United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

EPA #300-N-99-015

Fall 1999

Compliance Assistance Reviews at 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities

Printed on Recycled Paper

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #8

E

PA recently conducted c o m p l i a n c e

assistance reviews of two Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities. The fir s t

occurred in Region 10 at the Wapato Irrigation Project in Yakima, Wa s h i n g t o n .

The second took place in Region 4 at the

Cherokee Agency in Cherokee, North

Carolina. The reviews, conducted under a

1998 Memorandum of A g r e e m e n t

between EPA and BIA, included a diverse

group of participants, including EPA

Headquarters and Regional representatives, BIA Area and Agency/Project staff,

tribal representatives, and U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel.

The goal of the reviews is to identify

s i t e - s p e c i fic regulatory compliance concerns and opportunities for compliance

assistance. In addition, EPA expects that

many of the specific issues and solutions

i d e n t i fied at these two BIA facilities will

be applicable to other BIA locations and

that the lessons learned can be transferred BIA-wide. 

The project has been exciting and chal2 Guest Spot: Israel Anderson, 

T N R C C

3 Two New Executive Orders

4 Compliance with UST

6 E M R s

8 Regional News and Notes

9 Conference Update

11 The Hammer

1 2 Upcoming Events

lenging for EPA

because it has

involved offering

assistance with traditional EPA c o m p l iance-based issues,

such as hazardous

waste management

and spill planning, as

well as unique environmental management concerns of

importance to BIA

and tribes. For example, at the Wa p a t o

Irrigation Project, non-traditional issues

being addressed include agricultural and

irrigation drainage management practices that may lessen impacts on surface

water quality and wildlife habitat. At the

Cherokee A g e n c y, these issues involve

oversight of activities where BIA is not

the operator, but faces potential liability

or owns property.

E PA will provide specific compliance

review findings and recommendations for

each facility. EPA will publish draft

reports in fall 1999. Their primary

emphasis will be the identification of

potential improvements and compliance

assistance tools available from EPA a n d

other sources. For more information

Top left: Unused paints and printing

chemicals collected for one-time disposal,

Warehouse Cherokee Agency. Top right:

Sediment discharge at Wapato Irrigation Project. Bottom: Out of service transformer storage area, Wapato Maintenence Complex.

I ns i d e

Fe dFa c s

regarding Cherokee, contact A n t h o n y

Shelton at 404-562-9636; for information

on Wapato, contact Michele Wright at

2 0 6 - 5 5 3 - 1 7 4 7 .

[See related story on alleged UST violations at Wapato, on page 11 . ]
2 FEDFACS

T

he Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership (TXP3) was bestowed with

Vice President Al Gore’s “Hammer” Aw a r d

for its efforts to reduce pollution in Te x a s .

TXP3 is a collaborative initiative of the

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC), the Department of

Defense (DoD), NASA-Johnson Space

C e n t e r, and the Texas Army National

Guard. Its mission is to promote pollution

prevention as the standard way of doing

business for federal facilities by developing and implementing model initiatives,

building trust, and producing measurable

results. TXP3 boasts numerous successes,

including reductions of nearly one million

pounds of hazardous waste and savings of

over $2.7 million at federal facilities in

Texas. 

TXP3 began in 1995 as a result of joint

workshops, discussions, and projects and

was formally chartered in 1997 as the fir s t

alliance of its type in the United States.

The Texas model is inspiring similar efforts

across the nation, including Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Georgia,

South Carolina, New York, Arizona, and

E PA Region 7. The first and largest initiative of its kind, TXP3 has 25 agency members and has established itself as t h e p o l l ution prevention partnership to be

e m u l a t e d .

The success of TXP3 is due to broadbased involvement and a collaborative

approach across many agencies, which has

established a culture of trust. Broad-based

involvement was established early in a

January 1996 workshop held in A u s t i n

that included diverse representatives from

military installations across Texas. Ag r o u p

of over 120 participants, including commanders, top and mid-level management,

and front-line environmental specialists,

were asked to develop ways for DoD and

the state to work together more effectively.

The group’s primary recommendation was

to form a coordinating council, and thus

the Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership was born. Other recommendations

included cross-training, technical assistance, and holding an additional partnering workshop. All of the group’s recommendations have been successfully

implemented and results have been made

available for use by the public, other partnerships, industry, and government 

a g e n c i e s .

The challenge facing TXP3 has been to

achieve environmental excellence despite

diminishing resources and budgets. Ty p ic a l l y, to improve environmental performance, the military and the state look to

policies, regulations, and technologies

that are geared towards cleaning up pollution after the fact. TXP3’s goal is to

reduce waste at its source, and tackle this

through partnering, communication, and

leveraging resources. This approach has

resulted in significant pollution reduction

and cost savings.

Member agencies of TXP3 have leveraged numerous resources to reduce pollution. For example, the Air Force Center for

Environmental Excellence has shared its

pollution prevention information clearinghouse, PRO-ACT, with all members. This

has helped facilities in implementing projects, as they are armed with the best

information available.

Another example is leveraging of manpower resources by the military and the

state. As a direct result of a TXP3 workshop, Army reservists partnered with the

TNRCC to assist a small community in

East Texas in completing a wastewater

sewer project under the Small Town Environmental Program. The military also

provided funding for distribution of educational videos for elementary teachers in

Texas. In turn, the TNRCC has provided

s i g n i ficant manpower to help the military

reduce waste, by providing technical assistance visits to over 15 installations across

Texas, hosting and organizing training

events, and transferring successes from

the private sector to federal facilities.

Many successful projects have been

implemented to reduce pollution and save

money at Texas federal facilities. On-site

technical assistance visits, conducted

jointly with DoD and state staff, have

been performed at 15 partner facilities

across the state, identifying over 500

opportunities for reducing pollution and

saving money. For example, as a result of

technical assistance and TXP3 discussions, Dyess Air Force Base is saving $2

million annually by reducing waste and

emissions, and eliminating environmental permits. Through numerous projects,

Dyess eliminated 520,000 pounds of hazardous waste and 1.1 million pounds of

non-hazardous waste annually.

B e n e ficiaries of TXP3 include federal

facilities, state government, industry, and

the public. The military benefits by

achieving both environmental and mission readiness goals cost effectively. Likewise, the state benefits by more effectively fulfilling its mission of protecting the

environment. Industry also benefits indirectly from TXP3. Many successful and

well-researched projects from the milit a r y, such as innovative vehicle management programs, are proving to be useful

to the private sector.

Most importantly, the public benefit s

from TXP3. Reduction in hazardous

waste and air pollutants directly benefit s

the public by improving environmental

q u a l i t y. The public also benefits because

this approach saves taxpayers money.

For more information, visit TXP3 at

h t t p : / / w w w. a f c e e . b r o o k s . a f . m i l / t x p 3 .

TXP3: The Texas Pollution Prevention Part n e r s h i p

by Israel Anderson, Division Director, Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division, Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)

G u e s tS p o t
FEDFACS 3

P

resident Clinton signed two new

Executive Orders in recent months

that reflect the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’s emphasis

on energy conservation and bio-based

products. Executive Order (E.O.) 13123,

Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management, was signed on

June 3, 1999. E.O. 13134, Developing and

Promoting Biobased Products and Bioene r g y, was signed on August 12.

E fficient Energy Management

E.O. 13123 is the second “greening” executive order; E.O. 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, was signed

in September 1998. Executive Order

13123 also replaces a previous energy efficiency order, E.O. 12902, signed in 1994.

The new order establishes a number of

goals for the federal community, includi n g :

• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

attributed to facility energy use by 30

percent by the 2010.

• Reduction of energy consumption at

non-industrial and non-laboratory

facilities by 30 percent by 2005 and 35

percent by 2010.

• Reduction of energy consumption at

industrial and laboratory facilities by

20 percent by 2005 and 25 percent by

2 0 1 0 .

• Expanded use of renewable energy,

including support for the Million Solar

Roofs initiative.

• Reduced use of petroleum product

energy sources at facilities.

• Reduced total energy use and associated greenhouse gas and other air emission as measured at the source.

• Reduced water consumption.

Each federal agency will be required to

designate a senior agency official responsible for meeting the goals of the order and

to form energy teams to support technical,

legal, procurement, and management

aspects of the order. The Department of

Energy and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) are required by the

order to provide a variety of assistance

documents and guidance to support

implementation of the order. Each

a g e n c y ’s progress in meeting the goals of

the order will be judged by agency energy

“ s c o r e c a r d s . ”

At the field level, implementation of

E.O. 13123 will require facilities to support the goals of the order through actions

such as conducting facility energy audits,

purchasing Energy Star® products, and

employing Energy-Savings Performance

Contracts. The goals of the order are further enhanced by requirements for policies such as sustainable building design

as well as training, awards, and performance evaluations. DOE has taken the

lead in establishing work groups to support and coordinate federal efforts to meet

the requirements of E.O. 13123. Copies of

the order and additional information

about implementation can be found at the

Federal Energy Management Program

website at http://www. e r e n . d o e . g o v / f e m p / .

Biobased Products 

and Bioenergy 

Executive Order 13134, Developing and

Promoting Biobased Products and Bioene r g y, focuses on development of a national strategy for making biobased products

and bioenergy competitive in national

and international markets. As defined in

the order, “biobased product” means a

commercial or industrial product (other

than food or feed) that utilizes biological

products or renewable domestic agricultural (plant, animal, and marine) or

forestry materials. The term “bioenergy”

means biomass used in the production of

energy (electricity; liquid, solid, and

gaseous fuels; and heat).

E.O. 13134 establishes an Interagency

Council whose purpose is to prepare a

strategic plan outlining national goals for

development and use of, and research

into, biobased products and bioenergy.

The plans also will consider ways in

which federal programs can contribute to

the goals of the order. The Council will be

co-chaired by the Secretary of A g r i c u l t u r e

and the Secretary of Energy, and is made

up of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and the Interior, the EPA

A d m i n i s t r a t o r, the Director of OMB, the

Assistant to the President for Science and

Te c h n o l o g y, the Director of the National

Science Foundation, and the Federal

Environmental Executive. 

E.O. 13134 also establishes an appointed advisory committee of stakeholders,

such as agricultural and energy businesses, environmental organizations, and the

university research community. The committee will provide the Interagency Council with an assessment of the Council’s

goals, research and development activities, effectiveness of various agency 

programs, and the environmental and economic consequences of biobased products

and bioenergy. The Departments of A g r iculture and Energy are also required to

establish working groups and a joint

National Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination Office to support the

Interagency Council and overall implementation of the order and strategic plans

developed by the Council. The Executive

Order can be found in the Virtual Library

at the White House Internet website at

h t t p : / / w w w. p u b . w h i t e h o u s e . g o v / .

UPDATED YELLOW BOOK

NOW AVAILABLE

The recently-updated Yellow Book: Guide to

E n v i ronmental Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities is available 

for downloading from EPA’s Enviro $ e n $ e

website at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/

yellowbk/index.html. To purchase a copy

contact GPO, 710 North Capital St., NW. ,

Washington, DC, 20401, Phone:202-512-1800

or Fax: 202-260-1800; Stock Number 055-000-

00624-5 or Publication No. EPA - 3 1 5 - B - 9 8 -

011. Cost: $29.00.

Two New Executive Orders Signed
4 FEDFACS

UST Training for FFEO Staff 

As part of FFEO’s participation in the

UST enforcement drive, FFEO staff members participated in July 1999 in UST

inspector training along with other EPA

personnel. The class was conducted by

Marcel Moreau, a nationally recognized

expert in the UST field who has trained

regulators at all levels. In addition to

classroom work, trainees visited two gasoline stations and a power plant at federal

facilities in the Washington, D.C. area.

The training served as an introduction

to both technical and legal aspects of the

UST regulations. The course opened with

overviews of the federal UST program,

the acceptable tank, piping, spill containment, and overfill prevention technologies

likely to be encountered during fie l d

inspections, and then turned to tank lining and cathodic protection and associated record-keeping requirements. 

E

PA is placing renewed emphasis on

compliance with underground storage

tank regulations at federal facilities. Last

s u m m e r, EPA issued a strategy for enforcing UST regulatory requirements (under

Subtitle I of RCRA) that came into effect

in December 1998. EPA’s goal is full compliance with the 1998 requirements as

quickly as possible. EPA’s regulations do

not provide for a grace period in which violations can be corrected without a penalty.

UST owners/operators have had over ten

years to comply with federal requirements. During this period, EPA c o n d u c t e d

extensive outreach activities to inform the

regulated community of the 1998 technical requirements and provided compliance

assistance to owners and operators of UST

facilities. Given the threat that sub-standard tanks pose to human health and the

environment, EPA believes it is essential

to ensure that violations are promptly corr e c t e d .

Under RCRA Subtitle I, EPA has the

authority to, and will, inspect UST facilities in order to assess compliance with the

UST regulations. While EPA may take

enforcement actions in all states,* its

activities will be concentrated in states

that have less active UST enforcement

programs. EPA also will try to be responsive to requests from any state for support

in dealing with federal agencies or other

UST owners and operators who resist

state compliance efforts.

I n v e n t o ry Control: Doing the

Numbers 

Participants were given a week’s worth of

raw inventory data (stick readings, tank

chart and totalizer meter readings) and

asked to calculate the variance for that

week. After learning how to do the calculations, the class was given an introduction to the various leak detection options

available for USTs and learned the steps

involved in performing inventory reconciliation. The participants then discussed

the theory behind statistical inventory

reconciliation (SIR) and some of the difficulties presented by how SIR is practiced. 

Tanks greater than 2,000 gallons in

capacity may not use the manual tank

gauging method of leak detection to meet

regulatory requirements, which may be

especially important at federal facilities,

where large-capacity tanks are common.

The difference between gravity-drop

* E PA can enforce federal requirements in

states and territories that do not have EPA’s

approval to run their own UST programs,

and in Indian country. In approved states

and territories, EPA can enforce state regulations that were included in the State Program Approval process, even if they are more

stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. The Agency does not enforce state

regulations that are broader in scope than

the federal regulations, e.g., those applicable

to UST systems not covered by the federal

regulations, such as heating oil tanks for

direct consumptive use. 

New Emphasis on Compliance with UST Regs

LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
FEDFACS 5

deliveries and pressure deliveries was discussed to emphasize how important it is

for federal facilities in particular to know

whether their fill-pipes are pressure-rated. Most DoD fuel deliveries are pressurized. The consequences of a pressurized

fuel delivery being made in a non-pressure rated fill-pipe could be serious.

The class turned to a discussion of the

variables affecting tightness tests and

ways that different tightness test methods

compensate for these variables. Both volumetric and non-volumetric methods were

discussed. A discussion followed of leak

detection evaluations and automatic tank

gauging. Other topics included: technologies for creating and monitoring secondary containment for underground

tanks and piping, the distinction between

pressurized and suction pumping systems, the workings of mechanical and

electronic line leak detectors, and the

requirements for suction piping systems.

The course also covered inspection issues

such as “What is a serious violation?” and

“How can consistency among inspectors

be achieved?” The class reviewed records

from facilities to be visited in order to

evaluate compliance and to identify items

to look for during the visits. 

The training accomplished a great deal

towards increasing the understanding of

both the legal requirements and technical

complexities associated with UST regulation and inspection. Further work by

FFEO staff is contemplated in the fie l d

and in support of the regions, in order to

put this training into practice.

Given the threat that 

s u b - s t a n d a rd tanks pose

to human health and 

the environment, EPA

believes it is essential 

to ensure that violations

a re promptly corre c t e d .

Inside the Pumps

FFEO Staff Looking Under the Lid
6 FEDFACS

mental program and one of the four

regional offices. Western has a Corporate

Environmental Office as well as an Environmental Manager at each regional

o f fice. Corporate provides planning, support and compliance assistance to the

regions. For example, the planning group

in the Corporate Environmental Offic e

developed systems for tracking accomplishments and reviewing milestones

related to environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and

categorical exclusions. 

The Corporate Office developed a list

of standard environmental specific a t i o n s

for construction projects now maintained

by environmental staff in the Rocky

Mountain Region. Environmental staff

in the regions evaluate each new construction contract and recommend the

appropriate specifications for that site

from the comprehensive list. One of the

managers at the Corporate Office follows

regulatory developments and shares that

information expeditiously with the

regions. Top management at the Corporate Office reviews an annual environmental report on program accomplishments and initiatives prepared by the

Environmental Office. The Public A f f a i r s

O f fice publishes a professional newsletter called “Closed Circuit,” that is distributed to all employees, retirees, and

customers, and regularly features articles on environmental topics.

At the Rocky Mountain Region (RMR)

of Western Area Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

joint environmental and safety inspections are conducted annually at staffed

facilities and every three years at

unmanned facilities. Exceptions found

during inspections are reported to line

and top managers who ensure that corrections are made in a timely manner. A

centralized database is used for inspection results, and findings from inspections are used to improve and target environmental training. Baseline audits have

been done at all RMR facilities and these

records are maintained and updated. A

E n v i ronmental Management

Reviews in Region 8

by Dianne Thiel, EPA Region 8 Federal

Facilities Coordinator

Region 8 recently completed three environmental management system reviews

(EMRs) and is working on a fourth. The

first three EMRs involved evaluating

both a facility and at least one other management level above the facility. During

the course of conducting these EMRs,

we’ve seen many examples of good environmental management practices which

we would like to share with you. 

E PA Region 8 Laboratory

At our laboratory in EPA Region 8, we

reviewed systems at the Lab itself, in the

Regional Office, as well as support provided by the Safety, Health and Environmental Management Division at EPA

Headquarters. The Environmental Compliance Manager reports directly to the

Laboratory Director and has the authority to make decisions. Environmental

funding is provided for pollution prevention equipment and software, in addition

to pollution control and waste disposal

costs. The Environmental Compliance

Manager provides orientation training for

new employees, contractors, and visitors,

in addition to annual employee refresher

training. The system for tracking training, called REGISTRAR, documents

training sponsored by the EPA R e g i o n a l

O f fice and can be audited and accessed

easily by all employees. Required training

can be flagged and tracked for supervisors and employees. The Safety, Health

and Environmental Management Division at EPA Headquarters provides formal training, policies, manuals, technical

assistance, and contractor support on a

project specific basis. This division hosts

regular conference calls with the regions

and at least one national meeting a year.

The division also conducts regular compliance audits at the laboratory and monitors audit findings until they are closed

o u t .

We s t e rn Area Power 

Administration 

For Western Area Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

we looked at the headquarters environE M R s

Can You Guess What It Is?

• I t ’s collaborative and inexpensive

• It uses an outside part y

• It can lead to long-term environmental compliance

• It provides feedback and identifies opportunities for impro v e m e n t

• It can enhance a federal facility’s environmental management
FEDFACS 7

required safety and environmental

awareness training session is held annually for all craftspeople. Some line managers and field supervisors also participate. Attendance is required and tracked

by the Safety office. In 1998, the Rocky

Mountain Region began training construction inspectors to do field checks of

mitigation measures during construction

projects. RMR is also including inspectors

in the environmental training given

annually for maintenance workers.

The Environmental Manager at RMR

reports directly to the Regional Manager,

attends and reports at all RMR senior

staff meetings, and has authority 

to approve and implement most new

environmental procedures. His monthly

environmental activity reports are widely

distributed to managers throughout the

region and are sent to the Corporate environmental office. The Environmental

Manager is included in management of

the business: he participates in quarterly

Maintenance Managers’ meetings and is

a member of the Maintenance, Design

and Construction Council which meets

quarterly to discuss long range planning,

budget formulation, performance goals,

and benchmarking for the business.

The Environmental Managers at the

Corporate Office and in the regions meet

quarterly to improve communication and

information sharing, plan, review procedures, and address common problems.

The location and responsibility for planning the meeting rotate among the participants. Corporate and regional environmental personnel share responsibility

for developing and revising environmental procedures. One office is generally

tasked to develop or revise a procedure,

which is then reviewed and approved by

the Environmental Managers’ Team and

issued through the Corporate Office. In

1998, the Environmental Managers’

Team initiated a pilot self-assessment

program to review their environmental

management systems within specific programs, such as RCRA, pesticides, and

cultural resources.

U.S. Postal Serv i c e

At the U.S. Postal Service, we reviewed

management systems at a vehicle maintenance facility (VMF), a District Offic e ,

and the Western Area Office. USPS has

many good examples of effective management systems. For instance, personnel

with environmental responsibilities are in

leadership positions at each level of the

organization. 

At the Area, District, and VMF levels,

the environmental manager reports

directly to the top manager and part of

the senior staff. Postal procedures and job

descriptions clearly spell out environmental responsibilities up the management

chain. The VMF Manager and Line

Supervisors are knowledgeable about

environmental issues and alert to potential environmental problems as well as

opportunities for pollution prevention.

Weekly standup talks for staff at the VMF

focus on environmental topics in addition

to safety. 

The District Environmental Compliance Coordinators for the Colorado/

Wyoming District have taken numerous

proactive measures to reduce regulatory

reporting requirements, anticipate new

requirements, and share successes across

facilities. At the Area and national levels,

Environmental Coordinators are actively

involved in multilevel, cross-functional

work groups to improve program implementation and link the environmental

program to postal systems and operations. Minutes of some work group meetings are posted on their internal website

to facilitate broad information sharing.

One national work group is finalizing an

environmental management system tied

to the Postal Service’s quality system,

called Customer Perfect!

S p e c i fic tools developed by the A r e a

O f fice include a macro experience matrix

— a table which shows the level of expertise and experience in RCRA, NPDES,

and other programs of all the environmental coordinators within the We s t e r n

Area. This table makes it easy for environmental coordinators to quickly determine whom to call if they have a question

on a particular regulatory program. The

table also helps identify training needs.

Another table shows the environmental

training recommended for various job categories within the Postal Service. 

E PA Region 8 encourages other Region

8 federal facilities to volunteer for an

EMR so we can continue to showcase successful environmental practices. For more

information or to volunteer your facility,

contact Dianne Thiel at 303-312-6389 or

t h i e l . d i a n n e @ e p a . g o v.

E PA Conducts 3 EMRs at

DOE SPR Sites

D O E ’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve

(SPR) Program Management office in

New Orleans, LA agreed to have an EMR

conducted at two SPR storage sites

(Bryan Mound in Freeport, TX and Bayou

Chatow in Baton Rouge, LA) and at the

Program Management office during the

week of June 14, 1999. SPR’s willingness

to participate in the EMR process was

evidence of upper management’s interest

in the importance of environmental management systems (EMS) for achieving

environmental excellence. 

The SPR offices are primarily governm e n t - o w n e d / c o n t r a c t o r-operated (GOCO)

federal facilities. At a GOCO site, the government owns the facilities and a contractor manages all regular activities.

The contractor for DOE at the SPR sites

is DynMcDermott (DM). At the sites

reviewed in this EMR, DM is essentially

in charge of the environmental program,

with direction from DOE personnel.

Hence, the EMR team assumes that DOE

and DM personnel will work together on

implementing any recommendations.

Recommendations made by the EMR

Team are specific to the SPR sites and

are intended as guidance to be used in

improving and formalizing DM’s EMS.

SPR requested that EPA’s review include

the organization’s entire environmental

management system, that included the

following elements: 1) organizational

structure; 2) environmental commitment; 3) formality of environmental programs; 4) internal and external communication; 5) staff, resources, training, and

development; 6) program evaluation,

reporting, and corrective action; and 7)

environmental planning and risk mana g e m e n t .

For more information, contact Joyce

S t u b b l e field, EPA Region 6, at 214-665-

6 4 3 0 .
8 FEDFACS

Region 6 Multi-Media

I n s p e c t i o n s

Region 6 inspection teams recently conducted two Type D Multi-Media Inspections (MMI) at Air Force facilities. 

• Holloman Air Force Base, N e w

Mexico, is currently the home of the

49th Fighter Wing of the United

States Air Force. The 49th Wing is

the umbrella for several fig h t e r

groups; the F-117 Nighthawk is one of

its main weapon systems. It is also a

major training facility for pilots from

other countries such as Germany and

Taiwan. The purpose of the inspection

was to determine the facility’s compliance status with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act, RCRA,

TSCA, EPCRA, and the Clean Wa t e r

A c t .

• Lockheed/Martin, Air Force Plant

#4, Fort Worth, Texas, is currently in

production and testing of the F-16

Fighting Falcon and development of

the F-22 Raptor. The purpose of the

inspection was to verify compliance

with regulations under RCRA, Clean

Air Act, Clean Water Act, TSCA, and

EPCRA. The City of Fort Worth participated in the MMI by assisting EPA

inspectors under the Air program.

Although not directly involved with

the inspections, the Texas Natural

Resources Conservation Commission

provided valuable information to participating programs during the fil e

review stage.

Region 6: Restoration 

S u m m i t

On August 18-19, 1999, the Air Force

hosted a restoration summit in Dallas as

a follow-up to the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee report recommendation to continue building consensus and focus on

goal-setting and priorities for cleanup

activities, as well as innovative cleanup

technologies. 

The meeting included representatives

from the Air Force, EPA, and Region 6

states. The Air Force, EPA, and states

Division Directors discussed issues related to base closure for FY 2000 and

beyond, Superfund, risk management

strategies, the Government Performance

and Results Act, data quality/lab fraud,

consensus building in priority setting

and state perspectives. A s u m m a r y

report with action items is forthcoming.

Some potential actions discussed were to:

• Work with Texas to identify bases that

have problems with report quality and

r e m e d y.

• Develop A F / E PA/state team(s) to

work all action items.

• Coordinate a process for regulators to

be involved in the peer review of

restoration sites.

• E PA/AFCEE to review standardization of documents and terminology.

• Establish four EPA/state/AF working

groups to facilitate and fast track

restoration efforts at A C C - B a r k s d a l e ;

A F M C - Tinker; A E T C - L a u g h l i n ;

AFBCA/AFCEE-Carswell/AFP4. 

Contact: Joyce Stubblefield, EPA R e g i o n

6, 214-665-6430.

Region 7: Army Offic e r

Exchange Pro g r a m

The A r m y ’s Training With Industries Program aims to develop a group of offic e r s

experienced in higher level managerial

techniques and who have an understanding of the relationship of industry to spec i fic functions of the A r m y. Once an offic e r

is integrated back into an Army organization, he/she can use this information to

improve the A r m y ’s ability to interact and

conduct business with industry.

One participant in the program, Captain Cedrick Farrior, is assigned to EPA

Region 7 through August 2000, beginning

with a rotation in the federal facilities

program. Captain Farrior has been in the

Army for 12 years and has served in a

host of assignments both in the US and

abroad. Several of his assignments

include Texas, Alaska, Indiana, Georgia

as well as tours to Japan and Thailand.

He can be reached at farrior. c e d r i c k @

e p a . g o v

Region 9: Compliance

A g reement for Wake Island

E PA Region 9 and the Department of the

A r m y, U.S. Army Space and Missile

Defense Command (USASMDC) recently

signed a Federal Facilities Compliance

Agreement (FFCA) that establishes compliance schedules to resolve several existing areas of noncompiance on Wa k e

Island. This is the first FFCA for a U.S.

possession not affiliated with any state or

t e r r i t o r y.

Wake Island is an atoll approximately

4.5 miles long and 2 miles wide, located

2,460 miles west of Hawaii and 1,500

miles east of Guam. It has no indigenous

population; however, over 100 Army contractor personnel reside on Wake and

during launch operations (about four

times a year) the population doubles.

USASMDC uses Wake Island to support

launch operations for the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization.

Under the FFCA, the USASMDC and

E PA are addressing noncompliance areas

including: unpermitted point source discharges; discharge of untreated domestic

wastewater; inadequate secondary containment and spill prevention and countermeasure plans for petroleum storage

facilities; and solid waste disposal practices. The FFCA does not cover ongoing

remedial activities that the Air Force is

taking to address past activities.

E PA Region 9 supports the initiative

of the USASMDC to resolve compliance

issues on this small and historic atoll.

Regional Ne w s a n d No te s
FEDFACS 9

Region 7’s Annual Federal

Facilities Confere n c e

O

ver 100 attendees participated in

Region 7’s Annual Federal Facilities

Conference in Kansas City on August 24-

25, 1999. The theme was “Achieving

Excellence In The New Millennium.” To pics dealt with regulatory and information

issues that concern federal facilities, as

well as environmental justice, Title VI,

and Project XL. Attendees represented

the Departments of Defense, Energy,

Transportation, the IRS, GSA, Federal

Aviation Administration, Food and Drug

Administration, USDA, and the Postal

Service, as well as state agencies. 

Feedback from both attendees and

speakers has been very positive. The

Enforcement Coordination Office is

grateful for the tremendous support

from the various Region 7 sections

whose contributions were critical to the

success of the conference. Planning will

begin shortly on the next conference,

tentatively scheduled for Summer 2000.

Suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Please forward suggestions or comments

to Diana Jackson (jackson.diana@

epa.gov) or Cedrick Farrior (farrior.

cedrick@epa.gov).

Region 6 Hosts Sourc e

Water Assessment Meeting

In November 1998, the Clean Water

Action Plan (CWAP) Federal MultiAgency Source Water Agreement was

signed by nine federal agencies. The document is an agreement to develop partnerships that will support state and

tribal government efforts to complete

source water assessments nationwide

and support source water protection programs with the primary goal of protecting the nation’s sources of drinking

water.

As a first step in building those partnerships, the Water Quality Protection

Division of EPA Region 6 hosted a

regional Source Water Assessment Program Federal/State Coordination meeting on May 25-26, 1999, in Dallas,

Texas. Representatives of the nine federal agencies and the five states in

Region 6 attended the meeting. The

goals of the meeting were to:

• Define mechanisms to make federal

data, information, and technical

expertise available to states for use

in conducting source water assessments.

• Determine how program authorities

under relevant state and federal laws

can be applied to drinking water

source areas needing protection.

• Forge partnerships at the regional,

state, and field office level to implement the source water assessment

and protection programs within a

watershed framework.

• Focus on coordination needs

between agencies at all levels for

transboundary watershed issues.

• Establish an ongoing planning/coordination function to continue the

momentum generated at the meeting.

Contact: Ken Williams, EPA Region 6,

214-665-7129.

C FAs Meet in the Pacific

N o rt h w e s t

The Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) Ta s k

Force, in coordination with FFEO and

SGS ICS National Education Center,

sponsored the second annual CFA E n v ironmental Symposium on May 17-20,

1999, in Seattle, Washington. 245 environmental managers and staff from 35

agencies and numerous federal facilities

attended the symposium. 

Speakers, including Steve Clark, Acting Regional Administrator of the

Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains

Region, and William Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional

Office, addressed current environmental issues in the Pacific Northwest and

set the tone for symposium participants

to share solutions to environmental

business management challenges.

In addition to 27 break-out sessions,

the National Education Center provided

training in Environmental Compliance

Auditing and Implementation of ISO

14000 Environmental Management

Systems. Other training workshops conducted by staff from CFAs provided

hands-on skills in:

• Environmental Statute Review

• Re-refined Oil Programs

• Environmental Justice

• Compliance Assistance Centers

• Green Purchasing

• Plain Language Principles

• Property Transfer

• Enviro-Surfing. 

Continued on page 10

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

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

Read FedFacs on the Intern e t :

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

The CFA Task Force is making plans for

its next symposium. The date and location are yet undetermined. To contribute

planning ideas, contact your CFA Ta s k

Force representative or consider becoming a member of the Task Force for your

a g e n c y. For more information about the

C FA Task Force or for a list of members,

contact FFEO at 202-564-2510 or visit

the EPA Enviro$en$e website at

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

Transient Drinking Wa t e r

Training Off e red 

In the fall of 1998, Ken Morin, Manager

of the Bureau of Land Management’s

compliance auditing program,

approached EPA Region 8 about conducting a training class for BLM personnel. Ken had identified a number of

difficult issues common to small, remote

locations such as campgrounds, recreation sites, historic areas, and fire stations, where BLM provides drinking

water to the public and/or its employees. Ken volunteered to work with EPA

to develop a class to address these

issues. EPA agreed to the project if the

class would be open to other land management agencies with similar concerns.

With Ken’s input, the Region 8

Drinking Water Program designed a

course to address the needs of maintenance and field personnel and managers responsible for operating the

transient, non-community drinking

water supplies. The class was held May

18-20, 1999, at the EPA Region 8 offices

in Denver, Colorado. Representatives of

nine federal agencies attended, along

with a few state and local agency staff.

Of the 48 participants, 27 were from

facilities located within Region 8. 

The major focus of the course was on

microbiological contamination. EPA

Drinking Water Program staff gave presentations on the different types of

water borne pathogens and methods

Selected chemical contaminants

were also discussed, including nitrate,

nitrite, radium, uranium, radon, iron,

manganese, sulfate, fluoride,and total

dissolved solids. Health effects associated with each were covered briefly. Representatives of the Bureau of Reclamat i o n ’s Water Treatment Engineering

and Research Group presented a session on treatment technologies for

chemical contaminants. Finally, an EPA

inspector discussed enforcement of

drinking water regulations.

The slide presentations from this

training course were shared with two

other EPA regions in the hopes that

they will offer similar training. The

course presentations will be available

on EPA’s website (http://www. e p a .

gov/safewater/dwa) so that others

knowledgeable about transient, noncommunity systems can download them

and offer similar training. EPA Region 8

is interested in hearing from other federal agencies in the region about other

training topics that could be offered in

partnership in the future. Contact:

Dianne Thiel, EPA Region 8, 303-312-

6389 or thiel.dianne@epa.gov.

used to detect these microorganisms,

taking a coliform sample, writing a site

sampling plan, monitoring and record

keeping requirements for transient systems, fixing and preventing bacteriological contamination problems, and determining if a ground water supply is

under the influence of surface water.

EPA speakers also covered hauled

water requirements and disinfection

procedures, point of entry/point of use

requirements, and bottled water. Ken

Bousfield of the Utah Drinking Water

Program discussed proper development

of wells and springs, because Utah has

many springs that are used as water

supplies. The problem of cross connections between drinking water plumbing

and fire sprinkler systems, lawn irrigation systems, or hose bibs was

addressed. A case study on A l p i n e ,

Wyoming was presented, as well as

numerous other real world examples.

Source water protection programs, sanitary surveys, and closing of Class V

Underground Injection Control wells

were offered as techniques for preventing contamination of drinking water

sources. 

CONFERENCE UPDAT E

Continued from page 9

Steve Tu b e r, EPA Region 8 Water Program Director, welcoming participants 

to the class.
FEDFACS 11

Region 3 

S

outheast Federal Center: On July

28, 1999, EPA Region 3 mailed to GSA

a signed RCRA 3013 Order requiring

investigation of, and some interim measures on the Southeast Federal Center

(SEFC). This is the first Section 3013

Order on Consent that EPA has entered

into with a federal agency. The SEFC

occupies 55.3 acres along the A n a c o s t i a

R i v e r. Several studies of the area

revealed the presence of contamination at

or near the facility. The contaminants

detected, including benzene and lead,

have detrimental effects on human

health and the environment. Contact:

Sally M. Dalzell, EPA FFEO, 202-564-

2 5 8 3 .

Bainbridge, MD: On July 23, 1999, EPA

Region 3 issued a Clean Air Act Compliance Order to the U.S. Navy for asbestos

violations at Bainbridge in Maryland.

The Navy recently discovered the presence of friable asbestos-containing air cell

insulation at a 10-acre area of the site.

The order requires the Navy to sample for

friable asbestos material, remove it, and

then properly dispose it. Contact: Sally

M. Dalzell, EPA FFEO, 202-564-2583.

Region 6

Camp Stanley Storage Activity Facili t y : Region 6 issued an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

Order on Consent to the Camp Stanley

Storage Activity (CSSA) facility in

Boerne, Texas. The CSSA has been operating as a hazardous waste management

facility since November 19, 1980. The

order concerned the identification, investigation, and prevention of further contamination due to the release of hazardous

wastes to the environment.

There are 12 wells at the CSSA f a c i l i t y

that are used as potable drinking water

sources, monitoring wells, and agricultural

water supplies. During a routine pesticide

screening site visit on August 9, 1991, the

Texas Department of Health sampled

water supplies from well #16 and found

traces of several chemicals in the water

samples. The contaminants consisted of

127 micrograms/liter of 1, 2 dichloroethane

(DCE), 151 micrograms/liter of trichloethylene (TCE), and 137 micrograms/liter of

tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Further testing

on August 23, 1991 confirmed the earlier

results. The well in question was removed

and the other wells were put on notific a t i o n

on a quarterly basis. On December 4, 1991,

the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission collected samples from well

#16 and two inactive wells and found that

well #16 was contaminated with TCE and

PCE, and the other two wells were contaminated with DCE.

The order requires CSSA to do the foll o w i n g :

• Perform interim stabilization measures to prevent or minimize the further migration of contaminants due to

the release of hazardous constituents

to the environment.

• Mitigate current or potential threats

to human health and the environm e n t .

• Perform corrective action studies to

identify and evaluate alternatives for

corrective actions to prevent or mitigate any migration of pollutants from

the facility.

Failure by CSSA to comply with the

terms of the order will result in penalties

ranging from $500 to $5000 per day,

depending on the extent of the non-compliance period. Contact: Greg Ly s s y, EPA

Region 6, 214-665-8317.

Tinker Air Force Base: In January

1998, the first set of underground storage

tank (UST) cases against federal facilities

were filed, including an action against

Tinker Air Force Base. The parties

attempted negotiations in accordance

with Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)

orders. However, the case could not be

settled and the Air Force moved for an

accelerated decision by the ALJ. 

At issue is whether EPA has the

authority to assess fines where federal

facilities violate the UST provisions of

RCRA. EPA’s position is that the UST provisions of RCRA and the context of RCRA

as a whole give EPA the authority to

assess fines. However, parallel to EPA’s

administrative action, in the Spring of

1999, DoD referred this issue to the Offic e

of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department

of Justice. An opinion from OLC will settle

this dispute between the agencies. 

Upon receipt of this referral in A p r i l

1999, the ALJ prepared an accelerated

decision that EPA did not have the

authority to assess fines. EPA filed its

response to DoD on August 13, 1999. Tw o

separate actions were filed in this case. A

hearing date was set before the ALJ in

November 1999. EPA also awaits either

an OLC opinion or a reply brief from Ti nker Air Force Base. Contact: A m i e

Richardson, EPA Region 6, 214-665-2713.

Region 10

Wapato Irrigation Project: On A u g u s t

30, 1999, Region 10 issued a complaint to

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for

UST violations at the Wapato Irrigation

Project in Wapato, Washington, located

on the Yakima Indian Reservation (see

related article on page 1). EPA has proposed $19,875 in penalties against BIA

for violations of several UST regulations

which ensure that leak detection alarm

systems are working properly. These UST

regulations are in place to detect leaks,

and to minimize the risk that a release

would affect groundwater. The violations

were discovered during a March 1999

inspection. Similar violations were found

during a 1996 inspection. Contact:

Melanie Barger Garvey, EPA FFEO, 202-

5 6 4 - 2 5 7 9 .

T he H a m m e r
U p c o m i n gE v e n t s

December 6-9, 1999

Joint Service Pollution Prevention Conference and Exhibition 

San Antonio, TX

Contact: Joyce Stubblefield, 214-665-6430.

December 10, 1999

Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership Meeting

San Antonio, TX

Contact: Joyce Stubblefield, 214-665-6430.

F e b ru a ry / M a rch 2000

Region 6 Phase II Stormwater Conference 

Dallas, TX 

Contact: Monica Burrell, 214-665-7530

LIST OF ACRONYMS

B I A Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s

C A A Clean Air A c t

C E R C L A Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and

Liability A c t

C FA Civilian Federal A g e n c y

C WA Clean Water A c t

D o D Department of Defense

D O E Department of Energy

D O I Department of the Interior

D O J Department of Justice

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 F E O Federal Facilities Enforcement

O f fice (EPA )

G P O Government Printing Offic e

G S A General Services 

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

O E C A O f fice of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (EPA )

R C R A Resource Conservation and

Recovery A c t

T N R C C Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission

T S C A Toxic Substances Control A c t

U S D A Department of A g r i c u l t u r e

U S T Underground Storage Ta n k