United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

EPA 300-N-01-011

Fall 2001

Printed on Recycled Paper

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #12

Inside

FedFacs

EPA’s Efforts to Encourage Voluntary 

Self Disclosure and Compliance

Often when EPA investigates a violation, it discovers facility staff were

aware of the problem – or should have

been – and in some cases were in the

process of developing an appropriate remedy when a regulator discovered it during

an inspection. Discovery of serious violations during an inspection can mean substantial penalties and, in some cases,

harm to careers. There is a better way.

EPA has in place a program, utilized by

few federal facilities, which can help.

Effective facility audit systems are critical to maintaining compliance and allow

for self disclosure of violations to take Continued on page 5

2 Building Environmental 

Leadership

3 Management of FUDS

4 Park Service EMRs

5 Army Officer Exchange Program

6 Conferences

7 TXP3 GBOF Initiative

8 Hazardous Waste Docket

9 ENERGY STAR

10 Technical Work

11 The Hammer

advantage of EPA’s Audit Policy. The

prompt self-disclosure and correction of

violations is in the interest of EPA, the

regulated facility, and the environment. 

On April 11, 2000, EPA’s revised final

policy on Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations (the Audit Policy)

was published in the Federal Register.

This final Audit Policy was developed

with input from states, public interest

groups, U.S. Department of Justice, and

the regulated community. In drafting the

revisions, the Agency benefitted from five

The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) and EPA have resolved multiple

underground storage tank (UST) violations at more than a dozen VA facilities

that VA had self-disclosed to EPA under

the Agency’s “Audit Policy” (see related

article below). The vast majority of the

UST violations qualified for complete

penalty mitigation because VA’s self-disclosure for these tanks satisfied the nine

criteria of the Audit Policy. Twelve tanks

could not meet the nine criteria and

thus failed to qualify for such a waiver.

Two other tanks met the criteria for

penalty mitigation but EPA found that

significant cost savings had accrued

from the delayed compliance. VA has

agreed to pay a penalty of $17,578 for

the 14 tanks. Had EPA inspected and

discovered the violations at the nearly

50 UST systems that VA self-disclosed,

VA’s Self-Disclosure of UST Violations Results in Significant

Waiver of Potential Penalties and an Innovative Settlement

thereby eliminating the benefits of the

Audit Policy, the maximum penalty that

could have been assessed would have

been dramatically higher.

At issue was VA’s compliance with the

December 1998 federal tank upgrade and

closure requirements. By letter dated

January 22, 1999, VA self-disclosed that

approximately 50 tanks at its facilities

located in nine different states had potentially violated these requirements. EPA’s

review of the self-disclosure, along with

subsequent information VA supplied,

demonstrated that VA had self-identified,

disclosed, and corrected many of the compliance problems in a timely fashon.

Accordingly, the vast majority of the

tanks qualified for complete penalty mitigation under the Audit Policy. Only 14

tanks were assessed a penalty. 

“VA self-disclosed these violations in a

manner which maximized the benefits of

the Audit Policy. Further, VA’s cooperation during our review of the information

demonstrates how federal facilities and

EPA can work together to achieve full

compliance and increase protection for

human health and the environment without costly and adversarial litigation,”

stated Craig Hooks, Director of EPA’s

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office.

Another innovative part of the settlement was EPA’s use of a compliance

agreement to simultaneously initiate and

conclude the enforcement action. This

approach eliminated the need for multiple successive administrative filings that

significantly expedited the settlement,

thereby keeping transaction costs to a

minimum. 

For more information, contact Dan

Drazan at 202-564-2328.
2 FEDFACS

Building Environmental Leadership in Region X

Ten things you can do to get your boss directly involved as an

environmental leader:

1. Set up a meeting for your boss with top regulators (to review plans, issues of mutual concern,

etc.).

2. Arrange a tour or visit by dignitaries, especially members of Congress, Senators.

3. Win an environmental award ... get the boss’s picture in the paper. 

4. Bad press. A good motivator to get the boss directly involved. May be worth taking a little heat

to focus boss’s attention.

5. Good press ... not as painful as bad press ... may not be as effective either. But if the boss

gets the credit, he/she will likely want to learn more about how they did it.

6. Make a direct appeal. Don’t bring problems to the boss ... bring solutions. Know your stuff. Do

your homework.

7. Use the budget process. Show the boss how to achieve “cost avoidance” by making “investments” in environmental programs.

8. Pressure from above is sometimes a good thing ... maybe you can arrange for your boss to get

some pressure from his/her boss. 

9. Present a comprehensive plan to the boss for approval ... then turn it into the “boss’s plan.”

It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t worry about who gets credit.

10. Sign up your boss to give a speech! 

You learn to be a leader by being one.

Why leaders, not managers? 

Managers: Plan & budget, organize &

staff, control & problem solve.

Managers produce predictability &

order.

Leaders: Establish direction (vision),

align people & communicate, motivate

& inspire.

Leaders produce change. 

Clearly we need BOTH leaders and

managers.

To effectively lead an organization

through change you need:

1. To overcome inertia and complacency

with sense of urgency.

2. A clear vision of where you’re headed.

No vision = no direction.

3. A guiding coalition of senior leaders.

No stagnation at the top. 

4. Collect some easy and early victories.

Consolidate gains, evaluate, move

forward. 

5. Work to embed the change in your

corporate culture.

How do we “embed change in the culture?” 

By how these questions are answered: 

Why do we...?

What do we reward? 

What do we punish?

Who do we promote?

How do we handle bad news?

Reasons we fail at implementing

change: 

1. No vision or sense of urgency.

2. Senior leaders don’t buy in. 

3. Under-communicating.

We under-communicate by a factor of 

10... or even 100.

Figure out how to get the message from 

top to bottom in the organization.

Remember: “Perception IS reality.” 

4. Allowing obstacles to block progress. 

You anticipated obstacles at the outset... when you bump into one, 

remember, you knew it was coming... 

don’t allow it to become an excuse for 

not achieving your vision. 

Building Environmental Leadership

By Bill Center

UpcomingEvents

December 11, 2001

Environmental Management for

the 21st Century

Kansas City, KS

Contact: Diana Jackson, EPA, 913-551-7744

December 12, 2001

Military Environmental 

Working Group Meeting

Kansas City, KS

Contact: Steve Scanlon, Army Region VII REC, 

816-983-3445

EPA Region X, Washington State

Department of Ecology, and the Federal Network for Sustainability hosted a

workshop entitled, “Federal Environmental Leadership: Environmental

Management Systems” on August 23-24,

2001, in Seattle, Washington. 

The workshop was attended by 92 federal, state, and local personnel interested

in environmental management systems

and environment leadership. Topics

ranged from Sustainability to ISO 14001,

and included cases studies from many of

the federal agencies in Region X. 

In addition, the “Greening the Government” Executive Orders were discussed,

including: E.O. 13148: Leadership

Through Environmental Management,

E.O. 13101: Greening the Government

Through Waste Prevention, Recycling,

and Federal Acquisition, E.O. 13123: Efficient Energy Management, E.O. 13149:

Fleet Fuel, and E.O. 13150: Federal Worforce Transportation.

The keynote speaker was Admiral Bill

Center (retired). Mr. Center gave a talk

on “Building Environmental Leadership,”

including a top ten list on getting your

boss to be an environmental leader, which

was extremely well-received by participants. Region X again thanks Mr. Center

for taking the time to participate and

share his valuable knowledge and insight.

It was one of the highlights of this twoday workshop.
FEDFACS 3

Successful Partnering on

Management of Formerly

Used Defense Sites 

The Kansas Department of Health and

Environment, the Kansas City District of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (KC

COE), and EPA Region VII improved communications and developed working relationships during an intensive effort to

develop a Management Action Plan

(MAP) for Formerly Used Defense Sites

(FUDS). This pilot project was initiated

as a result of a finding by the FUDS

Improvement Work Group, a national

multi-agency work group organized to

address problems with the Army’s FUDS

program, which indicated that regulatory

coordination was lacking in program

implementation. 

Kansas was one of four states chosen

for the pilot and to date is the only state

to have successfully completed the MAP

process with full participation. The work

began in March 2001, with very little

structure or guidance regarding the product to be developed. All three parties met

extensively to communicate each agency’s

requirements for the MAP. Through their

cooperation and industry collaboration, a

MAP document has been developed that

will be a great reference tool and future

planning tool for coordinating work at

FUDS in Kansas. 

The MAP is a living document, and

will be updated annually as part of the

ongoing efforts to improve the FUDS

process. The agencies celebrated the first

year of the MAP’s completion on November 2, 2001 at the Region VII office. 

EPA Region II Outdoor 

Shooting Range Initiative

Outdoor shooting ranges provide recreational facilities for millions of shooting

sports enthusiasts in the United States as

well as provide an area for training of law

enforcement officers. Recently, there has

been a growing concern about the potential negative environmental and health

effects of range operations. In particular,

there is concern about potential risks

associated with the historical and continued use of lead shot and bullets at outdoor ranges.

This concern is not unfounded. An estimated 9,000 non-military outdoor ranges

exist in the United States, collectively

shooting millions of pounds of lead annually. Many are owned by state, county,

and municipal governments. 

Since the mid-1980s, citizen groups

have brought several lawsuits against

range owners and have urged federal and

state agencies to take action against owners/operators of outdoor shooting ranges.

The citizen groups argued that range

owners improperly managed discharged

lead bullets and shot. Federal courts have

supported parts of these suits, requiring

range owners/operators to clean up leadcontaminated areas. Concurrent with the

increased citizen suit activity, EPA, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a large number of states have

identified human exposure to all forms of

lead as a major health concern in the

United States.

To manage lead, many owners and

operators have successfully implemented

Best Management Practices (BMPs) at

their ranges. These range owners and

operators have realized many benefits

from sound lead management including:

• stewardship of the environment, natural resources and wildlife,

• improved community relations,

• improved aesthetics of the range/good

business practices,

• increased profitability through recovery/recycling lead, a valuable and

finite resource, and

• reduced public scrutiny.

Shooting sport organizations (e.g.,

National Rifle Association (NRA), the

National Shooting Sports Foundation

(NSSF)) promote lead management

throughout the United States. These

organizations have researched different

methods to effectively address potential

and actual lead mobility and exposure

without detracting from the enjoyment of

the sport. The NRA and NSSF strongly

encourage range owners/operators to

develop and implement a BMP program

as recommended by EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. By implementing appropriate lead management at outdoor shooting

ranges, range owners and operators may

reduce the environmental and health

risks associated with lead deposition,

meet legal requirements, and realize

quantifiable benefits. 

The Best Management Practices for

Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges manual provides owners/operators of outdoor

rifle, pistol, trap, skeet, and sporting clay

ranges with information on lead management at their ranges. This manual serves

as a reference guide and presents BMPs

available to shooting ranges. The practices have been demonstrated to reduce

lead contamination and may be economically beneficial to the range owner/operator. Since each range is unique in both the

type of shooting activity and its environmental setting, site-specific solutions are

not provided in the manual. Rather, a

range owner/operator may use this manual to identify and select the most appropriate BMP(s) for his facility. Other information on environmental aspects of

management at outdoor shooting ranges

can be found in the NSSF’s Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges. 

The BMP manual may be viewed or

downloaded at http://www.epa.gov/

region2/waste/leadshot. If you would like

a free hard copy of the BMP manual,

please e-mail Leadshot.Region2@epa.gov.

For more information, please contact

George Meyer or Edward Guster at 212-

637-4145.

News

Continued on page 4
4 FEDFACS

Greening the Supply Chain

at Federal Facilities 

A report recently presented to Congress

by the General Accounting Office (GAO),

investigated the compliance of federal

facilities with Section 6002 of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Federal facilities are

required by RCRA §6002 and Executive

Order 13101 to establish programs to

purchase environmentally preferable

and biobased materials. Also, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, or FARs,

were amended in 2000 to require agencies to demonstrate compliance within

their contracts by requiring the procurement and use of recycled products designated by EPA and the consideration of

environmentally preferable products. 

The GAO report centered on the four

largest purchasers, the Departments of

Defense and Energy, the General Services

Administration (GSA), and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

These agencies account for 85 percent of

the $200 billion spent each year on products and services. These agencies

reported that their procurement practices

had not changed to increase the purchasing of recycled content and biobased products. Obstacles to compliance include lack

of purchasing tracking by facilities, failure to inform and educate all staff of

requirements, and deterioration of central purchasing due to the proliferation of

government credit cards.

EPA representatives encountered all

these issues while checking for compliance at federal facilities. EPA Region III

conducted close to 20 inspections for compliance with RCRA §6002 and found that

most of the facilities are not complying.

One additional obstacle is the confusion

concerning the relationship between the

facilities and GSA. Although GSA provides many varieties of an item for purchase, it is up to the facility to choose the

compliant item. EPA and the White

House Task Force on Recycling are

presently evaluating new strategies to

increase compliance and the purchasing

of these recycled products. 

Information on all products required

for compliance, including definitions,

specifications, and suppliers, can be

found on EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines page at http://

www.epa.gov/cpg/. 

For more information, contact Mike

Giuranna, EPA Region III, at 215-814-

3298, or Diane Dolson at 215-814-3304. 

National Park Service

EMRs in Region VI

In 1998, EPA conducted an environmental management review (EMR) within

the National Park Service (NPS). This

EMR was part of a comprehensive technical assistance effort by EPA to

enhance regulatory compliance within

the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

In August 2000, a final EMR report

was published by EPA, which described

the EMR process, explained the scope of

the EMR, and provided EPA’s findings and

recommendations. This report, titled “An

Environmental Management System

Review of the National Park Service:

Based on the Code of Environmental Management Principles” gave EPA Region VI

the incentive to conduct a National Park

Service Initiative as a follow up to the initial EMR conducted in 1998.

During January 2001, letters were

sent to several national parks located in

the states within the jurisdiction of

Region VI inviting

them to participate

in the EMR

process. Three NPS

facilities responded

positively and an

agreement was

reached for Region

VI to conduct

EMRs during the

year. The EMR

team consisted of

Joyce Stubblefield

(Federal Facilities

Program Manager), Bob Clark,

Jana Harvill, and

Gary Chiles (SAIC

contractor).

The first NPS EMR was conducted at

the Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park. The second NPS EMR was

conducted at the San Antonio Missions

National Historical Park, located in San

Antonio, Texas. The third NPS EMR was

conducted at the Padre Island National

Seashore. 

The environment is one of the primary strengths of the NPS culture,

which promotes the protection of natural

resources, historical sites, and endangered species. This characteristic will

serve NPS well in its efforts to develop

and implement environmental management systems to enhance the NPS’s

environmental performance both as a

whole and at specific parks.

EPA Region VI EMR 

Recognitions

FAA, Oklahoma City, OK

USPS, Houston, TX 

BIA, Albuquerque, NM

DOE, SPR, TX and LA

EPA Laboratory, Houston, TX

FDA, NCTR , Jefferson, AR

USDA, ARS, College Station and 

Kerrville, TX

Bureau of Engraving and Printing, TX

Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth and Lake

Whitney, TX

NPS, LBJ, Johnson City, TX

FEMA, TX

NEWS

Continued from page 3

EPA Region VI EMR Recognition Ceremony

Left to right, back to front: Colonel Freeman, USAF, Phil

Smith, USDA-ARS, Doug Lipka, EPA Lab, Cody Partridge,

FDA, Keith Eddins, FAA, Bill Bozzo, DOE-SPR, Colleen 

McKinney, BEP, Sam Coleman, EPA, and Joyce Stubblefield,

EPA.
FEDFACS 5

Region VII: Army Officer

Exchange Program

In the Army’s Training with Industry Program, officers develop higher level managerial techniques, interact with environmental matters that affect the military,

and gain an understanding of the relationship of industry to specific functions

of the Army. Once an officer is integrated

back into the Army organization, he/she

uses this information to improve the

Army’s ability to interact and conduct

business with industry. 

Captain Daniel Laurelli is assigned

to EPA Region VII through August 2002,

beginning with a rotation in the Federal

Facilities Program. Captain Laurelli

has been in the Army for seven years

with the Chemical Corps (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Officer). He has

served as the Chemical Officer of the

55th Medical Group (Ft. Bragg) and the

Aviation Brigade of the 3rd Infantry

Division (Mech) (Hunter AAF). Additionally, he served as a platoon leader

years of experience implementing the policy. The policy was designed to encourage

compliance by providing greater incentives for facilities to self-police and correct

any violations discovered during voluntary facility audits.

Facilities that self-report violations discovered through an environmental audit

or a compliance management system that

reflects the entity’s “due diligence in preventing, detecting, and correcting violations” may have the gravity-based penalty

waived. The cost savings component of the

penalty is not affected. If the cost savings

is “insignificant” this portion of the penalty

may also be waived. Facilities where the

“disclosing entity does not detect the violation through systemic discovery” but

which meet the other eight policy conditions will have the gravity-based component of the penalty reduced by 75%. The

Audit Policy describes procedures the disclosing entity must follow. 

As noted above, to be eligible for the

full waiver of the gravity component of

the penalty the facility must have discovSome violations, such as those that

present an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health or the

environment or result in serious harm,

are not eligible. EPA can use the Audit

Policy to provide flexibility in working

with regulated entities to reach important environmental and public health

goals.

While encouraging voluntary compliance and offering incentives to selfreport, the compliance monitoring and

enforcement program will remain an

important option. The expeditious discovery and correction of violations has

always been in the interest of EPA and

regulated federal facilities. The Audit

Policy provides strong incentives for

EPA and federal facilities to work

closely in correcting violations and

improving management systems to help

prevent future problems.

For more information, visit http://es/

epa.gov/oeca/ore/apolguid/html, see Federal Register 65, 19618 (April 11, 2000),

or contact David Levenstein at 202-564-

2591.

ered the self-reported violation through

an environmental audit or a compliance

management system. However, EPA can

still provide substantial penalty reduction for those able to meet the following

requirements.

• Discovery must have been “voluntary” and not discovered because of

an activity required by a regulation or

permit.

• Disclosure of the violation must be

made within 21 days of discovery,

unless a regulation requires disclosure sooner. 

• Discovery and disclosure must be

made independent of EPA, state, or

third party plaintiff. 

• The disclosing entity must expeditiously correct the violation and remedy any harm caused by it. 

• Steps must be taken to prevent recurrence of the violation. The same or

similar violations must not have

occurred within the past three years. 

• The facility must fully cooperate with

EPA by providing required information.

and executive officer in the 101st Chemical Company (Ft. Bragg) and commander of Headquarters and Headquarters

Company Aviation Brigade, which

included a six month rotation in Bosnia

in support of peacekeeping operations.

Captain Laurelli’s special duties

included Team Leader of the 1st and

2nd Patient Decontamination Support

Team and Aviation Brigade Unit Movement Officer.

Captain Laurelli can be reached at

laurelli.daniel@epa.gov.

Region VI Federal Facilities

Compliance Status Report

The primary goal of the EPA Federal

Facilities Compliance Program is to

ensure that federal agencies achieve compliance rates that meet or exceed those of

industrial and major municipal facilities.

To help ensure this goal, FFEO distributes quarterly Environmental Compliance Status Reports to twenty-eight federal agencies.

To further this effort, EPA Region VI

is developing a report to communicate

more detailed federal facility environmental compliance data within Region

VI. The 2000–2001 Region VI Federal

Facilities Compliance Status Report is

expected to be distributed by the end of

October 2001. This report is based on

data received from each of the major

EPA program areas. Major sections of

the report include: listings of facilities

in significant noncompliance, 1999

major federal facilities multi-media

inspections, inspections and enforcement actions, base closure updates, and

a status summary of federal facilities on

the National Priorities List. A comments/concerns page is also included to

provide the federal facilities an opportunity to voice any inaccuracies or discrepancies with the report. EPA Region

VI is distributing these data as a means

of fostering communication among EPA,

states, and other federal entities in

Region VI. 

For more information please contact

Gabe Gruta at 214-665-2174.

AUDIT POLICY

Continued from page 1
6 FEDFACS

everyone else poor,” he said. 

Jean-Michel Cousteau, son of the late

Jacques Cousteau, emphasized the interconnectedness of all things as well as his

love and concern for the water planet.

Robert Pojasek discussed the methods for

communities to reduce waste and setting

a goal of zero waste. John Nance related

his organizational and team building

experiences to how environmental success

can be achieved by working together.

Andrea Carmen, Executive Director of

the International Indian Treaty Council,

spoke of the contributions indigenous people have made to the national and international policies addressing human

responsibilities and environmental protection.

Native Elders Walter Austin and

Howard Luke also presented at the forum.

Austin outlined his concerns for timber harvesting in the Tongass, development of the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the

declining fish returns. Luke spoke of his

concerns and hopes that we continue to

work together as one people, both young

and old.

Alaska Forum 2002

The fourth annual Alaska Forum on the

Environment will be held February 4-8,

2002. The Planning Board is interested in

hearing ideas to help improve this major

event. Please send your suggestions by email to info@akforum.com. The forum

agenda, registration, and hotel information will be available online at www.

akforum.com.

Pollution Prevention

Bonanza @ Region VI

Region VI P2 Conference

EPA Region VI’s Regional Pollution Prevention Conference was held May 24-25,

2001. The theme was “Don’t Permit Pollution: Prevent It! Tools and Techniques for

Third Annual Alaska Forum

on the Environment Held

The third annual Alaska Forum on the

Environment was held in Anchorage on

February 5-8, 2001. Over 1,000 people

from all around Alaska and the lower 48

states participated. The Forum provided

over 100 educational breakout sessions

and meetings.

The Alaska Forum on the Environment

greatly depends on the generosity of its

sponsors. The 2001 Forum was a success

thanks to several platinum level sponsors,

including the Environmental Protection

Agency, Federal Aviation Administration,

Alaska Inter-tribal Council, and nine other

government and private organizations.

Speaker Highlights

A wide variety of topics were covered during the forum, including subsistence issues,

public health and epidemiology, environmental justice, fish and wildlife management issues, hazardous waste management, and many more. Keynote speakers

for the event included Robert F. Kennedy,

Jr., Jean-Michel Cousteau, Robert Pojasek,

John Nance, and Andrea Carmen.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. spoke passionately of the value of environmental protection as a critical element of assuring true

long-term community development. “We

have an obligation to the next generation.

Human beings have other appetites

besides money,” he said during his speech.

“If we don’t feed them. We won’t grow.

Everyone has to wake up and say, ‘Is today

going to be about community, or is it going

to be about me?’”

Kennedy, an attorney for Hudson

Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources

Defense Council, spoke about the environment and the economy. He said restrictions to protect the environment are an

investment in the future while environmental pollution is deficit spending. “It

makes a few people rich while making

Compliance Assistance Through Pollution

Prevention.” The conference was sponsored

by EPA Region VI and co-sponsored by the

National Pollution Prevention Roundtable,

University of Texas at Arlington, Arkansas

Department of Environmental Quality,

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality, New Mexico Environmental

Department, Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality, and Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission.

This southwest regional conference

focused on how pollution prevention (or

reduction of waste at the source) can be

used to help companies and facilities meet

environmental standards and regulations

and often exceed those requirements. The

conference breakout sessions were interactive and participants were encouraged

to share ideas, needs, and concerns with

panelists and fellow participants. Breakout session presenters were from EPA

Headquarters, EPA Region VI, federal,

state, and local agencies, and industry.

The event gave facilities access to pollution prevention professionals and

resources to assist them in achieving and

exceeding environmental compliance

standards, and promoted pollution prevention as the best environmental and

corporate strategy. The conference ended

on a high note with music, fun, and entertainment, including twists on “Survivor,”

“Jeopardy,” and the “Weakest Link.” 

Conferences

MVP P2 Award Winners:

Equistar Chemicals, L.P. Plant Reliability 

Improvement Program

City of Fort Worth Pretreatment Program: 

Pretreatment P2

Dyess Air Force Base: Clean Dyess 2000

P2 Roundtable Individual 

Recognitions:

Eli Martinez, U.S. EPA Region VI

Jeff Voorhis, Texas, TNRCC
FEDFACS 7

National P2RX Meeting

EPA Region VI hosted the National Pollution Prevention Information Resource

Exchange (P2RX) Meeting on May 21-

23, 2001. The P2RX Regional Centers

provide access to pollution prevention

information, research, and expertise.

The regional centers offer specialized

expertise and are independent from regulatory agencies. Information on the

Regional Centers can be found at

www.p2rx.org.

Texas P3 Spring Meeting

EPA Region VI hosted the Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership (P3) meeting on May 23, 2001. The partnership

meeting was held in Dallas to take

advantage of the EPA Pollution Prevention Conference being held during the

same week.

The Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership members are: Department of

Defense, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas National

Guard, NASA – Johnson Space Center,

the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOE Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The highlight of

this meeting was the participation of

Region VI states and the attendance of

special guests, Chris Cambell, New

Mexico State University, Bill Hayen,

USPS Southwest Area, Phil Smith,

USDA Agricultural Research Service,

and Jim Edward and Karin Leff, EPA

Headquarters. 

National P2 Crossfeed Forum

On August 23, 2001, Dr. Thomas Rennie,

U.S. Air Force, Regional Environmental

Office, Dallas, Texas, hosted the

National Pollution Prevention (P2)

Crossfeed Forum in San Antonio, Texas.

Attendees at the meeting were representatives from Department of Defense P2

partnerships nationwide, EPA Region

VI, and a National Park Service visitor.

These meetings are timed with the

Annual Joint Service P2 Conference and

Exhibition and the National P2 Roundtable meeting. 

Texas P3 Summer Meeting

The Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership met on August 24, 2001. The Texas

P3 meeting was hosted by Fort Sam

Houston with representatives from

EPA, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and other federal agencies. The Partnership is planning a retreat in November 2001. 

P2 at Federal Facility 

Hospitals

Region IX Federal Facilities and Pollution Prevention (P2) staff hosted a workshop on September 11th, focused on pollution prevention for federal facility

hospitals. With the day’s tragic events,

attendance was extremely limited. A few

speakers and attendees, whose return

flights were canceled, decided to stay and

meet for a half-day session. 

Tom Murray from EPA Headquarters,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic

Substances provided updates on Hospitals for a Healthy Environment efforts

targeting persistent, bio-accumulative,

and toxic chemicals. Ann Melamed of the

American Nurses Association discussed

environmentally preferable purchasing.

Claire Yee of Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii highlighted their facility’s

efforts to implement P2, especially targeting mercury, food waste, solid waste,

and xylene. Stephanie Davis of Waste

Reduction Remedies and Sutter Antioch

Hospital provided information on opportunities to reduce medical or “red bag”

waste. 

Larry Woods, Region IX’s Federal

Facilities Coordinator, presented information on environmental management

reviews and Eileen Sheehan, P2 Team,

highlighted P2 opportunities and distributed information on environmental

requirements for federal healthcare

facilities.

TXP3 GBOF Initiative

The Green Base of the Future (GBOF) is an initiative under the Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership (TXP3). When completed, the GBOF will be a multi-service guide that enhances mission readiness and achieves significant cost savings by fully integrating best operating practices

and operational requirements. The GBOF attempts to measure an installation’s “greenness” quotient. 

The TXP3 has approached the military service environmental centers to help cultivate service headquarters-level interest in the development of this tool. TXP3 expects to export the final

GBOF product to service leadership for use throughout the nation. 

The fully developed GBOF product will include several internet-accessible components,

including self-assessment checklists known as the Green Assessment Tool (GAT). Future additions will include supporting resources and success stories.

The GAT has undergone preliminary testing and was modified accordingly. TXP3 is currently

determining which partners can offer an installation and funds to test the revised tool. Currently,

Ft. Sam Houston is testing the GAT within their Environmental Resource Management Office. If

the trial results are favorable, they may be willing to run an installation-wide trial. 

TXP3 members see the potential for GBOF to be linked with environmental management system (EMS) initiatives. The GAT will show how well environmental and pollution prevention issues

are integrated into base operations, revealing where an EMS needs strengthening. GBOF does

not duplicate internal environmental compliance audit protocols, which assess environmental

compliance. A well developed EMS and GBOF will point the way beyond compliance, through a

fully implemented pollution prevention program that reduces costs and liabilities.

Discussions early in GBOF development showed that TNRCC may be willing to reduce an

installation’s environmental compliance requirements if they could demonstrate a commitment

to pollution prevention. More recently, S.B. 2997 has directed the TNRCC to implement a regulation by December 2001 that would provide incentives to facilities that implement an EMS. 

For more information, visit www.3di.com/gbof or contact Barton Ives, USAEC Central

Regional Environmental Office, at bart.o.ives@usace.army.mil.
8 FEDFACS

Hazardous Waste Docket

Federal Agency Hazardous

Waste Compliance Docket

Updated: The Region VI

Approach

In accordance with Section 120 (c) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), EPA is required to take

steps to ensure that it receives information necessary to assess the threat to

human health and the environment. Furthermore, Executive Order 12580 delegates the responsibility for the preparation of this information to federal

agencies. The Federal Agency Hazardous

Waste Compliance Docket contains information about federal facilities engaged in

hazardous waste activity or facilities from

which hazardous substances may have

been or may be released. 

EPA Regional Docket Coordinators

work with EPA Headquarters and federal

facilities in their regions on Docket reporting and follow-up. For example, EPA

Region VI has informed federal facilities

in their region about the Federal Agency

Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and

has reiterated the importance of federal

facilities reporting to the Docket. The preambles and letters were mailed to thirty

facilities on the Docket throughout the

Region. Region VI asked the facilities to

provide currently available information

EPA can use to assess the disposition of

the facilities under CERCLA. 

The Docket contains information submitted to EPA by federal facilities under

Sections 3005, 3010, and 3016 of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) and Section 103 of CERCLA. 

• Section 3005 of RCRA establishes a

permitting system for hazardous

waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities. 

• RCRA Section 3010 requires waste

generators, transporters, and TSD

facilities to report hazardous waste

activities.

• RCRA Section 3016 requires federal

facilities to submit to EPA biennially

an inventory of owned or operated hazardous waste sites. 

• Section 103(a) of CERCLA requires

that the National Response Center be

notified of a release.

• Section 103(c) of CERCLA requires

reporting to EPA the existence of

known or suspected releases of hazardous substances at facilities.

If a federal facility submits one of

these documents or submits this type of

information to EPA, the facility will be

added to the Docket. 

All facilities listed on the Docket will

undergo site evaluation activities, such as

preparing a Preliminary Assessment (PA)

report and, when appropriate, a Site

Inspection report. EPA has determined

that a PA should provide the required

information to assess the disposition of the

facility in reference to CERCLA. 

The Docket will be available for public

inspection at reasonable times. Every six

months, the EPA Administrator will publish in the Federal Register a list of the

federal facilities which have been added

to, deleted from, or corrected in the

Docket. This publication will also indicate

where in the appropriate regional EPA

office additional information may be

obtained with respect to any facility on

the Docket. The fourteenth update of the

Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was released in the Federal Register on October 2, 2001, and

details additions, deletions, and corrections to the previous Docket update. The

current number of facilities on the Docket

is 2,214.

For more information, contact the

National Docket Coordinator at 202-564-

2468. In Region VI, contact Philip Ofosu

at 214-665-178 or visit the FAHWCD

website at www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/

fedreg/a001229c.html.

Region X Moves Docket

Sites Forward

The Office of Environmental Cleanup’s

(ECL) Federal Facility Site Assessment

Program began an initiative to ensure

adequate assessment and cleanup of

federal facilities listed on the Federal

Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance

Docket. Currently, there are numerous

sites on the Docket for which federal

agencies have failed to submit required

Preliminary Assessment (PA) or Site

Inspection (SI) reports for Hazard Ranking System scoring. These sites, some of

which may be high risk or NPL-caliber,

have not been evaluated by EPA, nor

addressed by the responsible federal

agency. In some cases, sites have

remained on the Docket with an unresolved status and no EPA oversight for

years. Agencies have not submitted

reports due to limited funding, competing priorities, or lack of interest.

Region X is conducting the “Moving

Docket Sites Forward” initiative by

working directly with federal agencies

in all Region X states to gain firm commitments for PA and SI report submission. Staff will emphasize the importance of report submission and work to

establish mutual agreements. With

reports in hand, ECL will evaluate

whether each site requires further site

assessment, cleanup, or other actions.

The end result of this initiative is

that Region X will resolve the status of

all federal facility Docket sites and

make progress in moving high-risk sites

forward. When Congress, the public, or

other stakeholders use the Docket to

track progress at individual sites or the

entire universe of federal facilities, they

will access accurate information that

shows Region X sites are being

addressed.

For more information, contact Deborah Leblang at 206-553-0115.
New Energy Programs in

Region VI 

Energy efficiency, energy conservation,

and renewable energy are important to

federal facilities not only because they

must all attempt to comply with Executive Orders. The waste creates air pollution as well as water pollution. EPA

Region VI is pleased to announce several

new Department of Energy and EPA programs. These are:

• Energy Star for Industry, 

• Combined Heat and Power, which

addresses co-generation and tri-generation at both large and small scale systems, and 

• Green Power Partnerships, which promotes renewable energy resources by

creating partnerships between federal

facilities, state and local government,

public institutions, private industry,

public utilities, and private residences. 

Becoming a steward of the environment is easy even when resources are limited. As deregulation begins and renewable energy becomes available, new

opportunities open up for federal facilities. Region VI supports these efforts

through a wide variety of outreach efforts,

including assistance in obtaining the

Energy Star Plaque, the highest award

for excellence in energy performance. EPA

Region VI has already assisted the General Services Administration Region VI to

become number one in the United States

in Energy Star Plaques on federal facilities in CY 2000 and will continue its push

for energy excellence. 

A recent highlight of Region VI’s

efforts include working with the Region

VI states, Arkansas, Louisiana, New

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, to

develop renewable energy support

groups that create new partnerships,

provide technical assistance, and

develop important renewable energy

resources and guidance in creating a

portfolio standard. Region VI continues

to work with Energy Star Buildings and

Green Lights, Energy Star Homes,

Energy Star for Public Institutions, and

Energy Star Purchasing to name a few

programs. For more information on how

to be included in these efforts, contact

the regional support number at 1-800-

887-6063 and visit the website

www.energystar.gov. 

For more information, contact Patrick

Kelly, EPA Region VI, at 214-665-7316.

ENERGY STAR, Executive

Order 13123, and You: Tips

for Federal Managers

ENERGY STAR figures prominently in

Executive Order

13123, Greening the

Government through Efficient Energy

Management. ENERGY STAR can help

federal agencies meet the requirements of

the Executive Order, while saving money.

EPA and the Department of Energy

(DOE) have established ENERGY STAR

for office buildings, homes, K-12 schools,

and over 30 categories of products. The

ENERGY STAR label will be available for

other building types and products in the

coming year.

Become an ENERGY STAR

Executive Order Section 403 (c) requires

agencies to:

• Strive to meet ENERGY STAR criteria

where cost effective for energy performance and indoor environmental

quality by the end of 2002.

• Use the ENERGY STAR performance rating system for buildings in

general facility audits.

How To Comply: Use EPA’s online rating system, available at www.energystar.gov, to

evaluate your buildings’ energy performance using data that you input on each

building’s physical attributes, operating

characteristics, and monthly energy consumption. The rating system allows you to

benchmark your buildings on a 1 to 100

scale. The results will help you set energy

performance targets and plan building

upgrades. Buildings that score a 75 or

higher and maintain an indoor air environment that meets or exceeds industry standards are eligible to receive the ENERGY

STAR label, the nationally recognized symbol of superior energy performance.

Specific Steps You Can Take

• Benchmark all office buildings and

schools over 5,000 square feet. 

• Apply for ENERGY STAR labels for all

buildings that score 75 or better.

• For buildings that score below 75,

develop a plan to upgrade these facilities and improve their performance

rating. 

• After upgrades, re-benchmark each

building to measure yearly progress.

Reminder: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) requires that agencies report in 2001 the number and percentage of buildings that are expected to

meet ENERGY STAR levels and receive

the ENERGY STAR label in FY 2002. 

Look for ENERGY STAR When

Leasing Buildings

Executive Order Section 403 (e) directs

agencies to: 

• Include a preference for buildings with

the ENERGY STAR label in selection

criteria for acquiring leased buildings.

• Encourage lessors to apply for the

ENERGY STAR label.

• Require new building offers to include

projected energy use data.

• Stipulate the purchase of facility management systems or energy manageFEDFACS 9

Energy

Continued on page 11
10 FEDFACS

TNRCC’s New Action Levels

for Perchlorate

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) recently changed

their interim action levels for ammonium

perchlorate. Ammonium perchlorate is

manufactured almost exclusively as the

oxidizer component and primary ingredient in solid propellant for rockets, missiles, and fireworks. Nationally, perchlorate detections have been confirmed in 17

states. Only three other states, California, New York, and Arizona, have formal

action levels. Last month TNRCC set new

interim action water levels for perchlorate at 4 parts per billion (ppb). The new

ground water cleanup number replaces

the former Texas standard of 22 ppb.

Under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), which is the new 1998

cleanup rule, the new residential

groundwater cleanup standard is 4 ppb

and the commercial/industrial groundwater cleanup standard is 7 ppb.

Under TNRCC’s old cleanup rule, the

Risk Reduction Rule (RRR), the residential groundwater cleanup standard is 4

ppb and the commercial/industrial

groundwater cleanup standard is 10 ppb.

Sites already under the RRR had the

option of staying under that rule or

switching to the TRRP. 

Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant

has identified perchlorate contamination

in soil, groundwater, and surface water

and is under the RRR. Naval Weapons

Industrial Reserve Plant, McGregor has

identified perchlorate contamination in

on-site groundwater and surface soils and

is under the TRRP.

Region VI Participates in

Development of New Test

Method

Have you ever seen a nasty thick black

cloud of pollution billowing from a smokestack? Of course you have. But, unless

you’re familiar with the air enforcement

program, you may not know that there is

a way to determine how opaque that

plume is. There is a test method that EPA

developed many years ago to measure

opacity. Known as Method 9, and found in

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60, it is used

to measure how much opacity is associated with a plume of smoke.

What Is Opacity?

Opacity is a measurement of the amount

of light that is blocked by a medium, such

as smoke or a tinted window. Opacity is

usually stated as a percentage. An opacity of 0% means that all light passes

through, and an opacity of 100% means

that no light passes through. Opacity is

important because it gives an indication

of the concentration of pollutants leaving

a smokestack. The more particles that

are emitted from a stack, the more light

will be blocked, resulting in a higher

opacity percentage.

How Is Opacity Measured?

At present, there are several ways to

measure opacity. The simplest method is

visual observation. Anyone can be trained

and certified to become a Visible Emission Observer. Federal, state, and local

inspectors, as well as government and

industry staff, have been trained to conduct opacity readings to determine if a

source is meeting its federal and/or state

opacity requirements. These people have

been trained to estimate the percentage

of opacity for black and white smoke coming from smokestacks.

EPA adopted standardized training

and certification procedures in Method 9.

“Smoke School” involves a one-day lecture

on the principles and history of opacity

and certification using these procedures.

For certification, black and white smoke is

generated at different opacities for a total

of 50 separate visible emission readings.

Opacities must be within a certain percentage of accuracy, for both types of

smoke, for certification to be obtained.

Certification expires after six months.

Is There an Easier Way?

The Environmental Security Technology

Certification Program (ESTCP) is a

Department of Defense (DoD) program

that promotes innovative, cost-effective

environmental technologies through

demonstration and validation at DoD

sites. The ESTCP has approved and

begun work on a project to test a digital

recording and analysis method for opacity determination. This digital opacity

method would be used as an alternate

method to Method 9.

EPA’s Emissions Measurement Center requested the formation of a scientific advisory group to review and provide comments during the development

and testing of this new method. The

members are from EPA, the Air Force,

and outside contractors and are considered to be experts in either digital imaging and/or Method 9. This group will

review test plans to ensure that key

variables are covered in the field work,

define project success, and agree what

conditions must be met to achieve it by

the end of the project.

The kickoff meeting for this group was

held on Monday, April 2, 2001, at Hill

AFB, Utah. The meeting included an

overall project briefing, a review of the

advisory group members and purposes,

and a detailed briefing and demonstration

of the proposed new technology. Representatives from RTP, NEIC, and Region VI

attended and participated in this meeting. Upcoming meetings will cover the

software used by the digital camera as

well as the development and implementation of field tests of the camera. Field tests

are currently scheduled for Salt Lake

City, Utah, in early October 2001, and

Augusta, Georgia, in late October 2001.

For more information, contact Raymond Magyar, EPA Region VI, at 214-

665-7288.

TechnicalWork
FEDFACS 11

Economic Benefit and Size

of Business Issues in CAA

Enforcement

On October 4, 2001, oral argument was

presented before Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan Biro in the

Clean Air Act (CAA) administrative

enforcement action against the United

States Army, Alaska Garrison, Ft. Wainwright. The EPA Complaint alleged various CAA violations at Ft. Wainwright’s

Central Heating and Power Plant. In

January 2001, EPA filed a Motion for

Accelerated Decision on Liability for the

nine counts contained in the Complaint.

The Army filed its Opposition to the

Motion in February 2001, and EPA filed

its Reply in March 2001.

On July 3, 2001, the Chief ALJ issued

an Order on Complainant’s Motion for

Accelerated Decision and on other

motions. The Chief ALJ’s Order found no

issue of material fact with respect to liabilThe Hammer

ment services to comply with the

ENERGY STAR requirements of Section 403 through GSA schedules 63 I

and 871 II at www.fss.gsa.gov/

environ/h2o-energy-prod.cfm#Office.

ENERGY STAR Products

The Executive Order states that use of

ENERGY STAR labeled products will be

part of the scoring criteria in the OMB

energy scorecard [Sec. 306(1)]. The Order

directs federal agencies to: 

• Purchase ENERGY STAR labeled

products, when found life-cycle cost

effective. For products not covered by

ENERGY STAR, purchase products

that are in the upper 25th percent of

energy efficiency as designated by the

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). [Sec. 403 (b.1)]

• Incorporate ENERGY STAR energy

efficiency levels into guide and project

specifications, as well as into product

specification language developed for

Basic Ordering Agreements, Blanket

Purchasing Agreements, Government

Wide Acquisition Contracts, and all

other purchasing procedures. [Sec.

403 (b.3)]

• Purchase ENERGY STAR and

FEMP designated products from

your federal supply sources. The

Executive Order states that GSA

and the Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA) shall create clear catalogue

listings that designate energy-efficient products in both print and electronic formats. [Sec. 403 (b)(2)]

GSA and DLA are federal supply sources

of ENERGY STAR and FEMP designated

products. Energy-efficient products can

be purchased through GSA’s online procurement system, Advantage!

The Energy Solutions Services and

Products Guide from GSA/FSS is available at www.fss.gsa.gov/environ.

Other Energy-Efficient Products

ENERGY STAR and FEMP have established efficiency levels for other products

not sold through federal supply sources. 

Check out Buying Energy Efficient

Products, DOE’s federal purchasing

buying guide issued by FEMP. This

binder has a series of product efficiency

recommendations to identify the upper

25th percent in energy efficiency. To

obtain a free copy, contact 1-800-363-

3732 or go to www.eren.doe.gov/femp/

procurement/.

For more information, contact 1-888-

STAR-YES or visit www.energystar.gov.

ENERGY STAR

Continued from page 9

ity for eight of the nine counts contained in

the Complaint. Thus, while issues remain

regarding the appropriate penalty amount

in the case, at hearing only one count will

be litigated in terms of liability. The Order

also dismissed six of the Army’s Affirmative Defenses as they pertain to liability,

but left open the possibility that some of

the Army’s Affirmative Defenses may bear

on the amount of the appropriate penalty.

On October 4, 2001, oral argument

was presented on the main issue in this

case, namely whether EPA has the

authority to consider CAA Section 113(e)

penalty factors of “size of business” and

“economic benefit of noncompliance” in

determining an appropriate penalty for a

federal facility violation. EPA’s position is

that CAA provides the Administrator

with the authority to consider these

statutorily-mandated penalty factors,

while the Army’s position is that the

Administrator has no such authority.

Much of the Army’s presentation focused

on the underlying assumptions of the

BEN Model, and also emphasized what it

considers the unique attributes of federal

agencies that make application of the

“size of business” and “economic benefit of

noncompliance” penalty factors inappropriate. EPA reiterated that the legal

question currently before the Chief ALJ is

the authority to consider the statutorilymandated penalty factors in determining

an appropriate penalty, and that the BEN

Model is not at issue in the case. EPA

acknowledged that federal agencies have

unique characteristics, but argued that

these characteristics could be considered

in determining the appropriate amount of

any penalty and had no bearing on the

underlying legal authority issue before

the court at oral argument. The Chief

ALJ posed difficult questions to counsel

for both EPA and the Army. EPA Region

X and FFEO are jointly managing this

case, and both represented EPA at oral

argument. A decision from the Chief ALJ

is expected in the next few months. 

For more information, contact Jeff

Kopf, Region X, at 206-553-1477, or

Andrew Cherry, FFEO, at 202-564-2589.
United States Environmental

Protection Agency (2261A)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BMP Best Management Practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CEMP Code of Environmental 

Management Principles

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

DoD Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI Department of Interior

EMR Environmental Management

Review

ESPCs Energy Savings Performance

Contracts

ESTCP Environmental Security 

Technology Certification Program

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites

GAT Green Assessment Tool

GBOF Green Base of the Future

GSA General Services Administration

KC COE Kansas City Corps of Engineers

LMA Land Management Agency

MAP Management Action Plan

NPS National Park Service

NSSF National Shooting Sports 

Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

P3 Pollution Prevention Partnership

PA Preliminary Assessment

RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

RRR Risk Reduction Rule

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SI Site Inspection

TNRCC Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission

TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

TRPP Texas Risk Reduction Plan

USPS U.S. Postal Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

FedFacs

is published by EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office. 

Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor

SciComm, Inc., Layout

To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

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

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044

or Fax : 202-501-0069

Read FedFacs on the Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/ann/index.html