United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

EPA #300-N-99-009

Spring/Summer 1999

EPA Settles First SDWA Penalty Case 

Against Redstone Arsenal

Printed on Recycled Paper

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #7

I

n the fir s t Safe Drinking Water A c t

( S D WA) penalty case against a federal

f a c i l i t y, EPA settled with the A r m y ’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama for

a cash penalty of $80,000 and $807,000 in

supplemental environmental projects

(SEPs). The settlement, reached on

December 10, 1998, resolves an EPA

Region 4 administrative penalty order

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

improper management of a drinking

water system that serves the 22,000 people at the facility.

This is the first time EPA has imposed

a SDWA penalty against a federal agency

since SDWA was amended in 1996 to give

E PA authority to do so. The Redstone settlement is the largest drinking water

penalty in Region 4’s history.

The drinking water violations were

uncovered during a 1997 multimedia

2 Guest Spot: Edward B. Cohen,

D O I

3 Update on DOI Initiative

4 Green Facilities: Presidio of San

Francisco, New EPA Region 7

B u i l d i n g

6 In the Field: Cherokee BIA, Ti p t o n

A i r field 

7 Policies & Guidance

8 The Hammer

1 0 Conference Update

11 R e s o u r c e s

1 2 Upcoming Events

inspection at the arsenal. Redstone failed

to properly operate and maintain its storage tanks and reservoirs, a water main

flushing program, and maintain adequate disinfectant residual in the distribution system to meet EPA’s maximum

contaminant levels for total coliform. The

S E P agreed to in the settlement will

address improvements to Redstone’s

water system, including the installation

of a chlorine monitoring system to

enhance water quality by allowing the

facility to measure chlorine residual on

an ongoing basis. In addition, computer

software for one of Redstone’s water

treatment plants will be upgraded and

water stagnation problems in some of the

supply lines will be addressed. These

efforts will help ensure that the base’s

water supply is safe, while putting less

water purification disinfectant into the

e n v i r o n m e n t .

For more information, contact Lisa

Uhl, Region 4 Water Enforcement

Branch, (404) 562-9789, or Adam Sowatzka, Region 4 Office of Regional Counsel,

(404) 562-9545.

I ns i d e

Fe dFa c s

A

s the Director of EPA’s Federal Facilities Enforcement Office I am constantly asking myself: where is EPA’s federal facility compliance and enforcement

program now, where is it going, and

where do we want it to go? It’s easy to say

that each federal agency or department

should go beyond compliance, leading the

way for both the public and private sector

to follow. But determining what strategy

to employ to achieve that goal that

requires looking at our past mistakes and

successes, the present state of environmental conditions at federal facilities,

and solutions to future environmental

problems. 

My office is charged with ensuring

that federal facilities take all necessary

action to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. I realize that this is

no small task. However, I do believe that

we are producing the types of tools that

other federal agencies and departments

can use to improve their environmental

decision-making and ultimately the environment in which we all live.

What tools are available to assist federal agencies in this admittedly diffic u l t

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

Continued on page 9

field? First of all, each federal agency

must understand its own environmental

liabilities, be they large or small. To

accomplish this, each agency should be

conducting internal audits and environmental management reviews of its own

programs and facilities. These should

help the agency answer the question of

“What have we done and how well are we

doing?” By way of example, we have

developed the Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits of Federal

Facilities (EPA-300-B-96-012 A & B )

which includes materials for conducting

environmental audits that can be customized to fit each agency’s requirements. 

We have also issued brochures, poli-
2 FEDFACS

S

ecretary Bruce

B a b b i t t h a s

referred to the

Department of the

Interior as the

Department of the

Environment, not

because he has

visions of subsuming the Environmental Protection A g e n c y,

but because the name reflects one of our

principle obligations as stewards of

roughly 500 million acres of public land.

Congress has assigned the Interior

Department a variety of mandates, from

recreation to resource development to

resource conservation. But no mandate is

more important than compliance with the

n a t i o n ’s environmental laws. 

As both a federal resource manager

and law enforcement agency, environmental compliance must be high on our own

agenda. If it is not, we lack the moral

authority and credibility to insist that

users of public lands comply with our environmental requirements. Inherent in the

concept of stewardship is doing no harm to

the resources entrusted to our care.

No doubt, there are few in the Department of the Interior who would disagree

with the notion that we, as a department,

should comply with environmental laws.

But real life is rarely that simple. In these

days of burgeoning mandates, declining

budgets, fewer staff, and complex procedural requirements, environmental compliance isn’t always as achievable as we

would like. Moreover, in a department

such as Interior, compliance obligations

are one of many responsibilities an

employee or an office might have — and

not necessarily the one that gets the promotion or the additional infusion of funds.

It is no insignificant challenge to develop programs, systems, and structures

that result in full environmental compliance in a department as diverse as Interio r. We have eight bureaus, each with a

different culture and different mandates,

and more than 65,000 employees, working in 2,000 facilities. Most of the land we

administer is widely accessible to the public for various uses, and we frequently

inherit environmental messes made years

before environmental statutes were even

written. Mining wastes, unexploded ordnance, severe erosion from overgrazing,

and municipal landfills on public lands —

all have left a legacy of environmental

degradation to which we must attend.

F r e q u e n t l y, the perpetrator has long gone,

leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

A New Emphasis on 

C o m p l i a n c e

During Secretary Babbitt’s tenure, there

has been a new emphasis placed on meeting our environmental compliance obligations. Perhaps the most significant step

we have taken was entering into a unique

Compliance Assistance Initiative in partnership with EPA (see related story on

page 3). For EPA’s part, this was the fir s t

time it offered to provide compliance

assistance across an entire civilian federal agency. For Interior, it was an opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses

in our programs, and to make changes

where needed.

This partnership has produced facility

level assistance, corrective action projects,

and analyses of environmental management systems. One of the most signific a n t

efforts has been a joint and thorough

review of the environmental management

systems within the National Park Service, based on the Code of Environmental

Management Principles (CEMP).

Through this review, and by applying the

C E M P principles, we have evaluated

management commitment, compliance

assurance, pollution prevention, enabling

systems, performance, accountability, and

measurement and improvement. We

intend to undertake a similar review of

the management systems of several other

Interior bureaus as well.

The partnership with EPA has produced other dividends. Improved contacts

between Interior and EPA field personnel

have led to better mutual understanding

and appreciation of the obligations,

resources, and challenges of each agency.

As a result, both agencies are better able

to handle compliance issues when they

emerge. 

One indicator of progress is the

D e p a r t m e n t ’s compliance with EPA’s

requirements for underground storage

tanks. On December 22, 1998, the deadline for phase one compliance, all bureaus

of the Department were virtually in full

compliance with the UST rules. For an

agency that began with an inventory of

4,000 tanks, that was a signific a n t

a c h i e v e m e n t .

A second step the Department has taken to improve environmental compliance

is the creation of a new branch of Federal

Facilities Compliance within the Office of

the Solicitor. The branch is responsible for

providing compliance and enforcement

support across the Department with

respect to cleanup of hazardous substance

releases. Not only will this branch

enhance the Department’s ability to comply with CERCLA cleanup requirements,

it will accelerate the pace at which we

identify parties responsible for contaminating Department lands and pursue

these parties for financial and other assistance in cleanups. 

The Department of the Interior and

E PA should be and are environmental

soulmates. We must build a culture of

environmental compliance, which

requires a sustained effort to assure management commitment, resources, training, and accountability at all levels of the

a g e n c y. While it cannot happen overnight,

our progress — with the assistance of

E PA — has been impressive. And that

effort will continue. 

Environmental Compliance: It’s Good Policy and It’s the Law

By Edward B. Cohen, Deputy Solicitor, Department of the Interior

G u e s tS p o t
FEDFACS 3

E

PA’s first effort t o

provide compliance

assistance across an

entire federal agency

has yielded useful

progress after a year of

implementation. In

January 1998, EPA

and the Department of

the Interior (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. 

Perhaps the most

innovative and farreaching efforts that

has resulted from the

E PA/DOI compliance

initiative is the analysis of environmental

management systems (EMS) within the

National Park Service (NPS), including an

analysis of support relationships between

NPS field-level facilities and NPS and

DOI headquarters environmental offic e s .

This analysis was conducted using the

Code of Environmental Management

Principles (CEMP), a collection of fiv e

broad management principles and performance objectives that provide a basis for

effective and responsible federal environmental management. 

Formal and informal aspects of the

National Park Service’s EMS were

reviewed at the field, regional and headquarters levels. The review also addressed

portions of the parent DOI organization

which directly influence NPS environmental management activities (DOI Office of

Environmental Policy and Compliance

and additional DOI-level units). The

review covered July-December 1998, a

period during which several changes to

the NPS EMS were either underway or

planned. The assessment team conducted

75 interviews, reviewed 85 EMS-related

records, and made direct observations. 

F i n d i n g s

A set of recommendations was developed

for each of the five CEMP p e r f o r m a n c e

objectives as suggested areas for future

improvement. The findings were designed

to encourage further NPS review of the

applicability of the CEMP in supporting

the overall success of the NPS environmental management system. Principal

findings include:

• Management Commitment: W h i l e

environmental stewardship and sustainability are part of the fundamental

culture at NPS, environmental compliance also needs to be an integral part

of both. Funding and staffing for environmental requirements is somewhat

fragmented and regulation-specific

rather than multimedia (e.g., focused

on hazmat/waste vs. all media). Service-wide funding and staffing decision-making processes should include

explicit recognition of environmental

regulatory compliance requirements.

• Compliance Assurance and Pollution Prevention: Compliance assurance tools, such as the audit protocol,

are planned or being implemented.

Procedures and follow-up should be

provided to ensure that compliance

standards in the tools are current and

that audits include consideration of

pollution prevention opportunities to

achieve and maintain compliance.

Information resulting from compliance

assurance efforts is a valuable planning tool and should be recognized in

budget planning, staffing, and programmatic decision-making.

• Enabling Systems: Training opportunities outside of NPS should be

explored to benefit from broad regulatory compliance training. Environmental compliance tracking systems

are being implemented. As tracking

protocols are being developed, opportunities to track all relevant information

sources should be explored, including

dissemination and feedback on areas

of concern.

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

M e d i a - s p e c i fic regional environmental

coordinators are designated but have

little direct authority for ensuring

environmental compliance. NPS

should consider a policy to emphasize

management responsibility and staff

authority and responsibility for environmental compliance at both facility

and support office levels.

• Measurement and Improvement:

Planned audit reviews should be

tracked with root cause and corrective

action response identified and shared

across NPS. Tracking and response

should be used in budgetary and

resource planning. 

For more information on the project, contact Will Garvey at (202) 564-2458.

Update on EPA-DOI Initiative:

Review of Environmental Management Systems 

Conducted at National Park Service
4 FEDFACS

G ree n F a c i l i t i e s

P a rtnerships for a Zero

Waste Park

Aimee Vi n c e n t

T

he Presidio of San Francisco is a

unique national park. Covering almost

1,500 acres at the northern tip of San

Francisco, the Presidio is an urban park

with varied natural resources, breathtaking views, and over 500 historic structures. The Presidio Trust, a non-profit

federal corporation, has the daunting

task of maintaining and enhancing the

natural and cultural resources that make

the Presidio worthy of National Park status and able to become financially self

sustaining by the year 2013.

As part of our goal to become a model

of sustainable practices, we are searching

for ways to do our business in the most

environmentally sound way possible. A

primary component of this process is

reducing waste in all areas of operations.

Diverting waste from the landfill is one

way that we can strive toward sustaina b i l i t y. Requiring contractors and lessees

to reduce waste is an important step. Our

major waste reduction programs include

park-wide recycling collection and education, visitor and special event recycling,

building materials salvage, compost and

tree debris recycling, and an environmental purchasing program.

All of our programs require help from

local groups and other government agencies. Some of our partners in reducing

waste include:

• A local non-profit recycler

• A local youth job-training organization

• The State of California Department of

C o n s e r v a t i o n

• The San Francisco Solid Waste Management Program

• Local artists and craftspeople

• A n o n - p r o fit environmental advocacy

g r o u p

• Local volunteers.

By finding partners in this effort we

strengthen our capabilities to get the job

done. By working with us, organizations

gain access to millions of visitors to

spread a waste reduction message to.

State and city agencies move closer to

state-mandated waste diversion goals.

Local businesses and artisans benefit by

receiving materials to use as resources,

which might otherwise have become

waste. Working in the park can also provide a valuable training opportunity. A n y

way you look at it, the environment benefits from reduced waste, reduced pollution, and preservation of natural

r e s o u r c e s .

D e c o n s t ructing Building 901 

One pilot project conducted at the Presidio was the deconstruction of Building

901, a warehouse built by the U.S. A r m y

in the 1940s. Completed in the spring of

1996, this was an early example of how

hand deconstruction can be a better alternative than destructive demolition. The

project involved the local waste reduction

community in finding a solution for construction/demolition waste. Partners in

the project included the National Park

Service, The San Francisco Community

Recyclers, Beyond Waste and the Wo o d

Resources Efficiency Network.

In about six weeks, over 60,000 board

feet of lumber were recovered in their

structural form. Rather than being

chipped for boiler fuel or ground for

mulch (common practices in the demolition industry), this wood was reused in

value-added projects. The unique qualities of this old growth wood made it especially valuable. Wood experts admired its

close grain, straightness, and absence of

fla w s .

A large portion of the wood was purchased for use in building a custom

“green” home in Marin County. The

builders found the properties of the salvaged wood to be superior to that of most

new framing wood bought new today.

Other buyers of the wood were local artisans making one-of-a-kind art pieces and

crafts people who made the wood into

high-quality furniture and flooring. A f t e r

the success of the Presidio deconstruction

project, many other parks and agencies

conducted pilot projects and began deconstruction programs. 

If you are considering building demolition, follow the following hierarchy:

• Adaptive reuse of buildings on-site

• Removal of buildings as whole units

for reuse elsewhere

• Deconstruction of buildings and value

added reuse of building components

• Demolition with source separation and

a high level of reuse and recycling.

Some important lessons:

• Have a materials specialist examine

the building and determine the potential value and salvageability of materia l s

• Reuse as much material as possible

back on the site or elsewhere within

your organization

• Plan for a project that will take more

time than a destructive demolition

• Consider markets for materials before

you begin the project

• Designate a secure space for materials

to be safely and properly stored and

prepared for marketing

• Consider alternative labor sources and

the potential to offer skills training

• Track where the materials have gone

and tell your story!

For more information about deconstruction, see the following Web sites:

h t t p : / / w w w. c i w m b . c a . g o v / C o n D e m o / c a s e

studies/Presidio Trust and http://www.

n a h b r c . o r g / p u b l i s t / h u d d o c s . h t m .

Aimee Vincent is the Sustainability Coordinator at The Presidio Trust. She can be

reached at 415-561-5368 or avincent@

p r e s i d i o t r u s t . g o v.
FEDFACS 5

• L a n d s c a p i n g : B o t h

inside and out, the buildi n g ’s landscaping is truly

“green.” The outside vegetation, including 30-40 honey

locust trees, primarily consists of native plants, which

require less water than

imported plants. These

plants also require little

maintenance, reducing use

and exposure to harmful

pesticides. Shrub beds

located throughout the site

add visual appeal while aiding in erosion control.

Indoors, ficus trees help

remove indoor air pollutants.

• Water Conservation and Erosion

C o n t r o l : The building offers water

conservation and erosion control

opportunities as well. Plumbing fixtures in the building will include Mister Miser Urinals, Flushometer toilet

adapters, and low-flow shower heads

in the fitness center which provide

water conservation opportunities. A n

advanced water management controller operates the building’s irrigation system valves. This allows for a

wide variety of water saving measures,

such as water budgeting and programmable rain delay. Probes measure the

moisture content of the soil outside the

building to ensure that vegetation is

only watered when necessary. In order

to improve the quality of water runoff,

the designers installed sand oil interceptors in the parking lot drains to

screen out water contaminants.

• Air Quality: Associated with this project, the City of Kansas City is constructing a half-mile bike path adjacent to the new Region 7 offic e

building. This path, along with the

installation of bike racks and showers

at the facility, will give employees an

alternative means of transportation to

Region 7’s New Offic e

Building Greening the

H e a rt l a n d

In June 1999, E PA plans to formally

open its new Region 7 office building in

downtown Kansas City, Kansas. With its

wide range of environmental features —

from energy efficient windows and lighting to an advanced water management

system — the approximately 217,500

square foot facility moves closer to building “green.” Built at a projected construction cost of $32 million, the 5-story facility is designed to house roughly 900 EPA

regional employees, with 750 scheduled

to move in initially.

“Given the regulatory requirements

and the availability of green products at

the time the Solicitation for Offers was

published, our design team and Koll

Development did an outstanding job in

design and construction of the facility, ”

said Marc Matthews of EPA’s Region 7.

“ With the widespread availability of recycled-content and other environmental

building products today, we hope other

facilities can go even further and build

upon our success.”

E PA regional staff worked with the

developer to create an environmentally

sustainable design. Together they established several overarching goals:

• To create a soft visual impact.

• To reduce disturbance to site conditions and surroundings.

• To accommodate natural light.

• To emphasize EPA’s overall mission of

environmental enhancement and sust a i n a b i l i t y.

The resulting building offers a range of

environmental features in the areas of energy effic i e n c y, recycling, landscaping, and

water conservation and erosion control.

• Energy Effic i e n c y : In an effort to

reduce energy consumption, the building was designed to qualify for an EPA

Energy Star building rating. The

building uses indirect lighting as the

primary source of light in the open

o f fice areas in the building. Throughout the building, low emittance (low-e)

windows are recessed two feet to

increase the shading coefficient; T- 8

fluorescent bulbs with electronic ballasts provide energy-saving benefit s .

All public occupied spaces use motion

sensors to detect occupants for general

lighting, while compact flu o r e s c e n t

task lighting is used for individual

cubicles to avoid wasteful overhead

lighting grids. 

• R e c y c l i n g : Many of the interior furnishings contain recycled-content

including the carpeting, ceiling tiles,

ceramic floors, and paint. The auger

piles, footings, and foundations were

constructed with concrete containing

1,000 tons of coal fly ash, complying

with EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines requirements. Recyclables are stored and consolidated on

each floor in rooms next to the freight

elevators, allowing for a quick and

smooth delivery to the loading dock.

These rooms also provide storage space

for reusable office equipment and

m a t e r i a l s .

Continued on page 6
6 FEDFACS

driving. Parking spaces will be

reserved for employees who carpool,

and Region 7 will continue to offer a

transit subsidy program to compensate employees for using public transp o r t a t i o n .

With the building almost complete,

regional staff are turning their attention

towards a new environmental laboratory.

“ We are partnering with the General Services Administration, lab personnel, and

others to ensure that the new lab is as

green as possible,” added Matthews.

“ We’ll be able to take what we’ve learned

from the office building and go one step

f u r t h e r.” Once completed, the lab will be

located across the street and within walking distance from the new office building.

For more information on the innovative new office building or laboratory, contact Marc Matthews at (913) 551-7517.

mental planning and performance, and

particularly as they relate to Indian trust

resources and BIA facilities on Indian

lands. CAPs can help to ensure that BIA

and Indian trust resources and personnel

are protected from potentially adverse

conditions by identifying compliance

issues, providing means to address them,

and recommending procedures that can

be used at other facilities.

In order to implement the agreement,

Craig Hooks, Director of EPA’s FFEO,

requested that each EPA region with

BIA facilities nominate candidate facilities for a national multimedia auditing

program. The selection of Cherokee BIA

Agency was made after consulting with

regional and BIA representatives, and

affected tribes. 

FFEO is currently determining the scope

of the audit and identifying procedural

requirements for the audit with BIA H e a dMultimedia Audits of 

BIA Agencies Begin with

C h e rokee, NC

C

herokee Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s

(BIA) A g e n c y, located in Cherokee,

North Carolina, will be the first of many

B I A facilities to be audited under the

national multimedia auditing program

created under a Memorandum of Understanding (dated August 12, 1998) between

the EPA and BIA. Cherokee was chosen

because of its wide range of activities. 

The Compliance Assistance Project

(CAP) to be undertaken will identify compliance problems at BIA facilities through

a series of multimedia audits that will be

carried out at 4-6 representative facilities.

B I A will use the information gained to

improve BIA f a c i l i t i e s ’ overall environquarters and the Cherokee A g e n c y. FFEO

will use its findings and recommendations

as a guide to identify other BIA facilities for

the national multimedia auditing program.

For more information, contact A n t h o n y

Shelton at (404) 562-9636. 

E PA Declares Ft. Meade’s

Tipton Airfield Free of 

H a z a rdous Wa s t e

I

n a cooperative effort with the A r m y, the

Maryland Department of Environment,

and the State of Maryland, EPA c o m p l e ted all hazardous waste cleanup work at

the Tipton Army A i r field property at Fort

George G. Meade, and issued a “Record of

Decision” saying no further action is nece s s a r y. 

During the cleanup, drums of hazardous waste were removed and an acid pit

was cleaned out. In addition, over 2,000

ordnance items were recovered and disposed of. (Ordnance items are military

weapons, including artillery and heavy

guns.) Further work remains to be done on

an inactive landfill at the site, situated on

property east of the Little Patuxent River.

Fort Meade was placed on EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List of the most

hazardous sites in the nation last July.

Sites placed on the list are eligible for longterm financial, technical, and personnel

support from EPA to clean up the site. The

Tipton A i r field portion of the site is in the

process of being deleted from the list.

C u r r e n t l y, Anne Arundel County has

leased three buildings and a portion of

the Tipton A i r field property to use as an

airport. The Tipton A i r field property will

be transferred to Anne Arundel County by

the fall. Ft. George G. Meade has been a

U.S. Army installation since 1917. It is

located in northwestern Anne A r u n d e l

C o u n t y, Maryland, along the Little Patuxent and Patuxent rivers, midway between

Baltimore and Washington, D.C. 

I n t he F i e l d

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

GREENING THE HEART L A N D

Continued from page 5
FEDFACS 7

Final EMR Policy and 

Guidance Issued 

T

he two-and-a-half year EMR pilot program is over and the final “Environmental Management Review Policy and

Guidance for Federal Facilities” is available on EPA’s Web site 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 flex.html. 

The final EMR policy and guidance

incorporates lessons learned from 25 pilot

EMRs conducted by EPA regional staff at

facilities belonging to the Federal Av i a t i o n

Administration, Coast Guard, National

Park Service, EPA, Postal Service, and the

Army Corps of Engineers. These facilities

report improved partnerships with EPA ,

building a better foundation for an environmental management program, and

i d e n t i fication of opportunities for

i m p r o v e m e n t .

The final policy modifies the Incidental

Violations Response Policy to be consistent

with EPA’s Audit Policy, and adds a provision that EPA generally will not conduct

inspections at a facility receiving an EMR

for six months afterwards.

A National Report on the EMR Pilot

Program will be posted on the Web site in

May 1999.

Given the success of the pilot program,

EMRs are slated to be an integral part of

E PA’s compliance and technical assistance

toolbox for years to come. We hope that

the new guidance will encourage some of

your facilities to request an EPA - c o n d u c ted EMR. Remember: EMRs are a volunt a r y, collaborative, inexpensive means by

which a facility can determine the health

of its environmental management system. 

Guidance Coming on 

RCRA 6002 Inspections 

F

FEO is preparing guidance on conducting federal facility inspections for compliance with section 6002 of RCRA, as

mandated under a recent Executive

Order (see box). The final guidance document will be available on the Envirosense

Web site in May 1999 (www. e p a . g o v / e n v ir o n s e n s e ) .

For the first year of implementation,

E PA inspections related to this section

will emphasize awareness and compliance assistance, focusing on federal facility responsibilities under RCRA 6 0 0 2 .

Thus, for example, inspections might

include distribution of a questionnaire to

the facility and a brief inspection of a

f a c i l i t y ’s motor vehicle maintenance shop

to determine if the facility is using and

purchasing vehicular products designated

under the EPA buy-recycled program.

The inspections would determine

whether the facility is currently using

items such as re-refined lubricants,

retread tires, and engine coolant. 

In future years, based on information

learned from inspections conducted over

the next year, EPA will review its

response to non-compliance with section

6002 to ensure federal facility compliance. EPA has determined that violations

of RCRA section 6002 by federal agencies

do not give rise to administrative penalty

actions or orders under RCRA’s enforcement authorities. This conclusion does

not, however, limit EPA’s authority to

issue a notice of violation (NOV) for violations of RCRA section 6002 or enter into

compliance agreements at federal facilities that are discovered through the

inspections mandated by Executive Order

13101. It also appears that citizens may

take action pursuant to RCRA s e c t i o n

7002, the citizen suit provision.

P o l i c i e s

B U Y-RECYCLED EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED

On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13101: “Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition.” Section 403 of the Ord e r

d i rected EPA to develop guidance for inspections of federal facilities for compliance with the

b u y - recycled program established under RCRA section 6002. The guidance is to be used by EPA

in conducting RCRA inspections or multi-media re g u l a t o ry compliance inspections where RCRA

compliance is a component of the inspection. 

Recognizing that recycling works best if there are markets for the materials collected, Cong ress directed the federal government to employ its purchasing power to help create and sustain those markets by buying products manufactured with the collected materials. Section 6002

of RCRA establishes a federal buy-recycled program and re q u i res EPA to: (1) designate items

that are or can be made with re c o v e red materials and (2) pre p a re guidelines to assist pro c u ring agencies in complying with affirmative pro c u rement re q u i rements. Once EPA has designated items, any agency using federal monies to pro c u re those items must purchase items composed of the highest percentage of re c o v e red materials practicable. 

To date, the EPA Comprehensive Pro c u rement Guidelines (CPG) program has designated 36

p roducts in 8 product categories. An additional 19 products will be formally listed in June 1999.

E PA re s e a rch indicates that the designated items are of high quality, are widely available, and

cost-competitive with products made from virgin materials. 

Additional information on the CPG designated items and content recommendations can be

found on the World Wide Web at http://www. e p a . g o v / c p g / p roducts.htm. 

We hope that the new 

guidance will encourage 

some of your facilities 

to request an EPA -

conducted EMR.
8 FEDFACS

Region 3 

W

alter Reed Medical Center, DC:

In separate violations, EPA has cited the U.S. Army for alleged violations of

(1) federal underground storage tank

(UST) regulations at the A r m y ’s Wa l t e r

Reed Medical Center in Washington D.C.

and the Center’s Forest Glen Annex in Silver Spring, Maryland, (2) RCRA r e g u l ations concerning hazardous waste storage

at Walter Reed Medical Center in Wa s hington, DC. “Leaking underground tanks

are a major source of soil and groundwater

contamination. We have to enforce compliance with UST regulations now, or face

costly cleanups later,” said EPA R e g i o n a l

Administrator W. Michael McCabe. 

E PA is seeking a total penalty of

$94,101 for UST violations involving fiv e

diesel fuel tanks at Walter Reed’s main

hospital facility in D.C., and four diesel

fuel tanks at the Forest Glen A n n e x .

These tanks range in capacity from 2,000

to 10,000 gallons. District of Columbia

regulations require UST owners to permanently close or remove their tanks

within 12 months after the tanks are taken out of service. EPA alleges that the fiv e

U S Ts at Walter Reed were last used

around December 1993 but were removed

between August 1995 and January 1997.

At the Forest Glen Annex, the A r m y

allegedly failed to use corrosion-protected

steel piping in one 2,000 gallon tank and

to comply with proper leak detection procedures in two 10,000 gallon tanks. 

E PA’s September 30 complaint proposes

a $201,600 penalty for RCRA violations at

Walter Reed, although none of the violations

poses a health risk to the patients or employees at the medical center. Joint inspections

by EPA and District officials in 1996 and

1998 found that hazardous waste containers

were improperly labeled and sealed, and the

facility did not have a permit to store hazardous waste. The hazardous wastes included mercury, chloroform, acetonitrile,

trichloroacetic acid, phenol, methanol,

xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, and photo fixer waste. EPA has ordered the Army to

immediately cease storing hazardous waste

at Walter Reed except in conformance with

requirements. The Army may request a

hearing to contest the violations and EPA’s

proposed penalties.

Region 4

101st Airborne Division (Air A s s a u l t )

and Fort Campbell, KY/TN: E PA

Region 4 issued a RCRA complaint and

compliance order to the Army and the

Defense Logistics Agency in September

1999. The RCRA order is for violations of

the following areas: (1) OB/OD unit interim status, (2) failure to have personnel

training, (3) security, (4) inspection, (5)

permit. Most of the violations are the

result of improper management of the

OB/OD unit, including the burning

and/or detonation of D003 hazardous

waste in excess of the permit limit. The

proposed penalty is $540,470. The RCRA

order included a notice of opportunity for

a hearing and an invitation to request an

informal settlement conference. The

Region and Fort Campbell have met

informally and are currently in settlement negotiations. 

XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort

Bragg, NC: E PA Region 4 issued a

S D WA administrative order to the A r m y

in March 1999 for the following: (1) Maximum contaminant level exceedences for

total trihalomethanes, (2) failure to provide timely public notice for maximum

contaminant level exceedences for total

trihalomethanes, (3) failure to meet the

monitoring and reporting requirements

for total trihalomethanes, (4) failure to

meet the public education requirements

as a result of exceeding the 90th percentile action level for lead, (5) failure to

report the failure to comply with the

national primary drinking water regulations within 48 hours. There is no proposed penalty at the present time. The

Army has requested a meeting to discuss

the order and needed actions. 

Region 6

Bureau of Engraving and Printing,

Fort Worth, TX: E PA filed an administrative penalty action on March 31, 1999

against the U.S. Treasury for violations of

the Clean Air Act at the Bureau of

Engraving and Printing (BEP), We s t e r n

Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Te x a s .

This is the largest CAA penalty filed in

Region 6 against a federal facility using

recently clarified penalty authority from

the Department of Justice. (The decision

came on July 16, 1997, from DOJ’s Offic e

of Legal Counsel that EPA has penalty

authority under Section 113(d) of the

C A A against federal agencies for violations of the CAA.) An EPA i n s p e c t i o n

revealed that BEP had failed to comply

with regulations which reduce pollution

from volatile organic compounds, sulfur

dioxide, and chromium compounds. In

the administrative complaint, EPA

charged that BEP violated regulations of

the Texas Administrative Code, which

have been incorporated into the Texas A i r

Pollution Control Implementation Plan,

and federal regulations concerning two

boilers at the plant and chromium compounds. EPA seeks a $289,800 penalty for

these violations.

In another case, on June 12, 1998, a

multimedia environmental compliance

inspection was conducted at the BEP

Fort Worth facility. From the inspection,

it was determined that nickel had been

“otherwise used” at above threshold

amounts for 1995 and 1996. In addition,

the Bureau failed to maintain records for

nickel for the 1994 reporting year. A

show-cause letter was issued on January

12, 1999, informing the facility of its noncompliance with EPCRA Section 313.

Additional information was included in

the letter instructing the facility how to

achieve compliance. On February 24,

1999, information was received from the

f a c i l i t y. After reviewing the information it

was determined that BEP had met the

terms of the show-cause letter and was

T h e H a m m e r
FEDFACS 9

now in compliance with EPCRA 313. A

c o n firmation letter acknowledging the

B u r e a u ’s compliance with EPCRA 3 1 3

was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.

This issue has been closed.

McAlester Army A m m u n i t i o n

Plant, Department of the A r m y,

M c A l e s t e r, OK: On December 2, 1997, a

multimedia environmental compliance

inspection was conducted at the

McAlester facility. From the inspection, it

was determined that chlorine was “otherwise used” at above threshold amounts for

1994, 1995, and 1996. On January 12,

1999, a show-cause letter was issued

informing the facility of its non-compliance with EPCRA Section 313. A d d i t i o n a l

information was included in the letter

instructing the facility how to achieve

compliance. On March 11, 1999, information was received from the facility. A f t e r

reviewing the information it was determined that McAlester had met the terms

of the Show-Cause letter and was now in

compliance with EPCRA 313. A c o n fir m ation letter acknowledging the Bureau’s

compliance with EPCRA 313 was sent to

the facility on April 6, 1999.

Region 10

Kodiak Coast Guard Station, Kodiak

Island, A K : E PA issued a complaint and

penalty on March 24, 1999 against the

U.S. Coast Guard Integrated Support

Command located on Kodiak Island, A l a ska. The compliant, seeking $74,250,

r e flects alleged federal hazardous waste

violations observed by EPA inspectors at

the facility in August 1998, and violations

which were self-disclosed by the Coast

Guard in a subsequent letter. Vi o l a t i o n s

include a failure to adequately track and

manage containers that held hazardous

waste. In a separate, self-reported incident, the Coast Guard also illegally treated hazardous wastes by detonating excess

ordnance in a remote bunker. By disclosing and correcting this violation in accordance with EPA’s self-reporting policy, the

Coast Guard qualified for penalty relief

and avoided an additional penalty of

$ 7 4 , 2 5 0 .

Hanford Nuclear Reservation, WA :

E PA issued a complaint on February 11 ,

1999 to the Department of Energy seeking

payment of $367,078 in civil penalties for

alleged RCRA violations at Hanford

Nuclear Reservation in Washington state.

The largest component of the penalty was

for improper storage of 17 drums containing solvents. The drums were stored outdoors, some for almost three years, and

the storage area did not have a permit or

comply with storage rules. A building serving as the receipt and distribution center

for the tank farms was cited for failing to

have an up-to-date contingency plan.

According to EPA Region 10 officials, the

most serious problem found in the multimedia inspection conducted last year was

H a n f o r d ’s failure to make a hazardous

waste determination. Although it applied

only to two one-gallon containers of waste,

o f ficials were concerned because of Hanf o r d ’s history of noncompliance with that

r e q u i r e m e n t .

cies, strategies, and principles on how to

develop, conduct, and implement environmental management systems at federal

facilities so a facility can improve its regulatory compliance, better manage its

risks and liabilities, and utilize its

resources most effectively. These tools

should help an agency answer the question “Where are we going?” Many of our

tools and documents are available via the

Internet on our Web page 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 flex.html. 

Next, we soon will have a Compliance

Assistance Center for Federal Facilities

that can assist facility managers who need

information regarding compliance with

environmental regulations. This Center’s

Web site will provide a virtual tour of a

typical federal facility and explain how to

tackle various compliance issues. It will

include a questionnaire for users to complete to help update the Center to ensure

its responsiveness to user needs. The Cent e r, which will be located on our Web page

in the near future, will be an important

tool to help agencies figure out where they

want to be in the future. 

My goal is for all federal agencies to

assume the mantle of true environmental

leadership. Not just compliance but leadership. That leadership won’t just be

measured in the compliance status of its

facilities or whether an internal auditing

system has been developed. Environmental leadership will be accomplished when

the heads of each department or agency

and all of its top career and political leadership view environmental management

as part of their missions — not just as

something that EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office worries about. 

And last, but certainly not least, is our

enforcement of environmental violations.

My staff director for enforcement once

said during a speech, “We don’t want you

to like enforcement. We want the process

to be painful.” She was right. As I have

said before, enforcement actions and

penalties deter non-compliance. We do it

because it works. Enforcement will continue to be an active and vital part of

F F E O ’s mission. However, embracing

environmental leadership within all federal agencies and departments will

advance the concept of environmental

stewardship. Our shared environment

will be the ultimate benefactor. 

DIRECTOR’S WORD

Continued from page 1
10 FEDFACS

E PA Region 6 Hosts Second

Wetlands Regulatory

R o u n d t a b l e

E

PA Region 6 hosted its second We tlands Regulatory Roundtable in January 1999, attracting attendance from the

US Army Corps of Engineers District and

Divisional Offices; US Fish and Wi l d l i f e

Service, Field Offices; National Marine

Fisheries Service; Natural Resources

Conservation Service; and state environmental offices which have a role in

reviewing wetland permits.

The primary objective of the roundtable is to improve the effectiveness of

the permitting program as it relates to

Section 404 of the Clean Water A c t .

Workgroups established at the previous

y e a r’s roundtable presented summaries

on topics such as: cumulative impacts on

wetlands, watershed approach to projects, mitigation banking, use of hydrogeomorphic modeling, review of completed

mitigation sites, stream restoration projects, and an enforcement strategy.

A roundtable planned for next year

will continue the discussions and new initiatives that will affect the wetlands program. Information concerning the We tlands Roundtable can be reviewed on

Region 6 web page at: http://www.

e p a . g o v / e a r t h 1 r 6 / 6 w q / e c o p r o / e m / p e rmits. For more information, contact

Wanda Boyd at (214) 665-6696. 

P2 Workshop at Coast

G u a rd Facility 

The Coast Guard Training Center in

Cape May, NJ hosted a pollution prevention (P2) environmental workshop in

March 1999, jointly sponsored by Regions

2 and 3. The two day workshop was

via the Internet.” The EPA grant covers

tuition for up to 30 DOI employees, who

will each earn 3 hours of college credit.

This pilot project utilizes FRCC’s We b -

based distance education software and

expertise in environmental training. The

class is a core class in the environmental

curriculum at FRCC, and is designed to

introduce students to scientific and policy issues underlying current environmental problems in the natural world.

Issues presented include hazardous

waste management, acid mine drainage

and aquatic ecosystems, urban air pollution, ozone degradation, and pollution

prevention. 

The 12-week course started on January 29, 1999, and currently has 13 students enrolled. 

Each week’s reading assignments,

Internet research assignments, homework assignments, and/or quizzes are

posted on the class bulletin board. Students contact the instructor via e-mail for

answers to questions or for any clarific ations or help needed. 

Response from participants in this

class has been positive. One student emailed the instructor “I can’t tell you how

much I enjoy this class. I am the safety

o f ficer for our soils engineering lab, and

the information I am picking up from

this class is right in line with some of the

work I have done or even some work I am

now doing.” Once the class is complete,

FRCC will provide each student with an

opportunity to evaluate the course content, instructor, and Internet delivery.

FRCC is planning to offer this class

again in the fall, and has targeted two

additional classes, “Introduction to Environmental Laws and Policies” and “Pollution Prevention” to be developed for

Internet delivery. (EPA support for

tuition for these classes is not planned.)

For more information, contact John

Works (EPA) at (303) 312-6196 or Kim

Lewis (FRCC) at (303) 404-5356. 

designed primarily for civilian federal

agencies, and combined classroom lectures with a pollution prevention opportunity assessment excercise at the automotive maintenance shop of the Coast Guard

f a c i l i t y. Prevention opportunities identified during the workshop assessment

exercise were discussed in follow-up lectures and with members of the facility. (A

formal pollution prevention opportunity

assessment was conducted at the facility

in August 1997 by Region 2, which formed

the basis of some discussion as well.) The

workshop covered such topics as:

• The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

and Executive Order 12856;

• Integration of P2 concepts into Environmental Management Systems;

• P2 and Environmental Compliance;

• P2 plans, baselines and assessments;

a n d

• Hazardous Material Control Systems.

The workshop was attended by

approximately 40 representative from

such agencies as the U.S. Mint, Federal

Aviation Administration, National Park

Service, Bettis Atomic Power lab, and the

Smithsonian Institute. Feedback was

positive and similar pollution prevention/waste minimization workshops will

be held for the federal facility community

in the future. 

Region 8 Sponsors 

E n v i ronmental Vi rtual 

University Pilot Pro j e c t

As part of EPA’s national compliance

assistance for Department of Interior

employees, Region 8 awarded Front

Range Community College (FRCC) in

We s t m i n s t e r, Colorado a grant to develop

“Introduction to Environmental Science

C o n f e re n c eU p d a t e
FEDFACS 11

New Yellow Book 

P u b l i s h e d

T

he Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and

Compliance at Federal Facilities, commonly referred to as the

“ Yellow Book,” is currently being published and will be available

in hard copy and via the Internet in June 1999. The new Ye l l o w

Book revises and supersedes the 1988 version entitled Federal

Facilities Compliance Strategy. 

The Yellow Book is designed to assist federal facilities with

achieving and maintaining compliance with federal environmental requirements as required by Executive Order 12088,

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, and in

going beyond these requirements to lead the way in minimizing

environmental contamination. 

For information on ordering the Yellow Book, contact Priscilla

Harrington of EPA’s FFEO at (202) 564-2461 or fax (202) 501-

0 0 6 9 .

R e s o u rc e s

On-Line Notes: 

HOW DO YOU SPELL “ENVIRO$EN$E?”

Y

ou may have noticed that the domain name (URL) address for

F F E O ’s Enviro$en$e/FFLEX (Federal Facilities Environmental Leadership Exchange) Web site — http://www. e p a . g o v / o e c a /

f e d f a c / fflex.html — appears on your browser screen as

h t t p : / / e s . e p a . g o v / o e c a / f e d f a c / fflex.html. As you may have discovere d ,

you can access Enviro$en$e/FFLEX Web pages using either addre s s .

So what is the significance of “www” versues “es” in the address? The

“www” designation refers to EPA’s main server; the “es” refers to the

s e rver currently being used by the Enviro$en$e (E$) network. Wi t h i n

the year, however, the “es” server for Enviro$en$e will become part of

the larger EPA server system, and typing in the “es” form of the addre s s

will not access the site. There f o re, any time you publish or give out the

E n v i ro$en$e address, you should always use the “www” form rather

than the “es” designation. The main domain name address for Enviro$en$e itself can be accessed at http://www. e p a . g o v / e n v i rosense. 

For more information, contact Isabelle Lacayo, 202/564-2578 or

l a c a y o . i s a b e l l e @ e p a . g o v.

H

ave a question about EPA and don’t know whom to call? The

Federal Facilities Coordinators, located in each EPA r e g i o n a l

o f fice, will either answer your query or direct you to the right

location or person. 

Have suggestions for a workshop? Need to get together with

your state or tribal representatives on environmental issues of

mutual concern? Need assistance to enhance a pollution prevention program? FFCs plan, coordinate, or conduct inspections or

compliance assistance workshops and work cooperatively with

program staff and managers to ensure that federal facilities are

provided the tools they need to be in environmental compliance. 

FFCs have an average of 20 years of government service.

They are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection

specialists. They have work experience with EPA h e a d q u a r t e r s ,

state agencies, and environmental interest groups. And they are

the primary regional points of contact for federal facilities looking for EPA information and referral. 

The FFCs and FFEO welcome your suggestions and want to

work with you to strengthen our environmental partnerships!

Who Are the Federal Facilities Coordinators?

REGIONAL FEDERAL FA C I L I T I E S

C O O R D I N AT O R S

Region 1: Anne Fenn, (617) 918-1805

Region 2: Jeanette Dadusc, (212) 637-3492

Region 3: Bill Arguto, (215) 814-3367

Region 4: Stacy Howard, (404) 562-9633 (DOE Coord i n a t o r )

David Holroyd, (404) 562-9625 (DoD Coord i n a t o r )

Anthony Shelton, (404) 562-9636 (CFA Coord i n a t o r )

Region 5: Lee Regner, (312) 353-6478

Region 6: Joyce Stubblefield, (214) 665-6430

Region 7: Diana Jackson, (913) 551-7744

Region 8: Dianne Thiel, (303) 312-6389

Connally Mears, (303) 312-6217

Region 9: Sara Segal, (415) 744-1569 

L a rry Woods, (415) 744-1580

Region 10: Michele Wright, (206) 553-1747

Susan Ennes, (206) 553-6249
U p c o m i n gE v e n t 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

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 I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide A c t

F F E O Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (EPA )

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

August 1999

E PA Region 7 Federal Facilities

C o n f e re n c e

Kansas City, KS

Contact: Diana Jackson at (913) 551-7509 or 

jackson.diana @epa.gov.

August 11-12, 1999 

G reat Lakes Regional Pollution

P revention Roundtable Summer

Meeting 

Traverse City, MI 

Contact: Lisa Merr i field, (217) 333-8940 or 

m e rr i fld @ w m rc . h a z a rd . u i u c . e d u .

September 20-23, 1999 

1999 Chemical Emergency 

P re p a redness and Pre v e n t i o n

C o n f e rence 

Washington, DC

Sponsor: EPA Region 3. Contact: Al Brown, (215) 814-

3302, or go to http://www. e p a c e p p . c o m .

November 15-18, 1999 

T h i rd Annual DoD Maintenance

Symposium and Exhibition: 

Tr a n s f o rming Maintenance Wi t h

Technology 

St. Louis, MO

Sponsor: National Defense Industrial Association,

O ffice of the Secre t a ry of Defense. Contact: Te rr a

Thomas, NDIA, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA, 22201-3061, tel: 703-247-2590, fax: 703-522-

1885, tthomas@ndia.org .