Consent Order for DOE’s Idaho National Engineering & Environ- mental Laboratory. The violations involve the cleanup of Pit 9 and groundwater in the Test Area North of INEEL. Both sites had remediation activities that DOE had privatized, and significant delays in remediation occurred because of manage- ment and other difficulties associated with the contracting mechanisms and cleanup. EPA and Idaho have worked with DOE and the contractors to get the projects in question back on track and to minimize further delays. EPA and the state have assessed DOE a total of $970,000 in penalties of which $100,000 will be monetary and the remainder will be a SEP involving the conservation of environmentally sensitive land. Continued on page 11 Sherri Goodman, Cathy Andrews, R. Adm. Totusher (DOD), Fran McPoland (Federal Envi- ronmental ExecutiLe, Mike Stahl (EPA) PAGE 7 ff ------- Reports and EXECUTIVE ORDER 12856 ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY FFEO is currently preparing the first report on federal agency performance under Executive Order 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.” The report will cover the efforts of 13 agencies on community right-to-know and pollution prevention activities. Executive Order 12856 affirmed and strengthened the federal government’s obligation as a responsible neighbor in communities where federal facilities are located by requiring federal agencies and facilities to comply with chemical report- ing and emergency planning provisions of the Emergency Planning and Commu- nity Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The Order set a new standard for federal environmental excellence by extending this compliance requirement to many activities not currently monitored in pri- vate industry Executive Order 12856 also estab- lished the Administration’s vision for fed- eral government leadership in pollution prevention. The order directed that feder- al agencies and facilities take steps to embrace pollution prevention as a gov- ernment-wide ethic in the day-to-day management of federal facilities. In par- ticular; E.O. 12856 set ambitious goals for reducing or eliminating the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from fed- eral facilities into the environment. Fed- eral agencies were required to modify their acquisition and procurement prac- tices and adopt pollution prevention as standard practice for government pur- chase of goods and services. Finally, E.O. 12856 supported the continuing federal commitment to work with the private sector in the development, testing, and implementation of innovative pollution prevention technologies. Section 402 of Executive Order 12856 directs federal agencies to report annual- ly to EPA on the progress made in fulfill- ing each of the provisions of the order. In 1995, EPA published Meeting the Chal- lenge: A Summary of Federal Agency Thi- lution Prevention Strategies, which docu- mented the first 18 months of activity by federal agencies and facilities under the executive order. EPA is now preparing a second document which will summarize progress reports provided by 13 federal agencies. The document will be available in late summer. For more information, contact Will Garvey 202-564-2458. HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE DOCKET UPDATED WITH SECTiON 3016 INVENTORY The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket has been recently updated. Update 10, published on June 27, 1997, added 102 federal facilities, bringing the total number of facilities on the docket to 2,104. Four of the new addi- tions to the docket are facilities that have reported to the National Response Center the release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance. Since the docket’s inception in 1988, the number of federal facilities listed has increased by nearly 80 percent, from 1,094 to 2,104. The docket includes the 1996 invento- ry of hazardous waste facilities mandated by Section 3016 of RCRA. Section 3016 requires all federal agencies to compile, publish, and submit to EPA an inventory of all facilities they currently own or oper- ate, or have previously owned or operated, at which hazardous waste is stored, treat- ed, or disposed of, or was disposed of at any time. The inventory must be submit- ted every two years. EPA ’s Office of Solid Waste conducted an initial inventory in 1986, and subsequently in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994. In 1996, responsibility for conducting the inventory was transferred to FFEO. FFEO requested inventory sub- missions from federal agencies in April 1997, and held a half-day interagency training to help federal agencies respond to the request. For more information, contact Augusta Wills; FFEO, 202-564-2468. EPA/DOE COLLABORA- liVE DECISION-MAKING GUIDANCE FINALIZED EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Com- pliance Assurance, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and DOE’s Environmental Management Office recently issued the final joint Gukkznce on Improving Communication to Achieve Collaborative Decision-Making at DOE cleanup sites. The guidance places a great deal of emphasis on greater use of interagency project teams to improve and expedite cleanup and regulator involve- ment in annual budget development. The DOE/EPA communications guid- ance was approved as Interim Final by Steve Herman, Elliott Laws, and Al Aim at a joint signing ceremony in November; 1996, and finalized in June, 1997. The four-page document focuses on improving communication to: (1) further the EPA and state regulator role in establishing project priorities at DOE sites; (2) encour- age greater use of collaborative decision- making to improve and expedite cleanup and compliance at DOE facilities; and (3) improve the informal dispute! issue reso- lution process to facilitate cleanup and compliance. A variety of factors led to the develop- ment of this guidance. First, independent observers highlighted the need for improved communications both within, and between, EPA and DOE. Second, increasing fiscal constraints make it important to have greater regulator involvement in DOE budget planning. Lastly, EPA and DOE saw the need to jointly identify the steps to be taken to PAGE 8 ------- achieve the most suitable remedies. This will save money, focus effort on appropri- ate actions, and accelerate cleanup. The guidance describes a communica- tion framework that should improve compliance, acceler- ate environmental work, and increase efficiencies. Improv- ing communications is criti- cal to achieving DOEs goal of completing cleanup at most sites with a decade. Several Regions have suc- cessfully participated on interagency teams and docu- mented success in using col- laborative decision-making approaches to reduce costs at federal cleanup sites. The concepts outlined in the guidance can strengthen EPA and state positions in establishing priorities at DOE sites while assisting DOE in accomplishing its expe- dited cleanup goals contained in DOE’s site-specific Ten Year Plans. A copy of the Guidance may be down- loaded from FFEO’s Web site at http://esinel/ce*xz/fedfac/pol ky/policy htmL For more information, contact David Leu- enstein at 202-564-2591. REIMBURSABLE INSPECTIONS Section 104 of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA requires EPA Regions and delegated states be reim- bursed for the costs of conducting certain annual RCRA inspections at federal transfer, storage, and disposal (TSD) facil- ities. Since 1994 EPA has had intera- gency agreements (lAGs) in place with DOD and DOE (and more recently with NASA in 1996) to enable reimbursement for the cost for these inspections. FY97 agreements for DOE and NASA are approved and in place. The DOD ser- vices are reviewing their FY97 packages and it is expected that with some lan- guage changes, the agreements will bc signed and processed through the Head- quarters grants office by the end of July. DOD services have agreed that the lAGs will be effective for a five-year period (FY97-FYO2) instead of one to two years to help speed up the lAG process. This will avoid using resources at the end of a fiscal year to re- charge appropriate accounts for eligible RCRA inspections costs. Having the accounts available at the begin- mng of a fiscal year will allow the Regions to charge eligible RCRA inspection costs to the applicable accounts as costs are incurred during a fiscal year. FFEO is responsible for coordination of reimbursement to both EPA Regions and the individual states for RCRA TSD inspections required by the FFCA. EPA has completed a management review study of the first three years of program implementation. For a copy of this study or for more information, contact Susan Weiner, FFEO, 202-564-2471. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE AVAILABLE FOR CEMP EPA recently published an Imple- mentation Guide for the Code of Environ- mental Management Principles (CEMP) for Federal Agencies. The guide presents specific actions that agencies can take in implementing CEMP, and encourages agencies to consider other steps or to adopt an environmental management system (EMS) standard (such as ISO 14000) as the vehicle for implementing CEMP The guide also includes a “Self- Assessment Matrix’ that describes the stages an organization may go through in iplementing CEMP EPA’s CEMP, published on October 16, 1996 (61 FR 54062), is a collection of five broad principles and performance objec- tives that can assist agencies in develop- ing the necessary management infra- structure to support a proactive, flexible, cost-effective, and integrated environ- mental performance. Sixteen federal agencies have endorsed CEMP and are at various stages in implementing it at the facility level. For more information, contact Andrew Cherry, FFEO, at 202-564-5011. For copies of the guide; fax a request to Priscil- la Harrington, FFEO, 202-501-0069, or download a copy from the Enviro$en$e Web site at http:/ /es.inel.gov/oeca/ cemp /cemptochtml. REPORT ISSUED ON RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS A report analyzing RCRA administra- tive orders issued at federal facilities between 1992 and 1995 is available from EPA. The report analyzes data obtained from EPA Regions and their counterpart offices at the state level. Among the find- ings: • Federal orders took longer to settle than orders issued by states. The aver- age settlement time was 369 days for federal orders and 196 days for state orders. The average proposed federal penalty was $321,921, while the aver- age proposed state penalty was $54,664. • Of the 701 violations cited in 105 administrative orders, 135 related to storage and accumulation issues, another 133 represented general oper- ations and maintenance failures, 87 were labeling deficiencies, 68 were safety violations, and 58 were deficien- cies in records submissions. To order copies of the report, contact Kelly Conrad, 202-564-2459. INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS HIGHUGHTED ThE NEED FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICA11ONS BOTh WITHIN, AND BETWEEN, EPA AND DOE PAGE 9 ffTh 1 ------- Some 225 people attended the 11th Annual Environmental Conference spon- sored by EPA Region 4 (Environmental Accountability Division, Federal Facili- ties) with the Department of Defense (Joint Interservice Regional Support Group) and several civilian federal agen- cies, held on May 11-14, 1997. The theme was ‘Progress Through Partnering.” Keynote speakers were John Hanicinson (Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4), Phyllis Harris (EPA Regional Coun- sel), Curtis Bowling (Deputy to the Assis- tant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Environmental Quality), Denzel Fisher (Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secre- tary of the Army, Environment Safety & ATtENTION FEDERAL FACILITiES: Occupational Health) and Elsie Munsell (Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Nav3 , Environment & Safety). Topics covered included state presen- tations and workshops EPM)OD Part- nering, North CarolinafDOD Partnering, Project XL & ELP, Risk Management, Safe Drinking Water Act, Underground Tanks & Underground Injection Control, Munitions Rule, Range Rule, ISO 14000, and the Coastal America Partnership Program. For more information, contact David Hoiroyd, EPA Region 4, 404-562-9625. Information will be posted on the EPA Region 4 EAD/AMB home page. CEASE-ARE ON CAPE COD Continued from page 1 The National Guard asked EPA Head- quarters to overturn DeVillars’ original cease-fire order on April 10, warning that it could “jeopardize the readiness of National Guard units on the East Coast and the lives of our soldiers on the battle- field.” Late on May 16, however, EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen rejected the appeal, calling the firing ranges “an imminent and substantial endangerment.” He said that only troops that needed to be ready for deployment to Bosnia or other hot spots should be exempted from the cease-fire. The Cape Cod aquifer is the sole drink- ing water source for approximately 200,000 permanent and 520,000 seasonal residents of Cape Cod. The MMR training range and impact area is directly above the most productive groundwater recharge area of the aquifer, the Sag- amore Lens. Groundwater flows radially in all directions from the training range and impact area. Four towns look to this region in the northern part of MMR to find new water supplies to replace those already lost to groundwater pollution and to fill the gap between supply and demand (estimated at 11 million gallons per day by 2020). The Superfund cleanup at MMR has identified plumes that have polluted roughly 66 billion gallons of water — an amount that could supply the drinking water needs of all Cape Cod residents for 7.5 years. it is estimated that each day another 6-8 million gallons of groundwa- ter are contaminated because of rapid movement of plumes through subsurface soils. The unusually high cancer rate in Upper Cape communities surrounding average — has heightened the public’s MMR — 24% higher than the statewide concern about MMR. However, because the impact area and training range are active range and training sites, study and remediation of these areas were not required under the Superftind federal facilities agreement. On Feb. 27, 1997, EPA Region 1 issued an Administrative Order pursuant to the REGION 4 FEDERAL FACILITY CONFERENCE EMR PILOTS AVAILABLE Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) are evaluations of an indi- vidual facility’s program and management systems to determine the extent to which a facility has programs and plans in place that can ensure compliance and progress toward environmental excellence. As described in the last issue o* Fed- Facs, EMRs are not inspections, audits, or pollution prevention opportunity assessments. Instead, they offer federal facthties an understanding of the under- lying causes of current or potential compliance problems and develop sugges- tions for correcting them. EPA is offering to conduct EMRs at federal facilities as part of a pilot program. For information on EMRsor to sign up for one, contact your EPA Regional Federal Facility Coordinator Region 1, Anne H. Fenn, 617-565-3927 Region 2, Jeanette Daduac, 212-637-3492 Region 3, Eric D. Ashton, 215-566-2713 Region 4, David F. Holroyd, 404-562-9625 Region 5, Lee J. Regner, 312-353-6478 Region 6, Joyce F. Stubblefield, 214-665-6430 Region 7, Jamie Bernard-Drakey, 913-551-7400 Region 8, Dianne Thiel, 303-312-6389 or Connally Mears, 303-312-6217 Region 9, Sara Segal, 415-744-1569 Region 10, David Tetta, 206-553-1327 PAGE 10 ------- emergency powers authority of Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring the National Guard to (1) undertake a comprehensive study of groundwater related to the training range and impact area; (2) provide infor- mation to EPA about possible contamina- tion in the impact area; (3) develop a pro- posal for pollution control measures; and (4) coordinate with a community- based oversight group. National Guard officials in February agreed to suspend the use of live ammu- nition until completion of a groundwater study, expected to take 1-2 years. Howev- er, EPA, the communities, and elected offi- cials remained concerned about potential impacts to the aquifer from activities which the National Guard proposed to continue, given the widespread ground- water contamination already emanating from MMR. No study provided to EPA evaluated possible migration of contami- nants to groundwater from soil contami- nation associated with the use of propel- lants and “pyrotechnics” such as smoke grenades. EPA called for a broader cease- fire on April 10, including live ammuni- tion, but also the chemical propellants used to fire dummy artillery and mortar shells as well as pyrotechnics. EPA said that high levels of toxins in these devices also had been found in base soil. For more information, contact Bill Frank, FFEO, 202-564-2584. DIRECTOR’S WORD Continued from page 1 the federal government had earned the public’s trust. The public needs to know that it will be protected through vigorous, forceful enforcement by EPA and the states for violations of environmental laws and situations that put public health and our natural resources at risk. This type of accountability is the only way for the federal government to gain the credi- bility it needs to effectively manage its environmental programs. EPA has strengthened the principle that one federal agency can fine or penal- ize another agency On numerous occa- sions EPA has had to defend EPA’s taking penalty actions against other federal agencies. Some view that as merely rob- bing Peter to pay Paul. Or, isn’t a penalty action irrelevant since the federal govern- ment is not motivated by profits? This debate should be over, though, because the facts are straightforward and unas- sailable — penalties deter non-compli- ance. They create a powerful incentive for agencies to comply — the incentive of not getting caught and not being exposed to the public and to one’s superiors as a vio- lator. Congress charged EPA with provid- ing that incentive and we have demon- strated our intention to do so and to continue doing so in the future. The 1992 Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) clearly established our RCRA order authority against federal facilities and placed it on a par with EPA’s author- ity against private companies and indi- viduals. In enacting FFCA, Congress sought tu ensure that the incentives t comply brought about by strong enforce- ment and penalties would apply equally to federal facilities and those in the pri- vate sector. This level playing field is nec- essary to restore the faith of the American people that the protection of human health and the environment on federal facilities is a priority. The message is clear Environmental enforcement is a necessary incentive to ensure compliance and must be applied with equal force to the federal government. The trend toward equality among all members of the regulated community is growing. Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) this fall and, similar to FFCA, clarified EPA’s and the states’ enforcement authorities under SDWA against other agencies of the feder- al government. As a result of these amend- ments, there can be no doubt that federal agencies are liable for penalties just like private parties. In addition, although the Clean Water Act did not pass recently, there was bipartisan support for placing the federal government on a level playing field with the private sector with regard to enforcement actions and penalties. Enforcement actions and penalties are a deterrent to noncompliance. Citizens expect EPA to act as an “honest broker” within the federal government—an agency that will oversee other agencies’ environ- mental compliance and take enforcement when necessary EPA will continue to serve as such a broker. Director FFEO CLOSiNG ThE CIRCLE AWARDS Continued from page 7 Richard Pen, Department of Trans- portation, Aeronautical Engineering Division at U.S. Coast Guard Head- quarters, Washington, D.C., for inte- grating pollution prevention goals throughout the Coast Guard aeronautical community through such efforts as devel- oping a pollution prevention chapter for the Aeronautical Engineering Mainte- nance Manual and establishing aircraft maintenance working groups. Jane Powers, Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance,Washington, DC, for her efforts to include DOE in EPAs 33/50 tox- ics reduction program and to develop clear and concise pollution prevention guidance, training courses and work- shops for DOE facility personnel. Arthur Benson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD, for establishing ten pollution prevention goals to ensure that the Research Center meets and exceeds the pollution preven- tion goals of Executive Order 12856. Congratulations to all who contributed their talents and energies towards demonstrating federal leadership in pre- venting pollution! Note: The Closing the Circle Award nomi- nation form for this coming year will include nominations for the individual Pollution Prevention Environmental Challenge Award. PAGE 1 1 i ------- CALENDAR SEPT 3-4, 1997 REGIONAL FEDERAL FACIL ES/ MULTi-MEDIA POLWT1ON PREVENTION CONFERENCE Dallas, IX Free conference for environmental man- agers at federal facilities. Contact: Joyce Stubblefield, 214-665-6430 SEPT 15-18, 1997 POLLUTION PREVENTiON FAIR Aberdeen PG. MD Contact: American Defense Preparedness Association, tel: 703-522-1820, fax: 703- 522-1855. SEPT 23-25,1997 7TH SOUTHERN STATES ANNUAL ENVi- RONMENTAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBI- TiON: A CONFERENCE ON HOW-TO’S Biloxi , MS Sponsored by Mississippi Dept. of Envi- ronmental Quality; MISSTAP; DOD Joint Interservice Regional Support Group South 2 Area; Tennessee Valley Authority; USAE Waterways Experiment Station; U.S. EPA 4 and 6. Contact: httpilwww.de.msstate.edulmisstap/index 2.htm l. RRST “AMERICA RECYCLES DAY” NOVEMBER 15, 1997 The first “America Recycles Day” — based on the highly successfiil “l’exas Recycles Day” held in recent years — is being organized by a group of private and public organizations and government representatives. The goal of “America Recycles Day” is to ask the American public to continue recycling and to purchase recyded and recycled content products. A federal steering committee will support “Ameri- ca Recycles Day” activities at government facilities. For more information, contact George Mohr at 410-965-4387. NOV. 18-20, 1997 THE NATIONAL MARKETPLACE FOR THE ENViRONMENT Washington, DC Conference and trade show devoted to the marketing of environmental products, programs, and services to federal, state, and local governments. Contact: 800-334- 3976. DEC. 3-5, 1997 3RD ANNUAL SERDP SYMPOSIUM Washington, D.C. Technical sessions and information on FY99 solicitation process and funding opportunities, for Strategic Environmen- tal Research and Development Program. Contact: SERDP Support Office, 703-736- 4548. UST OF ACRONYMS CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and 1iabffi y Act Department of Defense Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-lb-Know Act of 1986 Federal Facilities Compliance Act Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (EPA) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NPL National Priorities List RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SEP Supplemental Environmental Project ‘FRI Toxics Release Inventory USDA US. Department of Agric ilture DOD DOE EPA FFCA FFEO F&L I United States Environmental Protection Agency (2261) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed Address Correction Requested ------- |