United States Office of Enforcement and EPA 315-R-01-001

Environmental Protection Compliance Assurance December 2000

Agency

Federal Facilities 

Enforcement & Compliance 

Accomplishments Report

FY 1999
This document was prepared by EPA’s Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in

the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). 

For additional copies of this document, please contact:

The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (2261A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C. 20044

Phone: (202) 564-2510

Fax: (202) 501-0069

For more information, visit the FFEO web site:

http://www.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/fflex.html 
Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................1

1. Regulation and Policy ....................................................3

Executive Order 13101 - RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance ...................3

Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal Agencies . . . 3

2. Compliance Assurance ...................................................5

FY99 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities ................................5

FY99 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities ...............................5

Underground Storage Tank Initiative ............................................7

Targeting Initiative ..........................................................7

Inspection Initiative .........................................................7

United States Department of Agriculture Grain Bin Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Community Based Environmental Protection: EPA-BIA-Yankton Sioux Tribe MOA

for Marty Indian School ......................................................8

3. Compliance Assistance ...................................................9

Federal Facility Environmental Management Reviews ..............................9

EPA/DOI Compliance Assistance Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Compliance Assistance Reviews at Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Federal Facilities Yellow Book Revised and Published . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Workshops, Conferences, and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Other Regional Compliance Assistance Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. Case Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CAA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

U.S. Navy, Bainbridge Navy Facility, Bainbridge, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

DLA/DRMO, Quantico Facility, Quantico, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

DOJ, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak and Contractors, Kodiak, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CERCLA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

U.S. Navy, South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

U.S. Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

U.S. Navy, Quantico Facility and Norfolk Navy Base, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

U.S. Navy, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

DOE, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
CWA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

RCRA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

DOE, Brookhaven National Lab and Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, NY . . . . . . . 25

USDA, Plum Island Disease Center, Greenport, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

U.S. Army Garrison, Ft. Drum, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

GSA, Southeast Federal Center, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center and Forest Glen Annex, Washington, 

D.C. and Silver Spring, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Facility, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

U.S. Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Department of Defense, Fort Campbell, KY/TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

USAF, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

U.S. Army, Camp Stanley Storage Activity Facility, Boerne, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Valley and Navajo Reservations, CA and AZ . . . . . . . 30

DOE, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

U.S. Coast Guard, Integrated Support Command, Kodiak Island, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wapato Irrigation District, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

SDWA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

U.S. Navy, Navy Facilities, Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

U.S. Army, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

U.S. Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Federal Recreation Facilities, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

U.S. Forest Service, National Forest Campgrounds, WY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

EPCRA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

U.S. Army, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

USAF, Luke Air Force Base, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

TSCA Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

U.S. Navy, Kingsville Naval Air Station, Kingsville, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Attachments

Attachment 1. Organizational Structure of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office . . . . . 37

Attachment 2. EPA Regional Federal Facilities Program Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Exhibits and Tables

Exhibit 1. FY99 Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities ..................6

Exhibit 2. FY99 Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities by Agency 

Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 1. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 2. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Statute and Agency

Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 1 December 2000

Introduction

Federal facilities, like all regulated facilities, are responsible for complying with environmental

requirements. OECA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) works with Federal agencies

to help them comply with environmental requirements and take all necessary actions to prevent,

control, and abate environmental pollution. FFEO assists Federal facilities in complying with

environmental requirements and preventing pollution and takes enforcement actions against Federal

facilities to remedy and deter their noncompliance. It is EPA's goal that all Federal agencies reach

a level of compliance with environmental requirements that equals or surpasses the rest of the

regulated community. To accomplish this goal, the Federal Facility Enforcement Program has a

sector orientation, using multi-media enforcement and emphasizing compliance assistance and

pollution prevention. 

FFEO participates in enforcement negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and enforcement

activities undertaken by Regions, and is responsible for resolving enforcement disputes between

EPA and other agencies. Each EPA Region has a designated Federal Facilities Coordinator (a.k.a.

Federal Facilities Program Manager or FFC), who, in conjunction with other EPA Regional staff,

is responsible for coordinating the implementation of EPA's Federal facilities policies and programs

at the Regional level. They serve as the primary Regional point of contact for facility environmental

managers. FFEO works closely with Regional FFCs. Their responsibilities include giving program

assistance and training for Federal facilities; informing Federal facilities on current environmental

issues and developments; managing, tracking, oversight, and compliance planning activities;

encouraging pollution prevention; and coordinating with the Region's media program staff to

implement Federal facilities enforcement programs.

FY99 was a successful year for the Federal Facilities Enforcement Program, during which the office

focused on compliance assistance and compliance assurance efforts with Federal facilities. In

particular, FFEO revised and published The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental Enforcement and

Compliance at Federal Facilities, which provides comprehensive information on environmental

requirements and the compliance and enforcement processes used by EPA, States, Tribes, and

citizens. In addition, FFEO developed the RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance, as directed by

Executive Order 13101, to assist Federal agencies in meeting the buy-recycled program requirements

of RCRA Section 6002. FFEO also continued the initiative with the Department of the Interior to

increase compliance with environmental requirements among all of DOI's major program

organizations.

During FY99, FFEO also focused heavily on compliance assurance efforts, using both single- and

multi-media inspections and environmental management reviews to determine environmental

compliance at Federal facilities. FFEO and the Regions, in conjunction with the States, conducted

1,516 single-media inspections and 27 multi-media inspections and issued and/or finalized 59

enforcement actions. In addition, Federal facilities were identified as media-specific priorities in
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 2 December 2000

FY99 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

Underground storage tanks (USTs) at Federal facilities not meeting the December 1998 upgrade

deadline were also targeted as a high enforcement priority in FY99.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 3 December 2000

1. Regulation and Policy

In FY99, FFEO prepared two key guidance documents representing both statute-specific and

general enforcement policies. These documents, which focus on the RCRA Section 6002 buyrecycled program and the economic benefit of noncompliance, address specific compliance

issues at Federal facilities.

Executive Order 13101 - RCRA Section 6002 Inspection Guidance

On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13101, Greening the

Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition. While the EO renewed

a number of innovative waste prevention and recycling programs initiated within the Federal

community under EO 12873, the Order also provided new incentives to comply with existing Federal

acquisition programs. In particular, Section 403 of the Order directed EPA to develop guidance for use

by EPA and State inspectors in determining Federal facility compliance with the buy-recycled program

established under Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

In coordination with the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive and EPA’s Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, FFEO prepared the inspection guidance, titled Guidance on

Conducting Inspections of Federal Facilities for Compliance with Section 6002 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act. As directed by the Order, EPA is to use the guidance whenever the

Agency conducts RCRA compliance inspections or multi-media regulatory compliance inspections

where RCRA compliance is a component of the inspection. In addition to EPA’s regulatory

inspections, the guidance also may be used by States authorized to conduct inspections under RCRA.

FFEO issued the RCRA Section 6002 inspection guidance to EPA Regional offices in May 1998 and

requested that the guidance be included in inspections as soon as possible, but no later than the

beginning of the fourth quarter of FY99. As of October l999, judging by the number of questionnaires

returned to FFEO, approximately 15 inspections had been conducted where the guidance had been

included as part of the inspection. In the future, EPA will reevaluate the guidance in light of the

experience gained during the first months of its use. 

Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal Agencies

FFEO issued the Guidance on Calculating the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance for Federal

Agencies. This guidance reinforces existing Agency policy on including the cost savings associated

with noncompliance in calculating penalties against Federal violators. The guidance explains the

importance of including the cost savings in the penalty calculation and provides several examples.

Cost savings, better known as the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance or BEN, are savings

associated with delayed compliance with environmental requirements. These savings can be
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 4 December 2000

substantial. It has long been EPA policy to include these savings as a component of all penalty

calculations. FFEO issued this guidance to ensure that the cost savings of noncompliance is included

when calculating penalties against Federal violators.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 5 December 2000

2. Compliance Assurance

EPA monitors activities at Federal facilities to determine whether Federal facilities are in compliance

with environmental laws and regulations. EPA relies on facility inspections as the primary tool for

determining compliance. Each fiscal year, EPA, in coordination with the States, plans and conducts

single- and multi-media inspections at Federal facilities. 

In addition, FFEO conducted additional compliance assurance activities in FY99, including UST,

targeting, and inspection initiatives; monitoring near USDA grain storage areas; and negotiating a

MOA between EPA, BIA, and the Yankton Sioux Tribe. 

FY99 Multi-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities

A nationwide total of 27 multi-media inspections were performed at Federal facilities during FY99.

State/local government inspectors participated in 16 of these inspections. A minimum of two

environmental statutes, one of which was either RCRA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), or Clean Air

Act (CAA), were inspected at each facility. Overall, inspections covered RCRA, CAA, CWA, Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) program requirements. Four of the 27 multi-media inspections took place at Civilian

Federal Agency (CFA) facilities – at Department of Veterans Affairs, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S.

Geological Survey facilities. Twenty-one took place at Department of Defense (DoD) facilities and

two took place at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities.

Multi-media inspections are part of EPA’s Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance

Program that was initiated in FY93. In FY95, multi-media inspections were incorporated into

Regional base inspection programs. Between FY93 and FY99, EPA Regions have conducted a total

of 226 multi-media inspections at Federal facilities.

FY99 Single-Media Inspections at Federal Facilities

In FY99, a total of 1,516 single-media inspections were conducted by EPA Regions and the States

under RCRA, CWA, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA (Exhibit 1). Of the total number of inspections, 992

occurred at DoD facilities, 377 at CFA facilities, and 147 at DOE facilities (Exhibit 2).
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 6 December 2000

Exhibit 1

Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities

Note: RCRA data pertains to all RCRA facilities, NPDES data pertains to

active major facilities, and CAA data pertains to major facilities. 

Exhibit 2

Inspections by EPA and States at Federal Facilities

by Agency Category in FY 1999

Note: RCRA data pertains to all RCRA facilities, NPDES data pertains to

active major facilities, and CAA data pertains to major facilities. 
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 7 December 2000

Underground Storage Tank Initiative

In accordance with a December 9, 1998, memorandum from OECA and the Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response regarding the high enforcement priority of Federal agencies not meeting

the December 22, 1998, underground storage tanks (USTs) “upgrade” deadline, EPA inspectors

inspected eleven Federal facilities in FY99. These inspections were conducted to confirm

compliance with upgrade, leak detection, and general operational maintenance and other UST

requirements. These facilities were chosen in cooperation with the Regions and States and represent

a wide spectrum of Federal facilities including DoD, DOE, and CFAs. 

Preliminary findings indicate operation/maintenance, upgrade, and widespread record-keeping

problems at these facilities. Inspection reports for these inspections are being finalized, after which

OECA, in consultation with the Regions, will consider appropriate actions to address these problems.

To prepare for the UST Inspection Initiative, OECA provided a two-day UST media-specific

inspector training course for EPA Headquarters personnel. FFEO acquired the services of a

nationally recognized expert to provide the instruction and assist with field training.

Targeting Initiative

In early FY99, FFEO announced that it will begin providing EPA Regions with Federal facility

inspection targeting assistance. FFEO developed an approach for targeting Federal facilities for

inspectors that is based on the method used to target private facilities. A variety of analyses have

been performed in air, water, clean water, and waste media to identify specific Federal facilities that

appear to have evaded permit requirements, continue to be out of compliance, or are substantially

under-inspected. This facility-specific information was provided to all EPA Regions to assist with

their targeting plans. As a consequence of this effort, several Federal facilities have now been

identified for inspections.

Inspection Initiative

In FY99, FFEO provided the Regions extra contractor assistance for inspections at Federal facilities

in various media including air, drinking water, waste, and clean water. Seventeen inspections were

tentatively approved to be conducted during FY 2000. The contractor resources will be used to assist

the Regions with conducting pre-filing reviews and inspections, and drafting inspection reports.

United States Department of Agriculture Grain Bin Project

In FY99, all four States in Region VII (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa) were engaged in

private well water sampling programs to identify residents that were unknowingly being exposed to
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 8 December 2000

carbon tetrachloride contaminated water. Region VII continues to take ground water, well water,

and soil samples near former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grain storage sites in

Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. The purpose of the ground water sampling is to look for

carbon tetrachloride contamination resulting from a grain fumigant used to control insects in grain

bins owned and/or operated by USDA in the 1950s and 1960s. Carbon tetrachloride was banned in

December of 1985. The fumigant contained 80% carbon tetrachloride. Efforts to clean up the

contaminated groundwater have focused on developing innovative cleanup technologies. So far,

EPA has taken samples at 739 locations in Region VII. Carbon tetrachloride has been found at 135

of these locations. Sixty-four of these locations exceeded the EPA SDWA maximum contaminant

level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter, which could pose an increased risk of cancer over a lifetime

if the water continues to be used for drinking, cooking, and showering. Steps have been taken at

each site where contamination has been discovered, either by Federal, State, or local authorities, to

provide alternate water for affected well users.

Community Based Environmental Protection: EPA-BIA-Yankton Sioux Tribe MOA for

Marty Indian School

In 1996, a Marty Indian School Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) Project

Stakeholder Group was formed to address various environmental issues at the Marty Indian School

in South Dakota. The group was comprised of representatives from the school, the Yankton Sioux

Tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service, and EPA. Based partially on

recommendations from the CBEP Project Stakeholder Group, the EPA Region VIII enforcement

team initiated the negotiation of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) rather than issuing a unilateral

order to the Yankton Sioux Tribe as the legally responsible entity.

Region VIII chose to first address the environmental problems at the Marty Indian School using a

collective approach to continue the community involvement initiated by the stakeholder group and

utilize technical and financial assistance from Federal agencies who, although not legally responsible

for the violations, have a fiduciary responsibility to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. In October 1998, EPA,

BIA, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the Marty Indian School Board finalized the MOA addressing

short- and long-term environmental cleanup at Marty Indian School. The MOA implements, and is

consistent with, the goals and priorities set forth in the CBEP summary. 

The MOA represents the parties' collective concerns and individual commitments pertaining to the

multi-media environmental problems at the Marty Indian School. EPA identified possible violations

under several statutes including, but not limited to, the Oil Pollution Act, RCRA, CWA, and CAA.

A project summary was included in the MOA that directs both short- and long-term cleanup projects.

An EPA site visit in June 1999 confirmed that all of the short-term action items had been completed.

Performance by the Tribe of the long-term action items is presently underway with BIA assistance

and EPA oversight.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 9 December 2000

3. Compliance Assistance

Various compliance assistance activities were targeted to the Federal facilities sector in FY99,

ranging from phone and e-mail correspondence with Federal agencies to on-site visits (including

EMRs), workshops, trainings, and presentations to production and distribution of articles,

compliance checklists, and guides. These activities reached more than 7,000 Federal personnel in

all Federal agency categories – DoD, DOE, and CFA.

Federal Facility Environmental Management Reviews

An environmental management review (EMR) is an EPA compliance assistance tool for Federal

facilities to improve management of their environmental activities. EMRs also encourage Federal

facilities to use environmental management systems (EMSs) to improve compliance, prevent

pollution, and improve their environmental performance. Both EMRs and EMSs help facilities

incorporate environmental issues into all their business operations.

EMRs are conducted by EPA Regional Federal Facility Coordinators with assistance from

contractors with expertise in EMSs. The review is not an audit or inspection; instead, the review is

conducted on a voluntary basis, usually over two or more days, with the environmental manager of

the facility choosing the issues to be reviewed. The manager most often selects two or three of the

following disciplines for review:

• organizational structure;

• environmental commitment;

• internal and external communications;

• formality of environmental programs;

• staff resources, training, and development;

• program evaluation and reporting; and

• environmental planning and risk management.

These disciplines connote underlying environmental performance objectives based on various

guidelines and standards (e.g., The Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) for

Federal Agencies, developed by EPA, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

14001 Environmental Management System specifications). These disciplines are explored by the

reviewers using interviews and document reviews as the primary means of gathering information.

At the conclusion of the EMR, a list of findings and recommendations is left with the facility

manager. Six months after the EMR, the facility’s environmental manager reports back to EPA

about the impact of the review.

Pilot EMRs were conducted at twenty-nine Federal facilities from May 1996 to September 1998.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 10 December 2000

The pilot program resulted in the publication of a Final EMR Policy in December l998.

Subsequently, a National Report is scheduled for publication in FY00 that markets the benefits of

EMRs to Federal facilities.

In FY99, twenty-two EMRs were conducted in seven EPA Regions. As a result of the EMR

compliance assistance tool, many actions have been taken to improve environmental results.

Environmental managers at Federal facilities have reported some environmental benefits and many

behavioral changes. 

EPA/DOI Compliance Assistance Initiative

During FY99, FFEO completed the formal stages of a joint effort with the Department of the Interior

(DOI) to enhance compliance assistance across DOI bureaus and facilities with the overall goal of

raising the level of regulatory awareness and compliance at all DOI facilities. Initiated in 1998, this

effort was the first time that EPA pledged to provide compliance assistance across an entire Federal

agency. With an estimated 1,000 EPA-regulated facilities ranging from immense lands such as

Grand Canyon National Park to modest urban facilities such as the Anacostia Marina in Washington,

D.C., DOI had a significant opportunity to benefit from this effort by improving compliance

throughout the various DOI bureaus.

In FY99, EPA Regional Federal Facilities Coordinators conducted facility visits at approximately

25 facilities representative of DOI activities, including facilities such as fish hatcheries, national

monuments, and wildlife refuges. Depending on Regional priorities and discussions with the

specific facilities, these visits included formal environmental management reviews, compliance

activities assessments, and/or pollution prevention opportunity assessments. In addition, EPA

Region VIII and Headquarters participated in formal, extensive management reviews of several large

National Park Service facilities. EPA Regions also conducted a number of training seminars and

workshops for DOI facility personnel covering a variety of regulatory compliance issues. Finally,

EPA Headquarters conducted an agency-wide management system review of the National Park

Service; the final report for that effort is due during FY 2000. 

Compliance Assistance Reviews at Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities

EPA conducted compliance assistance reviews of two Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities. The

first occurred in Region X at the Wapato Irrigation Project in Yakima, Washington. The second took

place in Region IV at the Cherokee Agency in Cherokee, North Carolina. The reviews, conducted

under a l998 MOA between EPA and BIA, included a diverse group of participants, including EPA

Headquarters and Regional representatives, BIA area and agency/project staff, Tribal representatives,

and USDA personnel.

The goal of the reviews is to identify site-specific regulatory compliance concerns and opportunities
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 11 December 2000

for compliance assistance. In addition, EPA expects that many of the specific issues and solutions

identified at these two BIA facilities will be applicable to other BIA locations and that lessons

learned can be applied throughout BIA.

Federal Facilities Yellow Book Revised and Published

In FY99, FFEO published the revised version of The Yellow Book: Guide to Environmental

Enforcement and Compliance at Federal Facilities. The Yellow Book is designed to help Federal

facilities achieve and maintain compliance with Federal environmental requirements, and exceed

those requirements to lead the way in minimizing environmental contamination. It provides fieldlevel personnel having environmental responsibilities at Federal facilities with comprehensive

information to help them comply with environmental requirements and to understand the compliance

and enforcement processes used by EPA, States, Tribes, and citizens. 

The 1999 Yellow Book revises and supersedes the 1988 version (titled Federal Facilities Compliance

Strategy) and contains detailed discussions on: 

< new and revised Federal laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and EPA policies; 

< the applicability of Federal environmental requirements to Federal facilities;

< enforcement responses that can be taken when a Federal facility is in violation of a 

Federal law or regulation; and 

< sources for more information for each subject. 

EPA distributed hard copies of The Yellow Book to Federal departments and agencies and other

organizations interested in Federal facility compliance. The Yellow Book is also available for

viewing and downloading online at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/fedfac/yellowbk/. Given the changing

nature of Federal environmental laws and regulations, Executive Orders, and EPA policy, The Yellow

Book will be updated periodically online. Readers are encouraged to check the web site for notices

of changes to The Yellow Book.

Workshops, Conferences, and Training

FFEO often provides assistance to Federal agencies through workshops, conferences, and training,

held by either EPA Headquarters or the Regions. In FY99, compliance assistance was provided in

several such forums. A few highlights of these compliance assistance activities directed to Federal

agencies included:

< Conducting a two-day workshop on pollution prevention at Federal facilities for Region III CFAs;
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 12 December 2000

< Sponsoring the annual Region IV Federal facilities conference with DoD, DOE, and CFAs in

attendance; and 

< Holding Pollution Prevention training for BIA staff and Tribal representatives from the Phoenix

area, which included an on-site visit to the BIA Pima Agency’s Roads Facility in Sacaton, AZ

(Region IX).

Other Regional Compliance Assistance Efforts

In FY99, several additional compliance assistance efforts were conducted on a Regional level to

facilitate Federal agency compliance with environmental regulations. These efforts included:

< Developing a protocol and questionnaire to evaluate the Postal Service’s area-level

implementation of environmental policies in Region II; 

< Assisting the National Park Service with pesticide/herbicide issues and excess chemical and

cleaning agent disposal in Region VIII; and

< Developing a waste determination process, a composite to-do list, and fact sheets addressing the

top ten RCRA violations for DOI facilities by Region X.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 13 December 2000

4. Enforcement

In FY99, as tracked in EPA's Enforcement Docket database, EPA named 62 defendants in 59

enforcement actions that were either issued or finalized against Federal agencies and government

contractors. The Department of Defense accounted for 26 of the actions, the Department of Energy

accounted for five actions, and Civilian Federal Agencies accounted for 25 actions. Six government

contractors were cited, either alone or along with the Federal agency for which it performed work.

Regionally, EPA Regions III and IV issued/finalized the most actions with 15 and 14 actions,

respectively. 

Of the 59 actions, 22 were penalty orders. Penalties assessed in all final penalty orders for all

statutes totaled $544,922 in penalties and $4.2 million in SEPs. Penalties assessed in all proposed

penalty orders for all statutes totals just over $1,128,700. 

According to environmental statute, 18 RCRA actions, 18 SDWA actions, 10 CAA actions, and 13

actions under other environmental statutes were issued and/or finalized. Under RCRA, more than

a total of $404,000 in penalties and $2.9 million in SEPs were assessed in 11 final penalty orders and

more than $646,900 were assessed in three proposed penalty orders. Under CAA, a total of $60,200

in penalties and just over $465,440 in SEPs were assessed in two final penalty orders and $481,800

were assessed in four proposed penalty orders. Under SDWA, a total of $80,000 in penalties and

$807,000 in SEPs were assessed in one final penalty order. 

The following tables present FY99 EPA enforcement actions against Federal facilities by EPA

Region (Table 1) and agency category and statute (Table 2). Details on selected FY99 enforcement

actions are presented in Section 5, Case Summaries. 
Table 1. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions Against Federal Facilities by Region (all actions and penalties 

are final except where noted).

Region I

CERCLA 120 Federal

Facility Agreements

• Navy/South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA

• Navy/Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, ME

Region II

RCRA 3008a • USDA Plum Island, NY – $32,500 penalty and $194,700 SEP

• DOE/ Brookhaven National Laboratory and Associated Universities, Inc.,

NY – &17,500 penalty and $104,300 SEP

RCRA 9006 (UST) • Army/ Garrison Ft. Drum, NY (Issued) – $259,960 proposed penalty

CAA 113a

Compliance Order

• SMAC Corporation, NJ (Veterans Affairs GOCO)

SDWA 1423 UIC

Administrative Order

• DOE/Brookhaven National Lab, NY 

Region III

RCRA 3013 Order on

Consent

• GSA/Southeast Federal Center, DC

RCRA 3008a • Army/Walter Reed Army Medical Center – $50,400 penalty and $1.6

million SEP

• Navy/Naval Research Lab, DC – $2,500 penalty

• Army/ Ft Belvoir, VA – $6,372 penalty and $45,260 SEP

• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, DC (issued) --

statutory maximum penalty cited

CAA 113a

Compliance Order

• Navy/Port Deposit - Bainbridge Naval Facility, MD

CAA 113d • Navy/Marine Corps Combat Development Command–Quantico, VA

(Issued) – $39,600 proposed penalty order

• DLA/Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office–Quantico, VA (Issued) –

$140,800 proposed penalty order

SDWA 1414g

Compliance Order

• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC

• Navy/Anacostia Naval Station, DC

• Navy/Naval Observatory, DC

• Navy/Naval Security Station, DC

CERCLA 120 Federal

Facility Agreements

• Navy/Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA

• Navy/Norfolk Naval Base, VA

• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC

Region IV

RCRA 3008a • Army/Ft. Campbell, KY – $125,00 penalty and $946,587 SEP

CAA 113a

Compliance Order

• Air Force/Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA
CAA 113d • DOJ/Federal Bureau of Prisons/Federal Medical Center, Butner, NC –

$21,700 penalty and $193,109 SEP

• DOJ/Federal Bureau of Prisons/Federal Correctional Institution, Butner,

NC – $38,500 penalty and $272,333 SEP

SDWA 1447 • Army Aviation and Missile Command - Redstone Arsenal – $80,000

penalty and $807,000 SEP

SDWA 1414g

Compliance Orders

• Army/Ft. Bragg, NC

• USDA/Forest Service/Cliffside Lake Recreation Area Water System, NC

• USDA/Forest Service/Arrowhead Campground Water System, NC

• USDA/Forest Service/Sunburst Campground Water System, NC

• USDA/Forest Service/Cheoah Point Rec Area Water System, NC

• Army Corps of Engineers/Wilkes Skyline Marina, NC

• DOI/National Park Service/Gillespie Gap Maintenance Water System, NC

• DOI/National Park Service/Price Park Campground Water System, NC

TSCA 16 Order • Charleston Shipbuilders, Inc. and Navy/Charleston Naval Shipyard, SC 

Region V

No actions taken.

Region VI

RCRA 3008h • Army/Camp Stanley Storage, TX

CAA 113d • Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, TX (Issued) –

$289,800 proposed penalty

CWA 309a • Mason and Hanger Corp. (DOE GOCO) - Pantex Plant, TX (2 orders)

CWA Federal Facility

Compliance Agreement

• DOE/Pantex Plant, TX

EPCRA 313 ShowCause Letter• Army/McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, OK

• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving and Printing, TX

Region VII

No actions taken.

Region VIII

RCRA 9006 (UST) • DOI/BIA Flandreau Indian School, SD

SDWA1414g

Compliance Orders

• USDA/Forest Service/Targhee National Forest - Trail Creek Campground,

WY

• USDA/Forest Service//Targhee National Forest - Teton Canyon

Campground, WY

• USDA/Forest Service/Medicine Bow National Forest - Vedauwoo

Campground, WY

• USDA/Forest Service/Bighorn National Forest - Shell Falls Interpretive

Site Water System, WY

Region IX

RCRA 3008a • DOI/BIA Hoopa Valley Reservation, CA – $90,000 penalty

• DOI/BIA Dilcon Boarding School/Navajo Reservation, AZ – $5,000 penalty and

$25,000 SEP
EPCRA 311/312 NOV • Air Force/Luke Air Force Base, AZ 

• Navy/Fallon Naval Air Station, NV

Region X

RCRA 3008a • DOE/Hanford Hazardous Waste Disposal Site, WA (Issued) – $367,078

proposed penalty

• Dept of Transportation/USCG/Kodiak, AK – $74,250 penalty

RCRA 9006 (UST) • DOI/BIA Wapato Irrigation, WA (Issued) – $19,875 proposed penalty

RCRA 9006 (UST)

Field Citation

• DOE/Bonneville Power Administration John Day Dam, OR – $600

• Army Corps of Engineers/The Dalles Dam, OR – $600

CAA 113a • Army/Ft. Wainwright, AK

CAA 113d • Dept of Transportation/USCG/Alaska Abatement Corporation and Chugach

Development Corporation, AK (Issued) – $11,600 proposed penalty

Source: EPA Enforcement Docket
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 17 December 2000

This page intentionally left blank.
Table 2. FY99 EPA Enforcement Actions at Federal Facilities by Statute and Agency Category (all actions are final except where noted).

RCRA CAA SDWA 

Department of Defense

3008a• Navy/Naval Research Lab, DC $2,500 penalty• Army/Walter Reed Army Medical Center,DC$50,400 penalty and $1.6 million SEP• Army/Ft. Belvoir, VA $6,372 penalty and $45,260 SEP• Army/Ft. Campbell, KY$125,000 penalty and $946,587 SEP3008h) • Army/Camp Stanley Storage, TX 9006 (UST)• Army/Garrison Ft. Drum, NY $259,960 proposed penalty

113a• Navy/Port Deposit- Bainbridge NavalFacility, MD• Air Force/Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA• Army/Ft. Wainwright, AK 113d• Navy/Marine Corps Combat DevelopmentCommand - Quantico, VA$39,600 proposed penalty• DLA/Defense Reutilization and MarketingOffice - Quantico, VA$140,800 proposed penalty

1414g• Navy/Washington Navy Yard, DC• Navy/Anacostia Naval Station, DC • Navy/Naval Observatory, DC • Navy/Naval Security Station, DC • Army/Ft. Bragg, NC1447• Army/Aviation and MissileCommand Redstone Arsenal, AL$80,000 penalty and $807,000 SEP

Department of Energy

3008a• Brookhaven National Lab, NY1$17,500 penalty and $104,300 SEP• Hanford Hazardous Waste Disposal Site,WA$367,078 proposed penalty9006 UST Field Citation• Bonneville Power Administration John DayDam, OR $600

----------

1423 UIC • Brookhaven National Lab, NY
RCRA CAA SDWA 

Civilian Federal Agency

3008a• USDA/Plum Island, NY $32,500 penalty and $194,700 SEP• DOI/BIA Hoopa Valley Reservation, CA $90,000 penalty• DOI/BIA Dilcon Boarding School/ NavajoReservation, AZ$5,000 penalty and $25,000 SEP• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving andPrinting , DCstatutory maximum penalty cited• U.S. Coast Guard/Kodiak $74,250 penalty• Dept of Transportation/USCG/Kodiak, AK$74,250 penalty3013 Order on Consent• GSA/Southeast Federal Center, DC 9006 (UST)• DOI/BIA Flandreau Indian School, SD• DOI/BIA Wapato Irrigation , WA$19,875 proposed penalty9006 UST Field Citation• Army Corps of Engineers/The Dalles Dam,OR$600

113d• DOJ/Federal Bureau of Prisons/ FederalMedical Center, NC$21,700 penalty and $193,109 SEP• DOJ/Federal Bureau of Prisons/ FederalCorrectional Institution, NC $38,500 penalty and $272,333 SEP• Dept of Treasury/Bureau of Engraving andPrinting, TX$289,800 proposed penalty• Dept of Transportation/Coast Guard, AK2

$11,600 proposed penalty

1414g• USDA Forest Service/ CliffsideLake Rec. Area Water System, NC• USDA Forest Service/SunburstCampground Water System, NC• USDA Forest Service/Cheoah PointRec Area Water System, NC• USDA Forest Service/ArrowheadCampground Water System, NC• USDA Forest Service/Targhee NatlForest-Trail Creek Campground , WY• USDA Forest Service/Targhee NatlForest-Teton Canyon Campground,WY• USDA Forest Service/MedicineBow National Forest/VedauwooCampground, WY• USDA Forest Service/BighornNational Forest/Shell FallsInterpretive Site Water System, WY• DOI/National ParkService/Gillespie Gap MaintenanceWater System, NC• DOI/National Park Service/PricePark Campground Water System, NC• Army Corps of Engineers/ WilkesSkyline Marina, NC

GOCO

• Associated Universities, Inc., NY1

(DOE GOCO)$17,500 penalty and $104,300 SEP

113a

• SMAC Corporation, NJ (Veterans Affairs

GOCO) 113d• Alaska Abatement Corporation andChugach Development Corporation, AK2

(USCG GOCO)$11,600 proposed penalty

-----------

1 same action with two defendants 2 same action with three defendants 

Source: EPA Enforcement Docket
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 20 December 2000

This page intentionally left blank.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 21 December 2000

5. Case Summaries

In FY99, EPA took 59 formal enforcement actions against Federal facilities under CAA, CERCLA,

CWA, RCRA, SDWA, EPCRA, and TSCA. Some of these actions, as well as other actions that are

not tracked in EPA’s Enforcement Docket database, are summarized below.

CAA Cases

U.S. Navy, Bainbridge Navy Facility, Bainbridge, MD

On July 23,1999, EPA Region III issued a Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Compliance Order to the

U.S. Navy for asbestos violations at Bainbridge in Maryland. The Navy discovered the presence of

friable asbestos-containing air cell insulation at a 10-acre area of the site. The Order requires the

Navy to sample for friable asbestos material, remove it, and then properly dispose of it.

DLA/DRMO, Quantico Facility, Quantico, VA

On September 30, 1999, Region III issued an Administrative Complaint for violations of the

Stratospheric Ozone Protection provisions of the CAA which occurred at the Defense Logistics

Agency (DLA) Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Quantico Facility. The

Complaint proposes a penalty of $140,800. The facility maintains and disposes of appliances that

contain regulated refrigerants. The facility did not require parties delivering appliances to remove

refrigerant prior to delivery, did not immediately inspect the appliances to see if they contained

refrigerants, and handled the appliances in a manner that would likely result in the release of

refrigerant. 

U.S. Navy, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA

On September 30, 1999, Region III issued an Administrative Complaint for violations of the

Stratospheric Ozone Protection provisions of the CAA that occurred at the Marine Corps Base in

Quantico, Virginia. The Complaint proposes a penalty of $39,600. The Quantico Marine Corps

Base uses appliances containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. Numerous times in the last four

years the facility found leaks that required repairs within 30 days after discovery, and did not make

the repairs.

DOJ, Bureau of Prisons, Butner, NC

Region IV has settled enforcement actions over CAA violations with the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Federal Correctional Institution and Federal Medical Center, both located in Butner, North Carolina.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 22 December 2000

The Consent Agreements and Consent Orders settled complaints over violations of New Source

Performance Standards and the North Carolina State Implementation Plan. The Respondent agreed

to pay $38,500 (for the Butner Correctional Institution) and $21,200 (for the Federal Medical Center

at the prison) in civil penalties. In addition, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) will be

performed. 

The SEPs involve installation of a compressed natural gas (CNG) pumping station and replacement

of thirty-five gasoline-powered vehicles with the thirty-five using CNG. In addition to reducing

emissions which impact air quality, this SEP will serve as a pilot for other Bureau of Prisons

institutions to encourage use of CNG-fueled vehicles. The approximate cost of the SEPs is $275,000

for the CNG pumping station and $195,000 for the CNG powered vehicles. 

BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX

On March 31, 1999, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Penalty Action against the U.S.

Treasury for violations of the CAA at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Western

Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas. This is the largest CAA penalty filed in Region VI against

a Federal facility using the CAA Section 113(d) penalty authority clarified by the Department of

Justice, Office of Legal Counsel in July 1997. An EPA inspection revealed that BEP had failed to

comply with regulations that reduce pollution from volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and

chromium compounds. In the administrative compliant, EPA charged that BEP violated regulations

of the Texas Administrative Code, which have been incorporated into the Texas Air Pollution

Control Implementation Plan, and Federal regulations concerning two boilers at the plant and

chromium compounds. EPA is seeking over $200,000 in penalties for these violations. 

U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak and Contractors, Kodiak, AK

On August 5, 1999, EPA Region X filed a Complaint for asbestos National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) violations at the U.S. Coast Guard’s Kodiak facility in Alaska.

The Complaint was issued to the Coast Guard and two of its contractors. EPA is seeking a total of

$11,600 in civil penalties. At the U.S. Coast Guard's Tank Farm in Kodiak, the Chugach

Development Corporation and the Alaska Abatement Corporation (AAC) were contracted to remove

asbestos from underground vaults which supplied steam to heat fuel oil in the tanks. The EPA

Complaint alleges that the on-site supervisor for AAC was reminded in August 1998 by a Federal

inspector to post the required warning signs and keep the asbestos laden debris wet until disposed

of. Two days later, the same Federal inspector observed AAC employees at the Kodiak landfill

removing bags of the still-dry debris from a truck with no signs warning of the cancer-causing

hazard. Exposure to asbestos can lead to numerous diseases, including asbestosis and lung cancer.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 23 December 2000

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK

On March 5, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) and Compliance Order for

Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at the U.S. Army’s Fort Wainwright facility in Alaska for repeated

violations of the applicable emission standards. These violations are resulting in significant

emissions of particulates and carbon monoxide. Fort Wainwright operates the largest coal-fired

power plant operated by the U.S. military in the world, burning up to 1,200 tons of coal per day in

the winter months. Violations alleged in the NOV include the failure to operate in compliance with

emission standards, maintain and operate emission control devices and monitoring equipment, and

control fugitive dust.

These violations threaten human health and the environment since they are leading to significant

particulate and carbon monoxide air emission that aggravate human respiratory and cardiovascular

health problems.

CERCLA Cases

U.S. Navy, South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA

EPA Region I and the Navy signed an Interagency Agreement (IAG) for the 1,428.5-acre South

Weymouth Naval Air Station (SOWEY NAS) National Priorities List (NPL) site in Weymouth,

Abington, and Rockland, Massachusetts. Commissioned in 1942, the site has served several

purposes, including: a naval aviation and aircraft storage facility; an anti-submarine and air defense

equipment development and testing facility; the home base for the blimps of Airship Early Warning

Squadron One, which were used for anti-submarine warfare and as air observation posts along the

New England coast until 1961; and a Naval Air Reserve facility. Pursuant to the Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, SOWEY NAS was closed on September 30, 1997.

SOWEY NAS was placed on the NPL on May 31, 1994 (59 Federal Register 27989). There are

currently eight Areas of Concern at the Site. The agreement requires the Navy to determine the

nature and extent of contamination at SOWEY NAS. In addition, should any remedial action be

necessary, the Navy will perform it. 

U.S. Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME

This case involves Region I and the Navy regarding the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS), Kittery,

Maine. PNS is a 278-acre active installation located on an island in the Piscataqua River in Kittery,

Maine. The Piscataqua River is a tidal estuary that forms the southern boundary between Maine and

New Hampshire. PNS is located at the mouth of the Great Bay Estuary (commonly referred to as

Portsmouth Harbor). The United States is the current owner and operator of the Site. PNS was listed

on the NPL May 31, 1994 update (59 Federal Register 27989).
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 24 December 2000

An IAG between Region I and the Navy requires the Navy to determine the nature and extent of

contamination at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. In addition, the Navy will perform any necessary

remedial action.

U.S. Navy, Quantico Facility and Norfolk Navy Base, VA

In February 2000, Region III signed two CERCLA IAGs requiring the cleanup of two Navy facilities

in Virginia – the Quantico facility and the Norfolk Navy Base. The Quantico facility is a training

and educational center whose mission is to develop education and training policies and programs for

the Marine Corps. The site is comprised of approximately 56,000 acres located 30 miles south of

Washington, D.C. The other site, the Norfolk Navy Base, is the largest naval base in the United

States and located in the northwest portion of the City of Norfolk, Virginia on 4,631 acres of land.

The Base currently operates in various capacities to provide support to vessels, aircraft, and other

activities of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. These agreements require the Navy/Marine Corps to

characterize the nature and extent of contamination and to address whatever contamination is

identified as requiring cleanup.

U.S. Navy, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.

In July 1999, Region III signed a CERCLA IAG for the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC.

The Navy Yard is located on the Anacostia River in Washington D.C., and is the first IAG for a

Federal facility in the District of Columbia. This agreement requires the Navy to characterize the

nature and extent of contamination and to address whatever contamination is identified as requiring

cleanup.

DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Region IV and the Tennessee Department of Environment (TDEC) have each assessed DOE a

$50,000 penalty for failing to meet its Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) milestone deadline for

submitting the Action Memorandum relating to remediation of contaminated tanks at Oak Ridge

National Laboratory. DOE unilaterally canceled this project in the Fall of 1998, in violation of FFA

requirements, and did not reinstate it until March 1999, after the matter had been elevated to the FFA

Senior Executive Committee for dispute resolution. Under the FFA’s stipulated penalty provisions,

a maximum total penalty of $295,000 could have been assessed for an FFA violation of this duration

-- from September 30, 1998 (the original milestone date) until April 28, 1999 (when DOE finally

submitted the Action Memorandum). The Region and TDEC concurred on final assessments

totaling $100,000.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 25 December 2000

DOE, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, CO

In the first enforcement action under CERCLA Section l09, on July 13, 1999, EPA Region VIII filed

a motion in limine, with supporting memorandum, seeking to preclude DOE from offering into

evidence the testimony of the attorneys who negotiated the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for

the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. EPA commenced this action by filing a penalty

action pursuant to CERCLA Section 109, seeking a penalty of $45,000 for violation of a term or

condition of an FFA (violation of surface water standards for plutonium and americium). 

DOE seeks to enter testimony of its negotiating attorneys that during negotiations, EPA agreed not

to seek penalties where a violation of the standards could not be traced to a point source of

contamination. The basis of the motion in limine is that such testimony is excluded by the parol

evidence rule, which holds that clear and unambiguous terms of an integrated agreement may not

be varied or contradicted by extrinsic evidence.

On September 21, 1999, a hearing was held on the motion in limine and the substantive issues. At

the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement and the

work plan were an integrated document, and DOE's contention that there was a contemporaneous

oral agreement was rejected. The hearing then turned to the substantive issues and evidence was

provided by both parties. The basic issue is that the water monitoring plan provided that samples

of less than 4 liters could be discarded, not analyzed, and not used in computing the compliance

average. Instead of discarding a small sample, DOE analyzed it, passed QA/QC, and reported it.

EPA’s position is that it is valid data and can be used. DOE’s position is that the 4-liter guideline

means the sample cannot be used. Post-hearing briefs were submitted in November 1999, and reply

briefs in December 1999. A decision is expected during FY 2000.

CWA Cases

U.S. Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA

On May 19, 1999, Region X issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

in Bremerton, Washington, for CWA violations. The Shipyard exceeded its effluent limitations in

its NPDES permit. If EPA had penalty authority under the CWA, the proposed penalties would have

been approximately $250,000.

RCRA Cases

DOE, Brookhaven National Lab and Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, NY

On August 6, 1999, EPA Region II settled an Administrative Complaint which alleged that the DOE

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and its contractor, Associated Universities, Inc., violated
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 26 December 2000

several provisions of RCRA, including: failure to determine whether solid waste generated at the

facility constituted hazardous waste, various storage area requirements, and hazardous waste

disposal without a permit. Respondents agreed to pay a $17,500 civil penalty. In addition, DOE is

to perform a supplementary environmental project. The SEP involves the installation of equipment

which will reduce the generation of radioactive waste water and oily waste water, and to replace

mercury-containing equipment with mercury-free equipment. The total value of the SEP is

$104,000.

USDA, Plum Island Disease Center, Greenport, NY

On February 18, 1999, EPA Region II settled an Administrative Complaint which alleged that the

USDA violated several provisions of RCRA, including its failure to notify EPA of all of its

hazardous waste management activities at the facility, obtain a permit for the storage and treatment

of hazardous waste, and determine whether solid waste generated at the facility constituted

hazardous waste. The USDA agreed to pay a civil penalty of $32,500. In addition, the USDA

agreed to perform a SEP that converts old wastewater treatment plant lagoons into wetlands. The

wetlands are to be designed and constructed in a manner to maximize the land area and value of the

habitat to native and migratory flora and fauna species. At four years from the construction

completion date, the wetlands are to achieve at least an 85% survival rate for the planted vegetation.

The total value of the wetlands project is $194,700. 

U.S. Army Garrison, Ft. Drum, NY

 

On June 30, 1999, Region II issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the U.S. Army Garrison

for allegedly violating the underground storage tank requirements of RCRA. The Respondent failed

to perform monthly leak detection monitoring for 76 petroleum USTs and 24 hazardous waste USTs

during an approximately one-year period from July 1996 through June 1997. The complaint

proposes a penalty of $259,960. 

GSA, Southeast Federal Center, Washington, D.C.

On July 28,1999, Region III and the General Services Administration (GSA) entered into a RCRA

3013 Order requiring investigation of and some interim measures on the Southeast Federal Center

(SEFC) located in Washington, D.C. This is the first Section 3013 Order on Consent that EPA has

entered into with a Federal agency. The SEFC occupies 55.3 acres along the Anacostia River.

Several studies of the area revealed the presence of contamination at or near the facility. The

contaminants detected, including benzene and lead, have detrimental effects on human health and

the environment. 
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 27 December 2000

U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center and Forest Glen Complex, Washington, D.C. and Silver

Spring, MD

During FY99, Region III amended the Complaint and Compliance Order issued to the Army on

September 30, 1998, for alleged violations of Federal UST regulations at the Army’s Walter Reed

Medical Center in Washington D.C., and Forest Glen Annex in Silver Spring, MD. EPA is seeking

a total penalty of $94,101 for UST violations involving five diesel fuel tanks at Walter Reed’s main

hospital facility in D.C., and four diesel fuel tanks at the Forest Glen Annex. The chief

Administrative Law Judge has found the Army liable for the violations through the granting of a

motion for accelerated decision. The penalty aspect of the case is outstanding, pending a Department

of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel determination on whether EPA can collect penalties for UST

violations at Federal facilities. 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 five USTs at Walter Reed were last used around December 1993, but were removed between

August 1995 and January 1997. At the Forest Glen Annex, the Army 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. 

U.S. Army, Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

On August 18, 1999, Region III signed a Consent Agreement and Order (CAO) to settle a September

30, 1998, Complaint for violations of RCRA hazardous waste storage regulations at the Walter Reed

Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The Complaint proposed a penalty of $201,600. The CAO

contained a final civil penalty of $50,400 and a pollution prevention SEP valued at $1.6 million. The

SEP requires the Army to purchase and implement a Hazardous Substance Management System

(HSMS). The HSMS is used to facilitate centralized hazardous material control and management

and to assist with environmental reporting.

Bureau of Engraving and Printing Facility, Washington, D.C.

On September 30, 1999, Region III issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the Department

of Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing facility in Washington, D.C. The Complaint states

that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: (1) owns/operates a hazardous waste storage facility

without a permit, interim status, or a valid permit exemption; (2) stores hazardous waste in open

drums; (3) fails to list the name and telephone number of each emergency coordinator in the facility’s

contingency plan; and (4) has failed to conduct required waste determination. The complaint does

not contain a specific proposed penalty, but cites the statutory maximum. Per the revised 40 CFR

Part 22 procedures, Region III has indicated that it will propose a specific penalty at a later date after

an exchange of further information.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 28 December 2000

U.S. Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

On March 31, 1999, Region III signed a CAO for violations of the hazardous waste storage permit

of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. The Navy agreed to pay a final civil penalty

of $2,500. The Complaint and Compliance Order issued on September 30, 1998, proposed a penalty

of $27,500. 

U.S. Army, Fort Belvoir, VA

On August 10, 1999, Region III settled a RCRA hazardous waste action against the Army at Fort

Belvoir in Virginia. The Army, in resolving the case, agreed to pay a penalty of $6,372 and perform

a pollution prevention SEP worth $45,260 to reduce emissions of halon. The SEP requires the Army

to remove two halon-based fire suppression sprinkler systems from a paint spray booth and a paint

storage area and replace them with a water-based system. 

Department of Defense, Fort Campbell, KY/TN

On September 29, 1999, Region IV filed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) settling a

RCRA Section 3008(a) Compliant filed in the matter of U.S. Department of Defense/Defense

Reutilization and Marketing Office, Fort Campbell, KY/TN. The settlement consisted of a cash

penalty of $125,000, and a SEP that includes an initial cost of $366,000 and annual costs of

$165,700 for three years. Under the SEP, Fort Campbell will replace a RCRA hazardous solvent

used in 300 parts washers at the base with a new system using a non-hazardous solvent. This will

eliminate a hazardous waste stream of approximately 557,500 pounds per year. 

The CAFO also requires that the respondent certify that the security violations alleged in the

Complaint have been corrected; that the respondent certify that the open burning/open detonation

(OB/OD) unit is no longer in operation; that the respondent submit a plan which describes how

compliance with training requirements is being achieved; and that the respondent submit a plan

which sets out policies for assuring modifications to solid waste management units are not made

without prior notification to EPA or the State.

This settlement resolves a 1998 compliant against Fort Campbell (the Respondent) for violations of

several significant requirements of interim status for its OB/OD Unit and RCRA permit conditions.

Specifically, Fort Campbell exceeded its Part A Permit Application limits, violated inspection

requirements, violated security requirements, failed to provide personnel training, and failed to

provide notification of planned alterations to a permitted facility. 
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 29 December 2000

USAF, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK

In January 1998, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Enforcement Action against Tinker Air

Force Base Station, alleging violations of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) requirements

promulgated under RCRA. The Administrative Compliant seeks a penalty of $96,703, and is part

of EPA’s first set of UST cases against Federal facilities.

After a series of motions filed by both Tinker and EPA Region VI, on May 19, 1999, the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order granting Tinker’s Motions to Dismiss and for

Accelerated Decision. The ALJ found that EPA lacked the statutory authority to assess civil

administrative penalties against another Federal agency under the UST provisions of RCRA Section

9006. EPA filed its Notice of Appeal with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in June

1999, and filed its Appellate Brief in August 1999. Tinker filed its Appellate Brief in October 1999,

and both parties requested oral argument. In the appeal, EPA challenged the ALJ’s determination

that the Agency lacks the statutory authority to assess civil administrative penalties against another

Federal agency for UST violations.

At the same time the case was pending before the ALJ, and before the initial decision was issued in

May 1999, DoD referred the issue of whether or not EPA has statutory authority to assess civil

administrative penalties against another Federal agency for UST violations to the Office of Legal

Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice. Both EPA and DoD agreed to be bound by OLC’s

determination, which is anticipated during FY 2000.

EPA has found that most Federal facilities have proper UST equipment for release detection, spill

and overfill prevention, and corrosion protection. Generally, the facilities in violation had

deficiencies in properly managing the equipment for release detection requirements. Federal

agencies should ensure that their personnel are familiar with proper UST management methods and

are thoroughly trained to operate UST release detection equipment to prevent pollution.

U.S. Army, Camp Stanley Storage Activity Facility, Boerne, TX

On May 5, 1999, EPA Region IV issued a final Administrative Order on Consent, also referred to

as an AOC, under Section 3008(h) of RCRA to the Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) facility

in Boerne, Texas. The Order concerns the identification, investigation, and prevention of further

contamination due to the release of hazardous wastes to the environment at the hazardous waste

management facility that CCSA has been operating since November 1980.

There are twelve wells at the CSSA facility that are used for potable drinking water sources,

monitoring wells, and agricultural water supplies. During a routine pesticide screening site visit,

the Texas Department of Health sampled water supplies from well #16 and found traces of several

chemicals. The contaminants included 1,2 dichloroethane, trichloethylene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 30 December 2000

The RCRA Order requires CSSA to perform interim stabilization measures to prevent or minimize

the further migration of contaminants due to the release of hazardous constituents to the

environment; mitigate current or potential threats to human health and the environment; and perform

corrective action studies to identify and evaluate alternatives for corrective actions to prevent or

mitigate any migration of pollutants from the facility. Failure by CSSA to comply with terms of the

Order will result in penalties ranging from $500 to $5,000 per day, depending on the extent of the

noncompliance period.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Hoopa Valley and Navajo Reservations, CA and AZ

In early 1999, EPA Region IX concluded settlements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for

RCRA violations at facilities on the Hoopa Valley (California) and Navajo (Arizona) Reservations.

BIA agreed to pay a $90,000 penalty and perform compliance activities for the violations on the

Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. BIA agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty and to hire an environmental

issues teacher for the schools in the Fort Defiance Agency to resolve the violations on the Navajo

Reservation. 

The violations on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation were for storage of hazardous waste on the

reservation. In 1989, the BIA abandoned 640 kilograms of hazardous waste in two storage sheds

located on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Since 1989, BIA has stored hazardous waste in

these storage sheds without a permit. Region IX filed an administrative complaint against BIA in

October 1997, alleging numerous violations related to the facility, including storage without a

permit.

On January 8, 1999, Region IX entered into a Consent Agreement and Consent Order with the BIA

under which the BIA agreed to pay EPA a civil penalty of $90,000 to resolve the alleged RCRA

violations on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. In addition to paying this penalty amount, BIA has

agreed to perform compliance activities which include submitting a closure plan and performing all

necessary cleanup measures.

The violations on the Navajo Reservation occurred in connection with maintenance operations at the

Dilcon School, a school operated by BIA for Navajo children in the Navajo Nation. A BIA

employee removed batteries and waste paints from a maintenance facility at the Dilcon School and

placed the wastes in a nearby arroyo (water-carved channel). This event occurred on July 10, 1997,

immediately prior to a facility audit. A Navajo Nation police officer discovered the wastes the

following day and traced them back to the Dilcon School. The case was referred to EPA by the

Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, which participated in review of the settlement.

The settlement between EPA and BIA, approved on April 14, 1999, provides for payment of a

$5,000 penalty and performance of a SEP at a cost of approximately $25,000. The SEP is an

environmental compliance promotion project which will provide training to the Navajo Nation on

how to comply with solid waste and hazardous waste requirements. To perform the SEP, the BIA
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 31 December 2000

will hire a qualified teacher to develop and deliver the curriculum. The teacher will be hired for the

1999-2000 school year and will teach subjects including solid waste disposal in grades 3 through 9

at nine different schools, and conduct two to three community outreach meetings on these

environmental issues. BIA will consult with the Executive Director of the Navajo Nation

Environmental Protection Agency in development of the curriculum. The community outreach

presentations will provide for presentation or translation in the Navajo language.

DOE, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, WA

EPA Region X issued a Complaint and Compliance Order (CACO) on February 11, 1999, to DOE

for violations of RCRA at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. A penalty of

$367,078 is being assessed. Three counts are included in the CACO: 1) storage of

hazardous/dangerous waste without a permit; 2) failure to make hazardous/dangerous waste

determination; and 3) failure to have a contingency plan. This CACO is the result of a multi-media

inspection conducted at Hanford in May of 1998.

U.S. Coast Guard, Kodiak Island, AK

On March 23, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Complaint and Compliance Order to the USCG for

RCRA violations at the Kodiak Island, Alaska facility. The Complaint sought $74,250 in penalties

to address Federal hazardous waste violations observed by EPA inspectors at the Coast Guard's

Kodiak facility in August 1998, and violations that were self-disclosed by the Coast Guard. EPA

inspectors found that the Coast Guard failed to adequately track and manage containers that held

hazardous waste. In a separate incident, for which the Coast Guard made a self-disclosure under

EPA’s Audit Policy, the Coast Guard also illegally treated hazardous wastes by detonating excess

ordnance in a remote bunker. Since the Coast Guard self-reported the illegal disposal of several

drums of emergency flares and small arms ammunition in a remote bunker at the facility and met

other Audit Policy criteria, they qualified for penalty relief under the EPA Audit Policy which

encourages facilities to disclose violations. A CACO was signed on June 3, 1999 to settle the

complaint and to address the self-disclosure. The Coast Guard agreed to pay the penalty of $74,250

for the violations found by EPA during the August 1998 inspection. The Coast Guard paid no

penalty for the self-disclosed violations.. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wapato Irrigation District, WA

On August 30, 1999, EPA Region X filed a complaint for UST violations at BIA’s Wapato Irrigation

District facility in Washington State. Region X has proposed $19,875 in penalties against BIA for

alleged repeated violations of several regulations that ensure that leak detection alarm systems are

working properly. EPA inspectors noted a silenced alarm and sump sensors that had been raised

three inches above the bottom of a sump during a March inspection of two tanks at the Wapato
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 32 December 2000

Irrigation Project on the Yakama Indian Reservation. BIA also was unable to produce evidence of

annual system tests or performance claims for leak detection systems. Similar violations were found

at a 1996 inspection. 

SDWA Cases

U.S. Navy, Navy Facilities, Washington, D.C.

On May 18, 1999, Region III issued four SDWA Section 1414 (g) Compliance Orders to the Navy

for violations of the public water supply regulations at facilities in Washington, D.C. The four

facilities were the U.S. Naval Observatory, the U.S. Naval Security Station, the Washington Navy

Yard, and the Anacostia Naval Station. The Navy failed to submit sanitary surveys every 5 years,

monitoring plans, and monitoring reports for the system.

U.S. Army, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL

In settlement of the first SDWA penalty case against a Federal facility, the Army’s Redstone Arsenal,

in Huntsville, Alabama, agreed to pay a cash penalty of $80,000 and spend $807,000 on SEPs. 

The settlement resolved an enforcement action initiated in April 1998, when EPA Region IV filed

an Administrative Penalty Order against the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone

Arsenal, for violations of the SDWA. The base was found to have violated requirements of the law

that ensure the safety of the drinking water for the 22,000 people at the Redstone Arsenal. Improper

management of a drinking water system can allow bacteria to flourish in the water. 

This was the first time the Agency has imposed a SDWA penalty against any Federal agency. 

SDWA was amended in 1996, giving EPA penalty authority against Federal facilities for the first

time. The Redstone settlement was the largest drinking water penalty in Region IV history.

This settlement resolved violations uncovered during a 1997 multi-media inspection at the Redstone

Arsenal. The inspection and subsequent investigation revealed that Redstone violated the Surface

Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule, and Public Notification Rule, including a MCL

violation for total coliform (bacteria). Redstone failed to properly operate and maintain its storage

tanks and reservoirs and a water main flushing program, and maintain adequate disinfectant residual

in the distribution system to meet MCLs for total coliform. The $807,000 in SEPs developed as part

of the settlement includes improvements to Redstone’s water system. 

The SEPs developed for Redstone include the installation of a chlorine monitoring system to

enhance water quality by allowing the facility to measure residual chlorine on a continuous basis.

In addition, operating computer software for one of Redstone’s water treatment plants will be

upgraded and construction projects will address water stagnation problems in some of the supply
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 33 December 2000

lines. These SEPs will improve Redstone’s water system to help ensure the Base’s water supply is

safe while putting less water purification disinfectant into the environment. 

U.S. Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, NC

Region IV took enforcement action against Fort Bragg in North Carolina for violations uncovered

during a multi-media inspection conducted in 1998. As a result of the investigation, serious

violations of public water system requirements were discovered. EPA issued an Administrative

Order under Section 1414(g) of SDWA. The violations of SDWA include: exceeding MCLs for

total trihalomethanes (TTHM) fourteen times; a TTHM monitoring and reporting violation for the

fourth quarter 1998; public education violations for failing to properly perform education required

as a result of exceeding lead action levels; and failure to report violations to the State of North

Carolina within 48 hours. 

Federal Recreation Facilities, NC

SDWA 1414(g) Administrative Orders were taken against small “transient non-community water

systems” (40 CFR Section 141.2) in Region IV located on property owned by the U.S. Forest

Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for failure to conduct

required monitoring for nitrites pursuant to 40 CFR 141.23 and failure to provide required

notification of violations to the State and public. The orders required that proper testing be

completed and notifications provided as required by SDWA. High levels of nitrites in drinking water

can be dangerous, especially for babies. 

U.S. Forest Service, National Forest Campgrounds, WY

SDWA 1414(g) Administrative Compliance Orders were issued to small “transient non-community

water systems” (40 CFR Section 141.2) located at four campgrounds in the Targhee National Forest,

the Medicine Bow National Forest, and the Bighorn National Forest. The orders address maximum

contaminant level violations, and failure to monitor total coliform and nitrate. High levels of nitrites

in drinking water can be dangerous, especially for infants.

EPCRA Cases

U.S. Army, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, OK

The U.S. Army McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma, (Region VI) was

issued a “show cause letter” on January 12, 1999, under Executive Order 12856, Federal

Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. A multi-media
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 34 December 2000

environmental compliance inspection revealed that the McAlester facility “otherwise used” chlorine

at above threshold amounts for 1994, 1995, and 1996 in noncompliance with EPCRA Section 313.

On March 11, 1999, information was received from the facility. Review of the information which

indicated that the McAlester facility had met the terms of the “show cause letter” and was now in

compliance with EPCRA Section 313. A confirmation letter acknowledging McAlester’s

compliance with EPCRA Section 313 was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.

BEP, Western Currency Facility, Fort Worth, TX

The BEP Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas (Region VI) was issued a “show cause

letter” on January 12, 1999, under Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know

Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements. A multi-media environmental compliance inspection

revealed that the BEP facility “otherwise used” nickel at above threshold amounts for 1995 and 1996

in noncompliance with EPCRA Section 313. In addition, BEP failed to maintain records for nickel

for the 1994 reporting year. On February 24, 1999, information was received from the facility,

review of which indicated that the BEP facility had met the terms of the “show cause letter” and was

now in compliance with EPCRA Section 313. A confirmation letter acknowledging BEP’s

compliance with EPCRA Section 313 was sent to the facility on April 6, 1999.

USAF, Luke Air Force Base, AZ

Luke Air Force Base in Arizona submitted documents to Region XI on September 30, 1999, and

November 19, 1999, demonstrating compliance with areas of noncompliance identified in an EPA

NOV resulting from an EPCRA compliance evaluation. The base submitted a draft final Spill

Prevention and Response Plan, Operations Plan, a revised list of hazardous chemicals, revised Tier

II forms for 1996 and 1997, and hired additional staff to audit, track, and prepare Tier II reports. New

instructions and contract language has been issued by the base requiring contractors to report all

instances and quantities of hazardous materials used on the base.

TSCA Cases

U.S. Navy, Kingsville Naval Air Station, Kingsville, TX

In July 1998, EPA Region VI filed an Administrative Enforcement Action against the Kingsville

Naval Air Station alleging violations of the Real Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule

promulgated under the Toxic Substance Control Act. The Administrative Compliant seeks a penalty

in excess of $400,000, and is EPA’s first penalty order issued to a Federal facility for alleged

violations of Section 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.

After a series of motions filed by both the Navy and EPA Region VI on February 18, 1999, the
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 35 December 2000

Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying the Navy’s motions for accelerated decision and

granting EPA’s motions for accelerated decision. The Navy then sought and was granted an

interlocutory appeal of the ALJ’s Order, and filed its Brief with EPA’s Environmental Appeals

Board (EAB) in June 1999. The Navy is challenging the ALJ’s determination that the Navy’s

Residency Occupancy Agreements are “contracts to lease” under the rule, that the Navy is subject

to civil administrative penalties for violations, and that EPA did not exceed its authority in defining

“lessor” to include government agencies.

Oral argument before the EAB was held on October 28, 1999, and both parties filed supplemental

briefs in November 1999. A decision by the EAB is expected during FY 2000. (On March 17, 2000,

the EAB issued a final order. The EAB held that ALJ McGuire's “Order cannot be upheld based

upon the Presiding Officer's analysis, which relied on Texas law.” The EAB observed that there is

no definition for “contract to lease” in the rule, and stated that “it is not clear that an ROA would

necessarily be included or excluded from any so-called ordinary definition of the term lease.”)

It is estimated that approximately one million children in the United States have lead poisoning and

the most common source of exposure is from lead-based paint in older housing. Over time, even

low-level exposure to lead from paint, dust, soil, and plumbing can cause a range of health problems

including permanent damage to the brain, nervous system, and kidneys.

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Fairbanks, AK

On April 11, 1999, EPA Region X issued a Notice of Noncompliance (NON) pursuant to TSCA to

Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. This action is for leaks of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

and other violations of Federal rules for the safe management of PCBs. If EPA had penalty authority

for these violations the proposed penalties would have been $443,300. Eight of the 23 PCB

violations involve leaks of PCBs. The remaining violations involve improper storage, marking,

labeling, and record-keeping, all of which are violations of TSCA. EPA's allegations about Fort

Wainwright's improper management of PCBs stem from observations made at a June 1997

inspection. 
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 36 December 2000

This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 1

Organizational Structure of the

 Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

Phone: (202) 564-2510

Fax: (202) 501-0069

Director: Craig Hooks

Associate Director: Elliott Gilberg

Senior Enforcement Counsel: Joyce Olin

Theresa Branch: (202) 564-2466

Madeline Queen: (202) 564-2472

Planning, Prevention, and Compliance Staff

Director: Gregory Snyder

Ph: (202) 564-4271

Fax: (202) 501-0069 

Site Remediation and Enforcement Staff

Director: John Fogarty

Ph: (202) 564-8865

Fax: (202) 501-0644

Will Garvey 202-564-2458 Melanie Barger-Garvey 202-564-2579

Priscilla Harrington 202-564-2461 Andrew Cherry 202-564-2589

Sarah Hart 202-564-2457 Sally Dalzell 202-564-2583

Joyce A. Johnson 202-564-2592 Dan Drazan 202-564-2328

Kelly A.C. Jones 202-564-2459 Lance Elson 202-564-2577 

Dorothy King 202-564-2473 William (Bill) Frank 202-564-2584

Isabelle Lacayo 202-564-2578 Sonja Johnson 202-564-2573

Dianne Lynne 202-564-2587 David Levenstein 202-564-2591

Marie Muller 202-564-0217

Augusta Wills 202-564-2468

Regional Federal Facilities

Program Managers

(see next page)
Federal Facilities Enforcement & Compliance FY 1999 Accomplishments Report 

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 38 December 2000

This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 2

U.S. EPA Federal Facilities Program Managers

Region/Name Address E-Mail Telephone/Fax

Number

HEADQUARTERS

Greg Snyder, Director

Planning, Prevention,

& Compliance Staff

U.S. EPA Headquarters

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

snyder.greg@epa.gov 202-564-4271 (t)

202-501-0069 (f)

REGION I 

Anne Fenn

U.S. EPA Region I

Office of Environmental Stewardship

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Mail: SPP

Boston, MA 02114-2023

fenn.anne@epa.gov 617-918-1805 (t)

617-918-1810 (f)

REGION II 

Kathleen Malone

Alt: John Gorman

U.S. EPA Region II

Compliance Assistance Section

290 Broadway, 21st Fl.

New York, NY 10007-1866 

malone.kathleen@epa.gov

gorman.john@epa.gov

212-637-4083 (t)

212-637-4008 (t)

212-637-4086 (f)

REGION III

Bill Arguto 

U.S. EPA Region III

 Office of Environmental Programs 

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

arguto.willam@epa.gov 215-814-3367 (t)

215-814-2783 (f)

REGION IV

Stacy Gent-Howard

U.S. EPA Region IV

Env. Accountability Division, Federal Facilities

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

howard.stacy@epa.gov 404-562-9633 (t)

404-562-9598 (f)

REGION V

Lee J. Regner

U.S. EPA Region V

Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance

77 West Jackson Blvd

Chicago, IL 60604-3507

regner.lee@epa.gov 312-353-6478 (t)

312-353-5374 (f)

REGION VI

Joyce F. Stubblefield

U.S. EPA Region VI 

Compliance Assurance & Enforcement Division

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX 75202

stubblefield.joyce@epa.gov 214-665-6430 (t)

214-665-7446 (f)

REGION VII

Diana Jackson

U.S. EPA Region VII

Enforcement Coordination Office

901 North 5th Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

jackson.diana@epa.gov 913-551-7744 (t)

913-551-9744 (f)

REGION VIII

Dianne Thiel

U.S. EPA Region VIII

Office of Partnerships and Reg. 

Assistance, 8P-P3T

999 18th Street

Denver, CO 80202-2466

thiel.dianne@epa.gov 303-312-6389 (t)

303-312-6044 (f)

Connally Mears mears.connally@epa.gov 303-312-6217 (t)

303-312-6409 (f)

REGION IX

Sara Segal

Larry Woods

U.S. EPA Region IX

Cross-Media Division 

75 Hawthorne St, CMD-2

San Francisco, CA 94105

segal.sara@epa.gov;

woods.larry@epa.gov

415-744-1569 (t)

415-744-1580 (t)

415-744-1598 (f)

REGION X

Michele Wright

U.S. EPA Region X

Office of Enforcement & Compliance (OEC-164)

1200 6th Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

wright.michele@epa.gov 206-553-1747 (t)

206-553-7176 (f)