United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

(2261A)

EPA 300-N-02-007

Spring 2002

Printed on Recycled Paper

an environmental bulletin for federal facilities

ISSUE #13

Inside

FedFacs

Continued on page 3

2 Environmental Management Reviews

3 FFCA Workshop and DoD-State MEG Meeting

4 News: Mercury Assessment, RCRA Cleanup Initiative, 

National Environmental Performance Track and Clean 

Texas Programs

5 FUDS Pose Potential Threats

6 Workshops/Training

7 TX Environmental Partnership

Federal facilities use EPA’s Environmental Management

Reviews – or EMRs – to make big strides in improving their

overall environmental performance. An EMR is a review of a

facility’s environmental programs and its management systems

to determine the extent to which it has developed and implemented specific environmental protection programs and plans

which should ensure compliance with environmental laws and

regulations and make progress toward environmental excellence.

Recent federal facility EMR success stories demonstrate that

EMRs are successful, with EPA providing useful advice to help

federal facilities deal with everyday environmental concerns and

to advance their environmental objectives.

An EMR is a consulting service that EPA provides to federal

facilities to help them improve their Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). EMRs are voluntary and free to the

reviewed facility. The reviews are typically conducted by a team

of experts from EPA with assistance from an EPA contractor. The

team commonly spends one to three days at the facility, depending on the scope and breadth of the EMR.

Federal facilities use EMRs to improve their Environmental

Management Systems. Whether the federal facility is looking for

ways to improve its existing EMS or wants guidance and information on how to develop its own system, EPA is ready to assist.

For ease of organization, an EMS can be separated into several components. EPA’s Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits of Federal Facilities – Phase 3, organizes an

EMS into seven parts or disciplines (Figure 1). Many EMRs are

structured similarly, with the reviewed facility receiving recommendations in one or more of these disciplines. As part of an

EMR, the EPA team and the federal facility staff determine the

scope of the review to be conducted at the facility. In past years,

Feds Give High Marks on EPA Advice

EMRs tended to focus on only two or three of the seven disciplines, due primarily to time limitations. More recently and especially since Executive Order 13148 was issued (April 21, 2000),

requiring federal facilities to have EMSs in place by December

31, 2005, facilities and EPA teams are willing to take the time

and effort required for a more comprehensive approach and

review of all seven disciplines. 

In preparation for the EMR, the facility staff typically provide

the EPA team with background information on organizational

structure, operations conducted on-site, and overall mission of

the facility. With this information, the EPA team can determine

which operations have the potential to most significantly impact

the environment. The information also helps the team to organize the review to be as beneficial as possible to the facility as

well as to determine what staff should be interviewed as part of

the EMR. A schedule for the EMR is developed, including what

the review will focus on, the dates of an on-site visit by the

review team, and the personnel to be interviewed by the team.

This planning allows the EMR team to maximize its time with

the facility’s personnel and to gather the required information to

make a proper assessment while minimizing disruption to the

facility’s day-to-day operations. 

Organization

Structure

6%

Environmental

Commitment

10%

Formality of

Environmental

Programs

22%

Internal & External

Communications

7%

Staff Resources,

Development, and

Training

22%

Program Evaluation,

Reporting, and

Corrective Action

11%

Environmental

Planning and

Risk Management

22%

Figure 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW:

SEVEN DISCIPLINES

Total EMRs: 38

Total Recommendations: 547
2 FEDFACS

Region VI - USDA

The EMR made recommendations for improving our environmental management programs, which we’ve been implementing.

A major accomplishment is that “green” design in contracting

was made one of the prime selection criteria in our recent solicitation for architect/engineering services. The incorporation of

environmentally friendly materials and designs in our new construction will yield environmental benefits for years to come.

In addition to practical benefits, the EMR had intangible positive effects. The EMR was partially conducted at one of the U.S.

Department of Agricultural (USDA) Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) Southern Plains Area’s nineteen research laboratories. Word of their favorable impression of the review and its outcome has spread to the other laboratories, leading to increased

appreciation of and commitment to the seven environmental

management principles evaluated in the EMR. Our overall positive experience from the review has led to EMRs being considered or conducted in other Areas of our agency.

Phil Smith

Area Safety & Health Manager

USDA ARS Southern Plains Area

Region VI - Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Region VI contacted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the midst

of our preparation for ISO 14001 Certification. The EMR gave our

Management Team a benchmark against which to assess our

progress towards implementing and ultimately attaining ISO

14001 Certification.

Bill Bozzo

Manager, Environmental Department

DynMcDermott Petroleum Operation Co.

Region X - NOAA

In January of 1999, EPA Region X performed an Environmental

Management Review at National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Office of Marine and Aviation Operations,

Marine Operations Center - Pacific (MOC-P). The marine center

provides support for NOAA’s pacific fleet of seven vessels with four

vessels homeported in Seattle. EPA Region X Federal Facilities

Coordinator, Michelle Wright contacted James Schell, Environmental Compliance Officer, and requested if we would volunteer to

have an EMR performed at the site. This would be the first federal

site in Region X and NOAA site in the country to be reviewed. This

was an opportune time for the marine center as we were researching the development of an Environmental Management System for

the site according to the EPA’s Code of Environmental Management Principals (CEMP) for federal facilities. We had developed a

P2 Plan for Washington State Department of Ecology in 1994 and

an update was due. Having an EMR performed voluntarily at our

site benefited our program. The review of our program showed the

weaknesses and strengths of our program.

One area needing improvement was our training program.

Our vessels average between six to eight months away from

Seattle. Training is difficult to provide to all employees. A list was

compiled for relevant environmental training required and incorporated into our revised Environmental Compliance and Guidance Manual. We researched ways to provide interactive, multimedia training for the vessels underway. Computer-based

training that could be customized to meet the needs of each vessel was purchased. Even though the programs were developed

for shore side facilities, the training provides information vessel

crewmembers can use while their vessels are underway.

The EMR process is a valuable, informative, and comprehensive technical assistance program provided by EPA. If your site

is in the process or has just completed an EMS, I recommend

having an EMR performed.

Jim Schell

Environmental Compliance Specialist

NOAA Marine Operations Center— 

Pacific Director’s Staff

The preparation for the EMR was

important to the quality of the information obtained. Areas of both strength and

improvement were identified.

EPA staff learned about Western’s mission as well as details concerning operations of the Hinton facility. A briefing by

Western staff helped EPA determine what

skills and expertise would be needed for

the EMR team. EPA also invited the State

of Iowa environmental staff to participate. 

Western found communications during the EMR process extremely helpful.

Specifically, EPA staff provided valuable

input regarding pollution prevention and

waste reduction that has resulted in additional recycling initiatives.

The EMR team conducted interviews

across all levels and job functions including managers and craft personnel. After

the EPA report was finalized, Western

developed an action plan that addressed

recommendations from the EMR. The

information from the EMR is being used

to enhance and further develop Western’s

EMS. For example, recommendations

that have been implemented include

tracking and trending of collected environmental data.

Western staff is certain that the EMR

process will lead to improvements in protecting the environment.

For more information, contact Nick

Stas at (406) 247-7399 or stas@wapa.gov.

Hinton Environmental Management Review

I

n January 2001, EPA Region VII conducted an Environmental Management

Review (EMR) of Western Area Power

Administration’s (Western) Hinton Substation and Maintenance facility located in

Hinton, Iowa. The EMR team consisted of

seven people who conducted on-site facility

reviews, interviews and assessment of documents. Western requested that the EMR

provide assistance in improving Western’s

Environmental Management System

(EMS) that was being reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership

in Environmental Management. Therefore,

the EMR reviewed seven disciplines (see

Figure 1, page 1).

EMRs Well-Received and Viewed as Valuable
systems. Facilities report that EMRs are a valuable tool to

heighten the awareness of environmental matters as they

undertake their daily operations and that EMRs give them a

blue print to advance their environmental systems. We invite

you to read just a few of many EMR success stories and lessons

learned (see related article on page 2). 

For additional information, please contact Gregory Snyder at

snyder.greg@epa.gov.

FEDFACS 3

Region VII hosted the Federal Facilities

Compliance Assistance Workshop at

the Regional Office from December 11-12,

2001. The theme was “Environmental

Management for the 21st Century.”

The workshop welcomed all federal

facilities in Region VII. The conference

was highly successful in achieving its goal

of focusing on the Environmental Management System (EMS), which is a system that helps an organization to develop,

implement, achieve, and maintain a successful environmental policy. Approximately 70 attendees participated in the

two-day event. Will Garvey, FFEO, gave

an overview of Executive Orders 13101

and 13148.

Andy Teplitzky, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, spoke on National

Environmental Achievement Track, a voluntary program that recognizes and

rewards top environmental performers

that go beyond legal requirements. 

Denise Rayborn, of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, described the

history and components of an EMS. She also

discussed the similarities and differences

between the ISO 14001 and the CEMP.

Alice Beecher Reeves (President) and

Karen Hamilton (CEO) from Paragon Business Solutions, Inc., reviewed several software programs available to assist federal

agencies to develop and implement an EMS. 

Nicholas Stas, of the Western Area

Power Administration (WAPA) and Ruben

McCullers, EPARegion VII EMS Coordinator, discussed the Environmental Management Review conducted in the Upper

Plains Region for WAPA in January 2001. 

The Workshop was followed immediately by a region-wide DoD-State Military

Environmental Group (MEG) meeting.

The two events were scheduled back-toback to promote partnering and maximum participation by DoD organizations

in both forums. The program for the MEG

Region VII’s FFCA Workshop and DoD-State MEG Meeting

Actions Taken

235 recommendations

43%

Actions Planned

210 recommendations

38%

No Action

102 recommendations

19%

Figure 2

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW:

PERCENTAGE OF ACTIONS TO 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Total EMRs: 38

Total Recommendations: 547

A few months following the on-site visit, the facility generally

receives a draft EMR Report from EPA for review. After receiving

facility comments, the team finalizes the EMR Report and sends

it to the facility. The report summarizes the review, notes the

strong points of the facility’s environmental systems, and makes

recommendations for further improvements. 

The most common recommendations include developing environmental policies, improving procedures to ensure that the facility remains in compliance with legal and permit requirements,

and including environmental standards in position descriptions

and performance evaluations. Other common recommendations

include conducting environmental training for facility staff,

improving emergency planning and implementation of emergency plans, and establishing corrective action plans when deficiencies are found. The facility is asked to report to EPA in six

months on its response to the report’s recommendations. 

Since 1994, EPA conducted EMRs at 83 different federal facilities. Thirty-eight federal facilities reported on their implementation of 547 recommendations. They reported to EPA that 81%

of the recommendations were either implemented (43%) or are

planned to be implemented (38%) (Figure 2). Facilities reported

they took no action on 19% of the recommendations. This shows

that EMRs are hitting the mark and are addressing environmental management issues. It also shows that the recommendations are “real world,” practical, and useful for federal agencies. 

EMRs give federal facilities useful and practical suggestions

for developing and implementing environmental management

FEDS GIVE HIGH MARKS ON EPA ADVICE

Continued from page 1

meeting continued the theme of “Environmental Management for the 21st Century,” and featured the Honorable John

Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense for Environment, as the keynote speaker. The MEG

agenda also included a panel on EMSs,

presentations on the Army’s concept for

Centralized Installation Management;

the Affirmative Procurement Program;

lead-free ammunition; a lead based paint

update; and an overview of “Cleanup Levels for Missouri” (or CALM).

The MEG meeting offers an excellent

opportunity for DoD representatives and

environmental regulators to share information and address issues. 

Planning will begin shortly on the next

conference, tentatively scheduled for

Summer 2002. Please forward suggestions or comments for future conferences

and workshops to Diana Jackson at (913)

551-7744 or jackson.diana@epa.gov.
4 FEDFACS

Region VI Discusses 

Mercury Assessment 

The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Medicine (USACHPPM) Hazardous and Medical Waste Program conducted a mercury assessment

that included developing an inventory of

facilities, compiling findings, recommending actions, and forecasting the future of

mercury use at medical facilities.

Inventory

• Developed a checklist, surveyed location of all Army military treatment

facilities in CONUS, and entered into

database and evaluated data. 

Findings

• All laboratories had mercury-containing chemicals.

• No pure mercury compounds were

found but mercury thermometers,

sphygmomanometers, and cathode ray

oscillosocopes were found in most facilities.

• Few facilities had implemented low

mercury fluorescent tubes, mercury

thermostats were found in many facilities, and mercury switches were found

in most all facilities. 

• Unexpected items found containing

mercury were Formalin 25.8 ppb,

Bouins Solution 46.6 ppb, B-% Fixative

148.4 ppb, TB Decolorizer 65.6 ppb,

Blood Bank Reagants 14,300 ppb, Soft

Cide Soap (Baxter) 8.1 ppb, Dove Soap

0.0027 ppb, and Ajax Powder 0.17 ppb. 

Actions

• Reduction by using less mercury containing compounds and elimination by

removing mercury containing items/

compounds, substituting items/products, training personnel, and communicating with the medical command to

remove mercury items from the supply

system completely.

The Future

• Recognition that not all items can be

replaced/eliminated (patient care takes

precedence), Material Safety Data

Sheets should be checked closely and/or

manufacturers contacted directly, and

commanders, supervisors, and personnel must take responsibility.

The Federal Medical Center, Bureau

of Prisons in Fort Worth, Texas, the Veterans Administration in Alexandria,

Louisiana, and the Academy of Sciences

in Fort Sam Houston, Texas provided positive feedback, indicating that they are

aware of environmental and health

impacts of mercury. Mercury inventories

were conducted, flourescent bulbs are

now treated as universal waste, mercury

use is given consideration in the purchasing process, and the facility is aware of

“greening” Executive Orders. 

Examples that showed mercury reduction were replacing mercury-containing

equipment, purchasing non-mercury

flourescent lamps and light ballasts, and

training dental assistants to not mix

metal with mercury. 

For more information, contact Joyce

Stubblefield at stubbleifeld.joyce@epa.gov.

RCRA Cleanup Reforms 

Initiative

Randolph Air Force Base (AFB) in San

Antonio, Texas has been selected as a

RCRA Showcase Pilot under EPA’s RCRA

Cleanup Reforms Initiative. A total of 31

facilities nationwide have been chosen to

illustrate innovative efforts in RCRA Corrective Action Cleanup and to stimulate

others to explore similar efforts to speed

progress toward cleanup goals. The selection of Randolph AFB is particularly significant because it is the only federal

facility selected as a pilot.

This pilot program provides an excellent

opportunity to showcase innovative

approaches that have been taken as the

base approaches closure of all its IRP sites.

The cooperative and coordinated effort

between Randolph AFB, Texas Natural

Resources Conservation Commission, Air

Force Center for Environmental Excellence,

and EPA to expedite the completion of

RCRA Corrective Action activities at Randolph AFB will serve as an ideal demonstration on how other military bases can

move through the corrective action process

and benefit from the associated savings.

The summary table of the pilots, fact sheets,

and other pilot program materials are

posted on the RCRA Corrective Action web

site: http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.

EPA’s National Environmental

Performance Track and

Clean Texas Programs

EPA and TNRCC recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to align the

National Environmental Performance

Track and Clean Texas programs. The

MOA was signed at the Clean Texas Partnership Annual Conference in San Antonio, Texas, on February 20, 2002, by EPA

Region VI Regional Administrator, Gregg

Cooke; Deputy Associate Administrator

for Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Jay Benforado; and TNRCC Executive Director, Jeffery Saitas. This is the

first agreement of its kind between the

Agency and a state, nationally. In doing

so, EPA and TNRCC commit to creating

the best value for our customers; reducing

the resource requirements of both the

EPA and TNRCC staff and the administrative burden of member organizations;

creating the greatest amount of incentives, flexibility, and recognition for program members; and reinforcing and

encouraging continual improvement in

environmental performance. While

encouraging each program to maintain its

own identity, EPA and TNRCC pledge to

coordinate the application process, make

the system transparent to participants,

and coordinate the delivery of incentives.

For additional information, contact Craig

Weeks at (214) 665-7505 or weeks.craig@

epa.gov.

News
FEDFACS 5

I

n January, EPA Region VI completed a

three-year project to develop an inventory

and initial screening of all formerly used

defense sites (FUDS) in its area, becoming

the first region to do so. The EPA FUDS

policy directs the regions to complete this

process by September 30, 2003. 

To begin the project, Region VI hosted

a kick-off meeting of stakeholders to

explain the goals, procedures and work

products, and coordinate issues of access

to files, review of draft reports, and potential benefits. In addition to their own files,

the region reviewed information in files

located at the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (the Corps) District Offices, as well

as supplemental information the Corps

provided from other sources. The sites

were evaluated using criteria similar to

the CERCLA (commonly known as Superfund) Site Assessment Program’s Hazard

Ranking System (HRS), and ranked into

groups according to their potential for

proposal to the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). The draft report and

database were also reviewed by the Corps

and states.

The final report identified 902 FUDS in

the Region. Of these, 89 were located in

Arkansas, 87 in Louisiana, 239 in New

Mexico, 116 in Oklahoma, and 371 in

Texas. The report concluded only 8 sites

had “high” potential for proposal to the

NPL, 33 had “medium” potential, 501

were “low” potential, and 268 were

“unknown.” An additional 92 sites were

not evaluated because they were either

determined not to be FUDS properties,

were found to be duplicates sites, or were

already on the NPL. The 41 sites with

either “high” or “medium” NPL proposal

potential were referred to the Site Assessment Team for further consideration.

However, many other FUDS had environmental concerns that did not rise to

the level of being NPL caliber, but would

benefit from regulator oversight. Of specific concern were many of the 347 sites

with either ordnance and explosive

wastes (OEW) and/or chemical warfare

materials (CWM) potentially on them.

Unfortunately, the HRS criteria do not

consider explosive safety. Therefore, in

order to avoid ranking sites that may

have imminent threats from exposure to

OEW/CWM as having a potentially misleading “low” score, a decision was made

to include many of these sites in the

“unknown” category.

Overall, the report recommended 373

of the FUDS should receive further review

by either EPA or the state environmental

agencies, and that an additional 83 of the

sites did not have sufficient information to

make a recommendation. Restoration at

some of these sites may have actually

been completed by the Corps, but documentation of closure approval by an

appropriate regulator was not available at

the time of the review, and so they were

carried forward. 

One critical point to understand

regarding the region’s report is that it represents a “snapshot in time.” Much of the

information about the numbers of FUDS

changes due to the discovery of new sites

and new information about existing sites.

Therefore, the specific numbers in the

report cannot be considered definitive, but

are definitely representative of the overall

situation.

Questions on FUDS in Region VI can

be referred to Michael Overbay, Regional

FUDS coordinator, at (214) 665-6482.

Many Region VI FUDS Pose Potential Threats

REGION VI EMR FY 2002

VOLUNTEERS

EPA Region VI would like to thank Tinker Air

Force Base, Oklahoma; the Texas Army

National Guard; and the U.S. Forest Service,

Carson National Forest, New Mexico for volunteering to be a part of the EPA Environmental Management Review program.

Region VI is in the report review stage for

both Tinker and Army National Guard and are

planning the on-site portion of Forest Service

EMR for July 2002. The EMR program is a

“free” technical assistance opportunity

available to the federal community to

strengthen their facility environmental management systems. The EMR program falls

well within Executive Order 13148, Greening

the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, April 22, 2000. The

EMR Team members are Jana Harvill (EPA),

Robert Clark (EPA), Gary Chiles (SAIC), and

Joyce Stubblefield (EPA), and guest EMR

Team member Mary Simmons (EPA). 

INTERNET LINKS TO COMPLIANCE MONITORING/

ASSISTANCE TOOLS: CLEAN AIR ACT MACT STANDARDS 

Over the past several years, EPA has published various Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) standards for a variety of sources which release hazardous air pollutants. Numerous compliance assistance tools, fact sheets, and websites have been developed to assist the regulated

community comply with these regulations. The following websites are valuable resources for facilities that are required to comply with MACT standards: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw or

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnl.html.

UpcomingEvents

May 21-23, 2002

Region VI Wetlands Training

Workshop

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Contact: Troy Hill at (214) 665-6647.

May 8, June 5, June 19, & July 17, 2002

Region VI Benchmark Software

Training

EPA Region VI, Dallas, Texas

Contact: Patrick Kelly at (214) 665-7316.
6 FEDFACS

Region VI Wetlands 

Training Workshop

EPA Region VI Wetlands Section will be

hosting its fifth Annual Regulatory Training Workshop, entitled “Protection of

Riparian Areas” in Santa Fe, New Mexico

on May 21-23, 2002. Scheduled to attend

are representatives from the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers District and Divisional Offices, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Offices, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Texas, Arkansas,

Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana

state environmental offices who have a

role in reviewing wetland permits.

For More information, contact Troy

Hill at (214) 665-6647.

Affirmative Procurement

Program Presentation

Wes Bartley, Region VII Solid Waste and

Pollution Prevention, gave a presentation at the General Services Administration (GSA) Hardware Superstore Conference held in February 2002 in Kansas

City, Missouri. The audience included

local GSA employees, federal acquisition

officers from federal facilities across the

region, and customers and suppliers for

GSA’s Hardware Superstore center in

Kansas City. Mr. Bartley’s presentation

covered environmentally preferable purchasing and emphasized the Affirmative

Procurement Program under RCRA Section 6002. His presentation focused on

the statutory and regulatory basis for the

requirements and the historical development of these programs. Randy Schober,

an environmental engineer at GSA, also

gave a presentation on environmentally

preferable purchasing, which outlined

specific GSA and Federal Acquisition

Regulation requirements. GSA holds this

conference on an annual basis and plans

are in progress to coordinate these presentations again next year. 

For more information, contact Diana

Jackson at (913) 551-7744 or Wes Bartley

at (913) 551-7632.

USFS Provides Drinking

Water System Operator

Training

As part of the EPA Region VI enforcement settlement against one of its water

systems, the United States Department

of Agriculture - Forest Service Region III

(USFS) initiated an operator training tailored toward public water system

requirements under the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA). The training emphasizes small seasonal systems that are typical of the USFS water systems. Class

attendees include USFS employees, those

who operate USFS systems (“permittees”), and other employees from other

federal agencies with similar public

water system responsibilities. One class

has been held in Albuquerque, and future

classes are scheduled in Phoenix, Santa

Fe, Flagstaff, and Las Cruces. 

In addition to these three-day training

classes, the USFS has scheduled ten separate one-day sessions—one for each forest management team located in Arizona

and New Mexico. The sessions have a

two-pronged approach. Mornings are

dedicated to raising awareness of the

responsibilities and risks associated with

providing safe drinking water. Afternoons

are dedicated to developing action items

for improving drinking water programs.

The training sessions for the management teams include representatives from

the states as well as the U.S. Public

Health Service, and a tele-video conference and training with Linda Hutchison

of EPA Region VI Public Water Supply

Enforcement. 

The response to this training, both

operator and management, has been very

positive. Every USFS facility trained

thus far has identified ways to improve

their individual programs and has been

receptive to new ways of doing business.

Forest managers have contacted Joyce

Stubblefield, the EPA Region VI Federal

Facilities Program Manager, regarding

Environmental Management Reviews

and one has been scheduled for July. 

One of the positive results of the

enforcement actions against the USFS is

enhanced communication between the

EPA and the USFS. The communication

between the two agencies has increased

the USFS’ awareness regarding its water

systems that have been targeted by the

EPA as in need of corrective actions, and

has allowed the USFS to make decisions

regarding the systems (i.e., closing the

systems until problems are corrected)

prior to any enforcement actions being

initiated. It also has allowed the USFS

the opportunity to inform and educate

Forest managers outside of Region III of

problems with their (non-Region III)

water systems that EPA considers to be 

significant non-compliers.

Looking for Volunteers...

EMS Discussion Modules

With contractor support, EPA Region

VIII is developing two discussion modules for helping senior federal facility

managers to come to grips with their

roles and responsibilities within an Environmental Management System (EMS).

These modules are being designed to promote a dialogue among senior managers.

The objectives of the modules are to:

• show top management how an EMS

can support their organizational

goals,

• help federal facility managers lead

their organization to successful

implementation of an EMS by defining and carrying out actions that fulfill their EMS responsibilities, and 

• enable federal facility managers to

effectively demonstrate and communicate their support for EMS development and implementation.

Workshops/Training

Continued on page 7
FEDFACS 7

The Texas Pollution Prevention Partnership formally changed its name to the

Texas Environmental Partnership (TXEP)

at its February 28, 2002 meeting at Fort

Hood, Texas. The name change reflects the

expanded focus of the partnership to

include all environmental and compliance

issues of interest to military installations

in Texas, not just pollution prevention

issues. Future meetings will include

updates from the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC), EPA

Region VI, and joint service representatives on all regulatory and media issues

that are relevant to DoD installations. 

The meeting was preceded by a tour of

Fort Hood’s 1st Cavalry Museum, 7.2

miles of motor pools, Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCBT), Apache Longbow

Helicopter Static Display, Classification

Unit, Soil Bioremediation Facility, and

Recycling Center. The CCBT tour

included a mission brief and gave the

TXEP members hands-on experience with

heavy tactical equipment simulators. 

The meeting was hosted by Fort Hood

and opened with a welcome by Fort Hood

Garrison Commander, Colonel Bill Parry.

COL Parry spoke on the III Corps and

Fort Hood mission and the significance of

September 11th and subsequent U.S.

Armed Forces involvement. COL Parry

presented a command video on the Fort

Hood mission and ended his welcome

with a Hoah!!! The meeting had a full

agenda and was well attended. Special

guests were Andrew Cherry, FFEO, and

Duncan Stewart, TRNCC Air Permits.

Mr. Cherry gave a national perspective on

a variety of federal facility issues and Mr.

Stewart presented topical air media

updates. Attendees discussed numerous

environmental regulations and issues

affecting DoD installations. The next

meeting of the TXEP will be hosted by

TNRCC on May 8, 2002, during its Environmental Trade Fair and Conference in

Austin. The TXEP Co-Chairs are Dr.

Thomas Rennie, DoD REC Region VI

(214/767-4678), and Mr. Israel Anderson,

TNRCC (512/239-5318). 

For details about the meeting, please

contact Linnea Wolfe@hood.army.mil

(254) 288-5256 or the TXEP co-chairs. 

TXP3 Evolves into the TX Environmental Partnership

The first module will focus on the role

of a senior manager and milestones in

EMS development where his/her involvement is critical. There will also be a section on potential EMS pitfalls. The second

module will cover creating an EMS

vision, defining roles, providing

resources, and measuring progress. The

amount of time allotted for these modules

is flexible, depending in part on the

amount of discussion anticipated and the

EMS background of the participants. 

The audience for this program

includes regional administrators, BLM

state office directors, park superintendents, regional directors, and other top

level managers. 

If your agency is interested in having

the EMS modules for senior managers

presented at one of your facilities, please

contact Dianne Thiel, EPA Region VIII

Federal Facilities Program Manager, at

(303) 312-6389. 

BENCHMARK SOFTWARE TOOL TRAINING–REGION VI

Benchmark is a software tool that is used to statistically measure performance in terms of energy

consumption and on the side — cost of operation. Benchmark toolkit was developed from studies

performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Energy (DOE), Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratories, American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineer’s

Inc., and American Refrigeration Institute. The studies were performed from 1992 through 1999 and

were the basis for EPA/DOE Building Benchmark and Building Labeling standard. EPA Region VI is

scheduled to provide five training sessions on the Benchmark software starting in April with the

last session in July. The training classes which will cover technical details of commercial office

buildings, schools (public and private), hospitals, hospitality (hotels primarily), supermarket and

convenience stores, federal/state/local government office buildings, building modeling, where different commercial standards fall on the curve, and how to use DOE/EPA’s analysis software to

obtain an Energy Star statement of energy performance on old and new commercial and soon on

industrial buildings. The target audience for this training is federal facilities, state/local government, schools, supermarkets, hospitals, hotels, office buildings, allies, Energy Service Companies,

and property management companies. The benchmark training sessions will help federal facilities comply with Executive Orders to demonstrate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and

energy consumption reductions. Training is provided at no cost. Those who could attend the different sessions include environmental scientists, environmental engineers, construction professionals and appropriate technicians, government (state and local) regulatory authorities, interested professional engineers, and technical support staff.

For more information regarding the Benchmark software training dates and information, see

the section on Upcoming Events or contact Patrick Kelly at (214) 665-7316.

WORKSHOPS/TRAINING

Continued from page 6

TXEP Meeting hosted by U.S. Army, Ft. Hood, Texas. Agencies represented are DoD,

TNRCC, DOE, NASA, EPA Region VI, and EPA Headquarters.
United States Environmental

Protection Agency (2261A)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AFB Air Force Base

ARS Agricultural Research Service

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CALM Cleanup Levels for Missouri

CCBT Close Combat Tactical Trainer

CEMP Code of Environmental 

Management Principles

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and

Liability Act

CONUS Continental United States

CWM Chemical Warfare Materials

DoD Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EMR Environmental Management

Review

EMS Environmental Management

System

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites

GSA General Services Administration

HRS Hazard Ranking System

ISO International Organization for

Standardization

MACT Maximum Achievable Control

Technology

MEG Military Environmental Group

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOC - P Marine Operations Center -

Pacific

NASA National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

NPL National Priorities List

OEW Ordnance and Explosive Wastes

P2 Pollution Prevention

RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

TNRCC Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission

TXEP Texas Environmental 

Partnership

USACH-PPM U.S. Army Center for Health

Promotion and Prevention 

Medicine

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

WAPA Western Area Power Association

FedFacs

is published by EPA’s Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office. 

Joyce Johnson, FFEO, Editor

SciComm, Inc., Layout

To receive FedFacs in the mail, contact:

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

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

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044

or Fax : 202-501-0069

Read FedFacs on the Internet:

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