vvEPA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Sponsored By:
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
The Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC
April 9-11, 1996
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP -9 ISS
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Published Proceedings from 1996 National Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Conference
i
FROM: Steven A. Herman
TO: Conferees
I am pleased to furnish you a copy of the Proceedings from the National Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Conference, held April 9-11,1996 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel The
Proceedings were prepared by using speakers' written remarks when available, the notes of
professional note takers present throughout the event, and audio recordings of all sessions.
As I stated at the Conference, through your collective efforts, the Agency's enforcement
. and compliance program has made significant contributions towards providing a cleaner and
healthier environment for all Americana. An overwhelming number of the American people
support the efforts of EPA and the State environmental agencies, and there is no doubt that the
American people want strong environmental protection.
I congratulate each of you for your contribution to the highly successful Conference for
FY 1996. Despite the enormous obstacles this year (e.g., budget cuts, federal government
shutdown, etc.), we have persevered through the adversity in doing our job for all Americans.
ATTACHMENT
Rtcyoltd/lteeyctabte .Printed i^Vtgtta^ 01 Ba«»d Into ^
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................... iv
DAY 1 - IMPLEMENTING A BALANCED PROGRAM .................. 1-1
WELCOME AND OPENING .................................... 1-2
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S ADDRESS
"Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges
in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance" ........................... 1-3
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
"The Future of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Assurance" .......... 1-9
"Challenges for Regional Enforcement and Compliance Assurance" ............ 1-14
PANEL DISCUSSION
"A Balanced Program: Elements and Issues" .......................... 1-17
REMARKS
"The DOJ Perspective on Enforcement and Compliance Assurance" ............ 1-23
PANEL DISCUS$ION
"Using All the Tools: Innovations in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance" ..... 1-26
BREAKOUT SESSION #1
Risk-Based Targeting and Enforcement .............................. 1-33
BREAKOUT SESSION #2
Implementing the Audit Policy
BREAKOUT SESSION #3
Compliance Assistance: Accomplishments and Challenges .................. 1-49
BREAKOUT SESSION #4
Civil Enforcement: Getting Maximum Deterrence and Environmental Results ...... 1-55
BREAKOUT SESSION #5
Brownfields: A New Role for EPA ................................ 1-66
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #6
Measures of Success for a Balanced Program . 1-75
DAY 2- LEVERAGING PARTNERSHIPS FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE 2-1
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
“Cooperative Efforts for Effective Environmentai Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance” 2-2
ADDRESS
“The Evolving EPA/State Relationship” 2-5
PANEL DISCUSSION
“The National Environmental Performance Partnership Effort” 2-9
ADDRESS
“Working With and Serving Our Communities:
Perspectives on Environmental Justice” 2-15
BREAKOUT SESSION #1
Environmental Justice in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2-20
BREAKOUT SESSION #2
Building Capacity for A Stronger Federal/State Enforcement and Compliance Program . 2-28
BREAKOUT SESSION #3
Encouraging Compliance Through Incentives - OC and Regions 2-33
BREAKOUT SESSION #4
Performance Partnership Agreements and Grants 2-47
BREAKOUT SESSION #5
The Region 6 Foundries Initiative: An EPA, State, and Industry Partnership 2-55
BREAKOUT SESSION #6
Sector and Community-Based Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2-71
DAY 3- MANAGING FOR RESULTS 3-1
“Measuring Success: Lessons Learned and Needed Improvements” 3-2
“Our Mission/Our Budget” 3-5
11
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
“What Matters Most: Top Goals for the National Program” 3-7
CLOSING ADDRESS BY THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
“Putting It All Together” 3-16
APPENDIX A - LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
111
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CEQ Council for Environmental Quality
CSI Common Sense Initiative
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOJ Department of Justice
DOT Department of Transportation
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ELP Environmental Leadership Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FOJA Freedom of Information Act
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
HUD Housing and Urban Development
ISO International Standards Organization
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NEIC National Enforcement Investigations Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OC Office of Compliance
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration
P2 Pollution Prevention
POTWs Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPA Performance Partnership Agreement
PPCJ Performance Partnership Grant
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SIC Standard Industrial Code
SNC Significant Non-Complier
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
iv
-------
DAY 1 - IMPLEMENTING A BALANCED PROGRAM
1—1
-------
WELCOME AND OPENiNG
Michael M. Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
April 9, 1996
8:45am-9:OOam
Mr. Stahl opened the proceedings by welcoming attendees to the second annual National
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Conference. He described the Conference as a
gathering of the program’s key managers and staff, as well as State and local officials. He
then introduced himself as the Master of Ceremonies and Moderator.
Mr. Stahl directed the attendees to follow along as he read over the agenda for the next three
days. He introduced the following daily themes as organizational tools for the conference:
Day 1 - Implementing a Balanced Program
Day 2 - Leveraging Partnerships for Enforcement and Compliance
Day 3 - Managing for Results.
Mr. Stahl then described the series of planned panel discussions as having broad
representation from the States and Regions. He explained that break-out sessions were
designed to be interactive.
Mr. Stahl then introduced Steven Herman as an individual who has brought passion,
intensity, and integrity to the enforcement program. He applauded Mr. Herman for trying
new approaches to make the program more effective.
1-2
-------
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR’S ADDRESS
“Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges
in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance”
Steve A. Herman
Assistant Administrator, OECA
April 9, 1996
9:OOam-9:45am
It has been nearly 18 months since we last gathered together here in Washington at the first
National Enforcement Conference. It has been a time of tremendous change, both within our
enforcement and compliance program, and on the overall political landscape. And, on a
personal level, I can say without a doubt that my past 3 years at EPA have been the most
tumultuous in my 19 years of Federal service.
There has, however, been one resounding constant from which there cannot be a greater
motivation for the work we do; the people of this Nation want protection from pollution and
demand enforcement of our environmental laws to ensure that they receive that protection.
The public’s expectation of protection from environmental hazards drives our enforcement
and compliance program. It gives clarity to our mission and our strength is derived from the
overwhelming support of the American people.
Through your collective efforts, the Agency’s enforcement and compliance program has
made significant contributions towards providing a cleaner and healthier environment for all
Americans. Whether by strong criminal and civil cases, swift administrative actions, or
through policies and programs which provide incentives for companies to voluntarily step up
to the mark and confront their environmental problems, enforcement and compliance
assurance works.
Let me give you a few brief examples:
• Last November, we announced a settlement with General Motors under the
Clean Air Act that is resulting in nearly 500,000 Cadillacs being recalled and
refitted with proper pollution control devices. Over 100,000 tons of excess
carbon monoxide fouled the air because of the violations and our enforcement
action is stopping that.
General Motors is fixing the violations, paying the second largest civil penalty
ever under the Clean Air Act, and funding projects which will yield significant
reductions of air pollution in the future. They are doing this in large part
because we assembled an excellent litigation team that was ready to litigate,
and resolved to press for nothing short of prompt and complete compliance. It
was a good action that brought good results, compliance and the benefits of
environmental protection.
1-3
-------
• In June 1995, we settled a Clean Water Act action against ASARCO, a lead
refinery in Omaha, Nebraska. Since 1860, this company had been exposing
people and the environment to toxic pollutants, and since the advent of the
Clean Water Act it has been polluting the Missouri River without a permit.
But as of 1995, because we took an enforcement action against them,
ASARCO is installing water treatment facilities it never had, acquiring
wetlands or wildlife habitat, and doing sampling to ensure that it operates in
full compliance with the law. This too was a good action and the right
reaction, compliance and environmental protection.
These, and other cases, large and small, led to the reduction of thousands of tons of
pollutants being dumped into our rivers and streams, leaked into our soil, and spewed into
our air by violators. High levels of mercury will no longer drain into the Great Lakes and
illegal amounts of sulfur dioxide will no longer pollute the air from the Copper Range
Company in Michigan.
Restoration will now begin on fifteen miles of creeks and tributaries of the Ohio River,
which had been decimated from the effects of abandoned mine wastewater which Southern
Ohio Coal Company had illegally released.
A jury recently convicted a land developer who had flouted the advice of environmental
consultants and filled in approximately 70 acres of wetlands for commercial development.
The preservation and protection of our wetlands is an important part of the Clean Water Act.
It is controversial, but it is crucial. We must be there to enforce the law, and send the
message loud and clear that the government will use all of its authorities, criminal and civil,
to punish violators and protect wetlands.
The public’s right to know about toxic chemicals being released into its communities was
enhanced by the Agency’s Nation-wide Toxic Release Inventory enforcement initiative
against 447 companies last June.
These cases and initiatives work in tandem with new policies which provide incentives to the
regulated community to comply with the law. Last December, we issued the Agency’s
policy which offers incentives to companies to self-monitor, self-report, and self-correct.
Monitoring, disclosure, correction, and prevention, these are concepts which the policy takes
to large and small companies. We have stood for the public’s right to know and rejected the
concepts of secrecy and immunity. We have insisted on corporate accountability.
Already, over fifty companies of all sizes have made disclosures to the Agency under our
policy. These disclosures will result in prompt resolution of disputes, correction of
environmental problems, and prevention of others. We are also about to issue a final policy
on compliance incentives for small business.
1-4
-------
Together, these and other policies recognize that results are the bottom-line, and that
environmental results are best achieved when violations and problems are revealed to the
public and the regulators. These policies recognize environmental results are maximally
achieved when a company monitors its own pollution practices and when those who come
forward to correct their violations are treated differently (i.e., better than those who abuse
the public trust).
In sum, maximum environmental results are achieved when business and government operate
in the open and when the Agency moves swiftly and strongly against those who choose to
break the law.
Our successes are indeed widespread. From civil, criminal, and administrative enforcement
actions, the Environmental Leadership Program, CSI, Excel, and Envest, to policies that
encourage self-disclosure or the use of SEPs, to the impending opening of National
compliance assistance centers, there is much for us to be proud of.
This review should come as no surprise to you, as these actions, policies, and
accomplishments are the result of your and your staff’s work, and the partnerships we have
developed with the States and tribes.
Americans are literally breathing easier because of our work and the American people want
more from us, not less. Indeed, polls which show Americans generally want less
government intervention, show the opposite when it comes to environmental protection.
But these achievements are not happening in a vacuum, nor are they guaranteed. They are
the result of an enforcement and compliance program whose sole purpose is to bring about a
cleaner and healthier environment through ensuring compliance with our environmental laws,
doing whatever it takes, in the most effective, efficient, and fair way possible.
Nearly two years ago, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance was created,
and since then, the Agency has used new compliance assistance programs, and compliance
incentive policies--not to replace our traditional enforcement program, but to supplement,
enhance, and strengthen our enforcement program.
In order to stimulate the integration of these approaches into the mission of the enforcement
and compliance assurance program, I have spoken about balance, and a continuum of actions
from which we can now attack violations. I have tried to emphasize that we are not an
“either” “or” program. It is not “compliance” or “enforcement.”
We have many options at our disposal and we can use them all. The problem of
noncompliance has many faces, and there is no single solution or approach which can
eliminate this problem. Only a combination of approaches will be effective. These
approaches feed off each other. A strong traditional civil and criminal enforcement program
is necessary to give credibility to the compliance incentives approach.
1-5
-------
Much of the rhetoric and discussion over the past 18 months has been on changes and on our
new compliance tools. I think this emphasis was necessary and essential to affect change and
to initiate something new. However, I want to say simply, and as clearly as I can, strong
enforcement cannot be replaced, and a strong compliance program cannot succeed without
strong enforcement.
There is no substitute for the ability of vigorous enforcement to level the playing field for
those who comply with the law. Polluters cannot be ceded an advantage in the marketplace.
Pollution havens cannot be tolerated. There is no substitute for the ability of vigorous
enforcement to deter future violations, sending a strong message that polluters will pay, both
in cash and in public perception.
This has been a tough year for the enforcement program, and for the Agency as a whole.
Budget uncertainties and cuts have decreased the number of inspections. The government
shutdowns and furloughs have cut into our productivity and our ability to protect the public.
But through it all, the public’s support for our work has not wavered, the public’s
expectation of a safe and clean environment has not changed, and the public’s right to be
protected from those who violate our environmental laws has not diminished. That
protection must be assured by an enforcement program which uses all of its administrative,
civil, and criminal authorities to stop violators in their tracks.
One of the most exciting, challenging, and potentially rewarding efforts we have undertaken
over the past 18 months has been to create real partnerships with the States. I am pleased
that the second largest contingent at this conference are State enforcement and compliance
officials and staff. The Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, and I have worked
extremely hard over the past three years to make the concept of partnership a working
reality. I am proud to say that our Office’s relationship with the individual States and
through organizations like ECOS and NAAG, just to name two, are in many ways better than
ever. That is not to say that the relationship is not without its stresses and strains. In many
ways we’ve had a honeymoon during which we have pledged respect and partnership (that’s
love between the States and Federal government), but now is the tough time, actually living
and working together. Deciding who walks the dog in the snow and who tells the kids to
behave. Deciding when to discipline and when to nurture. We are working out the
State/Federal vision of these questions in several ways including the performance partnership
negotiations. This is an ongoing process and frankly both sides have a lot to learn.
These discussions must be marked by a recognition of the valid and essential role that the
Federal government must play if our country is to have a sensible, cohesive, and equitable
environmental protection policy. The Federal government must recognize that it can’t do it
all, that it’s good that it can’t do it all, and that the States can do many things faster and
more efficiently than the Federal government. Finally, the performance partnership
negotiations and our routine interactions must somehow break even further from stereotypes
and political sloganeering. From my own personal experience and involvement with
commissioners and attorneys general, on a very regular basis, I know this can be done.
1-6
-------
The reality is pollution does not recognize State boundaries, and companies are no longer
regional--they are often National in scope and operation. Working with the States and tribes,
we will continue to target companies whose violations foul the environment and strain the
health of people living in several States.
We will continue to focus on risk, moving swiftly against violators whose behavior shows no
regard for the safety of their neighbors and the environment. We will continue to establish
National priorities for enforcement and compliance assurance, working directly with the
States, tribes, and localities to make sure that our resources are directed to where they can be
used most effectively.
Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about environmental justice. Last summer, the
Administrator decided to place the Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice within the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Both environmental justice and
environmental enforcement are bottom-line programs, what matters are results.
I expect that in the next week or so, the Agency will be issuing its final Environmental
Justice Implementation Plan. That plan is not about what we say, but what we do.
Everyone should read and understand it because everyone of us is ultimately responsible to
the American people for ensuring that there is equal protection under the environmental laws.
We will always work to make sure that no American--no matter where he or she lives, no
matter what the color of his or her skin, and no matter what the size of their paycheck or the
political clout that they wield--disproportionately suffers from the effects of pollution and
environmental violations.
Earlier, I mentioned what a difficult 18 months this has been for all of us at EPA. We have
gone through major reorganizations at Headquarters and the Regions. We have emphasized
new ways of doing business, measuring our success, and strategic planning. We have tried
to initiate and implement numerous innovative ideas; ideas that others had merely talked
about for years we are doing it. We have tried, and are still trying, to create partnerships
with the regulated community at a time when significant portions of that community are
working in Congress and in State legislatures to gut environmental protection. We have
tried, and are trying, to build true partnerships with the States at a time when some State
officials do not recognize any legitimate role for the Federal government. We have been
vilified in Congress as the gestapo, as an agency out of control. We’ve been shutdown,
we’ve been opened, we’ve been shutdown again. We’ve been operating without a budget
and without the ability to do serious long-term planning.
And what’s the result? We are heading into this spring stronger than ever. Public support
for EPA, and the enforcement program in particular, is stronger and more intense than
anyone, especially our critics, ever imagined. There is no doubt that the American people
want vigorous environmental enforcement. They want facilities inspected, they want
violators and polluters to pay stiff fines, and they want environmental criminals to go to
1-7
-------
prison. They want polluters to pay for the damage they cause. They want their cop on the
beat protecting them.
Strong enforcement means ensuring that our partnerships with the States are true
partnerships. Negotiations on the new performance partnerships must be carried out with
parity, mutual respect, and a recognition of the legitimate and necessary role of the Federal
government.
Strong enforcement means ensuring that our new partnershipswith industry, such as XL,
CS!, ELP, are true partnerships. That means a relationship where each party recognizes the
responsibilities and obligations under the law. That every party recognize that the overriding
purpose for these efforts is to create a cleaner and safer environment; it is not a vehicle to
give industry dispensation from the law or a free ride. Finally, it is not to shift burdens and
risks of experiment to the public. It is our job, through our enforcement response policies
and their execution, to ensure that the public is not left holding the bag--the public must be
protected. Our partnerships must have responsibility, parity, mutuality, and, most of all,
accountability to the public.
None of this is easy, especially when we are under political assault and we do not have a
budget. But we are doing the right thing, we are taking risks, we are being gutsy, and we
must not retreat.
You are responsible for the Agency’s enforcement program. Enforcement of the laws is the
core function of EPA. Questions have been raised about where enforcement fits in the
Agency’s new way of doing things. It fits right in the center; the new ways of doing
business depend on a strong enforcement program. It means not shirking from bringing
strong enforcement actions. Remember, there will always be critics of our actions
(Jx)lluters), but we should not be defensive. The important thing is that the public understand
why we have taken any action. We shouldn’t be afraid to take controversial actions because
of the political climate. For example, if there’s a wetlands violation that merits Federal
action, well than we should and must act. If we lay low to protect the statute, there won’t be
any wetlands left to protect in the end.
It means being willing to be bold and creative in trying to push environmental protection
forward, where we have not necessarily been before, but forward in a way the public will
know we are watching out for them. It means we must take risks and it means sometimes
we will have to try again.
We are the ones who must deliver for the American people. There is no doubt that they
trust us. They want us. They depend on us. We must reward that trust. The public
expects it of us and we can expect nothing less of ourselves. I know we will. Thank you.
1-8
-------
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
“The Future of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Assurance”
Carol M. Browner
Administrator, EPA
April 9, 1996
9:45am-1O:3Oam
I want to thank Steve Herman for that introduction. It is a pleasure to join all of you here
today.
Twenty-five years ago, this nation joined together--citizens, businesses, government,
Democrats and Republicans--in a bipartisan commitment to protect our health, the air, the
water, the land we all share. And together we have made a great deal of progress--progress
of which we can all be proud.
The progress of the past 25 years would not have been possible without an unwavering
commitment to aggressive enforcement of environmental laws. Under the leadership of
President Clinton, that commitment continues.
Three years ago, when President Clinton and I came to Washington, we were determined to
build on the successes of the past 25 years, to solve the problems of today and meet the
challenges of tomorrow.
Working together, over the last three years, we have laid the groundwork for a new
generation of environmental protection, a new generation of environmental enforcement that
will protect every citizen from pollution caused by the violation of environmental laws.
We began by consolidating a fragmented enforcement program into a single organization.
This new organization came together and created a new, common-sense approach to
enforcement--one that combines a strong civil and criminal program with compliance
incentives and compliance tools that help small businesses and communities comply with
public health protections.
We focus our enforcement resources on those violations that are likely to pose the highest
risks.
We seek environmental justice by focusing attention on communities that have borne more
than their fair share of pollution.
Our Common Sense Compliance incentives for small business will waive or reduce penalties
for first-time violations who agree to fix the problems. We would rather see the money
1-9
-------
spent to solve the problems, prevent pollution. And our Compliance Assistance Centers are
helping them do it.
Our flexible compliance policy for small communities helps these communities target their
resources to address their most pressing environmental needs.
Our Environmental Leadership Program, our incentives for self-policing, and Project XL are
all exciting new approaches to help companies go beyond compliance and get the very best
environmental results.
All of these initiatives are helping us to use a great variety of tools, and use them well, to
protect public health and safeguard our air, our water, and our land.
But no mistake: New compliance initiatives do not in any way replace strong, effective
enforcement actions. Their role is to complement enforcement. Compliance incentives and
compliance assistance cannot work without an aggressive enforcement effort.
For polluters, for those who carelessly disregard their responsibility to protect our air and
water, the public has every right to demand that their government take swift, aggressive
enforcement action. And EPA will take that action.
Those in the private sector who do take the time and make the investment necessary to meet
public health and environmental standards have every right to demand that they not find
themselves subject to unfair competition from a competitor who disregards environmental
laws and pollutes the public’s resources. And EPA will not allow that disregard of the law.
If the environmental cop is not on the beat, we will not maintain the gains of the past 25
years. Strong, vigorous enforcement is essential to protect the American people.
That is why our groundbreaking enforcement actions are so important:
• The General Motors case, in which EPA forced the recall of nearly a half-
million Cadillacs and payment of an $11 million fine.
• Our first sector-wide enforcement agreement, in the natural gas processing
industry.
• The multi-media case against Marine Share Processors in Region 6--sending a
clear message that pollution does not pay.
• The Copper Range case in Region 5, a multi-media action taken in concert
with several tribes and States, resulting in significant air quality improvements
and the payment of a multi-million-dollar fine.
1-10
-------
• The case settled last Friday against Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Facility here
in this area--which will control the largest single source of wastewater into the
Chesapeake Bay.
The American people continue to want strong, effective protection of public health and our
environment--because the job is not done.
Many of you have heard me talk about the 40 percent of our rivers, lakes, and streams that
are still not suitable for fishing or swimming.
You have heard me talk about the 30 million people who got their drinking water in 1994
from systems that have violated public health standards in the past year.
You have heard me say that one American in three still lives in an area where the air is too
polluted to meet Federal health standards.
You have heard me say that one American in four still lives near a toxic waste dump.
These numbers are more than statistics. These are the realities that brought you and me to
work in public service. Real people in real communities expect this Agency to find the
violations, to enforce the laws, to stop the pollution of their air, their water, their land.
We all recognize that this has been a difficult year and a half. We’ve had a major national
reorganization of our enforcement program and several regional organizations--new
directions--new policies to assimilate--a dynamic State/Federal relationship. Our laws are
under assault by Congressional leaders. Environmental enforcement is under assault.
I know that during this difficult time, you have had to make difficult choices and operate
with continuing uncertainty.
And the battle is not over--not on Capitol Hill, not in our State legislatures.
But let this be clear. These efforts to roll back public health and environmental protection
have not succeeded, and they will not succeed. This Administration has not been deterred,
and we will not be deterred, in our efforts to protect the people of this country.
President Clinton has said he would not be a party to a rollback of public health and
environmental protection. The President has stood by that commitment. And this
Administration will continue to uphold our commitment to protect the health of the people of
this country and our natural resources.
You are the leaders of the nation’s environmental enforcement program. President Clinton,
Vice President Gore, and I--and the citizens of this nation--are depending on each one of you
to maintain the environmental gains of the past 25 years by running an aggressive, strong
1—11
-------
enforcement program. Nothing less is acceptable to me. Nothing less should be acceptable
to any of you.
Let us continue to work together to protect our health, our neighborhoods, our cities, our
economy--so that all of us and our children and our grandchildren can enjoy a healthy and a
prosperous life. Thank you.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: What is the status of the National Goals Project?
Ms. Browner: The goal of this project is to establish a set of national goals by which we
can measure work and progress. EPA is currently working to complete the project document
and is making sure that all comments have been received and have been taken into account.
Previous efforts have not resulted in the articulation of goals at a level of specificity that
makes it a real tool for measuring compliance. For example, a goal of full implementation
of the CAA is something we all work towards, but it has to be broken into a set of
milestones in order to measure progress.
It is a very difficult and important task to accomplish. As a country, we need a set of shared
goals. We need to be able to explain to the public what is being done and that they can be
informed of progress on an annual basis. States have been doing this and have had some
tremendous success already in terms of identifying goals and developing milestones for
measuring progress. EPA’s commitment is to begin to develop the milestones and to
measure the progress.
This could become a document to help guide Congress. They have been supportive of this
project and may consider using this document as guide for making budget decisions.
Question: A lot of us work on the CS! and Project XL and are frequently asked, “Where
are they going in the long term?” Could you give us your vision on where we are going in
the long term with CS! and Project XL?
Ms. Browner: CS! and place-based environmental protection are the two cornerstones to
how we will do the standard setting and compliance aspects of our job. If you look what has
been accomplished in the past 25 years, it has generally been a result of one standard being
applied across the board that did not take into account all media. What we need to do in the
future is to recognize that we have to understand that there are differences among sectors and
be willing to work on a sector-by-sector basis. This is a fundamental change of how we do
our work.
1-12
-------
What needs to be understood about these programs is that they take more time up front to be
successful and that they take a lot of dialogue and learning. At the CS! meetings, a level of
trust and shared knowledge is being developed between communities and industries. This is
an example of the progress being made. When we can work together with a common vision,
better decisions will be made and better solutions identified.
We need to recognize that we have addressed the simple problems over the past 25 years,
and now we have to deal with the more difficult problems. We need to be willing to do
things differently and involve all people that have to live with the consequences of the
decisions. If we don’t, then all we can hope for is incremental improvements at best. CS! is
about doing our job in a different way. Project XL is about saying to those individual States
and communities that if they already know of a better way to accomplish something, then let
EPA work with them. It Is anticipated that in the next decade, the work we do, in terms of
standard setting, will largely be done on an industry-by-industry and place-by-place basis.
That is how we can obtain the best answers and the greatest improvements in terms of public
health and environmental protection.
Comment: While these new initiatives/new directives to work with industry are important
and necessary, they generally apply to 80% of the sector. One of the concerns is that we
need to safeguard against the other 20% that is not willing to work with EPA. There is a
concern that a lot of the programs are being tailored to the 80%, but we have to recognize
that there is a cost to implementing and enforcing against the other 20%. As we build in
flexibility, (e.g., annual average of standards, bubbling of whole area) we need to have
advocates for managing the 20% population.
Ms. Browner: The Administrator agreed with the member of the audience. There is
definitely a percentage of the population that want to comply or go beyond standards, but
equally significant are the “bad actors.” That is your job as enforcement program managers
to implement the checks and balance system. As we move towards allowing greater
flexibility in an effort to find better solutions, the enforcement checks and balance system
becomes even more important. It is why we have fought so hard to maintain a strong
enforcement program.
A strong enforcement program is absolutely essential. We cannot ignore that there are bad
actors or competitors that don’t follow the rules. We have to recognize that facilities are not
the same, and we need to be able to address each type.
Some facilities are eager to go forward and comply and even go beyond standards. For these
types, we need to encourage innovation. Some want to be told exactly what to do and for
these types we need to provide steps to follow. There are some facilities that will cut corners
and will ignore the requirements and for these types we need to be able to enforce
requirements.
1-13
-------
“Challenges for Regional Enforcement and Compliance Assurance”
John P. DeVillars
Regional Administrator, Region 1
April 9, 1996
1O:45am-11: lSam
Region 1 is trying to advance excellence in environmental management and stewardship and
effective enforcement on the regulated community with the use of enforcement and pollution
prevention tools. Mr. DeVillars discussed four specific areas currently being worked on by
Region 1:
• Cultural and organizational changes currently taking place at Region 1
• A need to measure success by focusing on results
• Building partnerships with the regulated community in order to foster more
responsible environmental stewardship
• Continuing strong, targeted enforcement based on lessons learned.
In presenting the successes of the enforcement program, Mr. DeVillars provided the
following examples of measurable signs of environmental improvement resulting from strong
enforcement actions:
• A few years ago, the Boston Harbor was the dirtiest harbor in America with
5000 lbsfday of toxic waste being discharged. Today there are 500 lbs/day of
waste being discharged, and porpoises and seals are returning.
• In the Naragannsett Bay, white flounder and seals are returning this year.
• Air quality has improved in New England in part from a $1.5 million penalty
assessed against General Electric.
• Approximately 40,000 acres of shellfish beds were re-opened this year.
• The number of days per year that exceed air quality standards in the Region
were reduced from 50 to 12.
There have been approximately 60,000 enforcement actions taken by the Agency since 1972,
with approximately $620 million in administrative and judicial penalties collected. These
enforcement actions have resulted in environmental improvements over the past 25 years.
1-14
-------
However, today’s environmental problems are more complex than ones faced over the past
25 years; this has made the identification of their source and subsequent control more
difficult. The challenge of addressing these problems is faced during difficult times (e.g.,
assault from Congress).
The Agency realizes changes are needed to address the future challenges, and Region 1 is
working in four areas to address these challenges:
Cultural and organizational change - The Region is positioning itself both by
structure and attitude to do the job differently; the old way is leading to
diminishing returns. In terms of the structure and culture of the office, Region
1 flattened its organization and mirrored it after the Headquarter’s
reorganization. It brought enforcement and compliance assistance together into
one office, the Office of Environmental Stewardship. The Region has
modified management discipline. The information system used by senior
management in Region 1 to monitor progress, set goals, and to measure
performance was deemed inferior. A system based upon results has been
introduced. Thirty-five key initiatives were established where revised goals
and measures of performance have been introduced. Also, there is a need to
better identify and reward excellence, achievement, commitment, and
innovation. The Region has recognized the need to invest in its workforce.
This new approach (e.g., pollution prevention and community based programs)
to enforcement requires learning new skills. Region I is increasing investment
in training even at a time when budgets are tight.
• Measuring results (defining objectives and measuring the progress towards
them) - The more measures are based on what the public understands and
accepts, the more successful the program will be. An example is the Charles
River Project. Region 1 set a goal of making the Lower Charles fishable and
swimmable by the year 2005. When enforcement is linked to such tangible
goals, the public is more inclined to support it. In addition, PPAs can be
tremendous opportunities to build public support by setting common goals and
then measuring subsequent progress. The public participation component is an
important part of the agreement and the public should play a role in forming a
contract. Illinois and Delaware are examples of States that have been
including the public in the PPA process.
• Partnerships with the regulated community - This involves communicating
effectively with the regulated community to educate and empower them to be
better environmental citizens. The Agency needs to recognize that establishing
rules and not providing assistance does not work. For example, Maine and
New Hampshire metal platers (small shops of 20 to 25 employees) might not
understand the full extent of the regulations. Region l’s approach is to first
conduct pollution prevention assessments of these facilities and to provide
1-15
-------
technical assistance without enforcement (not excluding criminal enforcement).
The Maine Metal Product Association, which is supported by Region 1, has
become involved in working with the metal platers. All of the six metal
platers audited are implementing pollution prevention, and some are seeing
significant reductions in toxic chemical use and waste generation. This
approach allows the industry to do the right thing first; then, if necessary,
EPA can take enforcement actions. This approach is proving to be successful.
Another aspect of partnering that Region 1 is working on is the Environmental
Leadership Program. EPA has tailored the national program to create
incentives for industry to aspire to and achieve better environmental
performance. The program, organized around the Common Sense Initiative
(CS!), targets printers, metal platers, electronic manufacturers, and small
municipalities. Region 1 has begun a series of dialogues with the parties on
how to work together to achieve effective stewardship. An example of Region
l’s efforts in this area is the Gillette project. The Region requires Gillette to
meet standards of environmental performance and allows a third party to
certify that these standards are being met. In turn, Region 1 will agree to
change certain rules (e.g., one consolidated permit instead of 30, change
reporting requirements). Region 1 will be working with 10 other facilities in
May 1996 to provide this alternative track so that enforcement and community-
based personnel can be redeployed to higher priority work.
• Strong. targeted enforcement - This involves making “the carrot” attractive,
but using the “stick” if necessary. Over the few past years, there has been too
much enforcement and not enough pollution prevention and compliance
assistance efforts. However, the climate for pollution prevention is good only
if there is a strong enforcement presence. Currently, resource cut backs are
affecting enforcement at the State level and EPA should not walk away from
enforcement functions. To make the best of its resources EPA needs to (1)
focus on violations where environmental impact is the greatest; (2)
communicate more effectively on enforcement taken; (3) use lawyers more
effectively; and, (4) use SEPs.
In summary, Mr. DeVillars noted that these are hard times for the Agency, especially for
enforcement programs. If the four areas are focused on, the Agency will become stronger.
1-16
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
“A Balanced Program: Elements and Issues”
April 9, 1996
11:l5am-12:lSpm
Panel Leader: Sylvia Lowrance, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Panelists: John Cruden, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Justice
John DeVillars, Regional Administrator, Region 1
Steve Thompson, Deputy, Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality
Sylvia Lowrance
Ms. Lowrance began by emphasizing that enforcement is the front line for protecting the
public and the environment. It is the place to be in this era of change; the opportunities in
the enforcement program are in some ways more difficult than elsewhere in the
environmental movement. Ms. Lowrance pointed out that the only limit on the enforcement
program is everyone’s imagination and desire to innovate; thus, the sky is the limit when
everyone uses their creative energy. Ms. Lowrance observed that innovations are being
made in the enforcement program. In continuing the themes of the morning sessions, Ms.
Lowrance noted that the panelists would share their experiences and perspectives on new
directions in national and State enforcement programs.
Ms. Lowrance commented on the meaning of new directions. To some, balance refers to the
amount of resources to dedicate to new directions. Others consider it a roles issue in terms
of the role of compliance assistance versus traditional enforcement. Although the
management issue is more complex today due to the changing Federal/State relationship, Ms.
Lowrance sees the two as mutually dependent. In recapping Steve Herman’s earlier
presentation, Ms. Lowrance emphasized that the compliance assistance program cannot exist
in absence of a strong and innovative enforcement program, since incentives and deterrence
are both important parts of the program. The goals of the enforcement program include
protection of public health and provision of a level playing field. In addition, the Federal
government needs to be there to address interstate problems and to back up States as they
face bouncing budgets. EPA is not running a traditional enforcement program; innovations
include EPA’s policies on SEPs, penalties, enforcement response, and audits.
1-17
-------
The importance of EPA’s role is evident by looking back one and a half years when the new
Congress attempted to amend environmental laws and roll back important environmental
protections gained over the past twenty years. What happened at that time did not just affect
government; corporate budgets were cut and law firms saw their business decline. Industry
did not think that EPA would maintain a strong and vigorous enforcement program once the
laws were changed, but that was not the case. Ms. Lowrance noted EPA’s importance in
maintaining a balance in the corporate world.
Although how to achieve a balance is not always clear, compliance assistance is needed for
two reasons. First, it is a very good tool for small businesses. A congressional bill on small
businesses recognizes that small businesses should be treated differently. Second, often
hands-on assistance is required with the development of new rules. In building a strong
compliance assistance program over the next 3-4 years, EPA needs to be prepared to try
many things and expand those that work. Ultimately, it is a management issue of
determining how to combine tools so as to maximize compliance with environmental laws
through careful use of scarce resources.
John Cruden
Mr. Cruden began by encouraging EPA participants to meet the many Assistant Chiefs and
Section Chiefs of DOJ’s Environmental Enforcement Section attending the Conference. In
describing his recent vacation to the Everglades where he saw a number of endangered and
threatened species, Mr. Cruden emphasized EPA’s importance, particularly in the Everglades
which is dependent on water quality.
In noting his commitment to a strong enforcement presence, Mr. Cruden expressed support
for the innovations and new directions in the program. Everyone that works in enforcement
is the engine that drives the train of environmental preservation, activism, and conservation.
Although there are many parts to the train, the engine that moves it all forward is an
effective enforcement program. Despite the budget problems, the American public expects
environmental enforcement to move forward. A recent survey by a non-profit group found
of 61 % people polled that described themselves as conservative, 3 to 1 stated they wanted to
see more enforcement by EPA, particularly in the air and water programs.
Mr. Cruden pointed out that one of the reasons as to why the engine of environmental
enforcement must move forward is the effect enforcement has on deterrence. An example is
a criminal case in Ohio against tugboat owners that were dumping oil and waste into the
Ohio River. The Coast Guard and boat owners have noted a dramatic decline in the oil
sheen on the Ohio River. This is due to EPA being out there enforcing the laws and sending
a strong message. The pulp and paper industry offers another example of where a series of
actions by EPA has resulted in a dramatic effect on industry. EPA and DOJ have begun to
place press releases on the Internet, something which drives compliance.
1-18
-------
Mr. Cruden expressed his thanks to the Conference participants for their commitment to
enforcement during these difficult times. In commenting on a number of recent successful
cases and developments, Mr. Cruden emphasized the $169 million consent decree entered in
the Love Canal case. Moreover, the Region 5 case against Southern Ohio Coal Company
has resulted in extraordinary environmental restoration. Each time a press release is issued,
the engine that drives the train pulls the other cars forward, including the cars for pollution
prevention and voluntary compliance.
In applauding the work of the enforcement program, Mr. Cruden pointed out that he wants to
see more. Just knowing that the enforcement program is out there has an effect on industry.
As an example, he asked rhetorically how many people would submit their taxes by April
15th, if at all, if the Internal Revenue Service did not exist. Mr. Cruden pointed out that as
part of the enforcement program, the message must be sent out that all companies are being
held to the same standard and, thus companies can successfully compete on a level playing
field.
Mr. Cruden listed a number of challenges for the enforcement program:
• Better use of inspection resources, including better use of information
gathering tools
• Focus on demonstrable actions based on environmental harms and risk
• Increase coordinated, joint actions with States
• Speed up the case filing process, particularly since DOJ has successfully dealt
with the backlog.
In closing, Mr. Cruden suggested that the participants examine the recent Bond bill on small
businesses. In addition, he emphasized reading the two recent Supreme Court decisions: the
KFC case (a 7002 RCRA case) and the Seminole case (although not an environmental case, it
raises the issue of individuals suing States). In commending the enforcement program, Mr.
Cruden pointed out that he would like to see more referrals in the next year.
Steve Thompson
Mr. Thompson thanked OECA for inviting Oklahoma to participate in the Conference and
expressed his appreciation to Administrator Carol Browner and Region 6. On Friday, April
12th, Oklahoma would become the sixth State to sign a Performance Partnership Agreement
with EPA. The past three years have seen a movement for the better to develop the
Federal/State relationship, and Mr. Thompson noted Oklahoma looks forward to this new
relationship.
1-19
-------
Oklahoma’s environmental enforcement policy incorporates the following six concepts:
• Ensuring strong, swift, and sensible enforcement and making clear through
examples stringent enforcement of the laws. A strong enforcement presence
and policy are critical for pursuing compliance with environmental laws.
However, enforcement and compliance assistance are a means; the end is
compliance with the law. Enforcement provides the umbrella that allows the
compliance assistance program to exist and be successful. Although
compliance assistance is not as glamorous as enforcement, it is hard work due
to the challenge in building trust. The benefit of building the trust, however,
is that the result may be long-term compliance by a facility.
• Target for maximum environmental benefits. In order to preserve the integrity
of the regulatory program, Mr. Thompson pointed out that if you engage in
targeting, you must make sure that you hit the target; otherwise the program
may be damaged. Most targeting is generated in Oklahoma through citizen
complaints.
• Expand the enforcement prioritization system. This means conducting place-
based and facility-based inspections.
• Creative use of environmental authorities. This includes pollution prevention,
ordering environmental audits, and SEPs.
• Expand enforcement communication efforts, including increase targeted
communications and outreach. As an example, Oklahoma issues permits to
gas compressor stations. If the State can automate permit issuance, the intent
is to provide targeted outreach to those compressor stations. This targeted
outreach would include providing information on what is required of them for
compliance, provide an amnesty period to bring them into compliance, and
then conduct joint inspector and facility training, as well as follow-up with
routine inspections.
• Improve the State’s relationship with the Federal government, particularly by
obtaining assistance in technical training and difficult enforcement issues.
John DeVillars
Mr. DeVillars observed that the title of the panel is a “balanced program.” Although
enforcement is important, Mr. DeVillars suggested that Conference participants also focus
throughout the Conference on compliance assistance and pollution prevention, both of which
are important parts of the equation. Whereas the Agency has too few people in enforcement,
1-20
-------
it has even fewer in pollution prevention. Mr. DeVillars emphasized the need for the
Agency to reinvest people in pollution prevention.
Mr. DeVillars also noted that there is a fear of alternative approaches within the Agency.
Although there has been progress, it is taking too long to move through the transition and,
thus the Agency needs to be less risk averse. He concluded by commenting on the Seminole
decision. The decision appears to cut away the individual citizen’s rights to ensure
appropriate stewardship by State government; this means that the Agency must be willing to
take strong action against States. Mr. DeVillars noted his support of Federal/State
partnerships but pointed out that the Agency must step in when States are not fulfilling their
obligations.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Who in Region 1 is working on P2 audits?
Answer: Mr. DeVillars noted that Dave Webster is working on P2 audits. There is also a
break-out session that will discuss this further and there are hand-outs with various initiatives
and contacts. The work the Agency is doing in this area is wholesale, and not retail, in that
it involves pulling people together, disseminating information, and conducting training.
Question: The traditional way of showing progress is by counting numbers. A challenge to
a balance between enforcement and compliance assistance is having ways of showing and
monitoring results in compliance assistance. What is being done in this area?
Answer: Mr. Thompson noted that the foundries initiative is the State’s first example of
trying to measure the success of a compliance assistance program. One can measure the
number of people that entered the program and the number of permits acquired. The
difficult part is how to measure trust. Particularly, it is difficult to measure a facility’s
involvement in P2 that would not otherwise have occurred through traditional enforcement.
Mr. DeVillars pointed out that it is important to identify the right activity measures but we
must be creative on how to measure performance in compliance assurance. For example, if
there are workshops for printers and 100 printers attend, that was a success, even though you
cannot say that printers have reduced toxic effluents a certain amount. In terms of metal
platers, we do know how much waste is reduced and the amount of the resulting financial
benefits. This is an important marketing tool to get other metal platers to participate. Ms.
Lowrance commented that the Agency is too afraid of failure. You get to measurable results
by finding out what works and using scarce resources on what works. Mr. Cruden observed
that we must have management indicators. The Administrator gave such figures as 40-60%
of our rivers and lakes are not fishable and drinkable. Those numbers should drive us in
terms of there is a place for enforcement. We tried to put together the value of injunctive
relief--in 1994 we estimated it at $847 million and in 1995 we estimated it at $1.59! billion.
1-21
-------
We should be proud of it, but it also should be a component of what we’re trying to
accomplish in the future.
Question: Does DOJ have a view on compliance assistance?
Answer: Mr. Cruden noted that compliance assistance is a car on that train that enforcement
drives. Enforcement drives deterrence and drives people towards voluntary compliance and
pollution prevention. We have seen this in the rise of innovative injunctive relief and in
SEPs. Compliance assistance is a beneficial component to traditional enforcement.
1-22
-------
REMARKS
“The DOJ Perspective on Enforcement and Compliance Assurance”
Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
April 9, 1996
1 :3Opm-2 :OOpm
Ms. Schiffer began her address by stating that a strong enforcement presence is essential to
the preservation of environmental laws. She praised the efforts of EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff. She said she appreciated the work of public servants in the finest
tradition of service carried out in the face of daunting challenges. She acknowledged them as
the thin green line standing between the public and environmental degradation. She
applauded them for their commitment and excellence.
Ms. Schiffer established the theme of her presentation -- “My Life as a Cop on the
Environmental Beat” -- by discussing the following five “green badges” worn by the
environmental cop.
Badge No. 1 - Strong and clear public support for environmental laws and enforcement.
She stated that Americans support current legislation and oppose the weakening of
environmental protection. She stated that EPA is still needed as much as it was 25 years
ago. Ms. Schiffer explained that some members of Congress have initiated a multi-pronged
attack against environmental protection. They include: (1) directed challenges to
environmental protection laws by weakening amendments; (2) regulatory reform measures to
prevent enactment and enforcement of protective laws; (3) serious budget cuts, failure to pass
budgets, slashed resources for planned inspections, and halted Superfund cleanups; and, (4)
the rejection of sound science.
Badge No. 2 - Importance of Federal enforcement in the context of a sound
Federal/State relationship. She urged the passing of a minimum national standard for
protection against pollution to create a level playing field. She expressed that national
consistency is necessary and critical to the success of environmental compliance. She stated
that Federal and State coordination and cooperation are essential to the success of State
programs, and she urged the participants to look for innovative ways to achieve success by
pooling resources. She announced the establishment of a new pilot project to notify
enforcement lawyers in the State Attorney Generals offices before filing civil actions against
polluters in most cases. She encouraged Federal, State, and local law enforcement to join
resources to stop polluters. She promised to vigorously fight against States which seek to
weaken environmental protection. She urged them to recognize the role of the Federal
government in enforcement and the power of the threat of Federal enforcement as a deterrent
against polluters. She urged the participants to guard against underfiling--a State effort to
shield wrongdoers by filing and accepting a weak penalty or no penalty.
1-23
-------
Badge No. 3 - Strong, effective, and fair enforcement f - deterrence and compliance.
Ms. Schiffer emphasized that enforcement drives compliance and encourages industry to
make improvements necessary to protect the environment. She stated that companies are
employing pollution prevention measures as a result of the threat of environmental
enforcement.
Badge No. 4 - Assurance that penalties are not a business expense. Industry must
understand that fines are not just another cost of doing business. The environmental crimes
program is active and growing; there was an increase in referrals to the Department of
Justice from 81 in FY ‘91 to 250 in FY ‘95. She added that the FBI is also committed to an
environmental crimes program--an essential part to an effective enforcement and compliance
program. Ms. Schiffer noted that, unfortunately, organizations make deliberate decisions not
to comply with environmental laws after conducting cost-benefit analyses and deciding that it
is cheaper to be in violation. She stated that violators range from small firms to the Nation’s
largest companies, including CONRAIL, CON ED, and Louisiana Pacific. She attributed the
success of the environmental crimes program to the cooperation between the US Attorneys
Offices, the Environmental Crimes Section, and EPA. She applauded the high level of team
work and coordination.
Ms. Schiffer characterized training as an invaluable tool for the dissemination of DOJ’s
policies on and experiences with environmental crimes. She noted that the Crimes Section
has worked with the Attorney’s Offices to provide advanced and basic training programs for
EPA Headquarters and Regional attorneys. She cited significant victories by criminal
prosecutors in which corporate officers received jail time for environmental crimes.
Ms. Schiffer provided the following examples of cases involving egregious misconduct:
• Defendants from the Virgin Islands deposited raw sewage and pollutants from
dry dock operations within 150 feet of the desalinization intake pipes of a
drinking water plant. The West Indies Transport Company, the WIT
Equipment Company, and James Olsner paid over $12 million in penalties,
and Olsner received a 37-month jail sentence.
• U.S. v. Interstate General Company (IGC). The St. Charles Association,
James Wilson, and the IGC knowingly filled wetlands for commercial
development despite repeated warnings. The violators face $250,000 in fines
per count and 3 years in prison.
• U.S. v. Morell. This case demonstrates how EPA’s policy on environmental
audits and DOJ’s continued implementation of that policy works. When
Chaquita brands, the parent company of Morell, acquired Morell, it did an
environmental audit. Chaquita disclosed to EPA the problems it discovered.
EPA did not prosecute Chaquita, but rather prosecuted Morell which had an
incredible history of environmental misconduct. Morell pled guilty to
1-24
-------
polluting the Big Sioux river with slaughter house waste. It agreed to pay a $2
million fine and an additional $1 million towards cleaning up the river.
Badge No. 5 - Success of civil enforcement and the Superfund program. Ms. Schiffer
outlined the following three cases to support this badge.
• The General Motors (GM) case is a landmark mobile sources enforcement
action obtained through cooperation between EPA and DOJ attorneys.
Approximately 470,000 Cadillacs were installed with defeat devices in
violation of the mobile source provisions of the CAA. The devices
overwhelmed the cars’ catalytic converters and emission control systems,
causing carbon monoxide emissions of up to 3 times the legal limit. It is
estimated that the Cadillacs have been responsible for the illegal release of
100,000 tons of carbon monoxide. GM will pay a $11 million fine, and spend
$7 million in special projects and another $25 million to recall the cars.
• In the Metropolitan Date County, FL case, the County was guilty of hundreds
of discharges of raw sewage into recreational areas causing a severe threat to
human health and the environment. The County agreed to bring the system
into compliance, pay a $2 million civil penalty, and pay $5 million for projects
to reduce water use in the County.
• In the SOCO case, the terms of the settlement call for the company to mitigate
pollution along a 15-mile stretch of the Ohio River resulting from acidic
discharges from mining operations. Ms. Schiffer stressed the importance of
this case because it provides a biological measure of success and it
demonstrates that pollution is not bound by geography (it impacted the States
of Ohio and Kentucky).
Ms. Schiffer concluded her address by reiterating the theme of cops on the environmental
beat decorated with green stripes and badges. She assured the participants that President
Clinton and the American public support the continued work of the environmental cop.
Mr. Herman commented on Ms. Schiffer’s address by adding that he has taken the case
backlog problems to heart. He expressed the desire to clean out the backlog in 90 days,
which would allow EPA to produce swift and timely justice. He thanked Ms. Schiffer for
her efforts. Ms. Schiffer responded by giving credit to the EPA staff.
1-25
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
“Using All the Tools: Innovations in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance”
April 9, 1996
2:OOpm-3: lSpm
Panel Leader: Sam Coleman, Director, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement
Division, Region 6
Panelists: Barry Breen, Director, Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
Elaine Stanley, Director, Office of Compliance
Bob VanHeuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Cindy Giles, Director, Office of Enforcement Coordination, Region 3
Barry Breen
EPA has four different and distinct roles with regard to Federal Facilities. The Federal
Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), in effect, is a place where the entire spectrum of
these roles are combined in one place.
The first role is compliance assistance (“the helping hand”). The Office has targeted
compliance assistance at the root causes (i.e., environmental management at Federal
Facilities). This is being done, using the terms of John DeVillars, at both the retail and the
wholesale levels. At the retail level, the Office is beginning environmental management
reviews, a process by which EPA and State officials visit a facility and review the
management of the facility. The lessons learned from the lead taken by Region 1 and Region
6 are now being leveraged into a national program of environmental management reviews.
In addition, there is a benchmarking study of how the agencies are doing against each other
and against the best in the private sector. At the wholesale level, a general protocol for
conducting environmental audits at Federal Facilities has also been completed.
The second type of compliance assistance offered is pollution prevention assistance at both
the retail and wholesale levels. At the retail level, the Office has, in conjunction with the
Army, visited three representative army installations for pollution prevention opportunity
assessments. The Army is obligated to adapt those lessons Army-wide and to make public
how it has accepted or rejected EPA’s recommendations. At the wholesale level, the Office
has developed materials for other agencies on how to develop pollution prevention programs.
The third compliance assistance focus is environmental justice for which the Office has
combined the retail and wholesale levels. The Office has conducted representative
1-26
-------
environmental justice analyses of 25 different facilities. The purpose is to demonstrate to
other agencies how they can examine their own impacts on environmental justice and how to
prevent negative impacts in the future. CERCLA compliance assistance, the fourth focus
under compliance assistance, has involved working with the Department of Energy in
Regions 4, 8 and 10. This work has saved over $1 billion in what otherwise would have
been spent, without sacrificing regulatory requirements, by finding cheaper ways to do
things.
The second role is compliance assurance (“the honest umpire”). Under the multi-media
inspection program, 73 Federal Facilities were inspected in fiscal year 1993-1994. Mr.
Breen expressed his thanks to the Regions and the NEIC for the great success of this
program. The way to get a base commander’s attention is to notify him that EPA and/or the
State is planning an inspection of the entire operation. Other tools for compliance assurance
involve statutory requirements; the Office maintains the Federal Facilities docket under
CERCLA and the Federal Facilities inventory under RCRA. Under the Federal Plan, the
Office and the Regions track the budgets of other agencies to ensure that the agencies budget
for changes required by EPA under previous inspections. The FFEO also enters into
Memoranda of Understanding with other agencies to reimburse EPA for certain expenses,
such as travel costs for RCRA inspections, and certain State costs.
Traditional enforcement is the third role. EPA’s authority is strongest under RCRA in that
the enforcement authority against private facilities is virtually the mirror image for Federal
Facilities. That is not the case under the CWA, as has been held by the Supreme Court.
However, the House version of the CWA bill would give EPA authority to assess money
penalties against agencies. This is also true for the legislation moving forward under the
SDWA. The issue of whether EPA can assess money penalties against Federal agencies is
unclear as it relates to the CAA, and thus it is currently before DOJ. Under traditional
enforcement, Region 8 is undergoing the largest renegotiation of an inter-agency agreement
with the Department of Energy. Regions 1, 3, 7, and 9 have met the deadline in
implementing the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, requiring treatment plans for the
Department of Energy’s nuclear navy facilities. Mr. Breen noted that EPA has increased its
presence at civilian Federal agencies and has stepped up EPA’s presence at secret facilities of
the Department of Defense. Mr. Breen specifically thanked Region 9 and the NEIC for the
latter.
Policy-making for the Federal government is the final role. A committee of the Federal
Facility Policy Group, co-chaired by Steve Herman, is looking at how to reconcile budget
constraints with environmental requirements.
Mr. Breen concluded by describing why he works with Federal Facilities. He pointed out
that many of the environmental problems are at Federal Facilities. In addition, it sets an
example for the rest of the country. Finally, it is the ethical thing to do.
1-27
-------
Elaine Stanley
Ms. Stanley began by remarking on the morning sessions that emphasized the need for a
balanced program that includes the elements of compliance assistance and enforcement. The
existing tools offer a means for accomplishing this balance and achieving environmental
compliance. There are a number of different models for addressing environmental problems.
For large industries, such as the petroleum industry, EPA may want to take more of an
enforcement strategy. Of all sectors with over 10 million pounds of TRI releases, the
petroleum sector has the highest non-compliance rate. These are large, sophisticated
companies that do not need guidance on how to comply with the environmental regulations.
What they need is an incentive to comply. One powerful incentive is a strong enforcement
program. But there may be other incentives and that is what EPA is exploring right now, for
example, with the environmental leadership program. In addition to taking strong
enforcement action against companies not in compliance, EPA needs to present the “good”
companies with a continued range of incentives to comply. This may include the
environmental leadership program, reduced inspections, or recognition of internal control
systems.
In addition to incentives and recognition, another aspect of compliance assistance is
identification of high risk facilities within the sector that would lead to ancillary or corollary
actions to the enforcement option. Ms. Stanley displayed a map of a refinery showing large
minority and low-income residential areas nearby. She pointed out that this is an ideal target
for environmental justice strategies and aggressive compliance assistance with the community
and the facility. Even for a sector requiring a strong enforcement role, there are additional
compliance assistance tools that would strengthen the overall approach.
In cases where it is unclear whether to follow an enforcement or a compliance assistance
approach, EPA needs to develop a range of compliance monitoring tools. The inspection
program has been developed along a regulatory basis. The Agency needs to move towards
“multi-media” inspections. EPA needs to examine the data and facility performance prior to
the inspection in selecting the portions of the facility to inspect. Recent analysis of the iron
and steel industry shows that there is a greater percentage of RCRA enforcement actions for
mini-mills than for integrated mills. The opposite is true with regard to air enforcement
actions. EPA needs to encourage a redesigning of inspections based on the pattern of
violations in retargeting the use of resources. Over the past two years, EPA has inspected
approximately 51-69% of the facilities in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) sectors;
EPA needs to continue the shift of inspection resources towards MOA priorities. In addition,
a new direction for inspections is in the assessment of environmental compliance and
management systems. Inspectors will need to be more skilled in terms of assessing system
design integrity, in addition to their knowledge of regulatory compliance issues.
In developing EPA’s compliance assistance tools, Ms. Stanley noted the need to reexamine
the role of the inspector. Over the past year, a workgroup has grappled with the issue of the
1-28
-------
role of the inspector, particularly in terms of compliance assistance. A draft report will soon
be issued by the workgroup on this topic.
Over the last year, Ms. Stanley pointed out that it has become clear that compliance
assistance should be emphasized in some areas. This tends to be the case when a sector is
dominated by small businesses, where new regulations are coming into effect, and where
resources are scarce. Compliance assistance tools include sector notebooks, plain English
guides, guides in other languages, multi-media inspection manuals, and compliance assistance
centers. In addition, some Regions have started aggressive programs for outreach and
information to sectors that they know they will not get to through enforcement. Region 1,
for example, has focused on the dry cleaning industry; it may be ready for targeted
enforcement after having conducted an aggressive compliance assistance program. Ms.
Stanley observed that EPA is well on its way with experimenting with these various tools.
There is no definitive answer as to “what is compliance assistance.” However, Ms. Stanley
noted that her office will try to identify the program from a manager’s point of view.
Because there must be some definition of the elements of a good compliance assistance
program, Ms. Stanley noted that she will be organizing a group of senior Agency managers
that will define the concept on its own and how it relates to the program office efforts in the
technical assistance area. Ms. Stanley observed that it is not an “either or” situation; EPA
can successfully mix enforcement and compliance assistance.
Bob Vanileuvelen
Mr. VanFleuvelen began by paying tribute to Senator Edward Muskie for his contribution to
environmental law. The face of enforcement in 1996 is etched in equity and fairness, in the
notions of risk and deterrence. Mr. VanHeuvelen raised the question of how the
enforcement program matches up to the other programs, and then pointed out that it is
matching up.
Compliance is a critical part of the equation. A good compliance program can work to the
advantage of the enforcement program by establishing fundamental equity. By fairly giving
notice to the regulated entities, enforcement personnel are able to act knowing that the
regulated entities understand the requirements. The compliance assistance program can also
clear up ambiguities. A “twinning” relationship exists between compliance assistance and
enforcement with respect to targeting. It separates entities; those entities that can comply
need to be taken off the radar screen, and scarce resources need to be focused on those
entities where non-compliance is most abundant and where the risk is greatest.
Mr. VanHeuvelen observed that the enforcement and compliance assistance programs have
worked together. In terms of policy, there have been strong enforcement contributions to
OECA’s policies, for example, on voluntary disclosure and small businesses. The programs
have worked together in other areas, such as burden reduction, the TSCA/lead project, the
1-29
-------
redefinition of significant non-compliance, and national violator policies. In addition, the
enforcement program has been applied to the sector-based approach. The sector-based
approach has been tried in the sector of wood products, for example.
Reinvention in enforcement is alive and well. Under the voluntary disclosure policy, there
have been over 50 significant disclosures to date. For example, a company came forward
approximately one week ago asking if it could come under the audit policy. The company
has 2600 facilities across the country with non-compliance, multi-media issues. EPA is
reinventing the compliance assistance and enforcement programs all at the same time. Mr.
VanHeuvelen noted that EPA must continue to communicate through such forums as this
Conference.
There has also been reinvention in other areas, such as risk-based enforcement. EPA is
making progress in multi-media and single media enterprise identification. EPA is also
looking at troubled waters. The Administrator noted that 40% of rivers, streams, and lakes
are not meeting ambient water quality standards. EPA is overlaying compliance data with
environmental data, thereby highlighting causation and risk. In addition, EPA has issued a
new enforcement response policy under RCRA, changed the significant non-compliance
definition under the CWA, and reissued the CWA penalty policy. EPA is also working on
some rules to help enforcement and compliance, such as the credible evidence rule under the
CAA, and trying to develop a new approach to SEPs. Mr. VanHeuvelen noted, however,
that traditional deterrence is also important.
Mr. VanHeuvelen noted that DOJ has dealt with the backlog, and thus EPA must get new
cases out there. Although the enforcement program is changing, it is emphasizing strong and
salient messages such as fair notice and equity. Mr. VanHeuvelen concluded by pointing out
that EPA is not only emphasizing deterrence but also embracing the notion of innovation.
Cindy Giles
Ms. Giles began by pointing out that EPA should not focus on the balance between
compliance assistance and enforcement. When enforcement first began, the violations were
so egregious and the links were so direct that it was easy to figure out what to do. Now,
environmental problems are much less visible. EPA continues to hold on to the view that if
we take enough enforcement cases and do enough compliance assistance, then we are doing
enough to protect the environment and human health. That is not enough. If we are to make
more progress to improve the environment and prevent future problems, particularly as we
must do more things that affect how people live and how their idea of what it means to be a
citizen in a democracy, we must set a national environmental agenda. This must include
setting measurable goals and tracking our progress in a public way. We must build public
support and use public support to exert pressure to achieve our objectives.
1-30
-------
The way to accomplish this is through information on our environmental problems, the
causes of those problems, and what we are going to do about it. Enforcement has
traditionally found cases by looking at lists of violations provided by the States. Region 3
analyzed environmental data and discovered over 5000 miles of dead streams in the Region
that have resulted from acid mine drainage. Virtually all of the sources contributing to the
pollution were in violation of the CWA and other statutes. However, using the traditional
methods for identifying cases, these facilities did not appear on the enforcement radar screen.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the enforcement system that it can overlook
such a huge environmental problem.
Part of the problem is that we have disengaged ourselves from the environmental goals of the
Agency. Enforcement must join in and be an active player in solving environmental
problems. We must sit at the table for permitting and pollution prevention and examine what
are we going to do to clean up this river and protect citizens from the cumulative effect of
the toxins that they are breathing. We must get past the turf issues that divide us and focus
on getting environmental results.
The other side of our work is protecting gains that we have made so far by preventing future
problems and ensuring that polluters are kept motivated to comply. Unfortunately, today we
do not know how we are doing on compliance in many areas. Some of the data is so wildly
inaccurate that using it does more harm than good. Instead of having people focused on the
endless manipulation of virtually useless data, we should figure out how do we know who is
in compliance, how to hold States and the Agency accountable for non-compliance, and
resolve to hold the States and the Agency accountable by making the non-compliance
information public. In addition, we must take the tough cases.
Next year, I hope the focus will be on setting a national environmental agenda. The focus
should include making enforcement a full, willing, and eager player in solving environmental
problems. We should not put the cart before the horse by talking about tools instead of
goals.
Sam Coleman
Mr. Coleman developed a list of top ten tools, but it actually turned out to be thirteen. They
include:
• Targeting
• Industry roundtables/outreach
• Inspections
• Facts meetings
• NOV/warning letters
• NEPA
• Compliance orders
1-31
-------
• Applicability determinations
• Administrative penalty orders
• Civil judicial complaints
• Criminal judicial complaints
• Criminal prosecution
• Press releases.
Region 6 recently underwent an extensive targeting effort. Region 6 developed a list of
facilities likely to be inspected and turned over the list to the mayor and some other City
officials. Region 6 then heard of all of the industry efforts to come into compliance even
though they had not been inspected. With respect to NEPA, Region 6 has four States, soon
to be three, that have not been delegated responsibility for NPDES. Region 6 thus gets
involved in the NEPA process in those States. Regulated entities ask Region 6 officials how
the facility’s compliance will affect its permit. Although Region 6 tells them that it will not
influence the issuance of the permit, Region 6 also tells them that in the environmental
assessment document EPA may have to address the non-compliance. This is incentive for
the facility to come into compliance.
In terms of applicability determinations, often people want to do the right thing but they do
not fully understand what is required of them. Often just explaining to a facility the rules
and what is considered non-compliance can make a difference.
Mr. Coleman pointed out some of the impediments to success. For example, EPA has
counted some of the wrong things, and thus much of what is done in the program is not
actually counted. Planning and reporting is also an impediment to progress, as well as poor
Headquarters/Regional coordination and poor DOJ/Regional communication. There are a
number of annual reports submitted to Headquarters but it is unclear as to how these reports
are used and what happens to these reports. it is unclear as to what environmental goals are
accomplished through these reports. There are different objectives if one moves from a
Washington perspective to a State capitol perspective. Mr. Coleman pointed out that we
need to focus on this if we are going to have a true partnership.
1-32
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #1
Risk-Based Targeting and Enforcement
April 9, 1996
3 :3Opm-5 :OOpm
Session Leader: Brian Maas, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement,
Director, Water Enforcement Division
Session Panelists: Jesse Baskerville, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Toxics and
Pesticides Enforcement Division
Carol Amend, Director, Enforcement Coordination Office,
Water Division, Region 3
Rick Duffy, Office of Compliance, Enforcement, Planning,
Targeting, and Data Division
Mike Barrette, Office of Compliance
Harley Laing, Director of Environmental Stewardship, Region 1
Session Objectives: The session discussed how information and analysis about risk
and environmental problems can be used to identify industry
sectors, companies, and communities of concern.
Introduction - Brian Maas
Mr. Maas began by pointing out that the session would cover risk management and its
integration into the strategic planning process and enforcement targeting as a way of
improving cost efficiency. The session would also introduce some of the different risk-based
targeting projects that are underway around the country.
Mr. Maas also mentioned that a national risk-targeting workgroup has been established. This
workgroup includes representatives from all EPA Regional offices and from most offices
within EPA Headquarters. Its functions are to examine various risk assessment issues and to
serve as the vehicle for disseminating information about risk management.
1-33
-------
Update on Risk-Based Enforcement Reinvention Projects - Brian Maas for John Fogarty
In John Fogarty’s absence, Mr. Maas briefly noted that there are six reinvention projects
dealing with risk-based targeting. These projects have been initiated to improve the
effectiveness of the enforcement targeting process by concentrating inspections and other
enforcement activities in the areas of highest environmental risk. The six projects are listed
in the handout Risk-Based Enforcement Projects: Fact Sheets.
Risk Characterization in Toxics and Pesticides - Jesse Baskerville
Mr. Baskerville first summarized how enforcement efforts within the Toxics and Pesticides
Enforcement Division relate to the issue of risk-based targeting. He categorized each statute
according to the goal that such statute was written to achieve. Mr. Baskerville referred to
the handout entitled Risk Characterization in the Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRI4 Programs.
Statutes such as TSCA and FIFRA were enacted to allow EPA to identify risks from
continuous, incidental, or accidental exposure to harmful substances. Section 8 of TSCA
requires prompt submission to EPA of any adverse health and environmental data pertaining
to toxic chemicals. Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA requires the registration of pesticides. These
statutes center on data collection. They are critical in the targeting process because risk must
first be identified before it can be prevented. For this reason, “paper violations” cannot be
seen as insignificant or go unenforced.
Some statutes have been enacted to prevent unreasonable risks from exposure or release of a
highly toxic chemical. Enforcement of these statutes typically involves phaseouts, bans or
other restrictions on the manufacture or distribution of toxic chemicals. Some examples
include:
• PCBs: The manufacture of PCBs is banned due to known health risks
associated with the chemical. Currently, trans-border disposal across the
Canadian border is an issue that is being debated.
• Worker Protection Standard: The goal of this enforcement initiative is
prevention of exposure to workers by requiring certain labeling on pesticide
containers.
• TSCA Pre-Manufacturing Notice (PMN): This program requires data
submission to EPA for all new chemicals so that EPA can assess the toxicity
and health risks of new chemicals before their sale and distribution.
Statutes such as EPCRA and CERCLA were designed to minimize risks from potential
catastrophic releases of harmful chemicals. These statutes require the regulated community
to inform authorities of an accidental release of a listed hazardous substance.
1-34
-------
In order to protect the public from potentially defective chemical products, EPA has initiated
the Antimicrobial Regulatory and Enforcement Program and the Good Laboratory Practices
Regulatory Program. The former is targeted at removing ineffective pesticides from the
marketplace. Recent testing has resulted in failure rates of 70% for anti-microbial products.
The latter program ensures the data integrity of scientific information submitted in support of
pesticide registration laws.
Other toxics and pesticides programs focus on equipping local communities to protect
themselves from releases, equipping EPA with information needed to construct effective risk-
based rules, and diminishing risks from disposal of waste by-products.
Mr. Baskerville also summarized enforcement efforts in support of TRI under Section 313 of
EPCRA. His conclusion was that enforcement of this program has been a successful
deterrent to pollution. Companies will implement pollution prevention programs in their
facilities to avoid the negative publicity associated with a high ranking on the TRI list.
Region 3 Water Targeting Approach - Carol Amend
The Water Division of Region 3 has developed some innovative approaches towards
enforcement targeting. Ms. Amend presented Region 3’s approach by explaining some of
the basic principles that apply to targeting efforts in all programs. She then presented how
these targeting issues could be applied to two specific programs within Region 3: NPDES
enforcement and UIC Class V Wells enforcement.
On the issue of the basic principles and issues in targeting, Ms. Amend began by pointing
out that the nature of the program determines the approach for enforcement targeting efforts.
In particular, the availability of self-monitoring data plays a significant role in determining
the approach. If self-monitoring data is widely available, identification of violators is
generally simple. However, the data must be analyzed to prioritize the violators. If self-
monitoring data is not available, other factors must be used to target facilities for on-site
inspections
Ms. Amend noted two other issues that Region 3 came across in the development of its
targeting approaches. First, the differences in data management practices between States and
other offices and the differences in water quality criteria and standards must be addressed.
For example, an interstate map depicting water quality attainment areas is likely to exhibit
apparent discrepancies across State borders because State water quality standards differ.
Also, different data systems used by different offices, or even within the same office, are
often incompatible. One should expect a substantial amount of manual work to pull different
data sets together.
As an example of a program where considerable self-monitoring data is available, Ms.
Amend briefly discussed the targeting approach for the NPDES enforcement program.
1-35
-------
Historically, enforcement in this program has been directed towards SNCs. This has been a
good approach, but most of the major facilities in the region are already covered by State
programs. Region 3 is therefore moving away from the SNC list to look at smaller
violations, such as Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs),
abandoned mines, and other discharges. The basic targeting approach in the NPDES
program is to cross-reference a database of known impaired or sensitive waters against a list
of facilities in violation. The 305b database identifies streams not meeting water quality
standards. The information in the 305b database can be compared with known discharges
occurring upstream.
The enforcement program for UIC Class V Wells (shallow wells) must take a different
targeting approach due to the limited self-monitoring data available. Geographic areas such
as counties and municipalities are prioritized based on groundwater dependency and
vulnerability of the underlying aquifers. Unsewered areas are given higher priority. Within
priority areas, facilities are selected by analyzing data from county and municipal offices.
Using this approach, Region 3 has found violations at 10-25% of facilities inspected. Ms.
Amend pointed out that this is considered a good success rate.
In conclusion, Ms. Amend noted a few key points to keep in mind in developing a targeting
approach for a specific program:
• Identify enforcement goals and characterize the nature of the program
• Always pilot data sources to ensure their applicability
• Expect a lot of tedious leg work.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Has this targeting approach been applied to other programs such as RCRA and
Air?
Answer: Ms. Amend was not sure whether this is in the works somewhere within Region 3,
but this approach has not been applied to other media programs at this point. Region 3 is
still organized primarily by media and this targeting approach is still in its infancy.
Question: Has the State response to this program been good?
Answer: Ms. Amend responded that for the most part, the States support this program.
Typically, the States hope that the project will show there are no significant problems
impacting water quality in their jurisdiction. They also see the usefulness of the program
because they too are faced with the same targeting problems that exist at EPA.
1-36
-------
The ORD RBES Model and the OPPT Till Model for Targeting Risk - Rick Duffy
Mr. Duffy provided an overview of EPA efforts to develop more effective sector-based
targeting models. In the past, sector-based targeting efforts have mostly been based on non-
compliance and other traditional factors, such as pounds of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
releases. These traditional factors are not always reliable; for example, releases measured in
pounds do not account for the toxicity of the pollutant or the severity of the effect on human
health.
The Office of Compliance has evaluated 150 risk targeting models intended to improve upon
past targeting efforts. Of these 150 models, the following six were chosen for further
testing:
• RBES (EPA Office of Research and Development)
• Risk Assistant (EPA Office of Research and Development)
• TRI Indicators Model (EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics)
• Chemical Indexing System for TRI Part 1: Chronic Index (EPA Region 3)
• Cross-Media Comparative Risk Assessment (Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality)
• CaITOX (California EPA).
As an example, Mr. Duffy explained the general principles governing the RBFS Risk
Targeting Model developed by the Office of Research and Development. The method
employs a Chemical Ranking Factor to prioritize facilities by evaluating the following
factors:
• Multi-media release amounts
• Exposure pathways
• Toxicity of releases.
Each facility is assigned a facility score that indicates its overall risk. Inspectors can then
prioritize and target the highest risk facilities for inspection. Based on preliminary tests of
the RBES model, in a typical sector, the bulk of the risk may be accounted for by anywhere
from 25% to 50% of the facilities.
This model has many advantages. It has a multi-media focus, and can handle loading data
from various sources. Most importantly, it addresses fate, transport, and exposure data; this
will provide more realistic analysis of actual risk as opposed to comparison of TRI releases
1-37
-------
by weight. The one disadvantage Mr. Duffy noted was that some of the data required by the
model, such as stack height or stream flow rates, are difficult to collect.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Where was the data for stack heights acquired from?
Answer: Gerald Lappan, also with the Enforcement, Planning, Targeting, and Data Division,
explained that the RBES model assumes a stack height based on the SIC code of the facility.
The TRI Indicators Model, on the other hand, assumes a stack height of 10 meters for all
facilities.
Comments: Some discussion ensued as to whether these and other assumptions will
significantly affect the results of the data generated by the model. Mr. Duffy explained that
the RBES model is still under development and data from preliminary use of it were used for
example purposes only. Some assumptions must be made in any model, and it is difficult to
quantify at this stage how assumptions made in this model affect the quality of data
generated.
The Office of Compliance Sector Facility Indexing Project - Mike Barrette
As an offshoot of the Sector Notebook project, which has compiled waste and regulatory
information for 18 priority industries, the Office of Compliance has also initiated the Sector
Facility Indexing Project. Mr. Barrette gave a brief summary of this project. The purpose of
the Sector Facility Indexing Project is to benchmark environmental performance in five
selected industries: iron and steel, pulp and paper, auto manufacturing, petroleum refining,
and non-ferrous metals. As Mr. Barrette explained in response to a participant’s question,
the five sectors were selected based on the following criteria:
• Sectors must fall within manufacturing SIC codes (SIC 20-39)
• Sectors must have a small number of facilities (under 1000)
• Facilities must have high relative pollutant outputs
• Facilities must have relative similar processes and products
• Sectors must have several comparative sources of facility data.
A significant part of the effort involved in this project is the definition of the universe in
each sector: that is, the accurate identification of all facilities that comprise the sector. Once
the universe has been defined, the Office of Compliance will apply the TRI Indicators Model
1-38
-------
of risk-targeting to each of the facilities within these sectors. The profile generated by these
efforts will be used to benchmark environmental performance within a sector and to track
changes in performance over time. In the future, the index will be expanded to other
sectors.
In terms of the analytical methods used in this project, production volume of each facility
within a sector is accounted for when evaluating environmental performance. In addition,
like the RBES Model, the TRI Indicators Model also weighs releases by toxicity. However,
it does not directly include fate and transport modeling, but rather incorporates a
measurement of exposed population as a surrogate factor.
The Region 1 Approach to Integrated Programmatic Risk Planning - Harley Laing
Region 1 ‘S Office of Environmental Stewardship was founded as an initiative to organize
enforcement programs from different media around the central concept of risk-based
targeting. Mr. Laing first presented the general organizational structure of the office. He
pointed out that the entire office is organized around a planning team, which has the main
responsibility for targeting activities within the region, including coordination of regional
activities with State enforcement programs.
The Office of Environmental Stewardship is currently developing a foundation for risk-based
targeting with its Risk Identification Project. This project stemmed from two reports: EPA’s
National Unfinished Business Report, and Region l’s report of the same name. In particular,
Region l’s report provided a list of the environmental risks of greatest concern within the
region. From this list, the Risk Identification Project identified priority risks based on health
risks and ecological impacts. The project also evaluated whether EPA had the ability and
authority to address the problems associated with each risk. The following were identified as
high-priority risks: criteria air pollutants and toxics, point source discharges, non-point
source discharges, accidental releases, and lead. Region 1 has invested approximately 80%
of enforcement resources into these areas.
Based on input solicited from various State and Regional offices, a targeting list was
constructed for each priority risk, identifying sectors to focus on in order to address the
applicable risk. For example, it was determined that to address the lead problem,
enforcement efforts should be targeted at lead shot, industrial emitters, the residential soil
and paint sectors, and subsidized housing.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Has EPA solicited public opinion in compiling the list of risks for the National
and Regional Unfinished Business Reports?
1-39
-------
Answer: According to Mr. Laing, these reports were completed using only internal data.
However, the State of Vermont conducted a similar study incorporating results from public
opinion polls.
Question: Was Community-Based Environmental Protection taken into account in developing
the targeting approach?
Answer: Mr. Laing confirmed that Community-Based Environmental Protection was a
factor, particularly in urban communities.
Question: What is an example of an urban center targeted by the project for which a plan
could not be developed that would address the risks facing the community?
Answer: Mr. Laing identified the community of Roxbury, Massachusetts. As is typical in
many urban communities, it was difficult to find community groups that could identify
specific problems that could feasibly be addressed by EPA.
Comments: Mr. Maas concluded the breakout session by taking an overall look at the
development of risk-based targeting in the various enforcement offices. He summarized the
progress that has been made by noting the many methods that are now available to apply
risk-based targeting concepts in practice. Risk-based targeting is a fundamental change in the
targeting process. Its continued development will allow enforcement agencies to properly
identify the most pressing problems and to allocate environmental enforcement resources
properly.
1-40
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #2
Implementing the Audit Policy
April 9, 1996
3:3Opm-5:OOpm
Session Leader: Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
Session Panelists: Andrew Cherry, Office of Compliance
Gary Jonesi, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Burt Frey, Region 5
Jack Fox, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 10
Session Objectives: The session discussed issues surrounding use of the audit policy
in actual cases and provided an update about enacted and
proposed State audit, privilege, and immunity laws.
Introduction to the Audit Policy and State Law Issues - Eric Schaeffer
After introducing the session’s panelists and recognizing the work of Brian Riedel and Bob
Fentress on the audit policy, Mr. Schaeffer directed the focus of the session to the problems
and opportunities in implementing the final audit policy, which was published on December
22, 1995 and became effective on January 22, 1996. Mr. Schaeffer noted that the panel
would also discuss State law issues, in light of the importance of these issues to the audit
policy in general and the recent New York Times article of April 7, 1996 (John Cushman,
“Many States Give Polluting Firms New Protections: White House is Alarmed,” New York
Times, April 7, 1996, p. 1).
With regard to the State law issue, Mr. Schaeffer noted that the panel would discuss audit
immunity and privilege laws that have been developed or are currently being considered in a
number of States. Mr. Schaeffer stated the panel would consider whether, in light of such
State laws, States have adequate authority to enforce Federal requirements. Mr. Schaeffer
noted that EPA issued a guidance on this issue on Friday, April 5, 1996, that addresses a
State’s ability to implement and enforce the requirements of Title V of the CAA. In
developing the guidance, Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that EPA examined the statute,
regulations, and existing policies in trying to determine a State’s minimum enforcement
authority to implement Title V. Mr. Schaeffer noted that persons in other programs will
recognize familiar concepts in the guidance, including injunctive relief, civil penalty
authority, and criminal penalty authority.
1-41
-------
Although the general policy trend is in the direction of not “counting beans,” Mr. Schaeffer
observed that EPA does want to see a number of disclosures under the audit policy. He
pointed out that the policy can work by reserving a significant amount of EPA’s enforcement
authority while giving people credit for coming forward with violations. For this type of
policy to work, he commented that disclosures must be dealt with fairly and not be
“overlawyered.” Consistency will be of particular importance as the audit policy is
implemented.
In terms of the substance of the audit policy, Mr. Schaeffer briefly covered some of the basic
elements. These include a complete waiver of gravity-based penalties where all audit policy
conditions are met (EPA reserves the right to get economic benefit). In addition, EPA will
not recommend criminal prosecution where all audit policy conditions are met, except in
cases involving egregious circumstances. Mr. Schaeffer emphasized that criminal
prosecutions are understood under the policy as against companies and not against
individuals. To obtain these and other benefits under the policy, Mr. Schaeffer noted the
discovery and disclosure of the violations must be:
• Systematic (it must be found through (I) an environmental audit or (ii) a
procedure or practice reflecting “due diligence” in preventing, detecting, and
correcting violations).
• Voluntary (not through a report registering an exceedence that is not an audit).
• Prompt (fully disclosed in writing to EPA within 10 days of discovery). Mr.
Schaeffer observed that this is a general presumption since in some cases it
may take longer. Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that if a company has a statutory
duty to report a violation, it must do so immediately.
• Independent. Mr. Schaeffer pointed out this may need to be determined on a
case-by-case basis. He pointed out that a company which decides to conduct
an audit upon determining that it is on some target list of inspections will
generally not be considered independent.
In addition, to obtain the audit policy benefits, the regulated entity must agree to: (1) correct
and remediate; (2) prevent recurrence; (3) make a program under “due diligence” publicly
available; and, (4) cooperate.
Mr. Schaeffer also explained some of the exceptions under the audit policy. These include:
(1) repeat violations; (2) imminent and substantial endangerment or serious actual harm; (3)
violations of orders or agreements; (4) certain criminal violations; and, (5) recovery of
significant economic benefit.
1-42
-------
State Law Issues - Andrew Cherry
Mr. Cherry began by observing that over the last few years there has been a marked increase
in State efforts to enact environmental audit privilege and/or immunity legislation, with
Oregon being the first State to do so in 1993. Seventeen other States currently have some
form of audit privilege and/or immunity legislation: 4 have a privilege only law; 11 have
both privilege and immunity; and 2 have immunity only. Mr. Cherry pointed out that,
although the numbers change daily, 6 States have passed a bill in one House, while 12 other
States are actively considering some form of audit privilege/immunity legislation.
Mr. Cherry covered some of the basic provisions of various State laws and bills. For
example, the laws of Wyoming, Virginia, and South Dakota recognize the primacy of
Federal law in that immunity provisions do not apply if they are inconsistent with Federal
requirements necessary to maintain a delegated State program. Some States claim that
blanket immunity is not necessarily an appropriate way to encourage environmental auditing
and have identified circumstances under which immunity is not appropriate. The laws of
Minnesota, New Jersey and South Dakota, and the bill in North Carolina, for example,
include clauses that immunity does not apply to repeat violations, to violations that cause
imminent hazard or actual harm, or to violations that are not corrected expeditiously. Some
States severely limit the extent to which criminal behavior is immunized. Mr. Cherry
observed that some States which provide penalty immunity for self-disclosure find it
unnecessary to enact an evidentiary privilege. Specifically, New Jersey, South Dakota, and
Minnesota (privilege applies to third parties but not against the State) encourage auditing
without providing an evidentiary privilege for audit information.
Although some State laws and bills show consistency with EPA policy, Mr. Cherry noted
that the provisions of some State laws could pose problems from EPA’s perspective. Mr.
Cherry provided the example of States that criminalize whistle blowing. He also expressed
concern over several State laws under which public officials or private individuals who
disclose privileged audit information are subject to fines, criminal charges, and/or contempt
charges. Some States specifically place prohibitions on testimony in that a person cannot be
called or subpoenaed as a witness and cannot be compelled to testify or produce documents
related to an audit. Mr. Cherry commented on one particular bill under consideration that
provides a privilege for someone to not only refuse to testify about or disclose audit
information but a.lso to prevent someone else from testifying. According to Mr. Cherry, a
fair number of laws and bills extend immunity to criminal violations.
Mr. Cherry concluded by pointing out some important considerations, especially in the
upcoming debate on delegated programs. The first is information required by law. Several
States do not provide immunity for disclosures that are required by law (e.g., Virginia,
Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, South Dakota). The second is the issue of Federal primacy.
1-43
-------
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comments: In terms of some issues EPA is currently confronting, Mr. Schaeffer pointed out
that under Title V of the CAA, a regulated entity must certify compliance each year. The
entity is under a general duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry to support its claim. In a State
with a privilege law and where EPA doubts the entity’s compliance, the question will arise as
to what is privileged as EPA moves to obtain evidence in that State, since the entity carries
out what amounts to an audit to support its compliance certification. On the immunity side,
Mr. Schaeffer observed that under Federal law, an employer cannot punish an employee for
whistle blowing and, in fact, rewards are given to whistle blowers. Mr. Schaeffer
commented it would be an absurd result if the employee takes the Federal money and uses it
for defense in a State action for disclosing privileged information under State law. Since
EPA receives many cases from whistle blowers, Mr. Schaeffer observed that this source is at
risk under some State laws.
Question: Do all or most of the State laws define an audit the way the Federal law does?
Answer: Mr. Cherry pointed out that it varies. Some laws or bills define it loosely (e.g.,
no requirement of objectivity, no time-frame within which it must be conducted), while
others have definitions similar to that of EPA (e.g., periodic, self-assessment, objective,
finite beginning and ending point). Mr. Schaeffer commented that most State laws include
an etcetera provision in addition to the general definition of an audit. Mr. Schaeffer pointed
out that such provisions include what is generally thought of as physical evidence (e.g.,
photos, samples, surveys), and thus items not covered by traditional privileges. Mr. Cherry
added that some define it so broadly they specifically include underlying facts.
Question: Since 18 States have some form of audit privilege/immunity, there are 18
different flavors of audit privilege/immunity. Is there any intent to compare successes or
identify failures?
Answer: Mr. Cherry noted that EPA is committed under the audit policy to revisit it in three
years. He admitted there is a varied flavor among the laws and noted EPA is currently in
the process of drawing comparisons while examining State laws and monitoring progress.
Mr. Cherry pointed out the inherent difficulty in evaluating the effectiveness of a privilege
law. A member of the audience commented that some bills in California and New Jersey
have begun to comport, more or less, with EPA policy, a positive sign in terms of the
direction toward national consistency.
Question: Is there any plan to look at the corporations that have availed themselves of the
Federal disclosure and ask whether they would do it again?
Answer: Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that, of course, a company would claim that it will not
disclose unless there is immunity. He noted that if a policy is in place that operates with
time-limits and windows, there will be disclosures. He pointed out the large number of
1-44
-------
disclosures under the TSCA 8(e) CAP program. Mr. Schaeffer stated that, although it is
difficult to determine what motivates disclosure, the real issue is whether EPA can get the
same result without unloading enforcement authority.
Question: Because State delegation has a multi-media impact, is there an effort for a more
multi-media approach?
Answer: Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that EPA started to develop the Title V guidance as a
multi-media guidance document for the audit policy but then realized there were some
significant differences between media, despite the many similarities. For example, in the
CWA, there is some language about citizen suit authority in the delegation. Such language
does not exist under Title V of the CAA, and thus Mr. Schaeffer commented it was difficult
to cover everything in one guidance. He did note that the Title V guidance can be generally
applied to other programs and other delegation questions since many of the issues are
similar. The guidance will also be supplemented with information relating to RCRA and the
CWA.
Comments: On the issue of overfiling raised by a member of the audience, Mr. Schaeffer
pointed out that overfihing should not occur as it is inconsistent with the notion of
partnerships. In response to a number of questions on Federal primacy, Mr. Schaeffer
observed that several States have vague provisions on the Federal primacy issue. Mr.
Schaeffer noted that this will result in case-by-case analysis of whether State or Federal law
applies, something which is not in the interest of the State or the Federal government.
Process for Managing Cases Under the Audit Policy - Gary Jonesi
As Chair of the Quick-Response Team (Audit QRT), Mr. Jonesi mentioned that other
members of the Team include representatives of various OECA offices, Regions, DOJ, and,
in the near future, Federal Facilities. The role of the QRT is to look at nationally significant
issues involving the applicability of the audit policy to individual cases. Mr. Jonesi pointed
out that the QRT is not a policy-making body in that it relies on policy language in
answering questions. The QRT does not need to examine every case since its purpose is not
to delay matters. However, he did note that the QRT is very interested in tracking every
circumstance under which the policy is applied. Specifically, the QRT wants to establish a
docket system.
Mr. Jonesi encouraged the Regions to determine potentially significant issues under the audit
policy. The QRT has a list of issues currently under consideration for which it is trying to
issue fair and expeditious determinations. The QRT captures its decisions in written
resolutions. Two of the QRT’s first written resolutions are available, providing answers to:
Question #1 (Discovery of Violations During Audits Required By Settlements: Voluntary?);
and Question #2 (EPA Inspections While Audits Are Being Performed: Any Limits?). EPA
is making these widely available and hopes to have an on-line database in the near future.
1-45
-------
He noted, that as pointed out by Bob VanHeuvelen in an earlier panel discussion, there have
been over 53 disclosures. One disclosure can be significant as in the case of a recent
disclosure received from a multi-national company with 2,600 facilities nationwide. Mr.
Jonesi commented that the regulated community has received EPA’s letter and the companies
are responding. He commented that the audit policy is working, but management challenges
exist in terms of the resources to deal with these issues.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: In terms of the company promptly reporting a violation, does the company wait
until the audit is completed or does it report each violation within 10 days throughout the
audit process?
Answer: Mr. Jonesi noted this issue is part of pending Question #6 before the QRT and has
not yet been resolved. He commented that EPA wants prompt disclosure, but recognizes it
can be supplemented later. Specifically, EPA wants to know as soon as possible the nature
of the violations and the locations so it can begin coordinating with the regions. He also
pointed out that the QRT will need to address how full a disclosure is necessary, in addition
to the promptness issue. Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that practical implementation is important
in determining the 10-day notification requirement. Mr. Jonesi also observed that Question
#14 (Definition of “May Have Discovered”) is important to examine in situations where the
entity knew the facts but was not certain that it was a violation.
Comments: On the issue of overfihing, Mr. Jonesi flagged a RCRA case (Harmon
Electronics) being heard on oral argument in Region 7 on May 1, 1996, before the
Environmental Appeals Board. He noted this is the first time that he is aware of an
adjudicatory body determining whether the audit policy applies. He observed that the Board
seems to be looking to draw lines and set policy, and commented it will be interesting to
watch this case as it will have bearing on other media statutes.
Regional Audit Case Experience - Burt Frey
Mr. Frey began by addressing an area Region 5 has gotten involved in--the review of State
audit privilege and immunity laws. He noted it is critical to have good communication
among State legal offices, legislative committees, and EPA. He specifically stated EPA must
act as one Agency on this particular point. He noted that Region 5 is only responding to
requests for comments and testimony. In terms of what to look for, Mr. Frey examined
Michigan’s law and found a number of problems with respect to the Title V program. As
specific concerns, he pointed out that the law prohibits the State from assessing civil
penalties for some significant violations that are repeat violations, deprives the State of the
ability to penalize for some violations of consent orders and decrees, provides penalty
1-46
-------
immunity even where a violation results in serious harm, and provides immunity for criminal
negligence. Such broad privileges are of particular concern for delegated programs.
In terms of applying the interim and final policy to cases, Mr. Frey pointed out there have
been two cases in Region 5. The first involved 100 percent penalty reduction in a case
involving PCB violations under which the violator met all nine criteria under the audit policy
and there was no economic benefit. A question from the audience arose on how this matter
was handled procedurally. Mr. Frey pointed out that the Region consulted with the QRT
first. The document was a complaint and a settlement at the same time because the Region
obtained a SEP. Mr. Jonesi pointed out that the QRT is not injecting itself into that end of
the process. Mr. Jonesi mentioned that in some cases the documentation may be a letter.
Mr. Schaeffer pointed out that the audit policy has broad conditions for negotiating a
settlement.
Mr. Frey continued by discussing the other case that involved 75 percent mitigation from a
recalculated EPCRA penalty in a TRI case. The only condition not met was that the
violations were not discovered pursuant to an audit or “due diligence.” Mr. Frey pointed out
that the penalty policies were consistent in this case and there was no “double dipping ”
Mr. Frey also discussed the issue of raising cases of national importance to the QRT.
Specifically, Question #1 before the QRT was a Region 5 case. On the relationship of the
audit policy’s requirement to ISO 14000, Mr. Frey only had time to mention that there are
similarities between the two.
Regional Audit Case Experience - Jack Fox
Mr. Fox began by mentioning a Region 10 case that is often cited for the development of the
audit privilege. It was a criminal case involving Weyerhauser. During a search pursuant to
a warrant, EPA discovered the company’s environmental audit report. The company failed
to get it privileged. The report showed the company had long known of the violations but
had not taken appropriate action. Mr. Fox then commented that he had conducted an
informal poll among Regional Counsel and had found no case where violations discovered in
the audit report were used as the basis for a civil or a criminal case. Mr. Fox raised the
concern of disparate State provisions and the potential need for moving towards a Federal
audit privilege statute. He specifically commented on Idaho’s law that provides absolute
privilege and absolute immunity.
Only two cases have arisen in Region 10, one of which is currently being litigated. The
other involved Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The company claimed it did not know it
was covered by RCRA and that certain waste was hazardous waste. The company met all
the conditions under voluntary self-policing and received a 100 percent waiver. Mr.
Schaeffer pointed out that the case came under the interim policy; the interim policy used
voluntary self-evaluation loosely so there was no need to consider whether it was a true
1-47
-------
audit. Mr. Fox pointed out it would have been unlikely that EPA would have discovered the
violations independently.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comments: In terms of the form the cases take, one participant mentioned that there should
be uniform procedures. Several of the panelists noted EPA does not have a mechanism for
tracking non-cases, and thus there needs to be an efficient way to register non-cases. Mr.
Schaeffer also noted EPA is considering developing a monthly/quarterly report to detail cases
under the audit policy and highlight developments in the policy. He also commented that
since Headquarters should not be notified directly of disclosures, the OPPA is considering
the designation of persons in regions to serve as coordinators. Mr. Jonesi stated the QRT is
working on clarifying procedures for regions to get issues into the QRT process. The
question was raised as to whether there is anything to prohibit a State from implementing the
policy. Mr. Schaeffer noted California has basically adopted it.
1-48
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #3
Compliance Assistance: Accomplishments and Challenges
April 9, 1996
3:3Opm-5 :OOpm
Session Leader: Mamie Miller, Chief, Manufacturing Branch, Office of
Compliance
Session Panelists: Linda Moran, Director, State of Maryland Small Business
Assistance Program
David Webster, Region 1, Manager, Assistance and Pollution
Prevention, Office of Environmental Stewardship
Tracy Back, Sector Leader, Chemical Industries, Office of
Compliance
Session Objectives: The session discussed examples of successful compliance
assistance and upcoming issues about the role of assistance,
resources available, and appropriate delivery mechanisms.
Overview of Compliance Assistance Tools Available - Mamie Miller
There are numerous compliance assistance tools developed at the Federal and State levels that
vary depending on the intended use and the targeted audience. However, there are two basic
categories of compliance assistance: general outreach and facility specific.
General outreach activities established by the Office of Compliance include: the four
compliance assistance centers (metal finishing, printing, agriculture, and auto services); 18
different sector notebooks; the development and presentation of workshops and seminars;
and, the development of guidance documents (e.g., dry cleaners and worker protection
guidance) and compliance checklists (e.g., printing and auto service).
Providing onsite compliance assistance is an area of concern due to potential liability and the
possibility of compromising future enforcement actions. However, the Regions have been
active in providing compliance assistance. For example, Regions 1 and 4 have focused on
copper and lead violations in small public water systems. Region 6 (in conjunction with
Oklahoma) provides assistance to foundries on a voluntary basis, while Region 10 provides
assistance on worker protection.
1-49
-------
Maryland Small Business Assistance Program - Linda Moran
The Maryland Small Business Assistance Program was developed in response to Section 507
of the CAA which mandated such programs. Every State has some form of a program.
Maryland’s program began as an air program but expanded to include multi-media assistance
in response to small business needs. Over 50 percent of State programs are now multi-
media. Most State programs have a staff of one to five persons; Maryland’s program has a
staff of one.
The program’s focus is to:
• Broker information. The program primarily focuses on brokering information
to the approximately 90 percent of industries that want to comply. The other
10 percent are generally unknown and not included in the program. The State
has found that many facilities will come forward if they know what to do.
• Build partnerships to broker information. The program provides assistance by
sectors and determines what each sector needs. The State has found that
different sectors need different types of assistance. The State works with trade
associations and vendors (e.g., perchioroethylene vendors for dry cleaners) to
provide support. The State has also tried to build partnerships with other
assistance providers (e.g., Departments of Commerce, community colleges,
vocational technical schools) and has also formed partnerships with Maryland
Department of Environment inspectors. Once tools are developed, the
compliance and enforcement inspectors distribute the assistance information.
• So far, the program has provided outreach to dry cleaners, chrome platers,
autobody shops, gas stations, and mechanic shops. The program will be
providing assistance for printing and furniture refinishing in the future.
The program works on a sector-basis and first determines what compliance assistance each
sector needs. Methods that work with one sector may not work with another sector. Rural
businesses do not tend to join trade groups or work with consultants but rather look to their
suppliers for information. Therefore, the State relies on suppliers (e.g., chemical suppliers)
as well as trade associations to distribute information.
Elements of a successful outreach program include:
• Partnering with industry. The first contact is typically trade associations or
major vendors.
• Providing comprehensive regulatory information.
• Providing multi-faceted assistance.
1-50
-------
• Providing pollution prevention information.
• Providing feedback mechanisms.
• Maintaining relationships. It is very important to maintain relationships. The
program has received awards and honors from businesses and receives many
phone calls for information.
One of the program’s biggest challenges is to provide small businesses with adequate
comprehensive information without overwhelming them. The program lets facilities guide it
in how much information they can handle.
Ms. Moran suggested that tools developed by Headquarters (such as guidance manuals)
should not be developed only in hard-copy format since States may have different regulations
that may change the guidance. Guidance documents should be flexible to allow States to
input their specific information.
The program is continuing with sector outreach projects and is joining environmental
recognition programs where compliance is used as a baseline to get something to market.
Small businesses are happy with this approach.
The program’s biggest challenge is communication, particularly with EPA. It is difficult to
know what is being done and what regulations and guidance are coming out. Lack of
resources is also a problem as is technical assistance versus compliance assistance. The
program provides general information but not specific solutions to site-specific problems.
Assistance and Pollution Prevention Program in Region 1 - David Webster
The Region’s general approach to compliance assistance is to focus on sectors (including the
common sense initiative sectors), determine where there are problems (e.g., risk-based
targeting), and determine the right type of assistance (e.g., workshops, guidance). The
program tries to promote innovation to go beyond compliance and to encourage people to be
good environmental stewards.
The staff of the Office of Environmental Stewardship is two-thirds enforcement and one-third
compliance assistance and pollution prevention. The mission of the Assistance and Pollution
prevention Office is to assist businesses, municipalities, tribes, and others to adopt pollution
prevention and other environmentally sound practices to meet and exceed environmental
standards. This mission is accomplished through working with partners (e.g., States and
trade associations), recognition, incentives, identifying industry needs, and promoting respect
and trust within and outside the Agency. The staff includes 32 employees and six contract
employees.
1-51
-------
Compliance assistance that is provided includes:
• EPCRA support, including seminars and workshops for people reporting TRI
information and public information on TRI. This also involves providing
assistance for Chemical Emergency Planning for fire and police departments,
including workshops and computer tracking and modeling.
• Solid waste program support includes waste minimization, answering
questions, and voluntary programs (e.g., Waste Wi$e). The Wastecap
Program conducts audits to tell people how to reduce solid waste.
• Business and innovative technologies’ section promotes new solutions to
problems and includes demonstration projects (e.g., permitting of onsite
disposal systems) and voluntary programs (e.g., Greenlights and CFC
outreach).
• InnGvative environmental performance looks for new ways to go beyond
compliance to source reduction and pollution prevention. There is a Regional
environmental leadership program that has 20 companies enrolled, each with a
special project. Project XL is also being promoted in the Region, as well as
3PC and CLEAN.
• NEEAT team is sector-based. Sectors are selected based on CSI sectors,
MOA guidance, risk-based analysis, and where the expertise lies. The
program does not provide onsite assistance but brokers assistance by finding a
partner. For example, the program may co-sponsor a workshop with a partner
such as a State.
All of the States in Region 1 have active assistance programs; two of the States provide
onsite technical assistance. The Regional program works with these States. The Office
promotes partnerships with trade associations, since its staff are not experts on each sector.
CLEAN, a project conducted with trade associations to promote pollution prevention, is
being field tested. An agreement is drafted with the facility that grants enforcement amnesty
for non-repeat violations and violations that do not threaten public health or the environment
or are not criminal. The facility gets a free technical assistance visit by a partner which has
technical experts that make suggested technical changes. This work is performed with grant
money (totaling approximately $100,000).
Region 1 is trying to go beyond compliance assistance because even if 100 percent of all
facilities were in compliance, there would be environmental problems. Therefore, they must
address resource conservation and pollution prevention.
1-52
-------
Joint EPA/Chemical Manufacturers Association Project - Tracy Back
EPA worked with the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) to develop compliance
tools for the Section 608 Leak Repair Amendments. This was an open process in which
industry and regulators worked together to develop the assistance tools. CMA identified the
608 leak repair requirements as being the topic on which to focus. These regulations were
proposed in January 1995, promulgated on August 8, 1995, and became effective on
September 7, 1995. The project was started in May 1995 and was designed to have the tools
available when the rule became effective. The compliance document was published
approximately one month after the rule became effective.
CMA indicated that educational tools needed for newly promulgated rules are essential but
often not available for several years after finalization of the regulations. In this case, the
desire was to issue a compliance document concurrently with the regulations. Working with
CMA demonstrated EPA’s ability to work with the regulated community and better enabled
them to target the right audience and determine what types of tools were needed.
A core group was formed that included staff from the Office of Compliance and the Office of
Atmospheric Programs (Division of Stratospheric Ozone Protection), Region 3, and staff
from CMA as well as CMA member companies. The person who was developing the
regulations was included in the core group. The workgroup invited environmental groups
and affected unions to participate, but these groups did not have the resources to participate.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: A participant questioned whether the rule was finalized when the tools were being
developed and whether having the regulatory writer on the workgroup affected the final rule.
Answer: Ms. Back indicated that the workgroup based the initial drafts on the proposed rule
and worked only with what was in the Federal Register. The workgroup did not make any
policy decisions and having the regulatory writer on the workgroup did not affect the final
rule.
Question: Was the workgroup a FACA group?
Answer: Ms. Back indicated that it was not a FACA group. A member of the audience
explained that there are a series of criteria to be a FACA group (e.g., advising the Agency)
and that a workgroup could be put together so that it is not a consensus making group
advising the Agency. Ms. Back explained that the workgroup just developed compliance
assistance tools and was not an advisory group.
Comments: Ms. Back pointed out that the tools were developed to promote early compliance
with the regulations and did not provide technical assistance. The tools focused on aspects of
1-53
-------
the amendments relevant to industrial process refrigeration systems. A compliance guidance
was developed first. A training module (consisting of 40 slides and instructor’s notes) and a
self-audit checklist were also developed. The effectiveness of tools will be evaluated through
a users’ survey included with the tools
Lessons learned include:
• Trade associations and member companies want to understand what they need
to do to comply and want to work with the regulatory agencies.
• Program office, Regional, and State (where appropriate) involvement is
essential.
• It is necessary to work in an open environment and to get all stakeholders
involved.
Question: A participant asked whether this project was a precursor to the way regulations
and guidance will be handled in the future.
Answer: Ms. Back explained that it would be very helpful if compliance tools could be
distributed with new regulations. The Agency will be working with CMA to develop a
similar package of tools for the RCRA Subpart CC regulations due out in June 1996. *
Question: Do the compliance assistance tools developed interpret the regulations?
Answer: Ms. Back explained that the tools explained the regulations in a logical and
simplified manner and did not provide technical assistance. Ms. Miller explained that any
interpretation of this rule would be in the context of a specific request from a specific
facility. The Agency is trying to steer clear of issuing generalized interpretative guidance on
regulations because it is not possible to anticipate all applicable nuances.
*Note: Since the National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Conference, the RCRA
Subpart CC rule date has been detained due to litigation. EPA’s role in the development of
these compliance tools has stopped until further notice.
1-54
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #4
Civil Enforcement: Getting Maximum Deterrence and Environmental Results
April 9, 1996
3 :3Opm-5 :OOpm
Session Leader: Janet Bearden, Acting Director, Air Enforcement Division,
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Session Panelists: Melissa Marshall, Division Director of Multi-Media
Enforcement Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Bruce Gelber, Department of Justice
Marcia Mulkey, Regional Counsel, Region 3
Sam Coleman, Director, Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division, Region 6
Eric Cohen, Regional Counsel, Region 5
Session Objectives: The session discussed examples of high-impact cases and recent
or upcoming policy changes designed to strengthen EPA’s
enforcement efforts.
Introduction - Janet Bearden
Ms. Bearden opened the session by stating that there are a number of critical elements to the
outcome of every successful case, and that this breakout session would focus on the
following four elements:
• Targeting
• Litigation Development
• Innovative Relief
• Enforcement Actions.
Ms. Bearden encouraged Conference participants to not took backward to last year’s
successes, but to use the ideas and cases presented in this session as springboards for
innovative and new approaches for achieving deterrence and beneficial environmental results.
Ms. Bearden encouraged participants to reinvent, redefine, and rediscover enforcement.
1-55
-------
Enforcement Targeting - Sam Coleman
Mr. Colemen stated that enforcement targeting is where the whole process starts. Mr.
Coleman indicated that traditionally, targeting originated at his “in box” in that only cases
that were brought to his staff’s attention were evaluated and, if appropriate, were subject to
enforcement. However, based on the increased availability of data and the use of computers
to manipulate such data, that traditional approach is changing.
This year, Region 6 implemented a comprehensive targeting effort across its entire
enforcement program that allowed the Region to identify multi-media and single media
targets. As described by Mr. Coleman, the steps of the comprehensive targeting effort
include:
(1) Determining the principles/criteria to be used for the area or Region at the
beginning of the year.
(2) Gathering all existing data (e.g., EPA databases, information available from
OECA, facility violation information, TRI release data, toxicity data on
chemicals released to sensitive environments, GIS/population data) that support
or are related to the selected criteria.
(3) Using this information to identify multi-media targets (e.g., facilities with a
high likelihood of having violations of several statutes in a key area) and single
media targets (e.g., facilities that historically have tended to have one kind of
violation, such as lead foundries that have RCRA violations, or concentrations
of auto salvage yards that have CWA violations).
Using this approach, Region 6 was very successful in identifying targets that met the
Region’s targeting criteria. Mr. Coleman stressed that as resources decline, properly
targeting facilities becomes more important. Region 6 has reviewed its inspection record and
found that by using the new approach to targeting, the Region has had a significantly higher
number of violations per inspection, indicating improved efficiency and suggesting greater
potential for environmental protection.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Is the targeting approach described used for delegated and non-delegated
programs?
Answer: Mr. Coleman responded that Region 6 coordinated closely with State agencies in
delegated States regarding facilities that were identified as targets in those States. If a
facility was on a State list, then the Region dropped that facility from its list. The Region
also informed States of other facilities that the Region wanted to inspect and either the State
1-56
-------
or the Region agreed to conduct the inspections. In delegated States, the State agreed that
where the Region conducted the inspection, the Region would take the enforcement action if
a violation was found. Mr. Coleman stated that this targeting initiative was facilitated by
having all of the enforcement staff in one Division.
Question: Has the participation of enforcement attorneys in targeting made a difference in
the process?
Answer: Mr. Coleman responded that the attorneys do make a difference because they bring
different knowledge of the case to the table. Attorneys are familiar with some of the
facilities and often know about previous violations. For example, enforcement attorneys
know that RCRA violations are often a problem for oil companies.
Question: What has been done in terms of press coordination?
Answer: Mr. Coleman indicated that coordination with the press has been minimal in Region
6, largely because it is difficult to obtain positive coverage of certain types of enforcement
actions.
Question: Has Region 6 completed any follow-up inspections?
Answer: Mr. Coleman responded that because the inspections have just been completed this
year, there has not been sufficient time to complete follow-up inspections. Follow-up
inspections will be conducted next year.
Question: Do facilities targeted by Region 6 match facilities on the SNC list?
Answer: Mr. Coleman responded that facilities may end up on the SNC list even if they are
on a compliance schedule (e.g., a facility on a compliance schedule may continue to report
its DMR levels that exceed their permit limits, causing them to continue to appear on the
SNC list). He stated that Region 6 does not prefer to issue repeat orders to such facilities;
Region 6 would rather use those resources to target other non-complying facilities (e.g.,
minor sources).
Litigation Development - Bruce Gelber and Marcia Mulkey
Mr. Gelber presented DOJ’s perspective on the civil enforcement case development process.
Mr. Gelber stated that he believes there is currently a very good civil enforcement system in
place, and overall, the program is effective and does not need major reinvention. However,
there is some room for change in the case development process. He identified areas where
he thinks that some work can be done to make the process more effective.
1-57
-------
Mr. Gelber identified three areas for potential improvement:
Timing - There is both a perception and, to some extent, a real problem that
the civil judicial process is too slow. DOJ and EPA would be much more
effective if they were doing this year’s cases and not last year’s cases.
• Quality of Cases - Quality should not be sacrificed for quantity. The old
“bean system” really does need to be revised to achieve some balance between
quality and quantity. There needs to be enforcement activity in all the baseline
programs while, at the same time, we must ensure that the right cases are
being brought.
• Coordination - In this time of limited resources, there is a range of potentially
useful resources and mechanisms available to enforcement staff. EPA and
DOJ need to do a better job of coordinating and developing processes to
efficiently use these resources and to avoid duplication.
Mr. Gelber discussed several activities that DOJ has undertaken to address these problems.
The first is the case filing effort. This effort was an attempt by DOJ to eliminate the backlog
of old cases and break the cycle of always prosecuting last year’s cases. The effort has been
highly successful. Beginning in mid-January 1996, DOJ identified 266 unfiled cases on its
docket, and estimated it could file 180 of those by the end of March 1996. Mr. Gelber
reported that DOJ has filed 131 of those cases, with another 30-50 cases poised to be filed in
the next month [ of the remaining cases, 28 have been withdrawn (no decision), and 57 are
in negotiation or require resolution of some additional issue].
The second activity involves DOJ imposing internal rules on its process to limit the “black
hole” of prefihing negotiations. In the past, cases have gotten into prefiling negotiations that
would go on for years. DOJ has created self-imposed deadlines. In addition, it has issued a
rule that if a person has the authority to file a compliant, that person will make a good faith
effort to settle the case, subject to specific time limits (e.g., 30 days), and that generally if
the case cannot be resolved within the specified time period, it will be filed. Internal
coordination and streamlining has accompanied this effort. For a case that cannot be
resolved, the staff attorney who wants more time to negotiate may make a request to the
Assistant Chief for 30 additional days. Beyond that, the attorney would have to approach the
Section Chief or Deputy Chief and show that there is a real reason not to file the case. This
approach is beginning to become effective.
In addition, DOJ has instituted internal streamlining, including placing less effort on the
review of internal documents, and eliminating layers of review in order to be more effective
and reserve resources for processing more cases. DOJ is trying to set up greater access to
internal Section expertise to improve efficiency (e.g., a team of RCRA experts called the
RCRA Subtitle C-Dogs).
1-58
-------
DOJ has also tried to develop new procedures to improve coordination with the
environmental crimes component of the enforcement system. One procedure is having a
freer exchange of information. For example, DOJ is having criminal lawyers review civil
referrals to see if there is a suggestion of criminal activity. Similarly, DOJ is referring the
“not so good” criminal cases for appropriate civil activity. DOJ is also exploring the
possibility of more joint civil/criminal enforcement efforts.
Mr. Gelber identified the following as additional changes that DOJ would like to make in the
future:
Mod jfy the pre-referral case development process - In all non-routine cases that
may have a judicial component, the Region and DOJ should form a team for
development of the case. The advantages of a team are that: (1) the case is
learned at the same time; (2) there is more effective division of labor; and, (3)
there is more effective coordination in terms of case team development. For
some cases, the team may decide to involve NEIC, the press office, or the
community relations office. It is better to bring them in early in the case,
instead of at the end. Good examples of pre-referral process are the Kodak
and the Louisiana-PacWc cases.
• Change the post-referral process - There should be an end to the “ping-pong
game” between the Regions and DOJ whereby cases are handed back and forth
for less than fully substantive reasons. Mr. Gelber suggested some changes
may be required to the MOA that was signed in 1977 between DOJ and EPA.
Mr. Gelber suggested that deadlines be assigned to each stage of the process.
Each case should not be in any one category for an unreasonable amount of
time.
• Revise the model litigation report - The model litigation report is out of date.
Ms. Mulkey asked if DOJ has a model internal approval memo that DOJ
would let the Regions use. Mr. Gelber responded that DOJ did have an
internal memo; however, he would like to use a combination of the model
internal approval memo, plus identification of areas that need to be a focus of
discussion for each report. He observed that it is important to understand
where each fits in (i.e., what goal is to be achieved).
• Find ways of improving coordination - Mr. Gelber stated that there are many
resources available, and DOJ and the Regions need to be more efficient in
using them to decide when to take a case to the judicial level. He mentioned,
as an example, bringing the press, community relations, State and citizen
groups, and the NEIC into the process earlier.
Ms. Mulkey added that it is time to adopt a new “conventional wisdom” at EPA and DOJ
regarding the relationship between the two organizations. She urged participants to let go of
1-59
-------
old thinking. Ms. Mulkey stressed that DOJ and EPA are dependent on each other when it
comes to civil judicial enforcement, and that a partnership needs to be formed between the
two agencies. The civil judicial option needs to be used every time it is the right option.
Ms. Mulkey discussed three cases that have been successfully handled because of EPA and
DOJ working together:
• The Blue Plains Case - In this case, EPA/DOJ recently filed a settlement with
the District of Columbia. This settlement was possible because DOJ got
involved early in the process and met with EPA and District officials to settle
the case. There was an excellent litigation team which creatively designed and
packaged the settlement (which contained no penalty).
• The Werton, W. Va. Case - Werton is a large, employee-owned steel facility
with multiple violations. To discuss the case, a meeting was held with the
Regional Administrator, the Chief Executive Officer, a seasoned litigation
attorney from DOJ, and a Regional EPA attorney. By the time the Region is
ready to file the case, DOJ will be ready for it because they already know the
case intimately.
• Bear island Case - This case is over a year old and EPA and DOJ had to
decide whether to abandon it or to file administratively. DOJ suggested a
waiver, shifting the case from judicial to administrative. EPA felt this was a
constructive option since it achieves some deterrence.
Ms. Mulkey stated that the format of referrals is changing; approximately 25 percent of
Region 3’s referrals are now “long letters,” as opposed to formal referral reports. She added
that it is time to reconsider the referral mechanism to achieve pragmatism and an
individualized approach.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: A participant asked about the nature of the Blue Plains case referral.
Answer: Ms. Mulkey responded that by the time the case was formally referred to DOJ,
there was a consent decree, so the referral consisted of a medium-sized letter. The letter
needs to show that there is a responsible basis for the referral. Mr. Gelber stated that the
purpose of the letter is to memorialize a formal request from one official to another official.
Ms. Mulkey noted that there has been some disagreement between the Regions and DOJ as
to how much information is enough.
Comments: A participant commented that the most important part of the process being
suggested is deadlines. EPA and DOJ are deadline driven. Right now there is only one
deadline: the 60-day deadline. It seems that as the deadline approaches, there are two
1-60
-------
choices: either file the case or find a problem. When enforcement staff are busy, that
becomes an easy choice. That is also when the EPA and DOJ tend to start passing the case
back and forth. The real problem is that nobody has time to address the case. Ms. Mulkey
responded that she believed that is part of the old “conventional wisdom.” She believes that
there is now a sense of commitment to filing cases, one that will extend beyond the case
filing initiative. Ms. Mulkey stated that she could not remember the last case that was
returned to avoid a 60-day deadline. The participant countered that the cases were not being
returned, but they were being put into categories saying “held at EPA’s request” or “awaiting
EPA information,” which is basically the same thing. Ms. Mulkey responded that she
believes there is a true abandonment of playing games around the 60-day clock at DOJ. All
cases are not going to be filed in 60 days, but EPA may start to see them filed in 90 or 120
days.
Comments: A participant commented that they liked Mr. Gelber’s idea of putting deadlines
on each part of the process. Mr. Gelber commented that as part of DOJ’s case filing
initiative, staff sat down and arrayed the cases and asked the following questions: Why isn’t
this case moving? What is the reason? What are the barriers? What do we do next to get it
moving? Is it a policy issue? Is there a fact that’s missing? Is it that you don’t have time to
get to it? If DOJ does not have time, then DOJ can call up the Region and, based on the
importance of the case, make a joint decision.
Comments: A participant offered a comment on the issue of cases being passed back and
forth between DOJ and EPA. He believes that there are going to have to be some cultural
changes within the Regions and DOJ to make these new ideas work. A participant
commented that is it important to mention one of the reasons why it has been possible for
DOJ to have the luxury of self-examination this year; EPA has not referred a large number
of cases to DOJ. She stated that the idea of working together on cases throughout the year is
good provided that not many cases are referred. She cautioned, however, that for those
Regions that are going to make an effort to actually refer a large number of cases this year,
in an effort to reaffirm a Federal enforcement presence, there is a danger that in September
the Regions are going to be too busy to work with DOJ. Thus, DOJ may be in the same
situation in January 1997.
Comments: A participant commented that DOJ and EPA should not over-emphasize getting
cases filed, at the risk of having them languish in court. In addition, he believes that it is a
long, hard sell to change the thinking in the Regions and to actually convince them that DOJ
is going to file their cases. Mr. Gelber asked that everyone try to help in promoting the new
way of thinking in the Regions.
Comments: Mr. Coleman commented that in addition to Mr. Gelber’s list of changes, there
should be a change in the way that EPA manages enforcement. The concept that a referral is
credited as a “bean” does not promote overall enforcement effectiveness. Mr. Coleman
stated that probably 80 percent of the work arises after the case is referred. Mr. Coleman
also noted that from Region 6’s perspective, there is a gulf that exists between DOJ and EPA
1-61
-------
staff. He believes that there is significant animosity that remains from past experiences. He
encouraged EPA staff to get the facts from both EPA and DOJ before passing judgement on
a case situation.
Comments: A participant stated that her Region has a good relationship with DOJ, and has
maintained excellent communication with the Department. She noted that EPA Regional staff
have held conference calls regularly with DOJ staff to identify barriers for certain cases and
to determine who, within each organization, needs to take action.
Comments: A participant commented that they believe the problem is inadequate resources,
and that some Regional staff feel like they are being second-guessed by DOJ, resulting in the
inefficient use of resources. Mr. Gelber commented that he is hopeful that EPA referrals
will increase and that DOJ can use the approaches discussed today to be able to manage the
larger case load.
Comments: A Region 9 participant stated that the greatest obstacle to having high
enforcement numbers in the EPA Regions is the continually unresolved question of Federal
enforcement in delegated States. Some delegated States do not want EPA to be involved in
the State at all.
Innovative Relief - Eric Cohen
Mr. Cohen explained that innovative relief has the following four components:
• Using the law differently and knowing the real problem in the environment
that needs to be corrected
• Developing new partnerships with States, tribes, and others
• Relating the relief to the community being impacted by the environmental
problem
• Making the violator clean up its own mess to reduce the environmental harm.
Mr. Cohen illustrated this new approach with two examples. The first involves the Copper
Range case. The Copper Range is a smelter that spews metals into Lake Superior and other
inland lakes.
• Using the law differently - Mercury deposition was the problem. To use the
CAA in this case, EPA targeted particulates and SO 2 , which resulted in
capturing mercury. EPA found that by pursuing a violation of the particulate
standard, the Agency could get the facility to reduce particulates, and thus
reduce mercury.
1-62
-------
• Making partnerships - EPA developed partnerships with the Native Americans
in the Upper Peninsula to obtain their support. This partnership put pressure
on EPA and on the State of Michigan to keep the whole process moving
forward. The National Wildlife Federation had filed a civil suit and instead of
fighting them, EPA entered into a partnership with them.
• Relating the relief - Native Americans were concerned that fish were
contaminated with high levels of mercury and other metals.
• Making the violator clean up - In addition to controlling SO 2 and particulates,
the Copper Range paid a large settlement ($4.8 million), $3 million of which
is being placed into the Lake Superior Basin Trust Fund to be operated by the
University of Michigan, the tribes, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin, and
the National Wildlife Federation. These groups will study the problem of
mercury deposition in the lakes and how to go about cleaning it up.
The second example involves the Grand Caiwnet River (GCR) case. This case focused on
northwest Indiana and the Grand Calumet River, which is mainly an industrial discharge
receiver. The GCR discharges through ground water to Lake Michigan, which is a drinking
water source for a large population area around Chicago.
• Using the law differently - EPA/DOJ has used its authority to require sediment
remediation as a component in each enforcement case. Thus, in addition to
halting current pollution, these actions help fix past environmental problems
that contribute to the current contamination of the GCR and Lake Michigan.
• Making partnerships - EPA has developed partnerships with the States
involved.
• Relating the relief - The drinking water supply in Lake Michigan is critical to
many people; therefore, the harm caused by the pollution could be related to
the environment and to the community that was drawing the water.
• Making the violator clean up - Sediment remediation will be either negotiated
as a SEP as part of the consent decree, or included as part of the injunctive
relief. The violators are cleaning up historical discharges to the sediment of
the GCR and basically making that river safer. In the meantime, the GCR is a
buffer between Lake Michigan and the dischargers.
1-63
-------
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comments: A participant questioned whether EPA staff are taking advantage of all the
Agency’s resources to get information for injunctive relief and SEPS. The participant
suggested that EPA may need to develop some type of data bank for this information or
design “off-the-shelf t ’ SEPS. A participant mentioned there is an Enviro$en$e/Internet SEP
database being developed (a joint OC/ORE project) which will contain innovative SEPs when
completed.
Enforcement Actions - Melissa Marshall
Ms. Marshall spoke briefly about enforcement actions, focusing on the need for targeting
communication to achieve optimum deterrence. Ms. Marshall stated that communication
strategies are important for effective enforcement. One mistake that is made in
communicating enforcement actions is not targeting the appropriate audience. She noted that
it is important to remember that to achieve deterrence we must communicate enforcement
actions to the regulated community, not simply to the general public or to the enforcement
community. Ms. Marshall stated that an effective way to ensure that the regulated
community learns of enforcement actions affecting their industry is to communicate such
actions to trade and professional associations that represent the relevant industry. Such
associations generally are effective in disseminating such information to their members. Ms.
Marshall concluded that deterrence involves communicating the right message (i.e., the
success of an enforcement action) to the correct audience.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Process
The session also discussed the MOA process. Ms. Marshall noted that Ms. Musgrove was
going to talk about the interface of the MOA process, but due to a delayed flight, she was
unable to attend this session. Ms. Marshall opened the floor to anyone who wished to
comment on the MOA process.
Mr. Coleman stated that when the MOA guidance was distributed, Region 6 received
multiple FOIA requests for its MOA even before it was written. Because of this, they knew
that the document would be widely distributed. Therefore, as Region 6 conducted its
targeting, it included the methodology in the MOA but not the specific targets or number of
actions. However, Mr. Coleman understands the MOA provides Headquarters with an idea
of how the Regions are pursuing their enforcement programs.
Ms. Mulkey stated that OECA has given up some control of individual cases with the
understanding that the trade-off from the Regions was a specific commitment in the MOA.
The MOA serves as the up-front agreement between Headquarters and the Regions. The
Regions are showing resistance to the agreements and need to be reminded that this is what
1-64
-------
they agreed to do. Ms. Mulkey acknowledged that the process is not working well, but that
everyone needs to work on the process with an understanding that this is what the Regions
chose in lieu of case-by-case oversight.
A participant brought up a concern that one Region did put all the information into its MOA,
and now is wondering if the Region should redo the whole MOA. Another Regional
participant commented that based on recent guidance, OECA no longer believes that the
MOAs are subject to release under FOIA. A panelist responded that this was definitely an
issue. It raises the question of which is worse--an MOA with non-FOIA information or an
MOA that is subject to release under FOIA but does not contain a great deal of information,
and thus will not be beneficial to the OECA-Region relationship.
Ms. Marshall stated that the issue is accountability; she hopes that the issue will get fleshed
out at the MOA Conference following this Conference. She stated that the initial draft MOA
guidance was like a grid where it was highly accountable to resources committed for each
media or for multi-media; that was abandoned in favor of the more generic MOA process.
She thinks that something in between is probably the best solution. While Headquarters does
not want the stringent controls, she stated that there has been an enormous amount of
frustration over the last year in Headquarters’ understanding of what the Regions were doing,
and probably vice versa.
An Office of Compliance participant stated that the MOA was always intended to be a
management device, and a management device has to include measures of accountability.
The notion was that if Headquarters was not going to do the grid, then the Regions should
come up with some indicator of what they will do. No one contemplated that the Regions
would put down the name of the firm, but they did contemplate that the Regions would put
down that they would have, for example, x number of these and y numbers of those, or
efforts in a particular area accounting for a specific amount of total work conducted. The
MOA is a management tool. When we talk about how do you achieve effective enforcement
through an MOA, the presumption is that the MOA is a tool that Headquarters would use as
a way to account for Regional effectiveness. Whatever the MOA is now or becomes in the
future, it should still capture that much information.
1-65
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #5
Brownfields: A New Role for EPA
April 9, 1996
3:3Opm-5:OOpm
Session Leader: Susan Bromm, Deputy Office Director, Office of Site
Remediation, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Session Panelists: Connie Tucker, Southern Organizing Committee for Economic
and Social Justice
Lawrence Jacobson, Mortgage Bankers Association
Matthew Hoagland, Region 1
Joseph Otte, State of Minnesota
Helen Keplinger, Office of Site Remediation, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Session Objectives: The session discussed how EPA and the States, working with
industry and communities, can help pave the way to cleaning up
old, contaminated properties and return them to economic
viability in a way that makes a positive contribution to the
community.
Introduction - Susan Bromm
Ms. Bromm acknowledged the participation of the distinguished panel and welcomed all
participants to this important discussion. Ms. Bromm emphasized that although the
Brownfields issue is typically associated with the CERCLA or Superfund programs, the
Agency correctly recognizes that the issue transcends specific media programs; in fact, the
issue is being addressed by numerous Federal agencies. In solving the issues related to
Brownfields, EPA envisions a win/win result for the local community, local economy,
industry, local and State governments, and EPA.
Conununity Involvement - Connie Tucker
Ms. Tucker stated that the Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice
is one of the fastest growing networks at the grassroots level in the South. Ms. Tucker
applauded EPA’s efforts to address the numerous issues surrounding Brownfields; however,
1-66
-------
she emphasized that EPA and other stakeholders must remember that the community is the
single most important ingredient in the formula for resolving the problems associated with
“waste lands,” as the label given to Brownfields by affected communities.
EPA must endeavor to get the local community involved in the process and recognize the
roots of apathy within the affected community. Historically, these communities have been left
out of the process of determining land use and economic development. EPA and State
governments must educate and empower the local community to understand the issues and to
participate in a meaningful way in the decision-making process.
Applicants for EPA-sponsored Brownfields pilot projects must start the process with an open
dialogue within the local community to understand community members’ issues, concerns,
and desires for future redevelopment. The local community must be consulted on issues such
as: cleanup goals (e.g., Will site cleanup meet or exceed background contamination levels?);
and, future land use (e.g., What type of development is envisioned for the reclaimed
property? Will redevelopment continue the environmental degradation that caused the current
problems or will it contribute to the revitalization and economic sustainability of the local
community?). These are critical issues that must be addressed.
Ms. Tucker encouraged pilot project applicants to go beyond merely placing notices in
newspapers and in the community to solicit local community input. Rather, applicants must
proactively interact with community members whose lives are affected by the conditions --
both social and economic -- surrounding these Brownfield sites. Such interaction is crucial in
order to clearly define the issues of concern and to design an effective solution that truly
meets the real needs of the community. Real solutions for persons most directly affected by
these sites cannot be identified and implemented if applicants only work with community
members having connections within city hail or the mayor’s office. To be truly successful,
the redevelopment plan cannot simply be the “mayor’s plan” or “city hall’s” plan; it must be
a community-based plan, representing the real needs of the affected community.
Ms. Tucker encouraged pilot project applicants to involve the youth of the affected
community directly in the decision-making process. Applicants can utilize local religious,
civic, and neighborhood organizations to interact with affected community members.
Applicants can work with the community going door to door to explain that grant monies are
available to begin the process of solving these problems. If the local affected community
members are convinced that their concerns and desires will be incorporated into the decision-
making process, and that there will be real benefits realized through redevelopment, the
community will become actively involved in the process.
1-67
-------
Investment Issues - Lawrence Jacobson
Mr. Jacobson provided a brief summary of the history and purpose of the Mortgage Bankers
Association. As a member of the environmental committee within the Mortgage Bankers
Association, Mr. Jacobson has been very active in working with EPA in resolving issues
within the CERCLA program affecting the flow of investment dollars into redeveloping
Brownfield sites. Mr. Jacobson listed a number of recent EPA policy decisions (i.e., Policy
Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers - May 1995; Policy on
CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that Acquire Property
Involuntarily - October 1995; Lender Liability Rule for USTs - September 1995; Guidance
on Settlements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Properties - May 1995; and the
dc-listing of approximately 25,000 sites from the CERCLIS database) as evidence of EPA’s
sincere interest in removing some of the unintended barriers to investments for
redevelopment of Brownfield sites.
Mr. Jacobson acknowledged that recent EPA reforms have been beneficial in removing
doubts among lending institutions concerning future investments in contaminated properties.
However, the Mortgage Bankers Association believes the existing CERCLA statute is
antiquated and significant reforms are necessary as part of the CERCLA reauthorization
process to improve the investment climate.
Removing these disincentives to investment is particularly important because of other
favorable conditions supporting potential investments in redeveloped properties. Mr.
Jacobson stated that based on recent meetings between the Mortgage Bankers Association and
potential developers (i.e., Urban Land Institute), it is clear that significant sums of monies
are available for real estate investments, and interest rates continue to be relatively low. In
1996, experts predict the top real estate investment category to be light industrial and
commercial developments, both of which are very suitable to Brownfield projects. In
addition to EPA’s efforts at the Federal level, more States are implementing voluntary
cleanup programs that are conducive to investment in redeveloped properties. Finally, new
technologies are being developed to decrease the cost of cleanup activities.
Mr. Jacobson questioned whether the EPA reforms to date will be sufficient to leverage
investment in Brownfields. Although it is apparent that more investment deals are happening
as a result of these reforms and more investors are aware of the improved conditions, it is
unclear whether EPA’s actions will be sufficient to allow the needed reinvestment in
Brownfield properties. Mr. Jacobson suggested that tax-free redevelopment zones would
provide a tremendous incentive for investors. He also suggested that EPA consider removing
retroactive liability from new owners of contaminated properties.
In 1997, Mr. Jacobson would like to see activities in several areas. He strongly believes in
the need for a reformed Superfund statute. EPA and the States should continue progress in
the area of site closure letters, with stronger limitations on conditions for reopening cleanup
decisions and the resulting liability. Mr. Jacobson encouraged EPA to work jointly with the
1-68
-------
Federal Reserve Board to determine the most effective approach for leveraging potential
opportunities from the little known provisions concerning the Community Reinvestment Act.
He also encouraged EPA to address the issue of State variability in implementing
Brownfield/voluntary cleanup programs, particularly since the variability has proven to be a
barrier to lenders for redevelopment of contaminated properties.
In summary, Mr. Jacobson acknowledged the progress made in removing financial barriers to
investing in redevelopment of Brownfield sites. Regardless of the progress to date, it is
essential to remember that potential investors have many investment choices. EPA must
continue to make improvements in Agency policies in order to ensure that the Brownfields
initiative is successful. Redevelopment of Brownfield sites will require resolving a
complicated mixture of economic, social, and environmental issues.
Region 1 Beneficial Reuse Initiative - Matthew Hoagland
Mr. Hoagland stated that the RCRA Corrective Action program in Region 1 was actively
involved in developing innovative methods for cleanup of contaminated properties. For
example, Region 1 has established a “beneficial reuse initiative” that is considered to be
broader in scope than the Brownfields initiative. Region 1 is using the RCRA program to
prevent future Superfund sites, The beneficial reuse initiative is considered a recycling
program for contaminated properties, much the same as more traditional waste
minimization/pollution prevention programs within RCRA are targeted at reducing waste.
Mr. Hoagland described how Region 1 has set out clear goals and continuously improves
program activities in order to achieve the desired goals of the beneficial reuse initiative.
EPA’s program is focused on measuring success according to environmental results, rather
than simply achieving programmatic activities. EPA has been successful in achieving more
success through modification of program activities. In the past, EPA could address only 30
of the approximately 550 sites in the corrective action universe. However, EPA has been
able to address more sites under the RCRA corrective action program through a decreased
emphasis on command and control activities. EPA has also increased the use of waste
stabilization technologies on a larger number of sites. Stabilization techniques are used to
address the most important contaminants affecting human health and the environment
resulting from current use of the property. Decisions on the implementation of more
stringent final cleanup levels will be based on the future land use.
Mr. Hoagland described how Region 1 has incorporated the concepts of flexibility and
innovation into the beneficial reuse initiative. EPA has developed a RCRA voluntary cleanup
program that differs from Superfund. EPA has established performance standards for
companies moving through the corrective action process. The performance standards provide
companies with sufficient guidance to design and implement protective remedies without the
costs and delays associated with the command and control approach. Mr. Hoagland
emphasized the positive impact of the beneficial reuse initiative in advancing the goals of
1-69
-------
both EPA and the facility owner/operators. Knowing that both parties are committed to the
concept of beneficial reuse, negotiations take on a more constructive tone, and flexibility is
exhibited on both sides. In such negotiations, EPA’s role has evolved away from strict
command and control towards technical support. Of the 20 facilities involved in the
beneficial reuse program, 11 have been successful with redevelopment plans, while 9 have
completed development and are currently in operation.
Mr. Hoagland listed a series of issues that deserve additional consideration for ensuring
future success of the EPA beneficial reuse program. Mr. Hoagland cautioned that regulators
must be careful to prevent companies from proceeding with actual redevelopment too
quickly, for example, by paving over a contaminated property prior to the necessary
assessments and/or studies being conducted. There must be proper coordination with the
appropriate State agencies to ensure that the redevelopment goals of EPA and the facility are
consistent with State programs. There must be acceptance of innovative methods (i.e.,
voluntary cleanups) within the various offices of EPA. The regulated community must be
aware of long-term program goals. There must be community acceptance of the projects.
EPA’s Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for contaminated media is still pending and could
have an effect on Brownfield projects.
Minnesota’s Superfund Program - Joseph Otte
Mr. Otte provided introductory remarks about the success of the Superfund program and
suggested caution to those recommending significant changes to the statute. He likened the
Superfund program to the development of computer software in that it may take several
attempts to work out the problems. Although the strict, joint and several liability provision
of CERCLA has had some unintended consequences, on the whole CERCLA has proven to
be a powerful tool for encouraging proper hazardous waste management practices. Rather
than moving away from the current liability scheme, EPA needs to address only the
unintended consequences of the provision.
Mr. Otte explained the evolution of the State of Minnesota Superfund program. Prior to the
national focus on Brownfields, Minnesota recognized the Superfund liability scheme to be a
potential impediment to redevelopment of contaminated properties. The State regarded
Brownfield properties to be similar to products disposed of after serving their original
purpose, such as a disposable lighter. Minnesota recognized that undeveloped contaminated
properties served as a focal point for undesirable activities (e.g., drug use and other criminal
activities).
Recognizing the importance of the Brownfields issue, the State of Minnesota examined the
options for addressing the associated problems. Mr. Otte emphasized that Minnesota
considers Superfund enforcement to be a highly effective tool in encouraging companies to
comply with hazardous waste rules and regulations. Mr. Otte likened Superfund enforcement
authority to the role of a parent -- encouraging appropriate behavior through the threat of
1-70
-------
more forceful actions and, if necessary, using those actions. Consequently, the State was
reluctant to relax its enforcement program.
At the same time, Minnesota recognized that a growing number of sites were not being
addressed. Those sites were considered low priority for the pre-remedial program (i.e.,
Preliminary Assessments, Site Inspections) because they were considered to present low
risks; yet without sufficient information, the State was reluctant to designate those sites safe
for development. Property owners and prospective developers had legitimate concerns about
potentially endless liability associated with contaminated sites. In the absence of receiving a
clean bill of health from the State, investors were not anxious to risk the costs of liability
associated with these properties.
In response to those concerns, Minnesota developed a voluntary cleanup program enabling
the State to make determinations on those low priority, yet contaminated properties, and
thereby allowing redevelopment to take place. Following the appropriate investigations,
Minnesota provided applicable assurances -- such as conditional releases of liability,
certificates of completion, certificates of partial completion (based on operable units) -- to
interested owners, developers and investors. Obviously, the private sector had a financial
incentive to resolve the status of those sites and, consequently, the program was funded
through fees paid by owners/developers of contaminated properties. Approximately $1
million per year has been collected to fund this program. Mr. Otte stated that local
authorities seeking to increase redevelopment and their tax base are also interested in the
voluntary cleanup program.
Mr. Otte concluded his presentation by mentioning that the State legislature has set up
financial incentives for redeveloping previously contaminated properties. Mr. Otte believes
that the State may need to go further and actually create disincentives to developers for using
undeveloped land. In light of the fact that many local governments are offering tremendous
incentives (i.e, tax breaks, infrastructure improvements) to attract industries to build new
facilities in pristine suburban communities, more aggressive polices at the State level may be
necessary to encourage reuse of Brownfield sites. As an example, Mr. Otte mentioned
Kansas City, Missouri, where the city is in the process of “cannibalizing” itself as
development migrates to the suburbs.
Prospective Purchaser Agreements - Helen Keplinger
Ms. Keplinger introduced her topic by stating that a total of 28 prospective purchaser
agreements have been signed to date. The real estate community has recognized that if a
prospective purchaser has knowledge that contamination exists, the innocent landowner
defense--one of the few available under the CERCLA statute--is not available. These
prospective purchaser agreements are designed to remove one of the barriers to
redevelopment of contaminated properties.
1-71
-------
Ms. Keplinger explained that the prospective purchaser agreement policy was initiated in
1989, before concern over Brownfields was widely acknowledged. The policy is used in
situations where Superfund monies are being expended. EPA does not have a mechanism for
tracking what happens to a property after a prospective purchaser agreement has been issued.
Ms. Keplinger provided some examples of situations where EPA has used prospective
purchaser agreements. At the Woolfolk Chemical facility, a relatively small site included on
the National Priorities List, the local county government was interested in purchasing the
property. EPA evaluated the situation and determined it appropriate to provide the county
government with a covenant not to sue. In return, EPA was able to obtain the desired
cleanup activities, as defined in the Record of Decision. In addition, EPA was ensured that
the county would maintain the appropriate deed restrictions on the site. Ms. Keplinger
described a second situation at the Wykoff-Port of Seattle site, a relatively large National
Priorities List site contaminated through the activities of a wood treatment facility. The Port
of Seattle desired to purchase the contaminated property in order to expand its container
loading/unloading facility. The owners of the property did not have sufficient financial
resources to undertake the cleanup actions required by EPA. The Port of Seattle and EPA
worked out an arrangement to allow the Port to purchase the property. EPA provided the
Port with specific protections and, in return, the Port agreed to take over the cleanup
activities.
Ms. Keplinger concluded her presentation by acknowledging that CERCLA carries a
sufficient stigma to discourage redevelopment of contaminated properties. EPA has made
significant progress in developing tools such as prospective purchaser agreements and
comfort letters to remove this stigma and to promote the redevelopment of Brownfield sites.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comments: Mr. Otte requested the opportunity to clarify an earlier statement. He stated
that the difficulties encountered within the Superfund program have ultimately been useful.
Minnesota has received a Memorandum of Understanding from EPA acknowledging the
acceptability of the States voluntary program which allows for escalation of enforcement
authorities, if necessary.
Question: Are community interests different from the interests of municipalities and/or the
banking community?
Answer: Mr. Jacobson pointed out that this is a complicated issue. The banking community
advocates a more decentralized cleanup program. Local government has a vested interest in
balancing site cleanup and redevelopment.
Question: How are the new EPA policy initiatives viewed in terms of their effectiveness in
reducing barriers to redevelopment?
1-72
-------
Answer: Mr. Jacobson noted that the banking community believes that EPA has moved very
swiftly in developing these important policies. However, despite these policy improvements,
there must be significant economic incentives to jump start the redevelopment of Brownfield
sites.
Question: In Poland, large industrial areas require redevelopment. Poland has established a
fee system to encourage redevelopment of formerly used industrial sites and to discourage the
development of new land areas. Are there any disincentives to the development of
“greenfields” in the U.S.?
Answer: Mr. Otte stated that one option would be to impose a gas tax to increase the costs
of commuting. This would serve to reduce development of suburban land tracts. Policy
makers must address the tendency of local governments to compete with each other to
encourage investors to develop greenfields.
Question: How do EPA and the States decide whether Brownfield sites should be stabilized
or cleaned up to background levels?
Answer: Mr. Hoagland noted that cleanup decisions are risk-based. Sometimes, cleanup to
background levels is judged to be technically infeasible or cost prohibitive. In some cases,
the risks associated with contaminants may not justify cleanup to background levels; it
depends on future land use.
Comments: Ms. Tucker commented at this point that EPA’s risk assessment approach is
flawed. EPA’s single chemical approach ignores potentiation. She applauded EPA’s
leadership in focusing on communities rather than simply on the economics of
redevelopment. Urban sprawl results from the increasing trend to live in the suburbs, not
just because companies want to avoid the issues associated with redevelopment of
contaminated properties. If developers are going to invest in Brownfields, they must address
the other issues confronting local communities. There must be an honest process with
community involvement in decisions about the type of redevelopment to occur. Communities
must have a say in whether new development will create additional hazardous waste
concerns.
Question: Does the Community Reinvestment Act provide incentives?
Answer: Mr. Jacobson answered that yes, the incentives are for banks to invest in
communities. Unfortunately, there has not been much activity in this area.
Question: Are the issues confronting Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) similar to other
Brown field sites?
Answer: Ms. Keplinger noted that there has been only one prospective purchaser agreement
signed to date for a FUDS site, because CERCLA provides other protections for Federal
1-73
-------
facility sites. Mr. Hoagland noted that in Region 1, there are 12 Federal facility sites active
in Superfund and some have submitted Brownfield applications.
Question: How closely does EPA track how the buyer ultimately develops the property?
Will the financial benefit be as large as expected (e.g., SEPs)?
Answer: A member of the audience noted that EPA has made a commitment to provide job
training as part of the Brownfield pilot projects. The grant application includes a statement
concerning the ultimate use of the property. At least one Region has designed a GIS tool to
track Brownfield projects. EPA does not have the authority to dictate local
zoning/development decisions.
Question: Despite the fact that prospective purchaser agreements are useful, developers
strongly believe that they take too long to negotiate. Can EPA do anything to expedite the
process?
Answer: Ms. Keplinger pointed out that the development community must remember that
each prospective purchaser agreement is considered a major decision carrying important
ramifications for both EPA and DOJ. The fact that a model agreement now exists should
expedite the process somewhat. Developers carry some responsibility to identify the need for
such an agreement eariy in the process to allow the required time to obtain the necessary
approvals.
1-74
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #6
Measures of Success for a Balanced Program
April 9, 1996
3:3Opm-5:OOpm
Session Leader: Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Session Panelists: Frederick Stiehi, Enforcement Planning, Targeting and
Evaluation Division
Lynn Vendinello, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Betty Wiese, Region 10
Kerry Drake, Small Business Ombudsman, Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission
Session Objectives: The session discussed the need for and illustrated the use of new
measures and accomplishments data to describe the impact of
enforcement and compliance assurance activities.
What to Accomplish and How it Fits With the Agency’s Efforts - Michael Stahl
There is a trend in the Agency to move away from using the “bean counting” system towards
using measures and environmental indicators. Mr. Stahl described the four ongoing efforts
that are influencing this trend.
• Environmental Goals Project - Findings from this effort indicate that there is
movement inside the Agency to direct programs by using more specific goals.
The goals are intended to assist in providing a sense of what needs to be
measured. Mr. Stahl indicated that the report, generated as part of this project,
is problematic for the enforcement program because it does not specifically
deal with compliance assurance and enforcement. However, the project will
fit well with the Agency’s efforts to develop a set of measures.
• Florida State University Project - This is an effort to develop environmental
indicators for use by States in Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs).
Seventeen indicators were identified as a result of this effort. The document
developed for this project provides suggested measures that can be included in
1-75
-------
PPAs. Some of the measures identified were supported by data, while others
were not.
• National Academy of Public Administration Report to Congress - This report
pointed out that EPA needs to refocus its priority setting efforts on place-based
environmental problems. How to develop a set of indicators that move the
program towards using environmental indicators was also included in the
report.
• Government and Performance Results Act (passed in 1993) - This Act directs
all Federal agencies to establish performance goals and targets in terms of
results. It also requires the agencies to prepare annual performance plans
covering each performance measure in the budget. This does not have to be
done until FY ‘99. This is something that is being postponed but which
should be worked on now.
Finally, Mr. Stahl presented a continuum of measures showing where the enforcement
program is and where it is heading. The left side of the continuum begins with traditional
enforcement actions and moves towards environmental indicators (on the right). The goal is
that the program will move to the right, while still maintaining the traditional enforcement
aspects of the program.
FY ‘95 Efforts - Frederick Stiehi
FY ‘95 was a transition year due to the reorganization and changes in measures. Efforts
undertaken by the Agency to try to reflect the changes include the following:
• Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS) - A pilot project conducted using CCDS
tried to combine, for the first time in a systematic way, information on activity
levels, environmental results, and their benefits across all Regions. Requested
data included information on SEPs, the value of projects and injunctive relief,
and reduced loadings to the environment as a result of activities.
• Enforcement Activity Index - The Agency tried to recognize that traditionally
only administrative, judicial, and criminal actions have been counted. Only
the initiation of these actions--and not the effort put forth to achieve the end
result--was evaluated. As a way to reflect the efforts of program managers to
bring cases to completion, the Enforcement Activity Index was developed.
This index allows the “whole picture” to be viewed by looking at both the
initiation and the conclusion of actions.
• Sector Compliance Information - The Agency has also started developing
compliance information for significant sectors and intends to do more in this
1-76
-------
area during 1996. By identifying sector noncompliance status, the
enforcement program will be in a better position to evaluate the program
differently than in past years and to target non-complying facilities on a sector
as well as media-basis.
• Compliance Assistance Measures - Initial efforts in measuring compliance
assistance were also made. The Agency still needs to determine how to
measure compliance assistance so that the people who are used to “bean
counting” will understand the approach.
• Regional and State Efforts - In order to help better articulate in 1996 and
1997 a way to measure compliance assistance and determine direction, the
Regions and States were asked to explain what compliance assistance efforts
were being undertaken. Findings indicate that there were a number of efforts
already underway, but the results are still anecdotical.
• 507 CAA Report to Congress - It was requested that enforcement and
compliance assistance information be included in the Section 507 CAA Report
to Congress.
• RECAP - This is a new way of doing enforcement accountability for 1996 and
will replace the old STARS measures. Many Regions feel that this system
places a large burden on their staffs when in fact the burden has been reduced
by 44%. The fact that, in the past, the information was reported by several
offices and now is reported by one office may be contributing to the perception
of an increase in workload. Efforts will continue to reduce the burden further.
Result of FY ‘95 Efforts - Michael Stahl and Lynn Vendinello
Mr. Stahl observed that with regard to CCDS, the information received as a result of the
CCDS effort was not adequate. Less than half of the sheets received provided the correct
information. Mr. Stahl also noted that the disparity in data could be indicative of cases
where there are no actions taken and that it may not be possible to always specify
environmental benefits. Mr. Stahl noted that a better effort could have been made to
complete the forms. Due to a lack of data, conclusions could not be drawn. The CCDS has
been redesigned for 1996 as a checklist to assist in obtaining more reliable data. A concern
was raised by an audience member that the 1995 forms were very confusing and the reason
why information is being requested needs to be made clearer.
With regard to compliance assistance measures, Ms. Vendinello pointed out that
Headquarters compiled information from the Regional Accomplishment Reports and created a
document that will be included in the End of Year Accomplishment Report. The reports that
1-77
-------
had the most emphasis on environmental results (approximately 40) were included in a
separate document and provided to the Session’s participants.
Ms. Vendinello also discussed the 507 CAA Report to Congress. The CAA report to
Congress included the following three questions for States:
• With whom are you working and what percent of the population do they
represent? The response was interesting and the information will be compiled
and sent to the Regions. The data showed the different resource constraints
that States face. It is useful information for Regions so that efforts will not be
duplicated.
• What are the most common compliance problems? Ms. Vendinello pointed out
that no useful information was received.
• What behavioral changes have people made (e.g., Have they obtained permits?
Have compliance rates improved?)? Only Texas provided this information,
thus emphasizing that this is difficult information to collect and to identify.
Regional Efforts - Betty Wiese
Ms. Wiese pointed out that Region 10 undertook a pilot project that relates to measurement
of compliance assistance. The project is comprised of two parts. First, the Region is
working with OECA to examine compliance assistance measures that Regions will report on
in 1996. Project efforts are focusing on the Regions and States in order to determine the
availability of compliance assistance measure information.
The Region contacted State environmental agencies and discovered that there are more
agencies to deal with than had been expected (e.g., Department of Agriculture); therefore, it
needed to expand the number of agencies to contact. The Region also asked 12 of its
compliance program managers to describe how well the Region is able to respond to
measures. Based on the findings, recommendations will be developed on how to strengthen
the measures.
The preliminary results indicate that the States do not have the information, and that they are
not even tracking activities. The State of Washington is the furthest along since it has done
some specific targeted efforts; however, the State does not have an agency-wide compliance
tracking system.
Preliminary results also indicate that the States and Regions are not well situated to provide
the information. The States commented that it was difficult to tease apart the different
effects of enforcement. For example, it is difficult to document behavior change and to
1-78
-------
balance the cause and effect of enforcement and compliance assistance (e.g., Is the behavior
changed based on a fear of enforcement or peer pressure?).
A memorandum will be prepared, due in mid-summer, describing the feasibility and
experiences of Region 10 and the States on this issue.
The second part of the project is funded by Region 10 and the States in Region 10. The
work is specific to the CAA and small business assistance programs. The purpose of this
aspect of the project is to measure the effectiveness of Small Business Assistance Programs
in the Region. The draft of the Small Business Assistance Program document has been
completed and is currently being reviewed internally.
The challenge for the future is to measure compliance assistance without an official
definition. It is anticipated that the information received this year will not be useful because
of the differences in definitions. However, this will be a valuable learning process.
The Region would like to propose to OECA and the States that a compliance assistance
strategy be developed first, and then measures needed to evaluate the effectiveness can be
designed. The Region’s concern is that the States and Regions are approaching compliance
assistance and measures differently. The Region would like to find a way to maximize
partnerships and to define the goals and the roles of all parties. This information could be
used as a “blue print” for the PPAs.
State Efforts - Kerry Drake
Mr. Drake focused on some of the difficulties faced in measuring compliance assistance
activities and results for small businesses in the State of Texas. First, he noted that it is
difficult to measure compliance improvement for the small business sector because there are
approximately 60,000 small businesses in Texas which are impacted by environmental
regulations. It may be easy to measure compliance rates and activities when there is a site
visit, but the number of businesses is so large that visits cannot be made to a representative
group.
In addition, there is no baseline data to show pollution reductions. Small businesses are just
learning how to track inventory and to maintain records. Moreover, all small businesses
cannot be helped directly. Small Business Assistance Programs are acting as “wholesalers”
and cannot directly assist everyone. Small Business Assistance Programs are working
through manufacturing extension centers, suppliers, and small business development centers.
This makes it considerably more difficult to measure the success of the Programs. If there is
no direct assistance given, compliance improvement cannot be measured. It has been
suggested that small businesses need to be given the “tools” to implement compliance
activities and the reasons to use them. Small businesses also must report back before
compliance can be accurately measured.
1-79
-------
Mr. Drake also pointed out that Small Business Assistance Program staff are experts in
regulations but do not understand how to develop statistically valid measurements for
increasing compliance and pollution reduction. The State of Texas is trying to find funding
to obtain assistance in developing tools for small businesses.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comments: A representative from Region 1 pointed out that Region I has a large
compliance assistance program with 42 staff members and few “wrench turners” or people to
follow up and fix the problems. The new activities (e.g., CS!, Project XL) have been loaded
on all at once; this makes it difficult to balance compliance assistance and enforcement. It
was suggested that maybe these new initiatives could focus on small groups to begin with
(e.g., printers). It was also suggested that reporting requirements should be limited and
defined at the start of the programs. These suggestions, if implemented, should help to get
the programs off to the right start and to improve the long-term strategic goals.
Comments: A Region 2 representative stated that the Region is still at the left of the
continuum. It is a long way from being able to count environmental results because the
Region does not have a baseline from which to measure. The Region is currently focusing
on the pharmaceutical sector because of the large concentration of facilities in Puerto Rico
and their location over a sensitive aquifer. A three-year goal was set in an MOA to have
less than 10% of the industry in SNC. With regard to the Region’s RCRA program, the
Region identified outreach and assistance activities and is considering measuring success by
using follow-up measures (e.g., phone calls, surveys, site-visits, review permit
modifications). In terms of RCRA generators, the Region has identified the need to measure
results based on effects on human health and environment. The Region is hoping to see
measurable results in an increase in regulatory compliance, an increase in recycling, and a
decrease in hazardous waste generation.
Comments: A participant from Region 3 noted that EPA needs to work from environmental
problems (right of the continuum) and to work backwards to determine what to do. When
this is done, the correct sources will be focused on. If working from the opposite direction,
the population of sources that is focused on will be different and may not result in the
greatest environmental benefit. Counting cases and adding results (the current method
followed) will not drive the management of the organization to solve environmental
problems.
Comments: A Region 8 representative commented on Superfund delistings. Congress, the
President, and environmental groups do not count delisting as a measure of success of the
program. The Region feels that delisting information could be used as a measure of success.
It would like to see the enforcement program use the existing data (e.g., injunctive relief,
referrals) to develop measures of success.
1-80
-------
DAY 2- LEVERAGING PARTNERSHIPS FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
2-1
-------
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
“Cooperative Efforts for Effective Enviromnental Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance”
Frederic J. Hansen, Deputy Administrator, US EPA
April 10, 1996
9: lSam-9:45am
Mr. Hansen emphasized the issues and themes raised by Carol Browner in her Keynote
Address on Day 1 of the Conference. Specifically, Mr. Hansen discussed changes made to
the enforcement program, concepts behind these changes, the need to continue with strong
enforcement, relationships with partners, and EPA’s implementation role.
Mr. Hansen indicated that the changes taking place in the enforcement program are
unprecedented. Changes at the Federal level include the reorganization of the enforcement
program to create OECA and the development of a new and comprehensive enforcement
approach. The new approach includes changing the audit policy, initiating small business
efforts, placing new emphasis on compliance assistance, and changing relationships with
partners. Although these changes are intended to bring real benefits and a sense of renewed
energy to the Agency, these changes will also be accompanied by some uncertainty. In the
long run, the changes will benefit all players.
Mr. Hansen mentioned the Small Community Enforcement Policy as an example of the new
enforcement approach. This Policy reflects the goals that the Agency is trying to achieve
across the enforcement program. The Policy addresses environmental problems by
delineating concrete requirements and stipulating enforcement mechanisms in cases of
noncompliance. This Policy allows:
• States to more thoroughly assess environmental problems facing small
communities.
• Enforcement managers to recognize that problems facing small communities
are overwhelming and no less important in terms of public health and
environmental protection than those facing larger communities.
• Small communities, rather than the Federal government, to prioritize their
problems. EPA needs to recognize that some problems are unique to smaller
communities.
• Communities to address problems in a comprehensive manner rather than
address each media individually. A benefit of this approach is that once a
community has assumed ownership of the problem, the community can assure
EPA that there will be follow-through to achieve the environmental results.
2-2
-------
• Requirements to be established and tough enforcement to be taken if
compliance is not achieved. Although fines are small, they have the same or
comparable effects on small communities as they do on larger communities.
Achieving environmental results will also involve taking enforcement actions. A key
component of the new approach is that it presents an arsenal of tools that can be applied to
address a wide range of problems. Enforcement managers need to be flexible and need to
consider numerous factors before deciding which tools to use and which actions to take.
Managers need to utilize available enforcement authorities, including strong enforcement, in
an appropriate fashion. However, strong enforcement is but a single tool in this approach,
and other tools need to be used as dictated by individual problems. Managers need to keep
in mind that these additional tools (e.g., self-policing, compliance assistance, SEPs) are not
an “either or” to tough enforcement.
Mr. Hansen pointed out that rumors that EPA has backed away from tough enforcement are
not true. Both compliance assistance and enforcement are being encouraged by EPA. Mr.
Hansen dispelled certain rumors, such as:
• EPA is not taking the hard cases (e.g., wetlands). To the contrary, EPA is
taking on the difficult cases and needs to continue on this track because of its
statutory responsibilities and its commitment to the American people.
• EPA is not taking enforcement actions in States with delegated programs.
This is not true. Enforcement actions are being taken in fully delegated State
program areas if necessary. In States that are not accomplishing what they
should, EPA still has a responsibility to ensure good judgement on the use of
tools, including the use of enforcement.
EPA serves a dual role as both a “punisher” and a “partner,” neither of which is exclusive.
Both roles aie needed to assess individual cases. The increased flexibility may be awkward
for some because it means that decisions must be made on the appropriate tools to use. In
the long run, this flexibility will lead to more personal job satisfaction because goals will be
achieved by using tools and approaches that fit individual circumstances.
Mr. Hansen compared the role of EPA as an “Environmental Cop” to the role of local
police. Similar to local police, the Environmental Cop needs to be able to go out to the
community and assess ways to achieve better compliance. Local police recognize that
counseling and assistance are needed in order for community members to obey the law. In
the same respect, the Environmental Cop recognizes the importance of compliance assistance
(e.g., self-assessments, technical assistance). Like the local police, the Environmental Cop
needs to be able to take strong enforcement actions.
2-3
-------
Overall, the rewards of being able to address our environmental problems in a
comprehensive manner are going to improve public health and environmental protection and
will also yield more satisfying jobs for enforcement program personnel.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question: What can we do to make people understand that compliance assistance and
enforcement go together?
Mr. Hansen: The reason why people are being brought together for this Conference is to
identify ways to develop an understanding of this new approach. The enforcement managers
have the responsibility to work through the cases and to work with the people that are
developing them to be able to make decisions about what is an appropriate enforcement
response. The enforcement managers are best able to understand the circumstances
surrounding the cases and can make better decisions as to the appropriate enforcement
actions to take.
Question: Many of us are out negotiating PPAs with States. In many instances, States
believe that different messages exist as to the role of the Federal government in the PPA
process. Please comment on this.
Mr. Hansen: States have different levels of capabilities and commitment to address
environmental problems. A PPA is intended to address, in a more comprehensive manner,
how we should focus on environmental problems, recognizing that the States have a unique
role in identifying the problems. This role does not rest solely with the States. The Federal
government must play a role to ensure that basic issues of importance are achieved. During
negotiations, there will be disagreement; although this is healthy, there needs to be a level of
cooperation to minimize differences. It is not sufficient for delegated States to think that
there is no role for the Federal government to play in the process. It is intended to be a
partnership with each side having responsibilities.
Question: In the array of tools available, one of the most powerful tools is the
administrative complaint. Yesterday, we heard adjectives used to describe enforcement,
including “aggressive,” “tough,” and “swift.” There is a slowness with which decisions are
made by Administrative Law Judges. I recognize that there have been some resignations;
however, if we are going to maintain the effectiveness of the tool (or to enhance it), we
need something to encourage the issuance of speedier decisions by the judges.
Mr. Hansen: Mr. Hansen acknowledged that the process has been slowed by the number of
vacancies and the hiring freeze. In an effort to alleviate some of the backlog, expert
consultants have been hired. Although a backlog remains, efforts continue to move things
along. Mr. Hansen recognized that more work needs to be done in this area.
2-4
-------
ADDRESS
“The Evolving EPA/State Relationship”
Michael O’Connor, Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Management Department, State of Indiana
April 10, 1996
9:45am- 10: l5am
Mr. Michael Stahl introduced Mr. Michael O’Connor and explained that he would be
substituting for the scheduled speaker, Ms. Katherine Prosser.
As I was preparing for this presentation, I was also grieving the recent loss of a very good
friend. He was a man in his seventies and he lived a long and eventful life, but he also
served as a real mentor to me. He was what almost all of the people I know strive to be:
wise, pragmatic but just idealistic enough to believe that individuals could, through their
actions, improve the world in which they live. And in that belief, he steered many young
people into public service and always had an ear to lend when someone had a problem.
I would often go to him for advice and guidance, and he was the type of mentor who would
not give you the answer directly; he would lead you there. While I was preparing for this
speech, I thought of a story he once told me.
I had gone to him for some advice on a particularly vexing problem, and he asked me what I
thought I should do. I told him my idea. He said, “Mike, let me tell you a story.” There
were three guys who worked together on a high rise construction crew. Every day these
three would eat lunch together outside sitting on an exposed “I” beam. Every day one of the
workers would open his lunch and he would have a bologna sandwich in his lunch. Finally,
one day he said to the other two, “If I open my lunch tomorrow and have a bologna
sandwich in here, I’m jumping off the building.”
Lunch time comes the next day and, sure enough, he opens his lunch and there it is--a
bologna sandwich. He sets his lunch down and takes a header off the building. One of the
two remaining workers looks at the other and says, “You know, that’s a real shame.” The
other worker says, “I know I’d feel sorry for the guy except for the fact that he packs his
own lunch!! !“
How do we keep from making bologna sandwiches for ourselves?
States like Indiana start from the desired solution and build backward. What do we want to
get out of this “case”? What tools are the best available to get us to that point? Should we
use assistance or is a formal enforcement proceeding the most appropriate?
2-5
-------
States are not asking these questions in a vacuum. While we are implementing Federal laws
much of the time, States are now positioned to be in control of their own destiny. We work
everyday with these companies and their facilities. Our enforcement and compliance
inspection programs are where we have the greatest flexibility in decision-making. And as
we will discuss later in the panel discussion, taking enforcement actions simply as a means of
accumulating “beans” or actions is not sufficient for our purposes or for those to whom we
are accountable. We have to measure our actions in environmental impact. What has the
greatest impact on the environment--a prolonged lawsuit in which we work as adversaries
with a company countering legal maneuver against legal maneuver, or a cooperative
negotiation in which we reach agreement and quicker environmental compliance in an
expedited fashion?
The answer is, of course, obvious. The quicker we resolve compliance problems, the
quicker we have compliance with environmental laws. The question is, what are our roles
relative to each other? When should the State be the lead and when should EPA be the lead?
Well, Dn going to tell you the State should almost always be the lead. States are writing the
permits, States are conducting the inspections, States are making the on-the-spot calls about
compliance issues. States are conducting the compliance assistance efforts, and States are
taking 83 percent of all enforcement actions nationwide.
What we are discovering in Indiana is that most companies want to comply with
environmental laws. Most companies will do what we ask them when they understand and
trust how we came up with our decision or solution. The key to trust is building a working
relationship with someone. A working relationship requires time and understanding of how
someone else works. The truth is again, the States are on the ground working with these
companies--our permit writers meet with their staff, our inspectors are visiting their facilities,
our offices are in their State. If compliance is our ultimate goal, and if compliance means
protection of the environment, and if the quickest road to compliance is a positive working
relationship, the State is clearly in the best position to be in the lead role.
We just recently concluded a settlement with U.S. Steel at their Gary Works facility. We
negotiated a settlement with no court action that closed with one hundred million dollars
(S 100,000,000.000) being spent on supplemental environmental projects and a six million
dollar cash penalty. That is, by a magnitude of 10, the largest settlement we in Indiana have
ever negotiated and, as far as we can tell, is the largest non-cleanup settlement ever
negotiated without a court action.
At the very same time we were announcing our settlement, U.S. EPA and the Department of
Justice filed suit against three companies in Northwest Indiana, apparently, three of 37 suits
filed in EPA Region 5. Now I don’t know enough about the case to give any opinion on a
suit being brought, but I do know an interesting story when I read one in the paper! (Show
the Star article!)
2-6
-------
I participate in the Iron & Steel Subcommittee of the CS! and have had the occasion to work
with the CS! Council, and hearing an environmentalist talk about cooperative partnerships of
any kind makes my eyes water and my heart palpitate! At the local level , when we can work
with the companies involved, productively negotiate solutions to compliance problems and
communicate them in a way that the affected community understands the positive benefit to
them, they will support our actions and methods!
The difference right now between the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) and EPA is the use of litigation. In Indiana, our Commissioner and Governor have
said litigation will be the course of last resort when we cannot come to an agreement, or we
cannot settle an issue. Our attempt will always be to settle our compliance problems without
suits being brought.
I am very careful when I enter into this next area of discussion. There were actually points
in time in the U.S. Steel/Gary Works Facility negotiations when there were no attorneys in
the room. Those were the points when the issues were the most technical in nature, and
U.S. Steel had said they wanted to discuss the issues without attorneys and we were willing
to do that. There is always a need for attorneys and we always need to assure ourselves we
are dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s, but we need to keep our focus on the environmental
outcomes.
What role should EPA play in these efforts? If you buy the argument that States are the best
in the lead, what happens between EPA and the States is instrumental in quickly resolving
environmental compliance problems. Companies and municipalities negotiating with States
want to know that the resolution they agree to is the final resolution and that they do not
have to worry about separate Federal action.
The foundation of the U.S. Steel settlement was built from information we gained from an
NEIC inspection. They found process waste streams that U.S. Ste i didn’t even know
existed. That is the first purpose EPA can serve--information and assistance to State
agencies. States have ramped up significantly in the past five years, IDEM under
Commissioner Prosser and Governor Bayh has grown by almost 50 percent since the Spring
of 1994. We have people to do the work although we always need more, but we often need
assistance in gathering specific types of information or analyzing that information.
Just last month we were approached at IDEM by a company from Illinois. They were
concerned because of a regulatory decision our RCRA permitting staff had made which gave
an Indiana company a competitive advantage in recruiting their customers. A company
actually came to us complaining that ii regulators were giving too much flexibility (does
that fit into the man bites dog category?). Illinois made a different regulatory decision on
this issue, and EPA Region 5 declined to intervene.
This is Category #2 for EPA. There needs to be equity across all States on issues like this.
RCRA is a Federal law and should be interpreted roughly the same by all States. We believe
2-7
-------
this is an incident in which EPA should step in and help resolve the issue between the two
States, and we are, in fact, pursuing EPA involvement.
One of my many responsibilities in Indiana involves running our legislative relations and
planning area. We have upon occasion had to use the threat of EPA when our esteemed
Legislators were considering some ill-thought-out actions. While this fits into the category of
assuring equity between the States (A.K.A. the gorilla in the closet), it also fits into the
category of needing to be a partner with that State (agency) in determining how best that
interaction should be managed. Some believe that if States are given the authority to drive
their environmental priorities, it will be a race to the lowest standards possible. I would
argue quite differently. Two years in a row in Indiana, a State not known for its
environmental progressiveness before Governor Bayh was elected, our Legislature has killed
legislation requiring that we have no standards more stringent than the Federal minimum--
both times killed by actions of the Republican leadership!
So, what is the Federal role in taking enforcement actions? Who decides? Let me ask you a
question: When EPA decides where it will deploy its inspectors and enforcement resources,
how does it make those decisions? Do you make decisions based on the best chances for
environmental improvement--or the best chance to rack up some numbers? In Indiana, we
found a few years ago that our inspectors were spending a lot of time on open burning and
open dumping--and not enough time on regulating landfills and steel mills. That did not
make sense, so we have redirected our time and effort to have a greater impact--and if you
have not--EPA should do the same.
In my view, Federal enforcement should be reserved for the most egregious violations, the
most recalcitrant violators, the most difficult environmental problems, and the least proactive
communities. The rest should be handled by the States, without EPA’s need to get directly
involved. Your resources are scarce--and unfortunately may get scarcer. Like those of us in
the States, you are going to have to do more with less. Redefining the role of Federal
enforcement would be a good start. Ninety-nine percent of the time, States can and should
be in the lead. EPA can concentrate their direct actions on the one percent that are the
toughest to solve. Kind of like calling the FBI to handle the X Files!
The truth of the matter is this: Our jobs--all of us in this room, all State, Federal and local
regulators’ jobs--are to protect the environment. And the public does not see us, or our
agencies as different from one another. We must come together and agree on a partnership
that utilizes all the tools available to us and that allows us not to duplicate one another’s
efforts but to reinforce each other’s efforts.
The key element in that true partnership is trust; without trust between the States and EPA,
we will continue to create confusion, duplication, and information gaps. With that trust, we
will develop an environmental protection system that capitalizes on the strengths, skills, and
abilities that we each bring to the table and a system that will result in greater environmental
protection in an atmosphere that utilizes all the compliance tools available to all of us.
2-8
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
“The National Environmental Performance Partnership Effort”
April 10, 1996
10:30am-!! :45am
Session Leader: Mike McCabe, Administrator, Region 3
Panelists: Jack McGraw, Deputy Administrator, Region 8
Gail Ginsberg, Regional Counsel, Region 5
Mike O’Connor, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Management
Department, State of Indiana
Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
Mike McCabe
Mr. McCabe opened the session with a brief summary of the successful PPA between Region
3 and the State of Delaware. He noted that the PPA was successful even though it was
currently missing an enforcement component. To establish the agreement, Region 3 and
Delaware identified the aspects of a PPA that they could agree upon and went forward with
those items. The Region and Delaware are still working to develop and implement the
enforcement component of the PPA.
Jack McGraw
Mr. McGraw began by noting that conferences such as the OECA Conference were good for
airing concerns and issues. His participation in the Enforcement Forum provides him with a
perspective on the issues being discussed. Mr. McGraw noted that Region 8 has been
involved in EPA/State partnerships since before there was a formal PPA program, and he
cited Region 8’s efforts with North Dakota on a PPA as an example. Since initiation of the
formal program, Region 8 has worked with both Utah and Colorado to develop signed PPAs
and that both States are working to further their programs. As examples, he noted that
Colorado is the only State seeking “leadership status” within the PPA program and that Utah
is trying to see where the environmental program is going with its “Around the Corner”
State-wide strategic plan for environmental management.
2-9
-------
Mr. McGraw also offered highlights of issues that came up during PPA negotiations in
Region 8. He focused on the following topics where solutions could help the PPA process
work better:
• Expectations of instantaneous results should be revised. All parties need to
realize a PPA negotiation is a slow process.
• Coordinated planning cycles are needed. The guidance and negotiations for
new policies and programs should be in synch with the State planning cycles.
• Public involvement should be fostered. It generates good dialogue between
stakeholders and EPA and airs a variety of viewpoints.
• PPA is a partnership with “give and take.” Both the States and EPA have
things to do and the “Federal Role of Enforcement” signed by Steve Herman
will be a good basis for the next round of negotiations.
• Future State funding reductions are a concern. As more responsibility is being
delegated to the States, the losses of State funding, personnel, and resources
are concerns.
• State environmental audit laws have a tremendous impact on the negotiations.
The laws influence the State’s leadership role, as well as EPA’s delegation and
oversight.
• Streamlining the process is necessary. EPA Regional offices need general
guidance and need to operate within the policy and framework that is
established.
• A focus on environmental results is needed. The results of a PPA, not the
process, should be the focus, and programs need to be evaluated based on
quality rather than on volume.
• Enforcement needs to be included in PPAs. Some States are strong on
compliance assurance but weak on enforcement, and EPA may need to require
that enforcement be included in the PPA.
• Measures of enforcement outputs need to be determined. They could include
measures of State program failure such as: overfihings, limited training and
compliance assurance, court orders that failed to work, or bankruptcy filings.
• Performance Partnership Grants provide maximum flexibility. However,
States are not likely to place funding in traditional enforcement activities.
2-10
-------
Gail Ginsberg
Ms. Ginsberg noted that substantial discussion and debate led up to the May 17th PPA and
that the agreement did not represent a uniformity of opinion. When Region 5 started
working with States on PPAs, the follow-up and implementation policies pursuant to the
agreement had not been fully developed. Five of the six States in Region S wanted some
form of participation during FY ‘96; Illinois wanted a PPA signed by October 1 and was the
first State with a draft. However, many components of the enforcement program were
missing from the draft (e.g., Brownfields, community-based environmental management,
toxics reduction, a Federal role). A PPA was signed with Illinois on October 17 and
preliminary drafts for FY ‘96 PPAs were negotiated with Wisconsin and Indiana; however,
Region 5 is now focusing on FY ‘97 agreements. Ms. Ginsberg mentioned some of the
lessons learned that the Region will take with them into these negotiations:
Participation from the State must be voluntary and the process must start early
and get the planning cycle in synch. The EPA Headquarters/Regions MOA
and the PPA process must be linked. However, the true “driver” of the
process must also be determined: Does the MOA drive the PPA or does the
PPA drive the MOA?
• The PPA negotiation process can also be a good planning process and can
provide an opportunity:
• For State air, water, and waste programs to coordinate and plan
• To articulate a Federal role in enforcement and to define EPA and State
roles and responsibilities
• To integrate geographic and enforcement initiatives and to get States to
“buy-in” to the initiatives.
• PPAs need an essential framework and common elements. However, one size
does not fit all; the PPAs can each be designed differently, but have the same
basic components.
• Partnership must be included in each PPA. The Region’s experience with
Illinois proved that it was not clear to States that the system is intended to be a
partnership, particularly with regard to enforcement.
• EPA has an obligation to provide a level playing field. States will demonstrate
enforcement leadership (i.e., Indiana’s case with USX); however, not everyone
will want to follow a given State’s lead.
• Self-assessment is a vital component of the program, but guidance on certain
basic elements and criteria need to be developed. Otherwise, the self-
assessment tends to be self-promoting.
2-11
-------
• Accountability needs to be built into the PPA. States must sign up for
something that can be measured, and environmental indicators must hold States
and EPA accountable.
• Public participation needs to be incorporated into the process. Some of the
PPAs to date (e.g., Illinois) have failed to incorporate public participation.
• Time, energy, and resources need to be conserved. Hopefully, the process
will become more streamlined over the next few years.
Mike O’Connor
Mr. O’Connor re-emphasized points from his previous presentation and expanded on the
ideas presented by the previous two panelists. He pointed out that EPA needs to:
• Move measurement tools from “beans” to environmental impacts. The concept
of “partnership” was not enough. Program measurement tools need to justify
investment in the program to get the necessary funding.
• Conduct an honest analysis of the program and results against the State’s
needs. EPA and State staff who negotiate the PPA need to agree upon roles,
build upon each other’s efforts, and avoid duplicating efforts.
• Create a level playing field. EPA needs to look broadly when negotiating with
all States so that the PPA for one State does not conflict with the requirements
of another.
• Include enforcement as one of the key elements of the PPA. EPA and States
should be equal partners in setting environmental goals and priorities.
However, EPA should lead the training and technical assistance efforts, and
States should take the lead role in working on environmental problems in the
States. Also, the public needs to be involved early in the process.
Mike Stahl
Mr. Stahl closed the panel presentations with some comments on the national observations
and implications from the approximately six PPA programs that have been signed to date.
Mr. Stahl noted that the national program managers need to have a role in the PPA process.
He suggested that the role might include the following:
• Developing a set of performance measures for State programs that
include a mix of outcomes and activities.
2-12
-------
• Serving as a resource to Regions to spot issues, answer questions, or
transfer knowledge among the Regions. This requires an early dialogue
between Headquarters and the Regions.
• Ensuring a level of enforcement consistency but not limit flexibility
through monitoring of agreements, articulating the Federal role, or
providing a checklist of enforcement and compliance assurance
objectives.
Mr. Stahl closed by noting that the PPA process is still evolving. The process started
loosely and without structure. Over the past year, EPA has been learning what is needed
from the collective experience and determining how to spot patterns and issues and to
develop a set of common elements.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comment: Mr. McCabe opened the discussion session by stating that over the past 25 years,
there has been a long list of enforcement accomplishments and the perception that EPA and
the States have been “out there.” The presence of the Agency has created a deterrent effect
in the regulated community. However, environmental attorneys for the regulated community
have recently noticed business “falling-off” due to a belief in the reduction of EPA’s
presence. He posed the following question to the panel members: “As we move through a
transition to the States, do we run the risk of degrading the deterrent effect? What can we
do to keep this compliance tool?”
Comment: Mr. O’Connor noted that the PR associated with the USX case made people take
notice in Indiana. He also noted that his office is using the 90/10 rule in trying to build the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM): 90% of the people want to
comply and IDEM needs the capacity to help them comply; the other 10% will be in
violation and IDEM needs the “teeth” to go after them with all available mechanisms. In
Region 5, which is known to have a strong enforcement program, Mr. O’Connor stated that
he had not noticed a decline in compliance.
Comment: Ms. Ginsberg, also from Region 5, noted that she has seen evidence of a trend
that people are less aware of EPA’s enforcement presence. A smaller number of resumes
seeking job opportunities in enforcement were being submitted to the Regional Counsel’s
Office. In addition, businessmen had noted the same lack of EPA presence as noted by Mr.
McCabe. The trend of turning to greater State control means less litigation and more
compliance assistance. But the trend has also been promoted by Congressmen who have
stated that there is less of a need for EPA and less need for an enforcement presence.
Besides loss of the deterrent factor, reduction in EPA’s enforcement presence will hopefully
not mean a reduction in environmental law programs at law schools.
2-13
-------
Question: A question from the audience focused on an April 2nd memo from OECA
regarding OECA’s role in the PPA process. The individual asking the question felt that the
memo implied that Regions and States cannot be trusted to ensure national priorities are met
and that there is consistency.
Answer: Mr. Stahl responded that the PPA process started with Regions and States working
through the negotiation process without EPA Headquarter’s concurrence. The current
situation made it difficult, if not impossible, to get information from the Regions on the
status of the negotiations. Mr. Stahl reiterated some points from his presentation noting that
OECA’s intent behind the request to review the PPAs (e.g., to spot issues) should not be
taken as a lack of trust but as a request to work as a team. Ms. Ginsberg noted that Region
5 sought assistance from OECA during negotiations with Illinois regarding the lack of a
Federal role in the initial draft from Illinois. Mr. McGraw agreed that there is a natural role
for OECA, but that Regions need to raise issues to OECA--not have OECA identify them.
Mr. McGraw questioned the process of OECA reviewing all plans.
Question: The session closed with a discussion of a question raised by the audience
regarding data systems and how maintenance of core data systems and data sharing were
handled during negotiations of the existing PPAs.
Answer: Mr. McGraw noted that this was a major concern in PPAs, in particular the
maintenance of the system. Mr. McGraw then called upon Mike Gaydosh, also from Region
8, who explained that the Colorado PPA is explicit that the data systems must be maintained
by Region 8 at the same level of accuracy, timeliness, and with the same resources as in the
past. Mr. Gaydosh noted that unless something like this is done, a major building block of
the program would erode. Mr. McGraw also noted that the State/EPA agreements also
address data systems. Ms. Ginsberg stated that EPA also needs to be concerned about data
and new requirements. More data may be requested as part of the PPA than was requested
in the past.
2-14
-------
ADDRESS
“Working With and Serving Our Communities:
Perspectives on Environmental Justice”
Robert Bullard, Ph.D.
Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark University
April 10, 1996
1: l5pm-2:OOpm
As an environmental sociologist, Dr. Robert Bullard studies issues relating to the intersection
between where people live, where people work, and where people play. Environment is
understood as everything and, thus environmental justice is not just a concept but a strategy
for achieving healthy and sustainable communities.
Environmental justice embraces the principle that all people in all communities are entitled to
equal protection of our environmental, health, employment, housing, transportation, and civil
rights laws. It also refers to the interaction of various elements with the physical and natural
world. For example, the problem of childhood lead poisoning is an environmental problem
but it is also a housing, education, and economics problem. There is a direct correlation
between learning capacity and earning capacity. If we talk about enforcement, then we are
talking about enforcing housing laws, health codes and ensuring that all children have equal
educational opportunities.
Environmental justice involves the interaction of where we work and play. Some jobs are
hazardous to one’s health; this includes, for example, jobs requiring people to work with
dangerous chemicals, including jobs in “Cancer Alley” (Southern Louisiana), and jobs in
Silicon Valley. There are also many playgrounds that are hazardous to children; some are
built on old hazardous sites, while others neighbor freeways.
The major elements of environmental justice include equal enforcement of laws and
regulations. It also includes identifying elements that are discriminatory in practice or
policy. These may be intended or unintended; meaning that environmental injustice does not
always involve some motivation, because in many cases it is unintended. Environmental
justice also involves addressing environmental health and socio-economic disparities,
pollution prevention, right-to-know, occupational safety, community empowerment, and
involving impacted populations in the decision-making process.
If one looks at the impetus for the paradigm shift as to what is environmental protection--a
right versus a privilege--it was not the government but rather grassroots activism. The First
National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, held in 1991, brought together
people from all parts of the US and other countries to discuss unequal protection, disparate
impact, and the question of environmental injustice. The grassroots activists redefined
environmentalism to say that we do have a basic right. Many documents and studies came
2-15
-------
out verifying these disparities, although many simply brought to the surface studies that
actually had been conducted over a decade ago. A historic meeting was held in February
1994; seven Federal agencies decided it was time for the agencies to talk about how to form
partnerships to maximize resources when it comes to environmental protection, health
protection, disease protection, and enforcement of existing laws, regulations, and policies.
On the second day of the Conference, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice. The signing of the Order did not raise new issues but rather brought
to the surface the reality that the existing dominant paradigm is broken and needs to be fixed
because there are too many communities that have fallen through the cracks. EPA
subsequently created the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC).
Existing laws must be vigorously enforced. For example, California did not test low-income
children for lead as had been mandated. It required a court order for California to
implement the program. Thus, it is not a matter of developing new laws but rather of
enforcing existing ones.
The movement for environmental justice is like a wheel where all spokes are directed into
this concept that we all need to work together. We cannot escape environmental degradation
because at some point in time everyone will be affected. Therefore, it makes sense for the
grassroots environmental groups, the national environmental groups, social justice groups,
civil rights groups, and Federal/State/local governments to work together. In this
partnership, it costs more to act irresponsibly than to act responsibly. Either we pay now, or
we pay later; usually, if we pay later, we pay more.
On the issue of environmental inequities, one must look at the distribution of impacts. Some
impacts are negative, while others are positive. Some positive impacts, however, are
disproportionately distributed to where the affluent live. Today, some communities are more
equal than others. Although land use and facility siting, for example, are local issues, they
have State, regional and national implications. We must examine how to address areas
saturated with environmental problems. EPA has a geographic targeting system for
enforcement but there are other areas that require targeting of resources and enforcement
activities.
in terms of social equity, one must examine distribution patterns where Federal money is
used to deliver goods and benefits. This includes the extent to which unintended
consequences of Federal actions and investments in Federal actions create a downside effect
in terms of host communities. We need to examine if negative impacts are falling on certain
populations. For example, in the case of the transport of hazardous waste, one must look at
the process by which communities are evacuated, particularly whether black citizens that live
near an accident are the last ones to hear about it and to be evacuated. This means we need
to look at the processes that create inequities in terms of our policies.
We must also examine the extent to which vulnerable populations are not addressed in health
assessments and impacts. If EIAs do not examine cultural, regional, social and economic
2-16
-------
differences, then those EIAs are inadequate. There must be equal enforcement of all existing
laws.
The topic of environmental health disparities includes a discussion of vulnerable populations.
For example, we have countless studies showing the disparate impact of work-placed
degradation on workers, particularly migrant farm workers. Migrant farm workers have
fallen through the cracks.
On the issue of air pollution, the National Argonne Laboratories conducted a study in 1990
that examined the pollution and ethnic composition of areas that suffer from the greatest
pollution. People of color live in the dirtiest cities in the country and are exposed to the
greatest environmental health threats. This means that when facilities are being permitted in
those areas, we need to look at the implications in terms of cumulative impact.
When we examine disparate impacts and outcomes, some of the issues the environmental
justice paradigm attempts to address include:
• Is the decision-making process fair, equitable, and consistent? Environmental
justice is not affirmative action; thus no one is asking for preferential
treatment.
• Do the rules apply equally to everyone? There are no landfills, incinerators,
or toxic waste dumps in Kennebunkport or Beverly Hills. There is a direct
correlation between per capita income and waste production; however, there is
an inverse relationship in terms of where such facilities are located and
affluence. Differential treatment exists, as noted in the September 1992 issue
of the National Law Journal that raised the issue of whether there is in fact
one set of rules for everyone.
• Are some locations favored over others? This involves the issue of locally
unwanted land uses and some communities being of greater value. We need to
talk about sociology and the resulting disenfranchised populations.
• Environmental justice is about having stakeholders at the table so that the
process is democratized. The people affected by a decision should have a say
in the process.
When we examine the government’s response, we need to look at Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. It has been used many times in cases involving housing, employment, and
education. It also applies to environmental protection and, thus, we should enforce Title VI
in terms of the Federal and State governments. The old way of not enforcing the law is
going to result in countless lawsuits by groups geared to sue States for not enforcing Title VI
as it relates to environmental protection. Moreover, for a long period of time, the socio-
economic aspect of the National Environmental Policy Act did not address environmental
2-17
-------
justice. The economic side was emphasized at the expense of the socio piece. We are not
talking about killing projects, delaying projects, or increasing costs. However,
environmental justice principles demand that the assessments be done; thus, bad projects
should be killed early.
Executive Order 12898 discusses environmental justice strategies. It requires agencies to
examine the impact of their policies on low-income and minority communities and design an
implementation plan. We are still waiting for some of the agencies to develop
implementation plans; some base their delay on the upcoming CEQ guidance. There are
many things already, however, to hang our hats on so we do not need to wait for the
guidance to begin action.
The Executive Order also addresses research data collection and analysis. Often agencies
claim that they cannot act because they lack data, such as basic demographic information.
Often, all they need to do is add three more data elements to their forms. In addition, there
are many tools to collect and analyze this data, including GIS.
We need to look at what happens in the real world in terms of disparate impact, adverse
impact, and cumulative impacts. For example, a permit is being proposed for an area that
already has substantial pollution. A common sense approach requires that the analysis look
at not only what the facility is going to emit but also the cumulative impact of those
emissions. Also, the analysis needs to account for some populations that may be more
vulnerable than others, such as subsistence fishermen. Some environmental impact
assessments (EIAs) do not even take into account people who rely on wells as opposed to
city water. The Order also addresses public participation, particularly among those most
impacted.
When we discuss Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, we are talking about equal enforcement of
the laws, equal protection, compliance assurance, and analysis. All States are not equal in
that some are doing a good job. Others say environmental justice is an unfunded mandate
that will go away. Discrimination still exists. The question is how do we address it. Those
States that do a good job in terms of compliance with our laws should be rewarded. We
need a stick for those that do not, such as the withholding of funds.
Environmental justice principles must be integrated into the NEPA process from the very
beginning. Environmental justice is not just bringing some low-income people into a meeting
so that they can simply vent their frustrations. It includes identifying data sources, analyzing
impact equity, identifying at-risk and vulnerable populations, assessing adverse and
disproportionate impacts, involving impacted populations in the process, providing feedback
on the impact, establishing a monitoring and mitigation program, and planning for gaps. An
example is the case of Louisiana and its citizen Benny Johnston who wanted to find a
location for the first privately-owned uranium enrichment plant in the United States.
Through a supposedly objective process, a site was selected. The EIS for the project,
however, failed to mention two black communities located within one-half mile of the
2-18
-------
proposed plant; instead, the demographic analysis focused on a community eight miles away.
Although the permit was granted, a judge recently ruled that the EIS was inadequate. If the
process had been properly followed from the beginning, all of the money would not have
been wasted. It is critical that data collection and analysis reflect the real world. We need
to examine the extent to which demographic data reflects the impacted community. In
addition, too often data is not shared among agencies.
Enforcement needs to include examination of impacts across media and across program
areas. The Long Beach freeway extension in California is actually three freeways when one
examines the proposed mitigation. In poorer communities, the freeway runs above ground;
as it goes through the more affluent areas, there is a great deal of mitigation. The poor
communities have sued DOT and the State, arguing that the design of the freeway is an
example of environmental injustice. State agencies must comply with the laws and
regulations.
We have a window to correct past mistakes. Doing the right thing may save money by
avoiding projects that are not effective in cleaning the air, protecting public health, and
ensuring that we have a healthy and sustainable community.
2-19
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #1
Environmental Justice in Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
April 10, 1996
2 :OOpm-4:OOpm
Session Leader: Bob Knox, Associate Director, Office of Environmental Justice
Session Panelists: Clarice Gaylord, Ph.D., Director, Office of Environmental
Justice
David Hindin, Branch Chief, Multi-media Enforcement
Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Rodger Field, Associate Regional Council, Office of Regional
Council, Region 5
Eduardo Quintana, Region 8
Session Objectives: The session discussed progress and prospects for integrating
environmental justice in enforcement and compliance programs.
Introduction - Bob Knox
Mr. Knox began the breakout session by welcoming the participants. He explained that in
the years before Environmental Justice (FJ) was clearly defined, its basic premise was known
by many other acronyms including: LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Use), BANANAs
(Build Absolutely Nothing Near Anybody) and CATNIP (Cheapest Available Technique Not
Involving Prosecution).
Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) Activities - Dr. Clarice Gaylord
Dr. Gaylord expressed her appreciation for the presentation given earlier in the day by Dr.
Bullard regarding environmental justice.
She said her role on the panel was to address how the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ)
is working to build the capacity of regulators, the regulated community, and the public to
integrate El concepts into not only enforcement and compliance assurance programs but also
environmental programs at large.
She stressed the importance of fostering an understanding of the concept of the
disproportionate impact of environmental problems. She explained that OEJ’s first mission
2-20
-------
in 1992 was to expand education and awareness. They believed that Federal, State, and local
personnel needed to be trained to be sensitive to two principles: assessment and public
involvement. Assessment, she articulated, involves determining if a Federal agency is
contributing to environmental injustice.
She noted that it was first necessary to go over a few definitions. Dr. Gaylord defined El as
the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of their race,
ethnicity, culture, income or educational level with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental regulations and practices. She further
defined fair treatment to mean that no population should have to shoulder all the negative
human health and environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental hazards. She
added that the allegation has been made that the Agency has been engaged in unequal
protection in that minorities and low-income persons, versus the majority population, have
been disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards. She opined that data substantiate
those claims.
The second principle, she explained, requires that the affected public participate in an early
and meaningful way in the environmental decision-making process.
She noted that the Executive Order concerning El required Federal agencies which include
public health and the environment as part of their mission to make El an integral part of their
activities. This includes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and
Transportation. In addition, NASA, NRC, and the White House volunteered to participate.
She further explained that each agency, in compliance with the terms of the Executive Order,
produced a strategic plan for integrating F..J into its activities and formed an interagency
workgroup. She noted that the workgroup forced different agencies to work together, many
for the first time. One of the first activities of the interagency workgroup was a public
hearing held in Atlanta, Georgia, in response to community El concerns.
Dr. Gaylord noted that the Executive Order also called for agencies to: reinforce Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act to ensure that no discrimination occurs in any entity that receives
Federal funds; improve data collection; analyze fish and wildlife consumption patterns; and,
enhance public participation.
Dr. Gaylord expressed that OEJ is satisfied with the Federal-level involvement and will now
focus on working with their co-regulators (i.e., State and local officials). She stated that
since in many cases enforcement is delegated to the States, it will be important to
communicate El principles on a local level and to utilize the States’ direct public interface
capabilities.
2-21
-------
Dr. Gaylord explained that the OEJ is currently sponsoring State-specific publications, as
well as sensitivity training sessions. In addition, OEJ has worked closely with the regulated
corn munity.
She noted that from the very beginning, OEJ focuses on the affected public for the following
reasons:
• To level an uneven playing field and to address a lack of basic knowledge
regarding EJ. In response, OEJ produced community handbooks, fact sheets,
bi-lingual/non-technical brochures, plays, and radio spots.
• To correct limited or non-existent access to technical assistance. In response
to communities’ requests for self-education, OFJ developed a small grants
program that offers up to $20,000 to community-based organizations for
outreach and clean up programs. When the communities expressed a need for
continuous, sustained technical assistance, the OEJ established
Community/University Partnership Grants of up to $300,000 to help build
community capacity.
• To correct limited access to information.
• To improve the lack of meaningful and early involvement in environmental
decision-making called for in the Executive Order.
Dr. Gaylord explained that in response to these inequities, El coalitions--comprised of
representatives of the American Bar Association, American Medical Association and other
professional organizations--were formed to provide pro-bono technical assistance. She added
that AMERICORPS volunteers have assisted with capacity building through outreach,
education, and clean-up activities.
She pointed out that Region 5 offered the most innovative example of technical assistance. It
established a Citizens Environmental Academy. There, community members are walked
through environmental regulations in layman’s terms, learn techniques for accessing data,
and participate in pollution monitoring exercises.
The ultimate lesson, she explained, is how to become empowered. Dr. Gaylord conceded
that access to information continues to be a problem due in part to difficulty accessing GIS
and EIS data. She reiterated the importance of enhancing community involvement and
offered these suggestions: use of advisory boards, use of community groups to negotiate
MOAs, and the training of community members to read pollution monitoring data. She
applauded a Region 6 initiative called “Rat on a Rat” that encourages citizens to report illegal
dumpers.
2-22
-------
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: A representative of Region 5 asked why there has not been a published definition
of an environmental justice community and asked Dr. Gaylord to list the communities that
should be targeted.
Answer: Dr. Gaylord responded that the interagency workgroup has just published a series
of definitions and offered to mail it to the attendees. She added that OECA has developed a
series of ranges to work from, including a definition of “high minority” as 50% minority or
twice the relevant geographical area and low income as $25,000 annual income for a family
of four.
Question: A representative of a Federal facility asked for a list of FJ communities.
Answer: Dr. Gaylord explained that her office developed a list but was promptly instructed
to destroy it rather than publicly label these communities as environmentally disadvantaged.
A representative from Region 1 commented that they had mapped FJ Communities using
income/minority data from the population census and that it served as a consciousness raiser.
Dr. Gaylord responded that this action was a good example of how the Regions are often
more progressive and can operate under fewer restraints.
Risk-Based Targeting - Rodger Field
Mr. Field explained that he would address how EPA can organize enforcement and
compliance efforts to promote the goal of El. He said he would talk specifically about
efforts within Region 5.
He suggested that to achieve the goal of incorporating El, three questions must be asked: (1)
What should be done differently in criminal cases to promote El? (2) How should resources
be allocated? and, (3) What new national laws, regulations, or policies are necessary to
promote El? He suggested that there are roles for everyone including case attorneys,
permitters, managers, resource directors, inspectors, and Headquarters staff.
He contemplated how best to direct and organize resources to comply with the Executive
Order. He said that because a “cookbook” does not exist to guide actions, dialogue is
necessary to aid all participants in this learning experience.
Mr. Field suggested that the Regions work to identify specific target areas and facilities. He
explained that Region 5 has targeted East Saint Louis because Regional personnel knew it
was an area deserving of attention. He added that they also utilized knowledge of industries
with demonstrated adverse effects to the environment. Mr. Field listed the following factors
for consideration: risk, demographics, community, and government partners.
2-23
-------
He stated that the goal of EJ is to look at disproportionate impacts on low-income and
minority populations. Mr. Field supported the use of demographics to provide information
into high-risk areas to assist in targeting risks. He recommended GIS, Landview II, and
Arcview as research tools and demonstrated the usefulness of Arcview by presenting multiple
slides.
Mr. Field conceded that it is difficult to overlay demographics with risk and to allocate
resources. He noted that it is a qualitative judgement that lacks a risk-assessment protocol to
follow. He urged the audience to make the best possible judgement using TRI data,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS), Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS), health and containment data, and community and partner input.
Mr. Field then described the geographical initiatives of Region 5. One includes building a
team of governmental partners to bring together resources in one area. He explained that in
order to direct the multi-media, multi-governmental efforts of the team, the following
features must be present: (1) a team leader to organize the efforts; (2) management support
to survive; and, (3) a steering committee comprised of individuals with Regional and
enforcement responsibilities. He then listed the following functions of the team: information
gathering to prevent duplication of effort; coordination and cooperation on specific projects;
and activity planning and coordination of investigations of facilities and areas of concern. He
concluded that all of these activities need to occur with adequate citizen involvement and
input. He suggested including community members in the steering committee.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: An individual from a Region asked Mr. Field to elaborate on his experience with
State and local participation.
Answer: Mr. Field answered that while their involvement varies from State to State, it has
been problematic due in part to different notions of community involvement. He noted that
the performance partnership is an important element for a successful program.
Supplemental Environmental Programs (SEPs) - David Hindin
Mr. Hindin began his presentation by giving an overview of SEPs. He described them as an
enforcement tool useful in the settlement of an enforcement action. He stressed that SEPs
are nQt legally required and that they must be in addition to, rather than as a replacement
for, compliance. He explained that the goal of SEPs is to obtain an environmentally
beneficial outcome that would not have occurred without the incentives of the policy. He
emphasized that SEPs are not a grants program and that they do have limitations. He
explained that penalties paid by violators go to the Treasury Department and that those funds
2-24
-------
are not then available to be handed out as grants for SEPs. He clarified this because he is
often contacted by individuals seeking grants for SEPs.
Mr. Hindin further explained the scope of SEP authority. He noted that while violators may
reduce the penalty amount by doing a SEP, the focus must stay on the violations and the
environmental impact. Mr. Hindin then listed the following legal guidelines SEPs must
follow:
• The SEP must demonstrate a clear connection between the violation and the
proposed project. The SEP must reduce or remedy the violation and/or
prevent future violations.
• It must fit within the declared objectives of the statute that was violated, and it
must be consistent with any and all provisions.
• SEP planning must occur early in the settlement process. The type and scope
must be determined in the signed settlement. The “what, where, when” must
be specified.
• The project cannot supplement an EPA project already underway.
Mr. Hindin then listed the seven SEP categories: (1) Public Health, (2) Pollution Prevention,
(3) Pollution Reduction, (4) Environmental Restoration and Protection, (5) Assessment and
Audits, (6) Environmental Compliance Promotion, and, (7) Emergency Planning and
Preparedness. He noted that while there is not a category devoted specifically to B, each of
these categories could be used to advance El principles.
Mr. Hindin then pointed out that prohibited SEP areas include: general education and public
awareness, environmental research, environmental projects unrelated to the violation, studies
without a connection to the violation or desired environmental result, and Federally funded
projects. He explained that the violator must consider and demonstrate compliance with the
following penalty mitigation factors: benefits to the public, innovativeness, environmental
justice, multi-media impacts, and pollution prevention.
Mr. Hindin then discussed the role of community involvement in El SEPs. He explained
that settlements have generally been reached in private with little or no public involvement.
He encouraged altering this format to allow public involvement early in the process before
the settlement decree is finalized. He noted that community involvement and support can
lead to better SEPs. Mr. Hindin noted that fostering community involvement can be
difficult. He listed the following challenges: identifying the community; identifying
representatives of that community; and, educating the community quickly enough to coincide
with the settlement process.
2-25
-------
He then provided the following tips for FJ SEPs: (1) start the process early; (2) agree on
procedures up front; (3) keep the violation in mind; (4) consider impacts on the community;
(5) use the SEP policy creatively; and, (6) allow the violator contact with the community.
Mr. Hindin added that SEPs should be used to empower the community. To illustrate this,
he gave an example of a SEP that trained community members to perform the clean up, thus
creating jobs in the process.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: A participant asked why education projects are prohibited.
Answer: Mr. Hindin explained that education by itself is a project in its own right and not
enough to satisfy the SEP criteria. He further explained that it must be combined with an
element that advances environmental protection.
Question: A representative of Region 9 asked if enforcement personnel should be familiar
with the SEP policy.
Answer: Mr. Hindin responded affirmatively and recommended reading the policy in its
final form.
Using Existing Laws to Promote FJ - Eduardo Quintana
Mr. Quintana stated that El has evolved over the years. He explained that in the beginning
the challenge was to define EJ; the challenge then became identifying El communities. He
stated that he intended to demonstrate how current laws can be used to remedy environmental
injustices.
He explained that while El was not in existence when NEPA was enacted, there are strong
arguments that NEPA does cover EJ. He stated that a recent RCRA decision from the
Environmental Appeals Board states that Regions must use Executive Order 12898 on El.
Describing NEPA “in a nut shell”, Mr. Quintana explained that NEPA requires Federal
agencies to prepare an EIS whenever they undertake a major Federal action. He added that
NEPA addresses Social Impact Analysis which strongly correlates with El initiatives. He
noted the Haskell University case; that case demonstrates that under NEPA, EPA has the
authority to rate a particular action based on the impact of such action on a population--in
this case, a Native American tribe.
He reiterated that NEPA gives agencies the authority to look at social impacts. The statute’s
use over the years should provide valuable experience.
2-26
-------
Mr. Quintana cited the Chemical Waste Management of Indiana case, settled June 29, 1995,
in which a landfill sought an extension permit. The Environmental Appeals Board ruled that
the Executive Order does not expand RCRA authority. However, the Board held it does
have jurisdiction to review the Region’s efforts to implement the Executive Order. Mr.
Quintana added that the Environmental Appeals Board found that it is within the Region’s
expertise to determine the area of demographics used in environmental justice analysis,
whether it be 1 mile or 5 miles. He concluded his comments regarding the Chemical Waste
Management case by declaring the following as the most important holding of the decision:
under the RCRA omnibus clause, if the operation of the facility would have an adverse
impact on the surrounding community, the Agency is required to include within the RCRA
permit appropriate terms and conditions to ensure that such impacts do not occur. He
explained that this is not just a reiteration of policy, but that it has a direct impact on a
company’s permit.
Mr. Quintana then cited the RCRA Expanded Public Participation Rule, due out in June
1996. It will require a company to inform the public prior to making application for a
RCRA permit. The idea is to allow for earlier public participation. Additionally, facilities
involved in incineration must inform the community before commencing a trial burn.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: One participant asked who was responsible for implementing the Civil Rights Act
Title VI.
Answer: Mr. Quintana responded that the Office of Civil Rights has that responsibility but
added that no cases have been settled. He explained that in order to settle, a systematic
investigation of racial discrimination must be conducted; this generally lasts two to three
years. He further explained that a workgroup is studying this policy.
Question: A member of the audience asked Mr. Knox when targeting a facility, at what
juncture is the decision made between enforcement versus compliance assistance.
Answer: Mr. Knox answered that the public wants enforcement but added that there is a role
for compliance assistance.
Comments: Mr. Knox concluded the break out session by thanking the participants and
announcing the upcoming “Legal Tools for Environmental Justice” course to be held May 1.
2-27
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #2
Building Capacity for A Stronger Federal/State Enforcement and Compliance Program
April 10, 1996
2:O Opm-4:OOpm
Session Leaders: Zena Aidridge, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training, National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI)
Linda Flick, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and
Training, NET!
Gerald A. Bryan, Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics,
and Training, Director, NET!
Session Objectives: The session discussed recent and future efforts to identify and
address training and capacity-building needs of EPA and State
enforcement and compliance assurance programs.
Introduction
Ms. Aidridge welcomed the participants to the breakout session, and introduced Mr. Jerry
Bryan, Director of the National Enforcement Training Institute (NET!).
Mr. Bryan began the session by highlighting some recent milestones for NET!. In the past
year, the Institute has been elevated to Division status within the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training (OCEFT), and has assumed responsibility for the
training of both civil and criminal technical staff (including investigators and inspectors) and
attorneys. To house its new Headquarters operations, NETI has moved to a new location on
3 floors of the Ariel Rios Building in Washington, D.C. Mr. Bryan introduced Linda Flick,
who gave a brief overview of NET!, including its background and its current operations.
NETI is EPA’s training center for enforcement personnel. Presently, its main functions
include developing training curricula, developing and delivering training courses, and acting
as a clearinghouse for training-related information.
Although NET! has a staff of only 25, it trained approximately 4,000 people last year. This
was accomplished by employing other EPA or State staff whenever possible to assist in
training courses. NET! also supports four Regional Environmental Enforcement
Associations.
2-28
-------
Recently, NET! has focused on identifying training needs. A coordinating body known as
the OECA Training Task Force has been set up to function as a liaison with other OECA
offices and to develop a training plan on an annual basis. This Task Force was founded to
provide guidance for NETI’s main task--delivery of training courses to State, Regional and
local offices.
Through a general discussion among participants of the breakout session, the following points
were made:
• NET! intends to establish a planning board that will include representatives
from EPA’s Regions, State and local governments, and possibly
representatives from other Federal agencies such as DOJ. The purpose of this
board will be to coordinate training activities with the other offices. This
board will function in addition to the OECA Training Task Force, which is
comprised of only OECA office directors.
• NET! is dedicated to providing training for inspectors as new rules and
regulations are implemented.
• NET! is not associated with EPA’s International Training Modules, nor with
the Superfund Academy.
Define Network
The NET! staff members pointed out that an enforcement training network should include the
following characteristics:
• A group of people who can identify training needs, as well as discuss training
needs and the different ways to provide training.
• The network should not be limited to one organization such as EPA. It must
also include all relevant State and local agencies and organizations.
NET! does not have such a network established at this time. Through discussion, the
participants added that the network should allow communication on issues such as needs
assessment, follow-up evaluation of training courses, and curricula development. A national
network should also develop a means for resource sharing among its many constituents (e.g.,
State, EPA) and should be able to identify experienced trainers and inspectors and to develop
expertise when it is lacking. In addition, the network should serve to promote the
importance of enforcement training.
The discussion then moved toward specific actions that could be undertaken to develop the
network. Developing appropriate contacts for enforcement training within each of EPA’s
2-29
-------
Regional offices was recommended. However, NET! has had limited success in working
with the Regional Training Officer in each Region, primarily because this contact is typically
the coordinator for all training programs, and thus is not likely to focus heavily on
enforcement training. Instead, a good point of contact for each Region may be the Division
Director of the Enforcement Division.
Whom Do We Need To Reach?
The discussion then focused on identifying individuals, agencies, and types of organizations
that might be useful to bring into the network. For the State level, it was decided that EPA
Regional Enforcement Coordinators/Directors could provide contacts for States under their
jurisdiction. At the local level, contacts would include emergency response units, local
inspectors, and water and waste water utility operators. Other contacts might include such
professional organizations as the American Water Works Association, the Water
Environment Federation, and legal associations.
There was some discussion of NETI’s role in delivering training courses to State and local
inspectors. A general consensus was reached that the States usually expect training to be
provided by the EPA Regional offices.
How Can We Best Reach Them?
The participants exchanged ideas on how to instill a commitment to enforcement training. It
was noted that the key to building a commitment to training was to retain the right people
with the right type of expertise. The traditionally high turnover rate among experienced
inspectors is a serious obstacle in maintaining training capacity. The discussion also
differentiated between formal skills training (typically classroom based) and substantive
training, which would only require access to needed information. The participants agreed
that improving access to information (e.g., sector notebooks) through the use of computer
networks and other technologies is a cost-effective way to build enforcement capacity and
should continue to be pursued.
The participants then discussed specific mechanisms that can be used to deliver training and
information to the target audience. It was noted that NET! needs to tailor training to meet
specific State needs. Training topics that prove to be popular should continue to be offered.
Other useful mechanisms the participants identified include: the development of an
institutionalized certification program to motivate enforcement staff; the establishment of a
baseline for required knowledge; and an emphasis on the training-of-trainers to ensure a pool
of trained instructors for the future.
There was also considerable discussion on the use of computers and computer networks to
deliver training and information. Ms. Aidridge provided a brief overview of NETI’s
2-30
-------
Distance Learning plan, which will incorporate computer-based and satellite-based training
courses into its course offerings. For example, the popular Negotiations Skills Course is
being developed in video-based format and will be piloted this fall. Other examples of
successful computer-based and satellite-based training courses were also presented. The
participants felt it was important to keep in mind, however, that while distance learning
methods could complement traditional training methods, they cannot replace them. Training
of top quality inspectors requires a substantial amount of training directly with experienced
instructors and training with experienced inspectors as a critical part of the learning process.
The group also discussed the use of computer networks to provide access to information.
For example, one participant described a successful World Wide Web site that was installed
to provide compliance assistance to auto service centers. The participants indicated that a
national enforcement/compliance assistance navigator web site would be useful as a link to
information that already exists on the Internet. Creating such a link would perhaps be more
appropriate than creating actual information sites, considering NETI’s small staff size. Such
a link could also facilitate access to the many web sites that are already maintained by State
agencies.
How Do We Keep Abreast of Changing Needs?
The participants agreed that it is critical to integrate an assessment of enforcement training
needs into the annual planning process. This would allow new needs to be identified and old
needs to be verified on a regular basis. An annual needs assessment should be completed in
advance of budget allocations and could make use of existing vehicles such as the PPAs
between EPA and the States, or the MOA program between EPA Headquarters and the
Regional offices.
The participants discussed some of the current trends they saw in training needs. For
example, one participant noted that the workforce is becoming more stable than before.
Training programs could reflect that trend by offering core courses at more advanced levels,
as well as continuing to offer them at an introductory level.
A number of specific training needs at the State level were also identified in the course of
discussion. These included SEP training (e.g., project selection, value calculations, etc.) and
mediation training. The participants also agreed that training curricula must be updated to
reflect new rules as they are being developed and to incorporate new technologies in
sampling or treatment methods as they become practical for field use.
The director of a Regional Enforcement Association briefly summarized how Regional
Enforcement Associations can play a role in improving communication among the various
enforcement agencies. Four Regional Enforcement Associations currently exist, representing
48 States. They are partially supported by NET! and focus primarily on training,
2-31
-------
networking, and providing information services. These associations already have an
extensive network developed to disseminate information between State and EPA offices.
Closure
One participant noted that some Regions have developed expertise in specific areas such as
asbestos inspections or NPDES permit writing. Such areas of Regional expertise are a
resource that should be tapped by other Regions and States.
Mr. Bryan ended the session with a request to Regions and States to continue to
communicate with NETI, to share resources and information, and to make NET! aware of
immediate needs in areas under their jurisdiction. Participants were asked to sign up, or
recommend a colleague, for involvement in the training Network to help further EPA’s
ability to share resources and information.
2-32
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #3
Encouraging Compliance Through Incentives - OC and Regions
April 10, 1996
2:OOpm-4:OOpm
Session Leader: Mimi Guernica, Chief, Commercial Services and Municipal
Branch, Office of Compliance
Session Panelists: Richard Nichols, Manager, Environmental Partnerships for
Oregon Communities, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ)
Kerry Drake, Manager of Small Business Technical Assistance
Program, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
(TNRCC)
Tai Ming Chang, Director of the Environmental Leadership
Program, Office of Compliance
Jim Edward, Director, Planning, Prevention, Compliance
Division, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Session Objectives: The session discussed new policies and programs (e.g., small
business assistance policy, small communities policy,
Environmental Leadership Program) which offer incentives for
companies and communities to comply voluntarily.
Common Threads of the Incentives Policies - Mimi Guernica
Ms. Guernica provided a brief overview of the common threads of the incentives policies.
Based on her interpretation of how Headquarters views the incentives process, she
recommended that EPA Headquarters do the following:
• Determine areas of high risk and noncompliance and provide appropriate
incentives to address those areas (e.g., small towns due to lack of resources).
• Examine State activities and support the incentives offered by States to
encourage more States to adopt and implement similar programs (e.g., Oregon
and Idaho have good compliance assistance programs). Some States are
waiting for national leadership from EPA.
2-33
-------
• Leverage resources that motivate many of the incentive policies, including
increasing the number of tools in the “tool box” to move beyond traditional
enforcement to include compliance assistance.
• Explore new approaches (e.g., Environmental Leadership Program). Increase
communication among the regulated communities that are launching these
kinds of incentives and think about ways of integrating the incentives at the
EPA Headquarters and Regional levels, and also at the State level.
Some of the incentive policies Headquarters has issued include the following:
• Small Communities Policy (issued November 22, 1995)
• Interim Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses (issued June
1995)
• Incentives for Self-Policing Policy or Audit Policy (issued December 22, 1995;
effective January 2, 1996)
• Interim Environmental Management Review Policy for Federal Facilities.
Additionally, Headquarters has initiated the Environmental Leadership Program. For this
program, twelve pilot projects were selected in April 1995 and are currently being
conducted.
Ms. Guemica raised the question of what are some of the incentives that are common among
these policies. These include the following:
(1) Financial/economic incentives. Examples include:
• Penalty waivers
• Green logos (under development in the Environmental Leadership
Program)
• Environmental certification (e.g., certification under ISO 14000 can
allow companies to participate in the national arena)
• Procurement preference with the Federal government (potential use in
the Environmental Leadership Program).
(2) Incentives that include flexibility in:
• Prioritizing items that are going to be addressed
2-34
-------
• The amount of time given to remedy a problem
• Inspection frequency
• Self-certification or third-party certification to satisfy inspection
requirements
• Reporting
• The methods used to comply with legal requirements (e.g., longer
permit cycles).
(3) Access to technical assistance incentives. Examples include:
• Providing technical assistance onsite. States can send people onsite to
help someone identify the problems and provide access to technical
assistance that might not otherwise be available.
• Mentoring. Facilities are identified that have good compliance records,
and they will be matched with smaller companies that need help in
figuring out their requirements.
There are also some limitations in the incentives policies. Specifically, a party is excluded
from participating in the policies if:
• The violation is a criminal violation
• The violator is a repeat violator
• If the actions present an imminent and substantial endangerment
• If the action has resulted in actual serious harm to public health or the
environment.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: A participant asked if Ms. Guernica could provide an example of mentoring
beyond the industrial base.
Answer: Ms. Guernica replied that the mentor concept is something that is applied within
specific programs. As an example of the mentoring concept being applied in the public
sector, Ms. Guernica described a branch project called Partners in Healthy Drinking Water.
For this project, grants have been given to two States, a water association, and a Native
2-35
-------
American tribe. The point of the project is to identify mentor systems--systems that have
excellent compliance records on the total coliform rule, and match them with “mentees”--or
systems that have poor compliance records or have new operators that may not be familiar
with those requirements. The mentors stay in contact with the “mentees” and let them know
what the requirements are and/or pick up the laboratory samples and take them with their
own samples to the State laboratory for analysis.
Question: Are mentors receiving Federal money?
Answer: Ms. Guernica responded that EPA did provide grants to several States and a Native
American tribe. She noted that the mentoring concept is also being used in the
Environmental Leadership Program. An example is the John Roberts Company, a medium-
sized printing facility, which is serving as a mentor to small printing companies by providing
technical assistance to guide them through the regulatory requirements.
Question: Is there much money at Headquarters for compliance assistance activities and is
there a list of potential available monies that Regions could review to know what is
available?
Answer: Ms. Guernica responded that she was not aware of any such list.
Question: A participant asked if anyone would be addressing the Small Business Act in this
session.
Answer: Ms. Guernica responded that she did not have any information on that Act at this
time. The Act was only passed into law a couple of weeks ago, so the branch has not fully
come up to speed on that Act yet. (The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act was discussed briefly by Elliott Gilberg later in the session.)
Small Community Overview - Richard Nichols
Mr. Nichols presented Oregon’s program on Environmental Partnerships for Oregon
Communities. The mission of the program is to help small cities comply with both Federal
and State regulations. The program is based on the basic recognition that small communities
do not have the financial capabilities or the technical base to understand the environmental
mandates. Cities are selected that want to be in compliance. The program deals with the
following environmental mandates: CAA, wastewater (sewage treatment plant), SDWA,
hazardous waste, Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), solid waste, and air quality problems
(e.g., mostly wood stove related). Oregon’s program consists of the following components:
(1) Establishing a resolution, or non-binding agreement, between a city and
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that lays out DEQ’s
goals and expectations. After the agreement is signed, the city is assigned to
2-36
-------
one of DEQ’s project managers. Work is then done by the field staff to figure
out what the environmental requirements are and whether or not the city is in
compliance. Field staff are intentionally involved in the process early to
obtain their “buy-in.” At the end of the process, field staff will be responsible
for implementing the order. If DEQ does not have “buy-in” from the field
staff, then there will not be good follow through of the program.
(2) Determining the environmental significance of the impacts. A risk assessment
is not used because a sufficient amount of data is not available.
(3) Requiring public participation so that the city’s residents become aware of
what the environmental issues are and their significance. Generally, there
tends to be flexibility on how this is accomplished (e.g., attend City Council
meetings).
(4) Completing a prioritization process of the most important issues. This is done
by the city.
(5) Signing a Mutual Agreement Order (MAO), a contract between the city and
DEQ, that:
• Identifies compliance issues
• Settles violations without civil penalty
• Sets a schedule for coming into compliance (with flexibility)
• Sets some interim conditions or limitations
• Requires media notification in certain instances (e.g., sewer overflows)
• Sets stipulated penalties if interim limits or a compliance schedule is
violated without good reason.
(6) Developing an implementation agreement between the Regional field staff and
the program staff.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Do the schedules run all the way to the end of the city achieving compliance or
just until the Mutual Agreement Order is completed?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that they run all the way to the end, until compliance is
achieved.
Question: Are there loans and/or grants available? With many of these water-related
actions, getting financing could take some time.
2-37
-------
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that when putting the schedule together, the DEQ tries to
anticipate how long it is going to take to get financing. If the city is making a good faith
effort to obtain financing and it falls through, then the schedule can be adjusted accordingly.
Question: Are the people doing the compliance and technical assistance different than the
State inspectors?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that they are or can be the same people. The program staff
works alongside the field staff to identify the compliance issues; they try not to make it two
different groups but rather try to work together.
Question: Can several media problems be bundled together in one Mutual Agreement
Order?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that several media can be addressed in one Mutual
Agreement Order; however, they will usually be addressed seriatim because a city cannot
afford to address them all at once.
Question: What is the general time frame for the orders?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that for one city the order lists the year 2002, or 2003, for
the completion of the sewage treatment plant. But this is acceptable, because the DEQ wants
to make sure that the city has the right answer before it does something, so that the activity
has to be done only once.
Comments: A participant noted that the basic incentive for a city to join this program is that
it gets to set its own priorities. Mr. Nichols commented that the main incentive is that the
city is able to deal with multiple problems in a way that it can manage.
Question: How is the public persuaded to participate and can you get them involved?
Answer: Mr. Nichols noted that it is really hard to get the public involved. Most people
like small towns because they do not have to put up with interferences from various
agencies. However, some people do participate freely. Mr. Nichols suggested talking to
people in a non-threatening or non-adversarial situation.
Question: What size cities are in the program?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that the cities have populations of 2,000 or less.
Question: How many towns are in the program now? If you receive a deluge of requests to
participate in the program, how do you select the participants?
2-38
-------
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that there are eight cities in the program now. There were
16 requests to be in the program. There are still cities in Oregon that do not trust the EPA
and are therefore hesitant to participate. Hopefully, the current results will sway them to
join the program. Cities were selected if they were small, had multiple environmental
problems, and did not have a city manager.
Question: How do you coordinate the program with the Regions?
Answer: Mr. Nichols responded that they select a city with Regional “buy-in.” Once the
city is selected, a kick-off meeting is held with all the different agencies to lay out the
process and to introduce everyone. After the draft Mutual Agreement Order is prepared, the
program will ask the Region for its comments on the Mutual Agreement Order. Overall, the
DEQ tries to keep the Region involved and up-to-date on the activities.
Question: A participant asked Mr. Nichols to discuss how they reach other towns that are
not part of the program.
Answer: Mr. Nichols commented that the DEQ is having some small community workshops
for city council members and city managers to educate them on the requirements of sewage
treatment plants and drinking water plants; to talk about financial alternatives; and, to
provide information on State requirements. There is also a person who runs a small cities
consulting service who provides training on how to develop leadership within a community
arid how to manage projects.
Small Business Overview - Kerry Drake
Mr. Drake discussed three policies that allow the Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) to impact small businesses: the Small Business Minor Source
Violations Policy, the Confidentiality Policy, and the EPA Small Business Policy.
Mr. Drake explained that there are 60,000 small businesses affected by environmental
regulations in Texas. In addition, there are 2,500 to 3,000 new businesses per month. Of
the SIC codes that the Small Business Technical Assistance Program tracks, there are
approximately 1,000 new businesses per month. This is a large and dynamic community.
Because no system currently exists to deal with this community, it is essential to provide
education and opportunities for these businesses to comply voluntarily with environmental
regulations. These small businesses can be defined as being members of the community
(e.g., long-time residents). They are not large corporations. They are providing their own
jobs. They are very afraid of regulators who have the ability to take away their livelihood.
The following policies provide incentives for the small businesses to seek compliance
assistance without the fear of losing their business.
2-39
-------
Small Business Minor Source Violations Policy - This policy basically states that if a small
business does not know it is in violation, is not doing something that is terribly harmful to
the environment, and is willing to fix it, then there will be no administrative penalty. This
policy works in Texas because it is Regional managers who determine when to use this
policy. This policy is based on getting the small business to come into compliance as
quickly as possible. The policy has been used 200-300 times in the two years that it has
been in effect. The main reason that it is not used more often is due to the infrequent need
to issue formal orders. The Regional enforcement staff did, however, come to TRNCC and
ask if it could expand this policy to include wastewater, water, etc.
Confidentiality Policy - This policy states that: (1) TNRCC enforcement program cannot ask
the compliance assistance program for specific information (e.g., facility name, location) on
the small businesses TNRCC assists; and, (2) the enforcement program will not use the
information it obtains from the compliance assistance program in an enforcement action
without permission. This policy has been successful in getting small businesses to come to
TNRCC voluntarily for assistance. TNRCC does not have enough staff to respond to all of
the requests. Phone calls alone are running around 3,600 per year.
There was only one case where TNRCC’s compliance assistance program considered turning
a small business over to TNRCC’s enforcement program. The situation involved a
chromium metal plater in Houston located next door to an elementary school that had a
common ditch. The business did not have the scrubbers its permits required, and it was
placing blasting sand adjacent to the ditch. TNRCC took the case to Regional Counsel, met
with the company about the problems, and within 30 days the problems were fixed. This
example demonstrates that these policies are not designed to allow businesses to be out of
compliance, but rather are designed to get businesses to seek assistance voluntarily.
EPA Policy - This policy is similar to the first policy mentioned, the policy about no
administrative penalties. The EPA policy includes several specific criteria such as time
limits, but is a good framework that can be used to expand our minor source policy.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: How did TNRCC get the word out to small businesses that these policies exist?
Answer: Mr. Drake responded that there are numerous ways, such as mailings, training
vendors, and small business advisory committees composed of local leaders. Word of mouth
is also the best way to pass the information.
Question: Is the information that is given out general compliance information or is it facility
specific?
2-40
-------
Answer: Mr. Drake responded that it can be both, but TNRCC produces multi-media
compliance guidance specific to particular industries. TNRCC does go onsite to provide
compliance assistance when possible, but unfortunately there are not enough resources to do
it all the time.
Comments: TNRCC is working with the national program called the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP), which has 53 field engineers throughout Texas. They focus
on manufacturing assistance, but TNRCC is trying to give them rudimentary environmental
knowledge so that they can help facilities. The Manufacturing Extension Partnerships are
run out of the Department of Commerce.
Question: Have there been any cases where the violation resulted in substantial economic
benefit that affected competitiveness with other companies?
Answer: Mr. Drake responded that he is not aware of any case where a company was
flagrantly violating the law. Most companies that contact TNRCC do so because they cannot
afford to call anyone for the information.
Question: A participant noted that Motorola in Austin, TX provided a Small Business
Workshop and is also part of the Environmental Leadership Program. Motorola is working
with the concept of mentoring. He asked if the small companies are too afraid of working
with a large company as part of this type of program, or if this is an option in assisting small
businesses.
Answer: Mr. Drake responded that the main issue with mentoring is the amount of resources
that companies like Motorola are going to allow to be dedicated to mentoring programs.
That is probably the biggest single roadblock. The reality is that mentoring is going to have
some limitations.
Question: Do TNRCC’s policies allow time for investigations of pollution prevention
practices?
Answer: Mr. Drake responded that they usually do, but it all depends on the impact the
business is having on the community. This is why there are no time deadlines in the
policies; rather, field investigators determine how quickly a problem needs to be addressed.
Question: A participant asked if TNRCC works with the financial community to try to
provide incentives to small businesses by lowering insurance premiums or working to get
State tax provisions.
Answer: Mr. Drake commented that TNRCC does work with the financial community.
There is a proposition that gives property tax relief for pollution prevention equipment.
TNRCC convinced the State legislature to set up a guaranteed loan program; however, the
program has not been funded yet. TNIRCC has a list of lenders that are willing to work with
2-41
-------
small businesses to provide money for environmental projects. TNRCC has not had much
luck with insurance companies.
Large Business Overview: Environmental Leadership Program - Tai Ming Chang
Mr. Chang presented the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP). The purpose of this
pilot program is to work with facilities to evaluate what types of innovative approaches
have been developed in comprehensive environmental management systems that result in
significant improvements at facilities and also yield very good compliance records. In
addition to the environmental management systems, the ELP is also examining and evaluating
other innovative approaches to compliance and environmental performance, including the
following:
• Compliance management systems
• Independent third party auditing
• Self-certification for compliance
• Mentoring
• Community Outreach/Stewardship Programs.
Through the ELP, EPA has developed partnerships with ten private and two Federal facilities
to evaluate the effectiveness of such an approach. A full-scale program is being envisioned
as a three-tiered approach: entry level, leadership level, and outstanding level.
Entry Level - The entry level has two acceptance requirements: (1) the facility has met some,
but not all of the Leadership qualities, but demonstrated commitment and potential; and, (2)
the facility has one year to move to the next level. EPA incentives for facilities in the entry
level are access to technical assistance and recognition for participation.
Leadership Level - The acceptance criteria for the leadership level require a facility to meet
all the required principles of the ELP environmental management system, including:
• Commitment and policy
• Compliance assurance
• Planning
• Implementation
• Measurement and evaluation
• Review and improvement.
These principles also include the required elements of: (1) pollution prevention; (2) due
diligence; (3) regular or third-party audits or self-certification; and, (4) community outreach.
Small businesses may receive a waiver from meeting all of the above criteria. Once a
facility is accepted into the leadership level, it will retain membership at that level for a
period of five years. However, the actual number is still under consideration.
2-42
-------
Once in the leadership level, incentives can be negotiated in the facility-specific MOA.
These are offered by EPA and/or the State depending on their authority and availability.
Incentives can include:
• Public relations (e.g., public recognition, use of ELP logos)
• Fostering partnerships
• Enforcement/Inspection discretion, including continuation of the Enforcement
Response Guidelines (90-day correction period for violation, violation
disclosure not explicitly mandated) and modified inspections by frequency and
type
• Reduced regulatory burden (expedited permitting, longer permit cycles, and/or
streamlined permit modification process; reduced monitoring and reporting
requirements)
• Economic (reduced permit fees)
• Federal agency incentives (procurement preference with the Federal
government).
Outstanding Level - The outstanding level is an element that will possibly be added to the
program after the first ELP cycle. It will recognize and reward those leadership facilities that
truly go beyond the minimum requirements of the program and take “beyond compliance”
seriously. Incentives to the outstanding level facilities include increased recognition,
potential “beyond compliance” credit, and a “gold-card” status that allows access to benefits
from other Federal agencies.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Is there another application period anticipated in January 1997 or will a rolling
admission be used?
Answer: Mr. Chang responded that EPA is developing an application that can be used by
EPA and States. He is expecting between 50 and 75 applications from around the country
based on the calls received.
Question: A participant asked about the enforcement response guidelines.
Answer: Mr. Chang explained that under the enforcement response guidelines, facilities
notify EPA if there is a violation. For the ELP, EPA is proposing that violations be
2-43
-------
addressed in two ways: (1) facilities must notify EPA if there are significant violations; and,
(2) if a violation is minor, it can be fixed within the 90 days without formal notification.
Comments: A participant commented that many of these violations were non-release
violations. Mr. Chang confirmed that statement.
Question: A participant asked to what extent the Regions felt this program was useful.
Answer: Mr. Chang asked for Regional input. A Region 1 participant commented very
favorably on the program. Region 1 currently has Gillette and Ocean Power involved in the
program, and is ready to announce 12-15 other companies interested in participating. A
State participant commented that he sees the program as good citizenship, and that leadership
is too strong of a term. If companies are going beyond compliance, then that could be
considered leadership. Otherwise, everything else sounds like good citizenship--companies
being in compliance with the regulations and doing what is expected of them.
Question: A participant asked about the environmental benefits of the program, and whether
companies were actually willing to go beyond compliance.
Answer: Mr. Chang responded that in many cases, the companies are becoming more
willing to share issues and problems so that EPA can help them. The companies evaluate
their compliance by setting environmental goals they evaluate throughout the year. They use
these goals as indicators of how they are doing in meeting or exceeding compliance.
Interim Enviromnental Review Policy for Federal Facilities - Jim Edwards
Mr. Edwards presented the Environmental Review Policy for Federal Facilities. Executive
Order 12088 states that EPA must provide technical assistance to Federal Facilities to help
them comply with environmental regulations. Regions 1, 9 and 10 have been undertaking
environmental management reviews of Federal Facilities for a few years. Region 10 is
completing a pilot in FY ‘96.
Policy Development - A draft policy was presented to the Federal Roundtable and civilian
Federal agencies for review. The policy will be issued as an interim policy for a year with
Regional pilots planned. Budget restrictions may reduce the number of pilots.
Environmental Management Review (EMR) Policy Overview - An EMR is defined as an
evaluation of a facility’s program and management systems. The evaluation determines the
extent to which the facility has developed and implemented specific environmental protection
programs and plans which, if properly managed, should ensure compliance and progress
towards environmental excellence. It is not an inspection or a P2 assessment.
2-44
-------
Scope of Policy - An EMR is less than a full Environmental Management System (EMS)
audit as it addresses one or more of the elements of an effective EMS, including:
• Organizational structure
• Environmental commitment
• Formality of program
• Communications
• Staff resources and training
• Program evaluation and reporting
• Planning and risk management.
The policy started out as having a preference for conducting EMRs at civilian Federal
agencies (e.g., DOT, Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, Food and Drug
Administration). The Regions stated a preference for not limiting the scope to civilian
Federal agencies.
Operating Principles of Policy - The operating principles of the policy include the following:
• Voluntary participation
• Advanced notification
• Mutually agreeable date
• Sign a Ground Rules Letter
• Exit briefing with facility management
• EPA written report within 60 days
• Facility Response Plan in writing in 60 days
• Progress report in 6 months.
Incidental Violations Response Policy - This is the most controversial part of the policy; it
addresses how EPA will respond if a violation is found during an audit. The two
components are:
• For violations where there is imminent arid substantial endangerment and/or
harm, the facility must address the violations immediately and EPA retains full
enforcement authorities.
• For all other violations, EPA will apply the basic principles of the Incentives
for Self-Policing Policy. EPA will not seek gravity-based penalties or
recommend criminal prosecution. Facilities must disclose in writing to EPA
within 10 days, and correct the violations in 60 days. If more than 60 days
pass, then a facility will enter into a Compliance Agreement not to exceed one
year (or 18 months if pollution prevention is used to correct problems). This
policy also provides for case-by-case consideration by the Regions to apply the
Small Business Policy to smaller facilities.
2-45
-------
Technical Guidance - Technical guidance is being developed that will accompany the policy
covering such items as planning, communication protocols/checklists, and training.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: How are smaller facilities defined for this policy?
Answer: Mr. Edwards commented that originally a smaller facility was one having fewer
than 100 employees and having no separate environmental coordinator. However, due to
potential complications, EPA backed off on defining this term and went to case-by-case
discretion.
Question: Does this policy look at compliance history?
Answer: Mr. Edwards responded that it was not intended to look at compliance history.
2-46
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #4
Performance Partnership Agreements and Grants
April 10, 1996
2 :OOpm-4:OOpm
Session Leaders: Anne Lassiter, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Mike Gaydosh, Region 8
Tinka Hyde, Region 5
Ron Kreizenbeck, Region 10
Session Objective: The session discussed lessons learned from negotiations for FY
‘96 round of partnership agreements and prospects for
agreements and grants in FY ‘97.
Overview and Status of Implementation of PPAs - Anne Lassiter
Ms. Lassiter provided an overview to ensure that everyone was on the same “page” in terms
of understanding what comprises performance agreements and partnership systems.
The PPA system is a product of negotiations between the Environmental Council of the
States and EPA. A series of negotiations took place over a one-year period, and the
agreement was made public at the All States Meeting on May 17, 1995. The basic idea
behind the negotiations is that both States and EPA agreed that they needed to make better
and more effective use of resources directed towards environmental program implementation.
It was also agreed upon that States need to be given credit for their work on implementation.
The system includes the following seven components:
• New Approach to Program Assessments by States - This translates to self-
assessments as was discussed in the plenary sessions. Two important issues
related to this component are: (1) the policy framework did not provide criteria
for what a self-assessment should look like; and, (2) the framework
deliberately provided few criteria because it was intended to be a State
document for use in describing its basic environmental problems, strengths and
weaknesses, and approaches.
• Environmental Performance Agreement - Using the self-assessment and EPA’s
perspective on a State’s overall performance, EPA and a State would negotiate
2-47
-------
at the highest levels an agreement that would define the roles of both parties in
the implementation of environmental programs. The agreement was presumed
to last one year but could be longer. Also, the policy framework suggests that
it could substitute workplans for the grants. The important aspect about the
PPA is that both parties see it as a joint priority setting and planning process.
• Increased Use of Environmental Goals and Indicators - There was joint
agreement between EPA and the States that there was a need to move towards
measurement of State programs using environmental goals and indicators. The
policy framework expresses that EPA and States will work together to develop
a core set of indicators and also implies, that over time, all States will agree to
use the indicators. This process is still being worked on. There was also a
recognition that there is still a need for activity measures. The policy
framework established ten performance measures per media that may be used
in agreements.
• Differential Oversight - This is a fundamental component of the framework,
but it is not well defined. A broad statement that EPA will move towards
program reviews as opposed to case-by-case reviews is provided in the
framework. It also implies that the arrangement for oversight will be spelled
out in the PPA and left to the States and the Regions to negotiate.
• Performance Leadership - There is an assumption that some State programs
will be worthy of national recognition and should be accorded more deference
in terms of the amount of oversight. Currently, States are not ready to buy
into this concept. Next year this concept will be implemented as a pilot; so
far, only Colorado intends to use it in 1997.
• Public Outreach and Involvement - It was assumed that public involvement
would be very important to the effectiveness of this system. It was suggested
in the policy framework that the self-assessments should be made public. This
idea has not been well developed and more attention needs to be given to this
component.
• Joint System Evaluation - The session did not discuss this component.
In terms of implementation of the PPA process in 1995, the following points were made:
• Only five agreements were signed (Utah, New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado,
Delaware) and possibly two more will be signed in 1996.
2-48
-------
• Next year, approximately 17 States will sign agreements. All are currently
being negotiated. It is anticipated that there will be more.
Conclusions drawn from 1995 include the following:
• The variety of agreements possible is limitless. Each agreement of the five
signed looks different. For example, the length of agreements has varied from
4 to 100 pages; some include specific goals and objectives for all programs,
while others only state the general process.
• There is some consistency across agreements to use EPA performance
measures and to include the information in data systems. This information is
allowing EPA to develop information and reports on approximately 7 of the 10
measures. However, States are not including information for those measures
that require new data.
• The five agreements signed to date include some general discussion of
environmental indicators and a commitment to use these indicators in the
future; however, they provide no detail on what the indicators will be.
In terms of enforcement concerns, the following points were made:
• Agreements are unclear as to the Federal enforcement role in delegated States.
In some cases, agreements refer to documents that are not formally
incorporated into the agreement and may not be available to all who are
receiving the agreement. There is some concern that the language contained in
all of the agreements about the role of Federal enforcement is inadequate.
• There is a poor linkage between MOAs and State agreements. In some cases,
activities may be included in the MOA, but not in the State agreement.
Concurrent with the PPA process, EPA was seeking authority from Congress to grant States
additional flexibility for how they use their categorical grant funds. EPA seeks the ability to
make multi-program grants from the funds that have been allocated for categorical grant
programs. This would provide more flexibility in addressing the States’ environmental
priorities. The House and Senate agree with the approach and EPA’s desire to go forward.
Since there is no appropriation bill, there is no authority to move ahead with this. The
Agency has taken the position that when the appropriations are made, States will be able to
come forward and EPA will make the necessary changes to allow them to use their funding
in a more flexible manner.
One issue that has arisen in terms of grants that will continue to be debated over the next
year is the degree of information and detail in terms of workplans developed to support the
grants. There was an assumption on the part of States that the PPA will serve as a workplan
2-49
-------
for PPGs. Some issues have arisen around this assumption and there is now a workgroup
which is evaluating grant regulations in order to figure out how to mesh the two processes.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Can PPA be broader than the grant that follows?
Answer: The agreement can be broad and can cover non-delegated programs. At this point,
there are almost no limitations in terms of how broad the agreement can be.
Regional Experience with PPAs and PPGs - Ron Kreizenbeck
Region 10 never stopped developing State/EPA agreements. Over the years the PPA process
has come to include high level commissioners and Regional Administrators agreeing on
conditions and then turning grant negotiations over to the staff level. In some cases, it is
difficult to see high level priorities in grants.
In 1996, the States in Region 10 discussed leadership criteria, looked at the size of
assessments and did not want to get involved in the process. They wanted to learn more
about the process before becoming involved. Consequently, the Region examined the
performance partnership process in terms of how it benefits EPA and the States and tried to
make it a true partnership. For example, in an effort to be a true partner, the Region is
providing some of its resources.
There is a great deal of interest on the part of all States in the Region for initiating the
process around the water program and then expanding to other media. Currently, Alaska,
Oregon, Washington and Idaho are going ahead with the process.
To date, high level Regional Administrators and Commission meetings have been conducted
with Oregon and Alaska. Washington and Idaho are scheduled for meetings later this month.
Regional Experience with PPAs and PPGs - Tinka Hyde
The timing of the OECA guidance was good for the Region because of the many concerns on
where the process was heading. However, by the time the guidance was issued, an
agreement was in place with Illinois and it now needs to be reassessed to determine if it
meets current guidance. The Region 5 Senior Leadership Team met in early April and
discussed many of the issues concerning PPAs. The Team established the general goal for
the Region that PPAs will replace workplans where possible. The status of each Region 5
State is as follows:
2-50
-------
• Illinois chose to have a PPA in place of a workplan.
• Indiana provided the Region with a self-assessment.
• Michigan wants a PPG.
• Minnesota will begin the process probably in FY ‘97.
• Ohio just completed a self-assessment for 1997 and will start negotiations
soon.
• Wisconsin conducted a self-assessment and produced a draft PPA. The State
did not want to replace the workplan, but rather wanted to include a short
agreement on the partnership. The State is in the midst of a reorganization
and was unable to focus on this process.
The process resulted in the following lessons learned:
• Each State is different and flexibility is important when going through the PPA
process.
• The Region and each State need to work together on agreements and what they
should include. A senior leadership team was established to determine the
direction of the PPA process for the Region. They determined that the Region
intends to have broader agreements that will cover all media.
• It identified the need to address measurable environmental benefits. This
includes the need for the States to conduct self-assessments and the need for
EPA and the States to develop criteria on what a self-assessment should look
like. The States have different approaches to the self-assessment process. In
addition, there is a need to develop appropriate environmental indicators. The
Region established a workgroup to address this need.
• Federal/State joint priorities need to be highlighted. The two parties need to
work together on defining roles (e.g., some joint and some individual efforts).
• The Federal role needs to be made clear. Illinois included some general
statements on the scope of the Federal role but did not address some issues
such as economic benefit. The OECA guidance will be useful in evaluating
the various roles.
• There needs to be clarity on oversight.
2-51
-------
• The various roles should be discussed with Native American tribes. The issue
arose as to whether the role of the States should be described to the tribes as
well.
• Communication is important. The public involvement plan is only in the early
stages.
• Streamlining of the planning process needs to be coordinated with other
processes.
• The States are overwhelmed with reporting requirements. The Region has
reduced old data requirements and added compliance assistance measures.
There is a need to determine what data is necessary.
In terms of assistance from Headquarters, there needs be more internal coordination on the
general PPA process. In addition, more attention needs to be given to performance measures
and indicators.
Regional Experience with PPAs and PPGs - Mike Gaydosh
PPAs present an opportunity for the enforcement program. The program finally has a
vehicle by which EPA can translate what it wants to the States. PPAs are an enforcement
“grant” that can translate program priorities to States as one program, not as several media
programs. PPAs are an opportunity to: “negotiate” program priorities in plans; “do” multi-
media work as never done before; “clarify” roles and allocate activities; and, “define”
fundamental attributes of an enforcement and compliance program.
The Colorado PPA process was presented as an example of how PPAs can translate program
priorities in a cohesive manner. Numerous workgroups were established under the Colorado
PPA for enforcement. For example, there is a PPA industrial sector group to define Federal
and State roles in sectors. Workgroups include the State, EPA, and stakeholders (e.g.,
public industry). The groups work to address specific challenges and issues for Colorado.
There are issues and disagreements, but at least there is an opportunity to discuss and clarify
issues.
Identification of Issues/Concerns Regarding Agreements
The group raised several issues concerning PPAs based on comments and ideas from
individuals. The issues raised as well as some of the comments made by participants are
described below.
Issue: How much should PPAs address enforcement as an issue?
2-52
-------
Comments: A participant was concerned with how PPAs would address enforcement.
Specifically, it was asked how the State of Delaware can have a PPA if enforcement was not
included. A representative from Region 3 indicated that an agreement on enforcement could
not be reached with Delaware as there were only six weeks to develop the agreement. The
Region decided that rather than lose the benefits of the progress made on establishing
environmental indicators, enforcement would remain as is and will be agreed upon in a
separate enforcement document. There is not yet a separate agreement for enforcement, but
the PPA references grants and the enforcement response policy. Also, the PPA includes
general language indicating that “everything shall remain, in regards to enforcement, as is
and there shall be no reduction in oversight until the terms are negotiated in a written
document.”
issue: Does it make sense for those States that have diverse institutions dealing with
environmental programs to have a single PPG or PPA?
Comments: One participant was concerned about the PPA approval process because there is
the assumption that a State is a monolithic structure with which a Region can negotiate
directly. This is not true since there is often a variety of agencies that may be involved.
Specifically, the participant was concerned with how a manageable set of signatures could be
obtained when dealing with numerous agencies.
Issue: How does one address the lack of clarity on State core programs?
Comments: A participant commented on EPA’s memo which addresses core EPA
enforcement and compliance assurance functions. A comment was made that this memo
addresses what EPA’s functions are but does not address what a basic core State enforcement
program should have as its key attributes.
issue: There needs to be clarity on goals and measures of performance and from that should
flow the oversight resolution.
Comments: A participant raised two issues concerning oversight that the guidance does not
address: (1) Should we have standards and goals articulated against which measures are
aiming for? and, (2) How is the oversight going to be different depending on the level of
performance chosen?
Issue: There should be Federal performance measures as well as State performance
measures but clarity is particularly needed on Federal measures.
Comments: A participant commented that EPA requires States to use environmental
indicators and results-based measurements, but EPA is not held to these standards. It was
suggested that discussions with the States on alternative measures be terminated until the
measures are better defined by EPA.
2-53
-------
Issue: More clarity is needed on outcomes.
Comments: A participant commented that there is a need to start thinking of how the “bean”
counting process meshes with global ecosystem desires in a way that is mutually acceptable
to EPA and the States.
Issue: What are the expectations for and functions of a PPA?
Comments: One participant indicated that the level of specificity required in the guidance is
entirely different than what States think PPAs will look like. For example, States in Region
4 are looking at big picture goals, not how data will get into the system. There need to be
references to other documents included in the PPA to make clear to States the function of the
PPA. Also, people are approaching PPAs from different perspectives. For example,
program people are starting from what is traditionally needed to operate the program; this
does not necessarily blend with environmental goals. Another participant commented that
States entering into PPAs have different needs and expectations. They do not need to change
the existing process except to integrate their own internal management plans. States want to
use PPAs to memorialize the changed set of expectations about the relationship between EPA
and the State and to talk about roles and responsibilities. Texas is trying to move towards
better integration of its approximately 30 water branches and to make better utilization of
both the environmental assessments and program planning activities that are mandated by
internal State processes. The explicit reason for not having national guidance on PPAs is to
give States the flexibility to respond to individual needs. Once prescriptive guidance on the
contents of a PPA is developed, there will be an issue of trying to allow the States flexibility.
Issue: The group decided that a major issue which combines many of the issues above is:
What is the purpose of the PPA/PPG system?
Comments: A participant noted that States in Region 4 feel that the function of the PPA is a
means to achieve better environmental performance. Specifically, the function is to set goals
but not to dictate to the States how to get there. A PPA should be flexible to include State
initiatives. With EPA’s help, it should achieve better environmental results and greater
benefits. The majority of the group agreed with this approach in theory, but questioned its
appropriateness in practice. One person commented that this may only work for leadership
States. The group agreed that leadership is critical for the PPA process to have the
flexibility to work. A participant suggested that there be another system or approach for
non-leadership States. The group questioned what level of detail on program activities is
necessary. One participant reminded the group that the OECA guidance provides a checklist
which provides the minimum level of detail. A participant commented that the problem with
PPA grants is that they do not have to match PPAs. Other participants suggested that these
documents should be supplementary, complementary, and consistent, but not necessarily
match. Some of the participants indicated that specific guidance needs to be made available
on the detail needed for workplans. Some suggested that the guidance already has a lot more
specificity than the States want.
2-54
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #5
The Region 6 Foundries Initiative: An EPA, State, and Industry Partnership
April 10, 1996
2 :OOpm-4:OOpm
Session Leaders: Mark Potts, Chief, ALONM Section of the Hazardous Waste
Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division, Region 6
Steve Thompson, Deputy Director, Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Session Objectives: The session discussed cooperative effort by Region 6,
Oklahoma, and the foundries industry to increase compliance by
using a wide range of tools.
Mark Potts
In today’s environmental compliance picture, partnership is an appropriate response. With
increased environmental consciousness about regulations and the need to comply, the idea of
EPA being a “lone ranger” riding into town to enforce the regulations is no longer
appropriate. Region 6 recently reorganized which further sets the stage for a change in how
EPA regulates the environmental community and how EPA should measure the effectiveness
of its programs. Most importantly, the reorganization provides a vehicle for new
enforcement approaches, such as partnerships.
Steve Thompson
Upper management at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) believes
that resources for environmental programs are not going to increase and, in fact, may
decrease in upcoming years. As a result, trying to meet the same goals with less resources is
a difficult, if not impossible, challenge. As a result, the State realized that it was going to
have to change the way it did business if it wanted to maintain a high level of environmental
protection. One of the key ways in which the State believed that it could accomplish this
would be through combining resources with other interested parties (i.e., EPA and industry).
As a result of this belief, the State founded the Customer Assistance Program (CAP) on July
1, 1993.
The CAP was also in-line with State legislative mandates to be customer-oriented and the
notion that environmental regulatory control needed a major “facelift.” The CAP was
intended to be open and responsive, receptive to public input, and customer oriented. The
2-55
-------
CAP is made up of technical program staff, knowledgeable in many areas of environmental
control and regulation. The core structure includes an Office of Citizens, Office of Business,
and Office of Rural/Local Governments, all of which are available for general, pollution
prevention, or small business assistance. The CAP, the first of its kind in the country, is
non-regulatory (i.e., non-enforcement), multi-media oriented, appropriate for all types of
customers (e.g., industry, rural, municipal, consultants, and private) and confidential.
Customers are assisted through the CAP in one of two ways: through general programs or
targeted outreach programs. General programs provide assistance on regulations, permits,
compliance, and individual one-on-one needs. Targeted outreach programs focus on
information clearinghouses, fact sheets and brochure preparation and distribution, and
facility- or sector-specific workshops.
The goal of the CAP is to replace the old paradigm (i.e., fines and strong enforcement
initiatives) with a new customer-based paradigm (i.e., assistance, knowledge, and sharing of
information).
In response to this new attitude towards environmental regulation, the State started the
Compliance Achievement Program for foundries. Foundries were selected as a result of the
common noncompliance problems encountered at many foundries (for example, a 60 percent
noncompliance rate was discovered among targeted “problem” facilities), the potential for
adverse environmental impacts from these facilities, and the fact that many of the foundries
are small businesses. While the foundry industry was selected for the study, the individual
foundries still had to volunteer to participate in the program.
Mark Potts
EPA’s role in the partnership was to ensure that decisions were consistent with any ongoing
litigation, to target the “worst” facilities, to provide compliance assistance, and to measure
results in Oklahoma. If successful, EPA intends to expand the foundry compliance assistance
effort to other States.
Steve Thompson
As part of the Compliance Achievement Program for foundries, the steps taken by the State
and EPA have included the following:
• Conducting a multi-media workshop (with the American Foundrymen Society’s
endorsement) to describe the basic foundation of the program
• Negotiating a correction period for the time frame that facilities would be
allowed to correct noncompliance without fear of enforcement actions
2-56
-------
• Creating the foundry-specific program
• Providing regulatory and technical assistance
• Providing “free” inspections
• Providing on-site compliance assistance
• Monitoring progress
• Measuring success.
Foundries were expected to:
• Participate
• Attend any workshops
• Perform a self-audit
• Request a site visit by the State
• Identify existing noncompliance
• Recommend solutions to noncompliance
• Complete a self-audit checklist
• Continue to strive for compliance.
A total of 53 foundries attended the introductory workshop, while 23 of these foundries
participated in the entire program.
Upon completion of the program, the State identified the following successes:
• Formation of the ad-hoc foundry committee
• Identification of a State contact person for the foundry industry
• Coordinated activities with the foundry association
• Development of the regulated community’s trust
• Provision of customer assistance site visits
• Completion of successful workshops
• Development of self-audit forms and checklists for the industry.
As a measure of the success, upon completion of the program, the American Foundrymen
Society notified the State that if the State was willing to re-run the program, j of the
remaining foundries in the State would participate in the program.
The State and EPA agreed that there were several mistakes that were made in the program
that should be addressed in future program endeavors, including:
2-57
-------
• The foundry mailing list was found to have numerous errors that should have
been investigated early on in the program.
• More knowledge of the foundry industry should have been identified for
consultation prior to initiation of the program.
• More of a framework for the program should have been developed prior to
initiation of the program (i.e., too much was built “on the road”).
• Not enough workshops were held to meet everyone’s needs (both technically
and logistically).
• The “correction period” should have been better coordinated with other
Federal and State agencies (i.e., technical assistance decisions and inspection
schedules should have been relayed to permit review offices and inspection
offices).
The partnership did identify several interesting facets of the foundry industry that were
important in understanding successes and failures of the program, including:
• The industry was initially very angry with the regulations
• There was a sincere interest among the industry to learn
• There was a family type atmosphere within the facilities, from which there
was a sense of caring about the environment
• OSHA regulations forced sweeping changes in the industry
• Many facilities were surprised to learn that they were subject to permitting
requirements
• Facilities feared bankruptcy
• Most facilities did not have any environmental staff
• The industry was encouraged by the idea of a friendly agency.
After completion of the project, the partnership identified several new measures of success,
including:
• Excellent communication with the industry
• Non-confrontational compliance
• Spend money on compliance rather than on fines
2-58
-------
• Pollution prevention beyond compliance
• Customer satisfaction
• Mutual respect and trust.
By comparison, the partnership was able to achieve compliance through a customer-oriented
approach rather than through the traditional enforcement approach. It is believed that this
approach will provide for longer-term compliance and trust between the foundry industry and
the regulatory agencies.
In summarizing the partnership, it was noted that the new paradigm, customer assistance, is
the key to future success. Facility attitudes about environmental regulations are changing.
Agency attitudes can change to meet future obligations. Mr. Thompson completed his
presentation with a quote from one of the industry customers who defined the partnership as:
“government working together to get something accomplished--not just working to get
somebody.
Mark Potts
Mr. Potts summarized the partnership by identifying what each of the partners had brought to
the table at the beginning. EPA brought ongoing compliance/enforcement activities, a
national discussion (i.e., talking to the American Foundrymen Society regularly), a policy
framework, and a need to measure program success or failure. The State brought ongoing
compliance/technical assistance, a non-enforcement-oriented legislative mandate, and a need
to measure program success or failure. Finally, industry provided the real world application,
a network of experts, and a need to measure successes or failures.
The measures of success that all three partners were looking for turned out to be similar for
all three. Subjective measures included awareness, trust, deterrence, a new
attitude/perception, and satisfaction. Objective measures included compliance with the
regulations, environmental improvements, increased productivity, and a high level of
participation.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: Who makes up the State’s Customer Services Division that operates the Customer
Assistance Program?
Answer: The Division is made up of 40 program people from media programs who have
technical assistance as an element of their positions.
Question: What type of technical assistance is given?
2-59
-------
Answer: They try to give as much assistance as possible without actually specifying the type
of equipment. This includes identifying a range of alternatives.
Question: EPA’s original focus was on the 10 “worst” foundries. How were these 10
targeted?
Answer: They were based on the types of foundries (i.e., those that used lead-based alloys)
and then the larger of these types of facilities were selected.
Question: How did Oklahoma foundries compare with other Region 6 foundries?
Answer: They were about the same. We found some foundries in Oklahoma that wanted to
take a leadership role and we hope and think that this will be the case elsewhere as well.
Question: Were the foundries union or non-union shops?
Answer: They were almost universally non-union.
Question: Was there any self-certification program for the foundries?
Answer: No. Facilities did perform a self-audit and sent in the results to the State.
Question: Why was a correction period of 6 months chosen?
Answer: EPA originally wanted 90 days but the State argued for 6 months. EPA agreed to
the 6-month term which was proposed to the foundries with no argument. EPA and the State
were willing to go beyond 6 months if the foundries had so requested, but no request was
made.
Question: What if a facility realized that it was not going to be able to comply within 6
months?
Answer: It would have been an individual call on the part of EPA and the State, but this
situation never occurred. Probably more time would have been allowed. There were also
facilities that requested State inspections; but because of scheduling conflicts, these State
inspections did not occur for several months. EPA and the State agreed that the 6-month
period could begin on the date of the State inspection, but as it turned out, all of the facilities
were able to complete their program activities within 6 months of the actual program start
date.
Question: How are non-participants going to be handled in the future?
Answer: We will probably conduct targeted routine inspections.
2-60
-------
Question: Did you evaluate the original workshop participants with those who completed the
entire program and how was the public included in the program?
Answer: No, there was never a comparison of participants. Second, the public was not
involved and was never asked to be included. We helped build trust with the foundries by
excluding the public.
Question: It seems like the participating facilities are satisfied with the results. Who will go
back in the future to inspect these facilities?
Answer: It will be tough going back to these facilities because the agencies and the facility
worked so well together during the program. Inspections will be performed in the future,
but it should not be any type of targeted investigation.
Question: Is it possible that there will be follow-up visits to the facility to evaluate the long-
term impact of the program?
Answer: It has not been planned but it sounds like a good idea.
Question: What were the compliance problems?
Answer: There were many facilities that needed permits that did not have them and there
were problems getting landfill approval letters for the disposal of non-hazardous molding
sands.
Question: How would this program be applied to a larger facility?
Answer: It is definitely tougher to provide technical assistance to larger facilities, but the
approach would be the same.
Question: Were Region 6 personnel at the workshops and audits?
Answer: EPA was at the workshops but not at the audits, although the State kept in constant
contact with the Region.
Comments: The session leaders stated that following the request from the American
Foundrymen Society, it would likely re-run the program for foundries to allow any remaining
foundries in the State to participate. In addition, the Region is looking at the possibility of
running a similar program in the other Region 6 States as well.
2-61
-------
Partnership
Oklahoma and Region VI
Foundry Initiative
An EPA, Stats, and Industry Partn.rship
Rsspons. to todays picture
‘Environmental conscience
‘Seasoned, effective state programs
Converging interests
‘Think outside the black box
Reorganization in Region VI
Setting the stag. for change
‘Combine programs
‘Uniform enforcement leadership
‘Multi-media approach
‘Redirection
Compliance Assistance in EPA
Sustained progress balance
. Integrated, full use of tools
‘Open, accessible process
‘New measures of success
‘Building partnerships
New Agency - New Attitude
Customer
Assistance Program
..glelatlve mandate. set the stag. for change
Open & Responsive
. Public input
Customer-oriented
—
Oklahoma D.partm.nt of Environmental Quality
A. • ‘.
r_i si
2-62
-------
hanging Our Attitude
Programs that meet customers needs
Boards and Councils
Complaint response
‘Permit Tracking
‘SUPER
‘Customer Assistance Program
Customer Assistance Program
:;rst program of its kind in the country
‘Nonregulatory
‘Provide assistance to customers
Experts from each media
‘Multi-media approach
‘Confidential
Customer Assistance Program
Ofitceof.
Citizens
Official
Sueln.ss
How Do We Assist Customers?
‘General Programs
• Regulatory assistance
•Permit assistance teams
‘Compliance assistance teams
• One-on-one assistance
Targeted Outreach
• Information clearinghouse
• Fact sheets & brochures
• Workshops
Success with a New Paradigm
‘Old Paradigm
• Enforcement = fear
• Set an example with fines
• The facility shoulda coulda
‘New Paradigm
• Compliance knowledge
‘Assist the customer
‘Continuous sharing of information
Compliance
Achievement Program
for foundry and m.tal casting facilitIes
- —,—-- -.-— --- -—
Rural&ocai
Oov.rnmsnt
2-63
-------
Nhy Compliance Assistance?
EPA Direction
Why foundries?
Common noncompliance
Potential for environmental impacts
Small business
Support ongoing litigation
Target 10 worst
Compliance assistance
•Pilot In Oklahoma
Measure results in Oklahoma
•Expand to other states
Changing Direction
Dklahoma uses customer approach
DEQ suggests workshop
Region V I agrees
DEQ develops multi-media approach
Negotiate correction period
i April 1995 Workshop
Compliance Achievement Program
Ripples in the pond
Program attracts attention
Foundries communicate
New trust built in Oklahoma
Trust affects national discussion
•Lead Issue not key Issue
National discussion changes
•AFS and EPA compromise
ompliarice Achievement Program
Oklahoma Model
Goat: Voluntary compliance
‘ Method: Multi-media education
Activity: Facility performs self-audit
Incentive: Correction period
Success: Participation & complIance
I
2-64
-------
Employees & Shifts
I *
rypes of Auoys Poured
aluminum 16.4%
iron 29%
steel 28.2%
1 pss of UIIa C*a qI
•sM*,iiii oo
•d s o ø
Ustii Uu
•91*y 0011
Cboo*ze
oUlw
Facilities With Multi-Alloys
30% of facilities pour more than 3 alloys
Furnace & Binders
Casting Operations
0% of custom.rs have sand disposal issuis
31 Vfl%*C0
•indtiCt.O” R,v C’ .c*us
geiG. C oo1m
Orv
Wev w
Sq.o.v s
ll1S1*
N aI
80% of customers are
small
I
A
‘ u,,,o.I of £mcloy.ss
• 2O •2 1.SO
• 5t .lOO a IOO
Nl l0 u, Of iDid
•lsIldt 2v01 S3.I d _
Mumpf S
N, a
.5 vrl, I
3 ,nsSM
4 mssg
D 4 ms
o Cuonq Og.vi o
•S*nd CM01I
•M V lSflt
NC ’. Cuing
£ e/a/I .r
s ’/ /ke P a #a n
2-65
-------
gency’5 Role
Facility’s Role
MultI-media workshop
Negotiate correction period
Create program
Regulatory and technical assistance
‘ “Free” inspections
On-site compliance assistance
‘ Monitor progress
. Measure success
PARTICIPATE
‘Attend workshops
‘Perform self-audit
Request site visits
Identify noncompliance
‘Solutions
‘Self-audit checklist
‘Continue to strive for
Purpose of Self-Audit
‘Voluntary review
Identify pollution sources
‘Match pollution source to regulation
identify noncompliance
‘Pollution prevention
Apply for permits
Administrative and process changes
rypical Waste Streams
‘On-site recycle and reuse
• Sand from molds (shakeout)
• Metal gates and risers
Off-site recycle
• Dross
‘Wax (investment casting)
Nonrecyclable waste streams ?
‘Spend sand from cores and molds
‘Dust from baghouse
• Condensate (investment casting)
rypical Permits
Landfill disposal approval
‘nonrecyclable sand, dust, and wax
Air quality permit
‘partlculates, VOCs, toxics
EPA Stormwater permit
RCRA Generator ID
‘caustic sludge (die casting)
• spent solvents
‘graphic art wastes
Foundry Permits.
compliance
I
I-
-------
Pollution Prevention Ideas
Pollution Prevention implemented
‘Jr quality ideas Investigated by foundries
oii P’. eoø
•o me.
hIcId ,•*.4I. So, .iw.
Coiwigs
The Parts We Did Right
‘ Ad-hoc foundry committee
‘ State contact person
‘ Coordinate with AFS
Develop trust
Customer assistance site visits
Workshops
Self-Audit forms and checklists
Air Quality ideas implemented by foundries
mo.
•Uo ø ‘.....
Participation
AS Y U4
.1—__u
U
U
P’.r—
Zt
A_ I*_
11
AW -,p—• —
4
— l _
4
il
1 V *
14
I._
IS
U
A.
A 1 g
I—
U
rho Parts We Did Wrong
Inaccurate mailing lists
Limited knowledg, of foundries
Built it on th. road
Not enough workshops
Coordinating “correction period”
• Landfill denials
• SARA Title Ill inspction
Not aware of potential problems
dVhat We Found Out
Initially very angry with regulators
Sincere Interest In learning
‘ Facilities care - family atmosphere
‘OSHA made sweeping changes
.Surprlsed to learn about permits
Fear bankruptcy
No environmental staff
Encouraged by friendly agency
2-67
-------
rraditional Measure of Success
New Measures of Success
Enforcement oriented success — prrnita
Landfill approval letter
Air quality permit (state minor)
RCRA storage and disposal changes
‘SARA Title Ill reporting
Custom,r or .nt.d success — satisfaction
‘Communication with industry group
‘Nonconfrontational compliance
‘Spend $$$ on compliance not fines
‘Pollution prevention
‘Customer satisfaction
‘Mutual respect and trust
om pa riso n
Enforcement oriented compliance
• surpns. inspections
• fines & compliance orders
• follow up inspection
• momentary compliance
. Customer oriented compliance
• education & trust
• long-term communication
• voluntary disclosure
• long-term compliance
Enforcement Approach
Cop mentality
‘Single media
‘Small percentage of Industry group
‘Confrontational
‘Potential for legal actions
‘Scare facility into compliance
Customer Approach
Attitude change
,Multl-medla
Large percentage of industry group
Develop trust - cooperation
Educate facility - no legal action
Emotional commitment
dThat is Important?
It ak.. tim. te develop a good program
trust
participation
agency reputation
2-68
-------
Can Your Agency Do This Too? Best Quote from Program
New paradigm - Customer Assistance
I,
Facility attitudes ARE changing government working to get
Agency attitudes CAN change something accomplished not
Legislative sUpport Just working to get somebody” -
Confidentiality and trust
Better utilization of SBAP and P2 . . - a customer
Partnership
____________________ —
What doss the EPA bring to the table?
Customer
Ongoing C&E activities
Assistance Program National discussion
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Policy framework
Measures of success
Just give us a call:
(800) 869.1400 or (405) 271.1400
Partnership Partnership
What doss Industry bring to the table? What does ODED bring to the table?
Real world application Ongoing compllanc.itschniCai assistance
Network program
Non-enforcement legislative mandate
Measure of success Measure of sucCeSs
2-69
-------
I Measures
6alanc.
Subj.ctiv• Objectiv.
•Awar .n . sS Compliancs
I Trust • Environmental
I •Det•rance •Productlvity
I •Attitudilp.rc.ption •Numbrs
Satisfaction • Level of participation
2-70
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #6
Sector and Conununity-Based Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
April 10, 1996
2 :OOpm-4:OOpm
Session Leader: Phyllis Flaherty, Chief, Agriculture Branch, Agriculture and Ecosystem
Division, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance
Sector-Based Compliance Assurance Panelists:
Kenneth Eng, Chief, Air Compliance Branch, Air and Waste
Management Division, Region 2
Diane Callier, Director, Enforcement Coordination Office, Region 7
Greg Waldrip, Sector Lead, Metals Team, Manufacturing Branch,
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division, Office of
Compliance
Community-Based Environmental Protection Panelists:
Andy Spielman, Team Leader, Community-based Environmental
Protection Coordination Team, Office of the Administrator/Deputy
Administrator
Diane Callier, Director, Enforcement Coordination Office, Region 7
Michael Northridge, Senior Associate, Regional Support Division,
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Session Objectives: The session discussed past successes in using enforcement and
compliance assurance in community-based initiatives and planned
initiatives described in Regional MOAs.
Introduction - Phyllis Flaherty
The purpose of this session was to introduce participants to both the sector-based compliance
assurance and the community-based environmental protection programs that EPA has recently
adopted. In addition, this session was designed to provide case studies to show successes
and ongoing activities at EPA Headquarters and in the Regional offices. Both of these
2-71
-------
programs are designed to promote a more comprehensive approach to regulating, while
providing flexibility in their implementation.
In Ms. Flaherty’s introduction, she stated that OC has $ 1.5 million in grant funds available
to help develop multi-media compliance and enforcement programs at the State level. The
Office of Compliance is requesting pre-proposal summaries to be submitted by June 14,
1996. (Since then, the date was extended to July 17, 1996.)
Ms. Flaherty introduced the two approaches: the sector-based approach and the community-
based approach. She stated that they have similarities in that they: (1) both are new
programs; (2) both should include compliance assistance, compliance assurance, and
enforcement components; (3) both have goals to protect the public and the environment in a
more comprehensive way; and, (4) both provide a lot of flexibility to the Regions in their
implementation.
The session was divided into two separate discussion topics with different panelists. The
first half of the session included presentations from panelists on sector-based compliance
assurance and the second half of the session included presentations from panelists on
community-based environmental protection.
I. SECTOR-BASED COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
Infrastructure for a Sector Approach - Phyllis Flaherty
Ms. Flaherty provided an overview of the infrastructure for implementing the sector-based
approach. She stated that Regions need to coordinate their efforts in each of the sectors.
In terms of infrastructure elements, Ms. Flaherty pointed out that there is a need to:
• Identify the sector
• Identify the EPA statutes/regulations that apply to these activities
• Identify the players
• Establish an internal communications strategy
• Define State involvement
• Define external communication
• Evaluate risk potential
2-72
-------
• Integrate compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and compliance
monitoring/enforcement
• Identify measures of success.
Region 2 Dry Cleaner Initiative Assessment and Recommendations - Kenneth Eng
Mr. Eng’s discussion included observations made and lessons learned by Region 2 in
implementing the sector-based approach for the dry cleaning industry. The focus of the
discussion was on air program issues, but Region 2 has also looked at RCRA and water
issues.
Dry cleaners are subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) requirements (based on the size of the source) under the air program including:
using vent controls, refrigerated condenser, carbon absorbers fugitive controls including leak
detection and repair and storage of perchioroethylene (PERC) solvents and waste in sealed
containers; monitoring, including measurement of condenser outlet temperature and PERC
concentration after the carbon absorber; O&M according to the manufacturer of the
equipment; recording of PERC purchases/consumption and monitoring; and, reporting (one
initial report and one after compliance).
Region 2 has focused on the dry cleaning industry because: (1) it is a national priority sector;
(2) there are many dry cleaners in the Region (16% of all dry cleaners in the U.S.),
especially in New York City; (3) there have been numerous complaints of PERC emissions
(the facilities are often located beneath residential apartments); (4) there are multi-media
impacts; and, (5) there is a significant degree of ignorance about regulatory requirements.
Region 2 activities for FY ‘95 included 100 site visits and 5 outreach seminars.
Approximately 100 owners attended the seminars. Based on a review of the needs of the
sector and a review of the type of noncompliance occurring, Region 2 dropped the number of
site visits in FY ‘96 and increased the number of seminars. Region 2 has incorporated the
Administrator’s themes into its program by: (1) increasing compliance assistance; (2)
focusing on multi-media, promoting transfer of technology for pollution prevention and waste
minimization; (3) coordinating State and local outreach activities and inspections; (4)
encouraging pollution prevention; (5) targeting compliance assistance activities on a
community and geographic basis; and, (6) identifying environmental justice areas (high
minority/low income/high pollution).
Major reasons for noncompliance have been that dry cleaners were not aware of the
requirements, that they do not understand the requirements because they do not speak or
write English, or that they were confused by too many different regulations. Other obstacles
include the cost of compliance, the fact that even new equipment cannot meet the
requirements, and that recordkeeping requirements are onerous.
2-73
-------
Region 2’s key observations over the past 2 years include: (1) levels of source compliance
are increasing slowly (1 FTE only reaches 2% during site visits and 10% during seminars);
(2) most violations involved recordkeeping and were not from willful intent, but rather
ignorance; (3) once owners were made aware of requirements, they came into compliance;
(4) language barrier is a problem (many dry cleaners do not read or write English); (5) there
is difficulty in confirming that the records kept are accurate; (6) workers are not being
educated on the requirements by the owners; and, (7) sources are deliberately postponing
compliance until they are caught and forced to comply.
The recommendations by Region 2 for dry cleaning sector programs included: (1) hiring
bilingual employees to translate materials and facilitate communication and rapport with
source owners; (2) establishing a clearinghouse at EPA Headquarters; (3) meeting with
equipment vendors/manufacturers to ensure that available equipment can meet regulatory
requirements; (4) interacting with industry associations to facilitate outreach activities; (5)
providing specialized training to inspectors on equipment and multimedia issues; (6) using a
multi-media approach where possible to promote transfer of technology for pollution
prevention and waste minimization; and, (7) working with the State and local entities to
leverage resources.
Agriculture Sector - Phyllis flaherty & Diane Callier
The agriculture sector encompasses many different subsectors including all of those that
produce agricultural commodities and suppliers of goods to the agriculture community. It
includes the different animal and crop farms, and even catfish farmers, crop consultants and
pesticide producers. A compilation of all of the EPA regulations that would cover this
industry did not exist so that is where the effort began.
This sector-based approach to compliance assistance is being well received by the regulated
community. It provides one-stop shopping for all of the EPA requirements for the
agriculture sector. This effort also allows OECA to comment on regulatory development
efforts and provide input to the requirements, so that they are not duplicative or in conflict
with other regulations already in existence that impact the agriculture community.
Other efforts EPA has undertaken include: (1) meeting with trade associations to provide
opportunities to coordinate information dissemination so that it gets to the regulated
community; (2) developing an Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center; (3) developing a
partnership with USDA (EPA is providing funding to USDA for Land Grant Universities to
help develop material for the Compliance Assistance Center); (4) preparing fact sheets; and,
(5) developing interpretive guidance such as question and answer documents to provide
compliance assistance.
Headquarters activities include a focus on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
including development of a compliance/enforcement strategy, development of an agricultural
2-74
-------
sector notebook, and development of other compliance assistance tools. The Office of Water
has already developed permitting guidance.
Other issues Headquarters is addressing include looking at:
• What information is available.
• The needs of the regulated community to find out what community members
think is missing and is needed in order to comply with the regulations.
• Changing perceptions on why members of the regulated community need to
comply with the regulations and how it will benefit them (a lot of small
businesses have the perception that the regulations are useless or not
important).
• Sharing information on policies not just with States and other regulators but
also with the regulated community.
Ms. Collier provided a regional view of her experiences dealing with the sector approach in
general. She provided the following recommendations:
• The Regions need to get the States involved. Involve them early in the
process because they are the ones who are implementing the programs.
Region 7 has had good experiences with States in its area in the agriculture
sector, as well as in other sectors.
• EPA needs to coordinate within the Regions. Region 7 has formed a team for
each sector including staff from program media, solid waste, Regional
Counsel, enforcement coordination office, and P2. It is necessary to leverage
efforts and use distribution systems already set up.
• EPA needs to coordinate with other Regions, especially in producing
compliance assistance materials.
• The Regions need to realize resources (money and staff) are going to be in
competition among sector activities, community-based environmental
protection activities, and base program activities. Therefore, the Regions need
to target and prioritize efforts.
• EPA needs to be realistic and recognize lessons learned to let the program
evolve.
2-75
-------
• Finally, EPA needs to recognize the limits in the measures of success for the
sector approach. For example, Regions may not define the universes of
sectors in the same manner and therefore they may not be comparable.
Metal Finishing Sector - Greg Waidrip
Mr. Waldrip provided an overview of the EPA Headquarters efforts in defining the metal
finishing industry. Metal finishing is a “Common Sense Initiative” industry. Because of
this, there are 40 to 50 people with whom he coordinates (EPA, States, industry,
environmental groups, and POTWs) for multi-media issues. The sector approach has enabled
EPA to develop a technical understanding of the industry so that when issues arose, EPA
staff understand the businesses and how they are run, not just the regulations surrounding
them.
Metal finishers inc.lude approximately 3,000 job shops (or metal platers), approximately
10,000 captive shops (associated with another industry), and 100,000 facilities that perform
organic coating (e.g., painting, coating, varnishing). The majority are located in the Great
Lakes area, California, and Texas.
This is a small business industry. Small shops which are not investing in appropriate
controls may cause greater environmental impacts than larger shops in compliance.
Therefore, EPA should not shy away from regulating small, unpermitted, poor performing
facilities.
EPA has separated the industry into four tiers. The top tier includes those businesses that
are consistently in compliance and have invested heavily in their compliance. This tier
requires less of EPA’s attention because the businesses see economic benefit in compliance,
control, and prevention. The next tier are those shops which may be having problems, but
generally want to comply. The third tier are those metal finishers who do not want to be in
the business anymore, but cannot get out. These facilities have been passed down through
families and the owners cannot shut them down or sell them because of liability issues. Tier
4 are small firms that are either avoiding the regulatory framework or are ignorant of the
requirements.
EPA has been able to capture only about 50% of the metal finishers through available
databases. TRI numbers show reporting facilities demonstrating a 38% reduction in releases.
However, TRI only captures one half of the existing job shops, many that have the greatest
potential for environmental harm. EPA needs to continue its efforts to reach out to these
facilities.
Numerous projects are ongoing for the metal finishing industry. However, there are still
obstacles in implementing a national effort. Mr. Waidrip recommended the following to
overcome these obstacles:
2-76
-------
• EPA needs to continue to identify representatives in the Regions and States for
each of the industries to foster communication.
• EPA should continue the three-year project to implement a Metal Finishing
Resource Center on the Internet. This Internet site would allow access to the
total Code of Federal Regulations, State regulations, technology information,
forums, and trade magazines. The site also provides a forum for metal platers
to discuss compliance issues through facilitated dialogues.
• EPA should coordinate with State technical assistance providers, such as the
small business development centers, State P2 programs, and Manufacturing
Extension Partnerships. They need better coordination in terms of:
determining who the customers are and how they can be serviced; helping
those who are seeking technical and compliance assistance; and helping the
businesses continue to be competitive and environmentally responsible.
II. COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Perspective from the Administrator’s Office - Andy Spielman
Mr. Spielman provided an overview of community-based environmental protection.
Community-based environmental protection is an approach to delivering environmental
protection services to people in places. Community-based environmental protection is about
integrating programs. It is being integrated with the sector-based approach to encourage
people in places to identify problems, set priorities, and develop solutions more effectively.
The approach provides flexibility in accomplishing its goals.
The approach is community-based. Community is loosely defined as “a group of interested
and affected people defined by the environmental or ecological issues and the geographic area
around which the issue is developed.” Community-based environmental protection
recognizes not only that there are different environmental needs in different places but also
that there are different kinds of places, such as those with political boundaries (e.g., cities,
townships, neighborhoods) or natural boundaries (e.g., watersheds, aquifers, forests).
As defined in a July 1995 meeting of Headquarters Assistant Administrators and Regional
Administrators, community-based environmental protection: (1) provides strong leadership;
(2) includes participation by a broad array of stakeholders; (3) looks at environmental issues
of broad concern (i.e., across media) to the community and focuses on environmental
accomplishments; (4) will not work where it is imposed by EPA; (5) drives environmental
protection by local conditions, goals, and choices; (6) provides EPA support for local people
with tools and capabilities; and, (7) assures local access to information and science.
2-77
-------
Community-based environmental protection is not a re1ir uishment of statutory obligations,
compliance avoidance, or an initiative competing with the “bread and butter” work (e.g.,
permits, inspections). It is an organizing principle and a different way of doing the “bread
and butter.” Community-based environmental protection is not about working around the
States but rather takes into account EPA’s long standing relationship with the States.
The advantages associated with the community-based environmental protection approach are
that it: (1) focuses on local conditions; (2) is more comprehensive in scope and nature; (3)
empowers decision making at a level outside of the Beltway; (4) goes beyond compliance;
and, (5) integrates the critical interrelationships between economy and the environment. All
of these lead to improved environmental results.
EPA is implementing community-based environmental protection through what is referred to
as the “80-20” rule of thumb. In most places (80%), EPA will not be directly involved in
community-based environmental protection projects; instead, EPA will work as an enabler
behind the scenes (e.g., tool development, providing access to information). In 20% of
places, EPA may be directly involved in community-based projects.
Community-based environmental protection is becoming institutionalized at EPA. At least
50% of the Regions now have some permanent divisions or offices related to ecosystems,
watersheds, or communities. Others have used a cross-division steering committee approach.
Twenty percent of 1996 national program resources have been provided to the Regions to
provide a more flexible pool of resources to deal with CBEP implementation. There are five
Performance Partnership Agreements in the nation, with four of those (Delaware, Utah,
Illinois, and Colorado) having community-based environmental protection components.
The roles of enforcement and compliance assistance in community-based environmental
protection are many and include targeted inspections, compliance incentives (voluntary
cleanups), compliance information, compliance flexibility, and using creative solutions.
Regional Successes/Experience/Plans - Diane Callier
Region 7 is working very hard to instill community-based environmental protection as a way
of doing business. The Region’s approach is similar to the Headquarters approach. The
responsibility for coordination was given to the Director of the Water, Wetlands, and
Pesticides Division. The structure has been set up as a steering committee consisting of the
Deputy Regional Administrator and the Division Directors of the three substantive programs
with input from other programs, external affairs, and Regional Counsel. Region 7 has six
teams for ongoing community-based environmental protection projects. They involve people
from the different programs as necessary.
The Region 7 definition of community-based environmental protection is consistent with EPA
Headquarters. For every “place,” needs are evaluated based on a multi-media basis, giving
2-78
-------
it a holistic view initially and focusing later on the media and areas that are most
appropriate. It is critical that the State, tribes, localities, and communities be involved in
identification of the problem as well as the solution. It is important to factor in the economic
considerations. Region 7 is working with the States, tribes, and localities to develop a
process for addressing the highest environmental, ecological, and health priorities.
In FY ‘96, Region 7 is working hard to develop a process that is reproducible, logical, and
defensible in defining those areas upon which to focus. Region 7 has an ongoing outreach
effort. It is attempting to institutionalize the community-based environmental protection
approach within the Regional area and to develop a consistent way of communicating about
community-based environmental protection with external parties.
Many of the true community-based environmental protection projects may not have a major
enforcement or compliance component. The projects will always consider whether those
components should be there, but most issues are quality of life issues. They will continue to
focus enforcement and compliance assistance efforts in a geographically targeted manner.
Since the efforts are tailored to individual circumstances, they will need to go through the
entire cycle to see what the Region needs to adjust, how the process will evolve, and what
the role of enforcement and compliance will be in the future.
Getting the Community Involved - Michael Northridge
Mr. Northridge has been involved in Superfund projects where they get the communities
involved in unique ways. There are several ways in which Superfund enforcement and
community-based environmental protection are interrelated, including brownfield sites, and,
to a lesser extent, Project XL and CERCLA SEPs. A critical element of community-based
environmental protection is to have an open, inclusive process for solving environmental
problems that includes the people who actually live there. Superfund has an extensive
process for involving local communities in EPA’s selection of a cleanup plan that includes
public comment, meetings, and making information available to the public.
A criticism of the program has been that the local community is sometimes excluded from
critical issues during settlement negotiations. For example, when EPA issues its Record of
Decision (ROD), certain technical issues are sometimes left unresolved and thus dependent
upon future studies or circumstances. Environmental groups and the public have complained
that they do not have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the final settlement.
This project was developed to promote community involvement in the Superfund enforcement
process. The effort dovetailed with community-based environmental protection and ongoing
debate on the Superfund reauthorization. The Administration’s bill would have required EPA
to involve communities to participate in any technical workplan discussions arising from
settlement negotiations with private parties. In the past year, when EPA announced the
second round of superfund administrative reforms, most were designed to test out certain
2-79
-------
provisions of the Administration’s bill. Most provisions (including the public involvement
provision) were intended to minimize transaction costs. Some Regions wanted to try out
alternatives to what was in the Administration’s bill because there were questions on how to
distinguish a technical issue compared to the legal issues in settlement negotiations. These
Regions wanted to look at alternatives for bringing the public into the settlement negotiations
themselves. EPA Headquarters allowed the Regions to identify alternative approaches.
There are approximately 14 sites where Regions are doing projects. These projects have
involved the communities at different stages including the study, cleanup, and removal
stages. About 50% of these projects involve allowing the community to review drafts of the
technical plans (known as Statements of Work) for cleanup. For the Commencement Bay
site, Region 10 produced a formal response document to address all of the comments from
the community on the draft technical workplan. Some Regions have allowed the public to
comment on the draft Statement of Work for the feasibility studies. Other Regions have
dealt with public involvement at the removal stage, for example, in determining future land
use issues.
Community-Based Environmental Protection and Compliance Assurance/Enforcement -
Phyllis Flaherty
In enforcement, EPA’s role will vary: EPA will sometimes have a small role, while at other
times the Agency will have a major role. The degree of EPA’s participation is determined
on a Regional basis.
Comments, Questions & Answers - Sector-Based Compliance Assurance
Comments: A representative from Region 1 expressed the need to involve other Federal
agencies as well as local entities including OSHA, NOAA, Coast Guard, municipalities,
county and city governments and chambers of commerce to help with developing the criteria
for targeting the industries. She stated that Region 1 had good luck in working with local
government and getting community groups involved, and she felt that if they were left out,
EPA might be alienating a critical link. This could make them not want to further EPA’s
environmental agenda. She also stated that these local entities know the industries better than
does EPA.
Comments: Mr. Waldrip stated that EPA has been dealing with POTWs under the common
sense initiative efforts because they are the local implementation authority under the
pretreatment program. EPA is also working cooperatively with the Association of
Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) and the Water Enforcement Federation (WEF) to
identify metal finishers and to help POTWs implement their program better by providing
assistance tools. Ms. Flaherty agreed and stated that she had referred to the importance of
local entities in her discussion of the infrastructure during her summary.
2-80
-------
Question: A representative from Region 8 had a question on the definition of the expected
output, the type of reporting that the Regions would be expected to produce, and whether
they would be consolidated in some sort of national report. His concern was that
Headquarters should come up with the proper output consistently across the Regions so that
they have the required information two years from now. He also wanted to know if there
would be additional reporting requirements besides those required for the national data bases.
He was concerned that the States were beginning to implement programs and that the
Regional MOAs were all different so that it would be difficult to pull together consistent
reports.
Answer: Ms. Flaherty replied that the MOAs were not very specific in the types of reports
that were supposed to come to Headquarters. EPA Headquarters has not yet focused on that
issue and that she would take it back to management. Within the agriculture sector, the staff
is developing reports from scratch at this point and it is part of the development process.
Mr. Waldrip stated that since all Regions are choosing sectors as their priorities, it may not
be as important to have a national report for those sectors.
Comments: A participant stated that where the national priorities applied, EPA should have
consistent reporting of certain measures. Regions internally keep track of inspections and
visits in the various sectors. When they report to Headquarters, they would indicate the
activities in the various sectors.
Comments: Another representative stated that it was not clear to her what the Agency was
trying to accomplish or how success would be defined and measured even for normal
activities under the sector-based approach.
Comments: Ms. Callier reiterated her concern for the problems associated with defining the
universe under each sector. She stated that each Region would define the sector differently
and that when consolidating numbers for a national report, EPA would be “adding apples and
oranges.” She cautioned that it would be necessary to carefully communicate exactly what
the numbers meant. Ms. Flaherty stated that she would take this issue back to the
management and to the people who deal with the reporting. She asked for suggestions. She
suggested for those sectors which concern numerous Regions, the staff coordinate a
conference call to discuss the measures. For the agriculture sector, EPA is not planning on
asking for any additional reporting and is viewing it more as a pilot. She stated that the staff
would look at the numbers, but was not going to compare them. However, she said it could
become important eventually to report successes or failures. She stated that EPA knows the
desired state of achievement, but not the specifics of the reporting.
Comments: A representative from a western Region was concerned about damaging
relationships with States. Since the timing of the development of the MOAs and the
definition of the initiatives were out of synchronization with their State’s planning process,
relationships were already strained. In addition, the States felt it was just another way for
EPA to get in the back door to their authorized programs. Any changes in what had already
2-81
-------
been negotiated with them would be deleterious. Ms. Callier agreed that timing was an
issue. Mr. Eng from Region 2 thought it was important to elevate the negotiation process to
the Regional Administrator level (which had not been done in Region 2) to establish
priorities.
Comments, Questions & Answers - Community-Based Environmental Protection
Comments: A participant from Region 8 noted that the Region is trying to incorporate a
community-based environmental protection approach in all of its activities; however, there
are still three problems. The first problem is a timing problem. The Regions have made
their MOA commitments, the States have pians that have been implemented, and now EPA
has made a commitment to put 20% of its resources to community-based projects. The
problem this situation poses is that the intersection between what the Region has committed
to in the MOA and what the 20% commitment is going to be is not yet defined. He was
concerned that until the Region does that, they have added a 20% commitment to an already
loaded staff. The second problem he enumerated was that the statement has been made
saying community-based environmental protection will not be imposed. Since the Region is
required to commit 20% of its resources to the effort, it is hard for him to resolve the
apparent contradiction. Finally, from an enforcement view, he anticipates problems. A
possible result from inclusion of community-based environmental protection into the
enforcement process is that the result of an enforcement action will be different. In other
words, the resolution may be a SEP or some other remedy. This is in direct conflict with
the bean counting mentality.
Comments: Mr. Spielman acknowledged those issues and stated that all the other Regions
are probably experiencing similar issues. Everyone is just beginning to develop their
programs and processes. He asked that where the Regions had ideas on alternate solutions or
how to do things better, everyone might benefit from sharing the ideas. “The perfect is the
enemy of the good.” EPA knew last year that the timing for the MOAs would be off with
plans with some States. However, the intent was to get the resources to the Regions with
little guidance to make the process as flexible as possible. Region 8 led a conference call to
talk about problems and issues with incorporating enforcement into community-based
environmental protection. No solutions were developed at that time because all the Regions
are still continuing to struggle with implementation issues. Some Regions are looking at it as
problematic, while to others, it is a fun challenge.
Comments: Ms. Callier stated that Region 7 will commit 20% of its resources to community-
based environmental activities. Whether enforcement itself will have 20% is not yet known.
She stated that the Region is gathering information about community-based environmental
protection, the staff should not package things under community-based environmental
protection that truly are not. She cautioned that if the Regions put a quota or bean counting
mentality to it, they will undermine the purpose of the process.
2-82
-------
Comments: Ms. Flaherty suggested that they could supplement resources with the grant
funding she had discussed earlier.
Comments: Another participant stated that during the conference call (led by Region 8), the
only thing the participants determined was that community-based environmental protection
was not compliance avoidance.
Comments: Mr. Northridge stated that for his CERCLA sites, the staff is looking into
measures of success other than whether the community is happier, such as whether the
negotiations took longer, how many resources were used to put on the public meeting, and
what other work would not get done as a result of utilizing the community-based approach.
2-83
-------
REGION II DRYCLEANER
INITIATIVE
Assessment and Recommendations
Presented By Ken Eng , Chief - Air Compliance Bcanth
-------
$UMMARY. OF REQULREMENTS
PERC DRY CLEANING NESHAPS
SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
APPLICABILITY ( DEPENDING UPON PERC USAGE) :
+SMALL AREA SOURCE
+LARGER AREA SOURCE
+M JOR SOURCE
PROC!SS VENT CONTROLS
+RRIGERATED CONDENSER
+CARBON ADSORBERS
FUGITIYK CONTROLS
+LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
+STORL PERC SOLVENT/WASTE N SEALED CONTAINERS
MONiTORING
+ ffASifRZ CONDENSER OUTLET TEMPERATURE
+MEASIJRE PERC CONCE TRATION OUT OF CARBON
ADSORBER
OPERATION AN]) MAINTENANCE
4-OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ACCORDING TO
MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS
2—85
-------
RECORDS
+NLAJN’rAIN RECELPTS OF PERC PURCHASES
+MAINTA1N LOG OF PERC CONSUMPTION
+ MAINTAIN MONITORLNG AND LEAK DETECIIONIREPA [ R
LOGS
RDO’RTING Ar’ffl COMPLIANCE
+STJBMIT INITIAL REPORT
+SUBMIT COMPLIANCE REPORT
2—86
-------
WHY DID REGION LI FOCUS ON DRY CLEANERS?
*NA T IONAL PRIORITY SECTOR
‘REGIONAj PRIORITY SECTOR AS WELL BECAUSE:
* APPROXIMATELY 5,000 OF THE 30,000 DRY CLEANERS
NATIONALLY (16%) ARE IN REGION H
‘APPRO AflLY 60,000 TONS OF PERC EMITTED IN
REGION
*j) IS A POSSIBLE CARCINOGEN
‘NUMEROUS unZEN COMPLAINTS
‘MOSTLY RELATING TO CO-LOCATED FACILITIES
‘LARGE PERCENTAGE OF 1,400 NYC DRY CLEANERS ARE
CO-LOCATED
‘M’JL17 ftIflA IMPACTS FROM. THIS SECTOR
(AIRIRCRA/UIC/UST)
*SIGMflC4&J 4’f DEGREE OF IGNORANCE OF REQUIREMENTS
WITIfIN SECTOR 2-87
-------
70
40
30
20
10
0
Ru Activity Profile
fCom iar Assist & Enforcem*1]
. -r
.
—-—
—.
.
.
. L J JLLH
— - -. - -
— .
---
.
s1 V Smmina
fr
H rf-s
2—88
-------
(Bas upon 75 NO Issu Fy-96
Ru DRY CLEANER VIOLATIONS
I
2—89
-------
DEFICIENCY PROFILE
Number of Deficiencies
(Based on 75 NODs FY-95)
No Equipment
Manual
Leak Detection
and Repair
Deficiency
1. The above chart only attributes One type of deficiency per facihty Some facilities may
have had more than one type of det ciency.
25
20
15
10
5
(I)
a,
LL
w
0 (1)
n
E
z
0
Maintenance Maintenance Monitoring of
of PERC Logs of Receipts Control Device
-------
HOW DOES REGION II’ S DRY CLEANING PROGRAX
INCORPORATE ADMINI STRATOR 1 S TH S
cREATER USE OF CCi4PLIANC ASST. TANCE flJ ADDRESSING ThIs
SECTOR (90% CA ACTIVITIRS/1O% ENFORC ’T)
GREAThR MULTI-V flIA ( 1 FOCUS
- AIR, RCBA , WATER ETC.
(BEGAN LAST YEAR WITH COMPLIA E ASSISTA ! MD
INSPECTIONS OF 15 DRY CLEANERS--AIR AND RCRA)
- USE OF )O( C C] ISTS
- DISS INATION OP 1*4 MAT IALS
-GREAT CO-ORDll TION OF VISITS / INSPECTIONS
(SEA.R E LISTS OF SOURCE VISITS WITH O’ra R
PROGRAM MEDIA)
FOS’r 2/LfJC M PP,J TPS
-cOORDINA’PE WITH NYSDEC AND M DEP (OUTREACH
ASPECTS)
-COORD TE WITH NASSAU COU DEPAR’1 OF
HEALTH
-0TYPREAcH
-DISS 4I1 TE OUTREACH MATERIALS
-JOilft OUTREACH s (INAP.S
-S JOIN’P INSPECTIONS (Jfl( W E
POSSIBLE)
2—91
-------
(HOW )ES REGION II’ S DRY CLEANING PR RA)( DXORPORATE
ADHmI S’Z’PATOR S Th (ES (CONTINUED) j
FOSTER POLZ OTIL W PR2V FTION
-ENCOt3PAGE SOURCES TO REDUCE FUGITIVE PERC
CSS IONS BY SPO ING AND PIXI LEAXS EARLY
- 1SQU SEALS ARE TIGHT
-ZWSURE DOORS ARE CLOS BEFORE TRANSFER OF
cLOTHI1
FOCUS ON
“ ( ‘ P4 d
AS ( 2) A
c i :- e ;71
Ic BA i
( GB) AREAS
-TARGETD 3 CA ACTIVITIES AND IIJ P TIONS D7 CB
AND GB ARIAS (80% OF AIR ACTIVITIES WILL BE
3 IN THESE AREAS)
-CB/GB ARIAS IN FY-96
1. SOu BRO C (NY)
2. LONG ISLAND (NY)
3. BARCELONETA (PR)
4. WASS A (NY)
VT O1 ? AL JtTSTrCE AREAS
-POCUS ON F 7 AREAS WITEIN C3/GB ARIAS
2—92
-------
(HOW DOES REGION II S DRY CLEANING PROGRAM INCORPOMTE
ADMINT STRATOR’ S TXEM!S (CONTINTJ )]
APPLY LL 2t7S 1ESS COMPLTA PP IIJE PR AM MTh
2 ADDZP PR RAMS WHEP 2 APPLICAELE
-) ST DRY CLEANERS ARE SM?ILL BUSINESSES
(EMPLOYS FEWER THAN 100 (PLOYEES)
TM EA- P IO2DI.L RESOURCES ft ’ S - PRIORIPTZS
-INCREASE OP 1.5 PIES OV 1.0 LAS? YEAR
-1.5 PPE - AIR
-0.5 FTE - RCRA
-0.5 TE - WATER
2—93
-------
MAAJDR REASONS DRY CLEANERS GIVE FOR NON—
CONPL LANCE
- IC ORA ’E OP TICI LAW ( DID NOT 1OW’)
- NOT 2R OP INDUS’L’RY ASSOCIATION (XE, A)
- NOT SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLE’?T S (U • RTCLI S)
- L OF tflIDERS AND IG
-MANY O’I .S 0 ? POR2I Z OUCWI’ (60% XOU J1)
-LAIIGUAGE 3ARR
- u !RTA ?Y or w xcx REQUIR TS TO ) Z’
-MULTIPLE GOV!R ?!’AL REGULATIONS
-DIPP T DEGREES 0? STRI1 Y
- if ic COSTS TO CHANGE TO NEW !QUI1I ?
- A U? $1000 PER POUND CAPACITY ( Y TO Y 3 CHI2 )
- FOR A TYPICAL 75 L5. DRY-TO-DRY O 2
($100 000--COST OP MACiDlE A3ID ISTALLATION)
2—94
-------
[ REASONS Di y C1 EANERS GIVE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
(CONTINUED)]
-NEW EQUI 7? KAY T ) T ALL R Z ATORY REQ(JIREW S
- TOO KA Y LZAXS
- COZZrROLS MAY NO ACHIEVE PPM REQurR rr FOR
COLOCAT PACILITIES
- CIV L8 Y OF ISTING EQUIPI IT
-RECORD rl ’ AND t OGS ARE O1 OUS
- (F R? JRD - !PA PROGR AND STATE/LOCA l
RECORD PING R!QUIR TS)
- ST COND JSERS CANNOT ACHIEVE 45’ 1
- T cPERM’ JRE NORMALLY ACRIEVID IS 55’Y-60 ’F
-LA 01 CAPAEIL TY TO ID TIFY 1 Z LEAKS OCCUR
-LEAKS KAY NOT BE PERCEflIBL1
2—95
-------
WHAT ARE OUR KEY OBSERVATIONS BASZD UPON
IMPL JTATION OF THIS PROGRAM OVER PAST 2
YRS?
1. LEVKL OF SOVRCE CO PL LANCE MAS SLOWLY INCR .S&
OV ‘ rifE YEARS (BASED UPON NUMBER OF INSP IONS,
NODs ISSUED AND DEFICI iCIES CORRECTED)
- FY94 - 90% NNCOI4PLIANCE
- - 75% NONCOMPLI.A E
— 1 FT --.ONLY R.EACKES 2% SOURCE UNIVERSE (100
INSPECI’ZONS) AND LESS THAN 10% OP SOURCE
UNIVERSE (5 S (INARS- -A3OUT 100 AT1 1DUS PER
S DD R)
- DICATES N D FOR INCREASED COMPLIANCE
ASS ISTANCE ACTIVITIES WITH BROADER REACH
- ou’rRzAcx SlABS HAVE B SUCCESS, u’.’
(MANY OIflJERS ATTENDIM3 TH U SEQU LY CONE
I lTO C IPLIANCE)
2. ST VIOLATIONS INVOLVE REC0RD P 1 )(AIW ANC2
OF L S,WL’C. (OVKR 70%)
3. MOST SOURCES FOUND TO BE OUT OF C QLLANCE WITH
p.ECORDXEEPING REQUIRE ( JTS C DIPO COMPLIANCE
BASED ON RE-VISITS
- VIOLATIONS DUE TO LACX OF U DE STANDI 3 OF
REGULATIONS 1 NOT NON-COOPERATION
2—96
-------
(WHAT ARE OUR KEY OBSERVATIONS BASED UPON
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROGRAM OVER PAST 2
YR.S? (coN’rmIJKD)]
4. LA UAGE BARRIER IS SI (IPICA P
- ABOUT 65% OF SOURCE 1NZRS ARE FOREI S
- ILLITERACY X JOR PRORT I
- INDICATES THE N rJ FOR BIL l WALAL STAYP
MATERIALS (GUIDANCE s LOGS, CHARTS) N TO BE
T ANSLAT )
5. DIFFICULTY CONFIRXI ON-SITE RECORDS
- ARE ALL PERC LOGS & RECII F l ’ S C IPLETE?
- SIC I7ICA RESOURCES R UIR BY EPA TO
CONTIRM SOURCE C PLIANCZ--SUCB AS CX
WITH PERC StJPPLI S
- RELY A LOT t3P H JBSTY OP SOURCE JER
6. DELIBERATE pOSTPON A Ir OP CCMPLIJ NCE
(PROCRASTINATION) BY S SOURCES
DELAY. W7ITS & SEE’ WHAT HAPP A I1VDE
- ____ TO MAKE CASE EXAXPLES • OP T S2 SOURCES
- ENFoRc cENT - Pt72LICIZ3 PORc l’ ACTIONS
2—97
-------
[ WHAT ARE OUR xE OBSERVATIONS BASEI) UPON
IMPL JTATION OF THIS PROGRAM OVER PAST 2
YRS? (CONTINU )J
7. WORXERS ON SITE DON’ P KNOW R LAT IONS
- LI LE TO NO TRAINfl OF WOR3 S OR STORE
ffLOUES OP WHAT HAS TO BE TO C LY
- SOURCE SHOULD BE (COVRAGED TO I PORM
AND TRAIN WORKERS OP REQUIR. X’S
2—98
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EPA REGIONAL AND HQS
PROGRAMS
1. HIRE BILINGUAL STAFF TO SUPPORT DRY CLEANER PROGR)j
(REGIONAL AND HQS PROGRAMS)
- FACILITATES C NICATIONS WITH POR2I SOURCE
- STROI ER RAPPORT ESTABLISJ WITH SOtJRCES
- TRANSLATION OF )OIT RIALS
2. ESTABLISH CLEARINGHOUSE AT EQS FOR:
- STORI OtJTRZAC}f MATERIALS
- POLICY DETERMINATIONS
- TRANSLATED MATERIALS
- TRAIN MATERIALS FOR REGULATORS
3. WITH MANUFACTURERS/VENDORS 0? 3QUIP1 P TO
JSURE EQUIPMENT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE R3GUItATORY
R3QT3IR PS (R.EGIONAL AND EQS PROGRAMS)
4. CONTACT USTRY ASSOCIATIONS TO FACILITATE
OUTREACH (REGIONAL PROGRAMS)
- GHBORHOOD CLEANERS ASSOCIATION
- flftER TIO PABRICARE INSTIT1.vr
- KOREAN DRY CLEANERS ASSOCIATION
2—99
-------
(RECO) DATIONS (CO INUED)]
5. GIVE INSPECTORS SPECIAL TRAINING (REGIONAL AND HQS
PROGRAMS)
- NCA TRAINING SCROOL
VIEW & LEARN ABOUT EQUI
- TRAIN INSPECTOR IN MM R! IR JTS
- TRAIN INSPECTORS IN APPLICABLE STATE/LOCAL
RzQum 7rS
6. UTILIZE )(ULTI- IA APPROACH (REGI L PR AM)
- USE ) ( CHECXLIST
- CONDUCT ( INSPECTIONS
- HOLD )O( SEWINARS
7. LEVERAGE R3SO RCES BY ENLISTI1 ASSISTANCE OF
s iwrE/LOCALS (REGIONAL PROGRIAK)
- INcREAsE NUMBER OF VISITS/I SPECTIONS BY
AVOIDIP3 DUPLICATIVE ACTIONS
- joi r LTI -GOV!R 1TAL OUTREACH S PS
- FILL OUT MM CHECKLIST AND REFER VIOLATIONS TO
2—100
-------
DAY 3- MANAGING FOR RESULTS
3-1
-------
“Measuring Success: Lessons Learned and Needed Improvements”
Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
April 11, 1996
9: l5am-9:45am
Mr. Stahl began by pointing out that he would address last year’s approach to measuring
success and discuss how the Agency will proceed in an effective and powerful way over the
next two years.
He illustrated that the traditional approach to measuring success involved the use of the
following:
• National/regional aggregate data on initiated cases and penalties assessed to
describe accomplishments
• Data on cases and penalties that provided an indication of enforcement
presence to help bolster deterrence
• Narrative or anecdotal data to illustrate environmental results and impact of
enforcement.
He explained that case-by-case data was not suitable for national/regional conclusions about
the impact of actions. The traditional approach rarely used compliance rate data to
characterize industry performance or to evaluate EPA/State effectiveness.
Mr. Stahl stated that the Reorganization Task Force issued a report entitled “Integrated
Enforcement Approaches for EPA” on September 1, 1993. He explained that the report
offered suggestions for developing better ways to measure impact. He read the following
quote from Section II - Setting the Framework of the report:
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, such as activity counts and more impact-oriented measures,
so that enforcement “beans” would be understood in the broader context of
compliance and environmental improvements.
3-2
-------
Mr. Stahl stated that following the issuance of the report, a Headquarters/Regional Work
Group on Measures of Success convened to discuss how to address the criticism. The work
group issued the following suggestions for improving the methods for measuring enforcement
impact:
Employ more systematic reporting of environmental and programmatic impacts
of compliance and enforcement activities
• Re-engineer reporting of significant noncompliance and compliance rates to
incorporate multi-media, industry sector, and environmental justice
perspectives
• Develop an Enforcement Activity Index for more comprehensive counting of
enforcement activities.
Mr. Stahl then illustrated the spectrum of enforcement and compliance assurance activities
with an overhead that presented compliance assistance on the left side of the spectrum and
criminal enforcement on the right. Compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil
enforcement were in between. This was followed by the spectrum of enforcement and
compliance assurance measures of success. On this overhead, activity measures (e.g.,
actions by EPA/States) occupied the left side of the spectrum with environmental indicators
(e.g., general improvement in environmental quality) on the right. Actions taken by the
regulated community, level of compliance, and specific benefits to the environment were in
the middle.
He noted that many EPA improvement efforts fall because they attempt to leap from counting
actions to counting improvement too quickly. He added that it is difficult to collect data
without spending money, and that it is hard to find a correlation between the left and right
sides of the spectrum.
Mr. Stahl urged the participants to try to describe accomplishments using the full range of
program activities to represent Regions, sectors, and the Nation as a whole. He further
encouraged the participants to develop aggregate or national data (rather than simply
anecdotal) to emphasize results for environment and human health and to characterize the
state of compliance and performance of industry sectors.
Using the traditional approach to measuring success, he then walked through the spectrum of
measures of success. He noted that traditional data gravitates towards the left side which
favors counting actions. Mr. Stahl then walked through the improved approach to measuring
success. This method, he noted, displays the full range of activities, and thus uses the full
spectrum. He supported a movement away from simply counting activities in favor of
describing the entire range of activities.
3-3
-------
Mr. Stahl then addressed the difficulty he has experienced in gathering “right-side”
information (i.e., narratives regarding general improvements to environmental quality) using
case conclusion data sheets. He acknowledged receipt of a “mixed bag of results” from the
Regions’ case conclusion data submissions. He explained that the next round of data sheets
would be in a checklist format. Moreover, these sheets have been revised to:
• Make it easier to specify the action(s) taken by violators to achieve compliance
(e.g., changes in emissions/discharges, storage/disposal, industrial process)
• Make it easier to specify the environmental impacts/benefits of actions taken
by violators (e.g., human health protection, ecosystem protection, increased
public awareness).
He added that compliance assistance measures have been developed to describe the amount
and impact of compliance assistance programs and to describe the impact of compliance
assistance initiatives targeted at specific industries or populations.
Mr. Stahl supported the inclusion of results from enforcement actions that go beyond just
counting those actions to include the following: the steps violators took to achieve
compliance; the types of environmental benefits achieved from enforcement actions; and, a
description of the reduction in pollutants resulting from the enforcement action. He also
suggested inclusion of a description of the type of assistance delivered. This may include:
facilities receiving onsite or other compliance assistance; changes at facilities resulting from
compliance assistance; and, changes in an industry’s compliance profile, pollutant loadings,
and emissions resulting from targeted initiatives. He encouraged disclosure of the number of
cases/agreements reached using incentives and the number of self-disclosures and self-
corrections resulting from agreements. He also advocated the use of non-compliance profiles
for priority industry sectors.
Mr. Stahl reiterated that there are advantages to this approach and that the work required is
well worth it. He suggested to the participants that this approach will provide the capacity
needed for demonstrating the “big picture” and will help EPA evaluate activities in a new
way. He recommended using this new system for resource allocations.
He concluded by stating that changing the way EPA measures performance is a big
challenge. He reported that Headquarters and the Regions are already collaborating on this
effort. He stated that at the next conference, he would like to be able to say that EPA has
found a useful way to manage its resources and to measure success in a way that can be
presented to the public.
3-4
-------
“Our Mission/Our Budget”
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
April 11, 1996
9:4Sam-1O: l5am
Ms. Lowrance began her presentation by stating that it is critical to take seriously the success
measuring framework presented by Michael Stahl. She reiterated that EPA is responsible for
compliance assurance to achieve public health protection. She acknowledged that a great
deal of work has already been done and that EPA needs to continue delivering services. She
urged the attendees to realize that there is still work to be done. She explained that there are
key pieces that need to be nurtured.
Although EPA has a large number of FTEs (4,000), the Agency cannot account for them.
Ms. Lowrance described the management challenge of justifying the activities of 4,000
FTEs. She mentioned that an additional challenge will be to bridge the gap of time it takes to
develop environmental indicators.
She asserted that the Agency must face issues beyond measurement at the end of the process
to include looping successes back into the planning process. She urged managers to redeploy
resources in an objective fashion and to both develop multi-year strategic plans and use them.
Ms. Lowrance expressed that while enforcement compliance has enjoyed public support, that
same public now wants to know how their tax dollars are being spent. She added that the
public expects EPA to take fiscal and programmatic responsibility for enforcement
compliance activities.
She warned that EPA’s budget will continue to decline as will resources and that each agency
will face a reduction in FTEs. She stated that critics and friends alike do not believe that
EPA can articulate its priorities or justify funding for programs. She added that the other
agencies linked to EPA’s appropriations (i.e., HUD, NASA, and the Department of Veterans
Affairs) face similar funding challenges but can better articulate their funding priorities.
Ms. Lowrance cited a National Academy of Public Administration report on EPA that
suggests the creation of an integrated budgeting and planning process. She suggested that
every Assistant Administrator be required to justify priorities and the establishment of new
Agency-wide strategic plans that define the “what, how, and methods for measuring
success.”
She acknowledged that the difficulties she outlined in her presentation are ultimately a
management issue. She asked the audience to remember that most of the managers present
came from different backgrounds and learned management on-the-job. She urged the
3-5
-------
managers to let their technical staff do the “front-line” work, while they redouble their
efforts on management tasks.
Ms. Lowrance concluded by reiterating that money will not flow into the Agency if they are
unable to manage this issue.
3-6
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION
“What Matters Most: Top Goals for the National Program”
April 11, 1996
10:3Oam-1 1:30am
Panel Leader: Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
Panelists: Eric Schaeffer, Director, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
Connie Simon, Region 2
Phyllis Hams, Regional Counsel, Region 4
Harley Laing, Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region
1
Michael Stahl
Each panel member was asked to present his or her three ideas or goals on how to ensure
success for the National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in fiscal year
1996.
Eric Schaeffer
Mr. Schaeffer indicated that there are three words or concepts brought out during the past
year and during the Conference that should be phased-out as vocabulary and replaced with
something else. These three terms are:
• Traditional Enforcement - There are many innovative programs and EPA has
always had traditional enforcement. Mr. Schaeffer noted that he is not sure of
what is traditional enforcement. It is not very common in Regional reviews.
EPA has a very innovative program. Enforcement by its nature is dynamic
and creative and is being reinvented all the time. Therefore, the concept of
traditional enforcement should be put to rest. The term also reinforces the
division between enforcement and compliance which has been overcome.
• Bad Actors - it is difficult to define the notion of bad actors. It seems to
relate to the concept that if you pay your taxes late, you pay a penalty, or if
you get caught speeding, you pay a ticket. Civil sanctions are a part of the
price you pay to belong to a civilized society. Without civil sanctions, people
3-7
-------
will procrastinate and cut corners. We need to get back to basics; bad actors
go to jail. Responsible companies should be offered incentives and fair notice
but ultimately the penalties have to be paid. These ideas need to be
established to ensure that there is a civil enforcement program.
• Balance - The issue is raised as to the balance between compliance assistance
and traditional enforcement. The problem is that you get trapped in
bureaucratic numerology and fail to get anywhere. We need to start thinking
of ourselves as one program; most people are starting to do this. The fair
notice issue is a good illustration of how compliance and enforcement are
joined. If fair notice of what the regulatory requirements are is not provided,
we will lose enforcement cases. Similarly, on the auditing side, not many
people will disclose information if there is no possibility that they will get
caught and have to pay a penalty. The possibility of enforcement is what
achieves compliance and voluntary disclosures.
EPA, the States, and industries still know too little about the impact of activities on the
environment and compliance. There are some data and educated guesses, but we do not have
enough information. One possibility is to put together a national compliance survey to
understand the state of compliance and what motivates it. Part of that can be drawn from
data. The data is getting better but it has inherent limits. For example, there are only 350
dry cleaners in the national database; it fails to include information on the other 200,000 dry
cleaners. We need to look at sampling and surveying to develop an understanding of what is
happening in those sectors. Probably, we also need to conduct some behavior studies similar
to the analyses done by industries. We can look at targeted inspections such as those the
NEIC conducted at petroleum industries to decipher patterns of compliance. We may find
that there is very little compliance in certain sectors, while others may have specific types of
problems (e.g., the rules are not understood). It is also important to know the entities
outside the system (e.g., the number of entities that do not have permits and are not tracked
or monitored). We need to get a sense of where we are going in order to have discussions
on how to get there.
Connie Simon
Most laws have been developed from fear of environmental damage. Much has been done to
reduce and prevent pollution. It has been said that it is characteristic of leadership not to
support things that better the environment but to respond to catastrophes and problems.
When Regional staff were asked to suggest top goals, most suggested items for this year but
also for the long term. Items suggested included: maintaining the enforcement program,
incorporating new policy directions in a sensible way, developing meaningful small business
outreach and compliance assistance, balancing compliance assistance and traditional
enforcement, promoting timely and appropriate enforcement, targeting compliance assurance
3-8
-------
and enforcement to reduce risks, using tools appropriately, and using economic incentives
and other non-traditional mechanisms.
The three goals should be:
• Establish Centers of Excellence - As programs have been delegated to the
States over the past ten to fifteen years, EPA staff have been losing their edge
as technology experts and have turned this role over to contractors. As a
result, there are difficulties in supporting environmental cases without going
outside EPA.
As we move further to establish State primacy and reduce State oversight
through performance partnership agreements and the provision of increased
technical and compliance assistance, there is a need to restore in-house
expertise by creating centers of excellence at Headquarters and in the Regions.
The preferred approach would be for the Regions to develop expertise in the
areas of technology that are prevalent in those Regions and then to transfer
that expertise to other Regions through roving teams and through coordination
with NEIC, to the extent possible. Creating centers of excellence would help
in handling permitting activities, as well as in supporting enforcement actions.
• Synthesize and Synchronize What We Are Supposed To Do - Enforcement
is not an end in itself but is a means of achieving goals. The primary goal is
protection of public health and the environment. The role of media offices is
to develop programs and define strategies to achieve this protection. Yet the
Regions have not seen the kind of interaction between OECA and the media
offices that is necessary to achieve those goals. For example, OECA issued a
MOA guidance, which preceded the media guidance, that dedicated only a few
pages to media-specific initiatives. Communication between OECA and the
program offices was limited. After years of program-driven compliance and
enforcement strategies, it is difficult to understand and to explain to Regional
staff and the States the reason for this apparent disjointed planning. Regional
staff feel that it is essential for OECA guidance to have a greater foundation in
media-specific and cross-media goals.
In order to have timely and effective compliance assistance programs, it is
essential to link compliance guidance with the issuance of new policies and
regulations. Program offices should not be allowed to issue new regulations
without concurrent issuance of compliance guidance. There is also a need to
have guidance in a timely fashion to meet State planning, grant cycles, and
performance partnership agreements. For example, it would have been very
helpful if Steve Herman’s memos on performance partnership agreements were
around when discussions with the States were first started. Sending a memo
3-9
-------
out by itself tends to send the signal that it is more important than what came
first.
Change the Culture - Over the past three years, there has been a change in
the environmental management approach at EPA. We are being asked: to
manage in a cheaper, smarter, and cleaner way; to exercise greater flexibility;
to apply common sense; to reduce or eliminate State oversight; to focus on
problem-solving on a community-wide basis; and, to engage in compliance
assistance without undercutting enforcement programs. EPA has been
reinvented; it is changing its management structure and empowering
subordinate staff and changing organizational relationships in different ways
across the Regions. In this atmosphere, we are receiving mixed and unclear
messages about what the Regions and the States should be doing (e.g., What
happens in delegated States?). We need to get the same message across to the
Regions and the States as to what the programs mean. It is difficult enough to
keep a steady head in the face of so much change, but it is virtually impossible
if the facts are ambiguous. Regional staff are having a difficult time
understanding the message.
Regional staff are asked to maintain enforcement statistics. However, the
issue remains as to how this can be done when they stop issuing orders to
medium and small businesses and now provide compliance assistance instead.
As that is done, it is expected that the number of administrative orders issued
will drop by approximately 50 percent because many targets of actions will be
those facilities that do what is required of them once they receive compliance
assistance. Similarly, many judicial referrals in the air program are now better
handled through administrative orders.
There is a sense that when talking about strong and effective enforcement, we
are talking about getting better cases and finding out the bad actors and doing
the most to them (e.g., putting them in jail or putting them out of business).
However, this is different than having persistently high numbers. This is the
kind of message that needs to get out into the field. This can be done through
training in which a consistent message is given to the staff doing the work. In
addition, there needs to be a forum for the interchange of ideas between the
Regions and Headquarters, and a means for obtaining feedback on how
techniques and tools work when they are field tested.
Phyllis Harris
Some may say that the goal should be to file as many cases as possible to make up for the
shortfall that seems apparent. However, the goal should be to make enforcement a tool that
is fully integrated into assisting the Agency in achieving its overall strategic goals.
3-10
-------
There are several ways in which enforcement can be integrated to achieve those goals,
including the following:
Strengthen State and Federal Partnerships - The Administrator’s strategic
goal to strengthen State and Federal partnerships is a cornerstone of a
successful enforcement and compliance program. However, enforcement is
often viewed as an impediment to meaningful State and Federal relationships.
Our goal for 1996 and beyond should be to use enforcement and compliance
assurance as opportunities to have frank and open discussions with the States
on the Federal role of enforcement as a tool for environmental protection.
There will be disagreements between EPA and the States. However,
discussions are necessary for partnerships with the States. We need to have
these discussions via the performance partnership process and other types of
processes to get the issues out into the open so that the States and Regions do
not approach Headquarters when they are unable to obtain the answers from
one another. We need to be more proactive in dealing with the States in a
frank manner.
• Sound Management - For enforcement and compliance assurance, sound
management dictates that processes be in place to ensure management
accountability for enforcement. The Agency has taken enormous strides in
this regard by reorganization of the Office of Enforcement at Headquarters.
However, reorganization has not taken place in many of the Regions because
of the budget stalemate. As a result, management accountability for
enforcement in the Regions is like a shell game. When enforcement is doing
well, everyone is part of the plan. When enforcement is not going well,
enforcement is someone else’s responsibility.
Enforcement and compliance assurance and overall program success should be
the responsibility of all programs that manage enforcement resources. The
goal should be to move quickly to realign resources as contemplated in the
various reorganization plans so that organizations are accountable for
enforcement. In Regions where enforcement will not be consolidated, we
must expect and demand enforcement accountability from all programs that
rely on and manage enforcement resources. OECA needs to continue to
improve data systems so that a foundation and infrastructure can be built for
making enforcement accountable.
• Target for Maximum Results - The Administrator has articulated that
ecosystem protection and environmental justice are cornerstones to the
Agency’s success in environmental protection. Yet, enforcement is not fully
utilized as a tool for ecosystem protection and environmental justice. As
sensitive ecosystems and communities where pollution has had disparate
3-li
-------
impacts are identified, we should prioritize and target actions to achieve
maximum results. In an era of dwindling resources, maximum results will be
achieved by targeting facilities that impact sensitive ecosystems and disparate
communities. As facilities are targeted based on sectors, we should not forget
where those facilities are located. We have an opportunity in these remaining
months to demonstrate that enforcement actions can make a difference to
places that are treasured most and to people who depend on EPA as an
advocate.
In summary, the overall goals should be to: (1) have frank discussions with State partners on
the role of Federal enforcement and to reach an understanding on Regional levels; (2) ensure
accountability for the success of enforcement by realigning resources as necessary and
demanding accountability from all programs that manage enforcement resources; and, (3)
target actions at facilities in places where maximum results will be achieved.
Harley Laing
In fiscal year 1996, we just completed targeting inspections along sectors, geographic
locations (including urban areas), and sensitive ecosystems. We ended up with
approximately 600 EPA inspections as compared to 900 inspections over the last two years.
This gives you an idea of the impact of diminishing resources and the furlough. The Region
made a concerted effort to target the most important facilities and will do its best to complete
these inspections.
The Region will also implement a new system to track results in the enforcement and
assistance programs. This will be used to try to track our results in achieving inspection
numbers and cross-cutting initiatives. We also intend to look at improved measures of
success. My own view is that the greatest impact for improved measures lies in targeted
areas; the greatest possibility to get to more to the right-end side of Mike Stahl’s chart is to
use a geographic or sector-based approach (either as enforcement or compliance assistance).
We need to set a baseline. For example, we have a decent chance of measuring an
environmental result by the end of the initiative for the Charles River. It is extraordinarily
difficult for the program as a whole, and I doubt if we will ever get there. It is difficult to
relate overall enforcement and assistance activities to overall measures of environmental and
public health improvement.
The top three goals should be:
Improve EPA/State Coordination - We need to get together on what is meant
by oversight in enforcement and compliance assistance programs, what is
supposed to done about it, and how it is supposed to be done. National
guidance is needed on it. The Regions are all over the board about it but the
States want less of it. The OECA guidance for performance partnership
3-12
-------
agreements actually seemed to call for more than what is being done now. We
need to have serious discussions on what we are doing in terms of oversight.
The Region decided to do a comprehensive review of one State’s compliance
program each year, including enforcement and compliance assistance aspects.
We have completed reviews for two States so far and are working on a third.
A report is produced at the end of the review which is shared with the State.
The review done for Massachusetts had a significant impact. The
Commissioner made the enforcement program the number one priority for the
year following the report. Reports have become public documents. A public
interest group asked for a copy of the report on Massachusetts. Although this
effort involved the use of substantial resources, it was well worth it.
We must continue to have such oversight even with the use of performance
partnership agreements. Some current problems in the New England States
show why this is needed. One State made a conscious management decision to
reduce enforcement activities. Another State was sending very mixed signals
to its staff about assistance, enforcement, and outreach roles. This caused a
significant problem in its enforcement program. A third State experienced
serious resource problems. These types of problems occur in States that
basically, from a distance, have strong environmental programs. However,
they all developed serious problems in their enforcement and compliance
assistance programs. We need some way of getting at that. One of these
States asked the Region not to conduct the enforcement overview but the
media started to pick up the message on no enforcement in the State. We are
going ahead with the enforcement overview, and it has had some significant
impact.
We hold quarterly meetings with high level EPA and State enforcement
officials, including the State Attorney General’s offices. These meetings have
improved EPA/State relations. EPA Headquarters management and staff have
been invited to attend these meetings. The meetings provide an ongoing
dialogue with the States and a forum to exchange views. We hope that it will
lead to a more closely coordinated State/Federal program in New England. It
has certainly been a step in the right direction and has made a major
contribution to the management of the enforcement and assistance programs in
New England.
Performance Partnerships - This is a significant opportunity for our
programs but there is a major risk that we will not be key players because it
may be operated elsewhere (e.g., out of a Regional office as in Region 1).
The enforcement aspects of these agreements are the most difficult due to such
reasons as competitiveness and politics. It is much more difficult to agree on
3-13
-------
the split between EPA and the States in terms of enforcement. It is essential
to include the State Attorney General’s offices in the process.
• Increase Public Outreach - During the furloughs, it was difficult to explain to
the public what was going to happen if EPA were out of business. We need to
have a more cohesive, coordinated, and managed outreach and public
information program. We have designated a full-time Outreach Coordinator.
We are trying to look at various ways of getting a more consistent, cohesive,
and planned message out to the public and increasing public interaction. For
example, we have developed a World Wide Web site at
http: \\www.epa. gov. \regO 1 \steward.
Mike Stahl
The three themes expressed by the panelists include:
• Define and improve the concept of partnerships with the States. Up until this
point, we have tried to strike a balance so as not to have so much structure
that it stifles innovation and creativity. We are now reaching the point where
a certain amount of structure or commonality is a good thing. The goal is to
work to define and improve the partnership concept.
• Focus on the enforcement and compliance assurance program, particularly on
moving towards an integrated program to resolve questions on a mix of
activities.
• Maintain a credible and effective enforcement effort, including measuring
results of actions and effective targeting.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Question: The matrix on the overhead showed partnerships with States and performance by
regulated parties. To some extent, there is the possibility of partnerships with citizens
through the use of citizen suits. There seems to be an increasing number of citizen suits in
recent years. Inasmuch as we are the recipients of the notices of intent to file such suits,
could we account for this?
Answer: Mr. Stahl pointed out that EPA has received suggestions on other activities that
EPA may want to include as EPA tries to describe its accomplishments and measure the
success of activities. In addition to the idea you just suggested, people raised comments
about whether there might be a better way to measure SEP data or to talk about applicability
determinations as part of the compliance assistance that we actually do for the regulated
3-14
-------
community. Although a fair amount of work has been done to improve measures, there is
still an open dialogue about the types of activities we want to measure and how to measure
them. We would be willing to put some effort into finding out what we know about citizen
suits and what we can say about it in terms of giving the nation some sense of what is
happening in environmental compliance.
3-15
-------
CLOSING ADDRESS
“Putting It All Together”
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator, US EPA
April 11, 1996
11:3Oani -12:OOpm
I would like to recognize and thank the people who did such an excellent job of pulling the
Conference together. First and foremost is Winston Haythe who single handedly did the
bulk of the work. In particular, I would also like to thank Jerry Bryan and Nancy McCeney
and the contract support we received from SAIC. Finally, I want to thank Stacey Eriksen
from Region 8 for her assistance in coordinating with the Regional offices and Mike Stahl for
his contribution in overseeing the planning.
I mentioned in my earlier remarks that this has been a tumultuous couple of years.
However, despite our stops and starts and struggles, we have made a lot of progress. We
are still grappling with new issues and concepts that are not easy to implement. We have
problems to solve and manage that are extraordinarily difficult. I do think that if you look at
what is going on in the rest of the world, in both the Federal and State governments, we are
actually way ahead of many others in that effort. Others are looking to us for assistance and
guidance. I implore you to try not to get discouraged and lose the forest through the trees.
Look at the big picture in that this is a very worthwhile struggle and we are clearly making
progress.
I would also like to thank the speakers, panelists, and the Conference participants. People
put an enormous amount of work and thought into their efforts. All of the discussions were
informative and provocative, which is inherit in this type of discussion. However, when I
step back and look at the speeches and panel discussions (regarding the issue of balance and
the relationship of compliance assistance versus traditional enforcement and what each role
plays in obtaining compliance), I think we had a good discussion but I feel somewhat uneasy
that we are not describing or approaching the issue in the right way. I have had discussions
with many of you and have thought about what you have been saying. There seems to be a
series of operational issues that need to be resolved quickly and in concrete terms. The
questions I have heard from many people include: What is compliance assistance? When
should it be used? When should it not be used? How does it fit into the program? How do
we determine what the right mix of activities is? There are other issues as well, but they all
come down to one main issue: How do we implement an effective and integrated
enforcement and compliance assurance program?
To address this question, I am going to establish a small team of Headquarters and Regional
managers to develop operating principles for an integrated program. I will ask them to come
up with a product in no longer than thirty days. I envision a brief document that is designed
3-16
-------
to give program managers and staff a set of principles which will: define the range of tools
in the program; describe the appropriate use of those tools to solve environmental problems
and increase compliance; describe and build on measures of success; and, take on other
aspects of program integration as the team determines appropriate. The members of the team
will be expected to consult with other managers and staff in the Regions and in
Headquarters. I expect that the principles developed will be concrete enough to help you
make decisions but will not be so prescriptive that they will eliminate the use of judgement,
discretion, and creativity in day-to-day operations. Mike Stahl will head the group and will
be in touch with others to get the group started very quickly.
The speakers intended to beat the enforcement drum and tried not to be subtle. The Deputy
Administrator went through a series of reasons why it was thought necessary to beat the
drum heavily. In our conversations with colleagues, we have heard that there has been a
mixed message on how important enforcement is to the Agency. I trust that the
Administrator, the Deputy, and I have addressed that issue in a straight forward and clear
fashion so that there is no mixed message. We have heard that compliance assistance and
voluntary partnerships take precedence over or replace other traditional enforcement
mechanisms. I trust that this issue has also been addressed. We have heard that we do not
do enforcement in delegated States or that this is not a convenient time to take controversial
enforcement actions. I trust that these issues have been addressed and that you understand
that we do not determine which enforcement actions to take based on the politics of the
moment but rather based on the merits of the situation and what best serves the health of the
American people and the environment.
We must share these instructions and thoughts with all of our staff when we go back to our
offices. We must manage these issues and put serious energies into planning, into the new
measures, and into making sure that the rest of the year is one to be proud of. We must
ensure that our core enforcement program does what it is tended to do: we must do
inspections, we must have a presence, and we must aggressively implement our new policies
such as the small business, small communities, and audit policies.
There has not been a tremendous amount of respect or understanding between those who
think that compliance assistance is the most effective tool and those who think that bringing
lawsuits is the most effective tool. There has to be a recognition by all of our staffs that all
of these elements are valid and useful. It does not help to have us say that this is destructive
or a sell out. This is not the case and it is not the Agency’s policy. We have to get over
seeing it as a competition; rather, we need to look at the problems that we are trying to
solve.
One person expressed concern that EPA was retrenching to the old ways of doing business.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This came up particularly in the area of
State/Federal relations and the State/Federal performance partnerships negotiations and
coordination on enforcement. I wanted to address this point in particular because we have so
many State officials and staff here. I believe in a real State/Federal partnership and I have a
3-17
-------
tremendous amount of respect for State officials, as well as States’ legal and constitutional
responsibilities and their home-grown capabilities. I also have a tremendous amount of
respect for the Federal Government and its capabilities and the unique and necessary role it
plays. In all of our dealings, we must characterize and reflect the mutual respect and
understanding that we have to have for each other. Through conversations with EPA
employees who were entering into negotiations, I did not get the sense that they felt that they
were being treated as a partner or that they felt empowered to say “I am somebody.” I think
it is absolutely necessary; we are both somebody. If we are going to be partners at the table,
we have to be partners at the table. We are not always going to agree; there is some
competition, and we are going to have different perspectives. This must be worked through
with the recognition that we each bring something to the table. I think that we have made a
good start in creating working partnerships in many places. Our relationships both in OECA
and in some of the Regions are better than they have ever been with the States. I also know
that we have some very tough problems but we are off to a good start and have to persevere.
This is a case where the States and we really have to hang together.
In conclusion, I would like to say a heartfelt thanks to all of you. I will not go through all
of the events of the past year again. One speaker referred to them as distractions. I think
that is a dreadful understatement and a poor euphemism; it has been much more serious than
distractions. In addition to the budget and policy assaults, there has been bad mouthing of
public servants. I am proud to say that the overwhelming number of American people
support us, EPA in particular, and support the State environmental agencies. There is no
doubt that the American people want strong environmental protection. I am very proud of
the work that we are doing and hope that you all are as well.
3-18
-------
APPENDiX A
LIST OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS LIST
Mr. Joe Acton
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Zena Aidridge
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training
401 M Street, SW (2235A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6022
Mr. Roger Allan
Mr. Michael Alushin
U.S. EPA
Office of Federal Activities
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2254A)
Washington, DC 20044
(202) 564-7137 FAX (202) 564-0073
Ms. Carol Amend
Director, Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building (3WP30)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6510 FAX (215) 597-8541
Mr. Scott Anderson
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
288 N. 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-4880
(801) 538-6170 FAX (801) 538-6715
Ms. Tracy Back
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Ann Bailey
Air Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2242A)
AR-21 17
Washington, DC
(202) 564-3899
Mr. Mike Barrette
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Jesse Baskerville
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-4109
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2325
Ms. Janet Bearden
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2242A)
AR-1119
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6264 FAX (202) 564-0015
Ms. Helen Beggun
Air and Waste Management
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4000 FAX (212) 637-4035
Mr. Marvin Benton
Legal Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2128 FAX (214) 665-3177
20460
FAX (202) 564-0053
I
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS LIST
Ms. Jamie Bemard-Drakey
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7400 FAX (913) 551-7976
Mr. A.L. “Punk” Bonner
Office of Rural Assistance - Customer Assistance
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
President, Association of American
Pesticide Control Officials
1000 N.E. 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-1400 FAX (405) 271-1317
Ms. Lori Boughton
U.S. EPA - Office o Site
Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2273A)
AR-5226
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5106 FAX (202) 564-0093
Mr. Joseph M. Boyle
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (DRE-8J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-4434 FAX (312) 353-4788
Ms. Lynn Bradley
ASTHO
415 Second Street, NE
#200
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-5400 FAX (202) 544-9349
Mr. Wolfgang Brandner
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7381 FAX (913) 551-7765
Mr. Charles Breece
Deputy Director
Regional Support Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4218
Mr. Bariy Breen
U.S. EPA - Office of
Federal Facilities Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
AR- 3 224
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2510 FAX (202) 501-0069
Mr. Walter Brodtman
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2225A)
AR-S 1 19
Washington, DC
(202) 564-4181
Ms. Susan Bromm
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2271A)
AR-5208
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-51 10 FAX (202) 564-0094
Carrick Brooke-Davidson
Acting Assistant Chief (Region 6)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 514-1461 FAX (202) 514-8395
Ms. Deborah Brown
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 0220
(617) 565-3272 FAX (617) 565-1141
20460
FAX (202) 564-0085
2
4J1&
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Nancy Browne
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2272A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4219 FAX (202) 564-0086
Ms. Carol Browner
Administrator
U.S. EPA
Administrator
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Jerry Bryan
U.S. EPA - National Enforcement
Training Institute
401 M Street, SW (2235A)
AR-621 3B
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2430 FAX (202) 564-0075
Mr. Bruce Buckheit
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2260 FAX (202) 564-0015
Dr. Robert D. Bullard
Director, Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
Mr. C. Marshall Cain
U.S. EPA
Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street, SW (2251A)
AR-7209
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7126 FAX (202) 564-0070
Ms. Diane Callier
Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7459 FAX (913) 551-7976
Mr. David Chamberlin
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4223
Mr. Tai-Ming Chang
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Reggie Cheatham
CCSMD/CIB
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2224A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7104 FAX (202) 564-0009
Mr. Andrew Cherry
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
Ms. Clara Chow
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building (SEW)
Boston, MA 0220
(617) 565-3440 FAX (617) 565-1141
Mr. José Cisneros
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch
Water Division
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (WC-15J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(3 12) 886-6945 FAX (312) 886-0168
Ms. Kathy Clark
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-3150
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6013
3
41696
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Eric Cohen
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Mr. Rick Colbert
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2225A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4205 FAX (202) 564-0028
Mr. Jonathan Cole
Assistant Director
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
401 M Street, SW (2232A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2533 FAX (202) 501-0579
Mr. Samuel Coleman, P.E.
Director,
Compliance Assurance & Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2210 FAX (214) 665-7446
Mr. Ross Connealy
U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20531
(202) 514-5516
Ms. Sandra Connors
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2272)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4231 FAX (202) 564-0086
Mr. David Cozad
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7587 FAX (913) 551-7064
Mr. Robert Cronin
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-0815 FAX (518) 485-7786
Mr. David Croxton
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (WCM-128)
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1716 FAX (206) 553-8509
Mr. John Cruden
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-2718
Mr. George T. Czerniak, Jr.
ARD
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Mr. Leo DAmico
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2559
Mr. Walter DeRieux
Enviromental Engineer
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7067
4
iJ1&96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Earl Devaney
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training
401 M Street, SW
AR-121 1
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2480
Mr. John DeVillars
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3398
Ms. Betsy Devlin
Water Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2243A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4054 FAX (202) 564-5044
Mr. Dennis DeVoe
Director
U.S. EPA
Administration and Resource Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2455
Ms. Anne C. Dobbs
Litigation Support Division
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087 (MC- 175)
Austin, TX 787 11-3087
(512) 239-3414 FAX (512) 239-3434
Ms. Becky Doiph
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7281 FAX (913) 551-7925
Mr. David Doyle
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue (ARTD)
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7667 FAX (913) 551-7947
Mr. Rick Duffy
Chief, Targeting and Evaluation Branch
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
AR-6117
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5014 FAX (202) 564-0031
Mr. Patrick Durack
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway (WMD-WPC)
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3767 FAX (212) 637-3771
Ms. Karen Dworkin
Acting Deputy
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4084 FAX (202) 514-2583
Mr. Jim Edward
U.S. EPA - Office of
Federal Facilities Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2461 FAX (202) 501-0069
Mr. Kenneth Eng
Air Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4080 FAX (212) 637-3998
5
4’1& 6
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Stacey Eriksen
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street (8ENF-PT)
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303) 312-6459 FAX (303) 312-6409 or 6882
Mr. Kenneth Fenner
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Ms. Denise Ferguson-Southard
Maryland Office of the Attorney General
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3053 FAX (410) 631-3943
Mr. Rodger Field
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Mr. Benjamin Fisherow
Assistant Chief (Region 5)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-2750
Ms. Phyllis Flaherty
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
AR-2225A
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4131 FAX (202) 564-0085
Mr. John Fogarty
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-4124
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-8865
Mr. Gerald W. Fontenot
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-8150 FAX (214) 665-7446
Ms. Laurie Ford
Acting Associate Director
ARMSS
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
(202) 564-2447
Mr. Jackson L. Fox
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (ORC-158)
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1073 FAX (206) 553-0163
Mr. Bert Frey
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Mr. Victor Gallo
New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-2286 FAX (518) 485-8478
Ms. Carol Galloway
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5018
Mr. Mike Gaydosh
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
20460
FAX (202) 501-0017
6
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Clarice Gaylord
U.S. EPA - Office of
Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (3103A)
AR-2224
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2603
Mr. Bruce Gelber
Principal Deputy
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4624 FAX (202) 514-2583
Mr. Steven Gibson
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
AR-2222
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4107 FAX (202) 564-0030
Mr. Ken Gigliello
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Elliott Gilberg
CCSMD
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2224A)
AR-7033
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2310 FAX (202) 564-0037
Ms. Cynthia Giles
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building (3DA1O)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3439 FAX (215) 597-0961
Ms. Gail Ginsberg
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Dr. Marco Gonzalez
Legal Counsel
Central American Commission
for Environment and Development
Guatemala City, Guatemala,
Ms. Kris Goschen
Multimedia Inspection Coordinator
Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA - Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913) 551-5078 FAX (913) 551-5218
Ms. Mimi Guernica
CCSMD
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2224A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7048 FAX (202) 564-0037
Mr. George Hagevik
Program Principal
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway
Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 863-8003 FAX (303) 830-2200
Mr. Fred Hansen
U.S. EPA
Deputy Administrator
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Phyllis P. Harris
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-2256 FAX (404) 347-1680
7
41596
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Rose Harvell
U.S. EPA
Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Patrick Harvey
Compliance Assistance and Program Support Branch
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3886 FAX (212) 637-3891
Mr. George Hawkins
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. George E. Hays
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1325 FAX (415) 744-1041
Mr. Winston Haythe
Senior Legal Counsel
U.S. EPA - National Enforcement
Training Institute
401 M Street, SW (2235A)
AR-6233Q
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6057 FAX (202) 564-0075
Ms. Karen Heidel
Deputy Director
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
3033 N. Central
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-2204 FAX (602) 207-2218
Mr. John Hepola
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-27 33
(214) 665-7220 FAX )214) 665-7446
Mr. Steve Herman
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
AR-3204
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2440
Mr. Martin Hestmark
Technical Enforcement Program
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303) 312-6776 FAX (303) 312-6716
Mr. David Hindin
Multimedia Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2248A)
AR-31 17
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6004 FAX (202) 564-9001
Mr. Chris Hockett
Supervisor, Enforcement Program
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency/STAPPA
ALAPCD
451 W. Third
Dayton, OH 45422
(513) 225-4438 FAX (513) 225-3486
Mr. Matthew Hogland
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Ms. Shelia Hollimon
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
8
4’1& 6
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Craig Hooks
U.S. EPA - Federal Facility
Enforcement Office
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2510 FAX (202) 501-0069
Ms. Tinka Hyde
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (R-19J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-9296 FAX (312) 353-1123
Mr. Lawrence Jacobson
Mortgage Bankers Assoiation
Mr. David J. Janik
Legal Enforcement
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street (ENF-L)
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303) 312-6917 FAX (303) 312-6953
Mr. Gary Jonesi
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Judith Katz
Chief, Air and Toxics Section
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Ms. Sylvia Kawabata
Office of Water
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (OW-133)
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1644 FAX (206) 553-1280
Ms. Helen Keplinger
U.S. EPA - Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Dale R. Kimmett
Environment Canada
Enforcement Branch
Place Vincent Massey Building
351 St. Joseph Blvd. - 17th Floor
Hull (Quebec), Canada KA 0H3
(819) 953-1523 FAX (819)997-0086
Mr. Bob Knox
U.S. EPA - Office of
Environmental Justice
401 M Street, SW (3103A)
AR-2226
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2604 FAX (202) 501-0740
Mr. Myron 0. Knudson, P.E.
Superfund Division
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (6SF)
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 7 5202-2733
(214) 665-6701 FAX (214) 665-7330
Mr. Daniel Kraft
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
U.S. EPA - Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 321-6669 FAX (908) 321-6788
Mr. Robert Kramer
Chief, Environmental Programs Branch
Environmental Assessment & Protection Division
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
9
4/16
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Gerard C. Kraus
Multimedia Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2248A)
AR-31 17
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 546-6047 FAX (202) 564-0010
Mr. William R. Krecker
Environmental Quality Control
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5360 FAX (803) 734-9196
Mr. Ron Kreizenbeck
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Bruce Kulpan
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4252
Ms. Susan Kuistad
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building (SPA)
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3228 FAX (617) 565-1141
Mr. Harley Laing
Director of Environmental Stewardship
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3800 FAX (617) 565-1141
Mr. Gerald W. Lappan
Program Analyst
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW (222A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5024 FAX (202) 564-0031
Mr. Stanley Laskowski
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9812
Ms. Anne Lassiter
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
AR-2226
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2505 FAX (202) 501-0284
Ms. Lily Ning Lee
Special Assistant to the Administrator
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (1102)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-4724 FAX (202) 260-4852
Ms. Karen Leff
CCSMD/CSMB
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2224A)
AR-7033
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7068 FAX (202) 564-0037
Ms. Vanessa M. Leiby
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA)
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1060
Washington, DC
(202) 293-7655
20036
FAX (202) 293-7656
10
4’1&96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Fred Leif
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Ira Leighton
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Jonathan Libber
BEN/ABEL Coordinator
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (2248A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6011 FAX (202) 564-0010
Ms. Laura Livingston
Enforcement Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-5039 FAX (212) 637-5024
Ms. Diana A. Love
Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics & Training
U.S. EPA - NEIC
P.O. Box 25227
Lakewood, CO 80225
(303)236-5100 x303 FAX (303) 236-5116
Ms. Sylvia Lowrance
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Bill Luthans
Associate Director, Pesticides and Toxics
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-8154 FAX (214) 665-2164
Ms. Maureen T. Lydon
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, NW (2245-A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4046 FAX (202) 564-0023
Mr. Ned Lynch
Environment Canada
Enforcement Branch
Place Vincent Massey Building - 351 St. Joseph
17th Floor
Hull (Quebec), Canada KA 0H3
(819) 953-3831 FAX (819) 997-0086
Ms. Mary Kay Lynch
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Ms. Diane Lynne
Attorney
U.S. EPA
Offite of Federal Facilities Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2587
Mr. John W. Lyon
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2243A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4051 FAX (202) 564-0024
Mr. John S. Lyons
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Division for Air Quality
803 Schenkel Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 573-3382 FAX (502) 573-3787
11
4qs
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. David N. Lyons, P.E.
Chief, Energy and Transportation Branch
Manufacturing, Energy & Transportation Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2223A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7009 FAX (202) 564-0050
Mr. Brian Maas
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2243A)
AR-3104
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6019 FAX (202) 564-0018
Ms. Ellen Mahan
Assistant Chief (Regions 3 and 8)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-3646
Ms. Melissa Manda
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573) 751-4422 FAX (573) 751-7627
Ms. Melissa Page Marshall
Multimedia Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-31 18
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2235 FAX (202) 564-0010
Ms. Nancy Marvel
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Thomas Maslany
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Mr. Mike McCabe
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Ms. Nancy McCeney
U.S. EPA - National Enforcement
Training Institute
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6068 FAX (202) 564-0075
Mr. Jack McGraw
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303) 312-6308 FAX (303) 312-6882
Mr. Stan Meiburg
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2100 FAX (214) 665-6648
Mr. Christopher Menen
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-4144
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-1034 FAX (202) 564-0011
Mr. George C. Meyer
U.S EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4145 FAX (212) 267-4949
12
4’16.96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Cheryle Micinski
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Mr. Bruce P. Miller
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3043 FAX (404) 347-5207
Ms. Anne Norton Miller
U.S. EPA
Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street, SW (2251A)
AR-7209
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-7127 FAX (202) 564-0070
Ms. Mamie Miller
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2223A)
AR-7138
Washington, DC
(202) 564-7011
Mr. Paul Molinari
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway (WMD-DD)
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3785 FAX (212) 637-3725
Ms. Linda Moran
State of Maryland
Department of the Environment/SBAP
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD
(800) 433-1247
Ms. Karen Morley
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-5209
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5132
Ms. Marcia Mulkey
Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Ms. Marie Muller
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW (2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3819 FAX (202) 501-3842
Mr. Robert V. Murphy
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2468 FAX (214) 665-2168
Ms. Connie Musgrove
U.S.EPA-Officeof
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-3142
Washington, DC
(202) 564-2220
Mr. Bill Muszynski
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Mr. Jack Neylan
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
Communications Outreach
401 M Street, SW (220lA)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5033 FAX (202) 564-0028
20460
FAX (202) 564-0050
20460
FAX (202) 564-0011
13
IJ16 6
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Richard I Nichols
State of Oregon
Mr. David Nielsen
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2246A)
AR-4124
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4022 FAX (202) 564-0027
Mr. Mike Northridge
U.S. EPA - Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement
Mr. Michael O’Connor
Deputy Commissioner
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
100 N. Senate - Room 1301
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-8611 FAX (317)233-6647
Ms. Susan OKeefe
Associate Director
U.S. EPA
Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4021
Mr. Lawrence O’Reilly
New Jersey Office of
the Attorney General
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street (CNO8 1)
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-6936 FAX (609) 292-8268
Ms. Joyce Olin
U.S. EPA - Office of
Federal Facilities Enforcement
401M Street, SW
Room 2261A
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2682 FAX (202) 501-0069
Ms. Elizabeth Osenbaugh
U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Joseph Otte
State of Minnesota
558 Lincoln Avenue
St. Paul,MN 55102
Mr. James T. Owens, III
U.S. EPA - Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-9119 FAX (617) 565-1141
Mr. Peter Pagano
U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2432 FAX (202) 501-3842
Ms. Tina Parker
Environmental Council of the States
444 N. Capitol Street, NW
Suite 517
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-3660 FAX (202) 624-3666
Mr. Ken Patterson
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2273A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5134 FAX (202) 564-0093
Mr. Michael J. Penders
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
401 M Street, SW (2231A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2526 FAX (202) 501-0599
14
4’1& 6
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Mark Peycke
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (SF-DL)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2135 FAX (214) 665-6460
Ms. Pamela Phillips
Superfund Division
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (6SF)
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6701 FAX (214) 665-7330
Mr. Chris Pilla
Chief, Compliance and Enforcement Branch
Office of RCRA Programs
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Mr. Mark Pollins
RCRA Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2226A)
AR-4 153
Washington, DC
(202) 564-4001
Ms. Ann Pontius
U.S. EPA - Office of
Planning and Policy Analysis
401 M Street, SW
(2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4088 FAX (202) 501-0701
Mr. Mark Potts
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-2192 FAX (214) 665-7446
Mr. Eduardo Quintana
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Mr. John B. Rasnic
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2300 FAX (202) 564-0050
Mr. Rick Reibstein
Assistant Director
Massachusetts Office
of Technical Assistance
Ms. Jean Rice
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2589 FAX (202) 564-0069
Mr. Brian Riedel
U.S. EPA
Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Michael T. Risner
Legal Enforcement
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street (ENF-L)
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303) 312-6890 FAX (303) 312-6953
Mr. Pete Rosenberg
Associate Director, ECOO
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2611
20460
FAX (202) 564-0019
15
4/1&96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. Bruce Rothrock
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Joseph Rubin
Connecticut Attorney General’s Office
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
(860) 566-2090 FAX (860) 566-1349
Mr. Ryan Rupp
Mule Lacs Band of Ojibwe
HCR 67 Box 194
Onamia, MN 56359
(320) 532-4181 x817 FAX (320) 532-4209
Ms. Carol Rushin
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 312-6051
Mr. Richard Sanderson
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. EPA
Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street, SW (2251A)
AR-7209
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2400 FAX (202) 564-0070
Mr. Michael A. Savage
ASTSWMO State Participant
State of Ohio EPA
1800 Wateimark Drive
Columbus, OH 43215-1099
(614) 644-2921 FAX (614) 728-1245
Mr. William Sawyer
Associate Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
16th Floor
New York, NY
(212) 637-3196
Mr. Eric Schaefer
Deputy Director, Office of Compliance
Director, Office of Planning and Policy Analysis
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
AR-3213
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4184
Ms. Loisa J. Schiffer
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
9th and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-2701
Mrs. Baerbel Schiller
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7257 FAX (913) 551-7063
Mr. David Schnare
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (222 IA)
(AR-5144)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4183 FAX (202) 564-0027
Mr. Fred J. Schulte
Alberta Environmental Pnnection
11th Floor - Oxbridge Place
9820-106 Street
Edmonton Alberta, Canada T5K 2N6
(403) 422-2560 FAX (403) 427-3178
10007-1866
FAX (212) 637-3199
16
4 /1696
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Karen Schwinn
Water Division
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (W- 1)
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1861 FAX (415) 744-1235
Mr. Dave Scott
Office of the Indiana State Chernist/AAPCO
Purdue University
1154 Biochemistry Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1154
(317) 494-1583 FAX (317) 494-4331
Ms. Neilima Senjalia
U.S. EPA - Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-6233
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6079 FAX (202) 564-0074
Ms. Sally Seymour
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Mark S. Siegler
Senior Technical Advisor
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-8673
Ms. Meg Silver
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1476 FAX (206) 553-0163
Mr. Sam Silverman
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3441 FAX (617) 565-1141
Ms. Barbara Simcoe
Deputy Director
ASTSWMO
444 N. Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624-5828 FAX (202) 624-7875
Mr. Conrad Simon
Air & Waste Management
U.S. EPA - Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-4000 FAX (212) 637-4035
Mr. Mike Smith
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (CN-29A)
Chicago, IL 60404
(312) 886-3000 FAX (312) 353-1120
Ms. Rita Smith
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5044 FAX (202) 564-0034
Ms. Walker Smith
Assistant Chief (Regions 4 and 9)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enfoitement Section
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-1998 FAX (202) 514-2583
Mr. Greg Snyder
U.S. EPA - Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2272A)
AR-4213
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4271 FAX (202) 564-0084
17
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Ms. Beverly A. Spagg
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555 x6921 FAX (404) 347-1681
Mr. Tom Speicher
Mr. Larry Sperling
U.S. EPA
Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Andy Spielman
U.S. EPA
Administrator’s Office
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Michael Stahl
Deputy Assistant Administrator
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW
AR-3216
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2445
Ms. Elaine Stanley
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2221A)
AR-5140
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2280 FAX (202) 564-0027
Mr. Frederick F. Stiehi
U.S. EPA - Enforcement Planning, Targeting
and Evaluation Division
401 M Street, SW (2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2290 FAX (202) 564-0030
Mr. Gerald B. Stubbs
U.S. EPA - Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4178 FAX (202) 564-0035
Mr. Tom Sullivan
Congressional and Legislative Affairs
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (1302)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5199 FAX (202) 260-4372
Mr. Walter L. Sutton, Jr.
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (6RC)
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-21 10 FAX (214) 665-2182
Ms. Katherine Taylor
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (A-4)
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1090 FAX (415) 744-1073
Mr. Andy Teplitzky
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW (5306)
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-7275 FAX (703) 308-8686
Mr. David Tetta
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Steve Thompson
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
100 NE 10th Street
Suite 1212
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-8056 FAX (405) 271-8425
18
4J1&96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. James S. Triner
Midwest Environmental
Enforcement Association
595 S. State Street
Suite 210
Elgin, IL 60123
(847) 742-1249 FAX (847) 742-1478
Mr. Richard Trinidad
Associate Director
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training
401 M Street, SW (2231A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2523
Mr. Edward B. Truman
Chief Counsel
Environmental Enforcement Civil Unit
Office of the Attorney General of Arizona
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 542-1610 FAX (602) 542-4084
Mr. Bernie Turlinski
Assoicate Director for Enforcement
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-3989 FAX (215) 597-3116
Mr. Rich Vaille
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94941
(415) 744-2090 FAX (415) 744-1044
Mr. Bob Van Heuvelen
U.S. EPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
401 M Street, SW
AR-3142
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2220
Ms. Lynn Vendinello
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, SW (2201A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2431 FAX (202) 501-3842
Mr. Don Verbica
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
288 N. 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-4880
(801) 538-6170 FAX (801) 538-6715
Ms. Debbie Villari
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2222A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4182 FAX (202) 564-0034
Ms. Janet Viniski
Enforcement Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region 3
841 Chestnut Building (3DA1O)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9370 FAX (215) 597-6168
Mr. Greg Waldrip
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW (2223A)
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Sarah Walsh
Project Manager
U.S. EPA
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
401 M Street, SW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2457 FAX (202) 501-0069
Ms. Cheryl Wasserman
U.S. EPA - Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
(202) 564-7129 FAX (202) 564-0070
19
4’1&96
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE CONFERENCE
Washington, DC
April 9 - 11, 1996
PARTICIPANTS’ LIST
Mr. David Webster
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Bruce R. Weddle
U.S. EPA
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2280
Ms. Deanna M. Wieman
Director, Office of External Affairs
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1566 FAX (415) 744-1015
Ms. Betty Wiese
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Philip Wong
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-5294 FAX (206) 553-0119
Mr. Michael Wood
U.S. EPA - Office of Criminal Enforcement,
Forensics and Training
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-2480 FAX (202) 501-0599
Mr. Gaiy Young
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and
U.S. EPA - National Enforcement
Training Institute West
12345 W. Alameda Parkway
Suite 111
Lakewood, CO 80228
(303) 969-5815 FAX (303) 929-5823
Mr. Brian J. Zwit
National Association of
Attorneys General
444 N. Capitol Street, NW
Suite 339
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 434-8041 FAX (202) 434-8058
20
4u1& 6
------- |