iv11 ui ii i ici ilcii i i wlc^uui i wui i iuiicii iv^c nooui ai iv^c i an i zjzjkj v>EPA Agency (2261 A) ISSUE #3 an environmental bulletin for federal facilities 2 Guest Spot: Al Aim 3 TRI Reporting by Federal Facilities 4 EMRs Offered to Federal Agencies 5 In the Field: ENWEST Comes to Vandenberg AFB 6 SDWA Reauthorized; EPA Issues Code 7 Reports and Regulations 9 The Hammer 12 Environmental Challenge Award Deadline Extended ROCKY FLATS CLEANUP AGREEMENT SIGNED On July 19, 1996, after nearly three years of inten- sive negotiations between EPA, DOE, and the State of Colorado, the new Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement was signed in Denver, Col- orado. EPA Deputy Admin- istrator Fred Hansen praised the RFC A as "truly a landmark agreement for allowing the rapid cleanup of one of our most impor- tant Super fund sites." The agreement contains a number of innovative pro- visions designed to expedite cleanup activities at the Rocky Flats site, which will include removal of plutonium and other fissile materials, protection of water quality, and cleanup and conversion of buildings. The agreement divides the site into two areas and designates lead regulators From left: Jessie Roberson, Rocky Flats site manager; DOE Assistant Secretary Alvin Aim; Patti Schwayder, Executive Director, CDPHE; Governor Roy Romer; Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler; EPA Acting Regional Administrator Jack McGraw. the State of Colorado for the industrial area, and EPA for the environmental buffer zone. This clear division of author- ity gives DOE a single point of contact for each cleanup activity and should reduce the potential for overlap and duplication. The agreement also provides cleanup Continued on page 10 CRAIG HOOKS Dear Reader: This is my first time contributing to this column. As many of you may know, a few months ago, Barry Breen, formerly the Director of the Federal Facilities Enforce- ment Office, left to become Director of EPA's Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement. It is my privilege to pick up where he left off. Compliance assistance and environ- mental enforcement activities are inher- ently dynamic, their emphasis changing with current events. Amendments to environmental statutes and regulations prompt new compliance questions and changes in enforcement actions. Recent Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, for example, prompted FFEO to begin developing interpretative guidance for federal facilities. FFEO must be vigilant to interpret regulatory changes and quickly adjust our compliance assistance and enforcement work. We welcome your comments and suggestions. Barry named this column the Direc- tor's Word. My word for this issue is "trust." I hope this FedFacs provokes thoughts about the relationship between Continued on page 10 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- AL ALM Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE The Department of Energy estab- lished the Environ- mental Manage- ment (EM) program to reduce health and safety risks from radioactive waste and environmental contamination resulting weapons production, testing, and research. With 150 sites in over 30 states, the EM program is the largest sin- gle environmental stewardship program in the world. Meg or changes have taken place over the last three years to improve the pace of cleanup, manage projects more effective- ly, shave inefficiencies, and incorporate risk into decision-making. All of those efforts have made EM more successful at producing on-the-ground tangible results. Site workouts to reduce costs, perfor- mance-incentive contracts, and the cre- ation of site-specific advisory boards have all helped EM drive down the price of cleanup over the past three years and FedUms is published by EPA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office. Jim Edward, Joyce Johnson, Editors Isabelle Lacayo, Assistant Editor Gil ah Langner, Writer Robin Foster, Layout To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact! Federal Facilities Enforcement Office U. S. EPA (2261), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 or Fax: 202-501-0069 bring the public into our decision-making process. This has provided a strong foun- dation for the next steps in the program to accelerate cleanup at most DOE sites and to complete as much work as possible within a decade. Since taking over the EM program in May 1996, I have begun to implement our primary goal of reducing most of the pro- grammatic risks and mortgages over a ten-year period. This goal is incorporated in our vision statement for the Environ- mental Management program which will drive budget decisions, privatization, sequencing of projects, and actions taken to meet program objectives all in con- junction with regulators and stakehold- ers. Achievement of the vision will be guid- ed by the following seven principles! (1) Reduce mortgage costs to free up funds for further risk reduction. (2) Reduce overhead and support costs, devoting savings to value-added work. (3) Eliminate and manage the most seri- ous risks in the system. (4) Protect worker health and safety. (5) Create a collaborative relationship between DOE and its regulators and stakeholders. (6) Focus technology development on cost and risk reduction. (7) Establish a system that is man age ri- ally and financially in control. The vision and principles will be implemented through an integrated plan- ning, budgeting, and management sys- tem. The purpose of this planning exer- cise is to develop a creative plan to complete cleanup at most sites in the for- mer nuclear weapons production complex over the course of a decade, as well as to determine which waste streams will not be completed in that time, and to decide how the program will continue to treat them until work is fully complete. Stakeholder involvement is central to devising, implementing and achieving the Ten-Year Plan. Since our sites sub- mitted their draft ten-year plans this past July, I have met with or held conference calls with stakeholders from each site. In total, I have communicated with many hundreds of citizens and public officials. EM will not modify agreed-upon assump- tions or final goals without actively engaging our stakeholders, tribal nations, and regulators in a deliberative process. Issues raised in draft versions of the plans that cannot be resolved with our stakeholders and regulators will not be included in the first edition of the Plan. Rather, we will work with our stakehold- ers to resolve these issues before we incor- porate them into an updated version of the Plan. It is critical to understand that the Plan is a living document which must be updated periodically to factor in deci- sions reached on these outstanding issues and other realistic changes that will occur over the ten-year time period. Our move to ten-year site plans may result in some modifications to previously existing priorities. But their greatest effectiveness will lie in specifically com- municating the status of cleanup at any given site at any given date over the next ten years. The ten-year site plans will lay out these goals for each of the sites over the next few months. In so doing, we will establish a long-term framework to guide the EM program as we proceed to clean up the environmental contamination wrought by 45 years of nuclear weapons production. Al Aim is the Assistant Secretary of Envi- ronmental Management with the U.S. Department of Energy. ------- TRI REPORTING COMES TO FEDERAL FACILITIES TOP 20 FEDERAL FACILITY RELEASERS Total TRI Releases U. S. Air Force. Tinker AFB. OK 1.615.119 U. S. Air Force. Robbins AFB. GA 696,317 USD A Agricultural Research Service. Clay Center. NE 486,120 U. S. DOE Naval Petroleum Reserves. Tupman. CA 463,248 U. S. Enrichment Corp. . Piketon. OH 385,946 U. S. Enrichment Corp. . Paducah. KY 364,760 U. S. Marine Corps Cherry Pt. Air Station. Cherry Point. NC 314,610 U. S. Air Force Plant 06 GA. Marietta. GA 304,897 U. S. Navy Naval Air Station. Jacksonville. FL 291.383 U. S. Air Force McClellan AFB. Sacramento. CA 282,720 U. S. Army Anniston Army Depot. Anniston. AL 280,935 U. S. Air Force. Kelly AFB. TX 278,544 U. S. Air Force Ogden Air Logistics. Hill AFB. UT 277,660 U. S. DOE Idaho National Engr. Lab. Scoville, ID 236,591 U. S. Air Force 138th Fighter Group. Tulsa. OK 236,550 U. S. Marine Corps Logistics Base. Albany. GA 215,400 U. S. Air Force Flight Test Center. Edwards AFB. CA 170,830 U.S. Air Force Engr. Devel. Center. Arnold AFB. TN 154,422 U. S. Air Force. Wright-Patterson AFB. 148,000 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Huntsville, AL 131,865 For the first time, the latest report of the Toxics Release Inventory includes information on toxic releases from feder- al facilities. TRI reporting by federal facilities was mandated under Execu- tive Order 12856, signed by President Clinton in August 1993. The latest report, published in June 1996, covers the 1994 reporting year. The goal of the reporting requirement is to ensure that the public has access to the most com- prehensive information possible on releases and transfers of toxic chemi- cals, to hold federal facilities account- able for their activities, and to encour- age them in reducing their use of toxic chemicals at the source. For 1994, 191 federal facilities operat- ed by 12 federal agencies and located in 43 states became subject to TRI reporting. The 1994 data show total releases of 9. 8 million pounds. Off-site transfers totalled 10. 4 million pounds. Unlike the private sector, where transfers are almost twice the amount of releases, total releases and transfers for federal facilities are similar. Federal releases also differ from pri- vate sector releases in the types of chemi- cals involved. Only 16 of the top 25 chem- icals released from federal facilities are also in the top 25 for total releases from all facilities. Most of these 16 chemicals, which typically are used as solvents and for cleaning equipment, are released pri- marily to air. The top two chemicals reported by the government (almost exclusively by DOD) are dichloromethane and methyl ethyl ketone, which together account for nearly one third of all releases reported by federal facilities. These chem- icals are commonly used as solvents and paint strippers. The top four federal agencies releasing TRI chemicals were DOD, DOE, U.S. Enrichment Corp., and Agricultural (see pie chart). By far the largest number of federal facilities reporting TRI data are DOD facilities 127 facilities, or 73 per- cent of the amount of releases reported. Within DOD, the Air Force accounts for the preponderance of the releases (67%); the vast majority of Air Force releases are air emissions, largely from air craft main- tenance, including corrosion control, structural maintenance, and the cleaning and repairing of equipment. The top 20 federal facilities with the largest total TRI releases in 1994 are shown above. RELEASES OF TRI CHEMICALS BY FEDERAL AGENCY, 1994 OTHER AGRICULTURE 4.0% U.S. ENRICHMENT CO 7.6% ENERGY 9.9% DEFENSE 72.7% ------- ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEWS OFFERED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES It's not an inspection; its not an audit. What is an Environmental Management Review? In formal terms, an EMR is an evaluation of an individual facility s pro- gram and management systems to deter- mine the extent to which a facility has developed and implemented specific pro- grams and plans which, if properly man- aged, should ensure compliance and progress towards environmental excel- lence. EPA is implementing a pilot pro- gram in which it is offering to conduct EMRs at federal facilities that are inter- ested in gaining an understanding of the underlying causes of current or potential compliance problems and develop sug- gestions for correcting them. Unlike enforcement inspections, EMRs are con- sultative technical assistance site visits. Their focus is on the quality of the pro- gram and its implementation, not on spe- cific compliance requirements. EMRs are a new tool developed by EPA to help federal agencies improve their environmental performance. A series of studies over the last decade by EPA, Congressional offices, and individ- ual agency inspector generals have criti- cized the pace of environmental compli- ance and cleanup by federal agencies. EPAs operating principles for con- ducting EMRs at federal agencies during the pilot phase of the program are as fol- lows! EMRs FOCUS ON THE QUALITY OF THE PROGRAM AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION, NOT ON SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. Voluntary participation. The partici- pation by a federal facility is entirely voluntary and will not place the facil- ity on a target list for inspections. A dvance notification. A federal facility will be contacted at least one to two months in advance of a visit to solicit interest, and to ask for appropriate written documentation of the facili- ty s environmental management sys- tem. Mutually agreeable dates. The EMR will be scheduled at the convenience of the federal facility. Information on the review will be provided prior to the visit. Signing of "ground rules letter The facility manager and EPA regional management may co-sign a letter that lays out the ground rules for the EMR, including providing EPA staff with access to appropriate personnel and documents. Exit briefing with facility manage- ment. Each EMR visit will include an exit briefing or close-out session in which preliminary EMR results are shared with the host facility. Provi- sions for additional technical assis- tance, such as future pollution pre- vention assessment, can be discussed at this time. EPA report in 60 days. EPAs written report will discuss findings and pro- vide recommendations. If requested, EPA may share draft findings prior to issuance of the final report. Any com- munication from EPA with respect to incidental violations found will be conducted separate from the EMR report. Facility response plan in 60 days. Sixty days after receipt of EPAs EMR report, the facility will produce a brief response plan that explains how it plans to address the EMR findings. Progress report in 6 months. Another facility report will be expected six months after submittal of the response plan to EPA. The scope of an EMR is limited, com- pared to a full-scale audit of environmen- tal management systems. Each EMR will likely address one or more elements of an effective system, such as! organizational structure, environmental commitment, formality of program, communications, staff resources and training, program evaluation and reporting, and planning and risk management. For more information on EMRs, con- tact Andrew Cherry, FFEO, 202-564- 5011. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORTS FFEO recently distributed an Environmental Compliance Status Report (ECSR) to civilian federal agencies to keep them apprised of EPA-recorded enforcement and compliance activities at their facilities. Using data from the Federal Facilities Tracking System, the first reports covered FY 1995 and the second quarter of FY 1996. Subsequent reports will be provided on a quarterly basis. ECSRs show if any facilities are in a state of significant noncompliance, provide a graphic view of inspections and enforcement actions, and give a detailed listing of inspections and the resulting actions at individual facilities. This information is used by the recipient federal agency to verify its own recordkeeping and to ensure the accuracy of EPAs data. Each agency is asked to complete a Discrepancy Report Form for any inaccuracies in the data. For more information, contact Kelly Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459. ------- InthelFMU ENVVEST COMES TO VANDENBERG AFB This past summer saw the kick off event of the joint EPA-DOD pilot pro- gram " ENWEST" at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The ENWEST concept, which is similar to EPA's Project XL for non-military facilities, allows mili- tary installations, in conjunction with federal, state, and local regulators, to test cost-effective alternative approaches to achieving environmental protection. Van- denberg was the first DOD installation to sign up for relief from selected EPA regu- lations, and plans to redirect environ- mental compliance funds into water con- servation, air, and water pollution prevention projects. Among Vandenberg s proposals are a reduction in NQx emissions by a mini- mum of 10 tons during the five-year life of the ENWEST project, and closed-loop recycling for wastewater and on-site batch treatment plants at three major space launch complexes. DOD will conduct an independent 'X EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Herman at Vandenberg AFB. "You should be prepared to take some risks to achieve your goals and you must think about how creative technologies developed through ENWEST can be shared with others both within and outside of the federal community. " Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security Sherri IN. Goodman at kick-off event, Vandenberg AFB, July 24, 1996 evaluation of the progress of the pro- gram. DOD Under Secretary Sherri Goodman noted that if ENWEST is suc- cessful, both DOD and EPA hope to dupli- cate it nationwide. "ENWEST opens the door to creative solutions for local prob- lems," she noted. "In twenty years, we will look back at this event, and wonder why we didn't do this sooner. " A final pro- ject agreement is expected to be signed in early 1997. AGREEMENT REACHED ON DISMANTLING MINUTEMAN MISSILE SILOS Late last year, EPA and the U. S. Air Force joined forces to save taxpayers millions of dollars while developing safeguards to protect human health and the environment. The occasion was the retirement of the Minute- man II missile system, announced in February 1990 as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). After much study and public comment, the Air Force decided to implode the missile silo headworks and cap the silos at two sites: Ellsworth AFB in South Dakota and Whiteman AFB in Mis- souri. Each site had 150 launch facilities, each of which included a silo, and 15 control centers. As the first disman- tling of the missile sys- tems began, the missile silos were discovered to be coated with a weath- er proofing material containing varying lev- els of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Underground storage tanks were also discovered to be coated with PCBs as well as asbestos. Subsequent sampling showed PCBs present on every type of structure sampled at the missile site. In November 1995, EPA and the Air Force signed a Federal Facilities Compli- ance Agreement addressing the prob- lems, with provisions for the develop- ment of a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan, long-term environmen- tal monitoring, deed restrictions, clo- sure/removal of underground storage tanks, and reporting requirements. The agreement is unique in providing for affected states to negotiate and execute their own annex of state requirements in addition to the general provisions of the agreement. In case of disputes, final res- olution rests with the Director of FFEO, allowing for quick resolution of disputes without elevating them to the EPA Administrator. Concurring in the agree- ment were the states of Missouri, South Dakota, and North Dakota, and EPA Regions 7 and 8. This precedent-setting agreement will serve as a model for active missile sites as well as other mis- sile sites slated for closure. For more information, contact Diane Lynne, FFEO, at 202-564-2587. ------- NewstMmmmm NEW SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT STRENGTH- ENS OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL FACILITIES On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The bill was passed by a strong bipartisan majority of both the Senate and House of Representatives on August 2, 1996. Included in the new law are several provisions designed to strengthen compliance at federal facilities. First, the law amends the waiver of sovereign immunity to make it clear that federal agencies are subject to penalties for SDWA violations. (This provision is similar to the waiver of sovereign immu- nity in the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 subjecting federal agencies to penalties for violations of RCRA.) The President may still exempt a federal facil- ity from compliance with any require- ment, if the President determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States. Second, the new law gives EPA the authority to assess administrative penalties against federal agencies of up to $25,000 per day per violation. This penal- ty cap is the same as the amount that EPA may assess against non-federal enti- ties in civil judicial actions. Before the penalty becomes final, EPA must provide the agency notice, an opportunity to con- fer with the Administrator, and an oppor- tunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with the Administrative Pro- cedures Act. The law also allows an interested per- son to obtain judicial review of an admin- istrative penalty order issued by EPA against a federal agency in district court. The order may be set aside or remanded if there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of a violation or if the assessment of the penalty consti- tutes an abuse of discretion by EPA. The court also may not impose an additional penalty for a violation unless it finds that the assessment by EPA constitutes an abuse of discretion. Finally, the new law strengthens the citizen suit provisions of SDWA by allowing any person to com- mence a civil action in district court against any federal agency for the collec- tion of an administrative penalty assessed by EPA that is not paid within 18 months after the effective date of the final order. EPA ISSUES CODE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES On October 16, 1996, EPA published the Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) in the Federal Regis- ter (61FR 54062, Oct. 16, 1996). The CEMP is a broad-based set of environ- mental principles that EPA developed in consultation with other federal agencies under Executive Order 12856. EPA is asking federal agency executives to adopt the code in a written statement of support that also describes the agency s plans for implementation of the Code at the facility level. Agencies can choose to directly implement the CEMP Principles at the facility level or use another alternative environmental management system such as ISO 14001. This flexible approach rec- ognizes that individual federal facilities and installations may already have envi- ronmental management systems in place or may be considering adoption of the ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard. EPA has been working to develop the CEMP through the Interagency Pollution Prevention Task Force, which was creat- ed by the Executive Order, since January 1995. EPA believes that the federal gov- ernment should make a public commit- ment to voluntarily adopt an appropriate code of environmental ethics or conduct, which is at least equivalent to the com- mitment demonstrated by environmental leaders in the private sector. If federal agencies are held accountable for imple- menting these principles, then significant progress can be made toward improving public trust and confidence in federal facility environmental performance. The five principles embodied in the Code are as follows! 1. Management Commitment: The agency makes a written top-man- agement commitment to improved environmental performance by estab- lishing policies which emphasize pol- lution prevention and the need to ensure compliance with environmen- tal requirements. Organizations that consistently demonstrate manage- ment support for pollution prevention and environmental compliance gener- ally perform at the highest levels and will be looked upon as leaders that can mentor other organizations wish- ing to upgrade their environmental performance. 2. Compliance Assurance and Pollu- tion Prevention: The agency implements proactive pro- grams 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 per- sonnel to perform their functions con- sistent with regulatory requirements, agency environmental policies and its overall mission. This would likely include training of personnel as well as other agency procedures, stan- dards, programs, and goals. 4. Performance and Accountability: The agency develops measures to address employee environmental per- formance, and ensure full account- ability of environmental functions. For example, an agency should Continued on page 11 ------- Reports andMs§nHsimm STATE OF FEDERAL FACILITIES UPDATED EPA and the states performed over 2,600 inspections at federal facilities dur- ing FY 1993-94, resulting in 979 enforce- ment actions. This and other statistics are available in The State of Federal Facilities: An Overview ofEnvironmental Compliance at Federal Facilities, FY 1993-94, recently published by FFEO and available through electronically the Enviro$en$e bulletin board system (via the Internet at http://es. inel. gov). This report is a follow-up to an earlier volume which covered the environmental com- pliance status through the end of FY 1992. The current report provides a two- year snapshot of federal facility perfor- mance under eight environmental statutes, along with enforcement high- lights and information on EPAs role in base realignments and closures. Aver- aged over the FY 1991-94 time frame, compliance by federal facilities was high- est for the Safe Drinking Water Act (99. 0%), the Clean Air Act (91%), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (91%) (see accompanying figure). Lower compliance rates were achieved for requirements under RCRA (58%) and the Clean Water Act (88%). Comparative data from the pri- vate sector are also provided in the report. For more information, contact Kelly Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIALOGUE COMMITTEE RELEASES LANDMARK REPORT A landmark report by the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee was released in April 1996 detailing the consensus reached by the committee s 50 members on how to improve federal facility cleanups. Members of the committee include representatives from EPA, USDA, Interior, DOE, DOD and its military ser- vices, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, state, tribal, and local governments, and numerous other environmental, community, environmen- tal justice, and labor organizations. The report itself represents a mammoth effort to bring together all parties to improve the way cleanups are conducted nation- ally. Various chapters of the report address community involvement, consid- erations of local governments and envi- ronmental justice communities, and the effective use of advisory boards at sites. An important component of the final report was the work done to address the issue of how to mesh the federal budget building process with the need to set enforceable milestones over the life of a cleanup project. T he chief focus of the rec- ommendations was on promoting a process that would cause federal facility cleanups to proceed at a pace that would ensure protection of human health and the environment and which would allow parties to cleanup agreements to address funding issues (both budget development and funding shortfalls) in a more open and productive manner. Pivotal to the discussion of funding and priority setting was the discussion of how to balance Executive Order 12088 which has been interpreted as requiring the heads of federal agencies to request sufficient funds in their budget submis- sions to meet all of their environmental cleanup requirements with current pol- icy that agencies submit budgets that meet certain predetermined budget targets. The Committee suggested approaches to both priority setting and milestone set- ting that can be used and amplified on as new agreements are developed or exist- ing agreements modified. First, while protection of human health and the envi- ronment are key starting points for set- ting cleanup funding priorities, the Com- mittee notes that numerous other factors should be taken into account in setting priorities for individual sites, such as the need to reduce infrastructure cost, envi- ronmental justice, the need to restore land for community use, availability of appropriate technologies, and life cycle Continued on page 8 FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE RATES, FY 1993-94 100 « 90 c. E o o v> 3 CC « o> <5 « Q_ 80 70 SDWA CAA TSCA - CWA $ 60 50 RCRA FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 ------- ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION Continued from page 7 cost of the project. Risk ranking schemes should be considered, but should serve as a point of departure rather than as a rigid list of priorities. For newly negotiated interagency agreements, the Committee recommend- ed that near-term, out-year, and project end date milestones should be set and funding requested in a time frame appro- priate to the federal budget process. Once set, milestones should not be changed without regulator approval. While regu- lators agreed to meet at least annually with regulated Agencies at each site to finalize milestones following budget allo- cation, it was recognized that circum- stances might warrant challenging bud- get constraints where insufficient funds were allocated to environmental cleanup. Throughout, the Committee empha- sized the importance of stakeholder con- sultation in making key decisions both with respect to priority setting and mile- stone setting or revision. The recom- mended process, while strongly focused on rescoping or rescheduling other activi- ties or identifying opportunities for cost efficiencies prior to amending milestones, recognizes that the parties to interagency agreements retain the options of dispute resolution and enforcement. Finally, the Committee did not recommend reopening existing agreements, but noted that where it was agreed between the parties that it would be beneficial to do so, the above approach should be considered. For more information, contact Darlene Boerlage, 202-564-2593, or Joyce Olin, 202-564-2582, at FFEO. FFEO APPLIES ETI GRANT TO ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENTS In coordination with FFEO, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and Clean Sites will conduct pilot projects at selected federal facility sites which are subject to cleanup and compliance agree- ments. The pilots will involve a negotiat- ed effort to apply promising new tech- nologies at sites for cleanup and/or pollution prevention, where their applica- tion may require adjustment of mile- stones or enhanced flexibility of other aspects of enforcement agreements. Pilots may also include the use of innova- tive technologies for environmental pro- jects such as Supplemental Environmen- tal Projects (SEPS). It is anticipated that an "innovative technology project com- mittee' will be formed to advise ELI on the site selection as well as other aspects of the project. In addition to the solicitation and com- mencement of the pilots, ELI will also compile a manual. The manual will include instructive materials such as suc- cess stories derived from situations involving enforcement flexibility which yielded the demonstration and applica- tion of innovative technologies. At the projects conclusion, it is anticipated that ELI and Clean Sites will organize a national conference to review results. This project is being undertaken through a grant from the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI). EPA's ETI promotes the development, commercial- ization, and use of environmental tech- nology to improve environmental quality while fostering the creation of new jobs and businesses. This project corresponds to EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy of adapting EPA's policy, regulatory, and compliance framework to promote inno- vation; strengthening the capacity of technology developers and users to suc- ceed in environmental technology innova- tion; strategically investing EPA funds in the development and commercialization of promising new technologies; and accel- erating the diffusion of innovative tech- nologies at home and abroad. The goal of this project is to routinize the use of enforcement agreements in facilitating application of innovative technologies for environmental cleanup and compliance projects at federal facilities. For more information on the project or to be added to the mailing list, please call Diane Lynne at FFEO at 202-564-2587 (fax: 202-501-0644) or Melinda Holland, Clean Sites, at 864-457-4202 (fax: 864- 457-5393). FEDERAL FACILITY COM- PLIANCE AGREEMENT REACHED ON PCBs On August 8, 1996, EPA signed an agreement with the Department of Ener- gy and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) addressing their con- tinued storage of radioactive PCB wastes beyond the one year limit specified in TSCA. According to DOE and the NNPP, the capacity currently available for the disposal of covered PCB wastes is not suf- ficient to accommodate their current inventories of such wastes. Even when additional treatment facilities are approved, it will take several years to process the volume of covered PCB wastes being stored. DOE and the NNPP are also unable to comply with certain outdated Department of Transportation container requirements also specified in the PCB regulations. The agreement, which covers over 20 DOE facilities and three naval shipyards, is intended as a bridge between the cur- rent situation and EPA's final PCB regu- lations which are expected to be issued in the next year. Under the agreement, DOE and the NNPP will submit a joint Annual Status Report to FFEO and the affected EPA Regional Offices describing the covered PCB wastes exceeding the one-year storage limit, efforts to dispose of the wastes, and alternative technolo- gies under development to remove the wastes. For more information, contact Diane Lynne at FFEO, 202-564-2587. Continued on page 11 ------- ThetEJMMMMr Region 1 On July 15,1996, EPA issued orders to three separate tenants at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) assessing a total of $222,310 in penalties for failures to properly conduct hazardous waste determinations and comply with land disposal restriction requirements, among other RCRA viola- tions. Complaints and compliance orders under RCRA Section 3008(a) were issued to the U.S. Air National Guard ($93,710) for the Otis Air National Guard Base; the U.S. Army National Guard ($88,600) for Camp Edwards; and the 1st Battalion 25th Marines ($40,000) for its Marine Corps Reserve Center. All three orders result from a multimedia inspection in August 1995. The actions highlight the Region s effort to combat environmental degradation in the South Coastal water- shed of Massachusetts. The Massachu- setts Military Reservation covers some 3,900 acres on a 21,000-acre parcel of land on Cape Cod. The municipalities of Bourne and Sandwich and the Air Force base have an estimated population of 36,000, with drinking water wells and irrigation wells within three miles of haz- ardous substances at the site. Region 2 On February 22, 1996, Region 2 issued a complaint, compliance order, and notice of opportunity for hear- ing for hazardous waste violations against the U.S. Army Military Academy at West Point, NY. The order included a total assessed penalty of $24,496 for alleged RCRA storage and manifesting violations related to hazardous waste from laboratory, training, and vehicle and equipment maintenance operations. The violations were discovered during an August 1995 RCRA compliance evalua- tion inspection at the facility. Region 3 EPA Region 3 conducted two intensive multimedia compliance inspec- tions in 1995, at the Washington Navy Yard and the Southeast Federal Center. Based on the inspection results, EPA has been meeting with Navy Yard officials to address outstanding compliance issues in a 3008(a) enforceable Agreement and cleanup issues in a Consent Order under RCRA Section 7003. During early June, the Navy agreed to contract for the imme- diate cleanup of contaminated sediments in three outfall locations and to schedule additional cleanups in 1997. EPA also issued two Notices of Violation to the Navy in June for RCRA underground storage tank violations at the Navy Yard and Anacostia Naval Station; both are pending resolution. Region 9 On August 22, 1995, Region 9 issued a complaint and compliance order to the Bureau of Reclamations Yuma Desalting Plant, located in Yuma, Arizona, assessing $265,025 in penalties. The actions stem from a March 6, 1995 EPA inspection of the facility, during which inspectors observed 61 containers (equal to 35 full 55-gallon drums) of haz- ardous waste at the facility in and around the storage area. The containers, which had been stored on site for up to 40 months without a permit, contained ignitable waste, corrosive waste, reactive waste, chromium, lead, etc. EPA deter- mined that the likelihood of release to the environment and danger to BOR employ- ees was great. Settlement negotiations are ongoing. Region 9 On December 15, 1995, EPA Region 9 cited the Department of the Interior s National Park Service for viola- tions at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, proposing a $243,800 penalty. During an inspection the previous July, EPA deter- mined that the Hawaii facility had stored hazardous wastes without a RCRA per- mit from December 1994 to October 1995. The waste, stored in containers near a maintenance yard in the park, contained amounts of acetone, chromi- um, lead, xylene, phenol, arsenic, mer- cury, and other hazardous wastes. The Department of the Interior was also cited for storing the wastes in rusted or leak- ing containers. The facility has removed the waste, developed a comprehensive waste management plan, and submitted a closure plan for the waste storage area. Penalty negotiations are ongoing. ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTABLE, SAN ANTONIO, TX October 17-19, 1996 by Darlene Boerlage, FFEO I recently had the opportunity to par- ticipate in the first EPA Office of Enforce- ment and Compliance Assurance Round- table held in San Antonio, Texas. The Roundtable was intended to enhance the publics opportunities for involvement in EPAs enforcement process. The Roundtable began with a tour of environmental justice sites around San Antonio. One of the visits on the tour was to North Kelly Gardens, a small Latino community of approximately 30 homes just outside of the fence-line from Kelly Air Force Base. Community repre- sentatives stated that they were not ade- quately represented on the Restoration Advisory Board for the site, that there was not an adequate emergency evacua- tion plan, and that the Air Force has not kept them informed of environmental actions impacting their community. The Roundtable meetings provided a forum for community, environmental organizations, industry, states, and local governments to develop recommenda- tions on aspects of the enforcement process including: federal and state roles, inspections, screening, targeting, com- munity monitoring, community notifica- tion and resolution of complaints, envi- ronmental restoration and cleanup projects, settlements, performance part- nerships and memoranda of agreement, environmental impact statements, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Break-out sessions were highly interac- Continued on page 11 ------- ROCKY FLATS Continued from page 1 standards for surface water, ground water, surface and subsurface soils, and buildings to help the parties agree on appropriate cleanup actions. Important- ly, the agreement means that EPA, the State, and stakeholders are now directly involved in DOE's budget planning process. This will allow the parties and stakeholders to view the site as a whole and prioritize cleanup actions and regu- latory milestones to address the highest risks first. Finally, the Rocky Flats agreement contains special provisions to deal with the stabilization and consolidation of plu- tonium inside of buildings. Included as an appendix to the agreement is a Mem- orandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), which has statutory oversight authority over plutonium activ- ities at DOE facilities. This MOU, the first of its kind for DOE, establishes areas of lead regulation or oversight for DNFSB, the State, and EPA for cleanup activities within buildings. The Rocky Flats agreement also includes a process whereby DOE consults with EPA, the State of Colorado, and DNFSB in estab- lishing "target activities' for plutonium activities which will then be incorporated each year into the agreement. The public will be notified if DOE wishes to modify a target date or fails to meet it; DOE, in consultation with EPA, the State, and DNFSB, will develop a corrective action plan to address the issue. DOE will then keep EPA, the State, and DNFSB informed as to the status of the imple- mentation of the corrective action plan. Dates for activities which follow the com- pletion of a target activity, such as build- ing decommissioning activities which can only be initiated after plutonium man- agement activities within buildings are completed, will be established under the Rocky Flats agreement as enforceable milestones with specific monetary penal- ties. DIRECTOR'S WORD Continued from page 1 environmental compliance and public trust. The people trust the federal gov- ernment to properly manage our federal- ly owned and operated facilities. Has the federal government earned the publics trust? According to the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFRDC) report discussed in this issue, over the next 75 years, federal agencies will be liable for cleaning up over 61,000 hazardous waste sites, with cleanup costs ranging around one-third of a trillion dollars. The FFRDC report comments that a lack of public involve- ment in the past, due to national security concerns, bred significant mistrust among the public, especially where feder- al facility environmental problems affect- ed communities of color and low-income communities. The report, however, com- mends federal agencies for making great progress recently in involving the public in environmental decision making. Although the federal government is responsible for thousands of sites due to past environmental practices, it is gain- ing credibility due to its efforts at com- munity involvement in the cleanup process. Does current environmental compli- ance behavior warrant the public's trust? This issue of FedFacs offers several arti- cles on point. For compliance statistics, FFEO recently published The State of Federal Facilities: An Overview of Envi ronmental Compliance at Federal Facili- ties. This report summarizes compliance results from 2,600 EPA and state inspec- tions. Also see the results of the first Tox- ics Release Inventory (TRI) that includes toxic releases from federal facilities. A goal of TRI is to hold federal facilities accountable for their activities and to encourage them to reduce their use of toxic chemicals at the source. Accepting responsibility for toxic releases and reducing the federal government s reliance on toxic chemicals are two very good ways to demonstrate to the public we are worthy of their trust. Another way is to inform the public of the results of an Environmental Manage- ment Review (EMR) or environmental audit. I hope this issue's article on EMRs is useful and I urge you to take advan- tage of the EPA Audit Policy. Although an EMR is more limited in scope than an environmental audit, each can help in identifying potential compliance prob- lems and needed corrections. Under policies like EPA's EMR and audit policies, facilities will disclose the results of the reviews to the public. By contrast, some states currently allow environmental auditing information to be kept secret and may provide blanket immunity from enforcement actions for violations uncovered through the confi- dential audit. The federal government should not undermine the publics trust by relying on these state laws to keep environmental information secret. In speaking out against environmental audit privilege and immunity laws, Vice President Al Gore, EPAAssistant Admin- istrator Steven Herman, and Assistant Attorney General Lois Schiffer each have cited the public distrust caused by these laws. Sustained future compliance and pol- lution prevention behavior ultimately will earn the public's trust. The success of programs like ENWEST, featured in this issue, presents opportunities for fed- eral agencies to improve environmental practices and share important informa- tion with the public. Regulatory flexibili- ty is earned but first, facilities must com- ply with the law. FFEO will do everything it can to assist federal agen- cies with compliance endeavors. By com- plying with the law, federal agencies will earn not only the regulators trust: they will gain the trust of the public, thereby paving the way for greater regulatory flexibility along the lines of ENWEST. In closing, I hope this issue offers information that is new and useful to you. Let me know! Craig Hooks, Acting Director, FFEO ------- REPORTS AND REGULATIONS Continued from page 8 EPA CLARIFIES ADMINISTRATIVE RULES On March 18, 1996, EPA published a technical revision to its Part 22 adminis- trative hearing procedures, providing federal departments and agencies which are the subject of an EPA administrative compliance order for RCRA violations with the opportunity to confer with the EPA Administrator. The head of the fed- eral department or agency would have 30 days following an Environmental Appeals Board ruling to request such a conference, and the decision made by the Administrator after such a conference would constitute the final order. The new provision brings EPA's procedures in con- formance with the Federal Facility Com- pliance Act of 1992. For more informa- tion, contact Sally Dalzell, FFEO, 202-564-2510. RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ANALYSIS The Planning, Prevention, and Compliance Staff of FFEO is finalizing a detailed review of 104 RCRA Administra- tive Orders issued by EPA Regions and the states from October 1992 (the effec- tive date of the Federal Facility Compli- ance Act) through December 1995. The study objectives are to determine federal agency areas of non-compliance; time lines (e. g. , issue and settlement dates); the frequency of specific violations cited; penalty amounts assessed and/or paid; and Supplemental Environmental Project amounts (if any). The study is expected to be released in Fall 1996 and is intended for use by federal agencies and regulators. Preliminary findings include! Average proposed penalties were con- sistently higher for federal orders ($348,571) than for state orders ($56,732). Of the 104 administrative orders, 704 individual violations were identified. The three most frequent violations were! (1) failure to label or improper labeling of containers (91 violations); (2) incomplete or failure to make a hazardous waste determination (55 violations); and (3) failure to indicate accumulation or storage start dates on containers. EPA ISSUES GUIDANCE ON PARTICIPATION IN DOE BUDGET PROCESS In response to the Department of Ener- gy s invitation to stakeholders and regula- tors to provide input into its FY 1998 bud- get building process, EPA has issued guidance to promote involvement by the EPA Regional Offices. "Guidance for EPA Participation in DOE FY 1998 Environ- mental Management Budget Formula- tion emphasizes the importance of efforts to identify and implement cost efficiencies at DOE field sites and the importance of complying with existing Interagency Agreements. The guidance restates the requirement contained in Executive Order 12088 that DOE will seek sufficient funding for com- pliance with pollution control requirements and describes the limited circumstances under which EPA would consider whether to renegotiate milestones in Interagency Agreements. It lists the factors to be con- sidered in making such decisions, including the extent of DOE's collaboration in reach- ing agreement on priorities and whether there have been substantive efforts to obtain the viewpoints of stakeholders regarding changes to the agreements. Former FFEO Director Barry Breen commended DOE for being "much more open and successful at involving the pub- lic and regulatory agencies as compared to past years.' However, he reiterated EPA concerns about cleanup commit- ments, cost savings, and the adequacy of DOE's Risk Data Sheet process. "We remain concerned that budget appears to drive cleanup,' noted Breen. "It is vitally important that DOE keep the commit- ments that it has made to the public in its cleanup agreements. Copies of the reports mentioned in this section may be obtained through Envi ro$en$e. See page 12 for access informa- tion. ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTABLE Continued from page 9 tive, with participants providing numer- ous recommendations on each topic area. I believe the first EPA Enforcement Roundtable was a huge success and a milestone for OECA. OECA Assistant Administrator Steve Herman spent two days at the Roundtable, taking time to listen to the stakeholders and to talk with them about their issues of concern. OECA is exploring the possibility of host- ing additional Enforcement Roundtables at other locations in the future. NEWS RESOURCES Continued from page 6 ensure that employee performance standards, efficiency ratings, or other accountability measures, are clearly defined to include environmental issues as appropriate, and that excep- tional performance is recognized and rewarded. 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 environ- mental performance. For example, the agency might institute a formal bench- marking program to compare its envi- ronmental operations with other orga- nizations and management standards, where appropriate. Each of the five principles, which describe the overall purpose of the step in the management cycle, is supported by performance objectives. The performance objectives provide more details on the tools and mechanisms by which the prin- ciples can be implemented. For more information, contact Andrew Cherry at 202-564-5011. ------- ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE AWARD DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MARCH 3, 1997 EPA is accepting nominations of indi- viduals for the first-ever Executive Order 12856 Environmental Challenge Award for individuals. These awards will recog- nize individuals that have demonstrated outstanding leadership in implementing the pollution prevention provisions of the 1993 Executive Order #12856 on Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention. EPA expects to incorporate the EO 12856 Challenge Awards with the 1997 White House Clos- ing the Circle Awards. The date for the Closing the Circle nominations is not extended by this notice. Nominations for the Challenge Award must include the name, location, facility address, telephone and fax number, e- mail address (if available), and the name of the person nominating the individual. Include a title and abstract of no more than 100 words and a description of the individual achievement. The description should be no longer than three 8.5 x 11' pages, duplex printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% post-consumer content. Challenge nominations already submitted in coordination with the Clos- ing the Circle nominations need not be resubmitted. EO 12856 individual Chal- lenge nominations must be received by March 3, 1997 and should be mailed to FFEO Challenge Awards (2261 A), 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. E-mail submissions must contain all the above information and can be sent to Garvey.Will@epamail.epa.gov. Attach- ments to E-mail messages must be in ASCII format. Any questions regarding format may be directed to Will Garvey at 202-564-2458. LIST OF ACRONYMS CAA Clean Air Act CWA Clean Water Act DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Act FFEO Federal Facilities Enforce- ment Office (EPA) ISO International Standard Orga- nization RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TRI Toxics Release Inventory SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture CALENDAR April 7-10,1997 ADPA The 23rd Environmental Sympo- sium and Exhibition of the Ameri- can Defense Preparedness Associa- tion will be held in New Orleans on April 7-10, 1997. Contact Carey M. Jagels, tel: 703-247-2578, fax: 703- 522-1885, E-mail: cjagels@adpa.org. May 5-9,1997 CALL FOR PAPERS 1997 GLOBAL DEMILITARIZATION SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION Organized by the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group and the Amer- ican Defense Preparedness Assoca- tion, the Symposium will be held in Reno, NV and will focus on the chal- lenge of demilitarization and dis- posal of energetic materials. Dead- line for submissions: Jan. 15, 1997. Contact: Jim Wheeler, tel: 815-273- 8084; fax:815-273-8717. fiedlfms United States Environmental Protection Agency (2261) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed Address Correction Requested ------- |