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 ------- |