«EPA
ISSUE #5
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(2261 A)
EPA #300-N098-002
Winter 1998
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
DOJ Ruling Gives EPA CAA Penalty Authority
Against Federal Agencies
The Department of Justice has
resolved a dispute between EPA and
the Defense Department by giving
EPA the authority to require federal
agencies to pay penalties for violations of
the Clean Air Act. The decision came on
July 16, 1997, from DOJ's Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC), in accordance with Exec-
utive Order No. 12146. The dispute
between EPA and DoD originated from
the two agencies' differing interpretations
of whether federal agencies are subject to
field citations under Section 113(d) of the
Clean Air Act.
OLC decided that EPA has penalty
authority not only under section 113(d),
but also under sections 205(c) and
211(dXD, against federal agencies for vio-
lations of the CAA using the clear express
statement standard. OLC affirmatively
ruled that EPA has penalty authority for
stationary source and mobile source
requirements, not mere-
ly field citation authori-
ty. FFEO has included
new language in the
FY98-99 Memoranda of
Agreement between
EPA Headquarters and
the Regional Offices
emphasizing the impor-
tance of including feder-
al facilities in upcoming
regional CAA inspection
and enforcement efforts. In addition,
FFEO will be issuing guidance this
spring implementing this new authority.
The decision is also significant because
DOJ determined that EPA has penalty
authority against federal agencies under
any law provided that the statute clearly
provides the authority, regardless of
whether the waiver of sovereign immuni-
ty would be considered broad enough to
subject the federal agencies to penalties
assessed by those outside the federal gov-
ernment. EPA now has administrative
order and penalty authority against feder-
al facilities under several other environ-
mental laws including the Safe Drinking
Water Act, RCRA (underground storage
tanks and hazardous waste), and the lead
requirements added by Congress to TSCA
in 1992.
Inside
2 Guest Spot: Charles Bravo
3 Historic First for Project XL
and ENWEST
4 In the News
5 America Recycles Day
6 P2 Assessment at Training
Center Cape May
7 EMRs
8 The Hammer
10 Online with Enviro$en$e
and Envirofacts
11 Conference Update
12 Upcoming Events
EPA Cites U.S. Mint for Clean Air Act Violations
EPA announced on January 26,1998 that it has cited the U.S. Treasury for Clean Air Act (CAA)
violations at the United States Mint in Philadelphia. This is EPA's first CAA penalty order against
a federal facility using its newly clarified authorities (see article above}.
In the administrative complaint issued January 23,1998, EPA charges that the Mint violated
regulations governing the emission of chromium compounds and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). EPA
seeks a $129,400 penalty for these violations.
An EPA inspection revealed that the Mint failed to comply with regulations which reduce pol-
lution from chromium compounds. EPA alleged that the coin-making site violated testing, moni-
toring, and operation and maintenance requirements for chromium electroplating since January
1997. Chromium compounds are regulated as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act
Hexavalent chromium, one such chromium compound, is a known carcinogen causing lung can-
cer and other non-carcinogenic, toxic effects.
The October 23 inspection also uncovered violations of Clean Air Act regulations on the repair
and servicing of equipment containing CFC-based refrigerants.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
GuestSpot
Charles Bravo
Manager, En riron mental Management Policy,
U.S. Postal Service
Moving Ameri-
ca’s mail is big
business. It takes a
lot of energy,
resources, and peo-
ple to handle more
than half a billion
pieces of mail each
and every day. It
also takes a whole lot of cars, trucks,
planes, fuel, buildings, and pieces of
paper, which has the potential for a lot
of pollution and waste. In an organiza-
tion of the size, scope, and influence of
the Postal Service, which touches nearly
every American every day, it is impor-
tant to develop policies that protect our
air and water quality, prevent pollution,
save energy, control waste, and develop
environmental technologies that will
lead us into the future.
Environmental issues affect our core
business. To address environmental
issues in an integrated way, the Postal
Service has developed an Environmental
Strategic Plan, which is built on a two-
pronged strategy of leadership and com-
pliance. A “Greening of the Mail” Task
Force, which includes representatives
from the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
ADVO, Direct Marketing Association, and
EPA, was created in 1996 to identify new
business opportunities, increase recy-
cling, and help make the mail more envi-
ronmentally friendly.
The Postal Service’s commitment to
the environment includes many innova-
tive products and projects. For example,
we operate one of the largest and most
successful recycling programs in the
nation. Last year we recycled more than
one million tons of waste paper and other
materials, generating $8 million, and we
purchased more than $160 million worth
of products containing recycled materials.
In addition, all of our Priority and
Express Mail envelopes and packages
contain recycled materials. We also are
one of the nation’s largest user of recycled
motor oil and retreaded tires.
We have the largest fleet of alterna-
tive-fuel delivery vehicles in the nation —
nearly 7,300 of our vehicles have been
converted to compressed natural gas. We
have reduced our use of targeted haz-
ardous chemicals by 50 percent and our
use of underground storage tanks by
about 25 percent.
In a pilot test in North Carolina, we
are replacing our gasoline-powered lawn
mowers with quiet, cordless, battery-pow-
ered mowers. According to EPA, these
battery-powered lawn mowers result in a
99 percent reduction in pollutants such as
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
methane. They are also cheap, costing
less than $4 a year for electricity.
Some of our most creative environmen-
tal products have come from recycling
undeliverable mail, which not only
reduces waste and pollution, but also
saves landfill fees and hauling costs. We
have turned such mail into such innova-
tive products as rich soil compost and pen-
cils. The soil is now growing vegetables at
Texas A & M University, and the pencils
are being tested by our employees and
school children in Alabama.
We also have replaced 25,000 Exit-
lights in facilities nationwide with low-
energy, longer-burning lights, saving
$500,000 in energy costs and six million
pounds of greenhouse gases; and we have
replaced four million pallets with long-life
plastic types.
That all sounds pretty impressive, and
it is. But the Postal Service is not resting
on its environmental laurels. Most of our
environmental efforts in the past have
been based on preventing pollution, and
that is a sound practice, both from a busi-
ness perspective, and as a means of
achieving environmental compliance. But
the Postal Service wants to do more than
just comply. We want to lead the environ-
mental fight. Th protect the future of our
employees and customers and their fami-
lies, we are committed to sustainable
development. We are moving beyond
efforts that save the environment to
efforts that renew the environment.
For example, we recently broken
ground on a “green” showcase facility in
the Dallas area that will be built out of
materials with recycled content, will have
natural and energy-efficient lighting, and
will use natural landscaping and water
conservation. Natural landscaping, which
means using plants that are well-suited to
the climate and water conditions of the
area, minimizes the use of pesticides and
saves water.
The main mail processing plant in
Santa Barbara just received a Federal
Energy and Water Management Award in
recognition of its “demonstration garden,”
which incorporates drought-tolerant veg-
etation, use of reclaimed water, and inte-
gration of existing wetlands into its
design. The reclaimed water is used for
irrigation and is plumbed into the build-
ing to flush toilets.
Fortunately, all that we are doing that
is good for the environment is also good
for the bottom line. Recycling and con-
serving energy save the Postal Service
money, which means we can deliver
America’s mail at a lower cost. For exam-
ple, the money the Postal Service made
from recycling increased by 60 percent
last year, and that doesn’t include the
money saved from fewer trash pickups
and landfill fees.
The Postal Service is meeting the envi-
ronmental challenges of the future with
enthusiasm and creativity. Our environ-
mental team is working hard to improve
the quality of life and sustain and renew
the environment for our customers, our
employees, and for all Americans. We are
committed to being a good environmental
neighbor in every community we serve
and leaving the environment better than
we found it.
2 II-DFACS
-------
Historic First for Project XL/ENVVEST in Region 9
A landmark agreement was
signed on November 3, 1997 which
allows the Air Force to reduce environ-
mental program costs and apply savings
directly to clean-up programs on Vanden-
berg Air Force Base, CA.
The final project agreement was a col-
laborative effort on the part of many
stakeholders and agencies over the course
of a year and a half. The agreement
defines milestones which are part of Pres-
ident Clinton’s “reinventing government”
initiatives to promote regulatory flexibili-
ty. This is the first EPA Project XL (eXcel-
lence & Leadership) taking place at a fed-
eral agency and the first Department of
Defense ENVVEST (Environ-
mental Investment) Air Quality
Initiative.
Vandenberg is expected to
serve as a model for cleaner air
programs at other bases
throughout DoD. At the signing
ceremony, Tad McCall Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Environment, Safety
and Occupational Health, called
the FPA a “prototype for
progress without pollution!”
For more information, contact John
Walser at 415-744-1257 or Sara Segal at
415- 744-1569.
Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
N ationwide, 27 multi-media inspec-
tions were performed at federal facil-
ities during FY97 in a coordinated effort
by EPA and state inspectors. Each
inspection covered a minimum of two
environmental statutes (one of which
was either RCRA, CWA or CAA) at each
facility. Overall, inspections covered
RCRA, CAA, CWA, TSCA, EPCRA,
FIFRA, and SDWA program require-
ments.
The multi-media inspections took place
at 20 DoD facilities, three DOE facilities,
and four civilian federal agency facilities.
Regions 1, 4, and 8 had the largest share
of the inspections (16 out of 27). Regions 2,
3, 6, 9 and 10 performed the remaining
eleven inspections (see box).
Multi-media inspections are part of
FFEO’s Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcementl Compliance Program initi-
ated in FY93. In FY95, multi-media
inspections were incorporated into
Regional base inspection programs. Over
the five-year period FY93-FY97, EPA
Regions have conducted a total of 169
multi-media inspections.
FY91 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Region 1
US Postal Service, Boston, MA
DOJ Federal Correctional Institution,
Danberry, CT
RI Army National Guard, Quonset Pt, RI
RI Air National Guard, Quonset Pt, RI
Region 2
DOE Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY
US Army, Ft Drum, NY
Region 3
O.uantico Marine Corp Base, VA
Oceana Naval Air Station, VA
Region 4
Naval Subrnanne Base, Kingsbay, GA
US Army Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
DOE, Oak Ridge, TN
Naval Station Mayport, FL
US Air Force Plant #6, Marietta, GA
Region 6
USAir Force-linker MTC, Midwest, OK
US Navy, Corpus Christi, TX
USArmyAmmo Depot,TX
Region 8
Marty Indian School (BIA), Yankton Sioux, SD
FE Warren Air Force Base, WY
VA Fitzsimons Army Hospital, CO
US Army, Ft Carson, CO
DOE, Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3,
Casper, WY
US Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT
DOD Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
Region 9
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Pearl Harbor, HI
(included three facilities: Naval Intermediate
Maintenance Facility; Naval Station Pearl
Harbor and Reet and Industrial Supply Center)
Luke Air Force Base, AZ
Fallon Naval Air Station, NV
Region 10
US Army Ft. Wainwnght, Fairbanks, AK
r
At the signing are Tad McCall, Air Force; John
Wise, Deputy Regiond Administrato, EPA
Region 9; Doug A/lard, Santa Barbara County
Air Pollution Control District; staff of Vanden-
berg AFB.
FEDFACS 3
-------
In the News
Fort Pickett U.S. Army
Reservation Agreement
Signed
T he Virginia Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ) and Thgo West,
Secretary of the Army, signed a “Use
Agreement” on September 30, 1997, for
the Fort Pickett site in Blackstone, Vir-
ginia. Fort Pickett was placed on the base
closure list in 1995. The agreement pro-
vides for Virginia’s continued use of 40,
000 acres of the site for a State Army
National Guard training facility. The oth-
er 5,000 acres of the site will be trans-
ferred to the local reuse committee for pn-
vatization. The agreement details DoD’s
indemnification of the Commonwealth of
Virginia from any past environmental con-
tamination at the 40,000 acres. EPA is not
a party to this agreement. Currently, EPA
Region 3 is overseeing a preliminary
assessment and site analysis (PA/SI) of
the 5,000 acres which will be privatized.
As requested, EPA provided advice and
assistance to DEQ on the agreement
before it was signed. Virginia included
provisions in the agreement implement-
ing several EPA-suggested pollution pre-
vention initiatives at the Ft. Pickett site.
“Lead Regulator” Superfund
Policy Signed for Federal
Facilities
O n November 6, 1997, Steve Herman,
Assistant Administrator for OECA,
signed a joint OSWERIOECA policy, also
signed by Tim Fields, Acting Assistant
Administrator for OSWER. The policy was
developed in response to one of Adminis-
trator Browner’s 1995 Superfund Admin-
istrative Reforms to “establish a lead reg-
ulator at each site undergoing cleanup
activities under competing federal and
state authorities to eliminate overlap and
duplication.” The policy clarifies roles and
minimizes overlapping federal and state
regulatory oversight of cleanups on the
National Priorities List (NPL), and is
intended to lead to more efficient use of
federal and state oversight resources. The
policy furthers the RCRAJCERCLA coor-
dination concepts presented in the Sep-
tember 24, 1996 EPA guidance, “Coordi-
nation Between RCRA Corrective Action
and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities,”
and focuses on the unique coordination
issues associated with federal facilities on
the NPL. An appendix to the policy
includes examples of lead regulator
approaches that have been used by states,
EPA, and other federal agencies to
address federal facility cleanup. The poli-
cy was developed by a workgroup with
state, federal, and EPA headquarters and
regional office representation. Contacts:
Helena King, 202-260-5033 (main EPA
contact); Melanie Barger Garvey, 202-564-
2579 (OECA contact).
EPA Region 6 Awards
Environmental Justice
Grant to Residents Near
Kelly Air Force Base
E PA Region 6 awarded a grant in the
amount of $19,914 to the Foundation
for a Compassionate Society to work with
North Kelly Gardens residents who live
near Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio,
Texas. The objectives of the one-year pro-
ject include supplementing the North Kel-
ly Gardens Health Study with medical
profiles, toxic inventories and risk maps;
making presentations to target audiences,
including DoD, the Greater Kelly Devel-
opment Corporation, Kelly AFB, local
school boards, etc.; and training local peo-
ple in identifying environmental contami-
nation and its causes in working toward
pollution prevention and health hazards
prevention. Project Contact: Genevieve
Vaughn, 512-262-2300.
The Environmental Justice Small
Grants Program is administered by the
10 EPA Regional Offices. Each year,
approximately $2.5 million is awarded in
a competitive process nationwide. Grants
provide funding primarily to grassroots,
community-based organizations to
address environmental justice concerns.
For more information, contact Shirley
Augurson, Region 6 Environmental Justice
Coordinator, 214-665-7401 or the toll-free
EJHotline, 1-800-962-6215. A summary of
all EJ Small Grant awards for FY97 can
be viewed on the Internet at www.epa.gov /
envirosense/oeca/oej.html/.
CAMU Approved at Sandia
National Laboratories
O n September 25th, 1997, EPA Region
6 approved Sandia’s Class III permit
modification for construction of a Correc-
tive Action Management Unit (CAMU).
Sandia is located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico within the boundaries of Kirtland
Air Force Base. Once constructed, the
CAMU will provide on-site staging, treat-
ment, and containment capabilities for
Sandia’s remediation wastes.
The CAMU application was received
by EPA in July 1996. In a spirit of cooper-
ation and communication among regula-
tors, Sandia, and the public, the CAMU
modification was approved in 13 months
and EPA received no adverse comments
on the CAMU modification during the
public comment period.
This is the first permitted CAMU for a
DOE facility the first CAMU in New Mex-
ico, and the first permitted federal facility
CAMLJ approved by EPA Region 6. Besides
the staging and treatment areas, the
approved CAMU includes a containment
cell with liners and a leachate detection
system. The containment cell is designed
to accommodate 1 million cubic feet of
waste. Only treated remediation waste
will be placed in the containment cell.
4 FE DFACS
-------
Depending on the volume of hazardous
waste accepted at the CAMU, the Envi-
ronmental Restoration Project at Sandia
will experience a savings of $4-15 million,
primarily due to lower transportation and
disposal costs. The CAMU is a critical
component in Sandia’s efforts to expedite
cleanup, as provided for in “Focus 2006”
(formerly called the Ten Year Plan). The
approval of the CAMU is a significant step
toward achieving DOE’s goal of having all
remediation actions in place at Sandia by
2002.
For more information, contact Richard
Mayer, EPA Region 6, 214-665-7442, or
rnayerrichard@tpamai1.epa.gov I.
RCRA 7003 Guidance Issued
E PA issued a RCRA Section 7003
enforcement guidance applicable to
both federal and private parties. Section
7003 orders may be issued to address a
situation when any solid or hazardous
waste may present an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to human health
or the environment. The guidance
addresses the opportunity to confer with
the Administrator prior to an order
becoming final, as provided in 42 U.S.C.
Section 6961(bXl). EPA expects that such
an opportunity will not be necessary for
those cases which settle. Specifically, the
guidance lays out the steps to be taken for
a conference, including who should
request the conference, how it should be
requested, and how the results of the con-
ference will be communicated.
FedFacs
is published by EPA S Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Joyce Johnson, Editor
Gilah Langner Writer
Robin Foster, Layout
To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
Federal Fadlitles Enforcement Office
U. S. EPA (2261), 401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
or Fax: 202-601-0069
Or kflamet
bd htail
Federal Agencies Celebrate America
Recycles Day” with D.C. Rally
N ovember 13, 1997 marked the first
“America Recycles Day.” Special events
were organized around the country to edu-
cate Americans about the environmental
and economic benefits of recycling. Many
organizations helped make the day a suc-
cess. National sponsors included:
Premier Founding Sponsors:
Steel Recycling Institute
U.S. EPA
Environmental Champions:
Union Camp Corporation
U.S. Postal Service
Recycling Advocates:
BFI
The Home Depot
Safety-Kleen
In Washington, DC, federal workers cele-
brated America Recycles Day by sponsor-
ing a rally on Freedom Plaza, where fed-
eral agencies and other recycling
advocates displayed recycled products
used by their organizations.
Festivities were enhanced with perfor-
mances of the EPA Men’s Chorus, the
EPA DixielandBand, and the GSA Band.
The Department of Commerce’s Day Care
Center children sang for the audience.
And the National Forest Service’s Woodsy
Owl and EPA’s Garbage Gremlin made
special appearances. Speeches were giv-
en by Fred Hansen, EPA Deputy Admin-
istrator; David Clark, Postmaster of
Washington, DC; and Will Ferretti, Exec-
utive Director for the National Recycling
Coalition.
For more information on how to “Keep
Recycling Working: Buy Recycled,”
visit the website at www.ssa.gov/recycle.
htm or www.americarecyclesday.org.
EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen
Co-Chairs of the Federal Steering Committee: George Mohr (Social Security Administra-
tion) and Jim Edward (EPA) with National Forest Service’s Woodsy Owl and EPA’S
Garbage Gremlin
FEOFACS S
-------
EPA Hosts P2 Assessment at Coast Guard Training Center
T ‘ “ “ Center Cape May, which
trains approximately 4,000 military
recruits per year and houses over 400
full-time Coast Guard personnel, partici-
pated in a pollution prevention (P2)
assessment in August 1997.
The Training Center houses a number
of tenant activities that impact the envi-
ronment. These include aircraft, vessels,
a firing range, maintenance shops, hous-
ing, medical services, dining facilities,
and athletic facilities. The Training Cen-
ter covers approximately 300 acres, about
150 of which are wetlands. Several
endangered species are found on-site,
including species of piping plovers and
least terns, not to mention a lone harbor
seal spotted during the visit.
Coordinating with the Training Cen-
ter’s Environmental Protection and Safety
Section Chief, Chris Hajduk, and Facili-
ties Engineer CDR Stan Douglas, the P2
assessment focused on the following areas:
hazardous and non- hazardous solid waste
generation and storage; energy conserva-
tion; water conservation; Till releases;
alternatively fueled vehicles; pesticide
usage; ozone-depleting chemicals; EPA’S
list of 17 industnal toxics included in the
33/50 Program; affirmative procurement;
and recycling.
The assessment recognized the numer-
ous pollution prevention activities already
initiated at the Training Center, which have
helped the installation reduce its purchase
of toxic chemicals, reduce hazardous and
solid waste generation, and reduce energy
consumption. Their accomplishments pro-
vide a foundation for further reductions in
waste generation and materials consump-
tion. It is critical that the Training Center
apply adequate resources to incorporate pol-
lution prevention concepts and approaches,
implement acquisition and procurement
policies, and to the greatest extent possible,
prevent pollution at its source.
The pollution prevention plan that
resulted from this assessment is based on
current Coast Guard and DOT guidance
and will allow Training Center Cape May
to comply with environmental laws and
requirements. Several P2 projects and
management practices were identified
during the review for the Center to con-
sider in carrying out its P2 plan. The Cen-
ter will also disseminate a pollution pre-
vention policy statement to all affected
individuals in the installation.
For more information, contact: Susan
Weiner, 202-564-2471.
Environmental Auditing Publications
OECAIFFEO updated the following
environmental auditing guidance docu-
ments in FY97:
Generic Protocol for Conducting
Environmental Audits of Federal
Facilities (EPA 300-B-96- 012A&B,
December 1996). This is the latest revi-
sion of the Generic Protocol prepared in
1989 by EPA’s Office of Federal Activi-
ties, and later revised in 1995 by FFEO.
The 1996 version discusses EPA’s 1995
audit policy and reorganizes the protocol
into a two volume set. Both volumes con-
tain the instructions for use of all three
auditing sections or “Phases.” Volume I
indudes Phase 1 of the protocol which
focuses on compliance with federal envi-
ronmental requirements in 16 media and
statutory areas (e.g., air, water, solid and
hazardous waste). Volume II contains
Phases 2 and 3 of the protocol which
detail procedures for conducting environ-
mental management system audits of
both facility-specific programs and over-
all programs managed at an agency’s
headquarters. The Generic Protocol is
designed to help auditors focus on specif-
ic technical issues to determine compli-
ance with environmental requirements
and adherence to good environmental
management practices.
Environmental Audit Program
Design Guidelines for Federal
Agencies (EPA 300-B-96-011, Spring
1997). This document highlights some
unique issues and considerations related
to conducting environmental audits at
both domestic and overseas federal facil-
ities. The Design Guidelines discuss in
detail: the design and administration of
effective environmental auditing pro-
grams, specific steps involved in con-
ducting an environmental audit, the
components of a thorough environmental
management program, and the kinds of
issues that arise and require addressing
in environmentai auaus. ine ueszgn
Guidelines identi1 r the elements of a
sound environmental auditing program,
including management elements and
resources (both human and capital) that
are typically required in establishing an
auditing system. The document does not,
however, provide detailed descriptions of
how to actually conduct an audit, nor of
how to create an environmental manage-
ment program. The Design Guidelines
should be used in conjunction with the
Generic Protocol in order to create and
undertake an environmental auditing
program.
For more information on environmen-
tal auditing at federal facilities, contact
Andrew Cherry, FFEO, 202-564-5011.
Copies of the Generic Protocol and the
Design Guidelines can be obtained by fax-
ing your request to Priscilla Harrington,
FFEO, 202-501-0069, or electronically at
www.epa.gov /envirosense /ceca / fedfac 1ff
lex.html I.
6 Ft flFACS
-------
Environmental Management Reviews
at Federal Facilities
A n Environmental Management
Review (EMR) is an evaluation of an
individual federal facility’s program and
management systems to determine how
well the facility has developed and imple-
mented specific environmental protection
programs to ensure compliance. EMRs
are consultative technical assistance vis-
its intended to identify root causes of
environmental performance problems.
EMRs are voluntary and are usually ini-
tiated by the recipient agency or facility.
They generally focus on one or two of the
following seven components of a fully
developed Environmental Management
System (EMS): organizational structure;
environmental commitment; formality of
environmental programs; internal and
external communication; staff, resources,
training, and development; program
evaluation, reporting, and corrective
action; environmental planning and risk
management.
In FY97, ten EMRs were conducted by
the EPA Regional Offices at the following
facilities:
FY98 when a number of additional EMRs
are being planned. After the pilot has
been completed, EPA will develop a sum-
mary report evaluating the EMRs, and
revise and finalize the Interim Policy as
appropriate.
Positive Feedback
Results from the EMRs conducted by Region
6 determined that the overall environmental
management systems at the FAA and USFS
facilities have the elements needed to keep
the facilities in compliance with environmen-
tal regulations. However, in order for the
facilities to achieve and maintain the level of
environmental excellence desired, these
management systems must make continu-
otis improvements.
In Region 1, EMRs conducted at 17
facilities since 1994 have led to a number
of changes at the facilities, including
increases in environmental staff and bud-
gets, and development of cross-media
environmental training for staf Yman-
agers. Comments from Federal Facility
Environmental Managers in EPA Region
1 where EMRs have been conducted
include the following:
“Very positive experience. The EMR
helped tremendously. It was a great
learning experience. EPA identified the
positives and the areas needing improve-
ment. The EMR energized our Environ-
mental Program.”
“The EMR was very helpful. I like it
when we get suggestions. It is better than
a ticket!”
“I truly applaud the initiative. We
appreciate the cooperative, positive
approach. The EMR also showed my boss
that the EPA is out there and is concerned
enough about our issues to be at our
doorstep.”
For more information on EMRs or to
sign up for one, contact your EPA Regional
Federal Facility Coordinator (see list on
page 9).
• Region 1: Army Corps of Engineers
dams in Oxford, MA, and South Roy-
aiston, MA; Coast Guard Support
Center, Boston; Coast Guard Buoy
Depot, South Weymouth, MA;
National Park Service’s Arcadia
National Park, Bar Harbor, ME;
Army National Guard’s facility in
Camp Johnson, VT.
• Region 6: Postal Service facility in
Houston; Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration facility, Oklahoma City, OK.
• Region 8: EPA Laboratory Denver.
• Region 10: Fairchild Air Force Base,
Spokane, WA.
These EMRs were conducted as part
of a pilot program based on EPA’s Interim
Final Policy and Guidance on EMRs at
Federal Facilities issued in May 1996.
The pilot program will carry over into
EMR AT US POSTAL SERVICE IN
NEW YORK METRO AREA
The EPA Region 2 Federal Facilities Program
and the US Postal Service (USPS) New York
Metro Area Office will be participating in a
pilot Environmental Management Review
(EMR) project that will focus on policy imple-
mentation. Since policy implementation over-
laps with a number of EMR focus areas, a spe-
cial protocol will be developed for this EMR
The project will also have a broader scope
than most EMRs, focusing not only at the facil-
ity level, but at the district and area levels as
well.
The USPS Metro Area consists of:
• Seven Districts: New York City; Triboro;
Long Island; Wastchester Central NJ; North-
ern NJ; and the Caribbean
• 1700 facilities
• 18 vehicle maintenance facilities
• 30 plants (distribution operations)
• 14;000 vehicles
• 85,000 employees.
The long term goals of the project are for
the area EMR to serve as the prototype EMR
model to be implemented at other USPS areas;
for both EPA and the USPS to learn about
management system review performance
measures; and for the USPS to partner with
other federal agencies in developing EMRs.
For more information, contact Jeanette
Dadusc, Assistant Federal Facilities Coordina-
tor, EPA Region 2,212-637-3492
FEDFACS 7
-------
1
/A’ The Hammer
REGION 1
N aval Undersea Warfare Center,
Connecticut The Naval Undersea
Warfare Center (NUWC) of the Depart-
ment of the Navy agreed on September
18, 1996, to pay an $80,625 penalty to set-
tle an EPA complaint alleging violations
of federal and state hazardous waste
management laws at three of its Con-
necticut locations — two in New London
and one in East Lyme. N1JWC researches
and develops acoustic sensing devices for
the Navy EPA Region 1 and the Con-
necticut Department of Environmental
Protection jointly inspected the three
NUWC facilities and discovered RCRA
violations. NUWC failed to have a com-
plete contingency plan for responding to
an accidental hazardous waste spill,
failed to properly train personnel, failed
to determine if wastes were hazardous
and therefore subject to federal manage-
ment and handling laws, and failed to
properly label hazardous waste contain-
ers at the facility. Region 1 prenegotiated
a settlement for these violations. A com-
plaint was ified simultaneously with the
consent agreement and order.
REGION 2
W atervliet Arsenal, New York: EPA
Region 2 issued an Air Compliance
Order to U.S. Army Watervliet Arsenal
addressing Watervliet Arsenal’s failure to
meet the chromium emission standards
required for chromium electroplating
facilities, as specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 63,
Subpart N. These regulations require
Watervliet Arsenal to operate control
devices that limit emissions of chromium
to the atmosphere. Watervliet Arsenal
notified EPA that it had tested its control
devices (scrubbers) in August 1996, and
found that the devices were not capable of
meeting the regulatory limits (which
became effective on January 25, 1997).
On February 26, 1997, the facility notified
EPA that replacement of its scrubbers
would be required in order to comply
with the chromium emissions limits and
that this project would be completed by
no later than December 1, 1997. In com-
pliance with the order, Watervliet Arse-
nal completed installation of equipment
to control chromium emissions and was
to complete stack testing of this equip-
ment by the end of 1997.
REGION 4
R edstone Arsenal, Alabama: In June
1997, EPA Region 4 issued a unilater-
al compliance order against the U.S.
Army Missile Command, Redstone Arse-
nal Water System located near
Huntsville, Alabama, for violations of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its
implementing regulations. Redstone pro-
vides water to 22,000 individuals. The
violations included exceeding the MCL
for total coliform bacteria and failing to
meet the total coliform monitoring!
reporting requirements during all the
months from January 1996 to April 1997.
In addition, the system failed to provide
notification to the public of the violations,
as required. This is the first unilateral
compliance order issued against a federal
facility under authorities contained in
the August 1996 revision to the SDWA.
In December 1997, EPA’s Region 4
notified Redstone Arsenal that Redstone
would be assessed a penalty for viola-
tions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
its implementing regulations. This will
be the first penalty assessed since the
SDWA was amended. Settlement discus-
sions are ongoing. To date, Redstone
Arsenal is in compliance with the order.
Fort Campbell (Kentucky/Tennessee
border): EPA Region 4 settled a RCRA
case, assessing a $36,000 penalty against
the Fort Campbell Army base located on
the Kentucky/Tennessee border. Fort
Campbell’s violations included: failure to
make hazardous waste determination,
failure to correctly label containers, fail-
ure to remove hazardous waste from
satellite accumulation areas in a timely
manner, and failure to maintain emer-
gency equipment. The base is now in
compliance with the order. The original
penalty proposed in the September 1996
complaint was $48,700.
Memphis Depot, Tennessee: EPA
Region 4 filed a final order settling a
RCBA case against the DOD’S Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) military supply
depot located in Memphis, Tennessee. The
order called for a penalty payment of
$12,000. This action settled a September
1996 administrative complaint the Region
ified under RCRA §3008(a) against DLA
(Defense Depot) Memphis, TN which
alleged that the facility stored containers
of incompatible hazardous wastes next to
one another without properly separating
them in accordance with RCRA. The com-
plaint assessed a penalty of $20,000, and
ordered the facility to submit a plan with-
in thirty days ensuring that incompatible
wastes were no longer stored together. The
facility submitted the required plan and
provided the Region with new information
concerning the its storage practices. Based
on this new information, the penalty was
reduced to $12,000.
REGION 5
E PAAssesses Penalties at Femald In
July 1997, EPA Region 5 resolved a dis-
pute with the Department of Energy over
DOE’s Fernald facility In September 1996,
DOE requested an extension to complete
the design of a waste treatment facility,
raising questions about future treatment of
radioactive silo materials. EPA denied the
extension request and DOE invoked dis-
pute resolution procedures as provided in
the Fernald Consent Agreement. The
resulting dispute resolution agreement
addresses schedule revisions, submittal of a
“lessons learned” document from DOE,
implementation of five environmental pro-
8 FE )FACS
-------
jects that will benefit the Fernald site, and a
cash penalty of $100,000 to be paid by DOE.
Overall DOE will pay approximately
$1,100,000 to resolve the issues with this
dispute through implementing the projects
and the monetary penalty
REGION 7 & 10
E PA Negotiates Two Interagency
Agreements: EPA has completed
negotiations on two interagency agree-
ments (LAGs) under CERCLA Section 120
which call for cleanups by the Army Corps
of Engineers. The cleanups will cost
approximately $34 million. EPA has expe-
rienced great success with using lAGs to
coordinate cleanups in that they provide
enforceable schedules, help avoid dis-
putes, and provide the framework for
achieving an expeditious cleanup. One of
the lAGs negotiated with the Corps
addresses contamination at the Formal
Naval Ammunition Depot in Nebraska
(Region 7); the other addresses the Old
Navy Dump Manchester Lab Annex in
Washington (Region 10). Cleanup at the
Old Navy Dump is estimated to cost
approximately $5.4 million, while cleanup
of Hastings should cost about $30 million.
REGION 8
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, North
Dakota and South Dakota: On Decem-
ber 12, 1997, EPA announced a proposed
agreement with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs under which BliVs Aberdeen Area
Office must correct problems with 52
underground storage tanks on nine Indian
reservations in North and South Dakota.
The agreement contains a proposed
penalty of nearly $938,000. BIA may offset
a portion of that cash payment with a SEP
focusing on environmental issues in the
Aberdeen area. Funds for compliance must
come from BLA itself and must not impact
the budget of any tribe or tribal program.
BIAs Billings Area Office is included in
the proposed agreement for work it must
do at the Crow Agency in Montana where
fuel had leaked from tanks removed in
1994. EPA has not proposed a penalty in
that case because the cleanup is under-
way but a “compliance schedule” has been
set to ensure that work is done.
Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming Pur-
suant to the CERCLA Federal Facility
Agreement (FFA) for F.E. Warren Air
Force Base, EPA Region 8 issued a stop
work order requesting that work being
done at Operable Unit 3, Landfill 6 be
immediately stopped. The stop work
order may be the first issued to a federal
facility pursuant to a FFA. The order was
issued because F.E. Warren proceeded
with construction of the compacted layer
of the evapotranspiration (ET) cover prior
to finalization of the amendment to the
Record of Decision changing the remedy
from a RCRA Subtitle C cap to an ET cov-
er. Although work on the ET cover has
stopped, EPA and the State of Wyoming
are now evaluating how to control erosion
of Landfill 6’s surface during the winter
season, and how winterization activities
can be accomplished in the context of the
stop work order and the FFA.
REGION 9
U .S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort
Defiance, Arizona: On September 30,
1997, EPA filed a compliance agree-
mentJconsent order for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Fort Defiance Road
Maintenance Facility, RCRA enforcement
case. The BIA settlement calls for $48,423
in penalties and undertaking three sup-
plemental environmental projects (SEPs)
costing a total of $585,000. The cash
penalty amounts to 18% of the assessed
penalty. Under the SEPs, the BIA will
conduct environmental audits at 100
Navajo Nation facilities (primarily
schools); develop hazardous waste man-
agement standard operating procedures
for Navajo Nation facilities; and provide
hazardous waste training for tribal and
BLA employees.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, Ari-
zona: On September 30, 1997, EPA filed a
compliance agreementJconsent order for a
RCRA enforcement case against the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Yuma
Desalting Plant. This settlement calls for
the payment of $36,769 in penalties and
three SEPs costing $768,712. Under the
SEPs, BOR will conduct compliance
audits and follow-up compliance work at
six BOR facilities and establish enhanced
spill response capabilities, including cre-
ating a spill response team, along the Col-
orado River.
U.S. Department of Interior, National
Park Service, Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park, Hawaii: On September
30, 1997, EPA filed a compliance agree-
menticonsent order for the Hawaii
National Park RCRA enforcement case.
The NPS settlement calls for a cash
penalty of $41,100 and one SEP costing
$234,875. Under the SEP, NPS will devel-
op hazardous waste management plans
for six national parks and, following
lessons learned from those six, will estab-
lish a model hazardous waste manage-
ment plan to be instituted at all NPL
facilities.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Cam-
pus, California: In September 1997, EPA
ified an administrative complaint against
the U.S. Department of Interior, BIA,
1-loopa Campus, CA, alleging RCRA haz-
ardous waste violations and assessing
$260,650 in penalties. The complaint
alleges that at a now-vacated campus facil-
ity the BIA stored hazardous waste without
a permit and failed to have an EPA genera-
tor identification number. All waste has
now been properly disposed of.
FEOFACS 9
-------
OnLine
E PA’s Envirofacts database is a
repository for EPA data systems. The
Envirofacts database has been released
to internal EPA users and is available to
the public as an Internet resource.
Envirofacts is a relational database
implemented in the Oracle Relational
Database Management System
(RDBMS) and is available through the
Envirofacts Warehouse. It contains data
from the following EPA databases:
• Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Lia-
bility Information System
(CERCLIS)
• Permit Compliance System (PCS)
• Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Information System (RCRIS)
• Toxics Release Inventory System
(TRIS)
• Aerometric Information Retrieval
System/AIRS Facility Subsystem
(AIRS/AFS)
• Grants Information and Control Sys-
tem (GICS)
• Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS)
In addition, the Envirofacts database
supplies information from the Facility
Index System (FINDS), which cross-links
facilities in multiple databases; the Envi-
rofacts Master Chemical Integrator
(EMCI), which provides chemical cross-
link information for PCS, RCRIS, and
TRIS; and the Locational Reference
Tables (LRT), which contain latitude and
longitude information. Future EPA pro-
gram systems to be included in Enviro-
facts are: the Emergency Response Notifi-
cation System (ERNS), the Biennial
Reporting System (BRS), and CERCLIS3.
The Envirofacts database website pro-
vides documentation on the structure and
content of the database and ceas to
“metadata.” The website also explains
how to connect Oracle access tools to Envi-
rofacts to query and view data directly
from the database via the Internet.
For more information, contact:
Shashank Kalra, 202-260-3105, or Pat
Garvey, 202-260-3103.
In FY97, EPA initiated 14 enforcement
actions at federal facilities under RCRA.
Nine were informal actions (e.g., notices of
violations), one was a RCRA Section 7003
order at the Washington Navy Yard in the
District of Columbia, and four were RCRA
Section 3008(a orders. Total penalties
assessed amounted to $442,825 in penal-
ties against federal agencies, including the
Veterans Administration, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Navy. In addition,
EPA settled 13 penalty cases in FY97, col-
lecting $1,011,524 in penalties and requir-
ing $2,824,639 to be spent on Supplemen-
tal Environmental Projects. Finally, EPA
settled a RCRA Section 3008(h) order
requiring cleanup at Altus Air Force Base.
Passage of the Federal Facility Compli-
ance Act (FFCA) has enhanced EPA’s
enforcement authority, enabling EPA to
pursue federal agencies in the same man-
ner that it pursues private parties. Sever-
al of these penalty cases were settled with
civilian federal agencies (including the
Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and the Bureau of Reclamation) which
have not traditionally been inspected to
the same degree as DoD installations.
PENALTIES ASSESSED
FOR FEDERAL UST
VIOLATIONS
In February 1997, FFEO and
EPA’s Office of Underground Storage
Thnks sent a memorandum to the
EPA Regions encouraging them to
conduct inspections and issue field
citations to federal facilities, where
appropriate. Approximately 40
inspections have been conducted
nationwide in this area, resulting in
18 field citations assessing over
$6,650 in penalties. Seven agencies
have paid the fines, including the
Department of Justice, the Army, the
Navy FAA, and the Veterans Admin-
istration.
Envirofacts on the Web:
wt wepa.gov/čnviro
Enviro$en$e Update
vvvvw.epa.gov/envirosense
The Enviro$en$e electronic network has also moved from its INEL server in Idaho to a new Earth2
server at RIP. Enviro$en$e can be reached at www.ep&govlenvirosense/. FFEO ’s home page
FFLEX has a new address, too: www.epa.gov/envirosense/o.c&tedfac/fftex.lmnL/.
For more information contact Isabel/s Lacayo 202-564-2578, Iacayo.isabelleJepamai/.
epa.gov/.
EPA Assesses Over $400,000 in
Penalties Against Federal Agencies
10 UFDFACS
-------
Con ferenceUpdate
FFEO Attends Meeting
of National Congress of
American Indians
E PA’s federal facifity enforcement
program was invited to give a presen-
tation in November 1997 to the Natural
Resources Committee of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAJ),
meeting in Santa Fe, NM. FFEO outlined
EPA’S federal facilities priorities for FY98
and explained how EPA uses a mix of
enforcement and compliance assistance
tools to ensure that federal facilities and
government-owned-contractor-operated
(GOCO) facilities comply with all applica-
ble environmental regulations.
FFEO stressed its commitment to
work in partnership with tribes on a gov-
ernment-to-government basis to ensure
the protection of tribal human health,
natural resources and environments.
FFEO also emphasized its commitment to
seek tribal input early in any federal facil-
ity enforcement matters that may affect
tribes to ensure that full consideration is
given to the policies, priorities and con-
cerns of the affected tribe and, where
appropriate, to affected tribal members.
FFEO staff also attended a meeting of
the NCAI Nuclear Waste Policy Commit-
tee. Since 1983, the NCAI has had a coop-
erative agreement with DOE’s Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste to provide
timely information to, and gaining feed-
back from, tribal governments. NCAI,
which was founded in 1944 and is the old-
est and largest national Indian organiza-
tion, represents many tribes on potential
transportation routes and emphasizes
safe transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
For more information, contact William
Frank, FFEO, 202-564-2584.
Enforcement Roundtable
Held in Durham, North
Carolina
by Darlene Boerl age
E PA held the second in a series of
Environmental Justice Enforcement
Roundtables in Durham, NC on Decem-
ber 11-13, 1997. The event was hosted by
the National Environmental Justice Advi-
sory Council and EPA Region 4. The
Roundtable is a forum for federal agencies
to discuss enforcement issues with com-
munities and hear their recommenda-
tions on enhancing citizen participation.
A Public Awareness Forum was held on
the first day of the Roundtable, followed
on the second day, by a series of 10 break-
out sessions. The Federal Facility
Enforcement breakout session yielded a
number of interesting points and recom-
mendations, summarized here:
• Community representatives should
be a major player in selecting adviso-
ry board members (e.g., RABs).
• Agencies need to implement the Fed-
eral Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee
(FFERDC Report) recommendations.
• Reuse of closing bases is not benefi-
cial to communities when “dirty facil-
ities” are transferred prior to appro-
priate cleanup.
• DOE should decode and redistribute
its report on “external regulations.”
• DOE and DOD should conduct an
internal audit of their Environmen-
tal Justice programs, and other EPA
and state government offices should
be trained in environmental justice
issues, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
For more information, contact Darlene at
202-564-2593.
Region 5’s Federal
Facilities Conference
S ome 150 environmental managers
from around the country visited Chica-
go for Region 5’s 1997 Federal Facilities
Multimedia Compliance/Pollution Preven-
tion Conference last July. Included among
the 36 speakers were: Gary D. Vest, Prin-
cipal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environmental Security); the
U.S. Postal Service’s Charles Bravo, Man-
ager, Environmental Management Policy;
the U.S. Air Force’s Colonel Patrick T.
Fink, Director, Pollution Prevention Direc-
torate, and James Edward, Associate
Director of EPA’s FFEO.
The 1997 conference featured two addi-
tions to the already-packed roster of speak-
ers, and exhibits: computer workshop
training opportunities in Enviro$en$e, and
tours of the Region 5 laboratory. Civilian
federal agencies made up about three
quarters of the participants.
If you have never attended a Region 5
Federal Facilities Conference and would
like to place your name on the mailing list,
contact Rafael Agustin, tel: 312-886-0394,
fax: 312-353-5374.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CM Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA Clean Water Act
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOl Department of the Interior
EMR Environmental Managemerl Review
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 1986
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodanticide Act
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
(EPA)
NPL National Priorities List
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
FEDFACS 11
Act
-------
MARCH 10-12. 1998
First Annual Nationwide Civilian
Federal Agency Environmental
Symposium
Denver, CO
Sponsored by the Civilian Federal Agency Environ-
mental Task Force, the audience will be CFA environ-
mental managers and facility level personnel with
environmental compliance responsibilities. Topics
include: criminal liability, status and trends in media
regulations, lab management practices, envi ronmen-
tal auditing. etc. Contact: Will Garvey, 202-564-2458.
APRIL 28-29, 1998
Resource Efficient Federal
Buildings Symposium
Colorado Springs, CO
Contact: Dianne Thiel, EPA Region 8, 303-312-6389 or
thiel.dianne©epamail.epa.gov/.
JULY 1-2. 1998
Federal Facility
Environmental Seminars
Dallas, 7X
Topics: July 1: Indoor environment (indoor air, radon,
asbestos, lead, green buildings, energy conservation).
July 2: Clean Air Act. Registration deadline: May 15,
1998. Contact: Evelyn Daniels, 214-665-7453 (indoor
environment) or Terry Thomas, 214-665-7160 (Clean
Air Act).
AUG. 25-28, 1998
Third Annual Joint Service
Pollution Prevention
Conference and Exhibition
San Antonio, TX
Open forum for exchanging ideas, success stories,
case histories, and technologies related to pollution
prevention. Hosted by the Headquarters Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence. Supported by
the National Defense Industrial Association. Contact:
Christy Kline or Christin Berry, tel: 703-522-1820, fax:
703-522-1885, ckline©ndia.org/.
SEPt 9-11, 1998
EPA Post-Emergency Response
Issues Conference
Washington, DC
Free conference focuses on issues of concern to
emergency respondents following a significant radio-
logical release. Contact: Sarah WaIlis, 301-652-1900
or www.epaconference@scicomm.com/.
Computer Course
Environmental Statute Review
Computer-Based Training Course
Overview of seven major environmental statutes
using a mix of text, narration, graphics, video, and
interactive exercises, aimed at state and regional
enviommental enforcement personnel. Developed by
the National Enforcement Training Institute. Order
through http://earth2.epa.gov/neti or contact Ellen
Epstein, 202-564-6067.
FedFacs
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
UpcomingEvents
REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATORS
Region 1 ( C L ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) -. - Anne Fenn, 617-565-3927
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, Vi)’ Jeanette Dadusc, 212-637-3492
Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV): William Arguto, 215-566-3367
Region 4 (AL FL GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) Dave Hoiroyd, 404-562-9625
Region 5 (IL IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)- Lee Regner, 312-353-6478
Region 6 (AK, LA, NM, OK, TX)’ Joyce Stubblefield, 214-665-6430
Region 1 (IA, KS, MO, NE)’ . Jamie Bernard-Drakey, 913-551-7400
Region 8 (CO. MI, ND, SD, UT, WY)- Dianne Thiel, 303-312-6389
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HA, NV, Amer. Samoa, Guam, U)- Sara Segal, 415-144-1569
Region 10 (AL ID, OR, WA)’ ,. Michele Wright, 206-553-1747
FIRST CLASS
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Addrsss Correction Requested
------- |