United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

EPA #300-N-00-019

Fall 2000

Project XL: NASA White Sands Proposes 

Web-Based Electronic Reporting Project

Printed on Recycled Paper

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #10

T

he NASA White Sands Test Facility

(WSTF) has proposed implementing a

centralized, multi-media, web-based

information management and compliance

reporting system, which will be implemented under EPA’s Project XL. Project

XL, which stands for “eXcellence and

Leadership,” is a national initiative that

tests innovative ways of achieving better

and more cost-effective public health and

environmental protection. 

N A S A’s web-based system will electronically provide regulatory reports and

permit information to the New Mexico

Environmental Department (NMED) in

lieu of paper reports to satisfy existing

E PA and the NMED regulatory requirements. In addition, the web-based system

will include a public access section to give

the general public access to historical site

2 Reese AFB Corrective A c t i o n

3 Hazardous Waste Compliance 

Docket Updated

4 The Hammer

5 Wa s t e Wise Teams With Federal 

A g e n c i e s

5 E P C R A Section 313 Q&A for 

Federal Facilities 

6 P a r t n e r s h i p s

7 Region VI EMRs

8 Yellowstone Cleaning 

Products Project

1 0 Workshops and Conferences

11 Upcoming Events

I ns i d e

Fe dFa c s

T

he first major enforcement action

resulting from the National Federal

Facilities Underground Storage Ta n k

(UST) Initiative was filed on September

18, 2000, against the U.S. A r m y ’s Fort

Lewis Installation in Washington State.

The proposed penalty of $469,661 – the

largest penalty ever proposed for violations of federal UST requirements against

a U.S. defense installation – is contained

in an administrative complaint and compliance order issued by EPA Region X.

The National UST Initiative and action at

Fort Lewis is intended to send a clear Continued on page 9

First Major Enforcement Action Filed in 

National Federal Facilities UST Initiative

message that EPA is serious in its commitment to prevent the often irrevocable

contamination of aquifers, on which

many families depend for drinking water,

by leaks from underground tanks. 

The National UST Initiative was

launched by the Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office (FFEO) during the

Spring of 1999 to ensure compliance with

UST requirements, such as the December

1998 tank upgrade requirements. Federal facilities not meeting these requirements are considered by EPA to be a high

The signing of the Project XL agreement. The signers of the agreement (sitting, from left 

to right): Jerry Clifford, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region VI; Joseph Fries,

M a n a g e r, NASA WSTF; and Paul Ritzma, Deputy Secretary, NMED. Also in attendance

(standing, from left to right): Peter Pache, WSTF Honeywell Team; David Amidei, NASA

WSTF; Timothy Davis, WSTF Honeywell Team; Joyce Stubblefield, EPA Region VI; Adele

Cardenas, EPA Region VI; John Dupree, EPA HQ Project XL; and Jim Mayer, WSTF Honeywell Te a m .

Continued on page 3
2 FEDFACS

T

he former Reese AFB is located in

northwest Texas, approximately 10

miles from the City of Lubbock. The base

is now known as Reese Center and is

being redeveloped by the Lubbock-Reese

Redevelopment Authority (LRRA). The

base covered 2,987 acres, and the surrounding area is predominately rural,

although the continued residential expansion of Lubbock has brought a large number of homes within a few miles of the former base. Reese AFB opened in 1941 and

closed as an Air Force base in 1997. 

C u r r e n t l y, 520 acres have been transferred to the LRRA. Two additional transfers in 2000 will give the LRRA deed to

approximately 75% of the base. The

majority of reuse has been for educational

needs. Texas Tech University established

research laboratories, the local community college established a campus, and the

police and fire departments use some

areas for training.

E n v i ronmental Backgro u n d

In 1993, Reese AFB was the first federal

facility to be issued an imminent and substantial endangerment, RCRA S e c t i o n

7003 Order. The Order addressed off-base

contamination of public water supplies by

a trichloroethylene (TCE) plume. The

Order required sampling of private drinking water wells and irrigation wells in a

36-square mile area around the base.

Reese AFB provided an alternate water

supply to approximately 40 homes. 

In 1994, Reese AFB was assessed an

$81,439 penalty by the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC). The Consent Order required

investigation and remediation of three

areas, including the suspected TCE plume

source area. The Order required Reese to

construct a ground water treatment system to address the highest off-site concentration. In 1996, TNRCC issued a Permit

and Compliance Plan requiring the A i r

Force to investigate 21 solid waste management units and two former surface

impoundments. The majority of the corrective action investigation began at this time.

Streamlining Corrective Action at 

Reese Air Force Base, Texas

Two TCE plumes

and a benzene plume

were the major environmental concerns

at the facility. One

TCE plume impacts

numerous private

drinking water wells.

An industrial drain

line was used for

storm water drainage. Numerous broken sections of pipe

allowed the contaminated water to discharge into the surrounding soil and to

the groundwater. A

pump and treat system, consisting of over fifty extraction/

injection wells and over ten miles of piping,

has been installed both on- and off-site.

C o rrective Action at Reese

A traditional approach to corrective action

usually involves a 1-3 year time frame to

investigate the site, depending on the proj e c t ’s complexity. The approach taken at

Reese has streamlined the sequence of

events and reduced the time frame to 3-9

months. A Base Closure and Realignment

(BRAC) Cleanup Team (BCT) was established. The BCT consists of an EPA r e p r esentative, a state representative, and the

DoD installation BRAC Environmental

C o o r d i n a t o r, all of whom have decision

making authority. This team approach fosters partnering, accelerates the environmental cleanup process, and expedites

t i m e l y, cost-effective, and environmentally

responsible disposal and reuse decisions. 

The Reese BCT reduced the number

of reports and review time. At the

monthly BCT meeting, the site background is discussed and a decision

matrix is laid out that details in clear

steps how the investigation should be

completed. As the investigation proceeds,

the decision matrix is followed, briefin g s

are held on the progress, and course corrections are made. A final report is submitted for approval using information

gathered at the monthly meetings. The

regulators provide input on the investigation on at least a monthly basis.

The team’s approach to “no surprises”

has led to open communications and

trust, giving them a high level of credibility to both the government and citizens. In the past, the public did not trust

the Air Force and, to a certain extent,

the regulators. Restoration A d v i s o r y

Board meetings involved a lot of fin g e r

pointing and limited information

exchange. The current BCT has

regained the trust and confidence in the

public and the LRRA. 

The approach used at Reese has

allowed the Air Force to complete the

majority of investigations and the installation of the ground water pump, treatment systems, and landfill cap within two

years of base closure. The Reese BCT has

been recognized by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for being one of only

four Air Force facilities to meet planned

closure dates. Of these four, the Reese

BCT completed the work faster (within 2

years of closure) than any other Air Force

f a c i l i t y.

For more information, please contact

Gary Miller, EPA Region VI, at (214) 665-

8 3 0 6 .

COST OF THE CLEANUP AND SAV I N G S

Total Spent to Date: $83 million

Total Cost Avoidance to Date: $9.6+ million

$5.5 million reducing need for a landfill cap on the golf course

$2.4 million multiple expedited pro j e c t s

$600,000 reduced sampling parameters/fre q u e n c y

$550,000 used innovative biotic barrier in RCRA landfill cap

$550,000 expedited soil removal which allowed for disposal under the 

SW landfill cap

C u rrent Remaining to Spend (FY00-FY03): $77 million

Total Planned Cost Avoidance: $37+ million (48%)

$10 million eliminating long-term monitoring at two playa lakes with 

hot spot removal 

$12+ million eliminating sampling of private wells through the 

c o n s t ruction of an off-base water line to serve residents 

$15 million reduced sampling frequency/number wells
FEDFACS 3

information, ground water database

archives, geographic information system

(GIS) reports, International Organization

for Standardation certification information, recycling data, waste minimization

reports, NEPA information, community

right-to-know issues, and other associated compliance information.

The NASA project will provide EPA ,

NMED, and the public with improved

access to higher quality regulatory information, scientific data, and analytical

tools. The web-based information system

also will facilitate a more thorough analysis of WSTF’s environmental data and

reports by NMED and the general public.

The project also will reduce paper use and

lower staff costs, both at NASA and at the

regulatory agencies.

To implement this project, NASA

WSTF must request regulatory fle x i b i l i t y

from existing EPA and NMED regulations that require a written signature or

paper submission of regulatory reports

and permit information affected under

this project. As part of this project, EPA

will draft site specific rule(s) to facilitate

the electronic transmission of permit

information and compliance reports. 

In addition, a formal stakeholder

outreach process has been developed

by NASA W S T F. The outreach effort

will involve public meetings and

comment periods at key points

throughout the project. 

The experience and lessons

learned from Project XL will assist

E PA in redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting approaches

for reporting environmental information. Project XL encourages testing of

c l e a n e r, cheaper, and smarter ways

to attain environmental results superior to those achieved under current

regulations and policies. It also

requires greater involvement by stakeholders – the people and organizations

affected by EPA’s decisions. It is vital

that each project test new ideas with the

potential for wide application and broad

environmental benefits. Project XL

offers a tremendous opportunity for

everyone to think “outside the box” of our

current system and to find solutions to

obstacles that limit environmental perf o r m a n c e .

Information about NASA’s web-based

electronic reporting project or Project XL

is available on the internet at http://

w w w.epa.gov/ProjectXL, or via Project

X L’s Information Line at (202) 260- 5754.

For more information on the WSTF

project, please contact Adele Cardenas,

the regional contact, at (214) 665-7210;

John DuPree, EPA / X L Headquarters, at

(202) 260-4468; or David Amidei, Project

S p o n s o r, at (505) 524-5024.

PROJECT XL

Continued from page 1

E PA Headquarters and Region VI staff joined

N A S A o f ficials in a tour of the White Sands

Test Facility. The site visit capped off a two-day

public meeting and a negotiation session in

August to finalize the XL project agreement.

T

he twelfth update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Wa s t e

Compliance Docket was released in the Federal Register o n

June 12, 2000, which details additions, deletions, and corrections to the previous

docket update. 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 t o

establish the docket.

The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket contains information about federal facilities engaged in hazardous

waste activity or from which hazardous substances may have

been or may be released. The docket lists a total of 2,205 federal facilities following the twelfth update.

The purpose of the docket is to:

• Identify all federal facilities that must be evaluated to

determine whether they pose a risk to human health and

the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the

National Priorities List;

• Compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA

on such facilities under the provisions listed in Section

120(c) of CERCLA; and

• Provide a mechanism to make information available to

the public.

The initial list of federal facilities to be included in the

docket was published February 1988, and CERCLA requires

that the docket be updated every six months, as federal

agencies report new facilities to EPA. Beginning this year,

the docket will be published twice a year, and the next

update will be published by the end of this calendar year.

For more information, contact Augusta Wills, National

Docket Coordinator, at (202) 564-2468.

Federal Agency Hazardous Waste 

Compliance Docket Update Released

The Federal Agency 

Hazardous Waste 

Compliance Docket 

contains information about 

federal facilities engaged 

in hazardous waste activity

or from which hazardous 

substances may have been 

or may be released.
4 FEDFACS

waste loads picked up from Fort Campbell

on two separate occasions.

Fort Campbell was ordered to pay a

$37,000 penalty and submit a plan

describing procedures for complying with

R C R A so that hazardous waste is properly

d i s p o s e d .

In a May 20, 1999, letter to the U.S.

Army Soldier Systems Command, EPA’s

O f fice of Solid Waste (OSW) informed the

Army that unused FRHs are D003 reactive

hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. An OSW

review of the incident was conducted at the

A r m y ’s request. OSW found that the material in the FRHs “can form potentially

explosive mixtures with water.” While recognizing that a single FRH would not be

much of a threat, a “violent physical reaction or fire could result” if a number of

FRHs were mishandled simultaneously. 

For more information, contact David

Levenstein at (202) 564-2591.

E PA Environmental Appeals

B o a rd Reverses and

Remands Tinker Air Forc e

Base UST Decision

On July 27, 2000, the EPA E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Appeals Board (EAB) reversed the May

19, 1999, Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) Order granting Tinker A F B ’s

Motions to Dismiss and for A c c e l e r a t e d

Decision, and remanded the case back to

the ALJ. The EAB deferred to the June

14, 2000, Opinion of the Department of

Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)

that confirmed EPA’s penalty authority

against Federal agencies for underground

storage tank (UST) violations under

Resource Conservation and Recovery A c t

(RCRA) Sections 6001(b) and 9006, and

c o n firmed the validity of EPA’s UST fie l d

citation procedures (see related story on

page 9 for a summary of the DOJ opinion).

The case was initiated in January 1998,

Region IV Takes RCRA

3008(a) Action Against

A rm y ’s Fort Campbell

Region IV has taken a RCRA 3 0 0 8 ( a )

enforcement action against the A r m y ’s

Fort Campbell for the improper disposal of

flameless ration heaters (FRH), also

known as meals-ready-to-eat (MRE)

heaters, and a smoke grenade that

resulted in a trash fire. Fort Campbell is

located on the Tennessee-Kentucky bord e r. The major function of the base is to

support and train the 101st Airborne Division and other associated U.S. Army units

in preparation for assigned combat and

combat-related missions. 

On June 23, 1999, a private solid waste

hauler picked up waste at Fort Campbell

and was en route to the county solid waste

Subtitle D landfill when the load of waste

caught fire. The waste hauler left the load

of trash on a road on the base and the base

fire department extinguished the fire. The

next day, the load of trash was again on

fire and the fire department had to again

respond. MRE heaters and a smoke

grenade were seen in the burned rubbish

pile. In January 2000, MRE heaters were

found by county landfill personnel in solid

when EPA Region VI filed an A d m i n i s t r ative Complaint against Tinker AFB, alleging violations of the RCRA UST requirements. The Administrative Complaint

sought a penalty of $96,703, and was part

of EPA’s first set of UST cases against federal facilities. At the same time the case

was pending before the ALJ, and before the

Order was issued in May 1999, the Department of Defense (DoD) referred to OLC the

issue of whether or not EPA has statutory

authority to assess civil administrative

penalties against another federal agency

for UST violations. Shortly after the UST

penalty issue was referred to OLC, the A L J

issued the May 1999 Order that found that

E PA lacked the statutory authority to

assess civil administrative penalties

against another federal agency under the

R C R A Section 9006 UST provisions. EPA

appealed the ALJ Order to the EAB in

June 1999, and all parties have been waiting for the OLC Opinion.

Given the OLC Opinion and the case

remanded to the ALJ, Tinker AFB and

E PA have recommended settlement negotiations. Although a November 14, 2000,

hearing date has been set by the ALJ, a

settlement in principal has been reached

by both parties. The alleged violations at

Tinker AFB are typical of UST violations

that EPA sees at federal facilities, including those found at Barksdale AFB in

Bossier City, Louisiana, where EPA i s s u e d

a Complaint alleging failure to conduct

release detection in accordance with the

federal and state UST regulations. 

E PA has found that most federal facilities have proper UST equipment for release

detection, spill and overfill prevention, and

corrosion protection. Generally, facilities in

violation have 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. 

T h e H a m m e r

Fe dFa c s

is published by EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office. 

Joyce Johnson, FFEO, E d i t o r

SciComm, Inc., L a y o u t

To receive F e d F a c s in the mail, contact:

Federal Facilities Enforcement Offic e

U.S. EPA (2261A), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044

or Fax : 2 0 2 - 5 0 1 - 0 0 6 9

Read F e d F a c s on the Intern e t :

h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g o v / o e c a / f e d f a c / a n n / i n d e x . h t m l

Continued on page 5
against the U.S. Forest Service, alleging

violations of the Safe Drinking Water A c t .

The Complaints allege violations of the

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, including failure to perform coliform bacteria monitoring and exceeding

the maximum contaminant level for coliform bacteria. The water systems cited

are the Duran and the Canjilon Lakes

Campgrounds in the Santa Fe National

Forest and the Guadalupe A d m i n i s t r ative Site in the Lincoln National Forest.

Settlement negotiations between EPA

and the U.S. Forest Service are ongoing.

Microbiological contaminants present

a health issue in drinking water systems

and have long been considered one of the

drinking water program’s highest enforceFEDFACS 5

For more information, please contact

Cheryl Boyd, Region VI, at (214) 665-2161

or Andrew Cherry, EPA Headquarters, at

(202) 564-2589.

Region VI Issues Three Safe

Drinking Water Act Penalty

Actions Against U.S. Fore s t

S e rv i c e

On August 17, 2000, EPA Region VI

issued three Administrative Complaints

ment priorities. Total coliform bacteria are

used as an indicator in drinking water to

assess the sanitary integrity of the treatment processes and distribution system. If

total coliform are present in drinking

w a t e r, conditions also exist for the presence of harmful pathogens. Enforcement

of the microbiological rules is a national

enforcement priority within EPA, and

negotiations have commenced with the

USFS for settlement. USFS has indicated

they intend to submit a Supplemental

Environmental Project Proposal as a

result of the violations at the three aforementioned facilities.

For more information, contact Maurice Rawls at (214) 665-8049 or Efren

Ordonez at (214) 665-2181.

THE HAMMER

Continued from page 4

F

ederal agencies are invited to join over

1,000 businesses, governments, and

other organizations that have realized

the environmental and cost-saving benefits of reducing their municipal 

solid waste by joining the Wa s t e Wise voluntary partnership program. Sponsored

by the U.S. EPA, Wa s t e Wise assists organizations of all sizes prevent waste, recycle, and buy recycled-content products.

During a special campaign, EPA is promoting federal agency participation as

Wa s t e Wise partners. This effort will help

agencies comply with President Clinton’s

Executive Order 13101, which directs

federal agencies to develop a comprehensive waste reduction program.

EPA launched WasteWise in January 1994 as a voluntary partnership

program to help organizations find

practical and cost-effective methods for

reducing their solid waste. WasteWise

provides support in three core program

areas: waste prevention, recycling, and

buying and manufacturing products

with recycled content. Over 1,000 organizations from across the country participate in the program, representing

50 industry sectors ranging from aerospace to utilities, as well as governments and institutions. WasteWise has

already helped these organizations save

WasteWise Teams With 

Federal Agencies

more than $830 million in avoided disposal costs, prevent the creation of

more than 2.4 million tons of waste, and

recycle 24 million tons of excess material. “Waste prevention and recycling at

federal agencies can significantly help

the government save environmental

resources and eliminate unnecessary

expenses,” according to Craig Hooks,

FFEO Office Director.

For federal agencies, teaming with

Wa s t e Wise “only makes sense; there is a

natural link between Wa s t e Wise and

Executive Order 13101,” notes Fran

McPoland, the Federal Environmental

Executive. “Wa s t e Wise partnership benefits federal agencies by helping them

increase their operational effic i e n c i e s

and reduce waste.” Participation in

Wa s t e Wise helps federal agencies meet

their Executive Order obligations in several ways, including providing focused

information, maintaining resources and

staff to help partners, offering a welldesigned program, networking, and

assembling local and national recognition and award opportunities.

For more information on the WasteWise program, call the Wa s t e Wi s e

Helpline at 1-800-EPA-WISE (372-

9473), e-mail ww@cais.net, or visit the

web site at www.epa.gov/wastewise. 

EPCRA SECTION 313

Q&A ADDENDUM FOR 

FEDERAL FA C I L I T I E S

R E V I S E D

I

n conjunction with Executive Order 13148,

G reening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, t h e

U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory Pro g r a m

issued EPCRA Section 313 Questions and

Answers Addendum for Federal Facilities,

Revised 1999 Ve r s i o n (May 2000). This document clarifies re p o rting re q u i rements for

federal facilities under Section 313 of the

E m e rgency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act (EPCRA). 

Under EPCRA Section 313, facilities are

re q u i red to re p o rt releases and other waste

management of specifically listed chemicals. Federal facilities are re q u i red to re p o rt

re g a rdless of SIC code if they meet thre s hold re q u i rements. EPA developed this document, which includes 134 questions and

answers and associated appendices, to

facilitate re p o rting and provide an additional explanation of re p o rting re q u i rem e n t s .

This federal facility addendum supplements the EPCRA 313 Questions and

Answers Revised 1998 Ve r s i o n , w h i c h

a d d resses re p o rting re q u i rements for all

facilities. 

This document is available for download

at http://www. e p a . g o v / t r i / g u i d a n c e / h t m .

For more information, call the EPCRA

Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
6 FEDFACS

P a rt n e r s h i p s

Vi rginia and DoD Form 

First Pollution Pre v e n t i o n

P a rtnership in Region III

Barb D’Angelo, Director of the Office for

Environmental Innovation for Region III,

represented EPA in the signing of the

first Pollution Prevention Partnership in

the region. Governor James S. Gilmore,

III and Rear Admiral Christopher W.

Cole, Commander of Navy Region MidAtlantic and DoD Regional Environmental Coordinator for Region III, were the

key signatories at the Virginia/DoD Pollution Prevention Partnership signing

c e r e m o n y, held October 19th in the

Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Richmond, Virginia. 

Other participants for the Commonwealth of Virginia were John Paul Wo o dl e y, Secretary of Natural Resources, and

Dennis Tr e a c y, Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. Other

signatories to the agreement included the

commanders, or their representative, for

most of the military installations and

activities in Virginia. 

Approximately 20 separate military

installations and activities in Vi r g i n i a

have been active participants in the partnership. The partnership was formed to

identify opportunities, develop solutions

and promote successes, enhance the missions of the pollution prevention participants, conserve resources, and improve

the quality of Vi r g i n i a ’s environment. 

Goals of the partnership are to review

s p e c i fic practices and processes that can

be transferred among participants, 

initiate cooperative projects, and externally share information through venues

such as conferences, workshops, publications, and the internet. Through the initiative of the participants, a number of

work groups have already been formed to

address affirmative pollution prevention

procurement policies and practices; the

decrease or elimination of solvents, universal waste,

and aqueous fil m

forming foam;

and the management of hazardous materials. In addition,

cooperative projects have been

initiated to

increase member

participation in

the Virginia Naturally 2000 Program and the

Businesses for the Bay Program. Other

cooperative efforts involve educating

design engineers on sustainable building

techniques, technologies, and processes,

and an initiative to reduce the discharge

of priority chemicals into Vi r g i n i a ’s environment. A number of actions to share

information and promote pollution prevention opportunities and programs also

have been initiated. 

The signing of the charter formalized a

partnership that has been in the making

for six months and has been characterized by the enthusiastic participation of

all the members of the partnership team.

Based on this enthusiasm and the large

number of military activities in Vi r g i n i a ,

tremendous potential exists to implement

successful pollution prevention processes

and programs throughout Region III.

This will improve the overall quality of

the environment at these military activities and elsewhere within Region III. 

For more information, please contact

Bill Arguto, Region III Federal Facilities

C o o r d i n a t o r, at (215) 814-3367.

Region III/State/DoD 

E n v i ronmental Colloquium:

P a rtnerships for a Better

E n v i ro n m e n t

E PA Region III was joined by the Department of Defense, and

agencies of states and

the District of Columbia to host the

Regional Environmental Colloquium on

August 22 - 24, 2000,

in Baltimore, MD.

The well-attended

conference stressed

Partnerships for a

Better Environment.

Speakers included

representatives from

the military services

of the DoD, Civilian Federal A g e n c i e s ,

and regional state regulators. Keynote

speakers included:

• RADM Christopher Cole - Command e r, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and

DoD Regional Environmental Coordin a t o r ;

• Karla Perri - Assistant Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Environmental Cleanup; 

• Bradley Campbell - EPA Region III

Administrator; and 

• Tayloe Murphy - Virginia House of Delegates member (retired). 

Each keynote speaker discussed their

a g e n c y ’s commitment to environmental

excellence, the importance of partnerships,

and future direction for their environmental program. Mr. Murphy stressed the

importance of partnering and noted the

importance of implementing and achieving

goals once partnerships are established.

Using the partnership theme, speakers presented ideas and concepts used to

accomplish various tasks pertaining to

remediation, auditing, compliance assistance, beyond cleanup, watershed management, waste and chemical management, and pollution prevention and waste

minimization, among others. Speakers

from each session presented useful ideas

and tools for accomplishing environmental tasks.

Continued on page 11

Virginia/DoD Pollution Prevention

Partnership signing ceremony, Capitol

Building in Richmond, Vi r g i n i a .
FEDFACS 7

E

PA Region VI conducted four Environmental Management Reviews

(EMRs) at federal facilities in FY2000.

EMRs were conducted at the following

facilities: 

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration,

Arkansas;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, A g r icultural Research Service, Southern

Plains Area, College Station, TX; 

• ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insect Research Laboratory,

Kerrville, TX; and

• U.S. Department of Tr e a s u r y,

Bureau of Engraving and Printing,

Fort Worth, TX. 

The EMR process reviews seven disciplines: organizational structure; environmental commitment; formality of

environmental programs; internal and

external communication; staff resources,

training, and development; program

evaluation, reporting, and development;

and environmental planning and risk

management. EPA has submitted draft

EMR reports to each facility, and all

reports are expected to be finalized soon. 

Region VI is gearing up for its 2001

road trip and is looking for

facilities/agencies to participate in the

next round of EMRs. 

E PA Region VI Requests EMR

F e e d b a c k

To improve the EMR process, EPA

Region VI has requested EMR participants to comment on the usefulness of

the EMR conducted at their facility.

Phil Smith, Safety and Health Manager at the USDA ARS, Southern Plains

Area, provided the following comments

after their EMR:

While it’s always beneficial to have an

impartial, friendly review of your environmental management programs,

E PA Region VI Conducts Environmental Management Reviews

this EMR was particularly valuable

in that it came as our agency was

beginning its next round of strategic

planning. The recommendations from

this review will help us keep our laboratories in the forefront of environmental stewardship.

This EMR had both long and

short term positive effects. In the long

term, the recommendations from this

review will pay dividends for years to

come in the development of our environmental management programs. In

the short term, the EPA team presented a seminar on the local watershed and geology that led to fresh

thoughts on the relationship between

our research, the community and

water quality.

J.E. (Cody) Partridge, Director of Environment, Safety and Health at the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson Laboratories, Jefferson, A r i z o n a

provided the following feedback:

The recently completed EPA Region

VI EMR at our facility provided a

quick, capsule review of our environmental management system/program. We chose to have an overview

of all seven disciplines rather than

focusing on one or two specific areas.

The two person team was on-site for

approximately 2 and 1/2 days conducting interviews and reviewing

documentation. In addition, the

EMR team had requested and

received our response to a pre-site

visit questionnaire. The EMR report

was concise and straight forward

with an evaluation of each of the

seven disciplines. We have already

begun to institute some of the suggestions and to correct our deficiencies.

We found the EPA Region VI EMR

process to be very helpful, nonthreatening, and time well spent.

Katherine Batiste, Environmental

Coordinator at the U.S. Department of

E n e r g y, Strategic Petroleum Reserve

(SPR), provided the following comments

on the recent EMR of two SPR facilities

and management office:

The EMR performed by EPA in June

of 1999 at the SPR provided good,

independent feedback on the

strengths and opportunities for

improvement regarding our Environmental Management System,

and provided a preview of considerations for the subsequent successful

ISO 14001 certification. It is noteworthy that the EMR was performed

in a manner that created only minor

impacts to the daily facility operations, but included a sampling

across all levels of job functions, giving a good basis for evaluating the

implementation of the overall Environmental Management System.

This EMR proved valuable in providing a good sense of EPA’s expectations in regard to effective Environmental Management Systems and

their implementation, as well as providing excellent feedback on our

Environmental Management System

from an independent, third-party

perspective, entirely consistent with

EPA’s new Performance Track Initiative.

As a suggested process improvement, when reviewing centralized

Environmental Management Systems, begin the review at the centralized headquarters, followed by

review of field locations, in lieu of the

reverse as was done at the SPR, so as

to follow the process flow-down and

more clearly understand demarcation of responsibilities.

Please call Joyce Stubblefield, EPA

Region VI Federal Facilities Coordinator at (214) 665-6430 or e-mail 

stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov for more

information.
8 FEDFACS

Y

ellowstone and Grand Teton National

Parks are “greener” as a result of a

joint project funded by EPA Region VIII,

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and the National Park

Service (NPS). Yellowstone and Grand

Teton significantly reduced the toxicity of

janitorial products used in park operations with help from a Jackson, Wy o m i n g ,

c o m p a n y.

First, the consultants inventoried all

the cleaning products at the Parks. At Ye llowstone, they identified 130 products.

Another 30 products were on the shelves

but were not used. As they conducted the

inventory at Yellowstone, the consultants

found products containing chemicals such

as 2-butoxyethanol, perchloroethylene,

trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

sodium hydroxide (lye), ammonia, phosphoric acid, bleach, naphthalene, toluene,

xylene, and acetone. The large number of

products meant dollars for appropriate

storage space, hazardous waste disposal

in some cases, and confusion as to what

products did what jobs. 

The consultants talked to NPS maintenance staff and managers to learn

about their cleaning practices, tools, and

challenges. The consultants then worked

with the NPS Maintenance Office and

two concessionaires – the medical clinics

and service stations – to conduct a pilot

implementation project during the winter

season of 1998-1999. During the pilot at

Old Faithful and Mammoth, new cleaning products were introduced that were

both effective and met strict bid specific ations issued by the city government of

Santa Monica, California. Most of the

new products are environmentally

preferable for many reasons, including:

• They contain ingredients made from

corn or soybeans (renewable

resources); 

• The general cleaning products do not

contain disinfectants; 

• They do not contain Toxic Release

Inventory chemicals; 

• VOC levels meet or exceed California’s

VOC regulations for cleaning products; 

• Products are sold in bulk and measured in appropriate concentrations

by on-site dispensers; and

• Products are not delivered in aerosol

cans. 

As part of this project, disinfectants are

used alone where absolutely necessary.

Also, the manufacturer takes back the

larger product containers, while the

smaller five gallon containers can be

recycled. Commercially strong, refil l a b l e

bottles are used by the staff, eliminating

disposal of empty pint or quart bottles.

After the pilot, Yellowstone decided to

expand the project to all NPS facilities in

the Park. Grand Teton, a neighboring

park, joined the project. The Ye l l o w s t o n e

Facility Manager said that use of sodium

hypochlorite (bleach) has been dramatically reduced throughout the Park. The

central warehouse began stocking most

of the 18 approved products and the

warehouse manager was enthusiastic

about the new approach. Staff at both

parks said that they felt better after

switching to the new products.

This project also succeeded because

there was top management support.

Introducing the program on a limited

basis allowed Yellowstone to test products for performance and involve the janitorial staff in the decision-making

process on whether to go park-wide. The

consultants guided the project, providing

training on proper disinfection practices,

hands-on cleaning demonstrations, and

oversight. The purchase of cleaning products was simplified. Finally, the “champions” for this project continued to look for

new applications for environmentally

preferable products.

Lessons learned included the importance of early coordination with the warehouse manager and purchasing departments, who can be effective advocates.

There should be a champion for the project at each location. Strong management

commitment is needed and should be regularly communicated.

A report, Cleaning National Parks:

Using Environmentally Preferable Janitorial Products at Yellowstone and Grand

Teton National Parks, is available. The

report documents the process that the

parks and their consultants used to introduce environmentally preferable cleaning products. The report is available on

the EPA Region VIII web site at

w w w.epa.gov/region08 under the To x i c s

and Poisons section. 

Paper copies of the report will be

available from EPA’s Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse. Contact

ppic@epamail.epa.gov after December 15,

2000. The report is printed on text grade

paper which is 100% process chlorine free

and is made with 100% post-consumer

content. It has a brightness of 90 and an

opacity of 95. 

If you have questions about the cleaning project, please call Dianne Thiel at

(303) 312-6389. 

Cleaning National Parks: A Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton Pollution Prevention Project

Lexi Marsh, maintenance employee at

Madison Junction, Yellowstone National

Park, is one of the project “champions.”
FEDFACS 9

priority for enforcement action. The initiative involved conducting inspections at

selected federal facilities and performing

follow-up enforcement actions, when

appropriate. EPA Regions identified candidate facilities for inspection based on

several criteria, including proximity to

sources of drinking water or sensitive

ecosystems, compliance history, and age of

tanks. The inspections, which were conducted nationwide during the Summer

and Fall of 1999, were carried out by a

team of experienced state and federal

inspectors. 

At Fort Lewis, the Washington Department of Ecology participated with EPA

in the inspection of the installation’s 

UST systems during the Fall of 1999.

Numerous violations were identified at

that time, including leak detection problems at the Fort Lewis Logistics Center,

which is located within one mile of

Sequalitchew Springs, one of several

drinking water sources on or near the

base. Most drinking water in the Fort

Lewis area comes from relatively shallow

ground water sources which are particularly vulnerable to contamination. Vi o l ations identified in the complaint involved

over half of the sixty-two regulated UST

systems on the base, with ten of the systems having more than one violation.

Several of the violations had previously

been brought to the attention of Fort

Lewis during a 1994 inspection. 

The complaint and order requires Fort

Lewis to bring its USTs into compliance

with the State of Wa s h i n g t o n ’s EPA -

approved UST regulations. The comp l a i n t ’s proposed penalty assessment is

intended to encourage timely resolution

of the violations, and to deter federal

agencies and others from incurring future

violations. EPA’s enforcement action had

been delayed pending a decision by the

Department of Justice’s Office of Legal

Counsel (OLC) on EPA’s authority to

assess penalties for noncompliance with

UST requirements. The Fort Lewis action

is the first major penalty action taken

against a federal facility since the DOJ

opinion was issued (see below for a summary of the DOJ opinion). 

“Anyone who lives on or near a U.S.

Army base should expect the same environmental safeguards that everyone else

enjoys,” said Chuck Findley, Acting EPA

Regional A d m i n i s t r a t o r. “Many of the violations at Ft. Lewis involved inoperative

or malfunctioning leak detection equipment. Base personnel have had 10 years

to upgrade their facilities and know that

leak detection is our first line of defense

in protecting the purity of our groundwater and safeguarding the public from

potentially dangerous leaks of gasoline.”

For further information on the Fort

Lewis action, contact Tim Hamlin 

at (206) 553-1563 or Melanie Garvey 

at (202) 564-2579. For information on

the National Federal Facilities UST 

Initiative, contact Lance Elson at 

(202) 564-2577.

The Department of Justice has resolved a dispute between EPA and the

D e p a rtment of Defense (DoD) by confirming EPA’s authority to re q u i re

federal agencies to pay penalties for violations of RCRA UST re q u i rements. The Opinion was issued by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on

June 14, 2000. The dispute between EPA and DoD originated from the two

agencies’ differing interpretations of whether RCRA Sections 6001(b) and

9006 confer upon EPA authority to assess administrative penalties for

UST violations.

The OLC Opinion confirmed EPA’s penalty authority against federal

agencies under RCRA Sections 6001(b) and 9006 using the clear expre s s

statement standard, and confirmed the validity of EPA’s UST field citation

p ro c e d u res. OLC examined the UST issues and concluded that “RCRA

clearly grants EPA the authority to assess penalties against federal agencies for UST violations and that EPA’s UST field citation pro c e d u res do

not violate RCRA or the Constitution.” The OLC Opinion also states that “a

s t r a i g h t f o rw a rd reading of RCRA’s statutory text and the relevant legislative history leads us to conclude that it was clearly Congress’ intent to

authorize EPA to assess penalties against federal agencies for violation

of the UST re q u i re m e n t s . ”

This long-awaited confirmation of the validity of EPA’s UST field citation pro c e d u res and EPA’s UST penalty authority over federal agencies is

an important development for the Federal Facilities Enforcement Program. OLC’s UST Opinion is consistent with its July 1997 Opinion that

c o n firmed EPA’s penalty authority under Sections 113(d), 205(c), and

211(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act. In both Opinions, DOJ determined that EPA

has penalty authority against federal agencies under any law, pro v i d e d

that the statute clearly provides the authority, re g a rdless of whether the

waiver of sovereign immunity would be considered broad enough to subject federal agencies to penalties assessed by those outside the federal

g o v e rnment. EPA now has administrative order and penalty authority

against federal facilities under several environmental laws including the

Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, RCRA (UST and hazard o u s

waste), and the lead-based paint provisions of Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

DOJ OPINION CONFIRMS EPA’S PENALTY AUTHORITY AGAINST 

FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF RCRA UST REQUIREMENTS

FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Continued from page 1
10 FEDFACS

Workshop to Address 

Management of 

Contaminated Federal 

F a c i l i t i e s

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Oakland Operations Office, DOE’s Offic e

of Science and Te c h n o l o g y, EPA Region IX,

and other federal agencies will sponsor a

workshop on land transfer and long-term

stewardship of contaminated federal facilities on December 13-15, 2000, at the

Argent Hotel in San Francisco. 

With a focus on the unique policy and

technical issues that affect federal facilities, the workshop will involve a wide

range of stakeholders, such as federal and

state project managers and regulators,

private sector contractors, technology

researchers and vendors, insurance and

finance representatives, and public interest groups and stakeholders. 

Guest speakers will address topics

such as: 

• land transfer;

• managing contamination over the long

t e r m ;

• liability issues and risk fin a n c i n g ;

• risk based corrective action;

• land use and institutional controls;

• post-closure sampling and monitoring

techniques; and

• GIS/information management issues.

Pacific Rim Enterprise Center, a nonprofit organization that develops innovative, practical solutions to complex

regional, national, and international

environmental problems, is hosting the

workshop. For more information, please

visit the workshop web site at

www.pacific-rim.org/calconf.

Region VII’s Federal 

H e a l t h c a re Facilities 

Compliance Assistance

Wo r k s h o p

On September 14, 2000, the EPA R e g i o n

VII Federal Facilities Program conducted

a Federal Healthcare Facilities Compliance Assistance Workshop in To p e k a ,

Kansas. This workshop was held in conjunction with the 2000 Region VII Pollution Prevention Roundtable (P2RT) meeting, which focused on healthcare

facilities. The meeting and workshop provided the perfect opportunity to coordinate the requirements of environmental

regulations with P2 solutions. The goal of

both the workshop and P2RT meeting

was to assist healthcare facilities in

learning about environmental regulations faced by hospitals and solutions to

managing healthcare waste streams.

Workshop and P2RT presentations

addressed a variety of topics, including

environmental regulations which affect

hospitals, environmental management

systems, P2’s relation to the healthcare

i n d u s t r y, infectious wastes, re-useable

sharps container programs, garbage and

cafeteria wastes, and procurement issues.

As a follow-up to the workshop, the

University of Nebraska-Omaha is establishing a healthcare topic hub to provide

information on compliance and pollution

prevention for the industry.

For more information, please contact

Diana Jackson, Region VII Federal Facilities Program Manager, at (913) 551-7744

or jackson.diana@epa.gov.

Workshops and Confere n c e s

Region VI Conducts 

O u t reach on Using the 

Geographical Inform a t i o n

S y s t e m

E PA Region VI has conducted five outreach efforts with the federal community

on the use of the Geographical Information System (GIS) for environmental

screening. EPA Region VI is using GIS as

a cumulative risk analytical tool, fin d i n g

that GIS opens opportunities to explore

facility operations in concert with the

natural environment. One facility found

that the information presented on its

local watershed and geology led to new

ideas on the relationship between its

research, the community, and water quali t y. GIS can be used to index sub-watershed level ecological vulnerability data

coupled with facility-specific operational

data. 

E PA Region VI discussed the GIS

analysis approach at the following 

l o c a t i o n s :

• U.S. Army Fort Polk, LA ( N o v e m b e r

‘ 9 9 ) ,

• Texas P2 Partnership Meeting, San

Antonio, TX (December ‘99),

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, A g r iculture Research Service KniplingBushland, U.S. Livestock Insect

Research Laboratory, Kerrville, TX

(May ‘00),

• Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Office, New Orleans, LA ( A u g u s t

‘00), and

• N E PA Training Course, Dallas, TX

(September ‘00). 

To see this tool, please visit http://

w w w. e p a . g o v / e a r t h 1 r 6 / 6 e n / x p / e n x p 4 a . h t m

or contact Dr. Sharon L. Osowski at (214)

665-7506 or Dr. Gerald Carney at (214)

6 6 5 - 6 5 2 3 .
FEDFACS 11

April 2001 Enviro n m e n t a l

Symposium and Exhibition:

A New Era for Federal 

E n v i ronmental Leadership,

Management and 

Te c h n o l o g y

The Environmental Systems Division of

the National Defense Industrial A s s o c i ation, in cooperation with the Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense, the Civil

Engineer Headquarters of the U.S. A i r

Force, and EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office, is sponsoring the

27th Environmental Symposium and

Exhibition, A New Era for Federal Environmental Leadership, Management and

Te c h n o l o g y. The symposium will be held

April 23-26, 2001 in Austin, Te x a s .

The purpose of the symposium is to present issues related to federal agency environmental leadership. Discussion at the

symposium will focus on the integration of

environmental accountability managing

impacting activities and the application of

technology to ensure appropriate compliance with Executive Order 13148. Industry

leaders, practitioners, environmental officials, and other government agency personnel are expected to attend the symposium.

Since EPA was unable to sponsor a

Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) Symposium this year, FFEO is hosting an E M S

Self-Assessment Wo r k s h o p on the first day

of the symposium, Monday, April 23,

2001. The workshop will focus on Executive Order 13148 responsibilities. While

this workshop is designed for CFAs, it is

open to all federal agencies.

Solicitation for papers and exhibitors

has been extended for the Environmental

Symposium and Exhibition. Check the

information on the call for papers at

h t t p : / / r e g i s t e r. n d i a . o r g / i n t e r v i e w / r e g i st e r. n d i a ? ~ B r o c h u r e ~ 1 4 4 .

For additional information, contact

Sarah Hart at (202) 564-2457.

N E PA TRAINING

E

PA Region VI recently hosted a four-day National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) training

course that focused on writing Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, and managing the NEPA process. The course was well received by the federal agencies,

who indicated there are few courses available that cover these topics. Participants were fro m

several federal agencies including the Department of Energ y, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and EPA. EPA’s goal is to continue offering NEPA training courses to the re gulated community, to keep the lines of communication open, and to inform federal agencies

about training. Region VI is developing another course, for the Spring 2001, that will focus on writing NEPA documents and managing the NEPA pro c e s s .

E PA is soliciting comments from federal agencies on how to improve NEPA training and other

aspects of information sharing. To comment, please contact Joyce Stubblefield, Region VI Federal Facilities Coord i n a t o r, at (214) 665-6430 or stubblefie l d . j o y c e @ e p a . g o v. Jana Harvill may also

be contacted at (214) 665-8369 or harv i l l . j a n a @ e p a . g o v. The Region VI internal NEPA 309 re v i e w

checklist for EISs can be found at http://www. e p a . g o v / e a rt h 1 r 6 / 6 e n / e n x p 4 b . h t m .

Special Partnership Initiatives, such as the

Chesapeake Bay Program and A n a c o s t i a

River Toxics Alliance, were cited a programs that have successfully promoted

partnerships between EPA, DoD, and state

regulators. The programs demonstrate that

agencies can work together to produce sign i ficant environmental change.

Individual break-out sessions for each

state and military branch focused on

exchanging information pertinent to that

state or military branch. These individual

sessions were well received and informative. 

Information on the conference, including an attendee list and speakers’ notes, is

available on Region III’s web site at

h t t p : / / w w w. e p a . g o v / r e g 3 e s d 1 / f e d f a c / i n d e x .

html or by calling Bill Arguto at (215) 814-

3 3 6 7 .

Speakers from EPA H e a d q u a r t e r s

i n c l u d e d :

• James Woolford (FFRRO) - Remediation policy overview;

• Michael Haire (OFW) - TMDLs;

• Rob Lischinsky (OECA/OC/METD) -

Sector facility indexing;

• Greg Snyder (FFEO) - New Executive

Orders and enforcement and compliance assurance;

• Emily Chow (OECA) - Compliance

assistance clearing house;

• Ken Shuster (OSW) - Munitions rules;

a n d

• Terrence Slonecker (EPIC) - EPIC/GIS

at DoD facilities.

PA RT N E R S H I P S

Continued from page 6

UpcomingEvents

December 13-15, 2000

Workshop to Address Management of Contaminated Federal Facilities

San Francisco, CA

w w w. p a c i fic - r i m . o rg / c a l c o n f

April 23-26, 2001

A New Era for Federal Environmental Leadership,

Management and Te c h n o l o g y

Austin, TX

h t t p : / / re g i s t e r. n d i a . o rg / i n t e rv i e w / re g i s t e r. n d i a ? ~ B ro c h u re ~ 1 4 4
United States Environmental

Protection Agency (2261A)

Washington, DC 20460

O f ficial Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A F B Air Force Base

A L J Administrative Law Judge

B C T BRAC Cleanup Te a m

B R A C Base Closure and Realignment A c t

C E R C L A Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability A c t

C FA Civilian Federal A g e n c y

D o D Department of Defense

D O E Department of Energy

D O J Department of Justice

E A B Environmental Appeals Board

E P C R A Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know A c t

E P I C Environmental Photographic Interpretations Center

E M R Environmental Management Review

E PA Environmental Protection A g e n c y

F F E O Federal Facilities Enforcement Offic e

F F R R O Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Offic e

G I S Geographic Information System

I S O International Organization for Standardization

L R R A Lubbock-Reese Redevelopment A u t h o r i t y

M E T D Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division

N A S A National Aeronautics and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

N E I C National Enforcement Investigation Center

N E PA National Environmental Policy A c t

N M E D New Mexico Environmental Department

N P S National Park Service

O C O f fice of Compliance

O E C A O f fice of Enforcement and Compliance A s s u r a n c e

O L C O f fice of Legal Counsel

O R E O f fice of Regulatory Enforcement

O S W O f fice of Solid Wa s t e

P 2 Pollution Prevention

P 2 R T Pollution Prevention Roundtable

R A D M Rear A d m i r a l

R C R A Resource Conversation and Recovery A c t

S P R Strategic Petroleum Reserve

T C E Tr i c h l o r o e t h y l e n e

T N R C C Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

U S T Underground Storage Ta n k

W S T F White Sands Test Facility