Environmental Protection

Agency

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

Fall 1998

EPA Issues First Federal Facility Penalty Order for

Violation of TSCA Lead Disclosure Rule

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #6

E

PA announced on July 29, 1998, that

it has cited the Kingsville Naval A i r

Station (NAS) in Kingsville, Texas for violations of the Real Estate Notification and

Disclosure Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This is EPA’s

first penalty order issued to a federal

facility for violating Section 1018 of the

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act. 

The administrative complaint issued

by EPA Region 6 on July 28, 1998, charges

that the Kingsville NAS violated regulations requiring the disclosure of known

information regarding lead-based paint.

The complaint alleges that disclosure of

known lead-based paint should have been

made prior to finalizing lease agreements

for military housing constructed prior to

2 Guest Spot: John DeVi l l a r s

3 UST Deadline Coming Up in 

D e c e m b e r

4 Regional News and Notes

6 Federal Buildings

8 S E P, Fire Policies

9 The Hammer

11 Conference Update

1 2 TRI Data Released

1 3 C FA s

1 5 R e s o u r c e s

1 6 I n t e r a g e n c y

1 9 Aw a r d s

2 0 Upcoming Events

1978. A previous report prepared by the

Navy Air Station identified lead-based

paint in military housing but the information was not disclosed to the residents

before they signed their leases. This situation is considered to be extremely serious

because EPA Region 6 provided compliance assistance to the Kingsville NAS on

the lead disclosure requirements and yet

the Kingsville NAS failed to provide the

report and make the required disclosure.

E PA is seeking a penalty in excess of

$400,000 for these violations.

The lead disclosure regulations are

particularly aimed at preventing childhood lead poisoning. All 11 leases cited in

the complaint involved housing in which

children under the age of six resided on

the property. Over time, even low-level

FedFacs Reduce TRI 

Chemicals by 50%

1996 TRI data show a thre e - y e a r

decrease of just over 50% in

releases of TRI chemicals fro m

federal facilities. Story on page 12.

exposure to lead from paint, dust, soil and

plumbing can cause a range of health

problems including permanent damage to

the brain, nervous system, and kidneys.

For more information, contact Anna

Treinies, Lead Enforcement Coordinator,

(214) 665-8348, or Rick Bartley, Attorney,

(214) 665-8046.

I ns i d e

Fe dFa c s

I

n this issue of FedFacs, I would like to

report on very encouraging developments in bringing the Department of the

I n t e r i o r’s facilities up to compliance with

environmental requirements. This effort

could also have useful ramifications for

other federal agencies. 

During 1997, as part of EPA’s focus on

regulatory compliance at civilian federal

agencies, EPA regions conducted inspections at a number of DOI facilities and

found that several were out of compliance. In accordance with established

enforcement policies for federal facilities,

E PA assessed fines of over $1.7 million

against three DOI bureaus. Most of the

penalty was addressed through Supplemental Environmental Projects designed

to bring those facilities and bureaus into

compliance with environmental regulations. However, the compliance posture of

D i re c t o r ’sWo rd : Cr a ig H o ok s

Focus on: Department of the Interior 

Continued on page 18
A

fter years of

warnings from

prominent scientists worldwide,

global climate

change is fin a l l y

emerging in the

national consciousness as a serious

environmental problem. Study after

study has been issued — from Nobel Prize

winners to NASA to the Department of

Energy — confirming the phenomenon. In

this year’s State of the Union A d d r e s s ,

President Clinton called global warming

our “overriding environmental challenge,

an issue we must act on now to avoid catastrophe later.” 

In New England, many of the ways of

life that define this part of the country are

imperiled if we don’t begin now to address

the causes of global warming. Autumn in

New England is unrivaled anywhere on

the planet. Tens of thousands of “leaf

peepers” are drawn to the region every

September in search of the marvelous

golds, oranges, and reds of our forests.

Current models, however, predict that

drier summers and damaged soils will

drive out the red maples and oaks and

ash, devastating the fall foliage displays

for all but the most northern parts of new

England. Cape Cod could suffer an annual loss of somewhere between 130 to 200

acres of land a year due to the rising sea

levels associated with increased temperatures. And while the maple syrup industry is a unique part of New England’s heritage and economy, warmer nights from

increased cloud cover could reduce the

number of days when sap flows from our

maples as much as 66 percent. 

We know the source of this looming ecological and economic crisis, and we know

what to do about it. Energy-related activities constitute the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 86 percent of total U.S. emissions annually. We

also know that 30 percent of our country’s

greenhouse gas emissions come from cars,

trucks, and other vehicles. More energy

e f ficient technologies, cleaner power plants

and motor vehicles, and better land use

management all are real-world, cost-effective approaches that can lead to a safer,

h e a l t h i e r, more economically viable future.

A Federal Response: 

Getting Our House in Order 

in New England 

For EPA, leadership must begin by example. Thus, we are looking in our own governmental backyard to the 1,200 or so federal facilities that call New England

home. Only if the federal government can

show that energy use can be cut effectively can we expect businesses and industry

to fully join the cause. 

By December, EPA-New England, DoD,

DOE, and the General Services A d m i n i stration will finalize a Climate Change

Resource Mitigation Guide that provides

options for explaining how New England’s

federal facilities can stabilize greenhouse

gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2005. The

information that will be used to shape this

plan will come from a greenhouse gas

questionnaire (which received crucial

funding from the Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office at EPA H e a d q u a r t e r s )

developed specifically for civilian federal

facilities. The questionnaire, which was

distributed this fall, solicits information

on energy use, transportation, waste disposal, and forest management/land use in

an effort to better understand, analyze,

and improve on current practices. Similar

information will be obtained for DoD facilities from their own greenhouse gas questionaires. The resource guide that will be

developed from this research may serve as

a model for federal facilities across the

c o u n t r y. 

We know what some of the key steps

are toward slowing global climate change.

Last summer, GSA issued a bid to purchase bulk power for New England’s federal facilities. Under EPA’s leadership,

the Request for Proposals includes a

“clean power” choice — at least 4 percent

of the power supplied to the federal government will be from renewable

resources, thereby creating signific a n t

new demand for renewable energy in New

England. This RFP will leverage the gove r n m e n t ’s buying power to bring state-ofthe-art energy conservation strategies

and renewable resources to our buildings.

Also, by 1999, at least 50 percent of new

fleet vehicles purchased will have the

capacity to run on alternative fuels. EPA

will assist and encourage all federal agencies in the region to purchase and use

clean fuel vehicles. 

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and control global climate change

involve all of us. We need the assistance and

participation of New England federal facilities. For further information on how you can

help, contact Lucy Edmondson at (617) 565-

9095 or Anne Fenn at (617) 565-3927.

A Regional Response to Global Climate Change

By John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator, EPA-New England

G u e s tS p o t

Fe dFa c s

is published by EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office. 

Joyce Johnson, FFEO, E d i t o r

Gilah Langner, 

Stretton Associates, Inc., Wr i t e r

Robin Foster, 

SciComm, Inc., 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

Or Intern e t :

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

Day” — November 15, 1998

This year’s message is: “If you’re

not buying recycled, you’re not

really recycling!” 

N

ovember 15 marks the second annual “America Recycles Day” with a

national slate of educational events and

rallies urging people to recycle, reuse, and

buy products that contain recyclable

materials. Last year 41 states participated by organizing more than 3,000 events

for this national recycling awareness day.

The event generated nearly 200 million

media impressions, including 1 million

hits to its Web site, and got measurable

results for recycling programs across the

United States.

This year’s event focuses on the need

for buying recycled products. The Wa s hington, DC federal community will sponsor a rally on Tu e s d a y, November 10 on or

near the National Mall open to federal

employees as well as the general public.

Recycled products used by federal agencies will be on display, and several agencies will offer musical entertainment. This

year the Federal Steering Committee will

also sponsor a recycled materials procurement training workshop for federal

employees on Nov. 12. Federal agencies

are encouraged to organize America Recycles Day activities at their own facilities or

to participate in events happening in their

In th e N e w s

state or local community. For more information, contact Kim O’Keefe at 564-0013 or

go to www. a m e r i c a r e c y c l e s d a y. o r g .

UST Deadline Coming Up in

December 1998

E PA and States Plan Stringent

E n f o rcement After December 

E

PA’s underground storage t a n k

(UST) regulations became effective on

December 22, 1988 and require owners

and operators of USTs operating before

that date to upgrade,

replace, or close their USTs

over the next ten years,

before December 22, 1998.

That is, owners and/or operators must either: 

• Upgrade “existing” USTs

( U S Ts installed on or

before 12/22/88) by

installing spill and overfill prevention and corrosion protection, or 

• Permanently close their USTs by

12/22/98. 

“New” USTs (installed after 12/22/88)

must have the release detection, spill and

o v e r fill prevention, and corrosion protection equipment operational at the time of

installation. 

In the past two years, EPA, in conjunction with state UST implementing

agencies have inspected numerous federal facilities in Region 6. Inspections and

audits of UST system operations found

violations at facilities operated by the

U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Army and A i r

Force Exchange Service, Federal Av i a t i o n

Administration, Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

Medical Centers, U. S. Postal Service,

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Army National

Guard, and Sandia National Laboratories. Expedited enforcement compliance

orders were issued to these facilities with

minor penalties ranging from $50 to

$1000. Facilities owned by the Bureau of

Engraving and Printing, the U.S. Naval

facility at Belle Chase, LA, and the VA

Medical Center in Little

Rock, AR were in compliance and did not receive

compliance orders with

penalties. Two DoD facilities did not settle the expedited compliance orders

issued and have been

issued formal complaints

with penalties ranging

over $75,000.

EPA has found that

most federal facilities have proper UST

equipment for release detection, spill and

o v e r fill prevention, and corrosion protection. The facilities in violation had deficiencies in properly managing the equipment for release detection requirements.

Federal agencies should ensure that their

personnel are familiar with proper UST

management methods and are thoroughly

trained to operate UST release detection

equipment to ensure pollution prevention. 

The need to act now is made more

urgent because there is not much time

left to come into compliance, particularly

if construction preparations and the necessary funding have not been initiated.

E PA and state UST implementing agencies have resolved to conduct stringent

enforcement of UST regulations after

December 1998. For more information,

contact John Cernero at (214) 665-2233 or

Lynn Dail at (214) 665-2234.

E PA Has Penalty Authority for 

Federal Violations of UST

E

PA’s Office of General Counsel has determined that EPA has the authority under Sections 6001,

9001, 9006, and 9007 of RCRA to issue another federal agency an administrative order assessing a civil penalty for violations of underg round storage tank re q u i rements. The determ i n a t i o n

finds that the provisions of RCRA constitute a “clear statement” of EPA’s authority, re i n f o rced by

the plain language of the statute. For example, RCRA Section 9006(a) authorizes EPA to issue

o rders to “any person” violating the regulation, while Section 9001(6) specifically states that the

t e rm “person” includes the United States Govern m e n t .

Federal agencies

should ensure that

their personnel are

t h o roughly trained

to operate UST

release detection

e q u i p m e n t .
I

n March 1998, EPA Region 2 and the

Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Agreement to conduct two projects evaluating the operations of DOE’s

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)

in Upton, NY. The agreement was signed

by Jeanne Fox, Administrator of EPA

Region 2, and Martha Krebs, Director of

D O E ’s Office of Energy Research. The two

voluntary activities covered in the MOA

are a facility-wide process evaluation and

audits of BNL’s Environmental Management System. 

For the process evaluation BNL w i l l

assess all experimental and industrialtype operations at the facility for the purpose of identifying all waste streams generated at the facility. BNL will determine

the regulatory status of each waste

stream, ensure that all waste stream generators are knowledgeable in proper

waste management and handling, and

ensure that pollution prevention, waste

minimization and assessment opportuniEMR Underway at 

West Point 

E

PA and the

West Point Military Academy are

conducting a pilot

E n v i r o n m e n t a l

M a n a g e m e n t

Review (EMR) to

evaluate how well the Academy manages

environmental planning and risk management at the facility and to identify opportunities for improvement. The EMR is

designed to provide feedback on the effectiveness of specific areas in environmental

management and to benchmark performance. 

“ West Point has agreed to develop, carry out and verify improvements to the

f a c i l i t y ’s environmental management system, specifically environmental planning

and risk management, based on the recommendations EPA will provide in a fin a l

report,” EPA Regional A d m i n i s t r a t o r

Jeanne M. Fox stated. The final report

will be completed by Spring 1999. 

A team of experts from EPA’s Region 2

o f fice in New York City visited the site

during the summer to review documents

and interview facility personnel. Followup reviews and interviews will continue

during the year. 

The long term goals of the project are

for the pilot EMR to serve as a prototype

for other military facilities around the

country and for West Point to partner with

other federal agencies in developing more

EMRs. For more information, contact Rich

Cahill, (212) 637-3666. 

ties are examined, implemented, and

tracked, as appropriate. 

The Environmental Management System (EMS) audits require DOE and BNL

to develop a five-year audit program with

annual audits to evaluate the facility’s

progress in implementing an effective

EMS. The EMS will be designed to assure

full compliance with regulatory requirements and provide for continuous

improvement in environmental stewardship. 

The new projects arise out of a multimedia inspection of BNL conducted by

E PA Region 2 with the assistance of EPA’s

National Enforcement Investigation Center in May 1997. Because of the enormous

size of the facility, the inspection took two

weeks and involved 25 inspectors from

eleven programs. EPA cited DOE and

B N L’s contractor, Associated Universities

Inc., for violations discovered during the

Region 2 inspection. RCRA v i o l a t i o n s

were substantial enough to warrant the

Regional Ne w s a n d No te s

B r o o k h a v e n ’s National Synchrotron

Light Source with High Flux Beam

Reactor in Background

B rookhaven Agrees to Process Evaluation 

and Five-Year Audit
proposal of approximately $80,000 in

penalties for improper hazardous waste

handling and disposal. Violations of Clean

Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and To xic Substances Control Act regulations for

the improper storage and handling of

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were

also found. 

For more information, contact Jeanette

Dadusc, EPA Region 2 Assistant Federal

Facilities Coordinator, (212) 637-3492.

Update on Gro u n d w a t e r

Sampling Project in 

Nebraska and Kansas

S

ampling of groundwater near USDA

grain bin sites in Kansas and Nebraska has found that over a quarter of sites

sampled had detectable levels of carbon

tetrachloride (CCl4) in the water. Out of

the 118 locations with detectable CCl4, 56

showed levels above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion

allowed for CCl4. Thirty-two of these are

public water supply

systems; the other 24

are private wells

whose residents have

been given bottled

water and/or carbon

filters or connected to

nearby public water

systems by USDA. 

The Commodity

Credit Corporation, an

agency of USDA, operated approximately

4,500 grain storage

sites nationally from

the 1940s until 1970.

Approximately 1,800 of the sites are located in Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

Nebraska). USDA fumigated grain stored

at these sites with CCl4, a probable

human carcinogen. Findings of CCl4 i n

nearby groundwater led, in early 1997, to

a collaborative response from EPA R e g i o n

7, EPA Headquarters, Kansas, Nebraska,

and USDA. Over 500 sites in Kansas and

Nebraska were scheduled for sampling to

ensure that residents using private drinking water wells are not consuming contaminated water. 

E PA Region 7 will begin a similar project in Missouri this fall, to sample all 69

sites in the state. In addition, options are

being examined to address 1,100 untested

sites in Iowa. For additional information,

contact Jeff Field, EPA Region 7, (913) 551-

7548, or Lance Elson, FFEO, (202) 564-

2577. 

T h ree EPCRA Inspections

C o n d u c t e d

T

he EPA Region 6 Preparedness Te a m

conducted three inspections at federal

facilities to determine compliance with

the provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know A c t

(EPCRA), Sections 312

and 313. The three facilities inspected included:

Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine

Bluff, AR; NASA J o h n s o n

Space Center in Las

Cruces, NM, and

McAlester Army A m m u n ition Plant in McAlester,

OK. 

All three facilities cooperated with EPA’s inspectors and all three were in

substantial compliance

with the provisions of

E P C R A Section 312. At McAlester A r m y

Ammunition and Pine Bluff A r s e n a l ,

inspectors also conducted a voluntary

audit of the water treatment facilities for

preparedness and response activities.

Both facilities were found to be working

well with their local communities. EPA

made additional recommendations in

these areas as well. 

For Section 313, which covers the To xics Release Inventory, Johnson Space

Center was found to be in compliance.

H o w e v e r, McAlester Army A m m u n i t i o n

Plant and Pine Bluff Arsenal had discrepancies. On July 14, 1998, EPA issued a

letter of noncompliance to Pine Bluff

Arsenal. EPA is currently working with

McAlester on its requirements. For more

information, contact Morton Wa k e l a n d ,

(214) 665-8116, or Steve Mason, (214) 665-

2 2 9 2 .

E PA Region 6 Seeks Comments on Cumulative Risk

Index Analysis for Federal

F a c i l i t i e s

E

PA Region 6 has developed a Geographical Information System (GIS)

screening tool for federal facilities, called

the Federal Facilities Risk Index A n a l y s i s

(FRIA). The tool uses sub-watershed level ecological vulnerability data coupled

with facility-specific impact data to provide a comparative view of a facility or

group of facilities. FRIA can be used for

permitting, compliance assistance,

National Environmental Policy Act, and

enforcement purposes. Region 6 is seeking review and comment on the tool. It

can be downloaded from www. e p a .

gov/earth1r6/6en/xp/enxp4b.htm. EPA

hopes that this screening tool can be

developed for a variety of federal agencies, along with opportunities to explore

federal facilities’ impacts on their watersheds. For more information, contact

Sharon Osowski at (214) 665-7506 or

o s o w s k i . s h a r o n @ e p a . g o v.

Over a quarter of 

sites sampled had

detectable levels of

carbon tetrachloride

( C C l4) in the water.
ing of the Rocky Mountain Institute. They

showed many innovative ways to connect

people to their natural environment

through buildings and landscaping. The

Solar Living Center is a testament to sustainable design, land restoration and selfs u f ficiency; there are no traditional

mechanical systems in the building. Wi t h

funding from DOE and EPA, the Rocky

Mountain Institute has developed a CDROM called “Green Development” featuring over 100 case studies of sustainable

design and construction. 

Green renovation of historic offic e

buildings was explained by a team from

the new EPA Headquarters building in

Washington, D.C., and Bill Browning of

RMI. As they discovered, some federal

buildings were originally designed in the

1800s with energy efficient features that

have been disabled over time. One part of

the renovations has been an effort to get

the buildings to operate as they did when

they were first constructed. 

Building materials came into the discussion in two ways — first, building with

resource efficient materials, and second,

de-construction, or disassembling buildings so that the materials can be used to

build other buildings. On the former topic, each participant received a copy of the

Guide to Resource Efficient Building Elem e n t s , published by the Center for

Resourceful Building Technologies in

Missoula, Montana. Linda Brown of Scie n t i fic Certification Systems reviewed life

cycle impact assessments of building

materials and energy systems, and how

such assessments can help steer a project

toward “green.” Tom Napier of the A r m y

Corps of Engineers demonstrated a

knowledge database which helps architects incorporate sustainability into their

decision-making process. 

On de-construction, four speakers —

from the National Park Service, Fort

M c C o y, EPA Headquarters, and Boulder,

Colorado — demonstrated how buildings

slated for demolition can be partially deconstructed by hand before the bulldozers

“ G reen” Federal Buildings

Symposium Hits Colorado

S p r i n g s

T

he numbers alone boggle the imagination: The U.S. government owns or

leases more than 500,000 buildings. This

represents 3.1 billion square feet of offic e

space, not to mention aircraft hangars,

military bases, hospitals, court houses,

prisons, and tourist destinations. The General Services Administration, one of three

agencies that build and renovate federal

buildings, has a building fund of $5.2 billion. A “green building” approach at the

federal level clearly can have massive positive impacts within the government as

well as modeling success stories for others. 

The Resource Efficient Federal Buildings Symposium was held on April 28-29,

1998, at the U.S. Air Force Academy to

showcase green building success stories

in the federal, state, local and private sectors. The goal was to encourage architects, civil engineers, building managers,

realty specialists, and tenants within the

federal sector to routinely apply green

building techniques to all future projects.

This symposium was sponsored by the

FFEO, EPA Region 8, DOE’s Federal

Energy Management Program, the A i r

Force Center for Environmental Excellence, and the Air Force Academy Civil

Engineering Division and Faculty. 

Thirty-seven speakers contributed to

the program. Successful case studies

included the new EPA Laboratory at

Research Triangle Park, the Utah Natural Resources Department Headquarters,

a new NOAA Laboratory in Boulder, CO,

the Mather Point Transit Center at

Grand Canyon National Park, and a new

Squadron Operations Facility at Seymour

Johnson Air Force Base. The Utah case

study demonstrated that success in these

buildings can be measured by increased

worker productivity in addition to energy

and water savings, reduced maintenance

costs, and enhanced public image. 

Two of the most visionary presentations

were those by Jeff Oldham of the Real

Goods Trading Company and Bill BrownFe d er al B u i l d i n g s

Fran McPoland, Federal Environmental Executive, talks with Randy Jones of the 

Federal Energy Management Program at the Federal Buildings Symposium.
are turned loose. De-construction can be

cost effective if properly planned, and can

preserve special building materials that

are no longer available. For example, at

the Presidio in San Francisco, Port Orford

cedar boards were found that had been

used to construct World War II barracks.

Finding Efficiencies 

A number of speakers said that the costs

saved by “green buildings” for reduced

sick leave and improved productivity are

substantially greater than the dollars

saved by energy or water conservation.

Often this aspect of green buildings isn’t

addressed. Another recurring theme was

that green buildings don’t have to cost

more. Environmentally unfriendly buildings actually cost more over the operational life of the facility. 

Tools for energy efficiency and alternative energy were a major focus of the

symposium. Hal Post of Sandia National

Labs showcased 150 solar energy projects

within the National Park Service,

Bureau of Land Management, Forest

Service, and DoD totaling 2 MW of solar

p o w e r. And Air Force cadets gave a presentation on the new Air Force Design

Guidelines for buildings, stressing that

conservation is certainly the most cost

effective approach for any existing building. 

Tom Walker of the General Services

Administration noted that GSA w i l l

spend $233 million on utilities in FY 99

and $80.5 million on energy and water

conservation projects. The new Energy

Center of Excellence in Kansas City will

provide assistance as GSA works towards

the required 30% reduction in energy

usage by 2005. 

“Lessons learned” that were identifie d

at the symposium included the following: 

• A “ first cost bias” in federal decisionmaking limits the use of life-cycle cost

savings to justify selection of an environmentally preferable product, material or approach. 

• Communication and cooperation

between the architecture/civil engineering community and the environmental community are inadequate. “Green”

matters are often viewed by architects

and civil engineers as the concern of the

environmental program. Design and

construction managers usually do not

take responsibility to incorporate environmentally preferable features into

their buildings. 

• Daily oversight during the construction process is essential to ensure

that the green design is actually implemented and not undercut by careless

work practices or last minute substitutions. 

• To stay within budget, hard decisions

have to be made. EPA’s lab at Research

Triangle Park built a multistory parking deck rather than cut down 20 acres

of trees. Project managers found the

extra money for the deck by eliminating over 200 interior doors and downgrading some finish materials to equally durable but less costly alternatives.

The symposium itself was planned as a

green event. Thanks to paperless advertising through a Web site, attendees came

from as far away as Japan and A l a s k a .

Conference committee organizers selected

hotels that had implemented pollution

prevention practices. Coincidentally, they

found that those hotels also provided fir s t

rate guest services. Hotels which were not

selected expressed an interest in learning

more about pollution prevention (and will

be contacted). 

Correspondence on the conference was

conducted by e-mail to reduce the paper

and mailing costs. Bus transportation

was provided to and from hotels to reduce

the number of cars driven. Symposium

materials were printed back to back on

kenaf or 100% postconsumer content

p a p e r. A s t u r d y, generic “REGISTRATION” banner was created that can be

used by all three agencies for future

events. Refreshments were served on china plates and cups. Pop cans, plastic juice

glasses, newspaper, and cardboard from

the symposium were recycled. Speakers

were encouraged not to bring paper handouts, but instead to e-mail one-page summaries or electronic versions of their presentations for loading onto the Web site. 

The symposium Web site (www.

eeba.org/refb) offers summaries of all presentations. For more information, contact

Dianne Thiel, EPA Region 8, (303) 312-

6389; Diana Dean, USAFA, (719) 333-

4483; or Jennifer Davis, DOE, (303) 275-

4 8 3 6 .

First-Ever Enviro n m e n t a l

Post Offic e

A ground-breaking environmental design

concept for post offices literally broke

ground in February 1998 on the fir s t - o f -

its-kind “green” post office building in

Fort Worth, Texas. A showcase demonstration, the project will test and compare

green materials and systems to standard

construction materials and systems in

cost, availability, performance, maintenance, and aesthetics. The project supports the leadership role that the U.S.

Postal Service has taken in environmental protection. 

The new post office will display the full

roster of environmentally friendly components: use of recycled materials, energy efficient systems, natural vegetation, rainwater harvesting, natural gas fueling of USPS

vehicles, non-toxic products and products

low in volatile organic compounds. The U.S.

Postal Service is a major builder, adding

500-700 new buildings annually to its stock

of about 35,000 facilities.

The “Green Building” is located at

2700 8th Avenue in Fort Worth and will

replace the Berry Street Station. F o r

more information, contact Joyce Stubblefield, (214) 665-6430.
E PA Issues Final SEP Policy

E

PA has issued a final Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy.

The final policy was effective May 1, 1998,

and supersedes the Interim SEP P o l i c y.

SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that a defendant or respondent

agrees to undertake in the settlement of

an enforcement action, the performance

of which is not otherwise legally required

of the defendant or respondent. EPA

encourages the use of SEPs which are

consistent with the SEP Policy in settling

enforcement actions, including those at

federal facilities. 

Most of the changes made to the Interim SEP Policy are clarifications to the existing language. There are no radical changes

and the basic structure and operation of the

S E P Policy remain the same. The major

changes to the SEP Policy include: 

• Adding a new section on community

i n p u t .

• Changing some of the categories of

acceptable projects, including a new

“other” category.

• Adding a prohibition on the use of

SEPs to mitigate claims for stipulated

penalties except in certain defin e d ,

extraordinary circumstances with the

approval of the Assistant A d m i n i s t r ator for the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (OECA).

• Simplifying the penalty calculation by

providing better definitions and using

five steps rather than three. A c a l c u l ation worksheet, keyed to the text of the

p o l i c y, has been added. The penalty

mitigation guidelines have been clarified but not substantively changed. 

• Revising the legal guidelines to

improve clarity and provide better

guidance. The nexus legal guideline

has been revised to make it easier to

a p p l y. The fifth legal guideline concerning appropriations has been revised

and subdivided into four sections. 

Questions regarding the final SEP

Policy should be directed to Ann Kline,

OECA, (202) 564-0119. For more information about SEP issues as they affect

federal facilities, contact Melanie Barger

G a r v e y, FFEO, (202) 564-2579. 

E PA Issues Interim Air

Quality Policy on Wi l d l a n d

and Prescribed Fire s

O

n May 15, 1998, EPA issued a national policy that addresses how fires can

be used and managed in order to achieve

national clean air goals (including EPA’s

national air quality

standards for particulate matter), while

improving the quality

of wildland ecosystems, including

forests and grasslands. EPA w o r k e d

with the U.S. Departments of A g r i c u lture, Defense, and the Interior, as well as

state foresters, state and tribal air regulators, and others to develop the policy. 

The policy provides immediate guidance to federal land managers, states,

and tribes on how to manage fires on

wildlands and still meet air quality goals.

E PA plans to revisit the policy after further analysis of agricultural burning and

regional haze. EPA is working with a

U S D A task force to determine how best

to treat air quality impacts from agricultural burning, and how to distinguish

between wildland fires, which are covered by this policy, and agricultural burning, which is not. 

Recognizing the critical role fire plays

in the maintenance of healthy wildland

ecosystems and the serious problems

caused by fire suppression, in 1995 the

Departments of Agriculture and Interior

jointly released the results of a Federal

Wildland Fire Management Policy and

Program Review in 1995. The report formally recognized endorsed a signific a n t

increase in the use of planned or managed fire, called “prescribed fire,” as a

normal land and resource management

tool. Future plans to manage fire on wildlands must incorporate public health and

environmental considerations, including

air quality. 

E PA’s Interim Policy applies to both

wildland and prescribed fires that are

managed to benefit resources or the environment. Wildland owners and managers

are encouraged to notify air quality managers of plans to significantly increase

their use of fire on wildlands; consider the

air quality and visibility impacts from

smoke and take appropriate steps to minimize the impacts; consider

alternative treatments to fir e ,

including mechanical and

chemical treatments; and participate in planning and implementing state and tribal smoke

management programs. 

Smoke management

programs provide a basic framework of

procedures and requirements for managing smoke from prescribed fires. Some

states already have smoke management

programs in place. The Interim Policy

outlines the components of a basic smoke

management program. Under the policy,

federally prescribed fire projects would

conform with state requirements (i.e.,

state implementation plans) if they are

managed under a certified basic smoke

management program. The program

must require regional coordination (cooperation of all jurisdictions in an airshed)

when authorizing fires and real-time air

quality monitoring at sensitive receptors,

when warranted, in addition to the basic

program components.

For more information, EPA’s Interim

P o l i c y, a fact sheet, and other materials are

available on EPA’s Airlinks Web site at

h t t p : / / w w w.epa.gov/airlinks/ and may

be downloaded from http://www. e p a . g o v /

ttn/oarpg. For more information, contact

Jean Rice, 202-564-2589.

P o l i c i e s

F i re plays a 

critical role in the

maintenance of

healthy wildland

and ecosystems
REGION 1

E

lectric Boat Corporation and

KAPL, Inc: E PA Region 1 has brought

two companion enforcement cases under

T S C A against KAPL, Inc. and Electric

Boat Corporation (EB). KAPL, Inc. (owned

by Lockheed Martin) is an operations cont r a c t o r, and EB is a subcontractor, at a

DOE facility in Wi n d s o r, Connecticut. The

facility is part of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, a program jointly administered by DOE and the U.S. Navy.

K A P L and DOE were co-permittees on

an “Approval for Disposal of PCB-Contaminated Materials” issued by Region 1,

which governed the disposal of PCB paint

being removed from storage tanks. The

Approval allowed a variance from the

T S C A disposal regulations and set general

operational and notification requirements

for the work at the Windsor facility. Under

an EPA-approved work plan setting forth

s p e c i fic requirements for the handling and

disposal of the PCBs, KAPL and DOE were

required to use disposable personal protective equipment (PPE) to the maximum

extent practicable and to dispose of such

PPE with the PCB waste. The work plan

required that any non-disposable equipment be cleaned and tested for PCBs.

On December 27, 1996, DOE inspected

the PCB paint removal work being performed by KAPL and EB and discovered

that EB personnel were using launderable coveralls and hoods instead of disposable PPE. In addition to this violation,

DOE also learned that, on two prior occasions, launderable coveralls and hoods

had been shipped to a commercial laundry

in New Bedford, MA without having been

tested for the presence of PCBs. A load of

launderable coveralls awaiting shipment

to the laundry was tested for PCBs; the

test results showed that concentrations of

PCBs on the coveralls were high enough

to require compliance with TSCA.

Although DOE knew, on December 27,

1996, of actual and potential violations,

instead of reporting them to EPA Region 1

within 24 hours as required under the

terms of the Approval permit, DOE

reported the matter to EPA one week late r, on January 3, 1997.

Region 1 filed administrative civil

penalty actions against KAPL and EB for

violations of the Approval and TSCA r e gulations. DOE was not named as a

respondent. EB paid $13,600 and KAPL

paid $12,750 in penalties.. 

REGION 3

U

.S. Mint, Philadelphia, PA : On January 23, 1998, EPA Region 3 filed a

Clean Air Act administrative complaint

against the Department of Tr e a s u r y,

United States Mint for its Philadelphia

f a c i l i t y. The complaint alleges violations

of the chrome plating National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)

regulations. Some of the allegations

relate to potentially serious environmental impacts resulting from the failure to

recover or recycle CFCs when servicing

appliances such as air conditioners and

water coolers. The proposed penalty is

$ 119,000. The complaint included a notice

of opportunity for a hearing and an invitation to request an informal settlement

conference. EPA understands that the

U.S. Mint is interested in a SEP as part of

the settlement. 

Naval Surface Warfare Center

(White Oak Facility) Silver Spring,

MD: E PA Region 3 issued a unilateral

administrative order to the Navy in March

1998 requiring cleanup at the Navy’s

White Oak facility. Although EPA and the

Navy had been negotiating a RCRA S e ction 7003 order on consent for over a year,

no settlement could be reached. Contamination has gone off-site at the White Oak

f a c i l i t y, and there is substantial local concern about the delay in cleaning up contaminated groundwater. Contaminants of

greatest concern in the groundwater are

heavy metals, nitroaromatic compounds,

and TCE. 

Washington Navy Ya r d / A n a c o s t i a

Naval Station: On May 20, 1998, the

Navy and EPA settled two administrative

complaints which alleged that the Navy

violated hazardous waste management

regulations at the Washington Navy Ya r d

and the Anacostia Naval Station in Wa s hington, D.C. The Navy agreed to pay a

total of $69,000 in penalties for failing to

properly train personnel who handle hazardous waste, failing to keep proper

records of the training, accumulating hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a permit, and failing to keep certain

records of hazardous waste that cannot be

disposed of on land unless it is properly

treated. The Navy also agreed to comply

with regulatory requirements for training,

record-keeping and accumulating hazardous waste for less than 90 days.

REGION 4

N

avy and DRMS, USS Robison,

Charleston, SC: E PA Region 4

issued an order against the Department

of Navy and the Defense Reutilization

and Marketing Service (DRMS) for

asbestos violations associated with the

demolition of the USS Robison at the

Naval Shipyard in Charleston, South

Carolina. The order was issued pursuant

to Section 113(a) (3) (B) of the Clean A i r

Act for violations of the NESHAP f o r

asbestos. The Navy and DRMS failed to

thoroughly inspect the facility where renovation occurred for the presence of

asbestos, and removal of asbestos was

done without proper wetting or containment of asbestos-containing waste materials. Although EPA has the authority to

issue an administrative penalty order,

E PA issued the order without penalties in

recognition of the cooperation Region 4

has received from the Ship Sales Program of the DRMS of the Defense Logistics Agency and from the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in this

m a t t e r. 

T h e H a m m e r

Continued on page 10
Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville,

Alabama: On April 7, 1998, Region 4

filed an administrative complaint against

the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, for violations of

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA ) .

This is the first penalty action taken

against a federal facility under Section

1447 of SDWA. The complaint, pursuant

to the SDWA and the newly revised Part

22, seeks penalties of up to $25,000 per

day per violation.

The action addresses violations uncovered during a March 18-19, 1997, multimedia inspection at Redstone. The

inspection and subsequent investigation

revealed that Redstone violated the Surface Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule, and Public Notification Rule,

including a maximum contaminant level

(MCL) violation of total coliform. Redstone also failed to properly operate and

maintain its storage tanks and reservoirs, a water main flushing program,

and a disinfectant residual in the distribution system, to meet the MCL for total

coliform. The Region had issued an

administrative order on June 30, 1997, to

address the injunctive relief required to

bring Redstone’s system back into compliance. 

REGION 6 

C

orpus Christi Naval Station, TX:

E PA Region 6 issued an Notice of Vi olation to the Corpus Christi Naval A i r

Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, on May

29, 1998, pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of

the Clean Air Act. During the air portion

of the multimedia inspection conducted

on July 16 and 17, 1997, at the Corpus

Christi Naval Air Station, the EPA

inspector noted several violations, including: (1) failure to keep doors closed and to

properly operate a dry filter system for a

spray paint booth, and (2) failure to

maintain the minimum face velocity of

100 feet per minute (fpm) at the intake

opening of each booth or work area. As a

result, the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station as owner and Raytheon as operator

ing to provide adequate release detection

methods on an underground storage

tank, as required by state regulations.

The operator of the facility has corrected

the violation and paid a penalty of $300.

US A r m y, Fort Polk, LA: On 

January 13, 1998, Shopette #3 at Fort

Polk was issued a compliance order and

settlement agreement for failing to provide adequate release detection methods

on three underground storage tanks as

required by state regulations. The operator of the facility has corrected the violation and paid the $750 penalty. 

Another building at Fort Polk (Building 1725) was the cause of a second compliance order and settlement agreement

issued on January 13, 1998 for failure to

provide proper testing and maintenance

on four underground storage tanks. The

operator of the facility has corrected the

violation and paid the $800 penalty. 

Tinker Air Force Base, OK: A c o mplaint and “notice of opportunity for hearing” were issued to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City on January 13, 1998, for

violations of RCRA underground storage

tank (UST) regulations uncovered in a

May 1997 inspection. The facility had

failed to provide methods of release

detection for tanks and attached piping,

failed to maintain detection records, and

failed to notify the state within 30 days of

placing an UST into operation.

U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, A R :

The U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine

Bluff, Arkansas, has been issued a “show

cause letter” under Executive Order

12856, “Federal Compliance with Rightto-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention

Requirements.” On January 12, 1998, an

E P C R A compliance inspection was conducted at the Pine Bluff facility. Prior

n o t i fication had been given in order for

facility personnel to ensure that appropriate documents were available for

r e v i e w. From the information made available by Pine Bluff Arsenal, the facility

had failed to report toxic chemicals to

E PA and the State of Arkansas as

required and failed to maintain the necessary records. On September 8, 1998,

E PA determined Pine Bluff to be compliant with EPCRA § 3 1 3 .

of this paint booth were found not to be

operating the spray booth in Hangar 55

in accordance with 30 TAC §106.433 and

thus in violation of 30 TAC §106.04. This

rule is part of the federally-enforceable

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

E PA also cited the facility for construction and operation of several spray

booths without the required permits and

standard exemptions, and the failure to

notify the state within 30 days on the construction of two boilers, required by 40

CFR §60.48c(a). The facility responded in

writing to EPA on June 7, 1998, and met

with EPA enforcement and legal staff on

June 23, 1998, to discuss the notice and

to present its plans for achieving complia n c e .

US Forest Service, Penasco, NM:

The U.S. Forest Service was issued an

administrative order on April 30, 1998 for

failing to collect the required number of

water samples from the Duran Campground water distribution system located

in Taos County, New Mexico, and submitting them to a state-certified laboratory.

The order requires the U.S. Forest Service to comply with the requirements of

the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.

§§300f to 330j-26, as amended) regarding

monitoring for total coliform bacteria and

the presence of total coliform bacteria in

the water system. A violator of an administrative order is subject to an administrative penalty or a court-imposed penalty of up to $25,000 per day for the

v i o l a t i o n .

Barksdale Air Force Base, LA: A n

administrative complaint, compliance

o r d e r, and “notice of opportunity for hearing” were filed against Barksdale A F B

under RCRA Section 9006 after an EPA

inspector found violations of underground storage tank regulations in a May

1997 inspection. EPA is requiring Barksdale AFB to conduct a system’s test of all

UST systems in violation (tank and lines)

and submit the results to the Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

and EPA, Region 6.

US Postal Service, Shreveport, LA:

On January 13, 1998, the U.S. Postal

Service facility at 2400 Texas Av e n u e ,

Shreveport, LA was issued a compliance

order and settlement agreement for failTHE HAMMER

Continued from page 9
E n v i ronmentally Pre f e rre d

P u rchasing Tr a i n i n g

I

n April, over 70 federal agency personnel and others attended a training session on environmentally preferred purchasing held at the Department of

C o m m e r c e ’s National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories in

B o u l d e r, Colorado. Hosted by EPA, the

Region 8 Pollution Prevention Program,

and the Denver Federal Acquisition Council, the program was targeted toward affirmative procurement specialists, supply

specialists, purchasing agents, contracting

o f ficers and environmental managers and

staff responsible for implementing an affirmative procurement program. Environmentally preferred purchasing addresses

multiple environmental attributes, such as

recycled content, toxicity, air pollution

potential, etc.

The featured speaker at the A p r i l

training session was Fran McPoland, the

Federal Environmental Executive, who

discussed accomplishments to date and

what remains to be done to fulfill the

requirements of E.O.12873. Other speakers included Kim Holland, Defense Supply Center, Richmond, who discussed rer e fined motor oil and closed loop oil

recycling within the federal government

and the new government-wide contract

awarded to Safety Kleen for sale of rer e fined motor oil and recycling of used oil.

Doenee Moscato from the Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, presented an overview of the

A r m y ’s A f firmative Procurement (AP)

Program, and a briefing on its Web site.

Cheryl Galida, USDA Forest Service in

Fort Collins, presented new and practical

innovations for including pollution prevention in procurement practices. Gilbert

B a i l e y, EPA Region 8, reviewed the purchasing practices used by DoD in its case

s t u d y, Paving the Road to Success. P a t r icia Kain, US Postal Service, Denver, discussed her efforts in affirmative purchasing and pollution prevention through

purchasing practices. For more information, contact Ernie Lombardi at (303) 312-

6388. 

E n v i ronmental Justice

Workshop for Federal 

Facilities 

F

FEO and Region 6 held an Environmental Justice Workshop in Dallas,

Texas in January 1998 for federal agency

environmental managers and other

stakeholders. Participants discussed the

June 1997 report, “Federal Facilities

Environmental Justice Enforcement Initiative” which analyzed TRI reports from

federal facilities for 1994. Wo r k s h o p

members discussed the risk and health

effects posed by the facilities and pollution prevention factors which have led to

a decrease in reported toxic emissions in

the past several years. 

As a follow-up to the meeting, Region

6 provided federal agencies with environmental justice GIS maps for individual

facilities. Also provided was a health indicator model developed by EPA’s Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, known

as the TRI Relative Risk-Based Chronic

Human Health Indicator. This model provides a relative risk ranking for each

C o n f e re n c eU p d a t e

Continued on page 12

REGION 9

F

resno Drum Removal Site: On May

28, 1998, EPA finalized an administrative order on consent with the U.S.

Department of Defense (including the

A r m y, Navy, Air Force, and Defense

Logistics Agency) under Section 122(h)(1)

of CERCLA. Under the order, DoD will

pay $387,000 into a special account for

future response actions at the site and

will seek Congressional appropriations of

$778,425 as reimbursement for past

response costs, together with amounts

necessary to reimburse EPA for any

future costs in excess of $387,000. The

settlement amount represents 90% of

total past costs and estimated future

costs. DoD will pay 100% of any future

costs which exceed EPA’s future cost estimate. If DoD’s Congressional request is

unsuccessful, it is obliged to continue

seeking reimbursements until FY 2005. 

The Fresno site is an abandoned military surplus resale facility. From approximately 1961 until 1986, the owner/operator of the site purchased out-of-date or offs p e c i fication hazardous substances from

DoD agencies. The hazardous substances

included thickened red lead paint that

accumulated at the site and was released

into the environment as the result of deteriorating containers and fire. EPA’s inventory indicated that all of the drums and

containers which still had evidence of

hazardous substances bore military

markings. Past response actions at the

site include EPA’s removal of over 4000

drums and containers. 

McClellan Air Force Base, CA: T h e

1999 National Defense Authorization A c t ,

as passed by the House of Representatives and presented to the Senate on May

22, 1998, would authorize the payment of

penalties assessed under CERCLA f o r

McClellan Air Force Base. Section 2821 of

H.R. 3616 authorizes up to $15,000. The

full text and related legislative documents are available from the Library of

C o n g r e s s ’ Web site, at http://thomas.

l o c . g o v.

THE HAMMER

Continued from page 10
E

PA’s latest TRI data show a decrease

of 24.9% in environmental releases

from federal facilities between 1995 and

1996. Federal facilities reported releasing

6.5 million pounds of TRI chemicals into

the environment, down from 8.7 million

pounds in 1995. Since federal facilities

began reporting to TRI in 1994, total

reported on-site and off-site releases have

dropped by 50.4 percent (from 11 million

pounds to 5.4 million pounds of core TRI

chemicals that were reportable in each

year). Executive Order 12856, which

required federal facilities to report toxic

releases, also required federal agencies to

develp goals to reduce their total releases

by 50 percent by December 31, 1999.

For the second year in a row, the number of federal facilities reporting to TRI

has dropped. A total of 133 federal facilities from 13 federal agencies submitted

378 reports to TRI for 1996 (down from

144 facilities in 1995 and 193 facilities in

1994). The largest number of facilities

reporting were from DoD (56%), followed

by the Department of Energy (14%). 

Two thirds of all on-site and off-site

releases in 1996 were air emissions; air

emissions also showed the largest

decrease over the previous year (28.7%).

The top three chemicals released into the

environment were dichloromethane (a

designated OSHA carcinogen), methyl

ethyl ketone, and CFC-114, almost all of

which represented air emissions.

Of the 378 TRI forms submitted, only

41% indicated at least one source reduction activity underway in 1996. The most

prevalent type of source reduction activity undertaken was good operating practices, mentioned on 46% of forms reporting source reduction activity. Two of the

facilities with the largest decreases in

releases were Tinker AFB in Oklahoma

and Robins AFB in Georgia, which

reduced air emissions of dichloromethane

by a combined total of 293,000 pounds

through source reduction programs. 

Information on obtaining TRI data is

available from EPA’s EPCRA hotline at 1-

800-535-0202 or online from the TRI

home page at http://www. e p a . g o v / o p p tintr/tri. TRI data can also be accessed

through the Right-to-Know Computer

Network at http://www. r t k . n e t .

Federal Facilities Reach E.O. Goal!

1996 TRI Releases from Federal Facilities Drop 25% Over 1995 and 50% Over 1994

facility based on its toxic emissions.

Region 6 also introduced the Federal

Facilities Risk Index Analysis (FRIA), a

c o m p u t e r-based risk assessment model

for federal facilities related to environmental justice concerns. (See story on

page 5.) For more information, contact

Darlene Boerlage at (202) 564-2593.

NEJAC Meeting Held in

Oakland, California 

T

he 12th meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

was held in Oakland, CA on May 31-June

3, 1998. The EPA O f fice of Environmental

Justice (OEJ) and Region 9, led by Region

9 Administrator Felicia Marcus and her

team of environmental justice coordinators, hosted the meeting. The meeting

began with a tour of industrial and chemical plants, an incinerator and a Superfund site. Sylvia Lowrance [Deputy A s s i stant Administrator for OECA] opened the

general session by welcoming the participants and announcing that NEJAC will

be forming two new subcommittees to

address water and air issues. 

Lois Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural

Resources Division of the Department of

Justice, discussed numerous EJ cases,

including several criminal violations,

which DOJ has pursued this year. These

cases included asbestos violations and the

misuse of the pesticide methyl parathion.

Ms. Schiffer also described an EJ case

analysis training course developed by

DOJ attorneys for District of Columbia

high school students. Brad Campbell of

the Council on Environmental Quality

presented CEQ’s long-awaited final guidance document, “Environmental Justice

Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy A c t . ”

The six NEJAC subcommittees

(enforcement, health and research, hazardous waste and facility siting, indigenous peoples, international, and public

participation) met simultaneously. EPA

Assistant Administrator Steve Herman,

co-leading the Enforcement Subcommittee, emphasized the continuing need for a

strong enforcement foundation within

E PA and stated that the past year has

shown the strongest enforcement numbers ever. The Health and Research Subcommittee viewed a presentation on the

Lead-Based Paint program and its effect

on children in Maryland. The Hazardous

Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee

addressed the draft Relocation Policy for

Superfund Sites. NEJAC and other

stakeholders have provided comments on

this draft policy which describes when a

community should be relocated from a

hazardous waste location for their health

p r o t e c t i o n .

During several sessions of public comment, communities around military

installations expressed the need for more

open communication between the facility

environmental program personnel, advisory board, and local reuse board on the

cleanup at the facility. Communities want

to be involved early on in the decision

process and they want their input to be

incorporated into the cleanup which is

selected and implemented at the site. F o r

more information on NEJAC or environmental justice at EPA, go to

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oejbut.html or

contact Darlene Boerlage, FFEO, at (202)

5 6 4 - 2 5 9 3 .

CONFERENCE UPDAT E

Continued from page 11
C FA s

O

n March 10-12, 1998, the First A n n ual Civilian Federal Agency Environmental Symposium was held in Denver,

Colorado. Sponsored by the CFA E n v i r o nmental Task Force, the focus of the symposium was on partnerships to achieve

facility-level compliance with environmental regulations. Presentations

emphasized solutions to environmental

compliance issues and shared real-world

examples of efforts that have gone beyond

regulatory compliance requirements.

More than 425 field-level personnel and

environmental managers attended from

over 20 civilian agencies. During the

three days of the symposium, approximately 80 speakers from a dozen agencies

covered 50 topics in both panel and breakout session formats.

The symposium follows a successful

workshop in 1997 for CFA field personnel

(civilian federal agencies are defined as

agencies other than DoD and DOE). Panel discussions addressed such topics as

the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’s Clean Water A c t i o n

Plan; criminal liabilities at federal agencies; and environmental responsibilities

of the federal community on tribal/environmental justice issues. Senior managers from EPA and the Departments of

Agriculture, Interior, and Justice discussed environmental compliance at

C FAs, followed by a session of state perspectives on CFA compliance. Three

break-out sessions were held concurrently each day on the themes of facility environmental management, tools for regulatory compliance, and environmental

management systems. 

To limit the amount of “leftover” handouts from the presentations, on the back

of each attendee’s name badge was listed

a set of numbers correlated to each presentation. Attendees circled the presentation number and when the name badges

were collected, requestor lists and mailing labels were generated and forwarded

to each of the presenters. In addition to

cutting down on excess presentation

materials, this method gives presenters a

list of people with similar interests for

future interaction.

Comments on the Symposium indicated that the event was well received, even,

as several people noted, “way overdue”

and “a great start at getting us all togethe r.” Suggestions received will be incorporated into next year’s symposium — stay

tuned for the date and location!

C FA Compliance Assistance

Center: We’d Like Yo u r

F e e d b a c k !

FFEO is considering establishing a Compliance Assistance Center to serve CFA s .

This would be a centralized source offering CFA facility and environmental managers quick responses to compliance

inquiries. Delivery mechanisms could

include a dedicated telephone assistance

line and an Internet Web site. We’d like

your feedback! Please take a few minutes

to complete the survey on the back of this

page, then either fax it to (202) 501-0069

or mail it to the address below.

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

PLEASE 

AFFIX 

POSTAGE

Fe dFa c s

Susan We i n e r

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261A)

U.S. Environmental Protection A g e n c y

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

First Annual CFA Symposium Held in Denver

TURN OVER FOR 

S U RVEY FORM
1 . What organizations within your agency/bureau need compliance assistance?

❏ H e a d q u a rt e r s ❏ Field Offices and Facilities

❏ H e a d q u a rters and Field Offic e s

2 . How many facilities do you have environmental management responsibilities for? 

❏ 1 - 1 0 ❏ 1 0 - 2 0

❏ 2 0 - 5 0 ❏ M o re than 50

3 . What kinds of compliance assistance does your agency/bureau need?

❏ R e g u l a t o ry compliance policy and guidance manuals ❏ Te c h n i c a l / t e c h n o l o g y

❏ R e s e a rch and development ❏ On-site assistance

❏ Other (specify)________________________________

4 . What kinds of compliance information would be helpful to your org a n i z a t i o n ?

❏ Waste management ❏ E n v i ronmental restoration and re m e d i a t i o n

❏ M u l t i - m e d i a ❏ Media- or statute-specific assistance

❏ E n v i ronmental Management Systems (EMS) ❏ P e rm i t s

❏ E n v i ronmental technologies ❏ Pollution prevention (P2)

❏ E n v i ronmental justice ❏ P roject tracking

❏ Other (specify)________________________________

5 . W h e re does your agency currently seek compliance assistance?

❏ E PA Federal Facilities Enforcement Offic e ❏ E PA Regional Offices 

❏ E PA hotlines or clearinghouses ❏ E PA Internet home page

❏ E n v i ro$en$e home page

❏ Other (specify)________________________________

6 . How often does your organization seek compliance assistance from any sourc e ?

❏ N e v e r ❏ 5-10 times per month

❏ 1-5 times per month ❏ M o re than 10 times per month

7 . What kinds of difficulties have you encountered in seeking compliance assistance?

❏ Lack of timely response to assistance inquiries ❏ Assistance not re l e v a n t

❏ Assistance not specific enough ❏ U n s u re where to go for assistance

❏ D i rected to other assistance sources (i.e., the “ru n - a ro u n d ” )

❏ Other (specify)________________________________

8 . Of the following types of compliance assistance services dedicated to CFAs, which would your organization use most often?

❏ Field center ❏ Web site

❏ H o t l i n e ❏ L i s t s e rv mailing list

❏ Tr a i n i n g

9 . Would your agency be interested in contributing funding to maintain a CFA compliance assistance center? 

❏ Yes ❏ N o ❏ D o n ’t know

1 0 . W h e re are you located?

❏ H e a d q u a rt e r s ❏ Field (facility/installation) ❏ Regional Offic e

C FA COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE CENTER SURV E Y

W h e re applicable, check all that apply.

Please fold, affix postage, 

and mail.
R e s o u rc e s

OECA Docket and 

I n f o rmation Center Opens

O

E C A has announced the opening of

the Enforcement and Compliance

Docket and Information Center (ECDIC),

located in Room 4033 of the Ariel Rios

Building in Washington, DC. ECDIC provides the public and EPA staff with a central location for retrieving rulemaking

docket materials, OECA policy and guidance documents, and other public information that supports the A g e n c y ’s

enforcement and compliance activities.

ECDIC opened in early January 1998

and now houses over 600 policy and guidance dockets, 100 publications, and several

regulatory dockets. Holdings include the

Audit Policy Docket, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy, and the annual

Enforcement Accomplishments Report.

ECDIC reflects EPA’s recent efforts to

provide better public access to A g e n c y

records and information. Reading, photocopying, fax, and mail distribution facilities

are available. The center is open for business from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. For more

information, contact Lee Carothers, (202)

564-2614 or Donna Williams, (202) 564-

2 119 ( d o c k e t . o e c a @ e p a m a i l . e p a . g o v ) , or check

out the ECDIC Web site at

h t t p : / / e s . e p a . g o v / o e c a / p o l g u i d / e n f d o c k .

h t m l .

E PA Issues Risk-Based

Policy for Federal Facilities

On August 21, 1998, EPA issued the longawaited “Interim Final Policy on the Use

of Risk-Based Methodologies in Setting

Priorities for Cleanup Actions at Federal

Facilities.” This policy implements one of

the A d m i n i s t r a t o r’s Superfund reforms,

s p e c i fically addressing “the use of riskbased priority setting for determining

federal facility clean-up milestones.” It

also implements Chapter 5 of the Final

Report of the Federal Facilities Envionmental Restoration Dialogue Committee

(FFERDC), also known as the “Keystone”

report, issued in April 1996. The policy

establishes a process for EPA, federal

agencies, states, tribal governments, and

stakeholders to use risk and other factors

to establish the respective priority of a

site for cleanup.

The policy helps regulated agencies

integrate risk-based planning with their

budget processes and ensures that

enforceable milestones can still be included in federal facility agreements. For a

copy of the policy, contact: Darlene Boerlage, OECA, at (202) 564-2593, or Joyce

Olin, OECA, at (202) 564-2582, or Remi

Langum, OSWER, at (202) 260-2457.

Facts About “The Federal Fifteen” 

E

PA has analyzed federal facility TRI data for 1994 and 1995 to: 1) determine the most

commonly used and released chemicals; 2) identify current pollution prevention

approaches and ongoing P2 research and development to lower or substitute the use of

toxic chemicals; and 3) identify potential R&D/transition needs.

The results of this analysis are presented in a series of 15 chemical fact sheets. Each

fact sheet contains: a chemical profile, statistics on the generation, release, and reduction

of the chemical, and the federal facilities reporting that chemical under TRI. Fact sheets

also include descriptions of currently available P2 approaches and technologies and identify ongoing P2 R&D projects. Fact sheets are available for the following chemicals:

To order copies of these documents, place a check beside the document you want and

mail or fax this page to FFEO. 

Name: 

O r g a n i z a t i o n :

Address: 

Telephone Number: 

Mail to: Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261A)

U.S. EPA

401 M Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Fax to: 202-501-0069

❏ 1 , 1 , 1 - Tr i c h l o ro e t h a n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 A

❏ A m m o n i a E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 B

❏ C h romium Compounds E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 C

❏ D i c h l o ro m e t h a n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 D

❏ D i c h l o ro t e t r a flu o ro e t h a n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 E

❏ Ethylene Glycol E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 F

❏ F reon 113 E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 G

❏ H y d rochloric Acid E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 H

❏ M e t h a n o l E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 I

❏ Methyl Ethyl Ketone E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 J

❏ Nitrate Compounds E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 K

❏ Te t r a c h l o ro e t h y l e n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 L

❏ To l u e n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 M

❏ Tr i c h l o ro e t h y l e n e E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 N

❏ Xylene (Mixed Isomers) E PA - 3 0 0 - F - 9 8 - 0 0 2 O
I n t e r a g e n c y

I

n April, the Department of Defense

released a report of the Interagency

Panel on Ship Scrapping. The panel was

convened in response to issues raised in a

Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the B a l t imore Sun about the poor environmental,

health, and safety conditions in both

domestic and overseas scrapping facilities. The panel was asked to review the

Navy and US Maritime A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

programs to scrap vessels and to identify

ways to ensure that vessels are scrapped

in an environmentally sound and economically feasible manner. Agencies represented on the panel included the Departments of Defense, Justice, Labor, and

State, as well as the Coast Guard,

Defense Logistics A g e n c y, EPA, Maritime

Administration, and the Navy.

The panel’s deliberations resulted in a

number of recommendations for improving domestic and international ship

scrapping and strengthening oversight of

this complex industrial endeavor.

PCB Guidance

The panel recommended that EPA a n d

OSHA, along with DLA, the Navy, and

MARAD, develop guidance for the testing, removal, and disposal of non-liquid

PCBs in accordance with applicable rules

and regulations. EPA is evaluating the

usefulness of recent sampling data from

the Navy and MARAD and in developing

the guidance. The sampling data will also

be used to estimate the volume of waste

in order to establish financial assurance

for required closure plans.

I m p roved Regulatory Oversight

of Ship Scrapping Operations

In order to improve oversight of scrapping

operations, the panel recommended that

E PA, Navy, MARAD, and OSHA agree to

notify EPA and OSHA when a ship scrapping contract is let and the location of the

proposed scrapping operation; invite EPA

and OSHA participation in postaward/pre-performance conferences at

which environmental plans are reviewed;

and share compliance histories of

prospective bidders at the request of DLA

or MARAD. EPA has developed a draft

memorandum of understanding that will

be shared with the other agencies for

review and consideration. EPA has also

written to both Navy

and MARAD seeking

information on numbers and locations of

surplus vessels in

their fleets and information regarding

facilities that are or

have been engaged in

scrapping Navy or

MARAD vessels.

The panel further

encouraged EPA a n d

O S H A to conduct joint compliance inspections of ship scrapping operations. Several weeks ago, OSHA, EPA Region 6, and

E PA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center informally visited ship

scrapping facilities in Brownsville, Te x a s .

The results of the EPA visits are currently under review and will be used to help

develop a protocol for comprehensive,

multimedia environmental inspections of

ship scrapping operations.

The panel also urged EPA — and EPA

has agreed — to develop a compliance

manual that outlines relevant environmental requirements for ship scrappers.

The manual will be a longer term project

involving EPA’s Office of Compliance,

DLA, DRMS, and the expertise of industry groups, such as the Institute of Scrap

R e c y c l e r s .

E x p o rt Agre e m e n t s

Under current TSCA regulations, export

of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or

greater for purposes of disposal is prohibited. EPA has entered into agreements

with the Navy and MARAD which would

allow export of vessels for scrapping, provided that liquid PCBs are removed from

the vessels along with all non-liquid

PCBs that are readily removable without

impairing the seaworthiness of the vess e l s .

Because of concerns about environmental and worker safety conditions in

foreign scrapping

yards, both Navy and

MARAD agreed to

suspend exports pending the results of the

Ship Scrapping Panel.

As a result of panel

discussions, EPA, the

N a v y, and MARAD

have agreed that, prior to any export of

vessels, the export

agreements will be

revised to require providing receiving countries with more

detailed information about the materials

commonly found on the ships and to provide for tacit agreement if a country does

not object to the export within 30 days of

n o t i fication that a ship might be exported.

E PA agreed to review the export agreements annually to evaluate their use and

determine whether they should remain in

f o r c e .

Since the report was issued, neither

the Navy nor MARAD has formally

approached EPA to reinstate the export

agreements. The emphasis has been on

encouraging the domestic market and to

evaluate the effectiveness and capacity of

that market. EPA is currently working

with MARAD to address issues related to

Ship Scrapping Panel Issues Report

The panel recommended 

that EPA and OSHA, 

along with DLA, 

the Navy, and MARAD, 

develop guidance for 

the testing, removal, 

and disposal of 

non-liquid PCBs 
permitting, financial assurance, sampling of potential PCB- containing materials on vessels, and other issues to

ensure that, to the extent possible, U.S.

military vessels can be safely scrapped in

the domestic market. For more information, contact Joyce Olin, FFEO, (202) 564-

2 5 8 2 .

Wo r k g roup on Solid Wa s t e

L a n d fills on Tribal Lands

An interagency workgroup has been

formed to address solid waste issues on

tribal lands. The workgroup will seek to

clarify the nature and extent of municipal solid waste landfill problems affecting Indian tribes, and to develop a holistic strategy and action plan to address

the issues. The workgroup will develop a

process to obtain tribal input on the

action plan prior to its implementation.

In January 1998, senior officials from

E PA met with the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) at Interior Secretary Babbitt’s

request to discuss RCRA municipal solid

waste landfill and other environmental

issues affecting BIA and tribal lands. A t

the meeting EPA proposed to work with

BIA, IHS, and other federal agencies to

address solid waste issues on tribal

l a n d s .

The interagency workgroup is cochaired by the Acting Director of the Offic e

of Solid Waste and the Director of FFEO,

with participation from EPA, BIA, IHS,

and DoD. Several other agencies are

expected to join the workgroup in the

future. At its first meeting on April 29, the

workgroup agreed to the following agenda:

• Conduct an assessment of open

dumps in Indian Country;

• Develop a multi-year, interagency

action plan for addressing tribal solid

waste needs; and

• Develop a multi-year, interagency budget strategy for funding necessary activit i e s .

For more information, contact Melanie

Barger Garvey, FFEO, (202) 564-2574, or

Beverly Goldblatt, OSW, (703) 308-7278.

Guidance on Facility 

C l o s u re Published

Federal agencies routinely lease and

transfer real property in the course of carrying out their missions. One of the essential steps in modern real property transactions is evaluating candidate properties

for potential environmental contamination and liability. The Civilian Federal

Agency Task Force’s Subcommittee on

Facility Closures has developed a guidance document that summarizes the

requirements and processes for evaluating

potential liability from environmental

contamination It also provides an introduction to the larger context of environmental issues associated with real property transfers. EPA’s Safety, Health and

Environmental Management Division and

the Federal Aviation Administration will

use the document to jointly develop a CDROM training tool on Evaluating Environmental Liability for Property Tr a n sfers, to be released in 1999. The CFA Ta s k

F o r c e ’s “Guide to Evaluating Environmental Liability for Property Transfers” is

undergoing final revisions and will be

available soon in electronic and hard-copy

formats. For more information, contact

Will Garvey, FFEO, (202) 564-2458.

The Interagency Panel on Ship Scrapping reviewed U.S. efforts to ensure that ship

scrapping is done in an environmentally sound manner.

Note: EPA Region 3 is moving!

New address: U.S. Environmental Protection A g e n c y, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 1 9 1 0 3 - 2 0 2 9 .

Telephone numbers will retain the last 4 digits of the current numbers. The 3-digit

p r e fix changes from 566 to 814. For example, the phone of the Region 3 Federal Facility

C o o r d i n a t o r, William Arguto, changes from 215-566-3367 to 215-814-3367.
DOI facilities increasingly became a matter of concern for EPA and DOI. In

response, the DOI Solicitors Office proposed a meeting between Steve Herman,

E PA’s Assistant Administrator for

Enforcement and Compliance A s s u r a n c e

and the various DOI bureaus to explore a

process for improving regulatory compliance at DOI facilities. 

In discussions held in January 1998,

E PA and DOI agreed to work jointly to

enhance compliance assistance across

DOI bureaus and facilities with the overall goal of raising the level of regulatory

awareness and compliance at all DOI

facilities. This was the first time that

E PA had pledged to provide compliance

assistance across an entire federal

a g e n c y. As a result of the agreement,

Steve Herman requested that EPA

regional offices make compliance assistance for DOI facilities a priority in FY

1998 and 1999. Similarly, senior management at each of the five major DOI

bureaus — the National Park Service,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of

Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs — sent

a memorandum to regional and fie l d - l e vel personnel affirming the importance of

achieving compliance and urging cooperation with EPA. 

Over the past several months, DOI

and EPA have begun a review of environmental management at the mid and

senior levels of various bureaus. EPA

headquarters has funded the EPA r e g i o n s

to conduct field-level compliance assistance. Projects currently under consideration include: 

• Performing an inventory of facility-level compliance histories and using that

information to develop a compliance

assistance manual;

• Assisting facilities in Safe Drinking

Water Act source water protection

a s s e s s m e n t s ;

• Performing GIS-based cumulative risk

impact analysis; and 

• Directing compliance assistance 

to facility-based, contractor- o p e r a t e d

activities such as vehicle maintenance. 

A senior management level work group

has been formed to coordinate DOI/EPA

compliance activities, with representatives from the five bureaus and the US

Geological Survey. The workgroup has

met several times to develop objectives

and discuss compliance issues such as the

use of SEPs at DOI facilities, common regulated operational activities, and regulatory compliance by third parties at DOI

facilities. The work group has also examined other opportunities for large-scale

assistance, such as enhancing compliance

training for DOI facility personnel and

expanding regulatory compliance information systems available on the Internet.

One of the most innovative and farreaching efforts in the EPA/DOI compliance initiative is an analysis of current

environmental management systems

within the National Park Service (NPS),

including an analysis of support relationships between field-level facilities and

NPS and DOI headquarters environmental offices. This review is based on the

Code of Environmental Management

Principles (CEMP), which is designed

s p e c i fically for federal agencies. The fiv e

primary CEMP principles address management commitment; compliance assurance and pollution prevention; enabling

systems; performance and accountability;

and measurement and improvement. 

S i g n i ficant benefits from improved

compliance are expected at the 1000 or so

DOI facilities subject to EPA r e g u l a t i o n s .

M o r e o v e r, the initiative will yield compliance assistance tools that can be used by

other agencies, particularly those in the

civilian federal agency community. We

look forward to reporting on the successes achieved through this initiative as it

gets further underway.

On-Line Update

Interested in conferences/seminars in different Regions, Headquarters? Training opportunities? Here are some Web sites of note:

F F E O ’s FFLEX home page: http://www. e p a . g o v / o e c a / f e d f a c /

f flex.html 

Calendar available at http://es.epa.gov/new/contacts/calendar/

i n d e x . h t m l

O E C A home page: http://www.epa.gov/oeca 

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

National Enforcement Training Institute: http://www. e p a . g o v / o e c a / n e t i

Enviro$en$e home page: http://www. e p a . g o v / e n v i r o s e n s e

News, calendar, and training information available at http://www. e p a . g o v / n e w s . h t m l

For one-stop shopping on different topics, click on the FEDERAL C O O P E R AT I V E

button on the FFLEX home page (http://www. e p a . g o v / o e c a / f e d f a c / f flex.html). For federal agency site-links, click on the GOVERNMENTA L PARTNERS button. For more

information, contact Isabelle Lacayo, (202) 564-2578 or lacayo.isabelle@epa.gov.

DIRECTORS WORD

(continued fro m page 1)

The DOI/EPA compliance

initiative is the larg e s t

e ff o rt of its kind that FFEO

has ever undert a k e n .
Aw a rd s

Executive Order 12856 -

E n v i ronmental Challenge

Aw a rds Given

T

he second annual E n v i r o n m e n t a l

Challenge Awards have been presented

to three federal employees who demonstrated outstanding leadership in implementing the pollution prevention provisions of Executive Order 12856, which

pledges the federal government to protect

the environment by preventing pollution

at the source. Here are the winners!

Randall L. Spencer, U.S. Marine

Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base,

B a r s t o w, CA. M r. Spencer has been

instrumental in planning, designing, and

verifying Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments (PPOA) at the MCLB.

He has saved the U.S. Marine Corps

$900,000 in hazardous materials through

a program that allows employees to turn

in their unwanted but usable hazardous

material. In addition, he implemented an

“off-site” diesel recycling program and

pioneered a program to replace ozone

depleting substances (ODS) with solvent

substitutions. As a result, the MCLB is

now 98% ODS free. In conjunction with

product substitutions, Mr. Spencer has

initiated process modification in numerous degreasing operations, including

replacing vapor degreasers and establishing a cold degreasing operation.

George H. Terrell, DOD, U.S. A r m y

Acquisition Pollution Prevention

Support Office, Material Command,

Alexandria, VA . As the principal A r m y

planner for Executive Order 12856, Mr.

Terrell was responsible for the development of the Acquisition Pollution Prevention Program in 1993 and 1994. In order to

execute the program, he established commodity-oriented teams to integrate program requirements and execute projects.

These groups control 111 separate pollution prevention projects and activities

totaling $18.8 million. As a result, hazardous material has been reduced by about

60 percent and 3 million pounds of ozone

depleting substances have been nearly

eliminated. Mr. Terrell has also developed

several P2 guides, computer software, and

a Web page in order to share information

on pollution prevention.

Patrick Langsjoen, U.S. Postal Service, Pacific Area Environmental

Unit, South San Francisco, CA. M r.

Langsjoen has excelled in education, developing pollution prevention strategies, and

identifying waste reduction opportunities.

He developed a P2 program that focused 

on source reduction by instituting equipment, technology, and process modific ations; product redesign and substitution;

and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, and inventory control. Other 

initiatives have resulted in an 80% reduction in sludge runoff from the vehicle 

maintenance facility pressure-washing

system, the introduction of bioremediation

enzymes to reduce sludge accumulation,

and the implementation of recycling programs in all Pacific Area Districts, resulting in the collection of over 17,000 tons of

material and $133,523 in added revenue.

Region 6 Hands Out Bro n z e

M e d a l s

E PA Region 6 has recognized several

employees for outstanding contributions.

For outreach to federal facilities, bronze

medalists were: Joyce Stubblefield, F e deral Facilities Regional Coordinator,

Judy Crispin, Federal Facilities, Ti m

D a w s o n , Quality Assurance, and Wa n d a

B o y d , Wetlands 404 Permits.

E PA Region 6 awarded another Bronze

Medal to the Base Closure Team at the

Naval Air Station (NAS) Chase Field for

their fast track cleanup. Sing Chia s e r v e d

as the Facility Manager, Ragan Ta t e

served as Attorney and David Neleigh i s

Chief of the New Mexico and Federal Facility Section. NAS Chase Field is a military

base which was closed in 1992 under the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990. To expedite the cleanup

process and to speed economic recovery of

communities impacted by closing of the

base, the Base Cleanup Team was formed

to oversee all the operations at the facility.

Members of the team came from the Te x a s

Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Texas Attorney General’s office and

the Navy, as well as EPA .

The Base Cleanup Team established a

goal-oriented process to fast track environmental clean up at the base, and to

ensure remedial operation compatible

with redevelopment and reuse. The team

was responsible for the design of investigations, data analysis, and recommending the selection and construction of

remedies. By 1995, all remedies had been

selected and by 1996 the construction of

all remedies had been completed. This

was the first and fastest cleanup of a

major military base and it was accomplished at a significant cost savings to the

government. In May 1997, EPA d e t e rmined that all remedies were operating

successfully and approved the first Finding of Suitability to Transfer the property

at NAS Chase Field.

The Chase Field cleanup has been

used as a prototype by both EPA and DoD

in developing a streamlined cleanup

process. DoD has now established BRAC

Cleanup Teams and Restoration A d v i s o r y

Boards at all BRAC bases.

In 1997, the Chase Cleanup Team was

assigned an additional closing base, NAS

Dallas. With the experience gained from

NAS Chase Field, the team applied the

same model to NAS Dallas and proved its

success. By the end of March 1998, the

NAS Dallas Cleanup Team had saved the

Navy approximately $3.5 million in investigation costs alone. In addition, NAS

Dallas has progressed faster than the other closing bases to fulfill the President’s

Five-Point Plan. For more information on

base closures, contact Sing Chia at (214)

6 6 5 - 8 3 0 1 .
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

FIRST CLASS

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

U p c o m i n gE v e n t s

Fe dFa c s

LIST OF ACRONYMS

C A A Clean Air A c t

C E R C L A Comprehensive Emergency

Response, Compensation, and

Liability A c t

C FA Civilian Federal A g e n c y

C WA Clean Water A c t

D L A Defense Logistics A g e n c y

D o D Department of Defense

D O E Department of Energy

D O I Department of the Interior

E M R Environmental 

Management Review

E PA Environmental Protection

A g e n c y

E P C R A Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-To-Know 

Act of 1986

F I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide A c t

F F E O Federal Facilities Enforcement

O f fice (EPA )

G I S Geographic Information System

M A R A D Maritime A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

N O A A National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

N P L National Priorities List

O E C A O f fice of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (EPA )

R C R A Resource Conservation and

Recovery A c t

S D WA Safe Drinking Water A c t

S E P Supplemental Environmental

P r o j e c t

T S C A Toxic Substances Control A c t

U S T Underground Storage Ta n k

U S P S U.S. Postal Service

November 4-5, 1998

E PA Region 10 Federal Facility

C o n f e rence 

Seattle, WA 

First day will coincide with EPA's Annual Tribal Conf e rence and will focus on tribal issues. Second day

will deal with traditional federal facility topics. 

Contact: Michele Wright, (206) 553-1747 or

w r i g h t . m i c h e l e @ e p a m a i l . e p a . g o v. Information is

posted on www. t t e m i . c o m / c i rcles.html. 

November 8-11, 1998

National Environmental Justice

A d v i s o ry Council (NEJAC)

Baton Rouge, LA

Contact: Marva King, (202) 564-2599.

Region 1 Federal Facility Seminars 

Boston, MA

November 19, 1998: Million Solar Roofs

J a n u a ry 1999: Merc u ry at Federal Agencies

M a rch, 1999: P2 Executive Orders 

Contact: Anne Fenn, (617) 565-3927

April 6-8, 1999

1999 Department of the Interior

C o n f e rence on the Enviro n m e n t

D e n v e r, CO

Theme of the conference is: "To w a rd a Sustainable

E n v i ronment: Learning from our Successes."For information, go to http://www.doi.gov/oepc or contact

Erin Quinn at (303) 445-2709.

May 16-20 1999

Second Annual Civilian Federal

Agency (CFA) Symposium

Seattle, WA 

Contact: Kristina Alcorn at Kristina.S.alcorn @

c p m x . s a i c . c o m

May 18-20, 1999

Region 3 Environmental Conference

B a l t i m o re, MD

DoD and EPA. The conference will present papers and

discussions on hazardous site cleanup, enforc e m e n t ,

compliance assistance and pollution pre v e n t i o n .

Contact: William Arguto, (215) 566-3367.