&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
EPA315-R-01-002
June 2001
Federal Facilities
Enforcement & Compliance
Accomplishments Report
FY 2000
-------
This document was prepared by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
For additional copies of this document, please contact:
The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20044
Phone:(202)564-2510
Fax:(202) 501-0069
For more information, visit the FFEO web site:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
1. Regulation and Policy 3
Integrating Environmental Considerations Into Day-to-Day Federal Agency Activities . . 3
DOJ Opinion Confirms EPA's Penalty Authority Against Federal Agencies for
Violations of the Underground Storage Tank Requirements of RCRA 3
2. Compliance Assurance 5
Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities FY 2000 5
First Inspections Completed as Part of the Federal Facilities Inspection Initiative 5
National Federal Facilities UST Initiative Continues After Favorable OLC Opinion .... 5
Two Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Updates Released 6
3. Compliance Assistance 9
Compliance Assistance Activities at Federal Facilities 9
Environmental Management Review National Report: Lessons Learned in
Conducting EMRs at Federal Facilities 10
A Guide for Ship Scrappers - Tips for Regulatory Compliance 10
EPA-National Park Service Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Project 11
FedSite - the Federal Facility Compliance Assistance Center 11
4. Regulatory Reinvention 13
Project XL: Web-Based Electronic Reporting Project at NASA White Sands
Test Facility 13
5. Enforcement 15
Federal Facilities Enforcement Actions in FY 2000 15
6. Cleanup Agreements 21
Federal Facility Agreements Completed in FY 2000 21
7. Case Summaries 23
CAA Cases 23
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Fined by EPA Region VI for Clean Air Act
Violations 23
U.S. Department of Energy, Schenectady Naval Reactor Office 23
Region IX: Davis-Monthan AFB to Pay $72,918 to Settle Alleged
Air Violations 23
Region X Issues a Notice of Violation Under the Clean Air Act to the United
States Army, Fort Richardson, Alaska 24
Region X Issues Administrative Complaint under the Clean Air Act to the United
States Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, Alaska 24
-------
CERCLA Cases 24
Time Critical Removal Agreement Signed for the Former Nansemond
Ordnance Depot 24
CWA Cases 25
Region X and Navy Sign a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to Address
Clean Water Act Violations at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 25
Region X and Army Sign a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to Address
Clean Water Act Violations at Fort Lewis 25
Region X Enters Into Federal Facility Compliance Agreement With United
States Postal Service 25
RCRA Cases 26
EPA Settlement with Bureau of Engraving and Printing Plant in
Washington, D.C 26
EPA Environmental Appeals Board Reverses and Remands Tinker Air Force
Base UST Decision 26
Region VUI Issues RCRA 7003 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Order to BLM 27
Region X Issues Complaint and Compliance Oder to U.S. Army's Fort Lewis
for Underground Storage Tank Violations 27
SDWA Cases 28
Region VI Issues Three Safe Drinking Water Act Penalty Actions Against U.S.
Forest Service 28
Region IV Issues Safe Drinking Water Act Administrative Complaint Against
U.S. Army Base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28
Region I Orders Military to Clean up Unexploded Ordnance on Cape Cod .... 29
Fallen Naval Air Station Ordered to Comply With Safe Drinking Water Act . . 29
TSCA Cases 30
EPA Environmental Appeals Board Rules Against EPA in Section 1018 Lead-
Based Paint Case Brought Against Kingsville Naval Air Station 30
Attachments
Attachment 1. Organizational Structure of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office . . 31
Attachment 2. EPA Regional Federal Facilities Program Managers 33
Exhibits and Tables
Table 1. FY 2000 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 7
Table 2. FY 2000 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Agency
Category and Statute as Tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket 16
Table 3. FY 2000 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Region as
Tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket Database 18
Table 4. FY 2000 Federal Facility Agreements for Superfund Sites 21
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Introduction
Federal facilities, like all other regulated facilities, are responsible for complying with environmental
requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) and the ten EPA
Regional offices work with federal agencies to help them comply with environmental requirements
and take all necessary actions to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. EPA assists
federal facilities in complying with environmental requirements and preventing pollution and takes
enforcement actions against federal facilities to remedy and deter their noncompliance. It is EPA's
goal that all federal agencies reach a level of compliance with environmental requirements that
equals or surpasses the rest of the regulated community. To accomplish this goal, the Federal
Facility Enforcement and Compliance Program has a sector orientation, using multi-media
enforcement and emphasizing compliance assistance and pollution prevention.
FFEO participates in enforcement negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and enforcement
activities undertaken by Regions, and is responsible for resolving enforcement disputes between
EPA and other agencies. Each EPA Region has a designated Federal Facilities Program Manager
(FFPM), who, in conjunction with other EPA Regional staff, is responsible for coordinating the
implementation of EPA's federal facilities policies and programs at the Regional level. They serve
as the primary Regional point of contact for facility environmental managers. FFEO works closely
with Regional FFPMs. Their responsibilities include giving program assistance and training for
federal facilities; informing federal facilities about current environmental issues and developments;
managing, tracking, overseeing, and planning compliance activities; encouraging pollution
prevention; and coordinating with the Region's media program staff to implement federal facilities
enforcement programs.
A focus on compliance assurance and enforcement activities marks FFEO's FY 2000
accomplishments. In particular, FFEO released the twelfth and thirteenth updates of the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket; continued with the National Federal Facilities
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Initiative; released the Environmental Management Review
National Report and A Guide for Ship Scrappers; launched FedSite, EPA's internet compliance
assistance center for federal facilities; and took 46 enforcement actions at federal facilities. These
efforts, when combined with compliance assistance, regulation and policy, and regulatory
reinvention activities, strengthened the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program and
provided a strong foundation for achieving EPA's mission.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 1 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 2 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
1. Regulation and Policy
Integrating Environmental Considerations Into Day-to-Day Federal Agency Activities
On April 21, 2000, President Clinton signed Executive Order (E.G.) 13148 entitled "Greening the
Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management." The primary goal of the E.O. is
to ensure that the federal government integrates environmental accountability into agencies' day-to-
day decision-making and long-term planning processes, across each federal agency's mission,
activities, and functions. Signature of the E.O. marked the high point of a three year effort by federal
agencies to set forth a framework for renewed environmental leadership at federal agencies.
The E.O. builds on the achievements and success of previous E.O.'s and identifies goals to guide
federal agencies in integrating environmental planning and accountability. There are seven goals:
developing and implementing environmental management systems (EMSs); improving compliance
with environmental statutes and regulations; fully implementing right-to-know and pollution
prevention programs; reducing releases of toxic chemicals; reducing use of toxic and hazardous
substances; reducing the use of ozone depleting substances; and instituting environmentally sound
landscaping practices.
In particular, the E.O. calls for each federal agency to conduct a preliminary EMS review within the
agency and implement EMSs at agency facilities, where appropriate. This is a unique opportunity
for the federal government to actively incorporate environmental considerations across agency
operations. Further, EPA has the opportunity to lead by example and promote EMSs both in the
federal community and the private sector.
Under the E.O., EPA is responsible for providing assistance to other federal agencies and facilities
in meeting the goals of the E.O. After signature of the E.O., FFEO initiated contact with a number
of federal agencies to coordinate EPA's interagency assistance efforts. Since that time FFEO has
coordinated interagency implementation activities and serves as chair of an interagency workgroup
with over 60 members representing over 25 federal agencies and services. FFEO also chairs two
smaller groups charged with developing protocols on reducing usage of toxic substances and
implementing EMSs at federal facilities. As required by the E.O., FFEO established FedSite in
February 2000 - an internet-based compliance assistance center for federal facilities. EPA also
launched the National Environmental Performance Track Program in 2000 to recognize private and
public facilities with established EMSs.
DOJ Opinion Confirms EPA's Penalty Authority Against Federal Agencies for
Violations of the Underground Storage Tank Requirements of RCRA
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has resolved a dispute between
EPA and the Department of Defense (DoD) by confirming EPA authority to require federal agencies
to pay penalties for violations of UST requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The opinion was issued by the OLC on June 14, 2000, in accordance with E.O. 12146
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 3 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
which governs resolution of legal disputes between Executive Branch agencies. The dispute between
EPA and DoD originated from the two agencies' differing interpretations of whether sections
6001(b) and 9006 of RCRA confer upon EPA authority to assess administrative penalties for UST
violations.
The OLC opinion confirmed EPA's penalty authority against federal agencies under sections 6001 (b)
and 9006 of RCRA using the clear express statement standard, and confirmed the validity of EPA's
UST field citation procedures. OLC examined the UST issues and concluded that "RCRA clearly
grants EPA the authority to assess penalties against federal agencies for UST violations and that
EPA's UST field citation procedures do not violate RCRA or the Constitution." The OLC opinion
goes on to state that "a straightforward reading of RCRA's statutory text and the relevant legislative
history leads us to conclude that it was clearly Congress's intent to authorize EPA to assess penalties
against federal agencies for violation of the UST requirements."
This long-awaited confirmation of the validity of EPA's UST field citation procedures as well as
EPA's UST penalty authority over federal agencies is an important development for EPA's Federal
Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program. The OLC's opinion is consistent with its July
1997 opinion which confirmed EPA's penalty authority under sections 113 (d), 205(c), and 211 (d)(l)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In both opinions, DOJ determined that EPA has penalty authority
against federal agencies under any law provided that the statute clearly provides the authority,
regardless of whether the waiver of sovereign immunity would be considered broad enough to
subject federal agencies to penalties assessed by those outside the federal government. EPA now
has administrative order and penalty authority against federal facilities under several environmental
laws including CAA, RCRA (UST and hazardous waste), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA),
and the lead-based paint provisions of Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 4 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
2. Compliance Assurance
Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities FY 2000
A nationwide total of 33 multi-media inspections were performed at federal facilities during FY
2000. State and local government inspectors participated in twelve of the inspections. A minimum
of two environmental statutes, one of which was either the Clean Water Act (CWA), CAA, or
RCRA, were focused upon at each facility. Overall, the inspections covered RCRA, CWA, CAA,
TSC A, SOW A, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Five of the 33 multi-media inspections took
place at Civilian Federal Agency (CF A) facilities - Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), U. S. Coast
Guard, Department of Treasury, Government Printing Office (GPO), and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Twenty-five inspections took place at DoD facilities and three took
place at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. For the time frame FY 1993 - FY 2000, EPA
Regions have conducted a total of 259 multi-media inspections. See Table 1 on page 7 for a list of
all FY 2000 multi-media federal facilities inspections.
First Inspections Completed as Part of the Federal Facilities Inspection Initiative
In FY 2000, FFEO assisted the Regions with inspections at three federal facilities. The Federal
Facilities Inspection Initiative was established to provide participating Regions with contract support
for planning, conducting, and documenting compliance evaluation inspections. So far, inspections
have been completed at the Army National Training Center/Fort Irwin in Fort Irwin, California
(June 2000); the Mountain Home Air Force Base in Mountain Home, Idaho (September 2000); and
GPO in Washington, D.C. (September 2000).
At each facility, the contract-inspectors helped EPA determine compliance with hazardous waste
generati on/treatment/storage/disposal requirements under RCRA, CAA Title Vpermit requirements
(compliance certification), Title VI chlorofluorocarbon requirements under the CAA, storm water
requirements under the CWA, and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements under
the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). The Regions are reviewing inspection reports to determine appropriate
responses based on the findings.
National Federal Facilities LIST Initiative Continues After Favorable OLC Opinion
The National Underground Storage Tank Initiative was strengthened following a favorable opinion
issued by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel on June 14, 2000. The opinion resolved a dispute
between EPA and DoD by confirming EPA's authority to require federal agencies to pay penalties
for violations of UST requirements under RCRA.
The initiative was originally launched by FFEO during the spring of 1999 to ensure compliance with
UST requirements (in particular with the December 1998 tank upgrade requirements). Federal
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 5 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
facilities not meeting these requirements are considered by EPA a high priority for enforcement.
EPA Regions submitted top candidate facilities for inspection based on several criteria, including
proximity to sources of drinking water or sensitive ecosystems, compliance history, age of tanks as
well as other factors. The inspections, which were conducted nationwide during the summer and fall
of 1999, were carried out by a team of experienced inspectors from EPA Headquarters (the Office
of Compliance, the National Enforcement Investigation Center, the Office of Regulatory
Enforcement, and FFEO) and the Regional offices.
The long-awaited confirmation of EPA's penally authority has provided a new impetus to the
initiative. The Fort Lewis complaint ($469,661 proposed penalty filed on September 18, 2000) is
the first major penalty action taken against a federal facility since the OLC opinion was issued.
Two Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Updates Released
The twelfth and thirteenth updates of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket were
published in the Federal Register on June 12 and December 29, 2000, respectively. Each update
details additions, deletions, and corrections to the previous docket update. Sectionl20(c) of
CERCLA requires EPA to establish the docket and to publish it twice per year in the Federal
Register. It contains information about federal facilities engaged in hazardous waste activity and
about facilities from which hazardous substances may have been or may be released.
The purpose of the docket is to:
identify all federal facilities that must be evaluated to determine whether they pose
a risk to human health and the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the
National Priorities List;
compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA on such facilities under the
provisions listed in Section 120(c) of CERCLA; and
provide a mechanism to make information available to the public.
The initial list of federal facilities to be included in the docket was published February 1988, and the
thirteenth update now contains a total of 2,226 federal facilities.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 6 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Table 1: FY 2000 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Region I
VA Medical Center, RI
New Hampshire Air National Guard at Pease Air
Force Base, NH
U.S. Coast Guard Station, ME
Vermont Air National Guard, Camp Johnson, VT
Region II
U.S. Treasury, U.S. Mint, NY
U.S. Army, Ft. Monmouth, NJ
Region III
Government Printing Office, B.C.
Metro Machine Corporation, PA
(Navy-Ship Dismantling Ex Blakely FF-1072)
Baltimore Marine Industries, MD
(Navy Ship Dismantling Ex Patterson FF-1061)
Norfolk Naval Ship Yard, VA
Region IV
NASA, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS
(included the Mississippi Army Ammunition
Plant)
DOE, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, TN
U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry
Point, NC
U.S. Air Force, Shaw Air Force Base, SC
Region V
DOE, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH
Region VI
U.S. Army, Pine Bluff Arsenal, AK
U.S. Air Force, Cannon Air Force Base, NM
Region VII
U.S. Army, Ft. Riley, Junction City, KS
Iowa Air National Guard, IA
Missouri Air National Guard, MO
U.S. Air Force, Offutt Air Force Base, NE
U.S. Air Force, McConnel Air Force Base, KS
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, KS
U.S. Air Force, Whiteman Air Force Base, MO
U.S. Army, Ft. Leonard, Wood, MO
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, IA
Region VIII
U.S. Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, UT
Buckley Air National Guard Base, CO
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO
U.S. Air Force, Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT
Region IX
DOE, Nevada Test Site, NV
DoD, Army National Training Center, Fort
Irwin, CA
Region X
DoD, Yakima Training Center, WA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 8 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
3. Compliance Assistance
Compliance Assistance Activities at Federal Facilities
Compliance assistance activities targeted to the federal facilities sector ranged from responding to
phone calls and e-mails from federal agencies to providing information via web sites, mailings,
on-site visits and conferences. The ten EPA Regions and Headquarters offices performed 45 on-site
compliance assistance visits (including 14 Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs)) and 344
workshops and presentations regarding federal agencies' obligations under various environmental
statutes. Together, all compliance assistance activities reached just over 29,300 federal personnel
in all categories of federal agencies DoD, DOE, and CFAs.
A few highlights of the compliance assistance activities directed to federal agencies included:
EPA Region I conducted four mercury site visits which led to a reduction of 300
pounds of mercury used at one of the sites. The purpose of the on-site visits was to
pilot test the mercury management questionnaire and the mercury source checklist
Region I developed and prepared case studies on each of the facilities efforts to
reduce and dispose of mercury.
EPA Region II developed a Federal Facilities Website to provide access to EPA
multi-media compliance assistance and enforcement information, other federal
agency web-sites, and pollution prevention resources.
Region HI organized a conference in Baltimore, MD, with the theme "Partnerships
for a Better Environment." Three hundred fifty people attended from state, EPA, and
other federal agencies.
Region IV conducted on-site visits to the Choctaw and Seminole Bureau of Indian
Affairs to assess environmental compliance assistance needs.
Region V performed a RCRA presentation to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration on the management of hazardous waste.
Region VI performed an on-site visit to a DOE facility to provide information on the
cleanup of PCB contaminated soil.
Region Vn conducted a federal healthcare facilities workshop for 35 individuals in
conjunction with a Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable Meeting.
Region VIII delivered an Oil Pollution Act Workshop for 55 CFA representatives.
Region IX mailed information to all 1,650 federal facility contacts regarding the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 9 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
requirements of RCRA Section 6002, the federal "Buy-Recycled" program.
Region X conducted EMRs at three Bureau of Land Management sites in Oregon.
FFEO Headquarters conducted interagency workshops to assist federal agencies with
implementation of the EMS requirements of E.O. 13148.
Environmental Management Review National Report: Lessons Learned in
Conducting EMRs at Federal Facilities
FFEO completed a 2 1A> year Environmental Management Review Pilot Program where EPA
Regional employees and contractors conducted reviews at federal facilities. The study involved 29
separate EMRs done in seven EPA Regions. These pilot programs complemented the previous
efforts of EPA Regions I, VI, and X where some reviews had been done for several years prior to
the formal pilot program.
The pilot program provided EPA with lessons learned and the ability to identify common strengths
and areas of improvement needed to implement EMSs. A few of the strengths and areas of
improvement derived from the pilot program are:
federal facilities personnel acknowledge their environmental responsibilities and are
committed to protecting the environment;
agencies participate in cooperative environmental programs with other organizations;
facilities lack facility-specific environmental policies, goals, objectives, or targets;
and
agencies and facilities lack adequate environmental staff and formal, annual training,
plans, and mechanisms to track individual training needs and accomplishments.
By conducting more EMRs at federal facilities, EPA has the opportunity to help federal agencies
focus on ways in which a federal facility manages its activities to decrease adverse impacts on the
environment. As a compliance assistance tool, EMRs promote improvement of regulatory
compliance, prevent pollution, and encourage good environmental management practices.
For more information about the EMR program, please refer to the National Report (EPA 315-R-99-
003) which is posted at: www.epa.gov/oeca.
A Guide For Ship Scrappers - Tips for Regulatory Compliance
In response to recommendations from the Interagency Ship Scrapping Panel to develop an
environmental and worker safety compliance manual for industry, FFEO formed an interagency
working group to develop a guide for ship scrappers. Working with representatives from the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 10 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Maritime Administration
(MARAD), the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), the U.S. Navy, and the U.S.
Coast Guard, FFEO created the guide to provide site supervisors with an overview of the most
pertinent environmental and worker health and safety requirements to assist them in ensuring
compliance at their facilities. FFEO published the guide in 2000.
The guide is structured by specific processes (e.g., asbestos removal, metal cutting, fuel and oil
removal) that occur in ship breaking and scrapping operations. Taking a process-specific approach
allows the guide to be a more manageable and useful reference tool for key ship scrapping facility
personnel. Ship scrappers can review key environmental, safety, and health requirements for each
process. There are separate stand-alone sections for each process that can be used during training
sessions to educate workers about best practices for ship breaking and scrapping. References to the
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations have been provided throughout the guide, and
readers are encouraged to review these regulations in detail. Where possible, helpful shadow and
check boxes have been provided to articulate guidance or tips.
The Guide for Ship Scrappers - Tips for Regulatory Compliance can be found at: www. epa.gov/oeca.
EPA-National Park Service Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Project
During 1999 - 2000, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks piloted a project for EPA Region
VIII and the State of Wyoming's Pollution Prevention Program in which the parks switched to
environmentally preferable cleaning products. Staff at both parks indicated the switch was more
beneficial to the environment and were pleased that more environmentally friendly alternatives were
identified for use at their parks. Plant-based products, rather than petrochemical based products, are
being used at the parks. The general cleaning products do not contain disinfectants, which are used
separately as needed. The products do not contain chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) levels meet or exceed California's VOC regulations for cleaning
products. The products are sold in bulk and measured in appropriate concentrations by on-site
dispensers. Finally, the products are not delivered in aerosol cans.
A report, Cleaning National Parks: Using Environmentally Preferable Janitorial Products at
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, describes the proj ect and how it was implemented.
The report was printed on 100% post consumer recycled content paper that is process chlorine free.
It is available through the EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse. Contact the
clearinghouse at ppic@epamail.epa.gov.
FedSite - the Federal Facility Compliance Assistance Center
In February 2000, EPA opened its tenth compliance assistance center FedSite. FedSite is an
internet-based, centralized resource of environmental information for federal government agencies,
and is sponsored by FFEO. FedSite contains a virtual tour of a fictitious facility and addresses
compliance issues typical of federal facilities, including air emissions, water discharges, and
hazardous waste management. FedSite also contains links to other federal agencies where one can
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 11 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
obtain information on policies, procedures, programs and requirements of other federal agencies; 50
state environmental and natural resource agencies; the nine other compliance assistance centers;
EPA's National Enforcement Training Institute and other training resources; regulatory compliance
and pollution prevention demonstration and pilot projects between EPA and other federal agencies;
and a variety of relevant executive orders, policy documents and other publications. FedSite is
continually upgraded with new information aimed at helping federal agencies comply with
environmental requirements and stay abreast of the latest developments which impact their
operations. Visit FedSite at www.epa.gov/fedsite. All ten compliance assistance centers can be
accessed directly atwww.assistancecenters.net.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 12 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
4. Regulatory Reinvention
Project XL: Web-Based Electronic Reporting Project at NASA White Sands Test
Facility
EPA signed an agreement on September 22,2000 with the NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF)
and the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) to implement a centralized, multi-media,
web-based information management and compliance reporting system which will be implemented
under EPA's Project XL. Project XL, which stands for "excellence and Leadership," is a national
initiative that tests innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public health and
environmental protection.
NASA's web-based system will electronically provide regulatory reports and permit information to
NMED in lieu of paper reports to satisfy existing EPA and the NMED regulatory requirements. In
addition, the web-based system will include a public access section to give the general public access
to historical site information, ground water database archives, geographic information system
reports, ISO certification information, recycling data, waste minimization reports, National
Environmental Policy Act information, community-right-to-know issues, and other associated
compliance information.
The NASA proj ect will provide EPA, NMED, and the public with improved access to higher quality
regulatory information, scientific data, and analytical tools. The web-based information system also
will facilitate a more thorough analysis of WSTF's environmental data and reports by NMED and
the general public. The project also will reduce paper use and lower staff costs, both at NASA and
at the regulatory agencies.
To implement this project, NASA WSTF must request regulatory flexibility from existing EPA and
NMED regulations that require a written signature or paper submission of regulatory reports and
permit information affected under this project. As part of this project, EPA will draft site specific
rule(s) to facilitate the electronic transmission of permit information and compliance reports. In
addition, a formal stakeholder outreach process has been developed by NASA WSTF. The outreach
effort will involve public meetings and comment periods at key points throughout the project.
The experience and lessons learned from Project XL will assist EPA in redesigning its current
regulatory and policy-setting approaches. Project XL encourages testing of cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter ways to attain environmental results superior to those achieved under current regulations and
policies. It also requires greater involvement by stakeholders - the people and organizations affected
by EPA's decisions. It is vital that each proj ect test new ideas with the potential for wide application
and broad environmental benefits. Proj ect XL offers a tremendous opportunity for everyone to think
"outside the box" of the current system and to find solutions to obstacles that limit environmental
performance.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 13 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 14 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
5. Enforcement
Federal Facilities Enforcement Actions in FY 2000
In FY 2000, as tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, EPA issued or finalized 46
enforcement actions against federal agencies and government contractors. DoD was named in 20
of these actions, DOE in 5 of the actions, and CFAs in 16 of the actions. In five actions, a federal
government contractor was cited as the sole defendant. Four actions cited both the government
contractor and the federal agency for which it performed work.
On an EPA Regional basis, Region 10 issued/finalized the most actions with 11 actions reported.
On a statute basis, 16 RCRA actions, 9 SDWA actions, 16 CAA actions, and 5 actions under other
environmental statutes were issued/finalized. Of the 46 actions, 24 were penalty orders. Under
RCRA, $719,184 in penalties were proposed and $41,450 in penalties were collected in final penalty
orders. Under CAA, $98,568 in cash and $231,000 in supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)
were collected in final penalty orders. The total amount of penalties in all final penalty orders for
all statutes was $140,018 in penalties and $231,000 in SEPs. The total amount of penalties in all
proposed penalty orders for all statutes was $844,184. Additionally, over $370 million of work to
correct violations and come back into compliance is to be done as a result of EPA's enforcement
actions.
Tables 2 and 3, beginning on the next page, present FY 2000 EPA enforcement actions against
federal facilities by agency category and statute and by EPA Region. Details on some of the actions
presented in the tables are described in more detail in the Case Summaries.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 15 June 2001
-------
Table 2: FY 2000 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Agency Category and Statute
as Tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Other
4*
Ifj
I
4*
Q
o
+rf
=
I
a
Q
3008A Penalty Order
Defense Logistics Agency,
Ft. Campbell, KY
($37,125 proposed penalty)
'U.S. Army, Letterkenny Army
Depot, PA
($162,030 proposed penalty)
3008H Corrective Action
U.S. Navy, Atlantic Fleet, PR
9006 UST
U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, WA
($469,661 proposed penalty)
9006 Field Citation
U.S. Navy, Naval Ship Repair
Facility, Guam ($450 penalty)
U.S. Army, AAFES Gas Station, HI
($600 penalty)
113A Compliance Order
U.S. Army, KS
113D Penalty Order
U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, VA
($1650 penalty)
DoD, DRMO, VA
($0 penalty)
U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station
Corpus Christi, TX
($5000 penalty)
U.S. Air Force, Davis Monthan
AFB, AZ
($72,918 penalty)
U.S. Army, Ft. Wainwright, AK
($25,000/day/violation proposed
penalty)
Notice of Violation
U.S. Army, Ft. Richardson, AK
1431 Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment Order
U.S. Army and MA National
Guard, Massachusetts Military
Reservation, MA
1447B Penalty Order
U.S. Army, Ft. Bragg, NC
($25,000/day/violation
proposed)
1414G Compliance Order
U.S. Army, Ft. Missoula, MT
U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station
Fallen, NV
CERCLA
DoD, Nansemond Ordnance
Works, VA (hybrid 120E/104
agreement)
CWA Federal Facility Compliance
Agreements
U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, WA
U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, WA
0)
r
et
i>
P
9006 Field Citation
JNEEL, ID ($150 penalty)
113A Compliance Order
Knolls Atomic Power Lab, NY*
Knolls Atomic Power Lab, NY**
Knolls Atomic Power Lab, NY***
Knolls Atomic Power Lab,
-------
0)
0)
a
RCRA
3008A Penalty Order
Department of Treasury, D.C.
($38,000 penalty)
7003 Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment Order
DOI, Bureau of Land Management,
WY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Northern Mariana Islands
9006 UST
U.S. Postal Service, IL
($450 proposed penalty)
Veterans Affairs, Hefner Medical
Center, NC
($49,918 proposed penalty)
9006 Field Citation
General Services Administration, IL
($1200 penalty)
CAA
113A Compliance Order
Tennessee Valley Authority, TN
Veterans Affairs, VA Medical
Center, SC
113D Penalty Order
Department of Treasury, Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, TX
($14,000 and $231,000 SEP)
SDWA
1147B Penalty Order
USD A, Forest Service,
Guadalupe Admin. Site, NM
($25,000/day/violation proposed)
USD A, Forest Service, Canjilon
Lakes Campground, NM
($25,000/day/violation
proposed)
USD A, Forest Service, Duran
Campground, NM
($25,000/day/violation
proposed)
1414G Compliance Order
Veterans Affairs, LA
USD A, Forest Service, Targhee
National Forest-Alpine
Campground, WY
Other
FIFRA 13A Stop Sale, Use and
Removal Order
DOI, National Park Service,
Glacier National Park, MT
CWA Federal Facility Compliance
Agreements
U.S. Postal Service, AK for SPCC
violations
O
u
O
O
9006 Field Citation
Bechtel Company, ID
(DOE GOCO at INEEL)
($300 penalty)
Bechtel Company, ID
(DOE GOCO at INEEL)
($300 penalty)
Bechtel Company, ID
(DOE GOCO at INEEL)
($450 penalty)
113A Compliance Order
Knolls Atomic Power Labs, Inc.,
NY (DOE GOCO)*
Knolls Atomic Power Labs, Inc.,
NY (DOE GOCO)**
Schenectady Naval Reactor
Kessler, NY (DOE GOCO)***
Schenectady Naval Reactor-NISK,
NY (DOE GOCO)****
Mercer Wrecking and Recycling
Corporation, NJ (Air Force
GOCO)
113D Penalty Order
Alaska Abatement Corp., AK
(U.S. Coast Guard GOCO)
($5000 penalty)
note: all actions and penalties are final except where noted.
* one action with two defendants ** one action with two defendants
*** one action with two defendants **** one action with two defendants
-------
Table 3: FY 2000 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Region
as Tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket Database
Region 1
SDWA 1431 Imminent and
Substantial Endangerment Order
U.S. Army and MA National Guard, Massachusetts Military
Reservation, MA
Region 2
CAA 113A Compliance Orders
RCRA 3008H Corrective Action
Orders
Knolls Atomic Power Labs, Inc. (GOCO) and DOE Knolls
Atomic Power Lab, NY
Knolls Atomic Power Labs, Inc. (GOCO) and DOE Knolls
Atomic Power Lab, NY
Schenectady Naval Reactor Kessler (GOCO) and DOE
Knolls Atomic Power Lab, NY
Schenectady Naval Reactor-NISK (GOCO) and DOE Knolls
Atomic Power Lab, NY
Mercer Wrecking and Recycling Corporation, NJ (Air Force
GOCO)
U.S. Navy, Atlantic Fleet, PR
Region 3
CAA 1 13D Penalty Orders
RCRA 3008A Penalty Orders
CERCLA
U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, VA ($ 1 65 0 penalty)
U.S. DoD, Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, VA
($0 penalty)
Department of the Treasury, D.C. ($38,000 penalty)
U.S. Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, PA ($162,030 proposed
penalty)
DoD, Nansemond Ordnance Works, VA (hybrid 120E/104
agreement)
Region 4
SDWA 1447B Penalty Order
CAA 113A Compliance Orders
RCRA 3008A Penalty Orders
RCRA 9006 UST
U.S. Army, Ft. Bragg, NC ($25,000/day/violation proposed
penalty)
Tennessee Valley Authority, TN
Department of Veterans Affairs-VA Medical Center, SC
DoD, Defense Logistics Agency, Ft. Campbell, KY ($37, 125
proposed penalty)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Hefner Medical Center, NC
($49,918 proposed penalty)
Region 5
RCRA 9006 (UST)
RCRA 9006 UST Field Citation
U.S. Postal Service, IL ($450 proposed penalty)
General Services Administration, IL ($1200 penalty)
Region 6
CAA 1 13D Penalty Orders
U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX ($5000
penalty)
Department of Treasury-Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
TX ($14,000 penalty and $231,000 SEP)
-------
SDWA 1447B Penalty Orders
SDWA 1414G Compliance Order
USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Guadalupe Administrative Site,
NM ($25,000/day/violation proposed penalty)
USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Canjilon Lakes Campground,
NM ($25,000/day/violation proposed penalty)
USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Duran Campground, NM
($25,000/day/violation proposed penalty)
Department of Veterans Affairs, LA
Region 7
CAA 113A Compliance Order
U.S. Army, KS
Region 8
SDWA 1414G Compliance Order
RCRA 7003 Imminent and
Substantial Endangerment Order
FIFRA 13A Stop Sale, Use and
Removal Order
U.S. Army, Ft. Missoula, MT
USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Targhee National Forest-Alpine
Campground, WY
Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management, WY
Department of Interior-National Park Service, Glacier
National Park, MT
Region 9
SDWA 1414G Compliance Order
CAA 11 3D Penalty Order
RCRA 7003 Imminent and
Substantial Endangerment Order
RCRA 9006 UST Field Citation
U.S. Navy, Naval Air Station Fallen, NV
U.S. Air Force, Davis Monthan Air Force Base, AZ ($72,918
penalty)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam ($450 penalty)
U.S. Army, AAFES Gas Station, HI ($600 penalty)
Region 10
CAA 1 13D Penalty Orders
CAA Notice of Violation
RCRA 9006 (UST)
RCRA 9006 UST Field Citations
CWA Federal Facility
Compliance Agreements
Alaska Abatement Corporation, AK (U.S. Coast Guard
GOCO) ($5000 penalty)
U.S. Army, Ft. Wainwright, AK ($25,000/day/violation
proposed penalty)
U.S. Army, Ft. Richardson, AK
U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, WA ($469,66 1 proposed penalty)
Department of Energy, INEEL, ID ($ 1 5 0 penalty)
Bechtel Company (GOCO) at DOE INEEL, ID ($300
penalty)
Bechtel Company (GOCO) at DOE INEEL, ID ($300
penalty)
Bechtel Company (GOCO) at DOE INEEL, ID ($450
penalty)
U.S. Postal Service, AK (for SPCC violations)
U.S. Army, Ft. Lewis, WA
U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WA
note: all actions and penalties are final except where noted.
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 20 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
6. Cleanup Agreements
Federal Facility Agreements Completed in FY 2000
EPA, the Navy, and DOE signed two Interagency Agreements in FY 2000 that will govern the
cleanup of two Superfund sites. Interagency agreements are entered into by EPA, the responsible
federal agency, and often the state, and provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the
entire cleanup, including penalty provisions for missed deliverables. CERCLA §120(e) requires
EPA and the responsible federal agency to negotiate and sign agreements for all federal facility
Superfund sites that are listed on the NPL. The following table provides some detail on the two
signed agreements:
Table 4: FY 2000 Federal Facility Agreements at Superfund Sites
Federal Facility Name
South Weymouth Naval Air Station
LEHR Landfill
State
MA
CA
Agency
Navy
DOE
Listed on NPL
5/94
5/94
IAG Signed
11/30/99
10/29/99
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
21
June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 22 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
7. Case Summaries
In FY 2000, EPA took 46 formal enforcement actions against federal facilities under CAA,
CERCLA, CWA, RCRA, SOW A, and TSCA. Some of these actions, as well as other actions that
are not tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, are summarized below.
CAA Cases
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Fined by EPA Region VIfor Clean Air Act Violations
EPA Region VI settled its enforcement action against the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's (BEP)
Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas. BEP violated Clean Air Act regulations by not
properly controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds from cleaning and degreasing solvents,
and record-keeping and reporting deficiencies. BEP will pay a cash penalty of $14,000 and
undertake SEPs valued at $231,000. The projects include installation of a pollution prevention
system on BEP's nickel plating line, additional pollution reduction equipment on BEP's chromium
plating line, and rinse water recycling equipment in both the nickel and chrome plating systems.
U.S. Department of Energy, Schenectady Naval Reactor Office
In February of 2000, Region II issued administrative orders to DOE, and to its contractor, Knolls
Atomic Power Laboratories, Inc., a Lockheed Martin Company, for their failure to comply with
various Clean Air Act reporting and record keeping requirements for steam generating facilities at
DOE's Niskayuna, NY and West Milton, NY locations.
DOE was required to record and maintain records of the amounts of fuel combusted during each day
at each facility. In addition, DOE was required to maintain such records for a period of two years.
An EPA inspection of each facility discovered the violations. The compliance orders are intended
to ensure both DOE's and its contractor's compliance with the record keeping requirements.
Region IX: Davis-Monthan AFB to Pay $72,918 to Settle Alleged Air Violations
On April 17, 2000, EPA reached a settlement with DoD that called for DoD to pay $72,918 for
numerous alleged Clean Air Act violations at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, AZ. The
alleged violations occurred while removing asbestos during a renovation of an airman's housing
facility in August 1995. The alleged violations included: failure to provide written notification of
its intention to renovate; failure to keep regulated asbestos-containing material adequately wet when
stripping from a facility; failure to keep regulated asbestos-containing material adequately wet until
collected and contained or treated in preparation for disposal; failure to discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air during the collection, processing or transporting of asbestos-containing
waste material; and failure to deposit regulated asbestos-containing waste material at an approved
waste disposal site.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 23 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Region XIssues a Notice of Violation Under the Clean Air Act to the United States Army, Fort
Richardson, Alaska
On June 19, 2000, Region X issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) under Section 113(a) of the CAA
to the United States Army, Alaska Garrison, Fort Richardson, Alaska. An inspection conducted by
EPA in May 1999, revealed that Fort Richardson had been operating four emergency coal-fired
boilers without a properly functioning continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for carbon
monoxide and oxygen, and without a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). In addition,
the inspector observed that the facility was violating the 20% opacity standard as prescribed in its
operating permit. The NOV also alleges that the Army failed to notify the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) when the CEMS or COMS were not properly functioning,
failed to timely submit its semi-annual Facility Operating Reports, and failed to conduct performance
tests on its CEMS and COMS as required by its operating permit.
Region X Issues Administrative Complaint under the Clean Air Act to the United States Army, Fort
Wainwright, Fairbanks, Alaska
On December 30, 1999, Region X issued an administrative complaint under Section 113(d) of CAA
to the United States Army, Fort Wainwright, located in Fairbanks, Alaska. An inspection conducted
by EPA revealed that Fort Wainwright had been operating six coal-fired boilers at its central heating
and power plant without emission control devices to provide optimum control of air contaminant
emissions in violation of its operating permit, the Alaska State Implementation Plan, and the CAA.
As a result of the Army's failure to have installed baghouses on its boilers, emissions from the plant
violate the 20% opacity standard on almost a daily basis. The Army also failed to have continuous
emission monitors for carbon monoxide and oxygen, and continuous opacity monitors installed on
the boilers at the plant. A review of ADEC records revealed that these violations pre-date the EPA
inspection and are documented in state files back to 1992. The Region is seeing penalties of up to
$25,000 per day for each violation that occurred prior to January 31, 1997, and $27,500 per day for
each violation that occurred on or after that date.
CERCLA Cases
Time Critical Removal Agreement Signed for the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
CERCLA Section 104/120 Interagency agreement became effective on December 30, 1999 which
requires the performance of a CERCLA time critical removal action at the Former Nansemond
Ordnance Depot in Suffolk, Virginia. The Army will investigate and, as necessary, remove ordnance
and explosive hazards at the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot. This agreement is nationally
significant agreement because it contains provisions that: (1) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) may not proceed with work when EPA disagrees with the US ACE's work plans and (2)
the U.S. Army will seek an appropriation to reimburse EPA's oversight costs.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 24 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
CWA Cases
Region X and Navy Sign a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to Address Clean Water Act
Violations at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
In February of 2000, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, entered into a
compliance agreement with EPA to address a chronic problem of copper discharges into Puget
Sound's Sinclair Inlet, beyond what is allowed under its water discharge permit. The compliance
agreement outlines the steps the Navy will take to meet the conditions of its permit and remain in
compliance. As the largest naval shipyard on the west coast, the shipyard is allowed to discharge
wastewater directly into Sinclair Inlet, but only if it meets the EPA-specified permit conditions.
Discharge monitoring reports from 1997 to 1999 show the amount of copper released from the
shipyard frequently exceeded the permitted levels. Some of the copper in the wastewater comes
from dry-blasting paint from naval vessels. Under the compliance agreement, the Navy will develop
and implement procedures for reducing the amount of copper discharges into Sinclair Inlet including
conducting dry-blasting within contained enclosures and operating a collection and treatment system
for the wastewater from the dry docks.
Region X and Army Sign a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to Address Clean Water Act
Violations at Fort Lewis
In May of 2000, EPA Region X reached agreement with the U.S. Army on steps the Army will take
to correct chronic water pollution discharge problems at the Fort Lewis Army Installation in
Washington. Discharge Monitoring Reports from 1998 through May 1999 note 146 separate
violations of an EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The
violations were primarily for excessive discharge of oil and grease from auto and helicopter wash
facilities. The Army is allowed to discharge polluted water into Puget Sound at Solo Point, but only
in amounts specified in the NPDES permit. Under the Agreement, the Army will change its
wastewater handling process at an auto wash, prepare a plan to deal with problems at the helicopter
wash, upgrade oil and grease treatment at its outfall facilities, and upgrade a stormwater outfall as
part of a barracks renewal project.
Region XEnters Into Federal Facility Compliance Agreement With United States Postal Service
On August 24, 2000, Region X entered into a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFC A) with
the United States Postal Service (USPS) resolving alleged violations of Section 31 l(j) of the Clean
Water Act. On June 19, 2000, the Region notified the USPS that it was in violation of the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 112, for failing to prepare and implement a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan for its fuel storage tank located at the United States
post office located in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. The FFCA memorializes a schedule which will bring
the Dutch Harbor post office into compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 25 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
RCRA Cases
EPA Settlement with Bureau of Engraving and Printing Plant in Washington, D.C.
In July of 2000, the U.S. Treasury Department's BEP agreed to pay a $38,000 penalty for unsafe
storage and labeling of hazardous waste at the bureau's currency and postage stamp production plant
in Washington, D.C. In addition to the penalty, BEP has now certified its compliance with all
relevant regulations governing treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at the plant.
EPA's September 1999 administrative complaint alleged violations of several safeguards designed
to reduce the risk of hazardous waste spills and leaks, including unsafe storage of hazardous wastes,
failure to mark and date hazardous waste containers, and failure to properly identify hazardous waste
discharge emergency coordinators. The hazardous wastes included waste oils and butyl
alcohol-containing inks, residues from plating operations, bucket wash sludge, caustic wash, ferric
chloride, and spent cyanide solution residue.
EPA Environmental Appeals Board Reverses and Remands Tinker Air Force Base USTDecision
On July 27, 2000, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) reversed the May 19, 1999,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) order granting Tinker Air Force Base's Motions to Dismiss and for
Accelerated Decision, and remanded the case back to the ALJ. The EAB deferred to the June 14,
2000, Opinion of DO J' s OLC which confirmed EPA's penally authority against federal agencies for
UST violations under sections 600l(b) and 9006 of RCRA, and confirmed the validity of EPA's
UST field citation procedures.
The case was initiated in January 1998, when EPA Region VI filed an administrative complaint
against Tinker alleging violations of the UST requirements of RCRA. The administrative complaint
sought a penalty of $96,703, and was part of EPA's first set of UST cases against federal facilities.
At the same time the case was pending before the ALJ, and before the order was issued in May 1999,
DoD referred the issue of whether or not EPA has statutory authority to assess civil administrative
penalties against another federal agency for UST violations to the OLC. Shortly after the UST
penalty issue was referred to OLC, the ALJ issued the May 1999 order which found that EPA lacked
the statutory authority to assess civil administrative penalties against another federal agency under
the UST provisions of RCRA (Section 9006). EPA appealed the ALJ order to the EAB in June
1999. In light of the OLC opinion and with the case remanded to the ALJ, Tinker and EPA
recommenced settlement negotiations. A settlement was reached in November 2000, wherein Tinker
agreed to a pay a penalty of $51,500.
EPA has found that most federal facilities have proper UST equipment for release detection, spill
and overfill prevention, and corrosion protection. Generally, facilities in violation have deficiencies
in properly managing the equipment for release detection requirements. Federal agencies should
ensure that their personnel are familiar with proper UST management methods and are thoroughly
trained to operate UST release detection equipment.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 26 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Region VIII Issues RCRA 7003 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order to BLM
EPA Region VUI issued an administrative order to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under
the imminent and substantial endangerment provisions of RCRA section 7003, after the completion
of a conference between the State Director for BLM in Wyoming and the Region VIII Regional
Administrator. The order required BLM to take immediate measures to eliminate threats to the
environment from two oil pits on land it owns in the Poison Spider Field southwest of Casper, WY,
and to produce plans for the cleanup and closure of the pits. The pits were among more than 200
sites identified by a multi-agency team that began working together in Casper in January 1997 to
bring the resources of federal and state agencies, oil companies, and the Wind River Tribes to bear
against "problem oil pits" in Wyoming. The order also directed BLM to immediately begin daily
inspections of the site and keep birds and wildlife away from the pits that killed more than 75 birds
during the summer of 1999 and partly covered two mule deer fawns that had to be destroyed by
officials.
In compliance with the order, BLM timely submitted a plan of interim measures it will take to
protect human health and the environment until a final cleanup is achieved. The plan includes a
schedule and an "operation and maintenance" plan to assure that the measures are not interrupted.
BLM also submitted a plan for closing the pits which details the methods it will use to manage oil,
oily waste, and debris. The plan also describes the quality and depth to groundwater near the pits
and identifies any groundwater users within a mile, describes surface water features in the area,
describes alternative "closure" measures it evaluates and the method it selects, and provides a
schedule for the chosen method. As of early January 2001, BLM is in compliance with the
requirements of the EPA-approved plans.
Region XIssues Complaint and Compliance Order to U.S. Army's Fort Lewis for Underground
Storage Tank Violations
On September 18, 2000, EPA Region X issued an administrative complaint and compliance order
with a proposed penalty of $469,661 against the U.S. Army's Fort Lewis Army Installation for
violations of federal UST regulations. The penalty is the largest UST penalty ever proposed for a
DoD installation. Specific violations outlined in the complaint involve 32 of 62 regulated UST
systems on the base, with 10 of the systems having more than one violation. The violations were
discovered and shared with base personnel during facility inspections in September 1999. Some of
the same violations also were found during an UST inspection conducted by EPA in 1994. Types
of violations found included not having upgraded equipment for spill and overfill protection, and not
properly performing leak detection. The Washington Department of Ecology participated in the
1999 inspection. The complaint and order requires Fort Lewis to bring its USTs into compliance
with the State of Washington's EPA-approved UST regulations. The complaint also assesses a
penalty to encourage timely resolution of the violations, to support fair and equitable treatment of
the regulated community, and to deter federal agencies and others from future violations.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 27 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
SDWA Cases
Region VIIssues Three Safe Drinking Water Act Penalty Actions Against U.S. Forest Service
On August 17, 2000, EPA Region VI issued three administrative complaints against the U. S. Forest
Service alleging violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The complaints allege violations of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, including failure to perform coliform bacteria
monitoring and exceeding the maximum contaminant level for coliform bacteria. The water systems
cited are the Duran Campground and the Canjilon Lakes Campground in the Santa Fe National
Forest, and the Guadalupe Administrative Site in the Lincoln National Forest. Settlement
negotiations between EPA and U.S. Forest Service are ongoing.
Microbiological contaminants present a health issue in drinking water systems and have long been
considered one of the drinking water program's highest enforcement priorities. Total coliform
bacteria are used as an indicator in drinking water to assess the sanitary integrity of the treatment
processes and distribution system. If total coliform are present in drinking water, conditions also
exist for the presence of harmful pathogens. Enforcement of the microbiological rules is a national
enforcement priority with EPA, and negotiations have commenced with the U.S. Forest Service for
settlement.
Region IVIssues Safe Drinking Water Act Administrative Complaint Against U.S. Army Base atFort
Bragg, North Carolina
On March 14,2000, Region IV issued a Safe Drinking Water Act 1447(b) Administrative Complaint
against the U.S. Army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, seeking $25,000 per day per violation for
violations of public water system requirements. FortBragg owns and operates a public water system
that serves 65,000 people.
Fort Bragg's water treatment plant violated requirements by exceeding maximum concentration
limits (MCL) for Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM), failing to meet public education requirements
when exceeding lead action levels, as well as other violations. The exceedances were significant and
TTHM is a human carcinogen.
This action was the latest effort to correct violations discovered during a 1998 multi-media
inspection. In March 1999, the Region issued a SDWA 1414(g) order requiring compliance with
the SDWA, a report on actions taken since 1994 to address the TTHM problems, and a written plan
to address actions that will be taken to reduce the amount of TTHM contamination in drinking water.
Fort Bragg has complied with the March 1999 order and, as of January 2000, was in compliance with
requirements for TTHM MCLs. The details of the 1447(b) settlement are under development.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 28 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
Region I Orders Military to Clean up Unexploded Ordnance on Cape Cod
On January 7, 2000, EPA exercised its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act on an active
military range to prevent contamination of Cape Cod's sole source aquifer from unexploded
ordnance.
Region I issued a unilateral administrative enforcement order against the Massachusetts National
Guard (MNG) and the National Guard Bureau (NGB) at the Massachusetts Military Reservation
(MMR) on Cape Cod effective January 14, 2000. In a letter from Assistant Administrators Steven
A. Herman and Tim Fields, EPA told the Department of Defense that the order was a necessary and
appropriate exercise of the unique authority Congress mandated EPA to use in a preventative and
prospective manner to protect underground supplies of drinking water. Congress used broad terms
in drafting the imminent hazard provisions included in the environmental statutes to give appropriate
government officials the right to seek relief, or take other appropriate action to avert threats to the
environment or public health. In this case, one or more contaminants related to unexploded ordnance
are present or likely to enter the drinking water supply, and the contaminants may present an
endangerment that is both imminent and substantial.
The Region I order aimed to protect the health of persons on Cape Cod, where some 200,000 year-
round residents and 520,000 summer visitors depend on the Cape Cod Aquifer as the sole source of
their drinking water. Significant numbers of live unexploded ordnance have been uncovered at the
site. The order was issued because DoD would not agree to conduct the necessary studies and
cleanup in a manner or time frame that would protect the Cape Cod Aquifer and the health of
persons dependent on it as their sole source of drinking water.
Fallon Naval Air Station Ordered to Comply with Safe Drinking Water Act
On September 4, 2000, Region IX issued a compliance order to Fallon Naval Air Station, near the
City of Fallon, Nevada, requiring the base to adhere to a strict EPA schedule for removing arsenic
from its drinking water to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Arsenic in Fallon's drinking water was 100 parts per billion (ppb), among the highest of any public
water system in the nation. EPA had been working with Fallon officials for more than a year to get
the city and the military base to reduce the arsenic in its drinking water down to the current federal
standard of 50 ppb. The order requires the base, and a separate order requires the city, to meet all
deadlines outlined in a schedule leading up to the installation and management of a treatment system
that will significantly reduce arsenic in the town's drinking water by December 2004. The Navy has
made available to its residents and employees alternative low or no arsenic water for drinking and
cooking.
Although a naturally occurring mineral, arsenic is a poison. It is naturally found in groundwater
throughout Region X. Drinking high levels of arsenic increases the chance of lung, bladder, and skin
cancers, as well as heart disease, diabetes, and neurological damage. Arsenic inhibits the body's
ability to fight off cancer and other diseases.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 29 June 2001
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
TSCA Cases
EPA Environmental Appeals Board Rules Against EPA in Section 1018 Lead-Based Paint Case
Brought Against Kingsville Naval Air Station
On March 17, 2000, EPA's EAB issued a final order in the U.S. Department of Navy, Kingsville
Naval Air Station case. The case was on Interlocutory Appeal to the EAB based on a motion filed
by the Kingsville Naval Air Station in response to an order issued by ALJ Stephen McGuire. The
Navy was named by EPA Region VI as a Respondent in a TSCA administrative penalty complaint
filed in July 1998, for failing to comply with the Section 1018 Real Estate Notification and
Disclosure Rule. Oral argument in the case was heard by the EAB on October 28, 1999.
One of the central issues on appeal was whether the Residency Occupancy Agreements (ROAs),
which the Navy enters into with enlisted military personnel at Kingsville, are "contracts to lease"
under the Disclosure Rule. The terms "contract to lease" and "lease" were not defined by the
Disclosure Rule. The Navy argued, among other things, that it does not enter into "contracts to
lease" with military personnel and thus the Disclosure Rule is inapplicable. ALJ McGuire ruled that
the ROAs were "contracts to lease" under the Disclosure Rule, and based his analysis on Texas
contract and property law which is where the Navy housing in question is located.
The EAB held that ALJ McGuire's "Order cannot be upheld based upon the Presiding Officer's
analysis, which relied on Texas law." The EAB observed that there is no definition for "contract to
lease" in the rule and stated that "it is not clear that an ROA would necessarily be included or
excluded from any so-called ordinary definition of the term lease." The EAB further stated that
"while the Board does have the authority, as the Agency's final decision maker in this case to fashion
through this adjudicative proceeding a legally binding interpretation of the terms 'lease' and
' contract to lease'... we decline to exercise that authority here." The EAB concluded by stating that
"if the Agency intends to regulate ROAs under the Disclosure Rule, it needs to develop a workable
and supportable interpretation of the Disclosure Rule to that end, and as appropriate amend the
Disclosure Rule to reflect that interpretation." The EAB specifically did not rule on whether TSCA
Section 408 provides the requisite "express statement" of Congressional intent that EPA has
administrative penalty authority over another federal agency.
The EAB concluded by noting that DoD issued a February 18, 1997, memorandum to the military
services that states that occupancy of DoD housing by military members and their families is
considered to be leasing of housing, with regard to the Disclosure Rule. Thus, given the serious and
unquestioned health effects of lead-based paint, the EAB stated that they expected the Navy to
comply with the disclosure requirements as contemplated by the February 1997 DoD memorandum.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 30 June 2001
-------
Attachment 1
Organizational Structure of the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Phone: (202) 564-2510
Fax: (202) 501-0069
Director: Craig Hooks
Associate Director: Elliott Gilberg
Senior Enforcement Counsel: Joyce Olin
Priscilla Harrington: (202) 564-2461
Theresa Branch: (202) 564-2466
Madeline Queen: (202) 564-2472
Planning, Prevention, and Compliance Staff
Director: Gregory Snyder
Ph: (202) 564-4271
Fax: (202) 501-0069
Will Garvey
Sarah Hart
Joyce A. Johnson
Kelly A.C. Jones
Dorothy King
Isabelle Lacayo
Dianne Lynne
Marie Muller
Augusta Wills
202-564-2458
202-564-2457
202-564-2592
202-564-2459
202-564-2473
202-564-2578
202-564-2587
202-564-0217
202-564-2468
Site Remediation and Enforcement Staff
Director: John Fogarty
Ph: (202) 564-8865
Fax: (202) 501-0644
Melanie Barger-Garvey
Andrew Cherry
Sally Dalzell
Dan Drazan
Lance Elson
William (Bill) Frank
Sonja Johnson
David Levenstein
202-564-2579
202-564-2589
202-564-2583
202-564-2328
202-564-2577
202-564-2584
202-564-2573
202-564-2591
Regional Federal Facilities
Program Managers
(see Attachment 2)
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2000 Accomplishments Report
This page left intentionally blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 32 June 2001
-------
Attachment 2
U.S. EPA Federal Facilities Program Managers
Region/Name
HEADQUARTERS
Greg Snyder, Director
Planning, Prevention,
& Compliance Staff
REGION I
Anne Fenn
REGION II
Kathleen Malone
Alt: John Gorman
REGION III
Bill Arguto
REGION IV
David Holroyd
REGION V
Lee J. Regner
REGION VI
Joyce F. Stubblefield
REGION VII
Diana Jackson
REGION VIII
Dianne Thiel
Connally Mears
REGION IX
Larry Woods
REGION X
Michele Wright
Address
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. EPA Region I
Office of Environmental Stewardship
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail: SPP
Boston, MA 02114-2023
U.S. EPA Region II
Compliance Assistance Section
290 Broadway, 21stFl.
New York, NY 10007-1866
U.S. EPA Region III
Office of Environmental Programs
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
U.S. EPA Region IV
Env. Accountability Division, Federal Facilities
6 IForsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
U.S. EPA Region V
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
U.S. EPA Region VI
Compliance Assurance & Enforcement Division
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
U.S. EPA Region VII
Enforcement Coordination Office
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
U.S. EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
U.S. EPA Region IX
Cross-Media Division
75 Hawthorne Street, CMD-2
San Francisco, CA 94 105
U.S. EPA Region X
Office of Enforcement & Compliance (OEC-164)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
E-Mail
snyder. greg@epa. gov
fenn.anne@epa.gov
malone.kathleen@epa.gov
gorman.john@epa.gov
arguto . willam@epa. gov
holroyd. david@epa. gov
regner. lee@epa. gov
stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov
j ackson. diana@epa. gov
thiel. dianne@epa. gov
mears.connally@epa.gov
woods.larry@epa.gov
wright.michele@epa.gov
Telephone/Fax
Number
202-564-4271 (t)
202-501-0069 (f)
617-918-1805 (t)
617-918-1810 (f)
212-637-4083 (t)
212-637-4008 (t)
212-637-4086 (f)
215-814-3367 (t)
215-814-2783 (f)
404-562-9625 (t)
404-562-9598 (f)
312-353-6478(1)
3 12-353-5374 (f)
214-665-6430 (t)
214-665-7446 (f)
913-551-7744(1)
913-551-9744 (f)
303-312-6389(1)
303-3 12-6044 (f)
303-312-6217(1)
303-3 12-6409 (f)
415-744-1580 (t)
415-744-1598 (f)
206-553-1747 (t)
206-553-7176 (f)
------- |