rxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
November 2005
The State of Federal
Facilities
An Overview of Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities
FY 2003-2004
-------
EPA Document No: EPA 300-R-05-004
This document was prepared by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement
Office in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
For additional copies of this document, please contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202)564-2510
Fax:(202)501-0069
This document, as well as additional information on EPA's
compliance and enforcement programs, can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance.
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Environmental Impact of Federal Government Operations 3
III. Compliance with Environmental Laws 4
IV. Sustainability of Federal Government Missions 13
V. Inspections 16
VI. Enforcing Environmental Laws 18
VII. Cleaning Up Contamination 22
VIII. Assisting Federal Facilities to Operate in Compliance 24
IX. Partnerships to Reach Common Goals 25
X. Integrated Strategies to Fix Environmental Problems 26
Appendix: State of Federal Facilities, FY 2003 and FY 2004 29
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
Exhibit 1: Definitions of Compliance Indicators for Federal Facilities 4
Exhibit 2: Federal Facility Non-SNC Rates for Selected Indicators for Inspected and
Reporting Facilities 6
Exhibit 3: Federal Facility Non-SNC Rates 7
Exhibit 4: RCRA TSDF Non-SNC Rates at Inspected Facilities by Federal Agency
Category 8
Exhibit 5: Percentage of Inspected TSDFs not in SNC 8
Exhibit 6: RCRA LQG Non-SNC Rates at Inspected Federal Facilities 9
Exhibit 7: Percentage of Inspected LQGs not in SNC 9
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit Page
Exhibit 8: RCRA SQG Non-SNC Rates at Inspected Federal Facilities 9
Exhibit 9: Percentage of Inspected SQGs not in SNC 9
Exhibit 10: CWA/NPDES Non-SNC Rates by Federal Agency Category 10
Exhibit 11: Percentage of Inspected and Reporting Major CWA/NPDES Facilities
not in SNC 10
Exhibit 12: SOWA/PWSS Noncompliance at Federally-Owned Systems 10
Exhibit 13: Percentage of SDWA Public Water Supply Systems not in SNC 10
Exhibit 14: CAA Non-SNC Rates at Inspected and Reporting Facilities by Federal
Agency Category 11
Exhibit 15: Percentage of Inspected and Reporting CAA Major Sources not cited for
HPVs 11
Exhibit 16: EPA and State Inspections at Federal Facilities 16
Exhibit 17: EPA Multimedia Inspections at Federal Facilities 17
Exhibit 18: Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities 18
Exhibit 19: EPA Formal Enforcement Activity at Federal Facilities 19
Exhibit 20: EPA Formal Enforcement Results at Federal Facilities 19
Exhibit 21: CERCLA Agreements at Federal Facilities 22
Exhibit A-l: RCRA Inspections and Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities 29
Exhibit A-2: RCRA Inspections by Facility Type 30
Exhibit A-3: CWA/NPDES Inspections and Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities 30
Exhibit A-4: CAA Inspections and Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities 31
Exhibit A-5: SOW A/PWS S Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities 31
Exhibit A-6: FY 2003 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 32
Exhibit A-7: FY 2004 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 34
Exhibit A-8: Interagency Agreements and Formal Enforcement Actions FY 2003 37
ii
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit Page
Exhibit A-9: Interagency Agreements and Formal Enforcement Actions FY 2004 41
Exhibit A-10: Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 2004) 44
Exhibit A-ll: Distribution of CFA Facilities by Agency (FY 2004) 44
Exhibit A-12: Universe of Federal RCRA Handlers (FY 2004) 45
Exhibit A-13: Federal vs Non-Federal RCRA Handlers (FY 2004) 45
Exhibit A-14: Universe of Major Federal CWA/NPDES Facilities (FY 2004) 46
Exhibit A-15: Federal vs. Non-Federal CWA/NPDES Facilities (FY 2004) 46
Exhibit A-16: Universe of Major Federal CAA Sources (FY 2004) 47
Exhibit A-17: Major Federal vs Non-Federal CAA Sources (FY 2004) 47
Exhibit A-18: Universe of Federal Public Water Supply Systems (FY 2004) 48
Exhibit A-19: Federal vs. Non-Federal Public Water Supply Systems (FY 2004) 48
in
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
IV
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency's
mission is to protect public health and improve
the environment by ensuring compliance with
environmental requirements, preventing pollution
and promoting environmental stewardship. This
report is the latest in a series of State of Federal
Facilities reports issued by the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office in EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. It
contains information on compliance by federal
government agencies with federal environmental
laws.
This report does not attempt to analyze the
underlying causes of noncompliance. It simply
profiles the federal government's compliance
with environmental laws in 2003 and 2004. It
also presents compliance information back to
1993 so trends can be observed. Prior State of
Federal Facilities reports can be found at EPA's
web site, http://www.epa.gov/compliance under
Data, Planning, and Results.
In 2003 and 20041 compliance by federal
agencies generally continued long-term trends.
Compliance with air pollution requirements
remained high, water pollution requirements
improved but compliance with hazardous waste
management requirements declined.
After four years of decline, inspections by
EPA and states of federal facilities increased in
2004. EPA took a variety of enforcement actions
against federal facilities in 2003 and 2004 to
address compliance problems. In negotiating
settlement of these actions, EPA focused on
getting the facilities to undertake work, valued at
more than $100 million, to return to compliance
and remedy the underlying cause of the
compliance problems. Federal facilities agreed to
All years in this report unless noted otherwise refer to the federal fiscal
year which runs from October 1* through September 30th of the following
year. FY 2003 was Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003; FY 2004 was
Oct. 1, 2003 through Sept. 30, 2004.
undertake additional environmentally beneficial
projects valued at almost $2 million.
EPA oversees environmental cleanup work
underway at federal facilities. In 2004, EPA and
the Department of Defense reached an agreement
on implementing and maintaining land use
controls at military cleanup sites. The agreement
clears the way for faster cleanups at multiple
military sites.
EPA's Future Directions
This report also highlights changes EPA
began in 2003 and 2004 that will continue into
the future. These include EPA's increased
integration of varied activities to promote
compliance by federal agencies with
environmental laws and Presidential Executive
Orders. In 2004, EPA Headquarters and Regions
began a coordinated work planning process to
develop strategies to focus activities to have the
maximum impact on important environmental
problems. This resulted in focusing EPA
activities toward improving compliance at
Veterans Health Administration facilities. In the
future, it is anticipated that EPA will focus on
improving compliance by federal agencies with
wastewater and storm water requirements.
EPA now delivers compliance assistance to
federal agencies through FedCenter.gov, an on-
line environmental stewardship and compliance
assistance center established through an EPA-
Army Corps of Engineers partnership in 2004. It
is designed to help all federal agencies improve
their environmental programs. EPA will increase
inspections in areas that are the focus of
integrated strategies. Resources will be focused
on taking timely and appropriate follow-up
actions where violations are found. EPA will
direct actions toward contaminated federal sites
where EPA and the other agency cannot complete
an enforceable cleanup agreement within time
frames established by federal law. Those
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
agreements should include provisions to ensure
that the federal facility cleanups adequately
address long-term stewardship at the site,
including maintaining land use controls. EPA
will continue to advocate environmentally
sustainable practices that support the missions of
federal agencies while also ensuring that public
health and the environment are protected.
Thousands of federal facilities are
implementing environmental management
systems that should help them become better
stewards of our nation's environment.
EPA's national enforcement and compliance
strategic plans, including EPA's federal facilities
plans, can be viewed at http://www.epa. gov/ocfo
(see Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance National Program Manager Guidance).
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Federal agencies can have a large impact on
our nation's environment. According to the latest
information from the U.S. General Services
Administration, the U.S. government owns more
than 653 million acres of land - nearly 29 percent
of the land area of the United States.2 These
lands include forests, parks, historic sites, grazing
lands and military lands.
The federal government's departments,
agencies, and bureaus own or operate more than
456,000 buildings at over 30,000 facilities.3
These buildings include offices, housing,
manufacturing and production buildings,
maintenance and service facilities, hospitals,
research facilities, schools, prisons, and storage
buildings. These operations generate pollution,
create wastes and impact our environment. The
federal government is a large consumer of natural
resources and power. Government agencies
spend over $10 billion per year on energy.4
Federal agencies, like other regulated parties,
are required to comply with federal
environmental laws, as well as those of states,
local governments and tribes. Federal agencies
must also comply with environmental
requirements set out in Presidential Executive
Orders. EPA regularly tracks over 7,000 federal
facilities that are subject to one or more federal
environmental laws.5
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
program collects information on the disposal or
other releases and other waste management
practices for over 650 chemicals from industrial
sources in the United States. These sources
include federal facilities that comply with TRI
requirements under a Presidential Executive
Order. Calendar year 2003 is the latest year for
which TRI information is available. For 2003,
federal facilities reported the following:
• 295 federal facilities reported 78 million
pounds of total on- and off-site disposal
or other releases.
• Disposal or other releases by federal
facilities decreased by 7.4 million pounds
(9 percent) between 2002 and 2003.
• Total production-related waste managed
at federal facilities decreased by 5.5
million pounds (3 percent) between 2002
and 2003.
One reason for these decreases is that
Tennessee Valley Authority utilities reported a
decrease in total disposal or other releases of 6.9
million pounds (8 percent) from 2002 to 2003,
including a decrease of 6.2 million pounds in air
emissions, primarily hydrochloric acid (3.3
million pounds) and sulfuric acid (2.9 million
pounds).
EPA's complete 2003 TRI Public Data
Release is at http://www.epa.gov/tri. TRI
information reported by sources, including
federal facilities, is available online in a
searchable, sortable format at
http ://www. epa. gov/tri explorer.
U.S. General Services Administration, Real Property Profile dated Sept.
30, 2004; http://www.gsa.gov/realpropertyprofile.
See Footnote 2.
http://www.energvstar.gov/index.cfm?c=government. bus government.
As tracked in EPA's Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) as of
May 2005; http://www.epa.gov/idea/otis.
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
III. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Measuring Compliance
EPA and state regulators monitor activities at
federal facilities to determine whether they are in
compliance with environmental laws.
Compliance monitoring enables regulators to
measure and track compliance over time, identify
potential problem areas and identify where
compliance assistance is needed. EPA and states
obtain information regarding environmental
compliance primarily in two ways: (1)
conducting on-site inspections and assessments,
and (2) reviewing information in reports
submitted by regulated facilities (self-reporting).
Noncompliance can be measured in a
number of ways, including (1) the percentage of
facilities cited for any violations, regardless of
their severity; (2) the percentage of facilities
repeatedly cited for significant noncompliance;
and (3) the percent of facilities repeatedly with
violations, among others. Beginning in 1993,
EPA began to measure compliance at federal
facilities by generally looking at:
• Significant noncompliance events (such
as releasing pollutants well above a
specified limit) at any time during the
relevant time period and at;
• "Major" federal facilities (e.g., facilities
that because of their size or operations
have the potential to have a significant
impact on the environment) and
- which had been inspected by EPA or a
state or
- which submitted compliance reports to
EPA or a state.
Exhibit 1 identifies the compliance
indicators used by this report to measure federal
facility compliance. These indicators denote the
percent of facilities that were not in SNC at any
time during the relevant year. For ease of
reading, the term "non-SNC rate" is used in this
report to describe such facilities.
Exhibit 1
Definitions of Compliance Indicators for Federal Facilities
Statute Compliance Indicator
RCRA TSDF Percent of inspected federal treatment, storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs)
not in significant noncompliance (SNC)
RCRA LQG Percent of inspected federal Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) not in
significant noncompliance (SNC)
RCRA SQG Percent of inspected federal Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) not in
significant noncompliance (SNC)
CWA/NPDES Percent of NPDES major federal facilities not in significant noncompliance
(SNC)
CAA Percent of major federal sources not cited for high priority violations (HPV)
SDWA Percent of federal public water systems not in significant noncompliance
(SNC)
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
CAA and CWA: The compliance indicator
for CAA and CWA is measured only at major
facilities primarily because of data quality issues.
Under both the CAA and the CWA, states are not
required to provide data on minor facilities to
their respective national data systems, and many
do not. Thus, compliance data for minor CAA
and CWA facilities is incomplete.
CWA/NPDES: The CWA NPDES program
requires facilities to submit Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) periodically to
states and EPA. DMRs contain information on
the facility's water discharges over the prior
period. The non-SNC rates in this report are
derived in part from the data in DMRs as well as
information obtained from inspections.
RCRA: In the case of RCRA, non-SNC
rates are based primarily on inspection data,
however, only a portion of the RCRA universe of
facilities are inspected in any given year. This is
especially true for transporters, small quantity
generators, and large quantity generators. A
significant percentage of small quantity
generators have never been inspected. In
contrast, most federal TSDFs are inspected at
least once a year.
SDWA: Drinking water systems are not
classified as "major" or "minor" — they are
classified as community systems, non-community
systems, transient systems, and others. Non-SNC
rates are based on all federal drinking water
systems which do not have a SNC event in the
relevant year.
TSCA, FIFRA and EPCRA: Compliance
statistics for TSCA, FIFRA, and EPCRA are no
longer included in this report for two reasons: (1)
the relevant data fields within the EPA data base
are not reliably populated and are subject to other
data quality issues, and (2) even if the data fields
were accurate, the number of inspected facilities
is too small to yield meaningful results.
SNC: Each environmental program has a
specific definition for what constitutes a SNC.
EPA's CAA program uses High Priority Violator
(HPV), rather than SNC, to denote significant
violations. Detailed information on each
environmental program's data system definition
of SNC or HPV is in the Appendix. Summaries
of EPA SNC policies are contained at the end of
the Appendix to this report.
The non-SNC rates in this report represent
the conditions found at inspected facilities or at
facilities that submitted compliance reports to
EPA and states. These non-SNC rates may not
be reflective of the overall compliance rates for
all federal facilities. In fact, non-SNC rates may
both over-represent and under-represent the
level of compliance in the overall universe.
- First, EPA and states target inspections
toward facilities suspected of having
compliance problems; few inspections are
done randomly. To the extent that non-
SNC rates are based on inspections at
facilities thought to have compliance
problems (and most are), they may not
reflect compliance at all federal facilities.
Thus, non-SNC rates probably over-
represent the frequency of violations in
the general universe.
- Second, non-SNC rates only reflect the
percentage of facilities that do not have
"significant" violations; they do not
reflect all violations. A facility may have
numerous violations but none of them are
classified as "significant." Thus, non-SNC
rates probably under-represent the
frequency of violations in the general
universe.
Even with these limitations, these
rates-which are based on information obtained by
on-site EPA and state inspections and
information derived from reports done by the
regulated facilities themselves-are useful in
gauging the compliance status of larger facilities
with the most important environmental
requirements.
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Readers may wish to use a number that
reflects facilities that are in SNC. To do so,
simply take the converse of the non-SNC rates.
For example, if the non-SNC rate is 87 percent,
the percent of facilities with SNCs is 13 percent
(100%-87% =13%).
Non-SNC rates should also be viewed in
context of both (1) the universe of facilities
regulated under each regulatory program and (2)
the number of inspections conducted by EPA and
states. For example, if the universe of facilities is
large but inspections are few, the non-SNC rate
may be less representative of the general level of
compliance than vice versa. Approximately 80
percent of a universe needs to be inspected for
inspection-based rates to be considered
representative of the entire universe. Universe
and inspection information is included in the
Appendix of this report.
In 2004, EPA began to focus attention on
chronic noncompliant facilities, particularly
facilities that are in SNC and where there is no
EPA or state enforcement response. As part of
this process, EPA found that in some states and in
some EPA regions there was a marked decrease
in the number of SNCs identified during CAA
inspections as compared with past years, even
though the number of inspections remained
relatively constant. EPA is continuing to
investigate this matter as this report goes to print.
Non-SNC Rates for 2003 and 2004
1993 through 2004 non-SNC rates for federal
facilities are represented in Exhibit 2 and
Exhibit 3 below.
Exhibit 2
Federal Facility Non-SNC Rates for Selected Indicators
for Inspected and Reporting Facilities
Fiscal Year
Statute
RCRA/TSDF
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
2004
61.6% 73.8% 75.1% 81.2% 88.2% 88.6% 93.6% 92.3% 94.0% 95.0% 86.2°,
CWA/NPDES 94.2% 88.5% 76.2% 73.0% 70.4% 61.5% 64.9% 67.5% 51.9% 67.3% 69.0% 78.3%
SDWA/PWSS 99.2% 98.7% 93.0% 96.4% 97.1% 98.1% 98.2% 97.7% 95.3% 95.9% 96.2% 97.3%
Source: IDEA and SDWIS -various dates
*The RCRA TSDF compliance indicator used prior to FY 1999 was "inspected TSDFs without Class I violations." For FY 1999 and beyond, the
compliance indicator is "inspected TSDFs not in SNC."
** The RCRA LQG and SQG compliance indicator is inspected LQGs and SQGs not in SNC. FFEO did not collect data on these RCRA facility types
in State of Federal Facility reports prior to 2001.
* "Prior to FY 2001, the CAA compliance indicator used was "major sources in compliance." For FY 2001 and beyond the compliance indicator is
"major sources not cited for FIPVs."
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit 3
Federal Facility Non-SNC Rates
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
50.0%
CWA/NPDES
SDWA/PWSS
^^^— RCRA/TSDF
Source: IDEA and SDWIS - various dates
These rates reveal the following:
RCRA: In 2003, non-SNC rates for
TSDFs, and LQGs and SQGs were over
95 percent. However, in 2004 the TSDF
rate dropped almost 9 percent to 86.2
percent-and the rate for some agencies
dropped even more. In contrast, the rate
for non-federal entities dropped only 1.6
percent. This federal rate decrease is
especially concerning since 72 percent
(167 of 232 facilities) of federal TSDFs
were inspected by EPA or states in 2004.
Effective Feb. 15, 2004, EPA changed the
definition of RCRA SNCs.6 It is unknown
if or how this policy change impacted the
non-SNC rate, but EPA will continue to
monitor SNCs at federal TSDFs.
CWA/NPDES: Since 2001, the non-SNC
rate has been improving and reached 78.3
percent in 2004. The federal government
rate increase (69 percent to 78.3 percent,
up 9.3 percent) was greater than the
increase for non-federal entities (77.8
percent to 80.1 percent, up 2.3 percent).
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy, December 2003;
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
policies/civil/rcra/finalerp 1203.pdf
The rate for Civilian Federal Agencies
increased even more - 16.6
percent-between 2003 and 2004.
• RCRA LQG and SQG non-SNC Rates:
Less that 20 percent of the federal LQG
universe and less that 1.7 percent of the
federal SQG universe were inspected in
both 2003 and 2004. Because of this,
caution should be exercised in using the
LQG and SQG non-SNC rates.
Variation of Non-SNC Rates among Federal
Agencies
Breaking the overall Federal government
non-SNC rates down by agencies shows
variations between different agencies. Because
facilities operated by the Department of Defense
(DOD), its military departments and the
Department of Energy (DOE) make up a
significant portion of the universe of major
Federal facilities, EPA compiles non-SNC rates
for them individually. Federal agencies other
than DOD and DOE are categorized as Civilian
Federal Agencies. Additionally, non-SNC rates
for facilities owned or operated by non-federal
government entities (primarily private facilities
and municipal government facilities) are
computed for comparison purposes. Individual
federal agency and non-federal entity non-SNC
rates are set out in Exhibits 4 -15 on the
following pages. This data reveals that:
• The Federal government's overall non-
SNC rates are generally comparable to or
better than those of non-Federal entities.
• DOE's RCRA TSDF and CWA NPDES
non-SNC rates are lower than other
agencies.
• The CWA/NPDES non-SNC rates vary by
almost 40% (from 61.9% to 100.0%)
among the military departments.
7
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit 4
RCRA TSDF Non-SNC Rates at Inspected
Facilities by Federal Agency Category
Exhibit 5
Percentage of Inspected TSDFs not in SNC
(Federal vs. Non-Federal TSDFs)
100.0%
Inspected Percent TSDFs TSDFs not
TSDFs Inspected in SNC in SNC
DOD*
Army
Navy
Air Force
CFAs
DOE
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Total 228
DOD*
Army
Navy
Air Force
CFAs
DOE
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
,^^^^_^^^^_
141
61
36
40
11
28
180
126
57
34
32
12
29
NC 3
NC 3
NC
NC
NC
NC 6
78.9% 9
FY2004
NC 13
NC 7
NC 4
NC 2
NC 0
NC 10
138 (97.9%)
58(95.1%)
36(100.0%)
40(100.0%)
11 (100.0%)
22 (78.6%)
171 (95.0%)
113(89.7%)
50 (87. 7%)
30 (88.2%)
30 (93.8%)
12 (100.0%)
19 (65.5%)
^^^^^^^_
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
* Other DOD facilities (e.g., DLA, Defense Mapping Agency) are included
in the overall DOD compliance rates, but are not broken out separately in
this table because they represent such a small portion of the DOD universe.
Inspected Federal TSDFs
Inspected Non-Federal TSDFs
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
FY 2003
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
Note that the term "non-federal" refers to those facilities listed within the
IDEA database that are not flagged as federal (e.g., industrial, commercial
facilities, etc.).
NC — Data was not collected
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit 6
RCRA LQG Non-SNC Rates at Inspected
Federal Facilities
Exhibit 8
RCRA SQG Non-SNC Rates at Inspected
Federal Facilities
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Unidentified*
DOD
CFAs
DOE
Unidentified*
NC 57 NC 2 55 (96.5%) DOD
NC 29 NC -- 29(100.0%) CFAs
NC 4 NC - 4(100.0%) DOE
NC 3 NC -- 3 (100.0%) Unidentified*
NC 69 NC 4 65 (94.2%) DOD
NC 38 NC 2 36(94.7%) CFAs
NC 3 NC 0 3(100.0%) DOE
NC 10 NC 1 9(90.0%) Unidentified*
NC 24 NC -- 24(100.0%)
NC 35 NC 1 34(97.1%)
NC 1 NC - 1 (100.0%)
NC 4 NC 1 3 (75.0%)
NC 31 NC 0 31(100.0%)
NC 42 NC 0 42(100.0%)
NC 1 NC 0 1 (100.0%)
NC 5 NC 0 5 (100.0%)
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
* Unidentified federal facilities have not been assigned a GSA code or
otherwise identified as belonging to a particular agency, however, they
have been flagged as federal.
NC — Data was not collected
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 2/2/05
* Unidentified federal facilities have not been assigned a GSA code or
otherwise identified as belonging to a particular agency, however, they
have been flagged as federal.
NC — Data was not collected.
Exhibit 7
Percentage of Inspected LQGs not in SNC
(Federal vs. Non-Federal)
70.0%
FY2003
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
Inspected Federal LQGs
Inspected Non-Federal LQGs
FY 2004
Exhibit 9
Percentage of Inspected SQGs not in SNC
(Federal vs. Non-Federal)
Inspected Federal SQGs
Inspected Non-Federal SQG
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit 10
CWA/NPDES Non-SNC Rates by Federal
Agency Category
DOD
Army
Navy
61
21
61
21
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
17
9
8
44(72.1%)
19 (67.9%)
13 (61.9%)
Air Force
CFAs
DOE
DOD
Army
Navy
Air Force
CFAs
DOE
12
27
12
12
27
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
-
9
5
12(100.0%)
18(66.7%)
7 (58.3%)
56
23
20
13
24
12
56
29
20
13
24
12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12
6
6
0
4
4
44 (78.6%)
17(73.9%)
14(70.0%)
13 (100.0%)
20 (83.3%)
8 (66.7%)
Source: IDEA - 2/19/04 and 2/2/05
Exhibit 11
Percentage of Inspected and Reporting Major
CWA/NPDES Facilities not in SNC
(Federal vs. Non-Federal Majors)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
FY 2003
Source: IDEA - 2/19/04 and 2/2/05
\_\ Major Federal Facilities
Major Non-Federal Facilitie
DOD calculates its compliance with NPDES
requirements differently than EPA. DOD
includes both major and minor facilities, while
EPA uses only major facilities. DOD's latest
report concludes that 94 percent of its facilities
were in compliance with NPDES requirements
for calendar year 2004.7
Exhibit 12
SDWA/PWSS Noncompliance at
Federally-Owned Systems
6,000
4,000
•g 3,000
' 2,000
1,000
Source: SDWIS - 3/4/04 and 3/21/05
^| Federally-Owned Systems
| Systems with Violations
| Significant Noncompliers
Exhibit 13
Percentage of SDWA Public Water Supply
Systems not in SNC
(Federal vs. Non-Federal Systems)
Federal Systems
Non-Federal Systems
80.0%
70.0%
FY2003
Source: SDWIS - 3/4/04 and 3/21/05
FY 2004
Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal
Year 2004; http://www.denix.osd.mil/DEP2004.
10
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
CAAI
Repon
1
DOD*
Army
Navy
AirForce
CFAs
DOE
Unidentified**
DOD*
Army
Navy
Air Force
CFAs
DOE
Unidentified**
Exhibit 14
^on-SNC Rates at Inspec
ting Facilities by Federal
Category
Exhibit 15
ted and Per
Agency
100.0%
90.0% -
308
108
96
90
188
32
26
319
108
101
97
189
30
15
294 95.5%
702 94.4%
92 93.8%
86 95.6%
179 95.2%
28 87.5%
24 92.3%
308 96.6%
104 96.3%
97 96.0%
94 96.9%
181 95.8%
25 83.3%
14 93.3%
20
11
6
3
19
2
--
21
11
6
3
15
1
0
274 (93.2%)
91 (89.2%)
86(93.5%) 80'0%
83 (96.5%)
160 (89.4%)
70.0% -
26 (92.9%)
24(100.0%)
Source:
287 (93.2%)
centage of Inspected and Reporting CAA
Major Sources not cited for HPVs
(Federal vs. Non-Federal)
^ **m
• |
\^\ Major Federal Sources 1
^| Major Non-Federal Sources 1
FY 2003 FY 2004
IDEA- 2/19/04 and 2/5/05
93 (89.4%)
91 (93.8%)
91 (96.8%)
166(91.7%)
24 (96.0%)
14 (100.0%)
Source: IDEA - 2/19/04 and 2/5/05
* Other DOD facilities (e.g., DLA, Defense Mapping Agency) are included
in the overall DOD compliance rates, but are not broken out separately
because they represent such a small portion of the DOD universe.
** Unidentified federal facilities have not been assigned a GSA code or
named within their relevant data systems in such a way as to identify them
as belonging to a particular federal agency, however, they have been
flagged as federal.
11
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Online Compliance Information
Compliance information is available online
through EPA's Environmental Compliance
History Online (ECHO) system which contains
three years of compliance and enforcement
information on approximately 800,000 regulated
facilities, including federal facilities. Visit ECHO
at www.epa.gov/compliance and click on ECHO.
Enforcement and
Compliance History
To help Federal agency staff manage their
operations that impact the environment, in 2003
EPA made additional compliance and
enforcement information on over 7,000 federal
facilities available online to federal employees.
This information is found in EPA's Online
Tracking Compliance System (OTIS),
http://www.epa.gov/idea/otis. Whereas ECHO
has three years of information, OTIS has up to
five years. OTIS users can:
• View compliance and enforcement action
information on all facilities operated by
any particular federal department, agency
or bureau and within specified geographic
areas.
nek big
nfomtatfMi
TIS
• See significant violations highlighted in
bold and red type, making it easy to
identify and track noncompliance trends.
• See trends in compliance and violations
across a department, agency or bureau.
• Identify which facilities have been
inspected by EPA or states and the results
of those inspections.
• Collect compliance information in
preparation for an on-site audit or
inspection.
• Send an electronic message to EPA and
state regulators if any information is
thought to be erroneous.
Federal employees have to register and get a
password to access OTIS, but access is free and
available at all times.8
Go to http://www.epa.gov/idea/otis/registerto register for OTIS access.
12
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
IV. SUSTAINABILITY OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MISSIONS
Increasingly, regulated facilities-both public
and private-are focusing not just on operating in
compliance with regulations, but operating in
ways that are environmentally sustainable. This
requires looking at activities that may not be
regulated by law but which impact the
environment. For example, buildings can be built
and renovated in environmentally sensitive ways,
such as with materials produced from renewable
sources and using native plants for landscaping to
reduce the need for irrigation, pesticides and
herbicides. Environmental staff and managers in
federal agencies across the country are working
on making their facilities and operations
sustainable over the long-term.
West Coast Federal Network for Sustainability
The Federal Network for Sustainability was
established on Earth Day 2000 to address the lack of
interagency cooperation. It is a collaborative effort
between 14 federal agencies on the West Coast and
primarily works to implement requirements under
various "greening the government" Executive
Orders. Facilities with more than 150,000 federal
employees participate in the network, which focuses
on alternative energy, electronic products
stewardship, environmental management systems
and green purchasing. In 2003, the Network was
awarded a White House Closing the Circle Award for
its work.
Greening the Government
EPA's offices in Regions 1 (Boston), 2 (New
York), and 3 (Philadelphia) and the Northeast
Waste Management Officials' Association
sponsored a greening the government workshop
in Philadelphia, PA in June 2003 to help federal,
state, and local government officials prevent
pollution and minimize waste at their facilities.
Attendees learned about environmentally
preferable purchasing, environmental
management systems, green cleaning products
and services, environmentally beneficial
landscaping, clean fuels and vehicles, green
buildings, and creating healthy indoor
environments. The keynote speaker was William
McDonough, the internationally renowned
designer who practices ecologically, socially, and
economically intelligent architecture and
planning in the United States and abroad. In
1996, he became the first and only person
awarded the Presidential Award for Sustainable
Development and in 1999 he was named a "Hero
of the Planet" by Time.
Environmental Management Systems
Presidential Executive Order 13148 (April
21, 2000), Greening the Government Through
Leadership in Environmental Management.,
requires Federal agencies to implement
environmental management systems (EMSs) at
appropriate facilities by December 2005. It also
sets requirements to ensure compliance with
environmental laws. In doing so, it requires
federal agencies to integrate environmental
accountability into the day-to-day decision-
making and long-term planning processes across
all federal agency missions, activities and
functions. It also promotes improved
environmental stewardship and better
management of Federal agency environmental
programs.
An EMS is a systematic approach to
managing an organization's environmental
impacts that can help the organization reduce
those impacts while increasing operating
efficiency. It involves the continual cycle of
planning, implementing, reviewing and
improving the processes and actions that an
organization undertakes to meet its business and
environmental goals.
13
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
In 2003 and 2004, EPA collaborated with the
Interagency Environmental Leadership
Workgroup to develop policies, guidance and
assistance tools to achieve the order's goals. The
"Interagency EMS Primer" helps facility
personnel better understand EMSs and provides
briefing materials to facilitate acceptance of the
EMS by facility management and staff. Metrics
were established for measuring progress towards
developing EMSs across the federal government
thus ensuring accountability and similar
standards across the federal government. EPA
and the Office of the Environmental Executive
trained federal staff and managers in EMSs,
developed a senior manager's EMS guide and
met with federal agency managers about the
importance of EMSs to their operations. The
most recent figures show that more than 2,400
federal facilities and sites nationwide are in
various stages of EMS development. The list
includes a wide range of facilities from large
industrial aerospace complexes to wildlife
refuges to small office buildings.
Implementation of an EMS provides
opportunities to fulfill other federal
environmental initiatives. For example, EPA and
the interagency workgroup developed a guide
describing how green procurement fits into
EMSs. Likewise other issues such as energy
conservation, chemical management and "green
building" have been identified as other federal
efforts that might easily be integrated into EMSs.
Another is an Administration initiative to ensure
robust compliance management programs exist in
federal agencies. In 2004, federal agencies
reviewed their existing compliance management
programs and compared them to recognized, best-
in-class compliance management practices. The
review found that keys to enhanced compliance
assurance in the federal community involve (1)
top leadership commitment to compliance and
environmental excellence; (2) clear
accountability and responsibility for compliance;
(3) integrated management systems and support
mechanisms including funding, awareness and
training to support compliance; and (4) Follow
through to address identified compliance
problems. In 2005, the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive asked all agencies to
determine how best to place these
recommendations within their EMS plans.
EMS Training
In 2003 and 2004, EPA headquarters, EPA
Regions and the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive sponsored EMS
training for federal agencies across the nation.
EPA's regional offices on the West Coast and the
Northeast conducted a series of EMS workshops.
The West Coast workshops are jointly sponsored
by EPA Regions 9 (San Francisco) and 10
(Seattle) and the Federal Network for
Sustainability. The Northeast workshops are
jointly sponsored by EPA Region 1 (Boston),
Region 2 (New York) and Region 3
(Philadelphia). The workshops are a series of in-
person training events given over a series of
months covering all-important aspects of
designing and implementing EMSs. Participants
learned how to develop EMSs at their individual
facilities. They include examples of EMS
materials and procedures for participants to use at
their facilities, ideas on creating a practical road
map for developing an EMS at their facility,
hands-on exercises, and showcase working
EMSs from other federal agencies. In order to
reach as many facilities as possible, the
workshops have been held in held in a number of
cities, including San Francisco, Seattle, San
Diego, Las Vegas, Anchorage, and Martinez,
California, to date.
EPA Regions 4 (Atlanta) and 6 (Dallas)
sponsored training courses for both EMS lead
auditors and EMS internal auditors in New
Orleans in 2004. The courses were targeted
toward federal agency staff and managers who
are responsible for implementing and auditing
their agencies' EMSs. Eighteen participants in
the lead auditor course participants passed the
ISO 14000 lead auditor examination at the end of
the five-day course.
14
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
EPA strives to meet particular EMS needs of
other agencies. In 2004, Region 3 (Philadelphia)
gave an EMS training course just for staff in the
Department of Interior's Office of Surface
Mining. Region 8 (Denver) partnered with staff
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOE
and the Department of Agriculture (USD A) to
train staff from the USDA's Agricultural
Research Service in 2004. Participants visited
one of three different USD A field stations in
Colorado to identify the environmental impacts
of operations at the stations. They also drafted
environmental policy statements and other EMS
work products. They also developed plans for
getting support from their management for their
EMS.
EMS On-Site Consultations for Federal
Facilities
EPA does on-site consultations with federal
facilities to help them implement EMSs.
Environmental management reviews are a free
service to federal facilities. The reviews are led
by staff from EPA's regional offices, assisted by
expert consultants, who travel to the facility to
interview personnel and learn about the facility's
operations.
Environmental Management Reviews
In 2003 and 2004, EPA conducted reviews at
multiple federal facilities, including:
Twenty-four VA medical centers across the
county
Lowell National Historic Park in Massachusetts
Federal prisons in Louisiana and Texas
• Fort Polk Joint Reserve Training Center in
Louisiana
• Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii
Department of Energy' s Ames Laboratory in
Iowa
U.S. Coast Guard Station in Cape May, New
Jersey
U.S. Postal Service facility in Albany, New
York
EPA's Region 9 Laboratory in California
Bureau of Reclamation's Lake Berryessa
facilities in California
GSA Southwest Regional Office in Fort Worth,
Texas
15
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
V. INSPECTIONS
Most environmental programs rely on some
form of inspection as the principal tool for
determining compliance. The level of effort
associated with these inspections varies,
depending on the specific requirements
addressed, the size and complexity of the
facility's operations, and the type and amount of
data required to assess compliance. EPA's
regional offices and their state counterparts
consult with each other to efficiently plan and
carry out inspections and monitoring programs.
Inspections are commonly targeted toward
facilities suspected of violating environmental
laws and regulations (see Exhibit 16).
Exhibit 16
EPA and State Inspections at Federal Facilities
600
RCRA
CAA
'98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03
^^^— CWA/NPDES
Fiscal Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
RCRA
798
888
919
848
696
699
744
778
733
653
613
711
CWA/NPDES
208
193
187
158
166
148
140
126
105
133
148
106
CAA
278
255
393
430
467
475
607
600
559
442
469
533
Some environmental programs, such as the
NPDES program, require facilities to submit
reports to EPA and states on their operations and
compliance status. These reports are an
important tool EPA and states use to monitor
environmental compliance. There are civil and
criminal penalties for not filing these reports.
The number of EPA and state inspections from
1998 to 2004 are shown above. Note that this
information represents the number of inspections,
not the number of inspected federal facilities. A
facility may be inspected multiple times, or not at
all, during a year.
EPA regularly tracks over 7,000 federal
facilities that are subject to one or more
environmental laws.9 EPA and states conducted
1,226 inspections of federal facilities in 2003 and
1,355 inspections in 2004. In 2004, EPA
conducted 157 of these inspections, reversing a
downward trend in inspections that began in
2000. Not all EPA and state inspections are
recorded in EPA data bases, and only inspections
recorded in EPA data bases are included in these
figures. Details on EPA and state inspections are
in the Appendix.
Multimedia Inspections
Most inspections by EPA and states focus on
compliance with one environmental law or
regulatory program. However, some inspections
cover a number of environmental programs.
They are an important component of EPA's
federal facilities compliance monitoring work
because they give a more comprehensive view of
a facility's compliance. EPA's regional offices
coordinate these inspections with state
environmental agencies which may join EPA in
conducting the inspections.
As shown in Exhibit 17, in 2003, EPA
conducted 16 multimedia inspections at federal
Source: IDEA- various dates
As tracked in OTIS as of May 2005.
16
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
facilities covering multiple environmental
programs. Fifty percent were conducted at DOD
facilities, 44 percent were conducted at civilian
federal agencies and 6 percent at DOE facilities.
In 2004, EPA conducted 32 multimedia
inspections, twice as many as in 2003. Forty-
three percent of these inspections were of civilian
federal agencies, 43 percent were of DOD
facilities, six percent were at DOD facilities and
six percent of classified facilities. RCRA,
CWA, and CAA were the predominate statutes
covered by these inspections. TSCA was
included in just over half of them.
Exhibit 17
EPA Multimedia Inspections at Federal
Facilities
10
0
•00 '01 '02 '03 '04
Source: Manual reports from Regions to FFEO - various dates
EPA's Multimedia Inspection Initiative
An initiative begun in 2000 provides extra
resources to EPA regional offices for conducting
multimedia inspections of certain types of federal
facilities. As of the end of 2004, no facilities
were found to be fully compliant and only six
facilities were found to be relatively compliant.
The violations at 75 percent of the facilities
were significant enough that EPA took some sort
of enforcement action to respond to them. EPA
issued five warning letters, five notices of
violation, two written informal enforcement
actions (which are commonly notices of violation
without a penalty amount), two formal
complaints, one administrative order, one RCRA
information request letter, and one combined
consent agreement and final order. At the end of
2004, an additional 14 inspections were under
review to determine if an EPA enforcement
response is necessary. Details about 2003 and
2004 multimedia inspections are in the Appendix.
Multimedia Inspection Initiative
EPA's multimedia inspection initiative focuses on
facilities meeting one or more of the following
criteria:
• NPDES major facilities or which impacts a
downstream NPDES major facility or a water
treatment works facility
Under-inspected facilities, typically non-military
facilities
Regulated under an under-inspected media
program, such as the CAA, CWA or SDWA
Multiple underground storage tanks
Facilities not inspected by EPA or state in last
two years
17
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
VI. ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
EPA policy emphasizes using the most
appropriate enforcement and compliance
activities to address the most significant
compliance problems. EPA's policy emphasizes
five key points:
• Addressing significant environmental,
human health and compliance problems;
• Using data to make strategic decisions to
better utilize resources;
• Using the most appropriate tool to achieve
the best outcome;
• Assessing the effectiveness of program
activities to ensure continuous program
improvement and desired program
performance; and
• Effectively communicating the
environmental, public health and
compliance outcomes of EPA activities to
enhance program effectiveness.
Enforcement actions are actions taken by
EPA or states in response to an alleged violation.
EPA enforcement actions against federal facilities
are typically administrative actions (see Exhibit
18). In prosecuting and settling enforcement
actions, EPA seeks to have the alleged violator
(1) pay a monetary fine for the violation; (2)
implement repairs or upgrade pollution control
technologies, correct compliance problems or
clean up waste; and/or (3) take action to reduce
pollution or prevent problems from reoccurring.
Exhibit 18
Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
(Formal and Informal Actions)
•93 194 '95 195
RCRA
CAA
CWA/NPDES
SDWA
Fiscal Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
RCRA CWA/NPDES
347
362
321
269
303
264
245
226
186
157
181
192
73
119
71
61
50
49
71
55
57
42
54
36
CAA
14
18
21
25
38
50
56
80
48
73
109
94
SDWA
9
3
18
10
8
12
36
18
2
7
34
18
Source: IDEA and SDWIS - various dates
EPA's 2003 and 2004 enforcement actions
are summarized in Exhibit 19. Detailed
information on these enforcement actions,
including the names of the facilities subject to
these actions and the environmental statutes
involved, is in the Appendix.
Measuring Progress in Enforcing
Environmental Laws
EPA measures the progress and success of its
enforcement program in multiple ways. EPA
collects information on the monetary penalties it
seeks and collects from alleged violators. As
18
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
part of a settlement of an enforcement action,
EPA encourages alleged violators to undertake
environmental projects which are things beyond
what is required by law or regulation.
Exhibit 19
EPA Formal Enforcement Activity at Federal
Facilities
Enforcement Actions 2003
Administrative Penalty Complaints
Final Administrative Penalty Order
Settlements
Administrative Compliance Orders
5
14
12
2004
1
9
13
In prosecuting and settling enforcement
actions against federal facilities, EPA emphasizes
results which improve public health and the
environment. In 2003 and 2004, federal facilities
agreed to pay over $1 million in monetary
penalties to resolve enforcement actions (see
Exhibit 20). However, EPA got federal facilities
to agree to undertake over $107 million of work
to come into compliance (over 100 times the
penalty amount) and they agreed to almost $2
million in "supplemental environmental projects"
directly benefitting public health and the
environment (almost twice the penalty amount).
Source: ICIS - 4/11/05
Exhibit 20
EPA Formal Enforcement Results at Federal Facilities
Enforcement Results 1998
Final Penalties
Supplemental Environmental
Project Costs
Compliance Action Costs
$168,232
$116,678
NC
1999
$554,922
$4,188,289
NC
2000
$140,018
$231,000
$370,000
2001
$1,356,840
$3,459,611
$2,164,000
2002
$166,632
$544,583
NC
2003
$920,350
$1,803,815
$104,473,360*
2004
$136,548
$119,481
$2,874,925**
Source: 1998 - 2002, various EPA reports, 2003 & 2004, ICIS -- 4/11/05
NC -- Not Collected
* $70 million of this sum (68 percent) is attributable to one CWA case against the Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aquaduct.
** $2.8 million of this sum (97 percent) is attributable to one SDWA case against the BIA at Fort Yates, North Dakota.
19
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Penalties Collected from Violators
Enforcement actions are taken to address the
environmental or public health harm that has
been created by the violators and to deter the
violator, and others, from repeating the violating
behavior in the future. To deter this behavior,
EPA seeks to have the violator pay monetary
fines in amounts commensurate with the
violations committed. Penalties vary greatly from
year to year, depending on the seriousness and
time period of the violations discovered.
Ensuring Safety of Chemical Weapon Facilities,
Johnson Atoll, Pacific Ocean
VX is a chemical warfare nerve agent which is
extremely toxic - a droplet the size of Lincoln's head
inside the Lincoln Memorial on the back of a penny
can kill a person within 15 minutes. VX and other
chemical weapons are destroyed on Johnson Atoll in
the Pacific Ocean. Chemical weapon destruction
began at Johnston Atoll in June 1990. In August
2002, VX was released from the destruction facility
after bags of VX-contaminated sludge were
improperly loaded into a chemical weapons
incinerator. The VX in the sludge was not
completely destroyed during incineration and a tray
containing the material was transferred outside of
controlled areas for approximately 20 minutes.
In 2004, EPA's Region 9 office reached a settlement
with the Army and its contractor to pay a $51,000
penalty for RCRA violations. The incinerator has
now been dismantled and the site no longer processes
chemical weapons. The Army, Air Force, EPA and
the Department of the Interior are working to
transform the atoll into a wildlife refuge.
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
EPA also encourages violators to agree to
undertake supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs) to settle enforcement actions. SEPs are
environmentally beneficial projects that a violator
volunteers to perform as part of a settlement in
addition to action required to correct violations.
SEPs are beneficial to human health or the
environment as well as the communities where
environmental harm occurred. A violator's
commitment to perform a SEP may result in
mitigation of the penalties assessed by EPA in
return for environmental improvement directly to
the community. Like penalties, SEP values can
range widely year to year.
Cleaning the Air at Fort Wainwright and Fort
Richardson, Alaska
In 2003, the U.S. Army and EPA reached a
settlement to resolve Clean Air Act violations at Fort
Wainwright and Fort Richardson in Alaska. The
Army agreed to a schedule to bring the installations
into compliance, to pay a $600,000 penalty, and to
spend $1.7 million on supplemental environmental
projects. EPA and the state worked closely together
to resolve the compliance issues at the two bases.
The U.S. Army Alaska Garrison had been out of
compliance and committing major violations of the
Clean Air Act for over a decade, generating over
1,000 tons of unnecessary paniculate matter for each
of its years in violation. In 2004, the Army paid the
$600,000 penalty and in 2005 it completed the
installation of air pollution controls on all its coal-
fired boilers at the Fort Wainwright central heat and
power plant ahead of schedule.
The Army continues to implement the supplemental
environmental projects, including retrofitting snow
machines and outboard motors with two-stroke
engines and implementing a comprehensive
reforestation program. These projects will improve
air quality significantly at the bases and in their
surrounding communities.
Compliance Action Costs
As a result of EPA enforcement actions,
federal facilities agree to take action to return to
compliance. In 2003, federal agencies agreed to
undertake compliance actions valued at over $104
million, including $70 million in one case and
over $15 million in another. In 2004 they agreed
to undertake action valued at over $2.87 million.
Again, these costs vary widely year to year
depending on the kinds of actions needed to
return a facility to compliance.
20
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Protecting Drinking Water, Fort Yates, North
Dakota
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is constructing a
new intake system for the Fort Yates public water
system on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in
North Dakota. In 2003, the new intake system was
estimated to cost $2.8 million. The Fort Yates
system provides drinking water to over 3000
residents plus visitors to a casino on the reservation.
In 2003, the water system had a loss of pressure that
could have allowed fecal contamination and other
organisms to enter the system and be consumed by
consumers. In response, EPA's Region 8 office
(Denver) issued an emergency order in November
2003 to advise consumers to boil their water before
using it for drinking, cooking or bathing. The order
also required the Bureau to provide alternative water
to consumers, conduct additional monitoring and
submit and implement a plan which would restore
and retain adequate pressure in the distribution
system. The Bureau's construction of a new intake
system is necessary for it to come into compliance
with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Protecting Sensitive Ecosystems on the Atlantic
Coast
In September 2004, EPA entered into a RCRA
Section 7003 Administrative Agreement on Consent
with the National Aeronautics Space Administration
(NASA) for its Wallops Island, Va. facility. Wallops
Island is a potential breeding ground for the
threatened piping plover and other beach nesting
birds. Decades of activities associated with NASA's
testing and launching rockets and sub-orbital
investigations have caused significant soil, sediment,
and groundwater contamination at the facility. EPA
found this to be an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the environment.
NASA committed to fully define the nature and
extent of the contamination and perform any
necessary cleanup actions. The cleanup is estimated
to cost approximately $12 million and may include
cleanup of groundwater, soils and sediments. NASA
will also fund an archives search report to determine
all of the past activities of both NASA and DoD that
may have caused contamination. EPA crafted the
agreement specifically to integrate Superfund
response activities being conducted by NASA with
RCRA corrective actions required under RCRA
Section 7003 to ensure that the work proceeded
smoothly and efficiently.
21
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
VII. CLEANING UP CONTAMINATION
EPA is responsible under law and
Presidential Executive Order for overseeing
cleanup of contamination at federal facilities.
EPA's goal is to ensure the cleanups are adequate
and protect public health and the environment.
Generally, these cleanups are governed by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or
RCRA. EPA must oversee a federal cleanup
program which costs nearly $10 billion a year at
federal energy and military facilities alone. In
conducting its oversight responsibilities, EPA
works cooperatively with federal agencies to
improve project management and increase
cost-efficiency.
There are 173 federal facility sites on the
CERCLA National Priority List. CERCLA
requires EPA and the federal agency that owns or
operates sites on this list to enter into agreements
governing the cleanup and laying out each party's
responsibilities. In 2003 and 2004, EPA signed
agreements covering five sites (see Exhibit 21).
As of April 2005, all but 17 of these sites have
such agreements in place. Getting agreements in
place for cleanups at these remaining sites are a
high priority for EPA in 2005 and 2006.
Exhibit 21
CERCLA Agreements at Federal Facilities
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington
Aqueduct — Washington, DC
U.S. Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard — Portsmouth,
VA
U.S. Navy, Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base —
Norfolk, VA
U.S. Navy, St. Juliens Creek Annex — Chesapeake,
VA
U.S. Department of Interior, Lee Acres Landfill &
Superfund Site — Farmington, NM
In addition to negotiating new agreements,
EPA oversees cleanups being conducted under
agreements signed in prior years. EPA aims to
ensure that these cleanups are done timely and in
ways that are protective of the environment and
of public health.
Cleanup Advances at Hanford
The Department of Energy's Hanford site in
Washington State is one of the most contaminated
sites in the nation but cleanup is progressing with
EPA's oversight. In the past, liquid waste had been
disposed of adjacent to a tribal cemetery and
prehistoric village sites at the Hanford site in
Washington. In 2003, EPA worked with tribes and
DOE on managing potentially contaminated human
remains and other artifacts exhumed with the waste.
EPA oversaw DOE's removal of 800 metric tons of
spent nuclear fuel containing 20 million curies of
radioactivity from leak-prone basins at the site and,
at EPA's direction, DOE installed a pump and treat
system to capture a radioactive groundwater plume
discharging into the Columbia River to protect the
river and spawning chinook salmon. In 2004, DOE
completed a decade-long effort to remove spent
nuclear fuel from Hartford's K Basins. Removal and
treatment of highly radioactive residual sludge and
removal of the contaminated basins and underlying
contaminated soil remains to be done. DOE also
completed the packaging of plutonium residues at the
Plutonium Finishing Plant. Removal actions focused
on decontamination and demolition of facilities are
underway, both along the Columbia River and on the
central plateau. Efforts to characterize and treat
groundwater across the site also continue with EPA's
oversight.
EPA-DOD Agreement on Land Use Controls
In 2004, EPA and Department of Defense
(DOD) reached agreement, after a three-year
dispute, to improve the Department's
management flexibility over, and ensure EPA's
oversight of, land use controls at military
Superfund sites. These controls are necessary to
ensure the environment and public health are
protected by present and future uses of the sites,
especially where hazardous substances remain in
place at levels that prohibit unrestricted use of the
property. For example, it may be best to "cap" a
landfill rather than removing all its contents, but
22
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
provisions must be established and enforced to
ensure the cap will not be breeched which would
increase exposure and risk at the site. After
extensive negotiations, EPA and the Navy, which
provided leadership for all the military services,
agreed on a set of management and oversight
principles, including specifying land use controls
in a site's Record of Decision (which documents
the cleanup determination).
The Army and the Defense Logistics Agency
later agreed to these same principles, while the
Air Force, under the agreement, has pursued an
alternative approach. As a result of this
agreement, an increasing number of cleanup
determinations have been approved by EPA and
DOD, opening the way for new and proper
remediation activities at locations across the
nation. The EPA-military partnership continues,
seeking new approaches to expedite decisions,
improve cleanups, reduce paperwork and ensure
EPA oversight at DOD sites.
23
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
VIII. ASSISTING FEDERAL FACILITIES TO OPERATE IN
COMPLIANCE
In order to improve compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, EPA gives
various kinds of technical assistance to federal
facilities to help them better understand the
environmental laws and regulations that apply to
them and help them operate in compliance with
those laws and regulations. EPA headquarters
and regional offices regularly offer workshops
and seminars for federal facilities, operate various
hotlines that offer advice, and visit federal
facilities to give them assistance in operating in
compliance and how to prevent pollution in the
first place. Over the last several years, the federal
facility sector has been a primary beneficiary of
EPA assistance work.
EPA reaches out to federal agencies to assist
them in complying with environmental laws and
Executive Orders. In 2003 and 2004, EPA
headquarters and Regions conducted workshops,
courses and held conferences aimed at assisting
federal facilities.
EPA staff also traveled to conferences
organized by other agencies in order to better
reach more federal employees. EPA's Region 2
(New York) crafted a special RCRA hazardous
waste identification and management course just
for staff at VA hospitals and traveled to a VA
medical conference in Reno, Nevada to present it.
EPA Region 1 (Boston) presented a two-day
comprehensive environmental compliance course
specifically for VA staff and managers in Boston
in 2004. The course was videotaped so the VA
could later broadcast it to other locations through
its own satellite training system. Other EPA
Regions provided training on Oil Pollution Act
response plans, underground and above ground
storage tank regulations, preventing pollution and
reducing use of toxic chemicals.
24
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
IX. PARTNERSHIPS TO REACH COMMON GOALS
Given declining resources in many federal
agencies to devote to environmental work, EPA
and other agencies will increasingly have to join
together to achieve common goals. States, which
are also facing similar resource constraints, are
also important partners-both for EPA and for
regulated federal agencies.
Texas Environmental Partnership
The Texas Environmental Partnership (TXEP) is
a partnership between the Texas Commission of
Environmental Quality, EPA Region 6 (Dallas), U.S.
Department of Defense, Texas Army National Guard,
NASA-Johnson Space Center, U.S. Coast Guard, and
U.S. Department of Energy in Texas. The
partnership focuses on the full range of
environmental issues in the region, and works to
foster cooperation, information exchange, and
innovation to solve environmental problems and
promote environmental stewardship. In 2003, it
initiated joint meetings with the Southwest Strategy,
an executive level interagency partnership for
Arizona and New Mexico state, federal, and tribal
environmental and natural and cultural resources
conservation agencies. The Texas Committee on
Environmental Quality gave environmental
management system training to TXEP members, and
encouraged DoD installations to join the Clean Texas
environmental leadership program which provides
regulatory incentives to facilities with a
performance-based EMS. The Partnership is a great
forum for federal facilities to discuss issues with both
EPA and state regulators.
Recognizing Advances in Federal Agencies
EPA Region 9 (San Francisco) began a
Champions of Green Government award program
in 2000 to honor federal facilities demonstrating
significant environmental and human health
improvements. Region 9 recognized 24 diverse
and innovative projects in 2003 and 2004.
Projects winning these awards involved energy
efficient engines, photovoltaic solar and wind
turbine power generation, recycling, green
landscaping and energy efficient lighting. These
projects helped save facilities millions of dollars
and earn revenue from recycling, while diverting
hundreds of tons of waste from landfills, reducing
water consumption and decreasing emissions of
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides.
EPA Region 10 (Seattle) began its
Champions for Environmental Leadership and
Green Government Innovation Awards in 2003 to
highlight federal agency staff leadership that goes
above and beyond compliance to protect human
health and the environment, and promotes
pollution prevention, sustainability, and EMSs.
Seventeen recipients were given awards in 2003
and 2004. They were engaged in activities
including: replacing batteries with fuel cells,
eliminating hazardous waste, composting bio-
solids, developing power conservation projects,
environmentally sustainable construction
projects, and preparing guides to help facilities
procure environmentally friendly office and
janitorial products.
25
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
X. INTEGRATED STRATEGIES TO Fix
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Often the best approach to solving
environmental problems is a combination of tools
- an "integrated strategy." These strategies
combine a full range of activities to improve
environmental problems, including traditional
technical assistance work, inspections and
prosecuting enforcement actions as well as less
traditional activities. EPA encourages federal
agencies to prevent pollution and adopt
environmental management systems to achieve or
maintain compliance, and to institutionalize
sound environmental stewardship policies and
practices into their operations. Preventing
pollution in the first instance minimizes the need
for pollution controls or technical assistance but
in some cases may take facilities out of
regulatory regimes altogether.
This approach often requires EPA to
participate in partnerships and cooperative efforts
with other federal agencies. This fosters
cooperation and understanding between agencies
as they work jointly on practical and sustainable
solutions to complex issues. It also enables the
federal government to leverage valuable
resources and expertise amongst its agencies.
FedCenter - the Environmental Stewardship
and Compliance Center for the Federal
Government
One important -- "~ X
partnership is FedCenter, a
stewardship and
compliance assistance
center created in 2004 just
for federal facilities. Building on the
Administration's emphasis on federal
environmental "leadership by example" and
improving management of federal programs, in
2003 EPA looked into ways to better meet the
growing environmental stewardship and
compliance assistance needs of over 32,000
federal facilities nationwide. The projected level
FedCenter
of EPA compliance assistance was thought to be
insufficient to meet the expanding demands of
federal facilities, so EPA focused on combining
resources with other federal organizations to get
technical assistance to all agencies. In early 2004,
EPA joined with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Construction and Engineering
Research Laboratory to establish FedCenter
(www.fedcenter.gov). EPA selected the Corps'
laboratory because of its extensive history of
assisting federal agencies with environmental
requirements and its experience in providing
similar web-based technical assistance to the
military since the mid-1990s. Eventually,
FedCenter will be supported and governed by
many member agencies who will direct its future
activities for their mutual benefit.
FedCenter's goal is to serve the varied needs
of all federal agencies-and not just with
compliance assistance, but with information on
becoming better environmental stewards and
going "beyond compliance." FedCenter will
overcome common organizational obstacles faced
by all government agencies-not being able to find
good, useful information within the federal
government. FedCenter collects the best
technical materials available from throughout the
federal government so all users can find and use
it. Soon after opening in October 2004,
FedCenter was receiving over 6,000 web visits
per month. FedCenter will never be "done" but
will grow to address new environmental issues.
In early 2005 compliance assistance information
offered by FedCenter was enhanced, augmented
and redesigned to more effectively meet the
needs of the federal community. FedCenter is
rapidly becoming the address for comprehensive
federal facility compliance assistance
information.
26
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Improving Compliance at VA Hospitals
EPA and the Veterans Health Administration
(VA) established a partnership in 2002 to work
together to improve environmental compliance at
VA medical centers. Teams of EPA and VA staff
conducted on-site reviews of environmental
programs at various VA medical centers around
the country. EPA and VA jointly funded these
reviews. The medical centers were specifically
selected to represent the different types of
medical centers operated by the VA. The results
of these reviews were consolidated and provided
to the VA in a 2005 report. The report made
recommendations for developing environmental
management systems that should improve
compliance throughout the nationwide VA
medical center system.
With the help of information learned in part
through conducting the reviews, the VA
developed its own environmental management
system in 2004 - the VA "Green Environmental
Management System" or GEMS - which all 140
VA medical centers will implement by December
2005. GEMS incorporates two computer-based
programs to ensure that facilities implement
effective EMS programs and focus on
compliance. While one program (E-Safe),
evaluates how well the facility environmental
program is managed, the other (CP-Track),
provides a snapshot of environmental compliance
with regulations promulgated at the national, state
and local levels. In late 2004, EPA Region 2
(New York) and the VA negotiated an agreement
under which the VA would perform compliance
audits at most of its hospitals in New York State
and New Jersey and disclose the results to Region
2. The agreement was finalized in December of
2004.
The VA recognized that environmental
training was needed at the medical centers to
improve compliance. The VA designed some of
its own courses, worked with EPA to design
some other courses and hired contractors to
provide additional courses. It developed new
compliance materials and posted them on the VA
web site to help VA staff improve their
knowledge of environmental requirements.
Eighteen VA medical centers were awarded
Energy Star awards for their achievements in
conserving energy in 2003 and the VA joined the
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment program-a
voluntary pollution prevention program between
EPA and non-governmental organizations-under
which VA hospitals commit to reduce hazardous
and toxic wastes, including mercury. Over four
years, the VA will spend $32 million on
improving its environmental and emergency
management programs.
In 2004, EPA awarded a grant to the
Hospitals for a Healthy Environmental program
to develop a guide which incorporates
environmental compliance and pollution
prevention into the Environment of Care
standards of the Joint Committee on the
Accreditation of Health Care Organizations
(JCAHO). JCAHO accredits hospitals to these
standards and it can encourage significant
changes since JCAHO accreditation is necessary
for hospitals to receive Medicare funding.
Throughout the partnership, EPA has
continued to exercise its regulatory and
enforcement role by conducting inspections at
various VA facilities and taking enforcement
actions when violations are found. By working
together EPA and the VA are making more
progress at improving compliance at VA medical
centers across the country than either could have
done independently.
27
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Integrating Technical Assistance and
Enforcement to Improve Drinking Water, Ft.
Drum, New York
In January 2003, EPA Region 2 (New York) sought
information from the U.S. Army's Fort Drum base
regarding the Fort's compliance status with a new
drinking water regulation-the Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection By-products Rule. Disinfectants are
used to control microorganisms but they react with
organic and inorganic matter to form by-products.
The new rule set limits on exposure to by-products
that have been shown to cause cancer and may cause
reproductive problems. Region 2 determined that the
Fort was not aware of its new responsibilities under
the rule and had not been complying with its
monitoring requirements. EPA staff spent hours on
the phone with Fort personnel explaining the
requirements, assisting them in developing a
monitoring plan, and discussing strategies to lower
the Fort's disinfection by-product levels. Region 2
also issued an Administrative Order in March 2003
putting the Fort on an enforceable schedule for
conducting the required sampling and reporting.
Since the initiation of this strategy combining both
technical assistance and enforcement of the rule, the
Fort has been monitoring its drinking water system,
its disinfection by-products levels have gone down
and it is in compliance with the rule. Army staff
continue to contact Region 2 periodically for
technical assistance. EPA's work has helped
increase public health protection to 15,000 persons at
Fort Drum.
28
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
APPENDIX
STATE OF FEDERAL FACILITIES, FY 2003 AND FY 2004
Sources and Suitability of Environmental
Information
The information contained in this report is
drawn from EPA's Integrated Database for
Enforcement Analysis (IDEA). IDEA is EPA's
main information management system that draws
upon several program specific databases
compiled and maintained by various EPA
environmental program offices, including the
Office of Air, the Office of Water and the Office
of Solid Waste. These offices have primary
responsibility for compiling and maintaining data
pertaining to EPA and state enforcement and
compliance activities. These databases include:
• RCRAInfo: Allows cradle-to-grave waste
tracking of many types of information
about the regulated universe of RCRA
hazardous waste handlers.
• PCS: The Permit Compliance System
tracks EPA regional and state compliance
and enforcement data for the NPDES
program under the CWA.
• AIRS/AFS: The Aerometric Information
Retrieval System/AIRS Facility
Subsystem manages aerometric
compliance data on point sources tracked
by EPA, state, and local governments in
accordance with the CAA.
• SDWIS: The Safe Drinking Water
Information System is a national database
that tracks public water supply system
compliance and enforcement data
collected by EPA Regions and states
under the PWSS program of the SOW A.
The IDEA system is operated by EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance and integrates facility data from these
disparate program specific databases. Since the
purpose of this report is to provide an overview
of federal facility compliance and performance
information and a description of the federal
facility universe, the IDEA data system provides
the most practicable and suitable source of
information to meet this goal. Limitations on the
use and interpretation of this data are detailed in
the specific chapters of this report.
Exhibit A-l
RCRA Inspections and Enforcement Actions
at Federal Facilities
Inspections
FY 2003 FY 2004
Universe of RCRA Handlers
5,462
5.634
By Asencv Lead
EPA-Lead
State-Lead
By Agency Category
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified
86 (14.0%) 127 (17.9%)
527 (86.0%) 584 (82.1%)
372 (60.7%)
162 (26.4%)
64(10.4%)
15 (2.4%)
438(61.6%)
181 (25.5%)
78(11.0%)
14 (2.0%)
Formal and Informal
Enforcement Actions
FY 2003
FY 2004
By Asencv Lead
EPA-Lead 13 (7.2%) 25 (13.0%)
State-Lead 168 (92.8%) 167 (87.0%)
By Agency Category
DOD 118(65.2%) 110(57.3%)
CFA 43 (23.8%) 49 (25.5%)
DOE 20(11.0%) 33(17.2%)
Source: IDEA -2/20/04 and 1/7/05
29
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-2
RCRA Inspections by Facility Type
Inspections
FY 2003 FY 2004
Universe ofTSDFs
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified*
Universe ofLQGs
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified*
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified*
228
200 (36 4%)
10(1.8%)
58 (10.6%)
560
89(16.2%)
33 (6.0%)
2 (0.4%)
4 (0.7%)
49 (8.9%)
95 (17.3%)
3 (0.5%)
6(1.1%)
232
256 (38 3%)
20 (3.0%)
68(10.2%)
••
622
106 (15.8%)
41 (6.1%)
3 (0.4%)
4 (0.6%)
^^m
60 (9.0%)
99(14.8%)
3 (0.4%)
9(1.3%)
Source: IDEA - 2/20/04 and 1/7/05
* Unidentified federal facilities have not been assigned a GSA code or
Exhibit A-3
CWA/NPDES Inspections and Enforcement
Actions at Major Federal Facilities
Inspections
FY 2003 FY 2004
Universe of Majors
^H By Agency Lead
EPA-Lead
State-Lead
^H By Agency Category
DOD
CFA
DOE
LInidentified
100
16(10.8%)
132 (89.2%)
106(71.6%)
17(11.5%)
14 (9.5%)
1 1 (7.4%)
92
12(11.3%)
94(88.7%)
84 (79.2%)
14 (13.2%)
8 (7.5%)
--
Formal and Informal
Enforcement Actions
FY 2003 FY 2004
^^H By Agency Lead
EPA-Lead
State-Lead
1 By Agency Category
DOD
CFA
DOE
5 (9.3%)
49 (90.7%)
44(81.5%)
4 (7.4%)
6(11.1%)
2 (5.6%)
34 (94.4%)
31 (86.1%)
1 (2.8%)
4(11.1%)
named within their relevant data systems in such a way as to identify them
as belonging to a federal agency, however, they have been flagged as
federal.
** Totals do not include inspections conducted at CESQGs, transporters,
or non-notifiers.
Source: IDEA - 2/19/04 and 2/2/05
30
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-4
CAA Inspections and Enforcement Actions at
Major Federal Facilities
Universe of Majors
I^WV^^tf^S
EPA-Lead
State-Lead
1 B\ Agency Category
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified
Hn^^^^B9^9
EPA-Lead
State-Lead
DOD
CFA
DOE
Unidentified
Inspections
FY 2003 FY 2004
554 553
10(2.1%) 16(3.0%)
459 (97.9%) 517 (97.0%)
^^H
295(62.9%) 349(65.5%)
137 (29.2%) 147 (27.6%)
29 (6.2%) 34 (6.4%)
8(1.7%) 3(0.6%)
Formal and Informal
Enforcement Actions
FY 2003 FY 2004
9 (8.3%) 3 (3.2%)
100(91.7%) 91(96.8%)
67(61.5%) 62(66.0%)
36 (33.0%) 28 (29.8%)
5 (4.6%) 4 (4.3%)
1 (0.9%)
Exhibit A-5
SDWA/PWSS Formal and Informal
Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities
^^^^1 Enforcement Lead Actions in FY Actions in ^H
Universe of Systems 4,057 3,833
EPA-Lead 1 (%) 3 (%)
State-Lead 33 (%) 15 (%)
TOTAL 34 18
Source: SDWIS - 3/4/04 and 3/21/05
Source: IDEA - 2/19/04 and 2/5/05
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-6
FY 2003 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Region 1
Facility
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA
Medical Center, Manchester, NH
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA
Medical Center, White River Junction, VT
U.S. Department of Interior National Park
Sendee Cape Cod National Seashore,
Wellfleet, MA
U.S. Army Soldiers Systems Center,
Natick, MA
U.S. Air Force Hanscom Air Force Base.
Bedford, MA
Date
5/6/03 - 5/8/03
6/19/03 - 6/20/03
10/7/02 &
10/28/02
12/10/02
9/3/03 - 9/5/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CAA, CWA, RCRA,
CAA, CWA, RCRA
CAA, CWA, RCRA
and RCRA USTs
CAA, CWA, EPCRA,
TSCA
CAA. CWA. EPCRA.
RCRA, TSCA
State
Participation?
No
No
No
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 2
Facility
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Orient
Point, NY
Date
12/11/02
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CWA, EPCRA.
SDWA, FIFRA
State
Participation?
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
Region 3
Facility
NASA, Langley, VA
Classified Facility
Date
11/04/03 -
11/08/03
7/23/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CAA, EPCRA, FIFRA,
RCRA, NPDES
CWA, CAA, RCRA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Region 4
Facility
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Pudge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
U.S. Air Force Plant No. 6, Marietta, GA
Date
6/24/03 to 6/27/03
4/21/03 to 4/25/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CAA. CWA, SDWA,
RCRA, EPCRA
CAA, CWA, RCRA,
TSCA, EPCRA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Region 5
None Reported
32
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Region 6
Facility
U.S. Air Force Sheppard Air Force Base,
Witchita Falls, Texas
Date
8/12/03 - 8/14/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA, CWA,
TSCA
State
Participation?
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
Region 7
Facility
U.S. Air Force, Nebraska Air National
Guard, Lincoln, NE
Date
10/8/02 & 1/8/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA. CAA
State
Participation?
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
Region 8
Facility
U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force Base,
Ogden, UT
U.S. Air Force. Minot Air Force Base.
Minot, North Dakota
Date
10/21/02
9/8/03 & 9/22/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA
RCRA. TSCA
State
Participation?
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Region 9
None Reported
Region 10
Facility
U.S Army, Fort Lewis
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Puget
Sound Health Care Hospital, Seattle, WA
Date
1/28/03 & 3/1 1/03
4/1/03
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CAA. CWA
CAA, CWA
State
Participation?
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Source: Manual Reports from Regions to FFEO
33
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-7
FY 2004 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Region 1
Facility
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA
Medical Center, Northampton, MA
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London,
CT
U.S. Navy. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, NH
U.S. Navy, Naval Submarine Base, New
London, CT
Date
9/22/04 - 9/23/04
3/2/04 - 3/3/04
5/5/04 - 5/6/04
3/4/04 - 3/5/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CWA, EPCRA, TSCA,
CAA,
CWA, RCRA, TSCA
CWA. EPCRA, TSCA
CWA
RCRA, TSCA
State
Participation?
No
Yes
No
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 2
Facility
U.S. Army, Picatinny Arsenal, Morris City,
NJ
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Correctional Institution, Fairton, NJ
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Correctional Institution, Otis, NJ
Date
3/15/04
3/2/04
8/30/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA, CWA,
EPCRA, FIFRA,
TSCA. SDWA,10
RCRA, CWA, CAA.
EPCRA, TSCA10
RCRA, CAA, CWA,
SDWA, EPCRA10
State
Participation?
No
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 3
Facility
U.S. Postal Sendee. Vehicle Maintenance
Facility, Baltimore, MD
U.S. Postal Service, Vehicle Maintenance
Facility, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Bureau of
Printing and Engraving, Washington, DC
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA
Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Perry Point Medical Center, Perryville, MD
Date
11/18/03
12/2/03
1/13/04
2/3/04
3/29/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA., CWA.
RCRA, CWA, CAA,
TSCA, FIFRA
RCRA, CWA. CAA.
TSCA. EPCRA
RCRA, CWA, CAA.
TSCA, EPCRA
RCRA, CWA, TSCA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
10
Edited after regional certification.
34
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Facility
U.S. Air Force, Dover Air Force Base,
Dover, DE
U.S. Navy Indian Head Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Indian Head, MD
U.S. Navy, Ordinance Disposal Technology
Division, Indian Head, MD
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park
Service, Shenandoah National Park, Luray,
VA
U.S. Department of Justice, Unicor Federal
Prison, Lewisburg, PA
Classified Federal Facility
Classified Federal Facility
Date
4/12/04
5/3/04 - 5/7/04
5/6/04
8/17/04
7/12/04
7/12/04
7/12/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CWA, CAA,
TSCA, EPCRA,
FIFRA
RCRA, CWA, CAA,
TSCA, EPCRA
RCRA. CWA
RCRA, CWA, TSCA
RCRA, CWA
CAA, RCRA
CAA, RCRA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 4
Facility
U.S. Army, Hunter Army Airfield,
Savannah, GA
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah
River Site, Aiken, SC
Date
3/22/04- 3/24/04
6/28/04 - 7/2/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
CAA, CWA, SDWA,
RCRA. EPCRA, TSCA
CAA, CWA, SDWA,
RCRA, TSCA, EPCRA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Region 5
Facility
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Zablocki Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI
Date
8/31/2004
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA
State
Participation?
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
Region 6
Facility
U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
National Center for lexicological
Research, Jefferson, AR
U.S. Air Force, Air Force Plant No. 4, Fort
Worth, TX
Date
12/09/2003
8/23/2004
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA
RCRA, CAA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
AR
EPA
35
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Region 7
Facility
U.S. Army, Lake City Army Ammunition
Plant, Independence. MO
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Meat
Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE
U.S. Air Force, Iowa Air National Guard,
DesMoines, IA11
Date
10/3 1/2003 &
11/4/2003
1 1/1 8/03 &
1/29/04
8/24/04
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CWA, CAA
RCRA, CWA, CAA
RCRA, CWA
State
Participation?
No
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 8
Facility
U.S. Air Force, Air Force Academy,
Colorado Springs, CO
U.S. Army, Fort Carson, Pueblo Springs,
CO
Date
6/18/2004
6/17/2004
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
SOW A, CWA. l2
SDWA, CWA, RCRA
State
Participation?
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Region 9
Facility
U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
CA
Date
11/3/2003-
11/7/2003
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA, CAA, EPCRA,
CWA
State
Participation?
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
Region 10
Facility
U.S. Air Force, Clear Air Force Station.
Clear, AK
U.S. Air Force, Ehnendorf Air Force Base
Anchorage, AK
Date
6/15/04 - 6/17/04
6/21/2004 -
6/24/2004
Media or Statutory
Program Investigated
RCRA. CAA, TSCA,
CWA. FIFRA,
EPCRA, SDWA
RCRA, CAA, TSCA,
CWA, FIFRA,
EPCRA, SDWA
State
Participation?
Yes
Yes
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
Source: Regional Workbooks provided by EPA's OC
Source of information for the Iowa Air National Guard multi-media inspection in Region 7 is derived from manually reported data after
regional certification.
12
Edited per regional request after regional certification.
36
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-8
Interagency Agreements and Formal Enforcement Actions for FY 2003
Summary:
EPA Administrative Compliance Orders (ACOs) at Federal Faclities: 12
EPA Final Administrative Penalty Orders (FAPOs): 14
Final Administrative Penalties: $920,350
EPA Administrative Penalty Complaints (APCs): 5
Proposed Penalties: $155,815
Value of Injunctive Relief (Total Compliance Action Costs): $104,473,36013
Value of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs): $1,803, 815
Cases with SEPs: 3
Referrals to DOJ: 2
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - All
Case Number, Defendant, Location, Penalty, SEP
Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 1
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
TSCA § 16 - Action for
Penalty
01-2003-0103, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Northampton VA Medical Center - Leeds, MA
($17,600 - proposed penalty)
01-2003-0104, Department of Veterans Affairs, Togus
VA Medical Center - Togus, ME ($22,300 - proposed
penalty)
01-2003-0105, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Bedford VA Medical Center - Bedford. MA ($17.600 -
proposed penalty)
13
The compliance action costs estimated in the Washington Aqueduct case were $70 million, approximately 67% of the total.
37
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - All
Case Number, Defendant, Location, Penalty, SEP
Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 2
Administrative Compliance
Orders
CAA§ 113(a)
Administrative Compliance
Order (Non-Penalty)
SOW A § 1414(g)(2)
AO for Compliance
02-2003-1014, A.T., Incorporated (GOCO) - Fort Dix,
NJ and Mount Vernon, NY ($100 CAC)
02-2003-1027, U.S. Navy. Navy Public Works Center
- Norfolk (Philadelphia Detachment). New Jersey
($100 CAC)
02-2003-8084, U.S. Army, Preventative Medicine
Services - Fort Drum, NY ($5,000 CAC)
Region 3
Administrative Compliance
Order
Final Administrative Penalty
Order
CWA § 301/402 Federal
Facility Agreements
CAA § 113(d)(l) Action for
Penalty
03-2003-0136, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
Washington Aqueduct - Washington, DC
($70,000,000 CAC)
03-2003-0330, U.S. General Services Administration -
Washington, DC ($1,000 penalty)
Region 4
Final Administrative Penalty-
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaint
RCRA § 9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(UTSs)
CAA§ 113(d)(l) Action for
Penalty
CWA § 301/402 Final Order
with Penalty
CAA§ 113(a)
Administrative Compliance
Order (Non-Penalty)
CWA § 309(a) AO for
Compliance
RCRA § 9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
04-2002-0002, U.S. Army: Fort Bragg Military
Installation - Fort Bragg, NC ($29,137 penalty)
04-2002-0003, U.S. Army, Fort Gordon Military
Installation - Fort Gordon, GA ($1 1,000 penalty-,
$5,000 CAC)
04-2001-9087, U.S. Marine Corps Air Station - Cherry
Point, NC ($10,902 penalty')
04-2003-0004, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention - Atlanta, GA ($5,000 penalty, $5,000
CAC)
04-2002-15 15, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Maritime Administration - Wilmington, NC ($37,083
penalty)
04-2002-4541, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, LLC (GOCO) - Aiken, SC ($50,000
penalty)
04-2003-1 754, U.S. Army, Mississippi National Guard
- Camp Shelby, MS
04-2002-577 1, U.S. Department of Interior/National
Park Service, Big Cypress National Preserve -
Copeland, FL ($1,920,000 CAC)
04-2003-0002, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration - Hampton, GA
($71,624 - proposed penalty)
38
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - All
Case Number, Defendant, Location, Penalty, SEP
Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 5
Administrative Compliance
Orders
CERCLA § 122/104(a)
Agreement for PJFS
05-2003-04 10, U.S. Department of the Interior, Crab
Orchard National Wildlife Refuge/Sangamo Electronic
Dump - Marion, IL ($8,000,000 CAC)
Region 6
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
RCRA § 3008A AO for
Compliance and/or
Enforcement
06-2003-0904, U.S. Department of Transportation,
FAA, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center
Enforcement - Oklahoma City, OK ($67,210 penalty,
$100,000 CAC)
Region 7
Administrative Compliance
Orders
CAA§ 113(a)
Administrative Compliance
Order (Non-Penalty)
07-2003-0 129, U.S. Army, Combined Anns Center -
Ft. Leavenworth, KS ($25,000 CAC)
Region 8
Administrative Compliance
Order
Final Administrative Penalty
Order
Administrative Penalty
Complaint
SDWA§ 1431 AO for
Imminent Hazard
RCRA § 9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
SDWA§1423(c)(l)
Administrative Order for
Penalty
08-2003-0008, U. S. Air Force, Francis E. Warren
AFB - Cheyenne, WY ($1,100,000 CAC)
08-2003-0070, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Ft. Yates Law Enforcement Facility -
Fort Yates. ND ($16.943 penalty and $26.000 SEP)
08-2003-0137, U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Pine Ridge Road Shop/Kyle Road Shop
Facilities - Pine Ridge, SD ($26,691 - proposed
penalty)
Region 9
Final Administrative Penalty
Order
RCRA § 9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
RCRA § 3008A AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
09-2003-0063, U.S. Postal Service - Waikiki Post
Office - Honolulu, HI ($600 penalty)
09-2003-0065. U.S. Navy, Pacific Missile Range -
Kekaha, HI ($300 penalty')
09-2003-0066, U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia
National Laboratories - Waimea, HI ($50 penalty)
09-2003-0123, U.S. Army, JACADS - Johnston Atoll,
AP ($91.125 penalty and*$182,500 SEP)
39
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - All
Case Number, Defendant, Location, Penalty, SEP
Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 10
Administrative Compliance
Order
Final Administrative Penalty
Order
CERCLA § 106 AO for
Response Action/Imminent
Hazard
TSCA§ 16- Action for
Penalty
CAA§ 113(a)
Administrative Compliance
Order (Non-Penalty)
CAA§ 113(d)(l) Action for
Penalty
10-2003-00 1 1, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Fremont National Forest -Lakeview, Oregon
($7,800.000 CAC)
• 10-2003-005 1, U.S. Air Force, 6 Radar Stations14 -
Alaska ($160 CAC)
10-2003-0153 (Compliance Agreement), U.S. Army,
Fort Wainwright, Alaska ($15,500,000 CAC)
10-1999-0121 (Penalty Order), U.S. Army, Fort
Richardson and Fort Wainwright, Alaska ($600,000
penalty and $1,595,315 SEP, and $13,000 CAC)
Source: ICIS 12/8/2003
Referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice
Region 4
CAA § 165, 185(E)(A)
RCRA § 3002, 3004, 3005
04-2003-9020, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 8 Fossil
Fuel Power Plant Facilities1''
04-2003-9001, Lockheed Martin Corp
Diffusion Plant), Paducah, KY
(Paducah Gaseous
This action includes the following six U.S. Air Force radar stations across .Alaska: Tin City1 Long Range Radar Station, Wales, AK; Barter
Island Long Range Radar Station, Kaktovik, AK; Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Site, Fairbanks, AK: Point Barrow Long Range Radar Site,
Barrow, AK; Oliktok Long Range Radar Site, Prudhoe Bay, AK; Cape Newenham Long Range Radar Site, Platinum, AK.
Case: 04-2003-9020 enforcement action initiated against 8 TVA Coal-fired power plants across Region IV including: Bull Run Fossil Plant,
Clinton.TN: .Allen Fossil Plant, Memphis,TN; Shawnee Fossil Plant, West Paducah. KY; Colbert Fossil Plant. Tuscumbia. AL; Cumberland
Power Plant, Cumberland City, TN; John Sevier Fossil Plant, Rogersville, TN; Kingston Fossil Plant, Harriman,TN; Paradise Fossil Fuel Plant,
Drakesboro, KY. Federal court action taken to determine, inter alia, questions of jurisdiction and scope of authority.
40
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-9
Interagency Agreements and Formal Enforcement Actions FY 2004
Summary:
EPA Administrative Compliance Orders (ACOs) at Federal Facilities: 13
EPA Final Administrative Penalty Orders (FAPOs): 9
Final Administrative Penalties: $136,548
EPA Administrative Penalty Complaints (APCs): 1
Proposed Penalties: $194,500
Value of Injunctive Relief (Total Compliance Action Cost): $2,874,92516
Value of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs): $119,481
Cases with SEPs - 3
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - Type
Case Number, Defendant, Location,
Penalty, SEP Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 1
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
TSCA§ 16 -Action for
Penalty
CAA§113(a)-
Administrative Compliance
Order (Non-Penalty)
CAA§113(d)(l)- Action
for Penalty
01-2003-0103, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Northampton VA Medical Center - Leeds, MA ($3,080
penalty. $39.827 SEP, and $2.000 CAC)
01-2003-0104. Department of Veterans Affairs, Togus
VA Medical Center - Togus. ME ($3.908 penalty.
$39,827 SEP. and $2.000 CAC)
01-2003-0105, Department of Veterans Affairs, Bedford
VA Medical Center - Bedford, MA ($3,080 penalty,
$39,827 SEP and $2,000 CAC)
01-2004-1000, U.S. Air Force, Hanscom AFB - Bedford,
MA ($4,000 CAC)
01-2004-1006, U.S. Anny National Guard. Maine
National Guard - Limestone, ME ($194,500 proposed
penalty7)
16
The estimated compliance action costs for the Fort Yates case were $2.8 million, approximately 97°b of the total.
41
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - Type
Case Number, Defendant, Location,
Penalty, SEP Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 2
Administrative Compliance
Orders
SDWA§1412(g)(2)-AO
for Compliance
02-2004-8024, U.S. Army. Fort. Dix, Fort Dix. NJ
($10,000 CAC)
02-2004-803 1, U.S. Army Fort Drum Fort Drum, NY
($20,000 CAC)
Region 3
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
RCRA §9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
CERCLA §120(e) - Federal
Facility Agreements
RCRA §7003 AO for
Imminent Hazard
SDWA§1414(g)(2)AOfor
Compliance
03-2003-0291, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Defense
National Stockpile Center - Point Pleasant WV ($300
penalty, $300 CAC)
• 03-2004-0303, U.S. Navy. Norfolk Naval Shipyard -
Portsmouth, VA
03-2003-0180, U.S. Navy, Little Creek Naval
Amphibious Base - Norfolk, VA
03-2004-0195, U.S. Navy, St. Miens Creek Annex -
Chesapeake, VA
03-2004-0201, NASA GSFC Wallops Flight Facility -
Wallops Island, VA ($20,000 CAC)
03-2004-0154, U.S. Marine Corps, Quantico Marine
Mainside - Quantico, VA ($3,000 CAC)
Region 4
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
RCRA §9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
CAA §114 Information
Request
04-2003-0002, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration - Hampton, GA
($33,100 penalty, $1,000 CAC)
04-2004-1761, U.S. Army, Fort Knox - Fort Knox, KY
Region 8
Final Administrative Penalty-
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
RCRA §3008A AO for
Compliance and/or
Enforcement
SDWA§1431 AOfor
Imminent Hazard
SD WA§ 14 14(g)(2) AOfor
Compliance
08-2004-0126, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Blackfeet Agency
- Browning, MT ($34,381 penalty)
08-2004-0022, U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation. Ft. Yates Water System - Fort Yates. ND
($2.800. 140 CAC)
08-2004-0013, U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest
Service, Bighorn National Forest, Burgess Ranger
Station - Sheridan, WY ($195 CAC)
08-2004-0003, U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation, Four Bears Water Treatment Plant - New
Town, ND ($990 CAC)
42
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Enforcement Action Type
Laws, Sections - Type
Case Number, Defendant, Location,
Penalty, SEP Amount and Compliance Action Cost (CAC)
Region 9
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
Administrative Compliance
Orders
RCRA § 9006 AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
(USTs)
RCRA §3008A AO for
Compliance and/or Penalty
SDWA§1414(g)(2)AOfor
Compliance
09-2004-0255, U.S. Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Station,
Pearl Harbor, HI ($150 penalty and $300 CAC)
09-2004-0272, U.S. Army, Johnson Atoll Chemical
Agent Disposal Service (JACADS)
- Johnston Atoll, AP ($51,699 penalty )
09-2004-0137, U.S. Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton-
North - Camp Pendletoa CA ($5,000 CAC)
Region 10
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
CWA§301and402
10-2004-0064, Rockford Corporation (GOCO) at Naval
Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, WA ($6,850
penalty and $4,000 CAC)
Data Source: Integrated Compliance Information System as of 2/9/2005
CWA NOVs and NONs at Federal Facilities
Statute
Type of Action
Parent Agency and Facility Cited
Location
Date
Region 2
CWA
Notice of Violation
U.S. Army, Picatinny Arsenal
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
6/3/04
Region 8
CWA
Notice of Violation
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Blackfeet Indian
Reservation
Browning, MT
6/2/04
Region 9
CWA
Notice of Violation
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Keains Canyon Sewage
Lagoon
Keams Canyon, AZ
9/20/04
Region 10
CWA
Notice of
Noncompliance
U.S. Navy,
Naval Air Station Whidbey
Oak Harbor, WA
4/12/04
43
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-10
Federal Facilities by Agency Category (FY 2004)
N = 7,328 Facilities
Source: FRS- 4/25/05
Exhibit A-ll
Distribution of CFA Facilities by Agency (FY 2004)
Source: FRS-4/25/05
44
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-12
Universe of Federal RCRA Handlers (FY 2004)
N = 5,634 Federal RCRA Handlers
Source: IDEA- 1/7/05
Exhibit A-13
Federal vs Non-Federal RCRA Handlers (FY 2004)
N = 388,489 RCRA Handlers
Source: IDEA-1/7/05
45
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-14
Universe of Major Federal CWA/NPDES Facilities (FY 2004)
N = 92 Federal Major Facilities
Source: IDEA-2/2/05
Exhibit A-15
Federal vs. Non-Federal CWA/NPDES Facilities (FY 2004)
N = 6,885 Major Facilities
Source: IDEA-2/2/05
46
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-16
Universe of Major Federal CAA Sources (FY 2004)
N = 553 Federal Major Sources
Source: IDEA-2/5/05
Exhibit A-17
Major Federal vs Non-Federal CAA Sources (FY 2004)
N = 61,411 Major Sources
Source: IDEA-2/5/05
47
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Exhibit A-18
Universe of Federal Public Water Supply Systems (FY 2004)
N = 3,833 Federal Systems
Source: SDWIS-3/21/05
Exhibit A-19
Federal vs. Non-Federal Public Water Supply Systems (FY 2004)
N = 159,265 Systems
Source: SDWIS-3/21/05
48
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Summary of EPA Definitions of
Significant Noncompliance and High
Priority Violations
A brief summary of each program's data
system definition of SNC or HPV is shown
below. However, these summaries are not meant
to substitute for the complete definition, which
can be found in the following relevant guidance
documents:
• Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement
Response Policy, December 2003;
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/polici
es/civil/federa/revisnpdessnc.pdf:
• Revision of NPDES Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) Criteria to Address
Violations of Non-Monthly Average
Limits, Memo from Steven A. Herman,
September 21, 1995-
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/polici
es/civil/federal/revisnpdessnc.pdf:
• Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Workbook - The Timely and
Appropriate (T&A) Enforcement
Response to High Priority Violations
(HPVs), June 23, 1999-
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publi
cations/civil/federal/airsnc.pdf:
• Public Water System Supervision
Program Water Supply Guidance Manual,
January 2000; Nos. 57, 63, 65, & 67 -
www.epa.gov/safewater/wsg/newindex.pd
f.
These documents are available from the EPA
Website at the URLs listed above or can be
obtained by contacting the relevant program
office in the EPA Region or at EPA
Headquarters.
RCRA
EPA groups RCRA violators into two
different categories - SNCs and Secondary
Violators (SVs). If the violator is a SNC, then
EPA considers formal enforcement appropriate,
and the violator will be subject to
administrative/civil actions and penalties. SVs
are corrected through informal actions; however,
SVs that do not return to compliance may be re-
classified as SNC, with the corresponding
expectation of a formal enforcement response by
EPA. The initial decision to classify a violator as
SNC is based on the following criteria:
• Exposure or threatened exposure of a
sensitive environment (such as wetlands
or groundwater) or workers to hazardous
waste (HW) or HW constituents;
• Minor release of a HW or HW constituent
in a populated area or a publicly
accessible location;
• Release or threatened release of a highly
mobile HW;
• Any release that suggests a continuing
threat of future releases;
• A pattern of similar violations or multiple
violations at the same site; or
• A substantial violation that defeats
RCRA's regulatory purpose or
procedures.
If these factors do not provide a clear answer
to how to classify the violator, EPA will evaluate
the following: any steps the violator took to
expeditiously come into compliance or to
mitigate any risks caused by the violation before
EPA became involved; similar prior violations or
multiple violations (including other
environmental statutes) by the violator, especially
at the same facility; or previous violations by the
same person at other locations, especially when
identical to the present violation.
This second group of factors is used to
determine the effectiveness of the informal
enforcement process. Violations within the past
49
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
three years are weighed more heavily, however
older violations are assessed to determine if a
pattern of noncompliance exists. When
examining historical trends, EPA does not
consider minor deviations from RCRA
requirements, even if there are past similar
violations. Although these factors are the most
commonly used to determine the violator's
category, a particular site might have unique
circumstances that EPA will consider. EPA does
not consider whether there was actual damage to
human health or the environment or the size or
financial viability of the violator.
CWA/NPDES
Most CWA/NPDES SNC designations are
based on an automated analysis of Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) that facilities with
NPDES permits are required to submit on a
monthly basis. The compliance designation of a
facility in the PCS database is done using a
mathematical formula that takes into account the
amount, duration, and frequency of discharges in
comparison with permit levels. In some instances
facilities may be manually designated as SNC,
even if the PCS data system does not
automatically designate them as such. Examples
of events that could result in the manual
generation of a SNC code for a facility include:
unauthorized discharges; failure of a facility to
enforce its approved pretreatment program;
failure to meet a construction deadline; failure to
file a DMR; filing a DMR more than 30 days
late; or violating any judicial or administrative
order. Manually entered compliance data, if
present, override machine-generated compliance
data.
A facility may have multiple discharge points
and different designations for each point. If any
of these points show a SNC type code, then the
overall facility status is listed as SNC, even if
other discharge points are in compliance.
Removal of the SNC designation occurs once the
facility's DMR reports show a consistent pattern
of compliance with permit limits, or if EPA or a
state agency issues a formal enforcement order to
address the violations that resulted in the SNC
designation.
CAA
The following criteria can trigger high
priority violator (HPV) status under the CAA:
• Failure to obtain a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permit;
• Violation of an air toxics requirement;
• Violation by a synthetic minor of an
emission limit that affects the source's
regulatory status;
• Violation of an administrative or judicial
order;
Substantial violations of a sources Title V
obligations;
• Failure to submit a Title V permit
application within 60 days of the deadline;
• Testing, monitoring, record keeping or
reporting violations that substantially
interfere with enforcement or
determination of a facility's compliance
requirements;
• Violation of an allowable emission limit
detected during a source test;
Chronic or recalcitrant violations; or
• Substantial violations of 112 (r)
requirements.
Under the CAA, the HPV designation is
removed once a facility demonstrates it has
resolved the violation that led to the HPV listing.
The HPV flag is reported in AIRS/AFS. A 'YES'
appears in the column to indicate that the facility
has HPV status.
50
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
SDWA/PWSS
Under SDWA/PWSS, facilities in SNC have
more serious, frequent, or persistent violations.
The criteria which designate a system as a SNC
vary by contaminant. Different SNC definitions
exist for total coliform, turbidity, nitrates,
chemical and radiological, surface water, and
lead and copper. (See the guidance manuals cited
above for specific definitions). Once a system is
designated as a SNC, it is subject to EPA's timely
and appropriate response policy. SNCs that have
not returned to compliance or are not addressed
timely and appropriately are called Exceptions.
Timeliness for SNCs is eight months after the
system became a SNC. (Two months for the state
to determine, and become aware of, the system's
SNC status and six months in which to complete
the follow-up/enforcement action). The types of
actions considered appropriate include the
issuance of a formal state or federal
administrative or compliance order, a civil or
criminal referral to a state attorney general or the
Department of Justice, or state bilateral
compliance agreement signed by both the state
and the violator.
51
------- |