Environmental Protection

Agency

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

Fall 1996

ROCKY FLATS CLEANUP

AGREEMENT SIGNED

Printed on Recycled Paper

— the State of Colorado for the industrial

area, and EPA for the environmental

buffer zone. This clear division of authority gives DOE a single point of contact for

each cleanup activity and should reduce

the potential for overlap and duplication.

The agreement also provides cleanup

Continued on page 10

ISSUE #3 an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

On July 19, 1996, a f t e r

nearly three years of intensive negotiations between

E PA, DOE, and the State

of Colorado, the new Rocky

Flats Cleanup A g r e e m e n t

was signed in Denver, Colorado. EPA Deputy A d m i nistrator Fred Hansen

praised the RFCA as “truly

a landmark agreement for

allowing the rapid cleanup

of one of our most important Superfund sites.” The

agreement contains a

number of innovative provisions designed to expedite cleanup

activities at the Rocky Flats site, which

will include removal of plutonium and

other fissile materials, protection of water

q u a l i t y, and cleanup and conversion of

buildings. 

The agreement divides the site into

two areas and designates lead regulators

From left: Jessie Roberson, Rocky Flats site manager; DOE

Assistant Secretary Alvin Alm; Patti Schwayder, Executive

D i r e c t o r, CDPHE; Governor Roy Romer; Lt. Governor Gail

Schoettler; EPA Acting Regional Administrator Jack

M c G r a w.

CRAIG HOOKS

Dear Reader:

This is my first time contributing to this

column. As many of you may know, a few

months ago, Barry Breen, formerly the

Director of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, left to become Director of

E PA’s Office of Site Remediation and

Enforcement. It is my privilege to pick up

where he left off.

Compliance assistance and environmental enforcement activities are inherently dynamic, their emphasis changing

with current events. Amendments to

environmental statutes and regulations

prompt new compliance questions and

changes in enforcement actions. Recent

Safe Drinking Water Act amendments,

for example, prompted FFEO to begin

developing interpretative guidance for

federal facilities. FFEO must be vigilant

to interpret regulatory changes and

quickly adjust our compliance assistance

and enforcement work. We welcome your

comments and suggestions. 

Barry named this column the Direct o r’s Word. My word for this issue is

“trust.” I hope this FedFacs provokes

thoughts about the relationship between

Continued on page 10

2 Guest Spot: Al A l m

3 TRI Reporting by Federal 

F a c i l i t i e s

4 EMRs Offered to 

Federal A g e n c i e s

5 In the Field: ENVVEST

Comes to Vandenberg A F B

6 S D WA Reauthorized; EPA

Issues Code

7 Reports and Regulations

9 The Hammer

1 2 Environmental Challenge

Award Deadline Extended
PAGE 2

The Department

of Energy established the Environmental Management (EM) program

to reduce health

and safety risks

from radioactive

waste and environmental contamination

resulting weapons production, testing,

and research. With 150 sites in over 30

states, the EM program is the largest single environmental stewardship program

in the world.

Major changes have taken place over

the last three years to improve the pace of

cleanup, manage projects more effectivel y, shave inefficiencies, and incorporate

risk into decision-making. All of those

efforts have made EM more successful at

producing on-the-ground tangible results.

Site workouts to reduce costs, performance-incentive contracts, and the creation of site-specific advisory boards have

all helped EM drive down the price of

cleanup over the past three years and

bring the public into our decision-making

process. This has provided a strong foundation for the next steps in the program

— to accelerate cleanup at most DOE

sites and to complete as much work as

possible within a decade.

Since taking over the EM program in

May 1996, I have begun to implement our

primary goal of reducing most of the programmatic risks and mortgages over a

ten-year period. This goal is incorporated

in our vision statement for the Environmental Management program which will

drive budget decisions, privatization,

sequencing of projects, and actions taken

to meet program objectives— all in conjunction with regulators and stakeholde r s .

Achievement of the vision will be guided by the following seven principles: 

( 1 ) Reduce mortgage costs to free up

funds for further risk reduction. 

( 2 ) Reduce overhead and support costs,

devoting savings to value-added work. 

(3) Eliminate and manage the most serious risks in the system. 

(4) Protect worker health and safety. 

(5) Create a collaborative relationship

between DOE and its regulators and

stakeholders. 

( 6 ) Focus technology development on cost

and risk reduction. 

(7) Establish a system that is managerially and financially in control.

The vision and principles will be

implemented through an integrated planning, budgeting, and management system. The purpose of this planning exercise is to develop a creative plan to

complete cleanup at most sites in the former nuclear weapons production complex

over the course of a decade, as well as to

determine which waste streams will not

be completed in that time, and to decide

how the program will continue to treat

them until work is fully complete. 

Stakeholder involvement is central to

devising, implementing and achieving

the Te n - Year Plan. Since our sites submitted their draft ten-year plans this past

J u l y, I have met with or held conference

calls with stakeholders from each site. In

total, I have communicated with many

hundreds of citizens and public offic i a l s .

EM will not modify agreed-upon assumptions or final goals without actively

engaging our stakeholders, tribal nations,

and regulators in a deliberative process. 

Issues raised in draft versions of the

plans that cannot be resolved with our

stakeholders and regulators will not be

included in the first edition of the Plan.

R a t h e r, we will work with our stakeholders to resolve these issues before we incorporate them into an updated version of

the Plan. It is critical to understand that

the Plan is a living document which must

be updated periodically to factor in decisions reached on these outstanding issues

and other realistic changes that will occur

over the ten-year time period.

Our move to ten-year site plans may

result in some modifications to previously

existing priorities. But their greatest

effectiveness will lie in specifically communicating the status of cleanup at any

given site at any given date over the next

ten years. The ten-year site plans will lay

out these goals for each of the sites over

the next few months. In so doing, we will

establish a long-term framework to guide

the EM program as we proceed to clean

up the environmental contamination

wrought by 45 years of nuclear weapons

p r o d u c t i o n .

Al Alm is the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management with the U.S.

Department of Energy.

AL ALM

Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE

is published by EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office. 

Jim Edward, Joyce Johnson, E d i t o r s

Isabelle Lacayo, Assistant Editor

Gilah Langner, Wr i t e r

Robin Foster, L a y o u t

To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:

Federal Facilities Enforcement Offic e

U. S. EPA (2261), 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460

or Fax : 2 0 2 - 5 0 1 - 0 0 6 9
For the fir s t time, the latest report of

the Toxics Release Inventory includes

information on toxic releases from federal facilities. TRI reporting by federal

facilities was mandated under Executive Order 12856, signed by President

Clinton in August 1993. The latest

report, published in June 1996, covers

the 1994 reporting year. The goal of the

reporting requirement is to ensure that

the public has access to the most comprehensive information possible on

releases and transfers of toxic chemicals, to hold federal facilities accountable for their activities, and to encourage them in reducing their use of toxic

chemicals at the source.

For 1994, 191 federal facilities operated by 12 federal agencies and located in

43 states became subject to TRI reporting.

The 1994 data show total releases of 9. 8

million pounds. Off-site transfers totalled

10. 4 million pounds. Unlike the private

s e c t o r, where transfers are almost twice

the amount of releases, total releases and

transfers for federal facilities are similar.

Federal releases also differ from private sector releases in the types of chemicals involved. Only 16 of the top 25 chemicals released from federal facilities are

also in the top 25 for total releases from

all facilities. Most of these 16 chemicals,

which typically are used as solvents and

for cleaning equipment, are released primarily to air. The top two chemicals

reported by the government (almost

exclusively by DOD) are dichloromethane

and methyl ethyl ketone, which together

account for nearly one third of all releases

reported by federal facilities. These chemicals are commonly used as solvents and

paint strippers. 

The top four federal agencies releasing

TRI chemicals were DOD, DOE, U.S.

Enrichment Corp., and Agricultural (see

pie chart). By far the largest number of

federal facilities reporting TRI data are

DOD facilities — 127 facilities, or 73 percent of the amount of releases reported.

Within DOD, the Air Force accounts for

the preponderance of the releases (67%);

the vast majority of Air Force releases are

PAGE 3

TRI REPORTING COMES TO FEDERAL FA C I L I T I E S

air emissions, largely from air craft maintenance, including corrosion control,

structural maintenance, and the cleaning

and repairing of equipment. 

The top 20 federal facilities with the

largest total TRI releases in 1994 are

shown above.

TOP 20 FEDERAL FACILITY RELEASERS Total TRI Releases

U. S. Air Force, Tinker AFB, OK 1 , 6 1 5 , 11 9

U. S. Air Force, Robbins AFB, GA 6 9 6 , 3 1 7

U S D AAgricultural Research Service, Clay Center, NE 4 8 6 , 1 2 0

U. S. DOE Naval Petroleum Reserves, Tupman, CA 4 6 3 , 2 4 8

U. S. Enrichment Corp. , Piketon, OH 3 8 5 , 9 4 6

U. S. Enrichment Corp. , Paducah, KY 3 6 4 , 7 6 0

U. S. Marine Corps Cherry Pt. Air Station, Cherry Point, NC 3 1 4 , 6 1 0

U. S. Air Force Plant 06 GA, Marietta, GA 3 0 4 , 8 9 7

U. S. Navy Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL 2 9 1 , 3 8 3

U. S. Air Force McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA 2 8 2 , 7 2 0

U. S. Army Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, A L 2 8 0 , 9 3 5

U. S. Air Force, Kelly AFB, TX 2 7 8 , 5 4 4

U. S. Air Force Ogden Air Logistics, Hill AFB, UT 2 7 7 , 6 6 0

U. S. DOE Idaho National Engr. Lab, Scoville, ID 2 3 6 , 5 9 1

U. S. Air Force 138th Fighter Group, Tulsa, OK 2 3 6 , 5 5 0

U. S. Marine Corps Logistics Base, A l b a n y, GA 2 1 5 , 4 0 0

U. S. Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA 1 7 0 , 8 3 0

U. S. Air Force Engr. Devel. Center, Arnold AFB, TN 1 5 4 , 4 2 2

U. S. Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, 1 4 8 , 0 0 0

N A S A Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, A L 1 3 1 , 8 6 5

RELEASES OF TRI CHEMICALS BY FEDERAL AGENCY, 1994

D E F E N S E

7 2 . 7 %

E N E R G Y

9 . 9 %

U.S. ENRICHMENT CORP.

7 . 6 %

A G R I C U LT U R E

5 . 8 %

O T H E R

4 . 0 %
PAGE 4

• Voluntary participation. The participation by a federal facility is entirely

voluntary and will not place the facility on a target list for inspections. 

• Advance notific a t i o n . Afederal facility

will be contacted at least one to two

months in advance of a visit to solicit

interest, and to ask for appropriate

written documentation of the facilit y ’s environmental management system. 

• Mutually agreeable dates. The EMR

will be scheduled at the convenience

of the federal facility. Information on

the review will be provided prior to

the visit. 

I t ’s not an inspection; it’s not an audit.

What is an Environmental Management

Review? In formal terms, an EMR is an

evaluation of an individual facility’s program and management systems to determine the extent to which a facility has

developed and implemented specific programs and plans which, if properly managed, should ensure compliance and

progress towards environmental excellence. EPA is implementing a pilot program in which it is offering to conduct

EMRs at federal facilities that are interested in gaining an understanding of the

underlying causes of current or potential

compliance problems and develop suggestions for correcting them. Unlike

enforcement inspections, EMRs are consultative technical assistance site visits.

Their focus is on the quality of the program and its implementation, not on spec i fic compliance requirements. 

EMRs are a new tool developed by

E PA to help federal agencies improve

their environmental performance. A

series of studies over the last decade by

E PA, Congressional offices, and individual agency inspector generals have criticized the pace of environmental compliance and cleanup by federal agencies. 

E PA’s operating principles for conducting EMRs at federal agencies during

the pilot phase of the program are as foll o w s :

• Signing of “ground rules letter.” The

facility manager and EPA r e g i o n a l

management may co-sign a letter

that lays out the ground rules for the

EMR, including providing EPA s t a f f

with access to appropriate personnel

and documents. 

• Exit briefing with facility managem e n t . Each EMR visit will include an

exit briefing or close-out session in

which preliminary EMR results are

shared with the host facility. Provisions for additional technical assistance, such as future pollution prevention assessment, can be discussed

at this time. 

• E PA report in 60 days. E PA’s written

report will discuss findings and provide recommendations. If requested,

E PA may share draft findings prior to

issuance of the final report. Any communication from EPA with respect to

incidental violations found will be

conducted separate from the EMR

report. 

• Facility response plan in 60 days.

Sixty days after receipt of EPA’s EMR

report, the facility will produce a brief

response plan that explains how it

plans to address the EMR findings. 

• Progress report in 6 months. A n o t h e r

facility report will be expected six

months after submittal of the

response plan to EPA. 

The scope of an EMR is limited, compared to a full-scale audit of environmental management systems. Each EMR will

likely address one or more elements of an

effective system, such as: organizational

structure, environmental commitment,

formality of program, communications,

staff resources and training, program

evaluation and reporting, and planning

and risk management. 

For more information on EMRs, contact Andrew Cherry, FFEO, 202-564-

5 0 11. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEWS

OFFERED TO FEDERAL AGENCIES

E N V I R O N M E N TAL COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT S

FFEO recently distributed an Environmental Compliance Status Report (ECSR)

to civilian federal agencies to keep them apprised of EPA-recorded enforcement

and compliance activities at their facilities. Using data from the Federal Facilities

Tracking System, the first reports covered FY 1995 and the second quarter of FY

1996. Subsequent reports will be provided on a quarterly basis. 

ECSRs show if any facilities are in a state of significant noncompliance, provide

a graphic view of inspections and enforcement actions, and give a detailed listing

of inspections and the resulting actions at individual facilities. This information is

used by the recipient federal agency to verify its own recordkeeping and to ensure

the accuracy of EPA’s data. Each agency is asked to complete a Discrepancy Report

Form for any inaccuracies in the data. 

For more information, contact Kelly Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459. 

E M Rs FOCUS ON THE 

QUALITY OF THE 

PROGRAM AND ITS 

I M P L E M E N TATION, 

NOT ON SPECIFIC 

COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS. 
PAGE 5

evaluation of the progress of the program. DOD Under Secretary Sherri

Goodman noted that if ENVVEST is successful, both DOD and EPAhope to duplicate it nationwide. “ENVVEST opens the

door to creative solutions for local problems,” she noted. “In twenty years, we

will look back at this event, and wonder

why we didn’t do this sooner. ” Afinal project agreement is expected to be

signed in early 1997.

A G R E E M E N T

REACHED ON 

DISMANTLING 

MINUTEMAN 

MISSILE SILOS

Late last year, EPAand the U. S.

Air Force joined forces to save

taxpayers millions of dollars

while developing safeguards to

protect human health and the

environment. The occasion was

the retirement of the Minuteman II missile system,

announced in February 1990 as

part of the Strategic A r m s

Reduction Treaty (STA R T ) .

After much study and public

comment, the Air Force decided

ENVVEST COMES TO 

VANDENBERG AFB

This past summer saw the kick-off

event of the joint EPA-DOD pilot program “ENVVEST” at Vandenberg A i r

Force Base in California. The ENVVEST

concept, which is similar to EPA’s Project

X L for non-military facilities, allows military installations, in conjunction with

federal, state, and local regulators, to test

cost-effective alternative approaches to

achieving environmental protection. Va ndenberg was the first DOD installation to

sign up for relief from selected EPAr e g ulations, and plans to redirect environmental compliance funds into water conservation, air, and water pollution

prevention projects. 

Among Va n d e n b e r g ’s proposals are a

reduction in NOx emissions by a minimum of 10 tons during the five-year life of

the ENVVEST project, and closed-loop

recycling for wastewater and on-site

batch treatment plants at three major

space launch complexes. 

DOD will conduct an independent

to implode the missile

silo headworks and cap

the silos at two sites:

Ellsworth AFB in

South Dakota and

Whiteman AFB in Missouri. Each site had

150 launch facilities,

each of which included

a silo, and 15 control

centers. 

As the first dismantling of the missile systems began, the missile

silos were discovered to

be coated with a weather proofing material

containing varying levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Underground storage tanks were also

discovered to be coated with PCBs as well

as asbestos. Subsequent sampling

showed PCBs present on every type of

structure sampled at the missile site. 

In November 1995, EPA and the A i r

Force signed a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement addressing the problems, with provisions for the development of a comprehensive groundwater

monitoring plan, long-term environmental monitoring, deed restrictions, closure/removal of underground storage

tanks, and reporting requirements. The

agreement is unique in providing for

affected states to negotiate and execute

their own annex of state requirements in

addition to the general provisions of the

agreement. In case of disputes, final resolution rests with the Director of FFEO,

allowing for quick resolution of disputes

without elevating them to the EPA

A d m i n i s t r a t o r. Concurring in the agreement were the states of Missouri, South

Dakota, and North Dakota, and EPA

Regions 7 and 8. This precedent-setting

agreement will serve as a model for

active missile sites as well as other missile sites slated for closure. 

For more information, contact Diane

Lynne, FFEO, at 202-564-2587.

“ You should be pre p a red to take some 

risks to achieve your goals and you must

think about how creative technologies

developed through ENVVEST can be 

s h a red with others both within and outside

of the federal community. ”

— Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Environmental Security Sherri W. Goodman 

at kick-off event, Vandenberg AFB, July 24, 1996

E PA Assistant Administrator Steve Herman at 

Vandenberg AFB.
PAGE 6

NEW SAFE DRINKING

WATER ACT STRENGTHENS OVERSIGHT OF 

FEDERAL FA C I L I T I E S

On August 6, 1996, President Clinton

signed the Safe Drinking Water A c t

Amendments of 1996. The bill was passed

by a strong bipartisan majority of both the

Senate and House of Representatives on

August 2, 1996. Included in the new law

are several provisions designed to

strengthen compliance at federal facilities. 

First, the law amends the waiver of

sovereign immunity to make it clear that

federal agencies are subject to penalties

for SDWA violations. (This provision is

similar to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Facility Compliance

Act of 1992 subjecting federal agencies to

penalties for violations of RCRA.) The

President may still exempt a federal facility from compliance with any requirement, if the President determines it to be

in the paramount interest of the United

States. Second, the new law gives EPA

the authority to assess administrative

penalties against federal agencies of up to

$25,000 per day per violation. This penalty cap is the same as the amount that

E PA may assess against non-federal entities in civil judicial actions. Before the

penalty becomes final, EPA must provide

the agency notice, an opportunity to confer with the A d m i n i s t r a t o r, and an opportunity for a hearing on the record in

accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. 

The law also allows an interested person to obtain judicial review of an administrative penalty order issued by EPA

against a federal agency in district court.

The order may be set aside or remanded

if there is not substantial evidence in the

record to support the finding of a violation

or if the assessment of the penalty constitutes an abuse of discretion by EPA. The

court also may not impose an additional

penalty for a violation unless it finds that

the assessment by EPA constitutes an

abuse of discretion. Finally, the new law

strengthens the citizen suit provisions of

S D WA by allowing any person to commence a civil action in district court

against any federal agency for the collection of an administrative penalty

assessed by EPA that is not paid within

18 months after the effective date of the

final order. 

E PA ISSUES CODE 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT 

P R I N C I P L E S

On October 16, 1996, E PA p u b l i s h e d

the Code of Environmental Management

Principles (CEMP) in the Federal Regist e r (61FR 54062, Oct. 16, 1996). The

C E M P is a broad-based set of environmental principles that EPA developed in

consultation with other federal agencies

under Executive Order 12856. EPA i s

asking federal agency executives to adopt

the code in a written statement of support

that also describes the agency’s plans for

implementation of the Code at the facility

level. Agencies can choose to directly

implement the CEMP Principles at the

facility level or use another alternative

environmental management system such

as ISO 14001. This flexible approach recognizes that individual federal facilities

and installations may already have environmental management systems in place

or may be considering adoption of the ISO

14001 Environmental Management

S t a n d a r d .

E PA has been working to develop the

C E M P through the Interagency Pollution

Prevention Task Force, which was created by the Executive Order, since January

1995. EPA believes that the federal government should make a public commitment to voluntarily adopt an appropriate

code of environmental ethics or conduct,

which is at least equivalent to the commitment demonstrated by environmental

leaders in the private sector. If federal

agencies are held accountable for implementing these principles, then signific a n t

progress can be made toward improving

public trust and confidence in federal

facility environmental performance. 

The five principles embodied in the

Code are as follows:

1 . Management Commitment:

The agency makes a written top-management commitment to improved

environmental performance by establishing policies which emphasize pollution prevention and the need to

ensure compliance with environmental requirements. Organizations that

consistently demonstrate management support for pollution prevention

and environmental compliance generally perform at the highest levels and

will be looked upon as leaders that

can mentor other organizations wishing to upgrade their environmental

performance. 

2 . Compliance Assurance and Pollution Prevention:

The agency implements proactive programs that aggressively identify and

address potential compliance problem

areas and utilize pollution prevention

approaches to correct deficiencies and

improve environmental performance. 

3 . Enabling Systems:

The agency develops and implements

the necessary measures to enable personnel to perform their functions consistent with regulatory requirements,

agency environmental policies and its

overall mission. This would likely

include training of personnel as well

as other agency procedures, standards, programs, and goals.

4 . Performance and A c c o u n t a b i l i t y :

The agency develops measures to

address employee environmental performance, and ensure full accountability of environmental functions.

For example, an agency should

Continued on page 11
PAGE 7

S TATE OF FEDERAL

FACILITIES UPDAT E D

E PA and the states performed over

2,600 inspections at federal facilities during FY 1993-94, resulting in 979 enforcement actions. This and other statistics

are available in The State of Federal

Facilities: An Overview of Environmental

Compliance at Federal Facilities, FY

1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , recently published by FFEO

and available through electronically the

Enviro$en$e bulletin board system (via

the Internet at http://es. inel. gov). This

report is a follow-up to an earlier volume

which covered the environmental compliance status through the end of FY

1992. 

The current report provides a twoyear snapshot of federal facility performance under eight environmental

statutes, along with enforcement highlights and information on EPA’s role in

base realignments and closures. Av e raged over the FY 1991-94 time frame,

compliance by federal facilities was highest for the Safe Drinking Water Act (99.

0%), the Clean Air Act (91%), and the

Toxic Substances Control Act (91%) (see

accompanying figure). Lower compliance

rates were achieved for requirements

under RCRA (58%) and the Clean Wa t e r

Act (88%). Comparative data from the private sector are also provided in the report. 

For more information, contact Kelly

Conrad, FFEO, 202-564-2459. 

E N V I R O N M E N TA L

R E S T O R ATION DIALOGUE

COMMITTEE RELEASES

LANDMARK REPORT

A landmark report by the Federal

Facilities Environmental Restoration

Dialogue Committee was released in

April 1996 detailing the consensus

reached by the committee’s 50 members

on how to improve federal facility

cleanups. Members of the committee

include representatives from EPA, USDA,

I n t e r i o r, DOE, DOD and its military services, the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry, state, tribal, and

local governments, and numerous other

environmental, community, environmental justice, and labor organizations. The

report itself represents a mammoth effort

to bring together all parties to improve

the way cleanups are conducted nationa l l y. Various chapters of the report

address community involvement, considerations of local governments and environmental justice communities, and the

effective use of advisory boards at sites. 

An important component of the fin a l

report was the work done to address the

issue of how to mesh the federal budget

building process with the need to set

enforceable milestones over the life of a

cleanup project. The chief focus of the recommendations was on promoting a

process that would cause federal facility

cleanups to proceed at a pace that would

ensure protection of human health and

the environment and which would allow

parties to cleanup agreements to address

funding issues (both budget development

and funding shortfalls) in a more open

and productive manner. 

Pivotal to the discussion of funding and

priority setting was the discussion of how

to balance Executive Order 12088 —

which has been interpreted as requiring

the heads of federal agencies to request

s u f ficient funds in their budget submissions to meet all of their environmental

cleanup requirements — with current policy that agencies submit budgets that meet

certain predetermined budget targets. 

The Committee suggested approaches

to both priority setting and milestone setting that can be used and amplified on as

new agreements are developed or existing agreements modified. First, while

protection of human health and the environment are key starting points for setting cleanup funding priorities, the Committee notes that numerous other factors

should be taken into account in setting

priorities for individual sites, such as the

need to reduce infrastructure cost, environmental justice, the need to restore

land for community use, availability of

appropriate technologies, and life cycle

Continued on page 8

1 0 0

9 0

8 0

7 0

6 0

5 0

FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE RATES, FY 1993-94

FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994

S D WA

C A A

T S C A

C WA

R C R A
PAGE 8

cost of the project. Risk ranking schemes

should be considered, but should serve as

a point of departure rather than as a rigid

list of priorities. 

For newly negotiated interagency

agreements, the Committee recommended that near-term, out-year, and project

end date milestones should be set and

funding requested in a time frame appropriate to the federal budget process. Once

set, milestones should not be changed

without regulator approval. While regulators agreed to meet at least annually

with regulated Agencies at each site to

finalize milestones following budget allocation, it was recognized that circumstances might warrant challenging budget constraints where insufficient funds

were allocated to environmental cleanup. 

Throughout, the Committee emphasized the importance of stakeholder consultation in making key decisions — both

with respect to priority setting and milestone setting or revision. The recommended process, while strongly focused

on rescoping or rescheduling other activities or identifying opportunities for cost

e f ficiencies prior to amending milestones,

recognizes that the parties to interagency

agreements retain the options of dispute

resolution and enforcement. Finally, the

Committee did not recommend reopening

existing agreements, but noted that

where it was agreed between the parties

that it would be beneficial to do so, the

above approach should be considered. 

For more information, contact Darlene

Boerlage, 202-564-2593, or Joyce Olin,

202-564-2582, at FFEO.

FFEO APPLIES ETI GRANT

TO ENFORCEMENT

AGREEMENTS 

In coordination with FFEO, the

Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and

Clean Sites will conduct pilot projects at

selected federal facility sites which are

subject to cleanup and compliance agreements. The pilots will involve a negotiated effort to apply promising new technologies at sites for cleanup and/or

pollution prevention, where their application may require adjustment of milestones or enhanced flexibility of other

aspects of enforcement agreements.

Pilots may also include the use of innovative technologies for environmental projects such as Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPS). It is anticipated that

an “innovative technology project committee” will be formed to advise ELI on

the site selection as well as other aspects

of the project. 

In addition to the solicitation and commencement of the pilots, ELI will also

compile a manual. The manual will

include instructive materials such as success stories derived from situations

involving enforcement flexibility which

yielded the demonstration and application of innovative technologies. At the

p r o j e c t ’s conclusion, it is anticipated that

ELI and Clean Sites will organize a

national conference to review results. 

This project is being undertaken

through a grant from the Environmental

Technology Initiative (ETI). EPA’s ETI

promotes the development, commercialization, and use of environmental technology to improve environmental quality

while fostering the creation of new jobs

and businesses. This project corresponds

to EPA’s Technology Innovation Strategy

of adapting EPA’s policy, regulatory, and

compliance framework to promote innovation; strengthening the capacity of

technology developers and users to succeed in environmental technology innovation; strategically investing EPA funds in

the development and commercialization

of promising new technologies; and accelerating the diffusion of innovative technologies at home and abroad. The goal of

this project is to routinize the use of

enforcement agreements in facilitating

application of innovative technologies for

environmental cleanup and compliance

projects at federal facilities. 

For more information on the project or

to be added to the mailing list, please call

Diane Lynne at FFEO at 202-564-2587

(fax: 202-501-0644) or Melinda Holland,

Clean Sites, at 864-457-4202 (fax: 864-

4 5 7 - 5 3 9 3 ) .

FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT

REACHED ON PCBs

On August 8, 1996, E PA signed an

agreement with the Department of Energy and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion

Program (NNPP) addressing their continued storage of radioactive PCB wastes

beyond the one year limit specified in

TSCA. According to DOE and the NNPP,

the capacity currently available for the

disposal of covered PCB wastes is not sufficient to accommodate their current

inventories of such wastes. Even when

additional treatment facilities are

approved, it will take several years to

process the volume of covered PCB

wastes being stored. DOE and the NNPP

are also unable to comply with certain

outdated Department of Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n

container requirements also specified in

the PCB regulations. 

The agreement, which covers over 20

DOE facilities and three naval shipyards,

is intended as a bridge between the current situation and EPA’s final PCB regulations which are expected to be issued in

the next year. Under the agreement,

DOE and the NNPP will submit a joint

Annual Status Report to FFEO and the

affected EPA Regional Offices describing

the covered PCB wastes exceeding the

one-year storage limit, efforts to dispose

of the wastes, and alternative technologies under development to remove the

wastes. 

For more information, contact Diane

Lynne at FFEO, 202-564-2587. 

Continued on page 11

E N V I R O N M E N TAL RESTORAT I O N

Continued from page 7
PAGE 9

Region 1 — On July 15, 1996, EPAi s s u e d

orders to three separate tenants at the

Massachusetts Military Reservation

(MMR) assessing a total of $222,310 in

penalties for failures to properly conduct

hazardous waste determinations and

comply with land disposal restriction

requirements, among other RCRA v i o l ations. Complaints and compliance orders

under RCRA Section 3008(a) were issued

to the U.S. Air National Guard ($93,710)

for the Otis Air National Guard Base; the

U.S. Army National Guard ($88,600) for

Camp Edwards; and the 1st Battalion

25th Marines ($40,000) for its Marine

Corps Reserve Center. All three orders

result from a multimedia inspection in

August 1995. The actions highlight the

R e g i o n ’s effort to combat environmental

degradation in the South Coastal watershed of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Military Reservation covers some

3,900 acres on a 21,000-acre parcel of

land on Cape Cod. The municipalities of

Bourne and Sandwich and the Air Force

base have an estimated population of

36,000, with drinking water wells and

irrigation wells within three miles of hazardous substances at the site.

Region 2 — On February 22, 1996,

Region 2 issued a complaint, compliance

o r d e r, and notice of opportunity for hearing for hazardous waste violations

against the U.S. Army Military A c a d e m y

at West Point, NY. The order included a

total assessed penalty of $24,496 for

alleged RCRA storage and manifesting

violations related to hazardous waste

from laboratory, training, and vehicle and

equipment maintenance operations. The

violations were discovered during an

August 1995 RCRA compliance evaluation inspection at the facility.

Region 3 — E PA Region 3 conducted two

intensive multimedia compliance inspections in 1995, at the Washington Navy

Yard and the Southeast Federal Center.

Based on the inspection results, EPA h a s

been meeting with Navy Yard officials to

address outstanding compliance issues in

a 3008(a) enforceable Agreement and

cleanup issues in a Consent Order under

R C R A Section 7003. During early June,

the Navy agreed to contract for the immediate cleanup of contaminated sediments

in three outfall locations and to schedule

additional cleanups in 1997. EPA a l s o

issued two Notices of Violation to the

Navy in June for RCRA u n d e r g r o u n d

storage tank violations at the Navy Ya r d

and Anacostia Naval Station; both are

pending resolution. 

Region 9 — On August 22, 1995, Region

9 issued a complaint and compliance

order to the Bureau of Reclamation’s

Yuma Desalting Plant, located in Yu m a ,

Arizona, assessing $265,025 in penalties.

The actions stem from a March 6, 1995

E PA inspection of the facility, during

which inspectors observed 61 containers

(equal to 35 full 55-gallon drums) of hazardous waste at the facility in and

around the storage area. The containers,

which had been stored on site for up to 40

months without a permit, contained

ignitable waste, corrosive waste, reactive

waste, chromium, lead, etc. EPA d e t e rmined that the likelihood of release to the

environment and danger to BOR employees was great. Settlement negotiations

are ongoing. 

Region 9 — On December 15, 1995, EPA

Region 9 cited the Department of the

I n t e r i o r’s National Park Service for violations at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,

proposing a $243,800 penalty. During an

inspection the previous July, EPA d e t e rmined that the Hawaii facility had stored

hazardous wastes without a RCRA p e rmit from December 1994 to October

1995. The waste, stored in containers

near a maintenance yard in the park,

contained amounts of acetone, chromium, lead, xylene, phenol, arsenic, merc u r y, and other hazardous wastes. The

Department of the Interior was also cited

for storing the wastes in rusted or leaking containers. The facility has removed

the waste, developed a comprehensive

waste management plan, and submitted

a closure plan for the waste storage area.

Penalty negotiations are ongoing. 

ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTA B L E ,

SAN ANTONIO, TX

October 17-19, 1996

by Darlene Boerlage, FFEO

I recently had the opportunity to participate in the first EPAO f fice of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Roundtable held in San Antonio, Texas. The

Roundtable was intended to enhance the

p u b l i c ’s opportunities for involvement in

E PA’s enforcement process. 

The Roundtable began with a tour of

environmental justice sites around San

Antonio. One of the visits on the tour

was to North Kelly Gardens, a small

Latino community of approximately 30

homes just outside of the fence-line from

Kelly Air Force Base. Community representatives stated that they were not adequately represented on the Restoration

Advisory Board for the site, that there

was not an adequate emergency evacuation plan, and that the Air Force has not

kept them informed of environmental

actions impacting their community.

The Roundtable meetings provided a

forum for community, environmental

organizations, industry, states, and local

governments to develop recommendations on aspects of the enforcement

process including: federal and state roles,

inspections, screening, targeting, community monitoring, community notific ation and resolution of complaints, environmental restoration and cleanup

projects, settlements, performance partnerships and memoranda of agreement,

environmental impact statements, and

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Break-out sessions were highly interacContinued on page 1 1
PAGE 10

environmental compliance and public

trust. The people trust the federal government to properly manage our federally owned and operated facilities. Has the

federal government earned the public’s

t r u s t ?

According to the Federal Facilities

Environmental Restoration Dialogue

Committee (FFRDC) report discussed in

this issue, over the next 75 years, federal

agencies will be liable for cleaning up

over 61,000 hazardous waste sites, with

cleanup costs ranging around one-third

of a trillion dollars. The FFRDC report

comments that a lack of public involvement in the past, due to national security

concerns, bred significant mistrust

among the public, especially where federal facility environmental problems affected communities of color and low-income

communities. The report, however, commends federal agencies for making great

progress recently in involving the public

in environmental decision making.

Although the federal government is

responsible for thousands of sites due to

past environmental practices, it is gaining credibility due to its efforts at community involvement in the cleanup

process. 

Does current environmental compliance behavior warrant the public’s trust?

This issue of FedFacs offers several articles on point. For compliance statistics,

FFEO recently published The State of

Federal Facilities: An Overview of Environmental Compliance at Federal Facilit i e s . This report summarizes compliance

results from 2,600 EPA and state inspections. Also see the results of the first To xics Release Inventory (TRI) that includes

toxic releases from federal facilities. A

goal of TRI is to hold federal facilities

accountable for their activities and to

encourage them to reduce their use of

toxic chemicals at the source. A c c e p t i n g

responsibility for toxic releases and

reducing the federal government’s

reliance on toxic chemicals are two very

good ways to demonstrate to the public

we are worthy of their trust. 

Another way is to inform the public of

the results of an Environmental Management Review (EMR) or environmental

audit. I hope this issue’s article on EMRs

is useful and I urge you to take advantage of the EPAAudit Policy. Although an

EMR is more limited in scope than an

environmental audit, each can help in

identifying potential compliance problems and needed corrections.

Under policies like EPA’s EMR and

audit policies, facilities will disclose the

results of the reviews to the public. By

contrast, some states currently allow

environmental auditing information to

be kept secret and may provide blanket

immunity from enforcement actions for

violations uncovered through the confidential audit. The federal government

should not undermine the public’s trust

by relying on these state laws to keep

environmental information secret. In

speaking out against environmental

audit privilege and immunity laws, Vi c e

President Al Gore, EPAAssistant A d m i nistrator Steven Herman, and A s s i s t a n t

Attorney General Lois Schiffer each have

cited the public distrust caused by these

laws. 

Sustained future compliance and pollution prevention behavior ultimately

will earn the public’s trust. The success of

programs like ENVVEST, featured in

this issue, presents opportunities for federal agencies to improve environmental

practices and share important information with the public. Regulatory fle x i b i l ity is earned but first, facilities must comply with the law. FFEO will do

everything it can to assist federal agencies with compliance endeavors. By complying with the law, federal agencies will

earn not only the regulators’ trust: they

will gain the trust of the public, thereby

paving the way for greater regulatory

flexibility along the lines of ENVVEST. 

In closing, I hope this issue offers

information that is new and useful to

you. Let me know! 

Craig Hooks, Acting Director, FFEO

standards for surface water, ground

w a t e r, surface and subsurface soils, and

buildings to help the parties agree on

appropriate cleanup actions. Importantl y, the agreement means that EPA, the

State, and stakeholders are now directly

involved in DOE’s budget planning

process. This will allow the parties and

stakeholders to view the site as a whole

and prioritize cleanup actions and regulatory milestones to address the highest

risks first. 

F i n a l l y, the Rocky Flats agreement

contains special provisions to deal with

the stabilization and consolidation of plutonium inside of buildings. Included as

an appendix to the agreement is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board (DNFSB), which has statutory

oversight authority over plutonium activities at DOE facilities. This MOU, the

first of its kind for DOE, establishes

areas of lead regulation or oversight for

DNFSB, the State, and EPA for cleanup

activities within buildings. The Rocky

Flats agreement also includes a process

whereby DOE consults with EPA, the

State of Colorado, and DNFSB in establishing “target activities” for plutonium

activities which will then be incorporated

each year into the agreement. The public

will be notified if DOE wishes to modify a

target date or fails to meet it; DOE, in

consultation with EPA, the State, and

DNFSB, will develop a corrective action

plan to address the issue. DOE will then

keep EPA, the State, and DNFSB

informed as to the status of the implementation of the corrective action plan.

Dates for activities which follow the completion of a target activity, such as building decommissioning activities which can

only be initiated after plutonium management activities within buildings are

completed, will be established under the

Rocky Flats agreement as enforceable

milestones with specific monetary penalties. 

DIRECTOR’S WORD

Continued from page 1

ROCKY FLAT S

Continued from page 1
PAGE 11

E PA CLARIFIES 

A D M I N I S T R ATIVE RULES

On March 18, 1996, E PA published a

technical revision to its Part 22 administrative hearing procedures, providing

federal departments and agencies which

are the subject of an EPA a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

compliance order for RCRA v i o l a t i o n s

with the opportunity to confer with the

E PA A d m i n i s t r a t o r. The head of the federal department or agency would have 30

days following an Environmental

Appeals Board ruling to request such a

conference, and the decision made by the

Administrator after such a conference

would constitute the final order. The new

provision brings EPA’s procedures in conformance with the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. For more information, contact Sally Dalzell, FFEO,

202-564-2510. 

RCRA ADMINISTRAT I V E

ORDER ANALYSIS 

The Planning, Prevention, a n d

Compliance Staff of FFEO is finalizing a

detailed review of 104 RCRAA d m i n i s t r ative Orders issued by EPA Regions and

the states from October 1992 (the effective date of the Federal Facility Compliance Act) through December 1995. The

study objectives are to determine federal

agency areas of non-compliance; time

lines (e. g. , issue and settlement dates);

the frequency of specific violations cited;

penalty amounts assessed and/or paid;

and Supplemental Environmental Project

amounts (if any). The study is expected to

be released in Fall 1996 and is intended

for use by federal agencies and regulators. 

Preliminary findings include: 

• Average proposed penalties were consistently higher for federal orders

($348,571) than for state orders

($56,732). 

• Of the 104 administrative orders, 704

individual violations were identifie d .

The three most frequent violations

were: (1) failure to label or improper

labeling of containers (91 violations);

(2) incomplete or failure to make a

hazardous waste determination (55

violations); and (3) failure to indicate

accumulation or storage start dates on

containers. 

E PA ISSUES GUIDANCE

ON PA RT I C I PATION IN DOE

BUDGET PROCESS 

In response to the Department of Energ y ’s invitation to stakeholders and regulators to provide input into its FY 1998 budget building process, EPA has issued

guidance to promote involvement by the

E PA Regional Offices. “Guidance for EPA

Participation in DOE FY 1998 Environmental Management Budget Formulat i o n ” emphasizes the importance of efforts

to identify and implement cost effic i e n c i e s

at DOE field sites and the importance of

complying with existing Interagency

Agreements. 

The guidance restates the requirement

contained in Executive Order 12088 that

DOE will seek sufficient funding for compliance with pollution control requirements

and describes the limited circumstances

under which EPA would consider whether

to renegotiate milestones in Interagency

Agreements. It lists the factors to be considered in making such decisions, including

the extent of DOE’s collaboration in reaching agreement on priorities and whether

there have been substantive efforts to

obtain the viewpoints of stakeholders

regarding changes to the agreements. 

Former FFEO Director Barry Breen

commended DOE for being “much more

open and successful at involving the public and regulatory agencies as compared

to past years.” However, he reiterated

E PA concerns about cleanup commitments, cost savings, and the adequacy of

D O E ’s Risk Data Sheet process. “We

remain concerned that budget appears to

drive cleanup,” noted Breen. “It is vitally

important that DOE keep the commitments that it has made to the public in its

cleanup agreements. ”

Copies of the reports mentioned in this

section may be obtained through Enviro$en$e. See page 12 for access informat i o n .

ensure that employee performance

standards, efficiency ratings, or other

accountability measures, are clearly

d e fined to include environmental

issues as appropriate, and that exceptional performance is recognized and

r e w a r d e d .

5 . Measurement and Improvement:

The agency develops and implements

a program to assess progress toward

meeting its environmental goals and

uses the results to improve environmental performance. For example, the

agency might institute a formal benchmarking program to compare its environmental operations with other organizations and management standards,

where appropriate.

Each of the five principles, which

describe the overall purpose of the step in

the management cycle, is supported by

performance objectives. The performance

objectives provide more details on the

tools and mechanisms by which the principles can be implemented. 

For more information, contact Andrew

Cherry at 202-564-5011 .

R E P O RTS AND REGULAT I O N S

Continued from page 8

NEWS RESOURCES

Continued from page 6

tive, with participants providing numerous recommendations on each topic area. 

I believe the first EPA E n f o r c e m e n t

Roundtable was a huge success and a

milestone for OECA. OECA A s s i s t a n t

Administrator Steve Herman spent two

days at the Roundtable, taking time to

listen to the stakeholders and to talk with

them about their issues of concern.

O E C A is exploring the possibility of hosting additional Enforcement Roundtables

at other locations in the future.

ENFORCEMENT ROUNDTA B L E

Continued from page 9
April 7-10, 1997

A D PA

The 23rd Environmental Symposium and Exhibition of the A m e r ican Defense Preparedness A s s o c i ation will be held in New Orleans on

April 7-10, 1997. Contact Carey M.

Jagels, tel: 703-247-2578, fax: 703-

522-1885, E-mail: cjagels@adpa.org.

May 5-9, 1997 

CALL FOR PAPERS — 1997 GLOBAL

D E M I L I TA R I Z ATION SYMPOSIUM &

E X H I B I T I O N

Organized by the Joint Ordnance

Commanders Group and the A m e rican Defense Preparedness A s s o c ation, the Symposium will be held in

Reno, NV and will focus on the challenge of demilitarization and disposal of energetic materials. Deadline for submissions: Jan. 15, 1997.

Contact: Jim Wheeler, tel: 815-273-

8084; fax: 815-273-8717. 

CALENDAR

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (2261)

Washington, DC 20460

O f ficial Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed

Address Correction Requested

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

E PA is accepting nominations of individuals for the first-ever Executive Order

12856 Environmental Challenge Aw a r d

for individuals. These awards will recognize individuals that have demonstrated

outstanding leadership in implementing

the pollution prevention provisions of the

1993 Executive Order #12856 on Federal

Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws

and Pollution Prevention. EPA expects to

incorporate the EO 12856 Challenge

Awards with the 1997 White House Closing the Circle Awards. The date for the

Closing the Circle nominations is not

extended by this notice.

Nominations for the Challenge Aw a r d

must include the name, location, facility

address, telephone and fax number, email address (if available), and the name

of the person nominating the individual.

Include a title and abstract of no more

than 100 words and a description of the

individual achievement. The description

should be no longer than three 8.5 x 11 ”

pages, duplex printed on recycled paper

containing at least 20% post-consumer

content. Challenge nominations already

submitted in coordination with the Closing the Circle nominations need not be

resubmitted. EO 12856 individual Challenge nominations must be received by

March 3, 1997 and should be mailed to

FFEO Challenge Awards (2261A), 401 M

St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. E-mail

submissions must contain all the above

information and can be sent to

G a r v e y. Wi l l @ e p a m a i l . e p a . g o v. A t t a c hments to E-mail messages must be in

ASCII format. Any questions regarding

format may be directed to Will Garvey at

2 0 2 - 5 6 4 - 2 4 5 8 .

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

C A A Clean Air A c t

C WA Clean Water A c t

D O D Department of Defense

D O E Department of Energy

E PA Environmental Protection

A g e n c y

F F C A Federal Facility 

Compliance A c t

F F E O Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (EPA )

I S O International Standard Organ i z a t i o n

R C R A Resource Conservation and

Recovery A c t

T S C A Toxic Substances Control A c t

T R I Toxics Release Inventory

S D WA Safe Drinking Water A c t

U S D A U. S. Department of 

A g r i c u l t u r e

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE

AWARD DEADLINE EXTENDED TO

MARCH 3, 1997