Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office
Accomplishments
Report
FY 1997
Prepared by
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FY 1997
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Enforcement 3
A. Clean Air Act (CAA) 3
B. RCRA/Underground Storage Tanks 3
C. Hazardous Waste 4
D. Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Guidance 4
E. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 5
F. Camp Edwards, Massachusetts Military Reservation 5
G. Emergency Planning and Community Rjght-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 6
H. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 6
Compliance Assurance 9
A. RCRA Administrative Orders Study 9
B. RCRA Reimbursement Study 9
C. EPA Review of Federal Agenccy Environmental Plans 10
D. Innovative Technology Initiatives 12
1. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Workgroup (ITRC) 12
2. Environmental Technology Initiative 12
E. Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Updated with Section 3016 Inventory 12
F. Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 13
Compliance Assistance 15
A. Executive Order 12856: Closing the Circle Awards 15
B. Code of Environmental Management Principles for Federal Agencies 16
C. Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) at Federal Facilities 17
D. Environmental Auditing and Federal Facilities 18
E. EnviroSenSe 19
F. Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable 20
Regulatory Reinvention 21
Regulation and Policy 23
A. Audit Policy/Privilege Issues 23
B. DOD Attempt to Amend Environmental Laws in Defense Authorization Bill 23
C. DOE Collaborative Decision-Making Guidance Signed 24
D. Environmental Justice 24
Case Summaries 25
A. RCRA Cases 25
1. Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C 25
2. Fort Campbell (Kentucky/Tennessee border) 25
3. Memphis Depot. Tennessee 25
4. Naval Undersea Warfare Center. Connecticut 26
5. Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright, Alaska 26
6. United States Coast Guard Kodiak, Alaska 26
7. Westhaven, Connecticut Veterans Affairs 27
-------
8. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Defiance (Arizona) ... 27
9. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Yuma (Arizona) .... 27
10. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS), Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park (Hawaii) 28
11. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Campus (California) .... 28
B. CERCLA Cases 28
t. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky 28
2. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado 28
3. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming 29
4. Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory, Washington 29
5. King Salmon, Alaska 29
6. Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska 30
C. TSCA PCB Cases 30
1. U.S. Navy PCB-Containing Vessel 30
2. Agreement to Transfer Naval Boats, Support Craft and Industrial Equipment with
PCBs to Communities for Further Use 30
3. Navy Export Agreement 31
4. Extension of Sinking Exercise Agreement (SINKEX) 31
5. Implementation of the Minuteman II Compliance Agreement 32
6. Implementation and Modification of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) for the Uranium Enrichment
Operations at DOE's Gaseous Diffusion Process Facilities: Portsmouth,Ohio;
Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Execution of the Oak Ridge
Reservation Polychlorinated Biphenyls Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement
(ORR-PCB-FFCA) 32
7. First Annual PCB Status Report Submitted Under the National Compliance
Agreement Between EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) for the Storage of Radioactively-
Contaminated PCBs and PCBs Contaminated with Mixed Wastes 33
8. Savannah River Site (South Carolina) Letter of Enforcement Discretion 33
9. Museum Transfer Ships 33
D. Other Cases 34
1. Grain Bin Project 34
2. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 34
FY 1997 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
35
-------
Introduction
The primary goal of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Federal Facility
Enforcement Program is to ensure that all agencies reach a level of compliance with
environmental requirements that equals or surpasses the rest of the regulated community.
To accomplish this goal, EPA uses a three-pronged approach: compliance assistance and
training, compliance oversight and enforcement, and review of Federal agency
environmental plans and programs. This comprehensive approach is designed to help
Federal agencies develop appropriate compliance strategies, and request adequate funding
to carry out those strategies. EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) is
responsible for ensuring that Federal facilities take all necessary actions to prevent,
control, and abate environmental pollution. FFEO participates in enforcement
negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and enforcement activities undertaken by
the Regions, and is responsible for resolving enforcement disputes between EPA and
other agencies.
EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Program has a sector orientation, using multi-
media enforcement along with an emphasis on compliance assistance and pollution
prevention, particularly for Civilian Federal Agencies (CFAs). FFEO manages a national
program to ensure that Federal facilities and government-owned/contractor-operated
facilities conduct their activities in an environmentally sound manner and comply with all
applicable environmental statutes and regulations.
In FY 1997, the Federal Facilities Enforcement Program emphasized three major program
areas: (1) environmental restoration activities under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) to reduce the most significant long-term threats posed by
Federal facilities; (2) implementation of a multi-media enforcement strategy, including
targeted multi-media inspections, particularly in areas where new enforcement authorities
are being used; and (3) working with other Federal agencies and States to assist agencies
in adopting and implementing environmental management systems in their operations,
with an emphasis on conducting Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) at CFAs.
Preliminary statistics indicate that EPA has issued 29 orders (including field citations)
and has settled 13 penalty cases against Federal agencies collecting SI,011,524 in cash
vtU'rn! FiU thttes i-jiptrt-t'iiu'if Of fife FY !99? Aititmphihmcnt Report
I
-------
and $2,824,639 in Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) during this past fiscal
year. Moreover, EPA completed two CERCLA cleanup agreements addressing
contamination at two formerly used defense sites (FUDS) with cleanup costs estimated at
a total of $35.4 million.
During FY 1997, FFEO placed emphasis on several key initiatives, which included
issuing the following: (1) Federal Facilities Environmental Justice Enforcement
Initiative (FFEJEI); (2) Implementation Guide for the Code of Environmental
Management Principles (CEMP); (3) Federal Facility Compliance Act Enforcement:
Analysis of RCRA Administrative Orders Issued at Federal Facilities; (4) Underground
Storage Tank Field Citation Guidance; (5) Improving Communication to Achieve
Collaborative Decision Making at Department of Energy Sites; and (6) the Streamlined
Oversight Guidance which provides direction to the Regions on how to better use their
limited oversight resources by streamlining where appropriate. FFEO also was engaged
in Federal agency participation in various regulatory reinvention initiatives, particularly
Project XL and the Environmental Leadership Program.
FederaI Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Report
-------
2
In accordance with goal nine of EPA's strategic plan (Provide a Credible Deterrent to
Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law), enforcement at Federal facilities has
continued to mirror EPA's enforcement approach against private entities. This is due, in
part, to congressional activity amending certain laws such as RCRA in 1992 and the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996.
A. Clean Air Act (CAA)
The similarity in enforcement approach between private and Federal facilities also is due
to recent interpretations of existing laws regarding EPA's authority against Federal
agencies. In July 1997, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC), in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12146, issued a decision resolving a
legal dispute between two Executive Branch Agencies—the Department of Defense
(DOD) and EPA—about whether Federal agencies are subject to Clean Air Act (CAA)
field citations.
The OLC determined that EPA has penalty authority against Federal agencies for
violations of the CAA (not just field citation authority) using the clear express statement
standard. This decision is significant because EPA has penalty and order authority
against Federal agencies provided the statute is clear, regardless of whether the waiver of
sovereign immunity would be considered broad enough to subject the Federal agencies to
penalties assessed by those outside the Federal government. As a result, FFEO included
new language in the Memoranda of Agreement between Headquarters and the Regions
emphasizing the importance of including Federal facilities in upcoming regional
enforcement efforts.
B. RCRA/Undergfound Storage Tanks
Using the clear express statement standard, EPA also has penalty authority for violations
I fJtr.ii hmSmKi tnfwtmrm <>tfke /"">* /W7 4. < nmpltthmenl Report
3
-------
of the underground storage tank provisions of RCRA. In February 1997, FFEO and the
Office of Underground Storage Tanks sent a memorandum to the Regions encouraging
them to conduct inspections and to issue field citations to Federal facilities, where
appropriate. Approximately 40 inspections have been conducted nationwide in this area,
resulting in 18 field citations assessing over 56,650 in penalties. Seven agencies have
paid them including DOJ, the Army, the Navy, Federal Aviation Administration, and the
Veterans Administration (VA).
Hazardous Waste
Historically, EPA has emphasized compliance with hazardous waste requirements at
Federal facilities. Passage of the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) enhanced
EPA's enforcement authority, enabling the agency to pursue Federal agencies in the same
manner it pursues private parties. In FY 1997, EPA has initiated 14 enforcement actions
at Federal facilities. Of the 14 enforcement actions, nine were written informal, one was
a Section 7003 order at the Washington Navy Yard in the District of Columbia, and four
were Section 3008(a) orders. The 14 enforcement actions assessed a total of $442,825 in
penalties against Federal agencies including VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and
the Navy. In addition, EPA settled 13 penalty cases this fiscal year, collecting
approximately SI,011,524 in penalties and requiring $2,824,639 in SEPs. Finally, EPA
settled a Section 3008(h) order requiring clean up at Altus Air Force Base.
Four penalty cases deserve special mention, as they were settled with the following
CFAs: the Coast Guard, the Park Service, BIA, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
EPA has not traditionally inspected these types of facilities to the same degree it has
inspected DOD facilities. EPA's experience, however, shows that enforcement works as
an effective deterrent in the public sector, as the number of DOD facilities with class I
violations (the highest level or most serious level of violation) decreased 6% since 1993.
FFEO expects this trend to continue as EPA inspects CFAs more systematically.
Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Guidance
EPA issued a RCRA Section 7003 enforcement guidance, applicable to both Federal and
private parties. FFEO provided provisions in the guidance that address the opportunity to
confer with the Administrator prior to an order going final, as provided in 42 U.S.C.
Section 6961 (b)( 1). Specifically, the guidance lays out the steps to be taken for a
conference, including who should request the conference, how it should be requested, and
how the results of the conference should be communicated.
Fn/vrul Fitcthftrs {•jtforccment Ojjitf FY 1997 Accttmphshmrnt Rvpnrt
J
-------
Em Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
In August 1996, Congress amended SDWA to provide EPA and States with penalty
authority against Federal agencies. EPA now has administrative penalty authority to
assess up to $25,000 per day per violation of SDWA against Federal agencies. This
broad penalty authority is significant because EPA must pursue similar penalties from
private entities in Federal district court. Draft guidance issued by FFEO this fiscal year
states that EPA will address public water supply and underground injection control
enforcement authorities against Federal agencies. Since passage of the amendments,
Region IV has issued a Compliance Order to the Army for SDWA violations at its
Redstone Army facility in Alabama. Region I issued a Section 1431 emergency order to
the Army National Guard for response actions at a munitions range.
F. Camp Edwards, Massachusetts Military
Reservation
EPA ordered a cease-fire effective in May 1997 at one of the largest National Guard
training areas in the Northeast in an effort to protect Cape Cod's drinking water from
contamination. Region I ordered Army National Guard (NGB) to suspend all training
activities at Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military Reservation that could release
contaminants to the air, soil, and water on Upper Cape Cod. EPA also ordered NGB to
immediately begin clean up of lead and unexploded ordinance from Firing ranges and
impact areas on the base.
Because the Impact Area and Training Range are active range and training areas, study
and remediation of these areas was not required under the CERCLA Federal facilities
agreement. Hazardous substances and contaminants have been detected in the limited
soil and groundwater samples taken to date from within and outside of the Training
Range and Impact Area.
In February 1997, EPA Region I issued an Administrative Order pursuant to the
emergency powers authority of Section 143 SDWA, requiring the NGB to: (1) undertake
a comprehensive study of groundwater under and emanating from the Training Range and
Impact Area; (2) provide all information to EPA concerning possible contamination in the
Impact Area, activities conducted, and materials used; (3) develop a proposal for
pollution control measures; and (4) coordinate with a community-based oversight group.
Fih tliiir* Enforcement Office FY 1997 Act ompiishment Report
3
-------
G. Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA)
After an initial two-year emphasis on outreach, guidance, and Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) compliance assistance, EPA is now examining
EPCRA compliance status of Federal facilities. To facilitate this initiative, FFEO
developed guidance to address noncompliance with EPCRA at Federal facilities. EPA
will use an escalating enforcement response scheme against violators of EPCRA, which
will include the following:
• An initial compliance screening;
• Informal notification to/response by the facility regarding its compliance status;
• An inspection;
• Use of a show-cause letter requiring the facility to comply within 45 days or show-
cause why it is exempt from EPCRA requirements;
• Negotiation of a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) if needed; and
• Ultimately listing the facility in EPA's annual report to the President as being in
violation of EPCRA and E.O. 12856, as well as entry into EPA's IDEA database and
Quarterly Compliance Status Reports as being a violator.
In addition to developing a boilerplate show-cause letter that can be modified as appropriate
for EPCRA Sections 311,312, and/or 313 violations, FFEO also has provided funding to the
Regions to help defray the costs of Federal facility EPCRA inspections conducted as part of
this initiative. FFEO also has provided targeting assistance, including guidance documents
used by Federal facilities for EPCRA reporting, and has provided a list of suggestions.
Approximately 10 EPCRA inspections were conducted at Federal facilities in FY 1997 as
part of this initiative. Another 25-30 inspections are expected in FY 1998.
To date, the results of the inspections have been mixed. FFEO is in the process of evaluating
the inspection reports to get a clearer picture of the overall EPCRA compliance status in the
Federal sector.
H. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
EPA completed negotiations for two interagency agreements (LAGs) under CERCLA
Section 120 which call for the cleanup of FUDS on the National Priorities List (NPL)
The IAG is the mechanism whereby the Federal government achieves a coordinated
cleanup involving EPA and the States and the Federal agency. EPA has experienced
great success with these agreements in that they provide enforceable schedules, help
avoid disputes, and provide the framework for achieving an expeditious cleanup.
Federal Ftwihites Enfitrt ement Office FY t997 Aco>"iphshtnenf Report
6
-------
One LAG addressed contamination at the former Naval Ammunition Depot in Nebraska
and the other IAG addressed the Old Navy Dump Manchester Lab Annex in Washington.
Cleanup at the Old Navy Dump is estimated to cost approximately S5.4 million while
cleanup at the Nebraska site should cost approximately S30 million.
EPA also emphasized compliance with commitments in existing CERCLA cleanup
agreements. For example, in July 1997, Region V resolved a dispute with the Department
of Energy (DOE) addressing EPA's October 1996 denial of DOE's extension request to
delay submittal of design deliverables, EPA denied the extension request and
consequently, DOE invoked dispute resolution procedures as provided in the Fernald
Consent Agreement. The dispute resolution agreement addresses schedule revisions,
submittal of a "lessons learned" document from DOE, implementation of five
environmental projects that will benefit the Fernald site and a cash penalty of $100,000 to
be paid by DOE. Overall, DOE will pay approximately $1,100,000 to resolve the issues
with this dispute through implementing the projects and the monetary penalty.
Likewise, Region X ensured DOE compliance with schedules at the Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (INEL). On March 18, 1997, EPA and DOE signed a settlement
agreement for violations of the CERCLA Section 120 Federal Facility
Agreement/Consent Order. The violations involve the cleanup of Pit 9 and groundwater
in the Test Area North of INEL. Both sites had remediation activities that DOE had
privatized, and significant delays in remediation occurred because of management and
other difficulties associated with the contracting mechanisms and cleanup. EPA and the
State assessed DOE a total of $970,000 in penalties of which $100,000 will be in cash
and the remainder will be a SEP.
Ft'Ji'rut f *it timet finptrcemt m Office FY 1997 A< tumphshmeni Hfpors
1
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Report
8
-------
3
Compliance Assurance
A. RCRA Administrative Orders Study
The report Federal Facility Compliance Act Enforcement: Analysis of RCRA
Administrative Orders Issued at Federal Facilities (October 1992-December 1995)
provides an analysis of 105 RCRA Administrative Orders (AOs) issued by EPA and
States. Highlights of the report's findings include the following:
• 29 EPA AOs and 76 State AOs were issued during the study period.
• 80 Federal facilities, representing 11 Federal agencies, received the AOs.
• DOD services, collectively, received 71 % of the AOs.
• 701 violations were cited in the AOs. The five violations most frequently cited
were:
(1) failure to label or improperly labeled containers (86 times);
(2) incomplete or failure to make hazardous waste (HW) determination (57
times);
(3) failure to indicate accumulation/storage start dates on containers (53 times);
(4) failure to close HW containers (43 times); and
(5) failure to provide/maintain emergency response equipment (31 times).
• The average proposed penalty amount was $322,000 for EPA AOs and $55,000
for Stale AOs.
• During the study period, EPA proposed over $9.3 million in penalties and the
States proposed over $4.1 million.
S. RCRA Reimbursement Study
FFCA Section 104 requires EPA Regions and/or States approved to administer the RCRA
program to be reimbursed for the costs of conducting certain types of RCRA inspections
at Federal Facilities. FFEO is responsible for coordination of reimbursement to both EPA
Regions and the individual States for RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
Federal f'ai ihtie* Lnfori enti'tii Office FY /997 Accomplishment Report
9
-------
FFCA requires that EPA (and delegated States) conduct annual inspections of all Federal
TSD facilities, of which there are approximately a total of 350 in all 50 States. Since
1994, EPA has had I AGs in place with DOD and DOE to enable reimbursement of the
cost of these inspections.
In FY 97, a study of the RCRA reimbursement process was completed to determine the
reasons for lack of utilization by the States and Regions and reasons for delayed billings to
the Services. The study noted that the most compelling reason for both issues was that
the lAG's were not being signed by the Services until late in a fiscal year. The Services
received delayed billings and sometimes inaccurately documented charges.
Since the study, DOD services have agreed to make agreements effective from FY 97 to
FY 2002. FFEO believes that changing the IAG time period will help speed up the IAG
process and avoid exhaustion of extensive resources at the end of the fiscal year to charge
appropriate accounts for eligible RCRA inspections costs. Having the accounts available
at the beginning of a fiscal year will allow the Regions to charge the eligible RCRA
inspection costs to the applicable accounts as the costs are incurred.
EPA Review of Federal Agency
Environmental Plans
E.O. 12088 is the fundamental executive branch order requiring full Federal agency
compliance with all environmental laws and requirements. The E.O. provides EPA with
an oversight role in reviewing project plans submitted by other Federal agencies and
ensuring compliance with environmental standards. EPA uses the project-specific data
from these plans to respond to requests from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Congress, and the public; to supplement gaps in its enforcement authorities; and
to ensure full compliance by all Federal agencies with existing environmental statutes.
In addition to using the information submitted by other Federal agencies to prepare reports
to OMB and Congress, EPA makes wide use of the detailed environmental project data
contained in the plans to provide multi-media oversight, provide technical assistance to
other Federal agencies, target scarce inspection resources, and validate high-priority
project proposals submitted by other Federal agencies. The procedures in E.O. 12088
enable EPA to systematically rely on other Federal agencies to provide EPA with current
data on their activities in working toward compliance with environmental standards at
over 30,000 facilities located throughout the country. This information provides EPA
with a far more comprehensive picture of the environmental activities being conducted by
a Federal agency than would be possible with only in-house inspection resources.
To solve the increasing data flow problems inherent in any government-wide planning
process of this magnitude, EPA instituted an aggressive development of electronic
information procedures to be used in the exchange of data by all parties. A simplified PC-
Federal FtH'tUues Enf**nemeni Office FY 1997 Aii omphshment Repan
10
-------
process of this magnitude, EPA instituted an aggressive development of electronic
information procedures to be used in the exchange of data by all parties. A simplified
PC-based data information system, FEDPLAN-PC, that permits total electronic transfer
of data between EPA and the other Federal agencies was developed. This system also
electronically conveys to a Federal agency each comment made about a project by EPA
during review of the Federal agency project plans.
The FEDPLAN-PC system was field tested during the FY 96/97 period, and in
cooperation with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) National
Enforcement Training Institute, a comprehensive training program covering system
techniques was developed. Training was offered to EPA Headquarters and Regional
personnel, environmental personnel in the United States Army, and selected
environmental personnel in other Federal agencies. For those Federal agencies that have
electronic systems that track environmental data already in place, EPA accepts the data
from their existing data system and reformats it into the FEDPLAN format. Eventually,
FEDPLAN-PC is expected to be an electronic substitute for many of the environmental
reporting requirements to OMB and the public.
During the FY 96/97 period, EPA provided all Federal agencies with their environmental
data in the FEDPLAN-PC format. After the FY 98/99 data update is completed the
FEDPLAN-PC system and the environmental data from all Federal agencies that submit
data to EPA will be provided to OMB in an electronic format. At that time, a decision
will be made about developing an edited, public version that can be made available to the
public via the Internet.
EPA uses the FEDPLAN-PC system to track Federal agency environmental projects and
identify Federal facilities that require compliance and technical assistance. FEDPLAN-
PC is a project-based system that allows EPA and Federal agency users to easily analyze
data through its report generation and data manipulation functions. The system also
provides Federal agency environmental managers with a powerful and flexible data
management tool for use in the daily administration of their programs. FEDPLAN-PC
serves as the primary environmental management information system for several Federal
agencies, while remaining compatible with database systems in use at other agencies.
FEDPLAN-PC was recently reprogrammed in Visual FoxPro to provide a more powerful
and easy-to-use system. The new version of FEDPLAN-PC features completely
redesigned project screens, as well as new query building, data output, and report
capabilities. The system is updated to work on Windows 95 and NT platforms and can
run from a single PC workstation or a network. The updated version also includes new
data selection, security, and import/export features.
/•"< ih'r,il fot ihsws Enforcement Office FY 1997 /It tomphshmrnt Report
i I
-------
D. Innovative Technology Initiatives
1. Interstate Technology ant! Regulatory
Cooperation Workgroup (ITRC)
The Interstate Technology And Regulatory Cooperation Workgroup (ITRC) is a State-led,
national coalition with the mission of focusing on creating tools and strategies to reduce
interstate barriers to the deployment of innovative hazardous waste management and
remediation technologies. Originating in 1995 from a previous initiative by the Western
Governors' Association, the ITRC has expanded to include the environmental agencies of
more than 25 States, three Federal partners, public and industry stakeholders, and two
State associations—the Western Governors' Association and the Southern States Energy
Board.
FFEO has participated in activities of the ITRC and represented OECA at ITRC meetings.
Additionally, FFEO has assisted in the development of the Voluntary
Cleanup/Brownfields case studies report on selected State programs. As the goal of the
ITRC moves increasingly toward the deployment of innovative technologies, FFEO will
continue to participate in ITRC initiatives.
2. Environmental Technology Initiative
FFEO is a participant in the Administration's Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI),
which promotes the development, commercialization, and use of environmental
technology. FFEO is working with Clean Sites and the Environmental Law Institute to
create a new project to facilitate the application of innovative technologies at Federal
facilities through compliance and clean up agreements. The goal of this work is to
increase the use of innovative technologies to achieve environmental compliance. The
lessons learned from this project will be widely disseminated to the public, the private
sector, and State agencies.
E. Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
Updated with Section 301G Inventory
The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, which contains a list of those
Federal facilities that are engaged in hazardous waste activity, was recently updated.
Update 10 added 102 Federal facilities, bringing the total number of facilities on the
docket to 2,104. Four of the new additions to the docket are facilities that have reported
to the National Response Center the release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous
substance. Since the docket's inception in 1988, the number of Federal facilities listed
has increased by nearly 80 percent, from 1,094 to 2,104.
hedvral FtK'ihties h.nffrcct'iertt Office fY !997 An /m\pttsfin\rnt
12
-------
The docket includes the 1996 inventory of hazardous waste facilities mandated by Section
3016 of RCRA that requires all Federal agencies to compile, publish, and submit to EPA
an inventory of all facilities they currently own or operate, or have previously owned or
operated, at which hazardous waste is stored, treated, or disposed of, or was disposed of
at any time. EPA's Office of Solid Waste conducted an initial inventory in 1986, and
subsequently in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994, when responsibility for conducting the
inventory was transferred to FFEO. FFEO requested inventory submissions from Federal
agencies in April 1997, and held a half-day interagency training session to help Federal
agencies respond to the request.
Multi-Media inspections at Federal
Facilities
A nationwide total of 27 multi-media inspections were performed at Federal facilities
during FY 97 in a coordinated effort by EPA and State inspectors. A minimum of two
environmental statutes were covered in the inspection at each facility. Overall,
inspections covered RCRA, CAA, SDWA, EPCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act program requirements.
The multi-media inspections took place at four Civilian Federal Agency facilities,
including the U.S. Postal Service, DOJ, VA and DOI/BLA. Regions I, IV, and VH1 had
the largest share of the 27 inspections with four, five and seven inspections, respectively.
Regions II, IE, VI, IX and X performed the remaining 11 inspections.
Multi-media inspections are part of FFEO's Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Program initiated in FY93. In FY95, multi-media inspections
were incorporated into Regional base inspection programs.
Federtu Facilities F.ttfi>rcement Office FY 199? A( Coinpli
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Report
14
-------
4
A. Executive Order 12BS6: Closing the Circle
Awards
On August 3, 1993, President Clinton signed E.O. I2856, Federal Compliance with
Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. E.O. 12856 requires that
Federal agencies comply with the relevant components of EPCRA and Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990. Moreover, E.O. 12856 sets a new standard for Federal
environmental excellence by extending compliance requirements under EPCRA to many
activities not currently regulated in the private sector. In requiring compliance with
EPCRA, E.O. 12856 affirms and strengthens the Federal government's obligation as a
responsible neighbor in communities where Federal facilities are located. E.O. 12856
further ensures that facilities work with communities on emergency preparedness and
response measures, and that those communities are advised of routine and accidental
releases of potentially hazardous pollution. The Order also provided incentives to Federal
facilities to act in a leadership role.
In 1997, the first ever E.O. 12856, Pollution Prevention Challenge Awards were
presented to members of the Federal community who demonstrated outstanding
leadership in implementing pollution prevention provisions of the Order. Over 40
nominations were reviewed and award winners were selected. FFEO prepared written
notification for each award winner and worked with that winner's Headquarters office to
ensure proper recognition by each Federal agency.
FFEO also worked with the Federal Environmental Executive (FEE) to incorporate the
Pollution Prevention Challenge Awards into the White House Closing the Circle Awards
ceremony. Winners represented a broad range of Federal agencies including all of the
DOD services, the Postal Service, DOE, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). FFEO has worked with the FEE to incorporate the
E.O. 12856 Pollution Prevention Challenge Award into the Closing the Circle Award
process in future years.
Ft'Jt'rai Ftii iiuiri fjifftrt tmetti Oifh'e FY IW7 t otnplnhmctt: Hi-part
15
-------
Code of Environmental Management
Principles for Federal Agencies
Senior agency representatives signed the Charter for the Interagency Pollution Prevention
Task Force on September 12, 1995. This document commits the Federal government to
achieve, among other items, environmental excellence through various activities
including: (1) active agency and facility participation in the Federal Government
Environmental Challenge Program and. (2) participation in the establishment of an
agency Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP). OECA/FFEO worked
to develop the CEMP through the Interagency Pollution Prevention Task Force. In
addition, a subcommittee of Federal agency representatives was formed by the Task Force
to work directly with FFEO in the development of the CEMP. Through this process, the
final version of the CEMP was developed and published (61 F.R. 54062, October 16,
1996).
The CEMP includes five broad environmental management principles developed to
address all areas of Federal environmental responsibility. The five Principles are as
follows:
1. Management Commitment:
The agency makes a written top-management commitment to improved
environmental performance by establishing policies which emphasize pollution
prevention and the need to ensure compliance with environmental requirements.
2. Compliance Assurance and Pollution Prevention:
The agency implements proactive programs that aggressively identify and address
potential compliance problem areas and utilize pollution prevention approaches to
correct deficiencies and improve environmental performance.
3. Enabling Systems:
The agency develops and implements the necessary measures to enable personnel to
perform their functions consistent with regulatory requirements, agency
environmental policies, and its overall mission.
4. Performance and Accountability:
The agency develops measures to address employee environmental performance, and
ensure full accountability of environmental functions.
5. Measurement and Improvement:
The agency develops and implements a program to assess progress toward meeting its
environmental goals and uses the results to improve environmental performance.
Federal Fuctliues En/nrcement Office FY 1997 Ai ctimph^bnrnt Report
16
-------
In September 1996, OECA transmitted the CEMP to the Federal agency executives who
signed the Charter, requesting written commitment to the Principles contained in the
CEMP. OECA asked each agency to provide a written statement declaring their support
for the CEMP principles at the agency level along with a description of their plans for
implementation of the CEMP at the facility level. OECA sought endorsement of the
CEMP Principles on an agency-wide basis, with flexibility as to how the Principles
themselves are implemented at the facility level. Endorsements were received from all of
the agencies, and FFEO is in the process of following-up with some of these agencies to
obtain more detailed information regarding CEMP implementation at the facility level.
FFEO completed the Implementation Guide for the Code of Environmental Management
Principles for Federal Agencies (EPA 315-B-97-001, March 1997).
Environmental Management Reviews
(EMRs) at Federal Facilities
In accordance with E.O. 12088, the national and regional Federal facility program has the
responsibility to provide technical advice and assistance to Federal facilities to ensure
their cost effective and timely compliance with applicable requirements. In addition, the
President called on the Federal government to be the leader in "achieving and maintaining
a clean environment." The provision of an EMR is one increasingly important means of
providing this technical advice for Federal sector leadership.
In May 1996, OECA issued an interim policy and guidance on EMRs at Federal facilities.
The interim final policy lays out the definition of an EMR, the operating principles under
which EMRs are to be conducted by the EPA Federal Facility Program, and the context in
which EMRs will be conducted by EPA for the pilot EMR program that occurred during
FY 1997. Upon the completion of the pilot, OECA will study the lessons learned from
the pilot for the development of a final EMR policy in FY 1998.
An EMR is an evaluation of an individual facility's program and management systems to
determine the extent to which a facility has developed and implemented specific
environmental protection programs and plans which, if properly managed, should ensure
compliance and progress towards environmental excellence, Because of the
programmatic nature of an EMR, the focus of this review is on the quality and/or
implementation of the program, not on actual compliance requirements. EMRs are not
enforcement inspections, but instead are consultative technical assistance site visits. They
differ from a compliance inspection or audit, which aim to capture a facility's compliance
picture at a given point in time. EMRs attempt to facilitate an understanding of the
underlying causes of current or potential compliance problems and to develop suggestions
for actions to correct them. EMRs provide the Federal facility information pertaining to:
i i ih-ruf f:,u limes Enftm rmetu (ijj'uc FY !1wtph\hmrtit Rcyt/n
17
-------
• Strengths and weaknesses of environmental management systems and programs
at Federal facilities;
« Identification of underlying causal factors which may contribute to the
occurrence of observed compliance deficiencies;
• Evaluation of each of the individual components of an environmental
management system (such as those listed below); and
• Feedback on the effectiveness of their systems, bench marking their
performance, and identification of opportunities for improvement.
The scope of an EMR includes disciplines that are based on key characteristics and
elements of effective environmental management systems. The seven disciplines are:
• Organizational Structure
• Environmental Commitment
• Formality of Environmental Programs (e.g. pollution prevention, auditing,
compliance)
• Internal and External Communication
• Staff Resources, Training, and Development
• Program Evaluation, Reporting, and Corrective Action
• Environmental Planning and Risk Management
In FY 1997, 10 EMRs were conducted by the EPA Regional offices.
Environmental Auditing and Federal
Facilities
OECA/FFEO was very active in FY 1997 in the area of environmental auditing at Federal
facilities. Over the past several years, 22 States have adopted some form of
environmental audit immunity and privilege law. The Clinton Administration has
consistently opposed the enactment of such laws at both the State and Federal levels. In
February 1997, EPA and DOJ issued a joint policy letter to the General Counsels of
Federal departments and agencies stating the Administration's position and clarifying that
Federal facilities in Executive Branch agencies and contractor operators should not claim
that information acquired through self audits is privileged under State audit privilege
laws. In addition, the February 1997 policy letter points out that no privilege exists
between and among EPA and other agencies, and encourages Federal facilities to utilize
the 1995 EPA audit policy and State laws and policies which mirror the Agency's Audit
Policy.
Federal Fm ilmes Enforcement Office FY 1997 Act amplishment Report
18
-------
Other environmental auditing-related activities include the issuance of the following
auditing guidance documents:
• Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits of Federal Facilities
(EPA 300-B-96-012A&B, December 1996)
This 1996 revision to the Generic Protocol includes a discussion and reference to
EPA's 1995 audit policy and also reorganizes the protocol into a two volume set.
Both volumes contain the instructions for use of all three auditing sections or
"Phases." The Generic Protocol is designed to primarily focus auditors on specific
technical issues to determine compliance with environmental requirements (both
regulatory and otherwise), and adherence to good management practices to assure
sound environmental operations.
• Environmental Audit Program Design Guidelines for Federal Agencies (EPA
300-B-96-011, Spring 1997)
This document highlights some unique issues and considerations related to
conducting environmental audits at both domestic and overseas Federal facilities.
The Design Guidelines contain a detailed discussion regarding the design and
administration of effective environmental auditing programs, and address specific
steps in conducting an environmental audit. The Design Guidelines describe the
components of a thorough environmental management program, and inform the
reader about the kinds of issues that arise and require addressing in environmental
audits.
En viro$en$e
Major work has been done on Enviro$en$e (E$), OECA's electronic environmental
information network. During the past fiscal year, pollution prevention and enforcement
and compliance information was transferred from the Bulletin Board System to
EnviroSenSe's Internet Web site. Much work was done initially in developing and
implementing the design of EnviroSenSe and later its redesign; then the same process was
applied to the OECA home page and all of its sub-home pages. The goal was to make
some of the visual and substantive characteristics of each home page correspond to parts
of ES and to EPA's agency-wide electronic environmental information network.
Fetit >nl Fiii i.'uit'*; E'lfurt ancnl Office FY 1997 A( conif>lishirtf>it Report
19
-------
Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable
FFEO implements the EPA/Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable, which is a
standing Federal agency group that meets on a regular monthly basis for one day to
exchange information about EPA policy, existing and pending standards and regulations,
and the latest in environmental research. Fifty Federal departments and agencies
participate in the Roundtable, which has been in continuous operation at EPA for over 10
years.
The Roundtable also provides a forum for the exchange of information on pollution
prevention and control techniques as well as innovative clean up technologies. Other
topics include: information needed to prepare the annual Federal agency pollution
abatement and prevention plans required by E.O. 12088, FEDPLAN, and OMB Circular
A-11; the hazardous waste docket; proposed EPA strategies for various national
programs; technical information systems; and high profile topics such as the NPL, base
closure, and Toxic Reporting Inventory (TRI).
The Roundtable was established under authority of Executive Order 12088, to fulfill the
consultative and technical assistance mandate envisioned between EPA and other Federal
agencies. Specifically, Section 1-2 of the E.O. requires that "each Executive agency shall
consult with the Administrator and with State, interstate, and local agencies concerning
the best techniques and methods available for the prevention, control, and abatement of
environmental pollution." Section 1-3 of the E.O. indicates that "the Administrator shall
provide technical advice and assistance to Executive agencies in order to ensure their cost
effective and timely compliance with applicable pollution control standards."
Federal Fin times Enfun emeiti Office FY 1997 Amimphshment Report
:o
-------
5
Regulatory Rein vent ion
In 1995, President Clinton created the XL Federal Facilities program as part of his
Reinventing Environmental Regulation initiative. XL projects are intended to give the
regulated community the opportunity to demonstrate excellence and leadership by
developing projects that result in superior environmental performance, in partnership with
regulators and members of the general public, when provided with the flexibility to
pursue alternatives to the current regulatory system.
For Federal agencies, initial implementation of Project XL has rested primarily on the
DOD ENVVEST program. Success of future XL activities with other Federal agencies
will reflect lessons learned in working with DOD. On November 2, 1995, DOD and EPA
signed a Memorandum of Agreement at the Assistant Administrator/Assistant Secretary
level establishing the framework for Project XL/ENVVEST regulatory reinvention pilot
projects at DOD facilities. This Memorandum of Agreement sets forth the criteria for
XLVENVVEST proposals and outlines other aspects of the process for review and
approval of facility level proposals.
EPA and DOD have initially agreed that Vandenberg Air Force Base in California should
serve as the prototype facility. This prototype project will allow Vandenberg to reduce
environmental program costs and apply the savings directly to pollution prevention
programs at the facility. In addition to the Vandenberg site, DOD candidate facilities
include: Naval Station Mayport(Navy), Florida; Washington; Elmendorf Air Force Base
(Air Force), Alaska; Plant 4(Air Force"), Texas; and Puget Sound Naval Station (Navy),
Washington.
/•*
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Reptiri
-------
6
Regulation and Policy
A. Audit Policy/Privilege Issues
In early 1997, virtually every military agency and CFA received a letter FFEO drafted
conveying the position of OECA and the DOJ, Environment and Natural Resources
Division, on State audit privilege or immunity laws. In the letter, Steven Herman,
Assistant Administrator for OECA, and Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General for the
Environment and Natural Resources Division, quoted a letter from Vice President Gore to
members of Congress, strongly criticizing such State laws and analogous Federal
legislative proposals. In light of the strong Administration position on the matter, Steven
Herman and Lois Schiffer asked that no Federal agency invoke provisions of a State audit
privilege or immunity law. Rather, the letter encouraged reliance on the EPA Audit
Policy, which provides enforcement penalty relief under prescribed circumstances. As a
result of the letter to the Federal agencies, DOD issued a national policy instructing each
DOD facility to obtain DOD Headquarters approval before relying on a State audit
privilege or immunity law.
B. DOD Attempt to Amend Environmental Laws
in Defense Authorization Bill
FFEO, as part of a team including EPA's Congressional Office and involved program
offices, worked to successfully defeat an attempt by DOD to use the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to amend the TSCA, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SWDA), and the Marine Pollution Research and Sanctuaries Act. The DOD
provisions would have provided environmental exemptions for Naval vessels containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). EPA argued that it was inappropriate to amend
environmental laws in a Defense Bill. The defeated provisions included language that
would have permitted the Navy and MARAD to export vessels contaminated with PCBs
without notice to receiving countries, and would have permitted the Navy to commence
the sinking of vessels with PCB contamination for training purposes, without completing
risk studies which are underway. By entering into three compliance agreements with the
/ < h\u b'njnn ci'u ns Otfu c FY IW? AfOtmfJii\hr*w •' Rcpurt
-------
Navy, EPA was able to satisfactorily address the issues for EPA and the Navy, gaining
the Navy's support for withdrawing the environmental exemption provision. In its place,
the final version of the Defense Reauthorization Act contains a reporting requirement
geared at assessing the success of the export compliance agreement.
C. DOE Collaborative Decision-Making
Guidance Signed
The Final Guidance on Improving Communications to Achieve Collaborative Decision-
Making at Department of Energy Sites was issued under the signatures of Assistant
Administrator Steve Herman, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management
A1 Aim. and Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response Tim Fields. The guidance is intended to encourage greater use of
interagency project teams to improve and expedite clean up.
The four-page document focuses on improving communication to: (1) further the EPA
and State regulator role in establishing project priorities at DOE sites; (2) encourage
greater use of collaborative decision-making to improve and expedite clean up and
compliance at DOE facilities; and (3) improve the informal dispute/issue resolution
process to facilitate clean up and compliance.
This guidance describes a communication framework that should improve compliance,
accelerate environmental work, and increase efficiencies. Several Regions have
successfully participated on interagency teams and documented success in using
collaborative decision-making approaches to reduce costs at Federal clean up sites. The
concepts outlined in the guidance can strengthen EPA and State positions in establishing
priorities at DOE sites while assisting DOE in accomplishing its expedited clean up
goals.
Dm Environmental Justice
FFEO has completed a focused Environmental Justice Enforcement Initiative at Federal
facilities. This initiative uses the most current TRI data reported by Federal facilities
coupled with enforcement and compliance data to target facilities in low-income and
minority populations for enforcement and compliance actions. ARCVIEW and Landview
II GIS databases were used to analyze demographic information. The TRI Chronic
Health indicator model developed by Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic
Substances was used to analyze relative risk of contaminants at the facilities.
As a result of maps generated at sites, FFEO is recommending that the Regions plan and
target multi-media inspections and related enforcement activities at the Federal facilities
cited in the report. This initiative is expected to be a continuous effort as TRI
information is reported annually by Federal facilities. The final report of this effort,
published in June 1997, is entitled. Federal Facilities Environmental Justice
Enforcement Initiative (FFEJEI).
f fdeml f-'aiiltttrs En/itrcemeni Office FY 1997 A( aimplithmeni Kepuri
24
-------
7
JX. RCRA Cases:
1. Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C.
On March 6, 1997, EPA Region IH and the Department of Navy signed a RCRA Section
7003 cleanup order for the Washington Navy Yard in Southeast Washington D.C. The
order requires comprehensive hazardous waste clean up at the installation to implement
interim measures, further contamination investigations, and corrective measures. The
Navy Yard action is part of a continuing geographic initiative to conduct clean up as part
of the Anacostia River Initiative. Region m released a press announcement of this
enforcement action on March 11, 1997.
2. Fort Campbell (Kentucky/Tennessee border}
Region IV settled a RCRA case against the Fort Campbell Army base located on the
Kentucky/Tennessee border. The Fort Campbell violations included failure to make
hazardous waste determination, failure to correctly label containers, failure to remove
hazardous waste from satellite accumulation areas in a timely manner, and failure to
maintain emergency equipment. The total penalty assessed amounted to $36,000.
3. Memphis Depot, Tennessee
Region IV filed a final order settling the RCRA case against a military supply depot
located in Memphis, Tennessee. The order called for a penalty payment of $12,000. This
action settled a September 1996, administrative complaint the Region filed under RCRA
Section 3008(a) against the Defense Logistics Agency, (Defense Depot) Memphis.
Tennessee, which alleged that the respondent stored containers of incompatible hazardous
wastes next to each other without properly separating them in accordance with RCRA.
The complaint assessed a penalty of $20,000, and ordered the facility to submit a plan
within thirty days insuring that incompatible wastes were no longer stored together. The
respondent submitted the required plan and provided the Region with new information
Ft\lt-.il Fth ihtwy F.n; 'rcetiwnt FY I9Q7 .U\-oinpU*h»*?nt Report
25
-------
concerning the facility's storage practices. Based on this new information, the penalty
was reduced to $12,000.
4. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Connecticut
The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) of the Department of the Navy agreed on
September 18, 1996 to pay a $80,625 penalty to settle an EPA complaint alleging
violations of Federal and State hazardous waste management laws at three of its
Connecticut locations.
Region I and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection jointly inspected
the three NUWC facilities and discovered violations of RCRA. NUWC failed to have a
complete contingency plan for responding to an accidental hazardous waste spill, failed to
properly train personnel, failed to determine if wastes were hazardous and therefore
subject to Federal management and handling laws, and failed to properly label hazardous
waste containers at the facility.
5. Fart Richardson ana Fort Wainwright, Alaska
On April 29, 1994, EPA issued two Complaints and Compliance Orders (complaints)
under RCRA Section 3008(a) to the Army for hazardous waste violations at Fort
Richardson and Fort Wainwright in Alaska. The Complaint for Fort Richardson assessed
$1.34 million in penalties for gross mismanagement of hazardous waste at the facility that
posed a substantial threat to human health and the environment. The Complaint for Fort
Wainwright assessed $650,000 in penalties for mismanagement of hazardous waste.
On November 21, 1996, a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) was signed to
settle the two Complaints. Since both facilities addressed the violations in the Complaint
prior to settlement, the CACO contains no further injunctive relief. The settlement calls
for the Army to pay $200,000 to the U.S. Treasury and to perform two SEPs. The SEPs
require the Army to obtain hazardous waste storage lockers for use at U.S. Army
installations in Alaska and to establish a Joint Regional Environmental Training Center in
order to make environmental training available to Federal and State agencies in Alaska.
The CACO requires that total expenditures for the SEPs be no less than $1,002,920,
6. United States Coast Guard Kodiak, Alaska
A CACO was signed by the Region X Administrator for this Alaska facility on January
23, 1997, settling a Complaint and Compliance Order (Complaint). The Complaint
sought over $ I million in penalties for violations of RCRA, including the failure to
monitor groundwater and illegally burning waste piles of debris. A penalty of $602,260
has been agreed to for the specific violations alleged in the Complaint. The U.S. Coast
Guard Kodiak has fixed the groundwater monitoring system and has closed the waste
piles, so no further injunctive relief is sought in the CACO.
Federal fiialiltes Enforcement Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Hfpuri
26
-------
7, West ha uen, Connecticut Veterans Affairs
Region I reached settlement March 31, 1997 with the VA Medical Center in Westhaven,
Connecticut on a Complaint and Compliance Order under Section 3008(a) of RCRA.
The penalty assessed in the final Complaint was $82,375 and the agreed upon settlement
penalty was $61,550. VA will pay $15,388 (25%) in cash and will perform SEPs costing
about $48,000. VA will install and operate a closed-loop silver recovery system and
automatic batch system for four x-ray developer units, purchase necessary computer
hardware and hazardous materials software to be used by the VA Safety Office personnel,
hire a consultant to conduct an environmental compliance audit at the facility, and
provide eight hours of RCRA hazardous waste management training to all members of
the Fire & Safety Office, appropriate members of the Facilities Management Service, and
research laboratory principle investigators.
Among the violations outlined in the CACO was the failure to make hazardous waste
determinations and the failure to operate so as to minimize the possibility of a fire,
explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste
constituents.
B. U.S. Department of interior, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Fort Defiance
(Arizona)
On September 30, 1997, EPA filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk a Compliance
Agreement/Consent Order for the Fort Defiance Road Maintenance Facility RCRA
enforcement case. The BIA settlement calls for the payment of $48,423 in penalties and
an undertaking of three SEPs costing in aggregate $585,000. The cash penalty amounts
to 18% of the assessed penalty. Under the SEPs, the BIA will conduct environmental
audits at 100 Navajo Nation facilities and primarily schools; develop hazardous waste
management standard operating procedures for Navajo Nation facilities; and provide
hazardous waste training for tribal and BIA employees.
9. U.S. Department of interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), Yuma (Arizona)
On September 30, 1997 EPA filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk a Compliance
Agreement/Consent Order for the Yuma Desalting Plant RCRA enforcement case. This
settlement calls for the payment of $36,769 in penalties and an undertaking of three SEPs,
costing in aggregate $768,712. Under the SEPs, BOR will conduct compliance audits
and follow-up compliance work at six BOR facilities and establish enhanced spill
response capabilities along the Colorado River.
Federal Facthue* En fan ci>u ir Qffu e FY 1097 Af i ttmphshment Report
-------
10m U.S. Department of Interior, National Park
Service (NPS), Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park (Hawaii)
On September 30, 1997, EPA filed a Compliance Agreement/Consent Order for the
Hawaii National Park RCRA enforcement case. NPS settlement calls for the payment of
541,100 in penalties and an undertaking of one SEP costing 5234,875. Under the SEP,
NPS will develop hazardous waste management plans for six national parks and will
establish a model hazardous waste management plan to be instituted at all NPS facilities,
following the lessons learned from the six national parks.
if. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Hoopa Campus (California)
In September of 1997, EPA filed an Administrative Complaint against Hoopa Campus,
California. The Complaint's allegations of RCRA hazardous waste violations include the
storage of hazardous waste without a permit and failure to have an EPA generator
identification number at a now-vacated campus facility. The total penalty amounted to
$260,500. All waste has now been properly disposed of.
CERCLA Cases
1. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Kentucky
Region IV reached an agreement with DOE on clean up of the NPL listed Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, in Paducah, Kentucky. The agreement anticipates completion of
groundwater clean up by the year 2010. The IAG was sent out for public comment during
FY 1997. Region IV and DOE are now in the process of finalizing the agreement.
2. Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado
On March 3, 1997, World Works I, Inc., (WorldWorks) filed a citizen suit to compel EPA
and the Army, under CERCLA Section 120, to enter into an IAG for the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal. Key issues in the case are what constitutes "arrangements for long-term
operation and maintenance" for purposes of an IAG under CERCLA Section 120(e), and
whether the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) in place at the Arsenal constitutes an IAG.
On September 3, 1997, Defendants EPA and Army filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for Partial Summary Judgement. The Motion to Dismiss seeks summary
judgement on the issue that the FFA, the Records of Decision (RODs) and other
documents associated with the case constitute an IAG for purposes of CERCLA Section
Federal Fiiahtiet F.nfnrct'me'ii Office FY 1997 Accomplishment Report
28
-------
120(e). In the alternative, the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the review being sought by WorldWorks is not
available to the court under Section 113(h) which prohibits, with limited exceptions,
Federal court jurisdiction prior to EPA enforcement of the challenged action.
On October 6. 1997. WorldWork's filed its Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or
in the Alternative for Partial Summary Judgement. WorldWorks continues to be
dissatisfied with the remedy selected in the RODs, and wishes to revisit the remedy
including soliciting another round of public comment. Defendants EPA and Army's
Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for Partial Summary Judgement was filed on October 23, 1997, It is unclear
when the court will rule on the Government's Motion.
3. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming
Pursuant to the CERCLA FFA for F.E. Warren Air Force Base, EPA Region 8 issued a
Stop Work Order requesting that work being done at Operable Unit 3. Landfill 6 be
immediately stopped. The Stop Work Order may be the first issued to a Federal facility
pursuant to a FFA. The Order was issued because F.E. Wanen proceeded with
construction of the compacted layer of the evapotranspiration (ET) cover prior to
finalization of the ROD amendment, changing the remedy from a RCRA Subtitle C cap
to an ET cover. Although work on the ET cover has stopped, EPA and the State of
Wyoming are now evaluating issues regarding winterization activities to control erosion
of Landfill 6's surface during the winter season, and how this can be accomplished vis-a-
vis the Stop Work Order and the FFA.
4. Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory,
Washington
On July 30, 1997, the CERCLA Section 120 LAG became effective upon signature by the
Regional Administrator. The Old Navy Dump (Manchester Annex) site in Washington
(Region X) constitutes 39.50 acres of uplands and an unquantified amount of tidelands
within Clam Bay. The site is a FUDS being remediated by the U.S. Army Corps or
Engineers under its formerly used defense site program.
&* King Salmon, Alaska
On December 16, 1996 a CERCLA cleanup agreement (Agreement) was signed by the
US Air Force, the State of Alaska, and EPA Region X. The Air Force entered into the
Agreement pursuant to CERCLA Sections 104 and 120(a)(4). Alaska will be using its
State authorities to provide oversight of activities and to enforce the Agreement. EPA's
role in ihe Agreement is to provide technical assistance and to consult with Alaska and
the Air Force on the implementation of the Agreement. EPA has reserved its rights to
require the Air Force to perform work at the site independent of this Agreement. The
purpose of the Agreement is to provide a procedural framework and schedule for
Federal Frt
29
-------
coordination and implementation of the selected interim remedial action at the site in
accordance with CERCLA, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan, applicable guidance and policy, and applicable State laws.
6. Naval Ammunition Depot, Hastings, Nebraska
Ray Fatz, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, signed the 73-page LAG for the
U.S. Department of the Army Former Naval Ammunition Depot site located in Hastings,
Nebraska (Region VH) after a period of re-negotiating to resolve remaining issues. The
Hastings site was listed on the NPL in June of 1986. Groundwater and soil at the site
have been contaminated with volatile organic compounds, heavy metals and PAHs.
Several clean up actions have taken place while other long-term cleanup actions are
ongoing.
C. TSCA RCB Cases
1. U.S. Navy PCB-Containing Vessel
EPA successfully negotiated a high profile agreement involving the U.S. Navy, EPA, and
Universal Studios. The agreement allowed the movement and filming of a Naval vessel
known to contain PCBs, provided the agreement's environmental and public health
requirements were met. The provisions of the agreement satisfied such diverse interests as
EPA, the movie studio, the Navy, and environmentalists.
2*. Agreement to Transfer Naval Boats,
Support Craft and Industrial Equipment with
PCBs to Communities for Further Use
FFEO worked with the Navy in the development and execution of a Compliance
Agreement addressing the transfer of vessels and industrial equipment at base closure
sites. The Agreement facilitates the transfer of vessels and equipment to local
redevelopment authorities (LRAs) and local communities {LCs) for use in the economic
development of their communities. The Agreement requires the Navy to notify the vessel
and equipment recipients of potential PCB contamination in the form of non-liquid PCBs,
including a fact sheet, and requires that the recipients maintain the suspected PCBs in
their place, except when normal maintenance requires their removal. The Agreement
provides a mechanism for LRAs and LCs to transfer vessels and equipment to third
parties while still remaining responsible to reclaim the transferred vessels and equipment
if the third party is violating any terms or conditions of the Agreement. The Agreement
also provides for the Navy to be responsible for reclaiming vessels in the event of a third
party breach.
Federal fiit iliac* Enforcement Ojfn e FY 1997 AixompluhmeM Report
30
-------
3. Navy Export Agreement
Following a series of meetings with the National Economic Council, the Office of
Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of
State, FFEO worked closely with OPPT in the negotiation of an agreement allowing the
Navy to export vessels for scrapping overseas. These vessels may contain non-liquid
PCBs in felt gaskets, wire cabling, paint, adhesives, etc. The Agreement requires that all
transformers and large high and low voltage capacitors that contain dialectic fluids with
PCBs in any concentrations and all hydraulic and heat transfer fluids containing PCBs be
removed prior to export. Solid items containing PCBs are to be removed when these
items are readily removable and their removal does not jeopardize the structural integrity
of the vessel. The Agreement requires annual notification to countries that are known to
import ships for scrapping and follow up notice to each country in advance of receiving
vessels. The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1998
contains a reporting provision whereby EPA, the Navy, and the Maritime Administration
are required to inform Congress regarding the implementation of this Agreement.
4. Extension of Sinking Exercise Agreement
(SiNKEX)
In response to a request from the Secretary of the Navy, FFEO developed conditions
under which OECA could agree to extend the SINKEX Agreement for another eight
vessels. The existing Agreement provided the Navy with the target practice and sinking
of up to eight vessels, pursuant to all existing permits issued by EPA as well as the
requirements of the agreement. Navy preparation for SINKEX includes the removal, to
the maximum extent practicable, of all materials which may degrade the marine
environment, including the emptying of fuel tanks, and fuel lines, flushing tanks and
lines, removing from the hulls other pollutants and all readily detachable material capable
of creating debris or contributing to chemical pollution. Removal of all transformers and
capacitors containing three pounds or more of dielectric fluid is required as well as
reasonable efforts to remove capacitors containing less than three pounds of fluid, and the
draining and flushing of hydraulic equipment and heat transfer equipment. Non-liquid
PCBs which are not readily detachable or where removal may threaten the structural
integrity of the vessel are not required to be removed. The extension letter sets out
requirements for additional milestones toward the conclusion of the Navy's sunken vessel
study, a risk assessment of environmental effects from sunken naval vessels. The goal of
the study is to determine if past/continued SINKEX operations pose significant risk to the
environment or human health via the food chain.
FcJtral Fttciltnri. s nfommetu Ofjhe f Y /997 U ctHtiplixhmenf Report
-------
5. Implementation of the Minuteman II
Compliance Agreement
As a resuit of the implementation of the EPA/U.S. Air Force (USAF) Compliance
Agreement addressing Minuteman II missile silo implosions in support of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty, implosions have continued on track, whiie environmental
requirements of the agreement are being met. Under the Agreement, the implosions are
almost complete and groundwater monitoring plans have been developed for both
Whiteman and Ellsworth AFB. A Hardened Intersite Cable System Sampling Plan was
developed, followed by the Hardened Intersite Cable System Draft Environmental
Baseline Survey. Preliminary draft Prototype Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBS)
have been developed for a Launch Control facility and a Launch facility. These EBSs
will serve as a model for each type of facility. Underground storage tanks sold to area
landowners were recovered for TSCA landfill disposal. The State of Missouri executed
their own State annex of distinct State requirements in addition to the provisions in the
USEPA/USAF Compliance Agreement.
6. Implementation and! Modification of Toxic
Substances Control Met (TSCA) Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) for
the Uranium Enrichment Operations at
DOE's Gaseous Diffusion Process
Facilities: Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah,
Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee and
Execution of the Oak Ridge Reservation
Polychlorinated Biphenyls Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement (ORR-PCB-FFCA)
The TSCA FFCA was modified to revise the requirements of the PCB gasket/duct
removal program, changing the initiation date to coincide with decontamination and
decommissioning (D&D) for Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky. The D&D cost
of each plant is estimated at S3 billion; an additional S450-S600 million would be
required to remove these gaskets prior to D&D. Since the gaskets are troughed for PCB
collection and air sampling has been within acceptable limits, deferring this removal
activity is desirable in light of radiological and industrial risks. Deferral of removal of
the Paducah building C-340 hydraulic systems until D&D of the building also was
approved for a $2-3 million savings and a decrease in radiological and industrial risks.
The modification officially severed the K-25 uranium enrichment facility from the TSCA
FFCA, since K-25 now falls under the December 16, 1996 Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Reservation Polychlorinated Biphenyls Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement which
encompasses all Oak Ridge Facilities,
Accomplishments of the TSCA FFCA to date include the installation of 16,000 troughs at
Paducah under the motor exhaust duct gaskets and the disposal of nearly 700,000
Federal Fm Etih>n euumt Offit v FY J997 Art omphthmctit Rvptmi
32
-------
kilograms (kg) of PCB waste that included over 6,500 capacitors. Portsmouth has
disposed of 487,000 kg of PCB-contaminated lube oil and retrofilled and reclassified 8
PCB-contaminated lube oil systems. An additional 459,000 kg of PCB liquid waste from
Portsmouth has been disposed of at the Oak Ridge TSCA incinerator, and more than
16,000 motor exhaust duct flanges have been troughed. The K-25 site disposed of over
124,000 gallons of askerel fluid. FFEO continues implementation of the Agreement
including annual meetings in which the progress reports are reviewed.
7. First Annual PCB Status Report Submitted
Under the National Compliance Agreement
Between EPA and the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program (NNPP) for the Storage of
Radioactively-Contaminated PCBs and
PCBs Contaminated with Mixed Wastes
Under this national compliance agreement executed on August 8, 1996, DOE submitted
the first National Status Report required under the Agreement. The report included
information on DOE/NNPP sites in all ten EPA Regions. The report described reasons
for exceeding the one-year storage limit for PCBs under TSCA; the compliance status of
covered PCB wastes; a summary of shipments at other sites; the three year generation rate
of covered PCB wastes; disposal capacity; and alternative technologies under
development by DOE and NNPP. The Agreement was developed with the DOE
concerning storage of radioactive PCB waste and radioactive PCBs with mixed waste at
designated DOE and NNPP sites. The Agreement addresses the lack of DOE disposal
capacity including insufficient time to complete the disposal process and/or the absence
of a disposal technology.
B. Savannah River Site £South Carolina) Letter
of Enforcement Discretion
FFEO worked with EPA Region IV to issue a letter of enforcement discretion to rid the
Savanna River Site of surplus manufacturing equipment while implementing a DOE
economic initiative. The surplus manufacturing equipment was discovered to have PCBs
in various painted surfaces and cable. The letter of enforcement discretion describes
conditions for transfer, reuse, and operation of the contaminated equipment.
9. Museum Transfer Ships
FFEO has been coordinating with Region EX concerning the placement of the U.S.S.
Hornet as a museum in Alameda, California. FFEO continues to provide on-going
counsel to regional PCB coordinators in jurisdictions where former Naval aircraft carriers
and similar vessels are donated to a city for display as a museum. The first agreements
used to transfer the U.S.S. Lexington to Corpus Christi, Texas and continued use of the
vessel as a museum have been used as a model by Region 1 in the transfer of the U.S.S.
Fcdcud htu ilutr* Enfon cmtnl Ojfn «* fY }Q9? Mx'wpUthmtnt
-------
Salem. The Agreements concern the transfer, continued use, and ultimate disposal of
these vessels with unauthorized non-liquid PCBs, where removal of the PCBs would not
be feasible.
D. Other Cases
1. Grain Bin Project
FFEO succeeded in allocating nearly 5500,000 to be used towards sampling projects by
Kansas, Nebraska, and Region VII to identify potential users of carbon tetrachloride-
contaminated water. These funds have already helped in the identification of residents
who had unknowingly been consuming contaminated water. AJso, FFEO negotiated the
signing of a joint letter between EPA and USDA to DOJ that lays out an agreement
between EPA and USDA to address the Grain Bin sites cooperatively, and declares that a
fair allocation of future cost between EPA and USDA is appropriate. This document and
the process undertaken to achieve it, provides a commitment from USDA to take this
effort seriously while under the moderation of DOJ.
Z. Redstone ArsenalAlabama
In June, Region IV issued a unilateral compliance order against the U.S. Army Missile
Command, Redstone Arsenal Water System (System) (located near Huntsville, Alabama)
for violations of SDWA and its implementing regulations. The System provides water to
22,000 individuals. The violations included exceeding the maximum contaminant level
for total coliform bacteria and failing to meet the total coliform monitoring/reporting
requirements during all the months from January 1996 to April I997. In addition, the
system failed to provide notification to the public of the violations, as required. This is
the first unilateral compliance order issued against a Federal facility under authorities
contained in the August 1996 revision to the SDWA.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY I997 Aci nmplishtntril Report
34
-------
8
FY 1997 Single-Media
Inspections at Federal Facilities
Total Number of Inspections
at Federal Facilities - EPA and State
Inspection
Total
RCRA
707
CAA
397
CWA
391
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA
9
1504
Federal Fae tittle* Enforcement Office FY 1997 Acxomplnhmcni Rtpofi
35
-------
------- |