A EPA Q^nfonement Conference
^.W wmmtmt OCComplianc
Summary of Selected Proceedings
The Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
^08%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARsftiAidSSSi, d.c. 20460
MAR I 1 1995
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENTAND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1994 Enforcement and^rampliance Conference Report
I am pleased to present you with a summary of the first
Enforcement and Compliance Conference, which was held November 30
through December 2, 1994, in Washington, D.C.
This report summarizes the ideas presented at the conference
and discussions of participants on the issues that are key to our
reorganized enforcement program at EPA. In addition to the
summary report, which includes Administrator Browner's speech,
you will find attached copies of the full texts of the speeches
given in the plenary sessions of the conference.
We will soon begin discussing plans for the next enforcement
and compliance conference. In making those plans, we will take
into consideration your comments provided in evaluations at the
conclusion of last year's conference.
Thank you for your participation in our first conference.
Attachments
FROM: Steven A. Hermaj
Assistant Admin,
TO
Conference Participants
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents i
Introduction 1
DAY 1 2
Opening Remarks 2
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program 2
Introduction . 2
Reorganization—Creation of OECA . 2
"New" Activities 3
Case Highlights 5
Conclusion and Introduction of the Administrator 6
Common Sense Protection of Public Health and the Environment: The Enforcement Role 8
OECA's Organizational Structure 11
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and Compliance 12
Panel Presentations 12
Open Discussion 14
Government's Changing Approach to Compliance . 17
Presentation of Theme—The Compliance Assurance Continuum: Strategic Choices for
Environmental Protection 19
Innovative Approaches 19
Compliance Assistance, Monitoring, and Enforcement 19
DAY 2 22
Presentation of Theme—Enforcement Priorities and Promoting Innovative Enforcement 22
Introduction 22
Something Old 22
Something New 22
Something Borrowed 23
Something Blue 23
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Criminal Enforcement 25
Presentation of Theme—Integrating Approaches: Sector, Multimedia, Media, and Other
Approaches 26
Hie Multimedia Approach 26
On Sectors 26
On Targeting . 26
Synthesizing 27
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference i November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Table of Contents
DAY 3 28
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Federal Facilities Enforcement 28
Presentation of Theme—Enforcement and Compliance Partners and Stakeholders 29
Closing Remarks 31
Breakout Session Summaries 32
Wednesday Breakouts: 33
Priority Setting for FY 1996 34
Case Screening and Developing Criteria for Determining Appropriate Response
to Noncompliance 37
Implementing Compliance Assistance in the Field (including impacts on inspections) 40
Measures of Success 44
Environmental Auditing 47
Thursday Morning Breakouts: SO
Air: Delivering on the Promise of the 1990 Clean Air Act 51
Water Enforcement: Making a Splash S3
RCRA Enforcement: Charting New Directions 56
Utilization of Resources in the Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRA Programs:
Doing More With Less, But Getting More in the Future 60
Multimedia Enforcement: Expanding Our Enforcement Horizons 63
Thursday Afternoon Breakouts: 65
Critical Path to Implementation of the Sector Approach
by Overcoming Organizational Obstacles 66
Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Enforcement and Compliance 69
Common Sense Initiatives—Ideas for Innovative Compliance and Enforcement Project .... 73
Enforcement and Compliance Role in Ecosystem Protection 77
Integrating Pollution Prevention into the Enforcement and Compliance Continuum 82
Friday Breakouts: 85
Improving Communications With Our External Audience 86
Data Integration and Targeting 91
Headquarters/Region Cooperation—Training Needs,
Communications, and Other Support 95
Enhancing State/Local/Tribal Participation in Planning and Implementation 97
Process for Developing a 5-Year Strategic Plan 100
Appendix A-Conference Agenda A-l
Appendix B-Participant List B-l
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Introduction
Introduction
The newly formed Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) conducted the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Enforcement & Compliance Conference, November
30-December 2, 1994, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. During the past year, the
EPA reorganized its enforcement and compliance operation to develop innovative approaches to long-
term compliance with an emphasis on targeting serious violators and promoting pollution prevention,
while maintaining the strong single-media enforcement program. The reorganization created new
units to emphasize environmental justice, enhance relationships with states and Indian Tribes, and
provide more technical compliance assistance to the regulated community.
More than 200 enforcement and compliance professionals from EPA's Headquarters and regions
attended the Enforcement & Compliance Conference. Participants met in plenary and breakout
sessions over the 2'A-day conference to discuss a variety of enforcement and compliance issues and
accomplish several purposes: develop a common understanding about strategic directions for EPA's
enforcement and compliance assurance program; begin development of a collaborative planning and
priority-setting process for FY 1996; and explore issues surrounding working relationships and
partnerships with key stakeholders. In addition, participants had the opportunity to meet one another
and learn more about each other's roles.
Twenty-one breakout sessions were organized to achieve particular objectives, including identifying
regional and state needs relative to Headquarters, determining methods to expand enforcement
horizons, developing ideas for innovative enforcement and compliance projects, improving OECA
communications with external audiences, and enhancing state, local, and Tribal participation in
planning and implementation processes. Both plenary and breakout sessions communicated updates
and improvements related to enforcement and compliance initiatives and provided opportunity for
participant input and discussion. A major theme of the conference was reflected in its emphasis on
using the entire spectrum of enforcement and compliance tools—including compliance assistance,
traditional enforcement, and criminal indictments—to discover the most effective means of identifying
and resolving violations and promoting overall, long-term compliance by the regulated community to
protect the health and welfare of the American people.
With the exception of Administrator Carol Browner and Assistant Administrator Steven Herman,
whose speeches appear in this document in toto, the full texts of summarized speeches presented in
general session may be obtained by contacting the following:
Zena Aldridge, Environmental Protection Specialist
National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI), (202) 260-6664
or
Linda Flick, Assistant Director, NETI, (202) 260-4080
Note: The discussions and presentations summarized in the following selected proceedings do not
necessarily represent final Agency policy.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
1
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Opening Remarks/Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
DAY 1
Opening Remarks
Moderator—Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Michael Stahl, who moderated this opening plenary session of the conference, welcomed participants
and introduced panel members, who included the EPA Administrator, Ms. Carol M. Browner, and
Assistant Administrator, Steven A. Herman. Mr. Stahl said the conference had several purposes,
among them to build good relationships between Headquarters and regional enforcement personnel, to
promote a good exchange of ideas, and to discuss the reorganization at Headquarters and the pending
reorganization in most of the regions. He provided an overview of plenary and breakout sessions,
which would broach a variety of subjects including regional perspectives on enforcement and
compliance, strategic choices for environmental protection, enforcement priorities and innovative
enforcement, Superfund reauthorization, criminal enforcement update, integration of approaches, and
enforcement and compliance partners and stakeholders. Active participation by conference attendees
was strongly encouraged.
Mr. Stahl then introduced Steven Herman, OECA Assistant Administrator, complimenting him for his
willingness to try new approaches and his passion for the enforcement program.
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Program
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
Introduction
Good morning. I am very pleased to be able to kick off this national conference on enforcement and
compliance assurance at the EPA. I am also extremely pleased that the Administrator will be able to
join us this morning, and that so many of you from the regions were able to attend what I think will
be a very productive few days.
This national conference, which comes a short time after the creation of OECA, presents countless
opportunities for us. I hope and expect that you will take the time to meet those in Headquarters and
in other regions whom you have not had an opportunity to meet before. I also expect that we will
have some very stimulating discussions of some very tough issues confronting the Agency's
enforcement program.
Reorganization—Creation of OECA
We are very near the 6-month anniversary of the reorganization and the creation of OECA.
The reorganization brought with it tremendous opportunities to both improve upon our past ways of
doing business, and expand into new ways of thinking about ensuring compliance with our
environmental laws.
It marked the realization of a division devoted to multimedia enforcement. It brought with it the
creation of sector-based and ecosystem-based divisions, which provide the opportunity for greater
expertise and focus for our enforcement and compliance efforts. It marked the creation of an
Environmental Justice Coordinator and Council to address the important issues surrounding the
appropriate enforcement initiatives to violations occurring in low-income and minority communities.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
2
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
The new organization also enables us to better provide an appropriate response to the particular
enforcement problem at hand; an approach that allows EPA to be more strategic and less reactive in
assuring compliance. The reorganization is the realization of the Administrator's vision of
enforcement as a spectrum ranging from compliance assistance on the one hand, to a criminal
indictment on the other. The new Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance now has these
tools at its disposal and will use all of its resources to respond to violations of the environmental
laws.
This range of responses and activities, comprised of traditional enforcement actions and new
compliance assurance measures, does not present an either/or situation. It is not one or the other, but
both. Our challenge will be to employ the right tool for the right result.
Having been through this experience—a rebirth of sorts—I can assure those of you in the regions who
will soon undertake similar changes, that the long-term benefits are worth the changes.
"New" Activities
We have been in business for just 6 months—but it has been busy. We have embarked on several
important projects which will have a strong bearing upon our enforcement and compliance
assurance program.
I will briefly mention a few of these:
¦ Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 507 policy. One example of our new direction is the policy I
issued this summer regarding small business assistance programs under Section S07 of the CAA.
This policy gives states the flexibility to use innovative approaches in providing compliance
assistance to small businesses and brings companies into the fold of environmental protection and
compliance that might otherwise escape our attention. It will also establish trust between small
businesses and government agencies, and hopefully change the way small businesses view
environmental requirements. Ultimately, I think this policy will help ensure more compliance
and cleaner air.
¦ Common Sense Initiative (CSI). In July, the Administrator announced CSI to mark a new
approach to environmental protection—the primary theme of which is the achievement of
"cleaner, cheaper, and smarter" environmental protection. We are pleased to have been chosen
to co-lead the printing sector with Region III, and we look forward to the challenges and
opportunities before us.
While we all explore innovative means of improving compliance, fostering pollution prevention
techniques, and eliminating regulatory redundancies, enforcement will continue to play a vital role
in environmental protection. In this regard, OECA, in cooperation with the regions and program
offices, promulgated and recently distributed enforcement principles which govern the
participation of the various industries in CSI. The message is simple—a company will not be
singled out for enforcement solely because of its participation in CSI, but neither will it be
shielded from prosecution as a result of such participation.
¦ Auditing policy review. At the request of the Administrator, several months ago we began an
extensive review of the Agency's policy on environmental audits. The objective of this
reevaluation was to ensure that the Agency's policy promotes the practice of self-evaluation and
self-correction by the regulated community, but does not serve as a shield for violators.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
3
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
This review has been conducted with the full participation of the public on all sides of the issue.
The workgroup, made up of regional and Headquarters personnel, is continuing to explore all
options, and I expect that recommendations and results will be forthcoming early in the new year.
¦ Measures of success. We are also in the process of reexamining the measures of success
that we use to gauge the effectiveness of our overall enforcement and compliance assurance
activities. There is a wide recognition that the counting of judicial referrals to the Department
of Justice (DOJ) no longer suffices as the sole or predominant measure of the Agency's
enforcement program.
Our administrative enforcement practice and the array of new compliance assurance techniques
that we are beginning to utilize are vital components of a successful program, and will be
recognized as such. We will move towards measuring environmental results, such as improved
compliance rates, pollutant reductions, and other environmental indicators. The effectiveness of
all of our enforcement and compliance activities must ultimately be judged on their ability to
improve the environment and the health of our nation.
¦ Redelegations of case settlement authorities. This past summer, I signed a redelegations
package for certain case settlement authorities. Previously, it had been the policy that all judicial
settlements, irrespective of the settlement penalty or other terms of the agreement, required the
signature of the Assistant Administrator. We were also burdened by a case-by-case internal
review process, which often alienated Headquarters from the regions instead of bringing us
together.
The redelegations serve to apportion the roles and responsibilities within the Agency's
enforcement program where they belong. They recognize that one size does not necessarily fit all
for the settlement approval process. There is also a recognition of the significance of our
administrative docket—all of our actions, whether in Headquarters or the regions, have
consequences for the Agency as a whole. The emphasis now will be on added values, no
duplication, and early decisions on roles so as to make our efforts more efficient and
effective nationwide.
¦ Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) policy review. We are in the final stages of
revising the Agency's policy on the use of SEPs. The incorporation of SEPs into many of our
settlements has resulted in numerous and substantial benefits to the environment and protection of
people's health. The revised policy will be more user-firiendly, and will hopefully increase the
ability of our staff and DOJ to craft appropriate SEPs into settlements, which will translate into
real, on-the-ground benefits.
¦ Project to improve DOJ referral process (Mulkey, Musgrove, Gross). Our judicial case
referral process, a mainstay of our enforcement program, has not always served either the
Agency or DOJ as well as it should. Cases referred by the regions yet unfiled by DOJ have
sometimes backed up, causing mutual frustrations.
We have initiated an extensive review of the referral process, particularly focusing on the
expeditious filing of regional referrals. This project, led by Marcia Mulkey from Region HI,
Connie Musgrove from OECA, and Joel Gross from DOJ, will, I am sure, yield significant
improvements in the referral process.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
A
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
¦ Senior environmental enforcement and compliance forum. At the request of the
Administrator, we have also taken the lead in forming a joint Federal/state/Tribal forum for the
discussion of cross-cutting enforcement and compliance issues. The forum, composed of top
officials from Headquarters, the regions, DOJ, and states and Tribes, had planned to have its first
meeting in Washington, D.C. in mid-December 1994. It is our hope that its discussions will
improve coordination, and lead to overall improved enforcement and compliance at the Federal,
state, and Tribal levels.
¦ Environmental Leadership Program. We have developed an Environmental Leadership Program
to recognize companies that implement management systems and other innovations that result in
significant environmental improvements in their operations and yield outstanding compliance
records. The pilot programs selected will enhance the pollution prevention practices of industry,
and give the Agency a greater understanding of how to encourage self-monitoring and self-
correction. Many of you do similar things at the regional level, and I am sure we will look to
you for assistance. Participants in this program will be announced in January 1995.
Case Highlights
During this past year, we built upon our enforcement records of last year to produce a banner year
for the Agency's enforcement program.
This morning, the Administrator and 1 will participate in a press announcement, which will recognize
these tremendous efforts, which include the following:.
- We brought a record number of enforcement actions this year—2,247—with estimated civil
and criminal penalties totalling a record $162.5 million.
- The value of our injunctive relief and SEPs, which provide real and direct benefits to the
environment and public health, exceeded $747.5 million.
- Hie Superfund private party cleanup commitments exceeded $1.4 billion, which is the second
highest amount in the program's history.
- The real story of enforcement and the true measure of our success goes well beyond the
record numbers. It is found in the quality of our actions, and in the protection of human
health and the environment that we have achieved.
¦ Kodak cat* (Region II). In October, we reached a landmark settlement with Eastman Kodak,
which is expected to result in the aggregate reduction of more than 2.3 million pounds of
hazardous wastes being leaked into the ground, the air, and into the nearby Genessee River by the
year 2001. The action addressed the aging and leaking industrial sewer system at the company's
Rochester, N.Y. facility—the largest manufacturing facility in the Northeast—which carried
approximately 30,000 gallons of hazardous wastewater daily. In addition to obtaining a
multimillion dollar penalty, Kodak will spend millions of dollars to implement pollution
prevention projects at its facility.
¦ Kammer case (Region III). In the past month, we settled an action against the Kammer Power
Plant in West Virginia, which will result in a reduction of an estimated 80-100,000 tons of sulfur
dioxide into the air per year. The power plant was in violation of the CAA and was one of the
largest sulfur dioxide emitters in the nation.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 5 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
¦ Honolulu case (Region IX). We settled a landmark Clean Water Act (CWA) case with the City
and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, which will result in the recycling of 10 tons of sewage sludge
per day by 1998, and 10 million gallons of wastewater per day by 2001. The city and county
have also committed to renovating and improving 1900 miles of sewer lines over the next 20
years. Leaks and spills from their aging sewer system had previously dumped more than SO
million gallons of raw sewage into Pearl Harbor.
Our criminal enforcement program has also experienced tremendous growth this past year, and
has produced some very compelling and significant cases:
¦ Craven Labs case (Region VI). Craven Labs, in Austin, Texas, falsified data from pesticide
residue tests which are used to ensure the safety of food products sold throughout the country.
Officers of the company were sentenced to jail for 5 years, and the company was fined more than
$15 million. The case is the most significant laboratory data fraud case affecting the agrichemical
industry and EPA's regulation of pesticides in at least die past 15 years.
¦ Durex Industries case (Region IV). Two 9-year-old boys died as a result of being exposed to
illegally dumped hazardous waste at the Durex Industries facility in Tampa, Fla. In May of this
year, the parent corporation, the plant manager, and the shop foreman were all indicted for
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) criminal violations. All have since pled guilty
or been found guilty by a jury. The two individual defendants have been sentenced to jail terms
of 27 months, and sentencing for the corporation is scheduled for early December 1994.
¦ Superfund. In Superfund, we settled with more than 4,000 potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
in the De Minimis Initiative this year. That total can be compared to 6,000 such settlements in all
prior years. The success of this initiative has resulted in increased fairness and efficiencies for
small businesses and other small-volume contributors to Superfund sites. The completion of 43
de minimis settlements at 39 different Superfund sites represents a significant administrative
improvement in our Superfund enforcement and remediation program.
¦ Towards a cleaner environment. From requiring the Coast Guard to safely and properly store
its hazardous waste at its facility in Kodiak, Alaska, to issuing an order against the Department of
the Navy to reduce dioxin emissions at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, our Federal facilities
enforcement program continues to make great strides in ensuring that the Federal Government
makes working towards a cleaner environment a priority to live by.
Conclusion and Introduction of the Administrator
It is clear that this has been a banner year. The facts and figures are a testament to your dedication
and commitment to enforcement.
The reorganization and creation of OECA will hopefully add vigor to these upward trends. The
partnerships that are forged between those of us in OECA and those of you in the regions, and our
mutual enforcement and compliance accomplishments, have effected this positive result. In the
upcoming months, as you begin to explore and implement your own visions of change in the regions,
we will continue to work together in our efforts to ensure compliance with all of our environmental
laws, and the protection of our citizens' health and the environment.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
6
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
It is my great pleasure this morning to welcome and introduce Administrator Carol Browner. As
most of you know, the Administrator has been a ceaseless supporter of enforcement. Her personal
initiative and involvement in the reorganization is reflected in the many achievements of our young
Office. Her support of our efforts in the face of those who question the value and role of
enforcement has been integral to the overall success of the Agency's environmental protection record.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
7
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Presentation by EPA Administrator—The Enforcement Role
Common Sense Protection of Public Health
and the Environment: The Enforcement Role
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA
I want to welcome our regional employees to Washington and to thank you for your efforts on the
front lines—developing cases, doing inspections, sharing your insights on our regulatory and
legislative efforts, and overseeing state activities. 1 want to note that it is our state partners who carry
out the bulk of environmental enforcement in this country. All of us look forward to continuing to
strengthen our partnership with the states.
I want to thank our Headquarters employees, who have worked so diligently to implement our
reorganization—developing policies; coordinating national cases and initiatives; and taking the lead on
strategic planning, targeting, and multimedia enforcement.
For all of us here today, our common goal is to ensure that our enforcement and compliance
assurance program works to protect public health in communities across this country. We aim to help
businesses comply with the law in the most common sense and cost-effective ways possible. And we
aim to send a firm message that for companies that ignore the law, the environmental cop is on the
beat.
Together, we have made tremendous progress toward those goals. We have done a remarkable job in
strengthening and revitalizing our enforcement program so that we use the right tool for the
job—from compliance assistance all the way to criminal enforcement. I am very proud of what we
have been able to accomplish.
Where Anne Gorsuch basically dismantled EPA's enforcement program, we have succeeded in putting
it back together again, better than ever before.
The Clinton Administration aims to find new ways of solving environmental problems—to help
community residents, industry, and the people who must live with environmental decisions—to work
together toward common sense solutions.
Our message is clear and simple. A strong, effective enforcement program is part and parcel of that
approach. We must level the playing field and make sure that compliance is rewarded and that bad
actors receive no gain whatsoever from violations of the law.
We have overhauled our enforcement program in a way that maintains the strengths of our traditional
single-media-based program. At the same time we have added an array of new programs—so that we
can find the best solution for each situation.
I believe most businesses do seek to comply with the law. They do monitor their own operations—in
part because they know we'll be on their back if they don't. Our new compliance assistance program
aims to help them reduce pollution in a way that makes sense for their type of company, and their
type of industry. But for those companies that ignore the laws, we let them know in no uncertain
terms that pollution does not pay.
This year there were those who doubted that we could carry out a strong enforcement program while
we were in the process of reorganization. We proved that those doubts were wrong.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
8
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Presentation by EPA Administrator—The Enforcement Role
This year, we sought civil and criminal sanctions in a record number of cases. This year, we
assessed a record amount of fines and penalties.
When two boys died from playing in a trash bin where toxic waste had been dumped illegally, the
parties at fault went to jail—because people who disrespect public health and our environment deserve
to be criminally prosecuted.
When Craven Labs falsified test results for pesticide residues, we sent the owner to jail. Again, we
sent a strong message that we will not tolerate disrespect for public health and our environment.
Our civil enforcement actions resulted in millions of pounds of pollution reductions—from sewer
repair in northern New York, to cleaner air in West Virginia, to cleaner water in Honolulu.
We also had a banner year in requiring Federal facilities to comply with environmental laws.
Our task is not simply to rack up fines and send people to prison. Our task is to protect communities
through smart, common sense strategies. That means we must prevent pollution. That means we
must involve communities in protecting themselves. That means we must help each industry reduce
pollution in the way best suited to that particular industry.
We can be proud of how we are working to achieve those common sense goals.
First, we are working with companies to prevent pollution, not wait to clean it up after the damage
is done.
Through our SEPs, we require companies not just to pay a fine, but to fundamentally change how
they do business to benefit the community.
And we've reached out to the small business community to encourage its members to come forward
and receive assistance in complying with the law.
Secondly, we are working to increase public participation in environmental protection. Government
cannot do the job alone. Those who must live with environmental decisions must have every
opportunity to help make those decisions. A local community will always do a better job of
protecting the environment than a distant bureaucracy.
We are working toward environmental justice by focusing attention on communities that have borne
more than their fair share of pollution. What we've done in Region V, in Cook County, 111.—a
heavily industrialized area with a number of low-income communities and a long history of pollution
problems—is a good example. We increased our enforcement there, and last year air, water, and land
pollution was less than half what it was in 1988.
Finally, we are replacing the pollutant-by-pollutant approach of the past with a common sense,
comprehensive approach for the future.
Our Office of Compliance (OC) is organized around industry sectors. Our multimedia enforcement
program complements our CSI—the new industry-by-industry approach that brings industries to the
table to work with us to find the best blueprint for pollution prevention in each industry.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 9 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Presentation by EPA Administrator—'The Enforcement Role
Early in 1995 we will announce our Environmental Leadership Program, which recognizes companies
that go the extra mile.
All of this is precisely what we need to build a new generation of environmental protection, in which
we use a great variety of tools, and use them well to protect public health and safeguard our air, our
water, and our land.
But if there is one thing I want to convey to you today, it is that we must pay attention to the new
name of our program: Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. We must pursue enforcement not
just for its own sake—but to secure for the people of this country the protection guaranteed by law.
The American people want strong, effective enforcement of environmental laws. Let's work to
strengthen the full spectrum of our enforcement program—our compliance assistance, our multimedia
efforts, and our criminal enforcement program.
In every case, let us ask ourselves: Are we using the very best strategy for improving the health of
the communities of this country? Are we using common sense to help business do the job—to get the
very best environmental results in the most cost-effective manner?
I am committed to working with you to ensure that our enforcement and compliance assurance
program is a strong and vital part of our efforts to protect the people of this country and the air, the
water, and the land we all must share. Let's continue our proud record of progress and continue to
move forward together.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 10 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
OECA Organizational Structure
OECA's Organizational Structure
Michael M. Stahl
Mt. Stahl provided the opportunity foe introductions of Division Directors and senior managers
working within OECA's various offices. Regional Administrators also introduced their senior staff
present. The chart below illustrates OECA's organizational structure:
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Enfaroafnent Capacity
and Outreach Ofttoa
Plaining. Precaution
and Camptann Staff
StaAemadlationand
Entoraamant Staff
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
It
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and CompHance
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on
Enforcement and Compliance
Moderator-Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
Mr. Herman introduced this panel of Regional and Assistant Administrators (RAs and AAs), asking
panelists to consider this question in addition to their prepared remarks: Given the reorganization and
streamlining of Headquarters and regional offices, and given our charge to work closely with
programs, what are some major problems and suggested approaches?
Panel Presentations
John DeVIIIars, Regional Administrator, Region I
Mr. DeVillars offered five recommendations, based on New England successes, to build support for
enforcement and to meet the challenges presented:
1. Conduct better targeting. EPA-New England is targeting four areas for concerted, targeted
enforcement, two of which have been identified to date—public agencies and urban
ecosystems.
2. Leverage resources better. EPA-New England is building closer ties to state Departments of
Environmental Protection (DEPs), Attorneys General (AGs), and the U.S. Attorneys to better
coordinate enforcement action in the region.
3. Encourage SEPs. Encouraging SEPs in the present political climate is smart. By providing
direct benefits to communities, we will encourage greater public support foe our efforts.
4. Separale enforcement and technical assistance. Enforcement and technical assistance
compliance activities should be well coordinated but remain distinct.
5. Encourage experimentation. Let the regions serve as laboratories for testing
different approaches.
Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
¦ What is the greatest challenge? There are still several bumps in Hie road relative to OECA's
relationships with programs. Program office personnel must also realize that they do not have all
the answers. Rather, "we must coordinate with one another to determine enforcement priorities
and whether they connect with program priorities. It is important to address this issue early on
and respond promptly to concerns."
¦ Relationship good overaR. We are pleased with the working relationship our office has with
OECA, but its continued success depends on effective coordination. The problems this official
separation has caused are not insurmountable.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
12
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and Compliance
David A. Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V
¦ Need for better working relationships. Better working relationships—both within EPA and with
states and other Federal agencies—will require the following:
- A commitment to the vision.
- A push to achieve higher compliance rates.
- Inclusion of states and DOJ in the mix.
- More mutuality in the approach to enforcement.
- More trust among agency elements, particularly between Headquarters and the regions.
- Minimal duplication and maximum efficiency in all tasks: reengineering the civil/judicial
referral process.
- Fair, firm, and professional approach when the going gets rough, internally and externally.
- Being smarter in enforcement; to know when, what, and how to best investigate suspected
violations.
- More intensity and fire in day-to-day operations.
- More harmony and common sense. Though we need not "speak with one voice," programs
must have harmony and reflect common sense in applying underlying Agency principles to a
given set of facts. This approach requires clear and timely guidance from Headquarters.
- Better communications.
e Biggest challenge. Finding the balance between traditional enforcement and a positive, effective
compliance assistance program presents a major challenge. It is difficult to be less adversarial
while still implementing enforcement that has "teeth." We need to measure real success in terms
of environmental and public health results.
Susan H. Wayland, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Guiding Principles
¦ Better communications. The splitting up of the enforcement function between OECA and
program offices makes good intra-agency communications especially important.
e Joint priority setting and guidance. Guidance for national program managers must meld with
OECA priorities. Major reasons include safety; for instance, those trying to delay
implementation of the farmworker rule could benefit from a lack of Agency unity on farm safety
priorities.
a Partnerships in compUance assistance. While recognizing that gray areas between program
outreach and compliance assistance will have to be addressed, try anyway to get people to
comply. Coherent outreach, technical assistance programs, and compliance assistance activities
must be woven together.
¦ Common sense es e way of doing business. Look at regulations and policies and apply
common sense rules, asking the hard questions. Different audiences and customers require
different approaches (e.g., Fanner Brown versus G.M.). When considering enforcement cases,
take on first those with the greatest potential for a positive outcome.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
13
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspective* on Enforcement and Compliance
¦ The spirit of teamwork. It is important not to lose the cooperative momentum that has been
gained between program and enforcement elements. Still, there is a concern that Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) programs will lose their identity with the
breaking up of offices in the regions.
¦ Biggest challenge. The biggest challenge EPA faces today is to maintain a common focus and
vision, especially in the public's view.
Jack W. McGraw, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region VIII
Guiding Principles
¦ Mutual trust. Regions and Headquarters must trust each other and appreciate their respective
new roles under the reorganization. As they become more closely united under a common
mission, clear, legitimate roles will emerge for each.
¦ Commitment to common theme and mission. As the Agency pulls itself together after the
reorganization, there will be a strong need to coordinate a national enforcement agenda.
¦ Working as a team. If Headquarters and the regions work together as one unit, this team will
attain the objectives of the Agency's mission.
¦ Commitment to include states and Tribes. States and Tribes should be included as part of the
enforcement team.
¦ Listening to customers. It is important to listen to our customers, who include the regulated
industries.
¦ Understanding what compliance is. All agency elements must reach an understanding of, what
is compliance?
Biggest challenges
¦ Continuing to blend media culture with multimedia approaches.
¦ Bridging the administrative gap between Headquarters and the regions. The time is ripe to
make the most of the new relationship created by die reorganization.
Open Discussion
Mr. Herman asked for questions from the audience, to be directed to panel members.
Q. The notion of Headquarters and regions speaking with one voice can be tricky, as various
needs, dynamics, and politics all bear careful consideration. This kind of close unity may
be achievable in terms of broad goals and objectives, but how do you integrate it into
detailed plans?
[David Ullrich]
We must find the right balance between degrees of consistency on fundamental levels, while also
acknowledging differences. The needed approach does not lend itself to "cookbook" methods.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
14
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and Compliance
Good judgment and common sense must inform any approach and be applied to a particular set of
facts in a given community.
[Steven Herman]
We have tried to focus on harmony and being consistent on matters of national policy. For
example, certain fundamental minimum legal principles apply whenever anyone uses a SEP.
Within that concept, there exists more than one way of doing things. We cannot do things in
lockstep with this huge and diverse an organization. What the regions do affects the Agency as a
whole, and we cannot be operating at cross purposes.
[Susan Wayland]
Regarding the farmworker rule, we elected to use an education and compliance assistance
approach with the communities themselves. There would be a national message, which the
regions would then have the flexibility to communicate using tailored approaches. The important
thing is to have a coherent basic message that straddles regions across the country.
[Elliott Laws]
We need to push back a little harder against the consistency criticism being leveled at us. We do
not want to be doing things exactly the same way [in every region]. I would like to see the
creative ideas coming out of the regions shared among them. We need to communicate on a
regular basis with regard to the creative settlements and approaches used for enforcement issues.
Do not look for reasons we can't do something another region has done.
[John DeVillars]
We need a balance between a uniform approach and experimentation in the regions. We must be
innovative and entrepreneurial in trying different approaches. On the use of SEPs, Massachusetts
wanted to use dollars from fines resulting from enforcement actions for environmental education,
but there is a question as to whether we can [legally] do this. It is worth trying. Headquarters
needs to have an attitude that encourages experimentation. We also need a national policy, a
national approach to limited amnesty.
[Dave Ullrich]
The process of managing a case and fashioning an effective remedy needs more latitude. Finding
the right balance between these two elements represents the greatest challenge.
Q. Compare the changing political climate with Mr. Ullrich's edict to get out there and be
tough on enforcement.
[Dave Ullrich]
We must be smarter in what we do, and that means being more understanding of defendants,
businesses, and communities. Providing compliance assistance up front requires a heavy initial
investment-and some disinvestment on the traditional enforcement side.
[Jack McGraw]
We need to assess real environmental impact, which requires separating the paper issues from the
real ones. We are not changing so much what we're doing but how we're doing it.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
15
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
AA's and RA's Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and Compliance
[Susan Wayland]
The new political climate necessitates choosing wisely. Go after cases that pose the greatest
degree of hazardous risk, environmental damage, and the opportunity to visibly maintain
enforcement principles.
[lohn DeVillars]
Building a more receptive climate for active, strong enforcement requires getting SEP dollars
back into communities and recognizing and rewarding industry good guys through the
Environmental Leadership Program.
[Steven Herman]
I think going after "paper violations," i.e., violations of timely and accurate reporting
requirements, is important. We should not cast environmental protection and enforcement as a
partisan area. We are touching real people with real problems. The latest election results may
mean we have to carefully pick our fights, but given the vigorous efforts we are making with
targeting, media, and ecosystems in the regions, our motto should be "full speed ahead."
Q. We must ensure that program needs are met under OECA by informing staff members
about what is important and helping them to determine what the enforcement priorities
should be. Program priorities and those of state and Tribal governments need to become a
part of the overall OECA priorities.
[Steve Herman]
This year, due to the reorganization, many things we are doing have not happened in as timely a
manner as we had hoped, e.g., Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs). We are trying to make all
our efforts dovetail. 1 think you will see much closer and more timely coordination in 1995.
[Jack McGraw]
We must emphasize our commitment to common operating principles set forth by program and
enforcement offices. We must use the tools in all of our Acts in a comprehensive manner. A
common set of Agency-wide priorities is needed.
[Dave Ullrich]
We have functional areas in our programs and geographic areas of emphasis that intersect with
straight media programs. No one area of the three can be permitted to dominate.
[Shelley Metzenbaum, Associate Administrator, Office of Regional Operations and State/Local
Relations]
To introduce another level of complexity-we do a lot of our work by supporting others doing the
same kind of work. One of the biggest challenges we face is working with other entities to help
us deliver services. The challenge is to think of ways to strengthen those relationships, akin to
how corporations work with franchises.
[Steve Herman]
We must work together with state, local, and Tribal partners at the national level.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
16
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Government's Changing Approach to Compliance
Government's Changing Approach
to Compliance
Malcolm Sparrow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Mr. Sparrow, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government,
also serves as a consultant to several Federal agencies (the Internal Revenue Service, The
Occupational Safety And Health Administration (OSHA), the Customs Service) which are redesigning
their compliance and enforcement programs. He is a nationally recognized expert on police
management and law enforcement technology, and is a former Detective Chief Inspector with the
British Police Service.
In his studies of local police departments, tax administration agencies, and environmental protection
agencies, Mr. Sparrow has identified a common movement toward certain changes in the philosophy
and methods of procuring compliance.
With all three of these types of agencies, there is a movement toward—
¦ Viewing the public not just as "the regulated community" but as "clients" or "partners" who help
assure compliance.
¦ Changing performance measures and objectives so they are not expressed as outputs and
efficiencies, but in terms of impact and effectiveness.
¦ Redefining the unit of work from individual incidents or violations to broader "problems"
or "risks."
¦ De-emphasizing "uniform enforcement of the law" and the myth of complete coverage to
acknowledge the need for setting priorities based on assessment of risks.
¦ Employing a broader range of tactics beyond just the use of prosecutions and enforcement
actions.
¦ Selectively using prosecutions and enforcement actions within the context of a strategy to procure
voluntary compliance and develop cooperative partnerships with the public.
¦ De-emphasizing functional specialization of staff in favor of cross-functional training, risk
assessment, and problem identification.
¦ Forging relationships with other agencies of government, recognizing that both the definition of
the problem and the available solutions sometimes do not match neatly with the mission of
individual agencies.
¦ Maintaining enforcement capacity to deal with worst offenders and changing to whom that
capacity is applied and for what strategic purpose.
Mr. Sparrow offered a variety of examples from policing, tax administration, customs, immigration,
and environmental agencies to illustrate how these agencies are moving in the directions described
above. He believes that the common elements of these new directions constitute not distinct
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
17
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Government's Changing Approach to Compliance
movements unique to each type of agency, but a common movement redefining the government's
approach to compliance.
Mr. Sparrow observed that this movement faces many challenges to its progress, including the
difficulty in finding new performance measures, the entrenched reliance on the case-by-case routine
processing approach to enforcement, and the uncertainty about how to identify and assess problems
that should be the target of enforcement and compliance assurance activities.
For a more detailed explanation of Mr. Sparrow's ideas see, Imposing Duties: Government's
Changing Approach to Compliance, Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, 1994.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
18
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
The Compliance Assurance Continuum: Making Strategic Choices for Environmental Protection
Presentation of Theme—
The Compliance Assurance Continuum: Strategic
Choices for Environmental Protection
Elaine G. Stanley, Director, Office of Compliance
Innovative Approaches
In her speech outlining "A Recipe for Compliance," Elaine Stanley stated that the reorganization has
resulted in development of new approaches to the process of achieving compliance. A primary
change is reflected in OC's office structure—where three divisions are organized by industry sector,
allowing the Office to develop and implement sector-specific approaches to pervasive compliance
problems at the "process level" rather than at the wend of the stack."
¦ Major changes in Agency approach. These substantive changes in OC reflects an Agency-wide
restructuring aimed at making EPA's operations more strategic and less reactive. One way to
improve performance, said Ms. Stanley, is to utilize an "appropriate mix of all available tools" to
solve problems of noncompliance. If an existing monitoring or enforcement method does not
work, the office will try new methods until it finds the most effective combination of regulatory
tools for handling a particular facility.
¦ Current face of compliance. Ms. Stanley indicated that OC is undertaking extensive analyses of
industry sector compliance activity to assist in the development of sector-specific compliance
strategies. She noted that the initial data shows some interesting trends, including substantial
variations among industry sectors on overall compliance rates, inspection frequency, and length of
time taken to correct violations.
¦ Effective use of tools. Ms. Stanley emphasized that the key to compliance is the balanced use
of all available tools.
- Using a mix of compliance monitoring, compliance assistance, and enforcement actions, rather
than a true continuum or serial approach to compliance.
- Tailoring specific approaches to the compliance problems of a specific sector.
Compliance Assistance, Monitoring, and Enforcement
OC will focus on supporting the balanced integration of compliance assistance, monitoring, and
enforcement tools to achieve regulatory compliance.
¦ Compflance assistance programs. These programs and initiatives assist both large and small
industries to better understand the process:
- Development of Compliance Assistance Service Centers, focusing on certain industries such as
printing, dry cleaning, etc. The centers will become "one-stop shops," providing
comprehensive, easy-to-understand information about compliance requirements, pollution
prevention, and technical assistance resources affecting the industry.
- Development of CAA Section 507 enforcement response policy. This will offer businesses
two options: (1) a limited period for correcting violations, or (2) a confidentiality option.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 19 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
The Compliance Assurance Continuum: Making Strategic Choices for Environmental Protection
- Environmental Leadership Program. This program will encourage compliance to desired
behavior in the corporate community. The office plans to select 10 innovative pilot proposals.
- Environmental Auditing Policy. Evaluation of whether additional incentives are needed to
encourage implementation of voluntary self-evaluative programs in the regulated community to
promote self-disclosure and prompt correction of ail violations.
- Common Sense Initiative. OECA is dedicating much effort here, serving on every common
sense sector team and is the Agency lead for the Printing Sector Initiative.
¦ Compliance monitoring efforts. Industry strategies and enforcement efforts will be based on the
following:
- Developing multimedia inspection guidance and inspector training programs.
- Developing "sector profiles" (i.e., information for each industry sector on a variety of critical
points). This effort will help the national program and regional offices decide where best to
target their finite enforcement and compliance resources.
- Sector Compliance Strategies—targeting the right blend of activities to bring a specific industry
sector into compliance.
- Better defining measures of success and measures of compliance.
- Improving EPA data and boosting EPA access to industry data.
¦ Enforcement actions. This component of the "mix" is familiar but also essential to maintaining
a strong deterrence message that compels compliance where necessary:
- Civil/Judicial referrals.
- Administrative actions.
- Injunctive relief.
- Criminal sanctions.
- Stiff monetary penalties/SEPs.
- The right recipe. The enforcement and compliance assurance program operates at its peak
when strong enforcement is used in conjunction with compliance assurance programs. "With
all these ingredients mixed together," said Ms. Stanley, "we've got a recipe for success (see
following chart)."
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
20
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
A RECIPE FOR COMPLIANCE
"SOLUTIONS LIE IN THE MIX"
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Compliance Assistance Centers
Innovative PoBcies/e.g. §507 Policy
Environmental Leadership
Environmental Auditing
Sector-Based Outreach
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Inspection Guidance
Inspector Training
Sector-Based Compliance Strategies
Sector Analyses
Data Analysts
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Civil/Judicial Referrals
Administrative Actions
Injunctive Relief
Criminal Sanctions
Stiff Monetaiy Penalties/SEPs
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
-------
Enforcement Priorities and Promoting Innovative Enforcement
DAY 2
Presentation of Theme—Enforcement Priorities
and Promoting Innovative Enforcement
Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Introduction
We in the EPA enforcement program have just gone through an extended engagement and a recent
marriage to form the union of OECA. Like all good marriages, we in the Office of Regulatory
Enforcement (ORE) decided it was important to celebrate with something old, something new,
something borrowed, and something blue.
Something Old
We too have a contract with America. Under that contract, we have a duty as civil servants and
Federal employees to implement and enforce Federal environmental laws. We also have a duty to
protect the health and environment of this land. In addition, as the Administrator has said, we have a
duty to level the playing field and to make sure that those who play by the environmental rules are
not put at a disadvantage.
Our enforcement statistics for FY 1994 demonstrate our successes, but the entire enforcement story is
much more significant. Enforcement also works to deter violators from repeating their conduct.
Examples of our successful deterrence efforts are legion and illustrated in the civil regulatory
enforcement program, the Federal facilities enforcement program, the Superfund enforcement
program, and the criminal enforcement program.
Something New
However, it is not good enough to simply celebrate past accomplishments. We cannot rest on our
laurels. Rather, we need to apply lessons of the past in new ways to do our job in a less costly,
faster, and more efficient manner. We need to identify tasks which remain undone with clear analysis
and serious purpose. Moreover, we must approach new tasks with new ideas, new energy, new
approaches, and new possibilities for coordinated strategies.
- Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement statistics illustrate my point. In 1993, of 185,000
facilities regulated under the CWA, 7,000 are categorized as major facilities. Of these, 5,000
were in violation of the CWA. In response, state and Federal governments were able to
initiate only 1,700 enforcement actions.
It is clear that opportunities for improvement are legion. There are opportunities for use of
compliance tools; similarly we have a great opportunity to use our civil and criminal enforcement
tools. Intelligent planning is the key to effective and efficient enforcement. We must coordinate
national resources efficiently. We need to work with the states as well as EPA's regional offices
and DOJ.
The new enforcement organization represents unique opportunities to address old and recurring
problems. We are at the da.vn of an exciting new age of truly national environmental enforcement
cases. With the help of regional and National Enforcement Investigations Office (NEIC) colleagues,
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
22
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Enforcement Priorities and Promoting Innovative Enforcement
we can now focus on national violators. Furthermore, with the enhancement of the Agency's data
system, we can now evaluate corporations' behavior nationally.
With the new tools emerging out of the reorganization, we can develop cases focusing on entire
ecosystems. We need to develop cases like Region V did in Grand Calumet River, like Region IX is
doing on the New River, and like four regions are doing with the 17 United States Assistant
Attorneys Offices on the Mississippi River.
With our new tools, we can develop cases focusing on whole industry sectors.
- We need to develop initiatives like the Subpart 000 initiative which brought the stone-crushing
industry in Missouri into compliance with great success while utilizing minimal resources.
- We need to develop cases like Louisiana Pacific, which focused on the 14 pulp and paper
facilities in 11 states.
- We need to develop cases like the UIC 5X28 program, which focused on 10,000 service
stations in our nation.
I would challenge those of you attending this conference to work with your Headquarters, regional,
criminal, and program counterparts here to develop these kinds of cases. At the next national case
announcement, the question may be posed: "How did this case originate?" The Administrator can
proudly respond, "As a direct outgrowth of the first national enforcement and compliance
conference."
Something Borrowed
We are also building into ORE some borrowed concepts. One of these concepts is leveraging. We
need to leverage the states', local governments', and even the polluters' efforts to achieve the most
effective and efficient result.
- One example of an opportunity for us to leverage the states' efforts is Section 507 of CAA. I
believe our new 507 policy may provide an appropriate combination of enforcement and
compliance assistance activities to best achieve compliance in the regulated community.
We need to borrow from other media successes. We need to borrow from the world of SEPs. We
need to borrow pretreatment inspection strategies from the Dutch and the Germans, Region VIII's
stipulated penalty approach, and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's injunctive relief strategy. Finally,
we even need to borrow successful strategies from the regulated community. We need to begin a
dialogue with the environmental community, law firms, former officials, and the regions to identify
other ideas we can borrow. No good idea is safe!
Something Blue
Lastly, our new organizational marriage contract contains an empowerment and liberation clause.
Some regional staff thought that empowerment might make some Headquarters staff "blue."
However, since our resource base is declining, we will only be able to continue to accomplish our
goals if our regional enforcement staffs take the ball and run on a wide variety of cases. We must
minimize duplication, maximize coordination, and focus on matters of national significance.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
23
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Enforcement Priorities and Promoting Innovative Enforcement
- It is important to note that we have begun to address these issues with the full involvement of
regional staffs. We have assembled delegations to identify national issues and to determine
how we are going to relate to one another.
- Marcia Mulkey, Connie Musgrove, and Joel Gross are leading a task force that is working on
civil judicial enforcement coordination.
It is premature, however, to call the battle for compliance over. Likewise, it is premature to say that
enforcement has done all it can do. Rather, it is time for all of us to work together to identify targets
of opportunity and to choose the most appropriate tools for the most effective and efficient result.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
24
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Criminal Enforcement
Accomplishments and Future Directions
in Criminal Enforcement
Earl E. Devaney, Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement
Mr. Devaney began his discussion of EPA's criminal program by noting that significant changes in
policy and procedure over the last 3 years have created a new horizon of possibilities that calls for
"careful thinking."
¦ Statistical findings. A poll taken recently by Arthur D. Little found that 75 percent of
Americans believe that corporate executives should be held personally liable for corporate crimes.
A former government official has said that 5 percent of such executives will violate no matter
what, 25 percent will comply no matter what, and 75 percent will comply only if the violators are
punished and the requirements are perceived as nonarbitrary.
¦ Deterrence and fairness as guiding principles. Recent guidelines published by EPA represent
the first comprehensive attempt to establish criteria for criminal prosecution. A case that does not
meet at least one of the following criteria will probably not be prosecuted:
- The threat of significant environmental harm.
- Culpable conduct.
¦ Environmental justice. Criminal justice must be equitably applied. Of the cases taken up
by DOJ last year, 27 percent involved environmental justice communities. Eighty-five percent of
defendants were from mid- and upper-level management. Because many targeted companies
exceeded 1,000 employees, it is clear that "we're not just picking on the little guy in the
little company."
¦ Cooperation with the Office of Compliance. The criminal program intends to work
cooperatively with OC to ensure that everyone knows the rules and can make the right choices.
¦ Criminal motivation - greed. The motivation for people committing crimes is greed: "These
are bad people doing bad things." The threat of criminal enforcement is the reason cited by
many for following the rules.
¦ Message is getting through. The deterrent message being sent by EPA's program is being
heard "loud and clear."
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
25
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Integrating Approaches
Presentation of Theme—
Integrating Approaches:
Sector, Multimedia, Media,
and Other Approaches
Scott C. Fulton, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Setting the stage for the breakout sessions to follow, Mr. Fulton offered insights on the theme of
"bringing the new thinking together," focusing on ways to integrate strategies.
The Multimedia Approach
¦ Multimedia approaches. The multimedia orientation is a way to maximize environmental results
and guide decisions. "Multimedia thinking must pervade everything we do."
- It must be present in the strategic planning process.
- It must be a part of how we engage the regulated community so that we maximize that
interaction and elicit the broadest possible array of responses.
- It must inform how we manage cases from their inception to their conclusion.
- It causes us to think in holistic terms regarding measures of success.
¦ Multimedia approach cannot replace sound judgment. Although the multimedia approach
represents the future of environmental protection, it must not supplant the exercise of sound
judgment. Always ask whether the merits of a broader approach have been considered.
On Sectors
¦ What is it? The sector approach is our vehicle for getting a handle on "patterns" of
noncompliance, which, in turn, enables us to focus our priorities more deliberately. Sector
orientation helps us—
- Identify noncompliance patterns.
- Understand the causes of compliance.
- Tailor strategies to fit problems.
- Export technical solutions to common problems, particularly pollution prevention approaches.
- Measure the impact of our activities on compliance rates.
On Targeting
¦ What to base it on? Apart from media priorities, the organizing principles for the enforcement
program are two-fold: sector-based targeting and place-based targeting. There are two types of
place-based targeting. Ecosystem-based targeting focuses on areas of greatest environmental
vulnerability. We can also use place-based targeting to address the issue of environmental justice.
¦ Environmental justice. Regarding environmental justice, "justice, not compliance, is the
primary goal." EPA must provide equal protection from environmental violations. "This does
not mean greater responsiveness, it means equivalent responsiveness." Problems naturally evolve
as a result of a tendency by bureaucracies to lean toward the "politically potent" and not the
"politically impotent." In many cases, this does not represent purposeful neglect; it does not
need to be viewed as a matter of willful racism. We must admit we have problems in this area,
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
26
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Integrating Approaches
rather than deny it, and try to correct them. We must not let assessing blame or accepting guilt
interfere with our responding seriously to the problem.
The environmental justice movement is fundamentally about a failure of trust. Overcoming a loss
of trust is difficult, but I recommend several methods to help us do so:
- Play a role in empowering people and educating them about their rights. Do a better job of
communicating with people about "what we've done for them lately."
- Review all operating guidance and policies to ensure sensitivity to this issue.
- Capitalize on opportunities to improve the quality of life in these communities. Be purposeful.
- Redouble efforts in this community in a highly visible way.
- Incorporate an environmental justice consciousness into all aspects of our work, consistently
and persistently.
Synthesizing
¦ Three organizing principles. Sectors, places, and media objectives are important organizing
principles.
- The goals of each are not incompatible, even though, generally, sector and media objectives
are developed on a national level, and place-based objectives on a regional level.
- The regional MOA process can serve as a vehicle for bringing together sector, place, and
media goals. Place orientation over time will likely become a primary point of departure for
how we plan our activities. We will look to satisfy sector and media objectives within the
setting of the "places" targeted for priority treatment.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
27
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Federal Facilities Enforcement
DAY 3
Accomplishments and Future Directions
in Federal Facilities Enforcement
Barry N. Breen, Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Mr. Breen explained that the title of his presentation shown on the program "Federal facilities: where
are we and where are we going?"—is answered with a paradox: uwe are catching up even while
we're out in front."
¦ Facts about Federal facilities.
1. Federal facilities issues are large, multimedia, and multiagency. One-third of the land in the
United States is owned by the Federal Government, which spends approximately $1 billion a
month on Federal facilities compliance and cleanup. Relevant agencies include the
Departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture, Transportation, and the Interior.
2. Beginning with Harry Truman in 1948, American presidents have made a series of promises
about work they intend to do on Federal facility issues. President Clinton has set leadership as
a goal, compliance as a floor.
3. Those engaged in environmental work at Federal facilities are helping the government live up
to these promises.
¦ How are we catching up? The full-fledged multimedia enforcement effort under way at Federal
facilities is "catching up" after a Supreme Court decision in 1992. In response, Congress
amended RCRA with the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Incomplete enforcement authority for
Federal facilities still exists under CWA and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), though
legislation in 1994 would have addressed these.
- Federal facilities compliance has national implications, with important roles for both the
regions and OECA. Environmental budget cuts require all to act with precision for the next
several years.
¦ Ways we are out in front. Our office is engaged in several activities, including the following:
1. The Multimedia Enforcement and Compliance Initiative, involving all 10 regions and NEIC,
and representing 72 inspections over a 2-year period.
2. A benchmarking study based on a self-assessment by Federal facilities' own management
systems. Federal agencies admit inadequacies.
3. The State of Federal Facilities Report, outlining actual compliance rates.
4. A Federal facilities tracking system and how to link it to budget review systems. "We are
way ahead on gathering and analyzing data of our sector."
5. Pollution prevention, where EPA is managing President Clinton's executive order for pollution
prevention at Federal facilities. They are now included in the toxic release inventory database.
¦ Join us. You can join us in this meaningful work by partnering with Federal facilities
enforcement wherever you are: regions, OECA, or other Headquarters offices.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
28
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Enforcement and Compliance Partners and Stakeholders
Presentation of Theme—Enforcement and
Compliance Partners and Stakeholders
Michael M. Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Mr. Stahl's presentation offered some observations about EPA's relationship with its stakeholders,
particularly the public and Congress; offered some observations about working relationships
inside EPA; and addressed two questions: What do we owe the public? What do EPA personnel owe
each other?
¦ Our stakeholders. The full set of stakeholders in the enforcement and compliance assurance
program is diverse, and their interests are enormous, complex, and often in conflict. The
business of environmental protection is very contentious and makes our relationships with
stakeholders and each other difficult, even under the best of circumstances. That difficulty is
further compounded by the fact that we are attempting to bring many changes and new directions
to the reorganized enforcement program.
¦ The public. Our relationship with the public is troubled and is entering a crucial phase. There is
still strong public support for the mission of the Agency. But the public has also developed a
strain of contempt for the Federal Government. Over the next few years, we will be part of a
struggle over whether support for our mission or contempt for government is the stronger
influence over EPA's future.
¦ Congress. Our relationship with Congress should be a source of deep concern. The election has
produced an anti-government majority in Congress. This could lead to a worst case scenario that
includes the following:
- Chronic, strident, antigovernment rhetoric.
- Significant budget reductions aimed at reducing the capacity of government.
- Retrograde legislating to restrict future authority.
- Contentious oversight designed to weaken the moral authority of government.
- Increased state resistance due to the congressional crusade on unfunded mandates.
Whether this scenario comes to pass will be due in part to how EPA and its people conduct the
business of environmental protection over the next few years.
¦ Headquarters-regional relations. The Headquarters-regional relationship, while largely
productive, is in need of improvement. Although tensions between central authority and field
offices are natural in any large decentralized organization, too often the interaction between
Headquarters and regions devolves to questioning of motives and competency, and a view of each
other as enemies rather than teammates.
¦ Common bonds override bureaucratic struggles. The common bonds between Headquarters
and regions are the commitment to the mission of environmental protection and our dedication to
serving the public. But we often lose sight of these bonds and devote ourselves to battles over
turf, control, sharing credit, escaping blame, and dividing resources. Which means more to us as
individuals and as an institution—the Agency mission and the public service ideal, or the
bureaucratic struggles? Which means more to the taxpayers?
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
29
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Enforcement and Compliance Partners and Stakeholders
¦ What do we owe the public? We owe an unshakable commitment to our mission, smart
choices about effective environmental protection, explanations for our actions, and opportunities
for involvement.
¦ What do we owe each other? We owe each other a willingness to listen and a willingness to
balance each other's interests so we can solve problems. We also need to help each other manage
and adapt to change and maintain a passion for improvement.
¦ Conclusion—Focus on mission. How can we ensure that our mission prevails over the public's
contempt for government? We should subscribe to an effectiveness ethic which includes at least
those elements we owe to the public and to each other. All of us have a wonderful opportunity to
do vital work in an agency that is the best of its kind in the world. In everything we do, let's
examine how we interact with the public and each other and give our best to those interactions.
In so doing, each of us plays a role in assuring that the mission of environmental protection will
be sustained through the difficult times ahead and that the growing contempt for government can
begin to be reversed.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedinos Summary
30
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Closing Remarks
Closing Remarks
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
The enforcement and compliance programs are leading the way in areas identified by Administrator
Browner, namely, trying new things, maintaining a strong single media focus—while adding
multimedia and sector-based approaches—and improving Headquarters and regional relations. "There
are going to be some tough times ahead, it goes without saying. But as the Administrator said, 'The
American people want us to do it'," Mr. Herman added. EPA, he said, needs to keep working and
"letting the American people know what we're doing."
He concluded by noting that this was the 24th anniversary of the founding of EPA in 1970.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
31
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Session Summaries
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 32 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.}
Wednesday Breakouts
A. Priority Setting for FY 1996
B. Case Screening and Developing Criteria for Determining Appropriate Response to
Noncompliance
C. Implementing Compliance Assistance in the Field (including impacts on inspections)
D. Measures of Success
E. Environmental Auditing
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
33
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Group A
Priority Setting for FY 1996
Session Leader(s): Jack Neylan, Chief, Planning Branch
Rita Smith, MOA Team Leader, Enforcement Planning, Targeting and
Data Division
Introduction
The purpose of the breakout session was to analyze the priorities generated by different
OECA offices; discuss evaluation criteria; suggest areas for disinvestment; and suggest
means to involve individual states and/or state associations in the process. The idea was to
initiate a collaborative process in developing a truly national agenda—representing a
consensus of priorities—for compliance and enforcement, and not just a hodgepodge of
activities from each OECA office.
Establishing Priorities
Debate commenced on what is meant by a "priority" and what the process should be for
determining it. One participant defined "priority" as a set of environmental problems
identified in a collaborative way to which the tools of the enforcement/compliance program
can be applied. Another suggestion was to identify priorities using the current database.
The group considered whether it would be more useful to create a process for establishing
priorities, rather than deal with the current level of detail in the criteria, which yields a
process too unwieldy to use efficiently.
It was noted that evaluation criteria can be very subjective, and that not all criteria are
important to every region. Nonetheless, environmental and public health issues are
overriding criteria. Setting priorities for Headquarters would require a different process than
for regional offices, but none of these efforts should be performed in a vacuum.
Headquarters enforcement compliance priorities must be aligned with media program
priority-setting efforts going on throughout the Agency. A national program should have
enough built-in flexibility for regions to use simply. Criteria could be used to establish
goals.
Some regional participants related the priorities for their individual regions. Region VI is
concerned with environmental justice and foundries. Region VIII is concerned with what
will "sell" and petroleum refineries. Region IX prioritizes mining initiatives and ozone
nonattainment areas. Region X's concerns include Native American lands, mining, forestry,
and endangered species. Region VII's concerns include identifying high-risk areas for lead
and pesticides. Region Ill's priorities include ozone depletion, acid rain, and mining waste.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
34
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
The existing objectives, emphasized by Headquarters but not carved in stone, that were used
to develop this year's MOA are—
¦ Creating tools to achieve compliance.
¦ Maintaining enforcement.
¦ Innovative targeting.
¦ Improving measures.
Discussion ensued as to whether these objectives constitute an adequate tool for organizing
state and regional priorities.
Disinvestment
Another issue was disinvestment: how much has already occurred, and how much more
could the base program tolerate. There was sentiment that the base program was not a
healthy entity, but is becoming increasingly hollow, and that there is not much margin left in
it for disinvestment. States, cities, and localities are having trouble meeting their base
enforcement needs. Cross-regional agreement on priorities will have to take into
consideration different regions' varying perceptions of what their base program is. Concern
was expressed that as a national agenda is developed, base program enforcement will be
shed, and the requisite numbers of inspections and enforcement actions will not be achieved.
It was thought that, rather than defining disinvestments at the beginning, they be allocated to
occur organically during the process of targeting as activities are shifting around to meet the
fixed global priorities. Disinvestment opportunities, it was thought, would become apparent
as the MO As are negotiated region by region.
State Involvement
There was discussion on the need to involve states in a meaningful and timely manner.
Regional offices are most capable of integrating states, as regional offices often leverage off
state ventures. State input could be built in according to what worked in the particular
region. Communication is best facilitated by the regional offices, which could expedite state
input by using existing task forces or new associations. State feedback, when it comes, will
be considerable, so there has to be enough time not only for states to respond, but also for
meaningful consideration of their input. Therefore, Headquarters needs to get the process
going. If states are involved early enough in the process, their participation can be
interactive, and they can have input on design and not just on an end-product review.
National Priorities
It was suggested that a simplified catalogue of ttmust-do" national priorities—four to six
items—could be defined and disseminated by Headquarters to regional offices as guidance in
developing their MOAs. Global priorities identified as the basis for national priorities
include—
¦ Federal and state partnerships, including infrastructure building and maintenance.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
35
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
¦ Location-based enforcement of environmental results, including targeted ecosystems.
Identification of targeted activities would be generated by, among other agents, local
communities, as a reflection of their concerns. This would help facilitate community
awareness, understanding, and self-help. Public participation and
stakeholder involvement are also important components.
¦ Environmental justice and enforcement fairness.
¦ Deterrence.
¦ Protection of public health, including by risk reduction; alternatively, reducing the
number of insults to the environment.
¦ Cleanup and its stimulation.
States would receive a more focused list and subsequently provide feedback on it.
Eventually, a two-tiered system having one activity level with all regions participating and
another that is region-specific could result.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Regions need adequate time to engender state feedback and priorities.
¦ A preliminary list, when distributed, can be used along with other tools to create a
new, more focused priority list.
¦ Attendees were asked to provide added feedback to the OECA Planning Branch
regarding their views on FY 1996 priorities and disinvestments, and the value of a
criteria ranking protocol.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
36
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Group B
Case Screening and Developing Criteria for Determining Appropriate
Response to Noncompliance
Session Leader(s): Kathie A. Stein, Director, Air Enforcement Division
Panelists: Marcia E. Mulkey, Regional Counsel, Region III
Steven Chester, Deputy Director, OCE
John Cruden, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, DOJ
Introduction
This session dealt with methods to screen cases for enforcement action—civil, administrative,
or criminal—and to determine policies for dealing with environmental violations. A panel
first commented on—
¦ Regional and Headquarters case screening.
¦ The criteria for undertaking a criminal investigation.
¦ Screening cases for criminal prosecution.
These matters were then opened up to the floor and a wide-ranging discussion ensued, which
included administrative, civil, and judicial screening; legal obligations and opportunities in
settlement talks; and targeting and priority setting versus case screening in a sector-based
context.
Regional and Headquarters Case Screening
Regional case screening stems from a 1990 memorandum, which set forth clear guidelines
and an elaborate mechanism for screening.
In practice, screening varies from region to region and even within regions. Certain
elements are found in all regions, however. All have involved the regional counsel's office
in a screening process and all now apply some sort of screening to at least a portion of
known violations. Tentative decisions are thus made about whether to pursue a matter and
how to do so. Screening permits the early identification of serious environmental problems
and potentially criminal conduct.
The Criteria for Criminal Investigation
EPA selects only the more serious cases for criminal prosecution. It uses two sets of
criteria—significant environmental harm and culpable conduct. Significant environmental
harm includes—
¦ Actual harm to the environment or human health.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 37 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
¦ The threat of significant harm.
¦ The failure to report an actual discharge, release, or emission, coupled with actual or
threatened harm.
¦ A trend or common attitude within an industry shown by the illegal conduct.
Culpable conduct includes—
¦ A history of repeated violations.
¦ Deliberate misconduct.
¦ Concealment of misconduct or falsification of records.
¦ Tampering with equipment.
¦ Lack of necessary permits or approvals.
Additional considerations come into play with corporations. Thus, a violation that is
voluntarily revealed and fully and promptly remedied as part of a company's systematic
self-evaluation program will generally escape investigation.
With regard to criminal case screening, the 1990 memo's guidance envisions that—
¦ All violations will be reviewed for possible criminal prosecution.
¦ All criminal leads and cases will be reviewed for priority.
¦ The need for parallel or alternate civil proceeding will be reviewed.
It was stated that case screening cannot be a one-time event; it must be an ongoing process to
be effective. For example, civil enforcement personnel may have to go back and talk to their
criminal colleagues. There are a number of "checkpoints" in the civil enforcement process
at which staff can do further screening. Among such checkpoints are the receipt of tips or
leads, section or branch chief meetings, discovery proceedings, and discussions about
settlement or consent decrees.
Case screening could stand improvements to—
¦ Ensure that criminal case screening is not a one-time event.
¦ Develop procedures for nationally managed program cases.
¦ Consider civil enforcement for cases where criminal prosecution has been declined.
Screening Cases for Criminal Prosecution
In considering whether to bring a criminal prosecution for an environmental violation, DOJ
considers the following questions—
¦ Is it an emergency?
¦ Does a statute of limitations argue against delay?
¦ What are program considerations?
¦ What are environmental justice considerations?
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
38
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Session!
Wednesday. November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Once a case is filed, screening is still not over. New decisions may have to be made based
on newly discovered information.
Open Discussion
¦ Settlement conferences. Are there any general rules that should be understood before
entering settlement conferences?
¦ Different sectors. How does one find case screening criteria, strategies, and tactics that
differ for different sectors? One response was that screening should be a combination
of criteria designed for a particular sector and traditional criteria. Another view was
that case screening criteria depend on what one wishes to achieve—remediation,
establishment of a principle of law, or compliance by the rest of the industry through
deterrence.
¦ Bean counting. Some objected to the pursuit of as many cases as possible. Such "bean
counting" was called contrary to the best environmental results. Others noted that an
aggressive enforcement program will pay off numerically and if it fails to do so, people
will understand the reasons why.
¦ The limits of compliance. The view was raised that it is time for EPA to acknowledge
as a practical matter that it cannot pursue every violation. In support, it was said that
what is underway is not a shift away from enforcement so much as a consideration of a
broad range of strategies to achieve compliance. A contrary view was that the policy
should be to pursue all violations, while taking into account that available resources
will affect what can be done.
¦ Confusing targeting and case screening. What an office screens should be different
from what it targets.
¦ The importance of enforcement. Enforcement is what drives compliance and best
protects the environment. The question is, "Which case will result in the greatest
environmental benefit within the bounds of available resources?"
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Case screening is an ongoing process that needs reevaluation as new information is
received.
¦ We must determine ways to incorporate innovative approaches into the enforcement
response process and to communicate intra-agency good deeds.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
39
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessiont
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Group C
Implementing Compliance Assistance in the Field (including impacts on
inspections)
Session Leader(s): Susan Bromm, Director, Chemical, Commercial Services, and Municipal
Division
Panelists: Ray Donnelly, Director, Office of General Industry Compliance
Assistance, OSHA
Liz Taddeo, Pollution Prevention Coordinator, Maryland Department of
Environment
Dennis Smith, Environmental Specialist V, Underground Storage Tank
Division, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Russell Rhoades, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region VI
Introduction
This breakout session addressed issues surrounding the delivery of compliance assistance to
businesses and other regulated entities. Special emphasis was placed on the benefits and
risks of merging inspection and compliance assistance functions. Attended by approximately
28 participants, the session opened with presentations by four panelists who have addressed
firsthand the issue of compliance assistance on a Federal or state level. Following the
presentations, the panelists fielded questions from the group and joined in discussion of the
issues. The panelists discussed the following:
¦ Ray Donnelly described compliance assistance and regulatory enforcement as they
coexist within OSHA.
¦ Liz Taddeo outlined Maryland's "common sense" approach to assisting targeted
industry groups.
¦ Dennis Smith summarized Tennessee's detailed and "customer friendly" plan to achieve
compliance with underground storage tank regulations.
¦ Russell Rhoades described the level to which the compliance assistance and
enforcement functions are merged in Region VI.
Discussion
As the session progressed, four key topics emerged:
1. The role of compliance assistance in the overall framework of an enforcement program.
2. The need for regulatory agencies and the communities they regulate to "know the rules"
regarding the offering and acceptance of compliance assistance.
3. Measures of success for compliance assistance programs.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
40
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
4. The role of inspectors in compliance assistance.
The Role of Compliance Assistance in the Overall Framework
of an Enforcement Program
Compliance assistance is no substitute for enforcement; rather, compliance assistance
complements enforcement efforts. As noted by session leader Susan Bromm, a strong
enforcement program helps build a customer base for compliance assistance programs within
the regulated communities seeking to avoid strong penalties. Likewise, a good compliance
assistance program makes enforcement easier by removing any defense of confusion or lack
of understanding of requirements.
No matter how successful compliance assistance efforts are at preventing violations,
enforcement will remain important for a number of reasons. Mr. Donnelly pointed out that
OSHA considers it imperative to maintain high visibility for its enforcement efforts, for these
efforts make OSHA's clients—unions, nonunion workers, and families of victims—aware that
OSHA stands ready to protect them.
Other ideas presented in support of the notion that compliance assistance complements the
enforcement function include—
¦ Compliance assistance reduces the expense of enforcement. Mr. Donnelly observed
that the compliance assistance provided by OSHA via training, publications,
information dissemination, and cooperative programs reduces enforcement costs by
helping the regulated communities come into voluntary compliance with the law.
¦ Compliance assistance builds trust. Ms. Taddeo put forth the idea that compliance
assistance (coupled with reasonable opportunities to gain compliance) helps state
enforcers gain the trust of the small businesses they regulate.
¦ Compliance assistance promotes two-way understanding. Mr. Smith pointed out that
Tennessee's voluntary assistance program not only helps regulated communities
understand the regulations, but it also helps the regulators understand the industries
they regulate.
¦ Compliance assistance can be faster than enforcement at gaining compliance. In
Region VI, where inspectors facilitate the correction of minor regulatory infractions,
violators are able to bring their operations into compliance quickly. Mr. Rhoades
estimated that 50-75 percent of Region VI violations are minor.
The Need For Clear Policies regarding Compliance Assistance
If compliance assistance and enforcement are to merge in any way and to any degree, the
regulated communities—and the regulators—need to "know the rules." The regulated
community needs to understand, when visited by a government representative, whether the
visit is for the purpose of compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, or both. Similarly,
the government representative must clearly understand his or her mission.
Knowledge of the rules of specific assistance programs is also important. For instance, this
is an essential element of Tennessee's successful underground storage voluntary compliance
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
41
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
program. As described by Mr. Smith, the program calls for "self-audits." That is,
following a specified number of inspections for the purpose of compliance assistance,
companies conduct their own inspections of their other tanks, using the knowledge gained
from government inspections to correct problems. The participating companies are made
aware at the outset that subsequent government inspections will take place and that
significant—and clearly specified—penalties will be assessed for violations.
Ms. Taddeo indicated that she welcomed the Agency's recent policy that allows states to give
small businesses a finite period of time to achieve compliance, without the imposition of
penalties, after receiving compliance assistance under Section 507 of CAA. She was also
happy to learn that EPA was considering expanding the policy to other areas—a move she
felt would be an important step towards gaining the trust of small businesses.
Measures of Success for Compliance Assistance Programs
It is important to be able to gauge the success of a compliance assistance program.
Examples of measurable success offered at the session include the following:
¦ In 1990, the State of Tennessee implemented an underground storage tank registration
program. Using registration and tank fee data, the state can document the successful
registration of thousands of tanks and conclude that prior to this effort 50 percent of all
tanks were in violation of the law.
¦ The success of the full-scale voluntary inspection program now under way in Tennessee
can be measured by the number of participants who make postinspection repairs
(70 percent of all identified problems are corrected within 30 days).
¦ A regional water program official offered an example of percentages of compliance
achieved during an escalating compliance assistance effort on a new rule.
Other measures of success for compliance assistance may not be quantifiable, but may be
equally valid. For instance, the demand for compliance assistance programs is itself an
indication of success. In addition, the observance that enforcement has become easier to
achieve may be an indicator of the success of compliance assistance.
The participants concluded from these discussions that EPA must continue to seek measures
of how well compliance assistance is working.
The Role of Inspectors in Compliance Assistance
The presentations and discussions that took place in the session revealed that the role of
inspectors can vary significantly, along with their degree of participation (if they participate
at all) in compliance assistance. For instance, Mr. Donnelly stated that OSHA inspectors
never offer compliance assistance during an inspection because occupational safety and health
laws mandate that all observed violations be cited. OSHA does, however, offer compliance
assistance via consultative programs, publications, training, and cooperative programs with
certain industries.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
42
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
The inspectors of EPA's Region VI take a different approach, offering a limited degree of
onsite compliance assistance. Mr. Rhoades noted, though, that assistance is offered only on
minor violations. Among the reasons Region VI limits the level of inspector-provided
assistance are these four: (1) The inspector may not be qualified to provide in-depth
compliance assistance; (2) an inspector may "cross the line" into the technical assistance
arena and fail to fulfill his or her duty to report every violation; (3) providing more than a
small degree of assistance would stretch resources and, in all likelihood, require a policy
change; and (4) too much compliance assistance might create false expectations or confusion.
The participants agreed that further analysis and discussion of the inspector role is needed.
They also agreed that continued policy development covering all areas of compliance
assistance is required.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ EPA will continue efforts to define compliance assistance and develop policies related
to the offering of compliance assistance. For example, EPA will continue efforts to
evaluate expansion of the CAA 507 Policy to other media.
¦ EPA must examine the legal issues of combining compliance assistance and compliance
monitoring.
¦ EPA will continue efforts to measure the success of compliance assistance efforts.
¦ The subject of the role of inspectors in delivering compliance assistance requires further
analysis and discussion.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
43
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Group D
Measures of Success
Session Laader(s): Rick Duffy, Chief, Targeting and Evaluation Branch, OC
Panelists: Bertram Frey, Deputy Regional Counsel, Region V
Sam Silverman, Chief, Regulatory Office, Office of Regional Counsel,
New England Region
Introduction
This breakout session focused primarily on the four recommendations of the OECA Measures
of Success Workgroup, which held its second and final meeting in Washington last June.
(The recommendations also are discussed in the 18-page draft report handed out at the
breakout session.) The session leader indicated that they will be examined in even greater
detail in the final report, due out in December 1994. Less detailed presentations by panelists
Frey and Silverman addressed a case analysis in Region V and the New England Region's
response to some of the workgroup's recommendations.
Recommendation No. 1
Implement systematic reporting of environmental and programmatic impacts of compliance
and enforcement.
Discussion
The key element of this proposed change is the new Case Conclusion Data Sheet, a four-page
form attached to the draft report. It is a comprehensive reporting document designed to track
such variables as before/after pollution levels, types of violations, legal penalties, injunctive
relief, environmental impact, and conditions of settlement obtained through EPA
enforcement. The new data sheet, now in a testing phase but scheduled to be adopted
nationally by EPA by 1996, still has some kinks in it, and Headquarters welcomes feedback
from the regions on how it could be improved. One participant suggested that states might
find the same pollution-related data useful and, therefore, it might be a good idea to get them
involved early in helping to refine the criteria on the data sheet.
Recommendation No. 2
Reengineer existing reporting on significant noncompliers and compliance rates to incorporate
multimedia, sector, and environmental justice perspectives.
Discussion
The conclusion here is that much can be done with data already reported by using data
integration techniques to manipulate, combine, and extract data already gathered by EPA and
the states. EPA is looking to both narrow and broaden the use of this data by examining
compliance within industrial sectors across all media. EPA is also looking to incorporate
other useful elements such as census (demographic) and environmental justice information.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
44
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Another conclusion is that definitions need to be clarified. For example, in some EPA data
systems, such as RCRIS (Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System), the
definition of "compliance" is set at a different threshold than for other programs, making it
difficult to compare programs.
Recommendation No. 3
Implement a more comprehensive approach to counting enforcement activities through
implementation of an Enforcement Activity Index.
Discussion
There was very little discussion of this particular recommendation. The message was simple:
try to get away from a singular focus on initiations of civil judicial enforcement actions;
focus more on conclusions, i.e., on getting results.
Recommendation No. 4
Existing media program measures will continue to be reported in their current form in
FY 1995. OECA, with input from the regions, will review existing measures to identify
those that are no longer necessary.
Discussion
One participant suggested that Agency regulators consider establishing an "outreach strategy"
in order to establish credibility. Another suggested that the workgroup be reconvened to
follow up on progress and results, and to build on the database that will result from
information gathered by the new Case Conclusion Data Sheets. The session leader warned
that the institutions with which EPA works will have to be patient, because "things aren't
measurable in a quarterly or even an annual fashion. It's going to take some time for things
such as environmental improvement to start showing up—maybe years."
Region V-Geographic Enforcement Initiative for Southeast
Cook County, Illinois, and Northwest Indiana
Discussion
Between 1988 and 1992, there was a dramatic (50 percent) dropoff in toxic industrial
pollution in Region V, as measured by the "17 plus 1" chemicals and certain other pollutants
of concern in southeast Cook County, Illinois, and northwest Indiana. This area includes
"some of the heaviest industrial polluters in the country." In that 4-year period, the total
dropped from 40 million pounds of measured pollutants a year to 20 million pounds a year.
This reduction compares to an average national reduction of about 33 percent. However, the
overall findings are controversial because they reveal a disproportionate impact of pollutants
on minority and low-income residents, especially of Indiana. A participant who grew up in
the region, which includes Chicago and Gary, Indiana, pointed out that this is not the result
of some Machiavellian conspiracy by industry barons, but is due, rather, to the fact that
low-income residents often live near major steel and coke plants, chemical plants, and
refineries. Interestingly, the presenter admitted that EPA enforcement may not be the most
important factor in the region's substantial improvements. Rather, the shutdown of several
large steel and coke plants and some chemical plants probably helped the most.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
45
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Region (-Implementation and Challenges
Discussion
The final panelist made no overall conclusions, but suggested that industrial polluters be
asked to provide data regularly to the EPA as part of their settlement agreements with the
government and that the Agency adopt arbitrary time guidelines—6 months for completing an
administrative case, 1 year for completing a judicial case. He also noted that the New
England office staff is not very enthusiastic about the new data sheet, primarily because of
concerns about its length. He also stated that the State of the New England Environment
Report will come out on Earth Day.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Implement systematic reporting of the environmental and programmatic impacts of
compliance and enforcement.
¦ Reengineer existing reporting on significant noncompliers and compliance rates to
incorporate multimedia, sector, and environmental justice perspectives.
¦ Implement a more comprehensive approach to counting enforcement activities through
implementation of an Enforcement Activity Index.
¦ Continue to report existing media program measures in their current form during
FY 1995. OECA, with input from the regions, will review existing measures with an
eye towards dropping those measures no longer necessary.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
46
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Breakout Group E
Environmental Auditing
Session Leader(s): Brian P. Riedel, Special Assistant, OC
Geoff Garver, Senior Policy Counsel, OHCA
Lynn Vendinello, Special Assistant, OC
Tai-Ming Chang, OC
Introduction
Discussion topics included a review of EPA policy on environmental auditing, an update of
new state laws and policies, and subgroup activities designed to reassess EPA's policy and
self-evaluation by the regulated community.
Steve Herman formed workgroups with regional Headquarters staff and DOJ to review
EPA's policy on environmental auditing. A well-attended public meeting was held July 27
and 28, 1994, to hear from public interest groups and industry. Upcoming activities include
a briefing with EPA and DOJ on January 10, 1995; a focus group meeting to be held in San
Francisco on January 19, 1995; and a San Francisco meeting of Federal, state, and local
enforcement officials and agency commissioners on January 20, 1995. Other current and
planned activities include the following:
¦ EPA is proceeding with a timeline featuring final decision by mid-late spring, but will
be in a position by the end of January to respond to any Federal auditing and/or state
audit legislation.
¦ In the U.S. Senate, Sens. Hatfield and Brown are expected to introduce audit privilege
legislation, and EPA wants to be ready.
¦ The Environmental Auditing Policy Docket has been established (Docket No. C-94-01)
at the Air Docket (phone (202) 260-7548, fax (202) 260-4400) and includes comment
letters, Federal Register notices, a transcript of the July meeting, and a summary of a
two-day October 1994 workgroup meeting. The index should be requested first.
¦ EPA is simultaneously using a variety of resources to conduct fact-based reassessment
of audit policy: staff activities of fact finding on current enforcement policies, policy
options, and privilege; the July meeting; internal questionnaire on self-disclosure and
auditing; external questions on impact of policies on auditing, auditing practices, and
models for change; pilot projects for the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) to
identify incentives needed for companies to disclose additional audit information to
regulators; and the focus groups.
¦ The July, 1994 public meeting overly focused on audit privilege statutes, and should
have included more on policy options. Note the distinction between privilege against
government and privilege against private parties as seen in certain cases, including the
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
47
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Florida case, Reichold v. Textron. The trade press is also talking about other issues
besides privilege, for example, the movement toward penalty mitigation, limited
privilege, and compromise. However, the primary question in forming a new policy is,
"Are incentives needed for disclosure following an audit?"
Environmental Auditing Policy Workgroup Activities
Subgroup 1—Privilege/Mandatory Auditing, Plus Office of General Counsel (OGC) Referral/DOJ
Coordination
Audit privilege legislation has been enacted in four states—Colorado, Oregon, Indiana, and
Kentucky. EPA opposed the legislation enacted in Colorado, which has penalty immunity
provisions. Sen. Hatfield is expected to introduce a Federal bill similar to the Oregon law.
The subgroup is analyzing four areas: (1) state laws to see where privileges have been
applied, (2) the scope of common law privileges, (3) cases, and (4) which other countries
recognize the audit privilege (Canada does—what do international companies face?).
Subgroup 1 is going through the audit meeting transcript and comments to list the arguments
for and against the audit privilege approach. Many comments on the audit enforcement
policy say that the 1986 policy works (e.g., Edison Electric Institute (EEI) — they say they
won't oppose the privilege policy, then list many problems with it).
Arguments for the audit privilege approach include removing the disincentives for auditing
(the fear of enforcement), increasing candor, encouraging more small businesses to do audits,
and enhancing problem correction of violations. Without a new law, it is burdensome to
"privilege" information.
Arguments against this approach include the public's right to know and the fact that
increasing litigation will lead to a diversion of resources. Several questions also arise: What
happens when information is found outside of the audit privilege? Does EPA have to prove
it was outside the privilege? What precedents do privilege laws set? There are also criminal
enforcement concerns related to evidence and criminal intent.
OGC is doing an analysis of privilege laws to explore some troubling aspects, such as other
provisions that are affected, potential legal hurdles to state-passed programs, and how state
laws would apply to Federal enforcement.
DOJ is analyzing the effect of privilege laws on criminal actions and will probably decide to
oppose privilege laws.
Audience Q&A
Will EPA withdraw programs or be barred from prosecution because of state laws? The
Colorado law has privilege and penalty immunity components. Privilege is not absolute; it
requires careful drafting. EPA needs to put pressure on the states to explain why they want
privilege laws. There will be increased litigation, and it is necessary to put the burden of
proof on the states. Some of the state statutes will expire.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
48
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Wednesday, November 30 (2:45-5:15 p.m.)
Subgroup 2—Penalty Policies/Enforcement Response, with 2A—Current EPA Policies, and
2B—Other Agency/State Models
Subgroup 2A examined enforcement response policies and penalty policies. One of its goals
is to determine credit for prompt voluntary self-disclosure and prompt correction under the
approximately 35 penalty policies and enforcement response policies dealing with penalty
assessment.
Subgroup 2A is finding lack of consistency among policies regarding credit for disclosure
and correction. What does this mean? Also lacking is explicit recognition of auditing
activities as a basis for credit. It is important to recognize the link between auditing, self-
disclosure, and correction, as well as the role of auditing in compliance. Subgroup 2A is
analyzing results of an internal survey on EPA use of information from self-disclosures and
audit reports. In addition, the subgroup is developing policy options and analyzing them
through criteria it develops.
Subgroup 2B is examining the pros and cons of various policy options and studying 15 other
Federal and state programs that give audit incentives (OSHA, FAA, etc.). Policy models
include fear of enforcement, fear to start up, and leadership.
Audience Q&A
The privilege issue is a political issue. Is it a state issue or will it become a Federal issue?
Will voluntary disclosure lead to a penalty reduction? Can audit and disclosure be an
affirmative defense? Are more incentives needed?
Subgroup 3—Leadership "Threshold'/Voluntary Standards/Third Party Verification
Both national and international standards need to be considered in implementing a new policy
with private sector activities. Evolving voluntary standards, such as those connected with the
International Standards Organization (ISO), are considered the "low bar," while
Environmental Leadership Program and third-party verification are considered the "high
bar."
Audience Q&A
Will EPA specify standards, give credit for the auditing programs of companies, grant
penalty reduction for voluntary compliance, and/or give public recognition for company
compliance? EPA's approach should be a broad evaluation, not focused on privilege. Some
companies do not distinguish between programs with reporting requirements (RCRA) and
others that do not require reporting (storage tanks).
The regions were asked to comment on mandatory enforcement versus incentives. The
timing of the Federal position is important. Massachusetts will probably have legislation.
Oregon, with its criminal sanctions, is on one end of the spectrum while Colorado, which
has penalty immunity, is at the other end. Ohio, Minnesota, Mississippi, and North Carolina
might go the policy route instead of the legislative route. Utah wants to consider Colorado's
legislation.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
49
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Session*
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Thursday Morning Breakouts
A. Air: Delivering on the Promise of the 1990 Clean Air Act
B. Water Enforcement: Making a Splash
C. RCRA Enforcement: Charting New Directions
D. Utilization of Resources in the Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRA Programs: Doing More
With Less, But Getting More in the Future
E. Multimedia Enforcement: Expanding Our Enforcement Horizons
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
50
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group A
Air: Delivering on the Promise of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Session Leader(s): Kathie Stein, Director, Air Enforcement Division
Panelists: Nancy Marvel, Regional Counsel, EPA Region IX
Winston Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic Management
Division, Region IV
Stan Meiburg, Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI
Introduction
This breakout session on issues and updates related to the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments focused on three major topic areas: (1) Title V enforcement and strategies for
addressing the improvement of permit programs and compliance certifications, (2) targeting
national initiatives, identifying priority areas, and (3) state and local partnerships and what
they mean in art enforcement context. Also given brief attention were the status of CAA
regulation development by Headquarters and the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program.
Panelists addressed the three major topic areas, affording session participants the chance to
ask questions and engage in discussion.
Title V Enforcement Implications
Title V was acknowledged as one of the biggest improvements of the 1990 CAA
Amendments, as it creates a single permitting vehicle to set down all CAA requirements
applicable to each source. As the states start issuing Title V permits over the coming
months, the enforcement and permitting authorities will be faced with some number—as yet
unknown exactly how many—of sources that may discover their noncompliance with certain
requirements. Since the Title V applicant must certify as to past compliance or get on a
schedule to come into compliance, the states and regions will be learning of past violations
and will have to determine the appropriate enforcement response. Discussion on this issue
pointed out that such a response might vary from resolving the problem in the context of the
permit issuance to taking an appropriate enforcement action depending on the facts and
circumstances. Concerns were voiced that an enforcement response policy be developed to
ensure a consistent response across the country.
Participants expressed interest in a workgroup with Headquarters and regional participants to
focus on the range of issues raised. The Agency will also work closely with the states as it
develops its thinking.
Targeting National Initiatives
Should a targeting committee be formed?
Panelists discussed the formation of a targeting committee with members from EPA, DOJ,
states, and other affected offices to establish air enforcement and compliance priorities as was
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
51
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
done in the RCRA program. All believed it would be a good idea and recommended that
planning begin for this participatory activity. The goal would be to work closely with the
states to learn more about their priorities and integrate the work of this group with regional
and Headquarters priorities to create a comprehensive approach. A mechanism would be
established for feeding the results of the committee's discussion into a central priority setting
group.
State and Local Partnerships
Panelists addressed the issue of how to build better state and local partnerships, offering
several suggestions:
¦ The Agency needs to work on determining the nature of partnership and state-Federal
division of roles,
¦ Communication is key. Regions can build personal relationships by getting out there in
person. Headquarters can do the same. Manage by facts, assumptions can be
misleading, and try to understand state perspectives (i.e., how we look to the state).
¦ Overfiling may at times work against partnership. Counting EPA beans only also may
work against partnership. Build on joint enforcement actions and include states within
a comprehensive program and priority-setting mechanism. There is also a tremendous
need for more EPA personnel and training in light of new regulations.
¦ Better partnering between the regions and Headquarters would be helpful, as would
more frequent travel by OECA to the regions to learn the regions' daily operations and
discuss issues.
Other Issues
Updates were provided on a number of CAA rulemakings, including Part 70, Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT), Potential to Emit, New Source Review Reform
Package, Part C and D Package, Citizens Awards, Field Citations Rule, 112 (r) Risk
Management Plans, and Enhanced Monitoring. A status report on RFG was also provided.
Conclusion/Action Items
The following action items or next steps emerged from this small group discussion as
follows:
¦ To deal further with the regions and in the states concerning responses to
noncompliance that may be identified in the Title V permitting process.
¦ To follow up on the interest in and support for developing a process with OECA, state,
and regional participants for identifying air national enforcement and compliance
initiatives coordinated with OECA priorities.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
52
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.]
Breakout Group B
Water Enforcement: Making a Splash
Session Leader(s): Ramona Trovato, Director, Water Enforcement Division
Kathy Smith, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Team Leader, Water Enforcement Division
Betsy Devlin, Drinking Water Team Leader
Introduction
The breakout group was given three starting points for its discussion: the importance of
continuing implementation of base program activities during MOA negotiations; the need to
define program alternatives in lieu of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and CWA
reauthorizations; and the establishment of FY 1996 priorities, including wetlands program
enforcement, Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) enforcement, and Watershed Approach
implementation.
404 Wetlands Program
While remaining a priority and an EPA core program, the 404 Wetlands Program needs to
take a more unified approach. Its current ad hoc decision-making mechanism is
counterproductive to development of strong enforcement actions. A large part of developing
relationships among interestol parties is working together to develop an enforcement
management system (EMS) as part of the 404 program infrastructure. Planned EMS
activities include defining significant noncompliers (SNC), developing case selection
guidance, creating a penalty policy addendum applicable to wetlands cases, defining
communications strategies, and creating litigation report guidance.
As there is strong DOJ interest in wetlands issues, opportunities for making an impact now
exist. The 404 program should emphasize preventive, as opposed to cleanup, activities. As
wetlands enforcement is labor-intensive, heightening these efforts will require disinvestment
elsewhere, and this should be taken into consideration when targeting 1996 as an enforcement
year. Strategically targeting large area segments that heavily impact wetlands is preferable to
dramatically increasing the case load and avoids the 404 program becoming a lightning rod
for discarding all wetlands efforts. Expectations for the 404 program must be realistic: its
focus must be narrowed, and the timing and nature of its responses improved. The 404
program will maximize its effectiveness when carried out in concord with other regulatory
tools.
Surface Water Treatment Rule
The SWTR remains a high priority because it deals directly with public health protection.
Unfiltered surface systems must either meet specific filtration-avoidance criteria or install
filtration, and these remain the top priority for enforcement action. Currently, 168 sites (out
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
53
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
of an original 1,300) are in need of an enforcement action at the regional or state level and
represent a significant threat to public health, as there is no effective and systematic
treatment in place for microbiological agents. Systems which met avoidance criteria need to
be monitored as well, as noncompliance with the avoidance criteria represents a similar high
risk and triggers filtration installation requirements. Filtered systems require adherence to
SWTR performance criteria. Future activities include status-review coordination with states
and regions, continued quarterly reporting to Headquarters, and initiation of enforcement
actions on unaddressed systems.
Significant Noncompliers
The NPDES SNC revision entails redefining and expanding the definition of SNC to include
additional facilities with serious violations that are not identified by the current SNC process.
A workgroup tackled the issue of expanding the current SNC criteria, which addresses only
monthly average violations, to include nonmonthly average violations now overlooked. The
workgroup achieved consensus on the "caveat option," which applies current SNC criteria
for monthly average periods to nonmonthly average periods. The "caveat option" stipulates
that when a facility has both monthly average and nonmonthly average limits, nonmonthly
average violations will be considered SNC only if the facility has some level of monthly
average violation (but less than SNC). A software program identifying nonmonthly average
SNC will be disseminated. Initially, monthly average SNC and nonmonthly average SNC
will be reported separately.
Safe Drinking Water Act
As reauthorization of the SDWA is unlikely in the near term; alternative strategies for the
Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) enforcement program need consideration. The
challenge is magnified by the confusing legislative environment, with Senate and House
Committee structures in flux. Outstanding issues include recent high-profile media criticism
of the condition of the nation's drinking water supply—exacerbated by incidents such as those
in Milwaukee—and the agenda of the Coalition for Safe Drinking Water Act Reform and the
potential for Coalition/EPA consensus-building as prelude to possible future SDWA
reauthorization. Proposals advanced include realigning regulatory priorities through selected
disinvestment, boosting pollution prevention efforts, strengthening managerial institution of
water supplies, and reviewing current methods of implementing existing regulations.
In lieu of reauthorization, potential actions include finalizing and promulgating the
"information gathering" regulation, interpreting existing authority more broadly, promoting
the use of 1431 authority, cooperating with the Office of Criminal Enforcement (OCE) in
pursuing data-falsification cases, working with DOJ to expedite filing of drinking water
cases, issuing tougher policies on appropriate state actions, and facilitating citizen
enforcements. Other actions to strengthen drinking water enforcement that are not directly
related to reauthorization include developing new models, obtaining greater regional
involvement in new regulation development, inspecting major filtered and unfiltered systems,
and making drinking water a regional priority.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 54 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
J
Thursday, December 1 {9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Clean Water Act
The prospects for reauthorization of the CWA are similarly weak. In lieu of reauthorization,
strategies include amendment of 123 regulations, clarification of diligent prosecution and
comparable state law, use of guidance to deal with issues arising from case law, review of
consent decrees, pursuit of targeted cases, and obtaining precedents on narrative limits.
Formula-Based Clean Water Act Penalty Policy
The formula-based Clean Water Act Penalty Policy is to be modified to provide fresh
guidance, reflect recent learning, and provide municipalities with economic incentives to get
in compliance. Three drafts have been disseminated, and extensive regional feedback for
revision is anticipated. Mitigation is in response to the National Municipal Litigation
Formula, designed to assign a role to benefits in the unfolding of policy. Establishing a floor
level creates a matrix for determining violations and somewhat restricts discretion. Ranges
in gravity calculations will still be large, but with more compensatory rules; the idea is to
balance a need for national consistency (raising the multiplier level) with a need for regional
discretion (lowering other factors).
Objections to the policy include that it wastes time and has little environmental benefit, that
further adjustments are needed, that regions often do not take an enforcement action to
ascertain a penalty, and that there needs to be yet more leeway for discretion at the regional
level. Open questions deal with whether or not the reconstituted formula is a radical change
and how the formulated ceilings affect the decision to proceed with a case either
administratively or judicially.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ The 404 program needs to act more swiftly at the regional level and to establish itself
more conclusively at the front end of the process. The program, however, should not
spread itself too thin.
¦ The SWTR remains a high priority for implementation and enforcement.
¦ It has been proposed that for 1 year, monthly average SNC and nonmonthly average
SNC will be reported separately.
¦ Strategies should be implemented in response to the improbability of SDWA and
CWA reauthorizations.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 55
Draft Proceedings Summary
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group C
RCRA Enforcement: Charting New Directions
(including RCRA corrective action)
Session Leader(s): Gary Jonesi, Chief, Waste Identification Enforcement Policy Branch,
RCRA Enforcement Division
Sam Coleman, Deputy Director, Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE)
Panelists: Bruce Gelber, DOJ
Alan Farmer, Chief, RCRA Permitting and Compliance Branch,
Region IV
Devereaux Barnes, Director, Permits and State Programs Division,
Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
Bob Greaves, Chief, RCRA Enforcement and UST Branch, Region III
Introduction
This session provided an overview of recent RCRA enforcement activities on Federal and
regional levels. Attended by approximately 25 people, the session took the form of two
panel sessions. The first panel, which was led by Gary Jonesi and included Bruce Gelber
and Alan Farmer, had these broad objectives—
¦ To review recent activities relating to RCRA regulatory enforcement and examine their
impact on future activities.
¦ To outline future directions for RCRA enforcement as perceived by EPA Headquarters.
¦ To get feedback from regions, DOJ, and the National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC) concerning these directions.
¦ To explore potential agenda items for the upcoming RCRA national meeting.
The second panel, led by Sam Coleman, focused on the status and the future of RCRA
corrective actions. On die panel were Devereaux Barnes, Bob Greaves, and Alan Farmer.
RCRA Regulatory Enforcement
Past accomplishments/future goals. Gary Jonesi opened the first panel with a review of
recent accomplishments that were achieved despite significant challenges raised by recent
case law. Among them were the following:
¦ Increased penalties since revision of civil penalty policy in 1990, e.g., administrative
penalties assessed in FY 1989 were $2.5 million; FY 1994 administrative penalties
totalled nearly $11 million.
¦ United States v. Eastman Kodak. Settled for $8 million, Kodak is illustrative of the
savings in time and resources to be achieved when litigation is avoided. It also is the
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
56
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
first case to use RCRA to address leaking industrial sewers; it is a product of a
facility-wide multimedia inspection; and it involved an aging industrial facility. In
addition, the case caused Kodak to change its business outlook and to focus readily on
its environmental responsibilities.
¦ Additional court decisions. Other recent cases include Borden (Region VI), which
addressed both domestic and international environmental concerns; United States v.
Marine Shale Processors Inc. (Louisiana), which addressed the question of whether a
burner is actually a recycler and, therefore, exempt from regulation; United States v.
Bethlehem Steel (Region V), which remains significant despite a partial reversal by the
Circuit Court of Appeals; and City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund.
¦ Combustion initiatives. Two 1994 initiatives emphasize the importance of enforcing
incinerator/industrial burner requirements.
¦ EPA's revised waste analysis plan.
¦ Progress on the development of a manual to aid regions in calculating economic
benefit.
With the accomplishments and lessons of the past in mind, the panel chair identified these
goals for EPA in the future:
¦ Continue to develop and implement national guidance enforcement policies.
¦ Support regional enforcement efforts.
¦ Promote clear and enforceable regulations.
¦ Build and enhance enforcement partnerships, e.g., build a strong infrastructure.
¦ Promote the use of innovative enforcement methods.
Judicial enforcement. Bruce Gelber offered additional information on recent litigation having
an impact on RCRA's regulatory enforcement future. Noting that only about 10 percent of
cases referred to DOJ actually become judicial enforcement cases, Mr. Gelber observed that
FY 1994 was nevertheless a "banner year," with approximately $14 million in civil judicial
penalties.
Mr. Gelber added United States v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. to the list of recent landmark
cases, pointing out that Ekco's failure to comply with financial assurance requirements was
the cause of the action and of the $4-6 million penalty currently on appeal.
Looking to the future, Mr. Gelber saw five major efforts as the impetus of near-term future
activities:
¦ Continue aggressive enforcement efforts aimed at deterring noncompliance, and explore
new enforcement tools.
¦ Develop an even more integrated, smarter approach to enforcement (e.g., make careful
choices in separating judicial from administrative cases and civil from criminal cases,
using compliance assurance tools where appropriate and ultimately building stronger
cases when action becomes necessary).
¦ Emphasize ecosystem protection via strategic targeting of environmentally problematic
geographic regions.
¦ Make innovative use of RCRA authorities (e.g., corrective action and Section 7003).
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedinos Summary
57
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
¦ Foster close cooperation between EPA and DOJ in identifying high priorities and
referring cases to DOJ.
Opportunity to Show Cause. In FY 1994, Region IV began the use of show-cause meetings
in some RCRA enforcement proceedings. These meetings provide the potential respondent
with an opportunity to meet with the region to discuss alleged violations prior to the issuance
of a formal enforcement action. Panelist Alan Farmer explained why the opportunity for
violators to show cause has proved to be a positive change for the region.
RCRA Corrective Action
According to many industry critics, application of RCRA Subtitle C standards to
environmental cleanup challenges often has negative impacts in that it can create inflexible
cleanup situations and quash community cleanup efforts. At the same time, these standards
must be applied in order to ensure that the most significant hazards are eliminated. In an
effort to balance the goals of maintaining flexibility while ensuring comprehensive,
competent cleanup efforts, EPA is developing the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR). As related by panelist Devereaux Barnes, HWIR will attempt to create a
"harmonized approach" to cleanup. Barnes also discussed the restarting of the Subpart S
rulemaking effort and formation of the OSW/Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) Leadership Team to share information and coordinate efforts on cross-cutting
efforts.
Corrective Action in Region III. Region III, which has an aggressive corrective action
program, has been successful in achieving stabilization for high-priority facilities. As
explained by panelist Bob Greaves, Region Ill's success with these facilities is in part tied to
its use of interim measures and additional work provisions in corrective action orders. Mr.
Greaves noted, however, that it is still struggling with questions as to how to address
medium- and low-priority cases, and with the need to define stabilization more clearly.
Mr. Greaves also made these points about Region Ill's activities:
¦ It sets timeframes for negotiations. The region receives few requests for dispute
resolution.
¦ Region III has been successful in identifying and acquiring the data needed for quality
assurance plans.
¦ It continues to require risk assessments with residential scenarios, but seeks guidance
from Headquarters regarding the usefulness/appropriateness of industrial scenarios.
Region III is offering opportunities for development of industrial scenarios.
¦ It encourages other regions to make broader use of innovative technology. Region III
has had success with new technologies.
¦ Region III would like to improve its outreach efforts.
Comments by other panelists. Alan Farmer (Region IV) suggested simplifying the beginning
of year plans (BYPs) and the corrective measures studies (CMS) process and developing
CMS guidance. Bruce Gelber (DOJ) mentioned that DOJ would like to see more innovative
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
58
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
use of RCRA remedial authorities and cited the Powder River case in Region VIII (RCRA §
7003 order) as a good example.
Action Items
The first panel identified three ideas for further consideration, each of which may constitute a
useful topic for discussion at the upcoming national RCRA meeting.
¦ Using Kodak as a model, consider developing future initiatives with a strong nexus to
protection of human health and the environment.
¦ Emphasize ways to demonstrate the financial benefits of environmental protection (the
DuPoru litigation illustrates that industry need not choose between environment and
economy; environmental projects can actually improve the bottom line).
¦ Enhance the credibility of RCRA by taking high quality actions rather than unduly
overemphasizing quantity.
The following action items emerged from the panel on RCRA corrective actions:
¦ Define stabilization more clearly, and continue to refine the concept.
¦ Provide guidance to the regions on how to balance the provision of residential and
industrial scenarios.
¦ Determine how to factor in future-use considerations.
¦ Encourage broader use of innovative technology.
¦ Develop criteria for determining when to allow or encourage voluntary corrective
action. If more voluntary action is to be encouraged, establish performance-based goals
to govern these actions.
¦ Develop Corrective Measures Study/Corrective Measures Implementation (CMS/CMI)
guidance.
¦ Simplify the CMS process by limiting the number of remedies.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
59
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 {9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group D
Utilization of Resources in the Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRA
Programs: Doing More With Less, But Getting More in the Future
Session Leaderfe): Jesse Baskerville, Director, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division
(TPED)
Maureen Lydon, Associate Director, TPED
Susan Studlien, Deputy Division Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic
Management Division (ADTMD), Region I
Introduction
Discussion topics included customer-client relations between Headquarters and the regions;
review of 12 initiatives for FY 1995; participative methods for the regions in FY 1996
enforcement planning at the national level; and involvement of the public through focus
groups.
The breakout session began with brainstorming about regional/Headquarters customer-client
relations. What are the deliverables between Headquarters and the regions and vice versa?
Deliverables (Headquarters to Regions)—
¦ Coordination with OPPTS.
¦ Coordination with the lead region.
¦ Allowing regions flexibility in setting priorities.
¦ Interpretive guidance.
¦ Legal, timely, and consistent technical support to facilitate resolution of cases.
¦ Broad program goals.
¦ Enforcement training.
¦ Marketing/promotion of programs.
¦ Solicitation of resources.
¦ Information to regions that they should not be so fragmented that no resources exist.
Deliverables (Regions to Headquarters)—
¦ Implementation of programs with guidance and resources from Headquarters.
¦ Support of national priorities where applicable.
¦ Information as a basis to develop national priorities.
¦ Information exchange.
¦ Participation in policy and regulation development.
¦ Program marketing and promotion.
¦ Enforcement expertise from a real world perspective.
¦ Strategic planning and cases.
¦ Enforcement cases.
¦ Environmental indicator identification.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
60
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Session*
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
There is an Executive Order for a government-wide customer-client survey in which EPA
will have to participate.
To improve the relationship between the Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) and the
regions, it established a Customer Relationship Quality Action Team that developed and
published four major products: (1) a pesticides and toxics compliance program directory;
(2) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for creating "Issue Teams" for soliciting and
responding to regional comments and for formatting and operating policy workgroups; (3) a
compendium of SOPs; and (4) recommendations on improving communications. The new
organization, TPED, will make use of these products previously developed.
Audience Q&A
Surveys
A customer service form, which addresses post-reorganization regional concerns, will be
designed by TPED to be sent out perhaps every 6 months. Is there value in sending a
standard form to improve relations with the regions? Does this idea have merit? The survey
should not be sent out too often. While there is benefit in benchmarking, there is a danger
of overkill. Use followup surveys. Ask regional directors what Headquarters should be
doing. Feedback is important: the regions need to see that their concerns are leading to
changes, or they will lose interest. A baseline survey would be useful to see if other regions
have similar problems, followed by phone calls to share and resolve them. Another option
would be to do a survey and discuss it at a scheduled meeting. Structure and feedback are
needed for a successful survey. Perhaps Headquarters should have quarterly progress reports
on issues. Design surveys so that regions can also identify their own impediments to
relations with Headquarters. Provide support for focusing on regional Division Directors in
addition to other managers.
Conference Calls
Establish regularly scheduled conference calls with the regions. Promote programs with the
regional Division Directors—target them—perhaps by eliciting from them a commitment to
participate in conference calls. Adding structure to conference calls is essential. A joint lead
region/Division Directors conference call on the agenda may result in better attendance. Put
Steve Herman or Deputy Assistant Administrators (DAAs) on the call. Check with regions
for the right Division Director to put on the call; coordinate with OC, ORE, and the program
offices. Conference calls should also be used for early regional input on FY 1997 budget.
Include OC managers on conference calls as well.
Meetings
Meet yearly with the regions to ask what is working. Regional Division Directors' meetings
can be used to communicate effectively with the regions. Establish meetings and conference
calls between the regions and OECA—perhaps add an extra day to scheduled conferences.
At the biannual Air Meeting, perhaps include a national toxics and pesticides planning
meeting to discuss emerging policy and strategic planning.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
61
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a,m.)
Proposed FY 1995 National Initiatives
The breakout group discussed 12 national enforcement case initiatives and how to implement
them. The regional input for FY 1995 depended on the initiative, but as the teams broaden,
the regions will get more information. Teams within TPED will work with the regions and
the states. Headquarters is looking for help from the regions in developing the FY 1996
initiatives. Volunteers were solicited and received in followup to the conference.
Focus Groups
Focus groups may be used to identify ways to strengthen enforcement initiatives. Possible
audiences include industry, congressional staff, and public interest/environmental groups.
The focus groups will be asked to identify barriers to compliance and how EPA can
overcome them. Focus groups will likely be outside of Washington. Other agencies'
experience with focus groups could be used to help avoid land mines.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Initiate regular conference calls with regional Division Directors to assess working
relationships and discuss substantive issues. Include Assistant Administrator's office.
¦ Hold a national toxics and pesticides planning meeting for emerging policies/strategic
planning (recommended before bi-annual Air Meeting).
¦ Prepare a customer survey to establish a baseline with regard to working relations
between Headquarters and regions; share results and discuss them.
¦ Follow up on idea to use focus groups.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
62
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Session*
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group E
Multimedia Enforcement: Expanding Our Enforcement Horizons
Session Leader(s): Michael Wood, Director, Multimedia Enforcement Division (MED)
Panelists: Melissa Marshall, Associate Director, MED
David Hindin, Team Leader, MED
Harley Laing, Regional Counsel, Region I
Jim Edward, Director, Planning, Prevention and Compliance Branch,
FFEO
Introduction
The discussion of EPA's national multimedia enforcement efforts was very broad. Five
principal speakers covered topics ranging from the need to find more effective ways to curb
"national violators" (companies with numerous plants in violation of EPA statutes) to the
new SEP policies. In addition, dozens of questions were taken from the floor.
Discussion
Multimedia cases. Headquarters, with MED as a focal point, should provide "one-stop
shopping" for case analysis and policy advice to the field, while at the same time welcoming
input from the regions to clarify and strengthen multimedia policy. Some regional
participants said the multimedia portion of their responsibilities was working smoothly, while
others complained about policies that "limit us" and about the "drain" placed on their
resources by such wide-ranging inspection and enforcement efforts.
Multimedia polices. According to Headquarters, most regions support new draft SEPs, which
will next be sent to state environmental offices for their feedback and to encourage closer
state/EPA cooperation. Headquarters is working on a refined definition of multimedia, as
there is some confusion about precisely what is meant by "multimedia", actions and what
they encompass. Headquarters says that in order to support field efforts, it has put BEN and
ABEL financial analysis models on its mainframe and on disks, and will soon place these
models on the LAN as well so the regions can use them. Participants suggested that
ensuring consistency in penalty policies would be "very helpful," along with clearer
guidelines on when a multimedia, versus a single media, action should be initiated.
Regional perspectives. It is not enough merely to obtain new multimedia cases; they must be
tackled on a "community and ecosystem basis," with an eye towards improving the
environment. Regions need to target enforcement from a public health and environment
point of view. There must be an increased emphasis on public outreach and involvement.
To many communities, a multimedia approach to pollution abatement is "just common
sense." EPA representatives need to be able to talk about environmental problems and
enforcement efforts in a "cross-cutting (i.e., multimedia) sense." The public expects EPA to
be on top of this.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
63
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (9:00-11:30 a.m.)
Federal facilities program. The new Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance
Initiative Report was discussed. There were 75 multimedia inspections at Federal facilities
across the country during the past 2 years. The vast majority (80 percent) were at
Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, and resulted in 75 enforcement actions ranging
from Warning Letters to Administrative Orders. More than half of the facilities inspected
had violated multiple EPA statutes, so comprehensive multimedia inspections were justified.
There was substantial state/EPA cooperation: state environmental offices participated in
88 percent of inspection and enforcement actions, leading more than a third of the efforts.
For 118 targeted facilities, EPA Headquarters used data provided by regional offices to
create detailed profiles of their operations. It subsequently recommended ways to prevent or
reduce pollution at those facilities. About half the regions said they found this information
very helpful.
Multimedia clearinghouse. Headquarters intends to set up a clearinghouse on multimedia to
help regional and state inspection and enforcement efforts. The regions are seeking to
incorporate more pollution prevention activities and SEPs into enforcement settlements. One
region reported that 90 percent of its enforcement actions concern "only 10 or 12
industries"; to better target them, it is "building" environmental profiles of major polluters in
the region to help its enforcement and compliance personnel.
Conclusion/Action Items
Participants generally concluded that multimedia inspections and enforcement could be
substantially strengthened by—
¦ A clearer definition of "multimedia enforcement" to better focus efforts.
¦ More help from EPA Headquarters in identifying and establishing strategies for
"national violators" (companies with numerous plants in potential violation of EPA
statutes).
¦ Clearer and more consistent policies, especially with regard to SEPs, significant
noncompliers (SNCs), and other policies to facilitate multimedia approaches.
¦ Reducing friction and boosting cooperation between state and EPA multimedia efforts
to avoid overlap. Identify the most effective regional enforcement, inspection, and/or
state/Federal "interface" models and methods and adopt them nationally.
¦ Finding better and more efficient methods to measure multimedia activities, including
"resource inputs" (funds, man hours), so the effectiveness of the multimedia (versus
single media) approach to pollution abatement can be accurately assessed.
¦ More help from EPA Headquarters in clarifying what is meant by the "sector
approach" to pollution abatement and how best to pursue it.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
64
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Thursday Afternoon Breakouts
A. Critical Path to Implementation of the Sector Approach by Overcoming
Organizational Obstacles
B. Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Enforcement and Compliance
C. Common Sense Initiatives—Ideas for Innovative Compliance and Enforcement Project
D. Enforcement and Compliance Role in Ecosystem Protection
E. Integrating Pollution Prevention into the Enforcement and Compliance Continuum
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
65
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Breakout Group A
Critical Path to Implementation of the Sector Approach by Overcoming
Organizational Obstacles
Session Leader(s): Mike Gaydosh, Regional Enforcement Officer, Region VIII
Beth Greenwald, Regional Enforcement Analyst, Region VIII
Panelists: George Czerniak, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, Region V
Sam Silverman, Chief, Regulatory Office, Office of Regional Counsel,
Region I
Connie Musgrove, Deputy Director, ORE
Elaine Stanley, Director, OC
Gene Lubieniecki, Chief, Civic Enforcement Support Branch, National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Pam Phillips, Regional Enforcement Coordinator, Region VI
Introduction
The purpose of the breakout session was to define both organizational roadblocks and
solutions—in the form of a set of recommendations to OECA—to implementing a sector
approach to enforcement. The groups discussed options and canvassed opinions about the
issues of sector approach relative to enforcement, its implementation, and its ultimate value.
Sector-Based Enforcement
Individuals representing various institutions presented their perspectives, based on personal
experience, on both the implementation of a sector approach and the obstacles encountered:
¦ George Czerniak remarked that new regulations and evidence of widespread violations
lead to a sector-based enforcement approach. The sector approach allows for voluntary
compliance and encourages a "domino theory" to settlements. Impediments to it
include differences in regulations among states, maintaining equity of treatment between
competitors within a sector, and sector-bloc resistance.
¦ Sam Silverman suggested facilitating implementation by appointing an active and
committed regional administrator, performing resource assessment of priorities, and
creating cross-program enforcement targets.
¦ Connie Musgrove stressed the need for flexibility in any sector organization in order to
preserve core expertise. One possible solution is to organize branches by media, while
building in the flexibility to organize, or cluster, around sectors.
¦ Elaine Stanley cited infrastructure obstacles and a media-based (as opposed to sector-
based) cultural outlook as impediments, as well as a lack of a sector database, training
materials, and guidance oriented toward such an approach. She suggested the
development of both sector profiles and a sector-expert network of regional-level
personnel, as well as making a conscious attempt to think in terms of sectors vis-a-vis media.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
66
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ Gene Lubieniecki phrased the issue as how to do current sector analysis more
effectively by bringing individual media together to look at sectors holistically.
Training in sector issues can lead to the establishment of a base of expertise, both
knowledgeable and shrewd.
¦ Pam Phillips emphasized improving the dialogue between regions and states, finding
good sectors to test-market the approach, and pooling and sharing resources between
regions and states.
Grants
There was disagreement about the value of grants as a mechanism for facilitating a sector
approach. There were doubts expressed as to whether there is enough money in grant
resources to fund this change, and complicating matters is the topical and sensitive issue of
"unfunded mandates" directed at states. Additionally, states resent a heavy-handed approach
in accepting grant money from the Agency. Any approach will need to be targeted on a
state-by-state basis. Block grants, being piloted in two states, may aid the states in
implementing a sector approach.
The Sector Trend
There was doubt expressed about whether the sector approach makes sense in the long run,
whether in the future the prevailing philosophy will still be sector-based, and, therefore,
whether the process of encouraging "cultural change" in the organization will have to be
duplicated in another incarnation in a few years. In response, session members emphasized
that the sector trend is necessary, regardless of political change, and as that most EPA staff
are civil service employees and not appointed, there is a certain in-house insulation against
political change. If career Agency staff can keep the sector approach going, then momentum
for it can be sustained. The sector approach is currently considered the most effective
response to environmental problems that, being population-based, are increasingly immune to
traditional solutions. If the sector approach is no longer considered valid in the future, then
that is when the approach can be changed.
Defining Sector and Success
The questions of how to define a "sector" and a "success" were raised. In defining sectors,
it was suggested to look at how regions define them, keeping in mind the need to articulate
the difference between managing by initiative and managing by sector. In defining
successes, it was thought that simply generating the right enforcement numbers was no
longer the best measure of the success of any enforcement program, and that a different
creed of success should be considered.
Conclusion/Action Items
Using the panelists' experiences as a point of departure and keeping the preceding topics in
mind, the breakout session made the following recommendations:
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
67
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 {1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ The focus on sectors should contain regional flexibility and a consistent national level
approach. By carefully targeting a limited number of sectors with nationwide relevance
and then crafting a compliance-monitoring strategy, initial successes readily
communicable to the public can be built, and then added to.
¦ Establish a network of sector experts nationwide. It is not advisable, or perhaps even
possible, to have an undue number of experts for a specific sector housed in each
region. Therefore, inter-region communication is vital to establishing the necessary
flexibility for a broad-based sector-expert staff to be effective. Regions could
individually target as priorities the most relevant sectors; all regions should not be
focusing on all sectors. There would be clusters of expertise for nonmedia-specific
activities. It is also important to listen to the sectors.
¦ Create an integrated, comprehensive, and easily accessible database for sector
information.
¦ Encourage by planning, training, and outreach the organizational cultural change
necessary to cement an effective transition to a sector-based approach. Getting the
organization to think and act differently is best done by providing the staff with the
tools they need to make the change.
¦ Build and foster state partnerships through tools such as grants, priority settings, and
team approaches. States will not be coerced into following a national agenda, but will
need to be convinced of the efficacy of the idea to their own satisfaction in their
particular state. Persuading states to buy into the approach can best be accomplished
by delivering products to them, such as an integrated database, a network of experts,
and manuals for training and compliance.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
68
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday. December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Breakout Group B
Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Enforcement and Compliance
Session Leader: Greg Kenyon, Program Analyst, Enforcement Capacity and Outreach
Office
Panelists: Gail C. Ginsberg, Regional Counsel, Region V
Harley F. Laing, Regional Counsel, Region I
Karen Skelton, Office of the Attorney General, DOJ
Robin Lancaster, Attorney, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division
Pat A. Alberico, Deputy Director, Enforcement Planning, Targeting and
Data Division (EPTDD)
Renee Wynn, OECA Environmental Justice Coordinator, EPTDD
Michael Walker, Senior Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and member,
OECA Environmental Justice Coordinating Counsel
When we talk about environmental justice, we mean calling a halt to the poisoning and
pollution of our poorest communities, from our rural areas to our inner cities. We don't
have a person to waste, and pollution clearly wastes human lives and natural resources.
When our children's lives are no longer cut short by toxic dumps, when their minds are no
longer damaged by lead paint poisoning, we will stop wasting energy and intelligence that
could build a stronger and more prosperous America.
—President Bill Clinton, June 14, 1993
Introduction
This session began with six speakers outlining in succession their experience with
environmental justice issues. A wide-ranging discussion among the entire group followed.
Experience with Environmental Justice
¦ Gail Ginsberg. Four of Region V's geographic initiatives targeted environmental
justice communities, such as East St. Louis. An enforcement committee was formed
for each community. Each committee decided where to bring enforcement action and
invited public participation. Where they lacked the jurisdiction to address community
concerns, committees tried to bring in other Federal and state agencies (e.g., HUD to
deal with lead paint problems). They found that the community may expect an
unrealistic degree of involvement by EPA and may expect to participate fully in
sensitive legal negotiations and to help decide solutions. Community groups also want
more information and want to participate in monitoring. Creative settlement
arrangements (SEPs) can be positive tools in addressing community needs.
- Region V's involvement with environmental justice earned it the hostility of the state
environmental director.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
69
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
- EPA needs to sensitize and involve states in environmental justice efforts.
¦ Harley Laing. One problem in New England is that environmental justice communities
tend to be in older cities, where EPA traditionally has few facilities and therefore
cannot respond. Staff did outreach to four communities to identify the priorities of
each. Staff have taken steps to mainstream environmental justice, such as including
questions on environmental justice in case screening, tripling inspections in
environmental justice communities, and raising employees' consciousness by displaying
maps of environmental justice communities in offices. Staff also emphasize SEPs.
- A creative solution was found in settling with the Massachusetts Highway Department
for RCRA violations. The department agreed to put $5 million into SEPs, which are
expected to be mainly in environmental justice communities.
- The SEP ideas include lead paint abatement, remediation of vacant lots, and purchase
of park land.
¦ Karen Skelton. Attorney General Reno has issued the order that DOJ develop an
environmental assistance strategy. DOJ is now in the first phase—education and
training. The second phase will involve filing cases. This means thinking about
enforcement as community-based and looking behind environmental laws to see how
civil rights laws can be used in an environmental context. It also means looking at new
remedies like SEPs and at asset forfeiture in an environmental context. DOJ is also
considering how to use churches, radio, and so forth to get the word out to
communities about meetings.
¦ Robin Lancaster. Two groups that inform ORE policy in this field are the OECA
Environmental Justice Coordinating Council and the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council. ORE has conducted education and outreach efforts, and exchanged
information with environmental justice communities. To community meetings, it brings
both technical experts and attorneys. Initiatives include the export of hazardous waste
and lead-based paint abatement. Staff are coordinating with DOJ in multimedia
programs, e.g., in Puerto Rico.
¦ Pat Alberico and Renee Wynn. OECA has begun developing a strategic environmental
justice plan and has identified several areas to work in: education and outreach; air and
soil data integration; targeting; grants; and protecting farmworkers. Next year, OECA
plans to develop training for inspectors to help make them aware of environmental
justice issues and to encourage them to talk to community members about issues of
concern.
¦ Mike Walker. EPA lacks clear and enforceable environmental justice regulations.
Historically, EPA has taken a neutral stance and tried to protect everyone equally; it
needs to be more proactive. Citizens are at a great disadvantage in dealing with EPA
compared to industry, which has professional lobbyists who know EPA's internal
procedures and mechanisms. Everyone in EPA, including clerk-typists, needs to be
receptive to citizens who call complaining of an environmental problem. EPA also
needs to explain to the regulated community "why we're doing what we do,
particularly when we are trying to protect public health."
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
70
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 {1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Open Discussion
¦ Tribal lands. An EPA official from the Northwest foresaw environmental justice issues
emerging as EPA worked more closely with Native American Tribes. He said in order
to respond to these issues, EPA needs to redesign its regulatory framework so it is
less cumbersome.
¦ Use of SEPs. There was some debate over whether using SEPs as a remedy in
environmental justice cases strays from the principle of equal opportunity enforcement.
It was noted that given the cumulative, long-term impact of environmental damage on
groups like Native Americans, establishing SEPs may not be "going too far."
¦ Pollution prevention. In settlements involving SEPs, the biggest environmental "bang
for the buck" was said to be pollution prevention, which can also save a company
millions of dollars. However, a coordinator of SEP policy said if a SEP is clearly to a
company's economic benefit, it is not apt to be approved. He suggested that it would
be more appropriate for SEPs to deal with problems that disproportionately burden a
community.
¦ Getting help. There is a payoff in persuading states and municipalities to step into
pollution enforcement, since they have more authority over local firms. The point was
also made that "the more we can leverage local governments, the more we can do,"
likewise for state governments. For example, state and local governments do
90 percent of all inspections.
¦ Historic bias. Is it important to determine if disproportionate environmental damage
inflicted on a community reflects a historic bias toward its people? No, a regional
counsel said, what counts is simply the present disproportionate impact. Another
participant observed that what makes a community the victim of environmental injustice
will vary from place to place.
¦ No Simple Solutions. Enforcing environmental justice, especially in older urban areas,
is complicated. Pollution abatement may come at the cost of high-wage jobs in the
affected industry. Fines levied against a municipal treatment facility may be passed on
to the consumer. These unavoidable tradeoffs require EPA officials to use good
judgment.
¦ Creating Partnerships. It was noted that many EPA inspectors are afraid to enter
low-income communities for fear of personal injury. In response, someone pointed out
that EPA had trained the Newark, New Jersey fire department to look for hazardous
wastes, turning them into an enforcement arm for both the state and EPA. EPA
Region I has had some success in working directly with the residents of Roxbury,
Massachusetts, to identify problems and priorities.
Conclusion/Action Items
The following action items emerged from this breakout session:
¦ Identify technical assistance and enforcement opportunities.
¦ Develop ways to redesign or retool regulatory framework.
¦ Be "equal opportunity" enforcers.
¦ Include an environmental justice category on every case/screening checklist.
¦ Realize that community involvement is essential.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
71
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ Coordinate with other agencies, e.g., with HUD for lead-based paint issues.
¦ Develop a strategy/conduct more research into areas where enforcement can be
effectively used to protect public health.
¦ Leverage local governments to efficiently deliver services that help promote improved
environmental working and living conditions.
¦ Get more inspectors out there.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
72
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, Decembw 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Breakout Group C
Common Sense Initiatives—Ideas for
Compliance and Enforcement Projects
Session Leader(s): Eric Schaeffer, Deputy Director, OC
Panelists: Steve Harper, Director, Common Sense Initiative
Karin Leff, Commercial Services Team Leader, OC
Introduction
The objectives of this breakout session were to review the current objectives of the Common
Sense Initiatives (CSI) program, to relay the status of CSI planning activities, and to garner
ideas on how CSI can improve its potential for success.
Attended by about 25 participants, the session consisted of brief presentations by Steve
Harper, Office of Policy Analysis and Review, EPA, and Karin Leff, EPA Office of
Compliance. Mr. Harper, who is co-leader of the CSI, presented an overview of CSI
activities to date. Ms. Leff summarized the activities of one of the CSI sector
initiatives—printing and related businesses. The balance of the session was reserved for
questions about and discussions of issues to be considered during CSI planning and
implementation. Key topics for discussion included consolidated reporting, innovative
enforcement and compliance techniques, CSI's "no surprises" policy, the OSHA model,
regulatory versus statutory change, and timelines for achieving change.
Discussion
CSI Overview
CSI, which was announced in July 1994, will bring together businesses, labor, Federal and
state governments, and environmental groups to take a fresh look at the way the environment
is protected. Its objective is not to change what EPA is doing, but rather to change the way
it does it. The underlying principles of CSI are twofold:
1. As an agency, EPA must be firm about its environmental goals, but flexible in how it
allows states and industry to achieve those goals.
2. The objective is to achieve environmental results that are not only cleaner, but also
cheaper for industry and consumers.
Procedurally, CSI planning and implementation will take the form of a Federal advisory
committee and several subcommittees organized around industry sectors. All
stakeholders—including EPA—will be represented. Appointments to the committee and the
subcommittees will take place in December 1994, with meetings set to begin in January
1995. Harper anticipated that the committee will propose administrative, regulatory, and
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
73
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
statutory changes. OECA will be central to the entire process. Each subcommittee will be
expected to develop a work plan, and both enforcement and compliance are likely to be
essential elements of those plans.
Harper stressed that one design element of the committee process that sets this effort apart
from seemingly similar government initiatives is that EPA staff (specifically, OECA and
Office of General Counsel staff) will participate in the committee process and will, therefore,
have already "bought into" the committee's recommendations, rather than being presented
with recommendations after the fact.
CSI Printing Sector Team
As part of the first phase of CSI, the printing subcommittee and the five other subcommittees
are participating in organizing meetings. In this segment of the breakout session, Ms. Leff
illustrated progress to date and typical industry concerns by summarizing her experience with
the printing subcommittee.
In the United States today, there are 60,000 to 70,000 printing companies (or printing-related
companies). Half of these companies have five or fewer employees, and most have no more
than 20 employees. Resources are limited, and profit margins are low; the industry,
therefore, is naturally concerned with the costs—in time and money—of regulatory
compliance. (The major statutes apply to all except the smallest of printers.)
The printing subcommittee began meeting in November 1994, with all stakeholders (printers,
environmental groups, public interest groups, unions, state and Federal government)
represented. Among the chief concerns expressed by the industry so far are these:
¦ Consistency of requirements. As perceived by the printing industry, Federal
requirements are not consistent with state requirements, and there are inconsistencies
from state to state as well. The printers feel the Federal Government should take the
lead in achieving consistency in requirements.
¦ Testing. Both industry and the states expressed concern in this area, advocating
flexibility with regard to test methods.
¦ Reporting and record keeping. The industry complains that the reporting requirements
of various government entities are redundant and time consuming. The industry seeks
a consolidated reporting system that covers all pertinent statutes, as well as all Federal
and state requirements. In addition, the industry wants to assure that all reported data
is used.
¦ Environmental compliance. Printers generally agree that an environmental compliance
auditing system would benefit the industry.
¦ Information dissemination. Many printing companies, especially the small ones, do not
know what is required of them. They advocate improved methods of information
dissemination (e.g., establishment of a service center). The information should be
geared toward educating printers about the regulations, and the states about the
industry. The public also needs to be educated.
Consolidated Reporting
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
74
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Following the presentations, the participants actively discussed several issues. One topic for
discussion was the notion of consolidated reporting. As noted by one participant, industries
will reject CSI if they cannot achieve compliance on a "cost-reasonable" basis. One way to
keep costs reasonable is to reduce and consolidate paperwork. Some industries advocate the
development of a consolidated reporting system that eases the burden of reporting to various
state and Federal agencies.
At the same time, at least some industries acknowledge that regulators have valid needs for
the information reported; they also recognize that mandatory reporting can prevent
noncomplying competitors from gaining a price edge over complying companies. From the
Federal standpoint, it must be remembered that reduced reporting requirements could lead to
a reduced ability to enforce. It is difficult to cut back without sacrificing some enforcement
ability. In short, it is ideal for the reporting process to be efficient, but it is imperative that
the data reported be sufficient.
Innovative Enforcement and Compliance Techniques
It was generally agreed that industry must be encouraged to be creative and solution-oriented,
and that the government must be willing to accept industry-generated alternative solutions, as
long as they do the job. When industry proposals are not acceptable, government must be
willing to do more than merely reject them; it must also explain why the proposals are not
acceptable and it must present counter-proposals.
Among the innovative enforcement/compliance techniques suggested or discussed were: "turn
yourself in" programs, patterned after the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program;
self-auditing programs, which—like Tennessee's underground storage tank voluntary
program—reduces the enforcement burden and creates a strong customer base for compliance
assistance; and information "leaks," which could induce compliance.
OECA's CSI Operating Principles
OGCA's CSI Operating Principles indicate that members of the CSI subcommittees and their
"clearly affiliated" organizations will be informed prior to the filing of an enforcement
action. If this policy is to remain in place, EPA must clearly define what the terms "no
surprises" and "clearly affiliated" mean as they relate to CSI.
In discussing a related matter, participants wondered whether EPA would ever again be free
to target industries in the CSI sectors. While some expressed concern about this, at least one
participant thought CSI may actually facilitate targeting efforts.
The OSHA Model
Several industry representatives have expressed interest in the OSHA STAR model. It must
be remembered, however, that OSHA's measure of performance is simple: physical injuries
to workers. EPA's mandate is not clear cut; success, therefore, cannot be measured so
simply.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
75
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Regulatory Versus Statutory Change
Statutory change will present significant challenges in the near future. Many needed
changes, however, can be accomplished via regulatory change.
Timelines for Achieving Change
The broad goals of CSI cannot be achieved with a short-term effort. Regulations have been
developed over a 20-year span. Industrial facilities are aging, making compliance very
difficult for their owners, Communication, on the part of industry and government, must be
improved.
Conclusion/Action Items
The following action items emerged from this breakout session:
¦ Define "no-surprises" under CSI.
¦ Define "affiliated" under the "no-surprises" policy for the CSI sectors.
¦ Determine how CSI operating principles will affect enforcement.
¦ Determine how EPA can obtain accountability without sacrificing enforceability.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
76
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December t (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Breakout Group D
Enforcement and Compliance Role In Ecosystem Protection
Session Leader(s): Rick Colbert, Director, Agriculture and Ecosystem Division
Ramona Trovato, Director, Water Enforcement Division
Panelists: Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Evaluation, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation
Jon Capacasa, Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Region III
Mike Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management (OWM),
Office of Water
Walter Brodtman, Ecosystem Team Leader, Agriculture and Ecosystem
Division
Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region [
Melissa Marshall, Associate Director, Multimedia Enforcement Division
Introduction
This breakout session addresses the background of ecosystem (place-based) management
efforts at EPA and experience with ecosystem place-based and sector approaches in the
Chesapeake Bay, the watershed protection approach, Mississippi River Project planning,
regional organization considerations, and enforcement tools.
Background on Ecosystem (Place-Based) Management Efforts at EPA
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett. A piajor emphasis at EPA is to identify areas of the country that
need protection and prioritize them and to work with state and local governments and other
stakeholders in this effort.
The presentation highlighted information from several documents: the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) risk reduction report, the habitat strategy, the National Performance Review
(NPR) report, the Browner memo of December 1993 (in which she said that EPA should fold
together two themes to protect ecosystems—a common sense approach working on a
multimedia sector basis and reinvention of government), the Edgewater consensus (which
recommends targeting places and identifying problems and goals), and the Strategic Plan
(which includes the work of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT) external advisory committee and the White House Office of
Environmental Policy's Ecosystem Management Initiative).
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
77
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP)
Jon Capacasa. This program integrates water and air quality, and the land and living
resources in its management decisions. The project has no independent regulatory authority.
The role of ecosystem programs should be to speak out on the needs for resource protection
through a multimedia view, on a total pollutant loading basis, and with a focus on ecological
impacts. The strengths of this approach are scientific assessment, stakeholder involvement,
and results measurement.
The evolution of CBP experience with enforcement and compliance programs included an
initial general priority to "show the flag"; followed by specific program initiatives; a
targeting strategy looking at pollutants, sectors, subgeographic areas, and specific
regulatory/enforcement opportunities (e.g., feedlots and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) control); and the negotiation of workplans with enforcement
programs to meet objectives (such as occurs under the OECA MOA process).
Lessons learned and recommendations concerning compliance and enforcement include
knowing your role, separating the goal setters and consensus builders from the enforcers,
getting geographic initiatives included in national guidance, seeking high level endorsement
of goals, doing smart targeting, and taking advantage of raw data.
The limits of compliance and enforcement programs for ecosystem protection include the
following: not always having the right conditions/parameters in the standards or permits to
enforce; non-point sources and smaller point sources and other problems outside EPA's
authority (e.g., fisheries management); or current priorities often requiring deferral to others
(e.g., states for minor sources); and problems with addressing continuing historical
contamination. Traditional enforcement targeting is fairly easy but has limitations in
protecting ecosystems.
Watershed Protection Approach
Mike Cook. EPA developed a NPDES Watershed Strategy in FY 1994 with significant input
from states and regions. This strategy represents OW's continuing commitment of moving
the water programs toward a statewide watershed protection approach. As a result, OWM
sent representatives from the Permits Division to each EPA region to discuss regional needs
and efforts to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy.
The six components of the strategy included:
¦ Statewide coordination.
¦ NPDES permits.
¦ Monitoring and assessment.
¦ Programmatic measures and environmental indicators.
¦ Public participation.
¦ Enforcement.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
78
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 <1:30-4:00 p.m.}
Benefits to the watershed approach include making EPA set priorities with local participation
and interest groups. The parties can be mobilized to address these issues without waiting for
specific authority. Enforcement efforts should concentrate on the mass of lower level minor
problems with large impact. More innovative ways to use enforcement authority include
special monitoring activities. Enforcement has a great opportunity to work with other
program offices to apply resources within watersheds.
Mississippi River Project Planning
Walter Brodtman. We are planning to develop an enforcement and compliance strategy and
are using the Mississippi River Project as a pilot to identify ecosystem problems and
opportunities and OECA's role in ecosystem protection. Since the Mississippi River Basin
encompasses nearly two-thirds of the continental United States, smaller problem areas are
being targeted for further emphasis and action.
Regional Organization Considerations
Susan Studlien. Region I has developed a regional structure with place-based units of work.
The region is considering two stewardship options. Issues being discussed include whether
the attorneys should be integrated into the technical areas or reside together and what a
technical assistance office should contain. Headquarters is encouraging adequate
consideration of accountability and coordination.
The Multimedia Office and Tools for Ecosystem Enforcement
Melissa Marshall. SEPs have been effectively used in enforcement actions. The criteria for
SEPs are being made more flexible in proposed revisions to the SEP policy. There are also
new tools for planning and targeting, including new Geographic Information System (GIS)
applications; new computer tools such as a developing ecomapping project; new soil, water,
and topography data, along with Census/demographic data; and computer technology to map
wildlife habitats.
Audience Q&A/Comments
¦ Place-based geographic protection is ecosystem protection. Ecosystem protection is a
regional issue. There are name problems—should it be called ecosystem or ecoregion
or place-based? Carol Browner has indicated at the Senior Leadership Council that
place-based protection is a better term than ecosystem protection.
¦ Watershed protection should be community based and lead to place-based protection.
A pristine watershed is protected by high water quality standards. Who picks the
ecosystem and decides the target? Pick a severely impaired target, then focus on
cleanup. Enforcement and outreach may be needed. EPA enforcement deals with only
a fraction of habitat loss.
¦ There is much more to a watershed approach than enforcement. For example, OW has
currently identified 130 different watersheds nationwide and will continue to identify
areas. Not all of these involve enforcement. Also, groundwater protection is only part
of the problem. There is also a groundwater/surface water interaction. Region VIII
assumes that groundwater and surface water are linked unless the parties involved in an
issue can demonstrate that they are not.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
79
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ Groundwater recharge is an environmental justice problem. For example, a computer
company using groundwater led to contamination of wells in a minority community.
The company would not stop polluting. EPA asked the city to get involved, leading to
a probable agreement to treat/improve the water.
¦ Minor violations are often a problem. How can we get multiprogram resources and
Headquarters input? Significant noncompliers (SNC) numbers can be negotiated.
Headquarters knows that minor discharges are a problem area that is increasing in
importance. The issue will be addressed at the next Senior Leadership Council
meeting. Regions and states could target high priority groundwater. More flexible
targeting should be able to be done generally across the board. EPA established the
majors/minors concept. Maybe this is no longer useful and some other more useful
approach should be developed.
¦ The MOA process may not reach desired goals. Maybe we do not need measures. It
should be up to the regions to identify place-based problems (i.e., the Great Lakes'
permitting solutions and multimedia efforts). Eliminating the Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results System (STARS) would be good, but we need a replacement. Do
not undermine the deterrence part of enforcement.
¦ Headquarter's roles should be to identify tools, improve program intercommunication,
remove barriers, and work with program offices.
¦ In multimedia programs you need to identify priorities and pursue enforcement in
identified areas. Enforcement action may not be appropriate in every case. But it is a
tool that can be used later, if appropriate. You may need permitting outreach. In fact,
the many tools available may all be necessary. Start with a consensus-building process.
What are the problems and strategies for resolving them?
¦ There is a concern that ecosystem protection may not address drinking water and other
public health issues sufficiently.
¦ The Mississippi River Basin is too big. Seventeen U.S. Attorneys agreed to an
enforcement effort that represents a multimedia initiative. We cannot do the entire area
and must identify priority areas in the basin and target subareas and problems, not the
entire basin.
¦ There are many stakeholders to consider in deciding what should be an initiative. EPA
must consider the states, not just one stakeholder. You need to know where the power
lies. Some states are largely controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
for example.
¦ In Los Angeles, there was an odor problem from fugitive air emissions. It was really a
local concern and we worked with local officials to resolve it. Another problem is
basic sanitation across the Mexican border at El Paso/Juirez. Here you are dealing
with diplomacy and international relations, areas that we are often not equipped to
handle.
¦ We should work with non-EPA agencies and share experiences across regions. There
also needs to be a defining and sharing of tools. The enforcement role may be
necessary to leverage other agencies across the regions. EPA alone is a minor part of
the solution: groundwater example—same problem of needing interagency
coordination; bay program example—we need to know our roles and have all the
stakeholders involved; SEP examples—other agencies know that the habitat needs better
oversight. These include Fish and Wildlife, state agencies, other Federal agencies, and
local government. A team effort is needed. In the Great Lakes, the region coordinated
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
80
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
with Michigan and Federal enforcement authorities. When we coordinated our efforts
in this way, the available resources we had were a deterrent to potential noncompliers.
¦ Each case is unique. In the East St. Louis initiative, EPA identified a problem and
coordinated with the local public health agency and HUD to address community
concerns about rats. The biggest problem is when the Feds think they can do it all. In
Catano, Puerto Rico (geographic area-based air pollution exposure potential), the
biggest problem was how to measure the health risks (i.e., methods for measuring
ambient air quality at very low levels).
¦ We need to address the lack of data and improve the monitoring systems that are
currently in use ("305(b) is useless").
¦ Setting priorities depends on the problem and how success is defined. How do
you measure success in the regions? You use a different criteria if you are trying to
measure watershed quality, and different areas require different measures. There
should be increased levels for intervention.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Emphasis should be on placed-based (eco-places) approaches to include other issues not
thought of as ecosystem problems.
¦ Do consensus building with stakeholders before selecting ecosystems and placed-based
approaches.
¦ Regions, states and programs should have a lead role in selecting ecosystems and
ecosystem approaches.
¦ Size and level of aggregation needs to be large enough to include contributing impacts,
but small enough to gain place-based interest of stakeholders.
¦ Headquarter's role should be coordination among regions, developing targeting
methodologies, identifying tools, and removing barriers in order to facilitate place-
based approaches (e.g., improve MOA process, reduce nonenvironmental results, bean
counts, etc.)
¦ Plan and target so that compliance assistance and enforcement efforts complement each
other.
¦ Work with other government agencies with ecosystem expertise.
¦ Success needs to be measured against specific placed-based environmental goals and
only generally against broad national goals.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
81
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
Breakout Group E
Integrating Pollution Prevention into the Enforcement and Compliance
Continuum
Session Leader(s): James Edward, Director, Planning, Prevention and Compliance Staff,
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO)
Lynn Vendinello, Special Assistant, OECA
Panelists: Michael Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Rick Duffy, Chief, Targeting and Evaluation Branch, Enforcement
Planning, Targeting and Data Division
Dave Lyons, Chief, Energy and Transportation Branch, Manufacturing,
Energy and Transportation Division
Mike Barrette, Environmental Protection Specialist, Manufacturing,
Energy and Transportation Division
Joel Blumstein, Chief, Air and Toxics Office, Office of Regional
Counsel, Region I
Reggie Cheatham, Environmental Engineer, FFEO
Becky Dolph, Senior Associate Regional Counsel, Region VII
Gerald Kraus
Lisa Nelson, Training Coordinator, NETI
Introduction
This was a highly pragmatic discussion, focusing on identifying ways to effectively integrate
P2 (pollution prevention) activities into the normal enforcement and compliance
"continuum." Several methods were identified, including using corporate analyses to
identify chronic violators, issuing more detailed and helpful MOAs on this subject, using the
"sector notebooks" currently being developed on 18 major U.S. industries, setting up
Compliance Assistance Service Centers to help four basic industries find better ways to
prevent or reduce pollution, requiring field inspectors to undergo mandatory training, and
introducing new SEPs, currently in draft form.
Discussion
¦ Targeting. Use corporate analyses, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) numbers, and
compliance data to identify P2 opportunities. For example, give special attention to
large companies with multiple operations that seem to appear frequently, in many
different locations, with similar violations. One participant noted that, because certain
companies will necessarily be singled out, "this is a sensitive area and we'll have to
handle it with care." As part of the multimedia enforcement initiative for Federal
facilities, pollution prevention opportunity profiles were prepared for more than 100
Federal facilities to assist regions in targeting inspections.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
82
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ Compliance assistance. In order to help regional offices move more easily into a
"sector approach" to pollution prevention, Headquarters is developing a series of
"sector notebooks" on 18 major industries, grouping them by Standard Industry
Classification (SIC) codes, geographic distribution, TRI data, etc. Each notebook will
have an "executive summary" and issue a "report card" on each sector and should
service be available in the spring of 1995. In addition, EPA is developing Compliance
Assistance Service Centers for four different industries—dry cleaning, metal finishing,
small farms, and auto service and repair—which are relatively unsophisticated from an
environmental standpoint. The goal of these centers is to help these industries find
better ways to prevent or reduce work-related pollution. Each center will have a
different focus; for example, for auto service and repair, training mechanics will be the
key, along with adding P2 information to standard auto repair manuals.
¦ Inspections. At Federal facilities, National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)
multimedia inspectors are now including on their reports the identification of "pollution
prevention opportunities." However, some participants were reluctant to see inspectors
in their regions charged with such new duties. One participant suggested that sending
an inspector in to identify statutory violations and, at the same time, recommend ways
to prevent or reduce pollution, will only "confuse" the plant operator, and added that
P2 inspections should be carried out separately. Another participant suggested that
such inspections be separated by a period of no less than 2 weeks. An example was
provided where this had been piloted at a Federal facility in Region X following a
multimedia inspection. It seemed to work well, in part because it was done 2 weeks
after the inspection, with a followup P2 team.
¦ Training. In Region I, all field inspectors have received mandatory training "with an
eye toward pollution prevention." The Region I office also has developed a brochure
to "sway" local industries toward a P2 approach. According to a participant from that
region, both efforts have largely met with success. He conceded, however, that "some
[regional] inspectors resist" being given additional responsibilities. In any case, a new
mandatory training course for field inspectors, emphasizing a sector-based P2
inspection approach, is now being developed by NETI for a February or March 1995
startup.
¦ Settlements. In October, EPA drafted a new SEP policy. The draft policy has
received "generally favorable" reactions from the field, and is due to be implemented
in "early CY 1995." (It may first be published in the Federal Register to elicit public
and industry response.) The new policy has more categories that are more specifically
defined. More projects will generally be permitted under the new policy. It also
encourages regional offices to share SEP information with state environmental offices.
In the future, proposed SEPs must be in one of the following categories: Benefits to
Public or Environment at Large; Innovativeness; Environmental Justice; Multimedia
Impacts; and Pollution Prevention. SEPs will henceforth be defined as
"environmentally beneficial projects that a violator agrees to undertake but is not
otherwise legally required to perform in settlement of an enforcement action."
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Develop a set of P2 profiles for a set of sectors, perhaps starting with CSI sectors, and
distribute to regions for use in compliance assistance, inspections, and settlements.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
83
November 30-Decamber 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions Thursday, December 1 (1:30-4:00 p.m.)
¦ Make P2 section of sector notebooks a handout for inspectors.
¦ Make sector-based training mandatory for inspectors.
¦ Training is critical.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
84
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.|
Friday Breakouts
A. Improving Communications With Our External Audience
B. Data Integration and Targeting
C. Headquarters/Region Cooperation—Training Needs, Communications, and Other
Support
D. Enhancing State/Local/Tribal Participation in Planning and Implementation
E. Process for Developing a 5-Year Strategic Plan
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
85
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday. December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group A
Improving Communications With Our External Audience
Session Leader(s): Pete Rosenberg, Acting Associate Director, Constituent Outreach and
Communications
Panelists: Lynne Ross, Director, Congressional Liaison Division
Bonnie Piper, Deputy Director, Press Office, EPA Headquarters
Bertram Frye, Deputy Regional Counsel, Region V
Carolyn Zumwalt, Press Office, Region IH
Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, ORE
Introduction
The EPA deals with a "public" that takes many forms: regulated industries, state and local
governments, the Tribes, public interest groups, the general public, consumers, and members
of Congress and their staffs, to name a few. For each of these audiences, the tenor of a
message—and the method of delivery—may need to be different. To accommodate the
diverse array of "external stakeholders" in the EPA mission, the agency has established
several information dissemination systems.
The purpose of this breakout session was to explore the EPA's external communication
system—to determine what works and what does not. More specifically, the participants
came together to—
¦ Share information on how EPA disseminates OECA information to external
stakeholders.
¦ Relate the types of internal coordination and communication that are necessary to
ensure effective external communication.
¦ Explore what works, well within the existing systems and what does not.
¦ Consider new vehicles for information dissemination.
The session's 25 participants heard five presentations, each of which explored some aspect of
the Agency's efforts to communicate with external stakeholders, and then had opportunities
to discuss the issues. The presenters discussed the following:
¦ Lynne Ross described EPA's traditional congressional liaison efforts and its plans for
working with the new Congress.
¦ Bonnie Piper outlined the structure of the Press Office and suggested ways to improve
the quality of its products.
¦ Bertram Frye shared his region's philosophy and procedure for releasing news
following case resolution.
¦ Carolyn Zumwalt shared the results of a region-wide survey on the information
resources of regulated industries.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
B6
November 30-December 2,1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
¦ Robert Van Heuvelen assessed the effectiveness of EPA's public information program
from a Headquarters enforcement and compliance perspective.
Discussion
Congressional Relations
The role of the EPA congressional liaison is to keep lines open for accurate and adequate
communication between Congress and EPA. As described by Ms. Ross, the liaison staff
works closely with Congress in an effort to provide assistance on hearings, ensure clear
testimony, educate members, respond to information requests, and maintain staff relations.
With the new Congress, Ms. Ross foresees enormous changes. With 90 new members,
many of whom perceive that they have a mandate to cut red tape and none of whom share
any institutional memory of the passage of the Clean Air and Water Acts and other landmark
environmental legislation, Ms. Ross and her team now see their most important job as
educating new members and reeducating incumbents. They intend to "hit the ground
running" by planning a massive education program and beginning its delivery in January
1995, when the new Congress convenes.
Bearing in mind the importance of the EPA maintaining its public health mission, while
balancing it against the perception that government does not work, Ms. Ross recommends
that EPA strive to see a "bigger picture" and think strategically. If this is not done, she
warned, Congress could roll back enforcement efforts.
When working with Congress, she recommends the following actions:
¦ Keep Congress informed. For example, when a company in a particular congressional
jurisdiction is about to be cited for a violation, inform the congressional representative
or a member of his or her staff. Quite often, the representative will not dispute the
action, but it is helpful to know ahead of time what is taking place.
¦ Communicate at appropriate levels. Consider carefully whether congressional
communication should be made with a staff person or directly to a representative. With
that decision made, choose the appropriate EPA representative to deliver the message
(i.e., staff to staff, regional administrator to congressional representative, etc.). Then,
deliver the message in terms the recipient can understand.
¦ Keep colleagues informed. When a game plan for congressional communication has
been established, it is important that the congressional liaison keep other EPA staff with
a stake in the outcome apprised of the plan and its progress.
Ms. Ross also emphasized the importance of good communication with state and local
governments. She projects these governments will have increased importance, as the
working relationships between the new Congress and the nation's new governors change.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
87
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Press Relations
The role of the Press Office staff is to provide information to the press. The Press Office is
structured like a newspaper office in that each press officer has a "beat," or permanently
assigned subject area(s), just as newspaper reporters do.
Among EPA's press relations policies and procedures are the following:
¦ All press calls received at EPA are to be directed to the Press Office staff, which
makes the decision to field them internally or refer them to the Administrator or other
EPA staff.
¦ In addition to event-specific press releases, the Press Office issues a general press
release each Friday. It contains case news, regional news, and other news of possible
interest to the press.
¦ Only Headquarters and regional press offices may issue press releases.
¦ The content and time of a press release is never negotiable within a settlement.
¦ The Press Office returns all press calls within 1 hour of receipt.
Ms. Piper noted that the quality of Press Office products can improve if—
¦ Technical and legal staff keep press officers regularly informed about case facts and
progress.
¦ EPA staff provide the Press Office with advance notice of case decisions when
possible.
¦ EPA can provide "numbers." Journalists are very interested in numbers, or statistics,
that illustrate the magnitude of a decision's impact. How large is the company being
cited? How many employees will be affected? What impact on pollution levels will
the ordered cleanup have?
A Focus on Impact: One Region's Experience
The question was raised as to how best to use the media to communicate "compliance"
issues.
From his perspective as Deputy Regional Counsel for Region V, Bertram Frye sees a real
need for EPA to publicize its successes in a way that will allow the public to understand their
benefits. Too often, EPA focuses its case resolution announcement on the dollar amount of
penalties. Good press releases, he said, share the benefits of compliance (e.g., cleaner air,
reduced cancer risk, safer drinking water). The focus is on the impact on the environment.
Good information dissemination also mates it clear that EPA's aim is to penalize violators
who do not fix problems, not to punish those who try to comply with regulations.
As a lawyer, Mr. Frye also sees the benefits of coordination with his regional office of
public affairs. Good coordination assures not only that information will be shared
appropriately with the press, but also that violators, members of Congress, and other
stakeholders receive the "heads up" calls they are entitled to. At the same time, Region V
attempts to coordinate efforts with Headquarters and with the DOJ, often issuing joint
releases.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
88
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.}
Mr. Frye offered the following additional recommendations for improved communication:
¦ Issue a press release for every case.
¦ Use public meetings as a means of disseminating and gathering information.
¦ Hold meetings and listening sessions with state officials, the Tribes, special interest
groups, and other interested parties.
¦ Enter into joint initiatives with the states.
Industry Information Sources: Survey Results
Carolyn Zumwalt of the Region III Press Office shared with the session the results of a
regionwide survey that makes it clear that EPA is missing a significant opportunity to inform
and influence industry: the use of trade publications.
The survey, which was conducted for Region III by an outside source, took the form of
telephone interviews with representatives of 100 independent facilities across the region.
Included among the survey results were the following statistics:
¦ There were 100 respondents, 56 percent of whom felt that EPA does not publicize its
activities enough.
¦ In response to a question about where they get their environmental information,
29.2 percent of respondents indicated they get it from trade associations or chambers of
commerce; and only 12.5 percent get their information from EPA.
¦ When asked about what types of news vehicles they regularly consult for industry
news, 77 percent indicated they consult trade publications; in comparison, just
63 percent consult newspapers, and 50 percent rely on television.
In addition to sharing Region Ill's recommendation that EPA recognize and take advantage of
the power of trade publications as a communications tool, Ms. Zumwalt followed up on
points made earlier in the session, offering the following recommendations:
¦ Share information with the Press Office. In monitoring her own beat, Ms. Zumwalt
said she stays in constant contact with the EPA staff handling related cases and
projects. She visits their offices frequently in an effort to stay informed. She
maintained that it is important for Press Office staff to mingle with EPA technical and
legal staff in order to stay apprised of issues, aware of case impacts, etc. A better
understanding of the issues helps press officers deliver releases that really tell the
public what it wants to know about the impact of a case.
¦ Maintain continuity. A press officer's knowledge of a case should not diminish after
issuing a press release. The press make it a point to follow up on news, so the press
officer must remain up to date and fully informed.
From the Headquarters Perspective
In considering the comments of other participants on the state of press release activity within
EPA, Bob Van Heuvelen professed the notion that press releases are only one manifestation
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
89
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
of a larger problem that pervades EPA and its concept of communications. He recommended
several changes in policy and/or procedure, among them are the following:
¦ Change the way EPA deals with the national press. Important stories could be placed
with specific journalists, thus capturing their undivided attention. EPA has refrained
from doing this in the past, possibly because it fears premature release of information,
or because conflicts can arise from favoring one reporter. However, the system can
work with proper controls in place and proper rotation of reporters.
¦ As noted earlier by Ms. Zumwalt and others, encourage press officers to develop
ongoing relationships with EPA technical and legal staff for the purpose of sharing
information and knowledge.
¦ Learn to communicate. Provide training for managers and staff on how to relay
information—how to use pictures, presence, and knowledge to relay news in a way that
the targeted audience can understand and appreciate it.
¦ Encourage close working relationships among Headquarters and the regions. Get
regional administrators and regional press offices more involved.
¦ Use PLAIN ENGLISH in all communications!
Conclusion/Action Items
Based on information shared and questions raised by the group, session leader Pete
Rosenberg concluded the session with this list of items for future consideration and action:
¦ Emphasize strategic planning. Good communication is both tactical and strategic.
¦ Know the message and define the audience.
¦ Use plain English and emphasize the environmental impact and health results of case
decisions in press releases, not bureaucratic achievements.
¦ Recognize the opportunity presented by trade publications to inform and influence
industry. This is especially important as an ongoing vehicle for explaining non-case-
specific compliance activities. Diminish the task of writing trade publication articles by
sharing responsibilities and products among the regions.
¦ Consider placing articles in special-interest publications aimed at the public (e.g., The
American Automobile Association publication).
¦ Make greater efforts to place articles in community newspapers.
¦ Achieve better coordination and communication among EPA press, technical, and legal
staffs, and among Headquarters and the regions.
¦ Recognize that press releases are just one tool of public outreach. Feature articles in
trade and special-interest publications, public meetings, and listening sessions are some
of the other effective outreach tools available to EPA.
¦ Toot your own horn—when there is a good reason to do so.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
90
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group B
Data Integration and Targeting
Session Leader(s): Carol Galloway, Chief, Data Management Branch, OC
Introduction
This breakout session focused on the newly developed IDEA systems and other databases,
the latest developments in data integration and targeting tools, and ways of obtaining input on
future directions.
IDEA, FINDS, PECT, and EDS
EPA has developed a user-friendly interface for the IDEA system using Windows. This
makes it easier to construct queries. A demonstration has been designed and this session
highlighted some of its features. The interface is scheduled to be available as a national
application in early 1995.
A powerful User Specified Report (USR) has been developed as an IDEA tool to structure
detailed queries and customize reports.
Making linkages is now easier with FINDS. EPA is planning to contract with Dun &
Bradstreet to use their proprietary matching software to offer corporate data matching not
currently available through FINDS. In addition, the Information Resources Management
(IRM) Executive Steering Committee is working on a long-term project to have sites or
facilities report to a central office only once. This centralized system will uniquely identify
regulated facilities and provide a link to permit/program office automated data processing
(ADP) records.
A pilot project will be started in early 1995 to give the public greater access to IDEA. The
pilot will include 12 to 15 trade associations, environmental groups, citizen action groups,
and others for a 6-month trial period.
Current challenges with IDEA include providing better linkages, instituting consistent
definitions, making the system easier to use, linking with other ADP tools (e.g., Geographic
Information System (GIS)), and adding other databases (such as OSHA compliance
information).
IDEA can be used as a tool to support environmental justice through the linking of Census
demographic data (e.g., race, income, poverty status). The Population Estimation and
Characterization Tool (PECT) is an Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM)
tool used to display and analyze demographic information for the geographic area
surrounding a facility. PECT allows mapping of user-selected features, such as locations of
endangered species or drinking water sources.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
91
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Effluent Data Statistics (EDS) is a tool used to support watershed targeting. EDS can
estimate pollution loadings from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
point source discharge using Permit Compliance System Discharge Monitoring Report (PCS
DMR) data. This is currently being used in Region V's Great Lakes program. EDS
software is available now. Headquarters will take requests for data searches and has
conducted area data targeting to profile targets so regions will not be surprised later with
unexpected information. EDS offers on-screen and hard copy statistical analysis, mass
loading calculations, time graphs, and facility mapping, including mainframe plotter output.
Audience Q&A
Regarding consistency in equity data definitions, The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has
definitions that perhaps should be adopted by everyone. The Windows interface will not
require Windows on a PC. EPA needs to be careful in deciding how to let interest groups
have access, because data is often difficult to interpret and they might use the information
incorrectly.
Corporate, Industrial Sector, and Geographic/Demographic Analyses
Three projects are in a state of evolution—corporate analysis, industrial sector analysis, and
geographic/demographic analysis. The Corporate Analysis database compares Fortune 500
ranking factors, government contracts, toxic releases, and compliance data. The database
can identify corporations that may warrant further scrutiny for compliance assistance or
enforcement based on trend analysis. IDEA queries against significant noncompliers (SNC),
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and EPA program office databases. What are people in
other regions doing?
Industrial Sector Analysis uses the IDEA Aggregate database (including Air, RCRA,
NPDES, TRI, and the Enforcement Docket) and USRs to provide general direction to
regions and OC sector divisions regarding historical compliance and enforcement trends on a
sector basis. The historical noncompliance rate is available nationally and by regions. There
is a FINDS problem in looking at industries by TRI potential, and also limitations in linkage
("facilities" versus "permits") and SIC codes.
The Geographic/Demographic Analysis database provides support to ORE in defining and
identifying candidates for compliance assistance or enforcement within the Mississippi River
Basin. IDEA queries against TRI, EPA program office databases, and 1990 Census STF3b
demographic data for counties abutting the river. The linkage between Census and program
data is limited at this time. There was a comment from the audience that EPA needs to deal
with smaller sources and smaller violations.
The OECA/Regional Targeting Network will be a network of contacts involved in
compliance/enforcement targeting. The purpose is to exchange information such as data
sources and protocols/models/criteria, and to develop protocols/criteria including minimum
standards.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
92
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Data Fraud Targeting
Region III is using NPDES monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) in a database to
see if there are patterns of data falsification. This DMR data can be analyzed for average
and maximum quantity and minimum, average, and maximum concentration. Region III can
target facilities who try to fudge data through looking at the random distribution or seeing
whether the company reports the same data repeatedly. They look for variations (either high
or low) and negative skew. BAD GUYS is a database of negative skew that can furnish
supporting data and graphs and can isolate suspicious facilities. Region III currently has 50
candidates who will be investigated. The computer output will be reviewed carefully,
additional information will be obtained, and samples will be taken to confirm violations.
Region III has only looked at processed wastewater at all types of facilities. There is a
problem with the detection level, and screening data need to be examined.
In Region VIII, IDEA was used to target facilities for multimedia inspections. Best
professional judgment was also used because of data problems with IDEA.
If a region has a problem with how to get the states involved, use sector analysis to develop
interest. The GIS system was used for environmental justice. The region wanted to get all
of the facility information into the database. What is everyone doing about risk? Region
VIII looked at risk-based models and set the criteria for targeting, incorporating it with
IDEA. Other problems exist: Models require data that are not always available. There is a
problem with zip code analysis. Some regions are increasing exposure data in targeting,
putting 1990 Census data into GIS (block groups), redefining the targeting formula, and
adding education and density information and a compliance overlay.
Region Ill's environmental justice effort involves the use of TRI and IDEA to obtain
environmental information that precedes work on compliance. They prioritize candidates for
multimedia inspection through the database and then look at factors like compliance, asset
deposition, and ozone.
Audience Q&A
¦ Risk doesn't equate to violations very well. Public issues (such as odor) may not be
scientific issues. Cross-programmatic targeting is tough. You want to look for SEPs.
¦ Should regulations match risk? William Reilly once asked, uIs this agency the
Regulatory Compliance Agency or the Environmental Protection Agency?"
Environmental protection has been chosen.
¦ What is the objective of targeting—compliance or risk? How do you target better? Do
you target for violations or public perceptions? EPA is strong on data, not policy.
Place-based targeting is the cornerstone of our objectives. SEPs have been in place
3-4 years. We should make maximum use of SEPs and be drawn to conditions in
place. Generally, companies are favorably disposed to SEPs. It is too soon to tell if
we have gone too far.
¦ The regional component of the Enforcement Management Council may still be relevant.
¦ Targeting criteria. The following should be used as targeting criteria: public
perceptions, place-based enforcement, SEPs, risk, and compliance. Ask the public
what they want to target.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
93
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
¦ Headquarters versus regions versus states. Headquarters should maintain the database
and tools. What is the legitimate area of state regulation? This is a federalism
concept. Should we exceed the congressional mandate? Title V of the Clean Air
Act—does it require place-based data? Fairness is at stake. Should we accept less than
full compliance, push the edge of the envelope? We now have the tools that take us
beyond compliance. Perhaps now is the time to get policy guidance on our mission.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Risk and enforcement opportunities are not always consistent. Cross-program targeting
is difficult.
¦ There is a need to acquire, and then link together, environmental and compliance data.
¦ There is a need for a targeting network to continue to promote the dissemination of
experience among regions.
¦ There is a need to raise, discuss, and resolve basic issues of how we should target,
based on risk versus compliance. This includes defining the appropriate leveraging of
enforcement to achieve reduction in other areas.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
94
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group C
Headquarters/Region Cooperation—Training Needs, Communications,
Other Support
Session Leader(s): Lisa Nelson, Training Coordinator, NETI
Thomas Voltaggio, Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Region III
Introduction
The breakout session's focus was on how the organization could improve the direct lines of
communication between Headquarters, regions, and Headquarters' programs. The problem
is partially due to the recent reorganization which lead to the development of OECA, and to
the current disconnect between its staff and that of the regional program divisions.
Headquarters/Region Relationships
Interrelation between Headquarters and regions occurs in a dual fashion: the short-term, day-
to-day contact between tiers, and a long-term, methodological policymaking concordance.
The reorganization has to a degree confounded traditional organizational relationships
between branches, making direct inquiries more problematic due to the factual limitations of
some staff members who are still getting up to speed on their new media. To address this
problem of issues falling through organizational cracks, someone has to establish ownership
of those issues. Rebuilding these organizational links will require some patience with staff
negotiating their individual learning curves: a process that can be expedited by regional and
Headquarters staff working together to educate each other. Reorganization of OECA itself,
as well as impending regional-level rearrangements, exacerbates this syndrome, creating for
the entire Agency a significant obstacle both to getting work done and clearly articulating
their role to the public. The problem of disparities between Headquarters and regional
structures, in other words, is not going away any time soon.
Both OECA and regions need to establish points of coordination with each other, as there are
a lot of channels, especially as regarding sector issues, which have yet to be established.
These points of entry will quite likely be personal, rather than organization, in nature.
Communication
The nature of communications between states, regions, and OECA is changing as well. The
potential problem, from the states' point of view, is dealing with two different EPA
representatives: one at the national and one at the regional level. With OECA moving
toward strategic targeting and functioning increasingly in territory traditionally the purview
of regions, the resulting initiatives will need to have state and local feedback if they are to
work well. Obtaining state perspectives on OECA initiatives raises the issue of how to get
states involved: dealing directly with Headquarters or via the established lines of
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
95
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
communication with regions. Including the states risks having too many participants, but
excluding them not only makes them feel slighted, but slows the process down.
Conclusion/Action Items
The following recommendations were made by the breakout session:
Specific
¦ Establish a "breakfast club" on current issues among analogous staff from units in
OECA and between OECA and other program offices. Such clubs could form media-
specific loci to which regions could refer for advice or information.
¦ Institute specific, media- or sector-based, regular conference calls between branches to
both expedite and streamline problem solving. Staff members holding lead
responsibility on an issue should participate in these calls with their counterparts in
other branches. Empowering staff members in this regard implies providing
meaningful assignments in advance of the call. It is unrealistic to assign this duty to
program managers because it would overwhelm their schedule. Calls should be
substantive colloquies and not merely update sessions.
¦ Create an OECA-wide desk for regional liaisons. Each region would have an identified
contact in OECA with whom they could consult on impending Headquarters initiatives.
¦ Establish ad hoc lead regions for sectors. When establishing regions for sectors, it
should be kept in mind that individual sectors will have unequal priority weight in
individual regions. In establishing these, regions should work with individual states,
which are often ahead of the national game.
General
¦ Ensure consistent Agency-wide communications. Headquarters needs to keep the
regions informed of any contact with states. Headquarters should not be
"forum-shopping" with states.
¦ Consolidate reporting. Currently, the Agency is awash in reports that are not widely
read, and streamlining the reporting process could help ensure that the most pressing
issues are illuminated. The Agency needs to be careful about what it communicates, as
computer technology, such as electronic bulletin boards, has led to a surfeit of
memoranda.
¦ Establish joint regional/Headquarters training on new policies and procedures. Small
cadres of staff, rather than managers, should serve as the sources of training
information.
¦ Improve communications between the program offices and OECA. Lateral partnerships
are crucial to Agency synergy.
¦ Establish an ideal balance of participation of relevant internal stakeholders, including
states and Tribes, while remaining alert to the need to hold meetings to a manageable
size. The size of meetings can be proscribed beforehand by narrowing their focus.
¦ Facilitate meaningful and timely input by regions and states into policy planning,
particularly during start up of new initiatives, and provide them with enough time to
respond substantively.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference 96 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group D
Enhancing State/Local/Tribal Participation in
Planning and Implementation
Session Leader(s): Barbara Lither, Office of Enforcement, Region X
Introduction
This session was built around the notion of partnerships between Federal, state, local, and
Tribal officials. Participants brainstormed about what partnership in the field of
environmental enforcement means, barriers to effective partnerships, examples of successful
partnerships, and ideas for working together more effectively. The focus was on regional
office, state and Tribal relations. Participants also discussed relations between EPA regions
and Headquarters.
What Partnerships Means
Several different perspectives on the definition of partnership quickly emerged from
participants and no one definition or concept was reached. However, there appeared to be
general agreement that partnership should mean agreement on broad principles and concepts,
not micromanagement by the Federal Government.
Barriers to Effective Partnerships
Among the barriers to good working relationships between states, Tribes, and EPA regions
are:
¦ Lack of trust.
¦ Competing priorities.
¦ EPA Headquarters' paternalistic attitude.
¦ EPA's starting point often focuses on state failures; we need to think of other policy
reasons to enforce or take Federal action.
¦ Different customers and economic interests.
¦ Lack of respect for states' priorities, pressures, calendars, etc..
¦ Different philosophies of enforcement.
¦ Differences in objectives.
¦ Differences in organizational alignment.
¦ Differences in oversight.
¦ EPA oversight itself is irritating.
¦ Sunshine laws, e.g., public disclosure requirements, may affect ability to freely
communicate enforcement issues between agencies.
¦ Differential oversight is often seen as heavy handed, micromanaging.
¦ Our definition of partnership isn't clear and we don't model good ways to partner.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
97
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Working with Tribes
There was general agreement that partnering with Tribes poses unique circumstances, due to
issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty.
¦ Tribes represent an enormous environmental justice challenge.
¦ Tribal government structures may be new, compared to other governments. This poses
unique problems related to infrastructure. They may have few resources, no police,
jails, or the organizations needed to enforce environmental laws. Furthermore, EPA
should be mindful that states are not present on Tribal lands to enforce the law.
Observations
After a number of successful partnerships were described, the following observations were
made:
¦ There is a lot of success in this room. We are doing something right.
¦ We need ground rules: how to agree to disagree and move on.
¦ Partnerships are relationships that must be worked on continuously.
¦ We have to work on relationships even though we may not see results from our
collaboration for 15 or 20 years.
Working Together More Effectively
A number of specific ideas were put forward for improved working relationships:
¦ Get our partners involved in decision making as early as possible.
¦ Don't be patronizing.
¦ Recognize state/local/Tribal accomplishments.
¦ Ask states/locals/Tribes what they want rather than tell them what to do.
¦ Recognize what states/locals/Tribes can do for us.
¦ Improve person-to-person communication to build trust. Treat our counterparts as
individuals. This requires travel to meet people; EPA needs to provide time and
money for this purpose.
¦ Allow enough time in schedule to communicate with our counterparts (i.e., don't ask a
region to get a decision from states within 1 week).
¦ Hold quarterly meetings with regional enforcement officers and managers and work out
ways to ease their workloads.
¦ Give our counterparts the technical means to do their day-to-day work.
¦ Carol Browner has indicated she plans to establish an EPA presence in every state.
¦ Have a meeting like this one with subsidiary divisions.
What Regions Want from Headquarters
Participants briefly discussed what could be done to improve relations between EPA regions
and Headquarters. They addressed the question, "What do the regions want from
Headquarters?" Some answers follow:
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
98
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
¦ Recognize all of a region's behind-the-scenes work in state enforcement actions.
¦ Look for ways to give credit for work done by states/locals/Tribes.
¦ Obtain compliance assistance from other divisions besides OECA.
¦ Help regions and states in working with localities and Tribes with respect to articulating
needs and goals, overcoming barriers to good partnerships, and providing technical
assistance.
¦ Headquarters should more clearly define EPA's oversight role, and why we do it.
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ Promote person-to-person communication, as it is essential to effective partnerships.
Doing so requires the budgeting of time and money. Results and trust take time.
¦ Examine attitudes on our part that can be viewed as patronizing, e.g., always taking the
enforcement lead or the monies from penalties.
¦ Conduct a meeting similar to this one with states in the regions.
¦ Reeducate Congress about what enforcement means in 1994 and beyond.
¦ Get stakeholders involved early.
¦ Recognize states as primary implementers of environmental programs.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
99
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
Breakout Group E
Process for Developing a 5-Year Strategic Plan
Session Leader(s): Philip Milton, Environmental Protection Specialist, Planning Branch,
Enforcement Planning, Targeting and Data Division (EPTDD)
Panelists: Jack Neylan, Chief, Planning Branch, EPTDD
David Schnare, Senior Policy Analyst, Planning Branch, EPTDD
Introduction
The purpose of this breakout session was to serve as a kickoff for beginning the development
of the OECA Strategic Plan. Initially, questions were raised from regional representatives
and other senior managers about why they were asked to develop new strategic priorities,
when they had responded to a similar request just 6 months ago. (That information was
incorporated into EPA's 5-Year Strategic Plan, published in July 1994.) By the end of the
morning session, participants seemed to agree that though it may seem like a repetitive
request, OECA is asking for a far more detailed articulation of how it is to contribute to the
National Environmental Goals. The content of the discussion is provided below.
Discussion
Linkage, Timelines, and Accountability
OECA's strategic plan will be linked to management and resource decisions to move OECA
towards a new generation of environmental protection—a new generation that combines
common sense, innovation, and flexibility to achieve environmental goals. The OECA
strategic plan, and subsequent updates, will meet the Agency's strategic planning
requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), full
implementation begins in FY 1997. EPA will move to goals-based budgeting, using the
National Environmental Goals as a model. Establishing long-range and annual goals linked
directly to the budget is a critical step in being able to make investment decisions based on
the Agency's progress in achieving its annual and long-range goals.
The OECA Strategic Plan Development Process
EPA is facing a "real sea of change" in the attitude of external groups, including Congress.
Therefore, in selecting its long-range goals and priorities, the Agency, including OECA,
must make sure citizens get the maximum "bang for their buck;" that would not only serve
them, it might convince Congress not to further cut EPA's budget. Meanwhile,
Headquarters wants OECA to identify national 5-year goals by January 1995; final National
Environmental Goals are to be issued by Earth Day (April 22) 1995. However, one
participant said it's impractical to expect useful feedback from the field on such short notice.
Another observed, uWe seem to be in an endless planning/do loop without ever coming to a
destination." A third participant said, "We have only three goals in our region and that's all
we can usefully focus on at any one time." A forth stated that OECA staff is being asked to
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
100
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Friday, December 2 (9:30-11:30 a.m.)
come up with new strategic goals when, in his view, EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation is more suited to such a task.
The Strawman Strategic Plan
There are four basic elements to be considered in arriving at the new strategic objectives for
OECA linkages, policies, plans, and evaluations. Since each region handles things a little
differently, it is difficult for Headquarters to set strategy. Before the strategic plan(s) can be
determined, Headquarters and regions need to cooperatively "decide the linkage among
goals, policy, budgets, MOAs, and measures of success." Nothing has been finalized yet.
Headquarters welcomes feedback from regions and senior managers, especially with regard
to evaluations. Strategic planning is wa way of getting people to approach things differently,
rather than a way of telling people how exactly to reach their goal."
Conclusion/Action Items
¦ All goals must generally relate to GPRA.
¦ OECA needs to decide the linkage among goals, policy, budgets, MOAs, and measures
of success.
¦ Bottom line: When the Agency (and, by implication, OECA), can directly link its
strategic goals to its budget choices, thereby allowing it to measure performance, it is
where it should be.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
101
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix A—Conference Agenda
Appendix A-Conference Agenda
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
A-1
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix A—Conference Agenda
A ERA g Enforcement Conference
^0 ¦¦¦ (xLompnance bh
Agenda
November 30-December 2, 1994
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street, NW • Washington, DC 20008 • (202) 234-0700
Sponsored by
The National Enforcement Training Institute (NETl)
Wednesday, November 30
8:30 - 9:00 a.m.
Palladlan Foyer
9:00 - 10:00 a.m.
Palladlan Room
10:00 - 10:30 a.m.
Palladlan Room
10:30 - 10:45 a.m.
10:45 - 12:15 p.m.
Palladlan Room
12:15 - 1:30 p.m.
1:30 - 2:30 p.m.
Palladlan Room
Registration
Opening Plenary Session
Moderator: Michael M. Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
Status and Future Directions of the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
Introduction of Administrator Browner
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
Common Sense Protection of Public Health and the Environment: The
Enforcement Role
Carol M. Browner, Administrator
Brief Introductions of OECA Senior Managers
Michael M. Stahl
Break*
AAs' and RAs' Forum: Perspectives on Enforcement and
Compliance
John P. DeVillars, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 1
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA
Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Jack W. McGraw, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 8
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
David A. Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 5
Susan H. Wayland, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Lunch (on own)
Government's Changing Approach to Compliance
Malcolm Sparrow, Lecturer in Public Policy,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
A-2
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix A—Conference Agenda
2:30 - 2:45 p.m.
Break*
2:45 - 3:15 p.m.
Palladian Room
3:30 - 5:15 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
Presentation of Theme: The Compliance Assurance Continuum:
Making Strategic Choices for Environmental Protection
Elaine G. Stanley, Director, Office of Compliance
Breakout Groups
a. Priority-Setting for FY 1996—Executive Room
b. Case Screening and Developing Criteria for Determining Appropriate
Response to Noncompliance—Forum Room
c. Implementing Compliance Assistance in the Field (including impacts on
inspections)—Senate Room
d. Measures of Success—Council Room
e. Environmental Auditing—Director's Room
Adjourn
Following Adjournment: A reception will be held for all participants (cash bar) in the Diplomat Room.
Thursday, December 1
8:30 - 9:00 a.m.
Palladlan Room
9:00 - 9:30 a.m.
Palladlan Room
9:45 - 11:30 a.m.
Superfund Reauthorization: What's Next?
Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Presentation of Theme: Enforcement Priorities and Promoting
Innovative Enforcement
Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Breakout Groups
a. Air: Delivering on the Promise of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments—Gorbo Room
b. Water Enforcement: Making a Splash—Embassy Room
c. RCRA Enforcement: Charting New Directions (including RCRA
corrective action)—Capitol Room
d. Utilization of Resources in the Toxics, Pesticides, and EPRCA
Programs: Doing More with Less but Getting More in the
Future—Palladian Room
e. Multi-Media Enforcement: Expanding our Enforcement
Horizons—Executive Room
f. Superfund: Maintaining Momentum in Light of Superfund Reform Act
Postponement and OP A—Director's Room
Topics to be discussed in above groups a. through e.:
1. FY 1995 Enforcement Priorities
2. Emerging Issues
3. Criminal Enforcement Issues
4. Case Delegation
5. Litigation Topics
6. Innovative Enforcement Approaches
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedinos Summary
A-3
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix A—Conference Agenda
11:30 - 1:00 p.m.
1:00 - 1:30 p.m.
PaUadlan Room
1:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Palladlan Room
2:15 - 4:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
Friday, December 2
8:30 - 9:00 a.m.
Palladlan Room
9:00 - 9:30 a.m.
Palladlan Room
9:30 - 9:45 a.m.
9:45 - 11:30 a.m.
Lunch (on own)
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Criminal Enforcement
Earl E. Devaney, Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement
Presentation of Theme: Integrating Approaches—The Sector
Approach, Multi-Media, Media, and Other Approaches
Scott C. Fulton, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Breakout Groups
a. Critical Path to Implementation of the Sector Approach by Overcoming
Organizational Obstacles—Garbo Room
b. Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Enforcement and
Compliance— Capitol Room
c. Common Sense Initiative—Ideas for Innovative Enforcement and
Compliance Projects—Director's Room
d. Enforcement and Compliance Role in Ecosystem
Protect \on—Executi ve Room
e. Integrating Pollution Prevention Into the Enforcement and Compliance
Continuum—Embassy Room
Adjourn
Accomplishments and Future Directions in Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Barry N. Breen, Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Presentation of Theme: Enforcement and Compliance Partners and
Stakeholders
Michael M. Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Break*
Breakout Groups
Improving OECA Communications with Our External
a.
b.
c.
e.
Audience—Director's Room
Data Integration and Targeting—Congressional Room
Headquarters/Region Coordination—Training Needs, Communications,
Other Support—Garbo Room
Enhancing State/Local/Tribal Participation in Planning and
Implementation—Capitol Room
Process for Developing a 5-Year Strategic Plan—Forum Room
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference A-4
Draft Proceedings Summary
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix A—Conference Agenda
11:45 - 12:30 p.m. Wrap-Up and Closing Remarks
Pailadlan Room Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator, OECA and Representative of
the Lead Region
12:30 p.m. Adjourn
Coffee can be purchased at A Little Something Cafe, Lobby Level or Monique's Restaurant, off the
East Corridor. Cash charts will also be available in the Garden Court during breaks and at lunch time.
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference A-5 November 30-December 2, 1994
Draft Proceedings Summary
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Appendix B-Participant List
EPA Enforcement & Compliance Conference
Draft Proceedings Summary
B-1
November 30-December 2, 1994
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
A ERA QEnforfnnent Conference
OULomphance mmmmmm
Participant List
Susan Absher
Acting Team Leader, Budget Formulation Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8294
Joseph Acton
Information Management Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5002
Pat A. Alberico
Deputy Director, EPTDD
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4101
Fax: (202) 564-0030
Richard Albores
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2366
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-7981
Zena Aldridge
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-6664
Fax: (202) 260-7839
Michael S. Alushin
Director, International Enforcement Program, OFA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2247
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-3999
Fax: (202) 260-9833
Bill Anderson
Acting Deputy Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-2256
Fax: (404) 347-0279
Terry Anderson
Branch Chief, RCRA Hazardous Waste Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 293-1663
Fax: (303) 293-1724
Lawrence Andrews
Acting Senior Associate Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
12th floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-2119
Fax: (214) 665-2168
Charles R. Aschwanden
Chief, Enforcement Specialist Office
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Box 25227, Building 53
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5128
Fax: (303) 236-5116
B-2
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Ann Bailey
Chief, SIPs, NSPS, Acid Rain & Stratospheric
Protection Branch
ORE/Air Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-3899
Fax: (202) 564-0015
Devereaux Barnes
Director, Permits and State Programs Division, OSW
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5303W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 308-8404
Mike Barrette
Environmental Protection Specialist
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7027
Carol Baschon
Chief, Water Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-2309
Jesse Baskerville
Director, Toxics & Pesticides Enforcement Division
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2245A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4071
Fax: (202) 564-0023
Raymond Basso
Chief, New Jersey Superfund Branch 2
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 747
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-1918
Fax: (212) 264-7611
Josh Baylson
Acting Deputy Director, OUST
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5402W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 308-8881
Janet Bearden
Deputy Director, Air Enforcement Division
ORE/OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2265
Fax: (202) 564-0015
Victoria P. Binetti
Chief, Permits Enforcement Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-6511
Fax: (215) 597-8541
Richard Biondi
Associate Director, METD
OECA/OC/METD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2300
B-3
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Douglas R. Blazey
Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-1017
Fax: (212) 264-4359
Joel Blumstein
Chief, Air & Toxics Office
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1 Congress Street, NE
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3693
Fax: (617) 565-1141
Linda Boornazian
Director, PPED
OSRE/PPED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5502G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-8900
Fax: (703) 603-9119
John W. Bosky
ENSV OECA Coordinator
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
Phone: (913) 551-5061
Fax: (913) 551-5218
Charles Breece
Deputy Director, Regional Support Division
OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2244
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-3050
Barry N. Breen
Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9801
Fax: (202) 260-9437
Larry Brill
Chief, Water Compliance Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3482
Fax: (617) 565-4940
Tim Brincefield
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Ave.
Mailcode HW-113
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (202) 553-2100
Walter Brodtman
Ecosystems Team Leader, Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4181
Fax: (202) 564-0028
Susan E. Bromm
Director, Chemical, Commercial Services,
and Municipal Division, Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2224A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7044
Fax: (202) 564-0027
Deborah Brown
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3448
B-4
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Nancy Browne
Chief, Regions V, VII, X, Branch, OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2244
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9326
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4700
Gerald A. Bryan
Director, Office of Enforcement Capacity and Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4140
Fax: (202) 260-7839
Steve Burkett
Chief, NPDES Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 293-1623
Fax: (303) 294-1386
C. Marshall Cain
Senior Legal Advisor/Acting Deputy Office Director
Office of Federal Activities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2251
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8792
Fax: (202) 260-0129
Diane Callier
Director, Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913) 551-7459
Fax: (913) 551-7976
Jon Capacasa
Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-8228
Richard L. Caspe
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Envirnomental Protection Agency
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-2513
Fax: (212) 264-2194
Tai-ming Chang
OECA/Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221-AR
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5081
Fax: (202) 564-0034
Mark Charles
Chief, Industrial Enforcement Branch
Water Division - ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-8319
Fax: (202) 564-0054
Reggie Cheatham
Environmental Engineer, Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4641
Steven Chester
Deputy Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2231
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4583
B-5
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2131
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4001
Sandra Connors
Director, Regional Support Division, OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2244
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-3050
Richard Colbert
Director, Agriculture & Ecosystem Division
OC/OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2320
Frank M. Covington
Director
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5100
Fax: (303)236-5116
Jonathan S. Cole
Senior Attorney/Team Leader, OECA/OCE
Criminal Enforcement Counsel Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Mailcode 2232
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:(202)260-8781
Fax: (202) 260-0268
Samuel J. Coleman
Deputy Director, Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5501
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4823
George T. Czerniak, Jr.
Chief, Air Enforcement Branch
Air & Radiation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 886-6789
Fax: (312) 353-8289
Leo A. D'Amico
Assistant Director for Investigations
Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2233
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5262
Fax: (202) 260-6612
Paul Connor
Deputy Director, Policy & Program Evaluation Divison
OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5502-G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-8933
Fax: (703) 603-9119
Sally M. Dalzell
Senior Counsel, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9808
Fax: (202) 260-9437
B-6
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Allyn M. Davis
Director
Hazardous Waste Management Div.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-6701
Fax: (214) 665-6460
Barry DeGraff
Deputy Director, Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-2147
Fax: (312) 886-0957
Earl Devaney
Director, Office of Criminal Enforcement
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2231
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4539
Fax: (202) 260-6848
Betsy Devlin
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4054
Bruce M. Diamond
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5501
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4814
Becky Dolph
Sr. Associate Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913) 551-7281
Fax: (913) 551-7925
Julie R. Domike
Chief, Air Toxics, Permits & New Source Review
Branch, Air Enforcement Division
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-6577
Fax: (202) 564-0015
Dan Donnelly
Director, Central Regional Lab
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410) 573-2631
Fax: (410) 573-2698
Rick Duffy
Chief, Targeting & Evaluation Branch
OECA/OC/EPTDD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2345
Fax: (202) 564-0031
Patrick Durack
Chief, Water Permits and Compliance Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-9894
Fax: (212) 264-9597
William C. Early
Chief, RCRA/CERCLA Remedial Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7265
Fax: (215) 597-3235
B-7
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
James Edward
Director, Planning, Prevention and Compliance Staff,
FFEO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8859
Stacey Eriksen
Enforcement Lead Region Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999- 18th Street, Suite 500
Mailcode 8HWM-FF
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 294-1083
Fax: (303) 294-7559
Elisabeth Evans
Chief, Superfund Enforcement Section
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 294-7555
Fax: (303) 293-1238
Alan Farmer
Chief, RCRA Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-3433
Fax: (404) 347-0076
Ira Feldman
Special Counsel, OECA/OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222k
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5017
Fax: (202) 564-0034
Charles Findley
Director, Water Division
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
WD-131
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 553-1793
Fax: (206) 553-0165
Phyllis Flaherty
Chief, Agriculture Branch
Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2355
Fax: (202) 564-0024
Linda Flick
Associate Director, National Enforcement Training
Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4080
Fax: (202) 260-7839
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
Mailcode R2RA
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-2525
Bertram C. Frey
Deputy Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Mailcode C-3T
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Phone: (312) 886-1308
Fax: (312) 886-0747
B-8
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Scott C. Fulton
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, Room 1037WT
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4137
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Carol Galloway
Chief, Data Management Branch, OC
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2375
Fax: (202) 564-0032
Avi S. Garbow
Special Assistant to the Assistant Admin, for
Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1579
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Geoffrey Garver
Senior Policy Counsel
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-3914
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Andrew M. Gaydosh
Regional Enforcement Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 294-7005
Ken Gigliello
Branch Chief
OECA/OC/CCSMD/CIB
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2224A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7047
Fax: (202) 564-0037
Elliott Gilberg
Associate Division Director
Office of Compliance
Chemical Commercial Services and Municipal Div.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2224A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2310
Fax: (202) 564-0037
Cynthia Giles
Director, Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-3439
Fax: (215) 597-3235
Gail C. Ginsberg
Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312) 886-6675
Fax: (312) 886-0747
Robert Greaves
Chief, RCRA Enforcement and UST Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-8125
B-9
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Richard D. Green
Associate Director, Waste Management Division
Office of Superfund and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Courtland Building, 2nd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-3454
Fax: (404) 347-0076
Elizabeth Greenwald
Regional Enforcement Analyst
Regional Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Mailcode 8PM-SIDI
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 294-1991
Fax: (303) 294-1198
Georgina (Mimi) Guernica
Branch Chief, Commercial Svcs. & Municipal Branch
OECA, OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2224A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7048
Fax: (202) 564-0037
Robert Harp
Assistant Director, Operations
EPA, OECA
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5136
Fax: (303) 236-2395
Jewell A. Harper
Chief, Air Enforcement Branch
Air, Pesticide & Toxics Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-2904
Fax: (404) 347-3059
Steve Harper
Office of Policy Analysis and Review
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 6103
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8953
Robert G. Heiss
Senior Legal Advisor, OECA/Office of Compliance
Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4108
Fax: (202) 564-0030
Roland Hemmett
Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Phone: (908) 321-6755
Fax: (908) 321-4381
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator, OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4134
Marc Hillson
Chief, Mobile Source Enforcement Branch
ORE/Air Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2255
Fax: (202) 564-0015
David Hindin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-6004
B-10
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
William Hoffman
Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-3361
Shelia M. Hollimon
Chief, Enforcement Planning & Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-7109
Fax: (404) 347-1043
Craig E. Hooks
Deputy Director, ARMSS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1143
Mark Horwitz
Chief, Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-9045
Fax: (312) 886-6064
Beverly E. Houston
Associate Division Director, Water Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-4450
Fax: (404) 347-5204
Jody L. Hudson
Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
Phone: (913) 551-5064
Fax: (913) 551-5218
Kathleen A. Hughes
Assistant Director for Legal Affairs
Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2232
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9670
Fax: (202) 260-0268
Patricia D. Hull
Director, Air, Radiation & Toxics Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 293-0946
Fax: (303) 293-1229
Jon D. Jacobs
Branch Chief, Eastern Regions
Toxics & Pesticides Enforcement Division
OECA/ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2245-A
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 564-4037
Fax: (202) 564-0020
David J. Janik
Enforcement Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 294-7586
Fax: (303) 294-7653
Gary Jonesi
Chief, Waste Identification Enforcement Policy Branch
RCRA Enforcement Division, ORE, OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2246A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4002
Fax: (202) 564-0019
B-11
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Sylvia Kawabata
Chief, Water Enforcement Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue (WD-134)
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 553-1644
Fax: (206) 553-1280
David Kee
Director, Air and Radiation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312) 353-2212
Fax: (312) 353-1661
Rosemarie Kelley
Special Assistant, Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4183
Fax: (202) 564-0027
Greg Kenyon
Program Analyst, OECA/OECO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-6996
Fax: (202) 260-0129
Sharon L. Kercher
Chief, Removal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 294-7037
Fax: (303) 294-7168
Robert Kinney
Attorney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ORE
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-3712
Myron O. Knudson
Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-7101
Fax: (214) 665-6490
Robert Kramer
Chief, Environmental Monitoring & Surveillance
Branch
ESD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9378
Fax: (215) 597-1850
Bruce Kulpan
Chief, Regions III, IV, VIII Branch, OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2244
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1792
Robert Laidlaw
Chief, Information Management Branch
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5122
Fax: (303) 236-5116
Harley F. Laing
Regional Counsel
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1 Congress Street, NE
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3451
Fax: (615) 565-1141
B-12
-------
Appendix B—Participant Ust
Anne Lassiter
Deputy Office Director
Office of Enforcement Capacity & Outreach/OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8309
Richard Lawrence
Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Division
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-3511
Frederick S. Leif
Director, Office of Regional Enforcement Coordination
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne
Mailstop: ORA
San Francisco, CA 9410S
Phone: (415) 744-1017
Fax: (415) 744-2499
Stanley L. Laskowski
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9812
Fax: (215) 597-8255
Gerald Levy
Acting Deputy Director, Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
1 Congress Street, NE
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 573-5704
Fax: (617) 573-9662
Rose Lew
Environmental Scientist, Agricultural Branch,
Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4147
Francisca E. Liem
Chief, Lab. Data Integrity Branch
OC/AED/LDIR/ OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2365
Fax: (202) 564-0029
Barbara Lither
Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 553-1191
Laura Livingston
Multimedia Enforcement Contact
Environmental Impacts Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-8428
Fax: (212) 264-6693
Eugene Lubieniecki
Chief, Civic Enforcement Support Branch
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5124
Fax: (303) 236-2395
B-13
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Maureen Lydon
Associate Director, TPED/ORE
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 224SA
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4046
Fax: (202) 564-0023
John W. Lyon
Chief, Municipal Branch, Water Enforcement Division
Office of Regulatory Enforcement, OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4051
Fax: (202) 564-0024
David N. Lyons
Chief, Energy and Transportation Branch
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2405
Fax: (202) 564-0050
Brian Maas
Chief, Multimedia Enforcement Branch, ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2248A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2235
John W. Mackenzie
Western Regional Compliance Director
OECA-HQ
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1536 Gladstone Way
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Phone: (707) 584-1195
Fax: (707) 584-2338
Jim Marshall
Enforcement Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-2515
Fax: (212) 264-8109
Melissa Page Marshall
Associate Director, Multimedia Enforcement Division
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2248A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-6002
Fax: (202) 564-9001
Nancy J. Marvel
Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 744-1368
Fax: (415) 744-1041
Thomas J. Maslany
Director, Air Radiation & Toxic Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9390
Fax: (215) 580-2011
Thomas H. McGovern
Program Analyst, Office of Criminal Enforcement
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8186
Fax: (202) 260-0268
Jack W. McGraw
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: (303) 293-1616
B-14
-------
Appendix B—Participant Ust
David McGuigan
Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9217
Colleen McKaughan
Branch Chief, Air & Toxics Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 9410S
Phone:(415)744-1198
Fax: (415) 744-1076
A. Stanley Meiburg
Director, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-7200
Fax: (214) 665-2164
Shelley H. Metzenbaum
Associate Administrator
Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, Room 329WT
Mailcode 1501
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4719
Michael J. Mikulka
Chief, Compliance Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 886-6760
Fax: (312) 886-0168
Philip Millam
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mailcode AT-082
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 553-1152
Anne Miller
Director, Federal Agency Liaison Division, OFA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2253
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5071
Bruce P. Miller
Deputy Director, Air, Pesticides
& Toxics Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-3043
Fax: (404) 347-5207
Mamie Miller
Chief, Manufacturing Branch, OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2395
Roberta Miller
Team Leader, Resources Management
Office of Compliance
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2335
Philip Milton
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Compliance/Enforcement Planning,
Targeting, and Data Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5029
Paul Molinari
Deputy Director, Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-2513
B-1S
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Gin ah Mortensen
Special Assistant, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2241A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-8293
Fax: (202) 564-0011
Lisa Nelson
Training Coordinator, National Enforcement
Training Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8782
Walter Mugdan
Deputy Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-1018
Fax: (212) 264-4359
Marcia E. Mulkey
Regional Counsel
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9821
Fax: (215) 597-3235
Connie Musgrove
Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2241-A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2225
Fax:(202)564-0011
William J. Muszynski, PE
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza, Room 906
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-0396
Fax: (212) 264-0829
John J. Neylan, III
Chief, Planning Branch
OECA/OC/EPTDD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2385
Fax: (202) 564-0034
Dela Ng
Team Leader, OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5502G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-8951
Eric Nottingham
Chemistry Branch Chief
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building 53, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5132
Fax: (303) 236-5116
Bette Ojala
Attorney, Criminal Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2232
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9666
Jean C. Nelson
General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2310
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8040
Fax: (202) 260-8046
B-16
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Joyce Olin
Acting Director, Site Remediation and
Enforcement Division
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2261
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-2846
Fax: (202) 260-7457
Peter Pagano
Office of Enforcement Capacity & Outreach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 7202
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-6747
Richard B. Parkin
Chief, Pesticides Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Fax: (206) 553-8338
Pamela Phillips
Regional Enforcement Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-2207
Fax: (214) 665-6648
Mark Pollins
Acting Director, RCRA Enforcement Division
ORE/OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2246A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4001
Fax: (202) 564-0019
Gary Polvi
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7056
Ken Patterson
Chief, Policy & Guidance Branch
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5502G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-8932
Fax: (703) 603-9117
George Pavlou
Deputy Director, Operation and Program Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 737
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-1574
Fax: (212) 264-7611
Randy Pomponio
Acting Division Director, ESD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Bldg
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-8173
Fax: (215) 597-7906
Donald P. Porteous
Deputy Director, Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
Phone: (617) 860-4317
Fax: (617) 860-4397
Michael J. Penders
Special Counsel, Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 2232
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-9724
Fax: (202) 260-0268
B-17
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
John B. Rasnic
Director, Manufacturing, Energy and
Transportation Division, OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HQ
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2223A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-7014
Pete Rosenberg
Acting Associate Director, Constituent
Outreach and Communications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8869
Claudette Reed
Enforcement Coordination Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-9927
Russell F. Rhoades
Director, Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-2210
Fax: (214) 665-7446
William W. Rice
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913) 551-7006
Fax: (913) 551-7976
Brian Riedel
Special Assistant, OECA/OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5006
Fax: (202) 564-0034
Michael T. Risner
Deputy Regional Counsel
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 294-7583
Fax: (303) 294-7500
John D. Rothman
Senior Attorney, Multi-Media Enforcement
and International Activities
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 744-1353
Fax: (415) 744-1041
Richard E. Sanderson
Director, Office of Federal Activities
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2251
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5053
Fax: (202) 260-0124
Eric Schaeffer
Deputy Director, Office of Compliance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221-A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2280
Fax: (202) 564-0027
David Schnare
EPTDD, OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5042
B-18
-------
Appendix B-Participant Ust
Neilima Senjalia
Chief, Program Evaluation and Coordination Branch
OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode SS02G
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 603-8910
Conrad S. Simon
Director, Air & Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1000
New York, NY 10278
Phone: (212) 264-2301
Fax: (212) 264-7613
Sally Seymour
Director, Administration and Resources Management
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5144
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Mark Siegler
Environmental Scientist, Air Enforcement Division
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HQ
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-8673
Fax: (202) 564-0015
Jon Silberman
Acting Branch Chief, RCRA Enforcement Division
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2246-A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4006
Fax: (202) 564-0019
Sam Silverman
Chief, Regulatory Office
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1 Congress Street, NE
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3443
Fax: (617) 565-1141
Patricia Sims
Attorney, Toxics and Pesticides Divison
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2245A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4177
Douglas M. Skie
Chief, Air Quality Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 293-1750
Fax: (303) 293-1229
Dennis Smith
Underground Storage Tank Division
Tennessee Department of Env. and Conservation
L and C Tower, 4th Floor
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1541
Phone: (615) 532-0986
Fax: (615) 532-0938
Kathryn Smith
Water Enforcement Division, ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-3252
Michael G. Smith
Chief, Multimedia Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 886-6522
Fax: (312) 886-0747
B-19
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Randall F. Smith
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 553-1261
Fax: (206) 553-0124
Rita Smith
Program Analyst, MOA Team Leader
OECA/OC/EPTDD, Planning Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-5044
Fax: (202) 564-0034
William F. Smith
Special Agent in Charge, Boston Area Office
Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1 Congress Street, (CID-B159)
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3636
Fax: (617) 565-4978
Beverly A. Spagg
Chief, Pesticides & Toxic Substances Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-5201
Fax: (404) 347-1681
Malcolm Sparrow
Lecturer in Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
Thomas A. Speicher
Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: (303) 294-7550
Fax: (303) 294-7653
Michael M. Stahl
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, Room 1037WT
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4134
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Elaine G. Stanley
Director, Office of Compliance, OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2280
Fax: (202) 564-0027
Kathie A. Stein
Director, Air Enforcement Division
ORE/OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2242A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2260
Fax: (202) 564-0015
Fred Stiehl
Director, Enforcement Planning, Targeting and Data
Division, OC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2222A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2290
John Stoody
Office of the Comptroller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 3302
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-1204
Fax: (202) 260-0084
B-20
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Ellen Stough
Executive Director, NET1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2225
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8776
Fax: (202) 260-7839
Gerald Stubbs
Chief, Western Branch, Toxics,
Pesticides Enforcement Division
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 224SA
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4178
Susan Studlien
Deputy Division Director, APTMD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1 Congress Street, NE
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-3239
Fax: (617) 565-4939
Walter L. Sutton, Jr.
Acting Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214) 665-2110
Fax: (214) 665-2168
Carolyn Szumal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Building
Mailcode 3EA20
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-6911
Liz Taddeo
Pollution Prevention Coordinator
Maryland Department of Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: (410)631-3114
Patrick Tobin
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Phone: (404) 347-4728
Fax: (404) 347-1680
Don Toensing
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Mailcode WATR WACM
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913) 551-7446
Richard Trinidad
Special Assistant, Office of Criminal Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2231
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260^398
Ramona Trovato
Director, Water Enforcement Division
ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2243A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-8304
David Ullrich
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312) 886-3000
Robert Van Huevelen
Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2241A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2220
Fax: (202) 564-0011
B-21
-------
Appendix B—Participant Ust
Lynn M. Vendinello
Special Assistant
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-2842
Fax: (202) 260-0500
Debra Villari
Special Assistant, Office of Compliance
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2221A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-4182
Fax: (202) 564-0027
Thomas C. Voltaggio
Director
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 597-8181
Michael J. Walker
Senior Enforcement Counsel
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2211
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-8690
Fax: (202) 260-1347
Joel Wallinga
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 3302
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-0197
Cheryl Wasserman
Associate Director for Policy Analysis
Office of Federal Activities
OECA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2251
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4486
Fax: (202) 260-0129
Corinne S. Wellish
Director, Environmental Sciences Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312) 353-3808
Fax: (312) 353-4342
Jack Winder
Special Assistant, Regional Support Division, OSRE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2244
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-3061
Michael F. Wood
Director, Multimedia Enforcement Division
OECA/ORE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 2248A
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 564-2230
Fax: (202) 564-9001
Russell L. Wright, Jr.
Acting Director, Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30677
Phone: (706) 546-3136
Fax: (706) 546-3343
B-22
-------
Appendix B—Participant List
Gary D. Young
Assistant Director, Laboratory Services
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
Building S3, Box 25227
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Phone: (303) 236-5132
Fax: (303) 236-5116
Jeffrey Zelikson
Director, Hazardous Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 744-1730
Fax: (415) 744-1796
David Ziegele
Acting Director, Office of Program Management
Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Mailcode 5101
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-6991
Fax: (202) 260-3527
------- |