f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
EPA315-R-01-001
December 2000
Federal Facilities
Enforcement & Compliance
Accomplishments Report
FY1999
-------
This document was prepared by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
For additional copies of this document, please contact:
The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20044
Phone:(202)564-2510
Fax:(202)501-0069
For more information, visit the FFEO web site:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
1. Regulation and Policy 3
Executive Order 13101 - RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance 3
Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal Agencies ... 3
2. Compliance Assurance 5
FY99 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 5
FY99 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 5
Underground Storage Tank Initiative 7
Targeting Initiative 7
Inspection Initiative 7
United States Department of Agriculture Grain Bin Project 7
Community Based Environmental Protection: EPA-BIA-Yankton Sioux Tribe MOA
for Marty Indian School 8
3. Compliance Assistance 9
Federal Facility Environmental Management Reviews 9
EPA/DOI Compliance Assistance Initiative 10
Compliance Assistance Reviews at Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities 10
Federal Facilities Yellow Book Revised and Published 11
Workshops, Conferences, and Training 11
Other Regional Compliance Assistance Efforts 12
4. Enforcement 13
5. Case Summaries 21
CAA Cases 21
U.S. Navy, Bainbridge Navy Facility, Bainbridge, MD 21
DLA/DRMO, Quantico Facility, Quantico, VA 21
U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA 21
DOJ, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, NC 22
BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX 22
U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak and Contractors, Kodiak, AK 22
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK 23
CERCLA Cases 23
U.S. Navy, South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA 23
U.S. Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME 23
U.S. Navy, Quantico Facility and Norfolk Navy Base, VA 24
U.S. Navy, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C 24
DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 24
DOE, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, CO 25
-------
CWA Cases 25
U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA 25
RCRA Cases 25
DOE, Brookhaven National Lab and Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, NY 25
USD A, Plum Island Disease Center, Greenport, NY 26
U.S. Army Garrison, Ft. Drum, NY 26
GSA, Southeast Federal Center, Washington, D.C 26
U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center and Forest Glen Annex, Washington,
D.C. and Silver Spring, MD 27
U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C 27
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Facility, Washington, D.C 27
U.S. Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C 28
U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA 28
Department of Defense, Fort Campbell, KY/TN 28
USAF, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK 29
U.S. Army, Camp Stanley Storage Activity Facility, Boerne, TX 29
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Valley and Navajo Reservations, CA and AZ 30
DOE, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, WA 31
U.S. Coast Guard, Integrated Support Command, Kodiak Island, AK 31
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wapato Irrigation District, WA 31
SDWA Cases 32
U.S. Navy, Navy Facilities, Washington, D.C 32
U.S. Army, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL 32
U.S. Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, NC 33
Federal Recreation Facilities, NC 33
U.S. Forest Service, National Forest Campgrounds, WY 33
EPCRA Cases 33
U.S. Army, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK 33
BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX 34
USAF, Luke Air Force Base, AZ 34
TSCA Cases 34
U.S. Navy, Kingsville Naval Air Station, Kingsville, TX 34
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK 35
Attachments
Attachment 1. Organizational Structure of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 37
Attachment 2. EPA Regional Federal Facilities Program Managers 39
Exhibits and Tables
Exhibit 1. FY99 Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities 6
Exhibit 2. FY99 Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities by Agency
Category 6
Table 1. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Region 14
Table 2. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Statute and Agency
Category 18
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Introduction
Federal facilities, like all regulated facilities, are responsible for complying with environmental
requirements. OECA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) works with Federal agencies
to help them comply with environmental requirements and take all necessary actions to prevent,
control, and abate environmental pollution. FFEO assists Federal facilities in complying with
environmental requirements and preventing pollution and takes enforcement actions against Federal
facilities to remedy and deter their noncompliance. It is EPA's goal that all Federal agencies reach
a level of compliance with environmental requirements that equals or surpasses the rest of the
regulated community. To accomplish this goal, the Federal Facility Enforcement Program has a
sector orientation, using multi-media enforcement and emphasizing compliance assistance and
pollution prevention.
FFEO participates in enforcement negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and enforcement
activities undertaken by Regions, and is responsible for resolving enforcement disputes between
EPA and other agencies. Each EPA Region has a designated Federal Facilities Coordinator (a.k.a.
Federal Facilities Program Manager or FFC), who, in conjunction with other EPA Regional staff,
is responsible for coordinating the implementation of EPA's Federal facilities policies and programs
at the Regional level. They serve as the primary Regional point of contact for facility environmental
managers. FFEO works closely with Regional FFCs. Their responsibilities include giving program
assistance and training for Federal facilities; informing Federal facilities on current environmental
issues and developments; managing, tracking, oversight, and compliance planning activities;
encouraging pollution prevention; and coordinating with the Region's media program staff to
implement Federal facilities enforcement programs.
F Y99 was a successful year for the Federal Facilities Enforcement Program, during which the office
focused on compliance assistance and compliance assurance efforts with Federal facilities. In
particular, FFEO revised and published The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and
Compliance at Federal Facilities, which provides comprehensive information on environmental
requirements and the compliance and enforcement processes used by EPA, States, Tribes, and
citizens. In addition, FFEO developed the RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance, as directed by
Executive Order 13101, to assist Federal agencies in meeting the buy-recycled program requirements
of RCRA Section 6002. FFEO also continued the initiative with the Department of the Interior to
increase compliance with environmental requirements among all of DOI's major program
organizations.
During FY99, FFEO also focused heavily on compliance assurance efforts, using both single- and
multi-media inspections and environmental management reviews to determine environmental
compliance at Federal facilities. FFEO and the Regions, in conjunction with the States, conducted
1,516 single-media inspections and 27 multi-media inspections and issued and/or finalized 59
enforcement actions. In addition, Federal facilities were identified as media-specific priorities in
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 1 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
FY99 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Underground storage tanks (USTs) at Federal facilities not meeting the December 1998 upgrade
deadline were also targeted as a high enforcement priority in FY99.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 2 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
1. Regulation and Policy
In FY99, FFEO prepared two key guidance documents representing both statute-specific and
general enforcement policies. These documents, which focus on the RCRA Section 6002 buy-
recycled program and the economic benefit of noncompliance, address specific compliance
issues at Federal facilities.
Executive Order 13101 - RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance
On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13101, Greening the
Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition. While the EO renewed
a number of innovative waste prevention and recycling programs initiated within the Federal
community under EO 12873, the Order also provided new incentives to comply with existing Federal
acquisition programs. In particular, Section 403 of the Order directed EPA to develop guidance for use
by EPA and State inspectors in determining Federal facility compliance with the buy-recycled program
established under Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In coordination with the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive and EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, FFEO prepared the inspection guidance, titled Guidance on
Conducting Inspections of Federal Facilities for Compliance with Section 6002 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. As directed by the Order, EPA is to use the guidance whenever the
Agency conducts RCRA compliance inspections or multi-media regulatory compliance inspections
where RCRA compliance is a component of the inspection. In addition to EPA's regulatory
inspections, the guidance also may be used by States authorized to conduct inspections under RCRA.
FFEO issued the RCRA Section 6002 inspection guidance to EPA Regional offices in May 1998 and
requested that the guidance be included in inspections as soon as possible, but no later than the
beginning of the fourth quarter of FY99. As of October 1999, judging by the number of questionnaires
returned to FFEO, approximately 15 inspections had been conducted where the guidance had been
included as part of the inspection. In the future, EPA will reevaluate the guidance in light of the
experience gained during the first months of its use.
Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal Agencies
FFEO issued the Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal
Agencies. This guidance reinforces existing Agency policy on including the cost savings associated
with noncompliance in calculating penalties against Federal violators. The guidance explains the
importance of including the cost savings in the penalty calculation and provides several examples.
Cost savings, better known as the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance or BEN, are savings
associated with delayed compliance with environmental requirements. These savings can be
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 3 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
substantial. It has long been EPA policy to include these savings as a component of all penalty
calculations. FFEO issued this guidance to ensure that the cost savings of noncompliance is included
when calculating penalties against Federal violators.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 4 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
2. Compliance Assurance
EPA monitors activities at Federal facilities to determine whether Federal facilities are in compliance
with environmental laws and regulations. EPA relies on facility inspections as the primary tool for
determining compliance. Each fiscal year, EPA, in coordination with the States, plans and conducts
single- and multi-media inspections at Federal facilities.
In addition, FFEO conducted additional compliance assurance activities in FY99, including UST,
targeting, and inspection initiatives; monitoring near USDA grain storage areas; and negotiating a
MOA between EPA, BIA, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe.
FY99 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
A nationwide total of 27 multi-media inspections were performed at Federal facilities during FY99.
State/local government inspectors participated in 16 of these inspections. A minimum of two
environmental statutes, one of which was either RCRA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), or Clean Air
Act (CAA), were inspected at each facility. Overall, inspections covered RCRA, C AA, CWA, Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) program requirements. Four of the 27 multi-media inspections took place at Civilian
Federal Agency (CFA) facilities - at Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S.
Geological Survey facilities. Twenty-one took place at Department of Defense (DoD) facilities and
two took place at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities.
Multi-media inspections are part of EPA's Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance
Program that was initiated in FY93. In FY95, multi-media inspections were incorporated into
Regional base inspection programs. Between FY93 andFY99, EPA Regions have conducted a total
of 226 multi-media inspections at Federal facilities.
FY99 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
In FY99, a total of 1,516 single-media inspections were conducted by EPA Regions and the States
underRCRA, CWA, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA (Exhibit 1). Of the total number of inspections, 992
occurred at DoD facilities, 377 at CFA facilities, and 147 at DOE facilities (Exhibit 2).
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 5 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Exhibit 1
Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
CWA Off, TSC/UFIFRA/EPCRA
• EPA G State
Note: RCRA data pertains to all RCRA facilities, NPDES data pertains to
active major facilities, and CAA data pertains to major facilities.
Exhibit 2
Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities
by Agency Category in FY 1999
400
NPDES
• DOD
CAA
CFA
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
DOE
Note: RCRA data pertains to all RCRA facilities, NPDES data pertains to
active major facilities, and CAA data pertains to major facilities.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Underground Storage Tank Initiative
In accordance with a December 9, 1998, memorandum from OECA and the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response regarding the high enforcement priority of Federal agencies not meeting
the December 22, 1998, underground storage tanks (USTs) "upgrade" deadline, EPA inspectors
inspected eleven Federal facilities in FY99. These inspections were conducted to confirm
compliance with upgrade, leak detection, and general operational maintenance and other UST
requirements. These facilities were chosen in cooperation with the Regions and States and represent
a wide spectrum of Federal facilities including DoD, DOE, and CFAs.
Preliminary findings indicate operation/maintenance, upgrade, and widespread record-keeping
problems at these facilities. Inspection reports for these inspections are being finalized, after which
OECA, in consultation with the Regions, will consider appropriate actions to address these problems.
To prepare for the UST Inspection Initiative, OECA provided a two-day UST media-specific
inspector training course for EPA Headquarters personnel. FFEO acquired the services of a
nationally recognized expert to provide the instruction and assist with field training.
Targeting Initiative
In early FY99, FFEO announced that it will begin providing EPA Regions with Federal facility
inspection targeting assistance. FFEO developed an approach for targeting Federal facilities for
inspectors that is based on the method used to target private facilities. A variety of analyses have
been performed in air, water, clean water, and waste media to identify specific Federal facilities that
appear to have evaded permit requirements, continue to be out of compliance, or are substantially
under-inspected. This facility-specific information was provided to all EPA Regions to assist with
their targeting plans. As a consequence of this effort, several Federal facilities have now been
identified for inspections.
Inspection Initiative
In FY99, FFEO provided the Regions extra contractor assistance for inspections at Federal facilities
in various media including air, drinking water, waste, and clean water. Seventeen inspections were
tentatively approved to be conducted during FY 2000. The contractor resources will be used to assist
the Regions with conducting pre-filing reviews and inspections, and drafting inspection reports.
United States Department of Agriculture Grain Bin Project
In FY99, all four States in Region VII (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa) were engaged in
private well water sampling programs to identify residents that were unknowingly being exposed to
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 1 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
carbon tetrachloride contaminated water. Region Vn continues to take ground water, well water,
and soil samples near former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grain storage sites in
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. The purpose of the ground water sampling is to look for
carbon tetrachloride contamination resulting from a grain fumigant used to control insects in grain
bins owned and/or operated by USDA in the 1950s and 1960s. Carbon tetrachloride was banned in
December of 1985. The fumigant contained 80% carbon tetrachloride. Efforts to clean up the
contaminated groundwater have focused on developing innovative cleanup technologies. So far,
EPA has taken samples at 739 locations in Region VII. Carbon tetrachloride has been found at 135
of these locations. Sixty-four of these locations exceeded the EPA SDWA maximum contaminant
level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter, which could pose an increased risk of cancer over a lifetime
if the water continues to be used for drinking, cooking, and showering. Steps have been taken at
each site where contamination has been discovered, either by Federal, State, or local authorities, to
provide alternate water for affected well users.
Community Based Environmental Protection: EPA-BIA-Yankton Sioux Tribe MOAfor
Marty Indian School
In 1996, a Marty Indian School Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) Project
Stakeholder Group was formed to address various environmental issues at the Marty Indian School
in South Dakota. The group was comprised of representatives from the school, the Yankton Sioux
Tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service, and EPA. Based partially on
recommendations from the CBEP Project Stakeholder Group, the EPA Region VIE enforcement
team initiated the negotiation of a memorandum of agreement (MO A) rather than issuing a unilateral
order to the Yankton Sioux Tribe as the legally responsible entity.
Region VIII chose to first address the environmental problems at the Marty Indian School using a
collective approach to continue the community involvement initiated by the stakeholder group and
utilize technical and financial assistance from Federal agencies who, although not legally responsible
for the violations, have a fiduciary responsibility to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. In October 1998, EPA,
BIA, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the Marty Indian School Board finalized the MOA addressing
short- and long-term environmental cleanup at Marty Indian School. The MOA implements, and is
consistent with, the goals and priorities set forth in the CBEP summary.
The MOA represents the parties' collective concerns and individual commitments pertaining to the
multi-media environmental problems at the Marty Indian School. EPA identified possible violations
under several statutes including, but not limited to, the Oil Pollution Act, RCRA, CWA, and CAA.
A proj ect summary was included in the MOA that directs both short- and long-term cleanup proj ects.
An EPA site visit in June 1999 confirmed that all of the short-term action items had been completed.
Performance by the Tribe of the long-term action items is presently underway with BIA assistance
and EPA oversight.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 8 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
3. Compliance Assistance
Various compliance assistance activities were targeted to the Federal facilities sector in FY99,
ranging from phone and e-mail correspondence with Federal agencies to on-site visits (including
EMRs), workshops, trainings, and presentations to production and distribution of articles,
compliance checklists, and guides. These activities reached more than 7,000 Federal personnel in
all Federal agency categories - DoD, DOE, and CFA.
Federal Facility Environmental Management Reviews
An environmental management review (EMR) is an EPA compliance assistance tool for Federal
facilities to improve management of their environmental activities. EMRs also encourage Federal
facilities to use environmental management systems (EMSs) to improve compliance, prevent
pollution, and improve their environmental performance. Both EMRs and EMSs help facilities
incorporate environmental issues into all their business operations.
EMRs are conducted by EPA Regional Federal Facility Coordinators with assistance from
contractors with expertise in EMSs. The review is not an audit or inspection; instead, the review is
conducted on a voluntary basis, usually over two or more days, with the environmental manager of
the facility choosing the issues to be reviewed. The manager most often selects two or three of the
following disciplines for review:
organizational structure;
• environmental commitment;
• internal and external communications;
• formality of environmental programs;
staff resources, training, and development;
• program evaluation and reporting; and
• environmental planning and risk management.
These disciplines connote underlying environmental performance objectives based on various
guidelines and standards (e.g., The Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) for
Federal Agencies, developed by EPA, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
14001 Environmental Management System specifications). These disciplines are explored by the
reviewers using interviews and document reviews as the primary means of gathering information.
At the conclusion of the EMR, a list of findings and recommendations is left with the facility
manager. Six months after the EMR, the facility's environmental manager reports back to EPA
about the impact of the review.
Pilot EMRs were conducted at twenty-nine Federal facilities from May 1996 to September 1998.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 9 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
The pilot program resulted in the publication of a Final EMR Policy in December 1998.
Subsequently, a National Report is scheduled for publication in FYOO that markets the benefits of
EMRs to Federal facilities.
In FY99, twenty-two EMRs were conducted in seven EPA Regions. As a result of the EMR
compliance assistance tool, many actions have been taken to improve environmental results.
Environmental managers at Federal facilities have reported some environmental benefits and many
behavioral changes.
EPA/DOI Compliance Assistance Initiative
During F Y99, FFEO completed the formal stages of a j oint effort with the Department of the Interior
(DOI) to enhance compliance assistance across DOI bureaus and facilities with the overall goal of
raising the level of regulatory awareness and compliance at all DOI facilities. Initiated in 1998, this
effort was the first time that EPA pledged to provide compliance assistance across an entire Federal
agency. With an estimated 1,000 EPA-regulated facilities ranging from immense lands such as
Grand Canyon National Park to modest urban facilities such as the Anacostia Marina in Washington,
D.C., DOI had a significant opportunity to benefit from this effort by improving compliance
throughout the various DOI bureaus.
In FY99, EPA Regional Federal Facilities Coordinators conducted facility visits at approximately
25 facilities representative of DOI activities, including facilities such as fish hatcheries, national
monuments, and wildlife refuges. Depending on Regional priorities and discussions with the
specific facilities, these visits included formal environmental management reviews, compliance
activities assessments, and/or pollution prevention opportunity assessments. In addition, EPA
Region VIE and Headquarters participated in formal, extensive management reviews of several large
National Park Service facilities. EPA Regions also conducted a number of training seminars and
workshops for DOI facility personnel covering a variety of regulatory compliance issues. Finally,
EPA Headquarters conducted an agency-wide management system review of the National Park
Service; the final report for that effort is due during FY 2000.
Compliance Assistance Reviews at Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities
EPA conducted compliance assistance reviews of two Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities. The
first occurred in Region X at the Wapato Irrigation Proj ect in Yakima, Washington. The second took
place in Region IV at the Cherokee Agency in Cherokee, North Carolina. The reviews, conducted
under a 1998 MOA between EPA and BIA, included a diverse group of participants, including EPA
Headquarters and Regional representatives, BIA area and agency/proj ect staff, Tribal representatives,
and USD A personnel.
The goal of the reviews is to identify site-specific regulatory compliance concerns and opportunities
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 10 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
for compliance assistance. In addition, EPA expects that many of the specific issues and solutions
identified at these two BIA facilities will be applicable to other BIA locations and that lessons
learned can be applied throughout BIA.
Federal Facilities Yellow Book Revised and Published
In FY99, FFEO published the revised version of The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental
Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities. The Yellow Book is designed to help Federal
facilities achieve and maintain compliance with Federal environmental requirements, and exceed
those requirements to lead the way in minimizing environmental contamination. It provides field-
level personnel having environmental responsibilities at Federal facilities with comprehensive
information to help them comply with environmental requirements and to understand the compliance
and enforcement processes used by EPA, States, Tribes, and citizens.
The 1999 Yellow Book revises and supersedes the 1988 version (titled Federal Facilities Compliance
Strategy) and contains detailed discussions on:
• • new and revised Federal laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and EPA policies;
• • the applicability of Federal environmental requirements to Federal facilities;
• • enforcement responses that can be taken when a Federal facility is in violation of a
Federal law or regulation; and
• • sources for more information for each subject.
EPA distributed hard copies of The Yellow Book to Federal departments and agencies and other
organizations interested in Federal facility compliance. The Yellow Book is also available for
viewing and downloading online at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/yellowbk/. Given the changing
nature of Federal environmental laws and regulations, Executive Orders, and EPA policy, The Yellow
Book will be updated periodically online. Readers are encouraged to check the web site for notices
of changes to The Yellow Book.
Workshops, Conferences, and Training
FFEO often provides assistance to Federal agencies through workshops, conferences, and training,
held by either EPA Headquarters or the Regions. In FY99, compliance assistance was provided in
several such forums. A few highlights of these compliance assistance activities directed to Federal
agencies included:
• • Conducting a two-day workshop on pollution prevention at Federal facilities for Region m CF As;
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 11 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Sponsoring the annual Region IV Federal facilities conference with DoD, DOE, and CFAs in
attendance; and
Holding Pollution Prevention training for BIA staff and Tribal representatives from the Phoenix
area, which included an on-site visit to the BIA Pima Agency's Roads Facility in Sacaton, AZ
(Region IX).
Other Regional Compliance Assistance Efforts
In FY99, several additional compliance assistance efforts were conducted on a Regional level to
facilitate Federal agency compliance with environmental regulations. These efforts included:
•• Developing a protocol and questionnaire to evaluate the Postal Service's area-level
implementation of environmental policies in Region II;
• • Assisting the National Park Service with pesticide/herbicide issues and excess chemical and
cleaning agent disposal in Region VIII; and
• • Developing a waste determination process, a composite to-do list, and fact sheets addressing the
top ten RCRA violations for DOI facilities by Region X.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 12 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
4. Enforcement
In FY99, as tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, EPA named 62 defendants in 59
enforcement actions that were either issued or finalized against Federal agencies and government
contractors. The Department of Defense accounted for 26 of the actions, the Department of Energy
accounted for five actions, and Civilian Federal Agencies accounted for 25 actions. Six government
contractors were cited, either alone or along with the Federal agency for which it performed work.
Regionally, EPA Regions in and IV issued/finalized the most actions with 15 and 14 actions,
respectively.
Of the 59 actions, 22 were penalty orders. Penalties assessed in all final penalty orders for all
statutes totaled $544,922 in penalties and $4.2 million in SEPs. Penalties assessed in all proposed
penalty orders for all statutes totals just over $1,128,700.
According to environmental statute, 18 RCRA actions, 18 SDWA actions, 10 CAA actions, and 13
actions under other environmental statutes were issued and/or finalized. Under RCRA, more than
a total of $404,000 in penalties and $2.9 million in SEPs were assessed in 11 final penalty orders and
more than $646,900 were assessed in three proposed penalty orders. Under CAA, a total of $60,200
in penalties and just over $465,440 in SEPs were assessed in two final penalty orders and $481,800
were assessed in four proposed penalty orders. Under SDWA, a total of $80,000 in penalties and
$807,000 in SEPs were assessed in one final penalty order.
The following tables present FY99 EPA enforcement actions against Federal facilities by EPA
Region (Table 1) and agency category and statute (Table 2). Details on selected FY99 enforcement
actions are presented in Section 5, Case Summaries.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 13 December 2000
-------
Table 1. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Region (all actions and penalties
are final except where noted).
Region I
CERCLA 120 Federal
Facility Agreements
• Navy/South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA
• Navy/Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, ME
Region II
RCRA 3008a
RCRA 9006 (UST)
CAAllSa
Compliance Order
SDWA 1423 UIC
Administrative Order
• USDA Plum Island, NY - $32,500 penalty and $194,700 SEP
• DOE/ Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc.,
NY - &17,500 penalty and $104,300 SEP
• Army/ Garrison Ft. Drum, NY (Issued) - $259,960 proposed penalty
• SMAC Corporation, NJ (Veterans Affairs GOCO)
• DOE/Brookhaven National Lab, NY
Region III
RCRA 3013 Order on
Consent
RCRA 3008a
CAA113a
Compliance Order
CAA113d
SDWA 1414g
Compliance Order
CERCLA 120 Federal
Facility Agreements
• GSA/Southeast Federal Center, DC
• Army/Walter Reed Army Medical Center - $50,400 penalty and $1.6
million SEP
• Navy/Naval Research Lab, DC - $2,500 penalty
• Army/ Ft Belvoir, VA - $6,372 penalty and $45,260 SEP
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, DC (issued) -
statutory maximum penalty cited
• Navy/Port Deposit - Bainbridge Naval Facility, MD
• Navy/Marine Corps Combat Development Command-Quantico, VA
(Issued) - $39,600 proposed penalty order
• DLA/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office-Quantico, VA (Issued) -
$140,800 proposed penalty order
• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC
• Navy/Anacostia Naval Station, DC
• Navy/Naval Observatory, DC
• Navy/Naval Security Station, DC
• Navy/Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA
• Navy/Norfolk Naval Base, VA
• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC
Region IV
RCRA 3008a
CAA113a
Compliance Order
• Army/Ft. Campbell, KY - $125,00 penalty and $946,587 SEP
• Air Force/Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA
-------
CAAllSd
SDWA 1447
SDWA 1414g
Compliance Orders
TSCA 16 Order
• DO J/Federal Bureau of Prisons/Federal Medical Center, Butner, NC -
$21,700 penalty and $193,109 SEP
• DO J/Federal Bureau of Prisons/Federal Correctional Institution, Butner,
NC - $38,500 penalty and $272,333 SEP
• Army Aviation and Missile Command - Redstone Arsenal - $80,000
penalty and $807,000 SEP
• Army/Ft. Bragg, NC
• USD A/Forest Service/Cliffside Lake Recreation Area Water System, NC
• USD A/Forest Service/ Arrowhead Campground Water System, NC
• USD A/Forest Service/Sunburst Campground Water System, NC
• USD A/Forest Service/Cheoah Point Rec Area Water System, NC
• Army Corps of Engineers/Wilkes Skyline Marina, NC
• DOI/National Park Service/Gillespie Gap Maintenance Water System, NC
• DOI/National Park Service/Price Park Campground Water System, NC
• Charleston Shipbuilders, Inc. and Navy/Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC
Region V
No actions taken.
Region VI
RCRA 3008h
CAAllSd
CWA 309a
CWA Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement
EPCRA313 Show-
Cause Letter
• Army/Camp Stanley Storage, TX
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, TX (Issued) -
$289,800 proposed penalty
• Mason and Hanger Corp. (DOE GOCO) - Pantex Plant, TX (2 orders)
• DOE/Pantex Plant, TX
• Army/McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, TX
Region VII
No actions taken.
Region VIII
RCRA 9006 (UST)
SDWA1414g
Compliance Orders
• DOI/BIA Flandreau Indian School, SD
• USD A/Forest Service/Targhee National Forest - Trail Creek Campground,
WY
• USD A/Forest Service//Targhee National Forest - Teton Canyon
Campground, WY
• USD A/Forest Service/Medicine Bow National Forest - Vedauwoo
Campground, WY
• USD A/Forest Service/Bighorn National Forest - Shell Falls Interpretive
Site Water System, WY
Region IX
RCRA 3008a
• DOI/BIA Hoopa Valley Reservation, CA - $90,000 penalty
• DOI/BIA Dilcon Boarding School/Navajo Reservation, AZ - $5,000 penalty and
$25,000 SEP
-------
EPCRA311/312NOV
• Air Force/Luke Air Force Base, AZ
• Navy/Fallon Naval Air Station, NV
Region X
RCRA 3008a
RCRA 9006 (UST)
RCRA 9006 (UST)
Field Citation
CAAllSa
CAAllSd
• DOE/Hanford Hazardous Waste Disposal Site, WA (Issued) - $367,078
proposed penalty
• Dept of Transportation/USCG/Kodiak, AK - $74,250 penalty
• DOI/BIA Wapato Irrigation, WA (Issued) - $19,875 proposed penalty
• DOE/Bonneville Power Administration John Day Dam, OR - $600
• Army Corps of Engineers/The Dalles Dam, OR - $600
• Army/Ft. Wainwright, AK
• Dept of Transportation/USCG/Alaska Abatement Corporation and Chugach
Development Corporation, AK (Issued) - $11,600 proposed penalty
Source: EPA Enforcement Docket
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 17 December 2000
-------
Table 2. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Statute and Agency Category (all actions are final except where noted).
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Other
1
p
g
sS
a.
0)
O
3008a
• Navy/Naval Research Lab, DC
$2,5 00 penalty
• Army/Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
DC
$50,400penalty and $1.6 million SEP
• Army/Ft. Belvoir, VA
$6,372 penalty and $45,260 SEP
• Army/Ft. Campbell, KY
$125,000penalty and $946,587 SEP
3008h)
• Army/Camp Stanley Storage, TX
9006 (UST)
• Army/Garrison Ft. Drum, NY
$259,960 proposed penalty
113a
• Navy/Port Deposit- Bainbridge Naval
Facility, MD
• Air Force/Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA
• Army/Ft. Wainwright, AK
113d
• Navy/Marine Corps Combat Development
Command - Quantico, VA
$39,600 proposed penalty
• DLA/Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Office - Quantico, VA
$140,800 proposed penalty
1414g
• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC
• Navy/Anacostia Naval Station, DC
• Navy/Naval Observatory, DC
• Navy/Naval Security Station, DC
• Army/Ft. Bragg, NC
1447
• Army/Aviation and Missile
Command Redstone Arsenal, AL
), 000penalty and $807,000 SEP
CERCLA 120 Federal Facility
Agreements
• Navy/South Weymouth Naval
Air Station, MA
• Navy/Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, ME
• Navy/Marine Corps Base,
Quantico, VA
• Navy/Norfolk Naval Base, VA
• Navy/Washington Navy Yard,
DC
EPCRA 311/312 NOV
• Navy/Fallon Naval Air Station,
NV
• Air Force/Luke Air Force Base,
AZ
EPCRA 313 Show-Cause Letter
• Army/McAlester Army
Ammunition Plant, OK
TSCA 16 Order
• Navy/Charleston Naval
Shipyard, SC3
0)
8.
o>
P
3008a
• Brookhaven National Lab, NY1
$17,500penalty and $104,300 SEP
• Hanford Hazardous Waste Disposal Site,
WA
$367,078 proposed penalty
9006 UST Field Citation
• Bonneville Power Administration John Day
Dam, OR
$600
1423 UIC
• Brookhaven National Lab, NY
CWA Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement
• Pantex Plant, TX
-------
g
M
"2
0)
•a
at
RCRA
3008a
• USD A/Plum Island, NY
$32,500penalty and $194,700 SEP
• DOI/BIA Hoopa Valley Reservation, CA
$90,000 penalty
• DOI/BIA Dilcon Boarding School/ Navajo
Reservation, AZ
$5,000 penalty and $25,000 SEP
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, DC
statutory maximum penalty cited
• U.S. Coast Guard/Kodiak
$74,250 penalty
• DeptofTransportation/USCG/Kodiak, AK
$74,250 penalty
3013 Order on Consent
• GSA/Southeast Federal Center, DC
9006 (UST)
• DOI/BIA Flandreau Indian School, SD
• DOI/BIA Wapato Irrigation, WA
$19,875 proposed penalty
9006 UST Field Citation
• Army Corps of Engineers/The Dalles Dam,
OR
$600
CAA
113d
• DO J/Federal Bureau of Prisons/ Federal
Medical Center, NC
$21,700 penalty and $193,109 SEP
• DO J/Federal Bureau of Prisons/ Federal
Correctional Institution, NC
$38,500penalty and $272,333 SEP
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, TX
$289,800 proposed penalty
• Dept of Transportation/Coast Guard, AK2
$11,600 proposed penalty
SDWA
1414g
• USDA Forest Service/ Cliffside
Lake Rec. Area Water System, NC
• USDA Forest Service/Sunburst
Campground Water System, NC
• USDA Forest Service/Cheoah Point
Rec Area Water System, NC
• USDA Forest Service/Arrowhead
Campground Water System, NC
• USDA Forest Service/Targhee Natl
Forest-Trail Creek Campground , WY
• USDA Forest Service/Targhee Natl
Forest-Teton Canyon Campground,
WY
• USDA Forest Service/Medicine
Bow National Forest/Vedauwoo
Campground, WY
• USDA Forest Service/Bighorn
National Forest/Shell Falls
Interpretive Site Water System, WY
• DOI/National Park
Service/Gillespie Gap Maintenance
Water System, NC
• DOI/National Park Service/Price
Park Campground Water System, NC
• Army Corps of Engineers/ Wilkes
Skyline Marina, NC
Other
EPCRA 313 Show-Cause Letter
• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, TX
O
u
O
O
• Associated Universities, Inc., NY1
(DOE GOCO)
$17,500penalty and $104,300 SEP
113a
• SMAC Corporation, NJ (Veterans Affairs
GOCO)
113d
• Alaska Abatement Corporation and
Chugach Development Corporation, AK2
(USCG GOCO)
$11,600 proposed penalty
TSCA 16 Order
• Charleston Shipbuilders, Inc.3
Navy GOCO
CWA 309a
• Mason and Hanger Corporation,
TX (2 orders) (DOE GOCO)
1 same action with two defendants
Source: EPA Enforcement Docket
- same action with three defendants
same action with two defendants
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 20 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
5. Case Summaries
In FY99, EPA took 59 formal enforcement actions against Federal facilities under CAA, CERCLA,
CWA, RCRA, SOW A, EPCRA, and TSCA. Some of these actions, as well as other actions that are
not tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, are summarized below.
CAA Cases
U.S. Navy, Bainbridge Navy Facility, Bainbridge, MD
On July 23,1999, EPA Region in issued a Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Compliance Order to the
U.S. Navy for asbestos violations at Bainbridge in Maryland. The Navy discovered the presence of
friable asbestos-containing air cell insulation at a 10-acre area of the site. The Order requires the
Navy to sample for friable asbestos material, remove it, and then properly dispose of it.
DLA/DRMO, Quantico Facility, Quantico, VA
On September 30, 1999, Region in issued an Administrative Complaint for violations of the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection provisions of the CAA which occurred at the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Quantico Facility. The
Complaint proposes a penalty of $140,800. The facility maintains and disposes of appliances that
contain regulated refrigerants. The facility did not require parties delivering appliances to remove
refrigerant prior to delivery, did not immediately inspect the appliances to see if they contained
refrigerants, and handled the appliances in a manner that would likely result in the release of
refrigerant.
U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA
On September 30, 1999, Region III issued an Administrative Complaint for violations of the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection provisions of the CAA that occurred at the Marine Corps Base in
Quantico, Virginia. The Complaint proposes a penalty of $39,600. The Quantico Marine Corps
Base uses appliances containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. Numerous times in the last four
years the facility found leaks that required repairs within 30 days after discovery, and did not make
the repairs.
DOJ, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, NC
Region IV has settled enforcement actions over CAA violations with the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Federal Correctional Institution and Federal Medical Center, both located in Butner, North Carolina.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 21 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
The Consent Agreements and Consent Orders settled complaints over violations of New Source
Performance Standards and the North Carolina State Implementation Plan. The Respondent agreed
to pay $3 8,500 (for the Butner Correctional Institution) and $21,200 (for the Federal Medical Center
at the prison) in civil penalties. In addition, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) will be
performed.
The SEPs involve installation of a compressed natural gas (CNG) pumping station and replacement
of thirty-five gasoline-powered vehicles with the thirty-five using CNG. In addition to reducing
emissions which impact air quality, this SEP will serve as a pilot for other Bureau of Prisons
institutions to encourage use of CNG-fueled vehicles. The approximate cost of the SEPs is $275,000
for the CNG pumping station and $195,000 for the CNG powered vehicles.
BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX
On March 31, 1999, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Penalty Action against the U.S.
Treasury for violations of the CAA at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Western
Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas. This is the largest CAA penalty filed in Region VI against
a Federal facility using the CAA Section 113(d) penalty authority clarified by the Department of
Justice, Office of Legal Counsel in July 1997. An EPA inspection revealed that BEP had failed to
comply with regulations that reduce pollution from volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and
chromium compounds. In the administrative compliant, EPA charged that BEP violated regulations
of the Texas Administrative Code, which have been incorporated into the Texas Air Pollution
Control Implementation Plan, and Federal regulations concerning two boilers at the plant and
chromium compounds. EPA is seeking over $200,000 in penalties for these violations.
U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak and Contractors, Kodiak, AK
On August 5, 1999, EPA Region X filed a Complaint for asbestos National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) violations at the U.S. Coast Guard's Kodiak facility in Alaska.
The Complaint was issued to the Coast Guard and two of its contractors. EPA is seeking a total of
$11,600 in civil penalties. At the U.S. Coast Guard's Tank Farm in Kodiak, the Chugach
Development Corporation and the Alaska Abatement Corporation (AAC) were contracted to remove
asbestos from underground vaults which supplied steam to heat fuel oil in the tanks. The EPA
Complaint alleges that the on-site supervisor for AAC was reminded in August 1998 by a Federal
inspector to post the required warning signs and keep the asbestos laden debris wet until disposed
of. Two days later, the same Federal inspector observed AAC employees at the Kodiak landfill
removing bags of the still-dry debris from a truck with no signs warning of the cancer-causing
hazard. Exposure to asbestos can lead to numerous diseases, including asbestosis and lung cancer.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 22 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK
On March 5, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) and Compliance Order for
Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at the U. S. Army's Fort Wainwright facility in Alaska for repeated
violations of the applicable emission standards. These violations are resulting in significant
emissions of particulates and carbon monoxide. Fort Wainwright operates the largest coal-fired
power plant operated by the U.S. military in the world, burning up to 1,200 tons of coal per day in
the winter months. Violations alleged in the NOV include the failure to operate in compliance with
emission standards, maintain and operate emission control devices and monitoring equipment, and
control fugitive dust.
These violations threaten human health and the environment since they are leading to significant
particulate and carbon monoxide air emission that aggravate human respiratory and cardiovascular
health problems.
CERCLA Cases
U.S. Navy, South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA
EPA Region I and the Navy signed an Interagency Agreement (IAG) for the 1,428.5-acre South
Weymouth Naval Air Station (SOWEY NAS) National Priorities List (NPL) site in Weymouth,
Abington, and Rockland, Massachusetts. Commissioned in 1942, the site has served several
purposes, including: a naval aviation and aircraft storage facility; an anti-submarine and air defense
equipment development and testing facility; the home base for the blimps of Airship Early Warning
Squadron One, which were used for anti-submarine warfare and as air observation posts along the
New England coast until 1961; and a Naval Air Reserve facility. Pursuant to the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, SOWEY NAS was closed on September 30, 1997.
SOWEY NAS was placed on the NPL on May 31, 1994 (59 Federal Register 27989). There are
currently eight Areas of Concern at the Site. The agreement requires the Navy to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at SOWEY NAS. In addition, should any remedial action be
necessary, the Navy will perform it.
U.S. Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME
This case involves Region I and the Navy regarding the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS), Kittery,
Maine. PNS is a 278-acre active installation located on an island in the Piscataqua River in Kittery,
Maine. The Piscataqua River is a tidal estuary that forms the southern boundary between Maine and
New Hampshire. PNS is located at the mouth of the Great Bay Estuary (commonly referred to as
Portsmouth Harbor). The United States is the current owner and operator of the Site. PNS was listed
on the NPL May 31, 1994 update (59 Federal Register 27989).
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 23 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
An IAG between Region I and the Navy requires the Navy to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. In addition, the Navy will perform any necessary
remedial action.
U.S. Navy, Quantico Facility and Norfolk Navy Base, VA
In February 2000, Region in signed two CERCLA lAGs requiring the cleanup of two Navy facilities
in Virginia - the Quantico facility and the Norfolk Navy Base. The Quantico facility is a training
and educational center whose mission is to develop education and training policies and programs for
the Marine Corps. The site is comprised of approximately 56,000 acres located 30 miles south of
Washington, D.C. The other site, the Norfolk Navy Base, is the largest naval base in the United
States and located in the northwest portion of the City of Norfolk, Virginia on 4,631 acres of land.
The Base currently operates in various capacities to provide support to vessels, aircraft, and other
activities of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. These agreements require the Navy/Marine Corps to
characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to address whatever contamination is
identified as requiring cleanup.
U.S. Navy, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.
In July 1999, Region HI signed a CERCLA IAG for the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC.
The Navy Yard is located on the Anacostia River in Washington D.C., and is the first IAG for a
Federal facility in the District of Columbia. This agreement requires the Navy to characterize the
nature and extent of contamination and to address whatever contamination is identified as requiring
cleanup.
DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Region IV and the Tennessee Department of Environment (TDEC) have each assessed DOE a
$50,000 penalty for failing to meet its Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) milestone deadline for
submitting the Action Memorandum relating to remediation of contaminated tanks at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. DOE unilaterally canceled this project in the Fall of 1998, in violation of FFA
requirements, and did not reinstate it until March 1999, after the matter had been elevated to the FFA
Senior Executive Committee for dispute resolution. Under the FFA's stipulated penalty provisions,
a maximum total penalty of $295,000 could have been assessed for an FFA violation of this duration
- from September 30, 1998 (the original milestone date) until April 28, 1999 (when DOE finally
submitted the Action Memorandum). The Region and TDEC concurred on final assessments
totaling $100,000.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 24 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
DOE, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, CO
In the first enforcement action under CERCLA Section 109, on July 13,1999, EPA Region VIE filed
a motion in limine., with supporting memorandum, seeking to preclude DOE from offering into
evidence the testimony of the attorneys who negotiated the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for
the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. EPA commenced this action by filing a penalty
action pursuant to CERCLA Section 109, seeking a penalty of $45,000 for violation of a term or
condition of an FFA (violation of surface water standards for plutonium and americium).
DOE seeks to enter testimony of its negotiating attorneys that during negotiations, EPA agreed not
to seek penalties where a violation of the standards could not be traced to a point source of
contamination. The basis of the motion in limine is that such testimony is excluded by the parol
evidence rule, which holds that clear and unambiguous terms of an integrated agreement may not
be varied or contradicted by extrinsic evidence.
On September 21, 1999, a hearing was held on the motion in limine and the substantive issues. At
the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement and the
work plan were an integrated document, and DOE's contention that there was a contemporaneous
oral agreement was rejected. The hearing then turned to the substantive issues and evidence was
provided by both parties. The basic issue is that the water monitoring plan provided that samples
of less than 4 liters could be discarded, not analyzed, and not used in computing the compliance
average. Instead of discarding a small sample, DOE analyzed it, passed QA/QC, and reported it.
EPA's position is that it is valid data and can be used. DOE's position is that the 4-liter guideline
means the sample cannot be used. Post-hearing briefs were submitted in November 1999, and reply
briefs in December 1999. A decision is expected during FY 2000.
CWA Cases
U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA
On May 19, 1999, Region X issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
in Bremerton, Washington, for CWA violations. The Shipyard exceeded its effluent limitations in
its NPDES permit. If EPA had penalty authority under the CWA, the proposed penalties would have
been approximately $250,000.
RCRA Cases
DOE, Brookhaven National Lab and Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, NY
On August 6,1999, EPA Region II settled an Administrative Complaint which alleged that the DOE
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and its contractor, Associated Universities, Inc., violated
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 25 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
several provisions of RCRA, including: failure to determine whether solid waste generated at the
facility constituted hazardous waste, various storage area requirements, and hazardous waste
disposal without a permit. Respondents agreed to pay a $17,500 civil penalty. In addition, DOE is
to perform a supplementary environmental project. The SEP involves the installation of equipment
which will reduce the generation of radioactive waste water and oily waste water, and to replace
mercury-containing equipment with mercury-free equipment. The total value of the SEP is
$104,000.
USDA, Plum Island Disease Center, Greenport, NY
On February 18, 1999, EPA Region n settled an Administrative Complaint which alleged that the
USDA violated several provisions of RCRA, including its failure to notify EPA of all of its
hazardous waste management activities at the facility, obtain a permit for the storage and treatment
of hazardous waste, and determine whether solid waste generated at the facility constituted
hazardous waste. The USDA agreed to pay a civil penalty of $32,500. In addition, the USDA
agreed to perform a SEP that converts old wastewater treatment plant lagoons into wetlands. The
wetlands are to be designed and constructed in a manner to maximize the land area and value of the
habitat to native and migratory flora and fauna species. At four years from the construction
completion date, the wetlands are to achieve at least an 85% survival rate for the planted vegetation.
The total value of the wetlands project is $194,700.
U.S. Army Garrison, Ft. Drum, NY
On June 30, 1999, Region U issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the U.S. Army Garrison
for allegedly violating the underground storage tank requirements of RCRA. The Respondent failed
to perform monthly leak detection monitoring for 76 petroleum USTs and 24 hazardous waste USTs
during an approximately one-year period from July 1996 through June 1997. The complaint
proposes a penalty of $259,960.
GSA, Southeast Federal Center, Washington, D.C.
On July 28,1999, Region HI and the General Services Administration (GSA) entered into a RCRA
3013 Order requiring investigation of and some interim measures on the Southeast Federal Center
(SEFC) located in Washington, D.C. This is the first Section 3013 Order on Consent that EPA has
entered into with a Federal agency. The SEFC occupies 55.3 acres along the Anacostia River.
Several studies of the area revealed the presence of contamination at or near the facility. The
contaminants detected, including benzene and lead, have detrimental effects on human health and
the environment.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 26 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center and Forest Glen Complex, Washington, D.C. and Silver
Spring, MD
During FY99, Region in amended the Complaint and Compliance Order issued to the Army on
September 30, 1998, for alleged violations of Federal UST regulations at the Army's Walter Reed
Medical Center in Washington D.C., and Forest Glen Annex in Silver Spring, MD. EPA is seeking
a total penalty of $94,101 for UST violations involving five diesel fuel tanks at Walter Reed's main
hospital facility in D.C., and four diesel fuel tanks at the Forest Glen Annex. The chief
Administrative Law Judge has found the Army liable for the violations through the granting of a
motion for accelerated decision. The penalty aspect of the case is outstanding, pending a Department
of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel determination on whether EPA can collect penalties for UST
violations at Federal facilities. District of Columbia regulations require UST owners to permanently
close or remove their tanks within 12 months after the tanks are taken out of service. EPA alleges
that the five USTs at Walter Reed were last used around December 1993, but were removed between
August 1995 and January 1997. At the Forest Glen Annex, the Army allegedly failed to use
corrosion-protected steel piping in one 2,000 gallon tank and to comply with proper leak detection
procedures in two 10,000 gallon tanks.
U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
On August 18,1999, Region JJI signed a Consent Agreement and Order (CAO) to settle a September
30,1998, Complaint for violations of RCRA hazardous waste storage regulations at the Walter Reed
Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The Complaint proposed a penalty of $201,600. The CAO
contained a final civil penalty of $50,400 and a pollution prevention SEP valued at $1.6 million. The
SEP requires the Army to purchase and implement a Hazardous Substance Management System
(HSMS). The HSMS is used to facilitate centralized hazardous material control and management
and to assist with environmental reporting.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Facility, Washington, D.C.
On September 30, 1999, Region IJJ issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the Department
of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing facility in Washington, D.C. The Complaint states
that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: (1) owns/operates a hazardous waste storage facility
without a permit, interim status, or a valid permit exemption; (2) stores hazardous waste in open
drums; (3) fails to list the name and telephone number of each emergency coordinator in the facility's
contingency plan; and (4) has failed to conduct required waste determination. The complaint does
not contain a specific proposed penalty, but cites the statutory maximum. Per the revised 40 CFR
Part 22 procedures, Region IJJ has indicated that it will propose a specific penalty at a later date after
an exchange of further information.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 27 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
U.S. Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
On March 31, 1999, Region in signed a CAO for violations of the hazardous waste storage permit
of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. The Navy agreed to pay a final civil penalty
of $2,500. The Complaint and Compliance Order issued on September 30,1998, proposed a penalty
of $27,500.
U.S. Army, FortBelvoir, VA
On August 10, 1999, Region HI settled a RCRA hazardous waste action against the Army at Fort
Belvoir in Virginia. The Army, in resolving the case, agreed to pay a penalty of $6,372 and perform
a pollution prevention SEP worth $45,260 to reduce emissions of halon. The SEP requires the Army
to remove two halon-based fire suppression sprinkler systems from a paint spray booth and a paint
storage area and replace them with a water-based system.
Department of Defense, Fort Campbell, KY/TN
On September 29, 1999, Region IV filed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) settling a
RCRA Section 3008(a) Compliant filed in the matter of U.S. Department of Defense/Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office, Fort Campbell, KY/TN. The settlement consisted of a cash
penalty of $125,000, and a SEP that includes an initial cost of $366,000 and annual costs of
$165,700 for three years. Under the SEP, Fort Campbell will replace a RCRA hazardous solvent
used in 300 parts washers at the base with a new system using a non-hazardous solvent. This will
eliminate a hazardous waste stream of approximately 557,500 pounds per year.
The CAFO also requires that the respondent certify that the security violations alleged in the
Complaint have been corrected; that the respondent certify that the open burning/open detonation
(OB/OD) unit is no longer in operation; that the respondent submit a plan which describes how
compliance with training requirements is being achieved; and that the respondent submit a plan
which sets out policies for assuring modifications to solid waste management units are not made
without prior notification to EPA or the State.
This settlement resolves a 1998 compliant against Fort Campbell (the Respondent) for violations of
several significant requirements of interim status for its OB/OD Unit and RCRA permit conditions.
Specifically, Fort Campbell exceeded its Part A Permit Application limits, violated inspection
requirements, violated security requirements, failed to provide personnel training, and failed to
provide notification of planned alterations to a permitted facility.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 28 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
USAF, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK
In January 1998, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Enforcement Action against Tinker Air
Force Base Station, alleging violations of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) requirements
promulgated under RCRA. The Administrative Compliant seeks a penalty of $96,703, and is part
of EPA's first set of UST cases against Federal facilities.
After a series of motions filed by both Tinker and EPA Region VI, on May 19, 1999, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order granting Tinker's Motions to Dismiss and for
Accelerated Decision. The ALJ found that EPA lacked the statutory authority to assess civil
administrative penalties against another Federal agency under the UST provisions of RCRA Section
9006. EPA filed its Notice of Appeal with EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in June
1999, and filed its Appellate Brief in August 1999. Tinker filed its Appellate Brief in October 1999,
and both parties requested oral argument. In the appeal, EPA challenged the ALJ's determination
that the Agency lacks the statutory authority to assess civil administrative penalties against another
Federal agency for UST violations.
At the same time the case was pending before the ALJ, and before the initial decision was issued in
May 1999, DoD referred the issue of whether or not EPA has statutory authority to assess civil
administrative penalties against another Federal agency for UST violations to the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice. Both EPA and DoD agreed to be bound by OLC's
determination, which is anticipated during FY 2000.
EPA has found that most Federal facilities have proper UST equipment for release detection, spill
and overfill prevention, and corrosion protection. Generally, the facilities in violation had
deficiencies in properly managing the equipment for release detection requirements. Federal
agencies should ensure that their personnel are familiar with proper UST management methods and
are thoroughly trained to operate UST release detection equipment to prevent pollution.
U.S. Army, Camp Stanley Storage Activity Facility, Boerne, TX
On May 5, 1999, EPA Region IV issued a final Administrative Order on Consent, also referred to
as an AOC, under Section 3008(h) of RCRA to the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) facility
in Boerne, Texas. The Order concerns the identification, investigation, and prevention of further
contamination due to the release of hazardous wastes to the environment at the hazardous waste
management facility that CCSA has been operating since November 1980.
There are twelve wells at the CSSA facility that are used for potable drinking water sources,
monitoring wells, and agricultural water supplies. During a routine pesticide screening site visit,
the Texas Department of Health sampled water supplies from well #16 and found traces of several
chemicals. The contaminants included 1,2 dichloroethane, trichloethylene, andtetrachloroethylene.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 29 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
The RCRA Order requires CSSA to perform interim stabilization measures to prevent or minimize
the further migration of contaminants due to the release of hazardous constituents to the
environment; mitigate current or potential threats to human health and the environment; and perform
corrective action studies to identify and evaluate alternatives for corrective actions to prevent or
mitigate any migration of pollutants from the facility. Failure by CSSA to comply with terms of the
Order will result in penalties ranging from $500 to $5,000 per day, depending on the extent of the
noncompliance period.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Valley and Navajo Reservations, CA andAZ
In early 1999, EPA Region IX concluded settlements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for
RCRA violations at facilities on the Hoopa Valley (California) and Navajo (Arizona) Reservations.
BIA agreed to pay a $90,000 penalty and perform compliance activities for the violations on the
Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. BIA agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty and to hire an environmental
issues teacher for the schools in the Fort Defiance Agency to resolve the violations on the Navajo
Reservation.
The violations on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation were for storage of hazardous waste on the
reservation. In 1989, the BIA abandoned 640 kilograms of hazardous waste in two storage sheds
located on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Since 1989, BIA has stored hazardous waste in
these storage sheds without a permit. Region IX filed an administrative complaint against BIA in
October 1997, alleging numerous violations related to the facility, including storage without a
permit.
On January 8, 1999, Region IX entered into a Consent Agreement and Consent Order with the BIA
under which the BIA agreed to pay EPA a civil penalty of $90,000 to resolve the alleged RCRA
violations on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. In addition to paying this penalty amount, BIA has
agreed to perform compliance activities which include submitting a closure plan and performing all
necessary cleanup measures.
The violations on the Navaj o Reservation occurred in connection with maintenance operations at the
Dilcon School, a school operated by BIA for Navajo children in the Navajo Nation. A BIA
employee removed batteries and waste paints from a maintenance facility at the Dilcon School and
placed the wastes in a nearby arroyo (water-carved channel). This event occurred on July 10,1997,
immediately prior to a facility audit. A Navajo Nation police officer discovered the wastes the
following day and traced them back to the Dilcon School. The case was referred to EPA by the
Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, which participated in review of the settlement.
The settlement between EPA and BIA, approved on April 14, 1999, provides for payment of a
$5,000 penalty and performance of a SEP at a cost of approximately $25,000. The SEP is an
environmental compliance promotion project which will provide training to the Navajo Nation on
how to comply with solid waste and hazardous waste requirements. To perform the SEP, the BIA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 30 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
will hire a qualified teacher to develop and deliver the curriculum. The teacher will be hired for the
1999-2000 school year and will teach subjects including solid waste disposal in grades 3 through 9
at nine different schools, and conduct two to three community outreach meetings on these
environmental issues. BIA will consult with the Executive Director of the Navajo Nation
Environmental Protection Agency in development of the curriculum. The community outreach
presentations will provide for presentation or translation in the Navajo language.
DOE, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, WA
EPA Region X issued a Complaint and Compliance Order (CACO) on February 11, 1999, to DOE
for violations of RCRA at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. A penalty of
$367,078 is being assessed. Three counts are included in the CACO: 1) storage of
hazardous/dangerous waste without a permit; 2) failure to make hazardous/dangerous waste
determination; and 3) failure to have a contingency plan. This CACO is the result of a multi-media
inspection conducted at Hanford in May of 1998.
U.S. Coast Guard, KodiakIsland, AK
On March 23, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the USCG for
RCRA violations at the Kodiak Island, Alaska facility. The Complaint sought $74,250 in penalties
to address Federal hazardous waste violations observed by EPA inspectors at the Coast Guard's
Kodiak facility in August 1998, and violations that were self-disclosed by the Coast Guard. EPA
inspectors found that the Coast Guard failed to adequately track and manage containers that held
hazardous waste. In a separate incident, for which the Coast Guard made a self-disclosure under
EPA's Audit Policy, the Coast Guard also illegally treated hazardous wastes by detonating excess
ordnance in a remote bunker. Since the Coast Guard self-reported the illegal disposal of several
drums of emergency flares and small arms ammunition in a remote bunker at the facility and met
other Audit Policy criteria, they qualified for penalty relief under the EPA Audit Policy which
encourages facilities to disclose violations. A CACO was signed on June 3, 1999 to settle the
complaint and to address the self-disclosure. The Coast Guard agreed to pay the penalty of $74,250
for the violations found by EPA during the August 1998 inspection. The Coast Guard paid no
penalty for the self-disclosed violations..
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wapato Irrigation District, WA
On August 30,1999, EPA Region X filed a complaint for UST violations at BIA's Wapato Irrigation
District facility in Washington State. Region X has proposed $19,875 in penalties against BIA for
alleged repeated violations of several regulations that ensure that leak detection alarm systems are
working properly. EPA inspectors noted a silenced alarm and sump sensors that had been raised
three inches above the bottom of a sump during a March inspection of two tanks at the Wapato
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 31 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation. BIA also was unable to produce evidence of
annual system tests or performance claims for leak detection systems. Similar violations were found
at a 1996 inspection.
SDWA Cases
U.S. Navy, Navy Facilities, Washington, D.C.
On May 18, 1999, Region HI issued four SDWA Section 1414 (g) Compliance Orders to the Navy
for violations of the public water supply regulations at facilities in Washington, D.C. The four
facilities were the U.S. Naval Observatory, the U.S. Naval Security Station, the Washington Navy
Yard, and the Anacostia Naval Station. The Navy failed to submit sanitary surveys every 5 years,
monitoring plans, and monitoring reports for the system.
U.S. Army, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
In settlement of the first SDWA penalty case against a Federal facility, the Army's Redstone Arsenal,
in Huntsville, Alabama, agreed to pay a cash penalty of $80,000 and spend $807,000 on SEPs.
The settlement resolved an enforcement action initiated in April 1998, when EPA Region IV filed
an Administrative Penalty Order against the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone
Arsenal, for violations of the SDWA. The base was found to have violated requirements of the law
that ensure the safety of the drinking water for the 22,000 people at the Redstone Arsenal. Improper
management of a drinking water system can allow bacteria to flourish in the water.
This was the first time the Agency has imposed a SDWA penalty against any Federal agency.
SDWA was amended in 1996, giving EPA penalty authority against Federal facilities for the first
time. The Redstone settlement was the largest drinking water penalty in Region IV history.
This settlement resolved violations uncovered during a 1997 multi-media inspection at the Redstone
Arsenal. The inspection and subsequent investigation revealed that Redstone violated the Surface
Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule, and Public Notification Rule, including a MCL
violation for total coliform (bacteria). Redstone failed to properly operate and maintain its storage
tanks and reservoirs and a water main flushing program, and maintain adequate disinfectant residual
in the distribution system to meet MCLs for total coliform. The $807,000 in SEPs developed as part
of the settlement includes improvements to Redstone's water system.
The SEPs developed for Redstone include the installation of a chlorine monitoring system to
enhance water quality by allowing the facility to measure residual chlorine on a continuous basis.
In addition, operating computer software for one of Redstone's water treatment plants will be
upgraded and construction projects will address water stagnation problems in some of the supply
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 32 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
lines. These SEPs will improve Redstone's water system to help ensure the Base's water supply is
safe while putting less water purification disinfectant into the environment.
U.S. Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, NC
Region IV took enforcement action against Fort Bragg in North Carolina for violations uncovered
during a multi-media inspection conducted in 1998. As a result of the investigation, serious
violations of public water system requirements were discovered. EPA issued an Administrative
Order under Section 1414(g) of SDWA. The violations of SDWA include: exceeding MCLs for
total trihalomethanes (TTHM) fourteen times; a TTHM monitoring and reporting violation for the
fourth quarter 1998; public education violations for failing to properly perform education required
as a result of exceeding lead action levels; and failure to report violations to the State of North
Carolina within 48 hours.
Federal Recreation Facilities, NC
SDWA 1414(g) Administrative Orders were taken against small "transient non-community water
systems" (40 CFR Section 141.2) in Region IV located on property owned by the U.S. Forest
Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for failure to conduct
required monitoring for nitrites pursuant to 40 CFR 141.23 and failure to provide required
notification of violations to the State and public. The orders required that proper testing be
completed and notifications provided as required by SDWA. High levels of nitrites in drinking water
can be dangerous, especially for babies.
U.S. Forest Service, National Forest Campgrounds, WY
SDWA 1414(g) Administrative Compliance Orders were issued to small "transient non-community
water systems" (40 CFR Section 141.2) located at four campgrounds in the Targhee National Forest,
the Medicine Bow National Forest, and the Bighorn National Forest. The orders address maximum
contaminant level violations, and failure to monitor total coliform and nitrate. High levels of nitrites
in drinking water can be dangerous, especially for infants.
EPCRA Cases
U.S. Army, Me Ale ster Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK
The U.S. Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma, (Region VI) was
issued a "show cause letter" on January 12, 1999, under Executive Order 12856, Federal
Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. A multi-media
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 33 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
environmental compliance inspection revealed that the McAlester facility "otherwise used" chlorine
at above threshold amounts for 1994, 1995, and 1996 in noncompliance with EPCRA Section 313.
On March 11, 1999, information was received from the facility. Review of the information which
indicated that the McAlester facility had met the terms of the "show cause letter" and was now in
compliance with EPCRA Section 313. A confirmation letter acknowledging McAlester's
compliance with EPCRA Section 313 was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.
BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX
The BEP Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas (Region VI) was issued a "show cause
letter" on January 12,1999, under Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know
Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. A multi-media environmental compliance inspection
revealed that the BEP facility "otherwise used" nickel at above threshold amounts for 1995 and 1996
in noncompliance with EPCRA Section 313. In addition, BEP failed to maintain records for nickel
for the 1994 reporting year. On February 24, 1999, information was received from the facility,
review of which indicated that the BEP facility had met the terms of the "show cause letter" and was
now in compliance with EPCRA Section 313. A confirmation letter acknowledging BEP's
compliance with EPCRA Section 313 was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.
USAF, Luke Air Force Base, AZ
Luke Air Force Base in Arizona submitted documents to Region XI on September 30, 1999, and
November 19, 1999, demonstrating compliance with areas of noncompliance identified in an EPA
NOV resulting from an EPCRA compliance evaluation. The base submitted a draft final Spill
Prevention and Response Plan, Operations Plan, a revised list of hazardous chemicals, revised Tier
U forms for 1996 and 1997, and hired additional staff to audit, track, and prepare Tier U reports. New
instructions and contract language has been issued by the base requiring contractors to report all
instances and quantities of hazardous materials used on the base.
TSCA Cases
U.S. Navy, Kingsville Naval Air Station, Kingsville, TX
In July 1998, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Enforcement Action against the Kingsville
Naval Air Station alleging violations of the Real Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule
promulgated under the Toxic Substance Control Act. The Administrative Compliant seeks a penalty
in excess of $400,000, and is EPA's first penalty order issued to a Federal facility for alleged
violations of Section 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
After a series of motions filed by both the Navy and EPA Region VI on February 18, 1999, the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 34 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying the Navy's motions for accelerated decision and
granting EPA's motions for accelerated decision. The Navy then sought and was granted an
interlocutory appeal of the ALJ's Order, and filed its Brief with EPA's Environmental Appeals
Board (EAB) in June 1999. The Navy is challenging the ALJ's determination that the Navy's
Residency Occupancy Agreements are "contracts to lease" under the rule, that the Navy is subject
to civil administrative penalties for violations, and that EPA did not exceed its authority in defining
"lessor" to include government agencies.
Oral argument before the EAB was held on October 28, 1999, and both parties filed supplemental
briefs in November 1999. A decision by the EAB is expected during FY 2000. (On March 17,2000,
the EAB issued a final order. The EAB held that ALJ McGuire's "Order cannot be upheld based
upon the Presiding Officer's analysis, which relied on Texas law." The EAB observed that there is
no definition for "contract to lease" in the rule, and stated that "it is not clear that an ROA would
necessarily be included or excluded from any so-called ordinary definition of the term lease.")
It is estimated that approximately one million children in the United States have lead poisoning and
the most common source of exposure is from lead-based paint in older housing. Over time, even
low-level exposure to lead from paint, dust, soil, and plumbing can cause a range of health problems
including permanent damage to the brain, nervous system, and kidneys.
U.S. Army, Fort Waimvright, Fairbanks, AK
On April 11, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Notice of Noncompliance (NON) pursuant to TSCA to
Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. This action is for leaks of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and other violations of Federal rules for the safe management of PCBs. If EPA had penalty authority
for these violations the proposed penalties would have been $443,300. Eight of the 23 PCB
violations involve leaks of PCBs. The remaining violations involve improper storage, marking,
labeling, and record-keeping, all of which are violations of TSCA. EPA's allegations about Fort
Wainwright's improper management of PCBs stem from observations made at a June 1997
inspection.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 35 December 2000
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 36 December 2000
-------
Attachment 1
Organizational Structure of the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Phone: (202) 564-2510
Fax: (202) 501-0069
Director: Craig Hooks
Associate Director: Elliott Gilberg
Senior Enforcement Counsel: Joyce Olin
Theresa Branch: (202) 564-2466
Madeline Queen: (202) 564-2472
Planning, Prevention, and Compliance Staff
Director: Gregory Snyder
Ph: (202) 564-4271
Fax: (202) 501-0069
Will Garvey
Priscilla Harrington
Sarah Hart
Joyce A. Johnson
Kelly A.C. Jones
Dorothy King
Isabelle Lacayo
Dianne Lynne
Marie Muller
Augusta Wills
202-564-2458
202-564-2461
202-564-2457
202-564-2592
202-564-2459
202-564-2473
202-564-2578
202-564-2587
202-564-0217
202-564-2468
Site Remediation and Enforcement Staff
Director: John Fogarty
Ph: (202) 564-8865
Fax: (202) 501-0644
Melanie Barger-Garvey
Andrew Cherry
Sally Dalzell
Dan Drazan
Lance Elson
William (Bill) Frank
Sonja Johnson
David Levenstein
202-564-2579
202-564-2589
202-564-2583
202-564-2328
202-564-2577
202-564-2584
202-564-2573
202-564-2591
Regional Federal Facilities
Program Managers
(see next page)
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY1999 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 38 December 2000
-------
Attachment 2
U.S. EPA Federal Facilities Program Managers
Region/Name
HEADQUARTERS
Greg Snyder, Director
Planning, Prevention,
& Compliance Staff
REGION I
Anne Fenn
REGION II
Kathleen Malone
Alt: John Gorman
REGION III
Bill Arguto
REGION IV
Stacy Gent-Howard
REGION V
Lee J. Regner
REGION VI
Joyce F. Stubblefield
REGION VII
Diana Jackson
REGION VIII
Dianne Thiel
Connally Mears
REGION IX
Sara Segal
Larry Woods
REGION X
Michele Wright
Address
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
U.S. EPA Region I
Office of Environmental Stewardship
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail: SPP
Boston, MA 02114-2023
U.S. EPA Region II
Compliance Assistance Section
290 Broadway, 21stFl.
New York, NY 10007-1866
U.S. EPA Region III
Office of Environmental Programs
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
U.S. EPA Region IV
Env. Accountability Division, Federal Facilities
61ForsythSt, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
U.S. EPA Region V
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
U.S. EPA Region VI
Compliance Assurance & Enforcement Division
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
U.S. EPA Region VII
Enforcement Coordination Office
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
U.S. EPA Region VIII
Office of Partnerships and Reg.
Assistance, 8P-P3T
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
U.S. EPA Region IX
Cross-Media Division
75 Hawthorne St, CMD-2
San Francisco, CA 94 105
U.S. EPA Region X
Office of Enforcement & Compliance (OEC-164)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
E-Mail
snyder. greg@epa. gov
fenn.anne@epa.gov
malone.kathleen@epa.gov
gorman.john@epa.gov
arguto . willam@epa. gov
ho ward, stacy @epa. gov
regner. lee@epa. gov
stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov
j ackson. diana@epa. gov
thiel. dianne@epa. gov
mears.connally@epa.gov
segal.sara@epa.gov;
woods.larry@epa.gov
wright.michele@epa.gov
Telephone/Fax
Number
202-564-4271 (t)
202-501-0069 (f)
617-918-1805 (t)
617-918-1810 (f)
212-637-4083 (t)
212-637-4008 (t)
212-637-4086 (f)
215-814-3367 (t)
215-814-2783 (f)
404-562-9633 (t)
404-562-9598 (f)
312-353-6478(1)
3 12-353-5374 (f)
214-665-6430 (t)
214-665-7446 (f)
913-551-7744(1)
913-551-9744 (f)
303-312-6389(1)
303-3 12-6044 (f)
303-312-6217(1)
303-3 12-6409 (f)
415-744-1569 (t)
415-744-1580 (t)
415-744-1598 (f)
206-553-1747 (t)
206-553-7176 (f)
------- |