-------
03.?'
PREFACE
The REGION VIII ENFORCEMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT (EPP) was
prepared for the Regional Administrator (RA) and the Deputy
Regional Administrator (DRA) by the Budget and Planning Section
(BPS). It represents a tremendous amount of cooperation, input,
and review from all levels of regional staff.
The EPP is in response to a memorandum received during the
4th quarter of FY 1987, from the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring (OECM) indicating that the region had
"apparent weaknesses" in its enforcement programs. OECM reported
that the number of civil referrals, administrative orders and
state enforcement activity had declined through the 3rd quarter
of FY 1987 by comparison to the same period for the previous two
years. OECM also suggested that the region (and three others)
assess its programs to ensure a strong and certain enforcement
presence. Beyond a "gut reaction", the region had difficulty in
responding to this critique.
The EPP was designed to enable the region to respond
objectively to Headquarters concerns about the quantity of
enforcement actions with more comprehensive data; to establish
accessible and high quality data for a range of enforcement
activites; to periodically perform trend analyses to determine
which programs were producing fewer actions and why; to provide
the programs with this option, as well as the opportunity to make
similar comparisons among their state programs; and to enable
senior regional managers to quickly grasp the range, type, and
amount of enforcement activity within the region. Potentially,
this type of report could also be useful for the Agency in its
dealings with Congress.
The EPP report will be included in a larger report entitled
REGION VIII ENFORCEMENT PROJECT, which addresses a number of
enforcement initiatives and recommendations that were developed
and implemented in FY 1988, or will be in FY 1989. Both reports
are being made available to the region's senior staff as well as
some senior managers in Washington.
The data used in this report were provided by the
enforcement programs. BPS is confident of the FY 1988 data
quality, but it does not have the same degree of confidence
regarding the data quality for FY 1985, 86 and 87. BPS
recommends that the reader of this report review the
graphs/charts and associated conclusions with the understanding
that some degree of error is acceptable for trend analyses. This
situation, however, limited BPS's ability in some cases to draw
more significant conclusions from the trend analyses, and to
generate potentially more trend information. Data accuracy will
be enhanced from this time forward, as the programs provide data
i
-------
on a quarterly basis.
Finally, this report addresses formal enforcement actions
only (Administrative Orders (AOs) and Civil Referrals); it does
not reflect on such actions as Notices of Violations (NOVs).
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS 1
III. ANALYSES OF EACH ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 3
A. NPDES 4
B. UIC 7
C. PWS 10
D. 404 13
E. RCRA 15
F. AIR 18
G. TSCA/FIFRA 20
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A. NPDES - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT B. UIC - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT C. PWS - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT D. 404 - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT E. RCRA - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT F. AIR - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
ATTACHMENT G. TSCA/FIFRA - GRAPHS AND CHARTS
APPENDIX I. SUMMARIES OF REGION VIII's ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
APPENDIX II. SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS' RESPONSES
APPENDIXES
ACTIONS
SUMMARY OF ENFORC
TO QUESTIONNAIRE
iii
-------
REGION VIII ENFORCEMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT (EPP)
I. INTRODUCTION
For the Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional
Administrator, the Budget and Planning Section performed a
quantitative review of each compliance program in an attempt to
determine whether they had/have apparent weaknesses. If so, why,
and what changes by Headquarters, the region and the states are
necessary to improve enforcement performance.
The EPP highlights trends in enforcement activities for each
regional enforcement program over the last four years (see
APPENDIX I). It also aggregates the programs' response to a
questionnaire concerning a variety of topics such as compliance
rates, administrative authority, penalty policies, etc (see
APPENDIX II).
II. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS
Are there "apparent weaknesses" in the region's enforcement
programs? No, not in reference to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring (OECM) concerns that the number of
enforcement cases had declined — OECM failed to recognize the
region's excellent management of Significant Non-Compliers
(SNCs).
For five combined EPA and state programs (NPDES, AIR, RCRA,
PWS, and UIC) that use the concept of SNC or Significant
Violator), the data indicate that when significant non-compliance
is identified, it is being effectively addressed, i.e., the trend
for the last two to three years shows the number of SNCs
declining (based on an evaluation of the "dynamic" quarterly
counts of SNCs). In other words, non-compliance among sources
considered to be potential major sources of pollution is
decreasing. The EPP data cannot be used to determine whether the
enforcement programs effectively identify significant non-
compliance .
This review addressed in part the issue of what are the
optimum enforcement activities that should be measured to assess
the enforcement programs' performance. It showed that a region's
enforcement performance is more accurately measured by assessing
a range of performance indicators for all enforcement programs
rather than by just comparing data on referrals and AO's from
year to year.
For at least three programs (NPDES, UIC and PWS), there is a
better understanding of performance by examining the relationship
1
-------
of the referrals and AO's for the universe of major facilities to
the number of SNCs and facilities on an "Exceptions List" (those
facilities that fail to come into compliance within a specified
time).
The other enforcement programs do not use an exceptions
list, so an attempt was made to determine if there is a positive
correlation between referrals and AO's for the universe of
majors, the number of SNCs and number of majors inspected. It
was concluded that the concept has merit for evaluating the Air
Compliance Program and RCRA.
The TSCA, FIFRA and Clean Water Act S.404 (Dredge and Fill)
programs do not use an SNC concept. However, for TSCA and FIFRA,
correlations of enforcement actions to inspections and violations
has some merit, as does the relationship of investigations to
enforcement cases for the S.404 Enforcement Program.
A comparison was made of total enforcement actions for EPA
and the states between FY 1988 and each of the three previous
years. It showed that in FY 1988 six enforcement programs (EPA
and states combined — Air, UIC,and PWS; EPA only — 404, TSCA,
and FIFRA) exceeded their FY 1985 AO/referral performance. In
FY 1988, six enforcement programs (EPA and states combined --
NPDES, RCRA, UIC, and PWS; EPA only -- 404 and FIFRA) exceeded
their FY 1986 AO/referral performance; and in FY 1988, six
programs (EPA and states combined -- NPDES, RCRA, UIC, and PWS;
EPA only — 404 and FIFRA) exceeded their FY 1987 AO/referral
performance. The data indicate a fairly consistent level of
enforcement actions overall, with some fluctuations among the
programs.
An examination of the level of enforcement actions for EPA
and the states for five programs yielded some interesting
comparisons. For NPDES, RCRA, and PWS, EPA had a higher ratio of
actions (referrals and administrative orders) to either
inspections, violations or the universe of majors than did their
state counterparts. It appears for these programs that EPA is
more willing to take formal enforcement actions. This
underscores the need for clear and consistent oversight of the
state programs on which the region placed added emphasis in
FY 1988. (On the other hand, the states' UIC and Air enforcement
programs had a higher ratio than their EPA counterparts.)
Applying this type of comparative analysis to individual state
programs could highlight relative strengths and weaknesses in a
manner that would be easily understood and communicated.
Generating more enforcement actions will require either
refinement of our ability to detect non-compliance (e.g., develop
new techniques to evaluate the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports
to address historical violation trends) or broadening our
compliance activity focus beyond "major facilities", and
2
-------
encouraging the states to do the same.
The region did identify areas that needed attention and
overall improvement such as inspector training, data quality and
reporting, state oversight, and other items, all of which are
addressed in the REGION VIII ENFORCEMENT PROJECT report. It
cannot be concluded, however, that these areas were cause for
decreases in the number of cases in FY 1987.
The following analyses provide additional conclusions
relative to each enforcement program. Some are limited in scope
based on the amount/quality of data that were available. This
report did not evaluate the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) and Underground Storage Tank
(UST) programs.
3
-------
III. ANALYSES OF EACH ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
A. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.a. The programs's authority comes from 1987 Clean Water Act
(CWA).
1.b. Five States in Region VIII have basic delegation — South
Dakota has not received delegation.
1.c. The Pretreatment program is delegated only in Utah.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. Region VIII is the first region to achieve its National
Municipal Policy (NMP) compliance initiative goals: all but
three of 63 facilities achieved compliance; the other three
(Central Valley, Denver Metro and Pueblo) were under EPA or State
court orders by the July 1, 1988, deadline. Central Valley and
Denver Metro have since achieved compliance. Central Valley's
$450K up-front cash settlement is the largest to date of any
Region VIII action.
2.b. Region VIII has the best national timely and appropriate
record, and has the fewest "exceptions" on the national list.
2.c. From FY 85 through FY 88, the NPDES program produced the
most judicial referrals (18) of any of the region's enforcement
programs.
2.d. Most of EPA1s enforcement actions are based on self
reported violations; it is not feasible to document violations of
30 day average effluent limitations through inspections.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The Region VIII NPDES Program manages an extremely
effective compliance process (see below, item 4.a. and b. and the
program's data/graphs Attachment A). There is a strong
(positive) correlation between the number of SNCs/facilities on
the "Exception List" to the number of formal enforcement actions
(cases), i.e., generally, as the number of SNCs/facilities on the
Exception List increase/decrease so do the number of actions.
4
-------
It was concluded that once a facility is identified in SNC,
it will be dealt with effectively. The focus for improvement by
the program, if any is needed, is in assuring that detection
efforts are comprehensive.
3.b. EPA (see below, item 4.f.), on a percentage basis, takes an
average 1.4 times as many formal enforcement actions per year as
do the states.
EPA-and the states need to evaluate the states' inspection
targeting procedures and whether disinvestment of inspections
is at least partially feasible. States inspect most majors and
minors annually. What is the overall value of this level of
activity by comparison to EPA's? At the same time, we also need
to assure the quality of state inspections and proper use of
discretionary authority to file cases (i.e., are they too
"soft"?).
3.c. EPA should consider performing more inspections, especially
of significant minors.
3.d. The national program should consider expanding the
definition of SNC to include significant minor facilities.
4. TRENDS
4.a. The average compliance rate (EPA and states) for a 15
quarter period (for FY 85 thru 3rd quarter FY 88) is 92%. The
highest rate (95%) was in the 3rd quarter FY 88 and the lowest
(86%) in the 3rd quarter FY 85.
4.b. For the period of FY 85 through 88, the average universe of
facilities that the NPDES program regulates is 2,863; EPA has the
lead on 764 facilities of which 66 (9%) are majors; and the state
has the lead on 2099 of which 231 (11%) are majors.
4.c. EPA's average number of SNCs (for FY 85 through 3rd quarter
FY 88) is 9 facilities per quarter. The highest (19) was in 3rd
quarter FY 85 and the lowest (0) was in 3rd quarter FY 88. The
states average number of SNCs is 18 per year; the highest (30)
was also in the 3rd quarter FY 85 and the lowest (7) was in the
3rd quarter FY 87.
4.d. EPA's average number of facilities on the Exceptions List
(from 2nd quarter FY 85 through FY 88) is 2.5 per quarter; the
highest (9) was in the 1st quarter FY 86 and the lowest (0) in
the last 2 quarters FY 88. The states' average number of
facilities on the Exceptions List is 6 per quarter; the highest
(14) was also in the 1st quarter FY 86 and the lowest (0) was in
the 1st quarter FY 88.
5
-------
4.e. For FY 88, 9 (25%) of EPA cases were penalty AOs; 15 (42%)
AOs were non-penalty; 13 (36%) were AOs against majors; and 3
(8%) were referrals (total cases = 36). For the states, No cases
were identified as penalty AOs; 57 (73%) were AOs; and 21 (27%)
were referrals (total cases = 78). All six states have AO
authority. Colorado can collect penalties for some violations,
but EPA doesn't track them. The program does not track the number
of state referrals against majors to make a comparison to EPA
data.
4.f. For the last four years, an average of 5% per year of EPA' s
universe of facilities had actions taken against them (38 cases
to 765 facilities); where as, an average of 4% per year of the
states universe of facilities had actions taken against them (74
cases to 2,099 facilities).
4.g. For the last four years, 18 (12%) EPA cases were referrals
to 132 AOs; and 73 (25%) states' cases were referrals to 221 AOs.
Approximately 50% of EPA's actions are against major facilities.
4.h. Over the last four years, the states' average number of
inspections is 1,784 per year or 85% of the universe of
facilities. On the average, 365 (20%) are inspections of majors;
and 4% of the universe of facilities have an action taken against
them, annually.
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. The CWA of 1987 includes RCRA-related enforcement
provisions.
5.b. The CWA of 1987 also includes broad criminal provisions.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT A)
6
-------
B. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM (UIC)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.a. The Program's authority comes from the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) as amended in 1986.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. Region VIII had the first civil referral in the nation
(1985 - Grace Petroleum), and the first AO (1987 - Montex).
2.b. The Program had a successful multi-media case (Dakota Krome
- RCRA/UIC).
2.c. The Program exceeded the FY 1988 National compliance
inspection goals.
2.d. The Program had 3 of the Agency's 8 civil referrals in
FY 88 in Direct Implementation jurisdiction.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The program appears to manage an effective compliance
process (see the program's data/graphs Attachment B). There
seems to be a positive correlation between the number of
SNCs/facilities on the "Exception List" to the number of
enforcement actions, but more data over time are needed to
determine how strong the correlation is.
3.b. For the large number of violations, there are few SNCs and
No facilities on the Exceptions List, presumably indicating: 1)
a willingness by the facilities to quickly return to compliance
and avoid an enforcement action; or 2) state record keeping and
reporting may be inadequate with regard to SNC (see below —
Section 4.d. and Note).
3.c. More enforcement actions would presumably yield a stronger
deterrent effect, but more resources may be required to produce
more cases.
4. TRENDS
4.a. For the period of FY 85 through 88, the average universe of
facilities that EPA regulated is 1,070 (also there are
approximately 5,000 Class V wells, which are now starting to be
7
-------
regulated). Starting in FY 88, the states have a universe of
13,479 facilities or 92% of the total universe of 14,616
facilities (data for FY86 and FY87 were missing).
4.b. EPA's average number of SNCs (for FY 87 through FY 88) is
two facilities per quarter. The highest (12) was in 4th quarter
FY 88 and the lowest (0). The states' average number of SNCs is
2 (for 7 quarters of that time period); the highest (4), and the
lowest (0).
4.c. For EPA and the states, there have not been any facilities
on the Exceptions List (for FY 87 through FY 88) .
4.d. For the last four years, an average of less than 1% per
year of EPA's universe of facilities had actions taken against
them; 5 cases to 1,070 facilities. For FY 88, 3% of the states'
universe of facilities had actions taken¦against them (364
actions to 13,479 facilities — NOTE: SPMS includes in its
definition of actions NOVs, shut-ins, and pipeline severance).
4.e. For FY 87 and 88, 12 (75%) of EPA's cases were AOs and the
rest (4) were referrals; of EPA's cases against majors, 9 (56%)
were AOs, and 4 (25%) were referrals; and the remaining 3 (19%)
were against minor facilities. North Dakota, in FY 86, issued a
penalty AO of $121,000. The states' actions were not calculated,
because of the broad SPMS definition mentioned above.
4.f. For the last four years, EPA performed an average of 350
inspections per year, or 33% of the universe of facilities on an
annual basis. This resulted in an average 470 violations per
year or 1 violation per inspection. For FY 88, the states
performed 5,683 inspections (42% of their universe of
facilities).
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. The program received administrative authorities in 1986,
including a substantial penalty authority.
5.b. There is consistent regional application of Uniform Penalty
Policy.
5.c. There is strong state cooperation with the program.
5.d. The primacy state programs have a good deterrent effect
(major economic impact) that results when wells are shut-in or
the pipeline is severed (EPA lacks this authority).
5.e. The program maintains a strong field presence.
5.f. The multi-step AO process is cumbersome.
8
-------
5.g. This is a young program (first civil referral in 1985).
5.h. National compliance philosophy emphasizes the use of public
outreach, field presence and compliance monitoring prior to
enforcement.
5.i. Specific guidance is in place for the use of an AO vs. a
referral.
5.j. Compliance rates are not calculated.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT B)
9
-------
C. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM (PWS)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.a. The program's authority comes from the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA); most recent revision: major amendments in 1986.
1.b. All States except Wyoming have primacy.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. The program and Regional Counsel resolved the Sheridan,
Wyoming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) case in FY 1988 --
the first ADR pilot in the country — a success in identifying a
workable solution.
2.b. Region VIII's first enforcement actions in delegated States
were taken in the 4th quarter FY 1988.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The Region VIII PWS Program manages an effective compliance
process (see the program's data/graphs Attachment C). There
seems to be a positive correlation between the number of
SNCs/facilities on the "Exception List" to the number of
enforcement actions, but more data over time are needed to
determine how strong the correlation is. From FY 86 through FY
88, the correlation increased in relative strength for both EPA
and the states.
For the large number of violations, there are few SNCs and
facilities on the Exceptions List, presumably indicating: 1)
most violations are minor, by definition; or 2) that some of the
informal actions are effective; or 3) the program can expand the
number of SNCs through a more formal approach to violations.
4. TRENDS
NOTE: FY 87 3rd quarter and 4th quarter FY 88 state data were
unavailable. Also, the violations addressed in this report are
discovered in reviews of the facility-generated monitoring
reports, and are not a result of the sanitary surveys.
4.a. For the period of FY 85 through 88, the average universe of
facilities that EPA regulated is 836 (10%) of the total universe
of 8,203 facilities. EPA regulates 323 (39%) major facilities
(Community Water Systems). The states regulate an average
universe of 6,533 facilities, (89%) of the total.
1 0
-------
4.b. EPA's average number of SNCs (from the 2nd quarter FY 86
through the 1st quarter of FY 88) is 26 facilities per quarter.
The highest (49) was in 2nd quarter FY 86 and the lowest (17) in
3rd quarter FY 87. The states' average number of SNCs is 20; the
highest (44), and the lowest (7).
4.c. EPA's average number of facilities on the Exceptions List
(from 1st quarter FY 87 through FY 88) is 11 per quarter; the
highest (18) was in the 4th quarter FY 87 and the lowest (4) in
the 2nd quarter FY 88. The states' average number of facilities
on the Exceptions List is 8 per quarter; the highest (15) was in
the 4th quarter FY 87 and the lowest (2) was in the 2nd quarter
FY 88.
4.d. For FY 87 and 88, 1 (2%) of EPA's cases was a penalty AO
compared to all AOs (18) and referrals (0). For the states, No
cases were penalty AOs (see item 5.c. below).
4.e. For FY 85 through FY 88, 100% of EPA's cases were against
majors, on the average 74% (12) were AOs, and 26% (4) were
referrals.
4.f. For the last four years, an average of 2% per year of EPA's
universe of facilities had actions taken against them (16 cases
to 836 facilities). For the states, (for quarters 1, 2, and 4 of
FY 87, and the first three quarters of FY 88) less than 1% of the
universe of facilities had actions taken against them (24 actions
to 7,369 facilities).
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. There is a willingness to use innovative techniques such as
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
5.b. The multi-step AO process is cumbersome.
5.c. The program must wait for a violation of a Compliance AO to
issue a Penalty AO.
5.d. DOJ/U.S. Attorneys prefer "high visibility" cases; tend to
assign inexperienced attorneys and pursue the easiest instead of
best settlements and State Attorneys General give these cases low
priority.
5.e. Cases proceed slowly; several have taken years to resolve.
5.f. NEIC has been unwilling to pursue criminal investigations
(not significant enough, and unwieldy statutory limitations make
it difficult) .
1 1
-------
5.g. The 1986 criminal provisions have not been used yet.
5.h. There is a national focus on delegated States (only Wyoming
and Indiana lack primacy).
5.i. There has been consistent application of the Wyoming Direct
Implementation — Compliance Strategy.
5.j. The program has a willingness to enforce the statutory and
regulatory requirements.
5.k. 95% of SNCs are very small systems serving less than 500
persons.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT C)
-------
D. WETLANDS (4 04 ENFORCEMENT)
1. INTRODUCTION
l.a. The program's authority comes from the 1987 Clean Water Act
(CWA), and is shared with Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
1.b. Sec. 301, prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill
materials to the waters of the U.S. without a permit; Section 404
deals with Permits; and Section 309 deals with Enforcement: (a)
Compliance (Restoration) Order; (b) Civil Referral; (c) Criminal
Referral; and (d) Administrative Penalty.
i.e. There are no delegated States in Region VIII.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. Program Goals:
Protect wetlands and sensitive aquatic ecosystems from
unnecessary destruction and damage;
Implement an EPA 404 enforcement initiative in each state in
the region;
Emphasize the deterrent value of enforcement by seeking high
public visibility for actions taken;
Focus on illegal discharges while the COE deals with permit
compliance;
Implement new Administrative Penalties provisions of CWA;
and
Focus enforcement on the wetlands and aquatic systems of
greatest value and facing the greatest risk.
2.b. Region VIII has the highest number of referrals of any
Region.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The Region VIII 404 Program appears to manage an effective
enforcement process, but more data over time, including other
performance indicators, are needed to support this conclusion.
1 3
-------
4. TRENDS
4.a. For the last four years, an average of 21 investigations
per year have been performed by EPA resulting in an average of
4.5 (21%) enforcement cases per year. This is a relatively high
rate of violations per investigation (i.e., inspection).
4.b. For the last four years, six (33%) of EPA1s cases were
referrals, and 12 (67%) were AOs.
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. The program receives assistance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the COE augments resources.
5.b. The program has reduced permit review efforts to increase
enforcement activity.
5.c. The program is relatively small (6.6 FTE - FY 1988) in
comparison to other regional programs.
5.d. Referred cases proceed very slowly; the U.S. Attorney is
reluctant to accept criminal referrals.
5.e. The program needs a final enforcement Memorandum of
Agreement with Army COE.
5.f. Enforcement is only one of the priority initiatives in the
Wetlands/404 program. The others are Advanced Planning, Public
Education/Outreach, and the Prairie Wetlands Initiative.
5.g. Unlike other CWA and SDWA programs, there is no self-
monitoring system to detect violations (i.e. unpermitted
discharges).
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT D)
1 4
-------
E. RESOURCE CONSERVATION and RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.a. The most recent revision to statutory authority was the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA) (November, 1984); all States
except Wyoming have primacy (pre-HSWA), but no states currently
have authorization for HSWA.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. The program initiated studies of contaminated (S.3013)
areas and implemented interim measures, under S.7003 during
FY 1988 (see items 5.a and b below).
2.b. Cross-media actions were implemented at Dakota Krome and at
several Wyoming facilities where the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality took action under its water quality
authority.
2.c. Region VIII was one of the first regions to receive
delegation for RCRA Corrective Action via Section 3008 (h) for
orders on consent and unilateral orders.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The states average three times as many inspections as the
EPA staff, but the states' average number of SNCs is only two
times that of EPA's. The states find on the average one-and-a-
half times as many violations as EPA, and generate an average of
four times as many cases.
EPA and the states need to evaluate the states' inspection
targeting procedures. At the same time, there is a need to
assure the quality of state inspections and proper use of
discretionary authority to generate cases, through EPA's
enforcement oversight role.
3.b. For EPA, it is concluded that once a facility is identified
in SNC, it will be dealt with effectively. The focus for
improvement by the program, if any is needed, is in assuring that
detection efforts are comprehensive. For the states, it appears
they have insufficient penalty authority, and that possibly they
should be sending cases to EPA and/or pursuing more referrals
(see items 4.c and d below).
1 5
-------
4 - TRENDS
NOTE: The universe of facilities mentioned below only reflect
Treatment, Storage and Disposal facilities (TSDFs) (it doesn't
reflect Generators and Transporters for which enforcement actions
are also taken). Also, the definition of SNC has changed over
the past four years.
4.a. For the period of FY 86 through 88, the average universe of
TSDFs that the RCRA program (Wyoming's and the states' TSDFs)
regulates is 121 per year; on the average, EPA's has the lead on
16 (13%) facilities per year, and the state has the lead on 104
(87%) facilities.
4.b. EPA's average number of SNCs (for FY 86 through FY 88) is
five facilities per quarter. The highest (10) was in the 2nd
quarter of FY 86 and the lowest (2) was in the 1st and 2nd
quarters of FY 88. The states average number of SNCs is 10 per
quarter; the highest (15) was in the 4th quarter FY 88 and the
lowest (7) in the 4th quarter FY 87.
4.c. For the period of FY 85 through FY 88, 67% of EPA's cases
were penalty AOs (22) compared to all AO/referrals (33); and 21%
of the states' cases were penalty AOs (26 — obtained only
through consent process) compared to all AOs/referrals (123).
However, there were 88 non-penalty State AOs. No authorized
states have AO authority with penalty provisions.
4.d. For the last four years, five (15%) of EPA's cases were
referrals to 28 AOs; and nine (7%) of the states cases were
referrals to 114 AOs. EPA has 13% of the TSDFs, 36% of the
referrals, and 46% of the penalty AOs.
4.e. NOTE: Regarding inspections, some facilities require two
or more visits for compliance follow-up and this report does not
contain such actual data for analysis and therefore some
generalizations were used.
Over the last three years, EPA's average number of
inspections is 58 per year of which 12% had violations, or 10% of
the total universe. There were eight cases per year — or 67% of
the violations resulted in an enforcement action (formal orders).
The states average number of inspections (same NOTE as above) is
187 per year, or 178% of their universe of facilities, of which
63 (33.5%) had violations. There were an average of 30 cases per
year — or 47% of the violations resulted in an enforcement
action (formal orders). (Class II violations are usually only
pursued via a Warning Letter and such data were not used in this
report. )
1 6
-------
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. Section 3013 (monitoring, analysis and testing) is a useful
tool to quickly determine the extent and type of contamination,
especially, where Section 3008 (h) may not apply. Section 3013
Orders were issued to three facilities in FY 88.
5.b. Section 7003 provides relief in imminent hazard situations
by allowing for immediate implementation of interim corrective
measures, and this technique was used for two large facilities in
FY 88 (LARCO and Syntex).
5.c. Many RCRA AO's are not for violations, but are corrective
action orders.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT E)
1 7
-------
F. AIR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
1. INTRODUCTION
1.a. The program's authority comes from the Clean Air Act (CAA)
of 1977.
1.b. Reauthorization of the CAA is likely to occur this year.
2. ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. Ninety-one percent of the beginning-of-year Significant
Violators (SVs) were resolved during the year, compared to 80
percent in FY 87. The national average in FY 87 was less than 50
percent.
2.b. Five referrals and six Administrative Orders were completed
in FY 88 (compared to two and one, respectively in FY 87).
2.c. Comprehensive NAAS audits conducted in three states
including NESHAP asbestos program for the first time. Identified
previously overlooked problems.
2.d. Fifty-eight overview inspections were conducted in FY 88,
compared to forty in FY 87. Also, inspection guidance was
prepared for State/EPA use.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The program appears to manage an effective compliance
process (see the program's data/graphs Attachment F). It is
believed, however, that more data (and perhaps new measures in
addition to those used in this report) over time are needed to
make a better assessment of the program's effectiveness.
3.b. For EPA, FY 88 was the most productive year of the last
four regarding number of inspections and formal enforcement
actions. In addition, the compliance rate was the highest for
the four-year period, indicating more effective state compliance
programs. This reflects an overall strengthening of the program
that took place during FY 88.
3.c. Both EPA and states do an excellent job of managing their
"dynamic" SVs.
-------
4. TRENDS
NOTE: For FY 88, the universe of operating "major" facilities
that the states regulated was 858, plus "minor" facilities. EPA
has oversight responsibility for the total universe of
facilities, but usually concentrates on majors. Also, some
facilities require two or more visits for compliance follow-up
and this report does not contain such actual data for analysis
and therefore some generalizations were used.
4.a. For FY 88, EPA completed 58 oversight inspections (7% of
the universe of major facilities — 2-3% required by Headquarters
guidance) of which six (10%) had violations. There were 11
enforcement actions. The states completed 516 (60%) inspections
of the universe of majors; 52 (10%) had violations; and 32
enforcement actions were taken.
4.b. For the last four years, EPA performed an average of 44
inspections per year, resulting in an average of eight (17%)
violations per year. The highest percent of violations to
inspections occurred in FY 87 (30%) and the lowest in FY 88
(10%). The states performed an average of 596 inspections per
year. The highest percent (10%) of violations to inspections
occurred in FY 88.
4.c. For FY 87 through FY 88, EPA had the lead only on one
Significant Violator (SV); and the states had the lead on an
average of 4 "dynamic" SVs per quarter — the highest count (6)
was in 1st quarter FY 87 and the lowest (2) occurred in the 2nd
quarter of FY 87 and FY 88.
4
4.d. For FY 85 through 88, all of EPA's cases and the states
were against major facilities. For EPA, 9 (43%) were AOs, and 12
(57%) were referrals. For the states 132 (86%) were AOs and 22
(14%) were referrals. EPA and most states only collect penalties
via referrals (they cannot collect them via AO process). EPA had
21 (61%) cases in comparison to 31 violations. The states had
154 cases (80%) in comparison to 194 violations.
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. The program's new Compliance Monitoring Strategy is being
implemented throughout the region.
5.b. The program holds monthly meetings with Regional Counsel.
5.c. The SV report also tracks compliance with enforcement
actions and payment of penalties.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT F)
1 9
-------
G. TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
and
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE FUNGICIDE RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA)
1. INTRODUCTION
l.a. No state has primacy for TSCA; however, there is a
Cooperative Agreement with North Dakota to do PCB inspections and
a Cooperative Agreement with Colorado to do asbestos inspections
(for violations found in both states, enforcement actions are
taken by EPA).
1.b. All states in Region VIII, except Wyoming, have primacy for
FIFRA.
2. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
2.a. Region VIII had the fourth highest number of TSCA
administrative complaints of all regions in FY 88, which was
accomplished with only the eighth highest staffing level of the
ten regions.
2-b. The Region VIII asbestos-in-schools (AIS) case settlement
approach resulted in getting asbestos abatement accomplished for
most cases, although such abatement was not required by the
regulations. In return for getting this significant
environmental improvement, the cases were settled for
approximately 8% of the original proposed penalty amount. This
regional settlement policy also resulted in favorable settlements
without going to hearing, thereby saving a large amount of EPA
and legal and technical personnel resources.
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.a. The Region VIII TSCA/FIFRA Programs appear to manage
effective compliance processes (see the program's data/graphs
Attachment G), but more data over time are needed to confirm
this.
In the TSCA Program, on the average, there is approximately
one enforcement action taken to every two violations (but see
below Section 4. Trends - NOTE); in the FIFRA Program, there is
nearly a one to one ratio.
3-b. During the past several years it became obvious to EPA and
the states that pesticides enforcement data were not being
reported by the various states in a consistent manner.
20
-------
Accordingly, the State-FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group
(SFIREG) established a Committee on Uniform Reporting. This
committtee plans to complete its work in the next few months.
Hopefully, agreement can be reached on a new policy on uniform
reporting for FY 1990 and beyond. In the meantime, lack of state
data makes EPA's oversight of the states more difficult.
4. TRENDS
TSCA
4.a. For FY 85 through FY 88, the average number of facilities
inspected by EPA (including CO ASB and ND PCB inspections) is 412
per year; 221 per year (54%) are asbestos inspections, 153 per
year (37%) are PCB inspections, and 38 per year (9%) are other
types of inspections.
4.b. For the last four years, the average number of violations
is 165 per year, or 40% of the inspections find violations. On
the average, 19% of the inspections result in enforcement actions
(79),or 48% of the violations result in enforcement actions. On
the average, 78 are Administrative Complaints and less than one
case per year is a referral.
FIFRA
4.c. For FY 85 through FY 88, an average of 276 facilities were
inspected per year; 3 3 (12%) had violations, and 31 (11%) had
enforcement actions taken against them. Of the violations, 95%
had enforcement actions, of which four (3%) cases were referrals,
and 120 (97%) cases were penalty AOs.
5. OTHER FINDINGS
5.a. There is appropriate use of the Neutral Inspection Plan.
5.b. All inspections are enforcement-oriented (not technical
assistance).
5.c. There is a good working relationship between program and
the attorneys.
5.d. The program is willing to enforce its statutes and
regulatory requirements.
5.e. The program effectively use its AARP employees.
5.f. The program has a strong inspector training program.
2 1
-------
5.g. Compliance rates are impossible to calculate; violations
are identified in response to complaints.
6. GRAPHS AND CHARTS (SEE ATTACHMENT G)
22
-------
>
z:
*0
s
U)
-------
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
NPDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
+
-a
"I 1 1 1 1 T 1 I 1
3 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4<
DYN SNC
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY1988
+ EX LIST O MAJ AO/REF
-------
to
PEN AO
-------
NPDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS (Annual)
-------
(/)
z
0
1
NPDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
DELEGATED STATES
140
I!
cr
3Q 4Q
MAJ INSP
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY1988
+ DYN SNC ^ EX LIST
-------
OT
00 "O
§1
r1 m
< -C
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
NPDES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
DELEGATED STATES
•Ijiv1!,!-;-
iiii-rai:
Iff
1
Pt!'
!^|:i
1 i '1# 'P
i ite
1
Ij1!! ir
I'M!
i.| HI
!jj| iff-
-i!i'j!|||
FY 1985
FY 1986
FY 1987
FY 1988
UNIV OF FAC
UNIV OF MAJ
INSPECTIONS
MAJ INSP
TOT AO/REF
-------
(0
cn ~o
gg
p- CO
Si
-------
NPDES ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
FY 1985
IQ 2Q 30 4Q TOTAL
! IQ
1
1
FY
2Q
1986
30
40 TOTAL !
1
1
10
20
FY 1987
30
40 TOTAL
IQ
20
FY 1988
3Q
4Q
TOTAL
UNIV OF FAC
808
1
1
1
1
1
808 1
i
i
808
634
UN IV OF tIAJ
77
I
1
i
1
1
¦
i
77 I
77
33
INSPECTIONS
DATA NOT AVAILABLE 0
1
1 DATA NOT
1
AVAILABLE
0 !
i
i
20
19
22
9 70
II
14
22
14
61
B.O.Y. SNC
N/A
1
1 16
1
1
1
1
10
2
DYN SNC
10 12 19 16
i 13
1
9
5
1
10 1
1
J
9
II
10
2
3
1
0
EX LIST
1 1 1
1
1
! 9
1
4
2
3 1
1
1
6
5
3
1
1
1
0
0
TOT AO/REF
43
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28 1
1
1
43
36
PEN AO
N/A 0
i o
i
0
0
1
0 0 !
1
1
0
D
0
0 0
0
0
2
7
9
MAJ AO/REF
13 II 5 8 37
i
1 9
1
1
3
2
1
2 16 1
1
1
3
5
0
2 10
3
3
3
0
9
AO/MAJ
13 II 5 6 35
1
1
1 4
1
3
2
1
1 10 1
1
3
5
0
1 9
3
3
3
4
13
TOTAL REF
4
1
t
1
1
1
6 1
1
1
5
3
TOT AO
39
1
1
1
1
|
22 1
1
1
38
24
REF/MAJ
0 0 0 2 2
1
1 5
1
0
0
1
1 6 1
1
0
D
0
1 1
0
0
1
0
1
% NOT IN SNC
90 87 86 88
1
1 91
93
95
1
93 !
94
92
94
94
95
94
95
ASSUMED UNIV. OF PERMITTEES & MAJORS WAS THE SAME
ENF. ACTIONS MAY INCLUDE PRETREATMENT CASES.
INSP. INCLUDES CSI. PAI. CEI i OVERSIGHT.
AS SEPT. 30
. 1988
NUHBER.
-------
NPDES ENF. ACTIONS
DELEGATED STATES
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
10
20
3Q
40
TOTAL 1
1
10
20
30
4Q
TOTAL 1
1
10
20
30
40
TOTAL 1
1
10
20
30
40
TOTAL
UNIV OF FAC
1
2055 !
1
1
2055 I
1
1
2055 1
1
2229
UN IV OF HAJ
1
220 !
1
1
220 1
1
1
220 1
1
264
INSPECTIONS
337
341
490
431
1
1599 1
1
397
376
580
589
1
1942 1
1
412
483
522
534
1
1951 j
335
437
597
273
1642
MAJ INSP
57
87
96
90
1
330 !
I
87
64
107
103
1
361 1
1
94
92
108
101
1
395 1
1
99
83
136
56
374
B.O.Y. SNC
N/A
1
1
I
23
1
1
1
13
1
1
1
16
DYN SNC
23
28
30
23
I
1
1
18
23
12
13
1
1
1
12
14
7
16
1
1
1
13
17
18
EX LIST
5
7
13
1
1
I
14
10
12
9
1
1
1
5
7
4
1
|
i
0
2
4
1
TOT AO/REF
93 I
1
1
59 1
1
i
64 1
1
78
TOT AO
16
23
17
15
1
71 1
1
10
10
10
II
1
41 I
1
II
10
12
19
1
52 1
1
9
14
24
10
57
TOTAL REF
1
22 1
1
1
18 1
1
1
12 1
1
6
4
5
6
21
ASSUMED UNIV. OF PERMITTEES t MAJORS HAS THE SAME AS SEPT. 30 1988 NUM8ER.
COLO. HAS ADMIN. PENALTY AUTHORITY I ISSUED PENALTY ORDERS. EPA DOES NOT TRACK THESE NUMBERS.
ENF. ACTIONS MAY INCLUDE PRETREATMENT CASES.
UTAH INCLUDED AS OF 1ST QTR FY 1988.
-------
NPDES ENr. ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/DELEGATED STATE ACTIONS
FY 1985
FY 1986
FY 1987
FY 1988
IQ 20 30
40
TOTAL
! IQ 2Q 30
1
40 TOTAL 1
1
1
10
20
30
4Q TOTAL
10
20
30
40
TOTAL
UNIV OF FAC
2863
1
1
2863 i
2863
2863
UN IV OF MAJ
297
1
297 i
1
1
297
297
INSPECTIONS
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
0
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
0 !
1
\
432
502
544
543 2021
346
451
619
287
1703
B.O.Y. SNC
N/A
39
1
1
1
•
23
18
DYN SNC
33 40 49
39
31 32 17
23 j
1
1
21
25
17
18
16
18
18
EX LIST
6 8
14
23 14 14
12 1
1
1
11
12
7
2
1
3
4
1
TOT AO/REF
136
87 !
107
114
TOT AO
110
63 !
i
1
90
81
TOTAL REF
26
1
1
24 1
1
1
17
24
1 1
1 1
% NOT IN SNC
90
87 86
88
91 93 95 93
94
92 94
94
95 94
95
ASSUMED UNIV. OF PERMITTEES 8 MAJORS HAS THE SAME AS SEPT. 30 1988 NUMBER.
INSP. INCLUDES CSI PA I CEI 8 OVERSIGHT.
ENF. ACTIONS MAY INCLUDE PRETREATMENT CASES.
n
o
>
-------
CO
c
M
n
-------
CO
W X)
Z c
O S
F 3
9 0
< x:
UIC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
UNIV OF FAC
INSPECTIONS
VIOLATIONS
-------
UIC ENr. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
10
20
FY 1985
3Q 40
TOT
1 10
1
1
2Q
FY 1986
30
40
TOT
10
20
FY 1987
30
4Q
TOT !
1
1
IQ
20
FY 1988
30
40
TOT
UN IV OF FAC
1007
1
1
1
1041
t
1095 1
1
t
1137
UNDELEGATED
1
1
1
1
1
INSPECTIONS
8
9 12
29
1 100
0
0
142
242
150
0
132
89
371 i
1
1
1
1
245
0
522
767
VIOLATIONS
224
243
0
595
4
175
774 !
1
1
1
92
72
116
359
639
DYN SNC
N/A
1 N/A
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
3
12
EXC LIST
N/A
1 N/A
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
TOT AO/REF
0
1
0 0
1
1
1 0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
4
1
1
5 1
I
11
PEN AO
N/A
1
1 N/A
1
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
4 :
i
i
0
5
3
0
8
MAJ AO/REF
0
1
0 0
1
1
! 0
1
I
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
4
i
5 !
1
0
5
3
0
8
TOT AO
N/A
1
! N/A
1
0
0
1
3
1
4 !
1
1
0
5
3
0
8
TOTAL REF
0
1
0 0
1
1
1
1 0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1 1
1
0
0
0
3
3
UNIV Of FAC IS CLASS II OIL 8 GAS HELLS ONLY
CLASS V HELLS (5303 TOTAL) HERE ADDED TO INVENTORY IN 1986
CLASS V HELLS NOT YET ACTIVELY REGULATED.
-------
nr 1985
10 20 3Q 40 TOT
FY 1986
10 20 30
UN IV Of FAC 0
INSPECTIONS 0
VIOLATIONS
DYN SNC
EXC LIST
N/A
N/A
TOT AO/REF
0
0
0
0
0
PEN AO
N/A
NAJ AO/REF
0
0
0
0
0
TOT AO
N/A
TOTAL REF
0
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
! N/A
I
I
I
I N/A
I
I
I ~~~~~~
i 0 0 0
I
I
! N/A
10 0 0
i
10 0 0
FY88 TOT AO/REF INCLUDES ALL ACTIONS AS DEFINED BY SPMS
THIS INCLUDES AO. NOV. SHUT-INS. AND PIPELINE SEVERANCE
UIC ENF. ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
FY 1987 FY 1988
10
20
30
40
TOT 1
1
t
IQ
20
30 40
TOT
0 !
1
t
1
1
13479
13479
0 1
1
1
1
1
5683
5683
! 377
»
1
i
1
0
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
3 j
t
1
364
364
0
0
0
0
0 !
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
3 !
i
i
0
0
0
0
3
¦
¦
3 I
0
0
0
0
0
0 !
i
i
0
td
-------
UIC E"r. apt ions
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
10
2Q
30
4Q
TOT
10
20
30
40
TOT 1
1
IQ
2Q
30
4Q
TOT 1
1
10
20
30
40
TOT
UNIV OF FAC
1007
1
1041 1
1
1
1
1095 1
1
1
14616
INSPECTIONS
0
8
9
12
29
IOD
0
0
142
1
242 1
1
1
150
0
132
89
1
371 1
1
1
245
0
6205
0
6450
VIOLATIONS
224
1
243 1
1
1
595
4
175
1
774 1
1
1
92
72
493
359
639
DYN SNC
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
0
3
2
6
1
0 1
1
0
0
6
12
0
EXC LIST
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
TOT AO/RCF
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
2 1
1
0
0
1
7
1
8 1
1
0
0
364
375
PEN AO
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
i
4 1
1
0
5
3
8
HAJ AO/REF
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
2 1
1
0
0
1
7
1
8 1
1
0
5
3
8
TOT AO
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
0
0
1
6
1
7 1
1
0
5
3
8
TOTAL REF
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
2 1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1 1
1
0
0
0
3
FY88 TOT AO/REF INCLUDES ALL ACTIONS AS DEFINED BY SPMS
THIS INCLUDES AO. NOV. SHUT-INS. AND PIPELINE SEVERANCE
-------
o
-------
z
o
<
PWSS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
>
r+
n
D*
o
~
DYN SNC
FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988
EXCEPTIONS LIST
MAJ AO/REF
-------
PUSS ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
UNIV OF FAC
UNDELEGATED
UN IV OF riAJ
UNDEL HAJ
FY 1985
10 2Q 30 4Q TOT
7443
873
3003
332
INSPECTIONS DATA NOT AVAILABLE
MAJ INSP
VIOLATIONS
MAJ IN VIOL
DYN SNC
EXC LIST
TOT AO/REF
PEN AO
MAJ AO/REF
AO/MAJ
TOTAL REF
REF/MAJ
COMP RATE
N/A
N/A
N/A
454
117
FY 1986
IQ 20 3Q 40 TOT
7121
837
2903
328
N/A
N/A
4 I
3 !
I I
64. It
468
165
3
1
2
2
49. n
FY 1987
20 30 40 TOT
7416
826
2972
316
12 30
534
164
10 10
2 3
8
0
8
8
0
0
48. IX
FY 1988
10 20 30 40 TOT
7495
809
3044
317
0
2
ii
24
26
373
125
5
4
2
3
Cl
3
2
2
3
10
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
2
3
10
3
2
2
3
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60. IX
5
o
p*
o
K)
-------
PUSS ENF. ACTIONS
PRIMACY STATES' ACTIONS
fY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
10
20
3Q
40
TOT
IQ
20
30
40
TOT
10
20
3Q
40
TOT 1
1
1
10
20
30
40
TOT
UN IV OF FAC
6570
6284
1
6590 i
1
1
6686
UN IV OF MAJ
2671
2575
1
2656 !
1
1
2727
INSPECTIONS
(DATA NOT AVAILABLE)
0
0
0 1
1
1
0
MAJ INSP
0
293
278
719
463
1753
272
173
*
495
1
940 !
1
1
172
152
533
857
VIOLATIONS
2688
2772
«
1
2503 !
1
1
1775
MAJ IN VIOL
1168
1105
«
1076 1
i
i
780
DYN SNC
N/A
1
1
1
1
44
23
18
25
15
7
12
i
i
i
i
14
EXC LIST
N/A
N/A
i
11
12
7
15
i
i
j
i
8
2
7
5
TOT AO/REF
0
0
0
c
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
2
1
M
4
7 !
i
i
10
7
13
30
PEN AO
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0 i
1
0
0
0
0
MAJ AO/REF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
If
4
1
7 1
1
10
7
13
30
AO/MAJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
4 !
9
2
9
20
TOTAL REF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
ft
1
1
3 !
1
1
1
5
4
10
REF/MAJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
ft
1
1
3 !
1
1
1
5
4
10
COMP RATE
56.3*
57. IX
1
59.5* i
71.4*
•UNAVAILABILITY OF FY87 3RD OTP DATA MAKES TOTALS LOU
rY88 COMP RATE INVALID DUE TO LACK OF 4TH QTR DATA
-------
PHSS ENf. ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988
10 20
3Q
40
TOT
10
20
30
40
TOT
IQ
2Q
30
40
TOT !
1
t
10
20
30
40
TOT
UN IV OF FAC
7443
7121
1
7416 i
1
1
7495
UN IV OF MAJ
3003
2903
1
2972 !
1
1
3044
INSPECTIONS
(DATA NOT AVAILABLE)
1
1
1
1
MAJ INSP
293
283
719
463
1758
232
173
8
507
1
970 1
1
1
172
154
533
24
883
VIOLATIONS
3142
3240
1
3037 I
1
2148
MAJ in via
1285
1270
1
1240 !
1
905
DYN SNC
N/A
49
24
21
34
24
17
22
1
1
1
1
19
EXC LIST
N/A
N/A
13
13
9
18
1
1
1
1
1
12
4
10
5
TOT AO/REF
2 2
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
3
2
1
1
II
I
15 1
1
13
9
15
3
40
PEN AO
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
1
1
0 1
•
1
0
0
0
1
1
MAJ AO/REF
2 2
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
3
2
1
1
II
,5 i
1
13
9
15
3
40
AO/MAJ
1 2
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
II
1
12 !
1
1
12
4
11
3
30
TOTAL REF
1 0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
3 1
1
1
1
5
4
0
10
REF/HAJ
1 0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
3 !
1
1
1
5
4
0
10
COMP RATE
57.2%
56.33C
t
58.3* !
70.3X
UNAVAILABILITY OF 3RD QTR FY87 DATA HAKES TOTALS LOW
UNAVAILABILITY OF 4TH OTR FY88 PRIMACY STATE DATA MAKES TOTALS LOW
FY88 COMP RATE INVALID DUE TO LACK OF 4TH QTR PRIMACY STATE DATA
-------
32
-rS
zc
a
o
-------
404 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988
INVESTIGATIONS
TOTAL AO
TOTAL REF
-------
ry 1985
10 20 30 40 TOT
ry 1986
10 2Q 30 40
INVESTIC 9 9 18
TOT AO/REF 0 I 0 0 I
TOT AO 0 I 0 0 I
TOTAL RfT 0 0 0 0 0
12 10 2 6
3 12 0
2 12 0
10 0 0
404 ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
ry 1987
ry 1988
£
o
tr
p
to
-------
>
3
H
8
-------
• •••••••
RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
-------
CO
z
0
1
90 -r
UNIV OF FAC
RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
>
r+
O
D*
M
to
~NOTE - NO UNDELEGATED DATA FOR FY85
INSPECTIONS MM VIOLATIONS M DYN SNC
TOT AO/REF
-------
(fl
z
o
§
L
RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
1Q 20 3Q 4Q 1Q 20 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
VIOLATIONS
FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988
+ DYN SNC O PEN AO & TOTAL REF
-------
(/)
¦Z.
o
h—
<
280
RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
>
r+
O
a-
M
UNIV OF FAC
INSPECTIONS
VIOLATIONS
DYN SNC
TOT AO/REF
-------
320
RCRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
CO
z
0
1
FY1985
UNIV OF FAC
FY1986 FY1987
* NOTE - NO DYN SNC DATA FOR FY85
INSPECTIONS ¦¦ VIOLATIONS M
FY1988
DYN SNC
TOT AO/REF
>
r+
O
M
cn
-------
FY 1985 ! FY 1906
SERIES IQ 20 30 40 TOTAL ! IQ 20 30
I
I
I
univ or rac data not available i
i
I
i
UNDELEGATED DATA NOT AVAILABLE i
I
I
INSPECTIONS 16 13 II 12 52 i 8 40 16
I
VIOLATIONS 5424 15 I 222
I
I
(
B.O.Y. SNC N/A I 9
I
I
I
DYN SNC N/A ! 9 10 8
I
I
—————————————————i———.- ( ——.—_
TOT AO/REF I 4 I 3 9 ! 2 2 4
I
I
I
PEN AO I 3 I 3 8 I 2 0 3
I
I
I
TOTAL REF 0 I 0 0 I I 0 0 I
UNIVERSE IS TOTAL I OF TSDF IN REGION
RCRA ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
FY 1987
1
1
FY 1988
10
20
30
40
TOTAL 1
10
20
30
40
TOTAL
1
ii9 ;
i
i
1 18
17 i
1
1
16
7
14
22
18
61 i
1
1
2
6
15
6
29
2
0
4
8
14 1
1
1
3
3
7
3
16
8
r
I
i
I
2
6
5
5
4
i
I
I
I
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
0
i
i
5 I
1
1
1
1
5
-
9
0
2
1
0
1
1
3 !
1
1
1
0
3
1
5
1
0
1
0
2 :
0
1
CI
ii
1
f?
O
tr
M
CT\
-------
FY 1985 I FY 1986
SERIES IQ 2Q 3Q 40 TOTAL ! 10 20 30
I
I
UNIV OF FAC DATA NOT AVAILABLE !
)
I
^_ ( _ '
INSPECTIONS 42 108 45 67 262 ! 54 61 58
I
I
I ———
VIOLATIONS 22 45 18 17 102 ! II 32 19
B.O.Y. SHC N/A I 13
i
i
i
DYN SNC N/A ! 10 9 10
i
i
i
TOT AO/REF 2 13 9 10 34 i I 11 8
i
i
i
PEN AO 15 2 19 10 2 1
i
TOTAL REF 0 10 12 10 0 1
UNIVERSE IS TOTAL S OF TSOF MINUS WYOMING
RCRA ENF. ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
10
2Q
FY 1987
30
40
1
TOTAL i
1
102 1
1
1
10
20
FY 1988
30
40
TOTAL
102
43
38
52
60
1
193 !
1
1
33
34
6d
19
146
10
8
14
20
52 !
>
1
10
16
3d
7
63
14
1
1
8
9
9
8
7
1
1
1
1
1
i
9
10
13
15
9
5
8
3
25 1
1
1
6
4
III
14
34
3
0
1
3
1
1
7 1
1
2
0
II
2
4
0
0
3
1
1
1
4 1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
n
o
z?
M
-J
-------
FT 1985 I FY 1986
SERIES IQ 20 30 40 TOTAL i 10 20 30
I
I
I
UNIV OF FAC DATA NOT AVAILABLE !
i
i
i
INSPECTIONS 58 121 56 79 314 ! 62 101 74
i
i
i
VIOLATIONS 27 49 20 21 1 17 ! 13 34 21
i
i
i ¦
B.O.Y. SNC N/A I 22
i
i
i
DYN SNC N/A i 19 19 18
i
i
i
TOT AO/REF 3 17 10 13 43 ! 3 13 12
i
i
i
PEN AO 2 8 3 4 17 J 2 2 4
i
i
i
TOTAL REF 0 2 0 I 3 ! 0 0 2
RCRA ENF. ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
10
22
15
10
3
FY 1987
20 3Q 40 TOTAL
119
50
52
74
78
254
35
40
7r,
?5
175
12
8
18
28
66
13
19
37
in
79
14 13
7 10
2 2
0 4
30
10
FY 1988
20 30 40 TOTAL
I 18
10
II 13 15 IB
16 43
?. 9
I 2
-------
K
-------
CO
-Z.
O
I—
a
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
1Q 2Q 3Q 40 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
>
r+
O
D"
MAJ INSP
— FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988 *
+ MAJ IN VIOL o DYN SV
A MAJ AO/REF
NOTE: DYN SNC DATA AVAILABLE FOR ONLY FY1987 & FY1988
-------
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
W
z
0
1
DELEGATED STATE ACTIONS
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
FY1985
FY1986
FY1987
FY1988
to
MAJ INSP
MAJ IN VIOL
MAJ AO/REF
-------
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
AIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
FY1985
MAJ INSP
FY1986
MAJ IN VIOL
FY1987
FY1988
MAJ AO/REF
-------
AIR ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
SERIES
riAJ INSP
MAJ IN VIOL
B.O.Y. SV
DYN SV
MAJ AO/REF
AO/MAJ
REF/HAJ
IQ
FY 1985
20 30
UNIV OF I1AJ DATA NOT AVAILABLE
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
22
40 TOTAL
23
48
10
FY 1986
20 30
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
7 I
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
I
0 ! 0
I
3 ! 0
40 TOTAL
16
UNIVERSE. INSP. VIO. AND SNC DO NOT INCLUDE ASBESTOS D&R SOURCES; AO & REF DO INCLUDE THEM.
31
10
FY 1987
20 30
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
40 TOTAL
36
40
12
IQ
FY 1988
20 30
44
40 TOTAL
858
58
5 II
I 6
4 5
f?
O
tr
.15.
-------
AIR ENF. ACTIONS
DELEGATED STATE ACTIONS
SERIES
FY
10 2Q
1985
30
40
TOTAL
FY 1986
10 20 30
40
TOTAL
10
FY 1987
20 30
40
TOTAL
10
FY 1988
20 30
4Q
TOTAL
UN IV OF HAJ
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
858
flAJ INSP
632
635
601
516
HAJ IN VIOL
44
50
48
52
B.O.Y. SV
STATES DO NOT TRACK
15
10
DYN SV
STATES DO NOT TRACK
6
2 4
3
4
2 3
4
HAJ AO/REF
7 9
10
11
37
25 II 6
3
45
13
9 6
12
40
10
4 6
12
32
AO/MAJ
7 9
9
10
35
23 8 5
1
37
13
7 6
9
35
8
3 4
10
25
REF/MAJ
0 0
1
1
2
2 3 1
2
8
0
2 0
3
5
2
1 2
2
7
UNIVERSE. INSP. VIO AND SNC DO NOT INCLUDE ASBESTOS DSR SOURCES; AO S REF DO INCLUDE THEM.
* Includes Class B source inspection. This is misleading source the majority of B source are not tracked in CDS.
s?
O
tr
pd
Ln
-------
AIR ENF. ACTIONS
COMBINED EPA/STATE ACTIONS
FY 1985 FY 1986
SERIES 10 20 30 40 TOTAL ! 10 20 30
I
|
UNIV OF HAJ DATA NOT AVAILABLE I DATA NOT AVAILABLE
MAJ INSP
680
1
1
1
1
1
666
641
MAJ IN VIOL
51
1
1
1
1
56
60
B.O.Y. SV
DATA
NOT
AVAILABLE
1
! DATA NOT AVAILABLE
22
DYN SV
DATA
NOT
AVAILABLE
i DATA NOT AVAILABLE
6
2
4
3
MAJ AO/REF
7
9
12
12
40
! 25 12
9
3
49
13
9
6
15
43
AO/MAJ
7
9
9
10
35
! 23 8
7
1
39
13
7
6
10
36
REF/MAJ
0
0
3
2
5
| 2 4
2
2
10
0
2
0
5
7
UNIVERSE. INSP. VIO AND SNC DO NOT INCLUDE ASBESTOS D8R SOURCES- AO & REF DO INCLUDE THEM.
EPA INSP. & VIO INCLUDE MAJORS ONLY; STATE DATA INCLUDE MINORS
ALL ENF. ACTIONS ARE AGAINST MAJORS.
40 TOTAL
IQ
fT 1987
20 3Q
40 TOTAL
DATA NOT AVAILABLE
-------
o
*¦3
-------
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
~
TSCA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS —PCB, ASBESTOS & OTHERS
~1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4C
FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 FY1988
j
DTAL INSP + VIOLATIONS " O Tl AO/REF
-------
TSCA ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
SERIES
10
20
FY 1985
30
4Q
1
TOTAL !
1
i
10
2Q
FY 1986
30
4Q
TOTAL
IQ
20
FY 1987
30
4Q
1
TOTAL !
1
1
10
20
FY 1988
30
40
TOTAL
INSP ASB
CO ASB
30
84
69
15
1
198 1
1
1
1
53
0
74
13
37
48
68
16
232
77
35
20
55
38
51
42
4
41
145 !
141 !
0
0
8
0
28
0
22
32
58
32
INSP PCB
ND PCB
50
63
54
28
195 1
t
1
46
0
72
0
39
6
45
19
202
25
15
7
21
17
10
9
22
11
68 i
44 1
9
1
13
0
17
12
6
20
45
33
INSP OTHER
0
6
18
55
79 1
1
0
25
1
18
44
0
13
0
0
13 :
1
1
3
7
6
0
16
TOTAL INSP
80
153
141
98
1
472 1
1
99
184
131
166
580
77
144
112
78
411 I
1
1
13
28
63
80
184
VIOLATIONS
4
61
77
50
i
192 1
1
J
10
54
103
27
194
26
63
84
69
1
242 I
!
2
12
15
2
31
Tl AO/REF
2
6
20
28
1
1
1
56 1
1
1
19
23
17
28
87
24
29
18
40
1
1
iii :
i
i
33
13
7
8
61
ADM COMPLAINT
2
6
20
27
55 !
1
1
I
18
22
17
28
85
24
29
18
40
in :
i
i
i
33
13
7
8
61
TOTAL REF OOOI III I 0 0 210 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0
THE PROGRAM HAS HAD COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH CO (ASB) AND ND (PCB) TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS SINCE FY 1986
DYN SNC = (B.O.Y. SNC + ADM COMPLAINTS) - CASES CLOSED
-------
320
300
—
280
—
260
—
240
—
220
—
200
—
180
—
160
—
140
—
120
—
100
—
80
—
60
—
40
20
0
FIFRA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
INSPECTIONS
FY1985 FY1986 FY1987
VIOLATIONS
J
TOTAL AO/REF
-------
SERIES
INSPECTIONS
VIOLATIONS
TOT AO/REr
PEN AO
TOTAL REF
FY 1985
10 2Q 3Q 40 TOTAL
48 39 88 312 487
13
13
0
17
17
0
FIFRA ENF. ACTIONS
EPA ACTIONS
IQ
21
20
FY 1987
30 40 TOTAL
21 55 62 159
12
10
2
10
8
0
6
6
0
FY 1988
2Q 3Q
50 56
5 11
11
II
0
40 TOTAL
78 192
19
35
18 41
16 39
2 2
f?
O
o
a*.
-------
$
-------
APPENDIX I.
A. SUMMARY OF REGION VIII ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM'S
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER/REFERRAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EPA REGION
VIII
PROGRAM
FY
REF's
AO's
TOTAL
NPDES 8
1985
4
39
43
PRETRTMNT
1986
6
22
28
1987
5
38
43
1988
3
24
27
AIR:
1985
3
0
3
1986
2
2
4
1987
2
1
3
1988
5
6
II
RCRA:
1985
1
8
9
1986
1
9
10
1987
2
3
5
1988
1
8
9
TSCA:
1985
1
55
56
1986
2
85
87
1987
0
III
III
1988
0
61
61
FIFRA:
1985
0
35
35
1986
0
36
36
1987
2
10
12
1988
2
39
41
UIC:
1985
1
1
1986
2
2
1987
1
4
5
11
1988
3
8
PUSS:
1985
1
3
4
1986
2
1
3
1987
0
8
8
1988
0
10
10
404:
1985
0
1
1
1986
1
5
6
1987
2
1
3
1988
3
5
8
TOTALS:
1985
11
Ml
.152
1986
16
160
176
1987
14
176
190
1988
17
161
194
DECREASE DUE TO AHERA
NEW AO AUTHORITY
NEW AO AUTHORITY
-------
B.
COMBINED EPA/STATE INSEPCTIONS
PROGRAM
FY85
FY86
FY87
FY88
NOTES
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
NPDES
1599
1942
2021
1703
For FY87 and *86 only state data were available; for EPA most violations result from the facility generated monitoring data not inspections.
UIC
29
242
371
6450 State data not available for FY85, '86, '87 and only for the 3rd quarter FY88; no EPA 1st quarter FY85 and 4th quarter FY88 data.
PWS
N/A
1758
507
883
The data represent sanitary surveys that are technical assistance in nature instead of enforcement related inspections.
404
12
30
17
20 404 program performs investigations instead of inspections; the lst/2nd quarter FY85 data are missing.
RCRA
314
306
254
175
AIR
680
666
641
574
TSCA
472
478
226
119
FIFRA
487
267
159
192
TOTALS
3593
5689
4196
10116
The 404, TSCA and FIFRA programs only include EPA data.
c.
COMBINED EPA/STATE VIOLATIONS
PROGRAM
FY85
FY86
FY87 FY88 NOTES
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL TOTAL
NPDES
—
—
( —) Data were not available.
UIC
224
243
774 639 (—) Only 3rd quarter FY88 State data were available.
PWS
3142
3240
3037 2148
404
—
—
(—) Data were not available.
RCRA
117
80
66 79
AIR
51
56
60 58
TSCA
192
194
242 31
FIFRA
16
68
11 35
TOTALS
3742
3881
4190 2990
-------
J), COMBINED EPA/STATE "DYNAMIC" SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIERS (SNC)
PROGRAM FY85 FYB6 FY87 FY88
10120130140
IQ12Q130140
21132! 17121
—149124121
I ! i
19!19118115
I0I20I3Q14Q
10120!30140
AVERAGE/QTR
NOTES
NPDES
UIC
PUS
AIR
RCRA
33
40
49139
i
i
—i—
21> 251 17! 18
201 3! 2! 6
34!24l 17122
6! 2! 71 3
15!19!12120
16! 18! 18! —
01 4! 6112
19! — ! — ! —
4! 2! 4! 4
II!13!15! 18
26
7
26
4
16
The Program uses Significant Violation (SV) instead of SNC.
(—) data were unavailable for a number of reason e.g.. the program reporting requirements lag I or 2
quarters for submission of data or some programs did not use the SNC concept until FY87.
404, TSCA and FIFRA do not use a definition for SNC.
]?_ COMBINED EPA/STATE EXCEPTIONS LIST
PROGRAM FY85
FY86
FY87
FY88
AVERAGE/QTR
10120130140
IQI20!3Q!40
I012Q13Q140
IQ12Q13Q14Q
NOTES
NPDES —! 7! 9115 32! 18!16115 I7II71I0I 3 2! 4! 4! I II
UIC —! — ! — !— —I — ! — !— 01 0! 0! 0 01 01 0! - 0
PUS —I — ! — !— 13113! 9118 12! 4110! 5 II Exceptions List approach applies to these programs only.
(—) Data were unavailable based on when the programs initiated the use of
the definition of Exceptions List or the program reporting requirements.
-------
F.
COMBINED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND REFERRALS
PROGRAM FY85
FY86
FY87
FY88
NOTES
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
NPDES
136
87
107
114
UIC
1
2
8
—
PUS
4
3
15
40
404
1
6
3
8
RCRA
43
40
30
43
AIR
40
49
43
43
TSCA
56
87
111
61
FIFRA
35
36
12
41
TOTALS
316
310
329
350 The 404. TSCA and FIFRA data only pertain to EPA enforcement actions.
-------
¦s
3
-------
APPENDIX II.
SUMMARY of ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS' RESPONSE to QUESTIONNAIRE
The information was obtained to provide insight to the DRA
regarding the similarities and differences in the various EPA
enforcement programs.
-------
A> PRTCRAM DEI- STATES
AEMTN- PEN. AIITH.
STATE ATMTTJTSTRATTVE AIITH.
NPDES All but S-D- Yes
PWS All but WY Yes
All 6 states have Admin-
Auth- They haven't accepted
the concept of recovery of
at least the economic
benefit of non-compl-
All but MT
UIC Fully deleg - Yes All primacy states have
ND, UT, WY
Partially
deleg - CO, SD
Not Deleg - MT
"404 N/A Yes - anticipating N/A
its use in FY 89
RCRA All but WY Yes All but WY
AIR All Programs No None
in all States
TSCA/ N/A N/A N/A
FIFRA
STATE ADMTN. PEN. AIITH. STATES THAT HAVTN'T TAKEN AH
Only Colorado
None
Some
N/A
None
All
ENF. ACTTOH W/PENAT.TY.
All have; WY in last 2 yrs
has generally ceased init.
new pen. actions — UT hasn't
taken a pen. act. since
receiving deleg. in 7/87-
N-D. - deleg. '78
S-D- - deleg- '83
All have (shutting-in an
inject, well is a pen. — an
economic loss)
N/A
MT. only once or twice
S•D. once
All have
N/A
N/A
-------
B. PROGRAM
AIMTWTSTRATTVF RBQUTRTMFNTP
IMPEDIMENTS TO EPA I.TTTfiATTOH
KPDES
PVfS
Sampling, reporting and for some Lack of favorable precedent
facilities biomonitoring
reporting, compliance/noncom-
pliance w/schedule milestones,
recordkeeping.
Reporting and recordkeeping
(very few actions result from
violations pertaining only to
these requirements•)
setting cases for POTW viol,
of Pretrmt., requirements-
Lack of favorable case law on
new AO auth.
UIC Comprehensive reporting planning
and monitoring requirements
- DI: 10% to 15% of enf.
actions result from failure to
comply
- States: 1% of enf- actions
result from failure to submit
reports-
A04 Reporting requirement depending
on permit¦
Seriousness of vio. hard to
convey to non-technical
officials (i-e-, NEIC special
agents)
Responsibility shared with
COE- DOJ gives 4OA low
priority- US Atty reluctant
to task crim. cases-
RCRA Biennial rpts and liability
insurance•
AIR Range from none to quarterly
excess emission reports depends
on the program (SIP, NSPS, PSD,
NESHAP)
All penalty cases must go
through DCJ need admin-
penalty authority-
TSCA/ ASB - recordkeeping
FIFRA PCB - Annual reports
- quarterly inspections and
records = results in 30/40% of
enf- actions-
JUSIMCflHIVES PROGRAM/REG- COUNSEL KTGS
Bi-weekly
Reduction In SNC's results in a Bi-weekly
cut in FTE's¦
Reduction of SNC's results in a
cut in FTE's
National compliance philosophy
emphasizes public outreach,,
field presence and compliance
monitoring over enf•
Monthly Review of enf-
actions and status
performance•
Bi-weekly
Bi-weekly
Monthly
-------
c. EBCGKAM
CQWFTDPrE OF (YMPI.TAMTTE TRAnaUT. RYSTm
NPDES The program's QA program indicated a 89% accuracy
rate based on analysis of check samples-
PWS High confidence in data but tracking confidence is
low. Colorado has had continuing data management
problems•
UIC Dir- Implementation states - totally dependable
States - varies and overall quality is lackluster -
this is a priority area for the program-
404 Not available
KCRA High and improving
AIR High and improving, but not readily capable of
providing historical data-
TSCA/FTFRA N/A
(TMPT.TANCE KATE DETERMINATION
Maj discharges only: high confidence,
because of level of oversight.
Comparison of # of systems in compl. to
all PWS's of each type.
Not calculated
Not available
Not available
Not calculated
Not calculated
-------
D.
PRTCRAM
NPDES
PWS
UIC
CATBfjflRTER FAfrn.TTTKS
Majors (design flow > 1MGD
or smaller facil-
w/signif- WQ impact).
Minors: There is no
maj/mln designation for
lndust. users for
pretreatment•
Major: Community PWS
Minor: Non-Community PWS
Well Classification
Scheme: Class IV wells-
injecting HW into or above
a USDW (banned).
SNC DEFTNTTTCN OR
RfjUTYAI.fHT
Yes, per
comprehensive program
criteria-
Yes - a community
Water System (CWS)
that meets any of 11
criteria defined by
the program-
Yes - violations per
well classification
per program criteria-
Class I wells - injecting
indust/hazardous material
below the lowermost USDW.
All other well classes-
404 N/A N/A
RCRA Treatment, Storage and TSDs w/high priority
Disposal Fac- (TSDF's) violations (HPV)
AIR Class A sources (i 100 Yes per program
tons/yr emissions) criteria-
Class B - Uncontrolled
emissions (< 100 tons/yr)
TSCA/
FIFRA
TSCA: PBC, ASB & other
FIFRA: N/A
TSCA Enf- case is
automatically SNC-
EXCEPTIONS I.TST
DKKINITiCN
STRATEGY TOR HON-STO
Yes - facilities
on 2 QNCR's
Qtrly Non-Compl• Rpt-
(QNCR), which includes fac-
in Reportable Non-Comp
(RNC) (T&A don't apply)-
Occasionally, spec- nat'l
initiatives are req-, plus
the del- states are free to
address all viol-
Yes - if not
addressed w/in
required time
period-
Yes - ident- of viol•,
initial informal notifica-
tion, then warning letters
threatening formal actions-
Yes - the region
sends to
operators,
letters on non-
compl-& actions
to achieve
compliance.
Yes - informal notice, then
AO
State: the Dir.
negot• w/the
region the
action to be
taken-
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes - use time frames in
12/87 "Enf. Resp. Pol."
Once order is in place, the
compl. dates are then
tracked¦
Yes - unresolved
after 120 days-
Yes, per SEA states will
enforce and EPA may enforce
against repeat violations
outside of SV criteria-
N/A
N/A
-------
E. FRTCRAM
NPDES
neutral
Yes
QA of TwsPBrmrnw^
States do bulk of insp. ESD does approx. 2 oversight
insp- of each state/year and provides states w/ written
instructions- The prog- reviews SEA conmitments, state
filesj and oversight of state insp.
PWS
N/A
N/A
UIC
Yes
Oversight officers conduct joint insp- of state reg- fac-
and visit states yearly-
404
N/A COE deals
with permit
compliance-
Review the insp- rpt- for completeness and determine
whether the insp. led to a resolution of the action.
BCRA
N/A;
statutory
inspect ion
requirements
Review of insp. rpts, and oversight insp- (See self
appraisals)
AIR
Yes
SEA commitments met when insp- rpts- are approved by
prog-
TSCA/ Yes
FIFRA
Supervisory review of all procedures and reports before
initiating enf-
snntfT.Tt WKTr perf. anhiiat Aimrn; of rr/statf tn^p?
ESD's oversight of state insp. seems adequate. NEIC
oversight of ESD insp- is a possibility in the
pretreatment prog.
No - not needed ("poor field work has not been
detrimental to our enforcement efforts")
No - the prog- feels confident in job being
performed -
No - could be useful in training and tech. ass't on
specific problems - focus on determining compl- with
env- law.
No - not for routine insp.; NEIC can support region
by performing adequate insp on special projects like
US/PCI.
No - because of its criminal focus; the prog, follows
Nat'l guidance and uses LOE contractor to make
improvements.
No
------- |