Page 12

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERNORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICEBUILDING E-4460ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5401

STANDARDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDAPG, MD

PERMIT NO. 1

Summer 2000 U. S. Army Northern Regional Environmental Office

MONITORENVIRONMENTAL

“Incidental Manufacture” Lurks Within TRI Reporting

(Continued on page 5)

OFFICE CHIEF - Bill HerbPhone: 410-436-7096E-mail: william.herb@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGIONAL ATTORNEY - Gary ZolyakPhone: 410-436-1275E-mail: gary.zolyak@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION I/II COORDINATOR - Robert MuhlyPhone: 410-436-7101E-mail: robert.muhly@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION III COORDINATOR - Fred BoecherPhone: 410-436-7100E-mail: fred.boecher@aec.apgea.army.mil

PROJECT MANAGER - Andy CarakerPhone: 410-436-7098E-mail: andrew.caraker@aec.apgea.army.mil

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - Mitch BrymanPhone: 410-436-7099E-mail: mitchell.bryman@aec.apgea.army.mil

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Nina GallupPhone: 410-436-7097E-mail: nina.gallup@aec.apgea.army.milFAX: 410-436-7110

CHICAGO SUBOFFICE

REGION V COORDINATOR - Hugh McAlearPhone: 630-910-3213 Ext. 224FAX: 630-910-0370DENIX: mcalear@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu

NREO KEY PERSONNEL

[Ed. Note: An Air Force installationrecently found itself at odds with the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency overits failure to include in its toxic releaseinventory (TRI) report the incidentalmanufacture of a regulated substanceresulting from the on-site treatment ofanother regulated substance. Becausethese circumstances may apply to someArmy installations, reprinted below is thetext of an Environmental Notice issuedby the Air Force Central RegionalEnvironmental Office advising Air Forceinstallations and DoD RegionalEnvironmental Coordinators of the caseand its outcome.]

“An installation recently received a“Notice of Opportunity to Show Cause”letter from HQ EPA under EmergencyPlanning and Community Right to KnowAct (EPCRA) Section 313, 42 U.S.C.11023 for failing to submit a Form R fornitrate compounds coincidentallymanufactured over the 25,000-poundmanufacturing threshold for multiplereporting years. The installation hadsubmitted a Form R for nitric acid andreported its on-site treatment (i.e.,neutralize) in excess of 18,000 poundsbut did not report the coincidentalmanufacture of nitrate compounds.

“HQ EPA offered the installation toresolve its liability at a substantiallyreduced rate (penalty of $5,000 perviolation) by signing a “USEPA NationalNitrate Compliance Agreement” and notedthat subsequent violations discovered inany follow-up inspection were subject topenalties of up to $27,500 per violationper day.

“The installation worked with our [AirForce Central Region] office on this issue

and responded to the EPA letter sayingthat it was committed to work with EPAto resolve the oversight and that it wouldprepare a Form R for nitrate compoundsfor each reporting year. DoD Installationsmust comply with the provisions of E.O.13148 and Federal Facilities are notsubject to fines from EPA for allegedviolations of EPCRA. Therefore, theinstallation declined to sign the EPAproposed agreement.

“This information is being forwarded toyou so your installations will be able tobe proactive in avoiding similar problemsand potential enforcement actions withfines/penalties. Please pass on asnecessary. We suggest you check yourrecords for possible coincidentalmanufacture of nitrate or othercompounds.”

For information on Army policy andsupport on this issue contact: Craig

Peters, U.S. Army Environmental Center,(410) 436-1219, DSN 584, e-mail:craig.peters@aec.apgea.army.mil.

“The following is provided as anEnvironmental Notice to inform you of asituation concerning enforcement actionsissued by HQ EPA to a DoD Region VIinstallation for its failure to discloseinformation for nitrate compoundscoincidentally manufactured over the25,000-pound manufacturing threshold,which may affect your installations.

By Susan Phelps-LarcherContributing Writer

Since its establishment in 1991, theArmy’s Environmental ComplianceAssessment System (ECAS) programhas been instrumental in reducing the

· Refine root cause analysis· Conduct ECAS root cause study· Implement risk-based scheduling· Prepare executive summaries· Establish Quick Response Techni-

cal Support Teams· Reinforce the use of the ICAP

E Rds99

e ffi itsco

ndalysinyst

Director of Environmental Programs(ODEP) is working with the major Armycommands (MACOMs) to establish anArmy-wide system. The National GuardBureau’s system is serving as the basicbuilding block.

ECAS Initiatives Seek Further Reduction in Enforcement Actions

By Melanie GrahamContributing Writer

Army installation managers arechallenged to maintain aging buildingsand operate them according to budgetallocations. Window repair/replacement and energy efficiency areamong the most significant issuesfacing managers.

The Army facilities databaseindicates that approximately 73,000Army buildings will become 50 yearsold within the next 30 years. To keepup with this immense responsibility,installation managers search for waysto improve energy efficiency and reducecost.

No window set is completely energyefficient; as window hardware ages,efficiency gradually decreases.Complete window replacement is notthe only option; the new windoweconometric analysis program provideswindow life-cycle cost comparisons forrepair, rehabilitation and/or thereplacement of windows.

The program assists users by group-ing physical characteristics such asmaterial, size, type, fit and presentcondition into four categories accord-ing to the extent of repair needed:minor, moderate, intensive or custom.To account for site-specific labor andmaterial cost, nationally averaged datais modified to reflect local constructioncost. The econometric analysis pro-

vides up to fourteen possible repairactions ranging from less extensiverepairs such as painting and weatherstripping to complete window replace-ment.

According to Caroline Hall, USAEChistorian, “One of the real strengths ofthe program is that the life-cycle com-parison analyzes cost implicationsover a 20-year time frame. This is amore accurate assessment of totalcost implications for any project.” Man-agers can examine repair scenariosand easily identify the most cost-ef-fective and beneficial solution for thewindows.

The reports section allows themanager to review, assemble and printthe results of the window econometricanalysis. A convenient report tableincludes initial project cost, energysavings, and life-cycle maintenancecost for each scenario.

Window Econometric AnalysisSupports Energy Efficiency

The Window Econometric Analysisprogram is available for DENIX

account holders at:http://aec.army.mil

CD Rom versions are available toDoD activities through the

Technical Information Center (TIC) at:USAECTIC@aec.apgea.army.mil

For further information contact:Caroline Hall, AEC Historian,

(410) 436-1577, DSN 584, e-mail:caroline.hall@aec.apgea.army.mil

IIIIINNNNN T T T T THISHISHISHISHIS I I I I ISSUESSUESSUESSUESSUE

From the Chief ...........pg. 2

DOJ Decisionon “Overfiling” .......... pg. 4

Around the Statesand EPA Regions ....... pg. 6

OOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

for root cause analysis were6 when the Department ofce of the Inspector General final Root Cause Analysismmending that the Army

implement a multi-tier rootsis system. Currently, theg a variety of root causeems, and the Office of the

REFIN

he seen in 1nse O

mittedort, reelop ase any is ulysis s

number of compliance problems on Armyinstallations. As a result, the number ofenforcement actions and fines also havebeen reduced. There is still room forimprovement, however.

In Fiscal Year 2000, the Army ECASprogram implemented a number of newmeasures to further reduce enforcementactions and fines and improveperformance on Army installations. Thesemeasures include the following:

TsowDefsubRepdevcauArmana

Northern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 SummePage 2

FROM THE CHIEF

NORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR

The Northern Regional Environmental Monitor is an unofficial publicationauthorized under the Provisions of AR 360-81. It is published on a quarterlybasis by the U.S. Army Environmental Center Public Affairs Office, AberdeenProving Ground, MD. 21010-5401; telephone: (410) 436-2556 and DSN 584-2556. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of theDepartment of the Army. This publication has a circulation of 500. NREO Chief'stelephone: (410) 436-2427. All articles proposed should be submitted to theRegional Environmental Office two months before issue dates. These submissionsare subject to editing and rewriting as deemed necessary for space considerations.

Commander, USAEC...................................................... COL Edward W. NewingDeputy/Technical Director (Acting) ...................................... David C. GuzewichChief of Staff ................................................................. LTC Thomas M. FrendakChief, Public Affairs ............................................................ Thomas M. HankusChief, NREO ...................................................................................... William HerbEditor ......................................................................................... Andrew Caraker

OUR MISSION: The NREO was established in 1995 to support the Army andDoD mission through coordination, communication and facilitation of regional

environmental activities. The Army REOs are part of a DoD network in which the Army,Navy and Air Force each has lead responsibility for mission implementation in the

federal regions. The NREO has DoD lead responsibility for Region V, and Army leadresponsibility for Regions I, II, III and V.

By Bill HerbNREO Chief

This will be my last “From the Chief”column and the last time you will have tolook at my non-smiling face to the right.By the time you read this article, this“actor” will be moving on to a new role,and Dr. Jim Hartman will be in place asboth the permanent, “non-acting” Chiefof the Army’s Northern Regional Environ-mental Office and the DoD RegionalEnvironmental Coordinator for Region V.Jim comes to us from the Joint ProgramOffice at the Massachusetts MilitaryReservation, where he had lots of oppor-tunities to practice the “coordination,communication, facilitation” mantra of theRegional Offices. In spite of my frown, Ihave sincerely enjoyed my two tours ofduty in the NREO; please join me in wel-coming Jim.

Did I mention crabs in my last column?Here on the Chesapeake Bay, blue crabsare one of the true highlights of summer.Steamed (with Old Bay), in soup (cream,not tomato), or in crab cakes (nobreadcrumbs, please), they are trueaquatic treasures, and each year we

hope they will be abun-dant. But even if crabsare scarce, we haveother abundant aquatictreasures in the NREOarea. We have all sixGreat Lakes (so whatif you learned in schoolthat there were only 5;someone has seriouslyproposed that we addLake Champlain)! Wealso boast the sourceof the Mississippi Riverand the entire Chesapeake Bay drain-age. Throw in the Land of 10,000 Lakes(Wisconsin modestly claims 15,000, butwon’t brag like those Minnesotans), themighty Ohio, and the Youghiogheny (betyou didn’t know it was pronounced “yock-a-gany”), and we barely ripple the surface.

However, wherever there are majorresources, there also can be majorresource issues. Even in “the Land ofPleasant Living”, the waters of the Bayare troubled, but states are making

commitments to improvement. Thestates of the Chesapeake Bay watershedpledged to reduce runoff of harmfulnutrients and sediments into the estuaryso that it will be removed from the federal“dirty water” list within 10 years. In partbecause of earlier agreements among thesurrounding states and the cooperationof DoD installations, the health of NorthAmerica’s largest estuary has improvedsince the mid-1980s. The ChesapeakeBay Foundation now rates its conditionat 28, up from 23 on a scale of 100, with100 being equal to the Bay’s pristinestatus three centuries ago. BecauseDoD is a major landholder in the Baywatershed, these planned improvementsmay have potential impacts on ourinstallations.

EPA is publishing Final Water QualityGuidance for the Great Lakes System.The Guidance consists of water qualitycriteria for 29 pollutants to protect aquaticlife, wildlife, and human health, anddetailed methodologies to develop criteriafor additional pollutants; implementationprocedures to develop more consistent,enforceable water quality-based effluentlimits in discharge permits, as well astotal maximum daily loads of pollutantsthat can be allowed to reach the Lakesand their tributaries; and anti-degradationpolicies and procedures. Under the CleanWater Act, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Minnesota, New York, Ohio,Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin mustadopt provisions into their water qualitystandards and NPDES permit programswithin two years that are consistent with

(Continued on page 8)

by Kim MUSAEC

“Concvariationor naturground oppositi

A newtrainingtraining to enharesourcInstallatlands environmust idiminishregulato

Availamaneuvstandarneeded standarare everscale erto furthemay nemission.lands mbetweenmust be

The TPlanninDocumeEnvironto integmanageuses a han instaresourcenvironmdesigninresult istraining impacts

The gguidancinvolvedimplemeIt is desimplemeprojectsand env

A NPla

Northern Regional Environmental Officer 2000 Page 11

Barn Swallows

ichaelsConservation Branch

ealment - Those topographics, whether artificially constructedal, that provide protection fromand aerial observation by theon.”

approach is being applied to land design that integratesand environmental requirementsnce an installation’s traininges — including concealment.ions can now sustain trainingas well as provide bettermental stewardship — both an today’s environment ofing resources and increasedry requirements.ble training lands offer limited

erability when training to doctrinalds. Large expanses of land arein order to support these trainingds, and environmental concerns present. If not maintained, large-osion and loss of vegetation leadr environmental problems andgatively impact the training Concealed or otherwise, trainingust be maintained, and a balance training and the environment

reached.actical Concealment Area (TCA)g and Design Guidancent, developed by the U.S. Army

mental Center (USAEC), seeksrate training and environmentalment. The guidance documentolistic approach that considers

llation’s training needs, existinges, resource conditions, andental constraints in planning andg realistic training areas. The expanded and/or enhanced

resources, fewer environmental and greater safety.uidance provides procedural

e for trainers and land managers in the planning, design andntation of tactical concealment.igned to assist in initiating andnting most tactical concealment

for developing realistic, effectiveironmentally stable training areas,

and provides ideas for using in-houseresources. Implicit in the guidance isthe need for an integrated team ofexperts. The team approach ensuresthe entire installation’s needs aremet in terms of total training areadesign.

The tactical concealment guid-ance was successfully fieldtested at two Army sites -Camp Bullis, Texas and FortHood, Texas — and two Na-tional Guard sites — CampGuernsey, Wyoming, andCamp Ripley, Minnesota. “Thisdocument was created by the field, forthe field,” said Kim Michaels, USAECProject Manager. “It contains lessonslearned and general design criteria thatcame directly from installation expertswho work these situations every day.”

No other single document pulls thistype of information together in one source.There are no set designs or off-the-shelftemplates for designing TCAs. “The trickis in the team you develop before anyplanning or designing takes place,” saidDusty Bruns, Integrated Training AreaManagement (ITAM) Coordinator, CampBullis. “Each TCA is an outgrowth of bothtraining and environmental considerationsthat are brought to the table by specificteam members.”

The guidance not only providesvaluable field knowledge, it also includespictorial examples that clearly illustratethe text. “As stated early in the document,the initial field survey was critical for us,”said David Palmer, State EnvironmentalSpecialist for the State of Wyoming. “Itprovided invaluable information that wasneeded through the planning and designphases.”

In addition to providing valuableinformation, the guidance offered thedemonstration sites cost-saving strate-gies. Marty Skogland, EnvironmentalSupervisor at Camp Ripley, said, “Usingin-house personnel and equipment, likethe document suggests, provided moreflexibility and reduced our project costsby 50 percent.” At Camp Bullis, a 70percent savings per acre was accom-plished by applying many of the guidance

ew Approach to Tactical Concealmentnning and Design

r e c o m -mendations. “Wehave increased our trainingland utilization for active and reservecomponents by over 100 percent,” saidDick Strimmel, U.S. Army Medical Com-mand (MEDCOM) ITAM ProgramManager at Camp Bullis. “Build it andthey will come.”

From vehicle maneuverability to wildlifeland use and training realism, thisdocument covers a wide range of trainingland elements. Data sheets and formsare provided for data collection to assistin design planning and effectiveness.

Copies of the Tactical ConcealmentArea Planning and Design GuidanceDocument are available through the

Technical Information Center (TIC) at:

USAECTIC@aec/apgea.army.mil

These copies are restricted to DoDpersonnel only.

Web-based versions are available forDENIX account holders at:

http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/et/conserv/conserv.htm.

For further information contact:Ms. Michaels, USAEC Conservation

Branch, (410) 436-1572,DSN 584, e-mail:

Kim.Michaels@aec.apgea.army.mil.

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000Summer 2000Page 10 Page 3

Through the years, and for a widevariety of reasons, EPA has issuedinformal “guidance documents.” Theseguidance documents (sometimes alsocalled “circulars” or “memoranda”)explain, interpret, define and occasionallyexpand the requirements of regulations.These guidance documents, while oftenreading and looking like regulations, arenot issued like regulations and are NOTregulations.

In APC, Appalachian Power Company,as well as a number of electriccompanies and trade associationsrepresenting the nation’s chemical andpetroleum industry, sought review ofportions of an EPA guidance documententitled “Periodic Monitoring Guidance forTitle V (stationary source) OperatingPermits.” The guidance documentoutlined periodic monitoring requirementsfor source point emissions subject to TitleV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of1990.

EPA issued the guidance in September1998 over the signature of two EPAofficials — the Director of the Office ofRegulatory Enforcement, and the Director

THE VALUE OF EPA “GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS”AFTER THE APPALACHIAN POWER CASE

By Gary Zolyak, Regional CounselOn

permit to provide for “periodic monitoring. . . sufficient to yield reliable data fromthe relevant time period . . . representativeof the source’s compliance with thepermit.” Among other items, the guidanceestablishes a framework for EPA regionaloffice and state review of existing periodicmonitoring requirements to determinewhether or not those requirements needto be strengthened in a Title V permit.

The electric utilities in APC filed apetition for review of portions of theguidance, claiming that the guidance wasin effect a rule that should be vacatedbecause EPA had issued it withoutfollowing rulemaking procedures requiredunder federal law. EPA, among otherarguments it put forth, took the positionthat the guidance is not subject to judicialreview as it is not final and it is not finalbecause it is not “binding.”

In a unanimous opinion, the Courtagreed with the utility companies.Significantly, however, the Court wentbeyond the specific challenges of theutility petition to rule that “(I)n view of theintertwined nature of the challenged andunchallenged portions of the Guidance,

authorities to conduct wide-rangingsufficiency reviews and to enhancethe monitoring required in individualpermits beyond that contained inState and federal emissions stan-dards even when those standardsdemand some sort of periodic test-ing, EPA has in effect amendedSection 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). This it can-not legally do without complyingwith the rulemaking procedures re-quired by 42 U.S.C. Section7607(d).” Id. At 1028.”

What does this all mean to installa-tion legal and environmental staff who fromtime to time may be adversely affectedby apparent “requirements” contained inan EPA guidance document? The firststep, as always, is to inform yourMACOM of the issues and consult onyour actions and potential actions. Instal-lation staff also may want to inform theDoD or Service Regional Office and askfor assistance. Potentially, the secondstep, again in consultation with theMACOM, is to consider filing a petitionfor review in the D.C. Circuit claiming thatthe guidance document is in effect a rule.

But how do installation staff becomeaware of these guidance documents thatmay affect an installation’s interests? Inany year, EPA may issue numerousguidances. Best sources include EPAwebsites, trade journals, Army RegionalEnvironmental Office monthly Reviews,and applications of the holding of the APCcase.

Installation staff — legal and environ-mental — now aware of APC, must beon alert; the ramifications of APC are justbeginning to unfold.

April 14, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit issued a 3-0 opinion in the case of Appalachian Power Co.

v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 49 ERC 1449 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The practical effect of the

Court’s ruling in the Appalachian Power case (APC) may be to seriously limit

the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to employ

“guidance documents” as the basis for regulatory action.

rmR Dc.

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

The Wisconsin/Department of DefensePollution Prevention Alliance completed anddistributed its Charter in May, officially launchingits initiative to make pollution prevention thetop priority in dealing with environmental issuesat military facilities in the state.

The goals of the Alliance include establishinga pollution prevention exchange and creatingtraining programs to increase environmentalawareness of military employees andpersonnel.

Fort McCoy’s Alan Balliett, the AllianceDoD co-chair, stated, “For years the militaryhas been trying to clean up and controlpollution after the fact. Now we want to takea more preventive approach by using saferraw materials and less pollutingtechnologies like water-based cleaners,reusable shipping containers and moreefficient paint spraying systems.”

Jerry Rodenberg, the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources co-chairof the Alliance, added, “There is a lot tobe gained by working with others toaddress some of the commonenvironmental problems facing militaryinstallations in Wisconsin. We havealready identified several priority areasfor reducing waste and inefficiency,including training.”

DoD entities participating in theAlliance are Fort McCoy, U.S. ArmyReserves, U.S. Air Force Reserves,Navy Reserves, Wisconsin ArmyNational Guard and the Wisconsin AirGuard. Non-DoD participants includeEPA Region V, the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, andthe Wisconsin Solid and HazardousWaste Education Center.

Wisconsin Pollution Prevention AllianceFinalizes Charter

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear, (630) 910-3213, ext. 224, e-mail:

Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

ation contact:egional Counsel,SN 584, e-mail:apgea.army.mil.

of the Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards. Narrative in form, the guidanceis available on EPA’s web site(www.epa.gov). The stated purpose of theguidance is the “. . . (clarification of)certain principles to be applied whenimplementing the periodic monitoringrequirements of 40 C.F.R. 70.6(a)(3)(I)(B). . . .” That section requires each Title V

the Guidance must be set aside in itsentirety.” 208 F.3d. at 1028. The Courtconcluded that:

“(the Guidance) significantly broad-ened the 1992 rule. The moreexpansive reading of the rule, un-veiled in the Guidance, cannotstand. In directing State permitting

For further infoMr. Zolyak, AEC (410) 436-1275,gary.zolyak@ae

Northern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 SummePage 4

By MAJ Robert J. CotellEnvironmental Law Division

On 16 September 1999, a three-judgepanel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theEighth Circuit ruled that the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)does not give EPA the authority to bringan enforcement action against acompany that has already resolved anaction over the same violations broughtby an authorized state agency. [HarmonIndustries Inc. v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894,49 ERC 1129, 8th Cir, 1999; 180 DENAA-1, 9/17/99.]

On January 24, 2000, the EPA re-quested a re-hearing by thethree-judge panel, and by the en-tire Eighth Circuit court. The courtdenied both requests. An appeal ofthe Eighth Circuit’s opinion was due tothe Supreme Court on April 24, 2000.However, the Department of Justice(DOJ)declined to take the appeal to theSupreme Court on behalf of the EPA. Ac-cordingly, the case is now formallyclosed. The EPA lacks legal authority to“overfile” environmental cases resolvedwith state agencies.

The facts of the case are coveredextensively in the November 1998 ELDBulletin. In short, the plaintiff, HarmonIndustries, was a manufacturer of safetyequipment for the railroad industry. Forfourteen years, Harmon’s employeesthrew used solvent residues out the backdoor of the plant. The discarded solventswere hazardous wastes under RCRA.

In 1987, Harmon discovered what theemployees were doing and ordered thepractice to cease. Harmon then reportedthe disposal to the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources (MDNR). EPA hadauthorized MDNR to administer its ownhazardous waste program under RCRA.Since first being authorized to administera program EPA had never withdrawn theState’s authority.

After meeting with Harmon, MDNRoversaw the investigation and clean upof the Harmon facility. Ultimately,the State approved a post-closure permitfor the facility, with costs of over $500,000over thirty years. In 1991, the State

DOJ Decides No Supreme CourtReview in EPA “Overfile” Case

environmentallaw specialists should be awareof overfiling issues in all cases broughtagainst an installation by the EPA. Inalmost all cases, installations will havesome dealings with state regulators priorto receiving complaints from the EPA. Inthose cases which have resulted in theissuance of a state NOV, administrativeorder, or consent decree, the ability ofthe EPA to subsequently intervene andfile an action on its own behalf has beenseverely limited by the court decision. Insuch cases, EPA must demonstrate thatit has denied the authority of the state toadminister the RCRA program. Further,such denial is not simply for the case athand. Instead, it must deny the authorityof the state to administer the entireprogram on all regulated entities. Suchrequirements will be a heavy burden forthe EPA and it is likely that overfilingswill be reduced in the future.

One final caveat should be noted. TheEPA is currently appealing a similaroverfiling case in the Tenth Circuit. [U.S.v. Power Engineering Co., D. Colo., No.97-B-1654.]

Should the case be decided in favor ofthe EPA, it will create a split of opinion inthe circuit courts. It is possible that thissplit may prompt the DOJ to seek aresolution of the issue with the SupremeCourt.

By HughArmy Re

Goveissued a2000 establisDefensPrevent

The pand enva charte

MicAlli

filed a peti-tion againstHarmon in theState court,along with aconsent de-cree signed byboth Harmonand MDNR. Thecourt approvedthe consent

decree thatspecifically provided

that Harmon’s compliancewith the decree constituted full satisfac-tion and release from all claims arisingfrom allegations in the petition. The con-sent decree did not impose a monetarypenalty.

Earlier, EPA had notified the State ofits view that fines should be assessedagainst Harmon. After the petition hadbeen filed and approved by the State, EPAfiled an administrative complaint againstHarmon seeking over two million dollarsin penalties. An administrative law judge(ALJ) and Environmental Appeals Board(EAB) found for the EPA. Harmonappealed to the Federal District Court onthe issue of the authority of EPA to takean enforcement action where the Statehad already entered into a consentdecree.

Harmon won the appeal to the FederalDistrict Court. According to the court theRCRA does not give EPA authority tooverride the State once it determines anappropriate penalty. Section 3006(e) ofRCRA gives EPA only the option ofwithdrawing authorization of a State toadminister a RCRA program. EPAappealed the case to the Eighth Circuit.As noted above, the Circuit court decidedin favor of Harmon, and the DOJ hasdeclined to take the case to the SupremeCourt.

In light of this case, installation

Northern Regional Environmental Officer 2000 Page 9

McAleargion V REC

rnor John Engler of Michigan Press Release on Earth Dayannouncing the formalhment of the Department of

e/State of Michigan Pollutionion Alliance.articipating military installationsironmental agencies have signedr agreement outlining goals to

promote pollution prevention atinstallations around the state. Goalsinclude establishing pollution preventioninformation exchanges and creatingtraining programs to increaseenvironmental awareness among militarypersonnel and employees.

“Cooperation is the key to solvingcomplex environmental challenges,”Governor Engler said. “This arrangementcomplements Michigan’s

higan Governor Announces DOD/Michiganance to Cut Pollution at Military Installations

continued emphasis on pollutionprevention, and underscores the dynamicresults we can achieve when governmentagencies join forces to address commonconcerns.”

Michigan’s Director of EnvironmentalQuality, Russell Harding, added,“Michigan’s environment will seemeaningful gains through this innovativepartnership. The alliance already hasidentified several priority areas forreducing waste and inefficiency.”

Joe Krawciw, of the U.S. Army TankAutomotive and Armaments Command,serves as the Department of DefenseCo-chair for the alliance. He pointed out“that for years the military has been tryingto clean up and control pollution after thefact. By eliminating pollution at the pointof generation we can reduce disposalcosts, protect the environment andenhance mission readiness.”

Participating military installations inthe alliance include Michigan Air NationalGuard bases in Alpena, Battle Creekand Mount Clemens; installations of theMichigan Army National Guard and theU.S. Army Reserves; the DefenseReutilization and Marketing Service;the Defense Logistics InformationService; the Defense Reutilization andMarketing Office at Selfridge; the U.S.Army Tank Automotive andArmaments Command; and the U.S.Army Tank Automotive Research,Development and EngineeringCenter.

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear,

(630) 910-3213, ext. 224,e-mail:

Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000Summer 2000 Page 5Page 8

the Guidance, or EPA will promulgatethe provisions for them.

Putting an international twist onGreat Lakes issues, the EPA andits Canadian counterpart are seekingcomments on proposed strategiesto reduce nine critical pollutants inthe Lake Superior Basin. The targetedpollutants are those mostly likely toharm human health, the environmentor recreational activities, such asfishing or swimming. Targetedpollutants are dioxin, mercury, PCBs,hexachlorobenzene, octachlorostyrene,chlordane, DDT, dieldrin/aldrin, and tox-aphene. In an April meeting betweenrepresentatives of ODUSD(ES) and EPARegion V, DoD was specifically re-quested to participate in voluntaryPCB-reduction efforts in the GreatLakes area.

Nationwide, states have identifiedabout 21,000 waterbodies that do notmeet water-quality criteria for fishing,swimming, boating, drinking, etc. Statesmust develop about 42,000 TMDLs

(total maximum daily loads) for theseimpaired waterbodies. A TMDL is theamount of pollutant that a waterbody canreceive and still meet water qualitystandards, and sets the stage forachieving water-quality standards bysuch means as NPDES permits for pointsources, state nonpoint sourcemanagement programs, federal laws andrequirements, state and local laws andregulations, and local or regionalwatershed management programs. All ofthese have potential impacts on DoDinstallations discharging (point ornonpoint) to impaired waters. States aregoing to be developing source waterprotection plans to protect drinking-watersources across the country. In the sameApril meeting with ODUSD(ES)mentioned above, EPA Region Vrequested that DoD installationsparticipate, where possible, with stateagencies in developing these source-water protection plans.

In an area that is close to our hearts(and stomachs), EPA has promulgateda rule to require most drinking-watersystems to give consumers an annualreport (Consumer Confidence Report) on

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

On April 18, 2000, representatives ofthe Office of the Deputy Under Secretaryof Defense (Environmental Security) andthe Services met with senior EPA RegionV officials in Chicago. The meeting wasone of a series that Mr. Bruce deGrazia,Assistant Deputy Undersecretary ofDefense (Environmental Quality), and MsCarla Perri, Assistant DeputyUndersecretary of Defense (Cleanup),have held with EPA Regional Office staffsin recent months to discuss DoD andService environmental accomplishmentsduring the past seven years. Themeetings also have served as a forumfor discussing unresolved issues.

At the EPA Region V meeting, Mr.DeGrazia and Ms. Perri highlightedpartnering in pollution prevention andcleanup, and progress in transferring land

to local reuse authorities at BRACinstallations, as success stories.Reduction in the number of Notices ofViolation issued to military activities andprogress made in diverting solid wastefrom the disposal stream also weredescribed as successes.

Although there are no known problemsin Region V regarding military compliancewith the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPArepresentatives expressed concern overthe aging infrastructure at military basesthat might prevent compliance withpending drinking water standards.Characterization of UXO in range areaswas another concern, particularly atbases being slated for reuse where publicaccess will be allowed. The handling ofFormerly Used Defense Sites evokedcriticism, and EPA representativesrecommended closer collaboration duringpreparation of the initial inventory project

report and determination of “no DoDactivity indicated.”

Region V officials briefed DoDrepresentatives on two programs in whichEPA would like more DoD involvement,specifically source water assessmentand protection analysis data related tomilitary installations, and informationregarding PCBs on installations and DoDuse of PCB-containing equipment.

The Region V Regional Administrator,Mr. Francis Lyons, and the Deputy Re-gional Administrator, Mr. Dave Ulrich,commended the military on its environ-mental stewardship efforts, andexpressed appreciation for Departmentof Defense initiatives to meet and can-didly discuss progress and challenges.

DoD and EPA Region V Officials Meet

CONDUCT ECAS ROOT CAUSE STUDY

In FY 99, the Deputy Assistant Chiefof Staff for Installation Managementrequested that the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center (AEC) conduct aretrospective analysis of FY 97-99 ECASfindings using the EnvironmentalManagement System (EMS)-based rootcause model. Preliminary resultsshowed that a majority of findings fell intothe root cause categories ofImplementation and Operation andPlanning.

IMPLEMENT RISK-BASED SCHEDULING

Army Regulation 200-1 requiresinstallations to conduct externalassessments every three years. In FY99, the Army Audit Agency evaluated the

year assessment workplan to coincidewith the funding cycle.

PREPARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES

In FY 00, ODEP mandated that ECASteam leaders prepare and submit anexecutive summary to ODEP within 30days of completing the externalassessment. The goal is to identify thepriority concerns and act quickly to bringthem to resolution. The new report formatbegins with a mission statement andincludes the installation’s environmentalprofile and major concerns. The objectiveis to get a summary from the team leaderthrough the Garrison/Base Commanderand MACOM to the Assistant Chief ofStaff for Installation Management as soonas possible.

QUICK-RESPONSE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT TEAMS

Quick-response technical support

seeking funding to make support teamsa fundamental part of the ECAS program.If granted, MACOMs will be able to usethese funds to assist installations incarrying out short- and long-termcompliance correction projects.

REINFORCE THE INSTALLATION

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (ICAP)Use of the ICAP varies from installation

to installation and MACOM to MACOM.The ICAP can be an important tool,however, to track an installation’scompliance status and closure offindings. Installations also can use theICAP to conduct internal assessmentsand track all audit findings, includingenforcement actions. Three initiativeshave been taken recently to bolster ICAPreporting. First, Part II of the InstallationStatus Report now includes ICAP-relatedquestions. Second, ODEP issued amemorandum in September 1999 re-

gteeceh

the quality of their drinking water. Thesereports will include practicalinformation for consumers that willempower them to make informedpersonal choices about drinking waterbased on the report’s snapshot ofcurrent conditions. Numerousinstallations have developed thesereports and will continue to distributethem in the future.

My comments in this issueconcentrated on water issues, but Iknow you won’t lose sight of the factthat there are countless other issuesthat we face. We need to continue tobe good stewards of all the resourceson DoD lands, and must continue tocomply with our legal requirements. Atthe same time, we need to clean upcontamination from our past activities.And we must do all of this whileexecuting our primary mission ofnational defense. I hope that throughmy involvement with the Army’sNorthern Regional EnvironmentalOffice, and my role in DoD regionalenvironmental coordination, I havecontributed to these worthy goals.

Welcome Jim, and good luck.

(Continued from page 2)

FROM THE CHIEF

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and its Canadiancounterpart, Environment Canada, aredrafting Lakewide Management Plans(LaMPs) for each of the Great Lakes. TheLaMPs are intended to address problemsin the entire ecosystem of each lake, notjust pollution “hot spots.”

LaMPs identify types of emissionssources such as solid waste andrecycling facilities that are contributingto Great Lakes pollution, and outlinepolicy strategies to mitigate theproblems. They are being developed aspart of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement between the United Statesand Canada.

While LaMPs share many commonfeatures, each is unique.

For example, all plans focus on purgingmercury-containing wastes from the solid-waste stream. They stress theimportance of collecting householdhazardous waste, school waste andhospital waste that may be tainted withmercury. In addition, all LaMPs identifysolid waste collection as a majorcontributor to air emissions polluting thelakes.

The plans vary in establishing differenttargets for reducing or eliminatingpollutants, and in their details. The LakeSuperior LaMP identifies nine criticalpollutants for virtual elimination by 2020,including mercury, dioxin andhexachlorobenzene. It also sets interimreduction goals. The Michigan andSuperior LaMPs both note problemsposed by unregulated backyard burning,which is considered a key source ofdioxin in the atmosphere.

The plans are expected to yield drasticreductions in airborne emissions fromgarbage and medical waste incinerators,backyard trash burners, scrap yards andother waste sources in the Great Lakesregion.

The plans also target specific types offirms for public education. The LakeSuperior LaMP targets reclamation andrecycling firms. Environment Canada, andthe states of Michigan and Minnesota,plan to target appliance recyclers andvehicle-salvage yards. EPA Region Vintends to encourage special training fordemolition contractors.

Government agencies will hold publicmeetings in the Great Lakes region overthe next several months to discuss theplans and seek public input prior tomaking them final. The plans can beaccessed on the internet at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gl2000/lamps/.

Lakewide Management Plans BeingDeveloped for the Great Lakes

ECAS (Continued from page 1)

on

0ew

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear, (630) 910-3213, ext. 224,

e-mail:Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

ECAS program and recommended thatthe Army use risk-based scheduling. AMACOM workgroup met in September1999 and concurred with therecommendation. HQDA has encouragedMACOMs to develop their own risk-basedmodels and submit them to ODEP forapproval. In FY 00, a separate but jointinitiative was carried out wherebyMACOMs are required to maintain a six-

programs are not a new idea. The Trainingand Doctrine Command (TRADOC),Forces Command (FORSCOM), and theArmy Materiel Command (AMC)currently have such programs. TRADOCand FORSCOM use the support teamsto correct the most serious problemsfound during an assessment. AMC offersits expertise as an assistance visit uponrequest from the installation. AEC is

instatinrequesprovidresourthoroug

FMatt A

(41Matth

the ICAP. Finally, AEC hasd funding that, if granted, will MACOMs with additionals to support the ICAP morely.

r further information contact:drews, AEC ECAS Coordinator,

) 436-1230, DSN 584, e-mail:.Andrews@aec.apgea.army.mil.

Northern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 SumPage 6

[From Staff Reports]

NEW JERSEY VOLUNTARY CLEANUP AGREEMENT (VCA)

Three issues that had been stumbling blocks in developmentof the voluntary cleanup agreement appear to have beenresolved. With some give and take from both sides, DoD andNew Jersey representatives have reached accord on languageregarding unrestricted use cleanup, funding responsibility, andpermit equivalents. A revised text of the agreement has beencompleted and staffed through the Services and New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection for concurrence. Asigning ceremony between the Services and New Jersey, to behosted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense forEnvironmental Security, is scheduled tentatively to be held atthe Pentagon on August 30, 2000.

NEW JERSEY/EPA/DODQUARTERLY ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) recently briefed members on pending regulationsregarding watershed management, airport air emissions, andcoastal development. Information on the PinelandsCommission’s legal authority and interaction with NJDEP alsowas provided. An invitation has been extended to the PinelandsCommission to attend a future Workgroup meeting to provide amore in-depth briefing of their mission and authority. [Ed. Note:Fort Dix and McGwire Air Force Base lie wholly within thePinelands, a National Reserve established by Congress in 1978.The commission is a planning agency charged with preservingand protecting the Pinelands’ natural resources.] Service briefsincluded the Fort Dix phase II sampling plan for sediment lead;issues facing Picatinny Arsenal as it moves toward greaterprivatization; and actions being taken by Fort Monmouth withregard to mercury issues in its Evans Area

NEW YORK/DOD QUARTERLY WORK GROUP

Topics covered at the most recent meeting of the work groupincluded regulatory requirements for spill containment of fueltankers, the upcoming New York pollution preventionconference, mercury removal from automobile switches, andthe emergency response memorandum of understanding formunitions disposal being developed by DoD and the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation.

NEW YORK POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The next Annual P2 Conference is scheduled for September19-21, 2000, in Albany. Sponsored by the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation, the conferenceagain will include a DoD panel session. The call for nominationsfor the annual Governor’s P2 awards, given in conjunction withthe conference, is expected soon. [Ed. Note: The U.S. Army

on pMariundeamorelocArmUsed

Hiis noare b• TheWasoperPartnto a veryScotWorktrainWasthreelevelto be

DO

HicomManawaformLakehostManas sp

D

Hiand Envion tha resinstaBasehas band

Garrison at West Point won the 1999 Governor’s award inthe federal agency category for its video, “Stewards of theCastle.”]

REGION III EPA/DOD ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

Planning is complete and the opening gavel is about tosound for the August 22-24 colloquium in Baltimore. At presstime for this issue of the NREO Environmental Monitor,almost 300 registrations have been received, with moreexpected in the final week. Look for an article on thecolloquium in the Fall 2000 issue.

VIRGINIA/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)PARTNERING INITIATIVE

The Virginia/DoD P2 Partnership took another step towardformal status on July 20, 2000, when the military serviceRECs for Region III joined with Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality officials and installation representativesat the Defense Supply Center - Richmond to review and givetheir approval to the text of a charter for the partnership.Plans call for the governor and installation commanders ofmilitary activities in Virginia to execute the charter at asigning ceremony at the Sate Capitol sometime in mid- tolate-September. Working groups already have been formedand begun work on such issues as solvent use, universalwaste, P2 procurement, and managing hazardous materials.The next meeting of partnership members is scheduled forSeptember 7 at Quantico Marine Corps Base.

PROPOSED ILLINOIS LAND USE CONTROL RULES

Consolidated federal agency comments were submittedto the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) onJuly 10, 2000. Coordinated by the NREO Region V RECand Regional Attorney, the comments addressed provisionsof the proposed rule which would appear to affect negativelythe federal government’s ability to utilize land use controlsat remediation sites. Federal agency and IEPArepresentatives are tentatively scheduled to meet in mid-August to further discuss the rule’s provisions and possibletext changes.

MARION ENGINEER DEPOT AND

SCIOTO ORDNANCE PLANT

FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITE - MARION, OHIO

In a press release issued on May 19, 2000, the State ofOhio announced an agreement in principle among the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the River Valley School District(Marion, Ohio) and the State of Ohio to relocate the district’shigh school and middle school and develop the presentproperty for industrial use. The two schools were constructed

Northern Regional Environmental Officemer 2000 Page 7

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ONTHESE ACTIVITIES, CONTACT:

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK

Bob Muhly, Army Region I/II REC,(410) 436-7101 • DSN 584

e-mail: robert.muhly@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION III COLLOQUIUM, VIRGINIA

Fred Boecher, Army Region III REC,(410) 436-7100 • DSN 584

e-mail: fred.boecher@aec.apgea.army.mil

ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN,OHIO, WISCONSIN

Hugh McAlear, Army Region V REC,(630) 910-3213 • Ext. 224

e-mail: hugh.mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil

roperty formerly occupied by the U.S. Armyon Engineer Depot. At issue has been the still-termined cause of a cluster of leukemia casesng River Valley graduates. The $25 millionation is projected for the fall of 2003, with the

y contributing $15 million from the Formerly Defense Sites fund.

DOD/ILLINOIS POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP

ghlights: • The partnership’s strategic planw final, and metrics for the annual work planeing developed for adoption at the next meeting. partnership’s web site, managed by the Illinoiste Management and Research Center, isational and has been linked to DENIX. • Aership Certificate of Recognition was presentedScott AFB airman for his contributions to a successful tire recycling day sponsored byt AFB in St. Clair County. • The Traininggroup is developing environmental awareness

ing modules through the auspices of the Illinoiste Management and Research Center targeting levels — command level, middle management, and worker level. Current plans call for traininggin in fiscal year 2001.

D/INDIANA POLLUTION PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

ghlights: • The web page for the partnership is nearingpletion on the Indiana Department of Environmentalagement web server. • Procedures for the partnership’srds program have been discussed, and a nomination and award certificate are being developed. • The Greats Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, to beed by the Indiana Department of Environmentalagement in August, will include DoD representativeseakers in breakout sessions and as tour guides.

OD/MICHIGAN POLLUTION PREVENTION ALLIANCE

ghlights: • The Alliance web site is up and runningnow linked to DENIX. • The Michigan Department ofronmental Quality (MDEQ) has briefed alliance memberse Retired Engineer Technical Assistance Program asource to perform opportunity assessments on DoDllations at no cost. The Selfridge Air National Guard has requested such an assessment. • MDEQ alsoriefed the alliance on Phase II Storm Water Regulations

Permit Requirements.

DOD/OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

Highlights: • The partnership has completed anotheropportunity assessment, at Rickenbacker Air Guard Base. •The brochure describing the opportunity assessment programhas been printed and distributed to partnership members. •The partnership’s strategic plan is now complete. • The finallink in the chain connecting DENIX and the partnership website has been put into place. • The partnership has adoptedco-chair procedures, with co-chairs rotating nominally everytwo years. • The Rickenbacker Air Reserve Base representativehas succeeded the Wright-Patterson AFB representative asthe DoD co-chair.

WISCONSIN/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION ALLIANCE

Highlights: • Copies of the signed alliance charter havebeen distributed to alliance members. •The alliance strategicplan has been adopted. • The Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources has agreed to host the alliance web site which intime will be linked to DENIX. • The alliance has approvedaward certificate and nomination forms and its first awardnomination.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 Summer 2000 Page 7Page 6

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ONTHESE ACTIVITIES, CONTACT:

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK

Bob Muhly, Army Region I/II REC,(410) 436-7101 • DSN 584

e-mail: robert.muhly@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION III COLLOQUIUM, VIRGINIA

Fred Boecher, Army Region III REC,(410) 436-7100 • DSN 584

e-mail: fred.boecher@aec.apgea.army.mil

ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN,OHIO, WISCONSIN

Hugh McAlear, Army Region V REC,(630) 910-3213 • Ext. 224

e-mail: hugh.mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil

[From Staff Reports]

NEW JERSEY VOLUNTARY CLEANUP AGREEMENT (VCA)

Three issues that had been stumbling blocks in developmentof the voluntary cleanup agreement appear to have beenresolved. With some give and take from both sides, DoD andNew Jersey representatives have reached accord on languageregarding unrestricted use cleanup, funding responsibility, andpermit equivalents. A revised text of the agreement has beencompleted and staffed through the Services and New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection for concurrence. Asigning ceremony between the Services and New Jersey, to behosted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense forEnvironmental Security, is scheduled tentatively to be held atthe Pentagon on August 30, 2000.

NEW JERSEY/EPA/DODQUARTERLY ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP) recently briefed members on pending regulationsregarding watershed management, airport air emissions, andcoastal development. Information on the PinelandsCommission’s legal authority and interaction with NJDEP alsowas provided. An invitation has been extended to the PinelandsCommission to attend a future Workgroup meeting to provide amore in-depth briefing of their mission and authority. [Ed. Note:Fort Dix and McGwire Air Force Base lie wholly within thePinelands, a National Reserve established by Congress in 1978.The commission is a planning agency charged with preservingand protecting the Pinelands’ natural resources.] Service briefsincluded the Fort Dix phase II sampling plan for sediment lead;issues facing Picatinny Arsenal as it moves toward greaterprivatization; and actions being taken by Fort Monmouth withregard to mercury issues in its Evans Area

NEW YORK/DOD QUARTERLY WORK GROUP

Topics covered at the most recent meeting of the work groupincluded regulatory requirements for spill containment of fueltankers, the upcoming New York pollution preventionconference, mercury removal from automobile switches, andthe emergency response memorandum of understanding formunitions disposal being developed by DoD and the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation.

NEW YORK POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The next Annual P2 Conference is scheduled for September19-21, 2000, in Albany. Sponsored by the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation, the conferenceagain will include a DoD panel session. The call for nominationsfor the annual Governor’s P2 awards, given in conjunction withthe conference, is expected soon. [Ed. Note: The U.S. Army

on property formerly occupied by the U.S. ArmyMarion Engineer Depot. At issue has been the still-undetermined cause of a cluster of leukemia casesamong River Valley graduates. The $25 millionrelocation is projected for the fall of 2003, with theArmy contributing $15 million from the FormerlyUsed Defense Sites fund.

DOD/ILLINOIS POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP

Highlights: • The partnership’s strategic planis now final, and metrics for the annual work planare being developed for adoption at the next meeting.• The partnership’s web site, managed by the IllinoisWaste Management and Research Center, isoperational and has been linked to DENIX. • APartnership Certificate of Recognition was presentedto a Scott AFB airman for his contributions to avery successful tire recycling day sponsored byScott AFB in St. Clair County. • The TrainingWorkgroup is developing environmental awarenesstraining modules through the auspices of the IllinoisWaste Management and Research Center targetingthree levels — command level, middle managementlevel, and worker level. Current plans call for trainingto begin in fiscal year 2001.

DOD/INDIANA POLLUTION PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

Highlights: • The web page for the partnership is nearingcompletion on the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement web server. • Procedures for the partnership’sawards program have been discussed, and a nominationform and award certificate are being developed. • The GreatLakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, to behosted by the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement in August, will include DoD representativesas speakers in breakout sessions and as tour guides.

DOD/OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

Highlights: • The partnership has completed anotheropportunity assessment, at Rickenbacker Air Guard Base. •The brochure describing the opportunity assessment programhas been printed and distributed to partnership members. •The partnership’s strategic plan is now complete. • The finallink in the chain connecting DENIX and the partnership website has been put into place. • The partnership has adoptedco-chair procedures, with co-chairs rotating nominally everytwo years. • The Rickenbacker Air Reserve Base representativehas succeeded the Wright-Patterson AFB representative asthe DoD co-chair.

Garrison at West Point won the 1999 Governor’s award inthe federal agency category for its video, “Stewards of theCastle.”]

REGION III EPA/DOD ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

Planning is complete and the opening gavel is about tosound for the August 22-24 colloquium in Baltimore. At presstime for this issue of the NREO Environmental Monitor,almost 300 registrations have been received, with moreexpected in the final week. Look for an article on thecolloquium in the Fall 2000 issue.

VIRGINIA/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)PARTNERING INITIATIVE

The Virginia/DoD P2 Partnership took another step towardformal status on July 20, 2000, when the military serviceRECs for Region III joined with Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality officials and installation representativesat the Defense Supply Center - Richmond to review and givetheir approval to the text of a charter for the partnership.Plans call for the governor and installation commanders ofmilitary activities in Virginia to execute the charter at asigning ceremony at the Sate Capitol sometime in mid- tolate-September. Working groups already have been formedand begun work on such issues as solvent use, universalwaste, P2 procurement, and managing hazardous materials.The next meeting of partnership members is scheduled forSeptember 7 at Quantico Marine Corps Base.

PROPOSED ILLINOIS LAND USE CONTROL RULES

Consolidated federal agency comments were submittedto the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) onJuly 10, 2000. Coordinated by the NREO Region V RECand Regional Attorney, the comments addressed provisionsof the proposed rule which would appear to affect negativelythe federal government’s ability to utilize land use controlsat remediation sites. Federal agency and IEPArepresentatives are tentatively scheduled to meet in mid-August to further discuss the rule’s provisions and possibletext changes.

MARION ENGINEER DEPOT AND

SCIOTO ORDNANCE PLANT

FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITE - MARION, OHIO

In a press release issued on May 19, 2000, the State ofOhio announced an agreement in principle among the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the River Valley School District(Marion, Ohio) and the State of Ohio to relocate the district’shigh school and middle school and develop the presentproperty for industrial use. The two schools were constructed

DOD/MICHIGAN POLLUTION PREVENTION ALLIANCE

Highlights: • The Alliance web site is up and runningand now linked to DENIX. • The Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality (MDEQ) has briefed alliance memberson the Retired Engineer Technical Assistance Program asa resource to perform opportunity assessments on DoDinstallations at no cost. The Selfridge Air National GuardBase has requested such an assessment. • MDEQ alsohas briefed the alliance on Phase II Storm Water Regulationsand Permit Requirements.

WISCONSIN/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION ALLIANCE

Highlights: • Copies of the signed alliance charter havebeen distributed to alliance members. •The alliance strategicplan has been adopted. • The Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources has agreed to host the alliance web site which intime will be linked to DENIX. • The alliance has approvedaward certificate and nomination forms and its first awardnomination.

Northern Regional Environmental Office SummeSummer 2000Page 8

the Guidance, or EPA will promulgatethe provisions for them.

Putting an international twist onGreat Lakes issues, the EPA andits Canadian counterpart are seekingcomments on proposed strategiesto reduce nine critical pollutants inthe Lake Superior Basin. The targetedpollutants are those mostly likely toharm human health, the environmentor recreational activities, such asfishing or swimming. Targetedpollutants are dioxin, mercury, PCBs,hexachlorobenzene, octachlorostyrene,chlordane, DDT, dieldrin/aldrin, and tox-aphene. In an April meeting betweenrepresentatives of ODUSD(ES) and EPARegion V, DoD was specifically re-quested to participate in voluntaryPCB-reduction efforts in the GreatLakes area.

Nationwide, states have identifiedabout 21,000 waterbodies that do notmeet water-quality criteria for fishing,swimming, boating, drinking, etc. Statesmust develop about 42,000 TMDLs

(total maximum daily loads) for theseimpaired waterbodies. A TMDL is theamount of pollutant that a waterbody canreceive and still meet water qualitystandards, and sets the stage forachieving water-quality standards bysuch means as NPDES permits for pointsources, state nonpoint sourcemanagement programs, federal laws andrequirements, state and local laws andregulations, and local or regionalwatershed management programs. All ofthese have potential impacts on DoDinstallations discharging (point ornonpoint) to impaired waters. States aregoing to be developing source waterprotection plans to protect drinking-watersources across the country. In the sameApril meeting with ODUSD(ES)mentioned above, EPA Region Vrequested that DoD installationsparticipate, where possible, with stateagencies in developing these source-water protection plans.

In an area that is close to our hearts(and stomachs), EPA has promulgateda rule to require most drinking-watersystems to give consumers an annualreport (Consumer Confidence Report) on

By HughArmy Re

On Apthe Officof Defenthe ServV officiaone of aAssistaDefenseCarla Undersehave hein recenService during meetingfor discu

At thDeGrazpartnericleanup

Do

CONDUC

In FYof StaffrequesEnvironretrospefindingManagecause showedthe roImplemPlanning

IMPLEM

Armyinstallaassessm99, the AECAS pthe ArmMACOM1999 recommMACOMmodels approvainitiativMACOM

the quality of their drinking water. Thesereports will include practicalinformation for consumers that willempower them to make informedpersonal choices about drinking waterbased on the report’s snapshot ofcurrent conditions. Numerousinstallations have developed thesereports and will continue to distributethem in the future.

My comments in this issueconcentrated on water issues, but Iknow you won’t lose sight of the factthat there are countless other issuesthat we face. We need to continue tobe good stewards of all the resourceson DoD lands, and must continue tocomply with our legal requirements. Atthe same time, we need to clean upcontamination from our past activities.And we must do all of this whileexecuting our primary mission ofnational defense. I hope that throughmy involvement with the Army’sNorthern Regional EnvironmentalOffice, and my role in DoD regionalenvironmental coordination, I havecontributed to these worthy goals.

Welcome Jim, and good luck.

(Continued from page 2)

FROM THE CHIEF

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and its Canadiancounterpart, Environment Canada, aredrafting Lakewide Management Plans(LaMPs) for each of the Great Lakes. TheLaMPs are intended to address problemsin the entire ecosystem of each lake, notjust pollution “hot spots.”

LaMPs identify types of emissionssources such as solid waste andrecycling facilities that are contributingto Great Lakes pollution, and outlinepolicy strategies to mitigate theproblems. They are being developed aspart of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement between the United Statesand Canada.

While LaMPs share many commonfeatures, each is unique.

For example, all plans focus on purgingmercury-containing wastes from the solid-waste stream. They stress theimportance of collecting householdhazardous waste, school waste andhospital waste that may be tainted withmercury. In addition, all LaMPs identifysolid waste collection as a majorcontributor to air emissions polluting thelakes.

The plans vary in establishing differenttargets for reducing or eliminatingpollutants, and in their details. The LakeSuperior LaMP identifies nine criticalpollutants for virtual elimination by 2020,including mercury, dioxin andhexachlorobenzene. It also sets interimreduction goals. The Michigan andSuperior LaMPs both note problemsposed by unregulated backyard burning,which is considered a key source ofdioxin in the atmosphere.

The plans are expected to yield drasticreductions in airborne emissions fromgarbage and medical waste incinerators,backyard trash burners, scrap yards andother waste sources in the Great Lakesregion.

The plans also target specific types offirms for public education. The LakeSuperior LaMP targets reclamation andrecycling firms. Environment Canada, andthe states of Michigan and Minnesota,plan to target appliance recyclers andvehicle-salvage yards. EPA Region Vintends to encourage special training fordemolition contractors.

Government agencies will hold publicmeetings in the Great Lakes region overthe next several months to discuss theplans and seek public input prior tomaking them final. The plans can beaccessed on the internet at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gl2000/lamps/.

Lakewide Management Plans BeingDeveloped for the Great Lakes

EC

Northern Regional Environmental Officer 2000 Page 5

McAleargion V REC

ril 18, 2000, representatives ofe of the Deputy Under Secretaryse (Environmental Security) andices met with senior EPA Regionls in Chicago. The meeting was series that Mr. Bruce deGrazia,nt Deputy Undersecretary of (Environmental Quality), and MsPerri, Assistant Deputycretary of Defense (Cleanup),

ld with EPA Regional Office staffst months to discuss DoD and

environmental accomplishmentsthe past seven years. Thes also have served as a forumssing unresolved issues.

e EPA Region V meeting, Mr.ia and Ms. Perri highlightedng in pollution prevention and, and progress in transferring land

to local reuse authorities at BRACinstallations, as success stories.Reduction in the number of Notices ofViolation issued to military activities andprogress made in diverting solid wastefrom the disposal stream also weredescribed as successes.

Although there are no known problemsin Region V regarding military compliancewith the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPArepresentatives expressed concern overthe aging infrastructure at military basesthat might prevent compliance withpending drinking water standards.Characterization of UXO in range areaswas another concern, particularly atbases being slated for reuse where publicaccess will be allowed. The handling ofFormerly Used Defense Sites evokedcriticism, and EPA representativesrecommended closer collaboration duringpreparation of the initial inventory project

report and determination of “no DoDactivity indicated.”

Region V officials briefed DoDrepresentatives on two programs in whichEPA would like more DoD involvement,specifically source water assessmentand protection analysis data related tomilitary installations, and informationregarding PCBs on installations and DoDuse of PCB-containing equipment.

The Region V Regional Administrator,Mr. Francis Lyons, and the Deputy Re-gional Administrator, Mr. Dave Ulrich,commended the military on its environ-mental stewardship efforts, andexpressed appreciation for Departmentof Defense initiatives to meet and can-didly discuss progress and challenges.

D and EPA Region V Officials Meet

T ECAS ROOT CAUSE STUDY

99, the Deputy Assistant Chief for Installation Managementted that the U.S. Armymental Center (AEC) conduct active analysis of FY 97-99 ECASs using the Environmentalment System (EMS)-based rootmodel. Preliminary results that a majority of findings fell intoot cause categories ofentation and Operation and.

ENT RISK-BASED SCHEDULING

Regulation 200-1 requirestions to conduct externalents every three years. In FYrmy Audit Agency evaluated therogram and recommended thaty use risk-based scheduling. A workgroup met in September

and concurred with theendation. HQDA has encourageds to develop their own risk-basedand submit them to ODEP forl. In FY 00, a separate but jointe was carried out wherebys are required to maintain a six-

year assessment workplan to coincidewith the funding cycle.

PREPARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES

In FY 00, ODEP mandated that ECASteam leaders prepare and submit anexecutive summary to ODEP within 30days of completing the externalassessment. The goal is to identify thepriority concerns and act quickly to bringthem to resolution. The new report formatbegins with a mission statement andincludes the installation’s environmentalprofile and major concerns. The objectiveis to get a summary from the team leaderthrough the Garrison/Base Commanderand MACOM to the Assistant Chief ofStaff for Installation Management as soonas possible.

QUICK-RESPONSE TECHNICAL

SUPPORT TEAMS

Quick-response technical supportprograms are not a new idea. The Trainingand Doctrine Command (TRADOC),Forces Command (FORSCOM), and theArmy Materiel Command (AMC)currently have such programs. TRADOCand FORSCOM use the support teamsto correct the most serious problemsfound during an assessment. AMC offersits expertise as an assistance visit uponrequest from the installation. AEC is

seeking funding to make support teamsa fundamental part of the ECAS program.If granted, MACOMs will be able to usethese funds to assist installations incarrying out short- and long-termcompliance correction projects.

REINFORCE THE INSTALLATION

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (ICAP)Use of the ICAP varies from installation

to installation and MACOM to MACOM.The ICAP can be an important tool,however, to track an installation’scompliance status and closure offindings. Installations also can use theICAP to conduct internal assessmentsand track all audit findings, includingenforcement actions. Three initiativeshave been taken recently to bolster ICAPreporting. First, Part II of the InstallationStatus Report now includes ICAP-relatedquestions. Second, ODEP issued amemorandum in September 1999 re-instating the ICAP. Finally, AEC hasrequested funding that, if granted, willprovide MACOMs with additionalresources to support the ICAP morethoroughly.

AS (Continued from page 1)

For further information contact:Matt Andrews, AEC ECAS Coordinator,

(410) 436-1230, DSN 584, e-mail:Matthew.Andrews@aec.apgea.army.mil.

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear, (630) 910-3213, ext. 224,

e-mail:Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 Summer 2000Page 4 Page 9

By MAJ Robert J. CotellEnvironmental Law Division

On 16 September 1999, a three-judgepanel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theEighth Circuit ruled that the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)does not give EPA the authority to bringan enforcement action against acompany that has already resolved anaction over the same violations broughtby an authorized state agency. [HarmonIndustries Inc. v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894,49 ERC 1129, 8th Cir, 1999; 180 DENAA-1, 9/17/99.]

On January 24, 2000, the EPA re-quested a re-hearing by thethree-judge panel, and by the en-tire Eighth Circuit court. The courtdenied both requests. An appeal ofthe Eighth Circuit’s opinion was due tothe Supreme Court on April 24, 2000.However, the Department of Justice(DOJ)declined to take the appeal to theSupreme Court on behalf of the EPA. Ac-cordingly, the case is now formallyclosed. The EPA lacks legal authority to“overfile” environmental cases resolvedwith state agencies.

The facts of the case are coveredextensively in the November 1998 ELDBulletin. In short, the plaintiff, HarmonIndustries, was a manufacturer of safetyequipment for the railroad industry. Forfourteen years, Harmon’s employeesthrew used solvent residues out the backdoor of the plant. The discarded solventswere hazardous wastes under RCRA.

In 1987, Harmon discovered what theemployees were doing and ordered thepractice to cease. Harmon then reportedthe disposal to the Missouri Departmentof Natural Resources (MDNR). EPA hadauthorized MDNR to administer its ownhazardous waste program under RCRA.Since first being authorized to administera program EPA had never withdrawn theState’s authority.

After meeting with Harmon, MDNRoversaw the investigation and clean upof the Harmon facility. Ultimately,the State approved a post-closure permitfor the facility, with costs of over $500,000over thirty years. In 1991, the State

DOJ Decides No Supreme CourtReview in EPA “Overfile” Case

environmentallaw specialists should be awareof overfiling issues in all cases broughtagainst an installation by the EPA. Inalmost all cases, installations will havesome dealings with state regulators priorto receiving complaints from the EPA. Inthose cases which have resulted in theissuance of a state NOV, administrativeorder, or consent decree, the ability ofthe EPA to subsequently intervene andfile an action on its own behalf has beenseverely limited by the court decision. Insuch cases, EPA must demonstrate thatit has denied the authority of the state toadminister the RCRA program. Further,such denial is not simply for the case athand. Instead, it must deny the authorityof the state to administer the entireprogram on all regulated entities. Suchrequirements will be a heavy burden forthe EPA and it is likely that overfilingswill be reduced in the future.

One final caveat should be noted. TheEPA is currently appealing a similaroverfiling case in the Tenth Circuit. [U.S.v. Power Engineering Co., D. Colo., No.97-B-1654.]

Should the case be decided in favor ofthe EPA, it will create a split of opinion inthe circuit courts. It is possible that thissplit may prompt the DOJ to seek aresolution of the issue with the SupremeCourt.

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

Governor John Engler of Michiganissued a Press Release on Earth Day2000 announcing the formalestablishment of the Department ofDefense/State of Michigan PollutionPrevention Alliance.

The participating military installationsand environmental agencies have signeda charter agreement outlining goals to

promote pollution prevention atinstallations around the state. Goalsinclude establishing pollution preventioninformation exchanges and creatingtraining programs to increaseenvironmental awareness among militarypersonnel and employees.

“Cooperation is the key to solvingcomplex environmental challenges,”Governor Engler said. “This arrangementcomplements Michigan’s

Michigan Governor Announces DOD/MichiganAlliance to Cut Pollution at Military Installations

continued emphasis on pollutionprevention, and underscores the dynamicresults we can achieve when governmentagencies join forces to address commonconcerns.”

Michigan’s Director of EnvironmentalQuality, Russell Harding, added,“Michigan’s environment will seemeaningful gains through this innovativepartnership. The alliance already hasidentified several priority areas forreducing waste and inefficiency.”

Joe Krawciw, of the U.S. Army TankAutomotive and Armaments Command,serves as the Department of DefenseCo-chair for the alliance. He pointed out“that for years the military has been tryingto clean up and control pollution after thefact. By eliminating pollution at the pointof generation we can reduce disposalcosts, protect the environment andenhance mission readiness.”

Participating military installations inthe alliance include Michigan Air NationalGuard bases in Alpena, Battle Creekand Mount Clemens; installations of theMichigan Army National Guard and theU.S. Army Reserves; the DefenseReutilization and Marketing Service;the Defense Logistics InformationService; the Defense Reutilization andMarketing Office at Selfridge; the U.S.Army Tank Automotive andArmaments Command; and the U.S.Army Tank Automotive Research,Development and EngineeringCenter.

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear,

(630) 910-3213, ext. 224,e-mail:

Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

filed a peti-tion againstHarmon in theState court,along with aconsent de-cree signed byboth Harmonand MDNR. Thecourt approvedthe consent

decree thatspecifically provided

that Harmon’s compliancewith the decree constituted full satisfac-tion and release from all claims arisingfrom allegations in the petition. The con-sent decree did not impose a monetarypenalty.

Earlier, EPA had notified the State ofits view that fines should be assessedagainst Harmon. After the petition hadbeen filed and approved by the State, EPAfiled an administrative complaint againstHarmon seeking over two million dollarsin penalties. An administrative law judge(ALJ) and Environmental Appeals Board(EAB) found for the EPA. Harmonappealed to the Federal District Court onthe issue of the authority of EPA to takean enforcement action where the Statehad already entered into a consentdecree.

Harmon won the appeal to the FederalDistrict Court. According to the court theRCRA does not give EPA authority tooverride the State once it determines anappropriate penalty. Section 3006(e) ofRCRA gives EPA only the option ofwithdrawing authorization of a State toadminister a RCRA program. EPAappealed the case to the Eighth Circuit.As noted above, the Circuit court decidedin favor of Harmon, and the DOJ hasdeclined to take the case to the SupremeCourt.

In light of this case, installation

Northern Regional Environmental Office SummerSummer 2000Page 10

Througvariety oinformal guidancecalled “cexplain, inexpand thThese gureading anot issueregulation

In APCas wellcompanrepresenpetroleumportions entitled “PTitle V (Permitsoutlined pfor sourceV of the 1990.

EPA iss1998 ovofficials —Regulatoof the OffStandardsis avail(www.epaguidancecertain pimplemerequireme. . . .” Tha

T

Oof Colu

v. EPA

Court’

the ab

“guida

By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

The Wisconsin/Department of DefensePollution Prevention Alliance completed anddistributed its Charter in May, officially launchingits initiative to make pollution prevention thetop priority in dealing with environmental issuesat military facilities in the state.

The goals of the Alliance include establishinga pollution prevention exchange and creatingtraining programs to increase environmentalawareness of military employees andpersonnel.

Fort McCoy’s Alan Balliett, the AllianceDoD co-chair, stated, “For years the militaryhas been trying to clean up and controlpollution after the fact. Now we want to takea more preventive approach by using saferraw materials and less pollutingtechnologies like water-based cleaners,reusable shipping containers and moreefficient paint spraying systems.”

Jerry Rodenberg, the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources co-chairof the Alliance, added, “There is a lot tobe gained by working with others toaddress some of the commonenvironmental problems facing militaryinstallations in Wisconsin. We havealready identified several priority areasfor reducing waste and inefficiency,including training.”

DoD entities participating in theAlliance are Fort McCoy, U.S. ArmyReserves, U.S. Air Force Reserves,Navy Reserves, Wisconsin ArmyNational Guard and the Wisconsin AirGuard. Non-DoD participants includeEPA Region V, the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, andthe Wisconsin Solid and HazardousWaste Education Center.

Wisconsin Pollution Prevention AllianceFinalizes Charter

For further information contact:Mr. McAlear, (630) 910-3213, ext. 224, e-mail:

Hugh.Mcalear@aec.apgea.army.mil.

Northern Regional Environmental Office 2000 Page 3

h the years, and for a widef reasons, EPA has issued

“guidance documents.” These documents (sometimes alsoirculars” or “memoranda”)terpret, define and occasionallye requirements of regulations.idance documents, while oftennd looking like regulations, ared like regulations and are NOTs., Appalachian Power Company, as a number of electricies and trade associationsting the nation’s chemical and

industry, sought review ofof an EPA guidance documenteriodic Monitoring Guidance for

stationary source) Operating.” The guidance documenteriodic monitoring requirements point emissions subject to TitleClean Air Act Amendments of

ued the guidance in Septemberer the signature of two EPA

the Director of the Office ofry Enforcement, and the Directorice of Air Quality Planning and. Narrative in form, the guidanceable on EPA’s web site.gov). The stated purpose of the is the “. . . (clarification of)rinciples to be applied whennting the periodic monitoringnts of 40 C.F.R. 70.6(a)(3)(I)(B)t section requires each Title V

HE VALUE OF EPA “GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS”AFTER THE APPALACHIAN POWER CASE

By Gary Zolyak, Regional Counseln

permit to provide for “periodic monitoring. . . sufficient to yield reliable data fromthe relevant time period . . . representativeof the source’s compliance with thepermit.” Among other items, the guidanceestablishes a framework for EPA regionaloffice and state review of existing periodicmonitoring requirements to determinewhether or not those requirements needto be strengthened in a Title V permit.

The electric utilities in APC filed apetition for review of portions of theguidance, claiming that the guidance wasin effect a rule that should be vacatedbecause EPA had issued it withoutfollowing rulemaking procedures requiredunder federal law. EPA, among otherarguments it put forth, took the positionthat the guidance is not subject to judicialreview as it is not final and it is not finalbecause it is not “binding.”

In a unanimous opinion, the Courtagreed with the utility companies.Significantly, however, the Court wentbeyond the specific challenges of theutility petition to rule that “(I)n view of theintertwined nature of the challenged andunchallenged portions of the Guidance,the Guidance must be set aside in itsentirety.” 208 F.3d. at 1028. The Courtconcluded that:

“(the Guidance) significantly broad-ened the 1992 rule. The moreexpansive reading of the rule, un-veiled in the Guidance, cannotstand. In directing State permitting

authorities to conduct wide-rangingsufficiency reviews and to enhancethe monitoring required in individualpermits beyond that contained inState and federal emissions stan-dards even when those standardsdemand some sort of periodic test-ing, EPA has in effect amendedSection 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). This it can-not legally do without complyingwith the rulemaking procedures re-quired by 42 U.S.C. Section7607(d).” Id. At 1028.”

What does this all mean to installa-tion legal and environmental staff who fromtime to time may be adversely affectedby apparent “requirements” contained inan EPA guidance document? The firststep, as always, is to inform yourMACOM of the issues and consult onyour actions and potential actions. Instal-lation staff also may want to inform theDoD or Service Regional Office and askfor assistance. Potentially, the secondstep, again in consultation with theMACOM, is to consider filing a petitionfor review in the D.C. Circuit claiming thatthe guidance document is in effect a rule.

But how do installation staff becomeaware of these guidance documents thatmay affect an installation’s interests? Inany year, EPA may issue numerousguidances. Best sources include EPAwebsites, trade journals, Army RegionalEnvironmental Office monthly Reviews,and applications of the holding of the APCcase.

Installation staff — legal and environ-mental — now aware of APC, must beon alert; the ramifications of APC are justbeginning to unfold.

April 14, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

mbia Circuit issued a 3-0 opinion in the case of Appalachian Power Co.

, 208 F.3d 1015, 49 ERC 1449 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The practical effect of the

s ruling in the Appalachian Power case (APC) may be to seriously limit

ility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to employ

nce documents” as the basis for regulatory action.

For further information contact:Mr. Zolyak, AEC Regional Counsel,(410) 436-1275, DSN 584, e-mail:gary.zolyak@aec.apgea.army.mil.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Summer 2000 Summer 2000Page 2 Page 11

FROM THE CHIEFBarn Swallows

NORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR

The Northern Regional Environmental Monitor is an unofficial publicationauthorized under the Provisions of AR 360-81. It is published on a quarterlybasis by the U.S. Army Environmental Center Public Affairs Office, AberdeenProving Ground, MD. 21010-5401; telephone: (410) 436-2556 and DSN 584-2556. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of theDepartment of the Army. This publication has a circulation of 500. NREO Chief'stelephone: (410) 436-2427. All articles proposed should be submitted to theRegional Environmental Office two months before issue dates. These submissionsare subject to editing and rewriting as deemed necessary for space considerations.

Commander, USAEC...................................................... COL Edward W. NewingDeputy/Technical Director (Acting) ...................................... David C. GuzewichChief of Staff ................................................................. LTC Thomas M. FrendakChief, Public Affairs ............................................................ Thomas M. HankusChief, NREO ...................................................................................... William HerbEditor ......................................................................................... Andrew Caraker

OUR MISSION: The NREO was established in 1995 to support the Army andDoD mission through coordination, communication and facilitation of regional

environmental activities. The Army REOs are part of a DoD network in which the Army,Navy and Air Force each has lead responsibility for mission implementation in the

federal regions. The NREO has DoD lead responsibility for Region V, and Army leadresponsibility for Regions I, II, III and V.

By Bill HerbNREO Chief

This will be my last “From the Chief”column and the last time you will have tolook at my non-smiling face to the right.By the time you read this article, this“actor” will be moving on to a new role,and Dr. Jim Hartman will be in place asboth the permanent, “non-acting” Chiefof the Army’s Northern Regional Environ-mental Office and the DoD RegionalEnvironmental Coordinator for Region V.Jim comes to us from the Joint ProgramOffice at the Massachusetts MilitaryReservation, where he had lots of oppor-tunities to practice the “coordination,communication, facilitation” mantra of theRegional Offices. In spite of my frown, Ihave sincerely enjoyed my two tours ofduty in the NREO; please join me in wel-coming Jim.

Did I mention crabs in my last column?Here on the Chesapeake Bay, blue crabsare one of the true highlights of summer.Steamed (with Old Bay), in soup (cream,not tomato), or in crab cakes (nobreadcrumbs, please), they are trueaquatic treasures, and each year we

hope they will be abun-dant. But even if crabsare scarce, we haveother abundant aquatictreasures in the NREOarea. We have all sixGreat Lakes (so whatif you learned in schoolthat there were only 5;someone has seriouslyproposed that we addLake Champlain)! Wealso boast the sourceof the Mississippi Riverand the entire Chesapeake Bay drain-age. Throw in the Land of 10,000 Lakes(Wisconsin modestly claims 15,000, butwon’t brag like those Minnesotans), themighty Ohio, and the Youghiogheny (betyou didn’t know it was pronounced “yock-a-gany”), and we barely ripple the surface.

However, wherever there are majorresources, there also can be majorresource issues. Even in “the Land ofPleasant Living”, the waters of the Bayare troubled, but states are making

commitments to improvement. Thestates of the Chesapeake Bay watershedpledged to reduce runoff of harmfulnutrients and sediments into the estuaryso that it will be removed from the federal“dirty water” list within 10 years. In partbecause of earlier agreements among thesurrounding states and the cooperationof DoD installations, the health of NorthAmerica’s largest estuary has improvedsince the mid-1980s. The ChesapeakeBay Foundation now rates its conditionat 28, up from 23 on a scale of 100, with100 being equal to the Bay’s pristinestatus three centuries ago. BecauseDoD is a major landholder in the Baywatershed, these planned improvementsmay have potential impacts on ourinstallations.

EPA is publishing Final Water QualityGuidance for the Great Lakes System.The Guidance consists of water qualitycriteria for 29 pollutants to protect aquaticlife, wildlife, and human health, anddetailed methodologies to develop criteriafor additional pollutants; implementationprocedures to develop more consistent,enforceable water quality-based effluentlimits in discharge permits, as well astotal maximum daily loads of pollutantsthat can be allowed to reach the Lakesand their tributaries; and anti-degradationpolicies and procedures. Under the CleanWater Act, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Minnesota, New York, Ohio,Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin mustadopt provisions into their water qualitystandards and NPDES permit programswithin two years that are consistent with

(Continued on page 8)

by Kim MichaelsUSAEC Conservation Branch

“Concealment - Those topographicvariations, whether artificially constructedor natural, that provide protection fromground and aerial observation by theopposition.”

A new approach is being applied totraining land design that integratestraining and environmental requirementsto enhance an installation’s trainingresources — including concealment.Installations can now sustain traininglands as well as provide betterenvironmental stewardship — both amust in today’s environment ofdiminishing resources and increasedregulatory requirements.

Available training lands offer limitedmaneuverability when training to doctrinalstandards. Large expanses of land areneeded in order to support these trainingstandards, and environmental concernsare ever present. If not maintained, large-scale erosion and loss of vegetation leadto further environmental problems andmay negatively impact the trainingmission. Concealed or otherwise, traininglands must be maintained, and a balancebetween training and the environmentmust be reached.

The Tactical Concealment Area (TCA)Planning and Design GuidanceDocument, developed by the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center (USAEC), seeksto integrate training and environmentalmanagement. The guidance documentuses a holistic approach that considersan installation’s training needs, existingresources, resource conditions, andenvironmental constraints in planning anddesigning realistic training areas. The

and provides ideas for using in-houseresources. Implicit in the guidance isthe need for an integrated team ofexperts. The team approach ensuresthe entire installation’s needs aremet in terms of total training areadesign.

The tactical concealment guid-ance was successfully fieldtested at two Army sites -Camp Bullis, Texas and FortHood, Texas — and two Na-tional Guard sites — CampGuernsey, Wyoming, andCamp Ripley, Minnesota. “Thisdocument was created by the field, forthe field,” said Kim Michaels, USAECProject Manager. “It contains lessonslearned and general design criteria thatcame directly from installation expertswho work these situations every day.”

No other single document pulls thistype of information together in one source.There are no set designs or off-the-shelftemplates for designing TCAs. “The trickis in the team you develop before anyplanning or designing takes place,” saidDusty Bruns, Integrated Training AreaManagement (ITAM) Coordinator, CampBullis. “Each TCA is an outgrowth of bothtraining and environmental considerationsthat are brought to the table by specificteam members.”

The guidance not only providesvaluable field knowledge, it also includespictorial examples that clearly illustratethe text. “As stated early in the document,the initial field survey was critical for us,”said David Palmer, State EnvironmentalSpecialist for the State of Wyoming. “Itprovided invaluable information that wasneeded through the planning and designphases.”

A New Approach to Tactical ConcealmentPlanning and Design

r e c o m -mendations. “Wehave increased our trainingland utilization for active and reservecomponents by over 100 percent,” saidDick Strimmel, U.S. Army Medical Com-mand (MEDCOM) ITAM ProgramManager at Camp Bullis. “Build it andthey will come.”

From vehicle maneuverability to wildlifeland use and training realism, thisdocument covers a wide range of trainingland elements. Data sheets and formsare provided for data collection to assistin design planning and effectiveness.

Copies of the Tactical ConcealmentArea Planning and Design GuidanceDocument are available through the

Technical Information Center (TIC) at:

USAECTIC@aec/apgea.army.mil

These copies are restricted to DoDpersonnel only.

Web-based versions are available for

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○

result is expanded and/or enhancedtraining resources, fewer environmentalimpacts and greater safety.

The guidance provides proceduralguidance for trainers and land managersinvolved in the planning, design andimplementation of tactical concealment.It is designed to assist in initiating andimplementing most tactical concealmentprojects for developing realistic, effectiveand environmentally stable training areas,

In addition to providing valuableinformation, the guidance offered thedemonstration sites cost-saving strate-gies. Marty Skogland, EnvironmentalSupervisor at Camp Ripley, said, “Usingin-house personnel and equipment, likethe document suggests, provided moreflexibility and reduced our project costsby 50 percent.” At Camp Bullis, a 70percent savings per acre was accom-plished by applying many of the guidance

DENIX account holders at:

http://aec.army.mil/prod/usaec/et/conserv/conserv.htm.

For further information contact:Ms. Michaels, USAEC Conservation

Branch, (410) 436-1572,DSN 584, e-mail:

Kim.Michaels@aec.apgea.army.mil.

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○

Page 12

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERNORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICEBUILDING E-4460ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5401

STANDARDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDAPG, MD

PERMIT NO. 1

S

“I

OFFICE CHIEF - Bill HerbPhone: 410-436-7096E-mail: william.herb@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGIONAL ATTORNEY - Gary ZolyakPhone: 410-436-1275E-mail: gary.zolyak@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION I/II COORDINATOR - Robert MuhlyPhone: 410-436-7101E-mail: robert.muhly@aec.apgea.army.mil

REGION III COORDINATOR - Fred BoecherPhone: 410-436-7100E-mail: fred.boecher@aec.apgea.army.mil

PROJECT MANAGER - Andy CarakerPhone: 410-436-7098E-mail: andrew.caraker@aec.apgea.army.mil

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - Mitch BrymanPhone: 410-436-7099E-mail: mitchell.bryman@aec.apgea.army.mil

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Nina GallupPhone: 410-436-7097E-mail: nina.gallup@aec.apgea.army.milFAX: 410-436-7110

CHICAGO SUBOFFICE

REGION V COORDINATOR - Hugh McAlearPhone: 630-910-3213 Ext. 224FAX: 630-910-0370DENIX: mcalear@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu

NREO KEY PERSONNEL

[rEitimratAtbEiEa

Ensitissinsinfco25wh

ByCo

ArAshanuinsenbeim

promeacpeme

E

By Melanie GrahamContributing Writer

Army installation managers arechallenged to maintain aging buildingsand operate them according to budgetallocations. Window repair/replacement and energy efficiency areamong the most significant issuesfacing managers.

The Army facilities databaseindicates that approximately 73,000Army buildings will become 50 yearsold within the next 30 years. To keepup with this immense responsibility,installation managers search for waysto improve energy efficiency and reducecost.

No window set is completely energyefficient; as window hardware ages,efficiency gradually decreases.Complete window replacement is notthe only option; the new windoweconometric analysis program provideswindow life-cycle cost comparisons forrepair, rehabilitation and/or thereplacement of windows.

The program assists users by group-ing physical characteristics such asmaterial, size, type, fit and presentcondition into four categories accord-ing to the extent of repair needed:minor, moderate, intensive or custom.To account for site-specific labor andmaterial cost, nationally averaged datais modified to reflect local constructioncost. The econometric analysis pro-

vides up to fourteen possible repairactions ranging from less extensiverepairs such as painting and weatherstripping to complete window replace-ment.

According to Caroline Hall, USAEChistorian, “One of the real strengths ofthe program is that the life-cycle com-parison analyzes cost implicationsover a 20-year time frame. This is amore accurate assessment of totalcost implications for any project.” Man-agers can examine repair scenariosand easily identify the most cost-ef-fective and beneficial solution for thewindows.

The reports section allows themanager to review, assemble and printthe results of the window econometricanalysis. A convenient report tableincludes initial project cost, energysavings, and life-cycle maintenancecost for each scenario.

Window Econometric AnalysisSupports Energy Efficiency

The Window Econometric Analysisprogram is available for DENIX

account holders at:http://aec.army.mil

CD Rom versions are available toDoD activities through the

Technical Information Center (TIC) at:USAECTIC@aec.apgea.army.mil

For further information contact:Caroline Hall, AEC Historian,

(410) 436-1577, DSN 584, e-mail:caroline.hall@aec.apgea.army.mil

IIIIINNNNN T T T T THISHISHISHISHIS I I I I ISSUESSUESSUESSUESSUE

From the Chief ...........pg. 2

DOJ Decisionon “Overfiling” .......... pg. 4

Around the Statesand EPA Regions ....... pg. 6

ummer 2000 U. S. Army Northern Regional Environmental Office

MONITORENVIRONMENTAL

ncidental Manufacture” Lurks Within TRI Reporting

(Continued on page 5)

Ed. Note: An Air Force installationecently found itself at odds with the U.S.nvironmental Protection Agency overs failure to include in its toxic releasenventory (TRI) report the incidental

anufacture of a regulated substanceesulting from the on-site treatment ofnother regulated substance. Because

hese circumstances may apply to somermy installations, reprinted below is the

ext of an Environmental Notice issuedy the Air Force Central Regionalnvironmental Office advising Air Force

nstallations and DoD Regionalnvironmental Coordinators of the casend its outcome.]

“An installation recently received a“Notice of Opportunity to Show Cause”letter from HQ EPA under EmergencyPlanning and Community Right to KnowAct (EPCRA) Section 313, 42 U.S.C.11023 for failing to submit a Form R fornitrate compounds coincidentallymanufactured over the 25,000-poundmanufacturing threshold for multiplereporting years. The installation hadsubmitted a Form R for nitric acid andreported its on-site treatment (i.e.,neutralize) in excess of 18,000 poundsbut did not report the coincidentalmanufacture of nitrate compounds.

“HQ EPA offered the installation toresolve its liability at a substantiallyreduced rate (penalty of $5,000 perviolation) by signing a “USEPA NationalNitrate Compliance Agreement” and notedthat subsequent violations discovered inany follow-up inspection were subject topenalties of up to $27,500 per violationper day.

“The installation worked with our [AirForce Central Region] office on this issue

and responded to the EPA letter sayingthat it was committed to work with EPAto resolve the oversight and that it wouldprepare a Form R for nitrate compoundsfor each reporting year. DoD Installationsmust comply with the provisions of E.O.13148 and Federal Facilities are notsubject to fines from EPA for allegedviolations of EPCRA. Therefore, theinstallation declined to sign the EPAproposed agreement.

“This information is being forwarded toyou so your installations will be able tobe proactive in avoiding similar problemsand potential enforcement actions withfines/penalties. Please pass on asnecessary. We suggest you check yourrecords for possible coincidentalmanufacture of nitrate or othercompounds.”

For information on Army policy andsupport on this issue contact: Craig

Peters, U.S. Army Environmental Center,(410) 436-1219, DSN 584, e-mail:craig.peters@aec.apgea.army.mil.

“The following is provided as anvironmental Notice to inform you of a

uation concerning enforcement actionsued by HQ EPA to a DoD Region VItallation for its failure to discloseormation for nitrate compoundsincidentally manufactured over the,000-pound manufacturing threshold,ich may affect your installations.

Susan Phelps-Larcherntributing Writer

Since its establishment in 1991, themy’s Environmental Compliancesessment System (ECAS) programs been instrumental in reducing thember of compliance problems on Armytallations. As a result, the number offorcement actions and fines also haveen reduced. There is still room forprovement, however.In Fiscal Year 2000, the Army ECASgram implemented a number of newasures to further reduce enforcementtions and fines and improverformance on Army installations. Theseasures include the following:

· Refine root cause analysis· Conduct ECAS root cause study· Implement risk-based scheduling· Prepare executive summaries· Establish Quick Response Techni-

cal Support Teams· Reinforce the use of the ICAP

REFINE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

The seeds for root cause analysis weresown in 1996 when the Department ofDefense Office of the Inspector Generalsubmitted its final Root Cause AnalysisReport, recommending that the Armydevelop and implement a multi-tier rootcause analysis system. Currently, theArmy is using a variety of root causeanalysis systems, and the Office of the

Director of Environmental Programs(ODEP) is working with the major Armycommands (MACOMs) to establish anArmy-wide system. The National GuardBureau’s system is serving as the basicbuilding block.

CAS Initiatives Seek Further Reduction in Enforcement Actions