United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office
Accomplishments Report
FY 1998
-------
This document was prepared by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
For additional copies of this document, please contact;
The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261 A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
410 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tel: (202)564-2510
Fax:(202)501-0069
For more information, visit the FFEO website:
http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Enforcement 3
A. First SDWA Penalty Case (Redstone Arsenal, Alabama) 3
B. First CAA Penalty Case (U.S. Mint, Pennsylvania) 3
C. First TSCA Lead-Based Paint Penalty Case (Kingsville Naval Air Station, Texas) .... 4
D. EPA Penalty Authority for Federal Violations of UST 5
Compliance Assurance 7
A. FY98 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 7
B. FY98 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities 8
C. Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Lease 8
D. Brookhaven Process Evaluation and Five-Year Audit 8
E. Environmental Management Reviews 9
F. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 10
Compliance Assistance II
A. Department of Interior Compliance Initiative 11
B. Environmental Management Systems Primer at Federal Facilities 12
C. Ship Scrapping Panel Report 13
D. Environmental Justice Workshop for Federal Facilities 14
E. Solid Waste Landfills on Tribal Lands Workgroup 14
F. Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable 15
G. Civilian Federal Agency Task Force 15
H. First Annual Civilian Federal Agency Symposium 15
I. National Congress of American Indians Meeting 16
Regulatory Reinvention 17
A. Project XL/EN WEST (Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA) 17
Regulation and Policy 19
A. Safe Drinking Water Act Guidance 19
B. Clean Air Act Guidance 19
C. Underground Storage Tank Regulations 20
D. Guidance on Facility Closure 21
Case Summaries 23
A. CAA Cases 23
1. Navy and DRMS, U.S.S. Robinson, Charleston, SC 23
2. Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX 23
B. CERCLA Cases 24
1. Fresno Drum Removal Site, Fresno, CA 24
C. EPCRA Cases 24
I. U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, AR 24
-------
D. RCRA Cases .25
1. Naval Surface Warfare Center, White Oak Facility, Silver Spring, MD 25
2, Washington Navy Yard/Anacostia Naval Station, Washington, D C 25
3. Tinker Air Force Base. Oklahoma City, OK 25
4, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, LA 25
5. U.S. Postal Service, Shreveport, LA 25
6, U.S. Army, Fort Polk, LA 26
E. SDWA Cases .26
I. U.S. Forest Service, Penasco, NM 26
F. TSCA Cases 26
1. Electric Boat Corporation and KAPL. Inc., Windsor, CT 26
-------
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Federal Facility 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). EPA
believes that Federal agency compliance with pollution control requirements should equal
or surpass the rest of the regulated community, and that Federal agencies should lead the way
in minimizing environmental contamination and impacts to public health. EPA's compliance
philosophy regarding Federal agencies is to ensure that Federal agencies comply with all
applicable environmental requirements in the same manner and to the same extent as
privately-owned facilities. To ensure that Federal agencies adhere to environmental
requirements, EPA monitors Federal agency compliance, issues and negotiates compliance
orders and agreements, assesses fines and penalties, and develops Federal agency
enforcement and compliance policy and guidance.
In general, EPA takes a "two-pronged" approach toward responding to violations of
environmental requirements at Federal facilities. The first prong entails using many of the
same enforcement tools that EPA applies against private parties. These tools include the
assessment of penalties, orders (unilateral and consensual), negotiated settlements, and
informal administrative actions. The second prong involves providing compliance assistance
to Federal facilities by offering technical advice, giving compliance seminars, or performing
on-site compliance assessments.
EPA's Federal Facility Enforcement Office (FFEO) is responsible for ensuring that Federal
agencies 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. FFEO manages a national program
to ensure that Federal facilities and government-owned/contractor-operated (GOCQ)
facilities conduct their activities in an environmentally sound manner and comply with all
applicable environmental statutes and regulations.
Fiscal year 1998 was a watershed year for EPA's Federal Facility Enforcement Program,
primarily due to EPA's exercise of newly clarified enforcement authorities under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the lead-based paint notice
provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and to an innovative compliance
i
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY I99S Accomplishments Report
-------
initiative with the Department of the Interior (DOI), In addition, EPA's Office of General
Counsel has determined that EPA has authority to assess penalties against Federal agencies
for violations of underground storage tank (UST) requirements under §§ 6001, 9001, 9006,
and 9007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the past, EPA has
seen greater compliance at Federal facilities when EPA has enforcement authority than when
it does not. EPA expects that the newly clarified authorities will be a significant addition to
EPA's tools to deter noncompliance.
For the first time in FY98, EPA and another Federal agency. DOI, agreed to a unique
initiative aimed at increasing compliance with environmental requirements among all of
DOI's major program organizations. As part of the initiative, EPA is conducting a bureau-
wide review of the National Park Service's (NPS) environmental management system. EPA
expects that the NPS review will be a model for similar reviews at other agencies and such
reviews will be an increasingly important tool for Federal agencies to design efficient and
cost-effective environmental management systems (EMS).
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
1
Enforcement
In FY98, EPA initiated its first enforcement cases against Federal facilities using newly-
clarified penalty authorities under SDWA, CAA. and TSCA's lead-based paint notice
provisions. These enforcement actions are significant, not just because they are the first of
their kind, but because they establish that Federal agencies are liable under these statutes as
are private parties. EPA has found that compliance rates at Federal facilities tend to be
higher when EPA has clear enforcement authorities and uses those authorities. EPA expects
that the use of the clarified penalty authorities will lead to greater compliance by Federal
agencies.
A. First SDWA Penalty Case (Redstone Arsenal, Alabama)
On April 7.1998, EPA Region 4 filed an administrative penalty order against the U.S. Army
Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, in Huntsville, Alabama for violations
of the SDWA. The base was found to have violated requirements of the law which ensure
the safety of the drinking water for the 22.000 people who use the water at the Redstone
Arsenal. This is the first penalty action against a Federal facility under SDWA following the
Act's amendment in 1996, which gave EPA penalty authority against Federal facilities. The
complaint seeks penalties in an amount not to exceed $25,000 per day per violation.
EPA's inspection and subsequent investigation revealed that Redstone violated the Surface
Water Treatment Rule, Public Notification Rule, and Total Coliform Rule, including a
maximum contaminant level violation for total coliform. Redstone failed to properly operate
and maintain storage tanks and reservoirs, maintain a water main flushing program, and
maintain adequate disinfectant residual in the distribution system to keep the level of bacteria
w ithin the allowed levels. As of September 1998, the parties were completing negotiations
on a settlement which will include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that
involve improvements to Redstone's water system to help ensure that the base's water supply-
is safe while using less disinfectant to purity the water.
B. First CAA Penalty Case (U.S. Mint, Pennsylvania)
EPA Region 3 announced in January 1998 that it cited the U.S. Treasury for CAA violations
at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This is EPA's first CAA penalty order
against a Federal facility using its newly clarified penalty authority under CAA.
3
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
In the administrative complaint, EPA charged that the Mint violated regulations governing
the emission of chromium compounds and chlorofluorocarbons. An EPA inspection
revealed that the Mint failed to comply with regulations governing pollution from chromium
compounds. EPA alleged that the coin-making site violated testing, monitoring, and
operation and maintenance requirements for chromium electroplating since January' 1997.
Chromium compounds are regulated as hazardous air pollutants under CAA. Hexavalent
chromium, one such chromium compound, is a known carcinogen causing lung cancer and
other non-carcinogenic, toxic effects.
In September 1998, EPA and the Mint reached a settlement under which the Mint agreed to
pay a $16,000 penalty in cash, representing 25% of the final assessed penalty, and undertake
a $90,427 SEP to upgrade pollution control equipment from its chromium electroplating
operations. The Mint agreed to install and operate a superior emission control system for
two hard chromium electroplating tanks and a chromium strip tank. This control system will
greatly reduce emissions below the allowable emissions limit.
First TSCA Lead-Based Paint Penalty Case (Kingsvilie Naval Air
Station, Texas)
In 1998, EPA Region 6 announced that it cited Kingsvilie Naval Air Station (NAS) for
violations of the Real Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule (Disclosure Rule) which sets
forth EPA response authorities under §1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act. This is EPA's first penalty order issued to a Federal facility for violating
§ 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. Section 1018(b)(5) of this
Act makes a violation of the Disclosure Rule a prohibited act under §409 of TSCA and
subject to EPA enforcement authority under §16 of TSCA.
The administrative complaint, issued on July 28, 1998, charges that the Kingsvilie NAS
violated regulations 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 occupancy agreements for military housing constructed prior to
1978. A previous report prepared by the NAS identified lead-based paint in the military
housing but the information was not disclosed to the residents prior to signing their
occupancy agreements. This situation is considered to be extremely serious because EPA
Region 6 provided compliance assistance to Kingsvilie NAS regarding the lead disclosure
requirements and yet Kingsvilie NAS failed to provide the report and make the required
disclosure. EPA seeks a penalty in excess of $400,000 for these violations.
An EPA investigation revealed that the NAS failed to comply with the lead disclosure
regulations which are aimed at preventing childhood lead poisoning. All eleven occupancy
agreements cited in the complaint involved housing in which children under the age of six
resided on the property. EPA alleged that the military housing office withheld known
information regarding lead-based paint, some in deteriorated condition, even after receiving
direct compliance assistance on the new lead disclosure requirements.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
It is estimated that approximately one million children in the United States have lead
poisoning and the most common source of exposure is from lead-based paint in older
housing. Over time, even tow-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.
EPA Penalty Authority for Federal Violations of UST
EPA's Office of General Counsel determined that EPA has the authority under §§ 6001,
9001, 9006, and 9007 of RCRA to issue to another Federal agency an administrative order
assessing a civil penalty for violations of underground storage tank UST 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 §9006(a)
authorizes EPA to issue orders to "any person" violating the regulation and § 9001(6)
specifically states that the term "person" includes the United States government.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
This page left intentionally blank.
6
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
2
Compliance Assurance
EPA monitors activities at Federal facilities to determine whether Federal facilities are in
compliance with environmental laws and regulations. To assure compliance, EPA relies on
facility inspections as the primary tool for determining compliance. Each fiscal year, EPA.
in coordination with the States, plans and conducts single- and multi-media inspections at
Federal facilities. In addition to inspections, EPA uses other compliance tools, such as audits
and environmental management reviews (EMRs), as a means to assure compliance. Audits
are conducted to evaluate facility operations and practices related to meeting environmental
requirements.
In FY98, EPA and DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to evaluate the
operations of DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory. EMRs are collaborative efforts
between EPA and a Federal facility to evaluate the facility's environmental program and
management systems. In FY98, EPA continued several pilot EMRs with the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) NY Metro Area and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Other
compliance activities that took place in FY98 include updating the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and issuing a comfort letter providing a Norwegian
shipbuilding company with assurances the EPA will not pursue the company for existing
contamination at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
A fy98 Multi-Media inspections at Federal Facilities
*
A nationwide total of 30 multi-media inspections were performed at Federal facilities during
FY98 in a coordinated effort with EPA Regions and 22 State/local government inspectors.
A minimum of two environmental statutes, one of which was either RCRA, Clean Water Act
(CWA), or CAA, were inspected at each facility. Overall, inspections covered RCRA, CAA,
CWA, TSCA, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and SDWA program requirements.
Six of the 30 multi-media inspections took place at CFA facilities: Department of Veterans
Affairs, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Department
of Justice (DOJ). Department of Treasury, and General Services Administration. Twenty-
two took place at Department of Defense (DoD) facilities and two took place at Department
of Energy (DOE) facilities.
7
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
B. FY98 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities
In FY98, a total of 1,353 single-media inspections were conducted by EPA Regions and
States under RCRA. CAA, CWA, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA penalty authorities. Of the
total number of inspections, 937 occurred at DoD facilities. 314 at CFA facilities, and 102
at DOE facilities.
EPA and State Inspections at Federal Facilities (FY98)
Regulation Number of Inspections
RCRA 699
CAA 475
CWA 148
TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA 31
Total 1,353
C. Philadelphia Naval Ship yard Lease
In 1998, FFEO, Department of Justice, and EPA Region 3 finalized negotiations on a comfort
letter with Kvaerner ASA. a Norwegian shipbuilding company, for its lease of
approximately 114 acres of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. The comfort letter provides
Kvaerner with assurances that EPA will not pursue Kvaerner for existing contamination at
the site, EPA will continue to hold the U.S. Navy liable for past contamination and
responsible for cleanup, and EPA will consistently apply its Policy Towards Landowners ami
Transferees of Federal Facilities to the Kvaerner property.
The ability of EPA to work with Kvaerner allowed for a smooth transition of the facility into
private re-use and the company was able to re-develop the parcel ahead of schedule. By
providing a comfort letter to Kvaerner, EPA was able to expedite cleanup and re-use of the
facility in downtown Philadelphia. The revitalization of the shipyard is estimated to provide
several hundred new jobs to the area.
D. Brookhaven Process Evaluation and Five-Year Audit
In March 1998, EPA Region 2 and DOE signed a MOA to conduct two projects 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
MOA are a facility-wide process evaluation and audits of BNL's EMS.
For the process evaluation, BNL will assess all experimental and industrial-type operations
at the facility for the purpose of identifying all waste streams generated at the facility. BNL
g
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 199$ Accomplishments Report
-------
will determine the regulatory status of each waste stream, ensure that all waste stream
generators are knowledgeable on proper waste management and handling, and ensure that
pollution prevention, waste minimization, and assessment opportunities are examined,
implemented, and tracked as appropriate.
The 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 requirements and provide continuous
improvement in environmental stewardship.
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 Center 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 CAA, SDWA, and TSCA
regulations for the improper storage and handling of polychlorinated biphenvls (PCBs) also
were found.
Environmental Management Reviews
In FY98, the EPA Region 2 Federal Facilities Program continued several pilot EMRs. with
USPS New York Metro Area and the U.S. Military Academy, West Point in accordance with
EPA's Interim Final Policy for Conducting EMRs at Federal Facilities. These pilot EMRs
are intended to help the Postal Service and the Military Academy evaluate, and ultimately
improve, their EMSs, and help EPA test the Interim EMR Policy.
The U.S. Military Academy EMR is a pilot EMR that is being conducted to evaluate how
well the Academy manages environmental planning and risk management at the facility and
to identify opportunities for improvement. The EMR is designed to provide feedback on the
effectiveness of specific areas in environmental management and to benchmark performance.
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.
The USPS EMR project differs from a traditional EMR in its scope. EMRs were originally
designed to evaluate the EMS at a specific facility or site. The USPS EMR. however, is
taking this concept a step further by reviewing the EMS of an entire USPS Area (the New
York Metro Area), which can be compared to an EPA Region. The USPS New York Metro
Area consists of: 7 districts (New York City, Triboro. Long Island, Westchester. Central NJ.
Northern NJ, and the Caribbean); 1700 facilities; 18 vehicle maintenance facilities; 30 plants
(distribution operations); 14,000 vehicles; and 85,000 employees. Once the actual reviews
are completed, EPA and USPS will extend the EMR project to other USPS Areas.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
The eleventh update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was
published in the Federal Register on November 23,1998. containing information which was
current as of February' 1,1998. This docket contains information about Federal facilities that
manage hazardous waste or from which hazardous substances have been or may be released.
This update contains 89 additions and 11 deletions from the previous update, bringing the
total number of Federal facilities listed on the docket to 2,182.
Section 120(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, requires EPA to establish a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket. In 1994 the responsibility for the docket was transferred from EPA's Office of Solid
Waste to FFEO.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
3
Compliance Assistance
An important component of FFEO's mission is to provide compliance assistance to Federal
agencies. In FY98, FFEO was involved in several compliance assistance activities ranging
from organizing and attending workshops and conferences to implementing a joint initiative
with DOI to increase compliance at DOI facilities. For example, FFEO and Region 6 held
an Environmental Justice Workshop in January 1998 and FFEO continued to hold Federal
Agency Environmental Roundtable and CFA Task Force meetings. In addition, the First
Annual CFA Symposium was held in March 1998 and FFEO participated in an interagency
workgroup to address solid waste issues on tribal lands and a meeting held by the National
Congress of American Indians. Also in FY98, FFEO developed (in partnership with DOE)
the Environmental Management Systems Primer for Federal Facilities.
A. Department of Interior Compliance Initiative
During FY98, EPA began a joint initiative with DOI to increase compliance at DOI
facilities. In 1997, as part of the customary EPA Federal facility compliance assurance
process, EPA Regions conducted regulatory compliance inspections at a number of DOI
facilities and found several to be out of compliance. In accordance with established
enforcement policies for Federal facilities, EPA assessed fines of over $1.7 million against
three DOI Bureaus. While a majority of that penalty amount was addressed in SEPs
designed to assist those facilities and Bureaus achieve, maintain, and "'go beyond'"
compliance with environmental regulations, the compliance posture of DOI facilities
increasingly became a matter of concern for EPA and DOI.
EPA and DOI agreed to work jointly to enhance compliance assistance across DOI Bureaus
and facilities with an overall goal of raising the level of regulatory awareness and compliance
at all DOI facilities. This was the first time that EPA pledged to provide compliance
assistance across an entire Federal agency. As a result of the agreement. EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance requested that EPA Regional
offices consider compliance assistance for DOI facilities a priority in fiscal years 1998 and
1999. Similarly, senior management at each of the five major DOI Bureaus (NPS, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA)) distributed a memorandum to regional and field-level personnel
affirming Bureau policy regarding compliance with environmental regulations and urging
cooperation with EPA in compliance assistance activities.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office F) 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
While the regional assistance proposals continue to be developed, projects currently under
review include performing inventories of facility-level compliance histories and using that
information to develop a compliance assistance manual, assisting facilities in SDWA source
water protection assessments, performing Geographical Information System (GIS) based
cumulative risk impact analysis, and direct compliance assistance to facility-based
contractor-operated activities, such as vehicle maintenance.
One of the most innovative and far-reaching efforts in the EPA/DOI compliance initiative
is an analysis of current EMSs within NPS, including an analysis of support relationships
between the field-level facilities and NPS and DOl Headquarters environmental offices. This
review is based on the Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) for all
Federal agencies developed by an interagency committee in response to Executive Order
12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention
Requirements. The five primary CEMP principles address: 1) management commitment; 2)
compliance assurance and pollution prevention; 3) enabling systems; 4) performance and
accountability; and 5) measurement and improvement. The CEMP principles are designed
specifically for Federal agencies and emphasize refined management systems, leading to
enhanced environmental performance and continuous improvement.
With an estimated 1,000 facilities covered by EPA regulations, DOI has a significant
opportunity to benefit from this effort by improving compliance throughout the various DOI
Bureaus. Moreover, the DOI/EPA effort will result in compliance assistance tools that can
be used by other agencies, particularly CFAs.
Environmental Management Systems Primer at Federal Facilities
In FY98, FFEO, in partnership with the DOE's Office of Environmental Policy and
Assistance, developed the Environmental Management Systems Primerfor Federal Facilities
(The Primer). The Primer is designed to help Federal managers who are considering
adopting an EMS. Properly implemented, an EMS can reduce support costs and improve
productivity while advancing environmental protection and performance. It can put Federal
environmental management practices on the same level as those of America's best-run
corporations. In addition, it can do so in visible ways that will be recognized by stakeholders
inside and outside a Federal agency.
The Primer is not intended to be a technical or detailed manual on EMS implementation.
Rather, its goal is to help Federal managers understand an EMS and how an EMS can
improve environmental management at their facilities. The Primer also outlines the elements
of an EMS, offers tips on how to make the case for an EMS to upper management, explains
how an EMS will benefit an organization, and places an EMS in the context of regulations,
compliance issues, pollution prevention, and other governmental programs.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
Ship Scrapping Panel Report
In April 1998, DoD 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 Baltimore
Sun newspaper about the poor environmental, health, and safety conditions in both domestic
and overseas scrapping facilities. The panel was asked to review the Navy and U.S.
Maritime Administration (MARAD) programs to scrap vessels and to identify ways to ensure
that vessels are scrapped in an environmentally sound and economically feasible manner.
Agencies represented on the Interagency Panel included DoD, DOJ, Department of Labor,
Department of State, USCG, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), EPA, MARAD, and the
Navy.
The Panel's deliberations resulted in a number of recommendations for improving domestic
and international ship scrapping and strengthening oversight of this complex industrial
endeavor:
1. PCB Guidance - The panel recommended that EPA and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). along with DLA, the Navy, and MARAD. develop guidance
for testing, removing, and disposing of non-liquid PCBs in accordance with applicable rules
and regulations.
2. Improved Regulatory Oversight of Ship Scrapping Operations - To improve oversight
of scrapping operations, the Panel recommended that EPA. Navy. MARAD, and OSHA
agree to notify EPA and OSHA when a ship scrapping 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
and has received information from both Navy and MARAD on numbers and locations of
surplus vessels in their fleets and information regarding facilities that are or have been
engaged in scrapping Navy or MARAD vessels.
3. Export Agreements - Under current TSCA regulations, export of PCBs at concentrations
of 50 parts per million or greater for purposes of disposal is prohibited. EPA has entered into
agreements with the Navy and MARAD which would allow export of vessels for scrapping,
provided that liquid PCBs are removed from the vessels along with all non-liquid PCBs that
are readily removable without impairing the seaworthiness of the vessels.
Because of concerns about environmental and worker safety conditions in foreign scrapping
yards, both the Navy and MARAD agreed to suspend exports pending the results of the
Interagency Panel on Ship Scrapping. On September 23, 1998. Vice President Al Gore
issued a memorandum requesting that both the Navy and MARAD observe a further
moratorium on overseas transfer of ships until January 1. 1999. EPA is currently working
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office F) 199R Accomplishments Report
-------
with MA RAD to address issues related to permitting, financial assurance, sampling of
potential PCB-containing materials on vessels, and other issues to ensure that, to the extent
possible. U.S. military vessels can be safely scrapped in the domestic market.
D. Environmental Justice Workshop for Federal Facilities
FFEO and Region 6 held an Environmental 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
Initiative, which analyzed Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reports from Federal
facilities for 1994. Workshop members discussed the risk and health effects posed by the
facilities and pollution 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 environmental
justice G1S maps for individual facilities. Also provided was a health indicator model
developed by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, known as the TRI Relative
Risk-Based Chronic Human Health Indicator. This model provides a relative risk ranking for
each facility based on its toxic emissions. Region 6 also introduced the Federal Facilities
Risk Index Analysis, a computer-based risk assessment model for Federal facilities related
to environmental justice concerns.
E. Solid Waste Landfills on Tribal Lands Workgroup
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 municipal solid waste landfill
problems affecting Indian tribes, and to develop a holistic strategy and action plan to address
these 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 BIA and the Indian Health Service at
Secretary of the Interior Babbitt's request to discuss RCRA municipal solid waste landfills
and other environmental issues affecting BIA and tribal lands. At the meeting, EPA proposed
to work with BIA, the Indian Health Service, and other Federal agencies to address solid
waste issues on tribal lands.
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 budget strategy for funding necessary activities.
The interagency workgroup is co-chaired by the Acting Director of the Office of Solid Waste
u
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
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.
F. Federal Agency En v iron men tal Round table
The Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable continued to meet regularly during FY98.
The Roundtable, a standing Federal agency group implemented by FFEO, has participants
from approximately fifty Federal departments and agencies. The meetings provide a forum
for the exchange of information regarding pending and existing policy, strategy, standards,
and regulations.
During the FY98 meetings, the Roundtable discussed a variety of topics pertaining to
environmental programs at Federal facilities. Among the topics were: DoD's proposed rule
for military ranges, non-point source management strategy, greenhouse global warming.
Class V underground injection control regulations on underground injection wells,
EnviroSenSe, self-auditing and inspection, auditing of lower risk facilities, the Federal
Energy Program, EPA's One Stop Reporting Program, and the changing nature of
environmental and public health protection.
The Roundtable was established under the authority of Executive Order (E.O.) 12088 to
fulfill the consultative and technical assistance mandate envisioned between EPA and other
Federal agencies. Specifically, § 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 the Executive agencies in order to ensure their cost
effective and timely compliance with applicable pollution control standards."
G. Civilian Federal Agency Task Force
The CFA Task Force was created by FFEO in 1992 to assist the civilian Federal community
in establishing and enhancing environmental compliance and management programs. The
CFA Task Force, with representatives from twenty different Federal agencies, provides a
forum and resource leveraging opportunities for members to address the unique
environmental issues of concern to civilian Federal facilities.
In FY98. the CFA Task Force hosted the first annual CFA Environmental Symposium,
"Compliance and Beyond: Partners in Meeting the Challenge," and developed the Guide on
Evaluating Environmental Liability for Property Transfers. These accomplishments are
discussed in more detail in Chapters 3(H) and 5(C), respectively.
H. First Annual Civillan Federal Agency Symposium
On March 10-12, 1998, the First Annual Civilian Federal Agency Environmental
Symposium, ''Compliance and Beyond; Partners in Meeting the Challenge," was held in
Denver. Colorado. The focus of the symposium was on partnerships between EPA and
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
CFAs to achieve facility-level compliance with environmental regulations. Presentations
emphasized solutions to environmental compliance issues and shared real-world examples
of efforts that have gone beyond regulatory compliance requirements. Panel discussions
addressed such topics as the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan, criminal liabilities
at Federal agencies, and environmental responsibilities of the Federal community pertaining
to tribal and environmental justice issues. Senior managers from EPA, DOI, DOJ, and the
Department of Agriculture discussed environmental compliance at CFAs, followed by a
session of State perspectives on CFA compliance. Three break-out sessions were held
concurrently each day on the themes of facility environmental management, tools for
regulatory compliance, and EMSs. More than 425 field-level personnel and environmental
managers attended from over 20 CFAs. During the three days of the symposium,
approximately 80 speakers from a dozen agencies covered 50 topics in both panel and
break-out session formats. Comments on the Symposium indicated that the event was well
received, as several people noted, it was "way overdue" and "a great start at getting us all
together."
L National Congress of American Indians Meeting
FFEO was invited to give a presentation in November 1997 at the Natural Resources
Committee of the National Congress of American Indians meeting in Santa Fe, NM. FFEO
outlined EPA's Federal facilities priorities for FY98 and explained how EPA uses a mix of
enforcement and compliance assistance tools to ensure that Federal facilities and GOCO
facilities comply with all applicable environmental regulations.
At the meeting. FFEO stressed its commitment to work in partnership with tribes on a
government-to-government basis to ensure protection of tribal human health, natural
resources, and environments. FFEO also emphasized its commitment to seek tribal input
early in any Federal facility enforcement matter that may affect tribes to ensure that full
consideration is given to the policies, priorities, and concerns of the affected tribe and, where
appropriate, to affected tribal members.
16
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
4
Regulatory Reinvention
In 1995, President Clinton created the excellence and Leadership (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
flexibility to pursue alternatives to the current regulatory system. For Federal agencies,
initial implementation of Project XL has rested primarily on the DoD Environmental
Investment {ENVVEST) program. Success of future XL activities with other Federal
agencies will reflect lessons learned in working with DoD.
A. Project XL/ENVVEST (Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA)
A landmark agreement was signed on November 3, 1997 which allows the U.S. Air Force
to reduce environmental program costs and apply savings directly to clean-up programs on
Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), CA.
The final project agreement was a collaborative effort on the part of many stakeholders and
agencies over the course of a year and a half. The agreement defines milestones which are
part of President Clinton's "reinventing government" initiatives to promote regulatory
flexibility. This is the first EPA Project XL taking place at a Federal agency and the first
DoD ENVVEST Air Quality Initiative.
Vandenberg AFB is expected to serve as a model for cleaner air programs at other bases
throughout DoD. At the signing ceremony, Tad McCall. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, called the Vandenberg Final
Project Agreement a "prototype for progress without pollution!*'
17
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
This page left intentionally blank.
18 Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY !998 Accomplishments Report
-------
5
Regulation and Policy
In FY98, EPA's program and enforcement offices developed several policy and guidance
documents that specifically address Federal facility compliance with SDWA, CAA. and UST
requirements. In addition, the CFA Task Force Subcommittee on Facility Closures
developed a Guide to Evaluating Environmental Liability for Property Transfers.
A. Safe Drinking Water Act Guidance
On August 6, 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 became law. The
new SDWA clarifies that Federal agencies could be subject to a penalty order for a violation
of SDWA. The Guidance on Federal Facility Penalty Order Authority Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996 was issued May 29, 1998. This guidance
explains the Amendment's application to Federal entities and offers advice to Regions when
exercising the enhanced SDWA authorities. Specifically addressed in the guidance are: 1)
administrative procedures for § 1414(g) compliance orders; 2) administrative procedures for
§1431 imminent and substantial endangerment orders; 3) administrative procedures,
including opportunity to confer with the Administrator, for § 1447(b) penalty orders; 4)
§ 1447(b) penalty order settlements; 5) administrative procedures for administrative orders
under the underground injection control program; 6) timing of issuance of SDWA
administrative orders; and 7) press releases for SDWA enforcement actions at Federal
facilities.
B. Clean Air Act Guidance
The Guidance on Implementation of EPA s Penalty/Compliance Order Authority Against
Federal Agencies Under the Clean Air Act was issued on October 9, 1998 to clarify the
enforcement procedures for Federal facility enforcement under the CAA. The guidance
clarifies that:
*¦ the hearing procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 22 apply when EPA issues a penalty
order against Federal agencies in the same manner as when EPA files a penalty
action against private parties;
~ before a penalty order becomes final, the respondent Federal agency must be
afforded an opportunity to confer with the Administrator;
19
Federal Factimes Enforcement Office FY 199S Accomplishments Report
-------
~ CAA compliance orders to Federal agencies should follow the same procedures as
for the issuance of such orders to private parties; and
~ Federal agencies are liable for EPA-assessed CAA civil administrative penalties just
like any other person. With respect to such penalties, if violations occurred prior to
July 16, 1997 and are ongoing, EPA could assess penalties for the violations from
July 16, 1997 until correction of the violation.
In addition, the guidance clarifies that EPA can require correction of and. in some cases, may
seek penalties for violations that occurred prior to July 16, 1997.
Underground Storage Tank Regulations
EPA's 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. Specifically, owners/operators must either:
~ upgrade "existing" USTs (USTs installed on or before 12/22/88) by installing spill
and overfill prevention and corrosion 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 protection equipment operational at the time of installation.
In the past two years, EPA, in conjunction with State UST implementing agencies, has
inspected numerous Federal 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, FAA. Veterans Administration Medical Centers, U.S. Postal
Service. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Army National Guard, and Sandia National Laboratories.
Expedited enforcement compliance orders were issued to these facilities with minor penalties
ranging from $50 to $1,000. 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 compliance and did not receive compliance orders with penalties. Two DoD facilities did
not settle the expedited 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 protection. The facilities in violation had
deficiencies in properly managing the equipment 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.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
Guidance on Facility C/osure
Federal agencies routinely lease and transfer real property. One of the essential steps in
modern real property transactions is evaluating candidate properties for potential
environmental contamination and liability. The CFA Task Force's Subcommittee on Facility
Closures developed a guidance document that summarizes the requirements and processes
for evaluating potential liability from environmental contamination. It also provides an
introduction to the larger context of environmental issues associated with real property
transfers. EPA's Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Division and the FAA will
use the document to jointly develop a CD-ROM training tool on Evaluating Environmental
Liability for Property Transfers, to be released in 1999. The CFA Task Force's Guide to
Evaluating Environmental Liability for Property Transfers was completed in August 1998
and is available in both electronic and hard-copy formats.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
This page left intentionally blank.
22
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY / 998 Accomplishments Report
-------
6
Case Summaries
In FY98, EPA took 57 formal enforcement actions against Federal facilities under CAA.
CWA, CERCLA, EPCRA. RCRA, SDWA. and TSCA. Some of these actions are
summarized below.
A. CAA Cases
1. Navy and DRMS, U.S.S. Robinson, 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
U.S.S. Robinson at the Naval Shipyard in Charleston, South Carolina. The order was issued
pursuant to §113(a)(3)(B) of CAA for violations of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos. The Navy and the DRMS failed to thoroughly inspect
the facility where renovation occurred for the presence of asbestos, and removal of asbestos
was done without proper wetting or containment of asbestos-containing waste materials.
2. Corpus Christ/ Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX
EPA Region 6 issued an Notice of Violation to the Corpus Christi NAS, Corpus Christi,
Texas, on May 29, 1998 pursuant to §113(a)(1) of the CAA. During the air portion of the
multi-media inspection conducted on July 16 and 17. 1997 at the Corpus Christi NAS, the
EPA inspector noted several violations including: 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 at the intake opening of each booth or work
area. As a result, the Corpus Christi NAS 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.
EPA also cited the facility for construction 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 construction of two boilers, as required by 40 CFR Part 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 compliance.
23
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 199$ Accomplishments Report
-------
CEHCLA Cases
1. Fresno Drum Removal Site, Fresno, CA
On May 28,1998, EPA finalized an administrative order on consent with DoD (including the
Army. Navy. Air Force, and DLA) under § 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 estimate. If DoD's
Congressional request is unsuccessful, it is obliged to continue seeking reimbursements until
FY 2005.
The Fresno site is an abandoned military surplus resale facility. From approximately 1961
until 1986, the owner/operator 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
deteriorating containers and fire. EPA's inventory 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 4,000 drums and containers.
EPCRA Cases
1. U.S. Army Pine Biuff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, 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 conducted at the Pine Bluff facility. Prior notification had been given in order for facility
personnel to ensure that appropriate documents were available for review. From the
information made available 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
necessary records. On September 8.1998, EPA determined Pine Bluff to be compliant with
EPCRA §313.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
RCRA Cases
1. Naval Surface Warfare Center, White Oak Facility, Silver Spring, MD
EPA Region 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 §7003 order on consent for over a year, no settlement could be reached.
Contamination has migrated off-site at the White Oak facility, and there is substantial local
concern about the delay in cleaning up contaminated groundwater. Contaminants of greatest
concern in the groundwater are heavy metals, nitroaromatic compounds, and
trichloroethylene.
2. Washington Navy Yard/Anacostia Naval Station, Washington, D.C.
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 Washington, D.C. The Navy agreed to pay a total
of $69,000 in penalties for failing to properly train personnel who handle hazardous waste,
failing to keep proper records of the training, accumulating hazardous waste for more than
90 days without 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 hazardous waste for
less than 90 days.
3. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK
A complaint and "notice of opportunity for hearing" were issued to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma on January 13, 1998 for violations of RCRA 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.
4. Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, LA
An administrative complaint, compliance order, and "notice of opportunity for hearing" were
filed against Barksdale AFB under RCRA §9006 after an EPA inspector found violations
of UST regulations in a May 1997 inspection. EPA is requiring Barksdale AFB to conduct
a systems test of all UST systems (tank and lines) in violation and submit the results to the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and EPA Region 6.
5. U.S. Postal Service, Shreveport, LA
On January 13, 1998, the USPS facility at 2400 Texas Avenue, Shreveport, LA was issued
a compliance order and settlement agreement for failing to provide adequate release detection
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
methods on an UST, as required by State regulations. The operator of the facility has
corrected the violation and paid a penalty of $300.
6. U.S. Army, Fort Polk, LA
On January 13, 1998, Shopette #3 at Fort Polk was issued a compliance order and settlement
agreement for failing to provide adequate release detection methods on three UST as required
by State regulations. The operator of the facility has corrected the violation and paid the S750
penalty.
Another building at Fort Polk (Building 1725) was the cause of a second compliance order
and settlement agreement issued on January 13.1998 for failure to provide proper testing and
maintenance on four USTs. The operator of the facility has corrected the violation and paid
the $800 penalty.
E. SDWA Cases
1. U.S. 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 Campground water distribution
system located in Taos County, New Mexico, and submitting them to a State-certified
laboratory. The order requires the U.S. Forest Service to comply with the requirements of
the SDWA {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 administrative order is subject to an administrative penalty or a court-imposed penalty
of up to $25,000 per day for the violation.
F. TSCA Cases
1. Electric Boat Corporation and KAPL, Inc., Windsor, CT
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 contractor, and EB is a subcontractor at a DOE facility in Windsor, Connecticut.
The facility is part of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, a program jointly administered
by DOE and the U.S. Navy.
KAPL and DOE were co-permittees on an Approval for Disposal of PCB-Contaminated
Materials (the Approval) 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
26
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY I998 Accomplishments Report
-------
use disposable personal protective 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
equipment be cleaned and tested for PCBs.
On December 27, 1996, DOE inspected the PCB paint removal work being performed by
KAPL and EB and discovered that EB personnel were using launderable coveralls and hoods
instead of disposable PPE. In addition to this violation, DOE also learned that, on two prior
occasions, launderable 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
launderable 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 later on January 3, 1997.
Region 1 filed administrative civil penalty actions against KAPL and EB for violations of
the Approval and TSCA regulations. DOE was not named as a respondent. EB paid $13,600
and KAPL paid 512.750 in penalties.
27
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office FY 1998 Accomplishments Report
-------
------- |