United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance (2261-A)
EPA 300-R-96-002
December 1995
The State of Federal
An Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities,
FY 1993-94
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) within the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance prepared this State of Federal Facilities report to obtain a snapshot of
the compliance issues and problems confronting Federal facilities. The report also helps FFEO
to better understand its own programmatic strengths and potential areas for improvement.
Environmental Requirements
Environmental requirements affecting Federal facilities range from Federal statutes and
their implementing regulations to State and local laws and ordinances. This report summarizes
Federal facility performance with respect to the following major environmental statutes and
programs:
> Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
> Clean Water Act (CWA)
> Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
> Clean Air Act (CAA)
> Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
> Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
> Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
> Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)
> Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Before discussing specific environmental programs, it is necessary to provide some background
information on the universe of Federal facilities.
Overview of Federal Facilities
Federal facilities typically comprise a fairly small portion (i.e., less than five percent) of
the universe of facilities regulated under the environmental statutes and programs covered by this
report. However, the nature of environmental issues they face increases the importance of
promoting environmental awareness and leadership at Federal facilities.
ES-2
-------
According to the Federal Facilities Tracking System, as of FY 1994 there were
approximately 15,880 Federal facilities engaged in some type of activity regulated by
environmental requirements. These facilities can be grouped into three broad categories --
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and Civilian Federal Agency (CFA)
facilities. A breakdown of Federal facilities by agency category is presented in Exhibit ES - 1.
Exhibit ES 1
Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 1994)
CFAs 10,075
DOE 393 lllllllllllliiiiil. (63.4%)
(2.5%)
DOD 5,412
(34.1%)
N = 15,880 Federal facilities
DOD and DOE facilities typically include military bases, manufacturing plants, and
laboratory facilities. The universe of CFA facilities is more diverse, and reflects the range of
activities conducted by these agencies. Examples of CFA facilities include: Coast Guard
installations, agricultural research stations, penitentiaries, environmental laboratories, electric
power generation stations, and various storage facilities.
As shown in Exhibit ES - 2, both the number of environmental projects undertaken by
Federal agencies and their corresponding funding levels have approximately doubled since FY
1991. DOE and DOD account for more than 98 percent of spending on environmental
projects (53.1 percent and 45.1 percent, respectively, of the total budgeted authority in FY
1994).
ES-3
-------
Exkikit ES - 2
Federal Environmental Projects
$12,000 - ,
g$10,000 -,
1 . /
a $8,000 -'
>.
a $6,000 -*"
"3
-£ $4,000 -"'
em
'-d
S
m $2,000 -''
$0^-
PY 1991 PY 1992 PY 1993 PY 1994
Legend
| | Federal Budget Autkority ^| Numter of Projects
Environmental Compliance
Because of differences in how EPA and States define and assess compliance under
different environmental programs, it is not feasible to develop a single compliance indicator
that yields meaningful comparisons across programs. However, evaluating selected compliance
indicators over time can reveal how Federal facilities are performing with respect to individual
programs. Exhibit ES - 3 presents compliance indicators intended to measure the level of
relatively serious noncompliance at major Federal facilities. These indicators are summarized
below.
Statute
Compliance Indicator
RCRA Percent of inspected Federal treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) not cited for Class I violations
CWA Percent of major Federal facilities not in significant noncompliance (SNC)
SDWA Percent of Federal systems not in SNC
CAA Percent of major Federal sources in compliance
TSCA Percent of inspected Federal facilities not in SNC
ES-4
-------
Standardized compliance indicators are derived by dividing the annual value for each
indicator listed above by the FY 1991 value. These standardized indicators measure changes in
compliance for the various programs relative to FY 1991 in the same way the consumer price
index measures changes in the rate of inflation relative to a given base year. The purpose of
standardization is to avoid potentially misleading comparisons of the absolute level of compliance,
and instead focus on measuring changes in compliance over time.
Exhibit ES 3
Changes in Federal Facility Compliance Indicators
FY 1991 (Base Year) = 100 points
120
1991 = 100
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
As shown in Exhibit ES - 3, the level of Federal facility compliance with most major
environmental statutes/programs has been somewhat mixed since FY 1991. Under CAA and
TSCA, the level of compliance at Federal facilities decreased by more than five points from
FY 1991 to FY 1994. SDWA compliance declined by 0.4 points relative to FY 1991. In
contrast, CWA compliance at Federal facilities increased by 10 points over the same period, and
the level of inspected Federal TSDFs not cited for Class I RCRA violations increased by nearly
14 points relative to FY 1991. Exhibit ES - 4 presents actual values for the compliance
indicators discussed above.
ES-5
-------
Exhibit ES - 4
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for Selected Indicators
Statute
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
CAA
TSCA
FY 1991
54.2%
80.3%
99.1%
94.4%
92.4%
FY 1992
62.7%
90.4%
99.0%
95.6%
90.1%
FY 1993
55.4%
94.2%
99.2%
87.0%
93.5%
FY 1994
61.6%
88.5%
98.7%
87.9%
87.5%
The remainder of this Executive Summary presents summary data for Federal facilities
under the RCRA, CWA, CAA, EPCRA, SDWA, TSCA/FIFRA, CERCLA, and BRAC
programs, while the full report contains more detailed compliance information.
ES-6
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA authorizes EPA to regulate the generation, treatment, storage, transportation, and
disposal of hazardous waste. The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, which became
effective in FY 1993, had a significant impact on RCRA compliance issues at Federal facilities.
The law greatly enhances EPA and State enforcement authorities against Federal facilities. For
example, EPA and the States can now assess and collect penalties from Federal agencies for
RCRA violations. Moreover, EPA now has authority to issue Administrative Orders against
Federal facilities to enforce RCRA provisions.
The 2,580 Federal RCRA facilities represent a fairly small portion of the entire RCRA
universe in FY 1994, approximately 0.9 percent. Of the 2,580 facilities, 46.9 percent are
DOD, 3.8 percent are DOE, and 49.3 percent are CFA. RCRA facilities can be further
subdivided into four categories: small quantity generators (SQGs), large quantity generators
(LQGs), transporters, and TSDFs.
As can be seen in Exhibit ES - 5, the distribution of Federal facilities by handler type
differs from non-Federal facilities in that: 1) the share of the universe comprised by TSDFs is
nearly 10 times greater among Federal facilities, and 2) transporters are almost twice as common
within the non-Federal sector.
Exhibit ES - 5
RCRA Facility by Handler Type (FY 1994)
Federal Facilities Non-Federal Facilities
TSDFs 321 TSDFs 3,785
(12 4%^^^^ __ (1.3%) n uilllllllyyuu. T,DCs 79,518
(27.6%)
transporters 12,29
ransport
(4.3%)
N = 2,580 Facilities N = 288,006 Facilities
To assess compliance with RCRA requirements, Federal and State inspectors conducted
798 and 888 inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1993 and FY 1994, respectively. Of these,
ES-7
-------
151 and 138 facilities, respectively, were cited for Class I RCRA violations. Exhibit ES - 6
presents the percentage of facilities receiving Class I violations according to agency.
DOD 120
(79.5%)
Exhibit ES - 6
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD
^^B^^»h
CFAs 20
(13.2%)
MBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBW ^ssssy
9
(7.3%)
N = 151 Facilities N = 138 Facilities
Of the Federal facilities cited for Class I violations in FY 1993 and FY 1994, 141 and
118, respectively, were TSDFs, which are generally considered major Federal facilities under
RCRA. Therefore, of the total number of inspected Federal TSDFs (316 in FY 1993 and 307
in FY 1994), 55.4 percent and 61.6 percent were not cited for Class I violations in FY 1993
and FY 1994. The corresponding Class I violation "compliance rates" for the non-Federal
universe of inspected TSDFs were slightly higher (64.6 percent and 66.1 percent). Exhibit
ES - 7 graphically presents this comparison.
ES-8
-------
Exhibit ES - 7
RCRA Class I Violation "Compliance Rates" at Federal vs Non-Federal TSDFs
100.0% (
90.0% -
8O.O% -
6O.O% -
50.0%
Legend
Federal TSDP.
Non-Federal TSDFi
FY 1993
FY 1994
There were a total of 347 enforcement actions taken against Federal facilities in FY
1993, with slightly more, 362, being taken in FY 1994. Exhibit ES - 8 presents a breakdown
of informal versus formal enforcement actions, as well as proposed versus final penalties assessed.
Exhibit ES - 8
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Type of Action
Informal
Formal
All Enforcement Actions
Proposed Penalties
Final Penalties Collected (3/20/95)
FY 1993 Total
269 (77.5%)
78 (22.5%)
347
$8,796,970
$2,389,178
FY 1994 Total
267 (73.8%)
95 (26.2%)
362
$ 4,807,062
$ 1,382,957
Clean Water Act
ES-9
-------
The CWA and its 1987 amendments are the primary statute governing the restoration
and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Dischargers of point source wastewater must submit an application for a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
At the end of FY 1994, Federal facilities comprised approximately 2.0 percent (139) of
the total universe of 7,180 major facilities regulated under the NPDES program. Of these 139
facilities, 70.5 percent were DOD, 10.8 percent were DOE, and 18.7 percent were CFA
facilities.
The total number of NPDES inspections (both EPA- and State-led) at Federal facilities
decreased by 7.2 percent, from 208 in FY 1993 to 193 in FY 1994. Exhibit ES - 9 presents
Federal facilities in SNC with NPDES according to agency. The number of CFA facilities in
SNC remained constant, but their relative share decreased. Both the number and percent of
DOE facilities in SNC increased over the same period. For FY 1993 and FY 1994, therefore,
the percentage of major Federal facilities not in SNC was 94.2 percent and 88.5 percent,
respectively.
Exhibit ES - 9
Major Federal Facilities in SNC by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
(75.0 %f DOD 10
(62.5 %)
V-CFA2
' (12.5%)
N = 8 Facilities N = 16 Facilities
Exhibit ES - 10 compares the percentage of Federal facilities not in SNC against
corresponding compliance rates for the universe of major non-Federal NPDES facilities. In FY
1993, the percentage of major Federal facilities not in SNC was higher than for non-Federal
facilities. However, during FY 1994, the compliance rate for Federal facilities lagged behind
that of non-Federal facilities.
ES- 10
-------
Exhibit ES - 10
Comparison of NPDES Compliance Rates (% not in SNC)
Legend
Major Federal Facilities
g| Major Non-P.J.i»l Faciliti.i
FY 1993
FY 1994
As shown in Exhibit ES - 11, EPA and States took 73 and 119 enforcement actions in
FY 1993 and FY 1994, respectively, to address NPDES noncompliance at Federal facilities.
Exhibit ES- 11
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Type of Enforcement Action
Informal
Formal
Other
TOTAL
Number of Actions In
FY 1993
41 (56.2%)
22 (30.1%)
10 (13.7%)
73
Number of Actions in
FY 1994
66 (55.5%)
26(21.8%)
27 (22.7%)
119
L
ES- 11
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA is the basis for protecting public drinking water systems from harmful
contaminants. To implement the law, EPA established the Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) Program, which regulates all public water supply systems, as well as the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program, which specifically protects underground sources of drinking
water through the establishment of State wellhead and sole source aquifer protection programs.
In FY 1994, Federal systems comprised approximately 2.3 percent (4,236) of the total
universe of 189,828 systems regulated under the PWSS. Exhibit ES - 12 shows that
compliance at Federal systems under the PWSS declined slightly since FY 1991. The number
of Federal systems cited for violations increased from 830 in FY 1991 to 946 in FY 1994.
Moreover, because the number of Federal systems actually declined, the percentage of systems
with violations increased from 15.6 percent to 21.5 percent over the same period. Systems not
in SNC decreased slightly from 99.1 percent in FY 1991 to 98.7 percent in FY 1994.
Exhibit ES - 12
PWSS Compliance at Federal Systems
4,000 -
3,OOO -
3,OOO -
1,OOO -
Legend
Federal Systems
Systems Witt Violations
Significant Noncompliers
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
Very few Federal systems received formal enforcement actions for violations under the
PWSS, either from EPA or the States. The total number of Federal systems receiving
enforcement actions decreased from nine in FY 1993 to just three in FY 1994. No Federal
systems received Civil Referrals or had Criminal Cases filed against them during either year.
ES- 12
-------
Clean Air Act
The CAA, as amended in 1990, is the primary Federal statute regulating air emissions.
To fulfill its mandate of air pollution protection, the CAA establishes four types of health,
welfare, and technology-based standards and programs to prevent and control air pollution:
> National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
> National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
> New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
> Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)
In FY 1994, 356 major Federal sources existed within the universe of 39,755 major
sources regulated under all programs within the CAA. As shown in Exhibit ES - 13, 63.8
percent were DOD, 5.3 percent were DOE, and 30.9 percent were CFAs.
Exhibit ES - 13
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency (FY 1994)
DOD 227
(63.8%y
CFA110
(30.9%)
DOE 19
N = 356 Major Sources (5.3%)
EPA and State inspectors conducted a total of 255 CAA inspections of major Federal
sources during FY 1994, a decrease of slightly more than eight percent relative to FY 1993.
Some of these sources were inspected more than once during the year -- the actual number of
ES- 13
-------
major Federal sources inspected was 220 in FY 1993 and 200 in FY 1994. Under the CAA,
Federal facilities may be subject to compliance requirements under multiple programs (e.g.,
NAAQS and NSPS). A major source found to be in compliance with the provisions of one
program, yet out of compliance with those of another, is considered to be out of compliance.
The overall compliance rates for major Federal sources during FY 1993 and FY 1994
were 87.0 percent and 87.9 percent, respectively. As shown in Exhibit ES - 14, Federal
facilities experienced slightly lower CAA compliance rates than their non-Federal counterparts.
Exhibit ES 14
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources
95.0% (
90.0% -
80.0%
FY 1993
FY 1994
Exhibit ES - 15 breaks down individual CAA compliance data across agencies for FY
1993 and FY 1994. DOD compliance rates were higher than both DOE and CFA compliance
rates for both years, particularly in FY 1994. Note that sources identified as "unknown" indicate
that EPA or the State was unable to determine the compliance status of the source due to a lack
of data, malfunctioning monitoring equipment, or other reason.
ES- 14
-------
Exhibit ES- 15
CAA Compliance Rates Across Agencies
Agency
In
Compliance
Out of
Compliance
Unknown
Total
FY 1993
DOD
CFAs
DOE
192 (88.5)
80 (84.2%)
17 (85.0%)
22 (10.1%)
12 (12.6%)
1 (5.0%)
3 (1.4%)
3 (3.1%)
2 (10%)
217
95
20
FY 1994
DOD
CFAs
DOE
210 (93.3%)
81 (77.9%)
14 (77.8%)
15 (6.7%)
14 (13.5%)
3 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
9 (8.7%)
1 (5.6%)
225
104
18
During FY 1993 and FY 1994, EPA and States issued Notices of Violation (NOVs) to
14 and 18 Federal facilities, respectively, for failure to comply with provisions of the CAA. The
majority of NOVs were issued against DOD facilities. Although relative compliance rates were
highest among DOD facilities (see Exhibit ES - 15), because they comprise a much larger
portion of the universe of Federal facilities, DOD facilities still tend to receive the majority of the
enforcement actions.
Asbestos Abatement at Federal Facilities
Due to the significant potential health hazards posed by asbestos abatement activities (i.e.,
removal, encapsulation), as well as the ubiquitous nature of asbestos in buildings constructed
during the first half of this century, the asbestos NESHAP program has particular relevance for
Federal facility compliance.
During the period from the first quarter of FY 1993 to the fourth quarter of FY 1994,
275 Federal facilities provided 1,508 notifications of planned asbestos abatement activities.
Collectively, DOD facilities outnumber all other reporting facilities by more than a two-to-one
margin, with Air Force installations comprising the largest share among DOD facilities.
ES- 15
-------
Based on these notifications, EPA and the States conducted 430 inspections, with the
vast majority (95.8 percent) being led by State authorities. Exhibit ES - 16 shows the number
of inspections, violations, and enforcement actions for both years.
Exhibit ES - 16
Asbestos NESHAP Program Statistics
Year
FY 1993
FY 1994
Inspections
225
205
Violations
Substantive
1
6
Notification
8
6
Enforcement Actions
Warning
4
5
NOV
5
5
Order
-
2
Toxic Substances Control Act & Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The purpose of TSCA is to protect human health and the environment by requiring that
specific chemicals be tested and that their processing and use be controlled or restricted as
appropriate. FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to oversee the registration and use of
pesticides and other similar products intended to kill or control insects, rodents, weeds, and other
living organisms.
TSCA and FIFRA are not permit-based compliance programs (e.g., RCRA), nor do they
involve any formal listing process whereby facilities meeting certain criteria are identified and
tracked until they no longer meet these criteria (e.g., CERCLA). Moreover, the number and
identity of facilities subject to TSCA change substantially from year to year, and many of the
activities that subject an entity to FIFRA do not occur at a fixed location (e.g., a single firm
spraying pesticides, herbicides, etc. on agricultural land located throughout a wide geographical
area). As a result, there are no readily definable TSCA or FIFRA universes. Facilities subject to
these programs are identified and targeted for inspections through a variety of less formal means,
including: self-reporting by entities of their intent to manufacture toxic substances or pesticides,
third-party requests/complaints, and EPA/State evaluation of publicly available data (e.g., annual
reports).
There were relatively few TSCA and FIFRA inspections at Federal facilities during FY
1993 and FY 1994. Under TSCA, the percentage of inspected facilities found to be in SNC
increased from 6.5 percent (3 of 46) in FY 1993 to 12.5 percent (5 of 40) in FY 1994. Under
FIFRA, four inspections were conducted during FY 1993 and eight inspections were conducted
during FY 1994. Pursuant to these inspections, EPA cited only two Federal facilities for
ES- 16
-------
FIFRA violations in FY 1993. There were no Federal facility violations of FIFRA in FY 1994,
similarly, no inspected Federal facilities were determined to be in SNC with FIFRA during either
year. Exhibit ES - 17 presents the percentage of inspected facilities cited for violations and in
SNC under TSCA and FIFRA during FY 1993 and FY 1994.
Exhibit ES 17
TSCA and FIFRA Compliance at Federal Facilities
50.0% -
45.0%
4,0.0% -
35.O% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.O% -
15.0%
10.O% -
5.0% -
O.O% -
1993 1994
TSCA
1993 1994
FIFRA
By definition, all Federal facilities found in SNC with TSCA were subject to formal
enforcement actions. The type of action taken is referred to as a Notice of Noncompliance
(NON). In FY 1993, EPA issued a field citation for FIFRA violations. In addition, during a
multi-media inspection, a second Federal facility received a NOV addressing violations under
four separate statutes (CAA, CWA, TSCA, and FIFRA). Under both TSCA and FIFRA,
Federal facilities, unlike commercial facilities, are not subject to penalties.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act -- TRI Reporting
The TRI, established under EPCRA, is a publicly available data base containing specific
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities throughout the United
States. In addition, following the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990, the TRI was
expanded to include reporting of additional waste management and pollution prevention activities.
ES- 17
-------
In August of 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which required
Federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports for calendar year 1994 activities. Federal
facilities meeting the TRI chemical thresholds are required to file TRI reports, whether or not
they are engaged in manufacturing. This Report does not contain TRI data for all Federal
facilities because 1994 data are not released until early 1996. Government-owned contractor-
operated (GOCO) Federal facilities, however, are required to submit TRI reports, irrespective of
the Executive Order.
GOCOs reported releases of approximately 7.2 million pounds of TRI chemicals in
1993, nearly all of which (99.4 percent) consisted of releases to the air. Of the releases to
environmental media other than air, most (76.3 percent) were accounted for by releases to water,
followed by releases to land (23.7 percent). GOCO facilities released only five pounds of TRI
chemicals via underground injection during 1993. During 1993, GOCO facilities transferred
more than 4.8 million pounds of TRI chemicals to publicly-owned treatment works and other
off-site locations for the purposes of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal. However,
most TRI chemicals present at GOCO facilities are not released or transferred off-site; the
majority (in terms of total volume) are managed on-site. The quantity of TRI chemicals
managed in waste that GOCO facilities reported as released in 1993 totaled just under 7.9
million pounds
As shown in Exhibit ES - 18, total releases of chemicals listed on the TRI decreased by
approximately 9.5 million pounds or 56.9 percent from 1990 to 1993. During the same period,
the number of GOCO facilities reporting under the TRI decreased from 66 to 51, a 21.7
percent decline. However, the decline in releases cannot be attributed solely to a decrease in the
number of reporting facilities. Comparing totals for only those GOCO facilities that reported
releases in both 1990 and 1993, the total quantity of releases still declined by 51.9 percent.
Total off-site transfers of TRI chemicals decreased slightly from approximately 5.0
million pounds in 1990 to less than 4.9 million pounds in 1993, a 3.1 percent decline. It is
important to note, however, that off-site transfers for recycling or energy recovery were not
required to be reported before 1991. Consequently, the 1990 off-site transfer figure most likely
understates the actual level of transfers occurring at GOCO facilities. Relative to 1991, the total
quantity of TRI chemicals transferred off-site declined from more than 13 million pounds to less
than five million in just two years. This represents a decrease of 62.8 percent.
ES- 18
-------
Exhibit ES - 18
TRI Releases and Off-site Transfers at GOCO Facilities (1990 -1993)
Legend
Releases
O£f-site Transfers
20,000,000 f
1S,OOO,OOO -
-30,000,000 -
5,000,000 -
1990
1991
1992
1993
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA authorizes the Federal government to respond to situations involving past
disposal of hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, parties causing or contributing to
contamination are held responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.
Section 120(c) of CERCLA requires EPA to establish a list of Federal facilities that
report hazardous waste activity under RCRA or §103 of CERCLA. The list, known as the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, is a key component in identifying
potentially contaminated sites at Federal facilities. From its inception in February of 1988 to
the most recent update in March of 1995, the number of sites at Federal facilities listed on the
docket has nearly doubled, from 1094 to 2070.
The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) is the data base that serves as the official
inventory of CERCLA sites and the primary system used to track CERCLA progress at all
Federal facilities. Among other matters, CERCLIS tracks site assessment, remedial,
enforcement, and financial information. At the end of FY 1994, there were 36, 881 non-
Federal facilities listed in CERCLIS and 1,738 Federal facilities (4.5 percent of the CERCLIS
universe). Of these, approximately 10 percent are on the NPL. Exhibit ES - 19 presents the
ES- 19
-------
status of sites on the NPL located at Federal facilities as of FY 1994. Appendix I contains a
complete inventory of Federal facilities on the NPL as of FY 1994.
Exhibit ES- 19
Federal Facilities on the NPL (FY 1994)
DOD 12
(75.0%)
9DOD sites proposed for inclusion on t
(5.6%) M
CFA 11
' (6.9%)
DOE 19
(11.9%)
1 CFA site proposed for inclusion on t
(0.6%)
N = 160 Facilities
At the start of EPA's Federal facilities enforcement program, EPA directed its resources
largely to the completion of negotiations for CERCLA §120 interagency agreements (lAGs).
These agreements made up the cornerstone of the enforcement program addressing the 150 final
and 10 proposed Federal facilities listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1994. Each agreement
contained specific schedules for the study and cleanup of hazardous substances at these facilities.
During FY 1994, 11 additional Federal facility CERCLA lAGs were executed. Of the
sites at Federal facilities listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1994, 129 are now covered by 120
lAGs.
In February 1993 EPA issued an interim report by the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee. EPA established the committee in 1992 to develop consensus
policy recommendations aimed at improving the Federal facilities environmental restoration
decision process to ensure that clean-up decisions reflect the priorities and concerns of all
stakeholders. The interim report contained committee recommendations concerning: improving
the dissemination of Federal facility restoration information; improving stakeholder involvement
in key restoration decisions with special emphasis on the use of site-specific advisory boards; and
improving consultation on Federal facility restoration funding decisions and setting priorities in
the event of funding shortfalls.
ES-20
-------
Base Realignment and Closure
The Base Realignment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990 provide for the realignment
or complete closure of military installations based on revised force structure needs. The Acts
stipulate that bases be chosen for closure or realignment in 1988 (BRAC I), 1991 (BRAC II),
1993 (BRAC III), and 1995 (BRAC IV -- not discussed in this report).
EPA, DOD, and the States are charged with creating a working partnership to implement
the President's Fast Track Cleanup Program at bases with environmental contamination and
where property will be available for transfer to the community. The objectives of the Fast Track
Cleanup Program are quick identification of clean parcels for early reuse, selection of appropriate
leasing parcels where cleanup is underway, and hastening cleanup. The number of Fast Track
Cleanup locations is a subset of the total number of bases selected for closure or realignment.
DOD, EPA and State regulators have forged BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) to deal with
the complex environmental problems at Fast Track Cleanup locations. The BCTs are
empowered to make decisions locally to the maximum extent possible and have the ability to raise
issues immediately to senior level officials for resolution should the need arise. Exhibit ES - 20
presents the location of BCTs throughout the country.
Exhibit ES - 20
BRAC Cleanup Teams by State
x
K.I. Sawyer
AFB
PlattsburghAFB_/\ '
i-i S I Y/V-PeaseAFB
y*\ I ttm .FortDevens
/urtsmith AFB " £ | V^jfcxMaterial
^Warminster^IIl t^* T^"1 Lib
\DPSC L-^^*'-r\^^ ^-Davisville
IPhilacleljh^/ JW^Staten Island
I (phila^iif(*J~~;FortMonmouth
I \ NS M ^ ^--Trenton
-FortMeade
Navy/Marine Installations
Air Force Installations
A Army Installations
ES-21
-------
Conclusions and Next Steps
EPA and States performed 1,298 and 1,380 inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1993
and FY 1994, respectively, which resulted in 462 and 517 enforcement actions. Continued
assessment of compliance problems confronting Federal facilities will provide EPA and States
with the ability to strengthen their oversight programs. Future compliance assessments need to
analyze the root causes of noncompliance to achieve environmental compliance goals within the
Federal sector.
EPA will continue to work with States, Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and the
public to achieve Federal environmental leadership. Specifically, EPA will focus on the following
key objectives:
> Determining the causes of noncompliance with environmental laws.
> Integrating multi-media inspection and enforcement strategies into
standard environmental program requirements for Federal facilities.
> Working with Federal agencies to incorporate pollution prevention into
their environmental management planning efforts.
> Involving the public in each stage of the Federal government's
environmental decision-making process.
> Applying the full range of enforcement authorities available under
environmental laws.
> Ensuring compliance with negotiated enforcement agreements at Federal
facilities.
> Implementing a process for accelerating the cleanup of military
installations slated for closure.
> Reducing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of environmental
technologies.
> Training Federal agency staff in the objectives and approaches for
environmental cleanup and compliance.
ES-22
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ES - 1
Acronyms iii
I. Introduction I - 1
II. Overview of Federal Facilities II - 1
III. Environmental Program Status Ill - 1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Ill - 7
Clean Water Act Ill - 21
Safe Drinking Water Act Ill - 31
Clean Air Act Ill - 37
Toxic Substances Control Act Ill - 47
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Ill - 53
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Ill - 57
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act . Ill - 65
Base Realignment and Closure Act Ill - 77
IV. Enforcement Highlights IV - 1
V. FFEO Technical Assistance Programs V - 1
VI. Conclusions and Next Steps VI - 1
Appendix 1: Federal Facilities on the NPL A - 1
Appendix 2: BRAC Installations A-ll
ES - xxiii
-------
Page intentionally left blank
ES - xxiv
-------
ACRONYMS
Acronym
AIRS
BIT
BRA
CAA
CEI
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERFA
CFA
CME
CWA
DOD
DOE
EPCRA
ERP
ESI
FFCs
FFCA
FFEO
FFIS
FFRRO
FFTS
FIFRA
FRDS
GOCO
HRS
IAG
IDEA
LQG
NAAQS
NCDB
NESHAP
NFRAP
NOV
NPDES
NPL
NSPS
OECA
Definition
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
BRA Cleanup Teams
Base Realignment and Closure
Clean Air Act
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
Civilian Federal Agency
Compliance Monitoring Evaluation
Clean Water Act
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Enforcement Response Policy
Expanded Site Investigation
Federal Facilities Coordinators
Federal Facility Compliance Act (Agreement)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facilities Information System
Federal Facilities Reuse and Restoration Office
Federal Facilities Tracking System
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Reporting Data System
Government- Owned Contractor- Operated
Hazard Ranking System
Interagency Agreement
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
Large Quantity Generator
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Compliance Data Base
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No Further Remedial Action Planned
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
New Source Performance Standard
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
ES - xxv
-------
Acronym
PA
PCS
POTW
PSD
PWSS
RA
RCRA
RCRIS
RD
RI/FS
ROD
SARA
SDWA
SI
SNC
SQG
TRI
TRIS
TSCA
TSDF
UIC
Definition
Preliminary Assessment
Permit Compliance System
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Public Water System Supervision
Remedial Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA Information System
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Site Investigation
Significant Noncompliance (Noncomplier)
Small Quantity Generator
Toxics Release Inventory
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Substances Control Act
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Underground Injection Control
ES - xxvi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) gratefully acknowledges the many
offices who provided support necessary to complete this document. Specifically, FFEO would
like to thank the following individuals: Joan Alcock, Mark Antell, Mike Mundell, and Bob
Zisa -- Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Data Management Branch;
Pat Murray and David Sprague -- OECA, Targeting and Evaluation Branch; Abe Siegel --
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Meisywe Cavenaugh -- Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics; and Reggie Cheatham, formerly of FFEO.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
To obtain a clear picture of the compliance issues and problems confronting Federal
facilities, as well as a better understanding of its own strengths and potential areas for
improvement, EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), within the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), periodically assesses Federal facility
performance with respect to environmental statutes and programs. The last assessment, The
State of Federal Facilities: A Comprehensive Overview of the Environmental Compliance Status of
Federal Facilities through the End ofFY 1992, was published in February 1994. This current
State of Federal Facilities Report examines Federal facility environmental performance primarily
during FY 1993 and FY 1994; however, where appropriate and when data are comparable, this
Report also examines pre-FY 1993 data.
The Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992, which became effective in FY
1993, had a significant impact on RCRA compliance issues at Federal facilities. The law greatly
enhances EPA and State enforcement authorities against Federal facilities. For example, EPA
and the States can now assess and collect penalties from Federal agencies for RCRA violations.
Moreover, EPA now has authority to issue Administrative Orders against Federal facilities to
enforce RCRA provisions.
Federal facilities are generally subject to the same environmental statutes and regulations
as commercial entities. EPA, in conjunction with the States, has oversight responsibility for
Federal facility environmental programs. To fulfill its oversight responsibility, FFEO conducts a
broad range of activities, including the following:
> Policy and guidance development,
> Regional program support,
> Federal agency compliance planning reviews,
> Interagency agreement (IAG) support,
> Program and information support, and
> Technical assistance and capacity building.
Through its network of Regional Federal Facilities Coordinators (FFCs) and State contacts,
FFEO works with appropriate facility personnel to ensure that they take the necessary actions to
prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution.
I- 1
-------
Environmental Requirements
Environmental requirements potentially affecting Federal facilities range from Federal
statutes and their implementing regulations to State and local laws and ordinances. To provide a
well-defined and consistent baseline measure of performance that will ultimately facilitate long-
term trend analyses, this Report summarizes Federal facility performance during FY 1993 and
FY 1994 with respect to the following major environmental statutes and programs:
> Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA and its
associated amendments regulate the generation, transport, storage,
treatment, and final disposal of hazardous and solid waste.
> Clean Water Act (CWA) - Under the CWA, EPA or approved States
issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits that establish effluent limits for all municipal and industrial
wastewater discharges.
> Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - The Public Water Supply
Supervision (PWSS) program authorized by SDWA enables EPA to set
standards to control both manmade and naturally occurring contaminants.
In most cases, States have primary responsibility for oversight and
enforcement under SDWA.
> Clean Air Act (CAA) - The CAA authorizes EPA to establish emission
control standards to achieve the air quality goals set forth in the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
> Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) - Under TSCA, EPA identifies
and controls the manufacture, process, distribution, use, and disposal of
existing and new chemical substances and mixtures.
> Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Under
FIFRA, EPA has the authority over the sale, distribution, and use of
pesticide products.
> Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) - Under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) TRI program, EPA provides
information about toxic chemicals to the public through an annual report
of releases of such chemicals by industrial and other facilities.1
As of 1995, TRI data for Federal facilities are available only for government-owned contractor-operated
facilities.
1-2
-------
> Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), created the Superfund program to
respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants
resulting from accidents or uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste
sites.
> Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) The Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990 provide for the closing
of selected military installations. To assist in meeting the environmental
restoration needs under the BRAC program, the Community
Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) was enacted in 1992
to facilitate the transfer of uncontaminated and remediated parcels.
Organization of the Report
In preparing this Report, FFEO consulted all of the relevant EPA program offices to
ensure that the type and format of compliance data presented herein is consistent with that used
by the respective programs. For most programs, the data are organized to address the following
issues:
> How many and what types of Federal facilities are regulated/affected by the
program and what portion of the entire universe of regulated facilities do
they comprise?
> How is compliance monitored at regulated Federal facilities?
> How is compliance measured?
> What actions were taken to address noncompliance?
For other environmental programs, however, compliance indicators such as the number of
violations or the number and type of enforcement actions are less appropriate measures of Federal
facility performance. These programs focus on such issues as the quantity of toxic chemicals
released into the environment, or the progress of remediation and/or decommissioning activities.
The following program summaries contained in this Report are organized according to these
alternative issues:
> TRI - The TRI program summary discusses releases of chemicals to
various environmental media, off-site transfers, and prevention and
management of chemicals in waste at government-owned contractor-
operated facilities.
1-3
-------
> CERCLA The CERCLA program summary highlights the status of
Federal facilities within the remediation process. It describes the number
of sites potentially and actually awaiting cleanup, as well as the number of
sites at which cleanup has begun or been completed.
> BRAC -- The BRAC program summary contains information on the
number and location of military installations slated for closure and their
cleanup status.
The remainder of this Report is divided into five sections: Section II provides an overview
of the scope of Federal facility activities related to environmental compliance issues; Section III
presents individual statutory and programmatic environmental compliance summaries; Section
IV discusses enforcement highlights; Section V summarizes EPA technical and compliance
assistance activities for Federal facilities; and Section VI contains conclusions and proposed next
steps to address compliance problem areas.
1-4
-------
II. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
The Federal government defines Federal facilities as all buildings, installations, structures,
land, public works, equipment, aircraft, vessels, and other vehicles and property owned by or
constructed or manufactured and leased to the Federal government. The size of the Federal
government, in terms of capital, personnel, and real estate holdings, is substantial. For example,
the Federal government currently owns more than 440,000 buildings, employs more than 2.9
million people, and owns or manages over 650 million acres of public land.2
Although all Federal facilities are potentially subject to environmental regulations, most
are not involved in activities that would trigger requirements to comply with regulations.
According to the Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS), there are currently about 15,880
Federal facilities that engage in some type of activity directly affected by environmental
requirements. These facilities can be grouped into one of three broad categories -- Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) facilities.
Exhibit II - 1 presents the distribution of Federal facilities according to agency category.
Exhibit II 1
Federal Facilities by Agency Category
CFAs 10,075
DOE 393 (63.4%)
(2.5%)
DOD 5,412
(34.1%)
N = 15,880 Federal facilities
2 Real estate and land ownership figures obtained from FY 1993 General Services Administration statistics.
Personnel figure obtained from FY 1994 Census Bureau statistics.
II- 1
-------
DOD and DOE facilities typically include large installations (e.g., military bases, storage
depots), manufacturing/fabrication plants, and laboratories/research facilities. The universe of
CFA facilities is somewhat more diverse and includes organizations such as the Department of
the Interior, General Services Administration, Department of Justice, Tennessee Valley
Authority, NASA, Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. Exhibit II - 2 shows
the distribution of CFA facilities according to individual agency.
All Otkers -
PHLB -
State -
Treasury
NASA -
HUD -
EPA -
TVA -
Labor
HHS -
Justice
Commerce
VA -
GSA -
Agriculture
Postal Service
Interior
T ransportation.
Exhibit II - 2
Distribution of CFAs by Agency
0
20O 4OO 6OO 8OO 1,OOO 1,2OO 1,4OO 1,6OO
Missions of the Federal Agencies
DOD is charged with defending the interests of the United States anywhere in the world.
As such, DOD maintains thousands of installations to provide the necessary infrastructure for
the armed services to meet this mission. Installations range in size from a few acres to thousands
of square miles; their missions range from logistics and training to manufacturing and rebuilding
aircraft and ships. Many of these installations are the equivalent of small cities, and thus they
possess all of the infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, sewage treatment plants, roads, airports)
associated with city environments. Much of the support activity associated with DOD's mission
is industrial, therefore, DOD installations face compliance issues relating to air and water
pollution and solid/hazardous waste generation.
II-2
-------
DOE is involved in electric power generation and transmission, fossil and non-fossil fuel
research, petroleum storage, nuclear weapons research, and nuclear weapons production. Many of
DOE's approximately 400 installations are dedicated to laboratory research. DOE laboratories
work on a variety of areas including solar energy, battery development, energy transmission
methods, atomic energy, fossil fuels, and nuclear weapons. Some laboratories are located on large
compounds such as Savannah River, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, while others are part of
university systems such as the Fermi Lab in Chicago. Like DOD, the large-scale manufacturing
and industrial nature of many DOE activities presents DOE with a broad range of environmental
compliance issues.
CFA facilities range in size and scope from single-purpose buildings to extensive multi-
purpose compounds. Activities include vehicle fleet management, construction, facility
operation, scientific and medical research, materials storage and shipment, and many others. On
an individual facility basis, many CFA facilities have fewer environmental concerns; however, the
diversity of CFA activities implies that as a group, they face environmental compliance issues as
extensive as those faced by DOD and DOE facilities. Exhibit II - 3 demonstrates the range of
activities typically conducted at Federal facilities.
Exhibit II - 3
Activities at Federal Facilities
Activity
Vehicle/Aircraft Maintenance
- Painting
Part Cleaning
Fuel Storage and Refueling
Electroplating
Printing Photoprocessing
Wastewater Treatment
Hospitals
Laboratory Research
Office Operations
DOD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DOE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CFAs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
When discussing the entire community of Federal facilities, it is important to recognize
that not all Federal facilities are owned and operated by the Federal government. At numerous
Federal facilities and on many public lands, a private party or private parties are involved. Thus,
in addition to traditional government-owned government-operated (GOGO) facilities, the
II-3
-------
Federal facility community includes government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities,
privately-owned and leased by the government (POGO) facilities, jointly-owned and contractor-
operated QOCO) facilities, as well as many other ownership/operating arrangements.
Environmental Activities and Expenditures
The number and level of annual expenditures on Federal environmental management
activities has increased since FY 1991. Exhibit II - 4 presents a breakdown of these activities
according to number of projects and required budgetary authority to implement these projects.
$12,000 -
ejjt 10 Q00
c $8,000 -
S $6,000 -
,-jq
-£ $4,000 -
MI
-a
3
K $2,000 -
*n
/
/
/
/
/
f
\
Pederal E
llMisJt
400 \r
4-
f
^
Exkitit II - 4
nvironmental
*i^56l?
p8]^
L
~A $10.038 F
p^'
L
Projects
^
,Sll,623|^
FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
Legend
[_J Federal Budget Autkority ^| Number of Projects
3
b-1
o
nd
o
n
Exhibit II - 4 reveals that both the number of environmental projects and their
corresponding funding levels have approximately doubled since FY 1991. Exhibit II - 5
illustrates how these proposed funding levels are allocated across the various Federal agencies.
II-4
-------
Exhibit II - 5
Environmental Project Budget Authority by Agency
Agency
DOD
DOE
CFAs
Total
Budget Authority Actual {In millions of dollars)
FY 1991
$2,168
$3,687
$158
$6,013
FY 1992
$4,172
$4,434
$250
$8,856
FY 1993
$4,020
$5,728
$290
$10,038
FY 1994
$5,246
$6,175
$201
$11,622
The vast majority of spending on environmental projects is accounted for by DOE and
DOD, which accounted for 53.1 percent and 45.1 percent, respectively, of the total budgeted
authority in FY 1994. Although all agency categories have increased spending since FY 1991,
the rate of increase has changed. For example, over the period in question, DOE and DOD
spending increased by 67.5 percent and 140.1 percent, respectively, while spending by CFAs
grew by only 27.2 percent.
II-5
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Federal Facilities by Agency Category
Distribution of CFAs by Agency
Activities at Federal Facilities
Federal Environmental Projects
Environmental Project Budget Authority
by Agency
Information
Source
FFTS
FFTS
-
FFIS
OMB
Date of
Data Pull
10/1/95
10/1/95
-
Various
Various
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
II-6
-------
III. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS
The information contained in this Report is drawn from many sources within and across
the various EPA environmental program offices. The starting point for the analysis is the
Federal Facilities Tracking System, which is a cross-media information management system
that draws upon several other EPA data bases and focusses on Federal facility compliance. Other
EPA data bases used in preparing this Report include:
> FFIS -- The Federal Facilities Information System is the national data
base that contains budget and project information on all Federal
environmental management program planning activities pursuant to
Executive Order 12088. The data are derived from the Federal
environmental planning process known as FEDPLAN.
> RCRIS - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
is the mainframe data base that tracks hazardous waste handlers under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
> PCS -- The Permit Compliance System tracks EPA Regional and State
compliance and enforcement data for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System under the Clean Water Act.
> FRDS-II - The Federal Reporting Data System is a national data base
that tracks public water supply systems compliance and enforcement data
collected by EPA Regions and States under the Public Water Supply
Supervision program of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
> AIRS -- The Aerometric Information Retrieval System manages
aerometric emissions and compliance data on point sources tracked by
EPA, State, and local governments in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
> CERCLIS -- The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System is the primary data base
used under the Superfund program.
> NCDB The National Compliance Data Base is the national repository
for compliance and enforcement data collected by EPA under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
Ill- 1
-------
> TRIS -- The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System tracks releases of
chemicals listed in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) according to
chemical type, quantity, and nature of the release.
> IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis is a mainframe system
that ties together key compliance data across programs by pulling elements
from other mainframe systems including RCRIS, AIRS, and CERCLIS.
Environmental Compliance Indicators
There are numerous differences among environmental programs in terms of how EPA and
States assess compliance. For example, CAA, CWA, and RCRA programs use on-site
inspections, while SDWA relies on self-reporting. Similarly, under the CWA, EPA and States
typically inspect the entire universe of major Federal facilities annually, whereas under the RCRA
and TSCA programs, only a portion of facilities potentially subject to inspections are actually
inspected. There also are differences among programs in terms of how compliance is defined and
in the number of requirements that must be met. Because of these many differences, it is not
feasible to develop a single compliance indicator that yields meaningful comparisons across
programs. However, evaluating certain compliance indicators over time can reveal how well
Federal facilities are performing with respect to individual programs.
For a given program, there are potentially numerous indicators that could be used to
assess compliance at Federal facilities (e.g., percentage of Federal facilities with violations,
percentage of Federal facilities in significant noncompliance, percentage of Federal facilities on
the exceptions list). Based on discussions with EPA Program Office staff, Exhibit III - 1
presents compliance indicators that are intended to measure the level of relatively serious
noncompliance at major Federal facilities. These compliance indicators are summarized below.
Statute Compliance Indicator
RCRA Percent of inspected Federal TSDFs not cited for Class I violations.
CWA Percent of major Federal facilities not in significant noncompliance
SDWA Percent of Federal systems not in significant noncompliance
CAA Percent of major Federal sources in compliance
TSCA Percent of inspected Federal facilities not in significant noncompliance
Exhibit III - 1 standardizes the compliance indicators listed above by dividing the annual
value for each indicator by the FY 1991 value. These standardized indicators measure changes
in compliance for the various programs relative to FY 1991 in the same way the consumer price
index measures changes in the rate of inflation relative to a given base year. The purpose of
III-2
-------
standardization is to avoid potentially misleading comparisons of the absolute level of compliance,
and instead focus on measuring changes in compliance over time.
Exhibit III 1
Changes in Federal Facility Compliance Indicators
FY 1991 = 100
120
£££; 1991 = 100
PY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
According to Exhibit III - 1, the level of Federal facility compliance with most major
environmental statutes/programs has been somewhat mixed since FY 1991. Under CAA and
TSCA, the level of compliance at Federal facilities decreased by more than five points from
FY 1991 to FY 1994. SDWA compliance declined by 0.4 points relative to FY 1991.
In contrast, CWA compliance at Federal facilities increased by 10 points over the same
period, and the percentage of inspected Federal TSDFs not cited for Class I RCRA violations
increased by nearly 14 points relative to FY 1991. It is important to note, however, that changes
in compliance are not necessarily indicative of the absolute levels of compliance. Exhibit III - 2
presents absolute values for the compliance indicators discussed above.
Ill-3
-------
Exhibit III - 2
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for Selected Indicators
Statute
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
CAA
TSCA
FY 1991
54.2%
80.3%
99.1%
94.4%
92.4%
FY 1992
62.7%
90.4%
99.0%
95.6%
90.1%
FY 1993
55.4%
94.2%
99.2%
87.0%
93.5%
FY 1994
61.6%
88.5%
98.7%
87.9%
87.5%
The remainder of this section is divided into program-by-program summaries of Federal
facility activities/compliance.
Ill-4
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Changes in Federal Facility Compliance
Indicators
Federal Facility Compliance Rates for
Selected Indicators
Information
Source
Multiple data
bases
Multiple data
bases
Date of
Data Pull
Various
Various
Comments
Data drawn from latter sections of
Chapter III of this document.
Data drawn from latter sections of
Chapter III of this document.
Ill-5
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III-6
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY ACT
RCRA Subtitle C provides a regulatory framework for ensuring that the following
objectives are met:
> Protecting human health and the environment from potential adverse
effects of improper hazardous waste management;
> Conserving material and energy resources through waste recycling and
recovery; and
> Reducing or eliminating the generation of hazardous waste as expeditiously
as possible.
To achieve these objectives, RCRA authorizes EPA to regulate the generation, treatment, storage,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste (referred to as the "cradle to grave" management
system).
Generators of RCRA-regulated waste must comply with recordkeeping, reporting, labeling,
and container requirements. They are also responsible for tracking waste through a manifest
system. The manifest system creates a written record of the chain-of-custody from the time a
waste leaves a generator until it reaches its final disposal site. Transporters are subject to labeling
and container standards, as well as recordkeeping requirements of the manifest system.
Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are subject to recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and technical standards covering treatment and disposal methods, as well as the
location, construction, and operation of disposal sites. Finally, both generators and TSDFs,
depending upon the type of waste handled, may be subject to certain land disposal restrictions
that require treatment before waste is land-disposed.
Applicability of RCRA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have broad compliance responsibilities under RCRA. The most sweeping
of these is RCRA §6001, which subjects Federal facilities to RCRA civil, administrative, and
criminal penalties and makes Federal employees personally liable to RCRA criminal penalties.
Other relevant RCRA responsibilities for Federal facilities include oversight of contractor
operated facilities and cooperating with EPA inspections.
Ill-7
-------
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms RCRA
Class I Violation
Out of Compliance
Returned to
Compliance
Deviations from regulations or provisions of compliance orders,
consent agreements, consent decrees, or permit conditions that could
result in a failure to:
assure that hazardous waste is destined for and delivered to
authorized TSDFs;
« prevent releases of hazardous waste or constituents, both
during the active and any applicable post-closure periods of
the facility operation where appropriate;
assure early detection of such releases; or
« perform emergency cleanup operations or other corrective
actions for releases.
A facility that, upon reinspection, failed to address an outstanding
violation is considered out of compliance with regulations or
provisions of compliance orders, consent agreements, consent decrees,
or permit conditions. For the purposes of this report, compliance
status is assessed at the end of the fiscal year.
A facility that has been reinspected by EPA, following a discovery of
a violation (s), and found to have corrected these violations is said to
have returned to compliance. A return to compliance is not
necessarily indicative of an entire facility's compliance status, rather,
it only measures compliance with respect to a particular violation.
For the purposes of this report, returns to compliance are assessed at
the end of the fiscal year.
RCRA Universe
In 1994, there were 290,586 facilities in the RCRA universe, an increase of 4,545 (1.6
percent) from 1993. The 2,580 Federal RCRA facilities represent a fairly small portion of the
entire RCRA universe in FY 1994, approximately 0.9 percent. Of the 2,580 facilities, 46.9
percent are DOD, 3.8 percent are DOE, and 49.3 percent are CFA, as shown in Exhibit III - 3.
Ill-8
-------
Exhibit III - 3
Universe of RCRA Federal Facilities (FY 1994)
DOD 1,209
(46
N = 2,580 RCRA Federal Facilities
CFA 1,273
(49.3%)
RCRA facilities can be subdivided into four categories: small quantity generators
(SQGs), large quantity generators (LQGs), transporters, and TSDFs.3 SQGs make up the
largest share of all RCRA facilities (66.7 percent), followed by LQGs (27.6 percent),
transporters, and TSDFs (4.3 percent and 1.4 percent respectively).
As can be seen in Exhibit III - 4, the distribution of Federal facilities by handler type
differs from non-Federal facilities in at least two important respects. First, the share of the
universe comprised by TSDFs is nearly 10 times greater among Federal facilities than among
non-Federal facilities. Second, transporters are almost twice as common within the non-Federal
sector than they are within the Federal sector. LQGs account for roughly the same percentage of
Federal and non-Federal facilities, while SQGs comprise a slightly smaller portion of the Federal
facility universe relative to the non-Federal facility universe.
3 EPA frequently further subdivides TSDFs into combustion facilities, land disposal facilities, and
treatment/storage facilities.
Ill-9
-------
Exhibit III - 4
RCRA Facility by Handler Type (FY 1994)
Federal Facilities
Non-Federal Facilities
TSDFs 321
(12
.4%
TSDFs 3,785
(1.3%)
LQG
LQGs 674
(26.1%)
Transporters 64
(2.5%)
79,518
(27.6%)
SQGs 192,412
(66.8%)
ransporters 12,29
N = 2,580 Facilities
N = 288,006 Facilities
RCRA Inspections
RCRA inspections range in intensity from very complex comprehensive compliance
evaluation inspections (CEI) to less complex financial and non-financial record reviews. Exhibit
III - 5 shows that CEIs were by far the single most common type of inspection performed,
followed by record reviews and compliance schedule inspections. Ground water monitoring
inspections include both comprehensive ground water evaluations (CMEs) and CMEs without
significant numbers of samples (CMSs). Inspections collectively classified as "All Other Types"
include corrective action oversight inspections, case development inspections, operations and
maintenance inspections, and any other unspecified inspections.
Ill - 10
-------
Exhibit III - 5
RCRA Inspections at Federal Facilities
600 -i-"
300 -
Legend
CEI
|BBj Eecord Review
^Q Compliance Scneaule
TO CMS and CMS
| | All Otter Type,
FY 1993
N = 798 Inspections
FY 1994
N = 888 Inspections
Although it still maintains significant policy-setting and oversight responsibilities, EPA
has delegated authority to implement and administer the base RCRA program to 46 of the
States. Therefore, the States took the lead on the majority of RCRA inspections during FY
1993 and 1994, including those conducted at Federal facilities (see Exhibit III - 6).
Exhibit III - 6
RCRA Inspection Leads at Federal Facilities
FY 1993 FY 1994
EPA Lead 114
(14.3%)
State Lead 684
(85.7%)
State Lead 803
(90.4%)
EPA Lead 85
(9.6%)
N = 798 Inspections
N = 888 Inspections
III- 11
-------
To assess compliance with RCRA requirements, Federal and State inspectors conducted
798 and 888 inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1993 and FY 1994, respectively. As shown
in Exhibit III - 7, DOD's share of inspections declined by 6.1 percent of the total from FY 1993
to FY 1994, and DOE's share increased by approximately the same amount.
Exhibit III - 7
RCRA Inspections by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD 52
(65.9%)
CFAs122
(15.3%)
DOD 531
(59.8%)
DOB 150
(18.8%)
CPAs 130
(14.6%)
DOB 227
(25.6%)
N = 798 Inspections
N = 888 Inspections
Federal facilities subject to RCRA inspection during FY 1993 and FY 1994 were located
throughout the country, with EPA and States conducting the largest number over the two-year
period in Region IV (534). Only Region VIII had more than 200 inspections during this period
(203); although Regions VI and IX were extremely close to this threshold, with 197 and 183
inspections respectively (see Exhibit III - 13).
RCRA Compliance: Class I Violations
RCRA Class I violations represent deviations from regulations or other relevant operating
requirements that could significantly increase the risk of improper hazardous waste management;
result in releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to the environment; or decrease
the effectiveness of responses to such releases. In FY 1993 and FY 1994, there were a total of
151 and 138 facilities, respectively, that were cited for Class I RCRA violations. Exhibit III - 8
presents the percentage of facilities receiving Class I violations according to agency.
Ill- 12
-------
DOD 120
(79.5%)
Exhibit III - 8
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD
^^^^ammci::::\
CFAs 20
(13.2%)
DOB 11
(7.3%)
N = 151 Facilities N = 138 Facilities
Both DOE and DOD showed decreases in terms of their share of Federal facilities with
Class I violations; the percentages dropped from 79.5 percent to 69.6 percent at DOD facilities
and from 7.3 percent to 6.5 percent at DOE facilities. In contrast, the percentage of CFA
facilities with Class I violations increased markedly from 13.2 percent to 23.9 percent.
Of the Federal facilities cited for Class I violations in FY 1993 and FY 1994, 141 and
118, respectively, were TSDFs, which are generally considered major Federal facilities under
RCRA. Therefore, of the total number of inspected Federal TSDFs (316 in FY 1993 and 307
in FY 1994), 55.4 percent and 61.6 percent were not cited for Class I violations in FY 1993
and FY 1994. The corresponding Class I violation "compliance rates" for the non-Federal
universe of inspected TSDFs were 64.6 percent and 66.1 percent. Exhibit III - 9 graphically
presents this comparison.
Ill- 13
-------
Exhibit III - 9
RCRA Class I Violation "Compliance Rates" at Federal vs Non-Federal TSDFs
100.0% (
90.0%
8O.O% -
6O.O% -
50.0%
Legend
Federal TSDFs
Non-Federal TSDFs
FY 1993
FY 1994
Enforcement Actions
There were a total of 347 enforcement actions taken against Federal facilities in FY
1993, with slightly more, 362, being taken in FY 1994. Exhibit III - 10 presents a breakdown
of informal versus formal enforcement actions, as well as proposed versus final penalties assessed.
For both years, more than two-thirds of enforcement actions taken were informal (e.g., warning
letters). Formal actions taken against Federal facilities include: civil actions, consent decrees,
Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs), referrals to other enforcement authorities,
judicial orders, notices of noncompliance, administrative orders, corrective action orders, and
imminent hazard orders. The most commonly used formal enforcement action is the RCRA
§3008(a) administrative order; more than 75 percent (130 out of 173) of formal enforcement
actions taken in FY 1993 and FY 1994 were administrative orders.
Proposed penalties under RCRA decreased from nearly nine million dollars in FY 1993
to slightly less than five million dollars in FY 1994, a drop of more than 45 percent. Similarly,
final penalties assessed dropped by approximately one million dollars, or 42 percent over the same
period. The ratio of proposed to final penalties, however, did not change substantially from FY
1993 to FY 1994.
Ill- 14
-------
Exhibit III - 10
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Type of Action
Informal
Formal
All Enforcement Actions
Proposed Penalties
Final Penalties Collected (3/20/95)
FY 1993 Total
269 (77.5%)
78 (22.5%)
347
$8,796,970
$2,389,178
FY 1994 Total
267 (73.8%)
95 (26.2%)
362
$ 4,807,062
$ 1,382,957
b
Exhibit III - 11 reveals that from FY 1993 to FY 1994, CFAs saw their share of
enforcement actions increase, while DOD and DOE facilities experienced modest declines. As
one might expect, the distribution of enforcement actions across agencies correlates fairly well
with the distribution of Class I violations at Federal facilities (see Exhibit III - 8).
Exhibit III - 11
RCRA Enforcement Actions by Agency
FY 1993
DOE 42
(12.1%)
DOD 266
(76.7%)
CFAs 39
(11.2%)
N = 347 Enforcement Actions
FY 1994
DOE 31
(8.6%)
DOD 276
(76.2%)
CFAs 55
(15.2%)
N = 362 Enforcement Actions
III- 15
-------
As shown in Exhibit III - 12, the vast majority of enforcement actions at Federal facilities
are taken under State lead. In FY 1993, 87.9 percent (305 out of 347) enforcement actions
were led by States; in FY 1994 the State share increased to 92.8 percent (336 out of 362).
Exhibit III 12
RCRA Enforcement Leads
FY 1993
FY 1994
State Lead 305
(87.9%)
EPA Lead 42
-. (12.1%)
State Lead 336
(92.8%)
EPA Lead 26
(7.2%)
N = 347 Enforcement Actions
N = 362 Enforcement Actions
For the two-year period FY 1993 and FY 1994, most enforcement actions taken at
Federal facilities occurred in Regions IV, VI, and IX. Not surprisingly, these three Regions also
were among the top four in terms of the number of inspections conducted. Exhibit III - 13
presents a breakdown of inspection and enforcement activity by Region.
Ill- 16
-------
Exhibit III- 13
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement Actionsby Region (FY 1993-94)
6OO i
SCO
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Regions
N = 1686 Inspections & 709 Enforcement Actions
Region VIII had the second highest number of inspections, yet had the lowest number of
enforcement actions. In contrast, the ratio of enforcement actions to inspections was more than
0.85 in Region I. Other Regions with high enforcement/inspection ratios include: Region X
(0.82), Region IX (0.75), and Region VII (0.69).
RCRA Compliance: Return to Compliance
RCRA facilities are deemed out of compliance if they are cited for violating regulations,
provisions of compliance orders, consent agreements, consent decrees, or permit conditions, and
have not established a target compliance date. A facility that has been reinspected by EPA and
found to have corrected these violations is said to have returned to compliance. Exhibit III - 14
presents the number of Federal facilities out of and returned to compliance at the end of FY
1993 and FY 1994.
Ill- 17
-------
Exhibit III - 14
Federal Facilities Out of and Returned to Compliance
Agency
DOD
CFAs
DOE
TOTAL
FY 1993
Out of
Compliance
231
56
20
307
Returned to
Compliance
89 (38.5%)
16 (28.6%)
7 (35.0%)
112 (36.5%)
FY 1994
Out of
Compliance
212
53
15
280
Change
from 1993
- 8.2%
- 5.4%
- 25.0%
- 8.8%
Returned to
Compliance
92 (43.4%)
23 (43.4%)
10 (66.7%)
125 (44.6%)
The number of Federal facilities found to be out of compliance at the end of the fiscal
year decreased by nearly nine percent from FY 1993 to FY 1994. DOD exhibited the largest
numerical decrease (19 facilities), although DOE experienced the largest decline in percentage
terms (25 percent). Rates for return to compliance at Federal facilities improved for all agencies
from FY 1993 to FY 1994, with DOE again showing the most improvement.
Ill - 18
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Universe of RCRA Federal Facilities
RCRA Facility by Handler Type
RCRA Inspections at Federal Facilities
RCRA Inspection Leads
RCRA Inspections by Agency
Federal Facilities with Class I Violations
by Agency
RCRA Class I Compliance Rates at
Federal TSDFs vs All Facilities
RCRA Enforcement Actions at Federal
Facilities
RCRA Enforcement Actions by Agency
RCRA Enforcement Leads
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement
Actions by Region
Federal Facilities Out of and Returned to
Compliance
Information
Source
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
RCRIS
Date of
Data Pull
03/17/95
03/17/95
03/17/95
03/17/95
03/17/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
03/20/95
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
-
Ill- 19
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 20
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT
The CWA and its 1987 amendments are the primary statute governing the restoration
and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Its
principal objectives are to:
> Eliminate the discharge of pollutants into U.S. navigable waters;
> Achieve an interim goal of water quality which, wherever attainable,
provides for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on the water; and
> Prohibit the discharge of pollutants in toxic amounts.
To achieve these objectives, CWA authorizes EPA and States to regulate, implement, and
enforce compliance with guidelines and standards to control the direct and indirect discharge of
pollutants to U.S. waters.
Dischargers of point source wastewater must submit an application for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits contain water
quality-based and/or technology-based standards for effluent discharges, compliance schedules,
and monitoring and reporting requirements. In addition, Federal facilities that discharge to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are subject to national general standards,
categorical pretreatment standards, and State or local pretreatment standards, if they exist.
Federal facilities generating stormwater point source discharges may be required to have a permit.
The NPDES program is approved in 40 States, while the pretreatment program is administered
in 29 approved States.
Applicability of CWA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have broad compliance responsibilities under CWA. The most sweeping
of these is CWA §313, which waives the traditional immunity of Federal agencies and requires
Federal facilities to comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements. Important
CWA responsibilities for Federal facilities include complying with EPA inspections and
procedural and substantive requirements (including recordkeeping, reporting, payment of service
charges and permits). In addition, §313 subjects Federal employees to criminal, but not civil
penalties.
Ill-21
-------
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms -- CWA/NPDES
Significant Non-
Compliance (SNC)
Exceptions List
Major Facilities
A violation of significant magnitude and/or duration to be considered
among the Agency's priorities for review and/or response. There are
several categories of violations that can be considered "significant;"
this report includes all categories noted in the NPDES permit
compliance system. Because the definition of SNC is EPA policy it
can change or evolve as the NPDES program changes.
A list of facilities that remain in SNC after two quarters without
returning to compliance or without the administering agency
initiating appropriate formal enforcement action.
Facilities that contribute a larger share of pollutants discharged to
surface waters. Designation of major facilities allows the NPDES
program to focus resources effectively and efficiently.
NPDES Universe
At the end of FY 19944, Federal facilities comprised approximately 2.0 percent (139) of
the total universe of 7,180 major facilities regulated under the NPDES program. As shown in
Exhibit III - 15, of these 139 facilities, 70.5 percent were DOD, 10.8 percent were DOE, and
18.7 percent were CFA facilities.
4The Permit Compliance System that tracks NPDES facilities provides a moving quarterly "snapshot" of
facilities in the universe. Since the number of major Federal facilities exiting or entering the universe during a given
quarter is relatively small, the total number of Federal facilities listed during the final quarter yields a reasonably
accurate estimate of how the universe changes from year to year.
Ill - 22
-------
Exhibit III - 15
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by Agency (FY 1994)
DOD98
(70.5°4
FAs26
(18.7%)
N = 139 Facilities
DOE 15
(10.8%)
NPDES Inspections
Historically, most NPDES inspections are conducted by the States. As shown in Exhibit
III - 16, this remained the case in FY 1993 and FY 1994, with more 80 percent of inspections
being led by States.
Exhibit III- 16
NPDES Inspection Leads
FY 1993
Joint Lead 7
' (3.4%)
.4''j^""\ EPA Lead 24
"* \ (11.5%)
tker 2
(1.0%)
FY 1994
State Lead 175
(84.1%)
State Lead 169
(87.6%)
N = 208 Inspections
N = 193 Inspections
Joint Lead 5
' (2.6%)
PA Lead 17
(8.8%)
tker 2
(1.0%)
III - 23
-------
The number of NPDES inspections at Federal facilities decreased by 7.2 percent, from
208 in FY 1993 to 193 in FY 1994. Exhibit III - 17 presents a breakdown of NPDES
inspections according to agency. The distribution of inspections by agency remained relatively
constant during FY 1993 and FY 1994.
Exhibit III- 17
NPDES Inspections by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD 15
(72.1%)
CFAs 32
(15.3%)
DOB 26
(12.5%)
DOD 137
(71.0%)
CPAs 31
(16.1%)
DOB 25
(12.9%)
N = 208 Inspections
N = 193 Inspections
NPDES Violations: Federal Facilities in SNC
Exhibit III - 18 compares the percentage of major Federal facilities not in SNC against
corresponding "compliance rates" for the universe of major non-Federal NPDES facilities. As
shown in the Exhibit, in FY 1993, the percentage of major Federal facilities not in SNC was
higher than for non-Federal facilities. In FY 1994, the compliance rate for Federal facilities
declined slightly relative to non-Federal facilities.
Ill - 24
-------
Exhibit III - 18
Comparison of NPDES Compliance Rates (% not in SNC)
90.0% -
Legend
Major Federal F.cilitie.
Major Non-Federal Faoiliti,
Exhibit III - 19 shows that the number of major Federal facilities determined to be in
SNC during the fourth quarter increased from eight in FY 1993 to 16 in FY 1994. As a
percentage of major Federal facilities, this represents an increase from 5.8 to 11.5 percent. The
number of major Federal facilities remaining on the exceptions list at the end of the fourth
quarter made up a fairly small portion of all major Federal facilities (i.e., less than three percent)
for both FY 1993 and FY 1994.
Exhibit III- 19
NPDES Compliance at Major Federal Facilities
FY 1993
FY 1994
Not in SNC 131
(94.2%)
SNC 8
(5.8%)
Not in SNC 123
(88.5%)
SNC 16
(11.5%)
N = 139 Facilities
N = 139 Facilities
III - 25
-------
Exhibit III - 20 presents Federal facilities in SNC with NPDES according to agency.
For both FY 1993 and FY 1994, DOD facilities comprised more than 60 percent of Federal
facilities in SNC, although the relative share of DOD facilities declined from 75 percent to 62.5
percent. The number of CFA facilities in SNC remained constant, but their relative share
decreased. Both the number and percent of DOE facilities in SNC increased over the same
period.
DOD 6
(75.0 %)
Exhibit III - 20
Major Federal Facilities in SNC by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD 10
(62.5 %)'
CFA 2
(25.0 %)
;FA2
(12.5%)
N = 8 Facilities
DOE 4
(25.0 %)
N = 16 Facilities
NPDES Enforcement Actions
Exhibit III - 21 shows the distribution across agencies of enforcement actions taken
under CWA/NPDES. As shown below, the vast majority of enforcement actions were taken
against DOD facilities. In addition, DOD facilities' share of enforcement actions increased by
nearly 5.0 percent from FY 1993 to FY 1994. Comparing the number of enforcement actions
to the level of inspection activity at Federal facilities over the same period (see Exhibit III - 17)
reveals that for both years DOD facilities were subject to a greater share of enforcement actions
than inspections.
Ill - 26
-------
Exhibit III -21
NPDES Enforcement Actions by Agency
FY 1993
FY 1994
DOE 12
(14.5%)
CFAsS
(3.6%)
DOE 12
(10.1%)
CFAs4
(3.4%)
DOD68
(81.9%)
N = 73 Enforcement Actions
DOD 103
(86.6%)
N = 119 Enforcement Actions
EPA and States took 119 enforcement actions in FY 1994 to address NPDES
noncompliance at Federal facilities. This represents an increase of more than 50 percent relative
to FY 1993. As shown in Exhibit III - 22, the share of informal enforcement actions (i.e.,
phone calls, warning letters, and informal NOVs) remained fairly constant from FY 1993 to FY
1994, while the percentage of formal actions (i.e., FFCAs, Administrative Orders, and formal
NOVs) decreased from nearly one-third to slightly more than one-fifth of the total for the year.
The percentage of other enforcement actions (i.e., unspecified pending actions and referrals)
nearly doubled over the same period.
Exhibit III - 22
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
Type of Enforcement Action
Informal
Formal
Other
TOTAL
Number of Actions in
FY 1993
41 (56.2%)
22 (30.1%)
10 (13.7%)
73
Number of Actions in
FY 1994
66 (55.5%)
26(21.8%)
27 (22.7%)
119
III - 27
-------
Between FY 1993 and FY 1994, there was a substantial increase in the share of
enforcement actions taken by EPA relative to the States. As shown in Exhibit III - 23, in FY
1993 more than 60 percent of enforcement actions were State led; however, in FY 1994 the
distribution nearly reversed itself, with nearly 60 percent of all actions being led by EPA.
Exhibit III - 23
NPDES Enforcement Leads
FY 1993
FY 1994
EPA Lead 28
(38.4%)>
EPA Lead 70
(58.8%)
State Lead 45
(61.6%)
W State Lead 49
(41.2%)
N = 73 Enforcement Actions
N = 119 Enforcement Actions
III - 28
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Major Federal NPDES Facilities by
Agency
NPDES Inspection Leads
NPDES Inspections by Agency
Comparison of NPDES Compliance
Rates
NPDES Compliance at Major Federal
Facilities
Major Federal Facilities in SNC by
Agency
NPDES Enforcement Actions by Agency
NPDES Enforcement Actions at Federal
Facilities
NPDES Enforcement Leads
Information
Source
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
Date of
Data Pull
02/28/95
02/28/95
02/28/95
02/28/95
02/28/95
10/11/95
02/28/95
02/28/95
02/28/95
Comments
-
--
--
--
Exceptions list data drawn from annual
NPDES Enforcement
Accomplishments Report
-
--
--
-
Ill - 29
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 30
-------
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The SDWA is the basis for protecting public drinking water systems from harmful
contaminants. Its principle objectives are to:
> Protect human health and ensure the aesthetic quality of drinking water;
> Protect underground sources of drinking water; and
> Establish programs to protect sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection
areas.
To reach these objectives EPA established the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Program. Under the 1986 Amendments, EPA set primary and secondary drinking water
standards to protect human health and ensure the aesthetic quality of drinking water. The
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program protects underground sources of drinking water
through the establishment of State wellhead and sole source aquifer protection programs.
States are primarily responsible for enforcing the public water regulations, provided they
adopt regulations at least as stringent as the national requirements, develop adequate procedures
for enforcement, maintain records, and create a plan for providing safe drinking water under
emergency conditions. In addition, if the State permits variances and exemptions, they must
grant them in accordance with the SDWA. When a public water system does not comply with
regulations, EPA provides technical assistance to the State and the public water supply system,
and also may issue enforcement actions.
Applicability of SDWA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have ample compliance responsibilities under the Act. SDWA §1447
requires compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements and administrative authorities
to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. Federal facilities supplying water that are
subject to primary drinking water regulations or to underground injection control standards are
required to conduct certain activities, including establishing and maintaining records, making
reports, and conducting monitoring activities. In addition, they must provide information
required by EPA to assist in establishing regulations, determining whether the facilities are
complying with SDWA, evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants, and advising
the public of such risks. Any person may commence a civil action against a Federal facility that
is alleged to be in violation of any SDWA requirement.
Ill-31
-------
Public Water
System (PWS)
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms PWSS
A PWS provides piped water for human consumption to at least 15
service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at
least 60 days each year.
Community Water A PWS that provides water to the same population year-round.
System (CWS)
Significant
A PWS that is found to have more serious, frequent, or persistent
Noncomplier (SNC) violations.
PWSS Universe
As shown in Exhibit III - 24, in FY 1994, Federal systems comprised approximately 2.3
percent (4,236) of the total universe of 189,828 systems regulated under the PWSS.
Exhibit III - 24
Universe of Federal Systems (FY 1994)
Non-Federal Systems 185,429
(97.7%)
N = 189,828 Major Systems
Federal Systems 4,399
(2.3%)
PWSS Violations
Exhibit III - 25 shows that overall compliance at Federal systems under the PWSS has
declined slightly since FY 1991. The number of Federal systems cited for violations increased
from 830 in FY 1991 to 946 in FY 1994. Moreover, because the number of Federal systems
actually declined, the percentage of systems with violations increased from 15.6 percent to 21.5
III - 32
-------
percent over the same period. SNC systems increased slightly from 0.9 percent in FY 1991 to
1.3 percent in FY 1994.
Exhibit III - 25
PWSS Compliance at Federal Systems
5,000 (
s,ooo -
4,000 -
3,000 -
2,000 -
1,000 -
Legend
Federal Systems
Systems witk Violations
Significant Noncomplie
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
PWSS Enforcement
Very few Federal systems received formal enforcement actions for violations under the
PWSS, either from EPA or the States. On a Federal level, formal actions include
Administrative Orders and §1431 Emergency Orders, while State formal actions include
Administrative Orders, Civil Referrals, and Criminal Cases filed. Exhibit III - 26 shows that the
total number of Federal systems receiving enforcement actions decreased from nine in FY 1993
to just three in FY 1994. For the two year period, the Federal/State share of enforcement
actions taken was identical (six Federal, six State), although between FY 1993 and FY 1994,
these shares fluctuated slightly. No Federal systems received Civil Referrals or had Criminal
Cases filed against them during either year.
Ill - 33
-------
Exhibit III - 26
PWSS Enforcement at Federal Facilities
Federal Admin Orders 5
(55.6%)
Federal Emergency Orders 1
(33.3%)
JU-"
State Admin Orders 4
(44.4%)
N = 9 Enforcement Actions
State Admin Orders 2
(66.7%)
N = 3 Enforcement Actions
III - 34
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Universe of Federal Systems
PWSS Compliance at Federal Systems
PWSS Enforcement at Federal Facilities
Information
Source
FRDS-II
FRDS-II
FRDS-II
Date of
Data Pull
02/17/95
08/23/95
08/23/95
Comments
-
--
--
III - 35
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 36
-------
CLEAN Am ACT
The CAA, as amended in 1990, is the primary Federal statute regulating air emissions.
Its principle objectives are to protect and enhance the quality of air resources, promote research to
reduce air pollution, and assist in the implementation of air pollution prevention programs at the
Regional, State, and local levels.
To fulfill its mandate of air pollution protection, the CAA establishes four types of health,
welfare, and technology-based standards and programs to prevent and control air pollution:
> National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) primary and
secondary standards for six criteria air pollutants. Primary standards are
devised to protect public health, while the purpose of secondary standards is
to protect public welfare (plant life, cultural monuments, and wildlife);
> National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) consist of four provisions: Maximum Available Control
Technology (MACT). technology-based standards for sources of 189 toxic
air pollutant emissions; health-based standards in addition to MACT;
standards for stationary area sources (numerous, small sources such as dry
cleaners and gas stations); and requirements for the prevention of
catastrophic releases;
> New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - are technology-based
emission limitations for new or modified stationary sources of emissions;
and
> Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) are areas
with air cleaner than presently required by NAAQS. Polluting sources
must install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) which are
technology-based standards stricter than NSPS.
Applicability of CAA to Federal Facilities
Federal facilities have broad compliance responsibilities under the CAA. Section 7418 of
the CAA requires that Federal facilities comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local
requirements, as well as the applicable provisions of a valid inspection and maintenance program.
Ill - 37
-------
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms CAA
Major Sources
Out of Compliance
Substantive
Violation
Facilities that emit or have the potential to emit over 100 tons/year
of a regulated pollutant.
Facilities that have exceeded emissions standards and/or violated
procedural requirements (e.g., failing to meet a compliance schedule)
are deemed out of compliance.
Under the asbestos NESHAP program, a violation of proper
abatement practices (e.g., failure to wear protective equipment) is
considered a substantive violation.
CAA Universe
In FY 1994, 356 major Federal sources existed within the universe of 39,755 major
sources regulated under all programs within the CAA. As shown in Exhibit III- 27, 63.8 percent
were DOD, 5.3 percent were DOE, and 30.9 percent were CFAs.
Exhibit III - 27
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency (FY 1994)
DOD 227
(63.8%'
CFA 110
(30.9%)
N = 356 Major Sources
DOE 19
(5.3%)
III - 38
-------
CAA Inspections
Exhibit III - 28 below reveals that States continued to take a lead role on the vast
majority of CAA inspections in FY 1993 and FY 1994 (92 percent and 94 percent,
respectively).
Exhibit III - 28
CAA Inspection Leads at Federal Facilities
FY 1993
FY 1994
EPA Lead 23
State Lead 255
(97.1%)
N = 278 Inspections
State Lead 240
(94.1%)
EPA Lead 15
(5.9%)
N = 255 Inspections
EPA and State inspectors conducted a total of 255 CAA inspections of major Federal
sources during FY 1994, a decrease of slightly more than eight percent relative to FY 1993.
Some of these sources were inspected more than once during the year -- the actual number of
major Federal sources inspected was 220 in FY 1993 and 200 in FY 1994. As shown in
Exhibit III - 29, the distribution of EPA and State inspections across agencies remained
relatively unchanged from FY 1993 to FY 1994.
Exhibit III - 29
CAA Inspections According to Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOE 12
(4.3%)
DOD 20£
(75.2%)
DOE 12
(4.7%)
FAs57
(20.5%)
DOD 193
(75.7%)
FAsSO
(19.6%)
N = 278 Inspections
N = 255 Inspections
III - 39
-------
CAA Violations: Compliance Rates
Under the CAA, Federal facilities may be subject to compliance requirements under
multiple programs (e.g., NAAQS and NSPS). A major source found to be in compliance with
the provisions of one program, yet out of compliance with those of another, is considered to be
out of compliance. As shown in Exhibit III - 30, during FY 1993 and FY 1994, Federal
facilities experienced slightly lower compliance rates than the rest of the regulated community.
CAA compliance rates for the same two years for major non-Federal sources were 89.3 and 89.9
percent, respectively.
Exhibit III 30
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal vs Major Non-Federal Sources
Legend
Major Federal Sources
Major Non-Federal So
95.0% -(
90.O% -
85.0% -
75.0% -^
FY 1993
FY 1994
As shown in Exhibit III - 31, compliance rates for major Federal sources remained fairly
constant from FY 1993 to FY 1994. Approximately 87 percent of Federal sources remained in
compliance with all applicable provisions of the CAA. Sources identified as "unknown" indicate
that EPA or the State was unable to determine the compliance status of the source due to a lack
of data, malfunctioning monitoring equipment, or other reason. Note that for compliance
monitoring purposes, nine out of the FY 1994 Federal universe of 356 sources and eight out of
the FY 1993 Federal universe of 340 sources were not counted due to a lack of applicable State
regulations against which to assess compliance.
Ill - 40
-------
Exhibit III-31
CAA Compliance Rates at Federal Facilities
FY 1993 FY 1994
Out of Compliance 35
" (10.5%)
Unknown 8
(2.4%)
In Compliance 305
(87.9%)
In Compliance 289
(87.0%)
Out of Compliance 32
(9.2%)
Unknown 10
(2.9%)
N = 332 Major Sources
N = 347 Major Sources
Exhibit III - 32 presents CAA compliance data across agencies for FY 1993 and FY
1994. DOD compliance rates were higher than both DOE and CFA compliance rates for both
years, particularly in FY 1994. CFA and DOE compliance rates both decreased from
approximately 85 percent in FY 1993 to approximately 78 percent in FY 1994.
Exhibit III - 32
CAA Compliance Rates Across Agencies
Agency
In
Compliance
Out of
Compliance
Unknown
Total
FY 1993
DOD
CFAs
DOE
192 (88.5)
80 (84.2%)
17 (85.0%)
22 (10.1%)
12 (12.6%)
1 (5.0%)
3 (1.4%)
3 (3.1%)
2 (10%)
217
95
20
FY 1994
DOD
CFAs
DOE
210 (93.3%)
81 (77.9%)
14 (77.8%)
15 (6.7%)
14 (13.5%)
3 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
9 (8.7%)
1 (5.6%)
225
104
18
III-41
-------
CAA Enforcement
During FY 1993 and FY 1994, EPA and States issued NOVs to 14 and 18 Federal
facilities, respectively, for failure to comply with provisions of the CAA. Noncompliance may
involve violations of emissions standards, procedural requirements, and/or failure to meet
established compliance schedules. As shown in Exhibit III - 33, the majority of NOVs were
issued against DOD facilities. In addition, the distribution of enforcement actions for both years
was fairly consistent with the level of inspection activities (Exhibit III - 29)
Although relative compliance rates were highest among DOD facilities (see Exhibit III -
32), because they comprise a much larger portion of the universe of Federal facilities, DOD
facilities still tend to receive the majority of the enforcement actions.
Exhibit III 33
CAA Enforcement Actions by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD 9
(64.3%)
DOE 1
" (7.1%)
DOD 14
(77.
CFAs4
(28.6%)
N = 14 Enforcement Actions
CFAs4
(22.2%)
N = 18 Enforcement Actions
Exhibit III - 34 shows that during FY 1993 and FY 1994, States typically played a lead
role on most enforcement actions. In addition, the State share of enforcement actions increased
slightly over the same period.
Ill - 42
-------
Exhibit III 34
CAA Enforcement Leads
FY 1993 FY 1994
N = 14 Enforcement Actions N = 18 Enforcement Actions
Asbestos Abatement at Federal Facilities
Due to the significant potential health hazards posed by asbestos abatement activities (i.e.
removal, encapsulation), as well as the ubiquitous nature of asbestos in buildings constructed
during the first half of this century, the asbestos NESHAP program has particular relevance for
Federal facility compliance. Under the program, facilities reporting planned asbestos abatement
activities may be subject to inspections to ensure the use of proper equipment and procedures.
During the period from the first quarter of FY 1993 to the fourth quarter of FY 1994,
275 Federal facilities provided 1,508 notifications of planned asbestos abatement activities.
Exhibit III - 35 shows the distribution of reporting facilities according to agency. Collectively,
DOD facilities outnumber all other reporting facilities by more than a two-to-one margin, with
Air Force installations comprising the largest share among DOD facilities.
Ill - 43
-------
Exhibit III - 35
Federal Facilities Reporting Under Asbestos NESHAP
Navy 41
(15.
Army 61
/ (23.0%)
Air Force 80
(30.2%)
N= 265 Facilities
CFA75
(28.3%)
Based on these notifications, EPA and the States conducted 430 inspections, with the
vast majority (95.8 percent) being led by State authorities. The level of inspection activity
decreased only slightly (less than 9.0 percent), from 225 inspections in FY 1993 to 205 in FY
1994. Exhibit III - 36 shows the number of inspections, violations, and enforcement actions for
both years.
Exhibit III - 36
Asbestos NESHAP Program Statistics
Year
FY 1993
FY 1994
Inspections
225
205
Violations
Substantive
1
6
Notification
8
6
Enforcement Actions
Warning
4
5
NOV
5
5
Order
-
2
Only a very small portion of inspections of asbestos abatement activity result in any
violations (4.0 percent in FY 1993 and 5.8 percent in FY 1994). Violations are classified either
as notification deficiencies (i.e., minor violations) or substantive violations (i.e., failure to follow
III - 44
-------
proper abatement procedures). In FY 1993, nearly 90 percent of violations were notification
deficiencies, while in FY 1994, the shares between substantive violations and notification
deficiencies was equal. In addition, enforcement actions taken to address these violations were
distributed fairly consistently in FY 1993 and FY 1994. In both years, the number of warnings
and NOVs were roughly the same; however, there were two administrative orders issued in FY
1994, both in response to substantive violations. Exhibit III - 37 shows how these violations
were distributed according to agency.
Exhibit III - 37
1993-1994 Asbestos NESHAP Violations at Federal Facilities
N avy 4
(19.0%)'
Army 5
(23.8%)
Air Forct
(38.1%)
CFA 4
(19.0%)
N = 21 Violations
III - 45
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
CAA Major Federal Sources by Agency
CAA Inspection Leads
CAA Inspections According to Agency
CAA Compliance Rates for Major Federal
Sources vs All Major Sources
CAA Compliance Rates
CAA Compliance Rates Across Agencies
CAA Enforcement Actions by Agency
CAA Enforcement Leads
Federal Facilities Reporting Under
Asbestos NESHAP
Asbestos NESHAP Program Statistics
Asbestos NESHAP Violations
Information
Source
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
AIRS
NARS
NARS
NARS
Date of
Data Pull
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/14/95
02/13/95
02/13/95
02/13/95
Comments
-
--
--
Compliance data for all major sources
pulled on 07/13/95
-
-
-
-
-
--
--
III - 46
-------
Toxic SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
The purpose of TSCA is to protect human health and the environment by requiring that
specific chemicals be tested and that their processing and use be controlled or restricted as
appropriate. To achieve this objective, TSCA authorizes EPA to:
> Gather certain kinds of basic information on chemical risks from entities
that manufacture or process chemicals;
> Require companies to test selected existing chemicals for toxic effects;
> Review most new chemicals before they are allowed to be manufactured and
distributed; and
> Prevent unreasonable risks by selecting control actions ranging from
hazard warning labels to the outright ban on the manufacture or use of
certain chemicals.
The control actions that may be taken by EPA under TSCA cover the manufacture, use,
distribution in commerce, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures.
Applicability of TSCA to Federal Facilities
Unlike other Federal statutes such as RCRA, TSCA does not specifically address Federal
facility responsibilities. However, there are many provisions that affect Federal facilities including
testing, reporting and information retention requirements, inspections, and provisions allowing
civil suits against Federal facilities violating TSCA.
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms TSCA
Significant A violation under TSCA, for which the level enforcement action is,
Noncompliance at a minimum, an administrative complaint in accordance with the
appropriate enforcement response policy (ERP).
TSCA Universe
TSCA is not a permit-based compliance program (e.g., RCRA, CWA/NPDES), nor does
TSCA involve any formal listing process whereby facilities meeting certain criteria are identified
and tracked until they no longer meet these criteria (e.g., CERCLA, BRAC). In addition, the
III - 47
-------
number and identity of facilities subject to TSCA may change substantially from year to year. As
a result, there is no readily definable "TSCA universe." All facilities subject to TSCA are
identified and targeted for inspections through a variety of less formal means, including: self-
reporting by entities of their intent to manufacture toxic substances, third-party
requests/complaints, and EPA/State evaluation of publicly available data (e.g., annual reports).
TSCA Inspections
The number of TSCA inspections conducted at Federal facilities decreased by
approximately 13 percent from FY 1993 to FY 1994 (46 to 40). As shown in Exhibit III - 38,
the distribution of these inspections according to agencies changed slightly over the same period.
DOD's share of TSCA inspections declined. The level of inspection activity at CFA facilities
also showed a modest increase.
Exhibit III - 38
TSCA Inspections by Agency
FY 1993 FY 1994
DOD 22
(55.0%)
CFA 17
DOE 2
(5.0%)
Exhibit III - 39 reveals that TSCA inspection leads remained virtually unchanged during
FY 1993 and FY 1994. For both years, EPA took the lead on approximately two-thirds of all
TSCA inspections at Federal facilities, while States took the lead on the remaining one-third.
Ill - 48
-------
Exhibit III - 39
TSCA Inspection Leads
FY 1993
FY 1994
EPA Lead 30
(65.2%)
EPA Lead 27
(67.5%) \
State Lead 16
(34.8%)
N = 46 Inspections
State Lead 13
(32.50/~
N = 40 Inspections
TSCA Compliance
Exhibit III - 40 shows that the percentage of inspected Federal facilities cited for
violations of TSCA increased slightly from approximately 32 percent (15 of 46) in FY 1993 to
35 percent (14 of 40) in FY 1994. The number of facilities in SNC of TSCA decreased from
17 in FY 1993 to 15 in FY 1994. It is important to note, however, that many of these facilities
were determined to be in SNC prior to FY 1993. These facilities remain in SNC, in some
instances for more than three years, until their cases are either closed or withdrawn. The actual
number of Federal facilities that were both inspected and found to be in SNC during FY 1993 or
FY 1994 were three and five, respectively.
Ill - 49
-------
ExkiLit III - 40
TSCA Compliance Statistics
20 -
Inspection
| Violations
SNC
FY 1993
FY1994
TSCA Enforcement
By definition (see above), all Federal facilities found in SNC with TSCA were subject to
formal enforcement actions. The type of action taken is referred to as a Notice of
Noncompliance (NON). Under TSCA, Federal facilities, unlike commercial facilities, are not
subject to penalties.
Ill - 50
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
TSCA Inspections by Agency
TSCA Inspection Leads
TSCA Compliance Statistics
Information
Source
NCDB
NCDB
NCDB
Date of
Data Pull
05/26/95
0.002
05/26/95
Comments
-
-
-
Ill-51
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 52
-------
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,
AND RODENTICIDE ACT
FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to oversee the registration and use of pesticides
and other similar products intended to kill or control insects, rodents, weeds, and other living
organisms. FIFRA enables EPA to achieve the following goals:
> Evaluate the risks posed by pesticides through a registration system;
> Classify and certify pesticides for specific uses and thus control exposure;
> Suspend, cancel, or restrict pesticides that pose threats to the environment;
and
> Enforce requirements through inspections, labeling notices, and regulation
by State authorities.
Under FIFRA, a manufacturer wishing to make a new pesticide must register it with EPA
and submit extensive test data, information on proposed uses, and suggested labeling in support
of the application for registration. In addition, the statute enables EPA to ban, control.or
otherwise restrict the manufacture, use, import, or disposal of a pesticide.
Application of FIFRA to Federal Facilities
Neither FIFRA nor its implementing regulations specifically address the role of Federal
facilities under the statute, with the exception of certification requirements. Federal facilities may
be subject to inspections and, if appropriate, enforcement actions under FIFRA.
Definitions of Important Compliance Terms FIFRA
Significant A violation under FIFRA, for which the level of enforcement action
Noncompliance is, at a minimum, an administrative complaint in accordance with
the approporiate enforcement response policy (ERP).
FIFRA Universe
Like TSCA, FIFRA does not have a readily identifiable universe of facilities based on
permits. Moreover, many of the activities that potentially subject an entity to FIFRA do not
occur at a fixed location (e.g., a single firm spraying pesticides, herbicides, etc. on agricultural
land located throughout a wide geographical area). Therefore, targeting of inspections and
III - 53
-------
subsequent enforcement activity at FIFRA "facilities" is accomplished through more informal
means (e.g., self-reporting, third-party complaints, public record reviews).
FIFRA Inspections
The number of FIFRA inspections conducted at Federal facilities is relatively small; only
12 were conducted during FY 1993 and FY 1994. Due to the small number of inspections,
minor changes in the absolute number of inspections can have substantial effects in percentage
terms. This caveat aside, the number of FIFRA inspections conducted at Federal facilities
doubled from FY 1993 to FY 1994 (from 4 to 8). As shown in Exhibit III - 41, EPA took the
lead on most of these inspections.
Exhibit III - 41
FIFRA Inspections
FY 1993 FY 1994
State Lead 1
(75.0%)
EPA Lead
(100.0%)
EPA Lead 3
(25.0%)
N = 4 Inspections N = g inspections
FIFRA Compliance: Violations and SNC
EPA cited only two Federal facilities for FIFRA violations in FY 1993 - there were no
Federal facility violations of FIFRA in FY 1994. No Federal facilities were found in SNC
during either year because violations did not trigger an enforcement response at an administrative
complaint level.
FIFRA Enforcement
In FY 1993, EPA issued a field citation for FIFRA violations. In addition, during a
multi-media inspection, a second Federal facility received a Notice of Violation (NOV)
addressing violations under four separate statutes (CAA, CWA, TSCA, and FIFRA). Under
FIFRA, Federal facilities, unlike commercial facilities, are not subject to penalties.
Ill - 54
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
FIFRA Inspections
Information
Source
NCDB
Date of
Data Pull
05/26/95
Comments
-
Ill - 55
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 56
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT - To - KNOW ACT
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), established under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, is a publicly available data base containing specific
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities throughout the United
States. The TRI is intended to promote planning for chemical emergencies and to provide
information to the public regarding the presence and release of toxic and hazardous chemicals in
their communities. In addition, following the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990,
the TRI was expanded to include reporting of additional waste management and pollution
prevention activities.
Manufacturing facilities (i.e., facilities in Standard Industrial Classification codes 20 -
39) having ten or more full-time employees and exceeding certain chemical use thresholds are
required to report under the TRI. The threshold for manufacturing and processing of listed
chemicals is 25,000 pounds per year for each chemical, and 10,000 pounds per year for each
listed chemical for other uses.
Reports for each calendar year are submitted to EPA by July 1 of the following year. After
completing data entry and quality assurance activities, EPA makes the data available to the public
in a printed report, in a computerized data base, and through a variety of other information
products (e.g., CD-ROM). These products are usually released during the early spring of the year
following the submission of data; thus, the information contained in this report, which is derived
from data released in March of 1995, presents TRI reporting activity for calendar year 1993.
Applicability of TRI to Federal Facilities
In August of 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which required
Federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports for calendar year 1994 activities.5 Federal
facilities meeting the TRI chemical thresholds are required to file TRI reports, whether or not
they are engaged in manufacturing. The first reports were due to EPA on or before July 1, 1995.
This Report does not contain TRI data for all Federal facilities because 1994 data are not
released until early 1996.
GOCO Federal facilities, however, are required to submit TRI reports, irrespective of the
Executive Order. While not comprehensive, the GOCO data submissions may be generally
indicative of the chemicals present and released at Federal facilities, the distribution of releases
and off-site transfers by type, and the relative level of prevention and management of TRI
chemicals in waste.
5 TRI data are submitted on a calender year rather than a fiscal year basis.
Ill - 57
-------
Definitions of Important Terms TRI
Fugitive Air Sources Non-point emissions or releases that are not in a confined directional
flow (e.g., releases from equipment, evaporative losses from surface
impoundments and spills; and releases from building ventilation
systems).
Off-Site Transfer
Release
Release to Land
Release to Water
Stack Air Sources
Underground
Injection
A transfer (excluding releases) of toxic chemicals in wastes (e.g., for
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal) to a facility that is
geographically or physically separate from the facility reporting under
the TRI.
An on-site discharge (excluding off-site transfers) of a toxic chemical
to the environment, including emissions to air, discharges to bodies
of water, releases at the facility to land, and contained disposal into
underground injection wells.
Releases to land occur within the boundaries of the reporting facility
and include disposal of toxic chemicals in waste to a landfill, land
treatment area, surface impoundment, waste pile, or other land
disposal (e.g., leaks).
Releases to water include disharges to bodies of water from contained
sources (e.g., pipes) and runoff.
Point air emissions or releases that are in a confined air stream,
particularly releases through stacks, vents, ducts, pipes, lab hoods, or
other confined air streams.
The injection of toxic chemicals into any type of well
TRI Releases at Reporting GOCO Facilities
GOCOs reported releases of approximately 7.2 million pounds of TRI chemicals in
1993, nearly all of which (99.4 percent) consisted of releases to the air. Releases to air from
fugitive sources outpaced stack air emissions by nearly a five-to-three margin. Exhibit III - 42
presents the distribution of releases according to various environmental media.
Of the releases to environmental media other than air, most (76.3 percent) were
accounted for by releases to water, followed by releases to land (23.7 percent). GOCO facilities
released only 5 pounds of TRI chemicals via underground injection during 1993.
Ill - 58
-------
Exhibit III - 42
TRI Releases by Environmental Media at GOCOs in pounds (1993)
Fugitive Air 4,275,299
(59.5%)
Land 11,615
(0.2%)
N = 7,190,752 pounds
Underground Injection 5
(0.0%)
ater 37,456
(0.5%)
Stack Air 2,866,377
(39.9%)
Relative to the entire universe of facilities that report under the TRI program, GOCO
facilities reported substantially smaller percentages of releases to environmental media other than
air. For example, in 1993,underground injection, releases to land, and releases to water
comprised 20.5 percent, 10.3 percent, and 9.7 percent, respectively, of reported releases at all
TRI facilities.
Off-Site Transfers at Reporting GOCO Facilities
In 1993, GOCO facilities transferred more than 4.8 million pounds of TRI chemicals to
POTWs and other off-site locations for the purposes of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or
disposal. Exhibit III - 43 presents these off-site transfers according to waste management
activity.
Ill - 59
-------
Exhibit III - 43
TRI Off-Site Transfers at GOCO Facilities in pounds (1993)
^^^^^^^^^^^ Other 8
Recycled 2,669,916 ^^BBBBBBftk. S (0 0%)
(55.0%) ^MBBBBBB^^ ^
Disposal 667,365
" (13.8%)
POTW 29,077
(0.6%)
Treatment 617,258
(12.7%)
N = 4,851,817 pounds Energy Recovery 868,193
(17.9%)
Off-site transfers to recycling facilities were the most common at GOCO facilities in
1993 (55.0 percent), followed by energy recovery (17.9 percent), disposal, and treatment (13.8
and 12.7 percent, respectively). Transfers of wastewater for treatment was fairly uncommon at
GOCO facilities -- transfers to POTWs comprised less than 1.0 percent of the total in 1993.
The distribution of off-site transfers at GOCO facilities in 1993 closely resembles that
for the entire universe of TRI reporting facilities. Transfers for recycling and energy recovery at
all TRI facilities ranked first and second at 69.1 percent and 10.3 percent respectively.
Similarly, the percent of transfers for disposal and treatment were very close (6.9 percent and 7.0
percent, respectively) although they comprised a considerably smaller portion of total off-site
transfers at all facilities relative to GOCO facilities. Unlike GOCO facilities, however, off-site
transfers to POTWs from all TRI facilities were more common, comprising nearly the same
share (6.7 percent) as transfers for disposal and treatment.
Prevention and Management of TRI Chemicals in Waste
Most TRI chemicals present at GOCO facilities are not released or transferred off-site;
the majority (in terms of total volume) are managed on-site. EPA tracks on-site waste
III - 60
-------
management of TRI chemicals as part of its responsibilities under the Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990. Waste management, which lies one step above releases and off-site transfers on the
pollution prevention hierarchy, involves recycling, combustion of waste for energy recovery, or
treatment.
As shown in Exhibit III - 44, the quantity of TRI chemicals managed in waste that
GOCO facilities reported as released in 1993 totaled just over 7.9 million pounds. Note that in
the context of waste management reporting under the TRI program, the definition of "release"
includes: fugitive and stack air emissions; releases at the facility to water, land, or underground
injection wells; and off-site transfers for disposal. Other forms of off-site waste management in
1993 accounted for an additional 4.3 million pounds of TRI chemicals. Thus, all waste
managed off-site or released into the environment accounted for slightly more than one-fourth of
all waste reported under the TRI program at GOCO facilities. In contrast, on-site recycling
accounted for approximately 61.7 percent of all TRI chemicals managed in waste at GOCO
facilities, with on-site treatment contributing an additional 12.4 percent.
Exhibit III - 44
TRI Chemicals Managed in Waste On-Site and Off-Site at
GOCO Facilities in pounds (1993)
Energy - On 36,000
Recycled - On 29,252,072
(61.7%) ^
Released 7,892,696
(16.7%)
treated-Off 747,947
(1.6%)
Recycled-Off 2,700,903
(5.7%)
Energy-Off 864,617
(1.8%)
Treated - On 5,893,358
(12.4%)
N = 47,387,593 pounds
In 1993, the entire universe of TRI facilities recycled a substantially smaller portion of
their TRI chemicals managed in waste (49.3 percent for on- and off-site recycling) than did
GOCO facilities. Similarly, releases of waste at all TRI facilities accounted for a much smaller
III-61
-------
share of total waste management (9.6 percent) relative to GOCOs. The percentage of TRI
chemicals in waste subjected to on- and off-site treatment at all facilities was more than twice that
of GOCO facilities in 1993.
Trend Analysis of TRI Data at Reporting GOCO Facilities
As shown in Exhibit III - 45, total releases decreased by approximately 9.5 million
pounds or 56.9 percent from 1990 to 1993. During the same period, the number of GOCOs
reporting under the TRI decreased from 66 to 51, a 21.7 percent decline. However, the decline
in releases cannot be attributed solely to a decrease in the number of reporting facilities.
Comparing totals for only those GOCO facilities that reported releases in both 1990 and 1993,
the total quantity of releases still declined by 51.9 percent.
Total off-site transfers of TRI chemicals decreased slightly from approximately 5.0
million pounds in 1990 to less than 4.9 million pounds in 1993, a 2.0 percent decline. It is
important to note, however, that off-site transfers for recycling or energy recovery were not
required to be reported before 1991. Consequently, the 1990 off-site transfer figure most likely
understates the actual level of transfers occuring at GOCO facilities. Relative to 1991 the total
quantity of TRI chemicals transferred off-site declined from more than 13 million pounds to
nearly five million, in just two years. This represents a decrease of 62.8 percent.
Exhibit III - 45
TRI Releases and Off-site Transfers at GOCOs (1990 -1993)
20,000,000 i
15,000,000 -
-ao,ooo,ooo -
5,000,000 -'
Legend
Releases
Off-site Trannfei
1990
1991
1992
1993
III - 62
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
TRI Releases by Environmental Media
TRI Off-Site Transfers at GOCO
Facilities
TRI Chemicals Managed in Waste at
GOCO Facilities
TRI Releases and Off-Site Transfers at
GOCO Facilities
Information
Source
TRIS
TRIS
TRIS
TRIS
Date of
Data Pull
09/15/95
09/15/95
09/15/95
09/15/95
Comments
-
-
-
-
Ill - 63
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 64
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
CERCLA authorizes the Federal government to respond to situations involving past
disposal of hazardous substances. The primary emphasis of CERCLA is to protect human health
and the environment through the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Under CERCLA, parties
causing or contributing to contamination are held responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.
Applicability of CERCLA to Federal Facilities
Section 120 of CERCLA states that Federal facilities must comply with all applicable
provisions of CERCLA to the same extent as a private entity. To promote compliance,
CERCLA also contains broad waivers of sovereign immunity to permit individuals and States to
sue Federal agencies for recovery of their response costs and to bring citizen suits if an agency is
not adhering to a CERCLA mandate.
Site
Hazard Ranking
System
Interagency
Agreement (IAG)
National Priorities
List (NPL)
Record of Decision
Definitions of Important Terms CERCLA
A specific location at a Federal facility from which a release of
hazardous substances has occured. A facility may encompass one site
or multiple sites.
The method used by EPA to evaluate the relative potential of
hazardous substance releases to cause health or safety problems, or
ecological or environmental damage.
A binding cleanup agreements between EPA, Federal agencies, and,
in some cases, States. lAGs define roles, responsibilities, and
milestones, trigger EPA oversight of cleanup activities, and provide
opportunities for public involvement.
EPA's list of the highest priority sites for cleanup. Sites are proposed
for the NPL based on their score using the Hazard Ranking System.
A public document that identifies a selected cleanup remedy for a site
and explains the rationale for its selection.
Ill - 65
-------
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
Section 120(c) of CERCLA requires EPA to establish a list of Federal facilities that
report hazardous waste activity under RCRA or §103 of CERCLA. The list, known as the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, is a key component in identifying
potentially contaminated sites at Federal facilities. The docket represents a regularly updated
inventory of facilities that may be subject to more advanced stages of the CERCLA cleanup
process. All facilities on the docket will at least receive a Preliminary Assessment (see Site
Screening and Assessment) to determine if there is a need for further action.
Since the Docket is the vehicle for tracking progress and documenting final dispositions, a
facility remains on the docket except when:
> The facility is a small quantity generator;
> The facility is not Federally owned or operated;
> It is listed more than once (only redundant listings are removed);
> It fails to meet the definition of a facility; or
> No hazardous waste is generated at the facility.
In addition, a facility that has been removed from the docket can be relisted at any time if its
status changes.
Exhibits III - 46 through III - 48 illustrate the number of sites at Federal facilities listed
on the docket and the agencies that own and manage these facilities. As shown in Exhibit III -
46, from its inception in February of 1988 to the most recent update in March of 1995, the
number of sites at Federal facilities listed on the docket has nearly doubled, from 1,094 to
2,070.
Ill - 66
-------
Exhibit III - 46
Total Number of Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket
2500 C
2OOO -
Initial
IV V VI
Update Number
As shown in Exhibit III - 47, the 933 DOD sites comprise the largest single share (45.1
percent) of sites on the docket. Other agencies with substantial numbers of sites include the
Department of the Interior (DOI -- 432 sites or 20.9 percent) and DOE (90 sites or 4.3
percent). Together, DOI sites combined with all other CFA sites comprise just over half (50.6
percent) of sites listed on the docket.
Ill - 67
-------
Exhibit III - 47
Federal Facility Sites Listed on the Docket by Agency
Department of Defense 933
(45.1%)
Department of Interior 432
-' (29.7%)
/ Department of Energy 90
1 (4.3%)
N = 2,070 Sites
Other Federal Agencies 615
(20.9%)
As shown in Exhibit III - 48, the Navy, Army, and Air Force owned or managed similar
shares (between 28 and 36 percent) of the total number of DOD sites presently listed on the
docket.
Exhibit III - 48
DOD Sites on the Docket by Agency
Defense Mapping Agency 3
Defense Logistics Agency 2)~~
(2.1%)
N = 933 DOD Sites
ir Force 265
(28.4%)
Other DOD 42
(4.5%)
III - 68
-------
Site Screening and Assessment
The first phase of assessment involves identifying, evaluating, and ranking hazardous
waste sites. There are at least three steps in this phase: Preliminary Assessment (PA), Site
Inspection (SI), and Expanded Site Inspection (ESI).
The PA is first step an agency takes in the site screening and assessment phase. It
involves a review of all available reports and documentation about the site and a site visit. At the
conclusion of a PA, a projected numerical rating of potential hazards is developed which serves as
a way to screen out sites early in the process. These are sites where no further action is planned
(NFRAP). The PA also provides data for subsequent priority-setting. Sites considered to
present an immediate danger to human health and the environment or that can be quickly
remediated may be referred for Removal Action. The remaining sites move on to the SI stage in
the site assessment process.
The SI is designed to collect more extensive information by conducting a site visit and
collecting samples to further define and characterize the problems at a site. Sites are scored using
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS enables EPA to assess the risk posed by sites in
the CERCLIS data base, and to determine which sites should be listed on the National Priorities
List. Sites receiving a score of 28.5 or above are listed on the NPL. ESIs are sometimes
required to provide additional data to support scoring of a site and to provide additional data to
support an anticipated Remedial Investigation.
Remedial Action Process
The first phase of the remedial action process is the Remedial Investigation (RI) that
defines the nature and extent of problems at a site and provides information needed to develop
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. It requires a more detailed and comprehensive analysis than
the initial site inspection. The Feasibility Study (FS) assists in this analysis by developing
possible alternatives for cleanup and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
Once the cleanup alternatives are defined, the FS determines their effectiveness by examining
each alternative according to specific criteria. A RI/FS may address all or a portion of the sites at
a single Federal facility.
After all criteria have been examined and options weighed, a proposed approach to
conduct cleanup is selected and is summarized in a proposal to the public. The proposed plan
summarizes the process leading to the decision including the analysis of alternatives in the FS,
the preferred alternative, and the rationale for that preference. The public is then given the
opportunity to discuss issues related to the site in a public meeting. Interested parties may also
submit oral and written comments during a 30-day public comment period. Once comments
have been received and considered, a plan is selected and explained in the Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROD describes the remedial action plan for a site, discusses the technical details of
the plan, and provides the public with a consolidated source of information about the site.
Ill - 69
-------
The last three phases of the remedial action process are: Remedial Design (RD),
Remedial Action (RA), and Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The RD stage involves
developing technical plans and specifications for the RA phase as outlined in the ROD. When
these plans and specifications are completed, the construction or RA phase begins. The O&M
phase begins when the RA phase is complete and the plan is operational and functional. O&M
activities are defined as those activities required for maintaining the effectiveness of the plan
and/or monitoring site conditions to determine the occurrence of a new or recurring
environmental threat. Monitoring air and ground water, inspecting and maintaining treatment
equipment, and maintaining security measures (e.g. fencing and signs) are a few examples of
O&M activities. Exhibit III - 49 shows the progress of Federal facilities through the Remedial
Action "pipeline."
III - 49
Cumulative Remedial Action Program Accomplishments
for Federal Facility Sites (FY 1994)
RI/PS
As of FY 1994, 695 sites at Federal facilities had started the RI/FS phase. Of these, 30
percent (209 of 695) had signed RODs. More than 95 percent (200 of 209) of these sites had
begun the RD phase. The remaining nine sites had either exited the pipeline at the completion of
the RI/FS phase (i.e., a no-action ROD was signed) or were awaiting commencement of the RD
phase. A portion of facilities presently undergoing an RI/FS could exit the pipeline upon
completion of their RI/FS.
Of the sites beginning the RD phase, 70 percent (140 of 200) had completed the process
and 97 percent (136 of 140) of these had initiated the RA phase. Approximately 42 percent (57
III - 70
-------
of 136) had completed the RA phase. In all, therefore, roughly eight percent (57 of 695) of sites
at Federal facilities entering the pipeline had progressed through every stage of the remedial action
process. It should be noted, however, that a number of sites at Federal facilities may not progress
through the entire pipeline, because at an interim phase, EPA has determined that they no longer
pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
Removal Action Process
In contrast to a Remedial Action, which can take months or even years to implement and
complete, a CERCLA removal action is an immediate, short term response taken to control
direct threats to human health and the environment from a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance. The Federal agency with jurisdiction over the site will generally manage
removal actions. There are three types of removals determined by the site screening and
assessment and the urgency of the situation:
> Emergencies -- removals where the release, or threat of release, requires
that onsite cleanup activities begin within hours of the lead agency's
determination that a removal action is appropriate.
> Time-Critical removals where, based on the site evaluation, the lead
agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and there are less
than six months available before cleanup activities must begin.
> Non-Time Critical removals where, based on the site evaluation, the
lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there
is a planning period of more than six months available before on-site
activities must begin. The lead agency must undertake an Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis, or its equivalent, for non-time critical removals.
Removal actions may also be used to stabilize and mitigate the worst problems at NPL sites until
the Remedial Action program can implement complete cleanups. Since removal actions are
managed by Federal agencies with responsibility for the site, EPA does not track removal actions
at Federal facilities in the CERCLIS data base (see below).
CERCLIS
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) is the data base that serves as the official inventory of CERCLA sites and
the primary system used to track CERCLA progress at all Federal facilities. Among other
matters, CERCLIS tracks site assessment, remedial, enforcement, and financial information. At
the end of FY 1994, there were 36, 881 non-Federal facilities listed in CERCLIS and 1,716
Federal facilities (4.7% of the CERCLIS universe). Exhibit III - 50 identifies the status of sites
for Federal facilities listed in CERCLIS.
Ill-71
-------
Exhibit III - 50
Federal Facility Sites Listed in CERCLIS (FY 1994)
781 Sites with no further remedial action
planned
2 Sites deferred to another authority for
remediation
53 Sites aggregated
(see explanation belo%)%
150 NPL sites
10 Proposed NPL sites
9-4% 2 Removed from MPT.
\
41.8%
N= 1 716 Sites 718 Sites under evaluation
Of the approximately 1,700 Federal sites listed in CERCLIS as of FY 1994, roughly 10
percent are on the NPL. No further remedial action is required for nearly 46 percent and
approximately 42 percent are presently under evaluation.
Approximately three percent of Federal sites have been combined with other sites on the
NPL and are referred to as "aggregated." Once a site is aggregated, all of that site's activities are
tracked as part of its new NPL parent site. The original site record is maintained in CERCLIS
as an aggregated site for historical tracking purposes.
Exhibit III - 51 presents the status of sites on the NPL located at Federal facilities as of
FY 1994.
Ill - 72
-------
Exhibit III-51
Federal Facilities on the NPL (FY 1994)
DOD 12
(75.0%)
9DOD sites proposed for inclusion on t
- (5.6%) M
CFA 11
- (6.9%)
DOE 19
(11.9%)
1 CFA site proposed for inclusion on t
(0.6%)
N = 160 Facilities
Of the 160 Federal facility NPL sites, 129 or 80.6 percent are at DOD facilities. DOE
sites make up 11.8 percent and all other Federal agencies comprise 7.5 percent of the total.
Appendix I contains a complete inventory of Federal facilities on the NPL as of FY 1994.
CERCLA Enforcement
At the start of EPA's Federal facilities enforcement program, EPA directed its resources
largely to the completion of negotiations for CERCLA §120 lAGs. These agreements made up
the cornerstone of the enforcement program addressing the 150 final and 10 proposed Federal
facilities listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1994. Each agreement contained specific schedules
for the study and cleanup of hazardous substances at these facilities.
During FY 1994, 11 additional Federal facility CERCLA lAGs were executed. Of the
sites at Federal facilities listed on the NPL at the end of FY 1994, 129 are now covered by 120
lAGs.6 Exhibit III - 52 shows the number of CERCLA lAGs signed by Region from FY 1987
toFY 1994.
An IAG may cover activities at more than one site and be signed by more than one agency.
Ill - 73
-------
Exhibit III - 52
Final CERCLA lAGs Signed by EPA Region FY 1987-94
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
With the majority of these agreements completed, EPA now concentrates most of its
efforts on their implementation. For example, the Regions reported 60 RODs signed in FY
1994. In addition, they have reported 49 remedial design starts, 52 remedial design
completions, 39 remedial action starts and 17 remedial action completions.
In February 1993, EPA issued an interim report by the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee. The committee is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee
and includes 40 representatives of Federal agencies, tribal and state governments and
associations, and local and national environmental, community, and labor organizations. EPA
established the committee in 1992 to develop consensus policy recommendations aimed at
improving the Federal facilities environmental restoration decision process to ensure that clean-
up decisions reflect the priorities and concerns of all stakeholders. The interim report contained
committee recommendations concerning: improving the dissemination of Federal facility
restoration information; improving stakeholder involvement in key restoration decisions with
special emphasis on the use of site-specific advisory boards; and improving consultation on
Federal facility restoration funding decisions and setting priorities in the event of funding
shortfalls.
Ill - 74
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
Total Number of Federal Facility Sites
Listed on the Docket
Federal Facility Sites Listed on the
Docket by Agency
DOD Sites on the Docket by Agency
Cumulative Remedial Action Program
Accomplishments for Federal Facility
Sites
Federal Facility Sites Listed in CERCLIS
Federal Facilities on the NPL
CERCLA lAGs Signed by Region
Information
Source
Docket
Docket
Docket
CERCLIS
CERCLIS
CERCLIS
CERCLIS
Date of
Data Pull
03/31/95
03/31/95
03/31/95
01/23/95
01/18/94
11/15/94
01/23/95
Comments
-
--
-
-
-
-
Ill - 75
-------
Page intentionally left blank
III - 76
-------
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACT
The Base Realignment and Closure Acts of 1988 and 1990 provide for the realignment
or complete closure of military installations based on revised force structure needs. The Acts
stipulate that bases be chosen for closure or realignment in 1988 (BRAC I), 1991 (BRAC II),
1993 (BRAC III), and 1995 (BRAC IV). Information on BRAC IV is not included in this
report since the report covers FY 1993-94.
Definitions of Important Terms BRAC
Base Closure An action taken at a military installation to terminate active or
reserve military activity and transfer the installation's real property to
another authority (i.e., national guard, other Federal agency, State,
or commercial entity).
Base Realignment Any action taken at a military installation that both reduces and
relocates functions and civilian personnel positions, but does not
include a reduction in force resulting from workload adjustments,
reduced personnel or funding levels, or skill imbalances.
Bases recommended by DOD for closure or realignment are submitted to the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Commission that reviews the list to ensure that DOD did not
substantially deviate from the selection criteria (i.e., military value, economic, and environmental
considerations). The Commission could recommend changes for those bases where a substantial
deviation was established. The Commission's list is subject to Presidential approval and
Congressional action. If the President approves the Commission's recommendations, the list is
forwarded to Congress for its consideration. Congress must either pass a joint resolution blocking
the entire list or the entire list becomes law. Congress has 45 legislative days to act. In terms of
implementation, the Legislation requires DOD to begin all realignments and closures within two
years of the date the President transmitted his approval to Congress and to complete them no
later than six years after the same date. Exhibit III - 53 provides an overview of the BRAC
selection process.
Ill - 77
-------
Exhibit III - 53
BRAC Selection Process
Base Closure Commission transmits its
recommendations to the President
President returns recommendation
to Commission for reconsideration
resident approves Commissio
recommendations
Commission transmits revised
recommendations to the President
President approves
President rejects
Congress considers recommendation
No closures occur
If no action taken,
closure actions beein
f joint resolution of rejectioi*
passes, no closures occur |
In an effort to facilitate base closure and reuse, CERCLA Section 120 was amended by
the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) in 1992. CERFA requires
that DOD identify "uncontaminated parcels." For BRAC I and BRAC II bases on the NPL, the
identification by DOD and concurrence by EPA was to be completed within 18 months of
CERFA's enactment (April 19, 1994). For property on military bases designated for closure
under BRAC III, the date for identification and concurrence was March 27, 1995.
For property on military bases designated for closure under BRAC IV, the identification
and concurrence is due to be completed by March 1997. While the mandated period for these
installations to identify parcels as uncontaminated has expired or will expire on certain dates, the
obligation to obtain concurrence continues beyond these dates. Exhibit III - 54 provides
information on parcels identified by DOD as CERFA uncontaminated and concurred upon by
EPA for BRAC I and BRAC II bases.
Ill - 78
-------
Exhibit III - 54
CERFA Uncontaminated Parcels at
BRAC I and BRAC II Bases with EPA Concurrence
Installation
Installation
Acreage
Number of
CERFA Parcels
CERFA
Acreage
CERFA Parcel %
of Installation
Region I
Ft. Devens, MA
Loring AFB, ME
NCBC, RI
9,280
8,700 + 780
1,200
71
14
1
1,831
4,746
7
20%
50%
0.58%
Region III
NAWC, PA
839
1
150
18%
Region IX
Castle AFB, CA
George AFB, CA
Mather AFB, CA
Norton AFB, CA
Williams AFB, AZ
Sacramento Army, AZ
Ft. Ord, CA
2,777
5,073
5,716
2,127
4,000
485
28,057
2
10
13
10
11
12
60
270
1,270
2,572
320
2,000
73
13,123
10%
25%
45%
15%
50%
15%
47%
Region X
Umatilla Army
Total
16,433
8
213
11,467
37,829
70%
Under CERCLA Section 120(h)(4), "uncontaminated" parcels are those on which no
hazardous substances and no petroleum products or their derivatives were stored for one year or
more, known to have been released, or disposed of. EPA issued guidance on the implementation
of CERCLA Section 120(h)(4) on April 19, 1994. The guidance allows, in certain cases, for
parcels to be identified as uncontaminated although some limited quantity of hazardous
substances or petroleum products has been stored, released or disposed of, if there is no indication
III - 79
-------
that the activity associated with the storage, release, or disposal has resulted in a threat to human
health or the environment.
For parcels requiring remediation, CERFA clarifies CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) to allow
transfer by deed at the point when the successful operation of an approved remedy has been
demonstrated to EPA.
The effects of closing these Federal facilities often extend well beyond the Federal sector,
impacting local and regional economies and livelihoods. A plan to mitigate economic dislocation
and speed economic recovery of communities near BRAC installations was announced by the
Clinton Administration in July of 1993. Rapid redevelopment and job creation are the top goals
of this community reinvestment program, commonly referred to as the Five Point Plan.
The Fast Track Cleanup Program at bases with environmental contamination and where
property will be available for transfer to the community is an essential component of the
President's Five Point Plan. EPA, DOD, and the States are charged with creating a working
partnership to implement the Fast Track Cleanup Program with the objectives of quickly
identifying clean parcels for early reuse, selecting for appropriate leasing parcels where cleanup is
underway, and hastening cleanup.
The number of Fast Track Cleanup locations is a subset of the total number of bases
selected for closure or realignment. Fast Track Cleanup locations are identified by DOD as
locations where there is environmental contamination and where property will be available for
transfer to the community. During FY 94, 77 locations were part of the Fast Track Cleanup
Program, 17 are BRAC I, 28 are BRAC II, and 32 are BRAC III, as shown in Exhibit 111-55.
Ill - 80
-------
Exhibit III 55
Number of Fast Track Cleanup Locations
LegenJ
| | NPL Sites,
Non-NPL Sites
1988
BRACI
1991
BRAC II
1993
BRAC III
As shown in Exhibit III - 56, nearly one-third of all Fast Track Cleanup locations are in
Region IX, primarily in California. Region V has the second largest number of locations,
followed by Regions IV, III, and VI. A complete list of Fast Track locations by Region is
contained in Appendix 2.
Ill-81
-------
Exhibit III 56
Fast Track Cleanup Locations by EPA Region
25 -C
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
O -^
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
EPA Region
Breaking the traditional model for site cleanup, DOD, EPA and State regulators have
forged BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) to deal with the complex environmental problems at Fast
Track Cleanup locations. BCTs were established at the 77 Fast Track Cleanup locations during
FY 1994. With a spirit of partnership, the BCTs work to expedite cleanup and integrate cleanup
with potential reuse options. The BCTs are empowered to make decisions locally to the
maximum extent possible and have the ability to raise issues immediately to senior level officials
for resolution should the need arise. Exhibit III - 57 presents the location of BCTs throughout
the country.
Ill - 82
-------
Exhibit III - 57
X
BRAC Cleanup Teams by State
I JTPuget Sound I I ~
A-^J \ \
/ *> I )
Umatilla Depot X^ (
Loring AFB
~tf Navy/Marine Installations
Air Force Installations
Army Installations
As part of this new approach, EPA and State regulators bring a cadre of technical and
legal experts to support the BCTs. For example, EPA provides in-house technical expertise in
the areas of hydrogeology, health risk assessment and toxicology, ecological risk assessment,
engineering, community relations, field work support (sampling and site assessment), and
uncontaminated parcel identification. This leads to real-time decision making, reduction in
documents and identification of innovative ways to accomplish faster cleanup.
EPA works with other members of the BCT in the following general areas:
> Accelerating the identification of uncontaminated parcels under CERFA;
> Promoting community involvement in restoration and reuse decision
making;
> Completing site assessment and characterization processes and procedures;
> Supporting up-front planning and scoping;
III - 83
-------
> Preparing and reviewing documents;
> Reviewing the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Design,
and Remedial Action study and sampling data, and related remedy
selection documents;
> Reviewing demonstration that the remedy is operating properly and
successfully; and
> Expediting review of environmental documentation relating to deeds and
leases to accelerate economic revitalization through reuse.
The Fast Track Cleanup Program recognizes the importance of stakeholder involvement
in the process of making decisions about environmental cleanup and the transfer of property.
Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) are the primary means for the community to provide input
to the cleanup process. EPA and DOD issued joint guidelines on the implementation of RABs
on September 27, 1994. RABs are a forum for exchange of information and partnership among
citizens, the installation, DOD, EPA, and the State. RABs serve to improve DOD's cleanup
program by increasing community understanding and support for cleanup efforts, improving the
soundness of government decisions, and ensuring cleanups are responsive to community needs.
The establishment of RABs at 69 Fast Track Cleanup locations during FY 94 is a major
accomplishment. In addition, EPA is working with DOD to implement Executive Order 12898
on environmental justice to ensure that no group suffers a disproportionate share of any adverse
health and environmental effects associated with the restoration and reuse of closing bases.
During FY 93 and FY 94, the BCTs identified a number of potential measures to be
considered for accelerating cleanups and effectively implementing the Fast Track Cleanup
Program. These include:
> Joint, up-front scoping of projects;
> Concurrent review of documents;
> In-person review of comments and resolution of issues;
> Interim remedial actions and non time critical removal actions to eliminate
"hot spots";
> Recognition of parity between RCRA corrective actions and CERCLA
remedial actions;
III - 84
-------
> Cleanup standards based on
existing and reasonably
anticipated uses of property;
> Coordination and
communication between
environmental restoration and
reuse planning;
> Improved technology transfer,
reviewing technology for
application of expedited
solutions;
> Identification of opportunities
for application of presumptive
remedies; and
> Flexible contracting
procedures.
The substantial benefits achieved
through this teaming approach are made
possible through EPA and State
participation. EPA and State team members
are able to participate through funding
provided by DOD through Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) with EPA and through
the Defense State Memorandum of
Agreement (DSMOA) program authorized by
Congress. The resources and workyears provided to EPA reside primarily in the Regions.
National direction for EPA's participation in the Fast Track Cleanup Program is provided by the
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration
and Reuse Office (FFRRO)
The mission of FFRRO is to assist the Federal
government to promote effective and timely cleanup
and reuse of Federal facilities. Major FFRRO
functions include:
4 Remedial Implementation
4 Base Closure
4 Stakeholder Involvement
4 Regional Program Support,
In conjunction with DOD and EPA's Regional
Offices, FFRRO develops long-range environmental
policies, plans, and programs to expedite the cleanup
and transfer of closing military installations, and
oversees Regional implementation of these programs.
FFRRO also develops guidance and policy for
Superfund remedial implementation at Federal sites
and supports the development of related policies by
other agencies.
FFRRO manages the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
which provides the Federal government advice on how
to improve stakeholder involvement at Federal
facilities and improve priority-setting and
management of cleanup programs.
Ill - 85
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
BRAC Selection Process
CERFA Uncontaminated Parcels with
EPA Concurrence
Number of Fast Track Cleanup Locations
Fast Track Locations by EPA Region
BRAC Cleanup Teams by State
Information
Source
FFRRO
FFRRO
FFRRO
FFRRO
FFRRO
Date of
Data Pull
NA
NA
1 1/08/95
1 1/08/95
1 1/08/95
Comments
-
--
-
-
-
Ill - 86
-------
IV. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
This section provides a broad overview of the enforcement functions and activities of
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) and discusses selected enforcement
highlights at Federal facilities during FY 1993 and FY 1994.
The Federal Facility Enforcement Office
EPA's Federal facility enforcement and compliance program, managed by FFEO, helps
ensure the Federal government is accountable to the public for its environmental record. In
recognition of the public's vital interests, FFEO will work to further engage the public with the
Federal sector in the decision making process for management and cleanup of environmental
contamination at Federal facilities.
In FY 1993 and FY 1994, the FFEO continued to ensure Federal government
compliance with all environmental laws. The Federal government manages a vast array of
industrial activities at its installations. These activities present unique management problems
from the standpoint of compliance with Federal environmental statutes. Although Federal
facilities are only a small percentage of the regulated community, many Federal installations are
larger and more complex than private facilities and often present a greater number of sources of
pollution in all media. The Federal government is investing significant resources in addressing
environmental cleanup and compliance issues at Federal facilities.
Specific FFEO responsibilities address every aspect of Federal facility compliance and
enforcement, from planning to implementation. On a strategic planning level, FFEO works
with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance on enforcement and inspection
targeting at Federal facilities, oversees the Federal agency environmental management planning
program, and participates on interagency
pollution prevention and compliance
assistance working groups. In addition,
FFEO reviews proposed Federal legislation
and develops EPA positions on appropriate
Federal responsibilities under such legislation.
FFEO also is involved in developing Federal
facility enforcement strategies and in
preparing guidance to assist Regions in their
implementation.
Major FFEO functions
Policy and guidance development,
Regional program support,
Interagency agreement negotiation support,
Enforcement support,
Program and information support, and
Technical assistance and capacity building.
On an implementation level, FFEO
is directly involved in enforcement negotiations, including CERCLA interagency agreements
(lAGs) and Memoranda of Understanding, and in litigation and enforcement oversight at Federal
IV- 1
-------
facilities. FFEO also tracks compliance at Federal facilities; promotes pollution prevention,
multi-media enforcement/compliance, and environmental justice at Federal facilities; and
encourages the use of innovative technologies to attain pollution prevention, compliance, and
cleanup goals.
Federal Facility Compliance Act
The Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), amending RCRA, became effective on
October 6, 1992. The primary purpose of the FFCA is to ensure that Federal facilities are
treated in the same manner as privately-owned facilities with respect to RCRA compliance. The
law greatly enhances State and EPA enforcement authorities against Federal facilities. In the
past, when EPA discovered RCRA violations at Federal facilities, EPA relied primarily on
negotiated Compliance Agreements to bring the facility back into compliance. States and EPA
can now assess and collect penalties for violations of RCRA requirements, as well as issue
Administrative Orders against Federal facilities for enforcement of RCRA.
Exhibit IV - 1 summarizes FFCA/RCRA Administrative Orders and proposed penalties
issued against Federal facilities by EPA for FY 1993 and FY 1994. The number of EPA issued
Orders increased by only one from FY 1993 to FY 1994, however, proposed penalties increased
by more than $2.0 million. The average penalty increased from approximately $410,000 in FY
1993 to more than $570,000 in FY 1994. The average penalty for the two-year period was just
under $ 500,000. Many of these Administrative Orders were issued to address storage of
hazardous waste without permits or open burning and open detonation of munitions without
permits.
Exhibit IV - 1
FFCA/RCRA EPA Orders and Penalties
Administrative Orders
Proposed Penalties
FY 1993
9
$3,699,558
FY 1994
10
$5,722,978
Total
19
$9,422,536
During FY 1994, FFEO completed negotiations of cost recovery interagency agreements
with DOE, the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, and the Defense Logistics Agency to satisfy to
provisions of the FFCA that require Federal agencies to reimburse EPA for the cost of
conducting inspections at RCRA TSDFs.
IV-2
-------
Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
Federal facilities are a highly visible sector of the regulated community. Their compliance
rates in all media have traditionally been lower than those of the private sector. Based on the
need to address the environmental problems in the Federal sector, EPA recently completed the
Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI) for FY
1993/1994. The goal of the FMECI is to improve Federal agency compliance and reduce
environmental risks from Federal facilities through increased use of multi-media inspections;
efficient utilization of all available enforcement authorities; and enhanced use of innovative
pollution prevention approaches to solving compliance problems. Exhibit IV - 2 shows the most
frequently violated statutes during FY 1993 of the FMECI.
Exhibit IV - 2
Most Frequently Violated Statutes for FY 1993 FMECI
RCRA
(34
All Otkers 14
(18.6%)
CWA 9
(12.0%)
TSCA 12
(16.0%)
N = 75 Enforcement Actions
Many Federal agencies currently use a multi-media approach in their internal auditing
and compliance evaluations. Multi-media enforcement provides an opportunity for a
comprehensive evaluation of a facility by identifying threats to the environment where pollutants
cross through various media. Also, multi-media activities provide for an in-depth opportunity for
identifying pollution prevention projects that can be implemented as supplemental or beneficial
environmental projects at the facility or throughout similar government branches, agencies,
departments, and even the private sector. The emphasis is on projects which take pollution
prevention approaches to resolving identified violations.
IV-3
-------
Federal agencies benefited from this initiative by clearly defining their environmental
compliance status and the risks the facility poses to human health and the environment. It will
provide greater efficiencies for facilities by eliminating the resource burden of numerous single
media inspections and will serve as an excellent training ground through enhanced EPA technical
assistance to Federal agency environmental staffs. It will increase the level of environmental
awareness of facility employees at all levels, and will help improve Federal facilities compliance by
providing a comprehensive view of compliance problems and creative opportunities to protect
human health and the environment.
In November, 1994, EPA published the FMECI Interim National Report, which
presented the results of the first year (FY 1993) of the initiative. EPA conducted 41 multi-
media inspections during FY 1993. These inspections represent a significant investment in the
Federal facility sector by EPA and participating States. Approximately 76 percent of inspected
facilities received a total of 75 EPA or State enforcement actions. Slightly more than half of all
inspected facilities violated multiple environmental statutes. Among facilities receiving
enforcement actions, nearly 70 percent violated multiple statutes. EPA and States took a variety
of enforcement actions, ranging from warning letters to FFCAs, to address noncompliance. The
level of enforcement action was dependent upon the significance of and/or level of noncompliance
encountered at these facilities.
FFEO is currently analyzing the results of the FY 1994 FMECI inspections and
enforcement actions and anticipates publishing a final FMECI report in the winter of 1995.
Although the FMECI has concluded, multi-media inspections have been incorporated as a
standard program element for Regional/State enforcement and compliance efforts.
IV-4
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Highlights for FY 1993 and FY 1994
The following section presents selected enforcement highlights at Federal facilities during
FY 1993 and FY 1994. Much of the material for this section of the State of Federal Facilities
Report is drawn from the annual EPA Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
Camp Stanley Storage Activity and
Lackland Air Force Base
Camp Stanley Storage Activity is located just a few miles northwest of San Antonio,
Texas. Lackland Air Force Base is located a few miles southeast of San Antonio. Based upon
information received from the RCRA permits staff, case development inspections (GDIs) of these
facilities were conducted in January 1993. It was determined during the GDIs that both facilities
had existent active Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) Units that had never notified,
received a permit, or attained interim status under RCRA. Furthermore, Camp Stanley had not
included the OB/OD in its facility closure plans.
The risk to the environment and human health associated with these OB/OD units
comes from the hazardous constituents of the waste ordnance. For instance, trinitrotoluene
(TNT), an aromatic hydrocarbon, breaks down biologically into isomers that are known to be
carcinogenic and mutagenic, and have been extensively used by the military as an explosive for
decades.
Complaints were issued to Camp Stanley and Lackland AFB on June 30, 1993, for
operation of hazardous waste units without a permit or interim status. Proposed penalties
requested were $693,000 against Camp Stanley and $346,500 for Lackland AFB.
Department of Energy -- Fernald
On April 9, 1993, EPA signed an agreement resolving a dispute concerning denial of
request for extension of time to submit Operable Unit 2 (OU 2) documents with the U.S. DOE
for the Fernald, Ohio site. Pursuant to the agreement, DOE must pay a cash penalty of
$50,000, spend $2,000,000 implementing a supplemental environmental project, accelerate
work on three other operable units, and submit the OU 2 Proposed Draft Record of Decision
(ROD) by January 5, 1995, or pay an additional cash penalty of $25,000.
On February 9, 1993 EPA notified DOE that it did not approve a DOE request for an
extension of time to submit a Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan reports,
and the ROD for OU 2, and further that it intended to assess stipulated penalties for U.S.
DOE's failure to submit the reports by February 8, 1993. On February 16, 1993, DOE
invoked the dispute resolution provisions of the Amended Consent Agreement (ACA) regarding
EPA's February 9, 1993 non-concurrence.
IV-5
-------
Implementation of the SEP required by this settlement will significantly reduce discharges
of uranium from the Fernald site to the Great Miami River. In addition, the assessment of a
cash penalty will require U.S. DOE to report to Congress the reasons for the penalty. The
combined value of the SEP and penalty amount to over 90 percent DOE's exposure in this
matter.
Gaseous Diffusion Plant
On May 10, 1993, EPA signed an Agreement Resolving Dispute Concerning Revised
Quadrant III RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant facility in Piketon, Ohio. Pursuant to the agreement, U.S. DOE must pay a cash penalty
of $50,000 for past violations of the AOC; spend $1,000,000 to implement a supplemental
environmental project; and perform a EPA approved modified RFI workplan In addition, the
combined RCRA 3008(h) and CERCLA 106(a) administrative order by consent (AOC) for the
facility was amended.
On December 14, 1992, EPA had issued DOE a notice of violation alleging violations
of numerous requirements of the AOC. EPA agreed to the stipulated penalty provisions based
largely on the Fernald facility AOC with DOE, with the express proviso that EPA does not
consider the provisions to be precedent for other Federal facility orders, decrees, or agreements, or
at other Federal facilities.
Technical Center Superfund Site
On August 18, 1993, EPA entered into a Federal Facility Agreement with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) under §120 of CERCLA. The agreement requires FAA to
remediate approximately 25 areas of contamination at the FAA Technical Center Superfund site
in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The site covers 5,052 acres and is contaminated largely due to fire
and crash testing exercises as well as the testing and storage of jet fuels. Section 120 of
CERCLA requires that agencies, such as the FAA, enter into an agreement with EPA to address
the contamination at sites they own which are on the CERCLA NPL. This is the first agreement
under CERCLA §120 for the cleanup of a U.S. Department of Transportation facility. The
work required under the agreement is expected to cost approximately $55,000,000.
IV-6
-------
Griffiss Air Force Base
On January 13, 1993, EPA issued a ten count administrative complaint to Griffiss Air
Force Base in New York for failure to properly classify restricted waste, failure to maintain a
container of hazardous waste in good condition, failure to submit notifications for restricted waste
shipped off-site, failure to mark the accumulation start date on containers of restricted hazardous
waste, failure to develop a complete waste analysis plan, failure to properly manifest waste off-site,
unauthorized storage of hazardous waste, failure to maintain adequate personnel records, and
failure to post a warning sign. The complaint does not propose a penalty because the violations
preceded the effective date (October 6, 1992) of the newly enacted Federal Facility Compliance
Act (FFCA). The violations were detected during inspections at the base between 1987 and
1992. Previously, a Notice of Deficiency had been issued to the Base in December, 1986,
regarding a deficient Part B RCRA permit application. This complaint was intended to resolve
all outstanding violations.
On July 19, 1993, Region II executed a consent agreement and consent order with the
Air Force resolving the matters raised in the January complaint. Both the complaint and the
consent order are among the first such documents to be issued in the country under the FFCA.
Pursuant to the order, the facility submitted a statement detailing the remedial actions taken
rectifying the alleged violations at the site.
I Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site
On May 19, 1993, the Air Force agreed to pay stipulated penalties in the amount of
$50,000 for failure to meet enforceable deadlines under the Loring Air Force Base CERCLA
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). The Air Force also agreed that in the future EPA may assess
stipulated penalties under the FFA for any documents which are technically incomplete because
they fail to meet the requirements of CERCLA, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan, applicable EPA guidance, or applicable state law.
Loring Air Force Base is a Federal facility on the Superfund NPL. The Air Force is
conducting the cleanup under the FFA which includes the Air Force, EPA and the State of
Maine as parties. Loring is also a closure base under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990.
On February 1, 1993, the Region assessed the penalties for failure of the Air Force to
meet the enforceable FFA schedule for two deliverables (a Remedial Investigation and a Remedial
Investigations/Focussed Feasibility Study (RI/FFS)) relating to two operable units at the facility.
In December, 1992, the Region with state concurrence denied an Air Force request for extension
of time to submit the documents. The Air Force based its request on lack of available funds in
October and November, 1993, even though the Air Force had assured the State and EPA in
early October that new DOD budget funding had already been given to the base.
IV-7
-------
The agreement reached with the Air Force reflects the Region's efforts to ensure that
DOD components will submit technically complete documents in a timely manner at Federal
facility NPL sites.
1 I Naval Construction Battalion Center
On September 30, 1993, EPA issued an administrative complaint and compliance order
to the Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC) located in the town of Davisville, Rhode
Island for hazardous waste violations. The complaint proposes the assessment of a civil penalty
in the amount of $ 101,062.
On March 31, 1993, representatives of EPA conducted a RCRA compliance evaluation
inspection (CEI) at the NCBC. On the basis of this inspection, EPA determined that the
respondent failed to properly conduct hazardous waste determinations, failed to include the EPA
hazardous waste number and corresponding waste treatment standard on the Land Disposal
Restriction (LDR) Notice, failed to retain copies of LDR notices on site for certain shipments of
waste restricted from land disposal, failed to provide annual hazardous waste training to its
employees who manage hazardous waste, failed to maintain a written hazardous waste training
program and other required records for all personnel who handle or manage hazardous waste,
failed to label hazardous waste containers with the dates of accumulation, and failed to conduct
weekly container inspections.
I Reese Air Force Base
An administrative order under RCRA §7003 was issued to Reese Air Force Base in Texas
as a result of an imminent and substantial endangerment to health resulting from Base activities.
In March 1993, EPA learned that Reese had detected trichloroethylene above safe drinking water
standards in some privately owned drinking water wells near the Base. After confirming the data,
EPA issued an agreed-on administrative order under §7003 of RCRA on June 1, 1993. The
order requires the Base to collect water samples from water wells in a 36 square mile area (within
a 2 mile perimeter of the Base) in order to determine the extent of the contamination, to notify
the owners of any contamination, to supply an alternate source of drinking water to the residents
with contaminated wells, and to monitor the ground water in and adjacent to the plume. Reese
has completed the initial sampling of about 950 wells, provided carbon filters for all the
impacted water wells, and connected some of the users to the City of Lubbock's water system.
The city is in the process of connecting its water lines to the residents that live within the city
limits. The residents living outside the city limits may use the water wells after carbon filtering.
IV-8
-------
U.S. Coast Guard Kodiak Support Center
On July 14, 1994, EPA Region X issued a complaint against the U.S. Coast Guard
Kodiak Support Center in Alaska seeking $1,018,552 in penalties. The complaint resulted from
two major RCRA violations: failure to properly monitor groundwater in an area where solvents
had been dumped on the ground, and the illegal storage of hazardous waste without a proper
permit from EPA. The complaint was the first action brought against a civilian Federal agency
under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA) an amendment to RCRA that
allows EPA to assess civil penalties against Federal agencies in the same way that it does against
private companies.
I Presidio of San Francisco
Region IX filed a complaint and citations on May 9, 1994, against the U.S. Army
Garrison, Presidio of San Francisco for violating Federal environmental laws and proposed a
penalty of $556,500 for the hazardous waste violations. In addition to applying the penalty, the
complaint required the Army to inspect each building on the Presidio for hazardous wastes and to
remove all such stored wastes by July 1, 1994.
I Schofield Barracks
Region IX assessed $543,900 in penalties under RCRA §3008(a) on April 24, 1994,
against Schofield Barracks, a U.S. Army facility located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. Schofield
Barracks is headquarters for the 25th Infantry Division and 45th Support Group. The facility
operates numerous motorpools and maintenance shops that generate wastes such as waste paint,
waste solvents, and contaminated waste oils that are listed as hazardous waste under RCRA.
I Norfolk Naval Shipyard
EPA Region III issued RCRA §7003 emergency orders on March 25, 1994 requiring
the Department of the Navy and the private operator of the municipal waste incinerator at the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia to address air emissions. Such orders are traditionally used to
address hazardous/solid waste issues. The orders are intended to provide a short term remedy for
dioxin emissions.
As a result of the Navy's efforts following the order, a June 1994 stack test indicated that
dioxin emissions have been reduced by 95 percent from one of the four units at the municipal
waste incinerator. Region III and the Navy are moving to the remaining three units and hope to
achieve similar results.
IV-9
-------
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station
On August 31, 1994, EPA, the Navy, and the Commonwealth of Virginia reached a
settlement on an interagency agreement (TAG) for the Naval Weapons Station at Yorktown. The
Station is a 10,624 acre installation located in York and James City Counties and the City of
Newport News. Hazardous substances and other contaminants of concern detected among 14
sites included arsenic, cadmium, chlordane, ethelbenzene, explosives, heptachlor, hexavalent
chromium, lead, mercury, PAHs, PCBs, phenols, TCE, 1,2-DCE, thallium, toluene, and zinc.
EPA conducted a RCRA solid waste management unit investigation at the site and issued
a final report in December, 1992. The report identified 94 areas at the site requiring additional
investigation under RCRA. Of these, 10 will be deferred to the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality underground storage tank program. The IAG requires that the Navy
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to perform any remedial action,
should it be necessary.
I Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dalgren
Division
On September 30, 1994, EPA Region III, the Navy, and the Commonwealth of
Virginia reached settlement on an IAG for the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dalgren, VA.
The agreement requires the navy to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site
and to perform any remedial action, should it be necessary.
I Fort Dix
EPA Region II issued a Notice of Violation on July 15, 1994, to Fort Dix, New Jersey,
for violations of the CWA. The Army violated the interim limits on biological oxygen demand
contained in the Consent Order EPA-CWA-II-91-95 and the final limits of the facility's
NPDES permit. Under the order, the Army will be responsible for the completion of an
environmentally beneficial project to offset the effects of the violation. The dollar amount for the
project due for the period in question (January 1994 through March 1994) is $4,000.
= , U.S. Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads
EPA settled a dispute with the Navy at the Roosevelt Roads Station in Puerto Rico. The
dispute stemmed from a revised consent order under the NPDES program for violations of an
existing Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA). The CWA matter in dispute covered
violations of the effluent parameters of the facility's NPDES permit and permit limits of an
existing FFCA, as well as for overflows of the sewage collection system. A proposed order was
originally issued on February 12, 1993. EPA has issued three NOVs to the facility since 1990
under the CAA and CWA, and a warning letter pursuant to RCRA Subtitle I, all of which have
been resolved or are on schedule to be resolved.
IV- 10
-------
Documentation for Exhibits in this Section
Exhibit Title
FFCA/RCRA EPA Orders and Penalties
Most Frequently Violated Statutes for FY
1993 FMECI
Information
Source
FFEO
FFEO
Date of
Data Pull
-
11/01/94
Comments
Data drawn from FY 1993 and FY
1994 Enforcement Accomplishment
Reports
Data drawn from FMECI Interim
National Report
IV- 11
-------
V. FFEO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
This section discusses the major technical and compliance assistance programs/initiatives
administered by FFEO to maintain and promote improved environmental compliance at Federal
facilities.
Pollution Prevention
On August 3, 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, "Federal
Compliance with Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements." The Order
committed Federal agencies to implement pollution practices across all of their missions and
activities. There are approximately 40 separate requirements in the Order and almost half of
these have specific deadlines. A key goal of the Order is a 50 percent reduction in toxic
pollutants at Federal facilities by 1999. In addition, over 2,000 Federal facilities will be subject
to full compliance with EPCRA, PPA and other Executive Order requirements such as the
development of facility-specific pollution prevention plans by December 1995.
The three main elements of the Executive Order are: 1) incorporation of Pollution
Prevention into day-to-day operations to "ensure that all Federal agencies conduct their facility
management and acquisition activities so that... the quantity of toxic chemicals entering any
waste stream ... is reduced as expeditiously as possible through sources reduction ..."; 2)
compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) and the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to "require Federal agencies to report in a public manner toxic
chemicals entering any waste stream from their facilities... and to improve local emergency
planning, response and accident notification..."; and 3) Federal government support for clean
technologies to "help encourage markets for clean technologies and safe alternatives." Although
EPA cannot assess penalties under the Executive Order, it does provide authority to issue NONs
for failure to comply with EPCRA requirements.
Education and Outreach
EPA continued to host the EPA/Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable, where
representatives of approximately 50 Federal agencies meet monthly to exchange information. At
the Roundtable, EPA media experts discuss existing or proposed regulatory approaches affecting
compliance by the other Federal agencies. The Roundtable also provides a forum for an exchange
of technological information between agencies.
In January of 1993, to address the specific environmental compliance needs and concerns
of civilian Federal agencies, EPA organized the Civilian Federal Agency Task Force. The task
force is addressing problems consistently cited by these civilian agencies, including: inadequate
training programs; deficient information resources; outdated compliance tracking and
recordkeeping system; shortage of trained professionals with sufficient knowledge and expertise in
V- 1
-------
environmental management and compliance; insufficient assistance from EPA on specific agency
issues having a national impact; and inadequate communication and coordination and
communication among EPA headquarters, EPA regions and other Federal agencies.
FFEO, in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, Postal Service, and NASA sponsored
a series of six Federal facility pollution prevention planning workshops at sites throughout the
country. The two-day workshops were intended to assist Federal facility environmental
coordinators in complying with the pollution prevention planning requirements of E.O. 12856.
The workshops were designed to equip environmental professionals with the basic tools and skills
to prepare a pollution prevention plan by providing an overview of the requirements, planning
approaches, and management techniques.
With the participation and assistance of the Regional FFCs, EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics held a series of Regional workshops in FY 1994 to assist personnel at
Federal facilities who are responsible for overseeing compliance with E.O. 12856 or are in charge
of implementing pollution prevention activities at their facilities. The workshops focussed on
various EPCRA requirements, particularly the reporting requirements under Section 313. In
addition, the workshops included an expanded discussion of pollution prevention program design,
plan development, and implementation.
The following is a list of recent documents and other resources available from FFEO. To
order these documents or for more information, contact FFEO at (202) 564-2461.
V-2
-------
FFEO Resources
Guidance for Implementing Executive Order 12856
Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements: Questions and
Answers, March 1995. (EPA 300-B-95-005)
Pollution Prevention in the Federal Government:
Guide for Developing Pollution Prevention
Strategies for Executive Order 12856 and Beyond,
April 1994. (EPA 300-B-94-007)
Federal Agency Environmental Management
Program Planning Guidance, October 1994. {EPA
300-B-95-001)
Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/
Compliance Initiative: Interim National Report,
November 1994. (EPA 300-R-94-007)
Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know in the
Government: Executive Order 12856, October
1993. (EPA-100-K-93-Q01)
Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental
Audits of Federal Facilities, May 1995.
Environmental Management System Benchmark
Report: A Review of Federal Agencies and Selected
Private Corporations, October 1994. (EPA 300-R-
94-009)
Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with
Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention
Requirements: Questions and Answers, March
1995. (EPA745-R-95-011)
Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Planning
Guide, December 1994. (EPA 300-B-94-013)
Catalogue of Federal Agency Environmental
Compliance/Management Documents, June 1994.
(EPA300-B-94-011)
Enviro$ense EPA's free, public, integrated
environmental information system Dial (703)
908-2092 (baud 2400 to 14400, 8, N, 1,
emulation: ANSI, BBS, or VT-100). Access via
the Internet and the World Wide Web is at:
http://wastenot.inel.gov/envirosense.
V-3
-------
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
EPA and States performed 1,298 and 1,380 inspections in FY 1993 and FY 1994,
respectively, which resulted in 462 and 517 enforcement actions. Continued assessment of
compliance problems confronting Federal facilities will provide EPA and States the ability to
strengthen its oversight programs. Future compliance assessments need to analyze the root
causes of noncompliance to achieve environmental compliance goals within the Federal sector.
EPA will continue to work with States, Indian Tribes, other Federal agencies, and the
public to achieve Federal environmental leadership. Specifically, EPA will focus on the following
key objectives:
> Determining the causes of noncompliance with environmental laws.
> Integrating multi-media inspection and enforcement strategies into
standard environmental program requirements for Federal facilities.
> Working with Federal agencies to incorporate pollution prevention into
their environmental management planning efforts.
> Involving the public in each stage of the Federal government's
environmental decision-making process.
> Applying the full range of enforcement authorities available under
environmental laws.
> Ensuring compliance with negotiated enforcement agreements at Federal
facilities.
> Implementing a process for accelerating the cleanup of military
installations slated for closure.
> Reducing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of environmental
technologies.
> Training Federal agency staff in the objectives and approaches for
environmental cleanup and compliance.
VI- 1
-------
APPENDIX 1: FEDERAL FACILITIES ON THE NPL
(Organized by Agency and Region)
Air Force:
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VIII
Facility Name
Otis Air National Guard
Hanscom Field
Loring AFB
Pease AFB
Federal Avaition Admin.
Griffiss AFB
Plattsburgh AFB
Dover AFB
Homestead AFB
USAF Robins AFB
Arnold Enginnering
Wurtsmith AFB
Rickenbacker AFB
Twin Cities AFB
US Air Force Wright Patterson
AFB
Tinker AFB
Air Force Plant #4
Air Force Plant PJKS
Ellsworth AFB
Hill AFB
F.E. Warren AFB
BRAC
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 1 1/89
Final 5/94
Final 2/90
Final 2/90
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 1 1/89
Final 3/89
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Proposed 8/94
Proposed 1/94
Proposed 1/94
Final 7/87
Final 10/89
Final 7/87
Final 8/90
Final 1 1/89
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
A- 1
-------
Region
IX
X
Facility Name
Luke AFB
Williams AFB
Edwards AFB
George AFB
Castle AFB
McClellan AFB
Norton AFB
March AFB
Travis AFB
Mather AFB
Anderson AFB
Eielson AFB
Elmendorf AFB
Mountain Home AFB
McCord AFB
Fairchild AFB
BRAC
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 8/90
Final 1 1/89
Final 8/90
Final 2/90
Final 7/87
Final 7/87
Final 7/87
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 10/92
Final 1 1/89
Final 8/90
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 3/89
A-2
-------
J
\rrny:
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
Name of Facility
Fort Devens Sudberry Annex
AMTL
Natick Lab
Fort Devens
Fort Dix
Picatinny Arsenal
Seneca Army Depot
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Edgewood
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Michaelsville
Letterkenny PDO area
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Letterkenny SE Area
Fort Eustis
West Virginia Ordanance
USA Anniston Army Depot
USA Alabama Army
Ammunition Plant
USA Redstone Aresenal
Milan Army Ammunition
USA Defense Depot Memphis
Joilet Army Ammo. Pit. Area
Savanna Army Depot
Joliet Army Ammo Plant
Manufacturing
BRAC
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 2/91
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 1 1/89
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
Final 8/90
Final 2/90
Final 10/89
Final 3/89
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Proposed 1/94
Final 9/83
Final 3/89
Final 7/87
Final 5/94
Final 7/87
Final 10/92
Final 3/89
Final 3/89
Final 7/87
A-3
-------
Region
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Name of Facility
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition
Lone Star Army Ammuntiion
Plant
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Fort Riley
Lake City Army Ammuntiion
Plant
Weldon Springs Former Army
Ordance Works
Cornhusker Army Ammuntion
Plant
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Tooele Army Depot
Ogden Defense Depot
Sacramento Army Depot
Fort Ord
Riverbank Army Ammuniton
Sharpe Army Depot
Schofield Barracks
Tracy Defense Depot
Fort Wainwright
Fort Richardson
Umatilla
Hamilton Island Landfill
(USA/COE)
BRAC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 10/83
Final 3/89
Final 8/90
Final 7/90
Final 8/90
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
Final 7/87
Final 7/87
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
Final 2/90
Final 7/87
Final 8/90
Final 8/90
Final 8/90
Final 5/94
Final 7/87
Final 10/92
A-4
-------
Region
Name of Facility
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5
BRAC
No
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 1 1/89
Final 7/87
A-5
-------
]
Navy:
Region
I
II
III
IV
Facility Name
New London Submarine Base
South Weymouth Naval Air
Station
Naval Weapons Industrial
Reserve
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Davisville Naval Construction
Batt. Ctr.
Newport Naval Education
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Naval Air Engineering
Naval Security Group Activity
Pautexent River Naval Air
Willow Grove Naval Air
Navy Ships Parts Control
Naval Air Development Centers
Marine Corps Combat
Development
Naval Surface Warfare
Dahlgren
Naval Surface Warfare
Yorktown
Allegany Ballistics Lab
US Naval Air Station Whiting
Field
USN Cecil Field
BRAC
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
IAG
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
NPL Status
Final 8/90
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 7/87
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 8/90
Final 7/87
Final 10/89
Final 5/94
Proposed 8/94
Final 5/94
Final 10/89
Final 5/94
Final 10/92
Final 10/92
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 1 1/89
A-6
-------
Region
V
IX
X
Facility Name
USN Jacksonville
Pennsacola Naval Air Station
USMC Logisitics Base 555
Cherry Point Marine Corps
USMC Camp Lejeune
Parris Island
Naval Industrial Reserve
Ordanance
US Air Force Plant 85 AKA
US Navy Weapon
Yuma Marine Corps
Treasure Island Naval Air
Station
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Moffett Naval Air Station
El Toro Marine Corps
Concord Naval Weapons
Station
Barstow Marine Corps
Naval Computer &
Telecommunications Center
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex
ADAK Naval Air Station
Naval Undersea Warfare Station
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Jackson Park Housing
Port Hadlock
Bangor Naval Submarine
BRAC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
NPL Status
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 11/89
Proposed 8/94
Final 10/89
Proposed 8/94
Final 1 1/89
Proposed 1/94
Final 2/90
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
Proposed 2/92
Final 1 1/89
Final 5/94
Final 10/92
Final 5/94
Final 10/89
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 8/90
A-7
-------
Region
Facility Name
Naval Air Station Whidbey
Island (Ault)
Bangor Ordance Disposal
Naval Air Station Whidbey
Island (Seaplane)
BRAC
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 2/90
Final 7/87
Final 2/90
A-8
-------
CFAs:
Region
III
V
VI
IX
X
Facility Name
Beltsville Agricultural Research
Langley AFB NASA Langley
Research Center
Defense General Supply Center
Sangamo Electric Dump
Cal West Metals
Lee Acres
Tracy Defense Depot
Jet Propulsion Lab
Standard Steel & Salvage Yard
Fremont National Forest
American Lake Gardens
Old Navy Dump Lab
BRAC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
NPL
Final 5/94
Final 5/94
Final 7/87
Final 7/87
Final 3/89
Final 8/90
Final 8/90
Final 10/92
Final 8/90
Proposed 6/93
Final 9/84
Final 5/94
A-9
-------
DOE:
Region
II
IV
V
VI
VIII
IX
X
Facility Name
W.R. Grace., Inc. Storage Site
Brookhaven National Lab
USDOE Paduchah Gas
Diffusuion
Savannah River Site
Oak Ridge Reservation
Feed Materials Production
Mound Plant
Pantex Plant
Rocky Flats Plant
Monticello Mill Tailings
Lawrence Livermore National
Lawrence Livermore Lab (300)
Lehr/Old Campus Landfill
Idaho National Engineering Lab
Bonneville Power
Administration
Hanford 100
Hanford 1100
Hanford 200
Hanford 300
BRAC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
IAG
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NPL Status
Final 9/84
Final 1 1/89
Final 5/94
Final 1 1/89
Final 11/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 5/94
Final 10/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 7/87
Final 8/90
Final 5/94
Final 1 1/89
Final 1 1/89
Final 10/89
Final 10/89
Final 10/89
Final 10/89
A- 10
-------
APPENDIX 2: BRAC INSTALLATIONS
BRAG List - 1988
Region I
Army Materials Technology Laboratory
Pease Air Force Base
Region III
Fort Meade
Cameron Station
Region IV
Lexington Army Depot
Region V
Chanute Air Force Base
Jefferson Proving Ground
Fort Sheridan
Region VI
Fort Wingate
Region VIII
Pueblo Army Depot
Region IX
George Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base
Norton Air Force Base
Presidio San Francisco
Hamilton Army Airfield
Salton Sea Test Site
Region X
Umatilla Depot
BRAC List- 1991
Region I
Fort Devens
Loring Air Force Base
CBC Davisville
Region III
Naval Base Philadelphia
USN Air Development/NAWC Warminster
Harry Diamond Lab
Region IV
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
MacDill Air Force Base
Region V
Wurtsmith Air Force Base
Rickenbacker Air Guard Base
Fort Ben Harrison
Grissom Air Force Base
Region VI
Faker Air Force Base
England Air Force Base
Carswell Air Force Base
Naval Air Station Chase Field
Bergstrom Air Force Base
Region VII
Richards Gebaur ARS
Region VIII
Lowry Air Force Base
Region IX
Fort Ord
Sacramento Army Depot
A- 11
-------
Region IX (cont)
Moffett Field Naval Air Station
Castle Air Force Base
Williams Air Force Base
Tustin Marine Corps Air Station
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
Naval Station Long Beach
Region X
Naval Shipyard Puget Sound
BRAG List - 1993
Region II
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Griffis Air Force Base
Naval Air Warfare Center Trenton
Fort Monmouth
Naval Station New York/ Staten Island
Region III
Defense Personnel Support Center
Philadelphia
Vint Hill Farms Station
NRTF, Driver
Region IV
Naval Station Mobile
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Homestead Air Force Base
Orlando Naval Training Center
Charleston Naval Base
Memphis Naval Air Station
Region V
O'Hare International Airport Air Force
Reserve Station
Sawyer Air Force Base
Newark Air Force Base
Glenview Naval Air Station
Defense Electronic Supply Center, Dayton
Gentile Air Force Base
Region VI
Dallas Naval Air Station
Region VIII
Tooele Army Depot
Region IX
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
March Air Force Base
Alameda Naval Air Station
San Diego Naval Training Center
Naval Air Station Agana
Naval Air Station Barbers Point
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
Treasure Island Naval Station
Oakland Naval Supply Center
A- 12
------- |