COMMANDER'S
OR FACILITIES MANAGER'S
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
iw)
say
Presented By
REGION IV
FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATION OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH 28 - 29,1989
-------
"COMMANDERS/FACILITIES MANAGERS COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE"
HILTON HOTEL
ATLANTA/ GEORGIA
MARCH 28 -29/ 1989
ARTHUR G, LINTON
REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATOR
REGION IV
-------
COMMANDERS/FEDERAL FACILITIES MANAGERS
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE
It is the purpose of this Conference to inform Federal Facilities
Commanders, Staff Officers, Facilities Managers and Program
Directors of their responsibility for environmental compliance
with public laws and rules.
Attendees will gain knowledge of their legal liability,
environmental requirements, EPA's Federal Facilities Compliance
Strategy; environmental audits, and pollution abatement planning.
It is our intent to continue to communicate with each facility
on environmental issues and work toward positive and timely
resolutions.
We believe the key to accomplishment of our mission is
commnuication and positive action.
-------
AGENDA
COMMANDERS/FEDERAL FACILITIES MANAGERS
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MARCH 28-2 9/ 1989
TUESDAY MARCH 28, 1989
CONFERENCE MODERATOR/MANAGER
8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION
8:30 a.m. WELCOME - REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
8:45 a.m. NATIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM
9:00 a.m. EPA FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
9:45 a.m. OMB A-106 CIRCULAR PROCESS
10:45 a.m. BREAK
11:00 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
12:00 a.m. LUNCH
1:15 p.m. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES OF COMMANDERS
AND FACILITY MANAGERS
6 STATES AUTHORITIES
2:00 p.m. RCRA COMPLIANCE
2:15 p.m. RCRA PERMITTING
2:30 p.m. BREAK
2:45 p.m. CERCLA DOCKET/HRS RANKING
3:10 p.m. INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT/RESPONSIBILITY-CERCLA
3:30 p.m. RCRA-CERCLA TECHNICAL INTEGRATION
4:45 p.m. ATSDR - HEALTH ASSESSMENT
5:00 p.m. ADJOURN
ARTHUR G. LINTON
LORI SCOGGINS
GREER C. TIDUELL
RICHARD E. SANDERSON
JIM EDWARD
DON FRAJKLIN
JIM EDWARD
BOB GREN
ALLAN ANTLEY
JOHN DICKINSON
JAPES MEREDITH
BEVERLY SPAGG
MICKEY HARTNETT
PAULA KOCHER
-------
AGENDA
COMMANDERS/FEDERAL FACILITIES MANAGERS
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
ATLANTA/ GEORGIA
MARCH 28-2 9/ 1989
WEDNESDAY MARCH 29, 1989
CONFERENCE MODERATOR/MANAGER
8:00 a.m. PUBLIC AWARNESS
8:30 a.m. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
0 STATE PROGRAM - FLORIDA
9:30 a.m. DRINKING WATER.
10:00 a.m. ASBESTOS
10:15 a.m. RATON
ARTHUR G. LINTON
BEVERLY MOSELY
MIKE WILLIAMS
PAUL SVEC
MIKE LEONARD
LIZ WILDE
PAIL WAGNER
10:30 a.m. BREAK
10:45 a.m. WASTEWATER PERMITTING JAPES PATRICK
11:00 a.m. PANEL DISCUSSIONS/QUESTIONS
RCRA, CERCLA, AIR, WATER, LEGAL AUTHORITY, PUBLIC AWARNESS
ASBESTOS
RADON
12:30 ADJOURN
-------
"COMMANDERS/FACILITIES MANAGERS COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE"
CONFERENCE STAFF
DAVID F„ HOLROYD
CONFERENCE COORDINATOR
BETTIE B. MILLER
REGIONAL CONFERENCE COORDINATOR
LOR.I M. SC066INS
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION AND HOSTESS
-------
EDWARD
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE EPA FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE
STRATEGY
A
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
THE FEDERAL FACILITY UNIVERSE
POTENTIAL
ACTUAL
UNIVERSE
KNOWN
~~
~~
387,000
Buildings
27,000
Installations
,729 Million Acres of Land
5,000
A-106
Projects
or
Permit
Holders
-------
INTRODUCTION
Why Was the Federal Facilities
Compliance Strategy Necessary?
• E.O. 12088 Mandates EPA's Oversight and
Technical Assistance Roles
• Updates the Original "Yellow Book"
• Recognizes Differences in EPA's Enforcement
Procedures
• Increased Congressional and Public attention
AND . ..
-------
INTRODUCTION
Why Was the Federal Facilities
Compliance Strategy Necessary?
• Achieves Administrator's Goal for Federal
Facilities:
"Ensures that Federal agencies achieve
compliance rates in each media program
which meet or exceed those of^major
industrial and major municipal facilities"
-------
MEDIA PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
RATES* (FY 88)
100-
80:
o\
60-
w
g
40-
K
to
o
_L_J_
AIR
WATER
(NPDES)
HAZ.
WASTE
(RCRA)
Major Facilities
Federal
Industrial
Municipal
T
DRINKING
WATER
TOXIC
SUB.
~Current as of end of 4th quarter FY88
-------
PURPOSE OF THE STRATEGY:
EPA
• Provides a uniform framework for all EPA
media programs and Regions
• EPA's Primary Policy and Guidance for the
Media Programs for Federal Facilities
compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities
-------
PURPOSE OF THE STRATEGY:
Federal Agencies
• Serves as a guidance and reference
document
• Focuses on unique needs of the Federal
Facilities Universe
-------
OVERVIEW
What Are the Strategy's
Key Provisions?
Most important are the following:
• Clarifies Federal Facilities' requirements to
comply like all other regulated entities
• Discusses the critical role of the States
• Emphasizes Negotiations of Agreements
within strict timeframes
• Establishes a formal Dispute Resolution
Process
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSE PROCESS
¦ FINAL
AGREEMENT
YES
NO
ORDER
BECOMES
EFFECTIVE
NO
OR
YES
SIGN
ORDER
AGREEMENT
FEDERAL^
AGENCY
RESPONDS
NEGOTIATE
\GREEMENT
INITIATE
DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
INITIATE .
DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
PROCESS
INITIATE
FORMAL
APPEALS
PROCESS
EPA
ISSUES
NOV/NON
NSPECTION
OR SELF-
REPORTED
VIOLATION
EPA ISSUES
PROPOSED
AGREEMENT/
ORDER
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES DISPUTE
RESOLUTION PROCESS
Head Official
of the Parent
Federal Agency
Regional
Administrator
Administrator
Referral
within
90 days
AA for Affected
Media Program;
AA, OECM; and
AA, OEA
I
Negotiations
not to exceed
90 days
DOJ
Under
E.O.12146
OMB
Under
E.O. 12088
Parent Federal
Agency
Headquarters
Office
Formal referral of dispute
within 60 days after timeframe
for enforcement action is exceeded
-------
OVERVIEW
What Are the Strategy's
Key Provisions?
In Addition the Strategy:
• Clarifies EPA's authority to use the full
range of its enforcement tools at GOCO
facilities
• Outlines initiatives for improved tracking
oversight and compliance monitoring
• Emphasizes innovative compliance
management techniques (e.g.,
environmental auditing)
-------
OVERVIEW
What Are the Strategy's
Kev Provisions?
• Enhances EPA's ovesight role through
improvements to the A-106
• Promotes increased EPA technical assistance
• Defines EPA responsibilities for Federal
Facilities
-------
CONCLUSION
What Needs To Be Done Now?
• Implement the initiatives outlined in the
strategy
• Develop follow-up cross media guidance
• Incorporate Strategy provisions into media
program policies and operating guidance
-------
CONCLUSION
What Needs To Be Done Now?
• Refine the Federal Facilities Compliance
Tracking System
• Achieve our mutual goal of making Federal
Facilities a model for compliance
-------
& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Federal Activities
Washington, D C.
November 1988
\
Federal Facilities
Compliance Strategy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
$
V.
J
-------
22^, ; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
ACQ1
NOV 8 1988
the administrator
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that Federal agencies have an
inherent obligation to comply with all Federal environmental statutes in the same manner
and degree as all other regulated entities. It is imperative that every effort be made to
ensure that Federal facilities achieve and maintain high rates of compliance with all
environmental requirements. And it is important to EPA's compliance and enforcement
efforts at non-Federal entities that facilities of the Federal government demonstrate that they
have their "own house in order." In order to demonstrate EPA's commitment in this
important area, we have established a new goal for our Federal Facilities Compliance
Program which states that EPA shall help "ensure that Federal agencies achieve compliance
rates in each media program which meet or exceed those of major industrial and major
municipal facilities."
To help achieve this goal, EPA has developed a new Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy
which established a comprehensive and proactive approach to achieving compliance at
Federal facilities. This document, also known as the "Yellow Book", provided the basic
framework and consistent guidelines for all EPA media programs (e.g., air, water,
hazardous waste, etc.) to follow in their compliance and enforcement activities at Federal
facilities. It also attempts to reconcile EPA's dual responsibilities to provide technical
assistance and advice to Federal facilities pursuant to Executive Order No. 12088, and our
statutory authorities to take enforcement actions for violations at Federal facilities in
appropriate circumstances.
Recently-authorized environmental statutes have included special requirements and
additional provisions which are specific to Federal facilities. These provisions clarify that
Federal agencies must comply with environmental laws in the same manner and degree as
all other facilities subject to such requirements. EPA intends to utilize the full range of its
available enforcement authorities to ensure compliance by Federal facilities. However,
EPA also recognizes that there are some limitations and differences in the types of
enforcement actions which EPA can take at Federal facilities. These special circumstances
have made it clear that if EPA is to be truly effective in ensuring high compliance rates at
Federal facilities, a separate strategy such as this is needed to address this unique subset of
facilities which we regulate.
Thorough and consistent implementation of this Strategy should significantly strengthen
EPA's compliance and enforcement program for Federal facilities. We will apply the same
timeframes for taking enforcement action at Federal facilities as EPA does for other
facilities. We also have established a formal dispute resolution process with strict time
periods for escalation when Compliance Agreements or Consent Orders cannot be
expeditiously negotiated between EPA Regional offices and Federal facilities.
This Strategy also emphasizes the use of innovative compliance management techniques
(e.g., environmental auditing), selected initiatives for improved compliance tracking of
Federal facilities and more effective use of the Federal Agency A-106 Pollution Abatement
-------
Planning Process. In addition, since many of EPA's programs Eire delegated to the States,
we have devoted a separate chapter in this document to the critical role of States in
responding to compliance problems at Federal facilities.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that EPA is very serious in its efforts to ensure
compliance by Federal facilities, and we will take all necessary actions, including
enforcement in appropriate circumstances, to improve the environmental status of facilities
of the Federal government. Federal facilities have done much to increase the effectiveness
of their environmental management programs, but further progress is needed if Federal
facilities are to meet their obligations to comply to the fullest extent possible with all of the
environmental laws. We at EPA believe that this is an attainable goal and look forward to
working together with affected parties in implementing this strategy and demonstrating that
Federal facilities can truly be the model for compliance which we feel they are capable of
becoming.
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy establishes a comprehensive and
proactive approach to achieving and maintaining high rates of compliance at Federal
facilities. It provides the basic framework for EPA's media programs to follow in ensuring
that Federal facilities are fully integrated into Federal and State compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities. It also attempts to reconcile the Agency's dual responsibilities of
providing technical assistance and advice to Federal facilities to help ensure their
compliance, as required under Presidential Executive Order No. 12088, and of taking
enforcement actions against Federal facilities, where appropriate, as provided for in the
various environmental statutes.
This Strategy clarifies that Federal agencies must comply with environmental laws
in the same manner and degree as non-Federal entities and EPA will utilize the full range of
its available enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by Federal facilities. However,
EPA also recognizes that there are certain limitations and differences in the types of
enforcement actions which EPA will take at Federal facilities. In addition, EPA's mandate
to provide technical assistance as well as the restrictions inherent in the Federal budget and
appropriations process influenced EPA's decision that a separate strategy was needed to
address compliance problems at Federal facilities.
This document was written to serve several audiences: to serve as guidance for
EPA Headquarters and Regional staff; to clarify State and Federal compliance monitoring
and enforcement roles; to inform Federal agencies of EPA's strategy and identify
procedures to be followed when violations have been discovered; and finally, to
communicate EPA's approach for addressing compliance problems at Federal facilities to
Congress, the public, and concerned interest groups.
Chapter II -- Summary of Environmental Statutes and Executive Orders
Federal agencies generally must comply with all provisions of Federal
environmental statutes and regulations as well as all applicable State and local requirements,
with the exception of very limited Presidential exemptions which may be issued on a site-
specific basis. Presidential Executive Orders also stress the mandate for Federal facilities to
comply fully with environmental requirements and to establish procedures for ensuring that
this is accomplished, including special procedures for resolving compliance disputes within
the Executive Branch involving EPA and other Federal agencies.
Chapter III - Identification of the Regulated Community
A more definitive inventory of Federal facilities will enable EPA to establish more
effective priorities and select targets for assistance, compliance monitoring, and
enforcement activities. The Strategy clarifies that EPA is focusing on that subset of Federal
facilities which have potential for environmental impact.
The Strategy defines the various types of Federal facilities and Federal lands, and
describes how available sources of information and program data systems will be used by
EPA to identify and track compliance at Federal facilities. It outlines new actions that EPA
will undertake to improve the quantity and quality of information on the Federal facilities
universe, including reviews of Federal facility classifications and major/minor facility
-------
definitions and the identification of important Federal facility minors and environmentally
significant facilities on a multi-media basis.
Chapter IV -- Compliance Promotion, Technical Assistance and Training
To meet its unique responsibilities under E.0.12088 to provide technical assistance
and advice to Federal agencies, EPA is establishing a more systematic communications
system for exchange of information on new or revised regulatory or statutory
environmental requirements. The Strategy describes the functions of EPA's various
"Hotlines" and encourages Federal agency personnel to utilize these services to assist them
in maintaining compliance at their facilities. In addition to information transfer, the
Strategy introduces improved approaches for informing Federal facilities of available
training courses. EPA will attempt to target particular agencies for courses in areas where
an Agency has had a pattern of compliance problems.
EPA has a unique opportunity to work with other Federal agencies and the States to
identify broad patterns of current and potential compliance problems among facilities in a
given Agency. Based upon information from Regions and States about patterns of
noncompliance by Federal facilities, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy to correct
these noncompliance patterns and will work with the parent Agency to ensure the strategy
is implemented. In an effort to prevent future compliance problems, the annual A-106
planning process will be used more effectively to inform Federal agencies of EPA priority
areas and request them to direct their A-106 projects to these areas where appropriate.
Federal facilities are also encouraged to adopt environmental auditing programs to
help achieve and maintain higher levels of overall compliance. EPA will provide technical
assistance to other Federal agencies in the initiation and implementation of auditing
programs.
Chapter V -- Compliance Monitoring
The Strategy strengthens compliance monitoring activities at Federal facilities by
ensuring that EPA or the States' presence is being demonstrated at all Federal agencies
which have the potential for environmental impact. Federal facilities are to be inspected at
least as frequently as all other sources, consistent with the priorities, frequencies and types
of inspections established in each media program guidance. In addition, Regions are to
identify the most environmentally significant Federal facilities across several media
programs as candidates for multi-media inspections.
EPA plans to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal agency A-106
pollution abatement planning process by addressing compliance problems at Federal
facilities before they become violations, linking the process more closely to identified EPA
environmental priorities and other systematic program improvements.
Chapter VI - EPA Enforcement Response at Federal Facilities
The most significant provisions of this Strategy deal with the basic approach and
procedures EPA will use when responding to violations at Federal facilities. "Die strategy
clarifies that Federal agencies are required to comply with environmental laws the same as
non-Federal regulated entities and that EPA will utilize all of its available enforcement
mechanisms at Federal facilities. The strategy also recognizes that there are certain
-------
limitations and differences in terms of the types of enforcement action which EPA will tab*
against Federal facilities.
EPA and States are to pursue "timely and appropriate" enforcement responses to
address violations at Federal facilities in a manner similar to actions taken to address
violations at non-Federal facilities. EPA's enforcement responses emphasize that if a
violation is not or will not be corrected within the timeframe for violations of that class, an
enforcement action should be taken consistent with media program guidance.
EPA's formal enforcement responses for Federal facilities emphasize the use of
mutually negotiated remedial actions and schedules in the first instance, formalized through
Compliance Agreements or Consent Orders, depending upon program authorities and
guidance. EPA will issue proposed administrative enforcement actions where mutual
agreement cannot be reached in a timely manner, and will promptly utilize all available
dispute resolution mechanisms to effectively resolve areas of disagreement The Strategy
also clarifies that Federal agency officials are required to take all available steps to obtain
sufficient funds to achieve compliance on the most expeditious schedule possible.
EPA's enforcement process for Executive Branch Agencies is purely
administrative, and neither provides for civil judicial action nor assessment of civil
penalties.1 This limitation does not apply to enforcement actions taken by States as
authorized under various statutes nor to EPA actions directed to non-Federal operators of
Federal facilities who are not officials of Executive Branch Agencies. EPA will pursue the
full range of its enforcement authorities against private operators of Federal facilities (e.g.,
GOCOs) where appropriate and also take action against Federal agencies at GOCO facilities
in certain circumstances. EPA will develop a GOCO Enforcement Strategy as a follow-up
to this document to further clarify this issue.
Chapter VII - Role of the States in Federal Facilities Compliance
States generally may exercise a broader range of authorities and enforcement tools
than EPA to address violations at Federal facilities. Under many statutes, delegated or
authorized States can use the full range of these enforcement authorities to address Federal
facility violations to the same extent they are used for non-Federal facilities. States are also
encouraged, wherever possible, to pursue bilateral, negotiated agreements or Consent
Orders with Federal facilities. In any delegated State enforcement action involving Federal
facilities EPA will be careful not to interfere with the State's enforcement proceedings.
However, EPA will be available upon request to either party to help facilitate expeditious
compliance.
State and Federal roles in compliance and enforcement are defined through
State/EPA Enforcement Agreements negotiated by the Region and each of its States for
each media program, consistent with the Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement
Agreements and program-specific implementing guidance. While most aspects of these
Agreements pertain equally to Federal and non-Federal facilities, the Strategy outlines
several areas in which Federal facilities should be explicitly addressed in the Enforcement
Agreements process.
1 This limitation docs ncx apply 10 penalties for violations of Interagency Agreements under Section 120
of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
-------
As pan of the State/EPA Enforcement Agreements process. Regions should review
the Strategy with their States and address five areas: (1) the enforcement approach the State
plans to use for responding to Federal facility violations; (2) the types of situations where
the State would request EPA support or direct action; (3) any additional information the
State has agreed to report to EPA on Federal facilities compliance and enforcement
activities; (4) how the State will be involved in the A-106 process; and (5) plans for a joint
EPA/State annual review of compliance problems at Federal facilities in the State.
Chapter VIII - EPA Roles and Responsibilities for Strategy Implementation
The Strategy clarifies EPA roles and responsibilities for implementing this Strategy
and the overall Federal facilities compliance program. It outlines the roles of the Regional
staff and the various Headquarters offices.
The Strategy emphasizes the need for Federal facilities to be integrated into the
ongoing compliance and enforcement activities of each EPA media program. The Federal
facilities Coordinator's role is to coordinate Regional program office implementation of
these activities. Implicit in this Strategy is the need for teamwork among the various
offices and staff involved in addressing Federal facilities compliance.
This Strategy replaces the previous program document, entitled "Resolution of
Compliance Problems at Federal Facilities" (lenown as the "Yellow Book"), dated January
1984, and will still be referred to as the "Yellow Book." Full implementation is being
phased in over the next few years, beginning in mid-FY 1988. The enforcement response
provisions are to be fully implemented immediately. EPA's Annual Operating Year
Guidance will set subsequent priorities for the implementation of the remainder of this
Strategy. Enforcement and remedial response procedures under CERCLA/SARA generally
are not addressed by this document. However, references to CERCLA/SARA have been
included in several places for informational purposes only.
In addition, the Strategy document has a number of Appendices which contain
various reference documents, model response forms, compliance agreements, definitions
of key EPA terms, etc., all of which should prove to be helpful to environmental staff in
other Federal agencies. Additional copies of the Strategy may be obtained by written
request to EPA at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
Federal Facilities Compliance Program
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA ENFORCEMENT AT
GOCO* FACILITIES
* Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated Facilities
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C.
-------
TYPES OF GOCO FACILITIES
• USAF Industrial Plants (Aircraft,
Missile, Space Shuttle, Bombing System
Production)
• Army Ammunition Plants
• Army Aircraft, Engine and Tank Plants
• Naval Industrial Ordnance Plants
• Naval Weapons Plants
• Naval Ship Repair Facilities
• Defense Fuel Supply Centers (DLA)
-------
DEFINITION(S) OF GOCO FACILITIES
EPA Federal Facilities Compliance
Strategy:
GOCO = "Government Facility owned by a
Federal Agency, but all or portions of it
are operated by private contractor(s)."
-------
HISTORY OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT GOCO POLICY
October 1983 • DOJ - Response Letter to Rep. John Dingeil:
. .is prepared to sue GOCO facilities when the
contractor is the responsible party and it is
otherwise appropriate ..."
April 1987 • DOJ - Written Testimony at Oversight Hearing:
M. . . ready to utilize the full panalopy of its judicial
enforcement tools against GOCO violators ... on
Federal facilities."
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
. pursue full range of its enforcement
authorities vs. contractor operators of
government owned facilities. . ."
AND
". . . also may take enforcement actions
against Federal agencies ..."
OR
. it may pursue enforcement action
against both. . . "
-------
GOCO ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
EPA INITIAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
TO VIOLATIONS AT FACILITIES WITH FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT |n|||a( Enforo.m#n,
Acronym/ Eao«pUon or RttponM
T*rm Definition Olhtr Comm*nl Olr#ct»d •(:
OOQO:
Government owr>»a land
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
• Contractor Listing Program (CAA, CWA):
Results in ineligibility to receive government
contracts
Clarifies applicability to GOCO contractors
Congress has introduced legislation to
expand to include RCRA
-------
COLLOQUIUM ON EPA ENFORCEMENT
AT GOCO FACILITIES
• Sponsored by EPA Office of Federal Activities (October 1988)
• "Springboard" for development of an EPA GOCO Enforcement
Strategy
• Forum for exchange of viewpoints among all affected parties:
- EPA HQ and Regions
- Federal Agencies
- Government Contractors
- State Agencies
- Environmental and Public Policy Groups
- Private Law Firms
• Intended Outcome:
- Identification of key issues for EPA GOCO Strategy
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
• What are GOCOs?
• Why are there GOCOs?
• Who determines whether a GOCO is a GOCO?
• Are there different types of GOCOs?
• When is a GOCO not a GOCO?
• Which party should EPA enforce against at
GOCOs?
-------
FRANKLIN
-------
THE A-106 POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROCESS
382
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE
A-106 PROCESS
-------
SUBMISSION ND REVIEW GF FEZDOXL PCEHCY A-I06
fOLLUnCN ABOH®fr PLANS AM) RCUECTS
Section 3(a)(3) of Executive Order 12088 requires that Peeleral agsicies
sufcmit Pollution Abatanoit Plans semi-anmally to ffA for review. U«
process for clt-ve loping and neintaining these plans is described by the
Office of nenaganoit and Budget (CMS) circular No. A-106 dated Dacarber
31, 1974. Hirough this established process, Federal facilities plan
projects in order to ensure cent inning compliance to meet new regulatory
requiranaits, or to correct problems or violations identified by the EPA
or States. Ac part of this strategy, ERK will be attending to improve
the A-106 process to address more effectively potential ocuplignce
problems at ifoderal facilities before they beccme violations and to focus
agwey attrition an identified EBV media program compliance priorities.
Us developri:nt of Pollution Abatanerrt Plans provides a mechanism for
Federal Agonies to analyze their current and projected funding
requirenoits for their pollution abatanent projects, These reports a.iso
provide agenc ies with information to plan for future program resource
requirements. To be fully effective the A-106 five-year plan mist be
coordinated *nd staffed internally within each individual Federal agairy.
Consistent wj.th the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, EPA will
advise the FeiSeral agencies and OB on obtaining the reqvured fundine?
levels for pollution abatammt projects through various means, such as:
o Requesting supplemental appropriations
o Reprouyh firids
available to complete all desired projects in one fiscal year, me A-106
process is a five-year plan which programs projects over ar. extended
period of tijie. The primary focus of the process is to give the highest
priority to chose facilities that are oat of ccrpliance or vii: go out of
compliance if project fundirvg achedtuJ.es aire ret ret. A-106 is unique
within the cpvermer.t budgeting system ir. that it direrts 5PA to reviev
Federal ageri:y plans for CMB to ensure that these plc-r^ vili be adequate
to meet prcrn/jcateci ccrpliance deadlines. Where they are nor. adequate,
EPA will re.'-jnrfe-i: to Ct-2- that "ederal agency b^?- i-^ruos-s :
-------
A-106 Ctxpliance Process
(X© has established a hierarchy of nine different compliance categories
divides into three distinct classes. EPA places its highest priority on
Class l projects. These projects are needed at Federal facilities which
are in physical nonccrpliance and/or have received an enforcanent action
fran EPA or a State. The follcving three categories are included in
Class I:
0 CM7V - Projects needed to support a signed Ccrpliance
Agreement or Consent order.
o 1TJ0V - Projects needed to correct deficiencies cited on an
inspection or Notice of violations (NOV) by a regulatory
auU»rity
o ESDP - Other projects which are required ijrmediately
because a statutory or regulatory deadline has passed.
Class II projects are next in priority to EPA.. These projects are needed
at facilities which are not yet out of compliance, but win be if not
implemented prior to certain deadlines in the future. Class II projects
are the most difficult to program for because the required compliance
dates are in the future, standards may stiu be in the process of being
established, and no inspections will have beer, conducted by regulator/
agencies. Nevertheless, if Federal agencies do not initiate their
ranedial plans now, it is inevitable they will be out cf compliance when
the deadline; arrive. Federal Planning, programming and Budgeting
System (PPBSi.is very canplex and takes too long to arrive at quick fixes
for substantial projects. Class II projects make up a substantial part cf
Federal agercy unfunded requirements and are divided into two
categories:
o ESDF-.Projects for facilities which do net meet established
stant'ljjrds, but the compliance deadline is in the
future.
o PSDF-Projects for facilities where there is a pending
standard that cannot be met and the compiiarce deadline
is in the future.
Where Federo.. agencies have not planned for projects in this class, there
maybe a requirement. for EPk to provide addit.iona.1 technical ass;s:_ance to
ensure they are avore of the requirements.
-------
Class III pro;)9Ct-S include a potpourri of situations which are of less
ijrportance to EPA at the present time but which rraybe inportant
ccnpliance issues in the future, if not constructed. While of less
importance to EPA, they may be a very high priority to the Federal
agency. This class includes the following:
o ES«0-racility meets established standard but needs
replacement because of obsolescence.
o E5R£~7acility meets established standard but needs
expansion or will 90 cut of compliance.
o ESTIL-Facility meets established standards but project is
needed for cither than compliance reasons. Will demonstrate
leadership
o CJIHF -Other reasons not falling in categories described
abOM=.
Targeting Resources to Address Priority Areas
In addition to ccnpliance status priorities, EFfr media prcg-ar^ ^rrraliy
establish yearly program priorities which describe those- ^reas where they
wtrr target i-ispections and otherwise place their limited enforcement
resources. Si.rce EPA and State regulatory authorities have decided these
are their most, important environmental concerns, it woul-f be appropriate
for Federal ese key areas.
Federal Facility coordinators and Regional program st^ff win deveicp
lists of those Federal facilities which fall under each of these priority
areas. Fede::;il agencies win be informed of the EPA priority- areas pric-r
to the start of their annual A-106 planning process. Regional Federal
Facility coordinators will reviw proposed and final A-106 budget
submissions to ensure that acceptable projects have been requested for
facilities icj2ntiTi«i es having ronccrpliance probi^.? in these rrvedia
program priority areas. Hiis approach to addressing procrar. priorities is
in addition to, arrl not in lieu of, EFA's regular use of the A-106
process as e.-i?lained :>elow.
3
-------
ft-106 Process Overview and Tim Table
Hie annual A-_06 process begins each October at the start of the fiscal
year. At this time, copies of the most recently updated list of pollution
abatement projects (Pollution Status Reports) and the latest report to
a*© are provided to the Regional program staff by the Federal Facilities
Coordinatorsfor their continuing review and analysis of priority areas as
descriDea aoove. 'live Reglutad. tuuyteuu stiff review the Hot of projcctc
and recommend funding and or schedule changes to be incorporated into the
Federal agency's next A-l submission.
Concurrent with the Region's review of the projects in the Pollution
Status Report, Federal agencies review and update their plans. Ttie
results of this review are reflected in revised five-year plans which
Federal agencies sufcmit to CFA by December IS. New projects are submitted
at this time using ETA Form No. 3500-7.
OFA then prepares a revised Pollution Status Report which is distributed
in January to all Federal agencies and EPA Regional offices :cr review.
The EPA Regional reviews are coordinated and quality assured by each of
the Federal Facilities coordinators. The media program staffs conduct the
reviews and provide their cements to the Federal Facilities Cc^rcHnatx.
Each project is reviewed to determine its adequacy in three specific
areas: (1) Brrfineering; (2) Timing; and(3> Cost. Hie EPA Regions also
evaluate each project as either High, Medium or low in terms of its
impact on th-:.> environment if not funded in the fiscal year requested. In
addition, tha Regions identify "additional needed" projects which Federal
agencies hav-:: not proposed or sutmitted for review.
The marted-up Pollution Abatsnent Plan worksheets and any inadequate or
additional needec project sheets are then sutmitted by the Regions to OFA
in April. OFA subsequently sends the Federal agencies copies of their
worksheet and any inadequate or needed project sheets. TSiese sheets
contain the Regional staffs' explanations as to why a project has beer,
rated either "inadequate" or "needed*. The Federal agencies then respond
to ERA's rev:w?w by filling out a standard response format and updating
their previous plan submissions. Copies of the EPA Inadequate and .Needed
Sheets and thje Federal Agency Response Formats are included.
Federal agencies mist submit their revised updates of the January report-
to EPA Headquarters by May 31. OFA then prepares a revised report wfuch
is distributed to the EPA Regions by the end of June for the last review
of the fiscal year. OFA also provides the Regions with work sheets and
the Federal .agencies responses to the EPA Inadequate and .^ieeded project
sheets. During this review Regions focus on those projects in the
President's ifjdget Year (currently 2). Regional staff also will review
the sutmissirns to ensure that projects have beer, proposed to correct
violations i riant if ied in EPA aid State inspectors a.-id no:>r.-<
problems in identified program priority areas.
4
-------
QFA consolidates Re^ior^Ll ccrments ana provides than to EPA Headquarters
program staff for review and concurrence. In September. The
Adrrinistratoi provides OB with a summary of the budget year projects
and[FVS evaluations. Q® uses this inforrotion in its review of Federal
agency budget requests.
In October, trie most recent pollution Status Report (i.e. , the report
revised and distributed in JUne) and the Report to OB are distributed to
EPA and Federal agencies, initiating the process for the next fiscal
year's budget.
Cn an ongoing basis throughout the fiscal year, the Federal Facilities
coordinators will visit Federal facilities in their respective Regions to
attend prelirrarary planning and design review conferences on major A-106
projects. At a minimum, Coordinators should assist in planning and
design review for all A-106 projects which are over one million dollars
in total cos- and for other lesser cost projects which have sigr.if leant
environmental LTpact. Fwltuai Facilities Coordinatoro chould reqi.^tt
assistance a:*! participation from EPA program offices on technical
matters wher-s necessary and appropriate.
State Participation in the A-106 Piocuoo
Where programs are delegated to States, Regions win provide States with
an early opportunity to beccme involved in the r-^view of Federal agency
A-106 submissions on proposed pollution abatement projects. Each Region
wiii provide the irrespective State agencies with copies of A-106 reports
for their States. Each Region will then meet with their States airing
the January -March review period to review end discjss proposed! projects
as they relate to State enforcement actions against Federal facilities,
general compliance needs of facilities, and identified nonccrpliance
problems. This state review may consist of a review of abbreviated
Pollution Status Report prepared by OTA, annual or biannual A-106
sutmittais f .:cm the Federal agencies or some other s-jmrvary report'
prepared by CiFA or Regional offices.
b
-------
OMB CIRCULAR A-106
• Federal facilities nun develop Pollution Control Plan
consistent with applicable standards
• Federal agencies must submit to EPA Administrator, an
Annual Pollution Control Report
• EPA mus review semi-annually Federal facilities'
environmental efforts in Pollution Control Reports
• EPA Administrator must submit reports and evaluation to
OMB Director
KEY POINTS
• OMB Circular A-106, dated December 31, 1974,
describes the process for developing and maintaining
Pollution Abatement Plans.
• EPA Administrator prescribes details for submission
of individual pollution abatement plans.
• As. a minimum, OMB Circular A-106 specifies that
an agency should include all projects in it plan
involving "costs" that are necessary to comply with
environmental standards.
• The plan should also include funds required for
studies, management, and monitoring associated with
the definition and development of corrective
measures and necessary equipment to assure
compliance with standards.
• EPA responsibility for A-106 process given to Office
of Federal Activities.
-------
MULTI-YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
• Programs needed projects over extended period of time
• Provides mechanism for fending needed projects in a
phased and orderly fashion
• Informs environmental managers, comptrollers, and other
interested parties of unfunded requirements
• Advises management of legal basis for requirements
• Establishes relationship with Agency budget
KEY POINTS
• A-106 is a system of setting priorities for spending
limited funds so environmental control projects are
completed as required to meet statutory and
regulatory requirements.
• A 106 is unique because it directs EPA to review
oLiier Federal agency pollution abatement plans for
OMB.
-------
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
THROUGH COMPLETION OF THE
OMB A-106 REPORTING PROCESS
WILL HELP IDENTIFY
• Funding require menu for OMB and Federal Agencies
• Management information for Federal Agencies
Compliance guidelines for EPA
KEY POFNTS
The purpose of this information is:
• To ensure that Federal agencies are properly funding
projects that are necessary ro comply with environmental
requirements.
• To provide Federal agencies with a management plan for
environmental compliance.
• To identify backlogs of existing projects.
• To forecast unfunded requirements as a result of new
statutory/regulatory requirements.
To provide information to use in connection * ith the
Federal Facilities Compliance Program.
To inform OMB of funding requirements for
environmental projects.
-------
OMB CIRCULAR A-11
• Federal facility pollution control and treatment projects
estimates win be submiued only after consultation with
EPA on OMB Circular A-106
• Design and cons auction estimates of Federal facilities
and buildings mutt include pollution control and
treatment system installation
• Estimates should be consistent with the most recent EPA
plans submitted under A-106
KEY POINTS
Pollution control and treatment systems must be in
accordance with OMB Circular A-106, E.O. 12088,
and any related plans.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DoD Directive
¦ DoD directive S 100.50. "Protection and Enhancement
of Environment*! Quality" and DoD Instructions
4120.14, require the services including the Defense
Logistics Agency to submit the A-lOo Report to EPA
in accordance with established EPA procedures.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Individual Services Regulation
• .Mr Force:
• ,\rmy:
• Navy:
• Defense
Logistics
Agency:
Air force Regulation 19-8, "Environmental
Protection Committees and Environmental
Reporting"
Army Regulation 200-1, "Environmental
Protection and Enhancement"
Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 2090.1,
'The Environmental and Natural Resources
Protection Manual"
Directive Letter (periodically updaied)
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY STAFF
INVOLVED IN THE A-106 PROCESS
AT THE INSTALLATION LEVEL
• Responsible Agency Official
• Environmental Engineer
• Budget Officer
• Health Officer
• Legal Officer
• Public Affairs Officer
KEY POINTS
• The A-106 five-year plan should be coordinated
internally within each Federal agency.
• E.O. 12088 assigns ultimate responsibility to the head
of e ach executive agency.
• Normally the individuals involved with the A-106
process at the installation level are the Responsible
Agency Official, Environmental Engineer, Budget
Officer. Other will be brought into the process as
appropriate.
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF
PROJECTS TO INCLUDE
IN A-106 PLAN
• As a minimum, OMB Circular A-106 specifies that an agency
should include all projects in their A-lu6 plan which involves
"costs" that are necessary to comply with existing
environmental standards
• The A-106 plan should include fends requited for
Studies, management and monitoring associated with the
definition and development of corrective measures
Equipment necessary to assure compliance with
standards
• The term "cost" means the amount of funds required for
putting in place the necessary environmental protection
measures, irrespective of the appropriation chargeable
• While project costs can be charged to an OMB account, the
usual day-to-day maintenance and operating costs
associated with a project will not be included a> part of the
reported cost of a project
• Workforce costs associated with the usual operation and
maintenance of a project are not to be included in the
A-106 report as "costs"
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
REQUIRING FUNDS FOR
CORRECTION
All activities which an reauired by environmental law should
be recorded through the OmB A-106 process and appropriate
funding requests should be submitted in the normal budget
process
* The OMB A-106 process should record anv environmental
activity that requires money to correct environmental
problems
Some examples art listed on the following slides
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
REQUIRING FUNDS FOR CORRECTION
Sorm Czunplea Ait:
• Hazardous Wane Storage Facilities
• Replacement of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
• UST Leak Detection Systems
• Asbestos Removal
• Repair of Sanitary Sewer Line*
• CERCLA PA/SI or RJ/FS and/or Remedial Design
• Removal of Contaminated Soil
Repair/Installation of Emission Control System
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
REQUIRING FUNDS FOR CORRECTION
Examples (continued):
Connection to City/County Wittt* Woutr Treatment Plant
• Replacement or Upgrading of Incinerator
• Construction of Neutralization Tank
• Construction of Containment Berm
• Construction of Fuel Transfer Area Dikes
• Comprehensive Environmental Assessments
• Environmental Impact Statements
• Laboratory Environmental Assessment
• Landfill Closure Plans
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
REQUIRING FUNDS FOR CORRECTION
Examples (continued):
• Landfill Closure Activities
• Pesticide Monitoring
• RCRA Warn Handttig
• Biomonitoring of wiKwater
Noise Abatement Plflping and Projects
• Outdoor and Indoor Aif Pollution Projects
Radon Testing
Similar Projects Located Overseas
-------
ANNUAL TIMETABLE OF
KEY A-106 EVENTS
September - December
Sep*. 13 • Pollution Abucment Plana jenc by OFA to:
Regions for Information and initial review
• Federal agencies for Initial update
Dec. 15 • Revised Pollution Abatement Plans and any
new projects due from Federal Agencies to
OFA
KEY POINTS
On September 15, OFA also sends list of
media program priorities to EPA Regions
and Federal Agencies.
• OFA incorporates revisions to Pollution
Abatement Plan and prepares first draft of
OMB Report by December 15.
• Federal Agencies submit any new projects
on 3500-7 report forms.
-------
ANNUAL TIMETABLE OF
KEY A-106 EVENTS
January - April
Jan.
• OPA distribute* Revised Pollution Abatement
Plans and Worksheets to:
- Repotu for evaluation
Federal Agencies for second update
April 15
• Evaluations of Pollution Abatement Plans and
worksheets due to OFA from EPA Regions
KEY POINTS
• In January EPA also submits first draft of OMB
report to EPA Regions and Federal agencies for
comment.
Regions forward Revised Pollution Abatement
Plans and worksheets to involved States for review.
• From January through April, Regional Federal
Facility Coordinators, Regional Media Program
Staff, and States evaluate Revised Pollution
Abatement Plans.
• Review includes:
evaluating projects in terms of
engineering, timing, and cost
assessing impact of project on
environment if not funded as high,
medium, or low
identifying inadequate or needed projects.
-------
ANNUAL TIMETABLE OF
KEY A-106 EVENTS
May«June
May • OFA coordinate* evaluation of Pollution
Abatement Plans with HQ media programs
• OFA provides EPA evaluation of Pollution
Abatement Plans to Federal Agencies for
inclusion in next update
May 31 • Revised Pollution Abatement Plans due to
OFA from Federal Agencies
June • Second draft of Pollution Abatement Plan
and OMB Report sent to:
• EPA Regions for final update
• Federal Agencies for comment
KEY POINTS
• OFA will discuss any conflicts with Federal
agencies concerning needed and inadequate
sheets.
• OFA will incorporate revisions to Pollution
Abatement Plan and OMB Report.
• Along with final mark-up of pollution
abatement plan, the Federal agencies also
submit on May 31:
First mark-up of OMB Report
Needed and inadequate response forms
3500-7 project report forms.
• In June, OFA also sends Regions a copy of
needed and inadequate response forms and
a list of new projects.
-------
ANNUAL TIMETABLE OF
KEY A-106 EVENTS
August - September
August • Pinal evaluation of protects in Draft OMB
Report due from EPA Regions to OFA
• Formal comments on Draft OMB Report due
from Federal Agencies to OFA
• EPA HQ media program office review,
comment, and concurrence on Draft OMB
Report due to OFA
Sept. 1 • Annual CPA report due to OMB
Sept. 15 * Repeat of annual cycle of events
KEY POINTS
• On September 1, OFA delivers OMB
Report to OMB including any unresolved
needed or inadequate sheets.
• On September 15, OFA formally transmits
copy of Final OMB Report to Federal
agencies.
-------
REPORT TO OMB
• Pollution status report is the basis of the report to OMB
• OMB report contains;
Budget year projections
EPA's analysis of each Federal agency plan
EPA'i evaluation of projects
KEY POINTS
The next OMB report will include an EPA
analysis of each Federal agency's plan.
• The evaluation of each project includes the
relative seriousness of the pollution problem,
that requires correcting.
• More specifically, the evaluation:
defines the current status of the facility
with regard to its compliance with the
applicable environmental standard as
required by law
defines the severity of the impact of the
pollutant on the immediate environment.
• EPA's evaluations are used as a guide by OMB
in assessing the Federal agencies' fiscal year
budget.
-------
EDWARD (2)
-------
EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
ACTIVITIES
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C.
-------
federal register
Wednesday
July 9, 1986
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Auditing Policy Statement;
Notice
-------
What is EPA's Definition
of Environmental Auditing?
^¦9B^«MBHHHBBnHHiMHH99BBBBSnBae9SSSHBEaDBB9BHBBaB9SSe5aS
A REVIEW
Periodi:
Systematic
Documen :ed
Objectiv e
Regulate 1
Entities
Facility
Operations
and
Practices
To Assure
Meeting
Environmen tal
Requirements
-------
Audits Can Accomplish
Any or All of the Following:
——» <1^—111 I mill II — I I ¦¦ ¦
• Verify Environmental
Compliance
• Evaluate the effectiveness of
environmental management
system
• Assess risks from regulated and
unregulated practices
-------
What is the Purpose of the Policy?
• Encourage environmental auditing for
all regulated entities
• Ensure Consistent EPA Responses
• Clarify EPA's Policy on Requests for
Audit Reports, etc.
-------
What are the Environmental Auditing
Policy Statement's Key Provisions?
1. Definition
11. Encouragement
111. Requests for Reports
IV. Inspections and Enforcement
V. Federal Facilities
VI. State and Local Roles
VII Elements of Auditing
-------
Elements of Effective
Environmental Auditing
• Management Support
• Auditor Independence
• Staffing and Training
• Written Procedures
• Gathering Audit Evidence
• Written Reports
• Quality Assurance
-------
What Is EPA's Policy on
Requests for Audit Reports ?
"...EPA will not routinely request audit
reports."
"...exercised on a case-by case basis..."
"...and where the information needed
cannot be obtained from...data
otherwise available..."
-------
What Is EPA's Audit Policy for
Federal Agencies
• Encourages all Federal agencies to institute
environmental auditing programs
• Same policy as toward private firms
• EPA will provide technical assistance to design
programs
• Possible Interagency agreements
-------
What Is EPA's Audit Policy for
Federal Agencies
• EPA encourages Federal agencies's to submit
findings with action plans to EPA
• Report needed projects through the A-106
process
• EPA may coordinate with agencies on public
release of findings
• FOIA policies govern requests for audit
information
-------
EPA Assistance to Federal Agencies
—¦ i in ii II mi wii
1984: Environmental Auditing Conference
for Federal Agencies
1985:Workshop for U.S. Army
1987: Report on Federal Agency Auditing
Activities
1988: Second Environmental Auditing
Conference for Federal Agencies
1989: Audit Program Design Guidelines
and Generic Audit Protocols
-------
Sammaiy of Federal Agency
Environmental Auditing Programs
Partial Program
Program Under
Development
No
Program
Comprehensive
Program
36 AGENCIES
1 Current as of end of I'Y 1987
-------
Summary of Federal Agency
Environmental Auditing Programs
;'A;
;'u
0*
¦ill
: >-
COM
Food & Drug Admin.
Bureau of the Mint
Bureau of Printing
& Engraving
19 agencies have no auditing program
TVA
DOE
N1H
EPA
NASA
U.S. Army
U.S. Air Force
Defense Logistic;
Agency
Pa. tial Program
Ui.der Development
| Comprehensive
No Auditing Program
-------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Environmental Audit Program
Design Guidelines
for Federal Agencies
-------
What is the Purpose of
These Guidelines?
To provide Federal agencies
with written guidance to assist
them in establishing internal
audit programs.
-------
Unique Federal Facility
Auditing Issues
• Agency Mission vs. Environmental
Compliance
• Organizational Structure of Federal
Agencies
• Organization Levels
• Personnel Management
• Budgeting and Appropriations Activities
• A-106 Planning Process
• National Security
• Freedom of Information Act
-------
Cuapter i.
Chapter 2.
Chapter
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Chapter ?.
Chapter S.
A, pendlcs:
Guidelines Include:
Introduction
Unique Federal Facility Auditing Issues
Needs and Objectives for an Audit Program
Development of an Environmental Audit Program
Implementation of an Environmental Audit Program
Reporting Results of an Environmental Audit
Corrective Actions
Evaluation of Audit Program Effectiveness
EPA's Environmental Auditing Policy Statement
Sources of Information and Training
-------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Generic Protocol for
Environmental Audits
at Federal Facilities
-------
What is the Purpose
of these Protocols?
To p- ovide Federal agencies with a set of
mvilti-media generic protocols which can
be used to:
• Conduct audits at their facilities, or;
• Provide guidance for development of
agency-specific protocols
-------
What Are
Audit Protocols?
• Provides detailed instructions for qualified
individuals to follow in conducting
environmental audits.
• C insists of step-by-step directions on:
- What records must be reviewed,
- What physical features to inspect,
- Who to interview,
- What questions to ask facility
personnel.
-------
The Generic Protocol Includes:
Chapter
1. Introduction
2. Audit Procedures
3. Air
4. Asbestos
5. Drinking Water
6. Water Pollution
7. Non-Hazardous Solid Waste
8. Hazardous Waste
9. Past Disposal of Hazardous Material
lO Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
-------
The Generic Protocol Includes: (Cont.)
Chapter
11. PCB Management
12. Pesticides
13. Radioactive Materials
14. Underground Storage Tanks
15. Environmental Noise
15. Natural Resources
17. Cultural Resources
18. Environmental Impact Documentation
19. Environmental Management Results
-------
Schematic Overview of the
Audit Process
PREUMll ART GATHERING EVALUATING AND
OVERV1 £V AUDIT INFORMATION REPORTING
ItEVIKU
I'KK AlJIh
(JlJESTIONN. IKE
hkvisf. n : .M
Al II JIT
man a;.
Ni;c:Kst,Ai>y
out i»kiitin<;
wrm faciuiy
manac;hmi;ni
di-:vki.oi»
PKKI.IMINAKY t.lST
OF AUDIT FINDINGS
FUKII lt:i< DlSt :i ISSK »NS
AND EXAMINATION
TO VEKIFY FINDINGS
comh.eh:
1.1ST
OK AUDIT
FINDINGS
IN UltlEK;(MG
KVAI.HAIi: INTKWNAI.
management
COINTI KOI.S
Urvlrw S<
Inlcivlrw Facility
Mana^rtiirnl
DETAII.ED ItEVIEW OF
facility pkactices
111 ilrptli Interview:*
- Additional Tours
Examine Ucirords
-------
Subparts of Each Chapter
• Description
• Applicability
• Regulatory Scope
• State and Local Regulatory
Authority
• Management Issues
• Agency Policy
• Reference Checklist
-------
Example: Auditor's Instruction
Activity: PCB Management
Records to Review:
• Inspection, storage, maintenance and disposal records for PCBs/PCB
11 ems
• PCB equipment inventoiy and sampling results
• Correspondence wilh regulatory agencies concerning PCB
noncompliance situations
• Annual reports.
Physical Features to Inspect:
• PCD storage areas
• iCquipnunt, fluids and other items used or stored at the facility that
contain PCBs.
People to Interview:
• Knviroimicnlal Compliance Officer
• facilities Manager.
-------
Example: Checklst
Activity: ^CB Management Facility: Auditor: Pate:
Regulatory
Citation
Auditor's Instructions
Comments
Finding
Number
40 (T'K
761 ft*
Smriitfe nf HCll Items:
• .Stored f'CU iIcik.s jic ins|>ccied cvii y M) Ujys
(or leaks.
11 '11 items are stored in 1X )T-appioved coiiiaiii-
CIS.
• Moveable equipment used lo handle t'C.'il ileitis
is decontaminated prioi to leaving storage aiea.
Stoied I t "lis and I'Clt items are disposed of
wiiliin one year lioni dale llicy weic placed in
storage.
1 .img-io .n storage t.iciliucs (kietwccn todays
and one yeai) meet die following ici|iiiicfi>ciiis:
Koof and walls ol the facility prevent
i.iiuwaier liom teaching I'Ciis and If li
llClllS
I lie facility lias continuous ciuhing
{11intnniini (t inches) and llieic are no
i lacks in floor
1 lie floor and milling are made ol ciin-
i.nuoitsly smooth and ini|iervious iiiaicri-
-jIs such as I'oitland ceuienl or steel
( itni.iiiiiik.nl vnliiiiie of tlie facility
equals ttr cm eals the volume cijn.il to
i .vice the internal volume ol the laigesl
i
-------
Also Included in Protocol
A survey to evaluate the environmental
management system in place at the facility
Numerous Appendices
- List of state environmental agencies
- Waste streams that are landfill banned
- Suspended, cancelled, and restricted
pesticides
- PCB labels
-------
EPA Reports & Papers
oil Environmental Auditing
<• Curre at Audit Practices
• Auditing Issues
• Guidance on Auditing Under Settlement
Agree ments
• Protocols for Auditing Underground Tanks
• EPA 1 ab Audit Protocols
• Fedei al Agencies' Auditing Activities
» Bibliographies on:
- En vironmental Auditing
- Environmental Management Programs
• Sourt es of Environmental Auditing Information
and 1 raining
-------
What are Major Components of
EPA's Audit Program?
• Laboratories
• Multi-Media
• 3-Year Cycle
• Audit Protocols
• Third-Party
• HQ Member on all Audit Teams
• Overview of Agencywide
Non-Compliance Patterns/Problems
-------
SUEMISSICN AND REVIEW OF FEDERAL ACENCY A-106
POLLUTION ABATEMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS
Section 3(a)(3) of Executive Order 12088 requires that Federal agencies
sutmit Pollution Abatanent Plans seni-annually to EPA for review. Hie
process for developing and maintaining these plans is described by the
Office of management and Budget (OB) Circular no. a-106 dated Dec enter
31, 1974. Through this established process. Federal facilities plan
projects in order to aisure continuing compliance to meet ne«r regulatory
requirements, or to correct problems or violations identified by the EtA
or 'States. As part of this strategy, EPA will be attempting to inprove
the A-106 process to address more effectively potential carpiiance
problems at Federal facilities before they become violations and to focus
agary attention an identified EEA media progr jn carpiiance priorities.
Ifte development of Pollution Abatemsit Plans provides a mecliarusn for
Federal Agaxries to analyze their currait and projected funding
requirements for their pollution abatement projects. Uiese reports also
provide agencies with information to plan for future program resource
requirements. nj be fully effective the A-106 five-year plan most be
coordinated and staffed internally within each individual Federal agency.
Consistart with the provisions of the Anti-Deficimcy Act, EPA will
advise the Federal agorcies and CI© on obtaining the required funding
levels for polluticm abatement projects through various means, such as:
o Requesting supplemental appropriations
o Reprograming of appropriated funds
o Utilizing the established appropriations process.
Identification of Priority Projects
The A-106 process is primarily a system of setting priorities so
environmental control projects are completed as required to ~eet
statutory and regulatory requirements. There are never enough fv-nds
.-.vailabie to complete all desired projects in one fiscal year. T:'.e ^-10-r
process is a five-year plan which programs projects over an extended
per:-:c ot t_~s. The primary focus of the prcc~=3 i ; jive the h I
priority to those facilities that are out of corrpiiance or will go out of
compliance if project funding schedules are not met. A-106 is unique
•.-•i-Juri the government budgeting system in that it directs EPA to review
3-9T!C".' dIcITlS for CT-3 r o rJr"L5t '-'ill ^*9 13*10
crcrru letted ccr^li^r.c0 i'BS- v.";.0r0 u'.-rv rLi-? 'Vf. —
EPA will recormend to CMB t-hat Federal agency budget requests oe revised
to meet established priorities.
-------
A-106 Ccrpliarce Process
CT-3 has established a hierarchy of nine different compliance categories
divided, into three distinct classes. EPA places its highest priority on
Class 1 projects. These projects are needed at Federal facilities which
are in physical noncompliance and/or have received an enforcanent action
from EPA or a State. The following three categories are included in
Class I:
o CMPA - projects needed to support a signed Compliance
Agreement or Consent Order.
o 1N0V Projects needed to correct deficiencies cited on an
inspection or Notice of Violations (NOV) by a regulatory
authority
o ESDP - Other projects which are required immediately
because a statutory or regulatory deadline has passed.
Class II projects are next in priority to EPA. These projects are needed
at facilities which are not yet out of compliance, but win be if not
implemented prior to certain deadlines in the future. Class II projects
are the most difficult to program for because the required compliance
dates are in the future, standards may still be in the process of being
established, and no inspections will have been conducted by regulatory
agencies. Nevertheless, if Federal agencies do not initiate their
rgrsdial plans now, it is inevitable they will be out of compliance when
the deadlines arrive. The Federal Planning, programming and Budgeting
Systsn (PPBS) is very complex and takes too long to arrive at quick fixes
for substantial projects. Class II projects make up a substantial part of
Federal agency unfunded requirements and are divided into two
categories:
o ESDF-Projects for facilities which do not rrteet established
."-^rdards, bv.t the cciTpLiar.ce deadline is in -J".9
future.
o PSDF-Projects for facilities where there is a pending
standard that cannot be met and the compliance deadline
is in the future.
'.-."¦.ere Federal agencies !'ave not pl.vnei for projects in this c lass, there
maybe a requirement for EPA to provide additionax technical assistance to
ensure they are aware of the requirements.
-------
Class III projects include a potpourri of situations which are of less
importance to EPA at the present time but which maybe important
cempliar.ce issues in the future, if not constructed. While of less
importance to EPA, they may be a very high priority to the Federal
agency. This class includes the following:
o ESRO-Facility meets established standard but needs
replacenent because of obsolescence.
o ESRE-Facility meets established standard but needs
expansion or will go out of compliance.
o ESDL-Facility meets established standards but project is
needed for other than ccnpliarvce reasons. Will daronstrate
leadership
o OIHR-Other reasons not falling in categories described
above.
Targeting Resources to Mdress Priority Areas
In addition to compliance status priorities, EPA media programs normally
establish yearly program priorities which describe t-hocp where.-tliey.
wiii target inspections and otherwise place their limited enforcement
resources. Since ETA and State regulatory authorities have decided these
are their most important environmental concerns, it would be appropriate
for Federal agencies to become aware of and target their resources in a
similar direction. EPA will comunicate its priorities to other Federal
agancies to the extent they are released to the general regulated
comnunity.
At the beginning of each fiscal year OFA will coordinate with the
Headquarters media program offices to identify a limited number of media
program priorities. OFA will request Federal agencies to direct their
pollution abatement plans at those facilities which have noncompliance
problems in these key areas.
Federal Facility Coordinators and Regional program staff will develop
lists of those Federal facilities which fall under each of -j'.ese
priority areas. Federal agencies will be informed of the EPA priority
areas prior to the start of their annual A-106 planning process.
Regional Federal Facility Coordinators will review proposed ar.d final
A-106 budget submissions to ensure that acceptable project.-; :'-v.-e teen
these media program priority areas. This approach to addressing program
priorities is in addition to, and not in lieu of, EPA's regular use of
-------
a-106 process Overview and Time Table
Tlie annual A-106 process begins each October at the start of the fiscal
year. At this time, copies of the most recently updated list of
pollution abatement projects (Pollution Status Reports) and the latest
report to CMB are provided to the Regional program staff by the Federal
Facilities Coordinatorsfor their continuing review and analysis of
priority areas As described above. The Regional program staff review tlie
list of projects and reconrnend funding and or schedule clianges to be
incorporated into the Federal agency's next A-l submission.
Concurrent with the Region's review of the projects in the Pollution
Status Report, Federal agencies review and update their plans. Tlie
results of this review axe reflected in revised five-year plans which
Federal agencies submit to OFA by Dec artier 15. New projects are submitted
at this time using EPA Form No. 3500-7.
OFA then prepares a revised Pollution Status Report which is distributed
in January to all Federal agencies and EPA Regional offices for review.
The EPA Regional reviews are coordinated and quality assured by each of
the Federal Facilities Coordinators. The media program staffs conduct the
reviews and provide their corments to the Federal Facilities Coordinator.
Each project is reviewed to determine its adequacy in three specific
areas: (1) Engineering; (2) Timing; and{3) Cost. Tlie EPA Regions also
evaluate each project as either High, Medium or low in terms of its
impact on the environment if not funded in the fiscal year requested. In
addition, the Regions identify "additional needed" projects which Federal
agencies have not proposed or submitted for review.
The rrarked-up Pollution Abatement Plan worksheets and any inadequate or
additional needed project sheets are then submitted by the Regions to OFA
in April. OFA subsequently sends the Federal agencies copies of their
worksheet and any inadequate or needed project sheets. These sheets
contain the Regional staffs' explanations as to why a project has been
rated either "inadequate" or "needed". The Federal agencies then respond
to EPA's review by filling out a standard response forrat and updating
their previous clan submissions, copies of the EPA Inadequate and r.'eeded
Sheets and the Federal Agency Response Fonrats are included.
Federal agencies must submit their revised updates of tlie January report
to EPA Headquarters by May 31. OFA then prepares a revised report which
is distributed to the EPA Regions by the and of June for the last review
of the fiscal year. OFA also provides the Regions with vor'-; sheets 5;.d
the Federal agencies responses to the EPA inadequate and :.'eeded project
sheets. During this review Regions focus on those projects in --he
President's Budget Year (currently 2). Regional staff aLso will review
-'-e «-n orc-o <-hat oro^ects have teen oropcsed to correct
violations identified in EPA and State inspectors and r.oncc-rp.:=
prcbiars in identified program priority areas.
-------
OFA consolidates Regional ccfrments and provides tr.ein to E7.A Headqviarters
program staff for review and concurrence. In S-pt^rer. T.\e
Administrator provides Cf-S with a sisimary of the budget year projects
and[PA's evaluations. CMB uses this information i:i its review of Federal
agency budget requests.
In October, the.most recent Pollution Status Report (i.e., the report
revised and distributed in June) and the Report to Cr-iB are distributed to
EPA and Federal agencies, initiating the process for the next fiscal
year's budget.
On*an ongoing basis throughout the fiscal year, the Federal Facilities
Coordinators win visit Federal facilities in their respective Regions to
attend preliminary planning and design review conferences on major A-106
projects. At a minimum, Coordinators should assist in planning and
design reviews for all A-106 projects which are over one million dollars
in total cost and for other lesser cost projects which have significant
environmental impact. Federal Facilities Coordinators should request
assistance and participation from EPA program offices on technical
matters where necessary and appropriate.
State Participation in the A-106 Process
v.V.ere programs are delegated to States, Regions ¦-.ill provide with
an early opportunity to become involved in the review of Federal agency
A-106 sutrissions on proposed pollution abatement projects. Each Region
-ill provide the irrespective State agencies with copies of A-106
reports for their States. Each Region win then meet with, -jve: r S-rates
during the January -Farch review period to review and di.sc.iss proposed
projects as they relate to State enforcement actions agaiiist Federal
facilities, general compliance needs of facilities, and identified
noncompliance problems. This State review ray consist of a review of
.abbreviated Pollution Status Report prepared by OFA, annua 1 rr b: a:, v.
A-106 sutmittais from the Federal agencies or scrre Gtn.er 5'jnrary report
prepared by OFA or Regional offices.
-------
Unrtoo Staiei
Environmental Protection
Afltncy
0"k« of
FaOtral ^Tiviiin
F«bruary 1967
&ER& a Review of
Environmental Auditing
Activities in
Federal Agencies
-------
FINAL REPORT
A REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
ACTIVITIES IN FEDERAL AGENCIES
Contract No. 68-01-7252
WOrk Assignment 9
(Subcontract EPA 08-3)
TASK A
Submitted to
Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
Office of External Affairs
and
Regulatory Reform Staff (PM-22 3)
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environnental Protection Agency
401 M Street, 5.W.
Washington, DC 20460
February 1987
FA0G6.0 2/ 1 5B-N
Submitted by
Tvo Flint Hill
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING PROGRAMS 2-1
CHAPTER 3 INFORMATION ON FEDERAL AGENCIES' ENVIRONMENTAL 3-1
AUDITING ACTIVITIES
Department of Agriculture
- Agricultural Research Service 3-3
- Farmers Home Administration 3-4
- Forest Service 3-5
Department of Commerce 3-6
Department of Defense
- Department of the Air Force 3-7
- Department of the Army
- Army Corps of Engineers 3-8
- Army Environmental Office 3-9
- Army Materiel Command 3-10
- Defense Logistics Agency 3-1i
- Department of the Navy 3-12
Department of Energy 3-13
environmental Protection Agency 3-15
General Services Administration 3-16
Department of Health and Human Services
- Food and Drug Administration 3-17
- Indian Health Service 3—i8
- National Institute of Health 3-19
r?:a:".nenc of Housing and Urban Development 3-20
Department of the Interior 3-21
- Fish and Wildlife Service 3-22
- : j. ^ ^ : 3 . - _ j
- 3ureau of Land Management 3-24
- Minerals Management Service 3-25
- Bureau of Mines 3-26
- National Park Service 3-27
- Bureau of Sec lasa tier. '-23
Z z.-.ar.z 3: J" : 3 11 c e : - V9
.National Aeronautics and 3=ace Ai-.i nis tra t. :n 3-30
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
CHAPTER 3 FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS (CONTINUED)
Postal Service 3-31
Smithsonian Institution 3-32
Tennessee Valley Authority 3-33
Department of Transportation
- Coast Guard 3-35
- Federal Aviation Administration 3-36
- Federal Highway Adainiatration 3-37
Department of the Treasury
- Bureau of Engraving and Printing 3-38
- Bureau of the Mint 3-39
Veterans Administration 3-40
APPENDIX A EPA ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING POLICY STATEMENT A-1
iii
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Engineering-Science, 10521 Rosehaven Street, Fairfax, Virginia,
in fulfillment of Subcontract Mo. OA 08-3, Contract No. 68-01-72S2, Work
Assignment 9, in cooperation with Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Inc.
of Vienna, VA. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Sinilarly, mention of company or product names should
not be considered as an endorsement either by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or by Engineering-Science.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review was performed under subcontract to Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation, Inc. (PPE) of Vienna, Virginia. PPE was also respon-
sible for'gathering information on a portion of the agencies included
in this review. Support froa U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
personnel was also instrumental in producing this review, particu-
larly Len Fleckenstein of the Regulatory Reform Staff, and Jim Edward
and Lee Herwig of the Office of Federal Activities.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Environmental auditing is defined as use of a systematic, documen-
ted, periodic, and objective review by regulated entities of facility
operations and practices related to meeting environmental requirements*
Audits can be designed to verify compliance with environmental regula-
tory requirements, evaluate the effectiveness of environmental management:
systems already in place, and to assess risks from regulated or unregula-
ted materials and practices. In this way, environmental auditing can be
an effective tool in an overall environmental management program.
These concepts are reflected in EPA's environmental auditing policy
statement (51 FR 25004, July 9, 1986? 3ee Appendix A of this
Environmental auditing over the last several years has increasingly been
used to aid federal environmental program management. Just as managers
of --.-.dustrial facilities need to know the status of their operations with
respect to environmental compliance and to identify potential environmen-
tal problems, managers of federal facilities need to be able to monitor and
control the environmental impacts of their operations.
Many federal agencies and departments are very cognizant of environ-
mental auditing procedures and principles. To encourage the development
of such programs, EPA sponsored a conference for federal agencies en
environmental auditing in February 1984. Among the subjects discussed
were goals of environmental auditing, designing auditing programs, and
scecifio audit procedures. Since that time, a number of agencies have
started auditing programs, and other agencies have studied how auditing
could :e initiated. The purpose of this report is to review -.-.a status
of current environmental auditing activities of Federal agencies, and to
report any trends that have begun to emerge.
Information was collected for this report in a number of different
vays. Firac, pubiisned documents such a3 the recent report by the U.S.
Government Accounting Office* were collected and reviewed for up-to-date
information on a-'.-li -.i-n ii - • " ~ . ~ . •. . 1
* "Hazardous Waste: Federal Civil Agencies Slow to Comply with ?.ecula-
' uton, 2C, May 1336.
1 -1
-------
: v: .icti-n Agency offices involved with federal auditing activities were
r-?vi.evec to assess the scoce and type of agencies' auditing programs.
7:-ally, follow up phone calls to certain key agency contacts were made
to retain information not otherwise available. The results of this in-
vest i.jation are presented in Chapters 2 and 3.
-2
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OP EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING PROGRAMS
This 'chapter presents in a tabular form a summary of federal agency
environmental auditing activities for agencies that either have or are
actively developing an environmental auditing program (Table 2.1). Agen-
cies that do not currently have environmental auditing programs were not
included in the table. However, information concerning each of the 36
agencies reviewed can be found in Chapter 3.
Key information about each existing environmental auditing program
is presented. In each case, the following information is presented:
1. Program Status - Programs are categorized as follows:
~ Comprehensive program - A formal permanent auditing program has
been established within the agency, including at least an evalua-
tion of facility compliance with all applicable federal, state,
and Local environmental regulations. A comprehensive program
will generally have many, if not all, of the program elements
identified in EPA's environmental auditing policy statement (see
Appendix A).
o Partial program - A formal permanent auditing program has been
established within the agency, but the scope is focused cn one or
more specific topical areas. Agencies with partial programs nay
or nay not have specific auditing procedures or plans for deter-
mining which facilities to audit.
o Program under development - Developing programs may be charac-
terized by one or more activities such as: hiring a contractor
to develop an auditing protocol; initiation of the first formal
comprehensive audit; audits conducted on a limited number of
topical areas with firm plans for expansion into other areas;
or a management commitment to start a program during FY 87.
2. Number of Facilities - The number of facilities currently audited as
part of the agency's formal program is indicated.
3. Frequency of Audit - How often the number of facilities are audited
or are planned to be audited is indicated.
-ten Er.'/i r on men ta 1 Auditing Procedures - This column, -nil rates
¦¦.r.etner a formal prctoco: for auca.c2.ng is used during cne audits.
2-1
-------
TAin.i: 'J.i
:.iiiir,.iHy oi-' ¦ i^jl:uai. :u;i:m:y i:hvi kunmi:i. ial Aunnu:'.' MTmrii..:
II.:!,I /
A.|. I.. y
Ai;i /
i-\. i. ^ t
tic I *. 1 Cd
Ct rt
DOU/l t -
..t tl.ii Aii
Koi .
IJi I)/
Uepl. of
i In: Atiuy
|x I)/
L>c t i iiae
l.utj I > LiC:>
A«|eti<:y
l>OU/Uc[it.
ot i ue
Na v /
ut;
tli A
l'l (1 .1111
SlJl ULi
I'jlLUl
Under develop-
ment IbLolLcil
Nov. l'JU'i
l-'ai: 1 1 I I 1
Ill l'l OiJ 1 till!
l'l.limed at 20
SL I ed |Ki 1" 2- i
Hdj i mid/your
Ki» I al> 1 L 1 led
I i e>pieiu:y
ill Ailil 1 Ls
MliLten
l'l UCcdu 1 L*5
Current
I'rograi*
Scope
Suui Ce ul
Ami 1 L 1 ii>j
lj L
> Dinjii elicits i ve
24
Every
3 yra.
Yes
Coapreltenu i ve
AhllA
Partial
No i.et number
No sec
f requency
Yes
KCKA
Agency
Cuuipi clu iiii t ve
I Started April
I'JUb)
40 (planned)
livery
2 yrs.
Yes
Conprehenui ve
Agency
Cumpreheiis i ve
I'J-l'j per year
Every
3 yra.
Yes
Comprehensive
ConLiac Lot
KJ\.Y ii) Dfcl'AUYH KHTij AND AliKNCY AhUKllV I ATI ON:;
AuU -Aijr I c;u 1 i.ui c
AHC -Army MuLciicl t.oniniainJ
i!UM -Couuim-- i i:c
I n >1J -Du 11- n:ii:
|h)K -Luci «jy
Kl'A -h!uvi i uniin:1 h olci.l Ion A«j«j»u:y
I .It A -tic I i <: I A -National At: r«Muiu C i c:* 4.1 hi i Adihi n l ii 11 a L i uu
TV A -Tuiu i"s- Valley Aulhotity
I )UT -Tf U11.'. | -»t' La L i uli
TKli -Tru.i:^ii y
KEY 1*0 "SOURCE OF AUDITING STAt-l "
Agency -Internal Agency staff
ALIIA -Auditiny by the Army linviMm-
cuental Health Agency
Contractor -contractor auditing
CUNT 1NIIUI) UN
NEXT I'ACE
-------
TAIll.t 2. I--Continued
A<|LIi< /
I't otjram
SLatus
Nuiuliei of
l-'JCl hLlcB
in Pru.jruni
Ku Lal>li slled
lieijtiency
ui Audits
Written
procedures
Current
Proyraa
Scope
Source ot
Aud limy
Statt
Cii/i
lai Ii J 1;
i cvuud
1 'i «»>j['din unJcr
ill." VU lOpUleilL
To be
determined
To be
de i e rm ined
Yes
CCUs, incinerators,
asbestos, and
storage tanks
. Aye nc y <¦
Contractor
i 1 It Li /1'< i. >d i
L>i'u>j
Ailmi I.
Under
tleve lojinem
2
No set
f reyuency
Yes (being
developed)
Comprehensive
(planned)
Ayeiicy U
Contractor
IIIIS/Na I .
1 lib I i . u te
of II.- . 1th
Coiupreliens i ve
12
Every
2 yrd.
Yes
Comprehensive pro-
gram, issue-by-
issue audita
• Ayeiicy
NASA
(nh|>retiel>:_, i ve
'J
To be
determined
Yea
Comprehensive
Contract or
'IV A
( ..nn-rolieiiL. i ve
Jo
( tO dale )
Major facil-
ities every
2 years;
OLlierd every
3 yearn
Yea
Comprehensive
Ayency
|jci,r/i;....at
Cuai. I
THi:/llu. L'dU
nl Kin j i J V .
t. i-i im mij
ti< i:
liui c.. ot
I lie t-\ nt
lJu r t i a 1
'3(J audi led
wi LiuII last J
years
Nu set
1 reyuency
No
kCKA Compliance
Aye tic y {>
Contractor
lliide r
.te ve 14 j 1men L
To be
delerun ned
To be
deLeriuined
To be
determined
Comprehensive
(planned)
Contractor
Under
Jl-Vc lopuiellL
( :, lulled IMm.j
4
Annua 1
No
Mater and hazardous
waste
Ayency
ki:
¦I" l>£fAIJI icil I LUI'c
AMI' - i iny M.ileriel Ciuiniiaii.1
l i JM - - i illlllle 1 i/u
|J( 111 -! L'tuilii;
In J1-: • j ucryy
l-.l'A iiviruuuujiiL.il I'i o I .:i: I. i on A»j*jui:y
l.:iA -..:llerul :!uivii:i:s A. Ill* I u L s I fu L 1 uii
1111: j -i^.iltli an»l Human iv i uitu
tlA'.iA -l.itional Ae1 < mi.ui L i i:ij .mil Aillnl u I. ( la L i i hi
TV A -I Valley Ail tli< M' i l.y
I JUT -lldllJ|« .1 L J li uii
TKI-J -Ti udsm y
Ayency
AKHA
Contractor
-Internal Ayency SLatt
-Audi tiny by tile Army fcnvi i'oiii:i>.n Lu I
Health Agency
-Contractor Audiiiinj
-------
5. Current: Program Scoge - This column indicates audit-
ing activities are limited to certair. environmental : adulations z>c
impacts.
5. Agency/Contractor Auditing - The source of auditing per :-c.mei ^such
as internal agency staff or a contractor's staff) is indicated.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this information. Of the
36 agencies (or organizational unit3) reviewed in this report, 22 agencies
do not currently have an environmental auditing program as described above
under "Program Status". Aa explained previously, this situation does not
indicate that those agencies are not involved in environmental management
activities such as inspections, recordkeeping, and good operation and
maintenance procedures. Many o£ those agencies do in fact have signifi-
cant commitment to such activities as collecting, reviewing, and acting
on environmental information from their facilities (see Chapter 3).
Five agencies currently are in the process of developing environmen-
tal auditing programs. Each o£ these agencies has either started visit-
ing facilities, or has made a management commitment to develop a program
during FY 87. Four agencies are actively implementing partial programs;
one of these is GSA, which is currently developing a more comprehensive
program. Eight agencies presently have established formal comprehensive
environmental auditing programs, generally containing most, if not all,
of the environmental auditing program elements recommended by SPA in its
July 1986 environmental auditing policy statement (Appendix A). For ex-
ample, seven of the eight agencies that are indicated a3 having estab-
lished programs have formal written auditing procedures; the Army Mate-
riel Command is developing such procedures. Five of the eight agencies
that have established programs use contractors to conduct audits (at
least partially). All of the agencies that conduct environmental audits
themselves are organized in a way to assure independent review, such as
including special "environmental auditing" sections or staff from depart-
ment headquarters. An environmental staff person from each faci.ity 3iany
times performs as part of the audit team, but the headquarters staff is
ultimately responsible to report audit recommendations.
Other trends appear to be evident from Table 2.1, vhile there is
no set frequency of auditing for an individual facility, every two to
three years seem3 to be typical. Most current and developing programs
are focusing comprehensively on all relevant environmental regulations
and impacts. To the extent that some programs concentrate on certain
issues, hazardous waste and water quality accear to be receiving the
.-est emphasis. A detailed description of eac.n federal uger.cy mciuoea
in the report follows in Chapter 3.
2-4
-------
CHAPTER 3
INFORMATION ON FEDERAL AGENCIES' ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDITING ACTIVITIES
This chapter presents an agency-by-agency description o£ environ-
mental and auditing-related activities. After each program description
(including a contact's name, address, and telephone number), are specific
details of individual programs. In each case, the following information
is presented:
1. Program Status: Categorizes programs in the same way as in Chapter 2;
"Program Status" therefore describes the current state of an agency's
environmental auditing activities. If "No program" 13 indicated,
then the agency has no specific environmental auditing program (as
described on p. 2-1) as a part of its overall environmental manage-
ment activities. Other environmental compliance activities may of
course be proceeding. If an agency currently has no program, audit-
ing program information as described below is indicated as not appli-
cable (MA) .
2. Program Scope; To the extent that an agency has an environmental
auditing program, indicates how comprehensive in terms of environ-
mental issues the audits are designed to be. For example, if audits
are only designed to review compliance with RCRA regulations, this
focus will be reflected under "Program Scope."
3. Agency/Contractor Auditing: Indicates whether audits are pri-arily
conducted by agency personnel, contractors, or a ccmoma-ion of the
two.
4. Responsible Office(s); Provides a perspective on how an auditing
program is organized, the responsible offices, and/or organizational
units are presented. ¦Generally, if the facilities or environmental
office of an agency's headquarters is responsible for an auditing
program (even if a contractor does the audits), then "Headquarters"
i3 indicated.
5. Auditing Purpose: Lists three distinct purposes for on-going programs.
"Compliance Analysis" is focused on whether or not specific compliance
with environmental regulations is assessed (e.g., regulations estab-
lished under RCRA). "Management Review" is oriented towards ensur-
"Liability Assessment" is :::en:ed towards ccr.crenens ive evaluation
3-1
-------
zi facilities' overall environmental i.ipac:s, regardless of wnether
:: not those -r.pacts are specifically rejulatea.
5. Audit frequency: Indicates how often individual facilities are re-
quired to be audited.
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency, department: AgriculcuraL Research Service/
Department of Agriculture
Contact/Title: Say Leaman, Director,
General Service Division
Address: Room 329, Building 003
3ARC West
Beltsville, MD 20705
Phone Number: (301) 344-3522
Program Description: The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) presently
haa no formal environmental auditing program. ARS has about 140 facility
locations with facilities ranging from small (two-men) research labora-
tories to operations with hundreds of staff utilizing several buildings.
The area offices (regional) cover a several-state area. The ARS performs
annual safety and health inspections from their area offices. ARS has
sent its facilities a questionnaire concerning RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, and
-IFRA compliance. ARS hopes that the questionnaire will help them evalu-
ate their overall compliance status and to assess their environmental
auditing needs.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: SA
Acency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): MA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
"As described on p. 2-1 .
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Acencv/Cepar tner.::
Contact/Title:
Address:
Farmers Home Administration/
Department of Agriculture
John Hansel, Program Support Staff
Room 6309
Washington, DC 202S0
Phone Number: (202) 382-9619
Program Description: FmHA has no environmental auditing program in place,
but they are interested in environmental auditing programs to determine
potential liability when FmHA guarantees a business loan ol* takes tempor-
ary possession of business or farm property. FmHA does an environmental
assessment for loan guarantees on new businesses or business expansions
(e.g. a boat building business wants a loan to expand its business) or
when selling a business or farm property that is to be used for a purpose
other than originally intended. The FmHA assessments are primarily con-
cerned with buried hazardous wastes.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
-------
FEDERAL A32NCY AUDI rillC rIVIZW
Agency/Department: Forest Service/Department of Agriculture
Contact/Title: Bill Opfer, Environmental Health Engineering
Address: 14th St. and Independence Ave., 5.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Phone number: (202) 235-8019; (202) 447-4689 - Staff Office
Program Description: The Forest Service auditing program i3 under de-
velopment. The Forest Service has had a monitoring program in place for
about three years concerning environmental matters, covering over 6,000
ranger stations, campgrounds and picnic areas. Many of the facilities
have some form of water treatment (drinking water), waste treatment (sep-
tic tank or some waste process), and underground storage tanks. The
agency has policies and procedures for evaluating most of the environ-
mental areas, using primarily sanitary engineers in field visits. Head-
quarters office will typically monitor 20 sites in 2-3 regions each year;
regional offices monitor many additional 3ites each year. The cost of
visiting a site is several hundred dollars per site, when a facility is
visited, a written critique is sent to the facility. The Regions gener-
ally provide Headquarters with a corrective action report (although this
is not required).
The Forest Service believes that in the future they will have to emphasize
environmental programs related to RCRA and CERCLA. Seme planning effort
has been recently started in these areas. Environmental Health Engineer-
ing at headquarters has responsibility for policy guidance, while regional
offices have technical compliance responsibilities.
Program Status: Partial program established
Program Scope: Will include water, wastewater, underground storage
tank requirements, RCRA and CERCLA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Agency
Responsible of f ice( s ) : Headquarters ar.d Regional
- - » - - S 3
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES-partial
Liaoility Assessment _NC.
Audit Frequency: Varies by program and/or type of facility
3-5
-------
ncERAL INCv auditing -r/ii.-;
Agency/Cepartment: Depar traer.c of Commerce
Contact/Title:
Address:
Ed wilczynski, Acting Chief, Ecology and Conservation
Division
NCAA Ecology and Conservation Division (3F/ECD),
Room #6814, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington,
D.C. 20230
Phone Number: (202) 377-5181
Program Description: The Department of Commerce is initiating an environ-
mental auditing program scheduled to begin in November 1986. Six sites
will be audited at first and then more will be audited if the audits un-
cover problems. The audits will examine five types of facilities: NOAA
fisheries laboratories, NBS underground storage tanks, NOAA vessel and
ship support facilities, the EDA Wisconsin Steel site, and the Patent and
Trademark Office microfiche processing facility. NOAA is responsible for
25 research vessels that are periodically maintained in ship support fa-
cilities, such as the one in Miami. The cost of total audit contract is
535,000. Possible future sites include other Economic Development Admin-
istration (EDA) sites (businesses that were lent money, went bankrupt,
and were acquired by EDA), NOAA printing shops, and miscellaneous vehicle
fueling and maintenance operations. Audits will be conducted over a one
to three day period by the contractor and personnel from the agency
(either Ed Wilczynski or David Cottingham). The written procedures are
being developed by the contractor. EPA has conducted formal training for
NOAA regional safety personnel in auditing procedures.
The Ecology and Conservation Division is now in the budget office, but is
likely to be transferred soon to the newly proposed Office of the Chief
Scientist, NCAA. It will regain in the Office of the NCAA Administrator,
separate from the five NOAA line offices.
Prot-m 5 •. a5 *. ?r^tt n urids1* isv °^ ccinsn va 5 3 ~ r. -2 .i'
in November 19 36
Program Scope: Plan abbreviated audits of all media
Azer.cy/Ccr.tractor Auditi.-.c: Contractor plus cne j:?-:
tive
to
reoreser.ta-
.3 .. z> - ~ ^
¦ - - 3 J
Auditing Purpose:
.ait : rec-encv :
Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review '{ES
Liability Assessment NO
3-6
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Department of the Air Force/Department oE Defense
Contact/Title: Capt. Gail Graben, Environmental Engineering
Project Office
Address: Headquarters Air Force/LEEV
Boiling AFB, DC 20332
Phone Number: (202) 767-461*6
Program Description: the Air Force's environmental auditing program
began 2 years ago and thus far between 30 and 40 facilities have been
audited. The Air Force prograa consists of pilot programs run by
individual commands rather than a standard agency wide prograa. The
typical audit teas consists of 3 or 4 people and they spend approximately
one week in the field per audit. The makeup of the team varies between
commands, but generally consists of either contractors or environmentally
trained Air Force personnel. A typical audit costs 525,000 - $30,000 if
performed by contractors and $12,000 - $15,000 if performed by Air Force
personnel. Air Force Headquarters has developed a written -ui:. ting
procedure and it is used as a guideline by the various commands. Following
an audit, the facility receives a written report of the audit findings.
The commands have the responsibility to see that audit recommendations
are implemented.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audits of all environmental media
Acency/Contractor Auditing: Combination
Responsible office(s): Each command
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review NO
Liability Assessment NO
Audit Frequency: No set frequency
3-7
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Army Corps of Engineers,
Natural Resources Management Branch
Contact/Title: Mr. Carl Brown, Chief
Mdress: HQUSACE (DAE-CWO-R), 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20314
Phone Number: (202) 272-1789
Program Description: Th« civil works section of the Army Corps of Engi-
neers has management responsibilities for locks and dams on intercoastal
waterways in the U.S. The Corps generates and/or disposes of hazardous
materials in the form of oils, solvents, PCB's, and contaminated dredged
material. Environmental compliance is handled by personnel at the dis-
trict level. Headquarters broadly reviews the management activities of
district personnel. The Corps currently does not have an environmental
auditing program.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment _NA
Audi; frequency: NA
•As described on p. 2-1.
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Department of the Army, Army Environmental Office/
Department of Defense
Contact/Title:• Col. Thomas Magness, Chief
Address.: HQDA (DAEN-ZCE), Washington, DC 20310-2600
Phone Number: (202) 694-1163
Program*Description: The Department of the Army has a total of approxi-
mately 300 facilities. The audit program is established, but individual
commands have responsibility for their own facilities' program* commands-
are therefore at different stages of development. In the past three
years, 11 audits have been conducted (exclusive of audits performed at
facilities of the Army Materiel Command -see program description on the
following page). Each audit has included air, water, and hazardous waste
regulatory reviews. Personnel responsible for conducting the audits in-
clude personnel from the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), and
individual facility personnel (with environmental backgrounds). The team
usually consists of 8 to 10 people and each audit takes 3 to 5 days to
complete. AEHA is preparing written procedures so that audits can be
conducted by other personnel. A written report is prepared following
each audit, and each command is responsible for following up on audit
recommendations. Future plans include a comprehensive written audit
protocol.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audits of all media; also production
of guidance to commands concerning comprehensive
audit procedures
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Each command and the Army Environ-
mental Hvaiene -.-.lenrv
Responsible offi
Auditing Purpose
A'-di t frequency:
ce(s): Each command
: Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review iIS
Liability Assessment NO
Ivery 3 -o 5 years
3-9
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Ager.cy/Department: Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command
(AMC)/Department of Defense
Contact/Title: Mr. Bill Hasselkus, Chief - Environmental Quality
Assurance
Addres3: Headquarters, Army Materiel Command
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333
Phone Number: (703) 274-9016
Program Description! The AMC's environmental auditing program began one
year ago and thus far approximately SO out of 65 AMC facilities have been
audited. The typical audit teaa consists of 3 or 4 people and they spend
approximately one week in the field per audit. Ttie team is made up of
technical environmentally trained contractors. The typical audit costs
$15,000 to perform. AMC has planned formal written procedures for conducting
audits though these procedures have not yet been finalized. Following an
audit, the facility receives a written report of the audit findings. AMC
is responsible to see that audit recommendations are implemented. AMC
plans to switch to in-house auditing after all facilities have been
audited once by contractors.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audits of all environmental media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Contractor
Responsible office(s): Headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis TES
Management Review 'i ZS
Liability .Assessment MO
Audit Frequency: Annual
2-10
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Deparunent: Defense Logistics Agency/Department of Defense
Contact/Title: Mr. Dennis Lillo, Environmental Protection Specialist
Address: Environmental Protection Office
Cameron Station
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone Number: (703) 274-6967
Program Description: The DLA is a separate agency within DoD that runs
storage depots and supply centers. The DLA*s environmental auditing
program began 2 years ago and thus far 24 out of its 2S facilities have
been audited. All media (i.e. air, water, hazardous waste) are included
in the audit. The typical audit team consists of 5 or 6 people and they
spend approximately 2 weeks in the field per audit. The team is made up
from the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency plus one representative from
headquarters. A typical audit costs $15,000 - $25,000 to perform, the
DLA has a formal written auditing procedure which they follow. The staff
ia trained in auditing procedures. After a facility has been;audited,
the facility receives a written report of the audit findings. The DLA.
does follow up to ensure that audit recommendations are implemented.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audit of all environmental media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
and one representative from Head-
quarters
Responsible office(s): Headquarters Environmental Protection :
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis ~S
Management Review YES
Liability Assessment YES
Audit Frequency: Each facility once every 3 years
3-1 t
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: U.S. Navy/Department of Defense
Contact/Title: Carl Zillig
Address: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OP 45),
Department of the Navy
Washington, DC 20350
Phone Number: (202) 433-2069
Program Description.: The Navy has conducted environmental inspections
for some time. The current auditing program, which is part of its over-
all environmental activities, is focused on RCRA. six regional offices
~f the Navy Energy and Environmental Support Command are responsible for
the audita, which include teams of one to three people who spend one to
four days at a facility. Audit teams use a guideline for their audits,
and reports are sent by the Energy and Environmental Support Command to
the facility and to responsible Command Admirals with a cover letter.
(Facilities which are audited may involve operations of more than one
command.) About 100 facilities a year have been audited in this way,
but auditing is only one of the environmental responsibilities of the
regional office staff and there is no established frequency for auditing
of any particular facility.
Program Status: Partial program
Program Scope: Predominantly RCRA facility audits
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Agency
Responsible office(s): 5 regional engineering commands
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review YES
Liability Assessment NO
Audit Frequency: No sec frequency
3-1 2
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Department of Energy
Contact/Title: John Barker, Director, Office oc Environmental
Audit and Compliance
Address t- 1000 Independence Avenue, 3.W.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone Number: (202) 252-5680
Program Description! The Department of Energy (DOB) is responsible for
the government's energy research and development programs, defense-related
activities, and other special energy programs such as the strategic petro-
leum reserves. To cakry out these responsibilities, the Department owns,
and operates through contractual arrangements, many different facilities.
These facilities include plutonium and nuclear weapons producing plants,
metals processing plants, strategic oil reserves, electrical power trans-
mission facilities, and energy-related and environmental and bio-medical
research laboratories. To assess the environmental impacts of its opera-
tions, DOE has initiated an environmental survey which will ultimately
serve to establish priorities and develop long-range planning for cor-
recting environmental problems and reducing potential risks. In addition,
the Office of Environmental Audit and Compliance is to develop a program
of environmental audits which will be undertaken at the conclusion of the
rvey in late 1988.
survey includes on-site reviews of the physical environmental condi-
j at individual facilities, interviews with key personnel., and sam-
..q and analysis of areas of potential environmental risk. The pro-
;-.ed budget for the survey effort is §60 million. The survey is being
.Ttanaged- under the leadership of an Office Director with experience in
environmental auditing and compliance matters, and conducted by 5 teams
led and managed by DOE environmental professionals experience in
environmental auditing and environmental regulatory compliance. The DOE
teams are supplemented with technical experts provided by a contractor.
Team members, including contractor support, are trained in-house in de-
tailed auditing procedures and environmental regulation. The survey i3
then conducted through the use of a written manual which details proce-
dures and protocols to be followed. The on-site survey activities of
each site are documented by a written draft rep-crt. The irait report
is then revised to include the results of the sampling and analysis
performed at the particular site. Ultimately, a final report covering
ail facilities will be written to document tr.e er.ci re survey, -i..u .in
include the prioritization of areas of environmental risk for corrective
action. The continuing program of environmental audits to be initiated
after the completion of the survey is currently being developed. DOE has
not yet decided whether the audits will begin only after the Survey is
ities will be included.
(continued on p. 3-14)
3-1 3
-------
Jepartaent of Energy (continued)
Program Status: Comprehensive program established (survey phase)
Program Scope: Comprehensive audits including all environmental
media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Combination
Responsible Office(s): Headquarters (Office of Environmental Audit
and Compliance)
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review YES
Liability Assessment YES
Audit Frequency* To b« determined
3-1 4
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contact/Title: Karen Reed, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Program
Addresst 401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone Number* (202) 382-3646
Program Description: EPA initiated an environmental auditing prograa in
early 1986. The present emphasis of the prograa is the multi-media envi-
ronmental auditing of EPA facilities (particularly laboratories). EPA
had a protocol developed by a consultant for auditing its laboratory fa-
cilities. Consultant teams were hired to perform the audits with an EPA
representative accompanying the teaa on some audits. EPA expects to have
13 audits completed in fiscal year 1986 (FY 86), and all its laboratory
facilities audited by the end of PY88.
The audit team members have environmental, chemistry and occupational
health backgrounds. After an audit, a draft report is written and sub-
mitted to the EPA* a Environmental Compliance Program Man&gar. The draft
report and recommendations for corrective actions are then sent to the
audited facility. This facility in turn reviews and comments on the
draft report sending the comments and an Action Plan to Headquarters.
A final report is developed which then goes to the audited facility.
The final report and the Action Plan are distributed to EPA Regional
Offices and to the appropriate state. The environmental audits require
2-4 auditors at a facility for 2 to 3 days and the cost per audit (in-
cluding travel) is between $8,000 and $10,000. Auditing at EPA is the
responsibility of the Headquarters Occupational Health and Safety Staff.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audits of all environnental media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Contractor with Headquarters support
P.sspor.sible 0ffice(3): Headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Ua ^ a a - q •• v o •
Liability Assessment iZS
Audit Frequency: Planned for once each 3 years
3-15
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: General Services Administration
Contact/Title: Jeff Bauer, Chief, Safety and Environmental
Management Branch, Public Building Service
Address: Room 4312, 18th and F Sts., N.w.
Washington, DC 20405
Phone Number: (202) 566-1464
Program Descriptions GSA owns and operates buildings and has a total of
7,000 buildings they are contractually involved with. GSA has had a very
limited form of environmental auditing in the regions for about 5 years,
but mainly in the areas of asbestos and pcbs. For the last year, GSA
has made an effort to establish a centralized and broader (multi-media)
environmental auditing prograa using a contractor. GSA owns and operates
buildings and has a total of 7,000 buildings they are contractually in-
vo lved wi th.
The regional audits consist of two to three auditors visiting a building
site for a half-day or a depot for three days, and utilizing a RCRA/CERCLA
protocol developed by a contractor. The auditors' backgrounds usually
include fire protection, industrial health and environmental engineering.
GSA Regions have had some survey forms for inspecting incinerators, oil
tanks, PCBs, and asbestos. (The staff attends some seminars and short
courses on such subjects as hazardous waste site assessments.) When a
Regional Office visits a field facility, a report i3 written and sent
to the field facility. The Regional Office follows up on the report to
ensure field office corrections. The audit program is now being centra-
lized to achieve consistency across Regions and to make the audits more
comprehensive.
Program Status: Program under development; partial program
established
Program Scope: Audit mainly for.PCBs, asbestos, incinerators, and
oil tanks
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Combination
Responsible Office(s): Regional offices presently, but program
vill be transferred to headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YZS
Management Review SO
Liability Assessment NO
3-16
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Food and Drug Administration/Depar-.-nent of Health
and Human Services
Contact/Title: William H. Hoffman, Chief
Long Range Facilities Planning Staff
Address:. Food and Drug Administration
Rm 10-63 (HFA 205)
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone Number: <301) 443-4432
Program Description: A pilot environmental auditing program is currently
under development. The program will address multi-media pollution control
topics. The major focus of concern will be disposal of hazardous chemical
wastes from agency laboratories* Current plans are to have a contractor
develop a pilot auditing program for the FDA and initiate it in FY 1987.
Program Status: Program under development
Program Scope: Planned comprehensive audits for all media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Combination for pilot audit3
Responsible Office(s): Headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES (planned)
Management Review YES (planned)
Liability Assessment NO
Audit Frequency: To be determined
3-1 7
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department:
Contact/Title:
Indian Health Service
Division of Environmental Health/Department of
Health and Human Services
Bruce R. Chelikowsky
Chief, Environmental Management Branch
Address: Parklawn Building
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockvilla, MO 20850
Phone Number: (301) 443-1054
Program Description: The program of the Indian Health Service is oriented
towards a review of selected Inspection reports focused on compliance. The
Service's inspections or surveys cover a broad range of facilities, rang-
ing from hospitals to restaurants, many of which are owned and operated by
other government agencies. Compliance with the requirements of federal
environmental statutes is one issue addressed in the Service's inspections.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
*As described on p. 2-1.
-------
Agency/Deparanent:
Contact/Title:
Address:
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
National Institute of Health/Department of
Health and Hunan Services
Harvey Rogers, Chief, Environmental Protection Branch
Bldg. 13, Room 2E63
9000 Rockvilla pike
Bethesda, MD 20892
Phone Number* (301) 496-3537
Program Descriptions Th« National Institute of Health has a main campus
(300 acres with 40 buildings) in Bethesda, MD, and several smaller facil-
ities in other parts of the country. The National Institute of Health
has an active environmental auditing program and has been performing
audits for fifteen months. They have performed almost a dozen audits at
the main campus* Each audit is on a different issue, such as hazardous
waste, air pollution discharges, or infectious waste. The audit team
generally consists of three persons (an environmental auditing expert, a
scientist from a laboratory, and an administrative person), and requires
2-3 days of field work. The environmental staff receive short courses
and seminars on environmental regulations and the environmental e*t«jrty
conduct a one-day training session before each audit. Written audit re-
ports are prepared and followed up with an action report. The auditing
function rests with the Environmental Protection Branch and other scien-
tists and administrative people are trained to execute the audits with
the environmental experts of the branch. Audit protocols have been
written for two of the major field stations and a third one is presently
being developed. In the near future NIH will be promoting the implemen-
tation of environmental auditing at their field stations.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Separate audit3 for each er.vi r omental .-.edi'in
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Agency
Responsible Office(s): Headquarters, Envirepj?.enta 1 Protection
Branch
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
.'-idndgeiaent Review : ZS
Liability Assessment YES
Audit Frequency: Once every 2 years
3-19
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Contact/Title: Antionette Sebastian/Community Planner
Address: Environmental Planning Division
Room 7152
451 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC, 20410
Phone Number: (202) 755-7225
Program Description: HUD has no formal auditng program in place at the
present time. HUD plans to develop a program in the future. Currently,
the department only manages single and multiple family housing in the
interim before foreclosure (90 days to 1-1/2 years). They are at most
small quantity generators of hazardous waste, Hie only environmental
problems identified to date include asbestos, lead (from pipes), and
disposal of cleaning and print shop materials.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment _NA
Audit Frequency: NA
* As described on o. 2-1.
2-20
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING 3EVIEW
Agency/Department:
Contact/Titie:
Add re 3 3:
Department of the Interior (Departmental level)
Bruce Blanchard, Director, Office of Environmental
Project Review
Office of Environmental project Review
18th and C Sts., N.W. (MS-4239)
Washington, DC 20240
Phona Number: (202) 343-3891
Program Description* Hie Deparfanent of tha Interior has no formal auditing
program at the departmental level. They have approximately 26,000 struc-
tures that are principally offices or residences containing two to four
people. RCRA and specifically small quantity generator regulations are
of primary interest. They are conducting an in-house review to determine
which facilities are in fact snail quantity generators.
Program Status: No program* at the departmental level
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Reponsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment MA
Audit rrequency: NA
•As described on p. 2-1.
-21
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/ Department of
the Interior
Contact/Title: Larry Shanks, Chief, Division of Environmental
Contaminants
Address: Fish and Wildlife Service
(DEC/HAM-401)
Washington, DC 20240
Phone Number: (202) 343-5452
Program Description! The Pish and Wildlife Service currently has no
environmental auditing program. The Fish and Wildlife Service is very
decentralized, so much of the responsibility for complying with environ-
mental regulations rests with each individual facility. Fish and wildlife
conducts surveys to determine potential CERCLA sites, for example, but
neither the Division of Environmental Contaminants nor the Resource
Contaminant Assessment Division have inspectors (at headquarters). Field
people obtain training such as an introduction to contaminant laws and
safety at Leetown, VA, a contaminant chemistry course at Columbia, Missouri,
and the hazardous materials handling at Edison, NJ.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
As described on p. 2-1.
3-22
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING .-.ZVIZW
Agency/Department: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eepar-ment of the Interior
Contact/Title: George Farris, Chief - Environmental Affairs
Address: Mail Code 4558
i951 Constitution Ave
Washington# DC 20240
Phone Numberi (202) 343-4541
Prograa Description} Die Bureau of Indian Affairs manages lands designated
as Indian reservations. The audit program is in the developmental stage*
The bureau plans to hire a contractor to conduct the Bureau's first audita.
The contractor would be responsible for having written audit procedures
and producing an audit report* Ttie Bureau has not decided who will be
responsible for audit follow up*.
Program Status* No prograa*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review na_
Liability Assessment na^
Audit Frequency: NA
* A3 described on p. 2-1.
3-23
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Bureau of Land Management/Cepartmen;: or Interior
Ccntact/Title: David Williams, Chief, Division of Planning and
Environmental Coordination (760)
Address: Bureau of Land Management (909 Premier Building)
Department o£ the Interior
"Washington, D.C. 20240
Phone Number: (202) 653-8824
Program Description! Th« Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approxi-
mately 300 million acres of federal lands. The Bureau issues permits to
operations that are located on federal land, such as oil and gas drilling,
facilities and pipelines; grazing; mining of minerals; timber operations;
recreation; and power plants and transmission lines. The majority of BLM
offices are managed by GSA. At the present time, 3LM has no environmental
auditing program.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review MA
Liability .Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
*.-.3 iescriced on p. 2-1.
-24
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Minerals Management Service/Depar t.T.ent
of interior
Coritact/Title: John Gull, Chief, Qv/ironmental Assessment Division
Address: Reston, VA 22091
Phone Number: C703) 343-2097
Program Description: The Minerals Management Service has no buildings of
their own and has no laboratory facilities. Their prime environmental
area of interest is in regulating the oil drilling performed by corpora-
tions. They do not have an environmental auditing program.
Program Statusi No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
* As described on p. 2-1.
3-25
-------
FtCSRAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: 3ureau of Mines, Division of Property
Department of the Interior
Contact/Title: Paul w. Johnson
Mdress: Mail Station 215
2401 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 21240
Phone Number: (202) 634-4750
Program Description: The Bureau of Mines operates approximately fourteen
field research laboratories across the country. At this tine, they do
not have an environmental auditing program in place*
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management' Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
'As ^ascribed :n p. 2~' .
3-26
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: National Parle Service/Department of the Interior
Contact/Title: Mr. Don Herring, Chief, Maintenance Branch
Address:
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, DC
20013
Phone Number: (202) 343-7040
Program Description: The National ParJc Service does not currently have an
environmental auditing program. They perform inspections, but there are no
written procedures for the inspections. The Park Service plans to develop
a formal auditing program in the future.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review >JA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
•As described on p. 2-1 .
3-27
-------
?~DZKM* r.zz:
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING ?EVITW
Agency/Department:
Contact/Title:
Address:
Department of Justice
Annette Perry, Space Management
1425 K Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20S30
Specialist
Phone Number: (202) 633-2180
Program Description: The Department of Justice is made up of six bureaust
the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Federal Bureau of investigation
(FBI), the U.S. Marshall Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Ser-
vice (INS), the Bureau of Prisons, and the Offices of Boards and Divisions*
The DEA and FBI have laboratories and would be concerned with RCRA require*
ments. The Bureau of Prisons has waste treatment facilities, manufactur-
ing processes, hospital facilities, and steam generating facilities in
various locations in the United States* The Department or the Bureaus
have no environmental auditing program at the present time. Environmen-
tal concerns at present are the responsibility of each Bureau Safety
Office. The Department is interested in developing audit programs for
the DEA, FBI, and Bureau of Prisons in the future.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis ^IA
Management Review NA
Liability .Assessment
i =2 usr. c *¦': v" A.
•A3 described on p. 2-1 .
2-29
-------
rZEEiCAL AGENCY A:.'EI7I>iG RE'.'ZT.l
Acency/Ceca rtne nt: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Contact/Title: Ms. Joyce Jatko, Real Zstate Management 3ranch
Address: 400 Maryland Ave., 3.W.
Washington, DC 20546
Phone Number: (202) 453-1962
Program Description: NASA's environmental auditing program began 2
years ago and 21 NASA facilities have been audited. The audits cover all
applicable environmental regulations and the overall environmental manage-
ment of the facilities. The typical audit team consists of 3 or 4 people
and they spend between 3 and 5 days in the field per audit. The audit
team is made up of environmentally trained contractors. A typical audit
costs $30,000 - $50,000 to perform. The audit contractors have standard
written procedures for conducting the audits. Following an audit, the
facility receives a written report of the audit findings. Currently, no
follow-up action is taken to ensure that audit recommendations are. imple-
mented. Audits may be contracted out by either headquarters or the facility
itself.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Program Scope: Comprehensive audit of all environmental media
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Contractor
Responsible Office(s): Headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis "fZS
Management Review YES
Liability Assessment YES
- * l ~ "•* v* ^~rm. " 19 Z V : x" Z ~ C*3 i * -a r ¦- '
3-3 0
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING ?E7IZW
Agency/Department: U.S. Postal Service
Contact/Title: Ed Wandelt, National Environmental Coordinator
Address: 475 L' Qifant Plaza West, 5.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260
Phone Number: (202) 268-3135
Program Description: The U.S. Postal Service has several environaental
programs and is interested in environmental auditing. The Postal Service
has over 7,000 large buildings (over 5,000 sq. ft.) in urban areas. They
have approximately 300 vehicle maintenance repair facilities, 10 bulk mail
centers (about 100,000 sq* ft. with alot of automation), and 300 general
mail facilities. Many of these; facilities use substances currently regu-
lated under TSCA and RCRA.
The Postal Service has an Environmental Task Force which is comprised of
members from several departments. The Postal Service has five regions
and each region has an environmental coordinator. The Postal, Service has
annual occupational health and safety inspections and has performed
surveys of PCB transformers, asbestos, and underground storage tanks.
The Postal Service is most concerned about old industrial sites acquired
for the development of large post offices, because of the possibility
of buried hazardous wastes and resulting liability. As a result, the
services performs environmental assessments of sites for 30,C00 sq. ft.
buildings or greater, checking the sites for hazardous waste. At this
time a formalized environmental auditing program is not planned.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: C:-?Llance Analysis ::a
Management Review _NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
• As described on p. 2-1 .
2-31
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Ager.cy/Depar aen::
Contact/Title:
Aidres3:
Smithsonian Institution
Jolar.da Janczewski, Acting Chief, Safety Division
955 L'Enfant Plaza
Suite 3300
Washington, DC 20560
Phone Number: (202) 287-3611
Program Description: The Smithsonian does not currently conduct environ-
mental audits. The Smithsonian conducts annual occupational health and
safety inspections which they hope to broaden to include environmental
auditing. They have a staff of inspectors, a few of which have some
environmental background, who observe and note environmental problem
areas on their inspections, ttie Smithsonian has a number of research
facilities and many of the museums have some type of laboratory included
in their facility. They also have some electroplating and painting
operations. The Safety Division plans to incorporate an environmental
auditing program in their annual inspection program.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis MA
Management Review NA
Liability .Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
• -3 -rii-ed o. 2-1.
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department: Tennessee Valley Authority
Contact/Title: John Thurmond, Head, Environmental Compliance
Auditing
Address: 309 Walnut Street, Room 227
Summer Place Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
Phone Number: (615) €32-6601
Program Description: TVA began conducting environmental compliance audits
in 1980. A formal auditing program was established in 1984, with the
overall purpose of evaluating and verifying environmental compliance, and
providing information to TVA management. The facilities audited include:
12 coal-fired steaa plants; four gas turbine installations; three nuclear
plants; 29 hydroelectric plants; one pumped storage facility; the National
Fertilizer Development Center; and a large number of minor facilities and
activities. Major facilities are audited at least once every two years
and most minor facilities once every three years. Audits vary in length
from one day to over a week depending upon the facility being audited.
Audits encompass all environmental media, utilizing formal audit proce-
dures. Formal written reports are prepared and submitted to management
of the audited facility, the General Manager of TVA, and the 3oard of
Directors. All findings are tracked on a computerized tracking system.
TVA's annual environmental auditing budget is about 3 270,000, including
audits of private firms under contract for hazardous waste disposal.
The audit program consists of four members, a program head and three lead
auditors. It is located in the Environmental Quality Staff which has
corporate wide environmental compliance responsibilities. Occassionally
persons with special expertise from other TVA organizations and "he pri-
vate sector are used to supplement audit teams. lead auditors are exper-
ienced and trained in auditing standards and techniques, and the program
adheres recognized standards of professional internal auditing as
established by the Institute of Internal Auditors ar.d the Ct.-rptrolLer
¦ter.erai of the 1'nitea States. lead a-ditors -am tain :l:ie czr.zs ;t with
environmental auditors from other agencies and private industry.
Program Status: Comprehensive program established
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Agency
Responsible 0ffice(3): Corporate Headquarters/Compliance and
Permitting Group
:i.-.ued on o. 2-3 A)
3-3 3
-------
Tennessee Valley Auth.oci.ty (continued)
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Management Review '/ES
Liability Assessment vss
Audit Frequency; Major facilities - every 2 years
Minor facilities - every 3 years
3-34
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING REVIEW
Agency/Department:
Contact/Title:
Address:
U.S. Coast Guard/Department of Transportion
William McGovern, Chief
Environmental Compliance Section
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (G-ECV-5B)
2100 Second Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone Number: (202) 267-1944
Program Description: The Coast Guard operates numerous air stations and
search and rescue stations in addition to their vessel fleet. Their en-
vironmental emphasis over the last three years has been on RCRA compliance,
and their audits to date haw been limited to RCRA issues. Facilities
have been audited each year since 1984 according to the resources avail-
able, and as of the end of 1986, 50 facilities have been audited. Audit
teams have consisted of at least one representative each from Headquar-
ters, a district Coast Guard office, and a contractor provided by the
Defense Logistics Agency. No formal protocols are utilized.' Written
reports are submitted to Headquarters and to the management of Che
audited facility. Audits to date have cost less than $5,000 each.
Program Status: Partial program established
Program Scope: RCRA compliance
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Cffice(s): Headquarters
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YES
Mar.ageT.en~ Review NO
Liability Assessment
Audit Frequency: No set frequency
3-35
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING ?.Z\'ZEW
Agency/Department: Federal Aviation Adrcinistration/Departmenc
of Transportation
Contact/Title:
Address:
Tony Fa2io, Economist
FAA-AEE110
800 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20591
Phone Number: (202) 267-3564
Program Description! The FAA owns and maintains thousands of radar towers
and communication link systems throughout the United States. The FAA does
not have an environmental auditing program and tentatively has no plans
to implement one. A contractor conducted a survey of 40 3ices this year
located in one of their nine regions, and found only 2 or 3 contained a
small amount of waste oil and stored cans o£ solvent. The solvent will
soon be replaced with aerosol spray cans (for cleaning contacts). They
do plan for the contractor to conduct a similar study for another region
to verify that environmental Issues are of minimal concern. The FAA
thinks that an environmental auditing program will be unnecessary.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible 0ffice{s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis NA
Management Review NA
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: NA
3-36
-------
Agency/Department: Federal Highway Adaiinistraticn/'Cecart^ent of
Transportation
Contact/Title: Bernard Landry, Safety engineer
Address: HMS-4, 400 7th St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20S90
Phone Number: (202) 366-0630
Program Description: FHWA has three material testing laboratories, a
research ^laboratory in McLean, Virginia, and several laboratory trailers
which they use on highway construction sites, while the FHWA presently
has no environmental auditing program, it does have a safety inspection
program that includes monitoring the handling and disposal of chemicals.
FHWA uses a large quantity of solvents for testing asphalt, and therefore
has some underground storage tanks and two hazardous waste storage tanks.
FHWA Headquarters inspects the laboratories at least every other year,
and is interested in tracking the chemicals at each facility from pur-
chase through disposal.
Program Status: No program*
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: NA
Responsible Office(s): NA
Auditing Purpose: Compliance .Analysis N^A
Management Review ma
Liability Assessment NA
Audit Frequency: MA
-------
FEDERAL AGENCY AUDITING I'll IW
Agency/Department: Bureau of Engraving and Printing/:epartnent of the
Treasury
Contact/Title: 3arbara Vaudreuil, Manager, Research and Development
Division
Address;
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
14th and C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20228
Phone Number: (202) 447-1361
Program Description: The Bureau manufactures plates, cylinders, and inks
which are used in-house to print paper currency, postage stamps and other
security documents. The main environmental concerns addressed by the
Bureau are VOC emissions, waste water discharges, and hazardous wastes
from the inks and solvents used in manufacturing securities and from lab-
oratory operations. At the present time, the Bureau has an active and
formal environmental compliance program. Under this program, the Bureau's
Environmental Subcommittee reviews equipment, materials and processes for
environmental compliance, obcains permits, performs ,-onitoring and record-
keeping, and submits reports to federal and local environmental authori-
ties. The 3ureau has committed to establish an internal environmental
auditing program during FY 87.
Program Status: Program under development
Program Scope: Comprehensive audit of all media (planned)
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Contractor (planned)
Responsible Offices: Office of the Assistant Director,
Research £ Engineering
Purpose: Compliance Analysis - YES (planned)
Management Review - YES (planned)
Liabilty Assessment - NO
Frequency: 3ia.-.nual
-------
FEDERAL AGINCY AUDITING RE7IEW
Agericy/Departsient: 3ureau of the .'line/Department of Vraasury
Contact/Title: Jarcne Railen, Chief, Assay Division
Address: Assay Division
633 3rd Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Phone Number: (202) 376-0982
Program Description: The Bureau of the Hint started an auditing program
in 1986. They plan to audit each of their four coin processing plants
each year. The audits cover mainly water and hazardous waste concerns
at each facility, including laboratories. They have no written formal
auditing procedures at present, but plan to develop procedures for use
in the future. The audit team includes the Chief and two safety officers.
Written reports of each audit are prepared and corrective recommendations
are followed up.
Program Status: Program under development
Program Scope: Audits cover water and hazardous waste concerns
Agency/Contractor Auditing: Agency
Responsible Office(s): Headquarters (Assay Division)
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis YSS (planned)
Management Review MO
Liability Assessment NO
Audit Frequency: Annual (planned)
2-39
-------
AGENCY AUDITING R£Virw
Agency/Department:
Contact/Title:
Address:
Veterans Administration
Jim Lefter, Associate Director
Engineering Service
Office of Facilities C088C)
Veterans Administration
310 Vermont Ave, N.W.
Washington, DC 20420
Phone Number: (202) 233-3663
Program Description: The Veterans Administration (VA) has been conduct-
ing environmental and occupational health evaluations sLnce 1976. Among
other activities, the VA ha3 sent out questionnaires to its medical centers
concerning RCRA type waste, which it plana to follow up the questionnaire
with some site visits* Much of the actual waste management responsibility
is decentralized (at each medical center). The VA is realigning some of
the environmental responsibilities at this level and it may be some time
before a clear definition of their future needs is possible. While the
VA currently ha3 no environmental auditing program, it is planning to
asaess its environmental auditing needs.
Program Status: No program"
Program Scope: NA
Agency/Contractor Auditing: MA
Responsible Office(s): N'A
Auditing Purpose: Compliance Analysis MA
Management Review MA
Liability Assessment MA
Audit Frequency: MA
•As described in p. 2-1.
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING POLICY STATEMENT
A- 1
-------
Wednesday
July 9, 1986
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Auditing Policy Statement;
Notice
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. Ill I V.'tdr.es-iav.
25004
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PPE-fRL-3049-81
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leonard r.eckens'.eiri, Office of Policy.
Planning ar.d Ev j'.usticn. [202) J3i-
27:&
vie j (o require
i T'-e •V:t.-.cy d: j^gr-ies that the
poiu;- -> ii'v.r.er.: jpsns the way for
j.1 i :o require 9'iditing.
: _• \ .ran *>rant states or
-t.-.y i.iore (cr less) authorty
than "h = y -.l.jzdy possess. EPA believes
that toe .r.teri.-n guidance effectively
encourages :cii:ntcry auditing. In fact.
Section (1.3. of the policy states:
' b£iau5e audit quality depends to a
iarge j^jrce an gen-iine management
ccnHni'.T.ert to t'-e program and its
obiectives. auditing should remains
voluntary program."
Another commenter suggested that
EPA ihcuid not expect an audit to
identify all ooiential problem area* or
conclude that a problem identified In an
audi: reflects normal operations and
procedures. EPA agrees that an audit
report shouid clearly reflect these
realities ^.id should be written to point
out '.he audit's limitations. However."
«in;e EPA will not routinely request
audit reports, the Agency does not
believe these concerns raise issues
which r.eed ^o be addressed in the
policy statement.
A second concern expressed by the
same cjrr.mer.ter was -hat EPA shouid
ackr.cw'.edgc that environmental audits
are cr.ly part of a successful
environmental management program
and thus shc-iic not be expected to
cover every environmental .jsue or
solve all problems. EPA agrees and
accordingly has amended the statement
of purpose which appears at the end of
this jrsamV.e.
Yet iiiother ccmrr.er.ter thought EPA
should fccus or. environmental
performance results 'compliance or non-
zz—.z'.:z.~.z~). r.ji 'he processes or
vehicles used to achieve those results. In
3EPA agrees w.:h this statement
a.-.d •:or.::.-.-e to fc-cus on
environmental results. However. EPA
also believes that such results can be
improved thrc :«h Ajer.cy efforts to
identify and enccu-a$e effective
a~----- s-*3* rr2r j e2 ~r.! rrac'i--S.
ar.d wnl cont:r.-e to er.cc-rs ge such
practices in non-regulatory ways.
i i f C ^ D " *
rec3.T.:r.encec :r.at £.rA sr.OLiri spcr.50:
seminars for sma;l businesses on how to
start auditing programs. EPA agrees that
such seminars would be useful.
However, since audit seminars already
are available frr-m several private sector
should te.'ve."s .rat market, with £
zc j5:b';e e >ce:t:;ri seminars -'or
government agencies. especially federal
agencies, for which EPA has a broad
Tii.idj'e zer E/cec-ir- ? Crcer 1to
Environmental Auditing Policy
Statement
*o**cy: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
•enow; Final policy statement.
summary; It is EPA policy to encourage
the use of environmental auditing by
regulated entities to help achieve and
maintain compliance with
environmental laws and regulation*, as
well as to help identify and correct
unregulated environmental hazards.
EPA first published this policy as
interim guidance on November 8.1989
(50 FR 46504). Dased on comments
received regarding the interim guidance,
the Agency is issuing today's final
policy statement with only minor
changes.
This final policy statement
specifics'":
• Encourages regulated entities to
develop, implement and upgrade
environmental auditing programs:
• Discusses when the Agency may or
may not request audit reports:
• Explains how EPA's inspection and
forcement activities may respond to
julated entities' efforts to assure
compliance through auditing:
• Endorses environmental auditing at
federal facilities:
• Encourages state and local
environmental auditing initiatives: and
• Outlines elements of effective audil
programs.
Environmental auditing includes a
variety of compliance assessment
techniques which qo beyond those
legally required and are used to identify
actual and potential environmental
problems. Effective environmental
auditing can lead to higher levels of
Qverail compliance and reduced risk to
human health ar.d the environment. EPA
endorses the practice of environmental
audit':.-? and supports its accelerated
use by regulated entities to neip meet
the goals of federal, state and local
environmental requirements. However.
...s - <¦ j:en.:e of in prc^ran
does not create any defense to. or
otherwise limit, the responsibility of any
regulated entity to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements.
Stales are encouraged to adopt these
or s;milar and ecuallv effective ?c!ic:es
'Ja nee :.".d of
vironmer-.a! auditing cn a consistent,
ion wide ba s;3.
^*TtS:This final policy statement is
effecti vp July 9. 1989.
or
Cheryl Wasserm.m Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring. (202) 382-7550.
SUPFUMCMTARY INFORMATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
POLICY STATEMENT
I. Preamble
On November 8.1985 EPA published
an Environmental Auditing Policy
Statement effective as interim guidance,
and solicited written comments until.
January 7.1968.
Thirteen commenters submitted
written comments. Eight were from
private industry. Two commenters
represented industry trade associations.
One federal agency, one consulting firm
and one law firm also submitted
comments.
Twelve commenters addressed EPA
requests for audit reports. Three
comments per subject were received
regarding inspections, enforcement
response and elements of effective
environmental auditing. Or.e commenter
addressed audit provisions as remedies
in enforcement actions, one addressed
environmental auditing at federal
facilities, and one addressed the
relationship of the policy statement to
state or local regulatory agencies-
Comments generally supported both the
concept of a policy statement and the
interim guidance, but raised specific
concerns with respect !o particular
language and policy issues in sections of
the guidance.
Cere."' Corrnsr:;
Three commenters found 'he interim
guidance to be c:nstructlve. balanced
and effective at encouraging more and
better environmental auditing.
Another commenter. while
considering the policy on the whole to
be constructive, felt that new and
.Jr.".*. d 'z '¦ 6 3 Ly ' i f. C 2!"!! 1 t 3 " : ZM1C
be offered by EPA. Based on earlier
comments received from industry. EPA
^2 a• •« v»-c CM r "j ' -*T T.! °^ t
r -zzc:i or participate \r\ an "incentives*
based" environmental auditing progTam
with EPA. Moreover, general promises
to forgo inspections or reduce
enforcement responses in exchange for
companies' adoption of environmental
most treq-.er.tly mer.::c.-.ed :n -.his
context—are fra-.jht w::h legal and
p^..cy obstacles.
Several commenters expressed
ccrcern that s-.aies or localities might
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesddv. |^!y 9. lat)6 / Notices
25005
ividu technical assistance for
vironmental compliance.
Requests for Reports
EPA received 12 comments regarding
Agency request! for environmental audit
reports, far more than on any other topic
in the policy statement. One commenter
felt that EPA struck an appropriate
balance between respecting the need for
self-evaluation with some measure of
privacy, and allowing the Agency
enough flexibility of inquiry to
accomplish future statutory missions.
However. most commenters expressed
concern that the interim guidance did
not go far enough to assuage corporate
fears that EPA will use audit reports for
environmental compliance "witch
hunts." Several commenters suggested
additional specific assurances regarding
the circumstances under which EPA will'
request such reports.
One commenter recommended that
EPA request audit reports only "when
the Agent, can show the information it
needs to perform its statutory mission
cannot be obtained from the monitoring,
compliance or other data that is
otherwise reportable and/or accessible
to EPA. or where the Government deems
q audit report material to a criminal
vestigation." EPA accepts this
ecommendation in part. The Agency
believes it would not be in the best
interest of human health and the
environment to commit to making a
"showing" of a compelling information
need before ever requesting an audit
report. While EPA may normally be
willing to do so. the Agency cannot rule
out in advance all circumstances in
which such a showing may not be
possible. However, it would be helpful
to further clarify that a request for an
audit report or a portion of a report
normally will be made when needed
information is net available by
alternative means. Therefore. EPA has
revised Section III.A., paragraph two
and added the phrase: "and usually
r.ads where \he -formation needed
cannot be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
available to the Aaency."
Another co~_re.-:ar iuggei.'si
(except in the case of criminal
investigations] EPA should limit
requests for audit documents to specific
questions. By including the phrase "or
relevant portions of a report" in Section
rr! A. ~J?X. n^snt to smohasize it would
not request an entire i-Lin jcc-^aenl
when only a relevant portion would
suffice. Likewise, EPA fully intends not
to request even a portion of a report if
needed information or data can be
otherwise obtained. To further clarify
this point EPA has added the phrase.
"most likely focused on particular
information needs rather than the entire
report." to (he second sentence of
paragraph two. Section III.A.
Incorporating the two comments above,
the first iwo sentences in paragraph two
of final Section ULA. now read: 'EPA's
authority to request an audit report, or
relevant portions thereof, will be
exercised on a case-by-case basis where
the Agency determines it is needed to
accomplish a statutory mission or the
Government deems it to be material to a
criminal investigation. EPA expects such
requests to be limited, most likely
focused on particular information needs
rather than the entire report and usually
made where the information needed
cannot be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
available to the Agency."
Other commenters recommended that
EPA not request audit reports under any
circumstances, that requests be
"restricted only those legally
required." that requests be limited to
criminal investigations, or that requests
be made only when EPA has reason to
believe "that the audit programs or
reports are being used to conceal
evidence of environmental non-
compliance or otherwise being used in
bad faith." EPA appreciates concerns
underlying all of these comments and
has considered each carefully. However,
the Agency believes that these
recommendations do not strike the
appropriate balance between retaining
the flexibility to accomplish EPA's
statutory missions in future, unforeseen
circumstances, and acknowledging
regulated entities' need to self-evaiuata
environmental performance with some
.measure of privacy. Indeed, based on
prime informal comments, the small
number of formal comments received,
and the even smaller number of Adverse
comments. EPA believes the t'.tial poiicy
statement should remain largely
unchanged from the interim version.
Elements of Effective Environmental
Three commenters expressed
concerns regarding the seven general
i.zrr.zZ'.i L?.\ »i:i. <
to the interim guidance.
One commenter noted that were EPA
to further expand or more fully detail
such elements, programs not specifically
fulfilling each element would then be
•'•idsed inadequate. EPA agrees that
r. i jencr.g ... ipeci.'.c ar.fl
prescriptive auditing elements could be
¦counter-productive by not taking into
account numerous factors which vary
extensively from one organization to
another, but which may still result in
effective auditing programs.
Accordingly. EPA dues not plan to
expand cr mare fully detail these
auditing elements.
Another commenter asserted that
s*3t£i and localities should be cautioned
not to consider EPA's auditing elements
as mandatory steps. The Agency is fully
aware of this concern and in the interim
guidance noted its strong opinion that
"regulatory agencies should not attempt
to prescribe the precise form and
structure of regulated entities'
environmental management or auditing
programs." While EPA cannot require
state or local regulators to adopt thia or
similar policies, the Agency doee
strongly encourage them to do so. both
in the interim and final policies.
A final commenter thought the
Appendix too specifically prescribed
what should and what should not b«
included in an auditing program. Other
commenters. on the other hand, viewed
the elements described as very general
in nature. EPA agrees with these other
commenters. The elements are in no
way binding: Moreover. EPA believes
that most mature, effective
environmental auditing programs do
incorporate each of these general
elements in some form, and consider*
them useful yardsticks for those
considering adopting or upgrading audit
programs. For these reasons EPA has
not rev ised the Appendix in today's
final policy statement.
Other Comments
Other significant comments addressed
EPA inspection priorities for. and
enforcement responses to. organizations
with environmental auditing programs.
One commenter. stressing that audit
programs are internal management
tools, took exception to the phrase in the
3=ccr.d parsg.-aph of section III.B.l. of
the interim guidance which states that
environmental audits can 'ccmplemer.t'
regulatory oversight By using the word
'complement' in this context. EPA does
not intend '.0 imply ihat audit reports
-..it j :':-3_-.ed by \he Agency in order
to supplement regulatory inspections.
Complement' is used in a broad sense
:? ^r." 'n funertions snd
providing sc~.c;ning 11.e.. seii-
assessment) which otherwise would be
lacking. To clarify this point EPA has
added the phrase "by providing self-
assessment to assure compliance" after
"environmental audits may complement
The tame commenter also expressed
cc.-.cs —. •.hat. is EPA sets inspection
priorities, a company having an audit
program could appear to be a 'poor
performer' due to complete and accurst,
reporting when measured against a
-------
25008
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday, |ulv 9. 1905 I Notices
r.ompnny which rrporls something less
than required t>y law. EPA agrees that it
is important to communicate this fact to
Agency and state personnel, and will do
so. However, the Agency does not
believe a change in the policy statement
is necessary.
A further comment suggested EPA
should commit to take auditing
programs into account when assessing
all enforcement actions. However, in
order to maintain enforcement flexibility
under varied circumstances, the Agency
cannot promise reduced enforcement
responses to violations al all audited
facilities when other factors may be
overriding. Therefore the policy
statement continues to state that'EPA
may exercise its decretion to consider
auditing programs as evidence of honest
and genuine efforts to assure
compliance, which would then be taken
into account in fashioning enforcement
responses to violations.
A final commenter suggested the
phrase expeditiously correct
environmental problems" not be used in
the enforcement context since it implied
EFA'woUld use an entity's record of
correcting nonregulated matters when
evaluating regulatory violations. EPA
did not intend for such an inference to
be made. EPA intended the term
"environmental problems" to refer to the
underlying circumstances which
eventually lead up to the violations. To
clarify this point, EPA is revising the
first two sentences of the paragraph to
which this comment refers by changing
"environmental problems" to "violations
and underlying environmental
problems" in the first sentence and to
"underlying environmental problems" in
the second sentence.
In a separate development EPA is
preparing an update of its January 1984
Fer.es! Fcc, '..>.:es Cj.rpHcr.ce Strc.'egy.
which is referenced in section III. C. of
the auditing policy. The Strategy should
'be completed and available on request
from EPA's Office of Federal Activities
i3:pr 'his year.
EPA a!! corr.menters for
responding to the November 8.1985
publication. Today's notice is being
' • v • a -J : - f - . _ , 3 , i .j« a o « t i ~ J o e "> ** r"}
;r.e p_;..c c; s :..-ji pa-.icy :oward
environmental auditing. This policy was
developed to help (a) encourage
regulated entities to institutionalize
effective audit practices as one means of
improving compliance and sound
ei~d (b)
Jjide in:?:na; EPA actions directly
relied to 'p^-jlaied er.'.ities'
environmental auditing programs.
EPA will evaluate implementation of
ihis f'ndi policy to ensure it meets the
diiove ^oals and continues to encourage
belter environmental management,
while strengthening the Agency's own
efforts to monitor and enforce
compliance with environmental
requirements.
II. General EPA Policy on
Environmental Auditinj
A. Introduction
Environmental auditing is a
systematic, documented, periodic and
objective review by regulated entities 1
of facility operations and practices
related to meeting environmental
requirements. Audita can be designed to
accomplish any or all oi the following:
verify compliance with environmental
requirements; evaluate the effectiveness
of environmental management systems
already in place: or assess risks from
regulated and unregulated materials and
practices.
Auditing serves as a quality assurance
check to help improve the effectivenesa
of basic environmental management by
verifying that management practices are
in place, functioning and adequate.
Environmental audits evaluate, and are
not a substitute for. direct compliance
activities such as obtaining permits,
installing controls, monitoring
compliance, reporting violations, and
keeping records. Environmental auditing
may verify but does not include
activities required by law. regulation or
permit [e.g.. continuous emissions
monitoring, composite correction plans
at wastewater treatment plants, etc.).
Audits do not in any way replace
regulatory agency inspections. However,
environmental audits can improve
c~~pliance by complementing
conventional federal, state and local
oversight.
The appendix to this policy statement
outlines some basic elements of
environmental auditing fe.g.. auditor
independence and lop management
support) for use by those considering
: — p'er-er.'.a'.ion of effective auditing
programs to help achieve and maintain
compliance. Additional information on
r^n be
.'c-.-.a .n various puoiished materials.1
' 'Regulated entities" include private firm# and
public agfnc.es with factlitiei lubieci lo
environmental regulation. Public agencjei can
mciudt federal. itita or lout agencies >• w«il ••
i?ec:dl'Pur3ose organisations vjcfi ai regional
¦ e » ¦ if r. si 1-1.
1 S?e. e g . Current Practice* in £nvtronrr*.en:nl
AjdiiirV EPA Report No A-:30-09-33-008.
r-~r^Mry 19&4. Annouie
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. July 0. "r'-'j / Notices
25007
performance of the facility lies with top
management, which therefore has a
strong incentive to use reasonable
means, such as environmental auditing,
to secure reliable information of facility
compliance status.
EPA does not intend to dictate or
interfere with the environmental
management practices of private or
public organizations. Nor does EPA
intend to mandate auditing (though in
certain instances EPA may seek to
include provisions for environmental
auditing as part of settlement
agreements, as noted below). Because
environmental auditing systems have
been widely adopted on a voluntary
basis in the past, and because audit
qual.ty depends to a large degree upon
genuine management commitment to the
program and its objectives, auditing
should remain a voluntary activity.
III. EPA Policy on Specific
Environmental Auditing Issue*
A. Aje. :y Requests for Audit Reports
EPA has broad statutory authority to
request relevant information on the
environmental compliance status of
regulated entities. However. EPA
believes routine Agency requests for
audit reports 3 could inhibit auditing in
ihe long run. decreasing both the
quantity and quality of audits
conducted. Therefore, as a matter of
policy. EPA will not routinely request
environmental audit reports.
EPA's authority to request an audit
report, or relevant portions thereof, will
be exercised on a case-by-case basis
where the Agency determines it is
needed to accomplish a statutory
mission, or where the Government
deems it to be material to a criminal
investigation. EPA expects such
requests to be limited, most likely
focused on particular information needs
rather than the entire report, and usually
made where the information needed
car.nct be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
a:!ab;e to '.he Age.-.cy. Lxamples
would likely include situation* where:
audits are conducted under consent
a ccrr.par.y .-.as placed its management
practices at issue by raising them as a
defense: or state of mind or intent are a
relevant element of inquiry, such as
during a criminal investigation. This list
¦ ~ ; r j . a —: ¦ tzc" « 4 ?n
re?c-: canaidly end thorougnly preienia
fmm a rev>*w. conducted ae pan of
audit described in Mction II.A., of
facility environmental performance and practice*.
An audit -eport n not • substitute for compliance
.Tor.'orrg ;r ;'we.* tpons or .tcofS* wnich
rr~. zc r,. i? \ or other regulatory
uppftcea.
is illustrative rather than exhaustive,
since there doubtless will be other
situations, not subject to prediction, in
which audit reports rather than
information may be required.
EPA acknowledges regulated entities'
need to self-evaluate environmental
performance with some measure of
privacy and encourages such activity.
However, audit reports may not shield
monitoring, compliance, or other
information that would otherwise be
reportable and/or accessible to EPA.
even if there is no explicit 'requirement'
to generate that data.4 Thus, this policy
does not alter regulated entities' existing
or future obligations to monitor, record
or report information required under
environmental statutes, regulations or
permits, or to allow EPA access to that
information. Nor does this policy alter
EPA's authority to request and receive
any relevant information—including tha't
contained in audit reports—under
various environmental statutes (e.g..
Clean Water Act section 306. Clean Air
Act sections 114 and 208) or in other
administrative or judicial proceedings.
Regulated entities also should be
aware that certain audit findings may by
law have to be reported to government
agencies. However, in addition to any
such requirements. EPA encourages
regulated entities to notify appropriate
State or Federal officials of findings
which suggest significant environmental
or public health risks, even when not
specifically required to do so.
B. EPA Response to Environmental
Auditing
1. General Policy
EPA will not promise to forgo
inspections, reduce enforcement
responses, or offer other such incentives
in exchange for implementation of
environmental auditing or other sound
environmental management practices.
Indeed, a credible enforcement program
provides a strong incentive for regulated
entities to audiL
Regulatory agencies have an
5a:us .naependentiy ant; zdr.r.ot
eliminate inspections for particular firms
or classes of firms. Although
environmental audits may complement
inspections by providing self-
assessment to assure compliance, they
?*<• * -? way 3 3-:bs':' ;•» -->:vr:-y
oversight. Moreover, certain statutes
(e g. RCRA) and Agency policies
* See. for sxarr.sle. "Dutiet !o Report or Oncloie
!."' ztT A!;:n zr. :r.t L~\.rin-r.cr.ta. Ai:ec!i
S. iir.e 11 AciiMi.ei." Zr. • »ror,men'a! Li !r.it;:wie
report to EPA. final report. September 1343.
establish minimum facility inspection
frequencies to which EPA will adhere.
However. EPA will continue to
address environmental problems on a
pruri-.y basis and will consequently
inspect facilities with poor
environmental records and practices
more frequently. Since effective
environmental auditing helps
management identify and promptly
correct actual or potential problems,
audited facilities' environmental
performance should improve. Thus,
while EPA inspections of self-audited
facilities will continue, to the extent that
compliance performance is considered
in setting inspection priorities, facilities
with a good compliance history may be
subject to fewer inspections.
In fashioning enforcement responses
to violations. EPA policy is to take into
account, on a case-by-case basis, the
honest and genuine efforts of regulated
entities to avoid and promptly correct
violations and underlying environmental
problems. When regulated entities take
reasonable precautions to avoid
noncompliance, expeditiously correct
underlying environmental problems
discovered through audits or other
means, and implement measures to
prevent their recurrence. EPA may
exercise its discretion to consider such
actions as honest and genuine efforts to
assure compliance. Such consideration
applies particularly when a regulated
entity promptly reports violations or
compliance data which otherwise were
not required to be recorded or reported
tc EPA.
2. Audit Provisions as Remedies in
Enforcement Actions
EPA may propose environmental
auditing provisions in consent decrees
ana in other settlement negotiations
where auditing could provide a remedy
for identified problems and reduce the
likelihood of similar problems recurring
in ;he future.5 Environmental auditing
p-rjvts'.ons sre most hkelv to be
proposed in settlement negotiations
where:
• A ?aMem of violations ran be
j ; j i ! .p a t. .0 .i
aose.-ce or poor functioning of an
environmental management system: or
• The type or nature of violations
indicates a likelihood that similar
noncompliance problems may exist or
~ " ; ; - *.v ^ 0 .- o : ^ 3 f f
oilier facilities operated by '.he regulated
entity.
1 EPA i§ developing auidante for use by Agency
i'a.-i !!-.c:-r..-.3 i«'« .¦cn.T.e.Vil
3-- : s ;:r :or>*er,: icC.'ees and :i.ier
scit.err.en: negoiniionj.
-------
25008
Federal Register I Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday, [uly 9 '-sc ¦' :::ces
Through this tunsc::i diT.reo approach
and other merins. EPA may consider
how lo encourage effective auditing by
publicly ownpd sewage treatment works
(POTWs). POTWs often have
compliance problems related to
operation and maintenance procedures
which can be addressed effectively
thruugh the use of environmental
auditing. Under its National Municipal
Policy EPA already is requiring many
POTWs to develop composite correction
plans to identify and correct compliance
problems.
C Er. virof.rr.enul Auditing at Federal
Futilities
EPA encourages all federal agencies
subiect to environmental laws and
regulations to institute environmental
auditing systems to help ensure the
adequacy of internal systems to achieve,
maintain and monitor compliance.
Environmental auditing at federal
facilities can be an effective supplement
to EPA and state inspections. Such
federal facility environmental audit
programs sh >uld be structured to
promptly identify environmental
problems and expeditiously develop
schedules for remedial action.
To the extent feasible. EPA will
provide technical assistance to help
federal agencies design and initiate
audit programs. Where appropriate. EPA
will enter into agreements with other
agencies to clarify the respective roles,
responsibilities and commitments of
each agency in conducting and
responding to federal facility
environmental audits.
With respect to inspections of self-
audited facilities [see section 1II.B.1
above) and requests for audit reports
(see section III.A above). EPA generally
will respond to environmental audits by
federal facilities in the same manner as
it does for other regulated entities, in
keeping with the spirit and intent of
Executive Order 12088 and the EPA
Federal Fact!, ties Compliance Strategy
(January 1984. update forthcoming in
late 1986). Federal agencies should,
however, be aware '.hat the Freedom of
Information Act w.!l govern any
disclosure of audit reports or audit-
generated information requested from
federal aaencies by the ovibtic.
significant violations through an
environmental audit. EPA encourages
them to submit the related audit findings
and remedial action plans expeditiously
to the applicable EPA regional office
f^nd TP ^ - 0 "* S':h' t -5 - 3 • q ,
appropriate) e'-er. ~ot ipeculcaJly
required to do »o. EPA will review the
audit Rnd'.r.gs acd ac'.ion plans and
either provide written approval or
necotiate a Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement. EPA will utilize
the escalation procedures provided in
Executive Order 12088 and the EPA
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy
only when agreement between agencies
cannot be reached. In any event, federal
agencies are expected to report pollution
abatement projects involving costs
(necessary to correct problems
discovered through the audit) to EPA in
accordance with OMB Circular A-100.
Upon request, and in appropriate
circumstances. EPA will assist affected
federal agencies through coordination of
any public release of audit findings with
approved action plans once agreement
has been reached.
TV. Relationship to State or Local
Regulatory Agencies
State.and local regulatory agencies
have independent jurisdiction over
regulated entities. EPA encourages-them
to adopt these or similar policies, in
order to advance the use of effective
environmental auditing in a consistent
manner.
EPA recognizes that some states have
already undertaken environmental
auditing initiatives which differ
somewhat from this policy. Other states
also may want to develop auditing
policies which accommodate their
particular needs or circumstances.
Nothing in this policy statement is
intended to preempt or preclude states
from developing other approaches to
environmental auditing. EPA encourages
state and local authorities to consider
the basic principles which guided the
Agency in developing this policy:
• Regulated entities must continue to
report or record compliance information
required under existing statutes or
regulations, regardless of whether such
information is generated by an
environmental audit or contained in an
audit report. Required information
cannot be withheld merely because it is
generated by an audit rather than by
some other means.
• Regulatory agencies cannot make
promises to forgo or limit enforcement
action against a particular facility or
class of facilities in exchange for the use
of environmental auditing systems.
Hovsrovof ¦a *» • ¦ •
i.-.;'orcement acuons
on a case-by-case basis in response to
honest and genuine efforts by regulated
entities to assure environmental
compliance.
• When setting inspection priorities
ex:er.r pG3s;ole on compliance
performance and environmental results.
• Reguiatory agencies must continue
to meet minimum program requirements
(e minimum inspection requirements,
etc.).
• Regulatory agencies should not
attempt to prescribe the precise form
and structure of regulated entities'
environmental management or auditing
programs.
An effective state/federal partnership
is needed to accomplish the mutual goal
of achieving and maintaining high levels
of compliance with environmental laws
and regulations. The greater the
consistency between state or local
policies and this federal response to
environmental auditing, the greater the
degree to which sound auditing
practices might be adopted and
compliance levels improve.
Dated: June 24.1988.
Lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
Appendix—Elements of Effective
Environmental Auditing Programs
Introduction: Environmental auditing
is a systematic documented, periodic
and objective review by a regulated
entity of facility operations and
practices related to meeting
environmental requirements.
Private sector environmental audits of
facilities have been conducted for
several years and have taken a variety
of forms, in part to accommodate unique
organizational structures and
circumstances. Nevertheless, effective
environmental audits appear to have
certain discernible elements in common
with other kinds of audits. Standards for
internal audits have been documented
extensively. The elements outlined
below draw heavily on two of these
documents: "Compendium of Audit
Standards'' ('1983. Walter Wiliborn.
American Society for Quality Control)
and "Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing"
T'r.e Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc.).
They also reflect Agency analyses
conducted over the last several years.
Performance-oriented auditing
elements are outlined here to help
accomplish several objectives. A general
description of features of effective.
s i--it pr;j.-3.-zs. «spec;a.!y
federal agencies and smaller businesses.
These elements also indicate the
attributes of auditing EPA generally
considers important to ensure program
effectiveness. Regulatory agencies may
. s .\ : j: i
environmental auditing provisions for
consent decrees. Finally, these elements
can help guide states and localities
considering auditing initiatives.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. }uly 9. 1986 / Notices
25009
An effective environmental auditing
system will likely include the following
general elements:
t. Explicit top management support for
environmental auditing and
commitment to follow-up on audit
findings. Management support may be
demonstrated by a written policy
articulating upper management support
for the auditing program, and for
compliance with all pertinent
requirements, including corporate
policies and permit requirements as well
as federal, state and local statutes and
regulation*.
Management support for the auditing
program also should be demonstrated
by an explicit written commitment to
follow-up on audit findings to correct
identified problems and prevent their
recurrence.
II. An environmental auditing function
independent of audited activities. The
status or organizational locus of
environmental auditors should be
sufficient to ensure objective and
unobstructed inquiry, observation and
testing. Auditor objectivity should not
be impaired by personal relationships,
financial or other conflicts of interest,
interference with free inquiry or
judgment, or fear of potential
retribution.
III. Adequate team staffing and
auditor training. Environmental auditors
should possess or have ready access to
the knowledge, skills, and disciplines
needed to accomplish audit objectives.
Each individual auditor should comply
with the company's professional
standards of conduct. Auditors, whether
full-time or part-time, should maintain
their technical and analytical
competence through coniinuing
education and training.
IV zrpHcit z.c:t pre? rem :b ectives.
scope, resources cna frequency. At a
minimum, audit objectives should
include assessing compliance with
applicable environmental laws and
evaluating the adequacy cf :..-.temal
compliance policies, procedures and
personnel training programs to ensure
continued compliance.
• . U - . 'J <- , U - . , J - - ...
">
A.-.,ch provides auditors: aii corporate
policies, permits, and federal, state, and
local regulations pertinent to the facility;
and checklists or protocols addressing
specific features that should be
evaluated by auditors.
Explicit written audit procedures
generally should be used for planning
audits, establishing audit scope,
examining and evaluating audit findings,
communicating audit results, and
following-up.
V. A process which collects, analyzes,
interprets and documents information
sufficient to achieve audit objectives.
Information should be collected before
and during an onsite visit regarding
environmental compliance^),
environmental management
effectiveness^), and other matters (J)
related to audit objectives and scope.
This information should be sufficient
reliable, relevant and useful to provide a
sound basis for audit findings and
recommendations.
a. Sufficient information is factual,
adequate and convincing so that a
prudent, informed person would be
likely to reach the same conclusions as
the auditor.
b. Reliable information is the best
attainable through use of appropriate
audit techniques.
c. Relevant information supports audit
findings and recommendations and is
consistent with the objectives for the
audit
d. Useful information helps the
organization meet its goals.
The audit process should include a
periodic review of the reliability and
integrity of this information and the
means used to identify, measure,
classify and report it. Audit procedures,
including the testing and sampling
techniques employed, should be selected
in advance, to the extent practical, and
expanded or altered if circumstances
warrant. The process of collecting,
analyzing, interpreting, and
documenting information should provide
reasonable assurance that audit
objectivity is maintained and audi' .goals
are met.
VI. A process which includes specific
procedures to promptly prepare candid,
dear and appropriate written reports on
audit findirgs. corrective actions, and
scr.sduies far implementation.
Procedures should be in place to ensure
that such information is communicated
corporate management, who can
evaluate the information and ensure
correction of identified problems.
Procedures also should be in place for
determining what internal findings are
reportable to state or federal agencies.
V!I. A process which includes quality
assurance procedures to assure the
accuracy and thoroughness of
environmental audits. Quality assurance
may be accomplished through
superv ision, independent internal
reviews, external reviews, or a
combination of these approaches.
footnotes to Appendix
(;) A comprehensive assessment of
compliance with federal environmental
regulations requires an analysis of facility
performance against numerous
environmental statutes and implementing
regulations. Thesa statutes include:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad
Clean Air Act.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation and Liability Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and
Rodenticida Act
Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries
Act
Cranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
In addition, state and local government are
likely to have their own environmental laws
Many states have been delegated authority to
administer federal programs. Many local
governments' building, fire, safety and health
codes also have environmental requirements
relevant to an audit evaluation.
(21 An environmental audit could go well
beyond the type of compliance assessment
normally conducted during regulatory
inspections, for example, by evaluating
policies and practices, regardless of whether
they are part of the environmental system or
the operating and maintenance procedures.
Specifically, audits can evaluate the extent to
which systems or procedures:
1. Develop organizational environmental
polic:es which: a. implement regulatory
requirements: b. provide management
g--.Jjr.ee for environmental hazards net
specifically addressed in regulations:
2. Train and motivate facility personnel to
work in an environmentally-acceptable
manner and to understand and comply with
go1. ern.T.ent regulations and the entity's
er.-.::~t. e : a 1 policy:
3. Communicate relevant environmental
developments expeditiously to facility and
- . U a r
4. Co.T.,Tiunica:e i::ec::-.e.>
government and the public regarding serious
environmental incidents:
5. Require third parties working for. with or
on behalf of the organization to follow it*
environmental procedures:
-------
25010
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 1J1 f Wpdnesday. July 9. 1986 / Notices
(• Mrtki! pruficu nt personnel a!
¦it' tunr» lo cwrry uut environmental
em«Tgcncv| procedure*:
Irxorpuruie «n*ironm«nl»t protection
iiili# wrfilen opcrthng procedure*:
a Apply best manrigKmeni practice* and
n^i-.Mii.Tg prucedurr*. including "good
housekeeping" Irvhniquev.
9. Inst'iuie preventive and corrective
maintenance syttems 10 minimi t« actual and
l»>irniMl environmental harm;
!'i. I'tiliie best available proceff and
otntrol lechnulngiec
!1. L'*r moM-effeclive sampling and
rr.r.:::!iirir(t technique*. 1*il methoda.
rprordVeeping ivsiems or reporting protocol*
('•••innd minimum legal requirement* h
12. E\ a!uHte cauM* behind any leriou*
emirunmrntel incident* end entubliah
procedure* to avoid recurrence:
1 J. Exploit source reduction, recycle and
rru!h- potential wherever practical: and
l-» S'.h.titui* material* or procetaw t«
rtiiaw um* (if I hp k-a*thrtiardou» substancM
fr.nihl".
I.VJ * [.'Uuld dif**
rrvimp.rri-iirt! ruts and um.erlainttet.
|KR IK: 88-15423 FiW 7—«—B*i 8:4S am]
aiLUMO COOf HU'MJI
-------
GREEN
-------
NO PAPER SUBMITTED
BOB GREEN
-------
ANTLEY
;
-------
NO PAPER SUBMITTED
ALLAN ANTLEY
-------
DICKINSON
-------
NO PAPER SUBMITTED
JOHN DICKINSON
-------
MEREDITH
-------
"FEDERAL DOCKET"
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Required by
CERCLA/SARA Section 120(c)
F&d^ral Docket
Repository of Information:
• RCRA
o Sec. 3005 - Permits
o Sec. 3010 - Notification
o Sec. 3016 - Inventory
• CERCLA/SARA
o Sec. 103- Notification
Available to the Public
-------
Fedoml Docket List
^ ¦ ¦ ir^^^
• Identifies Facilities with Potential
Risk to Pub. Health, Welfare & Env.
• Federal Register - Every 6 Months
• Program for Pub. Information
• Location of Additional Information
in EPA Regional Offices
Federal Docket - U.S.
Total - 1,170
(As of October 5,1988)
-------
Federal Docket - Region IV
Defense
- Air Force
- Army
- Navy
- DLA
Energy
TVA
Other
Total
21
47
26
4
4
16
17
135
3 Oct. 1388
-------
HRS
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
Appendix A of the
National Contingency Plan
(40 CFR 500)
Hazard Ranking System
Uniform Technical Judgment:
• Population at Risk
• Drinking Water Supply
• Ambient Air
• Direct Contact
• Human Food Chain
• Sensitive Ecosystems
• Hazardous Constituents
• Extent of Release
• Degree of Risk
-------
HRS Data Sources - PA
Preliminary Assessment:
• All Federal Docket Facilities
o Initial Analysis
- Record Review, Interviews
- Field Observation
• Identify Possible Releases
- Past or Potential
• Determine Seriousness
• Recommend Priority
- High, Medium, No Further Action
HRS Data Sources - SI
Site Inspection:
© Supplement Preliminary Assessment
• Sampling and Testing (Minimal)
o Demonstrate Releases
• Identify Emergencies
• Remedial Planning
• Confirm Priority
- High, Medium, No Farther Action
-------
HRS Process
Facility/Agency:
• PA/SI
• Preliminary Scoring
EPA:
• Data Validation
• Preliminary Scoring
• Determine Potential for NPL
• Develop HRS "Package"
• Quality Assurance
• Propose for NPL (Federal Register)
• Include on NPL After Public Comment
-------
NPL
FEDERAL FACILITIES
FEDERAL FACILITIES ON THE
NPL IN THE U.S.
AGENCY ON NPL PROP.
=A8 7 H © 4
-Army H4 §
3 IS©
~ ©ft top
©vih©!?' 1
¥®Ms
£ S)
<5=^
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES ON THE
NPL IN REGION IV
AGENCY ON NPL PROP.
0©iF@[nl®@
-ASi? F©?©®
=©^@17
©ife?
¥©ft§][l©
"ug-taOy©©
FEDERAL FACILITIES ON THE NPL
IN REGION IV
FACILITY AGENCY STATE
Robins Air Fore® Bgi© AF Ga.
Ala. Army Ammo. Piarst Army Ala.
oilcan Army Ammo. Plant Army T@nn.
Proposed
Anniston Army D©pof Army Ala.
Csrr.p L@j®Lsn@ (USMC) Navy N.C.
15 July S3
-------
SPAGG
-------
UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS
• FUNDING OBTAINED VIA CONGRESS
• NUMEROUS CERCLA SITES AT EACH FACILITY
• MULTIPLE TENANT ACTIVITIES ONGOING CONCURRENTLY
• LISTING OF FACILITES WITH RCRA REGULATED UNITS
• JOINT SELECTION OF REMEDY
• USE OF INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
• SITE-SPECIFIC PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS
-------
REGION IV's POSITION FOR CLEANUP AT
FEDERAL FACILITIES
Apply Comprehensive Authority of RCRA and CERCLA to
Affect Remediation Action Encompassing the Entire Federal Facility
-------
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT (IAG)
Requirement Under Section 120 CERCLA For Remedial Action
PKndatory for NPL Sites
EPA Policy to Enter in 1AG at Remedial Investigation Stag
-------
REGION lV's RCRA/CERCLA STRAH£GY
FUR WPTSTTES—
n Integrate CERCLA Response Actions And RCRA Cokkecti ve Action Ihid I At.
If RCRA Permit Not Issued-
o IF RCRA Permit Issued Apply CERCLA Authority lo :,i its Ok Ik/aim him:;
Substances Not Included Under Permit.
-------
THE RI/FS PROCESS
REMEDIAL ACTION UNDER CERCLA/SARA
FHOU:
. ttiUUtUHV
. jiikii^ECIION
IcnLlklG
SCGHtJG
| RISK ASSES$MENT|
srre
CiUHACTERaATlOIW TREATABILITY
¦(VESTUATIOIIS
* ~ '
< '
, *
, *
~ ~
f
UiVELOPUENI AND SCHEENMQ
OffTAIED ANALYSO
Of ALTERNATIVES
Of AL TOMATOES
/TO;
REMEDY SELECTION
RECORD Of DECISION
REMEDIAL DtSJGM
REMEDIAL ACTION
1
CERCLA 120
INTERAGENCY
AGREEMENT (I AO)
-------
FEDERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER CERCLA SECTION 120
REQUIREMENT:
FEDERAL AGENCY HAZARDOUS
WASTE DOCKET
PA (IF FACILITY IS ON THE
DOCKET AND SI, IF
APPROPRIATE)
PROPOSE FEDERAL FACILITY
SITE FOR THE NPL
COMMENCE RI/FS
ENTER INTO I AG
IMPLEMENT REMEDIAL ACTION
ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
TIMETABLE:
UPDATED EVERY 6 MONTHS
APRIL 1988
APRIL 1989
6 MONTHS AFTER
PROMULGATION ON THE NPL
180 DAYS AFTER
COMPLETION OF THE RI/FS
NO LATER THAN 15 MONTHS
AFTER COMPLETION OF THE
RI/FS
AS DECIDED BY THE
FEDERAL AGENCY
-------
SEC. 120. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Application .of Act to Feder.a.l Government.—
(1) Is general.—Each department, agency, and instrumental-
ity of the United States (including the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to. and
comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the same
extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovern-
mental entity, including liability under section 107 of this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability
of any person or entity under sections 106 and 107.
(2) Application of requirements to federal facilities.—
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are appli-
cable to preliminary assessments carried out under this Ac: for
facilities at which hazardous substances are Located, applicable
to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency-
Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities Lis:, or
applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be
applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by c de-
partment, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the
same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regu-
lations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No de-
partment, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may
adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or crite-
ria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regula-
tions, and criteria established by the Administrator under this
Act.
(3) Exceptions.—This subsection shall not apply to the extent
otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable
time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any re-
quirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial respon-
sibility. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a
State to comply with section 104(cX3) in the case of a facility
which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or in-
strumentality of the United States.
(4) State laws.—State laws concerning removal and remedi-
al action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall
apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or op-
erated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States when such facilities are not included on the Na-
tional Priorities T.ict The preceding sentence shall not apply to
the extent a State law would apply any standard or require-
ment to such facilities which is more stringent than the stand-
ards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not
owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instru-
mentality.
(b) Notice.—Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the
United States shall add to the inventory of Federal agency hazard-
-------
79
ous waste facilities required to be submitted under section 3016 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (in addition to the information re-
quired under section 3016(aX3) of such Act) information on contami-
nation from each facility owned or operated by the department,
agency, or instrumentality if such contamination affects contiguous
or adjacent property owned by the department, agency, or instrumen-
tality or by any other person, including a description of the monitor-
ing data obtained.
(c) Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.—
The Administrator shall establish a special Federal Agency Hazard-
ous Waste Compliance Docket (hereinafter in this section referred to
as the "docket') which shall contain each of the following:
(1) All information submitted under section 3016 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and subsection (b) of this section regarding
any Federal facility and notice of each subsequent action taken
under this Act with respect to the facility.
(2) Information submitted by each department, agency, or in-
strumentality of the United States under section 3005 or 3010 of
such Act.
(3) Information submitted by the department, agency, or in-
strumentality under section 103 of this Act.
The docket shall be available for public inspection at reasonable
times. Six months after establishment of the docket and every 6
months thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register a list of the Federal facilities which have been included in
the docket during the immediately preceding 6-month period. Such
publication shall also indicate where in the appropriate regional
office of the Environmental Protection Agency additional informa-
tion may be obtained with respect to any facility on the docket. The
Administrator shall establish a program to provide information to
the public with respect to facilities which are included in the docket
under this subsection.
(d) Assessment and Evaluation.—Not later than 18 months
after the enactment of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthor-
ization Act of 1986, the Administrator shall take steps to assure
that a preliminary assessment is conducted for each facility on the
docket. Following such preliminary assessment, the Administrator
shall, where appropriate—
(1) evaluate such facilities in accordance with the criteria es-
tablished in accordance with section 105 under the National
Contingency Plan for determining priorities among releases;
and
(2) include such facilities on the National Priorities List
maintained under such plan if the facility meets such criteria.
Such criteria shall be applied in the same manner as the criteria
are applied to facilities which are owned or operated by other per-
sons. Evaluation and listing under this subsection shall be complet-
ed not later than 30 months after such date of enactment. Upon the
receipt of a petition from the Governor of any State, the Administra-
tor shall make such an evaluation of any facility included in the
docket.
(e) Required Action by Department.—
(1) RIFS.—Not later than 6 months after the inclusion of any
facility on the National Priorities List, the department, agency,
-------
80
or instrumentality which owns or operates such facility shall,
in consultation with the Administrator and appropriate State
authorities, commence a remedial investigation and feasibility
study for such facility. In the case of any facility which is listed
on such list before the date of the enactment of this section, the
department, agency, or instrumentality which owns or operates
such facility shall, in consultation with the Administrator and
appropriate State authorities, commence such an investigation
and study for such facility within one year after such date of
enactment. The Administrator and appropriate State authori-
ties shall publish a timetable and deadline* for expeditious
completion of such investigation and study.
(2) Commencement of remedial action; interagency
agreement.—The Adminis*™tnr shall rvuiouy the results of
each investigation and study conducted as provided in para-
graph (1). Within 180 days thereafter, the head of the depart-
ment, agency, or instrumentality concerned shall enter into an
interagenry agreement with the Administrator for the expedi-
tious completion by such, department, aeency. or instrumentality
of [all necessary remedial actinn qt
-------
81
(A) A report on the progress in reaching interagency
agreements under this section.
(B) The specific cost estimates and budgetary proposals
involved in each interagency agreement.
(C) A brief summary of the public comments regarding
each proposed interagency agreement.
(D) A description of the instances in which no agreement
was reached.
(E) A report on progress in conducting investigations and
studies under paragraph (1).
(F) A report on progress in conducting remedial actions.
(G) A report on progress in conducting remedial action at
facilities which are not listed on the National Priorities
List.
With respect to instances in which no agreement was reached
within the required time period, the department, agency, or in-
strumentality filing the report under this paragraph shall in-
clude in such report an explanation of the reasons why no
agreement was reached. The annual report required by this
paragraph shall also contain a detailed description on a State-
by-State basis of the status of each facility subject to this sec-
tion., including a description of the hazard presented by each fa-
cility, plans and schedules for initiating and completing re-
sponse action, enforcement status (where appropriate), arid an
explanation of any postponements or failure to complete re-
sponse action. Such reports shall also be submitted to the affect-
ed States.
(6) Settlements with other parties.—If the Administrator,
in consultation with the head of the relevant department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States, determines that
remedial investigations and feasibility studies or remedial
action will be done properly at the Federal facility by another
potentially responsible party within the deadlines provided in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, the Administrator
may enter into an agreement with such party under section 122
(relating to settlements). Following approval by the Attorney
General of any such agreement relating to a remedial action,
the agreement shall be entered in the appropriate United States
district court as a consent decree under section 106 of this Act.
(f) State and Local Participation.—The Administrator and
each department, agency, or instrumentality responsible for compli-
ance with this section shall afford to relevant otate and local offi-
cials the opportunity to participate in the planning and selection of
the remedial action, including but not limited to the review of all
applicable data as it becomes available and the development of
studies, reports, and action plans. In the case of State officials, the
opportunity to participate snail be provided in accordance with
tion(l2ll
(e) Transfer of Authorities.—Except for authorities which are
delegated by the Administrator to an officer or employee of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, no authority vested in the Adminis-
trator under this section may be transferred, by executive order of
the President or otherwise, to any other officer or employee of the
United States or to any other person.
-------
82
(h) Property Transferred by Feder.al Agencies.—
(1) Notice.—After the last day of the 6-month period begin-
ning on the effective date of regulations under paragraph (2) of
this subsection, whenever any department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the United States enters into any contract for the sale
or other transfer of real property which is owned by the United
States and on which any hazardous substance was stored for
one year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of,
the 'head of such department, agency, or instrumentality shall
include in such contract notice of the type and quantity of such
hazardous substance and notice of the time at which such stor-
age, release, or disposal took place, to the extent such informa-
tion is available on the basis of a complete search of agency
files.
(2) Form of notice; regulations.—Notice under this subsec-
tion shall be provided in such form and manner as may be pro-
vided in regulations promulgated by the Administrator. As
promptly as practicable after the enactment of this subsection
but not later than 18 months after the date of such enactment,
and after consultation with the Administrator of the General
Services Administration. the Administrator shall promulgate
regulations regarding the notice required to be provided under
this subsection.
(3) Contents of certain deeds.—After the last day of the 6-
month period beginning on the effective date of regulations
under paragraph (2) of this subsection, in the case of any real
property owned by the United States on which any hazardous
substance was stored for one year or more, known to have been
released, or disposed of, each deed entered into for the transfer
of such property by the United States to any other person or
entity shall contain—
(A) to the extent such information is available on the
basis of a complete search of agency files—
(i) a notice of the type and quantity of such hazard-
ous substances,
(ii) notice of the time at which such storage, release,
or disposal took place, and
(Hi) a description of the remedial action taken, if
any, and
(B) a covenant warranting that—
(i) all remedial action necessary to protect human
health and the environment with respect to any such
substance remaining on the property has been taken
before the date of such transfer, and
(ii) any additional remedial action found to be neces-
sary after the date of such transfer shall be conducted
by the United States.
The requirements of subparagraph (B) shall not apply in any
case in which the person or entity to whom the property is
transferred is a potentially responsible party with respect to
such real property.
(i) Obligations Under Solid Waste Disposal Act.—Nothing in
this section shall affect or impair the obligation of any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States to comply with any
-------
83
requirement of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (including corrective
action requirements).
(j) National Security.—
(1) Site specific presidential orders. — The President may
issue such orders regarding response actions at any specified
site or facility of the Department of Energy or the Department
of Defense as may be necessary to protect the national security
interests of the United States at that site or facility. Such
orders may include, where necessary to protect such interests, an
exemption from any requirement contained in this title or under
title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 with respect to the site or facility concerned. The
President shall notify the Congress within 30 days of the issu-
ance of an order under this paragraph providing for any such
exemption. Such notification shall include a statement of the
reasons for the granting of the exemption. An exemption under
this paragraph shall be for a specified period which may not
exceed one year. Additional exemptions may be granted, each
upon the President's issuance of a new order under this para-
graph for the site or facility concerned. Each such additional
exemption shall be for a specified period which may not exceed
one year. It is the intention of the Congress that whenever an
exemption is issued under this paragraph the response action
shall proceed as expeditiously as practicable. The Congress
shall be notified periodically of the progress of any response
action ' ' ' 'ias been issued
this paragraph due to lack of appropriation unless the Presi-
dent shall have specifically requested such appropriation as a
part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed
to make available such requested appropriation.
(2) Classified information.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, all requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
and all Executive orders concerning the handling of restricted
data and national security information, including "need to
know" requirements, shall be applicable to any grant of access
to classified information under the provisions of this Act or
under title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act of 1986.
under
granted under
-------
HARTNETT
-------
RCRA/CERCLA Overlap
RCRA MCERCLA
-------
COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL/CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESSES
RCRA
f 3004(U)1
SUPERFUND
rNCPI
DOD-IRP (USAF^
TSECTION 2111
RFA
PA
SI
PHASE I
PHASE II
ISSUE
RCRA/HSWA
PERMIT
LIST ON NPL
INACT IAG
FURTHER
ACTION
DECISIONS
RFI
(CMS)*
RI
FS
PHASE II
PHASE III
PERMIT
MODIFICATION
ROD
PHASE IV-A
CMP
CM
RD
RA
PHASE IV-A
PHASE IV-B
~OPTIONAL
-------
tihOSSAKl
OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS
T
BN/A
, ratory term used :o denote
the specific fraction o( organic compounds as
they relate to extraction procedures in EPA
methods 625 and 8270.
The Comprehen-
sw Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability Act.
passed in i960. The original Superfund law. it
commuted $16 billion to the long-term, perma-
nent cleanup of the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA. which was amended
and reauthorized in 1986 by the Supertund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
has spawned lunher acronyms to indicate the
stages ol a cleanup. These include PA
(preliminary assessment), SI (site investigation),
Rl (remeoial investigation), FS (feasibility
study), RAP (remedial action plan), RD
(remedial design). RA (remedial action), and
CRP (community relations plan). See inai-
vidual items.
|Q CERCLAs mlor-
vCllwLlw mation system,
the EPA's computerized data base, .vhich
tracks the status of suspected sites. These cur-
rently number 'nore than 27000
Community Relations Plan, re-
quired by CERCLA 'or a haz-
ardous materials release or threat of release.
The plan specifies the communication activi-
ties to be unaena^en and provides for public
comment on the remedial alternatives being
considered.
p | M tk Flame Atomic Absorption, a
¦ laboratory technique used
for trace element analysis
Feas oi.it/ Study. :he onase of a
¦ CERCLA cleanup 'n .vhicn remedial
action a.tsrnat ves are ctevecoed. evaluated,
and selected.
I ¦ A Gas Chromatography/
I IVl^J Mass Spectrometry, a
aocratory 'ecnnique used lor trace organic
analysis.
Graphite Furnace atomic
i Absorption, the most sensi-
tive 'aboratory technique used 'or "ace ele-
ment analysis.
The Hazard Rannmg System.
¦¦ w used 'o assign a value (1 -100)
to indicate the level ol hazard at a site on the
bas s of a preliminary assessment and Site n-
spec::cn S tes with HRS scores acc.e 235
are proposed lor the NPL (see NPL").
¦ Inductively Cou-
w pied P'asrra--:;m'c
Emission Spectropnotometry. a aocatory
'ecnnique used for trace element ana'vsis.
¦ jft jccatcry Analytical Protocol.
.vnch defines the set cf !aoora-
•or/ procedures :o be used for analyzing a set
of samp'es ;c 'ected from a Sucerfuna sits.
I | Leaking JnC9rgrojna
I Storage Tank, aso 'e'erred
to as L'JFT iLeaK.rg Underground "„ei Tar.K)
GFAA
¦ a | Method Detection Limit, the
IV1 mJ La minimum concentration of a
substance that can be measured and re-
ported with 99 percent confidence that the
concentration of the substance is greater than
zero.
Material Safety Data
Sheets, originated by the
Occupational Safety and Health Act ol 1970
SARA (see 'SARA") requires facilities using or
storing any of 402 "extremely hazardous sub-
stances ' to make M3DS available to local
authorities.
NIMBY
"Not in my back yard"
— the nearly universal
response to proposals for the siting of hazard-
ous waste facilities.
NPL
The National Priorities List ol the
nation s worst hazardous waste
sues, estaoiished by the EPA Placement on
the list qualifies a site lor use ol federal funqs.
which the government tries to recover from the
responsible parties 'ater. As ol June 1988. the
NPL named i.l77 sues.
Jfc Preliminary Assessment, the 'irst step
Wl 3\ required by CERCLA .vhen a hazard-
ous substance has reportedly been released.
This assessment nvolves collecting all
available background information to determine
the size of the site, the types and quantities of
waste that may have been disposed ol there,
the potentially responsible parties, local
hydrological and meteorological conditions,
and the potential impact ol contamination if it
has taken oiace.
PQL
Practical Quantitation Limit, the
i concentration ol a substance
that can be measureo and reported .vithin
specified limits of precision ana accuracy.
Q A Potentially Responsible Party.
Wl wr any entity that can oe held re-
sponsible for contamination—past or present
owne's or ^ce'ators ol facilities tnat generate,
use, treat, store, or dispose at hazardous
wastes: contractors hired to transport wastes:
owners cr operators ol sues bordering a con-
taminated s:e that might have contncuted to
the prcciem These parties, once identified,
are notified of '.heir 'escGnsibwty 'or cteanup il
Suoerlund money must be ^sed 'or the
c'eanuo. :r.e 'aw provides for recovery of
•ne money 'rom PRPs: triple damages can
oe assessed.
QAPP
Qua1''/ Assurance p-oi-
ect plan. required oy
CERCLA This plan sets !orth policies, pro-
cedures. and activities for ensuring that the
data cci'ectec meet quamy stanaarcs
• 3emec ai -ct on la CERCLA term),
'-e mc'e^en'aton ct 'he remedial
Design at the sue Remecial act ons -nc^de
encapsuiat cn. noneranon. neut'aiizaton and
cci'ection ana removal as .veil as nonengi-
neermg s; l: ons :;ke institutional contros and
reiocat.on
RAP
' C" :
•oq5 -
cyCE-C^A -sr^ecai ic-
: s pg re-^Rrj. is eced lrcm *he
*. to ce .-¦-3 j m
A "he Resource Censer,a
¦ ¦^^¦¦*\:ion and Recovery Ac:
passed m 1976 The act set up a comprehen
sive 'ederal orogram for monitoring and con
trolling the generation, treatment, storage
transportation, and disposal ol hazardous
materials.
Remedial Design, the phase of
¦ cleanup under CERCLA in wh.c'i
the remedy selected is developed nio
engineering plans and specilicahons lor
imoiemeniaiion
m Remedial investigation the phase of
cleanup under CERCLA during which
oata are collected and analyzed and the site is
characterized. The Rl involves ootn existing
data on the sue and aata collected tnrougn
new field studies.
m/CC flemed'al invest.gafon/
I ¦ FeasiO"ity Stucy These r.«3
CERCLA activities are usually unoenaRen
concurrently
ROD
Record ot Decision re oific.ai
aocument. auoro.'ea ana
Signed by the EPA. of the 'emeaal action
seeded for a ceanup unoer CERCLA
tk The Suoerfuna Amend-
ments ana Reauthorization
Act. passed m 1986 SARA strengthenea the
Sucer'una egisiation ana author.zed 58 5
bmion .n rev/ funds
Site investigation ;he step foilo.ving
^#1 preliminary assessment .n a cleanup
jraer CERCLA Tne SI n.c'.es . sung t"e
site to co. ect an cata required for -a.-.hirg the
na;aro potential
SWMU
Sc 2 .'.^ste '.tanage-
T-en: t. a un.t lor d'S-
cc^i ct a '•a^araous .--astes as jef,neo c/
RCPA —: . j=s :ucn 'ac.i.t.es as .-.asts c-es.
'ara,;,s ccas analarms ana r-c.nerators
-PA
:e
TITLE III
reauiremer.ts 'or emergenc/ z ar r ng 3r.a
creoarecress corm^ou,- • r/-' c.v
receding, ar- c crer^ica. ^.ertcry ara
reiease reccr:.rg
''ea;~e^' S'cage.
u'scosai ri: • ~s 'ct "azz'O-
rjs --.as'.es (.quid. so:a, cr ^as, as aei.rea
oy nCRA.
'.'c 21 !e C'gan.c Cc^cound 3
j£50 jei"' r:e ou;ce-
aoie prior ry oCNuiams ccmp-id^ ra.n., oi
common inauSinal soivenis
TSDF
:-s .-.astes (.c
oy nCRA.
voc
GLOBUS PUBLISHING CO.
(Division of Globus Int'l. Corp.)
¦407 Sevilla Drive
Saint Augustine, Florida 32086
-------
THE RI/FS PROCESS
REMEDIAL ACTION UNDER CERCLA/SARA
| RISK ASSESSMENT
SCOPMQ
FROM:
SITE MSPECTION
NPLLBTMO
TO:
REMEDY SELECTION
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL DESKiN
REMEDIAL ACTION
sat
characterization / treatability
MVESTUATUNS
OF ALTERNATIVES
OCT ALED ANALYSE)
OF ALTERNATIVES
1
CERCLA 120
INTERAGENCY
AGREEMENT (IAG)
-------
Corrective Action
Under HSWA
-------
Corrective Action: Pre-HSWA
PRODUCT STORAGE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
LIMITS OF
COVERAGE
MANUFACTURING AREA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEME
RCRA FACILITY
BEFORE HSVVA, THE RCKA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
ADDRESSED ONLY GROUNDWATER RELEASES FROM RCRA UNITS
-------
Corrective Action: Post-HSWA
RCRA FACILITY
THE HSWA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM ADDRESSES
RELEASES TO ALL MEDIA, BOTH ON AND OFF-SITE, AND
SOURCES ACROSS THE ENTIRE FACILITY
-------
HSWA Provided New Authorities to
Address Releases from Sources
Throughout the Entire Facility...
¦ 3004 (u) - Permits for corrective action
for releases from solid waste
management units
¦ 3008 (h) - Interim status orders for
releases, not limited to solid
waste management units
...and beyond the facility's boundaries...
¦ 3004 (v) - Corrective action beyond
facility boundaries
-------
Key HSWA Corrective
Action Concepts
¦ Solid waste management unit (SWMU)
¦ Release
¦ Facility
¦ Hazardous wastes or constituents
¦ Environmental pathways
-------
"Solid Waste Management
Unit" (SWMU)
¦ Broad definition
¦ Includes all units with current or past use
for managing solid wastes, whether or
not units were intended for such use
-------
The "SWMU" Definition
Includes:
¦ Active and inactive units
¦ Units that no longer manage solid
waste
¦ RCRA-regulated units
¦ Units exempt from RCRA requirements
¦ "Routine and systematic" releases
from processes
¦ Can include:
• Recycling/reclamation operations
• Process sewers
An extensive review of facility
information is needed to be sure
that all units are addressed
-------
"Release"
¦ Similar to CERCLA definition —
• Includes any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping,
leaching, dumping or disposing into
the environment
¦ Excludes discharges to injection zone
of Class I UIC wells
-------
"Facility"
PRODUCT STORAGE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
MANUFACTURING AREA
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
HIWA CORRECTIVE ACTION ENCOMPASSES THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY UNDER THE OWNER/OPERATOR'S
CONTROL (ALSO RELEASES THAT EXTEND OFF-SITE)
-------
"Hazardous Wastes or
Constituents"
¦ Definition includes all solid wastes which
are listed wastes or are hazardous by
characteristic, and...
¦ All hazardous constituents as defined
in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VHI
(Analytical Parameters in Appendix IX)
-------
Environmental Pathways
Addressed Under HSWA
Corrective Action
¦ Five environmental pathways are
addressed:
• Groundwater
• Soil
• Surface water
• Air
• Surface Gas
¦ Groundwater releases from RCRA
regulated units are addressed under
40 CFR 264.100
¦ Otherwise non-regulated pathways at
RCRA units fall under HSWA corrective
action (e.g., groundwater releases from
container storage areas)
-------
Corrective Action Process
Interim
Measures
Interim
Measures
Interim
Measures
RCRA Facility
Assessment
RFA
RCRA Facility
Investigation
RFI
Corrective Measures
Study
CMS
Corrective Measure
Implementation
CMI
-------
Purposes of the RCRA
Facility Assessment
¦ Identify and gather information on
releases
¦ Evaluate SWMUs and other areas of
concern for releases to all media
¦ Make preliminary determinations
regarding releases, need for corrective
measures, further investigations and
interim measures
Screen from further action those SWMU's
and other areas of concern which do not
pose a threat to human health and the
environment
For many facilities, the RFA may be the
most comprehensive environmental review
ever conducted by environmental agencies
— the findings can be useful for all EPA/
State programs involved with the facility
i
'////////////////////WWWSSSWMM////////////////////////////////////////////////////////'//////////////////////////////////yy
-------
Steps in the RFA Process
Sampling
Visit
(SV)
Final RFA
Report
Visual Site
Inspection
(VSI)
Preliminary
Review
(PR)
Necessary for
all RFAs
Necessity dependent
on "comfort level"
with data collected
during PR/VSI
Key document for
the administrative
record
-------
Objectives of the RCRA
Facility Investigation
¦ Verify the existence of suspected releases
¦ Characterize the sources of releases and
wastes associated with these sources
¦ Gather information on the environment
at the facility affecting the migration and
fate of releases
¦ Assess the nature, rate and extent of
releases
¦ Determine the need for interim and
final corrective measures
45.1S3'uh
-------
The RFI Work Plan
¦ Current conditions
¦ Milestones/schedules
¦ Procedures for:
• Specific characterization
• Monitoring and data collection
procedures
• Quality assurance/quality control
procedures
• Data management procedures
• Identification of potential receptors
• Health and safety procedures
(optional)
• Other information as needed
The RFI work plan provides the basis f
for the entire investigation—the work |
plan requirements should be clearly |
specified in the permit or order |
-------
The RFI Report
¦ Should provide sufficient information to
provide a basis for agency decisions
regarding need for corrective measures
and clean-up requirements
¦ Permit/order should provide for agency
review and comments on draft report
-------
Interim Measures
-------
Factors to Consider When
Determining Need for
Interim Measures
¦ Potential for human exposure
¦ Potential for environmental exposure
and threats
B Potential for situation to deteriorate
-------
Implementation of Interim
Measures
¦ May be independent of other facility
corrective actions
¦ Should be coordinated with other
facility corrective actions where
possible
¦ May be needed throughout the various
phases of the HSWA corrective
action process
-------
There Are Differences
Between HSWA Corrective
Action and SARA Remedial
Action
Factor
Scope
Universe of units
Ranking
HSWA
• Interim status and
permitted facilities
• No formal ranking
SARA
• Not limited
to RCRA facilities
• Ranking under
HRS and listing on
NPL
• Responsible parties,
EPA or State
• Explicit
requirements for
cost-effectiveness
and fund balancing
Lead responsibility • Facility owner/
for clean-up operator
Cost-effectiveness • No explicit
of clean-up measures requirements
• "SWMUs" and • "Sites"
"Areas of Concern"
-------
Comparison of HSWA
Corrective Action and
SARA Remedial Action
HSWA SARA
Corrective Measures
Study (CMS)
RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA)
Corrective Measure
Implementation (CMI)
RCRA
Facility
Investigation
(RFT)
Interim
Measures
(any time in
process)
Corrective Measure
Selection
Permii/Order
Modification
Interim
Measures
(any time in
process)
Preliminary Assessment/
Site Investigation
(PA/SI)
Hazard Ranking System i
(HRS) Scoring '
V
National Priority List"
(NPL) :
I
Record of Decision
(ROD) '
Feasibility Study
(FS)
Remedy Selection
Remedial Investigation
(RD
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA)
• Step not required under HSWA process
4
-------
COMPARISON OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESSES*
RCRA
VS.
CERCLA
RCRA FACILITY
ASSESSMENT
RFA
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT/SITE
INVESTIGATION
PA/SI
Identify releases
needing further
Investigation
RCRA FACILITY
INVESTIGATION
RFI
~
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
RFA
T
Characterize
nature, extent,
and rate of
contaminant
releases
-------
COMPARISON OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESSES* (continued)
RCRA VS. CERCLA
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
STUDY
CMS
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
Evaluate/select
remedy
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION
CMI
REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION
RD/RA
Design and
implementation
of chosen
remedy
erformed at any point in the corrective action process.
-------
COMPARISON OF
RCRA/CERCU\ PROCESSES
RANKING
k
RI/FS"
RFI-
(CMS OPTIONAL)
PERMIT
ISSUED
ROD
k
RAP/RA"
CAP/CA-
?
PERMIT
MODIFIED
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT IN SUPERFUND
IDENTIFY CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN
EXPOSURE
ASSESS
TOXICITY
j
CONDUCT RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
-------
THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT:
ASSESSING EXPOSURE
WHERE?
• WHO?
• HOW MUCH?
-------
HOW IS RISK ASSESSMENT USED IN THE
RI/FS PROCESS?
. DEFINING ~ BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
SCOPING
SITE
CHARACTERIZATION I TREATABILITY
INVESTIGATIONS
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
OF ALTERNATIVES
DETAILED ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES
• REMEDIATING
RISK EVALUATIONS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
-------
MAJOR FEDERAL ARARs
# RCRA
SDWA
CERCLA
TSCA
CWA
CAA
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
-------
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs)
¦ Include promulgated Federal and State
requirements
¦ "Applicable requirements": satisfy all
jurisdictional prerequisites of requirements
¦ "Relevant and appropriate requirements":
address problems/situations sufficiently suited
to CERCLA sites
¦ ARARs are determined on site-specific basis
-------
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Section 121 creates new requirements for cleanup
Federal and State ARARs oust be aet on-site
State ARARS: nore stringent, promulgated, tinely identification
MCLGs and UQC to be net when relevant and appropriate
Section 121 cleanup requirements
Mandates selection of alternative that is protective
Creates preference for treatment; mandates cost effective remedies that
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable
Requires, for any material remaining on site at the conclusion of the
remedial action, the remedy to at least attain Federal ARARs and more
stringent State ARARs promulgated under State environmental or facility
siting laws
State ARARs added by SARA; "to be considered" in 1985 NCP
Maximum.Contaminant Level Goals under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
Water Quality Criteria under Clean Water Act (CWA) singled out as relevant
and appropriate
These requirements were categorized "to be considered" in the compliance
policy appended to 1985 NCP
-------
BASIC CONCEPTS
All ABAWn determined oil site specific basis
ARARs are applicable or relevant and appropriate
More discretion in relevant and appropriate deternlnation
Must comply to the sane degree vith applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirement
ARARs are generally promulgated, enforceable requirements
Varied site factors mean ARARs must be determined based on:
Site characteristics - nature of release
Substances present
Remedial Alternatives under consideration
Applicability is primarily a legal determination
There is more room for judgment and more flexibility in the determination
relevant and appropriate
Once a requirement is found to be relevant and appropriate, it must be
complied with to the same degree as an applicable requirement
Non-promulgated criteria or guidance cannot be ARARs
WQC and MCLGs are statutory exceptions because the statute specifical
identified them as potential ARARs
-------
HISTORY OF ARARS
1985 NCP
Compliance Policy
SARA Codification and Expansion
1980 CERCLA did not address "how clean is clean"
CERCLA §105 required the National Contingency Plan (NCP) to include "methods
and criteria for determining the appropriate extent of removal, remedy, and
other measures"
ARARs concept followed settlement of EDF lawsuit on standards for cleanup
1985 NCP revisions and Compliance Policy (50 FR 47946) required that
remedial actions "attain or exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health and environmental requirements"
SARA §121(d) codified and expanded ARARs
Interim guidance issued July 9, 1987 by AA/OSWER, and published August 27,
1987 (52 FR 32496)
Purpose of Compliance Manual is guidance on §121 implementation
-------
ARABS IN CERCLA ACTIONS
o Compliance with APABi aandatory only in remedial actions
o Removal actions should attain ARARs to extent practicable
o In removal accions as a matter of policy EPA will attain ARARs to the extent
practicable
o Factors determining ARARs in removal actions are:
Exigencies of situation
Where urgent conditions constrain or preclude efforts to identify
and attain ARARs, the OSC's documentation of these conditions will
be considered sufficient as justification for not attaining all
ARARs
ARARs within the scope of removal action
Onlv those ARARs that must be attained in order to eliminate near-
term threats are within the scope of the removal action
Statutory Limits may preclude ARARs attainment
The statutory limits of 12 months and $2 million may preclude
removal actions from attaining all identified ARARs. However, OSCs
should give greater emphasis to those ARARs that are most crucial
to site stabilization and protection of human health and the
environment
-------
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
o Attain at completion of remedial action
o Reaedial activities should conply vith ARARs
o Statute requires compliance with ARARs at the completion of the remedial
action for material remaining on site
o As a matter of policy, ARARs also will be met during implementation of the
remedy -
-------
ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE
A BAP n apply to 011-slte activities
On-site actions exeopted from penalts
Substantive requirements nust be net
Off-site actions coaply fully vith applicable requireaents
On-site is defined in Manual as
The areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close
proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the
response action
Meant to address situations where need to locate equipment in an area
not directly contiguous to the site in order to implement the portion of
the remedy related to the contaminated media being addressed
Need to use best professional judgment to determine area necessary to
implement remedy
Examples: (1) Site in marshy area, plateau nearby needed for
incinerator or construction staging area
(2) Containment structure or slurry wall needed adjacent to
contaminated area
(3) Placement of ground-water treatment facility to treat
ground-water plume extending several miles from the
source of contamination (would not locate unpermitted
incinerator over ground-water plume extending from the
source based on rationale that incinerator is on-site)
Section 121(e) exempts on-site remedial and removal actions from Federal,
State, and local permits, interpreted to include administrative requirements
such as reporting, recordkeeping, and consultation
On-site discharges to air and water do not need permits, but substantive
requirements must be met
Off-site action obtain permits and meet ALL applicable requirements, both
substantive and administrative
The relevant and appropriate concept is not available for off-site
actions
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE VS. SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
o Distinguish for on-site requirements, not for off-site requirements
o Generally do not need to document distinction
o Substantive requirements pertain directly to actions or conditions in the
environment
-- Examples: (1) Quantitative health-based/risk-based restrictions on
exposure to types of hazardous substances, such as MCLs
establishing drinking water standards for particular
contaminants
(2) Technology-based requirements for actions taken upon
hazardous substances, such as incineration standards
requiring particular destruction and removal efficiency
(3) Restrictions on activities in particular locations, such
as standards prohibiting certain types of facilities in
floodplains
o Administrative requirements facilitate implementation
-- Examples: (1) Permits
(2) Reporting requirements
(3) Recordkeeping
(4) Consultation
o May examine factors in distinguishing:
Purpose of requirement
Adverse effects of not meeting the requirement on the ability of the
action to protect human health and the environment
Other requirements (e.g., CERCLA procedures) that would provide
functionally equivalent compliance
Previous classification of similar requirement in other CERCLA
s ituations
-------
WAIVERS FROM ATTAINING ARARS
Section 121 all airs waivers from ARARS only under 6 specific circuastances:
Interi* Remedy
Greater Risk
Technically Impracticable
Equivalent Performance
Inconsistent Application by State
Fund Balancing
Remedy must assure protection of human health and the environment
Congress basically codified Agency approach, deleted one waiver ("overriding
public interest related to enforcement") and added two new waivers: (1)
equivalent standard of performance; and (2) inconsistent State application
Definition of Waivers:
INTERIM REMEDY - Remedial action selected is only part of a total
remedial action that will meet the ARAR when completed; may apply to
sites where a final remedy is divided into several sma'ller actions
GREATER RISK - Compliance with the ARAR will result in greater risk to
human health or the environment; consider magnitude, duration, and
reversibility of adverse impacts
TECHNICALLY IMPRACTICABLE -- Compliance is technically impracticable
from an engineering perspective; consider engineering feasibility and
reliability
EQUIVALENT TO OTHER STANDARD -- The selecced action would attain a
standard of performance equivalent to the standard required by the ARAR;
may be used where ARAR specifies design or operating standards but
equivalent or better results are available from alternative design or
method of operation
INCONSISTENT APPLICATION -- If State standard not applied consistently
in similar circumstances; consider similarity of sites or response
circumstances, proportion of non-compliance cases (including enforcement
action and reasons for non-compliance)
FUND BALANCING -- For actions under CERCLA section 10^, if need to
balance Trust Fund across many sites requires another remedy; consider
cost of remedy, availability of Fund, and significant threats that may
not be addressed if ARAR is met
-------
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
Directly fully addresses Che contaminant or situation
Based on the jurisdictional prerequisites of the lav
Same analysis as private party remediating site, not under CERCLA
Looking for match between jurisdictional prerequisites of the law and site
circumstances
Who is subject to the statute or regulation
Types of substances or activities falling under the authority of the
statute or regulation
Time period for which the statute or regulation is in effect
Types of activities the statute or regulation requires, limits, or
prohibits
Example: RCRA minimum technology requirements would be applicable to a new
RCRA landfill or lateral extension of an existing landfill built on CERCLA
site which contains RCRA hazardous waste
-------
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQCJTRQiEHTS
o Address similar, but not Identical, situations
o Two-step identification process
relevant: stifficiently similar
appropriate: well-suited to site circumstances
o Use best professional judgment
o REQUIREMENT MUST BE RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE to be an ARAR.
o Portion of requirement may be relevant and appropriate
o Factors to consider in evaluating appropriateness:
The purpose of the requirement
The physical characteristics (size/nature) of the site and contamination
The character and circumstances of the release at the site compared to
what the requirements was intended to address and requires
The substances covered by the requirement (e.g., chemical
characteristics, form or concentration of the contamination or release
for which the requirement was designed)
The duration of the activity
The basis for a waiver or exemption
o In addition, consider
Whether another requirement is available that more fully matches the
circumstances at the site
Where EPA explicitly has decided that a requirement is not appropriate
to a situation, that requirement will not be appropriate for such a
situation at a CERCLA sice
-------
OTHER CRITERIA 'TO BE CONSIDERED" (TBC)
Non-promulgated, non-enforceable guidelines or criteria
Dse as needed for protectlveness
Examples
Health Advisories
Reference Doses and Potency factors
Proposed rules
Guidance materials and policy documents
Listed in Manual, exhibit 1-9
Values of TBCs may need conversion (e.g., dosages to concentrations)
When evaluating TBCs, use best professional judgment, based on latest
available information
-------
PROTECTIVENESS
All reeedles ust be protective
No appreciable risk of significant adverse effects for non-carcinogens
Generally 10-^ through 10"^ aggregate risk for carcinogens
SARA requires chat all remedies be protective of human health and the
environment
Protectiveness for human health is generally achieved when:
For non-carcinogens, cleanup levels result in no appreciable risk of
significant adverse effects to individuals over a lifetime
For carcinogens, cleanup levels result in an aggregate excess lifetime
cancer risk to an individual within the range of 10"^ to 10"^, generally
considering each medium separately unless there are clear multi-media
effects or exposures
Remedies whose cumulative exposures fall within the generally acceptable
risk range for carcinogens or meet acceptable levels for noncarcinogens
achieve "health-based" levels
Protectiveness for environmental organisms and ecosystems may be more
qualitative
-------
ARARS AND PROTECTIVENESS
o Risk assesnent determines protective cleanup goals, using ARARs and TBCs
o ARARs define the niniaua: nay need to go beyond
o 10'^ point of departure used if ARARs are unavailable or are not sufficiently
protective
o Protective levels for a site are determined through a site-specific risk
assessment, using ARARs and TBCs such as EPA's reference doses and cancer
potency factors
o Remedies must meet ARARs unless a waiver is invoked. ARARs define the
minimum a remedy must meet
ARARs must be factored into the risk assessment to ensure that they are
protective, given the specific site circumstances (such as multiple
contaminants)
If ARARs are not protective, generally the cleanup goals should be
adjusted to bring the remedy within the protective range. For example,
ARARs may not be protective if multiple contaminants are present, whose
ARARs are near the upper end of the risk range
o If ARARs are not protective, or where ARARs are not available, 10"^ should be
r C
used as a point of departure for the analysis. This use of 10*° level as an
analytic starting point reflects a preference for being at the protective end
of the risk range, but is not a strict presumption that cleanup should attain
that risk level. The final risk level will result from a balancing of
factors relating exposure, uncertainty, and technical limitations
-------
WHERE ARARS SHOULD BE MET
AC fh«» point specified by the ARAR itself
Generally, at all points of potential exposure
If the ARAR specifies a compliance point, that generally would determine
where the ARAR should be met. For example, NPDES limits must be met at the
point of discharge
If the ARAR does not specify a compliance point, the ARAR, like cleanup
levels in general, should be met wherever potential exposure might reasonably
occur
Media-specific points of compliance:
Ground water: Throughout the plume or at the edge of the waste
management area when waste is left in place. However, if the waste left
on site does not threaten ground water, the goal should be to reach
health-based levels under the waste as well
Surface water: At the point or points where the release enters the
surface water
Air: At the maximum exposed individual considering the reasonably
expected use of the site and surrounding area
Soils
Wherever direct contact might reasonably occur
-------
OSWER Directive 9234-1-01
CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS MANUAL
August 3, 1988
DRAFT GUIDANCE
••••NOTICE1'**
THIS DRAFT GUIDANCE HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY RELEASED BY THE
U- S- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND SHOULD NOT AT
THIS STAGE BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT AGENCY POLICY. IT IS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR MAY BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT NOTICE TO
HOLDERS•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
WASHINGTON, D• C» 20460
-------
TYPES OF ARARS
o Chemical-specific
o Location-specific
o Action-specific
These are listed in manual in matrices: Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3
o Chemical-Specific
Health/risk-based numerical values or methodologies that
establish concentration or discharge limits for
particular chemicals. Only a limited number have been
promulgated; therefore, other non-promulgated values such
as reference doses may be used in setting protective
cleanup levels
Examples: RCRA MCLs
SDWA MCLs, MCLGs
CWA Water Quality Criteria
o Location-Specific - Restrictions based on the concentration of hazardous
substances or the conduct of activities in specific
locations. These may restrict or preclude certain
remedial actions or may apply only to certain portions of
a site
Examples: RCRA location requirements
Floodplain management requirements
Wetlands discharge restrictions
- Technology or activity-based controls or restrictions on
activities related to management of hazardous wastes
o Action-Specific
Examples: RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous waste management
-------
KOCHER
-------
lTSDR
Fact Sheet
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is part of the Public
Health Service (PHS) and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. It was created by Congress to
implement the health-related sections of laws that protect the public from hazardous wastes
and environmental spills of hazardous substances. ATSDR derives its authority from three
separate acts of Congress.
1. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), commonly known as the "Superfund" Act, provided the Congressional
mandate to remove or clean up abandoned and inactive hazardous waste sites and to
provide Federal assistance in toxic emergencies. Congress made the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) the lead agency in implementing CERCLA and created ATSDR
to implement the health-related sections of the Act.
2. In 1984, amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),
which provides for the management of legitimate hazardous waste storage or destruction
facilities, charged the ATSDR to conduct health assessments at these sites, when requested
by EPA, States, or individuals, and to assist EPA in determining which substances should be
regulated and the levels at which they may pose a threat to human health.
3. In 1986, amendments to CERCLA, known as the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), broadened ATSDR's responsibilities in the areas of
health assessments, toxicological data bases, information dissemination, and medical
education.
ORGANIZATION
ATSDR's three Offices are the Office of the Associate Administrator (OAA), the Office of
External Affairs (OEA), and the Office of Health Assessment (OHA). The OAA is
responsible for the Agency's planning and budget and develops overall policy. OEA is
responsible for developing exposure and disease registries, planning and conducting
research, producing toxicological profiles, responding to legislation, developing agreements
and contracts, providing liaison with EPA and technical assistance to State and local
agencies, maintaining the list of areas closed or restricted because of contamination, and
coordinating the activities of ATSDR's regional staff-those persons responsible for
coordinating ATSDR programs within 10 regions across the United States. OHA provides
-------
emergency response to toxic and environmental disasters, gives health consultations in
public health emergencies, makes health assessments of hazardous waste sites, provides
technical assistance to agencies and organizations, and estimates health risks to humans
from exposure to hazardous substances.
The program areas in which ATSDR operates are as follows:
Program areas
• HEALTH ASSESSMENTS - to evaluate data and information on the release of
hazardous substances into the environment in order to: assess any current or future
impact on public health, develop health advisories or other health recommendations,
and identify studies or actions needed to evaluate and mitigate or prevent human
health effects.
• TOXICOLOGIC AL PROFILES -- to summarize and interpret available data on the
health effects of hazardous substances and to initiate toxicological and health effects
research, where needed.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE - to provide health-related support in public health
emergencies, including public health advisories, involving exposure to hazardous
substances.
• EXPOSURE AND DISEASE REGISTRIES -- to establish and maintain a registry of
serious diseases and illnesses in persons exposed to toxic substances as a result of
environmental exposure and a registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances.
• HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH -- to expand knowledge of the relationship between
exposure to hazardous substances and adverse human health effects, through
epidemiological, toxicological, laboratory, and other studies on hazardous substances.
• HEALTH EDUCATION — to develop and disseminate, to physicians and other health
care providers, materials on the health effects of toxic substances.
• LITERATURE INVENTORY/DISSEMINATION « to establish and maintain,
through the National Library of Medicine (NLM), a publicly accessible inventory on
hazardous substances.
• WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY — to assist in occupational safety and health
service and research programs for protecting workers at Super-fund sites and workers
who respond to emergency releases of hazardous substances.
• LIST OF AREAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC — to maintain a nationwide list of sites
closed or restricted to the public because of contamination by hazardous substances.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
ATLANfTA. GEORGIA 30333
For mora information contact: ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Maitstop F-38, Atlanta, GA 30333
-------
MOSELY
-------
Community Involvement / Remedial Process
Technical Assistance Grants
Notice of AvaMabflity of
FS and Fact Sheet.
PubHc Meeting and
Comment Period
Public Notice and Fact
Sheet on Selection of
Remedy
C
J
SITE INVE8HQATION )
T
( PRP SEARCH )
c
NOTICE LETTERS
~
J
Rt / FS
NEGOTIATION
~
)
c
( Rl I FS
D
RD I RA NEGOTIATION
ha
j
C
Oft u
")
Community Relations
Plan, Establishment of
Information Repository
Responsiveness Summary
lo PubSc Comment
ROO )
Revise Community
Relations Plan
C «<> 1
Fact
Sheet on Design
-------
WILLIAMS
-------
TANK TALK
THE NEW NATIONAL RULES
|MM I 1/ I
-------
SCOPE OF UST PROGRAM
Excluded
by Congress
Excluded
by EPA
Petroleum
Hazardous Substance
Deferred
IM'I I 1/
-------
TYPES OF TANKS
Fiberglass (FRP) P'°«ected Steel
10% 3/0
Linec Tanks
' °/ """"
v> /o --
/
Composite
(FRP Clad feel)
>%
Bare Steel
79%
(Estimates)
Inn i 1/ i
-------
TYPICAL FOUR-TANK STATION
Line Leak
Detectors
Product Delivery Line
-------
UST PROGRAM GOALS
• Prevent leaks
• Find leaks
• Clean them up
• Make sure owners can pay
• Build State programs
-------
750,0 JO T..nk
FaciL.ies
3,000
Coun ies
56 Slote
Programs
NATIONAL UST PROGRAM
) jft ^
| i |
^BuJ Mr ^9*
B3n EJ3\ Sn
J^Sb BBt
&
b
A £ A A
10 Ef A
Regie ns
*p
EPA
HeacLjuaners
-------
TODAY'S SHOW COVERS
Rules for:
New systems
Existing systems
Leaks
Closure
-------
NEW PETROLEUM TANK
SYSTEMS
Corrosion Protected Single Wall Systems
Overfill and Spill Devices
Leak Detection
-------
SUCTION PIPING
"Common"
Check valve at tank
"Safer"
Check valve near
dispenser
ltd! 1 I
-------
NEW PIPING LEAK DETECTION
Choice depends on system:
• "Pressure" - continuous detection with
auto alarm/shutoff
• "Common" suction -- test every 3 years
• "Safer" suction - inspectable valve
-------
NEW TANK LEAK DETECTION
m Monthly monitoring,
or
j Daily inventory + 5 year test (for up to 10
\ears)
Inn i i.' 11
-------
LEAK DETECTION ALTERNATIVES
Spill Device
iJJOf
Mollllcll
Monitoring
Well
In Tank
Monitor
DaifK.'i
with Monitor
-------
NEW TANK SYSTEM COSTS
(THREE 10,000 GALLON TANKS INSTALLED)
00K
$100,000
Total
ist; illation
r.osl ($)
50K
S/0.000
Interim
Prohibition
Protected
System
$80,000
Requirements
Protected
System
Plus External
Leak Detection
Double
Walled/
Secondary
Containment
1•(.
-------
PROPER INSTALLATION OPTIONS
Hf One(s) used
[Z] Installer Certified
-by tank and piping manufacturers
-by tank agency
[ZU Installation Inspected
-by professional engineer
-by tank agency
[~ Manufacturer's checklist done
~ Other method allowed by tank agency
IlUt I 1.14
II' ¦ M
-------
EXISTING PETROLEUM TANK SYSTEMS
• Begin leak detection
- For all systems within 1 to 5 years
- Except pressurized piping within 2 years
• Replace or upgrade within 10 years
IIUI I l/l',
-------
LEAK DETECTION PHASE-IN
By 1992
By 1991
10-14
years
By 1990
15-19
years
By 1989
20-24
years
plus all
pressured
piping
25> years
or unknown
All systems have leak detection by 1993
1
-------
UPGRADING
Piping
• Corrosion protection
Tanks
• Corrosion protection ~~
• Lining
• Spill and overfill devices
Choose one
or both
-------
COSTS FOR IMPROVING
EXISTING TANK SYSTEMS
(Cost Ranges for a Typical Gasoline
Station With Three 5,000 Gallon Tanks)
Leak detection $2,000 to $8,000
Spill & overfill retrofit $3,000 to $8,000
Corr jsion protection retrofit $10,000 to $20,000
Inter or coating of the tanks $10,000 to $15,000
IIIM I 1/ III
-------
LEAKS
bionitorinc Results
Unusual Conditions
Impacts
Spit s
Double
Check
~
Report
Check
Site
Test
System
nun j/i*i
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION
(CONFIRMED RELEASES)
Stop
Rc lea^e
& NJoti.y
Abate Fire & Vapor
Hazards
Cleanup Free
Product
Assemble
Site
Information
Agency Sets
Cleanup Goal
Public Notice
Owner
Submits
Plan
Agency
Approves
Cleanup Plan
(Public Meeting)
c 4>
Owner Does
Cleanup
-------
PETROLEUM CLEANUP COSTS
Assessing proolom and controlling ^ ^qq
immediate hazards
I Removing ana disposing saturated ^
i . ¦ w^^.000
soil; investigating site
I {ecoverin ] floating product $33,000 to $49,500
Cleaning c round water $75,000 to $225,000
or more
SlIllKllt (J Clliilul.lllVO costs
-------
TEMPORARY TANK CLOSURE
Existing / Unprotected USTs (3-12 months)
- maintain leak detection
New / Protected USTs (3 months - unlimited)
- maintain corrosion protection
- maintain leak detection
-------
PERMANENT TANK CLOSURE
• Empty product
• Clean tanks
• Remove from ground, or
• Fill with inert solid
• Do site assessment
-------
REPORTING
stai.ation
r
Aloli. /
mii.vi
¦ w
* . •(#% i#>.
'UN
Suspected
Leak
Closure
Corrective
Action
REPORT
lawdiauai
l«pOf1'«pOi»
*apoii'«po«k
-------
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
fo Cover: Cleanup Costs
Damages to Health and Property
• Minimum $1 million coverage for petroleum
marketers
• $500,000 coverage for non-marketers*
(VDon't sell to public and pump < 10,000 gals./mo.)
lbHI3/:iS
-------
ALLOWABLE MECHANISMS
(1) Financial Test
(3) S jre;y Bond
(4; Gjaiantee
(5) T. us. Fund
(6)Insurance
(2) Letter of Credit (7) Risk Retention Coverage
(8) State-Required Mechanism
(9) State Fund or Other State
Assurance
+ v
* '•)
-------
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PHASE-IN
January 1989
Large:! Fi«ms:
Marketers with
1,000 Tanks
Others \ Jith $20M
net /vorth
October 1989
Large Marketers
with 100-999
Tanks
April 1990
Mid-size
Marketers
with 13-99
Tanks
October 1990
Smaller
Marketers
Others with
under $20M
net worth
Local
Government
facilities
( ' - >vN>
-------
UST SYSTEM
PETROLEUM RULES
Ne^v USTs-
Corrosion Protected
Leak Detection
Spill & Overfill
Ex sting USTs -
Phase-In Leak Detection
Upgrade or Replace
Leaks-
Report & Cleanup
Fir ancial Responsibility -
Obtain Coverage
JlWI !/.'<•
I I' » .• i \
-------
NATIONAL UST AIMS
Improve New Systems
Upgrade Old Systems
Add Leak Detection
-Target worst first
Be Flexible
-Allow choices
-Encourage innovations
-------
FOR SLIDES USED IN THIS PRESENTATION
American Petroleum Institute
Association of Composite Tanks
Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute
Steel Tank Institute
The New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
Marcel Moreau
June Taylor
EPA THANKS:
-------
STATE UST PROGRAMS
Components: Must Be "No Less Stringent" Than
Federal UST Standards
• New Tanks Standards
• Upgrading Exisiting UST Systems
• General Operating Requirements
• Release Detection
• Release Reporting, Investigation and Confirmation
• Release Response and Corrective Action
•«
• Dut-of-Service UST Systems and Closure
• rinancial Responsibility For Petroleum USTs
!
I \\ (..a]
-------
' ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT"
Sta.e Program Must Have Authorities and
Procedures for:
* Compliance - obtain information and inspect
* Enforcement - stop non-compliance and assess
penalties
* Public Participation
111 " ' '
-------
NEW HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE USTs
• Secondary Barrier plus interstitial monitor for tanks
and piping:
Double-wall UST system
Internal liner system
Lined excavation zone
• Corrosion Protection
• Overfill and Spill Prevention
• Proper Installation
Ibni 1/ ui
I h / )
-------
EXiSYING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE USTs
All systems have leak detection by 1993
By 1992
By 1991
10-14
years
By 1990
15-19
years
By 1989
20-24
years
plus all
pressured
piping
25+ years
or unknown
Upgrade to Secondary Containment by 1998
(or obtain variance)
IMHI 1/ II
( i\ t »
-------
EPA-EXCLUDED USTs
• Equipment and Machinery Tanks
• Capacity of 110 Gallons or Less
• Waste Water Treatment Tanks
(covered by CWA)
• Holds Hazardous Wastes
(under Subtitle C of RCRA)
• Hold de minimus Concentration
• Emergency Spill/Containment
Congress Excluded Nine Other Systems
IOHI 1/ I.'
< l\ '
-------
EPA-DEFERRED USTs
Deferred for:
All but Interim Prohibition
and Corrective Action
Field-Constructed Tanks
Airport Hydrant Systems
Waste Water Treatment Tanks
(not subject to CWA)
Radioactive Material Tanks
Emergency Generation USTs
(at nuclear power plants)
oak Det< ction Only
Emergency Generator USTs
fbtt it / 11
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL "CTECrCN AGENCY
OUST PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM
Nare:
~-Je:
).
O^ar^ason:
Street:
C-ty:
Taieonone: (
Type of Organixatcn
Consu/tants
Corrective Action Firm
E.^gmeenng Firm
Gu Station
Govl • Federal
Govt • Stat*
Gov? • County
Govl - City
( 1
State:
, Individual
Industry • Chemical
. Industry • Major Oil
, Industry • Transport.
[ Industry • Other
, Insurance A Ftna
Law Firm
Leak Detection Firm (Tank Test*)
-0:
Oil Jobber
SmaJI Business
Tank and Pump Distributor
Tank and Parts Manufacxurer/flepair
Tank Installer
Trada Assoaation
University/Feaearch
Utility Company
2
17
74
Odar No. ;see -averse)
3 *A 5 8 7 9 10 11 12 12A
18* 21 22 25 28* 32 25 36 40 45
Plaaaa put my name on your mailing list
and sand *ne :ne following pubtieaiiona (circle):
[ ] P'ease put my na/na on your mailing list;
I aonl naad any publications at this tima.
[ ] Plaaaa ramova my nama from your mailing list
Sirgl0 copies of OUSTpublieaiiena a/a ava/Aab/a fr— of ctiMsg*. Rfyoducxn j accacra^e.
Pho:ocoot*s ot 'Jiit ordf fern a/a accaptaota.
RETURN TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. 8ox 6044
Rodcvilla. MO 20850
-ass
OTHER PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST
Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected
Technologies
Stock No. 055-000-00272-0 $7.50
oca ease Affecting Subsurface Transport of Leaking
Underground Tank Fluid*
Stoa No. 055-000-00289-0 $3_25
Survey of Vendors of External Patrolaum Leak
Monitoring Devices for Uea with USTs
Stocx No. '^55-000-00277-1 $4,25
Superintendent of Documams
Government Printing Offtae
Wivur^ton. O.C. 20402
;202) 733-3238
Underground Motor Puet Storage Tanks: A National
Survey. Volume L Technical Report, Vofctme IL
Pub. No. P8 36-218 512
*40.95 Olus S3.00 handling
S'icrii T#c.~r.>cxl lrforr?r»n S«rv%ca
5215 Port RoyaJ Road
Scn.-^sd. VA 22' 51
,7^3': ±£7-i&CQ
Underground Storage Tank Corrective Action
Technology
Pub. No. EPA/S2S-6-87-015
FREE
OftD Publications
U.S. Environmental Protactcn Agency
Canter f or Envronmerruj Researcn Informal on
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati. OH 45268
(513) 589-7582
Soli Qas Sensing tor Detection and Mapping of
Volatile Organlca: EPA 300.B-8 7/038
Catalog No. 49
215.00 3clirynon-m«mDer
National W«« W«9 Aaaoaanon
P.O. Sox : 32039
Dept. 017
Columbua. CW 432' 3
(814) 751 -I 711
-------
LEONARD
-------
FACT SHEET
Drinking Water Regulations
Under The
Safe Drinking Water Act
OCTOBER - 1988
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
Table of Contents
Regulation Page
Requirements under 1986 Amendments to SDWA 1
Table 1: 83 contaminants required to
be regulated under SDWA of 1986 4
Table 2: Summary of Deadlines under SDWA
of 1986 5
Volatile Organic Chemicals 6
Table 3: Final MCLGs/MCLs 6
Table 4: Unregulated VOCs: monitoring 8
Fluoride 9
Inorganic and Synthetic 9
Organic Chemicals
Table 5: Proposed MCLGs for SOCs 10
Table 6: Proposed MCLGs.for 10Cs 11
Lead and Copper 12
Radionuclides 13
Table 7: Draft MCLGs for Radionuclides 13
Other Inorganic and Synthetic 13
Organic Chemicals
Substitutes and Drinking Water 14
Priority List
Table 8: Compounds removed from list of 83 14
Table 9: Substitutes 14
Table 10: Drinking Water Priority List 15
Surface Water Treatment Rule 16
Total Coliforms 21
Table 11: Sampling Requirements Based on Population 26
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations 27
Table 12: SMCLs 2 7
Table 13: Proposed SMCLs 28
Disinfection and Disinfection By-Products 29
-------
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
UNDER
1986 AMENDMENTS TO SDWA
Significant directives to EPA's standard-setting program for
drinking water contaminants included in the 1986 Amendments
to the SDWA are provided below:
o EPA must set MCLGs and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for 83 specific contaminants and for any other
contaminant in drinking water which may have any adverse
effect upon the health of person^ and which is known or
anticipated to occur in public water systems.
o Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs) are now termed
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). No changes were made
in the basis of an MCLG; i.e.:
MCLGs are non-enforceable health goals which are to be
set at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse
effects on the health persons occur and which allows an
adequate margin of safety.
o Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) must be set as close to
MCLGs as is feasible. The definition of "feasible" was
changed to the following:
Feasible means with the use of the best technology,
treatment techniques and other means, which the
Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy
under field conditions and not solely under laboratory
conditions, are available (taking costs into consideration).
The SDWA states that Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is feasible
for the control of synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), and any
technology or other means found to be best available for control
of SOCs must be at least as effective in controlling SOCs as GAC.
o MCLGs and MCLs must be proposed at the same time and also
promulgated simultaneously.
o MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring requirements are to be set for 83
contaminants listed in the SEWA. The best available technology
(BAT) is also to be specified for each.
Table 1 list 83 contaminants. Seven substitutes are allowed
if regulation of any seven other contaminants would be more
protective of public health. The list of substitutes must be
proposed by June 19, 1987.
-------
-2-
o The timetable to produce the MCLGs and MCLs/Mcnitoring is as
follows:
- 9 by June 19, 1987
- 40 by June 19, 1988
- 34 by June 19, 1989
o MCLGs.and MCLs/Monitoring must be set for other contaminants in
drinking water that may pose a health risk.
- The 1986 Amendments require that EPA publish a Drinking
Water Priority List (DWPL) of drinking water contaminants
that may require regulation under the SDWA.
- The seven substituted contaminants must be included on the
drinking water priority list.
- The list must be published by January 1, 1988, and every 3
years following.
- MCLGs and MCLs/Mcnitorincr are to be set for at least 25
contaminants on the list by January 1, 1991.
- MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring are to be set for at least 25
contaminants every 3 years following January 1, 1991 (i.e.
1994, 1997,...), from subsequent triennial lists.
o Criteria must be established by which States must determine
which surface water systems must install filtration. The SDWA
deadline for promulgating this criteria was December 19, 1987.
States with primacy enforcement responsibility must make
determinations regarding filtration within 12 months of promul-
gation of these criteria and must adopt regulations to implement
the filtration requirements within 18 months of promulgation.
o A treatment technique regulation must be promulgated which will
require all public water systems to use disinfection.
- Variances will be available. EPA will specify variance criteria,
(i.e.# quality of source water, protection afforded by watershed
management.)
- The disinfection treatment rule must be promulgated by
June 19, 1989.
o Requirements must be set for water systems to monitor for
unregulated contaminants.
- Minimum monitoring frequency is five years.
- State may add/delete contaminants from list.
-------
-3-
- Monitoring regulations must be promulgated by
December 19, 1987.
o MCLGS and MCLs/Monitoring requirements must be reviewed by
EPA every three years.
o Other requirements/provisions of the 1986 Amendments:
- Public notification regulations may be changed to
provide for different types and frequencies of notice
depending upon the potential health risk. Final regulations
are due September 19, 1987.
- BAT for issuance of variances must be set when MCLs are
set. BAT may vary depending upon the size of systems and
other factors, including costs.
- Exemptions can be extended for systems with 500 connections
or less. No limit is placed on the number of extensions but
certain criteria must be met.
o A summary of deadlines pertinent to standard-setting is presented
in Table 2.
o All current drinking water regulations, which have been promulgated
as of July 1 in any year, may be found on the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Volume 40, Parts 141, 142, and 143. Regulations
published between CFR editions may be found in the Federal Register
(FR).
For additional information, contact:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline
800-426-4791 or (202) 382-5533
or
Joseph A. Cotruvo, Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550D)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202/382-7575
-------
-4-
TABLE 1
Contaminants Required to be Regulated
under the SDWA of 1986
Volatile Organic Chemicals
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2,-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2,Dichloroethylene
ci s-1,2,-Dichloroethylene
Microbiology and Turbidity
Total coliforms
Turbidity
Giardia Iambiia
Arsenic
Bar ium
Cadmium
Chromi an
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Aluminum
Ant imony
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4, -D
2,4,5-TP
Aldicarb
Chlordane
Dalapon
Diquat
Endothall
Glyphoaate
Carbofuran
Alachlor
Epichlorohydrin
Toluene
Adipates
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Inorganics
Organics
count
Vi ruses
Standard plate
Legionella
Molybdenuui
Asbestos
Sal fate
Copper
Vanadium
Sodium
Nickel
Zinc
Thallium
Beryllium
Cyanide
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vydate
Simazine
PAH's
PCB 1 s
Atrazine
Phthalates
Acrylamide
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-dichloropropane
Pentachlorophenol
Pichloram
Dinoseb
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Dibromomethane
Xylene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Radionuclides
Radium 226 and 228
Beta particle and photon
Uranium
Gross
radioact ivity
Radon
alpha particle activity
-------
-5-
TABLE 2
Summary of Deadlines
for Standards under SDWA of 1986
What When
9 MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring June 19, 1987
Propose Seven Substitutes June 19, 1987
Public Notice Revisions Sept. 19, 1987
Filtration Criteria Oec. 19, 1987
Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants Dec. 19, 1987
First List of Contaminants (DWPL) Jan. 01, 1988
40 MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring June 19, 1988
34 MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring June 19, 1989
Disinfection Treatment June 19, 1989
25 MCLGs and MCLs/Monitoring Jan. 01, 1991
-------
-6-
STATUS: NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS)
* ANPRM March 4, 1932 (47 FR 9350)
* Proposed MCLGs June 12, 1984 (49 FR 24330)
" Final MCLGs, proposed MCLs, Monitoring Nov. 13, 1985 (50 FR 46880)
' November 13, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 46880)
- Extension of public comment period for 45 days on
tetrachloroethylene MCLG.
NTP Report recently released
* Reproposal MCLG/MCL for para-dichlorobenzene:
April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12876).
* Final rules signed by Administrator on June 19, 1987.
published in Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25690).
Table 3 presents the final MCLGs and MCLs.
* Correction Notice, July 1, 1988.
Table 3
VOCs: Final MCLGs and MCLs (in mq/1)
Final
MCLG*
Final
MCL
Tr ichloro«thylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Chloride
para-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2 Dichloroethane
Benzene
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
0.075
0.007
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.075
0.007
0.2
*Final MCLGs were published Nov. 13, 1985. The MCLG and
MCL for p-dichlorobenzene were reproposed at zero and
0.005 mg/1 on April 17, 1987; comment was requested on
levels of 0.075 mg/1 and 0.075 mg/1, respectively.
-------
Other Requirements in the final VOC rules;
BAT under SDWA Section 1412 (MCLs):
• Packed tower aeration (PTA) and granular activated carbon
(GAC) for the eight VOCs, except vinyl chloride.
• PTA for vinyl chloride.
BAT under SDWA Section 1415 (Variances):
• Same as BAT for 1412.
Compliance Monitoring:
* Initial Monitoring: All systems must monitor each source
at least once within four years.
- Surface waters: 4 quarterly samples
- Ground waters: 4 quarterly samples? state can exempt
systems from subsequent monitoring if no VOCs detected
in first sample,
- Composite samples of up to five sources allowed
* Phase in by system size (start monitoring: January 1, 1988)
Size Complete by Date
> 10,000 1 year December 31, 1988
3300-10,000 2 years December 31, 1989
< 3300 4 years December 31, 1991
* Repeat monitoring: varies from quarterly to once per five
years. The frequency is based on whether VOCs are detected in
the first round of monitoring and whether system is vulnerable
to contamination.
Monitoring for Unregulated VOCs:
" Methodology same as for regulated VOCs.
* Initial monitoring: all systems required to sample each drinking
water source once for unregulated VOCs during a four year period.
* Same phase-in schedules as compliance monitoring.
* 51 VOCs specified (see Table 4):
- List 1
- List 2
- List 3
required for all systems (34 VOCs)
required for vulnerable systems (2 VOCs)
required at State discretion (15 VOCs)
* Repeat monitoring: Every five years? EPA will specify a new list.
Analytical Methods: GC or GC/MS
* Methods 504, 502.1, 503.1, 524.1, 524.2, 502.2
-------
-8-
Laboratory Certification Criteria:
* Seven VOCs: + 20% _> 0.010 mg/1
+ 40% < 0.010 mg/1
* Vinyl Chloride: + 40% < 0.004 mg/1
Non-transient Non-community Water Systems (NTWS) :
* Non-community water systems which regularly serve at least
25 of the same persons over 6 months per year (i.e., NTWS)
are required to meet all requirements in this rule.
Point-of-Entry (POE), Point-of-Use (POU), and Bottled Water:
* POE may be used to achieve compliance with MCLs but is
not BAT.
* POU and bottled water cannot be used to meet MCLs (see variances
and exemptions, below).
Variances and Exceptions
* As a condition of issuing a variance or exemption, states
have the authority to require the water system to implement
additional interim control measures. If an unreasonable risk
to health exists, the state must require either installation
of point-of-use devices or distribution of bottled water to
each customer.
Table 4
Monitoring for Unregulated VOCs
Required for all systems
1 chloroform
2 bromodichloromethane
3 chlorodibromomethane
4 bromofrom
5 trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
6 chlorobenzene
7 m-dichlorobenzene
8 dichloromethane
9 cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
10 0-dichlorobenzene
11 dibromomethane
12 1,1-dichloropropene
13 tetrachloroethylene
14 toluene
15 p-xylene
16 o-xylene
17 m-xylene
19 1,1-dichloroethane
19 1,2-dichloropropane
20 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
21 ethylbenzene
22 1,3-dichloropropane
23 styrene
24 chlororaethane
25 bromomethane
26 1,2,3-trichloropropane
27 1,1,12-tetrchloroethane
28 chloroethane
29 1,1,2-trichloroethane
30 2,2-dichloropropane
31 o-chloroeoluene
32 p-chlorotoluene
3 3 bromobenzene
34 1,3-dichloropropene
35 ethylene dibromide
36 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Monitoring for Unregulated VOCs
Required for Vulnerable Systems:
Ethylene dibromide (COB)
1, 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
State Discretion:
1 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
2 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
4 n-propylbenzene
5 n-butylbenzene
6 naphthalene
7 hexachlorobutadiene
8 1,2,5-trimethyulbenzene
9 p-isopropyltoluene
10 isopropylbenzene
11 tert-butylebenzene
12 sec-butylbenzene
13 fluorotrichloromethane
14 dichlorodifluoromethane
15 bromochloromethane
FLUORIDE
* ANPRM October 5, 1983 (48 FR 45502)
* Proposed MCLG May 14, 1985 (50 FR 20164)
* Final MCLG, Proposed MCL, SMCL, Monitoring Nov. 14, 1985
Final MCL, SMCL, Monitoring April 2, 1986 (41 FR 11396)
Final MCLG 4.0 mg/1
Final MCL 4.0 mg/1
Final SMCL 2.0 mg/1
Final Monitoring 1 per year surface waters
1 per 3 years ground waters
Minimum repeat : 1 per 10
years
INORGANIC AND SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS
ANPRM October 5, 1983 (42 FR 45502)
* Proposed MCLGs, November 13, 1985, Federal Register
(50 FR 46936)
Reproposed MCLGs, proposed MCLs/Monitoring scheduled for
Spring 1989. Final Fall 1989.
-------
-10-
• Table 5 and 6 presents the proposed MCLGs for SOCs and IOCs,
respectively, that will be proposed in Fall 1989.
Table 5
Proposed MCLGs for SOCs
SOC
Existing
NIPDWR (mq/1)
Ppoposed
MCLG (mq/1)
Acrylamide
Alachlor
Aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfoxide and aldicarb
sulfone
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Dibromochloropropane(DBCP) —
1,2-Dichloropropane
o-Dichloroberizene
2,4-D 0.1
Ethylenedibromide (EDB) ~
Epichlorphydrin —
Ethylbenzene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide —
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor 0.1
Monochlorobenzene —
(PCBs)(as decachlorobiphenyl) —
Pentachlorophenol
Styrene
Tetrachloro«thylene
Toluene
2,4,5-TP 0.01
Toxaphene 0.005
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Xylenes (total) —
zero
zero
0.01
0.003
0.04
zero
0.07
: zero
zero
0.6
0.07
zero
zero
0.7
zero
zero
0.0002
0.4
0.1
zero
0.2
zero
zero
2.0
0.05
zero
0.01
10
-------
-11-
| Table 6
j Proposed MCLGs for IOCs
Existing
IOC NIPDWR (mg/1)
Proposed
MCLG mq/1
Asbestos
7 FL*
Barium
1.0
5
Cadiurn
0.010
0.005
Chromium
0.05
0.1
Mercury
0.002
0.002
Nitrate (as Nitrogen)
10
10
Nitrite (as Nitrogen)
—
1.0
Selenium
0.01
0.05
MFL = million fibers
per liter
* 7 million fibers/liter (only fibers longer than 10 um)
-------
-12-
Lead and Copper
* ANPRM October 5, 1983 (48 FR 45502)
" Proposed MCLGs November 13, 1985 (50 FR 46936)
* Reproposed MCLGs and proposed MCLs and treatment technique
requirement August 18, 1988.
* Final rules expected winter/spring 1989.
* Proposed MCLGs
Existing MCLG Proposed MCLG
Lead 0.050 mg/1 zero
Copper - - - 1.3 mg/1
* Proposed MCLs
(Measured as water leaves the treatment plant or enters the
distribution system)
Lead 0.005 mg/1
Copper 1.3 mg/1
* Proposed Treatment Technique
Corrosion control treatment and public education
Corrosion control triggered when:
- Lead level average exceeds .010 mg/1 (measured in morning
first draw, or if lead service lines are not present, in
measured overnight standing service line sample, averaged
across houses, in targeted sampling of high risk locations).
- pH of more than 5% of samples exceeds 8.0
- Copper in more than 51 of samples exceeds 1.3 mg/1
" Public education triggered when;
- Lead level average exceeds .010 mg/1
- Lead levels in more than 5% of targeted samples exceed 0.020 mg/1
-------
Radionuclides
* ANPRM September 30, 1986 (51 FR 34836)
a Table presents the draft MCLGs for radionuclides
Table 7
Draft MCLGs for Radionuclides
Radionuclide
Draft MCLG
Radium 226
zero
Radium 228
zero
Uranium
zero
Radon
zero
Beta particle
and photon radionactivity
zero
* Gross alpha will be proposed as a monitoring screen. No MCLG
will be proposed.
* Proposed MCLGs/MCLs/Monitoring scheduled for September 1989.
Final projected for November 1990.
OTHER IOCS AND SOCs
• MCLGs/MCLa/Monitoring scheduled for proposal in July 1989. Fina
scheduled for July 1990.
" IOCs and SOCs:
Arsenic
Methylene Chloride
Ant imony
Endrin
Dalapon
Diquat
Endothall
Glyphosate
Andipates
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
Trichlorobenzene
Sulfate
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Nickel
Thallium
Berryllium
Cyanide
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Vydate
Simazine
PAH 3
Atrazine
Phthalates
Pichloram
Oinoseb
-------
-14-
Substitutes and Drinking Water Priority List
Proposed substitutes and draft DWPL signed by Administrator on
June 19, 1987. Published in Federal Register on July 8, 1987
(52 FR 25720). Final January 1, 1988.
Final substitutes on DWPL notice signed by Administrator on
January 13, 1988, and published in Federal Register on January
22, 1-988 (53 FR 1892) .
Table 8 shows contaminants removed from list of 83. Table 9
shows substitutes added. Table 10 shows the Drinking Water
Priority List.
Table 8
Removed from SDWA List
of 83:
Zinc
Sodium
Vanadium
Silver
Molybdenum
Dibromomethane
Aluminum
Table 9
Substituted
into SDWA List of 83:
Aldicarb sulfoxide
Heptachlor eoxide
Aldicarb sulfone
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Nitrite
Heptachlor
-------
-15-
Table 10
Priority List of
Drinking Water Contaminants
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
bromoform hypochlorite ion
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloramine isophorone
1,1-dichloroethane
chlorate methyl tert-
1,2,3-trichloropropane
chlorine butyl ether
1,3-dichloropropane
chlorite
1,3-dichloropropene
chloroethane
2,2-dichloropropane
chloroform
2,4,5-T
chloromethane
2,4-dinitrotoluene
chloropicrin
aluminum
cryptospor idiurn
ammonia
cyanaz ine
boron
bromobenzene
cyanogen chloride
bromochloroacetonitrile
dibromoacetonitrile
bromod ichloromethane
d ibromochloromethane
dichloroacetonitrile
dibromomethane
FTU
dicamba
metolachlor
trifluralin
metribuzin
vanadium
molybdenum
zinc
ozone byproducts
o-chlorotoluene
silver
p-chlorotoluene
sodium
halogenated acids, alcohols
strontium
aldehydes, ketones, and other
trichloroacetonitrile
nitriles
-------
-16-
PROPOSED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Note: The requirements in brackets CD are changes and/or additions
to the proposed rule under consideration for adoption into
the final rule. Otherwise the requirements shown are from
the proposed rule and remain the same for the final rule.
* Proposal was published in Federal Register on Novembr 3, 1987
(52 FR 42178)
* Notice of Availability, describing new regulatory options, was
published in the federal register on May 6, 1988 (53 FR 16348).
Note: The reuirements in brackets [] are changes and/or additions
to the proposed rule under consideration for adoption into
the final rule. Otherwise the requirements shown are from
the proposed rule and remain the same fcr the finai rule.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
Giardia Lamblia
Viruses
Legionella
Turbidity
Heterotrophic Plate Count
General Requirements
Coverage: All public water systems using any surface water must
disinfect, and may be required by state to filter, unless certain
water quality source requirements and site specific conditions
are met.
Treatment must technique requirements are established in lieu of MCLs
for Giardia, viruses, heterotrophic plate count bacteria, Legionella
and turbidity.
Treatment achieve at least 99.9 percent removal and/or inacti-
vation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.9 percent removal, and/or
inactivation of enteric viruses.
All systems must be operated by qualified operators as determined
by the state.
Compliance Date: All systems must meet treatment requirements
within 48 months from the date the regulations are promulgated.
Criteria to be Met to Avoid Filtration
Source Water Criteria
Fecal coliform concentration must not exceed 20/100 ml or
the total coliform concentration must not exceed 100/100 ml
before disinfection in more than ten percent of the measure-
ments for the previous six months, calculated each month.
0
0
0
none proposed
none proposed
-------
-17-
Minimum sampling frequencies for fecal or total coliform
determination are;
SYSTEM SIZE (persons)
SAMPLES/WEEK
< 501
501-3,000
3,301-10,000
10,001-25,000
> 25,000
1
2
3
4
5
If not already conducted under the above requirements, a
coliform test must be made each day that the turbidity
exceeds one NTU.
Turbidity levels must be measured every four hours by grab
sample or continuous monitoring. The turbidity level may not
exceed 5 NTU unless the State determines that the exceedence
is unusual or unpredictable, the system informs its customers
that it is necessary to boil the water before consumption
during the period the turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, and the
exceedence does not occur for more than two periods in any
one, or five periods in any consecutive ten years. An
"event" is one or more consecutive days when at least one
turbidity measurement each day exceeds 5 NTU. [The boil
water requirement has been deleted and left to State
di scret ion.]
Site Specific Conditions to be Considered by States
Disinfection must achieve at least a 99.9 and 99.99 percent
inactivation of Giardia Lamblia and enteric viruses. This
must be demonstrated by the system meeting "CT" values in the
rule ("CT" is the product of residual concentration (mg/1)
and contact time (minutes) measure at peak hourly flow).
Disinfection system must have redundant components including
alternate power supply, automatic alarm and start-up to
insure continuous disinfection of the water during plant
operation, or have automatic shut-off of delivery of water
to the disribution system whenever the disinfectant residual
is less than 0.2 mg/L.
Disinfectant residuals in the distribution system cannot be
less than 0.2 mg/1 in more than five percent of the samples,
each month, for an two consecutive months. Samples must be
taken at the same frequency as total coliforms under the
proposed [revised] coliform rule. [Disinfection residuals
in the distribution system must be "detectable". In lieu of
at least 0.2 mg/1. A system must first measure for disinfection
residual, if no residual is detectable it has the option to
measure for HPC. If the HPC measurement is less than 500
colonies/ml the site is considered to have a "detectable"
-------
-18-
residual for compliance purposes. For systems serving fewer
than 500 people which cannot maintain a residual or monitor
for HPC the State can judge whether adequate disinfection is
provided. ]
System must maintain a disinfectant residual concentration
of at least 0.2 mg/1 at all times in the water entering the
system, demonstrated by continuous monitoring. If it drops
below this it is considered an acute violation (requiring
electronic media public notification). [If the disinfectant
residual is less than 0.2 mg/l the system has 4 hours to
correct the problem. If it is not restored to at least 0.2
mg/1 within four hours it is a violation but not an acute
violation. Systems serving less than 500 people can take 1
grab sample/day in lieu of continuous monitoring. Whenever
the disinfectant residual entering the distribution system
falls below 0.02 mg/1, the system is required to notify the
state within 24 hours or the next business day, whichever is
later. The system must not report to the State earlier than
4 hours after the disinfectant residual dropped below 0.2
mg/1, unless the disinfectant residual has been restored to
at least 0.2 mg/1 in less than 4 hours. Notification must
include whether or not the disinfectant residual was restored
within 4 hours.]
System must maintain a watershed control program which will
minimize the potential for contamination by human enteric
viruses and Giardia lamblia cysts. System must monitor and
control the act ivit ies in the watershed that may have an
adverse impact on water. System must demonstrate through
ownership or written agreements with landowners in the water-
shed that it is able to limit and control all human activities
that may have an adverse impact upon water quality. An
annual sanitary survey and rpport must be conducted which
is approved by the State. [A sanitary survey and report
must be conducted every 3 years for systems serving less than
4100 people, or every 5 years for systems serving greater
than or equal to 4100 people.]
System must not have a history of any waterborne disease
outbreaks with its present water source and treatmeant system.
System must be in continuous compliance with the long-term
MCL requirements for total coliforms. [EPA has deleted the
long-term MCL requirement in the Total Coliform Rule. To
avoid filtration, unfiltered systems must not be out of
compliance with the monthly MCL for total coliforms for any
two months in any consecutive 12 month period.]
Systems serving more than 10,000 people must be in compliance
with MCL requirements for total trihalomethanes.
-------
-19-
Criteria for Filtered Systems
Turbidity Removal
Conventional filtration or direct filtration water must
achieve a turbidity level in the filtered water at all times
less than five NTU and not more than 0.5 NTUs in more than
five percent of the measurements taken each month. The
State may increase this limit up to one NTU if the system
demonstrates effective removal of Giardia lamblia cysts at
such turbidity levels. CThe State may increase the turbidity
limit up to less than 1 NTU in greater than or equal to 95%
of the samples without any demonstration by the system.]
Slow sand filtration must achieve a turbidity level in the
filtered water at all times less than five NTU and not more
than one NTU in more than five percent of the samples taken
each month. The turbidity limit of one NTU may be increased
by the State (but at no time exceed five NTU) if the filtered
water meets the long term coliform MCL before disinfection.
[The turbidity limit of one NTU may be increased by the
State if it determines that there is no significant interference
with disinfection.]
Diatcmaceous earth filtration must achieve a turbidity level
in the filtered water at all times less than five NTU and of
not more than one NTU in more than five percent of the
samples taken each month.
Other filtration technologies may be used if they demonstrate
to the State that they achieve at least 99.9 and 99.99
percent removal/inactivat ion of Giardia lamblia cysts and
enteric viruses, respectively, and are approved by the State.
Turbidity limits for these technologies are the same as
those for slow sand filtration, including the allowance of
increasing the turbidity limit of one NTU up to 5 NTU but at
no time exceeding 5 NTU upon approval by the State.
Turbidity Monitoring
Turbidity oust be measured every four hours by grab sample
or continuous monitoring. For systems using slow sand
filtration or filtration technologies other than conventional
treatment, direct filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration,
the State may reduce the sampling frequency to once per day.
[The State is allowed to reduce monitoring to one grab sample
per day for all systems serving less than 500 people.]
Disinfection Requirements
Disinfection with filtration must achieve at least 99.9 and
99.99 percent removal/inactivat ion of Giardia and viruses.
-------
-20-
respectively• State defines level of disinfection required,
depending on technology and source water quality. Guidance
on the use of CT values to make these determinations is
available in the Guidance Manual. *[Recommended procedures
in the Guidance Manual for applying CT values are being
chanaedT]
Disinfectant residuals in the distribution system cannot be
less than 0.2 mg/1 in more than five percent of the samples,
each month, for any two consecutive months. Samples must be
taken at the same frequency as total coliforms under the
[final] coliform rule. [Disinfection residuals in the
distribution system must be "detectable". A system must
first measure for disinfection residual, if no residual if
detectable it has the option to measure for HPC. If the HPC
measurement is less than 500 colonies/ml the site is considered
to have a "detectable" residual for compliance purposes.
For systems serving fewer than 500 people which cannot
maintain a residual or monitor for HPC the State can judge
whether adequate disinfection is provided.]
System must maintain a disinfectant residual concentration
of at least 0.2 mg/1 all times in the water entering the
distribution system, demonstrated by continuous monitorng.
If it drops below this it is considered an acute violation
(requiring electronic media public notification). [If the
disinfectant residual is less than 0.2 mg/1 the system has 4
hours to correct the problem. If it is not restored to at
least 0.2 mg/1 within four hours it is a violation but not
an acute violation. Systems serving less than 50 people can
take 1 grab sample/day in lieu of continuous monitoring.
Whenever the disinfectant residual entering the distribution
system falls below 0.2 mg/l, the system is required to notify
the State within 24 hours or the next business day whichever
is later. The system must not report to the State earlier
than 4 hours after the disinfectant residual dropped below
0.2 mg/1, unless the disinfectant has been restored to at
least 0.2 mg/1 in less than 4 hours. Notification must
include whether or not the disinfectant residual was restored
within 4 hours.]
Analytical Requirements
Testing and sampling must be in accordance with Standard
Methods, 16th edition, or methods approved by EPA for total
coliforms, fecal coliform, turbidity, disinfectant residuals,
temperature, and pH.
Reporting
Monthly reports to the State for all parameters required in
the rule.
-------
-21-
Unfiltered water systems must also report annually on their
watershed control program and sanitary surveys. *CUnfiltered
systems must report on watershed control programs and sanitary
surveys in the years that they are performed.3
Waterborne disease oubreaks must be reported to the State
within 48 hours.
Violat ions
Systems with unfiltered surface water sources must meet
source water quality and site-specific conditions within 43
months of promulgation. If they fail to meet these criteria
would not be in violation until failing to install filtration
or to meet the criteria for filtered systems within 48 months.
[Unfiltered systems must meet monitoring requirements within
18 months following promulgation.]
Filtered systems must meet performance criteria and monitoring
requirements for the filtered and disinfection treatment
techniques within 48 months of promulgation.
Variances
Variances are not applicable.
Exempt ions
Exemptions are allowed for requirement to filter. Systems
using surface water must disinfect (i.e., no exemptions);
exemption allowed for degree of disinfection provided.
TOTAL COLIFORMS
The Total Coliforms proposal was published in the Federal Register
on November 3, 1987 (52 FR 42224). Additional regulatory options
were published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1985 (53 FR 16340).
Proposal effective date on regulations: All public water systems
must meet the coliform MCL and monitoring requirements 18 months
after promulgation of the regulations.
-------
-22-
Maximum contaminant level goal: zero
Maximum contaminant level (summary of currently preferred option):
* based on presence/absence of total coliforms in sample,
rather than estimate of coliform density
* no more than 1 coliform-positive sample/month for
systems which analyze fewer than 40 samples/month
* systems report all total cqliform-positive samples to State
* all total coliform-positive samples count in compliance
calculations, unless State determines local plumbing system
problem caused positive result, or that laboratory establishes
improper sample analysis caused positive result
Monitoring frequency and repeat sampling for to:al coliforms
* monitoring frequency below pertains to community wate systems,
except for first entry (non-community water system (NCWS))
svstem size
# samDles
# reDeats
mere
monitorino for
NCWS
quarterly*
4
5/mo
for 1
addit ional
mo
25-1000
monthly*
4
5/mo
for 1
add i t ional
mo
1001-2500
2/mo
3
5/mo
for 1
addi t iona1
mo
2501-3300
3/mo
3
5/mo
for 1
additional
mo
3301-4100
4/mo
3
5/mo
for 1
addi t ional
mo
4101-4900
5/mo
3
NA
>4900
Table 2
3
NA
* for exceptions,
see Table 2
-------
-23-
* one coliform sample each day the turbidity exceeds one NTU
for unfiltered surface water systems
* State oust approve sample site plan for each public water
system
* if total coliform are detected in any sample, system
must collect a set of repeat samples (see above Table).
At least one sample must be from the same location as
the original sample; other samples may be collected
from an adjacent service connection? system must collect
all repeat samples on the'same day, and within 24 hours
of being notified.
* if total coliforas are detected in any repeat sample,
system must collect another set of repeat samples
from the same location unless an MCL has been violated
and the system has notified the State.
* if total coliforms are detected in any original or
repeat sample, and sample is not invalidated by the State,
system must collect a set of five routine samples the
next month the system is in operation.
Variances and exemptions; none allowed
Sanitary surveys-;
* required periodic sanitary surveys for all PWSs collecting
fewer than 5 samples/month, according to following schedule:
type system sanitary survey within (yrs)
initial subsequent
Community water systems
filtered surface water
5
5
unfiltered surface water
*
3/5 *
undisinfected ground water
5
5
disinfected ground water
5
5
Non-transient non-community system
5
5
Other non-community systems
filtered surface water
10
5
unfiltered surface water
*
3/5 *
undisinfected ground water
10
5
disinfected ground water
10.
10
* sanitary surveys shall be performed at a frequency
specified by 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart H.
-------
-24-
Analytical Methodology
" total coliform analyses conducted by 10-tube Multiple Tube
Fermentation Technique, Membrane Filter Technique,~Presence-
Absence (P-A) Coliform Test, or the Colilert System
" 100-ml standard sample volume used, regardless of total
coliform method
* fecal coliform test conducted using EC Broth (see Appendix
A)
" E. coli test may be by Colilert system or other methods
proposed and promulgated later
" heterotrophic bacteria enumerated by Pour Plate Method
Fecal Coliforms/E.coli
" if any routine or repeat sample is total coliform-positive,
system must analyze total coliform-positive culture—medium-
to determine if fecal coliforms are present. System may
test for E. coli, in lieu of fecal coliforms. If fecal
coliforms or E. coli are present, system must notify the
State within "?4 hours. State must decide what follow-up
actions system must perform.
° State may invalidate sample if system demonstrates to the
State that contamination is limited to the service connection
rather than the distribution system.
* if any routine or repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive
or E. coli-positive, and sample is not invalidated by the
State, system will notify the public by electronic media.
If system can demonstrate that contamination is restricted
to a specific location, then the State has the discretion to
allow system to notify each consumer in that location by
some other type of immediate means, in lieu of electronic
notification.
Heterotrophic Bacteria (HPC):
" no specific MCLG or MCL; HPC controlled as part of SWTR,
future disinfection requirements for ground water systems
and as described below.
" proposed regulation based on HPC interference with total
coliform analysis
* if coliform sample produces a turbid culture in the absence
of gas production using the multiple-tube fermentation
technique, produces a turbid culture in the absence of an
acid reaction using the presence-absence (P-A) test or
produces a confluent growth or a colony number that is "too
-------
-25-
numerous to count" using the membrane filter technique,
the system may either count the sample as coliform-positive
or declare the sample invalid, collect another water sample
within 24 hours from the same location as the original
sample, and submit it to the laboratory within eight hours
of sample collection (up to 30 hours if refrigerated).
Second sample if analyzed for both total coliforms and HPC.
If HPC is greater than 500 colonies/ml, then sample is
considered coliform-positive, even if total coliform
analysis is negative.
-------
-26-
Table 11: Drinking Water Regulations
Sampling Requirements Based Upon Population
Minimum number Minimum number
Population of samples Population of samples
served per month* served per month
25
to
1,000
1**
59,001 to 70,000
70
1,00
to
2, 500
2
70,001 to 83,000
80
2, 50
to
3, 300
3
83,001 to 96,000
90
3, 30
to
4, 100
4
96,001 to 130,000
100
4, 10
to
4, 900
5
130,001 to 220,000
120
4, 90
to
5, 800
6
220,001 to 320,000
150
5, 80
to
6, 700
7
320,001 to 450,000
180
6, 70
to
7, 600
8
450,001 to 600,000
210
7, 60
to
8, 500
9
600,001 to 780,000
240
8, 50
to
12,900
10
780,001 to 970,000
270
12, 90
to
17,200
15
970,001 to 1,230,000
300
17, 20
to
21,500
20
1,230,001 to 1,520,000
330
21, 50
to
25,000
25
1,520,001 to 1,850,000
360
25, 00
to
33,000
30
1,850,001 to 2,270,000
390
33,00
to
41,000
40
2,270,001 to 3,020,000
420
41, 00
to
50,000
50
3,020,001 to 3,960,000
450
50, 00
to
59,COO
60
3,960,001 or more
480
* A non-community water system shall monitor in each calendar
quarter during which the system provides water to the public.
If such a system uses unfiltered surface water, it must sample
at the same frequency as a community water system, except that
in no case shall it be reduced to less than once/month.
** Based on a history of no coliform contamination and on a
sanitary survey every five years by the State showing the
water system to-be supplied solely by a protected ground
water source and free of sanitary defects, a community
public water system serving 25 to 1,000 persons may reduce
this sampling frequency with the written permission of the
State, except that in no case shall it be reduced to less
than once/quarter.
-------
-27-
NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
National secondary drinking water regulations are federally non-
enforceable regulations and control contaminants in drinking
water that affect the aesthetic qualities relating to the public
acceptance of drinking water.
Table 12
SMCLs
The Secondary maximum contaminant levels for public water
systems are as follows:
CONTAMINANT LEVEL
250 mg/1
15 color units
1 mg/1
non-corros i ve
2 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.3 mg/I
0.05 mg/1
3 threshold
odor number
6.5-8.5
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5 mg/1
These levels represent reasonable goals for drinking water
quality. The States may establish higher or lower levels
which may be appropriate dependent upon local conditions
such as unavailability of alternate source waters or other
compelling factors, provided that public health and welfare
are not adversely affected.
chloride
color
copper
corrosivity
fluoride
foaming agents
iron
manganese
odor
pH
sulfate
total dissolved solids (TDS)
zinc
It is recommended that the parameters in these regulations
should be monitored at intervals no less frequent than the
monitoring performed for inorganic chemical contaminants
listed in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
as applicable to community water systems. More frequent
monitoring would be appropriate for specific parameters such
as pH, color, odor or others under certain circumstances
as directed by the State.
-------
-28-
Table 13
Proposed SMCLs
The following secondary maximum contaminant levels for public
water systems will be proposed with the inorganic and
synthetic organic chemicals in the Fall of 1988. (Please
see pages 9-11.)
Contaminant Level
Aluminum 0.05 mg/1
o-Dichlorobenzene 0.01 mg/1
p-Dichlorobenzene 0.005 mg/1
Ethylbenzene 0.03 mg/1
Monochlorobenzene O.l-.'mg/l
Pentachlorophenol 0.03 mg/1
Silver 0.03 mg/1
Toluene 0.04 mg/1
Xylene 0.02 mg/1
Other secondary regulations may be proposed in the future,
-------
-29-
DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS
• 1979 EPA established an interim primary drinVing water
standard for total trihalomethanes (THMS) of 0.1 mg/1
(44 FR 68624; 29 November 1979)
• Total THMs include chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloro-
methane and dibromochloromethane
• EPA is preparing a disinfection treatment rule and a
rule for disinfection by-products. Proposal is planned
for late 1989 - early 1990. Congress has required
promugation by January 1, 1991.
• Disinfectants and by-products included on the Drinking
Water Priority List (53 FR 1892; 22 January 1988)
Disinfectants
Chlorine, hypochlorous acid, hypochlorite ion
Chlorine Dioxide, chlorite and chlorate
Chloramines and ammonia
Ozone by-products
Disinfection by-products
Trihalomethanes: chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloro-
methane, dibromochloromethane
Haloacetontriles: bromochloroacetonitrile, dibromochloro-
acetonitrile, dichlorobromoacetonitrile,
trichloroacetonitrile
Chlorinated acetic acids: mono-, di, and tri-
1,1 - dichloropropanone
1/1,1, - Trichloroacetonitrile
Trichloroacetaldehyde monohydrate (Chloral)
Chloropicrin
Cyanogen chloride
Chlorephenols (2-,2,4-,2,4,6-)
Organic chloramine
MX
Ozone by-products
-------
-------
WILDE
-------
bl'L-l
Al-t- "/
FEDERAL ASBESTOS REGULATIONS
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OSHA
• Construction Industry (29 CFR 1926.58)
• General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1001)
-------
FliDEHAL ASBESTOS REGULATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
• Asbt.'Stos-in-Schools Rule (40 CFR Part 763) (1982)
• NESHAP/Clean Air Act (40 CFR 61, Subpart M)
(revsed 1984)
Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR Pari 763) (1985)
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of
1986 (PL 99-519)
-------
Summary of
AHERA
TSCA Section 206
-------
major objectives of ahera
• IDENTIFICATION
• EVALUATION
• CONTROL OF ACM IN
SCHOOLS
-------
AHIIRA DEADLINES
4) October 17,198/...Final Rule Issued
4# December 14,1987 ...Rule Effective
# October 12, 1988...Management Plan Submission
4# Ju.y8,1(.)89 Implementation of Management Plan
-------
MATERIALS TO BE INSPECTED
• SURFACING MATERIALS
- All friable materials
- All nonfriable materials except
concrete-like
• THERMAL SYSTEM INSULATION
- All except fiberglass, rubber, and foam
glass
• MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS
- floor Tiles, ceiling tiles, hard wallboard
cement pipe, HVAC cloth, etc.
• SAMPLE OR ASSUME
• ASSESS ALL FRIABLE MATERIALS & TSI
-------
763.9B MANAGEMENT PLANS
763.94 RECORDKEEPING
763.9!i WARNING LABELS
763.97 COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT
7G3.9JJ WAIVER
-------
10i 'i. -r i
763.90 RESPONSE ACTIONS
i. SELECTION FACTORS
t PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
• PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
• LiAST BURDENSOME
II. SELECTION OPTIONS
• CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY
• TYPE OF MATERIAL
III. DES.GNED AND CONDUCTED
• bY ACCREDITED PERSONS
IV. INSPECTION/CLEARANCE
UPON COMPLETION OF RESPONSE ACTION
-------
763.S9 EXCLUSIONS (continued)
Ii. INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED FOR A BUILDING
EiUILT AFTER OCTOBER 12, 1988 IF AN ARCHITECT
OR ACCREDITED INSPECTOR AFFIRMS NO ACBM
SPECIFIED OR USED
LI. INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED IF STATE WITH A
WAIVER DETERMINES ON BASIS OF SAMPLING
RECORDS THAT NO ACBM IS PRESENT
-------
EPA WORKER PROTECTION RULE
u OSH^a standards extended to Public
Employees not covered under the OSHA
Asoestos Standards or state OSHA plan
Parahels OSHA requirements
-------
Employer Obligations When
• Exposure Level Exceeds the Action Level
for 30 Days Per Year
1. Provide training
2. Establish medical surveillance program
-------
Employer Obligations When
i Exposure Level exceeds PEL
or
u Workers use negative pressure respirators
1. Provide protective equipment
2. Provide training
3. Establish respirator protection program
4. Establish medical surveillance program
5. Ma.ntain records
-------
^ V"
NESHAP
• BANS
I. 1973 - Spray applied insulating materials
II. 1976 - Pre-molded insulation - if friable
III. 1978 - Spray applied decorative material
-------
NESHAP
SPECIFIC ITEMS ADDRESSED
I. No visible emissions
II. Required removal
ill. Waste disposal
iV. Notification
-------
NESHAP
• IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNERS
I. Management plan should account for cost of
required removal upon demolition
II. Renovation work likewise affected
-------
: WAGNER
I . '
-------
RADON
. National Radon Health Advisory
. Indoor Radon Abatement Act
- Provisions and Funding
. Federal Agency Radon Testing
- EPA Guidance on Study Design
- Agency Study Plans
- EPA Assistance
-------
0ne i^urulrcdch Congress of the Hnited States of 3
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Vashineton on \fonda\. thf :u>*nt* -fifth dav of January-
one thouxand nine huruirrd and eighty-eight
an an
To atn«nd the Tone Subat&ncw Contra! Act to uaisi Sulm in responding to the
thrtat to huavt haaJth poaad by expeaur* la rades.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INDOOR RADON ABATEMENT
(a* Amendment or Toxic Sumtances Coktroi Act —The Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 and following) i* amended by
adding after title ~ the following new* title:
"TITLE m—INDOOR RADON ABATEMENT
"SEC. 301. NATIONAL GOAL
"The national long-term goal of the United States with respect to
radon levels in buildings is that the air within buildings is the
United States should be as free of radon as the ambient air outside
of buildings.
SEC. 301 DEFIMTIOVg.
"For purposes of this title:
"(1) The term 'local educational agency' means—
"(A) any local educational agency as defined in section
198 of the'Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 3381);
"(B) the owner of any nonprofit elementary or secondary
school building; and
"(C) the governing authority of any school operated
pursuant to section 6 of the Act of September SO, 1950 (64
Stat 1107), relating to impact aid for children who reside oo
Federal property.
"(2) The term 'nonprofit elementary or secondary school' has
the meaning given such term by section 202(8).
"(3) The term 'radon' means the radioactive gaseous element
and its short-lived decay products produced by the disintegra-
tion of the element radium occurring in air, water, soil, or other
media.
"(4) The term 'school building' has the meaning given such
term by section 202; 13).
¦ SEC. SOS. EPA CITIZEN'S CUIDE.
"(a) Publication.—In order to make continuous projjrees toward
the long-term goal established in section 301 of tnoa title, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, not
later than June 1. 19S9. publish and make available to the public an
updated version of its document titled 'A Citizen's Guide to Radon*.
Toe Administrator shall revise and republish the guide as necessary
thereafter.
"(b) Lnto*matiok Included.—
-------
S.T44-2
"'<11 Action txvnj.—The updated citizen'• guide published as
provided in subsection 'a) ahaJl include a description of a series
of action levels indicating the health risk associated with dif-
ferent levels of radon exposure.
"i2i Oram information—The updated citizen's guide shall
also include information with respect to each of the following;
"(Ai The increased health risk associated with the expo-
sure of potentially sensitive populations to different levels
of radon.
" RzquiMD Acnvmt*.—The Administrator (or another Fed-
eral department or agency designated by the Administrator) shall
develop and implement activities designed to assist Stale radon
firograros. These activities may include, but are not limited to, the
ollowing*.
"(1) Establishment of a clearinghouse of radon related
information, including mitigation studies, public information
materials, survey* of radon levels, and other relevant
information.
"(2) Operation of a voluntary proficiency program for rating
the effectiveness of radon measurement device* and methods,
the effectiveness of radon mitigation device* and methods, and
the effectiveness of private firms and individuals offering radon-
related architecture, design, engineering, measurement, and
mitigation service*. The proficiency program under this
subparagraph shall be in operation within one year after the
date of tne enactment of this section.
-------
"t3i Desigr. and inple.T.ertaiion of training seminars for Slate
and local officials and private and professional firas dealing
«.-:th radon and addressing topics such as momtor-inz. analysis,
mitigation, health effect*, public information, anil program
design.
"'¦1) Publication of public information materials concerning
radon health risks and methods of radon mitigation.
"i51 Operation of cooperative projects between the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Radon Action Program and the
State's radon program. Such projects shall include the Home
Evaluation Program. in which the Environmental Protection
Agency evaluate* homes and States demonstrate mitigation
nethoas in the** homes. To the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with the objectives of the evaJuation and demonstra-
tion. homes of low-income persons should be selected for evalua-
tion and demonstration.
":6> Demonstration of radon m:ligation methods in various
types of structures and in ve.rvr.i8 geographic settings and
publication of findings. In the e?_se of demonstration of such
methods in homes, the Administrator should select homes of
low-income persona, to ihe maximum extent practicable and
consistent with the objectives of the demonstration.
"(7) Establishment of a national data base with data orga-
nized by State concerning the location and amounts of radon.
"(8) Development and demonstration of methods of radon
measurement and mitigation that take into account unique
characteristics, if any, of nonresidential buildings housing chiid
care facilities.
"(b) DiscitrnoNAJtY As3utaj*cx.—Upon request of a State, the
Administrator for another Federal department or agency designated
by the Administrator) may provide technical assistance to such
State in development or implementation of proerams addressing
radon. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, the
following:
"(1) Design and implementation of surveys of the location and
occurrence of radon within a State.
"(2) Design and implementation of public information and
education programs.
"(3) Design and implementation of State programs to control
radon in existing or new structures.
"(4) Assessment of mitigation alternatives in unusual or un-
conventional structures-
"(5) Design and implementation of methods for radon
measurement and mitigation for nonresidential buildings hous-
ing child care facilities.
¦¦(c> Intormatio.v Provided to Professional Organizations.-
The Administrator, or another Federal department or agency de»-
i^nated by the Administrator, shall provide appropriate information
concerning technology and methods of radon assessment and mitiga-
tion to professional organizations representing private (Inns in-
volved in buiiding design, engineering, and construction.
"(d) PukJi —Within 9 months afler the date of the enactment of
this lection and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall submit
to CongTess a plan identifying assistance to be provided under this
section and outlining personnel and financial resources necessary to
implement this section. Prior to submission to Consresa, this plan
shall be reviewed by the advisory gtoups provided for in section
-------
S."44—4
403(c) of the Superfund Amendment* and Reauthorization Act of
1986 <42 U.S C. 7401 note).
"(e) Prcfictency Rating Pxociuj* and Training S*mina*-—
"ill Authorization.—There if authorized to be appropriated
not more than SI,500.000 for the purpose* of initially establish-
ing the proficiency ratine program under subsection laX'2> and
the training seminars under suDeection (aX3).
"(2) Chajiqk tMfoSKD-—To cover the operating costs of such
proficiency rating program and training seminar*, the Adminis-
trator shall impose oa persons applying for a proficiency rating
and on private and professional firms participating in training
seminars such charges at may be necessary to defray the cocta
of ths program or seminar*. No such charge may be imposed on
anv State or local government.
'(3) Special account.—Funds derived from the charges im-
posed under paragraph (2) shall be deposited in a special ao>
count in the Treasury. Amounts in tne special account are
authorized to be appropriated only for purposes of administer-
ing such proficiency rating program or training seminars or for
reimbursement of fund* appropriated to the Administrator to
initially establish such program or seminars.
"(4) RziMsuRMMZKr or GENUAL ruxn.—During the first
three yean of the program and seminars, the Administrator
shall make every effort, consistent with the goals and successful
operation of the program and seminars, to set charges imposed
under paragraph (2) so that an amount in excess of operation
costs is collected. Such excess amount thall be used to reimburse
ths General Fund of the Treasury for the full amount appro-
priated to initially establish the program and seminars.
"(1) AUTMoaiiATiON.—(1) There is authorized to be appropriated
for the purposes of earning out sections 303,304. and this section an
amount not to exceed (3,000,000 for each of fiaotl yean 1989, 1990,
and 1991.
"(2) No amount appropriated under this subsection may be used
by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer the grant
program under section 806.
"(3) No amount appropriated under this subsection may be uaed to
cover the coots of the proficiency rating program under subsection
(aX2l
SEC SOS. GRANT ASSISTANCE TO STATSS FOR RADON PROGRAMS.
"(a) In Gxnx*ai.—For each fiscal year, upon application of the
Governor of a State, the Administrator may make a grant, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers appr^
§riate. under this section to the State for the purpose of aasicting the
tate in the development and implementation of programs for the
assessment and mitigation of radon.
"lb) Appucatiom.—Ajo application for a grant under this section
in any fiscal year shall contain such information sa ths Adminis-
trator shall require, including each of the following:
"(1) A description of the seriousness ana extent of radon
exposure in the State.
(2) An identification of the State agency which has the
primary responsibility for radon programs and which will re-
ceive the grant, a description of the rolea and responsibilities of
the lead State agency and any other State agencies involved in
radon programs. And description of the roles and responsibilities
-------
S.T44—5
of any municipal, district, or areawide organization involved in
radon proeranis.
"(3i A cescription of the activities and programs related to
radon which the State proposes in such year.
"¦•I1 A buriget »pecifving Federal and State funding of each
element of activity of the grant application.
"(5) A 3-year plan which outlines long range program goals
and objectives, tasks necessary to achieve them, and resource
requirements for the entire 3-year period, including anticipated
State funding levels and desired Federal fur.dinz levels. This
clause shall applv only for the initial year in wfjich a grant
application is made.
"tc) Eligjblx Activities.—Activities eligible for grant assistance
under this section are the following:
'¦(1) Survey of radon level*, including special survey# of geo-
graphic areas or classes of buildings ouch as. among other*,
public buildings, school buildings, r.igh-riak residential construc-
tion types).
Mt2i Development of public information and educational mat^
rials concerning radon assessment, mitigation, and control pro-
grams.
"<3> Implementation of programs to control radon in existing
and new structures.
"(4) Purchase by the Stat* of radon measurement equipment
or device*.
"(5) Purchase and maintenance of analytical equipment con-
nected to radon measurement and analysis, including casta of
calibration of such equipment.
"(6) Payment of costs of Environmental Protection Agency-
approved training programs related to radon for permaeeat-
State or local employees.
"(7) Payment of general overhead and program administra-
tion coata.
"(8l Development of a data storage and management system
for information concerning radon occurrence, levels, and
programs.
"(9) Payment of costs of demonstration of radon mitigation
methods and technologies as approved by the Administrator,
including State participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency Home Evaluation Program.
"(10> A toll-free radon hotline to provide information and
technical assistance.
"(d) Pbxtemdics to CmTAi*r Statts —Beginning in fiscal year
1991. ths Administrator shall give s preference for grant assistance
under this section to States that have made reasonable efforts to
ensure the adoption, by the authorities which regulate building
construction within that State or political subdivisions within
States, of the model construction standards and techniques for new
buildings developed under section 304.
"(e) Priority Acnvmss and Pkarm —The Administrator shall
support eligible activities contained ir. State applications with the
full amount of available funds. In the event that State applications
for funds exceed the total funds available in a fiscal year, the
Administrator shall give priority to activities or projects proposed
by States baaed on each of the following criteria:
"(li The seriousness and extent of the radon contamination
problem to be addressed.
-------
3.744—6
":2) The potential for the activity or project to bring about
reduction io radon levels.
"'3' The potential for development of innovative radoo assess-
ment techniques, mitigation measures as approved by the
Administrator, or program management approaches which may
be of use to other States.
"<4> Any other uniform criteria that the Administrator deems
necessary to promote the goals of the grant progTam and that
the Administrator provides to States before the application
process.
"(n Fed nut Sham.—The Federal share of the cost of radon
program activities implemented with Federal assistance under this
section in any fiscal year shall not exceed o percent of the costs
incurred by the State in implementing such program in the first
year of a grant to such State. 60 percent in the second year, and 50
percent in the third year. Federal assistance «hall be made on the
condition that the con-Federal share s provided from non-FedernI
funds.
"'g) Assistance to Local Govtxnments.—States may, at the
Governor's discretion, use funds from grants under this section to
assist local governments in implementation v>f activities eligible for
assistance under paragraphs (2), (3). and <6) of subsection iei.
"(h> Information.—41) The Administrator may request such
information, data, and reports developed by the State as he consid-
ers necessary to make the determination of continuing eligibility
under this section.
"(2) Any State receiving funds under this section shall provide to
the Administrator'all radon-related information generated in its
activities, including the results of radon surveys, mitigation dem-
onstration projects, and risk communication studies.
"(3) Any State receiving funds under this section shall maintain,
and make available to the public, a list of firms and individuals
withia the State that have received a passing rating under the
Environmental Protection Agency proficiency rating program
referred to in section 305(a)(2). The list shall also include the address
and phone number of such firms and individuals, together with the
proficiency rating received by each. The Administrator shall make
such list available to the public at appropriate locations io sach
State which does not receive funds under this section unless the
State assumes such responsibility.
"(\) tjMiTA-noNB.—41) No grant may be mads under this section in
any fiscal year to a Stats which in the preceding fiscal year received
a grant under this section unless ths Administrator determines that
such State satisfactorily implemented the activities funded by ths
grant in such preceding fiscsil year.
"(2) The costs of implementing paragraphs (4) and (9) of subsection
ic) shall not in ths aggregate exceed 60 percent of the amount of any
grant awarded under this section to a State in a fiscal year. In
implementing such paragraphs, a State should make every effort,
consistent with the goals and successful operation of the State radon
program, to give a preference to low-income persona.
"(3) The costs of general overhead and program administration
under subsection (cX') shall not exceed 25 percent of the amount of
any grant awarded under this section to a State in a fiscal year.
"(4) A State may use funds received under this section for finwn»
cial assistance to persons only to the extent such assistance is
-------
S. 744-7
related to demonstration projects or the purchase and analysis of
radon measurement devices.
"(j) Authorization.-^1) There is authorized to be appropriated
Tor grant assistance under this section an amount not to exceed
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1989,1990. and 1991.
"(2) There is authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of
Administering ths grant program under this section such sums as
may be necessary for each of such fiscal years.
"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, not more
than 10 percent of the amount appropriated to carry out thi« section
may be used to make pants to any one State.
"i 4) Funds not obligated to States in the fiscal year for which
funds are appropriated under this Miction shall remain available for
obligation auring the next fiscal year.
"(5) No amount appropriated under this subsection may he used to
cover the costs of the proficiency rating program under section
30&a#2L
"SEC. 307. RADON IN SCHOOLS.
"(a) Stutjy of Radon in Schools.—
"(1) AuTMOamr.—The Administrator shall conduct a study for
the purpose of determining the extent of radon contamination
in the Nation's school building!.
"(2) List or nax fbobabixjtt a&zas.—In carrying out such
study, the Administrator shall Identify and compile a list of
areas within the United States which the Administrator deter-
mines have a high probability of including schools which have
elevated levels of radon.
"(3) Basis or list.—Id compiling such list, the Administrator
shall make such determinations on the basis of, among other
things, each of the following:
"(A) Geological data.
"(B) Data on high radon levels in homes and other struc-
tures nearby any such school.
"(C) Physical characteristics of the school buildings.
"(4) Subvxt.—In conducting such study the Administrator
shall design a survey which when completed allows Congress to
characterize the extent of radon contamination in schools in
each State. The survey shall include testing from a represent*,
tive sample of schools in each high-risk area identified in
paragraph (1) and shall include additional testing, to the extent
resources are available for such testing. The survey also shall
include any reliable testing data supplied by States, schools, or
other parties.
H(5) Assistance.—(A) The Administrator shall make available
to the appropriate agency of each State, as designated by the
Governor of such State, a list of high risk areas within each
State, including a delineation of such areas and any other data
available to the Administrator for schools in that State. To
assist such agencies, the Administrator also shall provide guid-
ance and data detailing the risks associated with high radon
levels, technical guidance and related information concerning
testing for radon within schools, and methods of reducing radon
levels. ....
"(B) In addition to the assistance authorized by subparagraph
(A), the Administrator is authorised to make available to the
appropriate agency of each State, as designated by the Governor
-------
S. 744-8
of such State, device* suitable for use By such agencies la
conducting testa for radon within the schools under the jurisdic*'
tion of any such State agency. The Administrator is authorized
to make available to such agencies the use of laboratories of the
Environmental Protection Agency, or to recommend Labora-
tones, to evaluate any such devices for the presence of radoa
levels.
"(6) Diagnostic and remedial L/roars.—The Administrator
ia authorised to select, from high-risk areas identified ia pan-
graph (2), school buildings for purposes of enabling the Admiala£
trator to undertake diagnostic and remedial efforts to redocau
the levels of radon in such school buildings. Such diagnostic sad
remedial efforts shall be carried out with a view to developing
technology and expertise for the purpose of malring such tech*
nologv and expertise available to any local educational agency
and tne several! Statae.
"(7) Statu* txroar.—On or before October 1, 1989, the
Administrator shall submit to the Congress a status report with
respect to action taken by the Administrator in conducting the
study required by this section, including ths results of ths
Administrator's diagnostic and remedial work. On or before
October 1, 1989. the Administrator shall submit a final report
setting forth ths results of the study conducted pursuant to this
section, including ths results of the Administrator's diagnostic
and remedial work, and the recommendations of the Aaminis-
trator.
"(b) AuTHoanATTOK.—For the purpose of carrying out ths provi-
sions of paragraph (6) of subsection (a), there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums, not to exceed $500,000, as may bo nec-
essary. For the purpooe of can-vine oat the provisions of this section
other than suen paragraph (6). tnere are authorized to be appro-
priated such suma, not to exceed $1,000,000, as may be nscassaxy.
-sec ast. MGIONAL BAOOM11UOIING ccunm
"(a) Punsino PaoomAM.—Upon application at colleges, univer-
sities, institutions of higher learning, or consortia of such institu-
tions, the Administrator may make a grant or cooperative agree
znent. subject to such terms and conditions ss the Administrator
considers appropriate, under this section to the applicant for the
purposs of establishing and operating a regional radon training
ceatar.
"(b) Puvon or ths C*nt**s.—The purpoee of a regional radon
training center is to develop information and provide training to
Federal and State officials, professional and private Arms, and the
public regarding the health risks posed by radon and demonstrated
methods of radon measurement and mitigation.
"(c) Application!.—Any colleges, universities, institutions of
higher learning or consortia of such institutions may submit an
application for funding under this section. Such applications shall
be submitted to the Administrator ia such form and containing such
information as the Administrator may require.
"(d) SsLxcnoN Cumu.—Ths Administrator shall support at
least S eligible applications with the full amount of available fonda
The Administrator shall select recipients of funding under this
section to ensure that funds are equitably allocated among regions
of the United States, and on the basis of each of ths following
criteria:
-------
S. 744-9
"(l1 The extent to which the applicant's program will promote
the pureose described in aubeection ib).
"(2) The demonstrated expertise of the applicant regarding
radon measurement i^t nutifition methods sod other radoa-
related issues.
"(3) The demonmngexoertiee of the applicant in radon
training and iaactanBKrelating to informattoa development
and dissemination. •"
"(4) Th# ttriouma^T the radon problem la the region.
**;$» ThogeografMflnMvorage of the propoeed center.
"(61 Any gtherJUMfljMfceriteria that the Administrator deems
necessary to pnMK purpose described la subssction fb)
end j^^^hummtrpnyidm 10 B9t«nti*l epplicsnte
*^e) TkuapATiON 9f W^Keo.-—No funding may be given under
this section ifl any fttotf yetf to an app.ic.ant which m the preceding
fiscal ytatrisceived fan ding under this section unless the Adminis-
trator detertnines thai thsjrecipient satisfactorily implemented the
activities the* we re ftsulHttfttae preceding year.
"(f) AtrmonxeATtott^JPIm it authorized to bo appropriated to
cany out tbo jpograsM&Mt this section not to exceed 11,000,000 for
each of fiaeilyeart 19iirU9*and 199L
¦^£CM.S1Vl>Y6riADaiOfrSDCltAL BUILDING*.
**(a) Srvnr RxQtiatsMam^-The head of each Federal department
or agency that owns a Fodwit building shall conduct a study for the
purpoee of determiningrlSfc'iO*tent of radon contamination in >uch
buildings. Such study SMQ&clude, in the esse of s Federal building
using a nonpublic waMMawce (such as a mQ or other ground
water), radoa contaxninatfaa of the water.
"(b) Hicr>Risx Fbucsal BlmirtNG*.—(1) The Administrator shall
identity and compile a list of areas within the United States which
the Administrator, in consultation with Federal departments and
agencies, determines hscvpra high probability of including Federal
buildings which havo sZarinsfci lovele of radoa.
M(2) In compiling sadk list, the AdmiAistratar shall make such
jtttpntiirtii— on the bssto oi, among other things, the following:
tA> Geological dKtfe'
"(B) Data on high radoa levels in homee and other structures
near any such Feoeral
"(C)Pbysical characteristice of the Federal buildings
"(c) Stub* Dniowndlladiee required under subsection (a) shall
be based ca design allj|||i|>dfled by the Administrator. The head
of Fsdersl dspartsasalor agency conducting such a study shall
submit, not later than JnfapU 2989. a study deeiga tathe Admin is-
trator far approval. Thi> si|dy design shau follow the most recent
Environmental Protection Agency guidance documents, including 'A
Citizen's Guide to Rado^tne 'Interim Protocol for Screening and
Follow Up: Radon asrnin Decay Products MessuremenU1; the
Interim Indoor Radoa Jb JUdon Decay Product Measurement Proto-
col'; and any other tsiMl guidance doeumsnta The study deeiga
shall include testing data from a representative sample of Federal
buildings la each htaftptMt area identified ift subsection (bk The
study design alsa shau&tdhds additional testing dsta to the extaat
resources are available, including any reliable data supplied by
Federal agencies. State* or other parties.
-------
S. 744—10
"(d) Intobmation oh Rjbu and Tbting.—<1) The Administrator
shall provide to the department* or agendas conducting studies
under subsection (a) the following:
"'A) Guidance and data detailing the risks associated with
high radon levels.
'TO) Technical guidance and related information concerning
testing for radon within Federal buildings and water supplies."
"(C) Technical guidancs and related information concerning
methods for reducing radon levels. .
"(2l In addition to the assistance required^paragraph flX the
Administrator is authorized to make availabl*. on s cost r*ixnburs»
able basis, to the departments or agencies conducting studies under
subsection (a) devices suitable for um by such departments or agen-
cies in conducting tests for radon within Federal buildings. For ths
purpose of assisting such departments or agencies in evaluating any
such device* for the presence of radon levels, ths Administrator m
authorized to recommend laboratories or to maks available to such
departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursable basis, ths uss of
laboratories of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"(e) Study Deaduxx.—Not later than Juns 1, 1990, ths hssd of
each Federal department or agency conducting s study under
subsection (a) shall complete the study and provide the study to ths
Administrator.
"(f) RcraaT to Congress.—Not later than October 1, 1990, ths
Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress describing ths
results of the studies conducted pursuant to subsection (aX
"SBC Sit. REGULATION!.
"The Administrator is authorized to issue such regulations as may
be iif rressrj to carry out the provisions of this title.
"SEC 311. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS.
"Amounts authorized to be appropriated la this title for purposes
of carrying out the provisions of this title are in addition to amounts
authorized to be appropriated under other provisions of law for
radon-related activities..
-------
(b) TacioncAX. AMEHUMCm.—The Toxic Substances Control Act
(15 U.S.C. 2601 and following) is amended by adding at the end of
the table of contents in section 1 the following:
-tttls rn-rsxooR radon abatement
"Sefc 901. Nation*] gomL
"Sac. 302. Dafinioooa.
"Sae. 308. ttk CiQ»o'» guida.
"Sac. 804. Model conAruetioa oaarfaris and taehniquaa.
"Sac. 306. Technical aaaiatanea to Staiea for radeo proframa.
"Sac. 306. Grant aMiftaaae lo Stitaa for radon program*.
"Sac. 307 Radon La achoola.
"Sac. 80S. Regional radon training cantor*.
"See. 309. Study of radon la Faosral tmtlflim*
-Sac. 310. RaruUoona.
"Sac. 311. Additional autborinnnna ".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United Statea and
President of the Senate
-------
PATRICK
-------
NO PAPER SUBMITTED
JAMES PATRICK
------- |