U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VH MULTI-MEDIA
COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency
Region VII Information Resources Ctr.
7£6 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101-2798
-------
PURPOSE
Although the multi-media concept has been with the
Environmental Protection Agency since the Agency's
inception, the term emerged in the mid-1980's as a
description of a comprehensive approach to compliance and
enforcement activities covering all programs under which
a facility is regulated. One of the major planning
themes of the Agency is to improve multi-media
enforcement. Toward this end, Region VII has developed
a Multi-Media Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. The
Region believes that implementation of this Strategy will
promote an increased awareness of cross-media issues
within both the Agency and the regulated community,
resulting in enhanced protection of human health and the
environment.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Region VII Multi-Media Enforcement Committee was formed
in January 1992 by bringing together section Chiefs representing
the compliance and enforcement portions of the various regional
media programs and requesting that they establish and implement a-,
multi-media compliance and enforcement program in the Region.
In March 1992 the Committee established the following
general objectives for itself:
(1) Develop, implement and coordinate regional multi-media
inspection activities.
(2) Develop, implement and coordinate regional targeting of
multi-media enforcement activities to address specific
geographic areas, pollutants of concern, industries,
companies or facilities with poor compliance histories
across media programs.
(3) Initiate and coordinate settlement of multi-media
enforcement actions between regional program areas.
(4) Develop and oversee multi-media enforcement'actions and
settlements resulting from multi-media inspection or
compliance activities.
Since establishing these objectives the Committee has been
attempting to develop and implement a regional multi-media
compliance and enforcement program within the framework of these
objectives.
The purpose of this strategy is to formalize and specify the
present goals, objectives, responsibilities and activities of the-
Regional Multi-Media Enforcement Committee.
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
The regional Multi-Media Enforcement Committee will be made
up of Section Chiefs representing the compliance/enforcement
sections of the following media programs.
RCRA
Air
NPDES
Drinking Water
Wetlands
TSCA
EPCRA
FIFRA
Superfund
Asbestos
-------
Representatives from Regional Counsel, Environmental
Services Division, the criminal Investigation Division,
congressional and Intergovernmental Liaison, and the Deputy
Regional Administrator will also participate on the Committee.
Coordination with the Public Affairs Office will also occur as
significant issues arise.
The Committee will aeet at least once per month. A
Committee member will be selected to act as Chairperson of the
Committee for a period not to exceed six (6) months. The
Chairperson will be responsible for reserving a meeting room for
each Committee meeting, developing and distributing an agenda and
acting as manager for each meeting. A Vice-Chairperson will also
be selected for the same 6 month period. The Vice-Chairperson
will become Chairperson for the Committee at the end of the 6
month period. At that time another Vice-Chairperson will be
selected. A Committee member will also be selected to be Note-
taker for each meeting. The Note-taker will develop and
distribute notes from each meeting to each Committee member
within 2 weeks of the end of the meeting.
The Committee can decide to develop and appoint members to
participate on Subcommittees to the Committee. These
Subcommittees will work on specific individual projects selected
by the Committee.
-------
MULTI-MEDIA COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
In order to achieve the desired benefits of a multi-media
approach to enforcement, a cross-program approach can be
incorporated into all stages of the enforcement process,
including inspections. The Region has defined the following
strategy for conducting multi-media investigations.
Definition of Multi-Media Inspections
Several types of multi-media investigations have been
defined both regionally and nationally. These are commonly
referred to as level B, C, and D inspections (level A being a
traditional single program inspection). Level B inspections
involve a detailed compliance evaluation for a single primary
program with the addition of a screening evaluation for one or
more secondary programs. Level C and D inspections involve
a detailed compliance evaluation for two or more primary
programs, and may include secondary screening.
Objectives of Multi-Media Inspections
The objectives of multi-media inspections are to:
Obtain a more holistic picture of a facility's compliance
status. This gives the Agency the ability to more
effectively evaluate a facility's environmental management
practices and the impacts of these practices.
Support a cross-program enforcement action; one that more
fully addresses all relevant issues, guards against
duplication of effort, and eliminates the possibility of
individual programs working at cross purposes when
addressing compliance issues at the same facility.
Form a strong base for negotiations by providing more timely
and complete data.
Identify potential supplemental-environmental projects for
use during settlement. "•--
Level B multi-media inspections work toward this end by
allowing field staff to identify the more obvious signs of non-
compliance with other programs administered by the Agency during
the routine execution of a primary inspection. Level C and D
inspections are used as an investigatory tool where the Agency
has determined in advance of the inspection that there may be
significant enforcement issues at a facility in more than one
program area.
-------
Selection of Candidates for Multi-Media Inspections
The Region has implemented a policy of performing level B
screening for at least one secondary program during a percentage
of all enforcement inspections. The decision to select a
secondary program for screening will be based on program input
and inspector discretion. Routine screening procedures and
checklists have been developed, though based on site specific
information, an inspector nay use modified procedures to achieve
the proposed objectives.
Level C and D multi-media inspection candidates will be
selected based on input from all programs. The selection will be
based on the probability of detecting noncompliance through
inspection activity, and on the relative risk of the facility's
operations to human health and the environment. On a practical
level, this will be achieved by considering the following:
compliance history information, federal and state program
candidate identification, risk targeting system information, and
consistency with national or regional enforcement initiatives.
The regional multi-media subcommittee will be responsible for
identifying sources of the above information, and for presenting
lists of potential candidates to the full multi-media enforcement
committee for approval.
Coordination of Level C and D Multi-Media Inspections
Due to the cross-program nature and complexity of level C
and D inspections, effective coordination is critical to
effective implementation of the inspection. During the candidate
selection process, eac.i program will have identified the relative
risk posed by the candidate facility with respect to their
program, i.e. the relative priority of the candidate within the
framework of the program's current inspection targeting process
and the relative probability of detecting noncompliance with the
applicable regulations. Beyond the preliminary agreement to
select the candidate for a multi-media inspection, a decision
must be made as to the program specific objectives, the level of
each program's participation, the resources reguired to meet the
objectives, and the level of state participation and
coordination. ^F
One of the key coordination issues that must be addressed
for multi-media inspections is state coordination. The states
typically will have been consulted by program representatives
during the candidate selection phase. Once final selection has
been made, a preliminary agreement will be reached with state
program personnel regarding the conduct of and responsibility for
any potential enforcement follow-up. Each program will be
responsible for coordinating with their state counterparts.
However, once an inspection team leader has been selected, he/she
will be responsible for confirming that all appropriate state
-------
coordination issues have been resolved prior to conducting the
inspection.
Once a candidate has been selected, and preliminary
agreements have been reached with the state programs, an
inspection team will be identified. Members of the team will be
selected according to program participation, supervisory/
management approval, and special services required. The
inspection team will typically be comprised of ENSV, ARTX, and
state inspectors. A team leader will be assigned from among the
team members either by a consensus of the members or by
management assignment. The team leader will be responsible for
seeing that all cross-program coordination issues are addressed,
all program specific objectives are identified and addressed, and
that all team members understand and agree to their individual
responsibilities. The team will decide whether a coordinated or
consolidated inspection will most effectively and efficiently
meet the activity objectives.
After the inspection, the relevant state programs will be
conracted to develop a final agreement for enforcement
responsibilities based on the inspection results. The inspection
team will provide a comprehensive report of the inspection
findings to the relevant programs and counsel, and will provide
enforcement support as necessary.
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT
Once violations have been documented, the next phase in the
multi-media strategy is coordinated enforcement actions. This
coordination may or may not result in a consolidated enforcement
action by EPA, but the process opens lines of communication not
only within EPA but also between EPA and the States. Attachment
1 identifies the coordinated process in a flow chart.
The first step in enforcement coordination begins within the
individual media programs. Each program in working with their
state counterparts exchange information on significant non-
compliers (SNC). The SNCs could have been found by either state
or EPA investigation and either agency may have the initial
enforcement lead depending on the specific-media enforcement
agreements. All the programs maintain information for the active
SNCs. Therefore, the next step in enforcement coordination is a
complied enforcement report which identifies all the SNCs with
pertinenr information.
Every month, a designated member of the Multi-Media
Enforcement Committee receives from each program a SNC report.
The individual SNC reports identify: Nature of Violation,
Media/Statute Violated, EPA Contact Person, Date Violation was
Found, Date of Initial Enforcement Action, Date of Final Action,
and Current Status. The current status usually indicates who,
EPA or the state, has the lead in the enforcement action. The
person receiving all the SNC reports generates a listing of all
the SNCs in alphabetical order. The purpose of this SNC listing
is to identify facilities in violation of more than one statute,
identify violation trends, or identify candidates for enforcement
initiatives. Monthly, every member of the Multi-Media
Enforcement Committee receives the compiled-regional SNC listing.
Upon receipt, each program reviews to identify SNCs in violation
of other statutes. Communication by programs are made in the
following situations:
1) to another program who has a SNC on the list with the
same name and/or location as the program making the call;
2) to another program who has a_SNC on the list and the
calling program has previous compliance issues with that
SNC.
If SNCs are state leads, the individual programs will inform
their state counterparts of the multi-media violations and the
state may choose to coordinate the multi-media actions among
their own programs. If the case is a potential EPA case which
could be coordinated or consolidated as a multi-media case then
the case is discussed at the Multi-Media Enforcement Committee
meeting and placed on a multi-media case list. Cases on this
list which are part of a national or regional initiative will be
-------
identified as such. For multi-media cases on the list, the
Committee identifies case teams consisting of the program and
CNSL representatives who will be responsible to bring the
specific cases to closure. The first action by the teams are to
confirm the multi-media case decisions and choose team leaders.
If teams determines that multi-media cases whether consolidated
or coordinated are not appropriate for various reasons including
timeliness, the teams provide their recommendation to the ..
Committee for final resolution. The Committee will consider
timing and environmental impacts from the various media when
making a final decision on multi-media cases.
Once EPA multi-media cases have been confirmed, the team
selects and initiates the best enforcement mechanism. Examples
of these mechanisms are a consolidated civil judicial referral,
consolidated administrative complaint, individual administrative
complaints with coordinated settlements, or criminal referral.
Coordinated or even consolidated multi-media cases between
the state and EPA is another option. For these type of cases,
EPA and the state would need to establish a multi-media case team
and follow similar steps that an internal EPA multi-media case
team would complete. Final resolution of multi-media cases will
consider including supplemental environmental projects, deterrent
penalties, and injunctive relief.
Throughout multi-media case resolution period, the Multi-
Media Enforcement Committee will receive monthly updates on the
cases' status from the committee members who have the team
leaders in their programs. In addition, all state counterparts
will be kept apprised of EPA's activities through the normal
respective programs communication, e.g. Air has monthly
conference calls. All multi-media cases will be tracked by CNSL.
-------
MULT I-MEDIA SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
For both multi-media compliance and enforcement activity
there are many different sources of information to be utilized by
EPA and state staff. The information not only provides data in
addition to existing program specific information, but is also
useful for verifying existing information. Listed below are the
different sources and how rhe information could be used.
Enforcement Monday Report - This report is the primary mechanism
for identifying multi-media actions within the Region. All
significant actions as well as inspection information are listed
on the report. Copies of the report are circulated to the Multi-
Media Enforcement Committee. Affected programs discuss companies
with multiple actions prior to the monthly committee meeting. If
it is determined that a potential multi-media action exists, a
recommendation for multi-media action is made to the committee.
Toxic Release Inventory - Data from the toxic release inventory
(TT.I) is used for targeting purposes by cross checking TRI
inrormation with data which has been reported as required by
permits. The data is also used to determine pollution prevention
opportunities by reducing chemical use.
IDEA - Information contained in this system is used to target
inspections based on compliance/enforcement history. The
information is also used for identification of Supplemental
Environmental Proj ects.
Screening Inspections (Level B^ - Information from the screening
inspections is forwarded to the appropriate program for follow-up
inspections if appropriate.
citizen Complaints - Information from citizen complaints is used
to target for-cause inspections.
state Agencies - Information from state databases and records is
used in targeting inspections and cross checking data reported to
EPA. Information is also obtained from state inspection reports
as well as screening checklists. State agencies also refer
complaints to EPA for follow-up. A list of state agencies which
might provide information is identified in attachment 2.
other Federal Agencies - Data bases and records maintained by
federal agencies is useful in targeting inspections and cross
checking information which has been reported to EPA. Information
collected during inspections is also useful for targeting
inspections or settling enforcement actions. Referral of
complaints and information is also used for targeting
inspections. A list of federal agencies which might be sources
of information is identified in attachment 2.
8
-------
Strategic Planning - On-going strategic planning activities will
be considered during all enforcement activities.
Comparison of Inspection Candidates - Inspection candidates are
compared and coordinated between programs to prevent duplication
of efforts. This allows for "joint" (occurring at same time)
inspections at facilities and also promotes information sharing
between inspectors.
Dunn and Bradstreet - This database contains multi-facility, and
financial corporate officers. This data can be used to determine
a company's ability to pay and as a means to determine a non-
compliance history for an individual who is associated with more
than one company.
Other Data Sources - Other sources of information are telephone
books, manufacturing directories and trade journals. These
publications provide possible candidates which can be added to
neutral inspection schemes.
-------
Attachment 1
-------
MULT I-MEDin ENFORCEMENT PROCESS FLOW CHRRT
I ritOGIUlHS 1U StJCs
^v^ - ^x
INTEGRATE
ENFORCEMENT
HONDflr REPOIU
HiENIIFY
Hull HCS
INTER-PROGRflH
COOROINnTION
1 RENDS
DISCUSS POlENTini
MULU-MEDin
COMHJI1EE MEETING
RLL NED/EXISTING SNCs
EXISTING SNCs/INSPECTIONS
NEI SNCi/FILEO CASES
INSPECTIONS/FILED CnSES
HLL CRSES FILED
DEVELOP/ROD
TO REGIONAL
MULT1 MEDin
COSE LIST
IDENTIFY/DEVELOP
TEFIM
1EPM MEMBERS
i r mien
TERM DEVELOPS
DRIES
1ERH MEMBERS
MEET ON
TO DEVELOP
CflSE
SECIION ciuErs PMirr MMI u urnm COHMIIIEE REGULORLY ON simus OF cnsEisi
ILMH DECIDES
ON
ENFORCEMEN!
MECIin»ISHS
_L
UPDnTE
MEG I ONPL
MLU.tl HEPIM
cur-E i.isi
.
•
ISSUE
HULTl-MEDIfl
ENFORCEMENT
nCTIOH
TRUCK (CNSL)
flLL flCTlVE
MULTI-MEDIR
CONSENT ORDERS
RND DECREES
CMECK RMD
CONSIDER OTHER
npFRCPninir
HEPlfl TO
SEI II.EHENI
CONSIDER
SEP/PP/ORSTE
MIHIMI7PTION
IM SETTLEMENT
DOCUMENT
SETTLEMENT
PROVISIONS FPR
FILL flPPLICflBLE
MEDIR
1
-------
Attachment 2
-------
Other State and Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Department of Transportation
Department of Conservation
Highway Patrol
Sheriff's Department
Local Health Department
Disaster Preparedness
Department of Agriculture
State OSHA
Environmental Departments
State Universities
Educational Agencies
Other Federal Agencies
Department of Transportation
Defense/Fraud
FBI
OSHA
Corps of Engineers
Department of Agriculture
Fish and Wildlife
HUD
GAO
Customs
GSA
FAA
Inspector General
------- |