&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
January 2003
Federal Facilities
Enforcement & Compliance
Accomplishments Report
FY 2001
-------
EPA Document No: EPA 315-R-03-001
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:
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 www.epa.gov/compliance/.
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Regulation and Policy 3
Revised Environmental Management Review Policy
2. Compliance Assurance 3
Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update
3. Compliance Assistance 7
Compliance Assistance Activities at Federal Facilities
FedEnviroNews Debuts
Environmental Management Systems Training
Sector Facility Indexing Project Expanded to Federal Facilities
4. Regulatory Reinvention 11
National Environmental Performance Track
5. Enforcement 12
6. Cleanup Agreements and Cases 21
Inter agency Agreements Completed for Two Navy Facilities in Maryland
Navy Signs Agreements for Former Alameda Naval Air Station and Concord NPL
Sites
EPA Demands Stipulated Penalties for Hunter's Point Shipyard Landfill Fire
7. Case Summaries 22
CAA Cases
Settlement Reached with U.S. Army for Violations at Pine Bluff Arsenal
Settlement Reached to Address Violations at Eielson Air Force Base
EPA, DOE and DOE Contractors Reach Settlement for Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory
Economic Benefit and Size of Business Issues Still Pending in Appeal of CAA
Enforcement Action Against the U.S. Army, Ft. Wainwright
Settlement with NASA Will Result in 23,000 Pound Reduction ofPerchlorethylene at
Alabama Facility
CWA Cases
EPA Enters Federal Facility Compliance Agreement With GSA To Resolve CWA
Violations at the Denver Federal Center
RCRA Cases
Navy Enters Consent Agreement and Final Order to Pay for Tank Violation at Oceana
Penalty Issued Against U.S. Postal Service in Chicago for Tank Violation
Barksdale Air Force Base and Tinker Air Force Base Tank Settlements
EPA and DOE Reach Settlement on Hanford RCRA Case
-------
Army Settles Complaints for Tank Violations at Walter Reed Medical Center Facilities in
DC and Maryland
BIA Aberdeen Area Office Tank Settlement Reached
Tank Settlement Reached for U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Drum
RCRA Consent Agreement and Final Order for Letterkenny Army Depot
DOE Enters Into a RCRA Section 3008(h) Corrective Action Order for Releases at Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory
EPA and Army Settle Fort Lewis Tank Case
Settlement Reached for Tank Violations at Maritime Administration Facility
EPA Signs Tank CAFO for Virginia Testing Center
Region 4 Settles Veterans Affairs UST Case for $5,000 Penalty and SEP to Improve
Compliance at Other Veterans Hospitals
EPA Issued Corrective Action Order to Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant
SDWA Cases
EPA Settles Action Against U.S. Army XIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg for Alleged
SDWA Violations
United States Forest Service SDWA Settlements
TSCA Cases
Penalty Order Issued to Lockheed Martin-Idaho Technologies Company at Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
Other Cases
Historic Preservation Agreement for the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
Attachments
Attachment 1. Organizational Structure of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 34
Attachment 2. EPA Regional Federal Facilities Program Managers 35
Tables
Table 1: FY 2001 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 5
Table 2: FY 2001 EPA Enforcement Actions against Federal Facilities by Region. ... 12
Table 3: FY 2001 EPA Enforcement Actions against Federal Facilities by Agency
Category and Statute 18
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Introduction
Federal facilities, like all other regulated facilities, are responsible for complying with environmental
requirements. The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the 10 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 those that do not comply. 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, EPA's Federal Facility Enforcement and
Compliance Program focuses on federal facilities and develops multi-media enforcement and
assistance programs to improve compliance and prevent pollution.
FFEO participates in enforcement negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and enforcement
activities undertaken by EPA regional offices, 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.
In F Y 2001, several federal facilities were admitted as charter members to EPA's Performance Track
program and the Sector Facility Indexing Proj ect expanded beyond its five original sectors to include
federal facilities. A free environmental information service for federal facilities -FedEnviroNews-
was launched and EPA took 53 enforcement actions against 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.
Sources and Suitability of Environmental Information. Information on compliance assistance
activities conducted by the EPA regions outlined in Chapter 3 was obtained from the Reporting
Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS) - EPA's database for tracking and reporting
compliance assistance activities. The database was developed to make reporting of compliance
assistance activities easier and consistent across EPA offices and was developed for EPA staff who
provide assistance or who are responsible for reporting assistance activities. FFEO also consulted
with EPA regional FFPMs about the information in RCATS to ensure the regional compliance
assistance activities in this report is accurate.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 1 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
The information about F Y 2001 enforcement actions taken against federal facilities in Chapter 5 was
obtained from EPA's Enforcement Docket database (Enforcement Docket) - the database that
supports EPA's judicial and administrative enforcement program. The database is accessible to
registered users in EPA offices. FFEO consulted with both headquarters and regional staff about
the enforcement information obtained from the Enforcement Docket to ensure it is accurate.
Other data in this report is qualitative in nature and was provided by both FFEO staff and Regional
FFPMs who are responsible for monitoring compliance by federal facilities with environmental
requirements and for coordinating and implementing EPA's federal facilities compliance and
enforcement programs.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 2 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
1. Regulation and Policy
Revised Environmental Management Review Policy
On April 30, 2001, OECA issued a Revised Environmental Management Review Policy and
Guidance for Federal Facilities. The previous 1998 version of the policy specified that if a
violation was discovered during the conduct of an environmental management review (EMR), the
facility should notify EPA of the violation within 10 days. This 10-day period mirrored the 10-day
notification period in the then-applicable EPA Self-Disclosure Policy (formally entitled Incentives
for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations, 60 Fed. Reg.
66706 (Dec. 22, 1995), also commonly known as the "Audit Policy"). In May 2000, the Audit
Policy was revised which expanded the 10-day period to 21 days (the revised Audit Policy can be
found at 65 Fed. Reg. 19618 (Apr. 11, 2000)) . This made it necessary to change the EMR policy
to avoid any conflicts between application of the two policies. The revised EMR policy says the
time periods to disclose and correct violations be handled according to the Audit Policy and any
subsequent revisions to it.
EPA's revised EMRPolicy canbe found atwww.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives/
ems. EPA's Audit Policy can be found atwww.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/index.html.
2. Compliance Assurance
Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
One of the principal ways EPA and our state and tribal partners determine that regulated entities
comply with environmental requirements is through on-site inspections. For several years, EPA's
federal facilities compliance programs have advocated multi-statute inspections (commonly referred
to as multi-media inspections). Such inspections go beyond one media (such as air, water or
hazardous waste) and look more broadly into a facility's operation and its regulatory compliance.
In FY 2001, FFEO augmented regional inspections with contract support for multi-media
inspections of federal facilities.
A nationwide total of 20 multi-media inspections were performed at federal facilities during FY
2001. State inspectors participated in 12 inspections. To qualify as a multi-media inspection, each
facility investigation required a focus on at least two of the three major EPA environmental statutes
which are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), or
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Many of the 20 multimedia inspections also investigated other statutory
program areas including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Toxic Substance Control
Act ( TSCA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Nine of the 20 multi-media inspections
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 3 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
took place at civilian federal agency (CFA) facilities including those of the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service.
Eight inspections occurred at Department of Defense (DOD) installations and three inspections
occurred at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Between FY 1993 and FY 2001, EPA regions
conducted 279 multi-media inspections. See Table 1 for a list of federal facility multi-media
inspections conducted by EPA during FY 2001.
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update
The fourteenth update of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Section 120(c) Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was released
in the Federal Register on October 2,2001, and contains additions, deletions, and corrections to the
previous Docket update. The current number of facilities on the Docket is 2,214. In accordance with
Section 120 (c) of CERCLA, EPA is required to take steps to ensure that it receives information
from federal facilities necessary to assess the threat to human health and the environment.
Furthermore, Executive Order 12580 delegates the responsibility for the preparation of this
information to federal agencies. The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket contains
information about federal facilities engaged in hazardous waste activity or facilities from which
hazardous substances may have been or may be released.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 4 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Table 1: FY 2001 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
Facility
U.S. Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Bedford, MA
U.S. Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Brockton, MA
U.S. DOI National Park Service,
Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor,
ME
Dates
5/9/01
through
5/10/01
5/23/01
through
5/24/01
8/7/01
through
8/9/01
Media or
Statutory
Program
Investigated
CAA, CWA,
RCRA
CAA, CWA,
RCRA
EPCRA, CAA,
CWA, TSCA
State
Participation?
No
No
No
Lead
Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
U.S. Department of Transportation,
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
Kings Port, NY
U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, San Juan VA Medical
Center, San Juan, PR
3/19/01
through
3/23/01
and
3/30/01
7/16/01
through
7/20/01
CAA, EPCRA,
FIFRA, RCRA,
CWA
CAA, EPCRA,
FIFRA, CWA,
RCRA, TSCA
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV)
U.S. Veterans Administration, VA
Medical Center, Coatsville, PA
U.S. Navy, U.S. Naval Academy,
Annapolis, MD
7/31/01
through
8/1/01
4/17/01 through
4/18/01
RCRA, CWA
CAA, EPCRA,
TSCA
RCRA, CWA,
CAA, EPCRA,
Yes
Yes
EPA
EPA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
U.S. Department of Energy,
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Paducah, KY
U.S. Air Force, Arnold Air Force
Base, Coffee, TN
U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA Medical Center,
Augusta, GA (Location 1)
U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA Medical Center,
Augusta, GA (Location 2)
U.S. Army, Fort Gordon, GA
3/12/01
and
4/6/01
4/30/01
through
5/3/01
4/16/01
through
4/20/01
4/16/01
through
4/20/01
4/16/01
through
4/20/01
TSCA, CAA,
CWA, EPCRA,
RCRA, SDWA
TSCA, CAA,
CWA, EPCRA,
RCRA, SDWA
CAA, RCRA,
TSCA
CAA, RCRA,
TSCA
TSCA, CAA,
CWA, EPCRA,
RCRA, SDWA,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
No Multi-Media Inspections Conducted
U.S. Air Force, Kirtland Air Force
Base, Albuquerque, NM
U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia
National Laboratories, NM
6/4/01
6/4/01
CAA, CWA,
RCRA, TSCA
CAA, CWA,
RCRA
Yes
Yes
EPA
EPA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Region 7 (IA, KS, NE, MO)
U.S. Army, Organizational
Maintenance Shop No. 8, Red Oak,
IA
U.S. Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Cutter Wyaconda, Dubuque, IA
U.S. Department of Defense,
National Imagery and Mapping,
Arnold, MO
U.S. Department of Defense,
National Imagery and Mapping, St.
Louis, MO
3/7/01
4/5/01
and
5/15/01
12/7/00
12/6/00
CAA, RCRA
CAA, RCRA
CAA, RCRA
CAA, RCRA
No
No
No
No
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
No Multi-Media Inspections Conducted
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific Islands)
U.S. Army, Hawthorne Army
Depot, Hawthorne, NV
8/21/01
through
8/24/01
RCRA, CAA,
CWA
Yes
State
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho
National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory,
Scoville, ID
7/16/01
through
7/18/01
CAA, CWA,
RCRA, SDWA,
Yes
Both
EPA/State
3. Compliance Assistance
Compliance Assistance Activities at Federal Facilities
EPA compliance assistance activities at federal facilities during FY 2001 included on-site visits,
distribution of informational materials, presentations and meetings, responding to inquiries, and
providing training and instructional workshops. According to EPA's Reporting Compliance
Assistance Tracking System (RCATS) database, the 10 EPA regional offices and EPA Headquarters
staff provided 71 on-site compliance assistance visits including 12 Environmental Management
Reviews (EMRs), and 128 workshops and presentations. Compliance assistance activities targeted
for the federal facility sector reached approximately 16,662 federal facility employees nationwide.
Highlights of the compliance assistance activities conducted by each EPA region and by FFEO
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
include:
EPA Region 1 designed and pilot tested the first methodology to assist federal facilities to
identify and reduce uses of mercury. A team from EPA Region 1, four New England federal
facilities, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Northeast
Waste Management Officials Association conducted two seminars on mercury use reduction,
designed a federal facilities mercury management questionnaire and log sheet, pilot tested
the methodology on-site and prepared case studies. A report -Mercury: A Federal Facility
Assessment- is available on the EPA Region 1 federal facility web site at www.epa.gov/
compliance/incentives/auditing/index.html. Region 1 also conducted 4 environmental
management reviews and organized a full day training entitled What is an Environmental
Management System!
EPA Region 2 developed a brochure on environmentally beneficial landscaping to help
federal facility personnel comply with Executive Order 13148. Regional staff also held
several meetings with federal agency environmental coordinators to discuss compliance
assistance needs and distributed environmental auditing and environmental management
system (EMS) guidance.
EPA Region 3 developed a compliance assistance guidebook and a CD for federal facility
personnel. The guidebook provides guidance on compliance information for a variety of
regulatory programs and EMSs. The CD provides reference materials for developing an
EMS.
Region 4 trained 45 representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army
on the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regional staff also conducted an EMR at a U.S. Postal
Service facility and provided compliance assistance information to other federal agency
personnel during 42 on-site visits.
Region 5 conducted a joint Federal Facilities Conference sponsored by both EPA and the
Department of Defense. Approximately 150 federal facility representatives attended the
three-day conference which covered a variety of topics, including Executive Order 13148
requirements, EMSs and EMRs.
EPA Region 6 conducted four EMRs at the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and National Park
Service sites. The Park Service EMRs included training on using the EPA Region 6
Geographical Information Screening Tool. Region 6 staff also sponsored a federal facility
pollution prevention (P2) conference and attended several Texas P2 Partnership meetings
held at various federal installations throughout Texas.
Region 7 conducted an EMR at a U.S. Department of Energy facility and during the EMR
distributed information to facility personnel regarding EPA's Code of Environmental
Management Principles for Federal Facilities (CEMP) and EPA's audit protocols for
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 8 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
various environmental statutes. EPA Region 7 staff also attended the DOD Central
Regional Environmental Office Military Environmental Group meetings and provided
information on EMRs and enforcement and compliance priorities for FY 2002.
Region 8 conducted an EMR at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The Region
also wrote an article describing an initiative to encourage greater use of environmentally
preferable cleaning products at the parks.
Region 9 conducted three EMRs at General Service Administration and U. S. Navy facilities.
Regional staff also sponsored a Federal Hospital P2 workshop.
Region 10 conducted an EMR at a U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service facility in Anchorage, AK
which included site visits to the Kenai Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Peninsula, and the Becharof
National Wildlife Refuge. Regional staff also conducted a two-day environmental
leadership workshop attended by over 92 federal facility employees. The workshop covered
topics on EMSs and the federal Executive Orders.
FFEO Headquarters provided a presentation at the U.S. Army's first Worldwide
Environmental and Energy Conference on EPA's compliance assistance programs for federal
facilities. FFEO also met with new environmental managers at the U.S. Department of
Commerce to discuss various environmental laws, regulations and Executive Orders
applicable to their facilities.
FedEnviroNews Debuts
In December 2000, the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office launched its first issue of
FedEnviroNews, an e-mail, subscription-based environmental information service. Subscribers to
this service received periodic e-mails with environmental news and information relevant to federal
facilities. Issues of FedEnviroNews highlighted information on new policies, regulations, and
protocols pertaining to federal facilities; national training, workshops, and conferences; and other
information of interest to federal facility environmental practitioners. The format for
FedEnviroNews is succinct, allowing subscribers to quickly get information on a variety of topics,
and then follow the instructions or links within each news item for further information.
Subscriptions to FedEnviroNews are free and can be obtained at
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/index.html.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 9 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Environmental Management Systems Training
In March 2001, environmental managers of federal agencies completed another workshop in a series
designed to explain environmental management systems (EMSs). The series of 2-hour workshops
conducted since September 2000 has focused planning and implementing EMSs. At each session,
20 to 30 federal representatives from DOD, DOE, and civilian federal agencies participated in
hands-on workshops at EPA headquarters. Sponsored by the Executive Order (E.O.) 13148
(Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management) interagency
workgroup and supported by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, the workshops provided
basic information about EMS requirements practical planning skills in the following areas:
Auditing as a gap analysis and self-assessment tool
Writing environmental policy statements
Identifying environmental aspects and impacts
Setting and maintaining environmental objectives and targets
Establishing and maintaining emergency preparedness and response
To further assist federal agencies with their EMS obligations under E.O. 13148, in June 2001, the
interagency workgroup put together agency-level self-assessment tools. These self-assessment
instruments help agencies, facilities, and installations compare their existing management programs
with EMS standards and guidance. The tools can be found at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
publications/incentives/ems/index.html.
Sector Facility Indexing Project Expanded to Federal Facilities
In response to widespread stakeholder interest, in June 2001 EPA expanded the Sector Facility
Indexing Project (SFIP) to include a subset of federal facilities. The expansion means that
communities can obtain important compliance and inspection information about federal facilities
and the facilities will be encouraged to become more accountable.
As a community-right-to-know project, SFIP is an internet based source of environmental
information that is intended to make facility-level compliance data readily available to the public
in one location on the internet. SFIP includes such information as a facility's compliance and
enforcement history, information on pollutant releases and spills, and demographics of the
surrounding community. SFIP combines data from several existing EPA databases in order to allow
easier access and review. SFIP was expanded to include over 300 federal facilities which were
major facilities in at least two of the three following programs: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The federal facilities join the approximately
650 facilities in five industry sectors. The SFIP website address is www.epa.gov/sfipmtnl/.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 10 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
4. Regulatory Reinvention
National Environmental Performance Track
In December 2000, EPA congratulated several federal facilities for their selection as charter
members in the National Environmental Performance Track, including DOE's Strategic Petroleum
Reserve facilities in both Louisiana and Texas, West Valley Demonstration Project in New York,
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, and Kansas City Plant in Missouri; the U. S. Coast Guard
Air Station in Massachusetts; NASA's White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico; and the U.S.
Postal Service's Portland Processing and Distribution Center in Maine and Hartford Processing and
Distribution Center and Hartford Vehicle Maintenance Facility in Connecticut. The National
Environmental Performance Track program recognizes and rewards both public and private sector
facilities for exceeding environmental protection requirements.
The National Environmental Performance Track program was established by EPA to recognize and
encourage top environmental performers those organizations that go beyond compliance with
regulatory requirements. Each federal facility in the program has made voluntary commitments for
specific environmental improvements in four areas over the next three years. Performance Track
facilities have strong records in environmental management with more waste recycling and greater
reductions in air and water pollution than are legally required. They have reduced their cumulative
energy consumption by millions of kilowatts per year and are committing to an average of 22%
improved energy efficiency. Commitments for future water use reductions average 31%. Some
facilities have virtually eliminated discharges to surface water, while others are significantly
reducing discharges to groundwater to protect underground drinking water supplies. Waste reduction
at these facilities is projected to average 44% per year, representing millions of pounds of saved
resources as process and packaging materials are recycled or reused. Others are significantly
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to help protect the ozone layer, and some will cut their
output of toxic air pollutants in half. The expectation is that the program will motivate other
facilities to achieve similar improvements, and complement existing regulatory activities.
The program is designed so that criteria for participation are proportional to the benefits and that
small, medium, and large facilities will participate. Emphasis is being placed on continued
environmental improvement, effective state/EPA partnerships, and the need to inform and involve
citizens and communities. Among the 228 charter members in the program are municipalities and
several branches of the federal government. The Performance Track website address is
www.epa.gov/performancetrack.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 11 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
5. Enforcement
Federal Facilities Enforcement Actions
In FY 2001, as tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, EPA issued or completed 53
enforcement actions against federal agencies and government contractors. DOD was named in 26
actions, DOE in three actions, and civilian federal agencies in 19 actions. A federal government
contractor was cited as the sole defendant in five actions. Two actions cited both the government
contractor and the federal agency for which it performed work One action cited two government
contractors and the federal agency as three co-defendants.
EPA Region 6 issued or completed 11 actions-the most of any region. On a statute basis, 28 RCRA
actions, eight CAA actions, eight CWA actions, four SDWA actions, two CERCLA actions and
three EPCRA actions were issued or finalized.
Of the 53 actions, 37 were penalty orders. The total amount of penalties in all final penalty orders
for all statutes was $1,356,840 in penalties and $3,459,611 in supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs). SEPs are a component of a settlement contained in an enforcement action. The alleged
violator voluntarily agrees to undertake an environmentally beneficial project in exchange for a
reduction in the penalty. Under RCRA, $1,705,388 in penalties were proposed and $607,449 in
penalties were collected in final penalty orders along with $1,004,967 in SEPs. Under CAA,
$368,219 were collected in final penalty orders along with $1,550,000 in SEPs. The total amount
for all proposed penalty orders for all statutes was $2,246,605. Additionally, over $2,164,000 of
work to correct violations and come back into compliance is to be done as a result of EPA's
enforcement actions for FY 2001.
Tables 2 and 3 which follow present FY 2001 EPA enforcement actions against federal facilities
by EPA Region and by agency category and statute. Some of these actions presented in the tables
are described in more detail in the Case Summaries section of this report.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 12 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Table 2: FY 2001 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Region
(as tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket Database with Docket Database Case Numbers)
(penalties are "final penalties"except where noted)
RCRA 7003 (Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Order)
Region 2 (NJ,
CAA 113 A (Compliance Order)
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreements and Final
Orders)
RCRA 9006 (UST Field Citations)
Region 3 (DE, DC,
RCRA 3008A (Penalty Order)
RCRA 3008H (Corrective Action Order)
01-2001-0008, U.S. Army and Massachusetts
National Guard, Massachusetts Military
Reservation, MA
02-2001-1027, DMG Construction, Inc.,
(GOCO) at U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs - Franklin Delano Roosevelt Hospital
Montrose, NY
02-1999-7509, U.S. Army - Fort Drum, NY
($135,000 penalty)
02-2001-7502, U.S. Department of
Transportation -U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy, Kings Point, NY ($8,291 penalty
and $70,774 SEP)
02-2001-7503, U.S. Army Seneca Depot,
Romulus, NY, ($51,812 proposed penalty)
02-2001-7909, U.S. Department of Interior -
Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge, NJ ($300 penalty)
02-2001-7915, U.S. Department of
Transportation - Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Control Tower,
Gibbsboro, NJ ($300 penalty)
02-200 1-79 17, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, Beverly National Cemetery, Beverly,
NJ ($3,500 penalty)
03-2000-0685, U.S. Army - Letterkenny
Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA, ($4,921
penalty and $80,000 SEP)
03-2001-0144, U.S. Department of Energy -
Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, West
Mifflin, PA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
13
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreements and Final
Orders)
RCRA 9006 (UST Field Citation)
CERCLA 120E (Federal Facility Agreements)
CWA 3 1 1C (Administrative Order for Removal)
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA,
CAA 113 A (Compliance Order)
CAA 113D1 ( Penalty Order)
SDWA 1447B (Penalty Order)
RCRA 3008A (Penalty Orders)
RCRA 3008H (Corrective Action Order)
03-1998-0403, U.S. Navy - Oceana Naval Air
Station, Virginia Beach, VA ($l,261penalty)
RCRA-III-9006-052, U.S. Army - Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC
($86,7 15 penalty)
RCRA-III-9006-054, U.S. Army - Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, Silver Spring,
MD1
03-2001-0275, U.S. EPA - Virginia Testing
Center, Alexandria, VA ($2,833 penalty)
03-2001-0398, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC ($600 penalty)
03-2000-0280, U.S. Navy - Patuxent River
Naval Air Station, MD
03-2000-0668, U.S. Navy - U.S. Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, MD
03-2001-0081, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA
04-2001-1755, U.S. Air Force - Keesler AFB,
MS
04-2001-1503, NASA - George C. Marshall
Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL ($77,500
penalty and $1,400,000 SEP)
04-2000-0157, U.S. Army - Fort Bragg, NC
($312,500 penalty and $821,994 SEP)
04-2000-0503, Department of Defense -
Defense Logistics Agency, Ft. Campbell, KY
($10,334 penalty)
04-200 1-0093, U.S. Coast Guard Station,
Charleston, SC ($1,540 penalty)
04-2001-9040, U.S. Air Force - Eglin Air
Force Base, FL ($72,481 penalty)
04-2001-01 17, U.S. Army - Volunteer Army
Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, TN
1 Note: The Army agreed to pay a single penalty amount of $86,715 in settlement of both administrative cases
(Walter Reed Army Medical Facilities in DC and MD). The penalty covered violations at both facilities although they
were assigned separate case numbers.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
14
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreement and Final
Order)
Region 5 (IL, IN, ]
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreement and Final
Order)
Region 6 (AR, L
CAA 113D1 (Penalty Order)
SDWA 1447B (Penalty Orders)
RCRA 3008A (Penalty Order)
CWA 309A (Compliance Order)
CWA 309G1 (Class 1 Penalty Order)
EPCRA (325) Administrative Orders for Compliance
and/or Penalties
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreements and Final
Orders)
04-2000-093 1, U. S. Department of Veterans
Affairs - W.G. (Bill) Hefner Medical Center,
Salisbury, NC ($5,000 penalty and $18,800
SEP)
05-2001-0272, U.S. Postal Service, Chicago,
IL ($450 penalty)
06-2001-0162, U.S. Army - Pine Bluff
Arsenal, AR ($21,000 penalty)
06-2000-1040, U.S. Department of
Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service , Guadalupe
Administrative Site, NM ($1,800 penalty)
06-2000-1041, U.S. Department of
Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service, Canjilon
Lakes Campground, NM ($4,500 penalty)
06-2000-1042, U.S. Department of
Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service, Duran
Campground, NM ($15,200 penalty and
$82,650 SEP)
06-1999-0170, U.S. Air Force - Tinker AFB,
OK ($0 penalty)
06-2001-5124, U.S. Navy - Naval Weapons
Industries Reservation, McGregor, TX
06-2001-5169, Northrup Grumman
Corporation (GOCO) at U.S. Navy - Naval
Air Station, Dallas, TX ($16,000 penalty)
06-2001-0101,Northnip Grumman
Corporation (GOCO) at U.S. Navy - Naval
Air Station, Dallas, TX ($5,000 penalty)
06-2001-0182, U.S. Air Force - Cannon AFB,
NM
06-200 1-5 122, Lockheed Martin Corporation
(GOCO) at U.S. Air Force -Plant No. 4, Fort
Worth, TX ($26,180 penalty)
06-1998-0145, U.S. Air Force - Barksdale
AFB, LA ($38,340 penalty)
06-1998-0146, U.S. Air Force - Tinker AFB,
OK, ($5 1,500 penalty)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
15
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
CWA 309A (Compliance Order)
Region 8 (CO, MT.
CWA (Federal Facility Compliance Agreement)
CWA 309A (Compliance Order)
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreement and Final
Order)
Region 9 (AZ, CA,
CWA (Federal Facility Compliance Agreement)
CAA 113D1 (Penalty Order)
RCRA 9006 (UST Field Citation)
Region 10 (AK
CWA (Federal Facility Compliance Agreement)
CAA 113D1 (Penalty Orders)
CAA 113 A (Federal Facility Agreement)
RCRA 3008A (Penalty Order)
07-2001-0018, U.S. Army - Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant, Middletown, IA
08-2001-0029, General Services
Administration - Denver Federal Center, CO
08-1998-0194, U.S. Department of Interior -
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, MT
08-2001-0021, U.S. Department of Interior -
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, SD
($93,383 penalty and $425,410 SEP)
09-2001-0135, U.S. Navy - Pearl Harbor
Naval Base Public Works Center, HI
09-1997-0122, LVI Environmental Services
(GOCO) at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
(Building 15), Tucson, AZ ($9,160 penalty)
09-2001-0012, Touch-N-Go Mini-Mart
(GOCO) and Barbers Point Naval Air Station,
Pearl Harbor, HI ($900 penalty)
10-2001-0191, U.S. Department of
Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service, Tongass
National Forest, AK
10-2000-0079, Bechtel Company (GOCO),
Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
Company (GOCO) and U.S. Department of
Energy - Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, Scoville, ID
($160,559 penalty)
10-2001-0100, U.S. Air Force - Eielson AFB,
AK ($100,000 penalty and $150,000 SEP)
10-2001-0100, U.S. Air Force - Eielson AFB,
AK
10-1999-0106, U.S. Department of Energy -
Hanford Hazardous Waste Disposal Site,
Richland, WA ($25,000 penalty and $89,893
SEP)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
16
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
RCRA 9006 (UST Consent Agreements and Final
Orders)
10-1999-0178, U.S. Department of Interior -
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Wapato Irrigation
Project), Wapato, WA ($4,800 penalty and
$120,000 SEP)
10-2000-0216, U.S. Army - Fort. Lewis, WA
($60,000 penalty and $200,000 SEP)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
17
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Table 3: FY 2001 EPA Enforcement Actions against Federal Facilities by Agency Category and Statute
as tracked in EPA's Enforcement DOCKET
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Other
DOD
3008A Penalty Order
"U.S. Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg,
PA, ($4,921 penalty and $80,000 SEP)
"Defense Logistics Agency, Ft. Campbell, KY
($10,334 penalty)
'U.S. Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, FL ($72,481
penalty)
'U.S. Air Force, Tinker AFB, OK ($0 penalty)
3008H Corrective Action
'U.S. Army, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,
Chattanooga, TN
9006 UST
'U.S. Army, Fort Drum, NY ($135,000 penalty)
'U.S. Army, Seneca Depot, Romulus, NY, ($51,812
proposed penalty)
"U.S. Navy, Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia
Beach, VA ($l,261penalty)
"U.S. Army, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Washington, DC ($86,715 penalty)
"U.S. Army, Walter Reed Army Medical Center,
Silver Spring, MD1
'U.S. Air Force, Barksdale AFB, LA ($38,340
penalty)
'U.S. Air Force, Tinker AFB, OK, ($51,500 penalty)
'U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, WA ($60,000 penalty and
$200,000 SEP)
9006 UST Field Citation
U.S. Navy, Barbers Point Naval Air Station,
Pearl Harbor, HI
7003 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order
U.S. Army and MA National Guard, Massachusetts
Military Reservation, MA
113A Compliance Order
'U.S. Air Force, Keesler AFB, MS
'U.S. Air Force - Eielson AFB, AK
113D Penalty Order
'U.S. Army, Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR
($21,000 penalty)
'U.S. Air Force, Eielson AFB, AK
($100,000 penalty and $150,000 SEP)
1447B Penalty Order
'U.S. Army, Fort Bragg, NC
($312,500 penalty and $821,994
SEP)
CERCLA
"U.S. Navy, Patuxent River Naval
Air Station, MD
"U.S. Navy, Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Indian Head,
MD
CWA Federal Facility Compliance
Agreements
"U.S. Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval
Base Public Works Center, HI
CWA 309A Compliance Order
"U.S. Navy, Naval Weapons
Industries Reservation,
McGregor, TX
"U.S. Army, Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant, Middletown,
IA
EPCRA 325 Administrative
Orders for Compliance and/or
Penalties
'U.S. Air Force, Cannon AFB,
NM
The Army agreed to pay a single penalty amount of $86,715 n settlement of both administrative cases (Walter Reed Army Medical Facilities in DC andMD). The penalty covered
violations at both facilities even though they have different case numbers.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
18
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Other
DOE
3008A Penalty Order
"U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Hazardous
Waste Disposal Site, Richland, WA ($25,000 penalty
and $89,893 SEP)
3008H Corrective Action
"U.S. Department of Energy, Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory, West Mifflin, PA
113D Penalty Order
«U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Scoville, ID
CFA
3008A Penalty Order
«U.S. Coast Guard Station, Charleston, SC ($1,540
penalty)
9006 UST
"U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, Kings Point, NY ($8,291 penalty
and $70,774 SEP)
"U.S. EPA, Virginia Testing Center, Alexandria, VA
($2,833 penalty)
«U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - W.G. (Bill)
Hefner Medical Center, Salisbury, NC ($5,000
penalty and $18,800 SEP)
'U.S. Postal Service, Chicago, IL ($450 penalty)
'U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Aberdeen, SD ($93,383 penalty and $425,410 SEP)
'U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Wapato, WA ($4,800 penalty and $120,000 SEP)
9006 UST Field Citation
'U.S. Department of Interior, Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge, NJ ($300 penalty)
'Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Control
Tower, Gibbsboro, NJ ($300 penalty)
'U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Beverly
National Cemetery, Beverly, NJ ($3,500 penalty)
'U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
($600 penalty)
113D Penalty Order
"NASA, George C. Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, AL ($77,500
penalty and $1,400,000 SEP)
1147B Penalty Order
«USDA, Forest Service ,
Guadalupe Administrative Site,
NM ($1,800 penalty)
«USDA, Forest Service, Canjilon
Lakes Campground, NM ($4,500
penalty)
*USDA, Forrest Service, Duran
Campground, NM ($15,200
penalty and $82,650 SEP)
CWA Federal Facility
Compliance Agreements
'General Services Administration,
Denver Federal Center, CO
*USDA, Forest Service, Tongass
National Forest, AK
CWA 311C Administrative
Order for Removal
'U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA
CWA 309A Compliance Order
"U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Billings, MT
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
19
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Other
GOCO
9006 Field Citation
«Touch-N-Go Mini-Mart, GOCO at Barbers Point
Naval Air Station, Pearl Harbor, HI ($900 penalty)
113A Compliance Order
«DMG Construction, Inc., GOCO at
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Hospital
Montrose, NY
113D Penalty Order
*LVI Environmental Services, GOCO at
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
(Building 15), Tucson, AZ ($9,160
penalty)
'Bechtel Company (GOCO), Lockheed
Martin Idaho Technologies Company
(GOCO) and U.S. Department of
Energy, INEEL, Scoville, ID
($160,559 penalty)
CWA 309G1 Class 1 Penalty
Order
Northrup Grumman Corporation,
GOCO at U.S. Navy, Naval Air
Station, Dallas, TX ($16,000
penalty)
EPCRA 325 Administrative
Orders for Compliance and/or
Penalties
Northrup Grumman Corporation,
GOCO at U.S. Navy, Naval Air
Station, Dallas, TX ($5,000
penalty)
"Lockheed Martin Corporation,
GOCO at U.S. Air Force Plant
No. 4, Fort Worth, TX ($26,180
penalty)
NOTE:
All actions and penalties are final except where noted .
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
20
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
6. Cleanup Agreements and Cases
Interagency Agreements Completed for Two Navy Facilities in Maryland
In December 2000, the Navy signed two agreements under Section 120 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCL A) for the Patuxent River Naval
Air Station and the Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland. The
agreements require the Navy to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the facilities.
In addition, the Navy will perform any necessary remedial action.
Navy Signs Agreements for Former Alameda Naval Air Station and Concord NPL Sites
On January 19,2001, EPA Region 9 signed two CERCL A Section 120 interagency agreements with
the Navy for the former Alameda Naval Air Station, now known as Alameda Point, located in
Alameda, California, and also for the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) Detachment
Concord National Priorities List (NPL) site in Concord, California.
Alameda is a closed Navy installation located on Alameda Island, adjacent to the City of Alameda.
Historically, the site was occupied by a borax processing plant, an oil refinery, and an airport for the
City of Alameda. It was acquired by the Navy in 1936 and was closed in 1977. Wastes generated
at the site included industrial solvents, acids, paint strippers, degreasers, caustic cleaners, pesticides,
chromium and cyanide wastes, waste oils containing PCBs, radium associated with dial painting and
stripping, medical debris, and inert and unexploded ordnance.
NWSSB Detachment Concord encompasses nearly 13,000 acres and is located in the north-central
portion of Contra Costa County. The most significant contamination at Concord consists of
extremely high levels of several heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, selenium, and
mercury) which have negatively impacted a valuable wetland habitat for several threatened and
endangered species.
EPA Demands Stipulated Penalties for Hunter's Point Shipyard Landfill Fire
On June 7, 2001 EPA Region 9 sent the Navy a letter demanding $25,000 in stipulated penalties for
the Navy's two week delay in notifying EPA, the State of California, and the community about an
August 2000 landfill fire at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, California.
Notification was required by a Federal Facilities Agreement between EPA, the Navy, and the State,
dated January 22, 1992, under CERCL A Section 120. Although the Navy learned of the landfill fire
on the southern edge of the property on Aug. 16, 2000, neither the EPA nor people living in nearby
neighborhoods were notified until Aug. 31, 2000. After being notified, the EPA immediately
directed the Navy to install air monitors around the landfill to monitor potential emissions from the
fire. Sampling results showed low levels of benzene emitting into the air. The fire broke out in an
old landfill called Parcel E, which is believed to be contaminated with metals, solvents and other
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 11 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
industrial debris. The Navy is still characterizing the nature and extent of contamination in the
landfill.
7. Case Summaries
In FY 2001, EPA took 53 formal enforcement actions against federal facilities under the Clean Air
Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of these actions,
as well as other actions that are not in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, are summarized below.
CAA Cases
Settlement Reached with U.S. Army for Violations at Pine Bluff Arsenal
In February 2001, EPA Region 6 filed a simultaneous Complaint and Consent Agreement/Final
Order settling CAA violations found at the U. S. Army' s Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
The alleged violations were found during a February 2000 multi-media inspection. Pine Bluff
Arsenal uses and maintains refrigeration equipment to control humidity in numerous buildings.
Thirteen pieces of refrigeration equipment which contained greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant
were identified during the inspection. It was alleged that the U.S. Army violated 40 CFR Part 82,
Subpart F, for: 1) failure to maintain service records documenting the date and quantity of
refrigerant added to the thirteen individual pieces of refrigeration equipment and: 2) failure to certify
acquisition of recovery or recycling equipment. The U.S. Army will pay a cash penalty of $21,000.
Settlement Reached to Address Violations at Eielson Air Force Base
In April 2001, EPA Region 10 and the Air Force entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order
(CAFO) and Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) to address violations of the Alaska
State Implementation Plan and the CAA at Eielson Air Force Base. The State of Alaska concurred
on the CAFO and signed the FFCA.
A joint inspection conducted September 8-10, 1999, by EPA and the State of Alaska revealed that
Eielson Air Force Base, located outside of Fairbanks, Alaska, had been operating three of its 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. This omission resulted in numerous violations of the State's
20% opacity standard. The Air Force also failed to control fugitive dust emissions from the facility.
Under the CAFO, the Air Force agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty and to implement Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) that will cost the Air Force at least $150,000. The SEPs consisted
of numerous proj ects designed to reduce fugitive dust emissions, such as requiring that the Air Force
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 22 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
prepare an Installation Fugitive Emissions Plan, and requiring that the Air Force purchase a new
state-of-the-art street sweeper in addition to retrofitting their older street sweepers.
In addition, EPA, Alaska, and the Air Force signed a FFCA setting forth a plan for the base to bring
the power plant into compliance with the 20% opacity limit. The FFCA includes specific dates by
which the Air Force must request funding for certain military construction projects (including
pollution control equipment), as well as a specific time frame by which pollution control equipment
must be installed. The FFCA also includes a stipulated penalties provision.
EPA, DOE and DOE Contractors Reach Settlement for Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory
On September 25, 2001, EPA Region 10 signed a CAFO with DOE and two of DOE's contractors,
Bechtel BWXT Idaho and Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, to address violations at
the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory located in
Scoville, Idaho. Violations included excursions against the asbestos NESHAP provisions and
regulations for ozone depleting substances. Respondents agreed to pay a penalty of $160,559 for
the violations.
EPA alleged that during a demolition project conducted at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) in September 1999, the respondents failed to: 1) properly notify
EPA prior to the demolition, 2) remove all asbestos-containing material prior to demolition, 3) strip
regulated asbestos-containing material from large facility components, 4) keep asbestos-containing
adequately wet material until collected, and 5) prevent visible emissions to the outside air during
the collection of asbestos-containing waste material. With respect to chlorofluorocarbon provisions,
EPA also alleged that the respondents failed to adequately repair leaks to INEEL's refrigeration or
cooling system within 30 days of discovery on two separate occasions and failed to record the
amount of refrigerant added when the cooling systems were ultimately serviced.
Economic Benefit and Size of Business Issues Still Pending in Appeal ofCAA Enforcement
Action Against the U.S. Army, Ft. Wainwright, Alaska
The U.S. Army Alaska Garrison operates the Fort Wainwright Central Heating and Power Plant
("CHPP"). The CHPP is the largest coal-fired power plant in the world owned by the United States
military. It can burn up to 450 tons of coal a day in the summer and up to 800 tons of coal a day in
the winter. The facility has been inspected seven times since 1989 and issued three Notices of
Violation (NOVs). Despite these efforts by the State of Alaska and EPA to bring the facility into
compliance without a formal enforcement action or assessment of a penalty, the majority of the
violations identified in the inspections and NOVs were not corrected up through 1999 and some of
the violations remain uncorrected today.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 23 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
EPA filed an administrative complaint in December 1999 against the U.S. Army Alaska Garrison -
Ft. Wainwright Alaska, seeking a $ 16 million penalty for alleged CAA violations. The penalty total
is based on over 10 years of almost continuous noncompliance at the facility, thousands of opacity
violations resulting in almost daily exceedances, failure to operate emission control devices and
monitoring equipment, failure to report excess emissions, and failure to submit timely test results.
The violations involve significant particulate and carbon monoxide emissions.
After alternative dispute resolution failed to result in a settlement, EPA and the Army exchanged
preheating materials and filed substantive motions. In July 2001, the Chief Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) presiding over the case issued an order wherein she found the Army liable for eight of
the nine counts of CAA violations alleged in EPA's complaint and found that the facility has been
in violation since at least 1994. EPA submitted evidence showing that the violations extend back
to at least 1991. Thus, while issues remain regarding the appropriate penalty amount in the case,
only one count will be litigated in terms of liability. The order also dismissed six of the Army's
defenses as they pertain to liability, but left open the possibility that some of the Army's defenses
may bear on the amount of the appropriate penalty.
In October 2001, oral argument was held on the seminal issues in this case, namely whether the EPA
Administrator (and the ALJ) has the authority to consider the CAA Section 113(e) penalty
assessment criteria of "size of business" and "economic benefit of noncompliance" in determining
an appropriate penalty for a federal facility. EPA's position is that the CAA provides the
Administrator with the authority to consider these statutorily-mandated penalty factors, while the
Army's position is that the Administrator has no such authority. Much of the Army's argument
focused on the underlying assumptions of EPA's economic benefit model, and emphasized what it
considers the unique attributes of federal agencies that make application of the "size of business"
and "economic benefit of noncompliance" penalty factors inappropriate. EPA argued that the legal
question before the Chief ALJ was the authority to consider the statutorily-mandated penalty factors
in determining an appropriate penalty, and that the economic benefit model was not at issue in the
case. EPA acknowledged that federal agencies have unique characteristics, but argued that these
characteristics could be considered in determining the appropriate amount of any penalty and had
no bearing on underlying legal authority issue before the court at oral argument.
In April, 2002, the Chief ALJ issued her opinion in which she held that as a matter of law the CAA
Section 113(e) penalty assessment criteria of "economic benefit of noncompliance" and "size of
business" apply to the Army and may be taken into account in adjusting the penalties for the Army' s
violations. In May 2002, the Army sought interlocutory review of the Chief ALJ's decision to the
EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). In May 2002, the Chief ALJ granted the Army' s request
and forwarded the matter to the EAB for interlocutory review. In June 2002, the EAB accepted the
case for interlocutory review and also the EAB issued an order setting the briefing schedule. Oral
argument before the EAB on the "economic benefit" and "size of business" issues is scheduled for
November 2002 and a decision is expected in 2003.
Settlement with NASA Will Result in 23,000 Pound Reduction ofPerchlorethylene at Alabama
Facility
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 24 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Region 4 settled a major CAA case against NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
(MSFC), located near Huntsville, Alabama. Under this settlement, the facility will perform a SEP
that replaces approximately 23,000 pounds of perchlorethylene (PCE) with a non-hazardous
cleaning agent and eliminate disposal of approximately 1,050 pounds of hazardous PCE waste. In
addition to the SEP, valued at $1,400,000, MSFC will pay a civil penalty of $77,500.
This settlement resolves an enforcement action taken to address violations of MSFC' s Title V Maj or
Source Operating Permit and its use of regulated solvents Among the violations in the enforcement
action:
MSCF submitted its initial compliance notification eight months late;
MSFC failed to submit semi-annual exceedance reports;
MSFC exceeded its permitted emissions from solvent cleaning operations on
multiple occasions; and
MSFC failed to maintain complete records of solvent usage.
CWA Cases
EPA Enters Federal Facility Compliance Agreement With GSA To Resolve CWA Violations at
the Denver Federal Center
On January 24, 2001, EPA Region 8 and the General Services Administration (GSA) entered into
a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to resolve violations of the CWA at the GSA Denver
Federal Center located in Denver, Colorado. In January and May of 2000, two unpermitted sewage
discharges occurred at the Denver Federal Center. The agreement will keep GSA's costs to a
minimum in investigating and repairing the sewer collection system. GSA will perform a
combination camera study and inflow/infiltration study to identify problem areas in the system.
GSA will then propose a plan and schedule for correction. GSA will also implement a monthly
operations and maintenance inspection schedule and report.
RCRA Cases
Navy Enters Consent Agreement and Final Order to Pay for Tank Violation at Oceana
In February 2000, Region 3's Regional Judicial Officer entered a Final Order ratifying a Consent
Agreement in which the Department of the Navy agreed to pay $1,261 for a single violation of
Subtitle I of RCRA. The Complaint had charged the Navy with failing to provide spill and overfill
protection on a second fill pipe on an underground storage tank (UST) at its Naval Air Station
Oceana in Virginia. The ALJ had previously granted the Region's motion for accelerated decision
as to the Navy's liability for the violation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Navy
must certify that it is presently in compliance with RCRA's UST requirements.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 25 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Penalty Issued Against U.S. Postal Service in Chicago for Tank Violations
EPA Region 5 performed an UST inspection at the US Postal Service Central Garage facility located
in Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 2000. Inspectors found that the facility had failed to keep proper
release detection monitoring records and failed to install vent piping correctly. A field citation was
issued and the final penalty order was issued for $450 on November 1, 2000.
Barksdale Air Force Base and Tinker Air Force Base Tank Settlements
In October and November 2000, settlements were reached with Barksdale AFB, Bossier Parish,
Louisiana, and Tinker AFB, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, respectively, resolving UST violations
at the facilities. These cases, particularly the Tinker case, were instrumental in resolving issues
regarding EPA authority to assess administrative penalties against federal facilities for violations
of the UST requirements of RCRA Section 9006.
The cases were initiated in January 1998, when EPA Region 6 filed administrative complaints
against Tinker and Barksdale alleging various UST violations. The administrative complaints were
part of EPA's first set of UST cases against federal facilities. At the same time the Tinker case was
pending before the ALJ, and before her order was issued in May 1999, DOD, pursuant to Executive
Order 12146, referred the issue of whether or not EPA has statutory authority to assess
administrative penalties against another federal agency for UST violations to the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after the issue was referred to OLC, the
ALJ in the Tinker case issued her May 1999 order which found that EPA lacked the statutory
authority to assess administrative penalties against another federal agency for UST violations. EPA
appealed the order to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in June 1999, and EPA, Tinker,
and the EAB waited for OLC to resolve the penalty authority issue before moving the case along.
In June 2000, OLC issued its opinion which confirmed EPA's penally authority against federal
agencies for UST violations under RCRA Sections 600 l(b) and 9006, and confirmed the validity
of EPA's UST field citation procedures. In July 2000, the EAB deferred to the OLC Opinion, and
reversed the May 1999 ALJ Order and remanded the case back to the ALJ. In light of the OLC
Opinion, Tinker, Barksdale, and EPA recommenced settlement negotiations. Settlements were
reached with both facilities, and in October 2000, Barksdale agreed to pay a penalty of $38,340,
while in November 2000, Tinker agreed to a pay a penalty of $51,500.
EPA and DOE Reach Settlement on HanfordRCRA Case
On October 12, 2000, EPA Region 10 signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) that
settled the administrative complaint filed by EPA in February 1998 alleging RCRA violations by
DOE at the Hanford Facility located in Richland, Washington. Under the CAFO, DOE is required
to complete compliance activities within a specified deadline, pay a $25,000 penalty, and perform
two SEPs at a cost of approximately $90,000. The compliance activities refer to two counts in the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 26 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Complaint (storage without a permit and failure to determine a hazardous waste) and require DOE
to close an illegal storage unit where 17 drums of listed waste were stored and to properly determine
hazardous waste codes for mixed radioactive/RCRA hazardous waste (scintillation cocktails). A
third count was withdrawn based on new information obtained during the course of the
administrative process. The proposed penalty for the two counts was approximately $340,000.
Under the first SEP, DOE will perform a 100% radiological survey on 2,500 lead bricks that were
previously located near waste sites at Hanford. DOE intended to encapsulate and dispose of the
bricks in a Hanford landfill, but is required under the agreement to pay for a complete and thorough
survey that will indicate if the bricks contain no greater than background levels of radiation. Those
bricks that pass the survey will be placed in DOE's excess inventory program and may be released
to a community organization that is expected to sell the bricks for reuse and use the funds derived
from the sale for community economic development activities.
Under the second SEP, DOE will perform a pollution prevention/reduction project to develop and
implement new analytical procedures that would eliminate sodium interference for certain laboratory
methods used at Hanford. The new procedures will be useful because many of the waste samples
from Hanford tanks contain high concentrations of sodium that often interfere with laboratory
analysis. The newly developed methods will reduce DOE's generation of mixed waste by using less
chemical reagents and minimizing the sodium dilution process.
Army Settles Complaints for Tank Violations at Walter Reed Medical Center Facilities in
Washington, DC and Silver Spring, Maryland
On October 20, 2000, EPA Region 3 signed a Final Order ratifying a Consent Agreement in which
the Army agreed to pay $86,715 in settlement of two administrative UST cases. Under the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Army is required to develop and implement a revised Standard
Operating Procedure to ensure compliance with the applicable UST requirements.
BIA Aberdeen Area Office Tank Settlement Reached
In November 2000, EPA Region 8 and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) executed a settlement
agreement regarding an UST enforcement action involving the BIA Aberdeen Area Office. The
enforcement action against BIA was initiated in December 1997 and settlement was reached in May
1999. Finalization of the consent agreement was temporarily stayed pending a decision by the
Department of Justice's OLC regarding EPA's UST penalty authority against federal facilities.
Following the issuance of OLC's opinion upholding EPA's penalty authority in June 2000, the
parties agreed to sign and file the previously-negotiated consent agreement. The action addresses
the BIA Aberdeen Area Office's non-compliance with several UST notices of violation issued over
a five-year period. The action includes approximately 52 BIA-owned USTs located at BIA facilities
and grant schools within the BIA Aberdeen Area on nine Indian reservations in North and South
Dakota.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 27 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
BIAwillpaya penalty of $93,383 and perform three SEPs valued at a minimum of $425,410. The
SEPs include establishing and implementing a multi-media environmental cleanup program at the
Marty Indian School and removing three underground storage tanks at the school's tribally-owned
store in Marty, South Dakota. These projects will improve environmental protection from UST
leaks and enhance the quality of life in Indian country in that area.
Tank Settlement Reached for U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Drum
On November 15, 2000, EPA Region 2 and the U.S. Army Garrison entered into a CAFO to settle
violations of the UST monitoring requirements of RCRA which occurred at the U.S. Army facility
located in Watertown, New York. Under the settlement, the respondent paid a civil penalty of
$135,000 for its failure to perform monthly leak detection monitoring of 76 petroleum USTs and 24
hazardous waste USTs during an approximately one year period.
RCRA Consent Agreement and Final Order for Letterkenny Army Depot
On March 3 0, 2001, the Army entered into a CAFO with EPA for RCRA violations detected during
an EPA inspection of the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania. The Army had several
violations including a failure to correct a cracked berm, failure to conduct weekly inspections at two
hazardous waste storage areas, and a release of small quantities of cadmium and possibly chromium-
contaminated waste paint dust particles at levels in excess of those that are characteristic for toxicity.
On April 9, 2001, the Army paid the $4,921 penalty.
DOE Enters Into a RCRA Section 3008(h) Corrective Action Order for Releases at Bettis Atomic
Power Laboratory
On April 11, 2001, a RCRA corrective action order became effective for Bettis Atomic Power
Laboratory in West Miffm, Pennsylvania. The Order requires DOE to perform corrective measures
that will address releases of hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents from the laboratory.
Violations of the order are subject to stipulated penalties.
EPA and Army Settle Fort Lewis Tank Case
On May 17, 2001, EPA Region 10 reached a settlement with the U. S. Army to resolve alleged UST
violations at the Fort Lewis location. Under the signed CAFO, the Army will pay $60,000 in
penalties and will perform at least $200,000 in SEPs. EPA filed the complaint in September 2000
for violations of UST requirements discovered during an inspection in September 1999.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 28 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Under the SEPs, the Army remove a number of unregulated underground heating oil tanks from Fort
Lewis and if contamination is found during the tank removals, the Army will clean it up. Since the
inspection and complaint, EPA has noted significant improvement in Fort Lewis' underground
storage tank management program. Fort Lewis has taken a number of steps to address deficiencies
in its UST program and to reduce the number of regulated USTs on the base.
Settlement Reached for Tank Violations at Maritime Administration Facility
On August 10, 2001, EPA Region 2 signed a CAFO to settle UST violations at the U.S. Department
of Transportation, Maritime Administration's Kings Point, NY facility. The Respondent had
voluntarily self-disclosed to EPA that five USTs at the facility failed to comply with the December
22, 1998 deadline to upgrade or close USTs and that two had failed to provide leak detection, as
required by RCRA. The Respondent self-disclosed these violations pursuant to EPA's Self-
Disclosure Policy (aka the Audit Policy). EPA's analysis of the self-disclosure revealed that the
Respondent did not qualify for 100% mitigation of the gravity component of the penalty (the self-
disclosure was not prompted by an internal audit program). Since all of the other criteria of the Self-
Disclosure Policy were met the gravity component of the penalty was reduced by 75%.
The settlement includes a $8,291 civil penalty and the performance of a SEP at a cost of $70,774.
The SEP involves converting two USTs (that are in full compliance) to above-ground tanks, with
a sophisticated leak monitoring system. The tank conversion is not required by state or federal law.
EPA Signs Tank CAFO for Virginia Testing Center
EPA agreed to pay a $2,833 penalty for its violations of Federal and Virginia regulations designed
to prevent leaks from underground petroleum storage tanks. EPA self-disclosed that it had missed
a December 22, 1998, deadline for closing or upgrading one of five underground gasoline tanks at
the laboratory in Alexandria, VA. EPA also failed to conduct several required monthly tests to
detect leaks in 1998 and 1999.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 29 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Region 4 Settles Veterans Affairs Tank Case for $5,000 Penalty and SEP to Improve Compliance
at Other Veterans Hospitals
In August 2001, EPA Region 4 resolved an UST case with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
at the W.G. Hefner VA Medical Center in Salisbury, North Carolina for a $5,000 penalty and an
$18,800 SEP, which ultimately cost $40,000. Under the SEP, VA contractors trained VA hospital
staff from other southeastern states to improve their environment compliance and reduce emissions.
This CAFO resolved UST violations discovered in February 2000 which could have resulted in the
spilling of fuel or undetected leakage from the tanks. These violations included failure to install
corrosion protection, failure to install spill and overflow protection, and failure to provide release
protection.
EPA Issued Corrective Action Order to Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant
EPA Region 4, in consultation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), issued a RCRA administrative order the Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant (VAAP),
requiring corrective action at the former U. S. Army TNT manufacturing facility in Chattanooga, TN.
The order was issued in January 2001, under the authority of Section 3008(h) of RCRA.
The order directs the Army to fully evaluate the nature and extent of releases of hazardous waste and
constituents into the environment and to take corrective action necessary to mitigate any migration
of releases at or from the facility. Under the order, the Army is also responsible for addressing
contamination that has migrated to property not currently owned by the Army.
The purpose of this order is to ensure and require a sustained and appropriate level of cleanup
response from the Army. EPA and TDEC expect the issuance of the order to raise the priority the
Army places on the response to contamination of the facility. Future property transfers will not
relieve the Army of its obligations under the order.
VAAP began operations in July 1942 as a TNT production facility and operated intermittently until
1977. By 1945, the facility had produced more than 800,000,000 pounds of TNT. Production
facilities were modernized in the 1970s. The facility generated hazardous waste associated with
TNT production and operated an open burning hazardous waste treatment unit until 1994. The
contaminated soil associated with this unit was removed in 1999 with TDEC's oversight and
approval. Site investigations have revealed contamination in groundwater, surface water, soil, and
sediments from multiple plant processes and waste management practices.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 30 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
SDWA Cases
EPA Settles Action Against U.S. Army XIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg for Alleged SDWA
Violations
In a June 2001 settlement with a total value at close to $1 million, EPA Region 4 settled an
administrative enforcement action against the U.S. Army XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg in
North Carolina for alleged violations of the SDWA Public Water Supply requirements. Fort Bragg
owns and operates a public water system that serves 65,000 people.
The administrative complaint alleged a range of violations including exceeding the maximum
contaminant level for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in the drinking water (16 times between March
1994 and December 1999), failing to notify the public of the TTHM exceedances, and failing to
educate the public regarding exceeding the action level for lead in the distribution system from
January 1993 through June 1998.
Under the terms of the CAFO, Fort Bragg agreed to pay a civil penalty of $312,500 to the United
States Treasury. In addition, Fort Bragg agreed to perform SEPs at a value of $821,994 (SEP actual
cost was $956,000) that will help ensure good water quality exists at Fort Bragg and five other
Army installations. The SEPs include:
spending $182,000 on a Pollution Prevention Assessment SEP at five Army installations in
five different states to identify deficiencies and recommend improvements to the drinking
water systems at these installations; and
spending $774,000 on an Environmental Quality Assessment SEP that will encompass seven
watershed areas in and around Fort Bragg, approximately 18,213 acres. This SEP will
recommend best management practices for reducing sediment contamination and erosion and
controlling stormwater.
United States Forest Service SDWA Settlements
In August 2000, EPA Region 6 issued three administrative penalty orders (APOs) for violations of
SDWA at the Duran Campground, the Canjilon Lakes Campground, and the Guadalupe
Administrative Site. All three United States Forest Service (USFS) facilities are in New Mexico.
The USFS failed to collect bacteriological samples at these systems, thus violating the Total
Coliform Rule. Microbiological contaminants pose the most imminent risk 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 exist for harmful pathogens to also be present. Enforcement of the microbiological
rules is a national enforcement priority with EPA, and the New Mexico Environment Department
has identified USFS drinking water facilities as a problem area.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 31 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Negotiations with the USFS resulted in settlements and the issuance of a CAFO for each site. In
June 2001, the action against the Canjilon Lakes Campground was settled for a penalty of $4,500,
while the action against the Guadalupe Administrative Site was settled for a penalty of $1,800. In
September 2001, the terms of the CAFO with the Duran Campground required a penalty payment
of $15,200, and the USFS agreed to perform a SEP with a value of $80,578. The SEP consists of
a training program for operators who manage drinking water systems in National Forests and
National Grasslands in the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service and on other federal and state
lands managed by other agencies who attend the program. The training program will improve
operator knowledge of system maintenance, sampling requirements, and public health risks posed
by drinking water.
Operators, line officers, and appropriate staff at the forest and district level and at other federal and
state agencies will gain awareness and understanding of state and federal regulatory requirements
as they apply to drinking water systems. Instructors will emphasize transient non-community water
systems, an area not usually addressed in operator training.
TSCA Cases
Penalty Order Issued to Lockheed Martin-Idaho Technologies Company at Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls
In a March 13, 2001 settlement with a total value of $30,535, EPA Region 10 settled an
administrative enforcement action against the Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company
(LMITCO) for alleged violations of the TSCA Poly chlorinated Bi-Phenyl requirements.
LMITCO is a contractor under the United States Department of Energy at the Idaho National
Environmental Engineering Laboratory located in Idaho Falls, Idaho. This was the first time a
TSCA PCB Complaint had been issued to a U.S. Department of Energy contractor in EPA
Region 10.
The EPA Region 10 issued the January 26, 2000 administrative complaint regarding the 1996
transfer of PCB material by LMITCO from the Comprehensive, Emergency Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) activities of V-Tanks at the INEEL site. This waste
was transferred to the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) and incinerated in 1996.
The waste contained a PCB concentration of up to 680 parts per million (ppm). The WERF
incinerator was a non-TSCA permitted unit used to incinerate the high chloride waste from the
V-Tanks.
The alleged a range of violations included failure to prepare an Annual Document Log as
required by 40 CFR761.180(a), Improper Disposal Incineration under 40 CFR 761.70(d),
Failure to Obtain a TSCA Permit under 40 CFR 761.70(d)(l), Failure to Notify EPA under 40
CFR 761.205(a)(2), Failure to Conduct TSCA PCB inspections required under 40 CFR
761.60(a)(4) and 761.65, Failure to Mark the PCB Storage Area under 40 CFR 761.40(a)(10),
Improper Storage of PCBs under 40 CFR 761.65, and Failure to Date the Containers under 40
CFR 761.40. The total assessed penalty in the January 26, 2000 TSCA Administrative Complaint
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 32 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
was $ 188,375. This TSCA Complaint included an additional 25% increase for gravity
component.
Under the terms of the CAFO, LMITCO agreed to pay a civil penalty of $30,535 to the United
States Treasury. The case was settled through negotiations which concluded in March 2001.
Other Cases
Historic Preservation Agreement Reached for the Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot
In April 2001, EPA Region 3 signed a three-party agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot in Suffolk, VA. The agreement
ensures that as the investigation and cleanup continues, historic property such as American Indian
artifacts and remains are preserved. The agreement establishes procedures designed to preserve the
historic property. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Nansemond Indian Tribal Association, and the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources are signatories to the agreement.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 33 January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 2001 Accomplishments Report
Attachment 1
Organizational Structure of the
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
(January 2003)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Phone: (202) 564-2510
Fax: (202) 501-0069
Director: David J. Kling
Associate Director: Elliott Gilberg
Senior Enforcement Counsel: Joyce Olin
Priscilla Harrington: (202) 564-2461
Madeline Queen: (202) 564-2472
Planning, Prevention, and
Compliance Staff
Director: Gregory Snyder
Ph: (202) 564-4271
Fax:(202)501-0069
Will Garvey
Dorothy King
Isabelle Lacayo
Diane Lynne
Marie Muller
Augusta Wills
Richard Satterfield
202-564-2458
202-564-2473
202-564-2578
202-564-2587
202-564-0217
202-564-2468
202-564-2456
Site Remediation and Enforcement
Staff
Director: Bernadette Rappold, Acting
Ph: (202) 564-8865
Fax:(202)501-0644
Melanie Barger-
Garvey
Lance El son
William (Bill) Frank
Sonj a Johnson
David Levenstein
Andrew Cherry
Sally Dalzell
202-564-2579
202-564-2577
202-564-2584
202-564-2573
202-564-2591
202-564-2589
202-564-2583
Regional Federal Facilities
Program Managers
(see Attachment 2)
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
January 2003
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM MANAGERS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Updated 10-1-02
Region/Name
HEADQUARTERS
Greg Snyder, Director
Planning, Prevention, &
Compliance Staff
REGION 1
Anne Fenn
REGION 2
Kathleen Malone
REGION 3
Bill Arguto
REGION 4
Anthony Shelton
REGION 5
Lee J. Regner
REGION 6
Joyce F. Stubblefleld
REGION 7
Diana Jackson
REGION 8
Dianne Thiel
REGION 9
Larry Woods
REGION 10
Michele Wright
States
CT, ME,
MA, NH, RI,
VT
NJ, NY, PR,
VI
DE, DC,
MD, PA,
VA, WV
AL, FL, GA,
KY, MS,
NC, SC, TN
IL, IN, MI,
MN, OH,
WI
AR, LA,
NM, OK,
TX
IA, KS, MO,
NE
CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT,
WY
AZ, CA, HI,
NV, Pacific
Islands
AK, ID, OR,
WA
Address
US EPA
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
US EPA Region 1
Office of Environmental Stewardship
1 Congress Street
Suite 1 100, Mail: SPP
Boston, MA 02114-2023
US EPA Region 2
Compliance Assistance Section
290 Broadway, 21stFl.
New York, NY 10007-1866
US EPA Region 3
Office of Environmental Programs
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
US EPA Region 4
Environmental Accountability Division,
Federal Facilities
61 Forsyth St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
US EPA Region 5
Office of Enforcement & Compliance
Assurance
77 West Jackson Blvd
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
US EPA Region 6
Compliance Assurance & Enforcement
Division
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
US EPA Region 7
Enforcement Coordination Office
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
US EPA Region 8
Office of Partnerships and Reg. Assistance,
8P-P3T
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
US EPA Region 9
Cross-Media Division
75 Hawthorne St, CMD-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
US EPA Region 10
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
arguto.william@epa.gov
shelton.anthony@epa.gov
regner.lee@epa.gov
stubblefield.joyce
@epa.gov
jackson.diana@epa.gov
thiel.dianne@epa.gov
woods.larry@epa.gov
wright. michele @epa.gov
Tel/Fax
202-564-4271
202-501-0069
617-918-1805
617-918-1810
212-637-4083
212-637-4086
215-814-3367
215-814-2783
404-562-9636
404-562-9598
312-353-6478
312-353-5374
214-665-6430
214-665-7446
913-551-7744
913-551-9744
303-312-6389
303-312-6044
415-972-3857
415-972-3562
206-553-1747
206-553-7176
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
35
January 2003
-------
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 36 January 2003
------- |