SEPA
ISSUE #6
Agency	(2261 A)
F e d F a c s
an environmental bulletin for federal facilities
EPA I ssues First Federal Facility Penalty Order for
Violation of TSCA Lead Disclosure Rule
EPA announced on July 29, 1998, that
it has cited the Kingsville Naval Air
Station (NAS) in Kingsville, Texas for vio-
lations of the Real Estate Notification and
Disclosure Rule under the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA). This is EPA's
first penalty order issued to a federal
facility for violating Section 1018 of the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act.
The administrative complaint issued
by EPA Region 6 on July 28, 1998, charges
that the Kingsville NAS violated regula-
tions requiring the disclosure of known
information regarding lead-based paint.
The complaint alleges that disclosure of
known lead-based paint should have been
made prior to finalizing lease agreements
for military housing constructed prior to
1978. A previous report prepared by the
Navy Air Station identified lead-based
paint in military housing but the informa-
tion was not disclosed to the residents
before they signed their leases. This situ-
ation is considered to be extremely serious
because EPA Region 6 provided compli-
ance assistance to the Kingsville NAS on
the lead disclosure requirements and yet
the Kingsville NAS failed to provide the
report and make the required disclosure.
EPA is seeking a penalty in excess of
$400,000 for these violations.
The lead disclosure regulations are
particularly aimed at preventing child-
hood lead poisoning. All 11 leases cited in
the complaint involved housing in which
children under the age of six resided on
the property. Over time, even low-level
exposure to lead from paint, dust, soil and
plumbing can cause a range of health
problems including permanent damage to
the brain, nervous system, and kidneys.
For more information, contact Anna
Treinies, Lead Enforcement Coordinator,
(214) 665-8348, or Rick Bartley, Attorney,
(214) 665-8046.
FedFacs Reduce TRI
Chemicals by 50%
1996 TRI data show a three-year
decrease of just over 50% in
releases of TRI chemicals from
federal facilities. Story on page 12.
n s i d e
D i recto r s Wo rd ! Craig Hooks
2	Guest Spot! John DeVillars
3	UST Deadline Coming Up in
December
4	Regional News and Notes
6 Federal Buildings
8	SEP, Fire Policies
9	The Hammer
11	Conference Update
12	TRI Data Released
13	CFAs
15	Resources
16	Interagency
19	Awards
20	Upcoming Events
Focus on! Department of the Interior
In this issue of FedFacs, I would like to
report on very encouraging develop-
ments in bringing the Department of the
Interior's facilities up to compliance with
environmental requirements. This effort
could also have useful ramifications for
other federal agencies.
During 1997, as part of EPA's focus on
regulatory compliance at civilian federal
agencies, EPA regions conducted inspec-
tions at a number of DOI facilities and
found that several were out of compli-
ance. In accordance with established
enforcement policies for federal facilities,
EPA assessed fines of over $1.7 million
against three DOI bureaus. Most of the
penalty was addressed through Supple-
mental Environmental Projects designed
to bring those facilities and bureaus into
compliance with environmental regula-
tions. However, the compliance posture of
Continued on page 18

-------
G uestS pot
A Regional Response to Global Climate Change
By John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator, EPA-New England
After years of
warnings from
prominent scien-
tists worldwide,
global	climate
change is finally
emerging in the
national conscious-
ness as a serious
environmental problem. Study after
study has been issued — from Nobel Prize
winners to NASA to the Department of
Energy — confirming the phenomenon. In
this year's State of the Union Address,
President Clinton called global warming
our overriding environmental challenge,
an issue we must act on now to avoid cat-
astrophe later.
In New England, many of the ways of
life that define this part of the country are
imperiled if we don t begin now to address
the causes of global warming. Autumn in
New England is unrivaled anywhere on
the planet. Tens of thousands of "leaf
peepers are drawn to the region every
September in search of the marvelous
golds, oranges, and reds of our forests.
Current models, however, predict that
Fed ~a c s
is published by EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office.
Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor
Gilah Langner,
St ret ton Associates, Inc., Writer
Robin Foster,
SciComm, Inc., Layout
To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U. S. EPA (2261), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460
or Fax ! 202-501-0069
Or Internet!
http Jtwww. epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/ann/index.htm 1
drier summers and damaged soils will
drive out the red maples and oaks and
ash, devastating the fall foliage displays
for all but the most northern parts of new
England. Cape Cod could suffer an annu-
al loss of somewhere between 130 to 200
acres of land a year due to the rising sea
levels associated with increased tempera-
tures. And while the maple syrup indus-
try is a unique part of New England's her-
itage and economy, warmer nights from
increased cloud cover could reduce the
number of days when sap flows from our
maples as much as 66 percent.
We know the source of this looming eco-
logical and economic crisis, and we know
what to do about it. Energy-related activi-
ties constitute the primary source of green-
house gas emissions, accounting for 86 per-
cent of total U.S. emissions annually. We
also know that 30 percent of our country s
greenhouse gas emissions come from cars,
trucks, and other vehicles. More energy
efficient technologies, cleaner power plants
and motor vehicles, and better land use
management all are real-world, cost-effec-
tive approaches that can lead to a safer,
healthier, more economically viable future.
A Federal Response!
Getting Our H ouse in Order
in New England
For EPA, leadership must begin by exam-
ple. Thus, we are looking in our own gov-
ernmental backyard to the 1,200 or so fed-
eral facilities that call New England
home. Only if the federal government can
show that energy use can be cut effective-
ly can we expect businesses and industry
to fully join the cause.
By December, EPA-New England, DoD,
DOE, and the General Services Adminis-
tration will finalize a Climate Change
Resource Mitigation Guide that provides
options for explaining how New England's
federal facilities can stabilize greenhouse
gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2005. The
information that will be used to shape this
plan will come from a greenhouse gas
questionnaire (which received crucial
funding from the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office at EPA Headquarters)
developed specifically for civilian federal
facilities. The questionnaire, which was
distributed this fall, solicits information
on energy use, transportation, waste dis-
posal, and forest management/land use in
an effort to better understand, analyze,
and improve on current practices. Similar
information will be obtained for DoD facil-
ities from their own greenhouse gas ques-
tionaires. The resource guide that will be
developed from this research may serve as
a model for federal facilities across the
country.
We know what some of the key steps
are toward slowing global climate change.
Last summer, GSA issued a bid to pur-
chase bulk power for New England's fed-
eral facilities. Under EPA's leadership,
the Request for Proposals includes a
clean power choice — at least 4 percent
of the power supplied to the federal gov-
ernment will be from renewable
resources, thereby creating significant
new demand for renewable energy in New
England. This RFP will leverage the gov-
ernment s buying power to bring state-of-
the-art energy conservation strategies
and renewable resources to our buildings.
Also, by 1999, at least 50 percent of new
fleet vehicles purchased will have the
capacity to run on alternative fuels. EPA
will assist and encourage all federal agen-
cies in the region to purchase and use
clean fuel vehicles.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions and control global climate change
involve all of us. We need the assistance and
participation of New England federal facili-
ties. For further information on how you can
help, contact Lucy Edmondson at (617) 565-
9095 or Anne Fenn at (617) 565-3927.
Jl

-------
n the News
Second "America Recycles
Day" — November 15, 1998
Th is years message is! "If you're
not buying recycled, you re not
really recycling!"
November 15 marks the second annu-
al "America Recycles Day" with a
national slate of educational events and
rallies urging people to recycle, reuse, and
buy products that contain recyclable
materials. Last year 41 states participat-
ed by organizing more than 3,000 events
for this national recycling awareness day
The event generated nearly 200 million
media impressions, including 1 million
hits to its Web site, and got measurable
results for recycling programs across the
United States.
This year's event focuses on the need
for buying recycled products. The Wash-
ington, DC federal community will spon-
sor a rally on Tuesday, November 10 on or
near the National Mall open to federal
employees as well as the general public.
Recycled products used by federal agen-
cies will be on display, and several agen-
cies will offer musical entertainment. This
year the Federal Steering Committee will
also sponsor a recycled materials procure-
ment training workshop for federal
employees on Nov. 12. Federal agencies
are encouraged to organize America Recy-
cles Day activities at their own facilities or
to participate in events happening in their
state or local community. For more infor-
mation, contact Kim O'Keefe at 564-0013 or
go to www.americarecyclesday.org.
UST Deadl ine Coming Up in
December 1998
EPA and States Plan Stringent
Enforcement After December
EPA's underground storage tank
(UST) regulations became effective on
December 22, 1988 and require owners
and operators of USTs operating before
that date to upgrade,
replace, or close their USTs
over the next ten years,
before December 22, 1998.
That is, owners and/or oper-
ators must either!
•	Upgrade "existing" USTs
(USTs installed on or
before 12/22/88) by
installing spill and over-
fill prevention and corro-
sion protection, or
•	Permanently close their USTs by
12/22/98.
"New" USTs (installed after 12/22/88)
must have the release detection, spill and
overfill prevention, and corrosion protec-
tion equipment operational at the time of
installation.
In the past two years, EPA, in con-
junction with state UST implementing
Federal agencies
should ensure that
their personnel are
thoroughly trained
to operate UST
release detection
equipment.
EPA Has Penalty Authority for
Federal Violations of UST
EPA's Office of General Counsel has determined that EPA has the authority under Sections 6001,
9001, 9006, and 9007 of RCRA to issue another federal agency an administrative order assess-
ing a civil penalty for violations of underground storage tank requirements. The determination
finds that the provisions of RCRA constitute a "clear statement" of EPA's authority, reinforced by
the plain language of the statute. For example, RCRA Section 9006(a) authorizes EPA to issue
orders to any person" violating the regulation, while Section 9001 (6) specifically states that the
term person" includes the United States Government.
agencies have inspected numerous feder-
al facilities in Region 6. Inspections and
audits of UST system operations found
violations at facilities operated by the
U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Army and Air
Force Exchange Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Veterans Administration
Medical Centers, U. S. Postal Service,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Army National
Guard, and Sandia National Laborato-
ries. Expedited enforcement compliance
orders were issued to these facilities with
minor penalties ranging from $50 to
$1000. Facilities owned by the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, the U.S. Naval
facility at Belle Chase, LA, and the VA
Medical Center in Little
Rock, AR were in compli-
ance and did not receive
compliance orders with
penalties. Two DoD facili-
ties did not settle the expe-
dited compliance orders
issued and have been
issued formal complaints
with penalties ranging
over $75,000.
EPA has found that
most federal facilities have proper UST
equipment for release detection, spill and
overfill prevention, and corrosion protec-
tion. The facilities in violation had defi-
ciencies in properly managing the equip-
ment for release detection requirements.
Federal agencies should ensure that their
personnel are familiar with proper UST
management methods and are thoroughly
trained to operate UST release detection
equipment to ensure pollution prevention.
The need to act now is made more
urgent because there is not much time
left to come into compliance, particularly
if construction preparations and the nec-
essary funding have not been initiated.
EPA and state UST implementing agen-
cies have resolved to conduct stringent
enforcement of UST regulations after
December 1998. For more information,
contact John Cernero at (214) 665-2233 or
Lynn Dail at (214) 665-2234.

-------
Regional News and Notes
Brookhaven Agrees to Process Evaluation
and Five-Year Audit
EMR Underway at
West Poi nt
EPA and the
West Point Mil-
itary Academy are
conducting a pilot
Environmental
M anagement
Review (EMR) to
evaluate how well the Academy manages
environmental planning and risk manage-
ment at the facility and to identify oppor-
tunities for improvement. The EMR is
designed to provide feedback on the effec-
tiveness of specific areas in environmental
management and to benchmark perfor-
mance.
"West Point has agreed to develop, car-
ry out and verify improvements to the
facility s environmental management sys-
tem, specifically environmental planning
and risk management, based on the rec-
ommendations EPA will provide in a final
report," EPA Regional Administrator
Jeanne M. Fox stated. The final report
will be completed by Spring 1999.
A team of experts from EPA's Region 2
office in New York City visited the site
during the summer to review documents
and interview facility personnel. Follow-
up reviews and interviews will continue
during the year.
The long term goals of the project are
for the pilot EMR to serve as a prototype
for other military facilities around the
country and for West Point to partner with
other federal agencies in developing more
EMRs. For more information, contact Rich
Cahill, (212) 637-3666.
Brookhaven's National Synchrotron
Light Source with High Flux Beam
Reactor in Background
In March 1998, EPA Region 2 and the
Department of Energy signed a Memo-
randum of Agreement to conduct two pro-
jects evaluating the operations of DOE's
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
in Upton, NY. The agreement was signed
by Jeanne Fox, Administrator of EPA
Region 2, and Martha Krebs, Director of
DOE's Office of Energy Research. The two
voluntary activities covered in the MO A
are a facility-wide process evaluation and
audits of BNL's Environmental Manage-
ment System.
For the process evaluation BNL will
assess all experimental and industrial-
type operations at the facility for the pur-
pose of identifying all waste streams gen-
erated at the facility. BNL will determine
the regulatory status of each waste
stream, ensure that all waste stream gen-
erators are knowledgeable in proper
waste management and handling, and
ensure that pollution prevention, waste
minimization and assessment opportuni-
ties are examined, implemented, and
tracked, as appropriate.
The Environmental Management Sys-
tem (EMS) audits require DOE and BNL
to develop a five-year audit program with
annual audits to evaluate the facility s
progress in implementing an effective
EMS. The EMS will be designed to assure
full compliance with regulatory require-
ments and provide for continuous
improvement in environmental steward-
ship.
The new projects arise out of a multi-
media inspection of BNL conducted by
EPA Region 2 with the assistance of EPA's
National Enforcement Investigation Cen-
ter in May 1997. Because of the enormous
size of the facility, the inspection took two
weeks and involved 25 inspectors from
eleven programs. EPA cited DOE and
BNL's contractor, Associated Universities
Inc., for violations discovered during the
Region 2 inspection. RCRA violations
were substantial enough to warrant the

-------
proposal of approximately $80,000 in
penalties for improper hazardous waste
handling and disposal. Violations of Clean
Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Tox-
ic Substances Control Act regulations for
the improper storage and handling of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
also found.
For more information, contact Jeanette
Dadusc, EPA Region 2 Assistant Federal
Facilities Coordinator, (212) 637-3492.
Update on Groundwater
Sampling Project in
Nebraska and Kansas
Sampling of groundwater near USD A
grain bin sites in Kansas and Nebras-
ka has found that over a quarter of sites
sampled had detectable levels of carbon
tetrachloride (CCk) in the water. Out of
the 118 locations with detectable CCl4, 56
showed levels above the maximum conta-
minant level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion
allowed for CCl4. Thir-
ty-two of these are
public water supply
systems; the other 24
are private wells
whose residents have
been given bottled
water and/or carbon
filters or connected to
nearby public water
systems by USD A.
The Commodity
Credit Corporation, an
agency of USDA, oper-
ated approximately
4,500 grain storage
sites nationally from
the 1940s until 1970.
Approximately 1,800 of the sites are locat-
ed in Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska). USDA fumigated grain stored
at these sites with CCl4, a probable
human carcinogen. Findings of CCl4 in
nearby groundwater led, in early 1997, to
a collaborative response from EPA Region
7, EPA Headquarters, Kansas, Nebraska,
and USDA. Over 500 sites in Kansas and
Nebraska were scheduled for sampling to
ensure that residents using private drink-
ing water wells are not consuming conta-
minated water.
EPA Reg ion 7 will begin a similar pro-
ject in Missouri this fall, to sample all 69
sites in the state. In addition, options are
being examined to address 1,100 untested
sites in Iowa. For additional information,
contact Jeff Field, EPA Region 7, (913) 551 -
7548, or Lance Elson, FFEO, (202) 564-
2577.
Th ree EPCRA I nspections
Conducted
The EPA Region 6 Preparedness Team
conducted three inspections at federal
facilities to determine compliance with
the provisions of the Emer-
gency Planning and Com-
munity Right-to-Know Act
(EP C RA), Sectio ns 312
and 313. The three facili-
ties inspected included!
Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine
Bluff, AR; NASA Johnson
Space Center in Las
Cruces, NM, and
McAlester Army Ammuni-
tion Plant in McAlester,
OK.
All three facilities coop-
erated with EPA's inspec-
tors and all three were in
substantial compliance
with the provisions of
EPCRA Section 312. At McAlester Army
Ammunition and Pine Bluff Arsenal,
inspectors also conducted a voluntary
audit of the water treatment facilities for
preparedness and response activities.
Both facilities were found to be working
well with their local communities. EPA
made additional recommendations in
these areas as well.
For Section 313, which covers the Tox-
ics Release Inventory, Johnson Space
Center was found to be in compliance.
However, McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant and Pine Bluff Arsenal had discrep-
ancies. On July 14, 1998, EPA issued a
letter of noncompliance to Pine Bluff
Arsenal. EPA is currently working with
McAlester on its requirements. For more
information, contact Morton Wakeland,
(214) 665-8116, or Steve Mason, (214) 665-
2292.
EPA Region 6 Seeks Com-
ments on Cumulative Risk
Index Analysis for Federal
Faci I ities
EPA Region 6 has developed a Geo-
graphical Information System (GIS)
screening tool for federal facilities, called
the Federal Facilities Risk Index Analysis
(FRIA). The tool uses sub-watershed lev-
el ecological vulnerability data coupled
with facility-specific impact data to pro-
vide a comparative view of a facility or
group of facilities. FRIA can be used for
permitting, compliance assistance,
National Environmental Policy Act, and
enforcement purposes. Region 6 is seek-
ing review and comment on the tool. It
can be downloaded from www.epa.
gov/earthl r6/6en/xp/e nxp4b.htm. EPA
hopes that this screening tool can be
developed for a variety of federal agen-
cies, along with opportunities to explore
federal facilities impacts on their water-
sheds. For more information, contact
Sharon Osowski at (214) 665-7506 or
osowski .sharon@epa.gov.
Over a quarter of
sites sampled had
detectable levels of
carbon tetrachloride
(CC14) in the water.

-------
Federal Buildings
Green' Federal Buildings
Symposium Hits Colorado
Springs
The numbers alone boggle the imagi-
nation! The U.S. government owns or
leases more than 500,000 buildings. This
represents 3.1 billion square feet of office
space, not to mention aircraft hangars,
military bases, hospitals, court houses,
prisons, and tourist destinations. The Gen-
eral Services Administration, one of three
agencies that build and renovate federal
buildings, has a building fund of $5.2 bil-
lion. A "green building" approach at the
federal level clearly can have massive pos-
itive impacts within the government as
well as modeling success stories for others.
The Resource Efficient Federal Build-
ings Symposium was held on April 28-29,
1998, at the U.S. Air Force Academy to
showcase green building success stories
in the federal, state, local and private sec-
tors. The goal was to encourage archi-
tects, civil engineers, building managers,
realty specialists, and tenants within the
federal sector to routinely apply green
building techniques to all future projects.
This symposium was sponsored by the
FFEO, EPA Region 8, DOE's Federal
Energy Management Program, the Air
Force Center for Environmental Excel-
lence, and the Air Force Academy Civil
Engineering Division and Faculty.
Thirty-seven speakers contributed to
the program. Successful case studies
included the new EPA Laboratory at
Research Triangle Park, the Utah Natur-
al Resources Department Headquarters,
a new NOAA Laboratory in Boulder, CO,
the Mather Point Transit Center at
Grand Canyon National Park, and a new
Squadron Operations Facility at Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base. The Utah case
study demonstrated that success in these
buildings can be measured by increased
worker productivity in addition to energy
and water savings, reduced maintenance
costs, and enhanced public image.
Two of the most visionary presentations
were those by Jeff Oldham of the Real
Goods Trading Company and Bill Brown-
Fran McPoland, Federal Environmental Executive, talks with Randy Jones of the
Federal Energy Management Program at the Federal Buildings Symposium.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
EMttrT ttA NAG* M F CT imOGUM
Prof vets Happen!
ing of the Rocky Mountain Institute. They
showed many innovative ways to connect
people to their natural environment
through buildings and landscaping. The
Solar Living Center is a testament to sus-
tainable design, land restoration and self-
sufficiency; there are no traditional
mechanical systems in the building. With
funding from DOE and EPA, the Rocky
Mountain Institute has developed a CD-
ROM called "Green Development" featur-
ing over 100 case studies of sustainable
design and construction.
Green renovation of historic office
buildings was explained by a team from
the new EPA Headquarters building in
Washington, D.C., and Bill Browning of
RMI. As they discovered, some federal
buildings were originally designed in the
1800s with energy efficient features that
have been disabled over time. One part of
the renovations has been an effort to get
the buildings to operate as they did when
they were first constructed.
Building materials came into the dis-
cussion in two ways — first, building with
resource efficient materials, and second,
de-construction, or disassembling build-
ings so that the materials can be used to
build other buildings. On the former top-
ic, each participant received a copy of the
Guide to Resource Efficient Building Ele-
ments, published by the Center for
Resourceful Building Technologies in
Missoula, Montana. Linda Brown of Sci-
entific Certification Systems reviewed life
cycle impact assessments of building
materials and energy systems, and how
such assessments can help steer a project
toward "green." Tom Napier of the Army
Corps of Engineers demonstrated a
knowledge database which helps archi-
tects incorporate sustainability into their
decision-making process.
On de-construction, four speakers —
from the National Park Service, Fort
McCoy, EPA Headquarters, and Boulder,
Colorado — demonstrated how buildings
slated for demolition can be partially de-
constructed by hand before the bulldozers

-------
are turned loose. De-construction can be
cost effective if properly planned, and can
preserve special building materials that
are no longer available. For example, at
the Presidio in San Francisco, Port Orford
cedar boards were found that had been
used to construct World War II barracks.
Fi nd i ng Effici enc ies
A number of speakers said that the costs
saved by green buildings for reduced
sick leave and improved productivity are
substantially greater than the dollars
saved by energy or water conservation.
Often this aspect of green buildings isn't
addressed. Another recurring theme was
that green buildings dont have to cost
more. Environmentally unfriendly build-
ings actually cost more over the opera-
tional life of the facility.
Tools for energy efficiency and alterna-
tive energy were a major focus of the
symposium. Hal Post of Sandia National
Labs showcased 150 solar energy projects
within the National Park Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, and DoD totaling 2 MW of solar
power. And Air Force cadets gave a pre-
sentation on the new Air Force Design
Guidelines for buildings, stressing that
conservation is certainly the most cost
effective approach for any existing build-
ing.
Tom Walker of the General Services
Administration noted that GSA will
spend $233 million on utilities in FY 99
and $80.5 million on energy and water
conservation projects. The new Energy
Center of Excellence in Kansas City will
provide assistance as GSA works towards
the required 30% reduction in energy
usage by 2005.
"Lessons learned" that were identified
at the symposium included the following!
• A "first cost bias" in federal decision-
making limits the use of life-cycle cost
savings to justify selection of an envi-
ronmentally preferable product, mate-
rial or approach.
•	Communication and cooperation
between the architecture/civil engineer-
ing community and the environmen-
tal community are inadequate. "Green"
matters are often viewed by architects
and civil engineers as the concern of the
environmental program. Design and
construction managers usually do not
take responsibility to incorporate envi-
ronmentally preferable features into
their buildings.
•	Daily oversight during the construc-
tion process is essential to ensure
that the green design is actually imple-
mented and not undercut by careless
work practices or last minute substitu-
tions.
•	To stay within budget, hard decisions
have to be made. EPA's lab at Research
Triangle Park built a multistory park-
ing deck rather than cut down 20 acres
of trees. Project managers found the
extra money for the deck by eliminat-
ing over 200 interior doors and down-
grading some finish materials to equal-
ly durable but less costly alternatives.
The symposium itself was planned as a
green event. Thanks to paperless adver-
tising through a Web site, attendees came
from as far away as Japan and Alaska.
Conference committee organizers selected
hotels that had implemented pollution
prevention practices. Coincident ally, they
found that those hotels also provided first
rate guest services. Hotels which were not
selected expressed an interest in learning
more about pollution prevention (and will
be contacted).
Correspondence on the conference was
conducted by e-mail to reduce the paper
and mailing costs. Bus transportation
was provided to and from hotels to reduce
the number of cars driven. Symposium
materials were printed back to back on
kenaf or 100% postconsumer content
paper. A sturdy, generic "REGISTRA-
TION" banner was created that can be
used by all three agencies for future
events. Refreshments were served on chi-
na plates and cups. Pop cans, plastic juice
glasses, newspaper, and cardboard from
the symposium were recycled. Speakers
were encouraged not to bring paper hand-
outs, but instead to e-mail one-page sum-
maries or electronic versions of their pre-
sentations for loading onto the Web site.
The symposium Web site (www.
eeba.org/refb) offers summaries of all pre-
sentations. For more information, contact
Dianne Thiel, EPA Region 8, (303) 312-
6389; Diana Dean, USAFA, (719) 333-
4483; or Jennifer Davis, DOE, (303) 275-
4836.
First-Ever Environmental
Post Office
A ground-breaking environmental design
concept for post offices literally broke
ground in February 1998 on the first-of-
its-kind "green" post office building in
Fort Worth, Texas. A showcase demon-
stration, the project will test and compare
green materials and systems to standard
construction materials and systems in
cost, availability, performance, mainte-
nance, and aesthetics. The project sup-
ports the leadership role that the U.S.
Postal Service has taken in environmen-
tal protection.
The new post office will display the full
roster of environmentally friendly compo-
nents! use of recycled materials, energy effi-
cient systems, natural vegetation, rainwa-
ter harvesting, natural gas fueling of USPS
vehicles, non-toxic products and products
low in volatile organic compounds. The U.S.
Postal Service is a major builder, adding
500-700 new buildings annually to its stock
of about 35,000 facilities.
The "Green Building" is located at
2700 8th Avenue in Fort Worth and will
replace the Berry Street Station. For
more information, contact Joyce Stubble-
field, (214) 665-6430.

-------
Pol i c i es
EPA Issues Final SEP Policy
EPA has issued a final Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy.
The final policy was effective May 1, 1998,
and supersedes the Interim SEP Policy
SEPs are environmentally beneficial pro-
jects that a defendant or respondent
agrees to undertake in the settlement of
an enforcement action, the performance
of which is not otherwise legally required
of the defendant or respondent. EPA
encourages the use of SEPs which are
consistent with the SEP Policy in settling
enforcement actions, including those at
federal facilities.
Most of the changes made to the Inter-
im SEP Policy are clarifications to the exist-
ing language. There are no radical changes
and the basic structure and operation of the
SEP Policy remain the same. The major
changes to the SEP Policy include!
•	Adding a new section on community
input.
•	Changing some of the categories of
acceptable projects, including a new
other category.
•	Adding a prohibition on the use of
SEPs to mitigate claims for stipulated
penalties except in certain defined,
extraordinary circumstances with the
approval of the Assistant Administra-
tor for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA).
•	Simplifying the penalty calculation by
providing better definitions and using
five steps rather than three. A calcula-
tion worksheet, keyed to the text of the
policy, has been added. The penalty
mitigation guidelines have been clari-
fied but not substantively changed.
•	Revising the legal guidelines to
improve clarity and provide better
guidance. The nexus legal guideline
has been revised to make it easier to
apply. The fifth legal guideline concern-
ing appropriations has been revised
and subdivided into four sections.
Questions regarding the final SEP
Policy should be directed to Ann Kline,
OECA, (202) 564-0119. For more infor-
mation about SEP issues as they affect
federal facilities, contact Melanie Barger
Garvey, FFEO, (202) 564-2579.
EPA I ssues Interim Air
Qua I ity Pol icy on Wi Idland
and Prescribed Fires
On May 15, 1998, EPA issued a nation-
al policy that addresses how fires can
be used and managed in order to achieve
national clean air goals (including EPA's
national air quality
standards for particu-
late matter), while
improving the quality
of wildland ecosys-
tems,	including
forests and grass-
lands. EPA worked
with the U.S. Departments of Agricul-
ture, Defense, and the Interior, as well as
state foresters, state and tribal air regu-
lators, and others to develop the policy.
The policy provides immediate guid-
ance to federal land managers, states,
and tribes on how to manage fires on
wildlands and still meet air quality goals.
EPA plans to revisit the policy after fur-
ther analysis of agricultural burning and
regional haze. EPA is working with a
USD A task force to determine how best
to treat air quality impacts from agricul-
tural burning, and how to distinguish
between wildland fires, which are cov-
ered by this policy, and agricultural burn-
ing, which is not.
Recognizing the critical role fire plays
in the maintenance of healthy wildland
ecosystems and the serious problems
caused by fire suppression, in 1995 the
Departments of Agriculture and Interior
jointly released the results of a Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy and
Program Review in 1995. The report for-
mally recognized endorsed a significant
increase in the use of planned or man-
aged fire, called "prescribed fire," as a
normal land and resource management
tool. Future plans to manage fire on wild-
lands must incorporate public health and
environmental considerations, including
air quality.
EPA's Interim Policy applies to both
wildland and prescribed fires that are
managed to benefit resources or the envi-
ronment. Wildland owners and managers
are encouraged to notify air quality man-
agers of plans to significantly increase
their use of fire on wildlands; consider the
air quality and visibility impacts from
smoke and take appropriate steps to min-
imize the impacts; consider
alternative treatments to fire,
including mechanical and
chemical treatments; and par-
ticipate in planning and imple-
menting state and tribal smoke
management programs.
Smoke management
programs provide a basic framework of
procedures and requirements for manag-
ing smoke from prescribed fires. Some
states already have smoke management
programs in place. The Interim Policy
outlines the components of a basic smoke
management program. Under the policy,
federally prescribed fire projects would
conform with state requirements (i.e.,
state implementation plans) if they are
managed under a certified basic smoke
management program. The program
must require regional coordination (coop-
eration of all jurisdictions in an airshed)
when authorizing fires and real-time air
quality monitoring at sensitive receptors,
when warranted, in addition to the basic
program components.
For more information, EPA's Interim
Policy, a fact sheet, and other materials are
available on EPA's Airlinks Web site at
httpl//www.epa.gov/ airlinks/ and may
be downloaded from httpl//www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg. For more information, contact
Jean Rice, 202-564-2589.
Fire plays a
critical role in the
maintenance of
heaIthy wildland
and ecosystems

-------
The
a m me r
REGION 1
Electric Boat Corporation and
KAPL, I nc! EPA Region 1 has brought
two companion enforcement cases under
TSCA against KAPL, Inc. and Electric
Boat Corporation (EB). KAPL, Inc. (owned
by Lockheed Martin) is an operations con-
tractor, and EB is a subcontractor, at a
DOE facility in Windsor, Connecticut. The
facility is part of the Naval Nuclear Propul-
sion Program, a program jointly adminis-
tered by DOE and the U.S. Navy.
KAPL and DOE were co-permittees on
an "Approval for Disposal of PCB-Contam-
inated Materials' issued by Region 1,
which governed the disposal of PCB paint
being removed from storage tanks. The
Approval allowed a variance from the
TSCA disposal regulations and set general
operational and notification requirements
for the work at the Windsor facility. Under
an EPA-approved work plan setting forth
specific requirements for the handling and
disposal of the PCBs, KAPL and DOE were
required to use disposable personal protec-
tive equipment (PPE) to the maximum
extent practicable and to dispose of such
PPE with the PCB waste. The work plan
required that any non-disposable equip-
ment be cleaned and tested for PCBs.
On December 27, 1996, DOE inspected
the PCB paint removal work being per-
formed by KAPL and EB and discovered
that EB personnel were using launder-
able coveralls and hoods instead of dispos-
able PPE. In addition to this violation,
DOE also learned that, on two prior occa-
sions, launder able coveralls and hoods
had been shipped to a commercial laundry
in New Bedford, MA without having been
tested for the presence of PCBs. A load of
launder able coveralls awaiting shipment
to the laundry was tested for PCBs; the
test results showed that concentrations of
PCBs on the coveralls were high enough
to require compliance with TSCA.
Although DOE knew, on December 27,
1996, of actual and potential violations,
instead of reporting them to EPA Region 1
within 24 hours as required under the
terms of the Approval permit, DOE
reported the matter to EPA one week lat-
er, on January 3, 1997.
Region 1 filed administrative civil
penalty actions against KAPL and EB for
violations of the Approval and TSCA reg-
ulations. DOE was not named as a
respondent. EB paid $13,600 and KAPL
paid $12,750 in penalties..
REGION 3
U.S. Mint, Philadelphia, PA: On Jan-
uary 23, 1998, EPA Region 3 filed a
Clean Air Act administrative complaint
against the Department of Treasury,
United States Mint for its Philadelphia
facility. The complaint alleges violations
of the chrome plating National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)
regulations. Some of the allegations
relate to potentially serious environmen-
tal impacts resulting from the failure to
recover or recycle CFCs when servicing
appliances such as air conditioners and
water coolers. The proposed penalty is
$119,000. The complaint included a notice
of opportunity for a hearing and an invi-
tation to request an informal settlement
conference. EPA understands that the
U.S. Mint is interested in a SEP as part of
the settlement.
Naval S urface Warfare Center
(White Oak Facility) Sil ver Spr ing,
MD: EPA Reg ion 3 issued a unilateral
administrative order to the Navy in March
1998 requiring cleanup at the Navy's
White Oak facility. Although EPA and the
Navy had been negotiating a RCRA Sec-
tion 7003 order on consent for over a year,
no settlement could be reached. Contami-
nation has gone off-site at the White Oak
facility and there is substantial local con-
cern about the delay in cleaning up conta-
minated groundwater. Contaminants of
greatest concern in the groundwater are
heavy metals, nitroaromatic compounds,
and TCE.
Washington Navy Yard/Anacostia
Naval Station! On May 20, 1998, the
Navy and EPA settled two administrative
complaints which alleged that the Navy
violated hazardous waste management
regulations at the Washington Navy Yard
and the Anacostia Naval Station in Wash-
ington, D.C. The Navy agreed to pay a
total of $69,000 in penalties for failing to
properly train personnel who handle haz-
ardous waste, failing to keep proper
records of the training, accumulating haz-
ardous waste for more than 90 days with-
out a permit, and failing to keep certain
records of hazardous waste that cannot be
disposed of on land unless it is properly
treated. The Navy also agreed to comply
with regulatory requirements for training,
record-keeping and accumulating haz-
ardous waste for less than 90 days.
REGION 4
Navy and DRMS, USS Robison,
Charleston, SC: EPA Region 4
issued an order against the Department
of Navy and the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Service (DRMS) for
asbestos violations associated with the
demolition of the USS Robison at the
Naval Shipyard in Charleston, South
Carolina. The order was issued pursuant
to Section 113(a) (3) (B) of the Clean Air
Act for violations of the NESHAP for
asbestos. The Navy and DRMS failed to
thoroughly inspect the facility where ren-
ovation occurred for the presence of
asbestos, and removal of asbestos was
done without proper wetting or contain-
ment of asbestos-containing waste mate-
rials. Although EPA has the authority to
issue an administrative penalty order,
EPA issued the order without penalties in
recognition of the cooperation Region 4
has received from the Ship Sales Pro-
gram of the DRMS of the Defense Logis-
tics Agency and from the Naval Sea Sys-
tems Command (NAVSEA) in this
matter.
Continued on page 10

-------
THE HAMMER
Continued from page 9
Redstone Ars enal, Huntsville,
Alabama! On April 7, 1998, Region 4
filed an administrative complaint against
the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Com-
mand, Redstone Arsenal, for violations of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
This is the first penalty action taken
against a federal facility under Section
1447 of SDWA. The complaint, pursuant
to the SDWA and the newly revised Part
22, seeks penalties of up to $25,000 per
day per violation.
The action addresses violations uncov-
ered during a March 18-19, 1997, multi-
media inspection at Redstone. The
inspection and subsequent investigation
revealed that Redstone violated the Sur-
face Water Treatment Rule, Total Col-
iform Rule, and Public Notification Rule,
including a maximum contaminant level
(MCL) violation of total coliform. Red-
stone also failed to properly operate and
maintain its storage tanks and reser-
voirs, a water main flushing program,
and a disinfectant residual in the distrib-
ution system, to meet the MCL for total
coliform. The Region had issued an
administrative order on June 30. 1997, to
address the injunctive relief required to
bring Redstone's system back into com-
pliance.
REGION 6
Corpus Christi Naval Station, TX:
EPA Region 6 issued an Notice of Vio-
lation to the Corpus Christi Naval Air
Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, on May
29, 1998, pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act. During the air portion
of the multimedia inspection conducted
on July 16 and 17, 1997, at the Corpus
Christi Naval Air Station, the EPA
inspector noted several violations, includ-
ing! (1) failure to keep doors closed and to
properly operate a dry filter system for a
spray paint booth, and (2) failure to
maintain the minimum face velocity of
100 feet per minute (fpm) at the intake
opening of each booth or work area. As a
result, the Corpus Christi Naval Air Sta-
tion as owner and Raytheon as operator
of this paint booth were found not to be
operating the spray booth in Hangar 55
in accordance with 30 TAC §106.433 and
thus in violation of 30 TAC §106.04. This
rule is part of the federally-enforceable
State Implementation Plan (SIP).
EPA also cited the facility for con-
struction and operation of several spray
booths without the required permits and
standard exemptions, and the failure to
notify the state within 30 days on the con-
struction of two boilers, required by 40
CFR §60.48c(a). The facility responded in
writing to EPA on June 7, 1998, and met
with EPA enforcement and legal staff on
June 23, 1998, to discuss the notice and
to present its plans for achieving compli-
ance.
US Forest Service, Penasco, NM:
The U.S. Forest Service was issued an
administrative order on April 30. 1998 for
failing to collect the required number of
water samples from the Duran Camp-
ground water distribution system located
in Taos County, New Mexico, and submit-
ting them to a state-certified laboratory.
The order requires the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice to comply with the requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
§§300f to 330j-26, as amended) regarding
monitoring for total coliform bacteria and
the presence of total coliform bacteria in
the water system. A violator of an admin-
istrative order is subject to an adminis-
trative penalty or a court-imposed penal-
ty of up to $25,000 per day for the
violation.
Barksdale Air Force Base, LA; An
administrative complaint, compliance
order, and notice of opportunity for hear-
ing" were filed against Barksdale AFB
under RCRA Section 9006 after an EPA
inspector found violations of under-
ground storage tank regulations in a May
1997 inspection. EPA is requiring Barks-
dale AFB to conduct a system's test of all
UST systems in violation (tank and lines)
and submit the results to the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
and EPA, Region 6.
US Postal Service, Shreveport, LA;
On January 13, 1998, the U.S. Postal
Service facility at 2400 Texas Avenue,
Shreveport, LA was issued a compliance
order and settlement agreement for fail-
ing to provide adequate release detection
methods on an underground storage
tank, as required by state regulations.
The operator of the facility has corrected
the violation and paid a penalty of $300.
US Army, Fort Polk, LA; On
January 13, 1998, Shopette #3 at Fort
Polk was issued a compliance order and
settlement agreement for failing to pro-
vide adequate release detection methods
on three underground storage tanks as
required by state regulations. The opera-
tor of the facility has corrected the viola-
tion and paid the $750 penalty.
Another building at Fort Polk (Build-
ing 1725) was the cause of a second com-
pliance order and settlement agreement
issued on January 13, 1998 for failure to
provide proper testing and maintenance
on four underground storage tanks. The
operator of the facility has corrected the
violation and paid the $800 penalty.
Tinker Air Force Base, OK; A com-
plaint and notice of opportunity for hear-
ing" were issued to Tinker AFB in Okla-
homa City on January 13, 1998, for
violations of RCRA underground storage
tank (UST) regulations uncovered in a
May 1997 inspection. The facility had
failed to provide methods of release
detection for tanks and attached piping,
failed to maintain detection records, and
failed to notify the state within 30 days of
placing an UST into operation.
U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR;
The U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas, has been issued a "show
cause letter" under Executive Order
12856, "Federal Compliance with Right -
to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention
Requirements." On January 12, 1998, an
EPCRA compliance inspection was con-
ducted at the Pine Bluff facility. Prior
notification had been given in order for
facility personnel to ensure that appro-
priate documents were available for
review. From the information made avail-
able by Pine Bluff Arsenal, the facility
had failed to report toxic chemicals to
EPA and the State of Arkansas as
required and failed to maintain the nec-
essary records. On September 8. 1998,
EPA determined Pine Bluff to be compli-
ant with EPCRA §313.

-------
ConferenceUpdate
Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing Training
In April, over 70 federal agency person-
nel and others attended a training ses-
sion on environmentally preferred pur-
chasing held at the Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology Laboratories in
Boulder, Colorado. Hosted by EPA, the
Region 8 Pollution Prevention Program,
and the Denver Federal Acquisition Coun-
cil, the program was targeted toward affir-
mative procurement specialists, supply
specialists, purchasing agents, contracting
officers and environmental managers and
staff responsible for implementing an affir-
mative procurement program. Environ-
mentally preferred purchasing addresses
multiple environmental attributes, such as
recycled content, toxicity, air pollution
potential, etc.
The featured speaker at the April
training session was Fran McPoland, the
Federal Environmental Executive, who
discussed accomplishments to date and
what remains to be done to fulfill the
requirements of E.0.12873. Other speak-
ers included Kim Holland, Defense Sup-
ply Center, Richmond, who discussed re-
refined motor oil and closed loop oil
recycling within the federal government
and the new government-wide contract
awarded to Safety Kleen for sale of re-
refined motor oil and recycling of used oil.
Doenee Moscato from the Army Environ-
mental Center, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, presented an overview of the
Army's Affirmative Procurement (AP)
Program, and a briefing on its Web site.
Cheryl Galida, USDA Forest Service in
Fort Collins, presented new and practical
innovations for including pollution pre-
vention in procurement practices. Gilbert
Bailey, EPA Region 8, reviewed the pur-
chasing practices used by DoD in its case
study, Paving the Road to Success. Patri-
cia Kain, US Postal Service, Denver, dis-
cussed her efforts in affirmative purchas-
ing and pollution prevention through
purchasing practices. For more informa-
tion, contact Ernie Lombardi at (303) 312-
6388.
THE HAMMER
Continued from page 10
REGION 9
Fresno Drum Removal Site! On May
28, 1998, EPA finalized an administra-
tive order on consent with the U.S.
Department of Defense (including the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense
Logistics Agency) under Section 122(h)(1)
of CERCLA. Under the order, DoD will
pay $387,000 into a special account for
future response actions at the site and
will seek Congressional appropriations of
$778,425 as reimbursement for past
response costs, together with amounts
necessary to reimburse EPA for any
future costs in excess of $387,000. The
settlement amount represents 90% of
total past costs and estimated future
costs. DoD will pay 100% of any future
costs which exceed EPA's future cost esti-
mate. If DoD's Congressional request is
unsuccessful, it is obliged to continue
seeking reimbursements until FY 2005.
The Fresno site is an abandoned mili-
tary surplus resale facility. From approxi-
mately 1961 until 1986, the owner/opera-
tor of the site purchased out-of-date or off-
specification hazardous substances from
DoD agencies. The hazardous substances
included thickened red lead paint that
accumulated at the site and was released
into the environment as the result of dete-
riorating containers and fire. EPA's inven-
tory indicated that all of the drums and
containers which still had evidence of
hazardous substances bore military
markings. Past response actions at the
site include EPA's removal of over 4000
drums and containers.
McClellan Air Force Base, CA: The
1999 National Defense Authorization Act,
as passed by the House of Representa-
tives and presented to the Senate on May
22, 1998, would authorize the payment of
penalties assessed under CERCLA for
McClellan Air Force Base. Section 2821 of
H.R. 3616 authorizes up to $15,000. The
full text and related legislative docu-
ments are available from the Library of
Congress' Web site, at http;//thomas.
loc.gov.
Environmental Justice
Workshop for Federal
Faci lities
FFEO and Region 6 held an Environ-
mental Justice Workshop in Dallas,
Texas in January 1998 for federal agency
environmental managers and other
stakeholders. Participants discussed the
June 1997 report, "Federal Facilities
Environmental Justice Enforcement Ini-
tiative" which analyzed TRI reports from
federal facilities for 1994. Workshop
members discussed the risk and health
effects posed by the facilities and pollu-
tion prevention factors which have led to
a decrease in reported toxic emissions in
the past several years.
As a follow-up to the meeting, Region
6 provided federal agencies with environ-
mental justice GIS maps for individual
facilities. Also provided was a health indi-
cator model developed by EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, known
as the TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic
Human Health Indicator. This model pro-
vides a relative risk ranking for each
Continued on page 12

-------
Federal Facilities Reach E.O. Goal!
1996 TRI Releases from Federal Facilities Drop 25% Over 1995 and 50% Over 1994
EPA's latest TRI data show a decrease
of 24.9% in environmental releases
from federal facilities between 1995 and
1996. Federal facilities reported releasing
6.5 million pounds of TRI chemicals into
the environment, down from 8.7 million
pounds in 1995. Since federal facilities
began reporting to TRI in 1994, total
reported on-site and off-site releases have
dropped by 50.4 percent (from 11 million
pounds to 5.4 million pounds of core TRI
chemicals that were reportable in each
year). Executive Order 12856, which
required federal facilities to report toxic
releases, also required federal agencies to
develp goals to reduce their total releases
by 50 percent by December 31. 1999.
For the second year in a row, the num-
ber of federal facilities reporting to TRI
has dropped. A total of 133 federal facili-
ties from 13 federal agencies submitted
378 reports to TRI for 1996 (down from
144 facilities in 1995 and 193 facilities in
1994). The largest number of facilities
reporting were from DoD (56%), followed
by the Department of Energy (14%).
Two thirds of all on-site and off-site
releases in 1996 were air emissions; air
emissions also showed the largest
decrease over the previous year (28.7%).
The top three chemicals released into the
environment were dichloromethane (a
designated OSHA carcinogen), methyl
ethyl ketone, and CFC-114, almost all of
which represented air emissions.
Of the 378 TRI forms submitted, only
41% indicated at least one source reduc-
tion activity underway in 1996. The most
prevalent type of source reduction activi-
ty undertaken was good operating prac-
tices, mentioned on 46% of forms report-
ing source reduction activity. Two of the
facilities with the largest decreases in
releases were Tinker AFB in Oklahoma
and Robins AFB in Georgia, which
reduced air emissions of dichloromethane
by a combined total of 293,000 pounds
through source reduction programs.
Information on obtaining TRI data is
available from EPA's EPCRA hotline at 1-
800-535-0202 or online from the TRI
home page at http;//www. epa.gov/oppt-
intr/tri. TRI data can also be accessed
through the Right-to-Know Computer
Network at httpl//www.rtk.net.
CONFERENCE UPDATE
Continued from page 11
facility based on its toxic emissions.
Region 6 also introduced the Federal
Facilities Risk Index Analysis (FRIA), a
computer-based risk assessment model
for federal facilities related to environ-
mental justice concerns. (See story on
page 5.) For more information, contact
Darlene Boerlage at (202) 564-2593.
NEJAC Meeting Held in
Oakland, California
The 12th meeting of the National Envi-
ronmental Justice Advisory Council
was held in Oakland, CA on May 31-June
3, 1998. The EPA Office of Environmental
Justice (OEJ) and Region 9, led by Region
9 Administrator Felicia Marcus and her
team of environmental justice coordina-
tors, hosted the meeting. The meeting
began with a tour of industrial and chem-
ical plants, an incinerator and a Super-
fund site. Sylvia Lowrance [Deputy Assis-
tant Administrator for OECA] opened the
general session by welcoming the partici-
pants and announcing that NEJAC will
be forming two new subcommittees to
address water and air issues.
Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral for the Environment and Natural
Resources Division of the Department of
Justice, discussed numerous EJ cases,
including several criminal violations,
which DO J has pursued this year. These
cases included asbestos violations and the
misuse of the pesticide methyl parathion.
Ms. Schiffer also described an EJ case
analysis training course developed by
DO J attorneys for District of Columbia
high school students. Brad Campbell of
the Council on Environmental Quality
presented CEQ's long-awaited final guid-
ance document, "Environmental Justice
Guidance Under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act."
The six NEJAC subcommittees
(enforcement, health and research, haz-
ardous waste and facility siting, indige-
nous peoples, international, and public
participation) met simultaneously. EPA
Assistant Administrator Steve Herman,
co-leading the Enforcement Subcommit-
tee, emphasized the continuing need for a
strong enforcement foundation within
EPA and stated that the past year has
shown the strongest enforcement num-
bers ever. The Health and Research Sub-
committee viewed a presentation on the
Lead-Based Paint program and its effect
on children in Maryland. The Hazardous
Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee
addressed the draft Relocation Policy for
Superfund Sites. NEJAC and other
stakeholders have provided comments on
this draft policy which describes when a
community should be relocated from a
hazardous waste location for their health
protection.
During several sessions of public com-
ment, communities around military
installations expressed the need for more
open communication between the facility
environmental program personnel, advi-
sory board, and local reuse board on the
cleanup at the facility. Communities want
to be involved early on in the decision
process and they want their input to be
incorporated into the cleanup which is
selected and implemented at the site. For
more information on NEJAC or environ-
mental justice at EPA, go to
httpl/ / es.epa.gov/oeca/ oejbut.html or
contact Darlene Boerlage, FFEO, at (202)
564-2593.

-------
CFAs
First Annual CFA Symposium Held in Denver
On March 10-12, 1998, the First Annu-
al Civilian Federal Agency Environ-
mental Symposium was held in Denver,
Colorado. Sponsored by the CFA Environ-
mental Task Force, the focus of the sym-
posium was on partnerships to achieve
facility-level compliance with environ-
mental regulations. Presentations
emphasized solutions to environmental
compliance issues and shared real-world
examples of efforts that have gone beyond
regulatory compliance requirements.
More than 425 field-level personnel and
environmental managers attended from
over 20 civilian agencies. During the
three days of the symposium, approxi-
mately 80 speakers from a dozen agencies
covered 50 topics in both panel and break-
out session formats.
The symposium follows a successful
workshop in 1997 for CFA field personnel
(civilian federal agencies are defined as
agencies other than DoD and DOE). Pan-
el discussions addressed such topics as
the Administration's Clean Water Action
Plan; criminal liabilities at federal agen-
cies; and environmental responsibilities
of the federal community on tribal/envi-
ronmental justice issues. Senior man-
agers from EPA and the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and Justice dis-
cussed environmental compliance at
CFAs, followed by a session of state per-
spectives on CFA compliance. Three
break-out sessions were held concurrent-
ly each day on the themes of facility envi-
ronmental management, tools for regula-
tory compliance, and environmental
management systems.
To limit the amount of "leftover" hand-
outs from the presentations, on the back
of each attendees name badge was listed
a set of numbers correlated to each pre-
sentation. Attendees circled the presenta-
tion number and when the name badges
were collected, requestor lists and mail-
ing labels were generated and forwarded
to each of the presenters. In addition to
cutting down on excess presentation
materials, this method gives presenters a
list of people with similar interests for
future interaction.
Comments on the Symposium indicat-
ed that the event was well received, even,
as several people noted, way overdue
and a great start at getting us all togeth-
er." Suggestions received will be incorpo-
rated into next year s symposium — stay
tuned for the date and location!
CFA Compliance Assistance
Center! We'd Like Your
Feedback!
FFEO is considering establishing a Com-
pliance Assistance Center to serve CFAs.
This would be a centralized source offer-
ing CFA facility and environmental man-
agers quick responses to compliance
inquiries. Delivery mechanisms could
include a dedicated telephone assistance
line and an Internet Web site. We'd like
your feedback! Please take a few minutes
to complete the survey on the back of this
page, then either fax it to (202) 501-0069
or mail it to the address below.
TURN OVER FOR
SURVEY FORM
PLEASE
AFFIX
POSTAGE
F e d F a c s
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed	SuSelfl \^6ifl©r
Address Correction Requested
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

-------
CFA COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE CENTER SURVEY
Where applicable, check all that apply.
1.	What organizations within your agency/bureau need compliance assistance?
L_l	Headquarters	Q Field Offices and Facilities
L_l	Headquarters and Field Offices
2.	How many facilities do you have environmental management responsibilities for?
~	1-10	~ 10-20
Q	20-50	Q More than 50
3.	What kinds of compliance assistance does your agency/bureau need?
Q	Regulatory compliance policy and guidance manuals	Q
	I	Research and development	Q
	I	Other (specify)	
Technical/technology
On-site assistance
4. What kinds of compliance information would be helpful to your organization?
Q	Waste management
~	Muiti -media
Q	Environmental Management Syste
	I	Environmental technologies
Q	Environmental justice
Q	Other (specify)	
; (EMS)
Q Environmental restoration and remediation
Q Media- or statute-specific assistance
Q	Permits
Q Pollution prevention (P2)
	I	Project tracking
5.	Where does your agency currently seek compliance assistance?
Q EPA Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Q	EPA hotlines or clearinghouses
Q	Enviro$en$e home page
Q Other (specify)	
	I EPA Regional Offices
~ EPA I nternet home page
6. How often does your organization seek compliance assistance from any source?
~ N ever	Q 5-10 times per month
Q 1-5 times per month	Q More than 10 times per month
7.	What kinds of difficulties have you encountered in seeking compliance assistance?
Q	Lack of timely response to assistance inquiries	Q Assistance not relevant
Q	Assistance not specific enough	Q Unsure where to go for assistance
Q	Directed to other assistance sources (i.e., the run-around")
Q	Other (specify)	
8.	Of the following types of compliance assistance services dedicated to CFAs, which would your organization use most often?
Q	Field center	Q Web site
U Hoti ine		I Listserv mailing list
Q	Training
9.	Would your agency be interested in contributing funding to maintain a CFA compliance assistance center?
Q	Yes	Q No	Q Don't know
10. Where are you located?
Q Headquarters
Q Field (facility/installation)	Q Regional Office
Please fold, affix postage,
and ma i I.

-------
Resources
OECA Docket and
Information Center Opens
OECA has announced the opening of
the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center (ECDIC),
located in Room 4033 of the Ariel Rios
Building in Washington, DC. ECDIC pro-
vides the public and EPA staff with a cen-
tral location for retrieving rulemaking
docket materials, OECA policy and guid-
ance documents, and other public infor-
mation that supports the Agency's
enforcement and compliance activities.
ECDIC opened in early January 1998
and now houses over 600 policy and guid-
ance dockets, 100 publications, and several
regulatory dockets. Holdings include the
Audit Policy Docket, Supplemental Envi-
ronmental Projects Policy, and the annual
Enforcement Accomplishments Report.
ECDIC reflects EPA's recent efforts to
provide better public access to Agency
records and information. Reading, photo-
copying, fax, and mail distribution facilities
are available. The center is open for busi-
ness from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. For more
information, contact Lee Carothers, (202)
564-2614 or Donna Williams, (202) 564-
2119 (docket .oeca@epamail.epa.gov), or check
out the ECDIC Web site at
http:/ / es.epa.gov/oeca/ polguid/ enfdock.
html.
EPA I ssues Risk-Based
Policy for Federal Facilities
On August 21, 1998, EPA issued the long-
awaited "Interim Final Policy on the Use
of Risk-Based Methodologies in Setting
Priorities for Cleanup Actions at Federal
Facilities." This policy implements one of
the Administrator's Superfund reforms,
specifically addressing "the use of risk-
based priority setting for determining
federal facility clean-up milestones." It
also implements Chapter 5 of the Final
Report of the Federal Facilities Envion-
mental Restoration Dialogue Committee
(FFERDC), also known as the "Keystone"
report, issued in April 1996. The policy
establishes a process for EPA, federal
agencies, states, tribal governments, and
stakeholders to use risk and other factors
to establish the respective priority of a
site for cleanup.
The policy helps regulated agencies
integrate risk-based planning with their
budget processes and ensures that
enforceable milestones can still be includ-
ed in federal facility agreements. For a
copy of the policy, contact: Darlene Boer-
lage, OECA, at (202) 564-2593, or Joyce
Olin, OECA, at (202) 564-2582, or Remi
Langum, OSWER, at (202) 260-2457.
Facts About "The Federal Fifteen"
EPA has analyzed federal facility TRI data for 1994 and 1995 to: 1) determine the most
commonly used and released chemicals; 2) identify current pollution prevention
approaches and ongoing P2 research and development to lower or substitute the use of
toxic chemicals; and 3) identify potential R&D/transition needs.
The results of this analysis are presented in a series of 15 chemical fact sheets. Each
fact sheet contains: a chemical profile, statistics on the generation, release, and reduction
of the chemical, and the federal facilities reporting that chemical under TRI. Fact sheets
also include descriptions of currently available P2 approaches and technologies and iden-
tify ongoing P2 R&D projects. Fact sheets are available for the following chemicals:
Q 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane EPA-300-F-98-002A	Q Methanol	EPA-300-F-98-002I
Q Ammonia	EPA-300-F-98-002B	Q Methyl Ethyl Ketone EPA-300-F-98-002J
Q Chromium Compounds EPA-300-F-98-002C	Q Nitrate Compounds EPA-300-F-98-002K
Q Dichloromethane	EPA-300-F-98-002D	Q Tetrachloroethylene EPA-300-F-98-002L
Q Dichlorotetrafluoroethane EPA-300-F-98-002E	Q Toluene	EPA-300-F-98-002M
Q Ethylene Glycol	EPA-300-F-98-002F	Q Trichloroethylene	EPA-300-F-98-002N
~ Freon 113	EPA-300-F-98-002G	~ Xylene (Mixed Isomers) EPA-300-F-98-0020
Q Hydrochloric Acid	EPA-300-F-98-002H
To order copies of these documents, place a check beside the document you want and
mail or fax this page to FFEO.
Name:	
Organization:	
Add ress:	
Telephone Number:.
Mail to: Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Fax to: 202-501-0069

-------
I ntera gency
Ship Scrapping Panel Issues Report
In April, the Department of Defense
released a report of the Interagency
Panel on Ship Scrapping. The panel was
convened in response to issues raised in a
Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the Balti-
more Sun about the poor environmental,
health, and safety conditions in both
domestic and overseas scrapping facili-
ties. The panel was asked to review the
Navy and US Maritime Administration
programs to scrap vessels and to identify
ways to ensure that vessels are scrapped
in an environmentally sound and econom-
ically feasible manner. Agencies repre-
sented on the panel included the Depart-
ments of Defense, Justice, Labor, and
State, as well as the Coast Guard,
Defense Logistics Agency, EPA, Maritime
Administration, and the Navy.
The panel's deliberations resulted in a
number of recommendations for improv-
ing domestic and international ship
scrapping and strengthening oversight of
this complex industrial endeavor.
PCB Gu idance
The panel recommended that EPA and
OSHA, along with DLA, the Navy, and
MARAD, develop guidance for the test-
ing, removal, and disposal of non-liquid
PCBs in accordance with applicable rules
and regulations. EPA is evaluating the
usefulness of recent sampling data from
the Navy and MARAD and in developing
the guidance. The sampling data will also
be used to estimate the volume of waste
in order to establish financial assurance
for required closure plans.
Improved Regulatory Oversight
of Ship s crapping Operations
In order to improve oversight of scrapping
operations, the panel recommended that
EPA, Navy, MARAD, and OSHA agree to
notify EPA and OSHA when a ship scrap-
ping contract is let and the location of the
proposed scrapping operation; invite EPA
and OSHA participation in post-
award/pre-performance conferences at
which environmental plans are reviewed;
and share compliance histories of
prospective bidders at the request of DLA
or MARAD. EPA has developed a draft
memorandum of understanding that will
be shared with the other agencies for
review and considera-
tion. EPA has also
written to both Navy
and MARAD seeking
information on num-
bers and locations of
surplus vessels in
their fleets and infor-
mation regarding
facilities that are or
have been engaged in
scrapping Navy or
MARAD vessels.
The panel further
encouraged EPA and
OSHA to conduct joint compliance inspec-
tions of ship scrapping operations. Sever-
al weeks ago, OSHA, EPA Region 6, and
EPA's National Enforcement Investiga-
tions Center informally visited ship
scrapping facilities in Brownsville, Texas.
The results of the EPA visits are current-
ly under review and will be used to help
develop a protocol for comprehensive,
multimedia environmental inspections of
ship scrapping operations.
The panel also urged EPA — and EPA
has agreed — to develop a compliance
manual that outlines relevant environ-
mental requirements for ship scrappers.
The manual will be a longer term project
involving EPA's Office of Compliance,
DLA, DRMS, and the expertise of indus-
try groups, such as the Institute of Scrap
Recyclers.
Export Agreements
Under current TSCA regulations, export
of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or
greater for purposes of disposal is prohib-
ited. EPA has entered into agreements
with the Navy and MARAD which would
allow export of vessels for scrapping, pro-
vided that liquid PCBs are removed from
the vessels along with all non-liquid
PCBs that are readily removable without
impairing the seaworthiness of the ves-
sels.
Because of concerns about environ-
mental and worker safety conditions in
foreign scrapping
yards, both Navy and
MARAD agreed to
suspend exports pend-
ing the results of the
Ship Scrapping Panel.
As a result of panel
discussions, EPA, the
Navy, and MARAD
have agreed that, pri-
or to any export of
vessels, the export
agreements will be
revised to require pro-
viding receiving coun-
tries with more
detailed information about the materials
commonly found on the ships and to pro-
vide for tacit agreement if a country does
not object to the export within 30 days of
notification that a ship might be exported.
EPA agreed to review the export agree-
ments annually to evaluate their use and
determine whether they should remain in
force.
Since the report was issued, neither
the Navy nor MARAD has formally
approached EPA to reinstate the export
agreements. The emphasis has been on
encouraging the domestic market and to
evaluate the effectiveness and capacity of
that market. EPA is currently working
with MARAD to address issues related to
The panel recommended
that EPA and OSHA,
along with DLA,
the Navy, and MARAD,
develop guidance for
the testing, removal,
and disposal of
non-liquid PCBs

-------
permitting, financial assurance, sam-
pling of potential PCB- containing mate-
rials on vessels, and other issues to
ensure that, to the extent possible, U.S.
military vessels can be safely scrapped in
the domestic market. For more informa-
tion, contact Joyce Olin, FFEO, (202) 564-
2582.
Workgroup on Solid Waste
Landfills on Tribal Lands
An interagency workgroup has been
formed to address solid waste issues on
tribal lands. The workgroup will seek to
clarify the nature and extent of munici-
pal solid waste landfill problems affect-
ing Indian tribes, and to develop a holis-
tic strategy and action plan to address
the issues. The workgroup will develop a
process to obtain tribal input on the
action plan prior to its implementation.
In January 1998, senior officials from
EPA met with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Ser-
vice (IHS) at Interior Secretary Babbitt's
request to discuss RCRA municipal solid
waste landfill and other environmental
issues affecting BIA and tribal lands. At
the meeting EPA proposed to work with
BIA, IHS, and other federal agencies to
address solid waste issues on tribal
lands.
The interagency workgroup is co-
chaired by the Acting Director of the Office
of Solid Waste and the Director of FFEO,
with participation from EPA, BIA, IHS,
and DoD. Several other agencies are
expected to join the workgroup in the
future. At its first meeting on April 29, the
workgroup agreed to the following agenda!
•	Conduct an assessment of open
dumps in Indian Country;
•	Develop a multi-year, interagency
action plan for addressing tribal solid
waste needs; and
•	Develop a multi-year, interagency bud-
get strategy for funding necessary activi-
ties.
The Interagency Panel on Ship Scrapping reviewed U.S. efforts to ensure that ship
scrapping is done in an environmentally sound manner.
For more information, contact Melanie
Barger Garvey, FFEO, (202) 564-2574, or
Beverly Goldblatt, OSW, (703) 308-7278.
Guidance on Facility
Closure Published
Federal agencies routinely lease and
transfer real property in the course of car-
rying out their missions. One of the essen-
tial steps in modern real property transac-
tions is evaluating candidate properties
for potential environmental contamina-
tion and liability. The Civilian Federal
Agency Task Force's Subcommittee on
Facility Closures has developed a guid-
ance document that summarizes the
requirements and processes for evaluating
potential liability from environmental
contamination It also provides an intro-
duction to the larger context of environ-
mental issues associated with real proper-
ty transfers. EPA's Safety, Health and
Environmental Management Division and
the Federal Aviation Administration will
use the document to jointly develop a CD-
ROM training tool on Evaluating Envi-
ronmental Liability for Property Trans-
fers, to be released in 1999. The CFATask
Force's "Guide to Evaluating Environmen-
tal Liability for Property Transfers' is
undergoing final revisions and will be
available soon in electronic and hard-copy
formats. For more information, contact
Will Garvey, FFEO, (202) 564-2458.
Note! EPA Region 3 is moving!
New address! U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
Telephone numbers will retain the last 4 digits of the current numbers. The 3-digit
prefix changes from 566 to 814. For example, the phone of the Region 3 Federal Facility
Coordinator, William Arguto, changes from 215-566-3367 to 215-814-3367.

-------
DIRECTORS WORD
(continued from page 1)
DO I facilities increasingly became a mat-
ter of concern for EPA and DOI. In
response, the DOI Solicitors Office pro-
posed a meeting between Steve Herman,
EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
and the various DOI bureaus to explore a
process for improving regulatory compli-
ance at DOI facilities.
In discussions held in January 1998,
EPA and DOI agreed to work jointly to
enhance compliance assistance across
DOI bureaus and facilities with the over-
all goal of raising the level of regulatory
awareness and compliance at all DOI
facilities. This was the first time that
EPA had pledged to provide compliance
assistance across an entire federal
agency. As a result of the agreement,
Steve Herman requested that EPA
regional offices make compliance assis-
tance for DOI facilities a priority in FY
1998 and 1999. Similarly, senior manage-
ment at each of the five major DOI
bureaus — the National Park Service,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of Reclama-
tion, and Bureau of Indian Affairs — sent
a memorandum to regional and field-lev-
el personnel affirming the importance of
achieving compliance and urging cooper-
ation with EPA.
Over the past several months, DOI
and EPA have begun a review of environ-
The DOI/EPA compl iance
initiative is the largest
effort of its kind that FFEO
has ever undertaken.
mental management at the mid and
senior levels of various bureaus. EPA
headquarters has funded the EPA regions
to conduct fie Id-level compliance assis-
tance. Projects currently under consider-
ation include!
On-Line Update
Interested in conferences/seminars in different Regions, Head-
quarters? Training opportunities? Here are some Web sites of note!
FFEO's FFLEX home page! http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/
fflex.html
Calendar available at http://es.epa.gov/new/contacts/calendar/
index.html
OECA home page: http://www.epa.gov/oeca
Calendar available at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/calendar/index.html
National Enforcement Training Institute: http://www.epa.gov/oeca/neti
Enviro$en$e home page: http://www.epa.gov/envirosense
News, calendar, and training information available at http://www.epa.gov/news.html
For one-stop shopping on different topics, click on the FEDERAL COOPERATIVE
button on the FFLEX home page (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html). For fed-
eral agency site-links, click on the GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS button. For more
information, contact Isabelle Lacayo, (202) 564-2578 or lacayo.isabelle@epa.gov.
•	Performing an inventory of facility-lev-
el compliance histories and using that
information to develop a compliance
assistance manual;
•	Assisting facilities in Safe Drinking
Water Act source water protection
assessments;
•	Performing GIS-based cumulative risk
impact analysis; and
•	Directing compliance assistance
to facility-based, contractor-operated
activities such as vehicle maintenance.
A senior management level work group
has been formed to coordinate DOI/EPA
compliance activities, with representa-
tives from the five bureaus and the US
Geological Survey. The workgroup has
met several times to develop objectives
and discuss compliance issues such as the
use of SEPs at DOI facilities, common reg-
ulated operational activities, and regulato-
ry compliance by third parties at DOI
facilities. The work group has also exam-
ined other opportunities for large-scale
assistance, such as enhancing compliance
training for DOI facility personnel and
expanding regulatory compliance informa-
tion systems available on the Internet.
One of the most innovative and far-
reaching efforts in the EPA/DOI compli-
ance initiative is an analysis of current
environmental management systems
within the National Park Service (NPS),
including an analysis of support relation-
ships between field-level facilities and
NPS and DOI headquarters environmen-
tal offices. This review is based on the
Code of Environmental Management
Principles (CEMP), which is designed
specifically for federal agencies. The five
primary CEMP principles address man-
agement commitment; compliance assur-
ance and pollution prevention; enabling
systems; performance and accountability;
and measurement and improvement.
Significant benefits from improved
compliance are expected at the 1000 or so
DOI facilities subject to EPA regulations.
Moreover, the initiative will yield compli-
ance assistance tools that can be used by
other agencies, particularly those in the
civilian federal agency community. We
look forward to reporting on the success-
es achieved through this initiative as it
gets further underway.

-------
Awa rd s
Executive Order 12856 -
Environmental Challenge
Awards Given
The second annual Environmental
Challenge Awards have been presented
to three federal employees who demon-
strated outstanding leadership in imple-
menting the pollution prevention provi-
sions of Executive Order 12856, which
pledges the federal government to protect
the environment by preventing pollution
at the source. Here are the winners!
Randall L. Spencer, U.S. Mar ine
Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base,
Barstow, CA. Mr. Spencer has been
instrumental in planning, designing, and
verifying Pollution Prevention Opportu-
nity Assessments (PPOA) at the MCLB.
He has saved the U.S. Marine Corps
$900,000 in hazardous materials through
a program that allows employees to turn
in their unwanted but usable hazardous
material. In addition, he implemented an
off-site diesel recycling program and
pioneered a program to replace ozone
depleting substances (ODS) with solvent
substitutions. As a result, the MCLB is
now 98% ODS free. In conjunction with
product substitutions, Mr. Spencer has
initiated process modification in numer-
ous degreasing operations, including
replacing vapor degreasers and establish-
ing a cold degreasing operation.
George H. Terrell, DOD, U.S. Army
Acquisition Pollution Prevention
Support Office, Material Command,
Alexandria, VA. As the principal Army
planner for Executive Order 12856, Mr.
Terrell was responsible for the develop-
ment of the Acquisition Pollution Preven-
tion Program in 1993 and 1994. In order to
execute the program, he established com-
modity-oriented teams to integrate pro-
gram requirements and execute projects.
These groups control 111 separate pollu-
tion prevention projects and activities
totaling $18.8 million. As a result, haz-
ardous material has been reduced by about
60 percent and 3 million pounds of ozone
depleting substances have been nearly
eliminated. Mr. Terrell has also developed
several P2 guides, computer software, and
a Web page in order to share information
on pollution prevention.
Patrick Langsjoen, U.S. Postal Ser-
vice, Pacific Area Environmental
Unit, South San Francisco, CA. Mr.
Langsjoen has excelled in education, devel-
oping pollution prevention strategies, and
identifying waste reduction opportunities.
He developed a P2 program that focused
on source reduction by instituting equip-
ment, technology, and process modifica-
tions; product redesign and substitution;
and improvements in housekeeping, main-
tenance, and inventory control. Other
initiatives have resulted in an 80% reduc-
tion in sludge runoff from the vehicle
maintenance facility pressure-washing
system, the introduction of bioremediation
enzymes to reduce sludge accumulation,
and the implementation of recycling pro-
grams in all Pacific Area Districts, result-
ing in the collection of over 17,000 tons of
material and $133,523 in added revenue.
Region 6 Hands Out Bronze
Medals
EPA Region 6 has recognized several
employees for outstanding contributions.
For outreach to federal facilities, bronze
medalists were! Joyce Stubblefield, Fed-
eral Facilities Regional Coordinator,
Judy Crispin, Federal Facilities, Tim
Dawson, Quality Assurance, and Wanda
Boyd, Wetlands 404 Permits.
EPA Region 6 awarded another Bronze
Medal to the Base Closure Team at the
Naval Air Station (NAS) Chase Field for
their fast track cleanup. Sing Chia served
as the Facility Manager, Rag an Tate
served as Attorney and David Neleigh is
Chief of the New Mexico and Federal Facil-
ity Section. NAS Chase Field is a military
base which was closed in 1992 under the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990. To expedite the cleanup
process and to speed economic recovery of
communities impacted by closing of the
base, the Base Cleanup Team was formed
to oversee all the operations at the facility
Members of the team came from the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commis-
sion, Texas Attorney General's office and
the Navy, as well as EPA.
The Base Cleanup Team established a
goal-oriented process to fast track envi-
ronmental clean up at the base, and to
ensure remedial operation compatible
with redevelopment and reuse. The team
was responsible for the design of investi-
gations, data analysis, and recommend-
ing the selection and construction of
remedies. By 1995, all remedies had been
selected and by 1996 the construction of
all remedies had been completed. This
was the first and fastest cleanup of a
major military base and it was accom-
plished at a significant cost savings to the
government. In May 1997, EPA deter-
mined that all remedies were operating
successfully and approved the first Find-
ing of Suitability to Transfer the property
at NAS Chase Field.
The Chase Field cleanup has been
used as a prototype by both EPA and DoD
in developing a streamlined cleanup
process. DoD has now established BRAC
Cleanup Teams and Restoration Advisory
Boards at all BRAC bases.
In 1997, the Chase Cleanup Team was
assigned an additional closing base, NAS
Dallas. With the experience gained from
NAS Chase Field, the team applied the
same model to NAS Dallas and proved its
success. By the end of March 1998, the
NAS Dallas Cleanup Team had saved the
Navy approximately $3.5 million in inves-
tigation costs alone. In addition, NAS
Dallas has progressed faster than the oth-
er closing bases to fulfill the President's
Five-Point Plan. For more information on
base closures, contact Sing Chia at (214)
665-8301.

-------
UpcomingEvents
November 4-5, 1998
EPA Re gion 10 Federal Facility
Conference
Seattle, WA
First day will coincide with EPA's Annual Tribal Con-
ference and will focus on tribal issues. Second day
will deal with traditional federal facility topics.
Contact! Michele Wright, (206) 553-1747 or
wright.michele@epamail.epa.gov. Information is
posted on www.ttemi.com/circles.html.
November 8-11, 1998
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC)
Baton Rouge, LA
Contact! Marva King, (202) 564-2599.
Reg ion 1 Federal Facility Seminars
Boston, MA
November 19,1998: Million Solar Roofs
January 1999: Mercury at Federal Agencies
March, 1999: P2 Executive Orders
Contact: Anne Fenn, (617) 565-3927
Apri i 6-8,1999
1999 Department of the Interior
Conference on the Environment
Denver, CO
Theme of the conference is: "Toward a Sustainable
Environment: Learning from our Successes."For infor-
mation, go to http://www.doi.gov/oepc or contact
Erin Quinn at (303) 445-2709.
May 16-201999
Second Annual Civilian Federal
Ag ency (CFA) Sy mposium
Seattle, WA
Contact: Kristina Alcorn at Kristina.S.alcorn@
cpmx.saic.com
May 18-20,1999
Region 3 Environmental Conference
Baltimore, MD
DoD and EPA. The conference will present papers and
discussions on hazardous site cleanup, enforcement,
compliance assistance and pollution prevention.
Contact: William Arguto, (215) 566-3367.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAA
Clean Air Act
CERCLA
Comprehensive Emergency

Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act
CFA
C ivil ian Federa 1 Agency
CWA
Clean Water Act
DLA
Defense Logistics Agency
DoD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DOI
Department of the Interior
EMR
Environmental

Management Review
EPA
Environmental Protection

Agency
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and

Community Right-To-Know

Act of 1986
FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act
FFEO
Federal Facilities Enforcement

Office (EPA)
CIS
Geographic Information System
MARAD
Maritime Administration
NOAA
National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration
NPL
National Priorities List
OECA
Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (EPA)
RCRA
Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP
Supplemental Environmental

Project
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
UST
Underground Storage Tank
USPS
U.S. Postal Service
F e d F a c s
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2261)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
FIRST CLASS
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Address Correction Requested

-------