INTEGRATED ENFORCEMENT
APPROACHES FOR EPA
REPORT OF THE EPA
ENFORCEMENT REORGANIZATION
TASK FORCE
September 1,1993
ftocycted/ftoeydabte
Primed on paper that contains
at toast 50% racyctod fitwr
-------
06 o J
This report was prepared for:
Carol M. Browner
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This report was prepared by:
The Enforcement Reorganization Task Force
Mike Vandenbergh, Chair
Steve Herman, Ex Officio
Margaret Season (OPPTS) Brian Maas (OW)
Bob Blanco (OW) Nancy Marvel (Region 9)
Charles Breece (OE)" Anna Miller (OE)
Sam Coieman (OSWER) Linda Murphy (Region 1)
Jerry Clifford (OSWER) Davina Pujari (OE)
Rafael Deleon (OGC) John Rasnic (OAR)
Bruce Diamond (OSWER) Russ Rhodes (Region 6)
Eiyse DiBiagio-Wood (OE) Bill Rice (Region 7)*
Alan Eckert (OGC) Bill Ross (OSWER)
Chuck Finley (Region 10) Lynne Ross (OCLA)*
Scott Fulton (OE) Eric Schaeffer (OA)*
Nell Gales (OAR)* Mary Smith (OAR)
Mark Greenwood (OPPTS) Mike Stahl (OPPTS)*
Sullyanne Harper (OARM)* Kathie Stein (OE)
Craig Haas (OAR) Karen Taimi (OW)
Rich Kozlowski (OW)* Dave Ullrich (Region 5)*
Hariey Laing (Region 1)* Bob Van Heuvelen (OE)
Anne Lassiter (OW) Tom Voltaggio (Region 3)
Jack Lehman (OW) Dick Wilson (OAR)
With support by the Management and Organization Division
* Committee Co-Chairs
£PA Kcc.ir-;.\.*:,.. 2 Library
-------
Acknowledgment
The Task Force would like to express its appreciation and
admiration to those who provided staff support for this report. The
staff worked long hours under compressed time frames. Throughout
the activities of the Task Force they maintained their
professionalism, good will and good humor.
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Setting the Framework
III. Organizational Options
IV. Implementation
Appendix A: Task Force Members/Support
Appendix B: Current Organizational Charts
Appendix C: Site Remediation Programs
Appendix D: Implementation Considerations
Appendix E: Acronym Glossary
i
1
7
15
43
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Charge to Consolidate Enforcement
On July 22, 1993, EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner announced her
intention to consolidate the Agency's Headquarters enforcement components. She
called for an organization capable of undertaking effective enforcement targeting,
multi-media inspections and case development, settlements that foster pollution
prevention and environmental audits, and a strong program for enforcing EPA's core
statutory authorities and ensuring environmental justice. She stated that the new
organization should speak to the public, the States, Tribes, local governments, and the
regulated community with one clear and consistent voice and be compatible with
"... a new era of environmental protection-one that recognizes both the maturity of
the natron's environmental programs and the complexities of environmental concerns."
To develop and evaluate approaches for the consolidation, the Administrator
established a 40-member Enforcement Reorganization Task Force (Task Force)
composed of employees with a wide range of concerns and perspectives from across
the Agency. To balance the need to work quickly, but deliberately, the Task Force
formed five committees.
Focus of the Committees
The Public Outreach Committee aggressively sought the perspectives of
individuals and groups outside the Agency. Approximately 290 interested patties
were invited to provide their views. Oral and written comments were received from
more than 130 parties representing environmental, citizen, labor, and environmental
justice groups; industry; State, Tribal and local governments and associations;
Congressional staff; the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies; former
EPA officials; private law practitioners; and academia.
The Agency Outreach Committee offered Agency employees the opportunity
to provide and receive information about the Task Force's work. The Committee held
several all-hands meetings and used other mechanisms (e.g.. telephone, fax, and
electronic mail) to gather both oral and written employee comments.
The Inventory Committee provided the Task Force with a current snapshot of
where EPA Headquarters' enforcement-related functions and resources reside. Once
the ultimate organizational approach is known, the Committee will conduct more
tailored resource reviews to aid the implementation efforts.
-------
Executive Summary
The Straw Design Committee gathered and reviewed information on
enforcement structures of selected State, foreign, and Federal organizations and
reviewed the work of the other Task Force Committees. It then developed and refined
several organizational and conceptual approaches, and presented the four most viable
ones to the fuil Task Force for review and consideration.
The Transition Enforcement Committee identified the major steps the Agency
needs to take to maintain enforcement momentum during the transition to a new
enforcement organization.
Listening to Employees and Stakeholders
Commenters from inside and outside the Agency were extremely supportive of
the decision to consolidate enforcement. They raised a number of issues that the
Task Force considered in its deliberations. The concerns included developing better
ways to measure enforcement effectiveness; utilizing a broader concept of the
enforcement mission; targeting enforcement activities more effectively; using flexible
and innovative enforcement approaches: maintaining relationships between
enforcement and media programs; defining rojes and responsibilities, streamlining the
structure; addressing Regional impacts; recognizing roles of States, Tribes, and
localities; addressing implementation and personnel concerns; and assuring firm, fair,
and consistent enforcement.
Vision for Enforcement
An important step in laying the groundwork for designing organizational
approaches was to develop a vision for a successful enforcement program. EPA's
vision for enforcement as developed by the Task Force includes a program that
reduces risk and accomplishes the nation's goals of protecting health and the
environment; delivers full compliance; inspires pollution prevention and drives
innovative and comprehensive solutions; ensures equal environmental and health
protection for all Americans; and employs culturally diverse, skilled, and motivated
people. Underpinning the entire effort is a need to address violations of law in a swift
and effective manner.
Defining Enforcement
To focus its efforts, the Task Force also defined the "enforcement activities"
at EPA. The definition specifies the point along the continuum of programmatic work
where "enforcement" begins. The definition states that "...as a general rule, the
enforcement continuum begins after environmental requirements have been
established by rule or permit. Generally, the starting point for the continuum is
inspection and other monitoring obligations. Once a violation is identified, the
Agency's response to that violation-whetheit that be a formal enforcement action, a
-------
Executive Summary
warning, or compliance assistance-is also in the nature of enforcement because it
necessarily reflects the exercise of the Agency's enforcement discretion. Such a
matter remains in the enforcement continuum until the violator achieves compliance
through a court order, a settlement, or otherwise."
Organizational Approaches
The Task Force began with the premise that EPA's enforcement program is
strong and the goal of reorganization is to improve it by increasing efficiencies in the
core enforcement programs and removing organizational impediments to effective
targeting and integrated, multi-media approaches.
The Task Force presented four basic approaches for the Administrator's review.
Each approach reflects a primary organizational theme: environmental media ("Media
Approach"); economic sectors ("Sector Approach"); critical natural and human
resources ("Bio-Resource Approach"); and enforcement functions ("Functional
Approach").
Although each of the four approaches has a different organizing theme, a
number of elements are common to all. First, there is a staff office of Resource
Management and Administrative Support to handle administration, budget, extramural
resources management, career development training, and related matters. Second,
there is a staff office for Enforcement Capacity that would include the National
Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) and liaison with national organizations of State,
Tribal, and local officials. Third, all approaches include a separate office for Criminal
Investigations, in keeping with the requirements of the Pollution Prosecution Act.
Fourth, all approaches, except for Functional, maintain the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) at the office level. Likewise, all approaches have a Site
Remediation office to handle the major cleanup work included under Superfund,
RCRA, LUST, and OPA, with a slight variation in the Bio-Resource Approach. Finally,
there is an intergovernmental office within each approach to deal primarily with
Federal facilities enforcement; Federal activities; States, Tribes, and localities; and
international matters. Although there are some slight changes from one approach to
the next, these basic elements remain essentially intact across all four organizational
approaches.
In addition, questions have been raised about whether several program elements
with enforcement activities should be consolidated into the new enforcement
organization. These programs are: (1) the remedial programs (Superfund, RCRA
corrective action, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Oil Pollution Act) currently
in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER); (2) elements of the
wetlands, Underground Injection Control, and ocean dumping programs currently in
the Office of Water; and (3) enforcement elements of the Office of Mobile Sources in
the Office of Air and Radiation. Some commenters maintained that several programs
iii
-------
Executive Summary
currently in the Office of Enforcement are not entirely enforcement activities (e.g..
elements of the NEPA, Indian, and contractor listing programs) and therefore should
be moved out of the Office of Enforcement. The Task Force did not attempt to reach
a final conclusion on the appropriate location for these programs, but it identified key
issues regarding their placement.
The Media Approach
The main objective of the Media Approach is to consolidate the expertise and
enhance the working relationships of the current single-media enforcement programs
and to provide a mechanism for applying that expertise to multi-media, sector or
ecosystem-oriented "whole-facility" approaches to compliance and enforcement.
The key features of the Media Approach are that it creates media offices to
provide continuity and national consistency for single-media enforcement and
compliance assurance activities in air, water, waste, and toxics; creates a multi-media
office with operational responsibility for developing and managing multi-media
initiatives, strategies and cases focused on eposystems and sectors of the regulated
community; and establishes a distinct organizational unit to resolve cross-cutting
enforcement policy issues that affect single-media and multi-media enforcement.
The Sector Approach
The main objective of the Sector Approach is to develop an integrated approach
to enforcement for key economic sectors, including more sophisticated targeting,
compliance measurement and pollution prevention, while providing a mechanism for
preserving important national programs and single-media expertise.
The key features of the Sector Approach are that it specifically designates
offices responsible for targeting, compliance assistance, and case
development/support for sectors of the regulated community (possible sectors include
Energy and Transportation, and Manufacturing); provides a National Programs office
to handle national enforcement guidance and' interpretation for individual media, and
targeting, compliance assistance, measurement, case development, and support for
any activity not covered by sector offices; and provides the flexibility to add additional
sectors over time.
The Bio-Resource Approach
The main objective of the Bio-Resource Approach is to focus on related bio-
resource issues around the country and the critical ecosystems within them.
The key features of the Bio-Resource Approach are that it has as its primary
organizing principle major bio-resources, based on identification of related
IV
-------
Executive Summary
environmental impacts and activities. It provides a Coastal Areas office to focus on
activities occurring on the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts, and the Great Lakes;
provides a Land Resources and Watersheds office to focus on activities occurring in
forested areas, mountain ranges, deserts, prairies, farm land, and watersheds within
them; and provides an Urban Areas office to focus on activities occurring in large
urban centers, where human exposure issues are significant. It allows each bio-
resource office to be organized by media to maintain expertise and align with the
program offices; provides a Media Programs office responsible for legislative and
regulatory development, policy and guidance, measurements of success, applicability
determinations, outreach and oversight with States, Tribes and localities, compliance
assistance, and Regional oversight and coordination. It combines national targeting
and priority setting, measures of success, and data management into one office
responsible for developing enforcement strategies.
The Functional Approach
The main objective of the Functional Approach is to achieve organizational
efficiencies and develop a multi-media
areas of enforcement activity.
'purpose" by organizing around established
The key features of the Functional Approach are that it organizes traditional civil
enforcement work around current functional work performed by enforcement and
program compliance offices. It organizes around three principal functions: (Da
Compliance Assurance and Evaluation office to focus on the full range of activities
associated with compliance monitoring, strategic planning and targeting to address
non-compliance, ecosystem and environmental justice concerns, enforcement data
management and integration, and outreach and compliance assistance to the regulated
community; (2) a Litigation and Administrative Action office to focus all enforcement
activities associated with bringing cases, including legal and technical case support,
civil investigation, coordination with the Department of Justice, taking of
administrative appeals, and litigation support by the National Enforcement
Investigations Center; and (3) an Enforcement Policy office to focus on participation
in the legislative and regulatory development processes, making applicability
determinations, and developing single-media and cross-program policy and guidance.
Transition to a New Organization
The Task Force is firmly committed to maintaining a strong enforcement
program while the Agency goes through the enforcement reorganization. The Task
Force recommends close monitoring and coordination of enforcement activities during
the transition period.
Implementation considerations for the new organization will follow the
Administrator's decision, and will involve many key issues and decisions, including
-------
Executive Summary
those dealing with sub-level organizational structures, personnel actions, space and
moves, resources and budget, delegations of authority, computer and
telecommunications connections, and information management systems. During the
period of the Administrator's review, it will be necessary to lay the groundwork for
the implementation steps.
VI
-------
I. Introduction
I. Introduction
The Charge to Consolidate Enforcement
On July 22, 1993, EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner announced her
intention to consolidate the Agency's Headquarters enforcement components. She
called for an organization capable of undertaking effective enforcement targeting,
multi-media inspections and case development, settlements that foster pollution
prevention and environmental audits, and a strong program for enforcing EPA's core
statutory authorities and ensuring environmental justice. She stated that the new
organization should speak to the public, the States, Tribes, localities, and the
regulated community with one clear and consistent voice and be compatible with
"...a new era of environmental protection-one that recognizes both the maturity of
the nation's environmental programs and the complexities of environmental
concerns."1
To develop and evaluate approaches for consolidating the Headquarters
enforcement programs, the Administrator established a 40-member Enforcement
Reorganization Task Force (Task Force) composed of staff from throughout the
Agency. This report synthesizes the initial work of the Task Force.
A Historical Perspective of EPA's Enforcement Program
The Earlv Program
EPA was formed in 1970 by bringing together 15 components from five
Executive departments and independent agencies. When EPA was initially organized,
the enforcement program combined technical and legal functions in a single
organization. With some modifications, this is essentially the structure that prevailed
through 1980.
In 1981, Administrator Ann Gorsuch decentralized the enforcement apparatus.
A legal enforcement staff was created, and technical enforcement personnel were
moved to the program offices. Her stated goals were to increase the consistency of
the Agency's environmental management approach, increase the accountability of
'Memorandum on "Enforcement Reorganization," from the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators, July 22,
1993.
-------
program offices, and emphasize non-confron
I. Introduction
ational enforcement actions. However,
the press, the environmental community, the Congress, and many EPA employees
saw this reorganization as an attempt to dismantle EPA's enforcement program.
Movement Toward a Centralized Enforcement Program
In 1983, EPA Administrator William Ruchelshaus separated the Offices of
Enforcement and General Counsel. To minirrjiize disruption, technical-staff were not
moved back into the enforcement office, but the head of the enforcement office was
named the National Enforcement Program ijrianager, placing the responsibility for
establishing and directing a coordinated enforcement effort in this office. Thus, from
1983 to 1985, enforcement lay somewhere between the centralized/decentralized
extremes.
Major reorganizations were considered after this time, but no Agency-wide
changes took place. From 1986 to 1992, small adjustments were made that pushed
enforcement toward a more centralized structure. The establishment of an Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforcement and a new
Enforcement Policy Office focused the enforcement office more along media lines.
Elements of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Federal facilities
program were combined and moved to the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement in
the Office of Enforcement, further integratir
functions. In addition, a series of formal co nmunication and oversight procedures
between the enforcement office and the National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) increased Headquarters control over
g Federal facilities legal and technical
field functions. Later, the Office of
Criminal Investigations was moved from thfe National Enforcement Investigations
Center to be a Headquarters enforcement program.
Throughout this period, an increasing number of environmental programs were
delegated to the States, giving them primary responsibility for the vast majority of
day-to-day enforcement work. While EPA retains ultimate responsibility for assuring
compliance with Federal environmental laws a|nd takes direct action when necessary,
EPA carries out its responsibilities largely by steering a complex national system of
EPA, State, Tribal, and sometimes local compliance and enforcement entities.
Current Reorganization Effort - Lessons from the Past
thj
In recent years, EPA staff have
achieve significant successes in terms of the
assessed. Nevertheless, the current
worked within a decentralized structure to
number of actions filed and penalties
structure has been described by Agency
-------
I. Introduction
observers as inordinately complex and cumbersome,2 and the successes have
occurred despite organizational inefficiencies and limitations. Also, EPA enforcement
accountability has been questioned frequently and EPA officials have been under
pressure to modify the enforcement program.
The Administrator's action is a major step toward the full integration of
enforcement functions in the Agency mission and thus presents the Agency with a
major opportunity. The reorganization raises issues such as what is the best way to
achieve compliance; how one can create "one stop shopping" for States, Tribes,
businesses, environmentalists, and others requiring compliance information; and how
can EPA best speak with a united voice on environmental compliance matters.
Structure and Process of the Task Force
In selecting the members of the Task Force, the Administrator took care to
recognize and include a wide range of concerns and perspectives. The 40 members
of the Task Force were drawn from throughout the Agency, with support from several
dozen staff (Appendix A). The Task Force has attempted to balance the need to work
quickly to minimize disruption and uncertainty against the need to work deliberately
to ensure a thorough review of the reorganization issues. To achieve this balance, the
Task Force formed five committees:
Public Outreach Committee: to solicit the expertise and opinions of interested parties outside
the Agency, including State/Tribal/local agencies and associations, the regulated community,
environmental and citizen groups, environmental justice groups, Congressional staff, and former
EPA officials;
Aaencv Outreach Committee: to solicit the expertise and opinions of EPA employees, and to
keep all EPA employees apprised of the overall reorganization effort;
Inventory Committee: to identify the enforcement functions and resources now residing in
Headquarters media offices and the Office of Enforcement;
Straw Design Committee: to develop conceptual organizational approaches that would provide
a management framework for consolidating enforcement roles and responsibilities and for
guiding the enforcement program toward the stated vision; and
Transition Enforcement Committee: to develop recommendations and propose actions to
continue enforcement momentum during the planning and implementation phases of the
reorganization.
2See. e.g.. Implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the PBC Rule, and Federal
Hazardous Substance Laws, Report from the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental
Oversight, February, 1988, p.50
-------
I. Introduction
In addition, the Task Force worked with a Technical Support Team. The Team
identified the issues that need to be addressed to implement the reorganization and
to support the actual implementation efforts.
The full Task Force met six times durirtg July and August, four times in full-day
sessions. The Task Force developed a vision! statement, a definition of enforcement,
and criteria against which to review different organizational proposals. The
Committee members worked on their tasks virtually full time during the past month.
The meetings resulted in spirited discussions, thoughtful deliberations, and consensus
on a number of key issues regarding the Agency's enforcement program.
Committee Efforts
During the period from July 29 to August 10, 1993, the Public Outreach
Committee aggressively sought the perspectives of individuals and groups outside the
Agency. Approximately 290 interested parti ?s were invited to provide their views in
response to three key questions in personal interviews or in writing:
• What should be the mission or goals of the EPA enforcement program?
• What guiding principles should be used in developing the program and in
designing the new organizational structure?
• What should be considered a successful program and what indicators should
be used to evaluate success?
Oral and written comments were received from more than 130 interested
parties representing environmental, citizens, labor, and environmental justice groups;
industry representatives; State, Tribal, and local agencies and associations;
Congressional staffs; the Department of Justice; former EPA officials; private
practitioners; academia; and Federal agencies. Table 1 details the outreach effort by
category.
-------
I. Introduction
Table 1 • Public Outreach Contacts
Category of Group/Individual Contacted
Environmental, Citizen, Labor, and
Environmental Justice Groups
Industry
State/Tribal/Local Agencies and Associations
Former EPA Officials/Academics
Congress
Department of Justice
Private Bar
Federal Agencies
Numbers Contacted
64
42
121
14
1 8 (committee staff)
12
8
15 (Dept/Agencies)
Numbers Responding
14
13
51 (including 26
State Attorneys
General)
12
18 (committee staff)
12
7
8 (Dept/Agencies)
The Agency Outreach Committee provided Agency employees with the
opportunity to provide and receive information on the work of the Task Force. The
Committee sponsored three "all-hands" meetings which were open to all Agency
employees, including those in the Regions and those who work in alternative
workspace. These meetings were broadcast via EPA television monitors. The
Committee gathered information via a dedicated Email box, Voice mail box, and FAX
number. Specific Agency contacts also were designated for purposes of direct
contact and discussion with employees. The Committee received over 100 written
comments, some very lengthy and detailed. In addition, dozens of comments and
issues were raised orally at the all-hands meetings and over the telephone.
Information on the Task Force's progress was circulated through several issues of the
Administrator's Update, and through memoranda to employees from the Task Force
Chair. Employee comments were compiled and circulated to the committees.
The Inventory Committee developed an enforcement functions outline that
characterized the activities of the Agency's enforcement program. With the outline
as a starting point, the Committee asked the Office of Enforcement and the media
program offices to identify their enforcement-related functions and workyears. The
Committee then used this information to provide the Task Force with a current
snapshot of the EPA Headquarters enforcement-related functions (Appendix B). In
addition, to assist in planning for the eventual implementation of the reorganization,
the Committee also gathered information on delegations of authority, space occupied
by the enforcement program, and enforcement-related information management
systems. Once the ultimate organizational structure is resolved, the Committee will
conduct more specific resource reviews to aid the implementation efforts.
-------
I. Introduction
The Straw Design Committee received /comments from all of the other
committees, and used this information in its analysis and development of different
organizational approaches. The Committee used the functions list developed by the
Inventory Committee as a baseline for determining the major functions to include in
the organizational approaches, and reviewed the comments collected by the Public
Outreach and Agency Outreach Committees to develop the vision for the new
enforcement program. Committee members presented short papers that highlighted
the unique aspects of specific media enforcement programs and developed a list of
criteria for assessing the organizational approaches. The Committee also gathered and
reviewed different information from State environmental agencies, as well as the
United Kingdom and other Federal agencies with enforcement programs. The
Committee worked intensively to develop and refine its organizational approaches.
The Committee narrowed an initial group of over ten approaches to four, and
presented the four to the full Task Force for review and consideration.
The Transition Committee identified major steps to maintain enforcement
momentum during the transition into the new enforcement organization. These
included issues involving human resources, monitoring Agency enforcement
performance in FY-93 and FY-94, and coordination between Headquarters and
Regional enforcement programs. Within each of these major areas, the Committee
reviewed the Agency actions that were required and the time period within which the
actions must be taken.
The Technical Support Team, through consultation with Agency experts in
several areas, identified and addressed implementation issues in four clusters:
administration; budget; human resources; and information management. The Team
presented the array of implementation issues and decisions that need to be made,
along with its thoughts concerning an implementation timeline.
-------
II. Setting the Framework
II. Setting the Framework
Listening to Employees and Stakeholders
A very important component of the Task Force's efforts involved outreach to
individuals and groups inside and outside the Agency. Agency employees; former EPA
officials; industry representatives; environmental groups; State, Tribal, and local
agencies and associations; the environmental justice community; Congress; and
Federal agencies were consulted on their views of the mission, guiding principles, and
measures of success for a restructured enforcement program. On the whole, the
commenters from inside and outside the Agency were extremely supportive of the
decision to consolidate enforcement
The commenters raised a number of significant issues for the Task Force to
consider. Their comments reflect the support and concerns of EPA's stakeholders,
both internal and external, regarding a restructured enforcement program. The Task
Force was struck by how frequently the same themes were repeated by those inside
and outside the Agency, and the Task Force attempted to incorporate the themes into
its deliberations.
Develop Better Ways to Measure impact
Many external commenters expressed concern that current measures trivialize
enforcement success by merely counting activities (e.g.. inspections, cases, and
dollars) and indicate little about the true impact of enforcement. By merely counting
activities such as inspections, cases, and penalty dollars, EPA fails to accurately
reflect the complete enforcement and compliance picture. Successful enforcement
should result in better compliance, reduce environmental pollution, restore and
improve the environment, and increase public confidence in the Agency. A better way
to measure success is to utilize parallel measures-activity counts and more impact-
oriented measures-so that enforcement "beans" would be understood in the broader
context of compliance and environmental improvements.
Broader Concent of Enforcement
Many external commenters expressed a need for EPA to recognize that
compliance is the ultimate goal of the enforcement program. The commenters
emphasize that although enforcement actions are a critical tool for achieving this
goal, the> .. e not the only tool. EPA's enforcement program needs to encourage and
-------
II. Setting the Framework
promote compliance, recognizing that resources will never permit EPA to inspect all
regulated entities.
Target Enforcement Activities More Effectively
There is a perception both inside and outside the Agency that EPA's
enforcement program could better target its efforts toward the greatest risks.
Commenters inside and outside the Agency suggested that EPA prioritize enforcement
by concentrating on the greatest human health risks and environmental hazards, and
by emphasizing multi-media enforcement, environmental justice, and pollution
prevention. Many suggested that EPA move to "problem-oriented" strategies that
address specific environmental problems involving geographic areas, industry sectors,
specific pollutants, ecosystems, or communities that are at risk.
Use Flexible and Innovative Enforcement Approaches
The need for more innovative and flexible approaches to enforcement was also
a consistent message. According to many commenters, the Agency should focus
more on multi-media, "whole-facility" perspectives that reflect the shape and structure
of the regulated community and promote pollution prevention and ecosystem
protection. Use of a balanced mix of traditional administrative and judicial tools as
well as non-traditional tools (e.g.. audits, supplemental environmental projects,
private/State/Tribal/local partnerships, compliance assistance, and regulatory
education) will enable EPA to expand its capacity for achieving a cleaner environment.
Maintain Relationships Between Enforcement and Media Programs
A significant concern involves the relationship between the Office of
Enforcement and the media program offices. Commenters emphasized that
enforcement program priorities should reflect and support the priorities of the media
programs, and that legal and technical people must work together as a team. Such
coordination is essential for good data exchange and to ensure that media offices
maintain their concern for the enforceability of regulations and policies. In addition,
roles and responsibilities of the enforcement office, the Regional offices, the JSIEIC,
and media program offices need to be clarified, and consistent policies and guidance
have to be formulated and applied. Enforcement also should use a team approach in
its activities, emphasizing the use of the various disciplines within the organization to
achieve compliance.
Define Roles and Responsibilities. Streamline Structure. Address Regional Impact
Another frequently repeated comment is that the roles of various environmental
enforcement entities need to be clarified. According to some commenters, the role
8
-------
II. Setting the Framework
of EPA's enforcement program should be shifted away from case micro-management
toward a program oversight role, and the enforcement process should be streamlined
through a flatter management structure, reduced levels of review, and clarified
decision-making responsibilities. Moreover, enforcement must "speak with one
voice." It is also crucial that the role of the Regions be considered in the
reorganization effort. Any impact the Headquarters reorganization has on Regional
organizational structures and reporting relationships should be addressed as soon as
possible, and the proper balance must be achieved between flexibility and
accountability.
Recognize the Roles of States. Tribes, and Localities
Commenters observed that EPA must more effectively involve States, Tribes
and local governments in enforcement efforts. In particular, the Agency needs to
recognize States and Tribes as the primary enforcement authority when programs
have been delegated or assumed by States and Tribes.3 EPA should increase the role
of States and Tribes with enforcement programs in strategic enforcement planning
and address the special issues and needs of Tribes and local governments. In
addition, the Agency should provide training, technical assistance, and grant funds as
vehicles for achieving goals.
Address Implementation and Personnel Concerns
The Agency Outreach Committee identified human resource issues as a major
concern of EPA managers and employees. Employees want to be involved in the
reorganization effort, and the support of managers and staff is crucial for successful
implementation. General career concerns were expressed; in particular, current media
program employees targeted to move to the new enforcement organization are
concerned about their career development and promotion potential. Others are
concerned about whether there will be voluntary or directed reassignment to the
enforcement program. In addition, the Office of Enforcement is perceived as an
"attorney" organization, and some have expressed concern about the role of program,
policy and technical professionals in the new structure. Other concerns involve the
emphasis on training and the ability to be connected quickly to the Agency's
electronic communications systems.
3 The Task Force recognizes the States' key role in enforcement. For example, in EPA Region
IV in FY-92, 2135 administrative actions with penalties were carried out by the States in Region IV
versus 147 by the Region. See Patrick Tobin memorandum to Paul Guthrie of August 24, 1993.
-------
II. Setting the Framework
Assure Firm. Fair, and Consistent Enforcement
To ensure that EPA's enforcement is firm, fair, and consistent, the Agency
should adopt clear and understandable policies and regulations. Commenters
expressed a need for a unified voice for EPA's enforcement program and a credible
presence that maintains a deterrent effect for the regulated community. Enforcement
activities should ensure that enforcement is fjair and equitable and that environmental
justice is achieved. In addition, enforcement Responses should be commensurate with
the violation and its actual or potential impact.
10
-------
II. Setting the Framework
Vision for Enforcement
An important step in laying the groundwork for organizational approaches was
to develop a vision of a successful enforcement program. The Task Force developed
the following vision statement based on its deliberations and the comments collected
through Agency and public outreach efforts. The vision provides a basis for
developing organizational approaches and will serve as a guide through decision-
making and implementation of a new enforcement structure.
EPA's Enforcement Program Will Deliver Full Environmental Compliance
EPA's vision for enforcement is a program that:
• Reduces risk and accomplishes the nation's goals of protecting health and the environment
• Delivers full compliance, inspires pollution prevention, and drives innovative and
comprehensive solutions
• Ensures equal environmental and health protection for all Americans
• Employs culturally diverse, stalled, and motivated people
• Addresses violations of law in a swift and effective manner
To achieve this vision EPA will:
• Deter violations through aggressive and visible enforcement
• Target the worst environmental and health problems and the most serious violators
• Enhance use of multi-media approaches to enforcement
* Ensure that EPA's rules are clear and enforceable
• Forge a strong working relationship with States, Tribes, and localities and enhance
their capacity to solve environmental problems
• Engage the nation to build understanding of our goals, activities and accomplishments
• Streamline our organization so that decisions are sound, timely, and responsive
* Deliver clear and consistent national enforcement policies
• Integrate quality multi-media data and compliance information
• Encourage strong environmental performance in the regulated community and use a
broad range of tools to achieve compliance
• Measure success based on compliance and environmental results
• Provide training, equipment, and a positive work environment for EPA employees
11
-------
II. Setting the Framework
Defining Enforcement
To determine where enforcement functions currently exist in the Agency, and
which functions the Task Force should focus on in its organizational designs, the Task
Force agreed upon a basic definition of enforcement. The definition is particularly
important to specify the point along the continuum of programmatic work where
"enforcement" begins. The definition does not determine which resources and
functions should be included in an integrated enforcement organization, but it does
provide a guide for determining which program activities are enforcement in nature.
A Working Definition for Enforcement
The goal of enforcement is to ensure compliance with environmental requirements and other
environmental obligations (e.g.. compelling Superfunc cleanup activity). Enforcement is, in effect, a
continuum of activities related to this basic goal. In -pections to detect actionable problems and the
initiation of formal enforcement actions to correct such problems are some of the more obvious examples
of enforcement. Enforcement also includes Agency activity undertaken to facilitate and support the
enforcement process, as well as activity that involves the exercise of the Agency's enforcement discretion.
Enforcement presupposes the existence of enforceable environmental requirements. Consequently,
as a general rule, the enforcement continuum begins after environmental requirements have been
established by rule or permit.4 Generally, the starting point for the continuum is inspection and other
monitoring activity undertaken to determine compliance frith environmental obligations. Once a violation
is identified, the Agency's response to that violation—whether thai be formal enforcement action, a
warning, or compliance assistance—is also in the nature of enforcement because it necessarily reflects the
exercise of the Agency's enforcement discretion. Such a matter remains in the enforcement continuum
until the violator achieves compliance through a court order, a settlement, or otherwise.
Consistent with the foregoing, the following are enforcement activities:
• inspections, sample analysis, assuring data ^quality, and other compliance monitoring
efforts (e.g., review of self-reported compliance information, review of State files);
• The Agency's response to detected violations, whether formal or informal;
• Interaction with State, Tribal, and local governments regarding particular non-
compliance problems and overall enforcement objectives;
• Case development and case support;
• Monitoring compliance with consent agreements and orders;
• Development and implementation of enforcement and compliance monitoring
priorities, strategies, and policies;
4 This does not mean that enforcement does not have a role to play in the regulatory and permit
development processes; to the contrary, reviewing rules and permits for enforceability can be a
critical enforcement activity. Standard setting is not, however, fundamentally an enforcement
function, except in those circumstances in which the rule is essentially an enforcement rule (e.g..
establishing compliance monitoring methodologies).
12
-------
II. Setting the Framework
A Working Definition for Enforcement (continued)
• Participating in the development of comprehensive responses to environmental or
public health problems where enforcement may be pan of the solution;
• Managing information systems that track compliance and enforcement activity;
• Capacity-building activity, such as providing information, training, and funding to
States and Tribes in support of enforcement and compliance monitoring activity
(including the administration of enforcement related grants);
• Enforcement and compliance monitoring training for EPA personnel;
• Networking and providing enforcement leadership in relationships with other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, and nations;
• Compliance assistance* (providing the regulated community with additional guidance
regarding their obligations and methods for satisfying those obligations as a
complement to formal enforcement strategies);
• Oversight of Regional, State, and Tribal enforcement activity;
• Assimilating and reporting enforcement accomplishments;
• Administrative support of enforcement activity;
• Participating in the rulemaking, permitting and legislative processes to help ensure
enforceability;
• Making applicability determinations* and otherwise interpreting the impact of
regulatory requirements on particular operations;
• Addressing laboratory practice problems when laboratories are providing laboratory
service to a private party, the service is related to compliance monitoring activity,
and nonperformance is subject to sanctions;
• Voluntary compliance or compliance promotion activities (as distinguished from
voluntary programs such as 33/50).
6 In some circumstances, compliance assistance may be provided as a result of an inspection
event. Compliance assistance may also be an element of a broader enforcement strategy targeted
against a particular sector of the regulated community. Inevitably there is some overlap between
these compliance assistance activities that are increasingly used by EPA program offices to
advance health and environmental goals. Future policy developments in this area will need close
coordination between enforcement and program offices.
'Inspection, enforcement, and compliance activities will involve enforcement staff in making
decisions about the applicability of particular requirements to particular situations. At the same
time, EPA program offices have generally had the responsibility for interpreting the regulations and
policies they formulate. In allocating these functions among the media program offices and the
new enforcement program, their respective roles and responsibilities will need to be sorted out.
13
-------
II. Setting the Framework
14
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
III. Organizational Approaches
Organizational Design
Background:
The Task Force began with the premise that EPA's enforcement program is
strong and the goal of reorganization is to improve it by increasing efficiencies in the
core enforcement programs and removing organizational impediments to integrated,
multi-media approaches. The Task Force was guided by three primary considerations
in evaluating approaches for the new enforcement organization:
• the vision for enforcement;
• the definition of enforcement activities; and
* the criteria for assessing different organizational approaches.
The Straw Design Committee supplemented the vision statement and the
definition of enforcement discussed earlier in this report with twenty-three criteria for
evaluating organizational structures. These criteria were used to guide the
development of organizational approaches and highlight their strengths and
weaknesses.
The Straw Design Committee felt it was important to keep these criteria in
mind, particularly when assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach
and narrowing the choices of major organizing principals. The Committee did not,
however, evaluate each approach against each criterion to come up with a formal
ranking. The Committee felt that this strict application of the criteria to come up with
a quantified score for each approach might be misleading, given the varying weight
of the criteria and the potential for adjustments to the approaches which might
influence their "score" with respect to some of the criteria.
15
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Criteria for Considering Organizational Approaches
Integrated Enforcement
• Facilitates multi-media and "whole-facility" approaches to compliance;
• Promotes cross-program strategic planning that ensures consistent enforcement
policies, helps target enforcement priorities based on risk, and provides for an
appropriate management and budget function; •
• Maximizes the integration of enforcement professionals (including legal,
technical, and administrative staff);
• Provides operational flexibility to allow the shifting of personnel to meet
changing priorities for enforcement; and
• Offers ready access to integrated, high quality data needed to carry out
enforcement activities and allow for the measurement of results.
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions
• Maintains sufficient expertise to carry out enforcement requirements of specific
media programs;
• Fosters integration with other functions in media programs, such as rulemaking,
permitting, and statutory development;
* Ensures that enforcement activities are consistent with media program policy;
• Enables EPA Headquarters to provide Regions with timely and appropriate
guidance, while providing Regions with efficient access to Headquarters; and
» Is consistent with existing statutes and other legal requirements.
Enforcement Efficiency
• Establishes clear roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability;
• Minimizes duplicative management to the extent practical;
• Encourages decision-making at the lowest possible level of the organization;
• Enhances our ability to make enforcement decisions promptly and efficiently;
• Ensures that compliance and enforcement decisions are as consistent as
possible; and
• Minimizes transition costs of reorganization.
16
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Criteria for Considering Organizational Approaches (continued)
External Stakeholders
• Allows EPA to interact efficiently with the Department of Justice and other
Federal agencies;
• Improves EPA's ability to guide and assist with enforcement activity in States
and Tribes, and provides them with efficient access to EPA; and
• Provides more effective and efficient interaction with the regulated
community.
Human Resources
• Provides challenging and positive work experiences for employees;
• Provides a positive climate for advancement for personnel;
* Encourages diversity in the workplace; and
• Recognizes training as a critical office function.
Assumptions Underlying Organizational Approaches
In considering various organizational approaches and components, the Task
Force made several assumptions which apply to all four organizational approaches:
Macro Structures
• The purpose of the Task Force was to develop and propose macro-level
structures using key organizing principles, while maintaining flexibility as to
whether the key units would become offices, divisions, etc.;
• Detailed substructures (specific divisions and below) would be developed
following the Administrator's decision;
Human Resources
• Task Force responsibility at this point does not include making decisions on
the actual staff, workyears, or resources to be assigned to the different parts
of the new organization;
17
-------
Ill. Organizational Approaches
• To achieve an appropriate balance in size and responsibilities, an
organizational and workforce analysis on organizational viability would be
performed following full definition of the substructure;
"Special Case" Programs
• All "special case"7 programs were included for purposes of organizational
design because all of these programs perform enforcement functions as defined
by the Task Force; the approaches should not be read as reflecting a final
determination regarding which responsibilities will be transferred to the new
enforcement organization.
Proposed Organizational Approaches
The Task Force presents for the Administrator's review four basic approaches
for reorganizing the Office of Enforcement. Each approach reflects a primary
organizational theme for the Office: (1) envirqnmental media {"Media"); (2) economic
sectors ("Sector"); (3) critical natural and hurjian resources ("Bio-Resource"); and (4)
enforcement functions ("Functional"). These four concepts can be reflected to a
greater or lesser degree in all of the approaches, suggesting the possibility of hybrid
approaches that combine the best features ahd mitigate some of the disadvantages
of each. The order in which the approaches are presented does not indicate a
preference. Following the presentation of each of the approaches, a number of "pros
and cons" are enumerated that attempt to capture the discussions of the Task Force
related to the approaches.
Common Features
Although each of the four approaches has distinctly different organizing themes,
a number of elements are common to all. First, there is a staff office of Resource
Management and Administrative Support to handle administration, budget, extramural
resources management, career development training, and related matters. Second,
there is also a staff office of Enforcement Capacity that would include the National
Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) and outreach to national organizations of State
and Tribal officials. Third, all approaches include a separate office for Criminal
7There are six media enforcement programs (Superfund, RCRA corrective action, wetlands,
ocean dumping, underground injection control, and mobile sources) and three current Office of
Enforcement activities (NEPA, Tribal affairs, and contractor listing) which are referred to as the
"special case" programs. No final recommendation has been made on whether all, part, or none of
these programs will be part of the new enforcement organization. A more detailed discussion on
the special case programs begins on page 36.
18
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Investigations, in keeping with the requirements of the Pollution Prosecution Act.
Fourth, all approaches, except for Functional, maintain the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) at the office level. Likewise, all approaches have a Site
Remediation office to handle the major cleanup work included under Superfund,
RCRA, LUST, and Oil Pollution Act, with a slight variation in the Bio-Resource
Approach8. Finally, there is an intergovernmental office within each approach to deal
primarily with Federal facilities enforcement, Federal activities, and international
matters. Although there are some slight changes from one approach to the next,
these basic concepts are the same.
8 As discussed above, no final recommendation has been made on the appropriate placement
of the "special case" programs.
19
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Objective
To consolidate the expertise and enhance the working relationships of the
current single-media enforcement programs and provide a mechanism for applying that
expertise to multi-media, sector or ecosystem oriented, "whole-facility" approaches
to compliance and enforcement.
Key Features
• Creates media offices which provide continuity and national consistency for
single-media enforcement and compliance assurance activities in air, water,
waste, and toxics.
• Creates a multi-media office with operational responsibility for developing and
managing multi-media initiatives, strategies and cases focused on ecosystems
and sectors of the regulated community. These strategies would be developed
by multi-disciplinary teams with representatives from media enforcement
offices, program offices, Regions and States.9
* Establishes a distinct organizational unit to resolve cross-cutting enforcement
policy issues that affect single-media and multi-media enforcement.
• Regional office interface would occur via the media offices for media-specific
issues and via the multi-media office for cross-program issues.
"The strategies, which would also be a feature of other approaches, would include: (a)
identification of risk reduction opportunities and compliance problems; (b) development of multi-
media initiatives and cases focused on sectors and ecosystem protection; (c) development of
voluntary compliance approaches including regulatory education and promoting audits or other
types of responsible environmental behavior; (d) development of improved measures of compliance
success and/or enforcement effectiveness; and
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
1
s
F
i
x i
Ov
•:
S !
If" :
LL.
CL I
n :
< i
< *
Q f
m?
•:
5 |
i i
*
ffi
S
*«
-If
1 ^
il
•§ o
UJ
o | g
^ TJ ° §
J§ t§
S
O §
n
=5 £ «
o> SK 6 2?" J2
(A O «S (0 *3
CQ «D O *3
o a. co ui co
i- CM C
III
WWW
•p- O)
222
a. a. Q. .— .
A A ji »
333 *D
WWW 0
T- C ffi
? ii I 1
2 •§ *o jii ^*
s o a 3 S
CO U. U. CO „
l i i 2f
- e
0) 0) 0) _
O O O ai
k. £1 £1 g
333 gj
CO CO CO -2
1 1 1 C
•= at
«
1 i in1 L _i
?E I* 1
•= E co a
E* 3i I
i i i
o
^9 ^Jl
C in
O >
O £
21
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Pros
Cons
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions: Maintains current media expertise
and preserves existing alignment with single-media programs and the
environmental statutes the Agency must enforce. Promotes national
consistency within single-media programs. Least disruptive to the Regions.
Enforcement Efficiency:
direction.
Most responsive to changes in single-media policy
External Stakeholders: Preserves existing relationships with States, Department
of Justice, and Congressional oversight committees.
Human Resources: Dislocates the fewest people and produces the least
amount of uncertainty and change. Integrates legal and technical staff in
organizational units.
Implementability: Easiest to implement; preserves the nucleus of each office
involved in the reorganization (except Federal facilities). Achieves the easiest
alignment with existing data systems, is consistent with current budget
structure, and retains the ability to produce single-media outputs during
reorganization transition. Least amount of "down-time" as a result of
reorganization.
Integrated Enforcement: Less aggressive in moving the Agency towards setting
risk-based priorities on a sector or geographic basis or enforcing on a "whole-
facility" basis. Integration will depend on effectiveness of matrix management
within a single-media environment. Does not improve pollution prevention or
sector-based targeting as much as the other approaches.
Enforcement Efficiency: High transaction costs associated with developing
multi-media, "whole-facility" initiatives1 and cases. Requires clear roles and
responsibilities and strong communication to overcome significant coordination
and communication barriers across media offices.
External Stakeholders: Complicates work in the Federal sector by separating
Federal facilities enforcement functions among the media offices, although a
design modification could address this concern.
22
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
The Sector Approach
>*
s
Objective
To develop more integrated approaches to enforcement for key economic
sectors, including more sophisticated targeting, compliance measurement and
pollution prevention; provide a mechanism for preserving important national programs
and single-media expertise.
Kev Features
* Specifically designates offices responsible for targeting, compliance assistance,
and case development/support for sectors of the regulated community.
Examples of sectors could include "Energy and Transportation" and
"Manufacturing."
* Possible energy and transportation sector could include petroleum refining,
mobile sources (if transferred), automobile manufacturing, and pipelines. Could
also include market systems such as acid rain emissions trading.
* Possible manufacturing sector could either include all manufacturing or focus
initially on a smaller number of key industries.
• National Programs office would handle targeting, compliance assistance and
measurement, and case development and support for any activity not covered
by sector offices {e.g., targeting based on ecosystem and environmental justice
concerns). This office would include national programs not easily subdivided
into sectors.
• National Programs office also would be responsible for providing national
enforcement guidance and interpretation for individual media, and serve as lead
contact for Regions and Department of Justice.
• National Programs office would be organized by media divisions, while sector
offices could be organized by function (e.g.. compliance assurance or case
development and support).
• Over time, additional sectors (e.g.. commercial services) could evolve either as
divisions within National Programs office, as separate offices, or as new units
in the sector offices.
23
-------
111. Organizational Approaches
Cross-cutting functions (gifl., geographic targeting, environmental justice) could
be housed in a separate staff office, or handled by a unit in the National
Programs office.
Regional interface would occur through the National Programs office and the
sector offices.
24
-------
Ml. Organizational Approaches
o
g
cc
CL
Q_
o
LU
CO
o
W Q)
Qp O
1?
o o
E s
d ^9
§1
II
"S
£
£
W ^
•§ E
«!
||
§ £
o 0
"-£
1
O)
c
i£?
25
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Pros
Integrated Enforcement: Approaches enforcement from a "whole-facility" basis
and facilitates improved targeting within sectors/industries. Promotes national
consistency within each industry. Flexible to changes in sector priorities.
Integrates programs and media around sectors.
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions: Is based on multi-media focus
while attempting to maintain single-media capabilities and expertise; National
Programs office and media divisions pjrovide links to existing program offices.
External Stakeholders: Facilitates industry compliance assistance/assurance
and technology transfer. Advances pollution prevention more easily. Yields
better science on compliance technology. Encourages a facility-wide approach
to enforcement.
Human Resources: Offers opportunities for integration and teamwork of all
enforcement professionals. Allows Agency to invest in staff to develop
industry expertise for enforcement purposes.
Cons
Integrated Enforcement: Outside of sector offices, multi-media efforts will still
require significant coordination and communication and will rely on matrix
management. Although this approach may improve risk-based priority setting
within sectors, it does not otherwise iimprove risk-based targeting on a media
or geographic basis.
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions: High transaction costs associated
with media program coordination. Sector offices do not align well with media
program offices, Regions, existing statutes. Department of Justice, and
Congressional Committees. Sector offices do not take full advantage of the
existing single-media expertise of EPA staff; may result in short-term lack of
sector expertise. Possibility that small enforcement programs will be lost in an
organization with a larger sector-based perspective.
External Stakeholders: Less obvious points of contact for external parties.
Difficult for States and Tribes to identify with structure. Perception that
enforcement staff could be "captured" by those it regulates; vigilance
necessary to avoid occurrence of such a problem.
Enforcement Efficiency: Duplication of statutory expertise among sector and
National Programs office. Sets up potentially competing substructures.
26
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Human Resources: Greater short-term uncertainty regarding appropriate fit for
employees; difficult to implement at staff level; considerable training needs;
may be viewed primarily as a "technical" organization.
Implementability: High implementation costs and corresponding transition
problems. Long timetable for implementation, large workforce impact, and
significant new training needs. Less susceptible to unit transfer. Degree of
implementation costs and transition problems may depend upon the balance of
resources between the National Programs and sector offices.
27
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Th0 Bio-Resource Approach
Objective
To focus enforcement activity on related bio-resource issues around the country
and the critical ecosystems within them. This approach seeks to channel the
enforcement and compliance activity of the Agency toward the areas of the country
most at risk from pollution.
Key Features
• The primary organizing principle is major bio-resources, based on the
identification of related environmental impacts and activities. Bio-resource
offices have the capability to target distinct ecosystems within each bio-
resource area.
• The Coastal Areas office would focus on activities occurring on the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Gulf coasts, and the Great Lakes. Examples of activities
characterizing these areas may include activities such as ocean dumping, harbor
dredging, NPDES activity, regulation of discharges from boats in port, air
deposition, wetlands, and critical pollutants (toxics and pesticides).
* The Land Resources and Watersheds office would focus on activities occurring
in forested areas, mountain ranges, deserts, prairies, farm land, and watersheds
within them. Examples of activities characterizing these areas may include acid
deposition, mining, timber, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) issues,
visibility (e.g.. national parks), endangered species, pesticides, feed lots,
grazing, non-point source issues, agriculture, oil and gas, and wetlands.
• The Urban Areas office would focus on activities occurring in large urban
centers, where human exposure issued are significant. Examples of activities
characterizing urban areas include mobile sources, ozone non-attainment, lead
common to urban pollution, pretreatment, sediments, point-source discharges,
brownfields, asbestos, storm water, and combined sewer overflows.
• The divisions within each bio-resource office would be organized by media to
maintain expertise and align with program offices.
28
-------
I. Organizational Approaches
• The Intergovernmental Activities office includes Federal facility enforcement,
Federal activities, international activities, local government relations/policy, and
environmental justice.
* The Remediation, Response, and Emergency Planning office includes Superfund
enforcement programs, RCRA corrective action, LUST, SPCC and OPA, and
EPCRA.
• The Media Programs office would be responsible for legislative and regulatory
development, policy and guidance, measurements of success, applicability
determinations, coordination with Department of Justice, outreach and
oversight with States, compliance assistance, and Regional oversight and
coordination.
* Combines data management/integration, national targeting and priority setting,
and measures of success into one office to develop enforcement strategies.
• Regional interface would occur primarily through the three bio-resource offices.
29
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
•
t
CL
n_
>^^
LJJ
O
or
O
C/D
LU
DC
t
_
LU
3
3
«
0
o
I 1
1 1
I
+2
0
fZ CO
p o 2
IK 13 "5
z z o
i i
-
1^.
E '0
Sift
>- S-
Ul
l s«
E _. § c
8 sf I
o " E w
1 .1*
m O ^
"c S
1 1 c a
«£JE«
O
ig
CO CO
1
1
-
-
m
to E
=5 2
9 O>
2 g
0-
sa
A 01
§•§
-5-o2
J|h|
sa
O J?
0 <
.ill
DC *K
||
|i
g
HI
«
It
"c 2
O §
c
cd
'S
0)
i- 0 W 2 :
O IS .— 33
^K* VI u «••»
<0 to 5 w 3
1 1 1 1 1 ^
— 3
2222 5
1 i t i 8
5
'•5 ?
-w CI 1
(0 CO (0 i c
TJ T3 -D ^ £
flj O QJ 3 '£3
2222 g
I | | I *F
(0 O)
~ c
•D 0
(0 « « • -§
^ ^ ^ s 5
£3 ?• •»» 7X Q^ ^^ ^^ D^
ii f|
fl || 1
E cc _i co O
i i |
_o
Ctf O)
M S
§ S
0 §
0 £
^^^^^^1
30
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Pros
Integrated Enforcement: Bio-resource offices focus enforcement activities on
multi-media issues within bio-resource areas. Focuses on ecosystem problems
during enforcement targeting, case management, and the settlement process.
Relationship with other Programs and Regions: Structure is based on multi-
media focus while attempting to maintain single-media capabilities and
expertise. Media programs office and media divisions provide links to existing
program offices. Complements Regional geographic and ecosystem targeting
initiatives.
External Stakeholders: Facilitates environmental justice by coordinating
different levels of government within one office and creating another office
focused on the urban environment. Encourages a facility-wide approach to
enforcement.
Human Resources: Offers opportunities for integration of all enforcement
professionals.
Cons
Integrated Enforcement: No appreciable improvement in media or sector-based
targeting.
Relationship with Other Programs and Regions: Does not align well with media
program offices. Regions, existing statutes, States, Department of Justice, and
Congressional committees. Possibility that small enforcement programs will be
lost in an organization with a larger resource-based perspective.
Enforcement Efficiency: Duplication of statutory expertise among bio-resource
offices. Greater possibility of Headquarters duplicating Regional functions;
jurisdiction of each bio-resource office cannot be strictly defined and significant
jurisdictional overlap could occur, leading to confusing lines of accountability
and responsibility. Sets up potentially competing substructures.
Human Resources: Short-term uncertainty regarding appropriate fit for
employees; difficult to implement at staff level.
implementability: More difficult to implement than the media and functional
approaches; relatively high transition costs; long timetable for implementation;
large workforce impact.
31
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
The Functional Approach
^ ^ *• • "
Objective
To achieve organizational efficiencies and develop multi-media "purpose" by
organizing around established areas of enforcement activity.
Kev Features
• Traditional civil (non-Superfund) enforcement work is organized by office
around current functional work performed by Office of Enforcement and the
program compliance offices.
• The core functions are divided into essentially four offices: Compliance
Assurance and Evaluation, Litigation and Administrative Action, Enforcement
Policy, and a smaller staff office focusing on enforcement capacity building.
* Compliance Assurance and Evaluation would focus on the full range of
activities associated with compliance monitoring, strategic planning and
targeting to address non-compliance, ecosystem and environmental justice
concerns, and enforcement data management and integration. This office also
would look for opportunities to improve compliance through compliance
assistance and outreach to the regulated community. Divisions under this
office could be organized on either a media (with a multi-media component) or
sectoral basis.
• Litigation and Administrative Action would include all enforcement activities
associated with the bringing of cases, including legal and technical case
support, civil investigations, coordination with the Department of Justice, and
the taking of administrative appeals. In light of its litigation support role, the
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) would be folded into this
operation. Divisions would be organized by media (with a multi-media
component) or on a geographic basis.
* Enforcement Policy would serve as the vehicle for maintaining an appropriate
single-media focus and for developing cross-program policy. The office's
responsibilities would include participating in the legislative and regulatory
development processes, making applicability determinations, and developing
single-media and cross-program policy and guidance. Divisions would be
32
-------
111. Organizational Approaches
organized by media, with a multi-media component. In essence, the single-
media leads in the enforcement policy office would serve as the "national
program managers" for the media enforcement programs.
Criminal Enforcement, Federal Sector work, and Remedial Programs would be
separate functional areas under this approach.
33
-------
I. Organizational Approaches
i
Is
r
r
i
•««i
r
i
I
0
^f^
cr
Q_
D_
^^r
i
^^r
z
o
5
z
2
1
T
i
C
j
j
a
5
1
£
EH
z_
i
a>
i
1
UJ
0)
8^
1
tu
•E
Q) O
3 01
i|
0
£ 0
CO (J
n
) —
li
! ^
j 3
t ^J
^
1
5
8 g
E «
i
!#
>
5
•^^B
HMMP
Litigation &
Administrative
Action
Compliance
ssurance &
Evaluation
*-* <
i
c >.
<5 1?
0 S.
u
i
o .3
as -a
CO 0
01
^fi
II
Criminal
Investigations
£ o w
12 .f 13 "a ! "§» -a
i- c\i c J| * £ 5 i * °
mSm \ ^O ^O ^O «^2 fll ^Q O FJJ a> s ^ -° °
s 5 s 5 w co
i l i }
a
-*• w c ®
a a « ^
1 "S "S 1
2S S 5
I i I I
•i
, .
£L ?• ^f ^ £i 5r O r>
3 O O O ** W " c
w £ O < O cc a. |
i
«i E « c* ^ .2 g
i£i£uj i£< =-H < £ "«
S
S«
s*
"S o
O) 6) O
' || I
1 I \ i
34
-------
ill. Organizational Approaches
Pros
Integrated Enforcement: Allows multi-media approaches within offices.
Centralizes data management and integration.
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions: Organized around principal
products delivered to other programs and Regions. Structure permits multi-
media focus, but provides single-media interface through policy office. Clear
points of contact.
Enforcement Efficiency: Less risk of duplication of effort on work assignments.
Should make delivery of services such as litigation support more efficient.
Flexible-designed to deal with a variety of priorities. Adaptable to evolving
vision for the future.
External Stakeholders: Clear points of contact for Department of Justice and
external parties.
Human Resources: Less short-term uncertainty regarding appropriate fit for
employees.
Implementability: Next to Media Approach, is the most immediately
implementable approach. Builds on functional divisions within program
compliance offices.
Cons
Integrated Enforcement: Neither best nor least adaptable to sector-based or
geographic-based enforcement and "whole-facility" strategies, especially as
compared to other approaches which feature these strategies.
Relationship to Other Programs and Regions: Does not align with current
program and Regional structures; may increase the number of points of contact
for the Regions.
Enforcement Efficiency: There is a disconnect between implementers and the
policy office; implementers need policy grounding, policy makers need "real
world" experience. Sets up potentially competing substructures.
Human Resources: Would lead to greater separation of legal and technical
staff.
35
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Management Considerations
Regardless of which organizational alternative is selected as the optimal one for
EPA's long-term direction and vision, a number of organizational considerations will
apply in both the organizational and management arenas. These considerations apply
to all of the organizational approaches presented in this report. Highlights of the most
important considerations are captured in this section.
Programs Requiring Additional Consideration
A number of commenters maintained that several program elements with
enforcement activities should not be consolidated into the new enforcement
organization. These programs are: (1) the remedial programs (Superfund, RCRA
corrective action, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and Oil Pollution Act) currently
in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER); (2) elements of the
wetlands, Underground Injection Control, and ocean dumping programs currently in
the Office of Water; and (3) enforcement elements of the Office of Mobile Sources in
the Office of Air and Radiation. In addition, some commenters maintained that several
programs currently in the Office of Enforcement are not entirely enforcement activities
(e.g.. elements of the NEPA, Indian, and contractor listing programs) and therefore
should be moved out of the Office of Enforcement.
The Straw Committee reached a consensus that responsibility for the
enforcement of remedial actions belongs in the consolidated enforcement organization
and a preference (a majority of the Straw Committee members) that the enforcement
responsibilities for the Office of Mobile Sources be similarly transferred. In general,
the Straw Committee concluded that all activities related to enforcement should be
transferred to the new, consolidated enforcement office. The full Task Force did not
attempt to reach a final conclusion on the appropriate location for these programs, but
it identified the following key issues regarding their placement:
1. Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, LUST, and Oil Pollution Act. These
programs contain enforcement activities that are closely integrated with the other
portions of the program (e.g.. site cleanup).
In terms of the size and impact of the program, the primary issue is the
Superfund program.10 Although the Task Force discussed a range of approaches,
only two appear to be viable: combination of all the Superfund enforcement
operations into the new Office of Enforcement or combination of all these
10 As with other organizational issues discussed in this report, it should not be assumed that
the Regions ultimateiy would be expected to replicate the option selected for Headquarters.
36
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
enforcement operations into the existing OSWER.11 In either event, the Straw
Committee has agreed upon a delineation of functions within the Superfund and other
remedial programs that should be transferred if the enforcement activities are
consolidated. See Appendix C for a detailed listing of these functions.
a: Move the Enforcement Functions From the Office of Waste' Programs
Enforcement to the New Enforcement Office.
Pros
• One Assistant Administrator will be accountable for all of the Agency's enforcement activity.
There will be one "voice" for the Agency's enforcement program and one point of contact for
the Agency's relationship with the Department of Justice.
Cons
• Two Assistant Administrators will be accountable for the Superfund program, and resolution
of site issues requiring enforcement and fund interaction may require the involvement of both.
Budgeting and priority setting for the overall Superfund program will require consultation with
at least two Assistant Administrators.
b. Move the Office of Enforcement's Superfund Functions to the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
Pros
• One Assistant Administrator will be responsible for the Superfund program. Resolution of
issues requiring enforcement and fund interaction may be more efficient. Budgeting and
priority setting for the overall program may be less complicated.
Cons
• Two Assistant Administrators will be responsible for enforcement policy and practice. The dual
responsibility may adversely affect EPA's relationship with the Department of Justice. The
dual responsibility also may complicate the reporting relationships between Headquarters and
the Regional Counsels (making them answerable to three Assistant Administrators, the General
Counsel and the Regional Administrator). The separation of enforcement functions also may
hinder future integration of Superfund with regulatory multi-media enforcement programs.
EPA's largest enforcement program would function outside the enforcement office.
2. Water Programs (Wetlands, Underground Injection Control, and Ocean
Dumping). These programs can be identified by the limited Headquarters resources
currently being applied to each activity (approximately 10 or fewer FTEs). In addition,
the Office of Water has indicated that in the wetlands and ocean dumping programs
the enforcement and programmatic functions are closely integrated. In each of these
programs, a trade-off exists between the need for a critical mass of individuals to
11 If all of the Superfund enforcement operations are consolidated into the existing OSWER,
additional issues would need to be addressed concerning the non-Superfund remediation
enforcement programs, such as RCRA correction action.
37
-------
Organizational Approaches
maintain the program and the benefits of programmatic/enforcement integration on
the one hand, and the potential for greater enforcement attention in a larger
enforcement-oriented office and the benefits of Agency-wide enforcement policy
coordination on the other hand.
3. Office of Mobile Sources. A number of commenters identified the
enforcement elements of the Office of Mobile Sources as having an unusually high
degree of integration with the other elements of the mobile sources program. Also
identified by commenters was the fact that the program is a national program that
operates out of Headquarters and relies on the Office of Mobile Sources' Ann Arbor
facility rather than the Regional offices. The current design of the mobile source
program has two major enforcement roles: ensuring compliance with automobile
emission standards and ensuring compliance with fuel and fuel additives
specifications.
Emission Standards Program. Compliance and enforcement activities are linked
to the certification process, which is similar to a permitting process. The
certification is based on testing before production. If a manufacturer does not
comply with a certificate, a remedial action takes place.
Fuel Related Programs. The program issues registrations, waivers, and
regulations that set fuel specification requirements. Commenters indicated that
enforcement of these requirements can be viewed as more traditional
enforcement actions. The Office of Mobile Sources has used informal
administrative actions, and refers cases to the Department of Justice if
agreement cannot be reached. In addition, the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 provided the Agency with formal authority for administrative actions to
strengthen the enforcement authority in the fuels program, as well as other
aspects of the Clean Air Act enforcement program.
For these programs, there is a trade-off between current integration with the
overall program and the advantages of a unified voice on enforcement policy and
strategies.
4. Indian, NEPA, Contractor Listingj Programs. Each of these programs was
identified as one that is not a "traditional enforcement" program and therefore may
not belong in the Office of Enforcement.
a. Indian Program: The program; is currently in the Office of Federal
Activities and is primarily a grantjs and liaison office. The Indian Program
function, as currently configured in the Office of Federal Activities (OFA),
does not perform enforcement activities per se. The program offices
believe, however, that association with enforcement activities has added
38
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
clout to the Indian Program's ability to be implemented in the Regions.
OFA oversees Agency development and implementation of the Indian
Policy and administers the multi-media grant program that has been
developed to ensure equitable environmental protection of Tribal
resources. Currently, Indian Program activities are split between OFA
and the Office of Regional Operations, State/Local Relations (OROS/LR).
OROS/LR performs the same advocacy and coordination function with
Tribal governments as it does with State and local jurisdictions. There
have been suggestions for a single organizational unit to be "in charge"
of the Indian program.
b, NEPA: The office currently consults with and reviews EPA's and other
agencies' compliance with NEPA. While the actions are not traditionally
enforcement in the context of levying a penalty on a violator, the thrust
of the activity here is to ensure compliance by Federal agencies with one
of the most significant environmental statutes.
c. Contractor Listing: This function is currently housed in the Office of
Criminal Enforcement. When a company is convicted of certain
environmental crimes it is "listed" and is unable to contract with the
government. The listing is non-discretionary and takes place as a matter
of law. The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement has the discretion
to remove the party from the list upon a showing of certain statutory
criteria. Similar functions called "Suspension and Debarment" are carried
out pursuant to all statutory authorities by the Office of Administration
and Resources Management (OARM). The Suspension and Debarment
program covers environmental statutory non-compliance across all
media, as well as contractor fraud and other civil and criminal violations.
A Quality Action Team reviewed this issue last year and suggested that
the two offices be combined either in OARM or the Office of
Enforcement.
Regional Organization
Regardless of which organizational approach is selected, it will be necessary to
review and revise communication and reporting channels between the Regions and
Headquarters. It is not yet clear, however, what organizational changes, if any, will
be required in the Regions. The impact in the Regions may vary depending on which
approach is selected.
The Task Force recognizes that what is appropriate for Headquarters may not
be appropriate for the Regions because the two operations perform distinctly different
roles. Although the potential interactions with, and impacts on, the Regions will be
39
-------
Organizational Approaches
evaluated as a part of the decision regarding Headquarters, any decision concerning
Regional organization will be deferred until after the Administrator's Headquarters
decision. The Task Force recommends that the Administrator consult as soon as
possible with the Task Force, Regional Administrators and Headquarters and Regional
staff regarding the appropriate process to examine Regional enforcement organization
issues. If appropriate, a reconstituted group with significant Regional representation
should be formed to more fully examine Regional issues.
Human Resources
Any organizational change brings with it a period of uncertainty and anxiety for
the employees affected. These problems can be offset by clear and consistent
communication, allowing input in decision-making, and a commitment to provide the
necessary training and counseling services.
The Sector and Bio-Resource Approaches would result in the greatest change
in the roles and responsibilities of enforcement employees, and would require more
time to implement. On the other hand, an approach that represents a dramatic break
from the past may capture the imagination of the organization, and some employees
might see exciting opportunities for the development of new skills and new career
paths as the enforcement program adapted to new objectives. The Media and
Functional Approaches probably provide the most certainty.
Strong Management
It will be very important for the new organization to strengthen its attention to
traditional management functions in the areas of budget planning and execution,
extramural resources management, information planning and management, and human
resources management The Task Force also believes that it is extremely important
for legal and technical staff to be integrated in the new organization to the maximum
extent possible. Accordingly, each approach assumes that legal and technical staff
will be integrated in offices at the Branch leyel and below, unless the office finds a
need to separate staff to preserve a critical mass of expertise, or for other compelling
reasons. For example, depending on the organizational approach selected, it may be
desirable to consolidate attorneys in a division or branch to avoid diffusion of expertise
or "over-specialization".
Another critical need of the new enforcement program is to focus on the
capacity needs of the enforcement professionals, including legal and technical training,
and outreach to the States and Regional offices. In each approach, a staff reporting
to the Assistant Administrator would be responsible for meeting enforcement capacity
needs. This would be the home of the National Enforcement Training Institute (NET1).
40
-------
III. Organizational Approaches
Innovative Enforcement
Although the central activities of the new office will be traditional enforcement
work, the Task Force recognizes the advantages and value of the creative approaches
to increase compliance and environmental protection through pollution prevention,
compliance assistance, and voluntary programs. Management needs to emphasize the
importance of these approaches, fully integrate the concepts into the enforcement
program, and work with the media program offices to achieve the maximum results.
The focus for these activities organizationally will be in the multi-media policy offices,
with implementation occurring in the other offices.
Data Systems
The Task Force is aware of the difficulty that any of the reorganization
approaches creates in terms of information systems. An important feature of a
successful enforcement program will be the extent to which enforcement employees
can access the appropriate data in the media offices' information systems, and the
extent to which integrated enforcement systems can be created to serve the new
organization's purposes. The Task Force recommends that the Office of Enforcement
assemble a team of media program, enforcement data management experts, and the
Office of Information Resources Management to address data management, data
integration, data improvements, and roles and responsibilities by media program and
by data system.
41
-------
I. Organizational Approaches
42
-------
IV. Implementation
IV. Implementation
Transition to a New Organization
During the period in which the Agency implements the Administrator's
reorganization decision, it will be essential that: 1) the enforcement program not be
allowed to falter; and 2} the administrative workings of the Agency carry on with a
minimum of disruption. Maintaining enforcement momentum during the reorganization
requires that EPA enforcement offices focus their attention on taking appropriate
actions during the last quarter of this fiscal year and planning, regardless of the new
enforcement organization adopted, to -make certain that FY-94 is a successful
enforcement year.
FY-93 Action
The Task Force stresses that Regional and Headquarters offices must continue
to focus attention on completing the enforcement actions, initiatives, and policies
planned for the final quarter of FY-93. EPA Regional enforcement offices should
continue to compel non-complying facilities to return to compliance with formal
enforcement actions, and use this enforcement activity to deter non-compliance by
other facilities.
Planning for FY-94 Success
Making FY-94 and the succeeding years successful for enforcement requires
strategic planning now by Headquarters and Regional enforcement programs. To
ensure vigorous enforcement during the implementation of the reorganization, EPA
enforcement offices must already be directing their energies toward enforcement
planning, setting enforcement goals, and achieving environmental results. Effective
planning will result in enforcement case work and other enforcement activities that
will ensure enforcement momentum.
In addition to strategic planning, transitional enforcement requires monitoring
the progress of enforcement under the new enforcement organization. The Task
Force recommends that the Assistant Administrator, the management of the new
enforcement organization, Headquarters program office directors, and the Regions
consult regularly to identify and remove barriers to enforcement that might be caused
by the transition to the new enforcement structure. Enforcement progress during
transition should also be monitored through existing tracking systems.
43
-------
IV. Implementation
During the transition, case-specific or broad management issues are likely to
arise. Establishing a mechanism for resolving these issues (e.g.. ombudsman) would
promote more effective and efficient enforcement. In addition, a "crosswalk" would
be helpful to enable Headquarters and Regional personnel to communicate and report
on key program elements within the new enforcement structure. This crosswalk
would provide employees with a roadmap to bridge the old and new structures and
to clearly establish lines of communication and authority for Regional, Headquarters
enforcement, and media program office staff and managers.
Phase II and Beyond
The Technical Support Team identified and addressed implementation issues in
four clusters: administration; budget; human resources; and information management
(Appendix D). Once the final organizational structure is determined, a greater level of
detail will be possible, and additional issues related to specific aspects of the new
structure will emerge. Overall, the Technical Support Team believes that the
implementation issues will vary somewhat among the approaches, but that the
following key issues will need to be addressed regardless of the approach selected.
(1) People and Resources: Decisions will be necessary on the detailed
substructure for the new organization, on which specific functions, workyears,
funding, and people transfer to the new enforcement program, and which remain in
existing organizations. Without these decisions, few implementation actions can
proceed. The timeliness of making these decisions, therefore, directly affects the
timeliness of implementing the reorganization.
(2) Budget; A decision will be necessary regarding how all of the proposed
changes (space, moves, equipment, furniture, telecommunications, etc.) will be
funded. Revisions to the FY-94 Operating Plan will need to be made with the Office
of Management and Budget and the Appropriations Committees, along with
agreements on the restructuring of program elements and Allowance Holders. Prior
to submission to Congress, the proposed FY-SJ5 President's Budget also may need to
be revised to reflect final decisions concerning the reorganized enforcement program.
(3) Delegations of Authority: Decisions will be required regarding the delegation
of enforcement authorities. Nearly 300 existing authorities have been identified for
review; revisions will need to reflect the appropriate location and level of decision-
making under the restructured enforcement program.
(4) Space: Decisions will be required on how much space consolidation is
desirable. The range of decisions includes whether to consolidate on the basis of the
whole new enforcement program, to consolidate only around lower level organizations
44
-------
IV. Implementation
within the new enforcement program, or no consolidation. Different approaches
would impact space considerations differently. Planning for space alterations would
follow these decisions.
(5) Information Resource Management: Decisions will be required regarding
how best to connect the employees in the new organization by LAN and other
telecommunication vehicles so that the new organization can operate efficiently
immediately following the effective date. A long-term planning strategy also needs
to be developed to design integrated information resource management systems with
access by multiple users.
(6) Effective Date: A decision will be required on the effective date of the
reorganization, along with a clear understanding of what would happen on the
effective date, and what would happen at a later date.
Implementation Challenges
The items listed above identify many of the major actions necessary to
implement the reorganization, but this summary description cannot convey all of the
effort required. The decisions that must be made are not easy decisions, and will
involve much time and resources. The significant challenges that lie ahead include the
following:
• Ensuring that affected offices and personnel are treated fairly and
equitably;
• Meeting the Agency's diversity objectives;
• Determining the costs and means of paying for implementation actions;
• Accounting for and monitoring budget reprogrammings;
• Anticipating, identifying, and minimizing impacts on the program offices.
Regions, States, and Tribes; and
• Maintaining the momentum, consistency and fairness of the enforcement
program during the implementation stage.
45
-------
IV. Implementation
Making h Happen
Key Decisions and Next Steps
September 1, 1993: Report to the Administrator
September 7, 1993: Briefing for the Administrator by the Task Force
September 8, 1993: Presentation to the Senior Leadership Council
Week of September 20th: Preliminary decisions by the Administrator
Establish a management decision tqam to determine substructure,
make detailed decisions on functions, employees, and workyears
Determine effective date of implementation
Create a master implementation plan
Decide on space consolidation, funding for space alterations, and
transferrable equipment
Write functional statements for enforcement offices and divisions;
revise media programs' functional statements
Revise the FY-94 and FY-95 budget through OMB and Appropriations
Committees; establish new program elements and allowance holders
Review/revise enforcement Strategic Plan and Agency Operating
Guidance
Revise enforcement delegations of authority
Establish telecommunications and LAN network
Launch strategic planning process for integrated IRM systems for
enforcement
Circulate under Green Border Review
Evaluate the impact of the reorganization on Regional enforcement
operations; determine if a reconstituted Task Force should be formed
to examine Regional issues
46
-------
Appendices
-------
-------
Appendix A
Enforcement Reorganization Task Force Members by Committee
Mike Vandenbergh, Chair
Steve Herman, Ex Officio
Inventory
Sallyanne Harper - Co-Chair (OARM)
Harley Laing - Co-Chair (Region 1}
Anne Lassiter (OW)
Sam Coleman (OSWER)
Mark Greenwood (OPPTS)
Dick Wilson (OAR)
Jerry Clifford (OSWER)
Scott Fulton (OE)
Rich Kozlowski (OW)
Straw Design
Eric Schaeffer - Co-Chair (OA)
Dave Ullrich - Co-Chair (Region 5}
Davina Pujari (OE)
Scott Fulton (OE)
John Rasnic (OAR)
Brian Maas (OW)
Tom Voltaggio (Region 3)
Bruce Diamond (OSWER)
Kathie Stein (OE)
Mike Stahl (OPPTS)
Bill Ross (OSWER)
Mary Smith (OAR)
Jack Lehman (OW)
Public Outreach
Lynne Ross - Co-Chair (OCLA)
Mike Stahl - Co-Chair (OPPTS)
Bob Blanco (OW)
Linda Murphy (Region 1)
Anne Miller (OE)
Margaret Season (OPPTS)
Rafael Deleon (OGC)
Alan Eckert (OGC)
Craig Haas (OAR)
Elyse DiBiagio-Wood (OE)
Agency Outreach
Nell Gales - Co-Chair (OAR)
Rich Kozlowski - Co-Chair (OW)
Bruce Diamond (OSWER)
Elyse DiBiagio-Wood (OE)
Mary Smith (OAR)
Dick Wilson (OAR)
Mark Greenwood (OPPTS)
Chuck Finley (Region 10)
Transition
Charles Breece - Co-Chair (OE)
Bill Rice - Co-Chair (Region 7)
Nancy Marvel (Region 9)
Karen Taimi (OW)
Bob Van Heuvelen (OE)
Bill Ross (OSWER)
Craig Haas (OAR)
Russell Rhodes (Region 6)
A- 1
-------
Appendix A
Coordinating Committee
Richard Brozen (OA) Committee Chair
Craig Hooks (OE)
Al McGartland (OPPE)
Technical Support Team
Earl Devaney - Co-Chair (OE)
Al Pesachowitz - Co-Chair (OARM)
Pat Alberico {OE)
Joe Anderson (OARM)
John Beecher (OARM)
David Chamberlin (OSWER)
John Chamberlin (OARM)
Thorne Chambers (OARM)
Beth Craig (OARM)
Elyse DiBiagio-Wood (OE)
Bob English (OARM)*
Mike Feldman (OARM)*
Mike Hamlin (OARM)
James Handley (NFFE)
Sharon Holmes (OCR)
William Hirzy (NFFE)
Judy King (OARM)
Rich Lemley (OARM)
Carolyn Lowe (AFGE)
John Mullins (OARM)
John O'Brien (OARM)*
Kathy Petruccelli (OARM)
Doris Preston (OARM)
Dan Rondeau (OCR)
Bruce Rothrock (OE)
Don Sadler (OARM)
Chuck Smith (OARM)
Steve Young (OARM)*
* Sub Committee Chairs
A-2
-------
Appendix A
Staff Supporting the Enforcement Reorganization Effort
Joe Anderson (OARM)
Katie Attwood (OARM)
Joan Barnes (OSWER)
Mike Barrette (OA)
Jan Bearden (OPPTS)
Cheryl Bentley (OARM)
Brent Bohn (OARM)
Linda Boornazian (OWPE)
Jim Bower (Region 5)
Walter Brodtman (OW)
Kym Burke (OA)
Anne-Marie Cooney (OAR)
Diane DeWitt (OPPE)
Brendan Doyle (OPPE)
Rodney Elliott (OARM)
Donna Fletcher (OROS/LR)
Peter Fontaine
-------
Appendix B
Current Organizational Charts Highlighting Reported Enforcement Activity
Office of Enforcement
(As of 8/27/93)
As reported by Program, indicates presence or
some amount or enforcement-related functions.
A-4
-------
Appendix B
Current Organizational Charts Highlighting Reported Enforcement Activity
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(As of 8/27/93)
Technology Innovation
Office
Orgaaaatmul Management
and Integrity Staff
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
Office of
Solid Waste
Municipal &
Industrial Solid
Waste Division
Communications,
Analyse & Budget
Division
Waste Management
Division
Permits and State
Programs Division
Characterization
and Assessment
Division
Emergency
Response Division
As reported by Program, indicates presence of
some amount of enforcement-related functions.
A-5
-------
Appendix B
Current Organizational Charts Highlighting Reported Enforcement Activity
Office of Air and Radiation
(As of 8/27/93)
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
Office Of Policy
Analysis and Review
Office of
Radiation
and Indoor Air
Office of
Air Quality Planning
and Standards
Manning and
Management Staff
Office of
Mobile Sources
Air Quality
Management
Division
Emissions
Standards
Division
Technical Support
Division
As reported by Program, indicates presence of
some amount of enforcement-related functions.
Program
Management
Office
Regulatory
Development &
External Affairs
Office
JL
Office of
Atmospheric
Programs
Emission Planning
and Strategies
Division
Regulation
Development
and Support
Division
Program
Management
Staff
Engineering
Operations
Division
Certification
Division
A-6
-------
Appendix B
Current Organizational Charts Highlighting Reported Enforcement Activity
Office of Water
(As of 8/27/93)
Policy and Resources
Management Office
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Gulf of Mexico
Program Office
Municipal
Support
Division
Permits
Division
_L
Ofliceor
Science and
Technology
Budget and Program
Management Staff
Policy and
Communications
Staff
Health and
Ecological Criteria
Division
Standards and
Applied Science
Division
Engineering
and Analysis
Division
_L
Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds
Policy and
Communications
Staff
Budget and Program
Management
Staff
Oceans and Coastal
Protection
Division
Assessment and
Watershed
Protection Division
Drinking Water
Standards
Division
Technical Support
Division
(Cincinnati)
As reported by Program, indicates presence of
some amount of enforcement-related functions.
A-7
-------
Appendix B
Current Organizational Charts Highlighting Reported Enforcement Activity
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(As of 8/27/93)
Assistant Administrator for
* " *T*»«"'ii» rrauuoes ana
Toxic Substances
Office of Program
Management
Operations
Office of Pollution
Prevention
and Toxics
Chemical
Management
Division
Exposure, and
Technology
Division
Environmental
Assistance Division
Health and
Review Division
Chemical
Control
Division
Information
Management
Division
Chemical Screening
and Risk
Assessment
Pollution
Prevention Division
Special
Projects
Staff
Office of Pesticide
Programs
Environmental Fate
and Effects
Division
Special Review and
Reregistration
Division
Biological and
Economic Analysts
Division
As reported by Program, indicates presence of
some amount of enforcement-related functions.
A-8
-------
Appendix C
Site Remediation Programs
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS
1. Policy and Guidance Development and Regional Coordination regarding Issuance, Tracking
and Enforcement of:
A. SF 106 Administrative Order
B. SF 106 Civil Actions Issuance
C. SF 107 Action Issuance
D. RCRA 3008(a) Orders and Civil referrals
E. RCRA 3008(h) Order and Civil Referrals
F, UST and LUST Enforcement Actions
G. RCRA 7003 Civil Referrals
H. CWA SPCC & 311 Spill Enforcement
I. EPCRA (Title III) Enforcement action including Section 313
J. Federal Facilities lAGs
K. PRP Searches
L. Natural Resource Trustee enforcement coordination
2. Applicable portions of budgeting, resource distribution, and contracting for enforcement
programs
3. Enforcement-specific data systems management
NON-ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS
All other parts of existing OSWER, including:
1. Policy Development, Implementation and Regional Coordination regarding:
A. All remediation studies (SF RI/FS, RCRA CMS, Federal Facilities1)
B. All remediation decisions (SF RODs, RCRA SB, Federal Facilities1)
C. All remediation implementation (SF RA/RA, RCRA CMI, Federal Facilities1)
0. RCRA corrective action permitting
E. All SF Removal Cleanups
F. OPA cleanups
G. Federal Facilities base closure and remediation activities1
2. Applicable portions of budgeting, resource distribution and contracting for waste programs
3. Applicable State Superfund oversight and coordination
4. Overall data systems management (CERCLIS, RCRIS etc.)
5. ATSDR, NOAA, DOI, etc. coordination
6. Analytical support and data quality assurance
7. Ecological assessments
8. All technology transfer activities (including Federal Facilities1)
1 From OE/OFFE.
A-9
-------
Appendix D
Implementation Considerations - Phase II
Administration
The substructure of the new enforcement organization must be defined early
in the Phase II process. Structural changes will also be needed in the organizations
from which resources are moved, and these must also be identified: Much of the
process of implementing the reorganization depends upon these decisions, which
include final organizational structure changes; Agency review and approval of the
changes; personnel actions; budget modifications and approvals; and changes to
delegations of authority.
If the decision is made to pursue some level of consolidation of office space for
the new enforcement program, a host of specific decisions must be made, including
which offices will be located where, and what this means in terms of cost, design,
and construction. The Facilities Division cah develop space options, but until final
organizational decisions are made, work cannot begin on establishing permanent
telecommunication and Local Area Network (LAN) systems, meeting furniture and
equipment needs, beginning construction/alteration and physical moves, or planning
for security and transportation needs.
Another administrative action necessary to allow the new enforcement program
to operate effectively is the identification and modification of delegations of
enforcement authorities. The Management and Organization Division has identified
nearly 300 enforcement-related delegations that will need to be modified to
correspond to the new enforcement organizational structure. The ease and timeliness
of modification are dependent upon how closely the levels of authority in the new
organization correlate to existing levels.
Budget
Implications of the new organization on the Agency's budget are crucial issues
that must be analyzed and discussed with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Appropriations Committees early in the reorganization process. The
FY-94 Enacted Operating Plan will need to be reprogrammed to reflect the reorganized
enforcement program's new budget for Program, Research, and Operations;
Abatement, Control, and Compliance; and/or Superfund funding and workyears. This
will involve translating or redefining the Program Elements and Allowance Holders
from the existing structures to the new organizational structure. The complexity of
this reprogramming is dependent upon the correlation of the new structure to existing
organizational units. The FY-94 Enacted Operating Plan is due within 30 days of
enactment of EPA's Appropriations Bill, and the reprogrammed FY-94 Enacted
A -10
-------
Appendix D
Operating Plan must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget and both
Appropriations Committees.
Prior to submission to Congress, the proposed FY-95 President's Budget may
also need to be revised to reflect final EPA/OMB decisions incorporating the
reorganized enforcement program.
Human Resources
Human resource issues are inherent in every reorganization, and are important
concerns of EPA employees. To minimize the anxiety among employees, specific
personnel who are to be moved or otherwise affected by the reorganization should be
identified as soon as practicable. This action is dependent upon the definition of the
organizational sub-structure and identification of affected workyears.
The unions are also very interested in the human resource aspects of any
reorganization. Representatives of the unions have attended and offered comments
at both the full Task Force and Technical Support Group meetings as the process
evolved.
Personnel actions are required to transfer designated managers and staff from
existing structures to the new enforcement structure. The timing of this action is
contingent upon the clarity with which roles and functions are defined, and the ease
with which qualifications of existing personnel can translate into the new roles and
functions.
Once the extent of the movement of functions and personnel to the new
enforcement organization has been determined, it is important to identify and address
the effects these moves have on individuals and organizational units. Management
issues caused by the transfer of resources and personnel to the new enforcement
organization must be addressed.
Information Management
An important part of minimizing disruption to programs is to ensure that
communication is fast and easy. The earliest possible connection of Local Area
Network (LAN)/telecommunications systems for the new organization is crucial for a
smooth transition. At the time the reorganization goes into effect, core LAN and
telecommunication capabilities for key focal points such as managers, staff, and
employees in dispersed physical locations will need to be established in each unit of
the new organization. Focal points will need to be identified early to minimize delays
in implementation. As affected personnel are identified and relocated, all personnel
A- 11
-------
Appendix D
in the new enforcement organization will have to be connected to the LAN and
telecommunications systems. EPA should al$o issue a revised directory of personnel,
and locations, and telephone numbers.
Reorganization of the enforcement program will affect the housing and
maintenance of many important enforcement information systems. A workgroup of
key personnel in the new enforcement program should be established to map out a
five-year strategic plan for enforcement information systems. This workgroup should
ensure that the enforcement mission drives the information system development.
A-12
-------
Appendix E
Acronym Glossary
AFGE American Federation of Government Employees
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System .
CMS Case Management System
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
EMail Electronic Mail
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FAX Facsimile
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
IRM Information Resource Management
LAN Local Area Network
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NET! National Enforcement Training Institute
NFFE National Federation of Federal Employees
IMOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCLA Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
OCR Office of Civil Rights
OE Office of Enforcement
OFA Office of Federal Activities
OGC Office of General Counsel
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPA Oil Pollution Act
OPPTS Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances
OROS/LR Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW Office of Water
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RA/RA Risk Assessment / Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decisions
SF Common Usage for CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act
SIRMO Senior Information Resources Management Officer
SPCC Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures
SRO Senior Resources Official
Superfund Common Usage for CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
UST Underground Storage Tank
A-13
-------
------- |