United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance (2261 A)
EPA 300-R-96-001
December 1995
Federal
Multi-Media Enforcement/
Compliance Initiative
Final National Report
-------
Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
Final National Report
December 1995
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
-------
iti
es
-------
Executive Summary
This is the Final National Report on the FY 1993-94 Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI). An Interim National Report was published in
November of 1994. The FMECI was designed to assess the compliance status of Federal
facilities with environmental laws using a multi-media approach. EPA established the FMECI as
a priority for FY 1993-1994, recognizing that Federal facilities are a highly visible sector of the
regulated community and have historically demonstrated lower rates of compliance with
environmental laws than their private sector counterparts. It also provided EPA an opportunity
FMECI FY 1993-1994 HIGHLIGHTS
The 73 FMECI inspections in FY 1993-1994 represent a significant investment in
the Federal facility sector by EPA and participating States.
On average, Regions evaluated compliance with five environmental statutes/
programs during each inspection. Thus, the 73 multi-media inspections conducted
during the FMECI would be equivalent to 365 single-media inspections.
Approximately 75 percent (55 of 73) of the inspected facilities received a total of
119 EPA or State enforcement actions for violations under nine separate
environmental statutes.
Of the facilities receiving enforcement actions, 60 percent (33 of 55) violated more
than one statute.
More than 45 percent (33 of 73) of all inspected facilities violated two or more
statutes.
EPA documented significant levels of State involvement in the FMECI. States led
23 percent of inspections and participated in an additional 59 percent of
inspections.
EPA's procedures and approach to conducting multi-media inspections can be
effective, regardless of the size or operating agency of the facilities involved.
EPA Regions proposed a total of more than $3.7 million in penalties.
EPA and States encouraged facilities to adopt pollution prevention strategies as
first-choice measures to return to and maintain compliance.
ES-4
-------
to pilot multi-media compliance and enforcement approaches within one sector of the regulated
community -- Federal facilities. Although the initiative has ended, multi-media inspection and
enforcement activities at Federal Facilities have now been integrated into all EPA Regional
enforcement programs.
BACKGROUND
The goals of the FMECI were to:
• Foster improved Federal agency compliance with and awareness of environmental
laws and regulations;
• Help reduce environmental risks posed by Federal facilities through a multi-media
inspection and enforcement approach;
• Achieve a more efficient use of enforcement authorities and resources; and
• Expand the application of pollution prevention approaches to compliance
problems so that facilities can exceed baseline compliance.
This Report examines five key areas of the FMECI:
• Compliance and enforcement results;
• Pollution Prevention efforts;
• Administration, protocol, and resources used in carrying out multi-media
inspections;
• Regional/State coordination levels; and
• Overall impacts of the multi-media inspection approach.
The remainder of this executive summary presents the key findings of the FMECI Report.
Additional details on the type, size, and location of facilities inspected; types of enforcement
actions taken and size of penalties; pollution prevention conditions and supplemental
environmental projects undertaken as part of enforcement action; and the level of Federal/State
interaction during the FMECI are contained in the national summary. The Report also contains
detailed Regional descriptions of the program.
ES-5
-------
MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
EPA Regions and participating States conducted 73 multi-media compliance inspections
during the FMECI; 41 in FY 1993 and 32 in FY 1994. The number of inspections conducted
ranged from three in Region V to 21 in Region IV. Most Regions conducted fewer inspections
during the second year of the initiative, although Region IX increased its inspection activity from
two in FY 1993 to five in FY 1994.
Number of Inspected Facilities by Agency
VA -
DOI -
DOJ -
DOT -
USDA -
DOB -
NASA -
N avy
A_ir Force
A.rmy
0
N = 73 Inspections
10 15
Number or Inspections
20
25
Almost 84 percent (61 of 73) of the inspections were conducted at DOD facilities. The
remaining multi-media inspections consisted of two DOE installations and 10 Civilian Federal
Agency (CFA) facilities.
States assumed a lead role on 23 percent (17 of 73) of inspections conducted under the
FMECI. EPA-only inspections accounted for 18 percent (13 of 73), while EPA-lead
inspections, which include collaborations between the States and the Regions or the National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), accounted for the remaining 59 percent (43 of 73).
ES-6
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
A total of 119 enforcement actions were taken under nine different statutes. The four
most frequently violated statutes (RCRA, TSCA, CAA, & CWA) accounted for almost 83
percent of all violations.
Enforcement Actions Taken According to Statute/Program
RCRA 46
(38.7%)\_
N =
CWA 14-
(11.8%)
CAA 18
(15.1%)
119 Enforcement Actions
SDWA4
(3.4%)
_ST6
(5.0%)
—SPCC 7
(5.9%)
FIFRA 2
(1.7%)
EPCRA 2
(1.7%)
TSCA 20
(16.8%)
More than 75 percent (55 of 73) of all inspected facilities violated at least one statute,
and more than 45 percent (33 of 73) of all inspected facilities violated two or more statutes.
Among the inspected facilities receiving enforcement actions under the FMECI, the median
number of environmental statutes violated was two.
Percent of Inspected Facilities Receiving Enforcement Actions
No statutes violated
(18 facilities - 24.7%i
Four or more statutes violated
(6 facilities - 8.2%)
One statute violated
(22 facilities-30.1%)
N = 73 Inspected facilities
Figure 3
Three statutes violated
(8 facilities - 11.0%)
Two statutes violated
(19 facilities - 26.0%)
ES-7
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Regions actively pursued pollution prevention remedies as a compliance tool during the
FMECI. Most Regions noted the importance of pollution prevention and the expectation that it
would become more prominent in the future. Federal facilities in five Regions have either
implemented pollution prevention Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) or at least
explored their feasibility. In addition, three of these five Regions have included pollution
prevention remedies and conditions into enforcement settlements.
Six Regions provided Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles to Federal facilities at
the time of the inspections. The Profiles identify processes, measures, operations and
maintenance practices, and technologies that facilities can explore to reduce or prevent the release
of pollutants.
Several other Regions reported pursuing less formal pollution prevention strategies at
inspected facilities. At least two Regions made specific pollution prevention recommendations
that were later adopted by facilities, while another Region noted that immediately following a
multi-media inspection, the facility initiated several pollution prevention measures.
OVERALL IMPACT OF THE FMECI
Six of nine Regions responding to a survey stated that the FMECI resulted in increased
interest in using multi-media inspections, although one region commented that it could allocate
necessary resources for only a small number of inspections. The Regions viewed the inspections
as an effective enforcement tool that expands the knowledge of inspectors. Relative to
conventional single-media inspections, two Regions reported that multi-media inspections are
more efficient, however, two other Regions noted just the opposite.
Overall, the Regions perceived facilities involved in multi-media inspections to be
professional, cooperative, and positive in responding to the FMECI. Regions also noted that
facility environmental staff often welcomed the inspections because the attention inspections
brought to environmental management reinforced the importance of their efforts. Three Regions
mentioned the effectiveness of the FMECI in involving upper management staff at facilities and
one Region noted the responsiveness of base commanders, stating that commanders frequently
will send follow-up letters outlining the corrections made as a result of inspections.
Regions also described some of their concerns that arose during the FMECI. These
ranged from potential difficulties incorporating multi-media inspections as a standard Regional
program element once the FMECI concludes, to concerns on the part of facility personnel about
criminal liability associated with environmental violations discovered during inspections, and the
effect these concerns could have on facility participation. The remainder of this report presents a
National Summary of the FMECI and detailed Region-by-Region results.
ES-8
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ES-1
Acronyms ii
Definitions iii
Introduction 1
FMECI National Highlights 5
FMECI Inspections 7
FMECI Enforcement Actions 13
Pollution Prevention 23
Administration, Protocol, and Resources 24
Regional/State Coordination 28
Overall Impact of Multi-Media Inspections 30
Summary 31
FMECI Regional Reports 33
Region I 35
Region II 41
Region III 47
Region IV 55
Region V 63
Region VI 67
Region VII 73
Region VIII 79
Region IX 85
Region X 91
Appendix I: Sample Pollution Prevention Profile A - 1
IX
-------
Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
AFB
ANL
AO
CAA
CAFO
CFA
CWA
DOD
DOE
EPA
EPCRA
EEC
FFCA
FFEO
FIFRA
FMECI
NEIC
NON
NOV
NPDES
OCE
OECA
RCRA
RREL
SDWA
SEA
SEP
SPCC
TSCA
UIC
UST
Air Force Base
Argonne National Laboratory
Administrative Order
Clean Air Act
Compliance Agreement Final Order
Civilian Federal Agency (i.e., all Federal agencies except DOE and DOD)
Clean Water Act
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Federal Facility Coordinator
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement/Act
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Enforcement Agreements
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
Toxic Substances Control Act
Underground Injection Control
Underground Storage Tank
-------
Definitions
The following are definitions of key terms used within this report. They are intended to facilitate
a greater understanding of the multi-media compliance and enforcement program at Federal
facilities. They do not represent "official" agency definitions.
Enforcement Actions are administrative responses taken to address violations of environmental
regulations. Enforcement actions include informal responses, formal administrative responses,
and civil judicial responses. Informal responses, such as Notices of Violation (NOVs), Notices
of Noncompliance (NONs), and Warning Letters, are advisory in nature. They inform the
manager of a facility what violation was found, what corrective action should be taken, and by
what date. Informal responses carry no penalty or power to compel actions, but if ignored, they
can lead to more severe actions. Formal administrative responses, such as Administrative
Orders, may require the recipient to take some corrective or remedial action within a specified
period of time, to refrain from certain behavior, or to require future compliance. Civil judicial
responses against non-Federal sector facilities are lawsuits brought in U.S. Federal Court by the
Department of Justice at EPA's request. They force more serious or recalcitrant violators of
environmental laws to take corrective action to address the violation and prevent future violations.
Both formal and civil judicial responses may involve monetary penalties.
Facility Size is classified as either small, medium, or large. A small facility has a minimal
number of units, sources, systems, activities, or sites subject to environmental regulations. A
medium-sized facility has multiple regulated units, etc. of varying levels of complexity (e.g.,
Langley Air Force Base, Fort Gordon). A large facility has many and/or complex regulated
units, etc. (e.g., Aberdeen Proving Ground, DOE Hanford).
Inspection Categories are different types of environmental compliance inspections conducted
at Federal facilities. Category A is a single media inspection. Category B is a single media
inspection during which inspectors screen for other program areas. Category C is a coordinated
inspection of several program areas. Category D is a consolidated facility inspection that uses a
team representing each of the various media programs.
Single-Media vs. Multi-Media Single-media inspections examine a facility's compliance with
one environmental statute or program. The term "single-media" is used because environmental
statutes and programs frequently address potential threats to a single environmental medium, as
with the CAA and the CWA, which regulate potential air and water pollution, respectively.
Inspections under other statutes, such as TSCA, FIFRA, and RCRA, although they may involve
potential threats to multiple environmental media, are nonetheless considered single-media
because they are carried out under a single-statute. The term "multi-media" is used because
multi-media inspections invariably examine potential threats to multiple environmental media.
XI
-------
Statute vs. Program Environmental statutes are laws governing a broad topic of environmental
concern (e.g., RCRA). Programs represent more focused aspects within a particular statute (e.g.,
the UST program under RCRA).
Supplemental Environmental Projects or SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that a
violator agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement action, but which the violator is not
otherwise legally required to perform.
xn
-------
Introduction
This report presents the national and Regional results of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Facility Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
(FMECI). EPA established FMECI as an Agency priority for FY 1993 and FY 1994 in
recognition of the fact that Federal facilities are highly visible and have a mandate and
commitment to address environmental problems in the Federal sector. Traditionally, however,
Federal facilities have demonstrated lower rates of compliance with environmental laws than have
private sector facilities.
BACKGROUND
The FMECI was a national initiative designed to assess compliance of Federal facilities
with environmental laws using multi-media inspections and enforcement to address areas of non-
compliance. The initiative consisted of a series of coordinated multi-media team inspections
conducted by all ten EPA Regional Offices, in concert with appropriate State officials, at Federal
facilities throughout the nation. An Interim National Report on the results of the FMECI,
based on FY 1993 data, was published in November of 1994 (EPA 300-R-94-007).
OBJECTIVES
In the past few years, EPA and Federal facilities have stepped up efforts to ensure that
environmental compliance is thorough, expedient, and just. Pursuant to those goals, and
underscored by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, the FMECI seeks to:
• Foster improved Federal agency compliance with environmental laws and
regulations;
• Help reduce environmental risks posed by Federal facilities by increasing the use of
multi-media inspections;
• Achieve efficient use of enforcement authorities by consolidating efforts; and
• Expand the application of pollution prevention measures so that facilities can
exceed baseline compliance.
The next section explains EPA's approach to the design and implementation of the FMECI.
GUIDANCE/TARGETING CRITERIA
EPA Regions performed their field activities in accordance with the FY 1993-1994
FMECI Implementation Guidance Document prepared by the Federal Facilities Enforcement
Office (FFEO) of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The
1
-------
guidance specified that each Region conduct at least two multi-media inspections during each
year of the FMECI. The guidance also provided a set of criteria for the Regions to use in
targeting inspections of Federal facilities. The criteria were designed to be adjusted by the
Regions to account for Region-specific factors. These criteria include:
• Compliance history;
• Regional Risk Ranking (including NEIC ranking or other identified impacts to
human health and the environment);
• Other national, Regional, or State environmental priorities/initiatives;
• Environmental justice; and
• Opportunities for pollution prevention.
Once the facilities are selected, the EPA Regional Federal Facility Coordinator (FFC),
inspectors from EPA, and State media-specific environmental protection programs form teams
and conduct the inspections. The team concept is designed so that facilities can:
• Comprehensively evaluate environmental compliance performance;
• Take advantage of combined expertise to identify pollutants that affect various
environmental media; and
• Identify pollution prevention opportunities.
In designing the FMECI, FFEO consulted with EPA Regions, EPA Headquarters
Program Offices, and State organizations. EPA issued inter-agency communication to other
Federal agencies to launch the initiative, which produced tools and achieved effects consistent
with FMECI goals.
REGIONAL SURVEY
This report describes the national and Regional results of a survey that FFEO
administered to the ten EPA Regions at the conclusion of the FMECI. The survey queried each
Region regarding key facets of the FMECI, including:
• Compliance/Enforcement: the number of multi-media enforcement inspections
conducted in FY 1993 and FY 1994; type, number, and status of enforcement
actions taken; amount of proposed and final penalties associated with particular
enforcement actions; and State enforcement leads;
-------
• Pollution Prevention: the degree to which the inspected facilities used pollution
prevention measure or to which inspectors incorporated such measures into
enforcement actions;
• Administration, Protocol, and Resources: the procedures, approach, and
resources involved in conducting the inspections;
• Regional/State Coordination: the level and nature of interaction that occurred
between the Regions and States during all phases of the inspections, as well as the
Regions' perceived benefits and obstacles to increased State involvement; and
• Overall Impact of the Multi-Media Approach: outcomes or effects of a multi
media effort across or within agencies or the inspected facilities.
In short, this document assesses how well multi-media inspections and enforcement efforts have
served facilities, the Regions, and the States and whether they have achieved FMECI
environmental compliance goals.
REPORT OVERVIEW
This is the Final National Report on the results of the FMECI; it is the follow-up to the
Interim National Report of November 1994. It describes lessons learned from the initiative,
barriers to improving environmental compliance at Federal facilities, and potential next steps to
address those barriers. This report consists of two major parts. The first contains national
highlights for the FMECI. The second presents Region-specific summaries of FMECI
experiences.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
FMECI National Highlights
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
FMECI National Highlights
* EPA Regional Offices
Multi-Media Inspections Conduced
Nine out of ten Regions performed at least two multi-media inspections per year.
FMECI INSPECTIONS
EPA conducted 73 multi-media compliance inspections during the Federal Facilities
Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI); 41 in FY 1993 and 32 in FY
1994. The number of inspections conducted ranged from three in Region V to 21 in Region IV.
Most Regions conducted fewer inspections during the second year of the initiative, although
Region IX increased its inspection activity from two in FY 1993 to five in FY 1994. Three
other Regions (I, VII, and X) conducted the same number in both years. All Regions, except
Region V, conducted an average of at least two inspections per year, as specified in the FMECI
operating guidance. Inspections were conducted in 35 States, two Territories, and the District of
Columbia.
The Department of Defense (DOD) operates 61 of 73, or more than 83 percent, of the
facilities examined during the FMECI. The inspected DOD facilities include 21 Air Force, 17
7
-------
Navy, and 23 Army installations. The remaining 12 inspected facilities include two DOE
laboratories and 10 Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) facilities (three NASA space flight centers,
two Department of Agriculture research facilities, two Coast Guard installations, a Department of
Justice penitentiary, and a Veterans Administration medical center). In addition, as requested by
President Clinton in his Earth Day 1993 address, inspectors conducted a multi-media audit of
the White House and Old Executive Office Building (referred to herein as the White House
Complex).
Exhibit 1-1 presents inspected facilities by agency category (i.e., DOD, CFA, and DOE)
and branch of the military service, while Exhibit 1-2 further breaks out the facilities according to
their respective individual agencies.
Exhibit 1-1
Inspected Facilities by Agency Category and Branch
All Facilities
DOD Facilities
DOE 2—
(2.7%)
CFAs 10
(13.7%)
DOD 61
-------
Exhibit 1-2
Number of Inspected Facilities by Agency
VA -
DOI -
DOJ
DOT -
USDA -
DOE -
NASA -
Navy -
A.ir Force
A.rmy
N = 73 Inspections
10 15
Number or Inspections
20
25
Inspected CFA facilities were drawn from a variety of Agencies.
EPA Regions classified most inspected facilities as medium-sized (62 percent) or large (34
percent), with the remainder (4 percent) being classified as small. Between FY 1993 and FY
1994, the percentage of medium-sized and small facilities increased slightly, while the share of
large facilities declined by approximately five percent. Exhibit 1-3 presents inspected facilities
according to size.
-------
Exhibit 1-3
Inspected Facilities According to Size
Medium 45
(61.6%) v
-Small 3
(4.1%)
Large 25
(34.
N = 73 Facilities
Most inspected facilities are classified as medium-sized.
Most inspected DOD and CFA facilities are medium-sized (62 percent and 70 percent,
respectively); however, inspected DOD facilities are more likely to be large than are inspected
CFA facilities. Only 20 percent of CFA facilities are large; in contrast, approximately 34
percent of inspected DOD facilities are large.
There also appears to be some correlation between facility size and operating agency (see
Exhibit 1-4 below). For example, among military installations inspected during the FMECI,
Navy installations are more likely to be medium-sized than Army or Air Force installations.
Inspected CFA facilities also tend to be medium-sized. All inspected DOE facilities are classified
as large.
10
-------
Exhibit 1-4
Facility Size and Operating Agency
0 -^
Inspected Navy and CFA facilities tend to be medium-sized;
inspected DOE facilities are large.
The intensity and level of resources devoted to the inspections varied somewhat across
Regions and facilities; however, all inspections conducted under the FMECI were either Category
C or D. Overall, the Regions conducted slightly more Category D than Category C inspections,
39 and 34, respectively. Between the first and second years of the FMECI, the number of
Category D inspections increased slightly relative to the number of Category C inspections (in FY
1993, there were 21 Category D inspections and 20 Category C inspections).
As portrayed in Exhibit 1-5, large facilities were slightly more likely to receive the more
resource-intensive Category D inspections, while medium-sized facilities were subjected to nearly
the same number of Category C and D inspections.
There does not appear to be any strong correlation between agency category and inspection
Category. An individual Region's approach to inspections appears to have a greater influence on
the Category of inspection a facility receives. In four Regions (I, III, IV, and X), all FMECI
inspections were of the same category, regardless of the size or agency affiliation of the facility.
The 43 facilities located in these four Regions accounted for nearly 60 percent of the total
11
-------
Exhibit 1-5
Facility Size and Category of Inspection
as -t
20 -
Small
EPA and the States conducted slightly more Category D than Category C inspections.
number of inspections conducted under the FMECI. In addition, Regions II and IX (six and
seven inspections, respectively) each conducted the same Category of inspection at all but one of
their facilities.
Exhibit 1-6 presents a breakdown of multi-media inspection leads.1 States assumed a
lead role on 23 percent (17 of 73) of inspections conducted under the FMECI. EPA-only
inspections accounted for 18 percent (13 of 73), while EPA-led inspections, which include
Regional and National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)-led efforts, accounted for 59
percent (43 of 73).
The level of State participation on inspection teams declined slightly between the first and
second years of the FMECI. In FY 1993, States participated in 88 percent (36 of 41) of
For the purposes of this Report, a State or EPA is considered the multi-media inspection lead if it acts as
the lead agency on the majority of individual environmental media components of the multi-media inspection.
12
-------
Exhibit 1-6
FMECI Inspection Leads
EPA-Led Inspections 43-"
(58.9%)
State-Led Inspections 17
' (23.3%)
EPA-Only Inspections 13
(17.8%)
N = 73 Facilities
States played an active role in multi-media inspections.
inspections and acted as lead on 34 percent (14 of 41). During FY 1994, the State
participation rate decreased to 75 percent (24 of 32) and State-led inspections dropped to only
nine percent (3 of 32). For both years of the FMECI, States participated in 82 percent (60 of
73) of the inspections and acted as lead on 23 percent (17 of 73).
Despite this apparent decline in State participation in the inspection phase of the
FMECI, Regions did not note any significant new barriers to EPA/State coordination between
FY 1993 and FY 1994 (see Exhibit 1-21). Moreover, States remained extremely active in the
enforcement phase of the FMECI (see Exhibit 1-20). Many Regions also noted that the overall
level of State interaction during all phases of the FMECI remained moderate to high.
FMECI ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Inspection teams identified 119 violations warranting enforcement actions during the
FMECI. In addition, there are a few enforcement actions that may be issued at a later date. The
issued enforcement actions consisted of:
• Warning Letters
13
-------
Notices of Violation (NOV)
Notices of Noncompliance (NON)
Field Citations
Administrative Orders, and
• Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCA).
The level of enforcement activity declined substantially between the first and second year
of the FMECI. In FY 1993, Regions and States issued 77 enforcement actions; in FY 1994,
the figure was only 42, a decrease of 45 percent. Moreover, this decline cannot be entirely
attributed to a reduction in the number of multi-media inspections. The number of enforcement
actions per inspection decreased from 1.9 in FY 1993 to 1.3 in FY 1994.
Of the enforcement actions issued as a result of the FMECI, 46 (39 percent) addressed
RCRA violations. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-7 below, the four most frequently violated statutes
warranting enforcement action (RCRA, CAA, TSCA, and CWA) accounted for nearly 83
percent of all such violations.
Exhibit 1-7
Enforcement Actions Taken According to StatuteTrogram
RCRA 46
(38.7%\
1JST6
(5.0%)
CWA 14
(11.8%)
—SPCC 7
(5.9%)
>IFRA2
(1.7%)
CAA 18
(15.1%)
N = 119 Enforcement Actions
EPCRA2
(1.7%)
TSCA 20
(16.8%)
A total of 119 enforcement actions were taken under nine different statutes.
14
-------
The distribution of enforcement actions by statute is essentially the same for medium-
sized and large facilities.2 Navy, Army, and Air Force facilities had similar violation rates across
statutes, although as a group they tended to receive more enforcement actions for CAA violations.
Accordingly, CFAs received RCRA, TSCA, and CWA violations in the same relative proportions
as the rest of the inspected facilities; however, they were not cited for any CAA violations.
Exhibit 1-8 presents enforcement actions according to agency category and branch of
military service. DOD facilities accounted for the vast majority of the violations warranting
enforcement actions during the FMECI. In addition, the distribution of enforcement actions by
agency category was fairly consistent with the distribution of inspections (see Exhibit 1-1); DOD,
DOE, and CFA facilities received 89.1, 1.7, and 9.2 percent, respectively, of enforcement
actions compared to 83.6, 2.7, and 13.7 percent, respectively, of multi-media inspections.
Comparing these two exhibits also reveals that Army installations received a somewhat
disproportionate share of enforcement actions relative to the other branches of the military; Army
installations accounted for 37.7 percent of inspected DOD facilities, yet they received 48.1
percent of enforcement actions at DOD facilities. Air Force facilities received 34.4 percent of
the inspections and 23.6 percent of enforcement actions, while Navy facilities received 27.8
percent of inspections and 28.3 percent of enforcement actions.
Exhibit 1-8
Enforcement Actions by Agency Category and Branch
All Facilities
DOD Facilities
DOD 106
V (89.1%)
DOE 2--
(1.7%)
J
Army 51-
(48.1%)
Air Force 25
(23.6%)
N = 119 Enforcement Actions
Navy 30
(28.3%)
N = 106 Enforcement Actions
DOD facilities received the majority of enforcement actions.
Small facilities comprise too small a portion of the universe of inspected facilities to draw any meaningful
conclusions regarding the distribution of enforcement actions by statute.
15
-------
Exhibit 1-9 provides additional detail on the specific types of enforcement actions taken
to address violations of environmental statutes. NOVs were the most frequently issued
enforcement action, accounting for 34 percent of the total. Administrative Orders and Warning
Letters comprised 24 and 22 percent, respectively, of all enforcement actions.
Among the four most frequently violated statutes, NOVs comprised anywhere from 20
percent (TSCA) to 43 percent (RCRA) of actions issued. In percentage terms, Administrative
Orders were most frequently issued under RCRA, while Warning Letters were most commonly
issued under SDWA. NONs accounted for 70 percent of TSCA enforcement actions and
TSCA NONs accounted for 82 percent of all NONs issued during the FMECI. It should be
noted that the authority to issue all of these various enforcement actions does not exist under
every environmental statute.
Between FY 1993 and FY 1994, there were no significant changes in the distribution of
enforcement actions -- NOVs, Administrative Orders, Warning Letters, and NONs, respectively,
were the four most commonly issued enforcement actions.
Exhibit 1-9
Type of Enforcement Actions by Statute/Program Violated
Enforcement Action
Warning Letter
NOV
NON
Administrative Order
Field Citation
FFCA
TOTAL
RCRA
7
20
0
19
0
0
46
CWA
4
5
1
3
0
1
14
CAA
7
7
0
4
0
0
18
TSCA
0
4
14
1
0
1
20
FIFRA
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
SPCC
3
2
0
0
0
2
7
LIST
1
1
0
1
3
0
6
EPCRA
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
SDWA
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
TOTAL
26
40
17
28
4
4
119
NOVs accounted for more than one-third of enforcement actions under the FMECI.
DOD facilities received approximately 90 percent of the Administrative Orders, NONs,
and Warning Letters issued under the FMECI, which is generally consistent with the overall
distribution of enforcement actions (DOD facilities received 89 percent of all enforcement
actions). CFA facilities were somewhat more likely to receive NOVs, accounting for
approximately 15 percent of all NOVs issued compared with only nine percent of all enforcement
actions. Comparing the distribution of inspections to the distribution of enforcement actions
across branches of the service does not reveal any substantial anomalies. In other words, Army
installations, which accounted for the largest share of inspected DOD facilities, received the most
16
-------
enforcement actions. Moreover, Navy and Air Force installations received smaller and roughly
equivalent shares of enforcement actions, which corresponds to their respective shares of
inspections at DOD facilities.
In all, EPA and States issued enforcement actions at approximately 75 percent (55 of
73) of the facilities they inspected. Exhibit 1-10 demonstrates how inspections and enforcement
actions were distributed across the Regions. Region II issued the most actions, handing down 27
among seven facilities, with Region IV a close second at 26 actions. Region VIII issued the
fewest enforcement actions (four actions at four facilities).
Exhibit 1-10
National Summary of Inspections and Enforcement Actions
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
Inspections
12
7
6
21
3
Enforcement
Actions
18
27
11
26
6
Actions/
Inspection
1.5
3.9
1.8
1.2
2.0
Region
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Total
Inspections
5
4
4
7
4
73
Enforcement
Actions
6
5
4
8
8
119
Actions/
Inspection
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
2.0
1.6
On average, one multi-media inspection resulted in 1.6 enforcement actions.
On a per inspection basis, Region II was the most active, issuing 27 enforcement actions
against only seven facilities -- an average of 3.9 violations per inspected facility. And while,
Region VIII had the lowest average, it still issued one action per inspected facility. Nationally,
the average number of enforcement actions taken to address violations detected during a multi-
media inspection was 1.6.
Exhibit 1-11 compares the number of facilities at which enforcement actions were taken
to the total number of inspected facilities. Of the 73 facilities inspected, 25 percent (18 of 73)
were not subjected to any enforcement actions and an additional 30 percent (22 of 73) received
only one enforcement action. The remaining 45 percent (33 of 73) of inspected facilities were
cited for violations of multiple environmental statutes. Among the inspected facilities receiving
enforcement actions under the FMECI, the median number of environmental statutes violated
was two. Thus, the majority of Federal facilities cited for violations violated multiple statutes.
17
-------
Exhibit 1-11
Percent of Inspected Facilities Receiving Enforcement Actions
One statute violated
(22 facilities-30.1%)
No statutes violated
(18 facilities - 24.™
Four or more statutes violated
(6 facilities - 8.2%)
Two statutes violated
(19 facilities - 26.
N = 73 Inspected facilities
Three statutes violated
(8 facilities - 11.0%)
More than 40 percent of all inspected facilities violated multiple statutes.
Inspected Army installations were more likely to violate multiple statutes. They
comprised roughly 32 percent of inspected facilities; however, 45 percent of facilities violating
multiple statutes and 50 percent of facilities cited for violations of three or more statutes were
Army installations. In contrast, Air Force installations and CFA facilities comprised only 15
and three percent, respectively, of facilities cited for violations of multiple statutes; although they
represented approximately 29 and 14 percent, respectively, of inspected facilities.
Exhibit 1-12 depicts the proposed and final penalties associated with EPA- and State-
issued Administrative Orders and Field Citations.3 Federal facilities located in seven of 10 EPA
Regions were subject to enforcement actions in which EPA and/or States proposed penalties. As
of September 30, 1995, the total amount of proposed penalties was more than $3.7 million.
Final penalties issued were substantially lower - approximately $800,000; however, proposed
penalties of more than $2.0 million remain under review in five Regions.
Penalties are not generally associated with FFCAs, NOVs, NONs, or Warning Letters.
18
-------
Exhibit 1-12
National Enforcement Actions and Penalties
Type of Enforcement
Action
Administrative Order
Field Citation
Total
Number of
Enforcement Actions
28
4
32
Proposed Penalties
Region I
Region $471,171
State $59,000
Region II $250,765
Region III
Region $115,000
State $40,000
Region IV $285,000
Region V $102,400
Region IX
Region $1,100,400
State $11,200
Region X $1,300,000
None
$3,734,936
Penalties Collected
to Date
Region I
Region $366,177**
State $59,000
Region II $41,565*
Region III
Region $92,500*
State $30,000*
Region IV $75,000
Region V $60,200
Region IX
Region $77,347**
State $11,200
Region X Under Review
None
$812,989*
* Final Penalty includes negotiated Supplemental Environmental Project
* Total penalties as of December 15, 1995; others remain under review.
Seven often Regions issued penalties as a result of multi-media inspections.
In addition to participating on the inspection teams, States actively enforced requirements
under the FMECI. Of the 119 enforcement actions taken, States led 35 (29 percent). The
level of State involvement in the enforcement phase of the FMECI declined substantially from
FY 1993 to FY 1994. In FY 1993, States took the lead on 35 percent (27 of 77) of
enforcement actions, while in FY 1994, the State share was only 19 percent (8 of 42). In
addition, joint leads accounted for 3.4 percent (4 of 119) of enforcement actions and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers took the lead on a single enforcement action to address wetlands
violations under the CWA at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Exhibits 1-13 and 1-14
show how these State actions during the FMECI were distributed among the various types of
actions.
19
-------
Exhibit 1-13
State vs EPA Regional Enforcement Leads
Army Corps of Engineers 1
(0.8%)
Regional Lead 79
(66.4%)
N = 119 Enforcement Actions
State Lead 35
/ (29.4%)
Joint Lead 4
(3.4%)
Regions led two-thirds of all enforcement actions; States led nearly 30 percent
20
-------
Exhibit 1-14
Enforcement Action Leads
Enforcement Action
Warning Letter
NOV
NON
Administrative Order
Field Citation
FFCA
Total
State Lead
11
11
1
11
1
N/A
35
Regional Lead
15
28
16
13
3
4
79
Joint Lead
0
1
0
3
0
0
4
Other
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Regions took the lead on the majority of actions within every enforcement action category
Exhibit 1-15 presents the average time required to issue various enforcement actions at
Federal facilities following a multi-media inspection. The average time required to initiate an
enforcement action following a multi-media inspection ranged from less than two weeks to nearly
fourteen months. In general, enforcement actions initiated and issued simultaneously (e.g.,
NOVs, warning letters) took less time to issue than did actions that involve a period of
negotiation or opportunity for public comment between their initiation and issuance (e.g.,
Administrative Orders, FFCAs).
FFCAs took an average of nearly 14 months to issue, while, on average, Administrative
Orders took almost seven months. NONs consumed slightly more than five months from
inspection to issuance, and NOVs took slightly less than five months. During the FMECI, two
FFCAs and two Administrative Orders were not completed within one year. Among other
enforcement actions, only two (NOVs at the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico and
the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station in Maine) took more than one year to
initiate following an inspection. As one might expect, warning letters and field citations were the
most expedient of all enforcement actions. Overall, 95 percent of enforcement actions taken
under the FMECI were issued within one year and approximately two-thirds of all actions were
issued prior to the completion of the final multi-media inspection reports.
21
-------
Exhibit 1-15
age Time Elapsed Between Inspections and Issuance of Enforcement Actio
Warning Lette
Field Citation —
PPCA -
inistrative Order —
6 8
M onths
1O 12
Most enforcement actions were issued within one year of the inspection.
For those Regions reporting, the average time elapsed from inspection to report
completion declined from approximately 5.1 months during FY 1993 to 3.7 months during FY
1994; thus, the average time required for the two-year period was approximately 4.6 months.
Several Regions noted that multi-media inspections were resource intensive; however, only two
Regions specifically observed that the time required to prepare the multi-media inspection reports
may have delayed the issuance of enforcement actions.
Multi-media enforcement actions involve using a single enforcement action to collectively
address violations under multiple environmental statutes. Most Regions did not actively pursue
multi-media enforcement actions. Four Regions indicated that they had explored multi-media
enforcement opportunities at inspected facilities, and only two Regions (II and V) issued
enforcement actions addressing violations of multiple statutes. Regions cited the following
reasons for the lack of substantial multi-media enforcement coordination:
The discovered violations were straightforward, single-program violations;
22
-------
Parties who were encouraged to take multi-media enforcement actions saw
no benefit that would off-set the extra time required to coordinate such an
effort; and
Coordination was difficult because of varying levels of enforcement
authorities and the lack of substantial violations.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Some Regions actively pursued pollution prevention remedies as an enforcement tool
during the FMECI. Most Regions noted the importance of pollution prevention and the
expectation that it would become more prominent in the future. Federal facilities in five Regions
have either implemented pollution prevention Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) or
at least explored their feasibility. In addition, three of these five Regions have included pollution
prevention remedies and conditions into enforcement settlements. For example, Region I
incorporated two separate pollution prevention remedies into settlements with the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. The remedies involved replacing two USTs with a single above ground dual
compartment tank and construction of a new container storage area. Similarly, Region IV
required Air Force Plant #6 to submit a pollution prevention action plan, setting forth actions
and dates for reduction of pollutants, as part of an enforcement action.
Several other Regions reported pursuing less formal pollution prevention strategies at
inspected facilities. At least two Regions made specific pollution prevention recommendations
that were later adopted by facilities, while another Region noted that immediately following a
multi-media inspection, the facility initiated several pollution prevention measures. In FY 1993,
six Regions provided Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles to facilities at the time of the
inspections. During FY 1994, most Regions elected not to distribute the Profiles, citing their
lack of up-to-date information. The Profiles identify processes, measures, operation and
maintenance functions, and technologies that facilities can explore to prevent the creation or
release of pollutants during facility activities. FFEO compiles the Profiles using a hybrid
approach that combines facility mission and facility specific environmental data. Appendix I
contains a sample Profile.
23
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Recognizing that the FMECI entails administrative, procedural, and resource demands
for both the Regions and States, FFEO surveyed the Regions about their experiences in selecting
facilities, composing and organizing teams, conducting the inspections, and issuing enforcement
actions. When selecting facilities for inspection, EPA suggested that the Regions consider the
following five criteria:
• Compliance history
• Regional risk ranking
• Other Regional priorities and initiatives
• Opportunities for pollution prevention, and
• Environmental equity.
The relative importance Regions attributed to these factors when selecting facilities is shown in
Exhibit 1-16.
Environmental Equity
Opportunity for Pollution.
Prevention
Other Priorities/Initiatives
Regional Risk Ranking
Compliance History
Exhibit 1-16
Targeting Criteria Significance
Legend
Sligktly Important
Moderately Important
Very Important
345
Number of Regions Reporting
Most Regions considered compliance history to be the most important targeting criterion.
24
-------
Compliance history was the single most important factor the Regions considered when
targeting facilities for multi-media inspections; eight of nine reporting Regions identified
compliance history as very important. At least five Regions considered risk-ranking and
relationships to other priorities as very important, while opportunities for pollution prevention and
environmental justice were considered less important. Three Regions did not take environmental
justice into account when targeting facilities.
Only one Region specifically stated that the targeting criteria resulted in CFA facilities
being excluded from consideration for receiving a multi-media inspection; however, three Regions
did not inspect any CFA facilities during the FMECI, and two more admitted that CFAs tended
to receive a lower inspection priority relative to large military installations. Only Region VII
actually inspected more CFA facilities than DOD or DOE installations.
Nine Regions cited a total of 10 cases in which they sought assistance from the National
Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC), FFEO, or the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), or in which they referred cases to the Office of Criminal Enforcement
(OCE). NEIC was the most frequently cited technical reference used by Regional staff during
the FMECI - NEIC acted as lead on four inspections in three Regions, and three additional
Regions reported obtaining assistance from or consulting with NEIC on inspections. Noting
other sources of assistance, the Regions mentioned the participation of the Regional
Environmental Services Division Laboratories, either on inspections or in analyzing samples
taken during inspections.
Overall, the Regions perceived that the facilities involved in multi-media inspections were
professional, cooperative, and positive in responding to the FMECI. Five Regions especially
noted the cooperation they had received from facilities. This included cases in which facilities
initially responded with shock to the arrival of inspections teams.
Exhibit 1-17 below illustrates a comparison of Regional experience with respect to team
sizes, inspection durations, advance notifications, conduct of briefings, and whether Regions
provided facilities with FMECI overview information.
25
-------
Exhibit 1-17
Conduct of Inspections
Region
I
II
III
IV
V4
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National
Avg.
Avg. Size of
Inspection Team
11
10
19
8
-
7
9
10
8
9
11
Avg. Duration
2 Days
4 Days
8 Days
2 Days
-
7 Days
2 Days
4 Days
8 Days
7 Days
5 Days
Notice
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Briefings
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
-
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
In- and out-briefing
FMECI Brochure
Provided
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Conduct of multi-media inspections was fairly consistent across Regions; some significant
variation occurred with respect to inspection duration and advance notice.
With the exception of Region III, there was minimal variation in the size of the multi-
media inspection teams. Average inspection duration ranged from two to eight days, with an
average of five days. Reporting Regions were fairly equally divided with respect to providing
facilities with advance notice of inspections. All reporting Regions provided in- and out-briefings
and all but one provided the FMECI brochure to inspected facilities.
4Insufficient data provided.
26
-------
Exhibit 1-18 summarizes the Regions' findings with respect to FMECI resource
requirements. Most Regions experienced some impact on resource allocation associated with the
FMECI. Three Regions referred to limited travel funds, a factor to which two of the Regions
adapted by inspecting nearby facilities. One Region noted a need to shift resources, for example,
from private inspections to Federal facility inspections, and another reported that the use of
Regional staff for inspections, instead of NEIC, prompted complaints that the FMECI was
"stealing" from non-Federal cases. In contrast, two Regions reported no resource problems
because they obligated sufficient funds during the budget process to cover the costs of the
FMECI.
Exhibit 1-18
FMECI Resource Allocation Impacts
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Impact on Resources
No effect on availability of staff, however, travel funds were limited and affected the choice of
inspected facilities.
Region was already conducting approximately 12 multi-media inspections per year. Implementation
of the FMECI simply involved shifting resources from private to Federal inspections.
Resulted in a significant diversion of resources away from other Regional/State enforcement priorities .
Regional planning and budgeting avoided any potential negative resource implications.
No data available
Regional planning and budgeting avoided any potential negative resource implications.
Resulted in a significant diversion of resources away from other Regional/State enforcement priorities .
Resulted in a significant diversion of resources away from other Regional/State enforcement priorities .
Travel funds were limited.
Travel funds were limited and affected the choice of inspected facilities.
Single-media program enforcement staff expressed concern over the resources required by the
FMECI.
Most Regions noted some resource-related impacts associated with the FMECI.
27
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The level of Regional/State coordination shown by the Regions and States throughout the
FMECI was significant. As illustrated in Exhibit 1-19 below, Regions reported interaction levels
between Regional and State offices as more intensive during the inspection and enforcement
phases of the FMECI than during the targeting phase.
Exhibit 1-19
Level of State Interaction
6 ^
5 -
32 -
1 -
Legend
| | Moderate
pflflflq Moderate to Significant
HHI Significant
Targetting
Inspection
E nforcem ent
Regions noted a fairly high level of involvement by States in FMECI activities,
particularly during the inspection and enforcement phases.
Three Regions reported that no interaction occurred during the targeting of facilities;
three reported a moderate level of interaction; and two reported a significant level. One Region
noted a moderate-to-significant level of interaction during the targeting stage.
Five Regions reported significant coordination levels between EPA and States during the
inspection stage, and three Regions described interaction during that stage as moderate. During
28
-------
enforcement, six Regions noted significant levels of interaction, two reported moderate levels of
coordination, and one Region indicated that the level of interaction was not applicable.
States led enforcement efforts in approximately 30 percent (35 of 115) of enforcement
actions. State actions most frequently consisted of Warning Letters, NOVs, and Administrative
Orders. Regions and the States exercised joint lead in four enforcement actions, an NOV in one
Region and three RCRA §3008(a) Orders in another. Three Regions reported that State
Enforcement Agreements (SEAs) enhanced States' ability to participate in FMECI. The
remaining Regions either did not report, or stated that SEAs did not affect State participation.
One Region described SEAs as providing a framework for joint inspections which facilitated
coordination between Regional and State program staff. Another Region stated that SEAs are
beginning to include the multi-media enforcement concept. In contrast, another Region stated
that it has not used SEAs for many years.
Nine Regions reported benefits to State and Regional involvement, citing most frequently:
enhanced communication; training opportunities; mutual understanding; cooperation; and
sharing of data and technical assistance. The Regions reported other benefits including: thorough
inspections; State familiarity with facilities as assisting Regions with inspections; joint
assessment of compliance problems; improvement of State relationships; and opportunities for
joint partnerships.
The Regions also reported several obstacles to Regional and State coordination. Two
Regions named scheduling as a primary obstacle. Other obstacles included difficulty in
identifying appropriate participants; the need to meet security and access requirements; extra time
required for State enforcement decisions; difficulty in agreeing to "lead" responsibilities for
delegated programs; and different inspection protocols (e.g., announced vs. unannounced
inspections).
Seven of the Regions responding indicated that the FMECI had no negative
ramifications for Region/State relations. Of the two Regions that perceived problems, one cited
different enforcement philosophies within EPA and the States. As an illustration, this Region
referred to one State agency issuing a penalty to a facility, while another State agency issued a
relatively mild enforcement action for a comparable violation at a different facility. Another
Region noted that States do not perceive added value from multi-media inspections. According
to this Region, the States would rather refer inspections to other program offices. The Region
also stated that multi-media considerations delay enforcement actions. Exhibit 1-20 summarizes
these benefits and barriers.
29
-------
Exhibit 1-20
Benefits and Barriers to Regional/State Coordination
Benefits
Communication and improved relationships
Training and partnership opportunities
Mutual understanding and cooperation
Joint assessment of compliance problems
More thorough inspections
Barriers
Scheduling difficulties
Identifying appropriate participants
Security and access problems
Time required for State decision-making
Reaching agreement on lead responsibilities
Different inspection protocols
Between FY 1993 and FY 1994, the relationship between the States and several Regions
improved. Enhanced communication, inspection coordination, and enforcement action
involvement between Regions and States were reported by at least three Regions. Three other
Regions reported no change in the Regional/State relationships. No Regions noted any
deterioration with respect to any phase of the multi-media inspection/enforcement process.
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Six of nine Regions responding stated that the FMECI resulted in increased interest in
using multi-media inspections, although one Region commented that it could allocate necessary
resources for only a small number of inspections. The Regions viewed the inspections as an
effective enforcement tool that expands the knowledge of inspectors.
Relative to conventional single-media inspections, two Regions reported that multi-media
inspections are more efficient, however, two other Regions noted just the opposite. The principal
benefits and barriers associated with a multi-media inspection approach, as reported by the
Regions, are presented in Exhibit 1-21.
30
-------
Exhibit 1-21
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Encourages upper level management to focus on environmental compliance matters
Provides comprehensive compliance examination of facilities
Allows determination of strengths and weaknesses of facility environmental programs
Allows identification of technical needs of facilities
Provides Regions and States an opportunity to exchange information
Barriers
Limited travel funds
Multi-media inspections can be time-consuming and require extensive resource, logistical, and
decision-making coordination
Overall, the Regions perceived facilities involved in multi-media inspections to be
professional, cooperative, and positive in responding to the FMECI. Regions also noted that
facility environmental staff often welcomed the inspections because the attention inspections
brought to environmental management reinforced the importance of their efforts. Three Regions
mentioned the effectiveness of the FMECI in involving upper management staff at facilities and
one Region noted the responsiveness of base commanders, stating that commanders frequently
will send follow-up letters outlining the corrections made as a result of inspections.
Regions also described some of their concerns that arose during the implementation of the
FMECI. These ranged from potential difficulties incorporating multi-media inspections as a
standard Regional program element once the FMECI concludes, to concerns on the part of
facility personnel about criminal liability associated with environmental violations discovered
during inspections, and the effect these concerns could have on facility participation.
SUMMARY
EPA's experience during the FMECI reveals some of the immense potential benefits
associated with multi-media inspections. Fully implemented, the multi-media approach can lead
to significant improvements in environmental compliance at Federal facilities. Specifically, the
FMECI demonstrates the following:
• The 73 FMECI inspections represent a significant investment in the
Federal facility sector by EPA Regions and participating States.
• EPA and States issued 119 enforcement actions for violations under nine
separate environmental statutes. Enforcement actions taken were
31
-------
appropriate to the significance of or level of non-compliance encountered
at facilities.
More than 45 percent (33 of 73) of all inspected Federal facilities violated
multiple statutes. Of the Federal facilities receiving enforcement actions,
60 percent (33 of 55) violated more than one statute.
• EPA documented significant levels of and benefits from State involvement
in the FMECI.
EPA's procedures and approach to conducting multi-media inspections can
be effective, regardless of the size or operating agency of the facilities
involved.
Seven out of ten Regions proposed a total of more than $3.7 million in
penalties.
EPA and States began to encourage facilities to adopt Pollution
Prevention strategies as first choice measures to return to and maintain
compliance.
The remainder of this Report presents Regional results during the FMECI.
32
-------
FMECI Regional Reports
33
-------
This page intentionally left blank
34
-------
Region I
EPA New England (Region I), with
Headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts,
consists of six States in the Northeast:
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Region I has been conducting Federal facility
multi-media inspections since 1990. During
the FY 1993-94 FMECI, it conducted a total
of 12 multi-media inspections, six during each
year of the Initiative. All multi-media
inspections conducted in Region I were
Category D inspections. All inspected facilities
were medium-sized, and the complexity level of
compliance issues at the facilities varied from
low to high.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region I used a variety of enforcement tools, issuing the 12 inspected facilities a total of
19 enforcement actions. The number of enforcement actions decreased slightly from FY 1993
to FY 1994. As seen in Table 1, Region I issued NOVs, NONs, Warning Letters, and RCRA
§3008(a) Administrative Orders.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
1
3
4
3
11
FY 1994
-
1
5
2
8
The Region issued enforcement actions for RCRA violations pertaining to hazardous
waste identification, improper waste management, land disposal restriction notifications, and
personnel training and assessed final penalties of $57,223 at the Naval Construction Battalion
Center and $49,700 at the U.S Army Natick Research Center, and proposed penalties of
35
-------
$81,300 at the Vermont Air National Guard Station. Region I cited RCRA violations at all
inspected facilities, but also subjected facilities to enforcement actions under TSCA and CWA.
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
South Wey mouth Naval
Air Station, MA
U.S. Coast Guard Academy,
CT
New London Naval
Submarine Base, CT
Naval Construction
Battalion Center, RI
Westover Air Force Base,
MA
Brunswick Naval Air
Station, ME
NON
NOV
Administrative Order
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
NOV
Administrative Order
NOV
NON
Administrative Order
NON
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
CWA
RCRA
RCRA
CAA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
TSCA
RCRA
TSCA
None
None
$171,809 (P)
$259,254 (F)
None
None
None
$101,062(P)
$57,223 (F)
None
None
$59,000(F)
None
FY 1994
U.S. Army Natick Research
Center, MA
Naval Undersea Warfare
Center, RI
U.S. Coast Guard Support
Center, MA
Air National Guard Station,
VT
Naval Security Group
Activity, ME
Naval Computer and
Telecommunications
Station, ME
Administrative Order
NOV
NOV
Administrative Order
NOV
NON
NOV
NOV
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
TSCA
SPCC
RCRA
$117,000(P)
$49,700(F)
None
None
$81,300(P)
None
None
None
None
36
-------
The Region shared the lead with the States on both FMECI inspections and enforcement
actions. For example, during FY 1993, the Region took the enforcement lead for the TSCA
violation at Brunswick Naval Air Station and the RCRA violation at the Naval Construction
Battalion Center. Respective States led enforcement actions related to the CWA violation at
South Weymouth Naval Air Station, Massachusetts; the CAA violation at the Naval Submarine
Base New London, Connecticut; and for the RCRA violation at Brunswick Naval Air Station,
Maine. The Region referred RCRA enforcement actions against the Naval Submarine Base New
London, Connecticut and Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts, to the States. The Region
and Massachusetts shared the lead for the RCRA action at South Weymouth Naval Air Station.
During FY 1994, Region I took the lead on all enforcement actions issued as of the publication
of this report; however, the Region also made several referrals to State authorities to address
RCRA and CWA issues. As seen in Table 3, the States exercised the enforcement lead for six
actions, all during FY 1993.
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Notice of Noncompliance
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
1
2
1
2
6
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
-
--
--
--
0
The Region has not yet explored multi-media enforcement opportunities, but did notice
enhanced environmental compliance, and an increase in the awareness of compliance issues at
facilities receiving multi-media inspections under the FMECI. Region I also stated that the
FMECI resulted in additional multi-media settlements and an increase in the number of
administrative settlements.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
During FY 1993, the Region reported that no pollution prevention remedies were
incorporated into settlements; however, in FY 1994, Region I incorporated two separate
pollution prevention remedies into settlements with the U.S. Coast Guard Academy,
Connecticut. The remedies involve replacing two USTs with a single above ground dual
compartment tank and construction of a new container storage area. In addition, the Region
pursued supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) as part of its enforcement settlement with
37
-------
the U.S. Army Natick Research Center. However, the facility was not interested in including a
SEP as part of its settlement.
Region I has been diligent in identifying possible corrective measures to be taken at
facilities, such as additional training, posting of signs, installation of filters, and establishment of
containment or collection systems. The Region noted such measures in the "Areas of
Environmental Concern" discussion in the individual inspection reports.
Region I distributed pollution prevention opportunity profiles in FY 1993, but not in FY
1994 because the Region did not receive any updated profiles.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When selecting facilities for inspection, Region I placed the greatest emphasis on facility
compliance history, environmental justice concerns, the NEIC risk ranking system, and
geographic initiatives. Other factors evaluated include the facility's NPL and/or base closure
status, as well as Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. The Region's emphasis on the above
targeting criteria did not result in excluding Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) facilities from its list
of facilities to be inspected, and a CFA was inspected each year. The Region did acknowledge,
however, that there is often little or no compliance data for CFAs to consider in the selection
process.
During the FMECI, Region I obtained technical assistance from FFEO during the
enforcement phase. The Region also notified the Regional Office of Criminal Enforcement
(OCE) of all multi-media Federal facility inspections and participated in the follow-up criminal
investigation of the Naval Submarine Base in New London, CT, among others. Typically,
Region I's Lexington Environmental Services Division sent a representative to inspections to
assist with sampling and conducting inspections in media programs not otherwise represented.
Region I indicated that the FMECI had no significant impact on the availability of staff
for enforcement efforts. In FY 1993 and FY 1994, an average of 11 people participated in each
Region I multi-media inspection, including State inspectors. Most inspections took two days.
While some of Region I's enforcement actions were issued after the one-year time frame,
the overall average for issuance was eight months. The Region suggested accelerating the
development of the inspection report, shortening negotiations, and obtaining a quicker response
from the facility to requests for information so that all enforcement actions could be finalized
within the one-year FMECI time frame.
The Federal Facilities Program Manager contacted the facilities the afternoon before each
of the inspections. The Region noted that facilities were generally cooperative and forthcoming
38
-------
with information. The Region coordinated and held an in-briefing on the first morning of each
inspection and an exit briefing with the base commander/facility director and his or her staff.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
In general, Region I reported a high level of interaction between the Region and the States
during the targeting, inspection, and enforcement stages of the FMECI. Eleven of twelve multi-
media inspections included State representatives on the inspection teams.
Region I does not consider the FMECI to have had a negative impact on EPA/State
coordination, in part because enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act presented an
effective tool for encouraging cooperation. Furthermore, Region I recognized several benefits and
no obstacles to Regional/State coordination (see Table 4). Before passage of the Act, State
RCRA personnel were viewed as less interested in participating in inspections because they lacked
the authority to assess penalties. Now, with stronger enforcement powers, States believe that
their participation in inspections will have an impact. Region I views State participation as
important because State enforcement staff tend to be more familiar with the facilities and have
inspected the facilities more frequently than their Federal counterparts. The Region also noted
that the coordinated multi-media inspections enable EPA and State inspectors to share
information immediately, resulting in expedited compliance determinations.
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
States more familiar with facilities
Regional and State inspectors able to share information immediately
Expedited compliance determinations
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• None reported
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region I noted an increased interest in conducting multi-media inspections as a result of
the FMECI and has developed a "do's and don'ts" paper for its enforcement managers. The
Region believes that a multi-media approach focuses facility managers' attention on the
inspection, more so than single-media inspections. After the inspection, the base
commander/facility director received a complete environmental compliance "snapshot" of his/her
39
-------
facility. Often this is the first time the commanders focus on their environmental programs as a
whole and they begin to examine the strengths and weaknesses (e.g., organization, staffing,
training) of their environmental management programs. Multi-media inspections have lead to
stronger environmental management programs and enhanced overall environmental compliance.
Likewise, the multi-media inspections provide Region with a comprehensive compliance
examination of the facility and allow for identification of the technical assistance needs.
Multi-media inspections also provide Regional and State enforcement staff with the opportunity
to exchange information about the different media programs (see Table 5).
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Encourages upper-level Federal facility management to focus on environmental compliance
matters
Provides facilities with a comprehensive "snap shot" of environmental compliance
Allows for an initial review of strengths and weaknesses of facility environmental programs
Allows identification of technical needs of facility
Provides the Region and States an opportunity to exchange information and coordinate
enforcement actions
When travel funds are limited, it is difficult to coordinate inspections far from the Regional
Office; however, this is not unique to multi-media inspections
If there are limited knowledgeable facility staff available to escort the inspectors, the
inspectors' time is not used as wisely as during single-media inspections.
40
-------
Region II [
EPA Region II, with Headquarters in
New York, New York, consists of two States, a
Commonwealth, and a Territory: New Jersey,
New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. Region II conducted seven
multi-media inspections as part of the
FMECI; five in FY 1993 and two in FY
1994. Region II conducted six Category D
multi-media inspections and one Category C
inspection (at the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center). Sizes of the facilities ranged from
medium to large. Five of six facilities posed
moderately complex compliance issues, while
one posed a low level of complexity.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
All seven inspected facilities in Region II have been subject to enforcement actions, with a
total of 27 enforcement actions issued (see Table 1). Region II used a variety of enforcement
tools, including: Warning Letters, NOVs, NONs, and Administrative Orders. In addition, the
Region pursued and signed two multi-media enforcement settlements in the form of Federal
Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCA) with Plum Island Animal Disease Center to address
SPCC and CWA violations and with Picatinny Arsenal to address TSCA and SPCC violations.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
FFCA5
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
3
3
8
4
4
22
FY 1994
-
1
2
2
-
5
The FFCAs signed with Plum Island and Picatinny Arsenal each represent two enforcement actions because
they address violations of two separate statutes/programs.
41
-------
The Region noted that the involvement of two programs in the multi-media inspection of
USDA Plum Island Animal Disease Center resulted from concerns raised by other media
inspectors who previously visited the site. In addition, Region II issued a multi-media FFCA
against Plum Island Animal Disease Center and Picatinny Arsenal. Region II identified
violations of seven separate statutes or programs during its multi-media inspections, with the
most frequently cited violations being RCRA, SPCC, CAA, and TSCA (see Table 2).
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
USDA Plum Island
Animal Disease Center,
NY
U.S. Army Armament
Research & Development
Command - Picatinny
Arsenal, NJ
Watervliet Arsenal, NY
U.S. Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, PR
Air Force Plant #59, NY
Warning Letter
2NOVs
FFCA
Administrative Order
2NOVs
NON
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
FFCA
2NOVs
NON
Warning Letter
2NOVs
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
NON
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
SPCC
CWA, RCRA
CWA, SPCC
RCRA
RCRA, CAA
TSCA,
RCRA
CAA
SPCC, TSCA
RCRA, UST
TSCA
SPCC
CAA,SPCC
UST
CWA
EPCRA
None
None
None
$209,200(P)
None
None
$41,565 (F)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
FY 1994
U.S. Army Garrison/
Military Ocean Terminal,
NJ
Plattsburgh Air Force
Base, NY
Administrative Order
NOV
NON
Administrative Order
NOV
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
CAA
RCRA
TSCA
CAA
RCRA
None
None
None
None
None
42
-------
Region II reported that inspection and enforcement activities were more efficient using a
multi-media approach relative to an equivalent set of single media inspections. Region II took the
lead on all FMECI inspections and enforcement actions (see Table 3). The Region noted an
increased awareness of environmental compliance at facilities subjected to multi-media
inspections and observed that these inspections provided environmental and command and/or
management staff with an increased understanding of environmental regulations. The number of
multi-media inspections and the number of administrative settlements have increased as a result
of the FMECI. However, because the Region already includes multi-media inspections as part of
its program, no additional interest in employing such inspections has been generated as a result of
the FMECI.
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
None noted
Total Number of Actions with State Leads
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
N/A
0
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
N/A
0
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region did not include pollution prevention conditions or remedies in settlements
resulting from the FMECI, but the Region is pursuing pollution prevention SEPs in settlement
negotiations based on facility proposals and Regional/State initiatives. For example, final
resolution of the proposed penalty assessed against Plum Island Research Center is likely to
involve pollution prevention SEPs. The Region could not estimate the magnitude of additional
reductions in pollutant emissions and discharges at Federal facilities due to pollution
prevention/waste minimization efforts under the FMECI because the precise nature of such
projects has not been determined. Region II did not find the pollution prevention opportunity
profiles to be of any assistance, largely because they were based on out-dated information.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When targeting facilities for inspection, the Region placed the greatest emphasis on
compliance history and Regional risk ranking, with a moderate emphasis on relations to other
priorities and opportunities for pollution prevention. The Region generated a list of potential
43
-------
targets using these criteria, and made the final selections using a Multi-Program Enforcement
Steering Committee, which includes representatives of each of the Region's enforcement
programs. Thus, the concerns and interests of the individual programs were used to select
facilities at which multi-media inspections were conducted. In addition, the pending closure of
several bases in the Region was considered a factor by some programs.
Region II indicated that the States were not involved in targeting facilities for inspection.
Although CFAs were not excluded when deciding which facilities to inspect, only two out of the
top 20 facilities identified as candidates for multi-media inspections were CFAs. The majority of
"environmentally significant" Federal facilities in Region II are Department of Defense facilities.
Region II did not request enforcement assistance from FFEO, RREL, or OCE. The
Region did receive assistance from NEIC in investigating sumps and other discharges at the
request of the Regional RCRA program. In addition, the Regional laboratory assisted by
analyzing ground water samples collected for the RCRA Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluations
(CME) conducted at Watervliet Arsenal and Picatinny Arsenal.
Prior to the FMECI, the Region was already conducting approximately 12 multi-media
inspections per year, including one at a Federal facility. Because the Region already had allocated
resources for multi-media inspections, the Region had only to shift them from inspections
scheduled at one or two private sites to Federal facilities. The Region noted that multi-media
inspections can place a burden on the facilities because they necessitate a rapid, unexpected
rearrangement of facility staff schedules and priorities. Facilities are usually notified on Friday
afternoon and most inspections begin on Monday morning. In addition, the coordination efforts
required by staff from the Federal Facilities Compliance Program can be time-consuming.
Inspections conducted by Region II lasted approximately four days and usually involved a
team of 10 people to conduct the inspection. The Region issued most administrative enforcement
actions within one year. The Region typically began an inspection by conducting an in-briefing
with the facility environmental coordinator and environmental staff, as well as the facility
director/base commander if they asked to be included. The briefing was used to introduce
inspectors and facility staff members, discuss the proposed inspection schedule, and explain
EPA's multi-media compliance program and the goals and objectives of the inspection.
Region II provided personnel at inspected facilities with copies of the FMECI overview
brochure and the Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy (Yellow Book) at the inspection
in-briefing. To conclude an inspection, Region II held an out-briefing to discuss preliminary
findings with facility staff. This approach helped foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial,
atmosphere for the inspection and any resulting enforcement actions. Furthermore, the
out-briefing notified facility personnel of potential violations that were discovered before the
initiation of an enforcement action. The Region believes that this approach contributed to the
relatively rapid correction of violations and close-out of enforcement actions at inspected
44
-------
facilities, and has adopted it as standard Regional policy for both Federal and private site
multi-media inspections.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The level of interaction between Region II and its respective States and Territories was
generally moderate during the targeting inspection, and enforcement phases. Five of the FY
1993 multi-media inspections included State environmental and/or health agency
representatives. In addition, a county health department representative was involved in the
development and settlement of an enforcement action. During FY 1994, no State
representatives participated on multi-media inspections in Region II.
Region II noted no significant benefits resulting from EPA/State coordination at Federal
facilities inspected under the FMECI. The Region cited limited State resources as the only
obstacle to Regional/State coordination (see Table 4).
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• None reported
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Limited State resources
Overall, the Region believes that SEAs have enhanced the ability of States to participate
in the FMECI. Aside from the involvement of multiple programs, the individual media
inspections do not differ greatly from standard Compliance Evaluation Inspections. Accordingly,
the SEAs, which provide a framework for joint inspections, have facilitated coordination between
Regional and State program staff. In addition, Region II observed that the overall relationship
between the Regions and States had improved during the FMECI.
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region II indicated several benefits and barriers to using the multi-media approach as
opposed to a single-media approach. The multi-media inspections provided a comprehensive view
of a facility's environmental compliance program that captured the attention of base
commanders/facility managers and raised awareness of specific environmental programs and
45
-------
facility problems. Through coordination of multi-media inspections, EPA was presented as a
team that communicates with the facilities. As a result, the facilities' opinion of EPA as an
enforcement organization and as a resource for compliance/environmental information improved.
Moreover, Region II observed that multi-media inspections frequently involved assessments of
facilities that had not recently been inspected or were not slated for inspection in the near future.
Region II indicated that the multi-media approach helped foster cooperative rather than
adversarial relationships. The Region also suggested that the approach led to a faster return to
compliance.
Region II experienced several barriers to utilizing the multi-media approach. One of the
obstacles was the need for rapid, unexpected rearrangement of facility staff schedules and
priorities. The coordination efforts required of the staff from the facilities were time-consuming.
Additionally, delays often occurred in the transmittal of inspection reports to the facilities; all
reports had to be completed in order to be sent in a single package.
The Region noted that most facility staff were fairly cooperative throughout the
multi-media inspection process, including those who tended to be guarded at the outset. Is one
instance, facility staff reacted positively to the prospect of a multi-media inspection because it
meant that additional inspections by EPA would be less likely in the near future. In addition,
facility personnel perceived the high visibility of multi-media inspections as useful for highlighting
the success of their programs or gaining additional management attention, support, and funding
for environmental concerns.
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Provides comprehensive view of facility compliance programs
Captures the attention of base commanders and facility directors
Enhances facility perception of Region II as an enforcement organization and a resource or
information source
Results in inspection of facilities that might not otherwise be inspected
Opens channel of communication between Region and facilities
Helps foster a cooperative relationship
Contributes to rapid correction of violations
Requires rapid, unexpected rearrangement of facility schedules and priorities
Requires time-consuming effort to coordinate with facility staff
Delays transmittal of inspection reports until the last one is complete
46
-------
Region III |
EPA Region III, with Headquarters in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, consists of five
States: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
West Virginia, and Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. Although Region III routinely
conducts Category A or B single-media
inspections, it conducted six Category D
multi-media inspections under the FMECI,
four in FY 1993 and two in FY 1994. The
Region classified the multi-media assessment of
the White House Complex as a Category D
inspection because of its scope, although
technically it was an audit. Inspected facilities
spanned the entire range of facility size and
complexity of compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region III issued 11 enforcement actions at four of six inspected facilities during the
FMECI. Region III used a wide range of enforcement tools, including Administrative Orders,
NOVs, NONs, and Field Citations (see Table 1).
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Notice of Noncompliance
Field Citation
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
2
6
1
1
10
FY 1994
1
-
-
-
1
The Region III had a higher than usual level of enforcement activity in FY 1993. It is
significant to note that the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) was subject to six enforcement
actions: three RCRA §3008(a) Orders, two Administrative Orders (one for CWA violations and
one for UST violations), and one NOV for TSCA violations. In addition, the Region sent APG
a request for information letter asking for detailed SDWA/UIC data (no specific violation was
cited). The Region assessed penalties against APG for nearly $125,000 (see Table 2).
47
-------
Dover Air Force Base was cited for two violations, a Field Citation for FIFRA violations
and a NOV for RCRA violations (see Table 2). The Region cited Fort George G. Meade in
Maryland for two violations: a NON for TSCA violations and an Administrative Order
proposing a penalty in the amount of $10,000 (see Table 2).
President Clinton invited EPA and the District of Columbia to conduct a multi-media
audit of the White House Complex in FY 1993. EPA applied its environmental auditing policy,
which states that while audit findings cannot be used as the sole basis for taking enforcement
actions, if significant findings or violations are discovered, they must be submitted to EPA. The
auditors provided the audit findings and recommendations to the White House Complex staff.
The White House Complex was not subjected to any enforcement actions due to the audit.
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
U.S. Army Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD
Dover Air Force Base, DE
Fort George G. Meade, MD
White House Complex, DC
3 Administrative
Orders
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
NOV
Field Citation
NOV
Administrative Order
NON
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
RCRA
CWA
UST
TSCA
FIFRA
RCRA
RCRA
TSCA
None
$92,500 (F)
$25, 000 and
$5, 000 from
State, SEP
Negotiated
None
None
None
None
None
$ 10,000 (P)
None
None
FY 1994
Indian Head Naval Surface
Warfare Center, MD6
Fort Belvior, VA7
NOV
-
Issued
-
CWA
-
None
-
The multi-media inspection report for this facility has not been released as of the publication of this report,
therefore the final disposition of enforcement activity at this facility is pending.
The multi-media inspection report for this facility was completed in the summer of 1995 and is being
analyzed by the Region.
48
-------
Region III, the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the NEIC participated
as the inspection leads for the six inspections. Maryland participated in inspections of Aberdeen
and Fort Meade; NEIC and the Region were the inspection leads for the Aberdeen and Fort
Meade facilities, the Region and State of Delaware acted as inspection leads for Dover Air Force
Base; and the Region and the District of Columbia served as the inspection leads for the White
House audit.
States and other Federal agencies played an active role in enforcement at Federal facilities
in Region III. As illustrated in Table 3, seven of 11 enforcement actions were led by the States.
At APG, Maryland acted as the enforcement lead for UST and delegated RCRA violations, while
Region III exercised the lead for non-delegated RCRA land disposal restriction violations and
TSCA violations. In addition, the Army Corp of Engineers acted as the lead for CWA wetlands
violations at APG. Delaware assumed the lead on all enforcement actions at Dover Air Force
Base. At Fort Meade, Maryland acted as enforcement lead for violations of RCRA.
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Field Citation
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
1
1
5
7
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
-
-
-
0
The Region explored multi-media enforcement opportunities but did not incorporate such
opportunities when identifying violations or developing enforcement actions. Region III stated
that the violations discovered have been fairly straightforward, single-media violations. However,
Region III stated that it remains alert for this kind of opportunity.
Region III believes that the multi-media inspections resulted in both an increased
awareness of compliance issues, as well as enhanced compliance at Federal facilities. The Region
attributes this to the extraordinary attention the multi-media inspections have received from
facility commanders and other top management. The Region also noted that most large facilities
seem to expect multi-media inspections. In Region III, the FMECI did not change the number
of administrative and multi-media settlements compared to the Region's Federal facility activities
prior to FY 1993.
49
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region identified numerous site-specific pollution prevention opportunities in the
inspection reports as a result of the FMECI. The Region typically described its recommendations
in the inspection reports' discussion of areas of concern at the particular facility. Region III
noted that pollution prevention provisions and SEPs were incorporated into settlements at some
inspected facilities.
The Region indicated that as a result of the FMECI, a reduction in pollutant emissions
and discharges at Federal facilities is likely. One mechanism that will be used to achieve this goal
will be the pursuit of pollution prevention SEPs. For example, in response to a RCRA
enforcement action, APG is participating in a SEP as well as paying associated penalties. Dover
Air Force Base, had a pollution prevention plan in place at the time of the inspection, moreover,
Dover Air Force Base personnel noted that task forces had been successful in identifying wastes
for reduction and in implementing programs to achieve reductions.
The Region III inspection team made numerous recommendations to the White House
complex as a result of the multi-media audit. For example, it recommended the development of a
comprehensive White House Complex Pollution Prevention Plan. Specifically, it encouraged the
consolidation of White House painting operations and the construction of a new painting facility.
The team also recommended eliminating or reducing chemical use in maintenance operations,
and implementing various water conservation activities.
The inspection teams presented a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile and FMECI
Overview Brochures to each Federal facility at the time of inspection, helping to raise the
awareness of facility managers.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When targeting facilities for inspections, Region III considered compliance history and
relationships to other priorities to be the most important criteria. Other less important targeting
criteria included Regional risk ranking, and opportunities for pollution prevention. Another
criterion included State assessments regarding which facilities would benefit most from the special
attention associated with multi-media inspections. Region III recognized that this criterion was
subjective, but considered it legitimate for consideration.
With the exception of the White House Complex, the FMECI targeting criteria led
Region III to exclude CFA facilities from multi-media inspections because the history and
operation of Region Ill's CFA facilities did not generally yield high scores.
50
-------
When conducting the inspections, Region III did not seek assistance from the RREL of
the OCE. It did, however, request assistance from NEIC to conduct the multi-media inspections
and write reports for Fort G. Meade and APG. Region III considers this working relationship to
be very positive. States also have been another source of assistance to the Region, as were
members of FFEO staff who participated in in-briefing activities during two multi-media
inspections.
Region III indicated that the allocation of resources needed to meet the FMECI's
requirements significantly impacted the availability of resources for other Regional and State
enforcement priorities. When the Region, instead of NEIC, staffed the inspections, the Region
frequently heard that it was "stealing from other (non-Federal) cases" to participate in the
FMECI. The Region noted a concern that once the FMECI ended, coordination and
participation with the States might diminish as a result of resource constraints.
Region III and States used large inspection teams relative to the other EPA Regions. On
average, 19 participants were involved in each inspection. Inspections generally lasted more than
seven days. The Region noted that the considerable time required to develop FMECI inspection
reports may have constrained its capability to perform more inspections. The Region also noted
that the time elapsed between the inspection and receipt of the inspection report by enforcement
staff interfered with the Region's ability to finalize administrative enforcement cases within the
one-year time frame established under the FMECI. In addition, because Region III encouraged
States to take the lead on many enforcement actions, the Region had to wait for completion of
the State enforcement process before it took any action.
Region III gave facilities a three working day notice of inspection. Inspectors held
opening and closing briefings for one of four facilities in which they discussed inspection
objectives, logistics, and results. The White House inspection involved several brief pre-audit
tours and meetings to review background information and to discuss efficient audit methods for
the facility.
During the Fort Meade inspection, access to some National Security Agency locations
was restricted. The Region, however, chose not to follow up with an additional site visit, due to
the low environmental significance of the restricted sites.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Overall, the Region reported a moderate to significant level of coordination with
Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The Region involved them in every phase of
the FMECI activities, including targeting, inspections, and enforcement. A moderate level of
interaction occurred during the targeting stage and a significant level of coordination occurred
51
-------
during inspections and enforcement. The Region noted that SEAs apparently have not enhanced
or impaired States' ability to participate in the FMECI. The Region has not entered into SEAs
for many years and, instead, relies primarily on grant agreements and informal coordination with
each program.
Region III noted two benefits from Regional and State coordination as a result of the
FMECI. The Region noted that at the management and inspector levels, interaction with the
States was effective and generally helpful in team building. In some cases, this was the first time
State inspectors were involved in multi-media inspections (see Table 4). State inspectors viewed
the inspections as an important learning experience.
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• Interaction is effective and helpful in team building
• State inspectors viewed FMECI as learning experience
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Extra time required by State to make enforcement decisions
The Region reported one coordination obstacle: the extra time States occasionally
required to decide on an enforcement action. Region III commented, however, that this is not
unique to the FMECI. The Region also noted that different enforcement philosophies exercised
by the States and the Region could present barriers to multi-media inspections. The Region cited
as examples the disparity between the EPA and State penalty assessments for APG in Maryland,
and the State's mild enforcement action at Dover Air Force Base.
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
According to Region III, the multi-media inspections have had a significant impact on
the overall environmental performance at the facilities. Region III found the facilities to be
cooperative, except for a few minor access problems. In fact, facility environmental offices
welcomed the inspections as an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of environmental
compliance to upper level management and commanders.
Region III reported increased interest in using multi-media inspections because it was a
good experience, especially because it expanded inspector expertise and allowed Regional
inspectors to work with State inspection teams. Another benefit from using multi-media
inspections, as opposed to single-media inspections, was the greater impact multi-media
52
-------
inspection had on facilities. The FMECI also provided Region III facilities with a benchmark
for assessing performance (see Table 5).
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Allows for a greater impact on facilities
Provides a benchmark for assessing performance
Permits discovery of related problems that might be the root causes of compliance and pollution
prevention deficiencies
Provides a learning experience for Region and State inspectors
Expands inspectors' expertise
Provides a good working experience with State inspection team
High level of effort required
Greater travel costs
Many people required to provide input for reports
Resource commitment too high for more than a small number of inspections
Region III also noted barriers to multi-media inspections, including the major effort
required by EPA and the States to conduct the inspections, and the greater travel costs involved.
Both barriers made it difficult for Region III to obtain commitments to staff the inspections.
This, in turn, limited the number of multi-media inspections the Region could conduct. In
addition, it took longer to write the inspection reports because many people had to provide
information to the team leader. The resource commitments prohibited the Region from
conducting more than six multi-media inspections.
Region III also indicated that more national publicity about the FMECI might help the
overall effort because it would place Federal facility compliance in a national context.
53
-------
This page intentionally left blank
54
-------
Region IV
EPA Region IV, with Headquarters
in Atlanta, Georgia, consists of eight
Southeastern States: Kentucky, Tennessee,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.
Together, Region IV and the States
conducted more multi-media inspections
under the FMECI than any other Region.
Region IV conducted 21 Category C
multi-media inspections, 12 in FY 1993
and nine in FY 1994. Most of the facilities
inspected were medium-sized, although nine
were large. The inspected facilities posed the
full range of compliance issue complexity.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region IV completed 26 enforcement actions at 13 of the 21 inspected facilities. The
majority of these enforcement actions were warning letters (19), along with six NOVs, and one
Administrative Order (see Table 1). The Administrative Order to address RCRA violations at
Air Force Plant #6 also involved proposed penalties in excess of one-quarter of a million dollars
and final penalties of $75,000.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
10
3
1
14
FY 1994
9
3
-
12
Warning Letters were distributed fairly evenly among CAA, RCRA, CWA, and SDWA
violations, with the exception of one SPCC violation. The NOVs were issued for CWA, CAA
and RCRA (see Table 2).
55
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
Air Force Plant #6, GA
U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal,
AL
NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center, AL
U.S. Naval Air Station, Key
West, FL
U.S. Marine Corps Logistics
Base, GA
Pope Air Force Base, NC
Seymour Johnson Air Force
Base, NC
MacDill Air Force Base, FL
U.S. Army Armor & Fort
Knox, KY
Charleston Air Force Base,
SC
U.S. Marine Corps Recruit
Depot, SC
U.S. Army Fort Bragg, NC
2 Warning Letters
Administrative Order
NOV
None
3 Warning Letters
2 Warning Letters
NOV
Warning Letter
Warning Letter
None
NOV
Warning Letter
None
None
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
None
Issued
Issued
None
None
None
CAA, CWA
RCRA
RCRA
None
CAA, CWA,
SPCC
RCRA, CAA
CAA
CWA
CAA
None
CAA
RCRA
None
None
None
None
$285,000(P)
$75,000(F)*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
FY 1994
Pensacola Naval Air Station,
FL
Fort Stewart, GA
NOV
2 Warning Letters
3 Warning Letters
NOV
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
CWA
RCRA, SDWA
CAA, CWA,
SDWA
RCRA
None
None
None
None
Includes pollution prevention plan as condition of settlement.
56
-------
Table 2 (Cont.)
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
Keesler Air Force Base, MS
NASA Stennis Space Flight
Center, MS
Fort Rucker, AL
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Naval Coastal Systems, FL
Hunter Army Airfield, GA
Fort Jackson, SC
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
None
None
Warning Letter
None
None
Warning Letter
NOV
2 Warning Letters
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
None
None
Issued
None
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
STATUTE
VIOLATED
None
None
RCRA
None
None
CAA
RCRA
SDWA, RCRA
PENALTIES
ISSUED
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Region IV noted that both environmental compliance, and awareness of compliance at
Federal facilities have been enhanced as a result of the multi-media inspections under the
FMECI. The number of administrative settlements and multi-media inspections in Region IV
increased due to the FMECI. In addition, the Region noted that every aspect of the multi-media
enforcement and compliance process, from preparation and inspection to report writing and
enforcement, was at least as or more efficient than conducting equivalent sets of single media
inspections. The Region was able to finalize its administrative enforcement cases within the
one-year time frame established under the FMECI guidelines.
Representatives from all of the affected States in Region IV participated on multi-media
inspection teams under the FMECI. Moreover, on all but four of the multi-media inspections,
the States took a lead role on at least one program component (e.g., RCRA, CWA). States also
took an active role during the enforcement process. In total, the States took the lead for eight
enforcement actions in FY 1993 and six actions in FY 1994 (see Table 3). This represents
more than half of all enforcement actions taken in the Region during the FMECI.
57
-------
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Notice of Violation
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
4
1
3
8
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
4
-
2
6
Region IV did not take any multi-media enforcement actions during the FMECI;
however, the Region maintained that it evaluated the feasibility of such enforcement opportunities
when identifying violations and devising enforcement actions.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Each inspection report documented pollution prevention opportunities and contained
discrete recommendations. The Regional reports also noted facilities with successful pollution
prevention programs and identified additional opportunities. Region IV also provided many of
the facilities with pollution prevention resources and/or guidance, such as Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Profiles. The Region found the Profiles to be particularly useful to the inspection
teams during both the inspections and exit briefings.
In FY 1993, Region IV incorporated pollution prevention conditions or remedies into
settlements as a result of the FMECI. For example, Air Force Plant #6 was required to submit
a pollution prevention action plan, setting forth actions and dates for reduction of pollutants, as
part of the enforcement action. Air Force Plant #6 submitted a formal pollution plan to
Georgia as a result of FMECI. The plan was discussed and approved by Georgia. The Region
anticipates a reduction in pollutant emissions and discharges as a result of these and similar
activities.
Region IV did not attempt to incorporate pollution prevention conditions or remedies into
settlements in FY 1994, nor did it pursue any pollution prevention SEPs. According to the
Region, most enforcement actions beyond Warning Letters are taken by the States, and most
States are requiring facilities to develop and implement pollution prevention plans.
58
-------
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When selecting facilities for inspection, Region IV considered compliance history and
Regional risk ranking to be very important. The relationship to other National, Regional, or
State priorities was considered moderately important, while opportunities for pollution prevention
were only slightly important to the inspection targeting process. The Region did not use
environmental justice as a targeting criteria, primarily because a lack of clearly definable data
made it difficult to understand how it could be used effectively. Region IV also considered the
dates of the previous multi-media inspections and the number of facilities within a particular
group (e.g., Navy, Air Force) that had been inspected.
During FY 1993, Region IV did not deliberately exclude CFAs from the list of facilities
to be inspected, but most CFAs did not rank sufficiently high on their priority list. Therefore,
only one CFA (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center) was inspected. In FY 1994, the Region
stated that CFAs were targeted; however, only one CFA (NASA Stennis Space Flight Center)
received a multi-media inspection.
The Region reported that the number of multi-media inspections conducted in Region IV
increased due to the FMECI, although the number of administrative settlements at Federal
facilities remained constant relative to pre-FY 1993 levels.
Region IV did not seek assistance from NEIC, RREL, or OCE; the Region did receive
pollution prevention materials from FFEO, as well as technical assistance on wastewater issues
from the EPA laboratory in Athens, Georgia. When conducting inspections, the Region provided
each Federal facility with the FMECI overview brochures and the names of inspectors and
Regional coordinators.
Region IV indicated that there was no adverse impact resulting from the specific
allocation of Regional resources needed to meet the FMECI's requirements, because the Region
took special steps to ensure the availability of resources. Region IV coordinated inspection
activities to ensure that the inspections to fit within the normal inspection program. Inspections,
on the average, lasted two days, and involved an average of eight inspectors. In almost all cases,
the Region gave the facilities two days prior notice of the inspection. At the beginning of the
inspections, an in-briefing was held. In addition, in roughly half of the inspections, the Region
held an out-briefing. The Region noted that inspection personnel experienced no difficulties
related to national security access.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Overall, Region IV and the States experienced moderate to significant interaction during
the FMECI, particularly during the inspection and enforcement phases. More than three-fourths
59
-------
(17 out of 21) of inspections included State representatives as part of the inspection team.
Region IV noted that the States want to protect their position in leading inspections and
enforcement actions. Region IV did joint and overview inspections when State inspectors were
involved.
Region IV noted that increased coordination with and involvement by the States
enhanced the Region/State relationship and resulted in a limited exchange of regulatory
knowledge (see Table 4). However, the Region noted that scheduling remains an obstacle to
Regional and State coordination in multi-media inspections.
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
Improved Regional/State relationships
Exchange of regulatory knowledge
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Scheduling
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region IV noted that the multi-media inspections have received positive attention from
facility commanders and environmental staffs. Several benefits and barriers to using the
multi-media inspection were identified by Region IV. One benefit was the building of the Region
and State relationships. The Region concluded that Federal facilities generally benefit from
combined inspections by State and Federal regulators who comprehensively assess the
environmental status of the facility. Region IV also indicated that multi-media inspections are a
more efficient use of resources and cost less than single-media inspections.
On the other hand, Region IV noted that difficulties in coordinating efforts has been a
barrier to the use of multi-media inspections. Region IV stated that every program prefers to
perform its own inspections and take their own enforcement actions. Thus, to implement the
FMECI, Region IV developed a cross-trained core team that can conduct or lead multi-media
inspections.
60
-------
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Encourages Regional/State relationship building
Costs less than single-media inspections
Gets more attention from base commanders
Provides facilities with a complete evaluation of environmental compliance status
Requires demanding coordination
Takes more time to prepare final report
61
-------
This page intentionally left blank
62
-------
Region V |
EPA Region V, with Headquarters in
Chicago, Illinois, consists of six States in the
Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Only
Illinois and Ohio participated in the
multi-media inspections. This Region
conducted two Category D multi-media
inspections in FY 1993, and one Category D
inspection in FY 1994. All inspected
facilities were classified as large and the level of
complexity of compliance issues ranged from
medium to high.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
As a result of three multi-media inspections, Region V identified many potential
violations of environmental requirements and issued an Administrative Order, a single media
NOV, and a NOV addressing violations of four separate statutes (see Table 1).
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Administrative Order
NOV8
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
1
4
5
FY 1994
-
1
1
As shown in Table 2, Region V issued an Administrative Order to Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base for RCRA violations and a multi-media enforcement settlement (a NOV for
violations of numerous environmental statutes). The Administrative Order involved a proposed
penalty of $102,400, and was eventually settled for $60,200. Region V's inspection of Argonne
National Laboratory identified numerous areas of concern but only found clear violations of the
The NOV in FY 1993 addressed violations of four separate statutes, therefore, it represents four
enforcement actions.
63
-------
CWA. According to the Region, recent improvements in the facility's CWA compliance status
make it unclear as to what benefits would be achieved by proceeding with formal enforcement
actions. In FY 1994, the Region cited the U.S. Army Lima Tank Plant for RCRA violations.
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
Argonne National
Laboratory, IL
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, OH
None
NOV
Administrative Order
None
Issued
Issued
None
CAA, CWA,
FIFRA,
TSCA
RCRA
None
None
$ 102,400 (P)
$60,200 (F)
FY 1994
U.S. Army Lima Tank
Plant, OH
NOV
Issued
RCRA
None
Region V took the lead in the inspections at Argonne National Laboratory, while NEIC
took the inspection leads for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the U.S. Army Lima Tank
Plant. States in Region V did not take a lead role on any enforcement actions taken as a result
of the FMECI in FY 1993 or FY 1994 (see Table 3).
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
None noted
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
NA
0
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
NA
0
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Based on input from inspections conducted prior to FMECI inspections, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base implemented pollution prevention measures, such as anti-freeze
64
-------
recycling and substitution of citrus-based degreasers for chlorinated solvents degreasers, by the
time of the FMECI-related inspection. A Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile was provided
to the Base at the time of inspection. The inspection also identified several opportunities for
additional pollution prevention activities opportunities that would address compliance issues.
The inspection report for Argonne National Laboratory indicated that a well-established
waste minimization program is operational at the facility. Through this program, Argonne
monitors chemical inventory, recycles many of the chemical by-products, and recycles 95 percent
of its solid waste on-site. According to the Region, due to the complexity of the facility and the
comprehensive nature of the pollution prevention program, the inspectors did not attempt to
identify additional pollution prevention opportunities.
Region V did not state if it projects any reductions in pollutant emissions or discharges at
the Federal facilities within its jurisdiction. Also, Region V did not clarify if it incorporated
pollution prevention opportunities or remedies into settlements; but Region V will pursue SEPs
as appropriate.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region V selected facilities to participate in the multi-media inspections based on all five
criteria specified in the FMECI guidance (i.e. compliance history, risk ranking, other priorities,
pollution prevention, and environmental justice); however, the Region did not indicate the relative
significance of the criteria in the targeting process. Region V did not specifically exclude CFA
facilities, but determined that none were as high of a priority as DOD or DOE facilities. Region
V sought assistance from NEIC. NEIC has participated as the inspection lead at two facilities.
Region V did not give Argonne National Laboratory notice prior to conducting the
inspection. Because of the size and scope of the Argonne facility, more than one visit, over the
span of four days, was necessary to complete the inspection. Furthermore, because of the time of
year, one coal-fired boiler believed to have a history of opacity problems, was not in operation.
Region V took visible emissions readings from the boiler in March of 1994 and found no opacity
when it was in operation. Therefore the Region had no basis for bringing an enforcement action
under the CAA.
The size of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also necessitated a multi-day inspection,
which was held over 12 days. Region V and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
combined efforts in the inspection. The facility required inspection personnel to attend a
two-hour orientation and safety training session, which, because the inspection was unannounced
was held on the second day. Region V did not meet the one-year time frame for completing
enforcement actions.
65
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region V did not describe the level of interaction between the States and Region during
the stages of the FMECI. However, the Region indicated that States played a particularly useful
role in the inspection of Argonne National Laboratory's public water supply system.
Region V observed that increased coordination led to more thorough inspections, however
they did require additional effort and resources (see Table 4).
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• More thorough and complete inspections
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Additional effort and resources required
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region V observed that multi-media inspections provide more comprehensive facility
reviews than single-media inspections and also serve as a strong expression of EPA's commitment
to improve environmental compliance at Federal facilities. Region V reported that Federal
facilities were reasonably cooperative during the inspections.
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Provides comprehensive facility reviews
Provides a concrete expression of the seriousness the EPA attaches to environmental compliance
at Federal facilities
None cited
66
-------
Region VI
EPA Region VI, with its headquarters
in Dallas, Texas, consists of five States:
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas. Region VI, together with the
individual State agencies, inspected five
Federal facilities as part of FMECI, three in
FY 1993 and two in FY 1994. Each
multi-media inspection involved some State
participation. Four of five facilities received
Category D multi-media inspections, while one
received a Category C inspection. All
inspected facilities were classified as large in
size and posed medium to high complexity
levels of compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Three inspected facilities in Region VI were the subject of five enforcement actions during
the FMECI. Four of five actions were taken during FY 1993 (see Table 1).
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
2
-
1
1
4
FY 1994
-
1
-
-
1
Region VI identified violations of RCRA, CWA, CAA, and SDWA (see Table 2). The
Region sent a warning letter to Air Force Plant #3 for RCRA violations and is awaiting a
response from the facility. The Region also issued an Administrative Order for CWA (NPDES)
violations to the University of California contractor-operator at Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL). A State warning letter also was sent to LANL for SDWA violations. A State NOV
was issued to Kelly Air Force Base for CAA violations. No penalties were assessed in connection
with any violations or enforcement actions for the inspected facilities in Region VI.
67
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
Kelly Air Force Base,TX
Air Force Plant #3, OK
Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM
NOV
Warning Letter
Administrative Order
Warning Letter
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
CAA
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
None
None
None
None
FY 1994
Fort Bliss, TX
NASA Michoud Assembly
Facility, LA9
NON
-
Issued
-
TSCA
-
None
-
States in Region VI participated in all inspections under the FMECI. The Region was
the inspection lead for Kelly Air Force Base. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, NEIC acted
as the inspection lead for all statutes except SDWA, for which Region VI and the State of New
Mexico shared the lead. At Air Force Plant #3, the Region acted as lead inspector for all
statutes except SDWA, which was led by the State of Oklahoma.
In terms of enforcement, the Region has acted as the enforcement lead for actions taken
during FY 1993 to address RCRA violations at Air Force Plant #3 and CWA violations at
LANL (see Table 3). Two enforcement actions, for SDWA violations at LANL and CAA
violations at Kelly AFB, involved State lead.
9Multi-Media Inspection Report is currently under review.
68
-------
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
1
1
2
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
-
-
0
Region VI inspectors explored multi-media enforcement opportunities while on-site
through daily planning coordination meetings and through coordinated unit-specific inspections
by all applicable single media inspectors.
The Region noted that discussions with the environmental staff during the inspections
and during out-briefings with facility management enhanced environmental compliance and
awareness of compliance issues at the inspected facilities. Region VI also noted, however, that
any regulatory presence tends to improve awareness, thus any increased awareness cannot be
attributed solely to the multi-media inspection approach. Region VI believes that the Air Force
and DOE have incorporated environmental structures that assist individual facilities in dealing
with environmental compliance issues.
Region VI stated that multi-media inspections continue to be a high-priority program
element. The Region also noted that it conducted more multi-media inspections at Federal
facilities under the FMECI than it conducted prior to FY 1993. There has been no change in
Region VI in the number of administrative settlements as a result of the FMECI. The Region
also observed that multi-media inspections are often more ponderous than equivalent sets of
single media inspections, particularly from the inspected facility's perspective.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Region VI inspectors identified some pollution prevention opportunities. For example, at Air
Force Plant #3, the inspectors discovered a waste minimization plan in place, albeit an informal one,
about which an employee was able to elaborate. Region VI also provided a Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Profile on LANL to the NEIC for relay to the facility. The Region is not presently
pursuing pollution prevention SEPs with any of the facilities inspected under the FMECI, nor is it
attempting to incorporate pollution prevention conditions or remedies into enforcement settlements.
The Region noted that opportunities for such conditions, remedies, or SEPs simply had not yet
arisen.
69
-------
Region VI did not project any reductions in pollutant emissions and discharges at Federal
facilities within its jurisdiction based upon its efforts in waste minimization, pollution prevention,
and negotiation of SEPs.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region VI selected facilities for inspection based primarily on the criteria in the FMECI
Implementation Guidance. The Region ranked compliance history, Regional risk ranking, and
relationships to other priorities as being very important, while it ranked opportunities for
pollution prevention and environmental justice as moderately important. The Region reported
that CFA facilities were not excluded from its list of targeted facilities as a result of the
application of the targeting criteria, and in fact, two out of five facilities inspected under the
FMECI in Region VI were CFAs.
Region VI did not seek assistance from FFEO, RREL, or OCE with respect to
enforcement actions under the FMECI. NEIC helped Region VI by acting as the inspection
lead for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and assisting in the preparation of the final
inspection report. Region VI stated that cooperation from NEIC has always been available when
requested.
Region VI indicated that the specific allocation of resources to meet the FMECI
requirements did not have a significant impact on the availability of resources for other Regional
and State enforcement priorities. To help ensure that this would be the case, most of the
Region's media programs set aside a percentage of inspection resources for Federal facilities at the
beginning of FY 1993.
On average, seven people participated on the multi-media inspection teams, with the
largest and smallest teams consisting of 11 and four, respectively. The inspections lasted between
two and 11 days, with an average length of seven days. At least one inspector noted in the
inspection report that the two-day inspection was not enough time to observe all of the facility's
operations. Region VI indicated that the task of collecting and compiling the inspection report
information was "resource-intensive" and "took longer than anticipated."
Overall, the inspectors had positive experiences at the facilities. Only one inspector from
the State of New Mexico experienced minor difficulties concerning facility access while
conducting an inspection. The inspector was initially denied entry into a technical area at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory because the inspector lacked security clearance. EPA
inspectors proceeded with the inspection. Region VI conducted opening and closing briefings for
all the inspected facilities. The Region did not provide advance notice to any of the facilities prior
to conducting the inspections.
70
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The Region concluded that, overall, interaction between Region VI and the States in
connection with the FMECI occurred at a moderate level. Region VI indicated that State
Enforcement Agreements, particularly with respect to RCRA enforcement actions, served as an
outline for future Regional/State interaction, thereby enhancing State participation in the
FMECI.
In FY 1993, Region VI reported no significant obstacles to Regional and State
coordination (see Table 4). On the other hand, Region VI suggested that the three-way
understanding and cooperation between the State, EPA, and a Federal facility is a benefit of the
multi-media inspection and should be promoted. In addition, according to Region VI, the
FMECI has not resulted in any negative ramifications for Regional and State relations.
Region VI noted that between FY 1993 and FY 1994 of the FMECI, communications,
coordination of inspections and enforcement actions, and the overall relationship between the
States and the Region improved substantially.
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• Increases understanding and cooperation between State, Region, and Federal facilities
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• None reported
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region VI is positive about using multi-media inspections. Region VI reported many
benefits and no barriers to the use of the multi-media inspections as opposed to single-media
inspections (see Table 5). Region VI found the facilities to be cooperative during the inspections.
Region VI suggested that one benefit of the multi-media approach was the additional expertise
provided by other team members. This sharing of expertise and knowledge was particularly
helpful to less experienced inspectors. Region VI noted an increased interest in utilizing
multi-media inspections as a result of the experience with the FMECI. Region VI expects the
use of multi-media inspections to increase in the future because it perceives the inspections as an
effective enforcement tool and as a natural extension of multi-media inspections in the private
sector.
71
-------
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Facilities cooperative
Enhanced multi-media exposure among the inspection team members
Team members provided additional knowledge and expertise
Sharing of expertise helped less experienced inspectors
None reported
72
-------
Region VII |
EPA Region VII, with Headquarters in
Kansas City, Kansas, is comprised of four
States: Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and
Missouri. Every State in the Region
participated in the FMECI. Region VII
reported that it usually conducts Category B or
C inspections, but of the four Federal facilities
inspected, two in both FY 1993 and FY
1994, half received Category D inspections.
The sizes of the inspected facilities ranged
from medium to large, and the complexity of
compliance issues faced ranged from low to
high.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Region VII issued five enforcement actions at three facilities (see Table 1), including two
NOVs and three NONs. At the U.S. Penitentiary in Levenworth, KS, a NON, and a NOV
were issued for violations and potential violations of TSCA and RCRA, respectively; while at
Hruska Meat Animal Research Center, inspectors issued an NOV for violations of
RCRA/CERCLA. Both facilities promptly corrected the violations so no further action was
necessary (see Table 2). Violations of EPCRA and TSCA at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
were also resolved soon after issuance of two NONs.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Notice of Noncompliance
Notice of Violation
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
1
2
3
FY 1994
2
--
2
73
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
U.S. Penitentiary
Levenworth, KS
USDA Roman L. Hruska
Meat Animal Research
Center,NE
NON
NOV
NOV
Issued
Issued
Issued
TSCA
RCRA
RCRA/
CERCLA
None
None
None
FY 1994
Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant, IA
VA Medical Center, MO
NON
NON
None
Issued
Issued
None
EPCRA
TSCA
None
None
None
None
Region VII did not levy penalties in connection with the violations or enforcement
actions. RCRA and TSCA were cited most frequently, with four of the five enforcement actions
occurring under these statutes. The Region acted as the inspection lead for both facilities
inspected in FY 1993 and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, MO in FY 1994. NEIC acted
as inspection lead for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. The States did not take the lead on
any enforcement actions taken under the FMECI in Region VII (see Table 3).
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
None noted
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
N/A
0
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
N/A
0
Region VII reported an increased level of environmental compliance and awareness of
compliance at the facilities that were inspected, as well as at other potential target facilities.
Region VII did not take any multi-media enforcement actions as a result of the FMECI in either
FY 1993 or FY 1994. Relative to equivalent sets of single media inspections, Region VII
reported that multi-media inspections were slightly less efficient with respect to preparation,
inspection, report writing, and enforcement.
74
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Region VII stated that it did not pursue pollution prevention SEPs as part of the
FMECI, nor has it presently incorporated pollution prevention conditions or remedies into
FMECI enforcement settlements. Region VII stated that it will use SEPs, if applicable, in the
future.
Inspectors provided a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile to both facilities during
the FY 1994 inspections. In general, the Region thought the profiles provided limited assistance
throughout the multi-media inspection process.
One inspection team noted that the facility made an effort to implement pollution
prevention techniques in several operations. The inspection team recommended that the facility
coordinate pollution prevention activities through a central office and develop a comprehensive
pollution prevention strategy. For another facility, pollution prevention recommendations were
noted throughout the inspection report. For example, the inspection team suggested stricter
control of the purchase of laboratory reagents.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When targeting Federal facilities for multi-media inspections, Region VII considered
factors such as compliance history, and the relationship to other national, Regional, or State
priorities to be very important. Regional risk ranking, opportunities for pollution prevention, and
environmental justice were only slightly important to the inspection targeting process. As a result
of the targeting criteria, CFA facilities were not excluded from Region VII's target list, in fact,
Region VII explicitly targeted CFAs. Three of the four facilities inspected under the FMECI in
Region VII were CFAs.
During the multi-media inspections, the Region provided each facility with a FMECI
Overview Brochure. Region VII provided other information to the facilities, including a
pollution prevention check list and a follow-up call for assistance. Region VII sought assistance
from NEIC during the FMECI.
Region VII reported that the allocation of resources needed to meet the FMECI's
requirements significantly affected the availability of resources for other Regional/State
enforcement priorities. The Region indicated that multi-media inspections were resource
intensive and directly competed with single-media inspection resources. On average, inspection
teams consisted of nine people and most inspections lasted two days.
Region VII conducted opening and closing briefings for all four facilities. The U.S.
Penitentiary at Levenworth, KS, received notice of the inspection the previous afternoon.
75
-------
Notice was necessary because security checks were required and because there was a need to
minimize potential delays. The Region reported that it did not experience difficulties regarding
national security or facility access while performing the inspections.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region VII reported a moderate level of general interaction and coordination with the
States as a result of the FMECI. State representatives participated in the inspection teams for
both FY 1993 multi-media inspections, and on one of two FY 1994 inspections. Region VII
indicated that the level of interaction with the State increased throughout the stages of the
FMECI. During the targeting phase, interaction did not exist, while a moderate level of
interaction occurred during the inspection and enforcement stages.
Region VII indicated the State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs) enhanced the States'
ability to participate in the FMECI. The Region noted that SEAs now include the multi-media
concept. Region VII observed that the relationship between the States and the Region had not
changed significantly as a result of the FMECI.
Region VII reported several obstacles to, and benefits from, Regional and State
coordination. Obstacles to coordination included scheduling and identifying appropriate
participants. The Region indicated that the benefits of Regional and State activities included
enhanced cooperation, and training opportunities for both the Region and State. Although
Region VII indicated that the FMECI resulted in no negative impacts regarding Regional/State
relations the Region noted that the States lacked the resources to implement these efforts.
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
Increases thoroughness of inspections
Enhances cooperation with States
Provides training opportunities
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
Requires complex scheduling
Necessitates early identification of inspection team participants
Requires use of limited State resources
76
-------
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
In general, Region VII found the Federal facilities cooperative during the multi-media
inspections. Region VII identified many benefits from, and barriers to, using the multi-media
approach (see Table 5). One benefit reported by Region VII was that the holistic, coordinated
effort resulted in a comprehensive review of facilities. In addition, the multi-media approach
enhanced awareness of regulatory requirements, improved coordination among Regional
enforcement personnel, provided on-the-job training for inspectors, and promoted compliance
among Federal facilities. On the other hand, the Region viewed the time and effort needed to
coordinate the inspection and enforcement efforts as barriers to utilizing a multi-media approach.
Some facility representatives found the multi-media approach to be overwhelming, and the
Region observed numerous complexities associated with cross-program coordination.
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Enables a comprehensive review of facilities due to holistic approach
Provides enhanced regulatory presence at Federal facilities
Improves coordination among Regional enforcement staff
Provides on-the-job training for inspectors
Increases compliance and deterrence among Federal facilities
Requires extensive time and effort to coordinate
Overwhelms facilities
Necessitates complex coordination with media programs
77
-------
This page intentionally left blank
78
-------
Region VIII
Region VIII, with Headquarters in
Denver, Colorado, is comprised of six
Midwestern and Western States: Montana,
Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Colorado. Half of the Region's
six States participated in the FMECI during
FY 1993 and FY 1994. The Region
inspected four Department of Defense
facilities. Facilities were subjected to
Category C or D inspections. Three of the
facilities were classified as large, and the
fourth as medium-sized. The level of
complexity of compliance issues at these
facilities ranged from low to high.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
In Region VIII, four enforcement actions were initiated at two facilities: an NOV and a
RCRA §3008(a) Administrative Order in FY 1993 and a Warning Letter and a NON in FY
1994 (see Table 1). No penalties resulted from these actions and all enforcement actions have
been issued.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Notice of Noncompliance
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
-
1
-
1
2
FY 1994
1
-
1
-
2
The Region cited Hill Air Force with violations of RCRA while Toole Army Depot
received enforcement actions for violations of RCRA and TSCA. Both facilities are located in
Utah.
79
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
F.E. Warren Air Force
Base, WY
Hill Air Force Base, UT
Grand Forks Air Force
Base, ND
None
Administrative Order
NOV
None
None
Issued
Issued
None
None
RCRA
RCRA
None
None
None
None
None
FY 1994
Toole Army Depot, UT
Warning Letter
NON
Issued
Issued
RCRA
TSCA
None
None
The Region and State of Wyoming acted as the inspection lead for F.E. Warren AFB.
States acted as the inspection lead at the remaining facilities. In Region VIII, the States acted
as the enforcement lead for all but one enforcement action (see Table 3).
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Warning Letter
Notice of Violation
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
-
1
1
2
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
1
--
--
1
Region VIII noted that multi-media enforcement opportunities were not explored when
determining enforcement actions and violations. Region VIII indicated that there has been an
enhanced environmental compliance, and awareness of compliance, at the inspected facilities.
Region VIII stated that inundating the facilities with inspectors from multi-media teams caused
the heightened awareness.
As a result of the FMECI, Region VIII increased enforcement activities at Federal
facilities, and increased the number of multi-media inspections. Administrative Orders did not
80
-------
increase in FY 1993 or FY 1994 over previous years, but more warning letters and NOVs were
issued as a result of the FMECI.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
During the inspections, the inspectors provided pollution prevention recommendations to
the facilities. For example, the State of North Dakota suggested that the Grand Forks AFB
change its use of cleaning materials. In addition, the inspection team recommended that Hill
AFB exercise caution when selecting pesticides, and limit their storage to one year. The Region
also provided the facilities with relevant Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profiles and other
information, including points of contact and applicable regulations.
The Region has not yet incorporated pollution prevention remedies into settlements that
have resulted from the FMECI enforcement activities. In addition, the Region has not pursued
pollution prevention SEPs under these enforcement actions, although they are pursuing them in
other cases. Region VIII stated that it could not project a reduction in pollutant
emissions/discharges at Federal facilities based on its waste minimization and pollution
prevention activities under the FMECI.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
When choosing the facilities to inspect, Region VIII considered facility compliance
history, relationships to other initiatives, and Regional risk ranking as being most important.
Opportunities for pollution prevention and environmental justice were considered somewhat less
important. The Region also coordinated with the States with respect to State priorities, and
examined factors such as size and nature of the facilities. CFAs were not specifically excluded
by Region VIII from receiving inspections under the FMECI; however, no CFAs were inspected
during either year of the Initiative. At least two States indicated that Air Force Bases were
selected as being high-priority facilities, particularly in FY 1993.
Region VIII noted that the specific allocation of resources within the Region to meet the
FMECI's requirements did not significantly impact the availability of resources for other
Regional/State enforcement priorities in FY 1994. However, travel costs were a concern for
Region VIII. Two States indicated that the multi-media approach was no more efficient or even
less efficient than equivalent sets of single media inspections for all phases of the
inspection/enforcement process. Another State indicated that the multi-media approach was
slightly more efficient.
81
-------
The Region sought assistance from FFEO and the RCRA Enforcement Division when
conducting enforcement activities. Assistance was also sought regarding site access issues. The
Region reported that although the Region VIII inspector was fully cleared, the Air Force refused
access based on "Need to Know." Despite some obstacles, the Region finalized its administrative
enforcement cases within the established one-year time frame.
The Region also noted that some facilities were overwhelmed by the size of the inspection
team; one inspection team consisted of 17 participants. The average size of the inspection teams
was 10 members. In some cases, the inspection team personnel experienced facility access
difficulties relating to national security. The inspections lasted for three and four days. When
conducting the actual inspection, the Region provided the facilities with prior notice. In addition,
the Region held informational in-briefings and closing conferences.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region VIII included State representatives as part of its inspection team for all
multi-media inspections conducted. In fact, the level of interaction between the Region and
State during all stages (targeting, inspection, and enforcement action) was significant. According
to Region VIII, SEAs have neither enhanced nor impaired the States' ability to participate in the
FMECI.
Region VIII noted a few benefits from and obstacles to Regional and State coordination
(see Table 4). The Region stated that cross-media communication increased due to the
Region/State coordination. For example, the PCB and Toxics programs at EPA found multi-
media inspections to be especially helpful. Although the relationship with the States is strong,
the Region noted that many competing priorities and diverse communications at different layers
of management challenged coordination efforts. According to the Region, the FMECI has been
trying for Regional/State relations in some instances. Difficulties have arisen because some
States see no added value to the "mega inspection" approach. In this situation, referral to other
programs is preferred. Representatives from Utah reported that the State does not support the
multi-media inspection approach, particularly joint EPA/State inspections.
82
-------
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• Provides greater cross-media communication
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Competing priorities at EPA and the States must be balanced
• Communication through the different layers of management at both EPA and the States can
create difficulties
• One State does not perceive added value from this approach
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region VIII noted that the facilities benefited from the "holistic" coordinated effort of the
multi-media approach (see Table 5). Multi-media inspections allowed an entire facility to be
viewed in a comprehensive manner and to identify where various statutes interconnected. Citing
evidence of this fact, the Region referred to enhanced environmental compliance after the
multi-media inspections. For example, when the Region subsequently inspected the Grand Forks
AFB, they found the base had undertaken a program to ensure compliance and prepare for
possible future inspections. Moreover, prior to the multi-media inspection at another base, the
environmental manager focussed his attention on water discharges and air emissions. Following
the inspection, he developed a more broad-based understanding of all environmental programs
affecting the base. Region VIII also indicated an increased interest in conducting additional
multi-media inspections as a result of the FMECI.
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
• Provides comprehensive view of facility
• Supports ability to identify where Statutes interconnect
• Increases the EPA/State compliance and enforcement presence beyond the facilities being
inspected
Barriers
• Requires significant resources for coordination of inspection and for follow-up decisions
83
-------
This page intentionally left blank
84
-------
Region IX |
EPA Region IX, with Headquarters in
San Francisco, California, consists of
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust
Territories of the Pacific. Region IX
conducted seven multi-media inspections, two
in FY 1993 and five in FY 1994. The
Region classified an Environmental
Compliance Assessment System Audit of the
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the
Marshall Islands as a multi-media inspection.
All facilities inspected were medium in size
and presented the full range of environmental
compliance issue complexity.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
The number of enforcement actions issued in Region IX as a result of the FMECI
increased from one Administrative Order for TSCA violations at the Mare Island Naval
Shipyard in FY 1993, to five actions for RCRA and TSCA violations issued against three
separate facilities in FY 1994 (see Table 1).
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Field Citation
Notice of Noncompliance
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
—
—
1
1
FY 1994
3
1
3
7
In FY 1993, the State of California assessed a penalty of $10,800 against Mare Island
Naval Shipyard. At USAKA, inspectors identified FIFRA, SPCC, TSCA, and UST violations,
but determined that the violations did not warrant enforcement actions. In FY 1994, proposed
penalties by Region IX and the States totalled more than $1.1 million (see Table 2).
85
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
USAKA, Republic of
Marshall Islands
Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
CA
None
Administrative Order
None
Issued
None
TSCA
None
$10,800(F)
FY 1994
Long Beach Naval
Shipyard, CA
Luke Air Force Base, AZ
Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base, AZ
U.S. Army Schofield
Barracks, HI
U.S. Army Presidio, CA
Administrative Order
None
Field Citation
Administrative Order
Field Citation
Administrative Order
NON
Field Citation
Issued
None
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
RCRA
None
UST
RCRA
UST
RCRA
TSCA
UST
$400(F)
None
None
$543,900(P)
$77,347(F)
None
$556,500(P)
None
None
In FY 1993, Region IX led the inspection at Mare Island and the State of California
acted as the enforcement lead. The U.S. Army Environmental Health Agency led the inspection
of USAKA. In FY 1994, EPA and States shared inspection leads at Long Beach Naval
Shipyard and Luke Air Force Base, while the Region acted as sole lead for the remaining three
inspections. The State of California took the lead on enforcement actions at Mare Island and
Long Beach Naval Shipyards, while Region IX acted as lead on the remaining enforcement
actions (see Table 3).
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
1
1
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
1
1
86
-------
Region IX noted that the audit at USAKA was comprehensive, but questioned how
effectively U.S. standards could be applied in a Trust Territory - in this case, the Marshall
Islands, because of uncertainty surrounding adherence to the Compact of Free Association. In
this situation, U.S. environmental laws were used as a guideline to determine compliance.
Although USAKA was not subject to enforcement actions, the inspection report identified needed
corrective actions at the base.
Region IX did not explore multi-media enforcement opportunities during the FMECI,
nor was the Region able to determine if the FMECI resulted in increased environmental
compliance, or awareness of compliance issues at Federal facilities.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The Region did not supply the inspected facilities with Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Profiles. As part of the Administrative Order issued against Schofield Barracks in FY 1994,
Region IX pursued four SEPs valued at $1,245,000. The Region does not project any reduction
of pollutant discharges or emissions at Federal facilities based on waste minimization efforts,
pollution prevention, or the negotiation of SEPs.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
Region IX ranked compliance history, Regional risk ranking, and relationship to other
priorities as moderately important factors in selecting Federal facilities to participate in the
multi-media inspections. Opportunities for pollution prevention and environmental justice were
rated as slightly important. Region IX also considered cost to the Agency as a factor in selecting
facilities. The Region did not exclude CFA facilities from the list as a result of the targeting
criteria established in the FMECI, although no CFAs were inspected in either FY 1993 or FY
1994.
Region IX did not receive assistance from FFEO, NEIC, RREL, or the OCE. It did,
however, receive assistance from other sources. At USAKA, the Army paid for the inspection,
but the effort involved multi-Federal agency support.
The Region did not indicate whether resources allocated to meet the FMECI's
requirements impacted the availability of resources for other Regional/State enforcement
priorities. Special steps taken by Region to ensure the availability of resources included that no
significant travel was needed for the Mare Island inspection and that the Army paid for the
USAKA inspection.
87
-------
The time frame for inspections varied from two to 13 days, with the average being slightly
more than seven days. Region IX reported no difficulties related to national security or facility
access while performing inspections under the FMECI.
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
The Region reported that it and the States interacted and coordinated at a moderate to
significant level during each stage of the FMECI. In all but one of the seven multi-media
inspections, State personnel participated on the inspection teams.
The Region reported an improvement in its State relations resulting from joint Regional
and State activities. In addition, the FMECI had no negative impact on Regional and State
relations. SEAs also had no effect on the State's ability to participate in the FMECI. Region
IX did not cite any obstacles to Regional and State coordination (see Table 4).
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• Improves relationships with State
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• None reported
OVERALL IMPACT OF THE MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region IX noted that the facilities' response to the inspections conducted under the
FMECI was positive. Region IX also noted increased interest in using multi-media inspection as
a result of the FMECI, specifically in using multi-media approaches to target
inspection/enforcement efforts.
Region IX indicated that multi-media inspections strengthened State-EPA partnerships
and increased inter- and intra-agency cooperation. However, when compared to single-media
inspections, the multi-media approach consumed more time during negotiations with the various
Federal and State agencies. The Region also viewed the logistical and resource demands
associated with the FMECI 90-day window for conducting the inspections as arbitrary and an
88
-------
obstacle. Region IX also noted that its multi-media approach places more emphasis on
inspection targeting, rather than actually conducting multi-media inspections.
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Strengthens Regional/State partnerships
Enhances inter- and intra-agency cooperation
Requires extensive commitment of time to lead and support negotiation across agencies
Logistics and resources needed to fulfill FMECI requirements
89
-------
This page intentionally left blank
90
-------
Region
EPA Region X, with Headquarters in
Seattle, Washington, has responsibility for
four States: Idaho, Oregon, Washington and
Alaska. Two States participated in the
FMECI in Region X. The Region conducted
four multi-media inspections under the
FMECI, two in both FY 1993 and FY
1994. The Region conducted Category D
inspections at all facilities. These inspections
involved extensive coordination with
appropriate State and local authorities. All
facilities were categorized as large and each
posed relatively high levels of complexity in
terms of compliance issues.
COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT
Federal facilities in Region X received seven enforcement actions, five in FY 1993 and
two in FY 1994 (see Table 1). All inspected facilities were subject to some type of enforcement
action as a result of the FMECI (see Table 2). Most actions were taken to address TSCA or
CAA violations, although two facilities were cited for RCRA and CWA violations as well.
Table 1
Number and Type of Enforcement Actions Issued
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TYPES
Notice of Violation
Notice of Noncompliance
Administrative Order
Total Number of Actions
FY 1993
3
--
2
5
FY 1994
1
2
--
3
As seen in Table 2, Region X issued TSCA enforcement actions to all four facilities. The
Region also issued an Administrative Order to Fort Richardson for CAA violations and a RCRA
Administrative Order that included a proposed penalty of $1.3 million.
91
-------
Table 2
Enforcement Actions
SITE NAME
TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUS OF
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION
STATUTE/
PROGRAM
VIOLATED
PENALTIES
ISSUED
FY 1993
Fort Richardson, AK
U.S. Navy Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard, WA
Administrative Order
Administrative Order
NOV
NOV
NOV
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
Issued
RCRA
CAA
TSCA
TSCA
CAA
$1.3million(P)
None
None
None
None
FY 1994
Fort Lewis, WA
Eielson Air Force Base,
AK
NOV
NON
NON
Issued
Issued
Issued
CWA
TSCA
TSCA
None
None
None
Region X explored multi-media enforcement opportunities during settlement with U.S.
Army Garrison-Fort Richardson. The Region indicated that the FMECI has resulted in an
enhanced awareness of compliance issues at facilities, demonstrated by the sharing of information
about the FMECI between Federal facilities, as well as the significant media interest. The State
issued one NOV to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for violations of CAA (see Table 3).
Table 3
State Lead Enforcement Actions
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Notice of Noncompliance
Total Number of Actions with State Lead
STATE LEADS
FY 1993
1
1
STATE LEADS
FY 1994
-
0
The Region noted that the FMECI resulted in an increased number of Category D
multi-media inspections, but did not observe an increase in the number of administrative
settlements.
92
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution Prevention has also been a significant part of the FMECI effort in Region X.
Waste minimization is required under the 1991 RCRA enforcement agreement between Region
X and the Army. During settlement discussions pursuant to the current Fort Richardson and
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard cases, SEPs were explored. For example, discussion between the
facilities and TSCA staff resulted in both facilities disposing of equipment in order to become
PCB-free.
ADMINISTRATION, PROTOCOL, AND RESOURCES
In selecting facilities for inspection, Region X placed the most emphasis on compliance
history and other national, State and local priorities. Regional risk ranking, environmental
justice concerns, and opportunities for pollution prevention were also considered.
The Region did not receive any assistance from FFEO, RREL, NEIC during the
FMECI. Region X expressed some concerns over the allocation of resources for Federal facility
multi-media inspections, and the impact of these inspections on single media inspection program
resources. However, as the Region gains more experience in the multi-media process, it expects
these concerns will be addressed.
Region X was successful in final settlement of the RCRA matter at Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard within one year after the second inspection, and the TSCA program issued both TSCA
actions within 7-8 months. The Region reports that the process tends to be slower due to the
multiple agency review of inspection reports and the length of time needed to decide on
appropriate follow-up activities. The Region is committed to shortening the period of time for
enforcement follow-up as a result of participation in the FMECI.
Normally Region X performs its multi-media inspections unannounced, with some limited
exceptions. At the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the Region anticipated some problems in
gaining access and requested Headquarters assistance to resolve the problem quickly. The Region
has had success in using multi-media Requests for Information that are given to the facility at the
initiation of its inspections. This process is used because document review is an integral part of
the inspection. Normally, multi-media inspections are staged over a number of days (7-10 days),
and the Region routinely performs opening and closing briefings for the inspected facilities. The
Region encourages the highest level of base command attendance at the closing briefing to ensure
that the environmental concerns are identified and resolved quickly.
93
-------
REGIONAL/STATE COORDINATION
Region X does not believe that the FMECI has had a negative impact on Regional/State
relations; all inspections conducted included State personnel. Region X ranked the level of
interaction between Regional and State offices with regard to enforcement actions as moderate,
and as moderate to significant during the targeting of facilities to be inspected, as well as the
actual inspections.
Region X noted a few benefits from, and obstacles to, Regional and State coordination
(see Table 4).
Table 4
Regional/State Coordination
Benefits To Increased Coordination
• Increases understanding and cooperation between State, Region, and Federal facilities
Obstacles To Increased Coordination
• Level at which communication occurs delays discussion of decisions and impedes States' ability to
consult on issues
OVERALL IMPACT OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS
Region X identified several benefits from, and barriers to, using a multi-media inspection
approach instead of a single-media approach (see Table 5). Region X believes that a multi-media
approach has helped to ensure that each program is aware of the other programs' actions during
follow-up enforcement activities. Also, the Region concluded that the deterrent effect, while not
quantifiable, is substantial, and that EPA and the State's joint presence is highly visible to the
regulated Federal facility community.
94
-------
Table 5
Benefits/Barriers to Multi-Media Inspections
Benefits
Barriers
Ensures that programs are aware of each others' action during ensuing enforcement
Provides a substantial deterrent effect
Shows a highly visible presence to the regulated Federal facility community
Requires overcoming the reluctance of single-media programs to fully embrace/support the
FMECI at the expense of single-media funding
On the other hand, the Region noted that single-media programs had difficulty in fully
embracing and supporting a multi-media approach because of the redirection of single-media
resources. Despite the disincentives, the multi-media inspection strategy at Federal facilities is
gradually "winning converts," and is likely to continue. The Region has been receiving mixed
reactions from its States on the utility of performing multi-media inspections.
95
-------
This page intentionally left blank
96
-------
Appendix I
A- 1
-------
This page intentionally left blank
A-2
-------
GUIDE TO POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
AT NAVAL BASE USA (NBU)
As part of the Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative
(FMECI), the EPA Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) is providing this guidance
package to assist enforcement personnel in identifying and documenting pollution prevention
(P2) opportunities that can be incorporated into settlement agreements with the above-mentioned
Federal facility. This package consists of two parts: a "Federal Facility Pollution Prevention
Field Reporting Form" (Attachment A), and a "Pollution Prevention Opportunities Profile"
(Attachment B). Both of these parts are specifically prepared for use at the above-mentioned
Federal facility.
Part I. Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Field Reporting Form
The field reporting form presented in Attachment A provides a mission statement for the
facility, which can be used by inspectors to predict the types of processes and wastes that may be
present at the facility. In addition, this reporting form provides a consistent format for inspectors
to record information on pollution prevention activities and opportunities at the facility. Parts I
through IV of this form are provided by FFEO, and include the facility name, address, and
identification number, and a facility mission statement. Parts V through VIII are filled out by
the inspector, and are to be maintained as part of the inspection record.
Part V.A is used by the inspector to record information about wastes that may present
opportunities for pollution prevention. Part V.B allows inspectors to record the types of pollution
prevention opportunities that they know or suspect are relevant to each waste identified in V.A.
Inspectors may use the Pollution Prevention Opportunities Profile (Attachment B) as an aid in
completing Part V of the field reporting form.
Part VI of the field reporting form allows the inspector to record detailed information
about ongoing pollution prevention activities at the subject facility. This information may be
used by EPA to propose the wider application of certain pollution prevention techniques
implemented at the facility.
Part VII of the field reporting form allows inspectors to record violations occurring at
those waste generation activities that have pollution prevention potential as determined pursuant
to Part V of the field reporting form. These types of violations may allow the EPA to introduce
pollution prevention requirements into settlement agreements.
Part VIII of the field reporting form allows inspectors extra space to nominate one or
more pollution prevention opportunities at the subject facility that are most likely to be
incorporated into a settlement agreement.
A-3
-------
Part II. Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Opportunity Profile
FFEO investigated a number of EPA information sources to identify potential pollution
prevention opportunities at NBU. These sources and the types of data they provided are listed
below:
• RCRA 3016 database: Annual quantities for each RCRA hazardous waste.
• Aeronomic Information Retrieval System (AIRS) database: Annual quantities of
Federal air pollutants.
• Permit Compliance System (PCS) database: Annual quantities of Federal water
pollutants.
• RCRA Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database: Types and annual quantities
of hazardous wastes.
• Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS) database: NBU was not found on this
database.
Data from the above-mentioned sources were used to prepare the profile for NBU which is
presented in Attachment B. This profile does not represent all wastes that may have pollution
prevention potential at NBU. Furthermore, this profile may include wastes that have little or no
potential for pollution prevention. This profile was prepared to provide the inspectors with an
initial list of wastes that, based on data from the above-mentioned sources and the information
depicted by the facility mission, appear to present the best opportunities for pollution prevention.
The inspector is encouraged to investigate these potential opportunities during upcoming
inspections. If the opportunities in the profile are confirmed during the inspection, the inspector
should obtain as much additional information as possible on these opportunities and record all
such findings in Parts V through VIII of the field reporting form (Attachment A).
A-4
-------
Attachment A
Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Field Reporting Form
Naval Base USA
I. Facility Name:
II. Facility Address (City, State) Anytown, Alaska
III. EPA ID No.:
AK 1240098136
IV. Mission Description:
Naval Base USA is involved in the overhaul and maintenance of surface ships up to attack
carriers, attack submarines, and ballistic missile submarines. NBU services include
conversion, overhaul, repair, alterations, and drydocking. The base also provides support for
air and submarine warfare weapons systems. NBU is the homeport to an aircraft carrier, two
cruisers, and two ammunition ships. NBU occupies 1,760 acres in Anytown, Alaska, and
employs approximately 16,200 permanent staff (270 officers, 4,390 enlisted personnel,
11,520 civilians, and 20 students).
V. Wastes with P2 Potential (observed):
A. Waste Description (include waste
sources,10 chemical compositions,
physical properties, and quantities)
B. P2 Opportunities (See Attachment B)
10 Waste source description should include the location of the waste generating activity (e.g., building number), and the process that generates the wastes
(e.g., degreasing of aircraft motor parts).
A-5
-------
VI. Current P2 Activities
A. Waste Description (Sources and Quantities) B. Initiative Description
VII. Violations affecting Waste Sources with P2 Potential (see Part V of this form):
A. Waste Source B. Violation C. Status of Violation
VII. Recommendations for Modifications to Current Programs
A-6
-------
Attachment B: Federal Facilities
Pollution Prevention (P2) Opportunities Profile at Naval Base USA (NBU)
Waste Description11
Spent hydraulic fluid
(propylene glycol)
Ignitable wastes
(D001)
Spent isopropyl alcohol
(D0001)
EPA 33/50
Program
Target
(Y/N)12
N
N
N
Annual Waste
Quantity
1.55 tons (1989)
6.6 tons (1989)
3 tons (1989) of
spent isopropyl
alcohol from 8
sources and 0.45
tons of a solution
containing
hydrochloric acid,
isopropanol, and
xylene from 2
sources
Assumptions on Waste
Origin and/or Composition13
Hydraulic fluid drained from
equipment during routine
service
Mineral spirits from degreasing
operations
Degreasing agents for electronic
equipment
Potential Pollution Prevention
Opportunities
• Determine whether hydraulic fluid can
be replaced in the equipment after
servicing has been completed
• Identify secondary uses for spent
hydraulic fluids
• Minimize rates of solvent use
• Replace organic solvents with water-
based solvents
• Extend solvent life by filtering or
setting accumulated solids
• Explore on-site recycling (distillation,
filtration, or other means)
• Minimize rate of solvent use
Data
Source14
BRS
BRS
BRS
11 Waste descriptions are derived from the data sources provided in the last column of this matrix. RCRA wastes in reported quantities below 500 Ibs (0.25
tons) per year are not included in the matrix. No limits were placed on waste generation quantities for non-RCRA wastes.
12
A voluntary national program to reduce releases of pollutants and off-site transfers of 17 toxic chemicals by 33 percent by the end of 1992 and by 50
percent by the end of 1995. Y = Yes; N = No; I = Insufficient Data. (The 17 chemicals include: benzene, cadmium and cadmium compounds, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform; chromium and chromium compounds; cyanide and cyanide compounds; lead and lead compounds; mercury and mercury compounds; methylene
chloride; methyl ethyl ketone; methyl isobutyl ketone; nickel and nickel compounds, tetrachloroethylene; toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethylene; and trichloroethylene.)
13
14
Assumptions based on professional judgement.
BRS = RCRA Biennial Reporting System; AIRS = Aeronomic Information Retrieval System; and PCS = Permit Compliance System.
A-7
-------
Waste Description
EPA 33/50
Program
Target
(Y/N)
Annual Waste
Quantity
Assumptions on Waste
Origin and/or Composition
Potential Pollution Prevention
Opportunities
Data
Source
Mixtures of spent xylene,
methyl isobutyl ketone,
and toluene
N
59.18 tons (1989)
from 15 sources
Degreasing agent or waste
paints, paint thinners, and other
materials
Explore on-site recycling (distillation,
filtration, or other means)
Minimize rate of solvent use
BRS and
PCS
Cyanide wastewater
containing cadmium and
chromium, as well as
chromium wastewater
2198 tons (1989)
Rinse water from electroplating
operations
Install countercurrent rinsing
BRS and
PCS
Acid mixtures
contaminated with metals
N
140 tons (1989)
Spent acids from cleaning
operations
Use spent acids to neutralize spent
caustics
Extend life of acid baths through
setting or filtration
Use mechanical cleansing or replace
acids with hot water or biodegradeable
detergents
BRS and
PCS
Mixtures of methylene
chloride, xylene, methyl
isobutyl ketone, and
metals (D005, F002,
F003, and F005)
28 tons (1989); one
waste stream
accounted for 17.8
tons in 1989
Paint stripping wastes
Eliminate all nonessential paint
stripping operations
Replace oil-based paints with water-
based paints
Adjust painting operations to minimize
waste of paint
Recycle organic paint strippers
Use mechanical paint strippers
BRS and
PCS
Liquid cleaners containing
metals (D006, D007,
D008,andD010
82 tons (1989)
from 4 major
sources (18-23
tons/year each)
Degreasing
Eliminate nonessential cleaning
operations
Replace halogenated degreasers with
nonhalogenated degreasers
Switch to less volatile degreasers and
cleaners
BRS and
PCS
Lead work debris (D006,
D007,D008, andDOlO)
25 tons
Scrap lead
Send to an off-site secondary smelter
BRS and
PCS
A-8
-------
Waste Description
Activated carbon
contaminated with metals
(D007andD011)
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from
surface coating operations
(acetone, methyl ethyl
ketone, naphtha, and
xylene)
EPA 33/50
Program
Target
(Y/N)
N
Y
Annual Waste
Quantity
0.5 tons
87. 23 tons (1991)
Assumptions on Waste
Origin and/or Composition
None
None
Potential Pollution Prevention
Opportunities
• Send to an off-site carbon recycler
• Eliminate all nonessential surface
coating operations
• Change to water-based paints whenever
possible
Data
Source
BRS and
PCS
AIRS
A-9
------- |