FY2011
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA)
National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance
April 30, 2010
Page 1 of82
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
A. PROGRAM OFFICE 5
B. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT 5
C. PROGRAM PRIORITIES 5
D. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 8
E. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM FY 2010 11
F. CONTACTS 12
SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS 13
SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
14
1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 14
2. Reset Relationship with States and Tribes by Enlisting Our Partners to Meet Community Needs 75
3. Improve Transparency 16
SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION 17
A. CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA) 17
1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 17
2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities 18
3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 18
4. Reset Our Relationships with States 21
5. Improve Transparency 22
6. Relevant Policies and Guidances 23
SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION 25
A. CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) 25
1. Clean Water Act Action Plan 25
2. High Priority Performance Goal 25
3. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 26
4. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities 27
5. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 28
6. Reset Our Relationships with States 32
7. Improve Transparency 33
8. Relevant Policies and Guidances 34
B. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) 34
1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities 35
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 35
3. Reset Our Relationships with States 36
4. Improve Transparency 37
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances 37
SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES POLLUTION 38
A. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) 38
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 38
2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 39
3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities 40
4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 40
5. Reset Our Relationships with States 44
6. Improve Transparency 45
7. Relevant Policies and Guidances 45
Page 2 of82
-------
B. Toxic SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) 45
1. Link with Top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics Priorities 46
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 46
3. Reset Our Relationships with States 52
4. Improve Transparency 54
5. Relevant Policies, and Guidances 54
C. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) 55
1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities 55
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 56
3. Reset Our Relationships with States 61
4. Improve Transparency 62
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances 62
D. SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 63
1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities 63
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 64
3. Working With States, Tribes and Local Communities 64
4. Improve Transparency 65
SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 66
1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities 66
2. Link with Top Program Office Priorities 66
3. Reset Our Relationships with Law Enforcement Partners That Support State Environmental Crimes
Investigations and Prosecutions 66
4. Improve Transparency 67
SECTION VII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA PROGRAMS
UNDER GOAL 5 68
A. SPECIFIC FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 68
B. SPECIFIC EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (EPCRA) PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
EXPECTATIONS 70
1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities 70
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 70
3. Reset Our Relationships with States 72
4. Improve Transparency 72
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances 72
C. SPECIFIC MULTIMEDIA PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 72
D. SPECIFIC INDIAN COUNTRY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 73
1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 73
2. Maintain Our Relationships with Tribes 73
3. Improve Transparency 74
4. Relevant Policies and Guidances 74
F. SPECIFIC FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 74
1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 75
2. Reset Our Relationships with States 76
3. Improve Transparency 77
G. SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS 77
1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 77
2. Reset Our Relationships with States 78
3. Improve Transparency 78
H. SPECIFIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND TRAINING EXPECTATIONS 78
I. SPECIFIC STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK (SRF) EXPECTATIONS 79
J. STATE GRANT RESULTS AND REPORTING 80
SECTION VIII. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 81
Page 3 of82
-------
A. ANNUAL COMMITMENT SYSTEM 81
B. FTE RESOURCE CHARTS 81
Page 4 of82
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Program Office
This guidance applies to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), all
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional enforcement programs, States and Tribes
implementing EPA-approved inspection and enforcement programs1. OECA designs, develops,
implements and oversees national enforcement programs, while the regional offices work with
States, Tribes, and others to implement these programs. The OECA. National Enforcement
Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) for fiscal year (FY) 2011 describes how the (EPA)
should work with state and tribal governments to enforce environmental laws that protect and
improve the quality of the Nation's environment and public health.
B. Introduction/ Context
EPA's national enforcement and compliance assurance program is multi-media in scope and
breadth. The national program maximizes compliance with ten distinct federal environmental
statutes through the use of compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and civil and criminal
enforcement. OECA implements a total of 28 separate program areas dealing with prevention
and control of air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides.
The statutory and regulatory requirements of these programs apply to a diverse universe of
regulated entities.
The majority of the work in the FY 2011 NPMG is accomplished under the strategic goal
"Enforcing Environmental Laws" in the draft FY 2010-2015 EPA Strategic Plan (Goal 5). Goal
5 of the Strategic Plan addresses how EPA will address pollution problems through vigorous and
targeted civil and criminal enforcement, promotes compliance and deters violations by achieving
set enforcement goals, including those for national enforcement initiatives with special emphasis
on potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country.
The FY 2011 NPMG is organized to describe, for each statutory authority, the national
enforcement and program office priorities, and other key enforcement actions to achieve EPA's
enforcement goals.
C. Program Priorities
OECA's work aligns with and implements the Administrator's priorities in the following ways:
Taking Action on Climate Change: Enforcement supports the Agency's climate strategy
by recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement
actions. OECA will be working to support the integrity of the monitoring and reporting
1 EPA implements programs in states and Indian country until EPA approves the state or Tribe to implement the
inspection and enforcement program.
Page 5 of82
-------
system for global warming pollution by assuring compliance with the greenhouse gases
reporting rule.
Improving Air Quality: Enforcement helps improve air quality in communities by
targeting large pollution sources, especially in the utility, refinery, cement and glass
industries, and taking aggressive action to bring them into compliance and install controls
that will benefit communities and improve emission monitoring. OECA is working
closely with the Office of Air and Radiation to reduce toxic air pollution, through
protective enforcement, permitting and standards, especially in communities that are
disproportionately affected by pollution now. OECA will continue to work with States
and Tribes to improve monitoring of compliance with air pollution standards and make
sure that action is taken against serious violations that affect community air quality.
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: As the Agency steps up its review of chemical safety
and pushes for reform, OECA will work closely with OCSPP to achieve its goals. The
enforcement program will take action when we find violations of standards for high-
concern chemicals.
Cleaning Up Our Communities: Enforcement ensures that parties responsible for
contamination step up to their cleanup responsibilities. By ensuring that the polluter pays
whenever possible, OECA's efforts result in more cleanups, which protect more
communities from exposure and returns properties to productive use. OECA will also
use enforcement to spur clean up at RCRA corrective action sites where the clean up
progress is stalled.
Protecting America's Waters: OECA is revamping the water enforcement program to
focus on the problems that are the biggest threat to the nation's waters. At the same time,
OECA will increase oversight of the States and work to define the shared accountability
of EPA, States and Tribes for clean water. OECA will improve transparency, to enlist the
public in holding sources and government accountable.
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental
Justice: In all the enforcement work OECA does, as described above, OECA can help
protect communities by targeting enforcement in areas where we find serious
noncompliance and where communities face multiple pollution threats. OECA works
with other federal agencies to make sure environmental justice considerations are
included in their decision-making process as they prepare environmental analyses
(environmental impact statements or environmental assessments) under NEPA. OECA
also will make more available and understandable information on facility compliance and
government response, so that people have the information they need to take action to
improve their own communities.
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: EPA shares accountability with States and
Tribes for protecting the environment and public health. With the current economic
challenges, it is important that EPA and its partners work efficiently and effectively to do
the most we can with the resources we have. At the same time, OECA will strengthen
Page 6 of82
-------
oversight of States that implement federal environmental programs, and support States
that take strong enforcement action to protect their citizens by making sure that we hold
all States to a comparable standard.
OECA's overall enforcement goals for FY 2011 are to:
Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities. Use
vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air and
chemical hazards; and advance environmental justice by protecting vulnerable
communities.
o Clean water
Clean water act action plan: revamp enforcement and work with
permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems, including
Get raw sewage out of the water
Cut pollution from animal waste
Reduce polluted storm water runoff
Assure clean drinking water for all communities, including in Indian
country
Clean up great waters that matter to communities, e.g, Chesapeake Bay
o Clean air
Cut toxic air pollution in communities
Reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal fired power
plants, cement, acid and glass sectors
o Climate and clean energy
Assure compliance with greenhouse gas reporting rule
Encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions through settlements
Target energy sector compliance with air, water and waste rules
o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals
Prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the
environment
Press for clean up of hazardous sites in communities: polluter pays
Reform chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to
pesticides focus on specific areas aimed to help achieve clean water, clean
air, and climate and clean energy, and to protect people from exposure to
hazardous chemicals.
Reset our relationship with States: make sure we are delivering on our joint commitment
to a clean and healthy environment.
o Shared accountability
Make joint progress with States and Tribes toward clean air and water
goals, protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals
Work toward shared focus on protecting vulnerable communities
o Strengthened oversight
Assure strong and effective State enforcement of federal environmental
laws
Page 7 of82
-------
Press for consistent enforcement across States and Regions: fairness and
level playing field
o Establish new model for shared accountability and strengthened oversight,
starting with water
Build focus on highest priority problems into grants, enforcement and
permitting agreements
Define clear expectations for state performance
Take federal action where not meeting minimum expectations
Improve transparency
o Make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using
21st century technologies
o Hold government accountable through public information on state and federal
performance
o Promote better federal environmental decisions and public engagement through
NEPA
To help implement these enforcement goals, OECA selects a limited number of National
Enforcement Initiatives based upon significant environmental risks and noncompliance patterns.
In FY 2010, EPA re-examined the existing initiatives to look for opportunities to clarify goals
and measures, more accurately identify universes of sources, and, where necessary, to change the
focus of an Initiative. In addition, EPA considered candidates for new National Enforcement
Initiatives. After consulting with EPA programs and Regions, States, Tribes, and the public,
OECA adopted the following National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011 through 2013. More
information on each is found in the media sections of this guidance:
Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater runoff out of our waters
Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters
Reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal-fired
utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors
Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities' health
Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws
Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations
The initiative implementation strategies are currently under development. The initiative
implementation teams are in the process of developing goals and measures for each initiative.
Additionally, the teams are exploring options for innovative approaches to implementing the
initiatives. The draft initiative strategies and draft ACS commitments will be distributed to all
Regions for comment. OECA projects finalizing the FY2011-2013 initiative goal statements and
measures in mid-June.
D. Implementation Strategies
Internal Enforcement Goals
Page 8 of82
-------
In implementing the enforcement and compliance assurance program, OECA encourages all
EPA enforcement programs to consider the following internal goals:
Build innovation into the work: Explore new ideas for improving performance and
increasing efficiency, encourage experimentation within the accountability framework,
and to target actions for deterrence
Strengthen measures: Adopt outcome goals and measures that connect to what people
care about, use evidence based internal measures that are aligned to outcomes, and
include States in environmental and compliance outcomes.
Revitalize communications: Use clear and consistent external messages that reaches
and resonates with communities, open two way communications with States and Tribes,
and when communicating outside of EPA, work with the concept of one EPA, with
headquarters, Regions, and programs all on the same page
Work with programs: Work with other EPA programs to make regulations clear and
enforceable, ensure permitting and enforcement work together, and adopt shared
priorities.
Integrated Approach
Through enforcement and compliance assurance, OECA seeks to change the non-compliance
behavior of regulated entities through an overall integrated approach using a variety of tools,
including:
Compliance assistance to educate entities by developing and delivering tools, activities or
technical assistance to attain and go beyond compliance, and using pollution prevention,
environmental management systems and innovative approaches;
Incentives to encourage entities to monitor their own compliance and take prompt
corrective action when violations are detected;
Monitoring to ensure accountability by determining compliance status under the law;
Civil and criminal enforcement to require compliance at particular facilities, and to
achieve widespread compliance through deterrence by taking aggressive action and
assessing penalties that make it more expensive to violate than to comply; and
Innovative approaches to address noncompliance and improve the environment.
While ensuring compliance, EPA and States should consider the use of all available tools to
address specific environmental risks and non-compliance patterns. The integrated use of tools
and the development of new ones enables us to address environmental noncompliance problems
as efficiently and effectively as possible. The integrated approach requires regulators to consider
the reasons for noncompliance and identify the mix of tools that will most effectively improve
compliance among the target audience. An integrated approach allows a team of experts to
create a strategy that leverages resources and uses the appropriate combination or sequencing of
individual tools to optimize success in addressing the problem.
Page 9 of82
-------
An integrated approach benefits regulators by: 1) targeting limited inspection and enforcement
resources on the bad actors; 2) building capacity and coordination across programs, regions and
agencies through the planning process, resulting in the sharing of information and mutually
working toward shared goals; 3) expanding governments' presence and demonstrating
governments' commitment by strategically applying a range of tools to correct significant
problems.
More information on the use of integrated strategies is found in the Guide for Addressing
Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach (March 2007)
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/assistance/index.html. Information on
compliance assistance, compliance audits, and compliance monitoring, including relevant
policies and guidances for implementing the enforcement and compliance program, can be found
at the following OECA web sites:
Compliance Assistance: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html
Compliance Incentives: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/index.html
Compliance Monitoring: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/index.html
Enforcement: http://www.epa. gov/compliance/civil/index .html
Program Reviews
OECA monitors regional and state activities in a set of annual commitments at mid-year and at
the end of a fiscal year based upon Region and State results entered in OECA databases, the
Annual Commitment System, and data collected in the implementation of national enforcement
initiatives. In addition, OECA senior managers conduct an annual program review of each
regional office. The performance expectations and activities outlined in this guidance are the
starting point from which headquarters and the regional offices engage to discuss the
management of program activities and the distribution of resources. These discussions result in
regional commitments for a specific level of activity for the fiscal year. These commitments
constitute the agreed upon approach between the regions and the national program manager for
achieving performance expectations for the fiscal year.
Regional Priorities
EPA Regions may also have priorities that are specific for a particular environmental situation
that may not affect other regions. Some problems cross regional boundaries and regions are
working together to address them. For example, Regions 3, 4, and 5 are working on the Port of
Huntington Tri-State Collaborative Geographic Initiative. The Port is located in KY, OH and
WV. This enforcement and compliance assistance Initiative was undertaken to more fully and
comprehensively address the impacts of noncompliance on land, air, and water resources by Port
facilities and to promote environmental stewardship in the Port of Huntington area. There is
increasing concern related to public health and environmental issues within the Port of
Huntington's boundaries related to: air toxics, air quality near schools, NOX emissions related to
nitrogen loading in Chesapeake Bay, Port-related storm water discharges, coal-fired utilities, coal
and chemical product processing/handling facilities, and the effects of these activities on the
community and Environmental Justice populations within the Port's boundaries.
Page 10 of 82
-------
Another example involves the Chesapeake Bay. In response to the President's May 12, 2009,
Executive Order 13508Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are
working with OECA to address nitrogen deposition to the Bay from large industrial air sources
of NOX. The Regions will build on work already begun under the national enforcement
initiatives to evaluate the compliance of power plants and other industrial sources in the
Chesapeake Bay airshed emitting more than 1000 tons of NOX per year. Any resulting
enforcement actions would seek to achieve significant NOX reductions through complying
actions, as appropriate. In addition, Region 3 will take steps to evaluate the potential impacts on
the Bay of ammonia (NHs) emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
E. Significant Changes from FY 2010
The most significant change from the FY 2010 guidance is to focus the NPMG on the
Administrator's and Assistant Administrator's goals, and on aligning enforcement and
compliance priorities with those of the other EPA national program managers. To this end, the
FY 2011 NPMG is organized to 1) describe the specific expectations for Regions that implement
the Assistant Administrator's priorities, 2) explain how the enforcement program supports the
priorities of other EPA national programs, and 3) identify the new National Enforcement
Initiatives for FY 2011 through FY 2013. In addition, this guidance now itemizes the relevant
enforcement guidances and policies in a list instead of describing each one.
Clean Water Action Plan: OECA is currently working with EPA Regions, States and the
Office of Water to implement the Clean Water Act Action Plan ("the Action Plan") issued in
October 2009. Since work is ongoing under the Action Plan, FY2011 will be a transition year
as we revamp the Clean Water Act compliance and enforcement program to better address
our nation's water quality challenges. This NPMG includes more immediate
recommendations arising from the implementation of the Action Plan to improve
identification of serious non-compliance problems, identify new approaches to address water
source violations, and to strengthen oversight of state programs.
New National Enforcement Initiatives: OECA will start work on the National
Enforcement Initiatives selected for FY 2011-13 in FY 2011. Regional expectations for the
Initiatives will be made available in the third quarter of FY 2010 before the commitment
levels must be agreed upon.
Environmental Justice Expectations: The NPMG includes a new environmental justice
section that contains expectations for implementing the Agency's goals to advance
environmental justice. In addition, each of the media chapters now addresses environmental
justice expectations for using screening tools/approaches and other information to support
targeting of enforcement actions and to enhance performance reporting.
Federal Facilities Expectations in Media Chapters: For the past several years, OECA has
focused the Federal Facilities expectations in a separate section. Each of the media chapters
in this NPMG now specifically list expectations for the Regions regarding Federal Facilities.
Page 11 of 82
-------
Indian Country Expectations in Media Chapters: For the past several years, OECA has
focused the Indian Country expectations for drinking water, compliance at schools, and
dumps in a separate section. Each of the media chapters in this NPMG now specifically list
expectations for the Regions regarding Indian country.
F. Contacts
For general questions or comments on the OECA National Program Managers Guidance or our
Annual Commitments please contact:
Ginger Gotliffe
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Compliance
National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A
Washington, DC 20460
Email: Gotliffe.ginger^epa.gov
Page 12 of82
-------
SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS
The OECA NPM Guidance is structured and developed to define program goals, priorities,
strategies, and performance measures in accordance with the Strategic Plan and the FY 2011
Annual Plan and Budget. Most of OECA's work is in response to the objectives of Goal 5 of the
Strategic Plan and is covered by this Guidance.
OECA restructured the NPM Guidance to focus on the performance expectations of the national
enforcement program in terms of 1) achieving the Enforcement Goals, 2) making progress in
attaining compliance within the national enforcement initiative areas and 3) supporting progress
of EPA program offices in achieving their environmental and public health goals. EPA posted
the FY 2011 NPM draft Guidance (www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance) to allow Regions, States,
Tribes, and others to review and comment on the draft. OECA received comment from Regions,
States, Tribes, and other stakeholders. OECA responded to the comments and incorporated
changes, as needed, in the final documents. The final guidance and a Response to Comments
Summary was posted on the Internet showing the action taken in the final guidance as a result of
comments.
Because EPA's Strategic Plan is not expected to be finalized until later in the Fiscal Year, there
may be later changes that impact this NPMG. OECA will develop and issue addendums
explaining any changes and implications for Regions, States, and Tribes as a result of a changed
Strategic Plan.
Page 13 of82
-------
SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
EXPECTATIONS
OECA plays a dual role in setting performance expectations for environmental justice. First,
OECA oversees national and regional enforcement programs. In this role, OECA ensures that
facilities in communities disproportionately burdened by pollution are complying with the law.
OECA aggressively applies regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities, enlists partners
to meet community needs, and fosters community involvement in EPA's decision-making
processes by making information available.
Second, OECA is the National Program Manager for the Environmental Justice (EJ) Program.
The Environmental Justice Program facilitates headquarter and regional efforts to achieve
measurable environmental or public health benefits/results for communities disproportionately
burdened by pollution. EPA achieves this goal by: (1) Engaging communities in EPA decision-
making, and enlisting partners, including federal and state agencies, to meet community needs;
(2) Supporting community efforts to build healthy, sustainable and green neighborhoods; and (3)
Applying EPA's regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities. OECA will address these
goals through the following performance expectations.
/. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
EPA will apply regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities and enlist partners to
aggressively go after pollution problems that will make a difference to communities. FY2011
regional enforcement work will protect communities disproportionately impacted by pollution by
targeting enforcement in areas where there are serious non-compliance and multiple pollution
threats. In addition, Regions are encouraged to work with other federal agencies to make sure
environmental justice considerations are included in their decision-making process as they
prepare environmental analyses (EISs or EAs) under NEPA.
In FY2011, OECA will begin to use the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement
Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) or similar screening tools/approaches and other information,
e.g., community input, to support targeting of enforcement actions and to enhance
performance reporting.
Regions should take enforcement action against priority environmental justice pollution
problems in sectors as identified in the FY2011 - FY2013 National Enforcement Initiatives.
By the end of FY2010, regional enforcement programs should identify and establish
commitments towards strategic measures that enable tracking of progress to reduce pollution
and risk in communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. Instructions and guidance
on how to establish measurable commitments will be provided by the Office of
Environmental Justice in FY2010.
Page 14 of 82
-------
In the first quarter of FY2011, Regions should report progress on environmental justice
commitments. Instructions will be provided by the Office of Environmental Justice in the
fourth quarter of FY2010.
2. Reset Relationship with States and Tribes by Enlisting Our Partners to Meet
Community Needs
Regional enforcement programs should work with other EPA programs, federal agencies, States
and Tribes to ensure that EJ informs permitting, standards, and enforcement. Regions are
encouraged to work with other federal agencies to make sure environmental justice informs their
decision making as they do environmental assessments under NEPA. In addition, Regions
should take into consideration the federal trust responsibilities to federally-recognized Tribes,
including Alaska native Tribes and Villages, when preparing environmental assessments on
Tribal lands.
Conduct regular regional enforcement office engagement with States, Tribes, and local EJ
agencies to discuss EJ concerns that arise at sites or facilities where EPA is involved.
Ensure EJ concerns are properly addressed in all actions where EPA must comply with
NEPA (i.e., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES permits,
and EPA facilities).
Meet with and provide communities with information on site-specific issues or particular
interest of concern as they arise, particularly when compliance concerns are reported or
suspected.
Engage with States in annual planning processes and negotiation of grant agreements to
identify communities facing multiple pollution burdens and target actions to improve the
environment in such overburdened communities.
Regions should engage state and local regulatory partners on enforcement and compliance
issues in highly impacted areas where multiple jurisdictional authorities should be applied in
a more coordinated fashion. Building on its FY09-FY10 EJ Showcase Community work,
each Region should enlist state/local agencies to work with communities to identify
environmental and health threats to achieve maximum compliance with environmental
regulations and protect human health and the environment. EPA will promote use of an
integrated strategy that makes appropriate use of all of the compliance assurance tools it has
at its disposal including compliance assistance and monitoring, incentives, administrative,
civil judicial and criminal actions. The Regions should also coordinate enforcement efforts
with other available means (e.g., community involvement, stewardship and voluntary
programs) to address issues that can't be effectively met through enforcement alone. Regions
should engage with States in annual planning processes and negotiation of grant agreements
to identify communities facing multiple pollution burdens and target actions to improve the
environment in such overburdened communities.
Page 15 of 82
-------
3. Improve Transparency
OECA will enhance its efforts to make available information on facility compliance and
government enforcement actions more accessible so people have the information they need to
take action in their communities. Transparency, openness, and engagement with communities on
where EPA should focus enforcement efforts will enable communities to know what EPA is
doing, participate in decision-making processes, and create pressure for better compliance.
Regions and NPMs should promote the use of integrated problem solving strategies in their EJ
Showcase Communities, (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/grants/ei-
showcase.html) Such strategies engage all appropriate EPA programs as well as state, local,
tribal and nongovernment partners. An integrated strategy coordinates the use of all appropriate
tools to address the issues identified in the Showcase Communities. These tools include
meaningful community involvement, outreach and education, environmental research, risk
assessment, monitoring and modeling, alternate dispute resolution, permitting and regulatory
tools, as well as many voluntary efforts. The Showcase Communities provide a unique
opportunity for collaboration with clearly defined measures and outcomes to be managed and
reported by the Regions.
Regions should:
Ensure the public has access to compliance and enforcement documents and data that they
can understand, particularly in disproportionately impacted communities, through access to
mapping tools and through technical assistance support programs, as available.
Seek input in the identification of facilities or areas of concern (i.e., through periodic
listening sessions, hotlines, outreach efforts, blogs, etc) and during other appropriate phases
of compliance and decision-making processes.
Ensure that EPA public meetings on enforcement issues address the concerns of potentially
affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income areas and tribal
communities.
Page 16 of82
-------
SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIS TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION
A. Clean Air Act (CAA)
OECA addresses air pollution problems through the following CAA programs:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT)
New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NRS/PSD)
Enforcement of State Implementation Plans and plans developed and approved under
Section 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Title V Operating Permits
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans (RMPs)
Title II (Emission Standards for Moving Sources)
/. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives
The relevant FY 2011 - 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CAA programs are:
Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affect Communities' Health: In 1990, Congress identified
187 hazardous air pollutants that present significant threats to human health. See,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html. These pollutants are known or suspected to cause
cancer and other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth defects. This threat may be
particularly important for communities with disproportionate exposure to environmental risks
and those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations, including urban minority and low-
income communities. The Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations impose strict emission control
requirements (known as "Maximum Available Control Technology" or "MACT") for these
pollutants, which are permitted by a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities. For
FY2011-13, EPA will use a national enforcement initiative to focus on excess emissions caused
by facilities' failure to comply with EPA's leak detection and repair requirements, restrictions on
flaring, restrictions for benzene, and failure to address excess emissions during start-up,
shutdown and malfunction events. OECA will partner with EPA's Office of Air and Office of
Research and Development on this effort, and will give particular emphasis to problems affecting
local communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution from multiple sources.
Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest Sources, Especially the Coal-fired
Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors: The New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration requirements of the Clean Air Act require certain large industrial
facilities to install state-of-the-art air pollution controls when they build new facilities or make
"significant modifications" to existing facilities. However, many industries have not complied
with these requirements, leading to excessive emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These pollutants can be carried long distances and can
Page 17 of82
-------
have significant adverse effects on human health, including asthma, respiratory diseases and
premature death. These effects may be particularly significant for communities with
disproportionate exposure to environmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children.
In recent years EPA has made considerable progress in reducing this excessive pollution by
bringing enforcement actions against coal-fired power plants, cement manufacturing facilities,
sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities and glass manufacturing facilities. However,
more work remains to be done to bring these sectors into compliance with the Clean Air Act and
protect communities burdened with harmful air pollution. Therefore EPA will continue this work
as a National Enforcement Initiative for FY2011-2013.
2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities
OECA addresses top Office of Air and Radiation priorities in the following ways:
Greenhouse Gases: OECA is developing an implementation strategy for the Mandatory
Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule to provide guidance to Regions on compliance
monitoring and assistance activities, and the appropriate enforcement response to support
the integrity of the monitoring and reporting system. OECA continues to support the
Agency climate strategy by recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in
settlements of enforcement actions.
Air Toxics in Communities: OECA will address this OAR priority through one of the
2011 - 2013 National Enforcement Initiatives. OECA also is working closely with the
Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Research and Development to reduce toxic
air pollution through standards, permitting, compliance monitoring and assistance
activities, and enforcement, especially in communities that are disproportionately
affected by pollution. This initiative represents a new model for programmatically
addressing the cross-cutting nature of EJ issues by systematically linking OECA
enforcement efforts with permits, rules and other regulatory tools administered by the
Agency's media programs.
3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Air pollution can spread with the wind and is therefore of great concern to communities both
near its source and remotely located. Air pollutants that are emitted closer to the ground, for
example as a result of equipment leaks or low stack height, can cause disproportionate exposure
for neighboring communities. In industrial areas, these communities frequently have significant
low income and minority populations. Serious health affects caused by air pollution include
difficulty in breathing, exacerbation of respiratory and cardiac conditions, cancer and death.
Regions and delegated state/local agencies and Tribes should:
Implement programs in accordance with existing national compliance and enforcement
policy and guidance (e.g., the CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(CMS); the CAA National Stack Testing Guidance, the Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (HPV Policy); and the Area Source
Page 18 of 82
-------
Implementation Guidance (FY 2010 issuance) to address significant air pollution
problems that adversely affect impacted communities by reducing such pollution from
the largest sources with special attention directed toward reducing toxic air pollution.
(Web links to these and other guidance documents are on page 18.) Regions should work
with delegated agencies/tribes to ensure they are familiar with national guidance, aware
of the flexibilities within the guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the
guidance.
Use targeting tools to identify the most important air pollution problems and the most
serious violations, including use of screening tools/approaches, such as the
Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT), and other
information, such as community input, to support compliance monitoring activities.
Have a process for identifying, targeting, evaluating, and responding to illegal activities
affecting priority air pollution problems.
Work together to initiate civil and criminal enforcement actions, as appropriate, and
whenever necessary to protect communities by addressing and ultimately resolving
serious air violations in order to bring sources into compliance.
Evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response, and take timely and
appropriate actions against facilities determined to have High Priority Violations (HPV),
especially those facilities that are on the HPV Watch List. OECA will be issuing further
guidance concerning implementation of the HPV Policy.
Negotiate settlements and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative
orders and take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal
enforcement actions.
Utilize assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement tools and other approaches
that all are effective in achieving widespread compliance. The appropriate combination
and sequencing of such compliance assurance tools should be considered when
determining the best approach for addressing environmental problems and returning
sources to compliance.
In addition, the Regions should:
Continue any on-going investigations and initiate new ones, as appropriate. Activities
reported as investigations should meet the definition of an investigation as provided in
the CMS and minimum data requirements. Both initiated and completed investigations
are to be reported to AFS.
Review Title V permits consistent with national guidance and ensure the delegated
agencies/tribes are reviewing the certifications consistent with the CMS. Regions also
should ensure that Title V permits do not shield sources subject to a pending or current
CAA enforcement action or investigation, and that draft Title V permits include
Page 19 of82
-------
appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirement at any affected units.
Regions should ensure that consent decree requirements, including required schedules of
compliance are incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non-Title V and Title
V permits.
Include evaluations of chlorofiuorocarbon (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances
(ODS) as part of routine full compliance evaluations (FCEs) / partial compliance
evaluations (PCEs) to the extent the regulations apply.
Provide assistance to delegated agencies, including initiating enforcement actions, to
address non-compliance at federal facilities. Exercise the 1997 clarified penalty authority
against federal agencies for CAA violations in appropriate circumstances. FFEO will
complete new research on power plants operating on military bases.
Perform CAA section 112(r) inspections at regulated facilities in the Region, including
high risk facilities. A high risk facility is one which meets one or more of the following
criteria: 1) facilities who have reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds
100,000 people; 2) any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 25;
and/or; 3) facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the
previous five years. (Note: facilities that have only program 1 process are not considered
high risk). Inspections at high-risk facilities should also include an evaluation of
compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements.
Focus on identifying RMP non-filers and initiating enforcement as appropriate.
Headquarters will continue to provide support in this area.
Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the Region.
Settle or litigate cases filed in years prior to FY 2011 and ensure investigation and
issuance of appropriate action for any tips, complaints, or referrals received by EPA.
Exercise authority in accordance with the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
Adjustment Rule and the Amendments to the CAA Civil Penalty Policy to implement the
2008 Penalty Inflation Rule. (Web links to these and other guidance documents are on
page 23-24.)
Ensure compliance with environmental statutes in Indian country unless and until a Tribe
obtains primacy.
COMMITMENT CAA 42-: Number of compliance evaluations to be conducted at majors, 80%
synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by the Regions. [Note: Break out evaluation
2 To insure data quality when comparing commitments and results between different fiscal years, measures that span
more that one year retain the measure number. Numbers of measures that are discontinued cannot be used again.
Therefore, the commitment measures are not in sequential order. Commitment CAA 04 captures core program
activities previously reported under separate commitment that have been discontinued. Reporting under one
commitment allows for a greater understanding of the core program as a whole and how regional
Page 20 of 82
-------
projections by source classification and by compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and
Investigations). In the comment section, provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PCEs and
investigations. Projected investigations under this commitment are those investigations initiated
by the Regions for the air enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives,
and identified by the air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).
COMMITMENT CAA 11-: Regions are to conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of
facilities in the Region required to submit RMPs. Of these inspections, 25% must be conducted
at high-risk facilities. These inspections at high-risk facilities also must include an evaluation of
compliance with Sections 304, 311, and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-know Act (EPCRA) and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requirements. If the Region is responsible for
entering data for a delegated agency or Tribe, the Region should identify the delegated agency or
Tribe. [Note: Section 68.220 audits conducted do not count towards the 5% inspection target.]
4. Reset Our Relationships with States
The Regions should work with the state/local agencies and Tribes to identify priorities and align
resources to implement the above commitments. This includes:
Holding annual planning meetings with senior federal and state management to discuss
air quality standards, permitting, and enforcement when developing program goals and
annual monitoring and enforcement work plans. Convening routine and regular
(quarterly) meetings with senior state management to assess progress in how the State
has been performing overall in its implementation of the program.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take
enforcement actions to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight
resources to the most pressing performance problems in States and should work to
demonstrably improve State performance through these actions. Regions need to take
action when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the
federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between States. Where States
are not taking enforcement actions in response to serious violations, Regions are directed
to take federal action.
Ensuring delegated agencies implement compliance monitoring and enforcement
programs in accordance with national guidance/policy (e.g., the CAA CMS; HPV Policy;
CAA National Stack Testing Guidance; Area Source Implementation Guidance
(anticipated FY 2010 issuance)). Regions should monitor the level and quality of efforts
undertaken by the delegated agencies to ensure strong enforcement of environmental
laws. Enforcement actions, whether taken by the Regions, delegated states/locals, or
Tribes should always be timely and accurately reported.
activities/commitments are related to one another.
3 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 21 of 82
-------
Negotiating facility-specific CMS plans with all delegated agencies. Throughout the
year, Regions are to be evaluating progress and working with delegated agencies to revise
such CMS plans as necessary.
Having frequent (at least monthly) discussions with delegated agencies to ensure
consistent implementation of the HPV Policy.
Implementing the State Review Framework for the CAA Program (see Section VI.G),
and ensuring progress with corrective actions identified in the SRF reports.
Reviewing state program progress periodically throughout the year in meetings between
EPA and the States.
Consulting with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in
EPA's direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs
COMMITMENT CAA 064-: Ensure delegated agencies implement their compliance and
enforcement program in accordance with the CAA CMS and have a negotiated facility-specific
CMS plan in place. Regions are to provide the number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic
minors to be conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program
implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a delegated agency negotiates with a Region
an alternative CMS plan, this Commitment should reflect the alternative plan. [Note: Break out
evaluation projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source classification].
Prior to approving an alternative plan, Regions should consult with the Office of Compliance
(OC) and provide OC with information on how the state/local agency compliance monitoring air
resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the change.
5. Improve Transparency
The Regions should:
Work with the state/local agencies and Tribes to verify that their compliance and
enforcement data is input into the Air Facility System (AFS), the national repository for
air stationary source compliance monitoring and enforcement data.
Enter complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the AFS Information Collection
Request (ICR) and Agency policies. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide
complete, accurate, and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as
memorandum of understanding (MOU), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs),
Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)/ Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) or
Section 105 grant agreements.
4 Commitment CAA 06 captures activities of delegated agencies previously reported under separate commitments
that have been discontinued. Reporting under one commitment allows for a great understanding of delegated agency
programs as a whole and how activities are related to one another.
Page 22 of 82
-------
Work with EPA Headquarters to modernize AFS.
Enter both draft and final State Review Framework (SRF) reports, which include
Preliminary Data Analysis and file reviews, recommendations, state comments, and
benefits arising from Framework reviews, including Element 13, into the Lotus Notes
SRF Tracker database upon completion of a SRF review.
Distinguish state information from Indian country information.
Make information available to communities, including Tribes, who may lack access to
the internet.
COMMITMENT CAA 07s: Regions and delegated agencies should enter 100% of MDRs in
AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the AFS ICR. The reporting of such complete,
accurate, and timely data by delegated agencies should be reflected in written, up-to-date
agreements with the Regions. If the Region is responsible for entering data for a delegated
agency or Tribe, the Region should identify the delegated agency or Tribe.
6. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's CAA programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html
List of relevant CAA policies and guidance:
The Air Facility System Business Rules Compendium
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/data/systems/air/afsbusinessrulescompendium.p
df
The Air Facility System Minimum Data Requirements
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf
CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicy.pdf
CAA National Stack Testing Guidance
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf
Area Source Implementation guidance (anticipated to be issued in FY 2010)
The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/issue-ta-rpt.pdf
The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations Workbook
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/hpvmanualrevised.pdf
CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/penpol.pdf
5 Commitment CAA07 captures under one commitment the regional and delegated agency responsibilities
associated with data reporting that had been previously reported under separate commitments which are now
discontinued.
Page 23 of 82
-------
CAA Section 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/caal2r-enfpol.pdf
Guidance for Auditing Risk Management Plans/Programs under Clean Air Act Section
112(r) www.epa.gov/oem/docs/chem/audit_gd.pdf
Civil Penalty Policies http ://cfpub. epa. gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/penaltv/
Page 24 of 82
-------
SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION
A. Clean Water Act (CWA)
OECA addresses water pollution problems resulting from noncompliance with our nation's
environmental statutes and regulations, including the following CWA programs:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (including general
and individual permits from sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment facilities and their collection systems, concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), industrial storm water, and vessels).
Pretreatment Program
Biosolids/ Sludge Program
CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program
CWA Section 311 (Oil Pollution Act, including the Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Program)
/. Clean Water Act Action Plan
OECA is currently working with EPA Regions, States and the Office of Water to implement the
CWA Action Plan ("the Action Plan") issued in October 2009. The Action Plan's three key
elements are: 1) to focus our NPDES enforcement efforts on pollution sources that pose the
greatest threats to water quality; 2) to strengthen oversight of state permitting and enforcement
programs; and 3) to improve the accessibility and quality of information we provide to the
public. These elements are consistent with the Assistant Administrator's goals for the
compliance and enforcement program, listed on pages 7 and 8 of this Guidance.
Since work under the Action Plan is ongoing as this guidance is finalized, FY 2011 will be a
transition year as we revamp the CWA compliance and enforcement program to better address
our nation's water quality challenges. OECA anticipates that, in the long term, existing policies,
strategies and regulations may need to be revised to better identify and address the key water
quality problems where NPDES compliance and enforcement efforts are critical components to
protection and restoration. OECA also expects that the implementation of the Action Plan will
identify more immediate opportunities to improve identification of serious noncompliance
problems as well as new approaches to address these violations.
2. High Priority Performance Goal
For FY 2011, the Office of Management and Budget asked each federal department and agency
to develop a set of High Priority Performance Goals (HPPGs) that will measure performance for
a limited set of high priority activities. EPA has developed a HPPG that measures EPA's actions
to improve water quality through implementation of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. For FY
2011, OECA has the following HPPG:
Page 25 of 82
-------
Increase pollutant-reducing enforcement actions in waters that don't meet water quality
standards, and post results and analysis on the web.
This HPPG aligns with the Clean Water Act Action Plan goal of targeting enforcement to the
most important water pollution problems. The HPPG is not based on expected increases in
enforcement actions, but rather a greater emphasis on taking enforcement actions against
facilities that discharge pollutants into waters not achieving water quality standards. The
enforcement actions are concluded judicial and administrative enforcement cases that result in a
reduction in pollutants. The HPPG is limited to EPA actions only because at present OECA does
not have the necessary information to report on state enforcement actions. The HPPG is also tied
to waters known to not achieve water quality standards, and thus do not measure enforcement
actions that address water pollution problems in unassessed water bodies.
OECA will link relevant environmental information to facility location and compliance data to
inform the targeting of compliance and enforcement efforts. The CWA section 303(d) lists are
available to start targeting enforcement actions, but this information does not identify all
impaired water. OECA will be adding to the CWA section 303(d) list those waters that have yet
to achieve standards, but for which either a TMDL was completed or a TMDL was determined to
not be necessary. The OTIS application to identify facilities discharging into these waters will
be available in June 2010.
Starting in FY 2011, OECA will be tracking the performance of Regions to target enforcement
actions on facilities discharging into waters not achieving water quality standards.
COMMITMENT CWA 10: Regions should identify the percentage of concluded federal
judicial and administrative enforcement actions resulting in a reduction of pollutants that pertain
to facilities discharging into waters that do not achieve water quality standards.
3. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives
The relevant FY 2011 - 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CWA programs are:
Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation's Waters: EPA
will continue its enforcement focus on reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated
stormwater into our nation's rivers, streams and lakes. Older urban areas in particular have aging
sewer systems that are not designed to handle heavy rainfall and snowfall, in addition to growing
urban populations and industrial discharges. As a result, untreated sewage too frequently
overflows from sewers into waterways, or backs up into city streets or basements of homes. Raw
sewage contains pathogens that threaten public health, leading to beach closures and public
advisories against fishing and swimming. This problem particularly affects older urban areas,
where minority and low income communities are often concentrated. In addition, stormwater
runoff from urban streets and construction sites carries sediment, metal, oil and grease, acid,
chemicals, toxic materials and industrial waste into surface waters. Many cities use rivers as the
source of their drinking water, and contaminants in the water increase the difficulty and expense
of treating the water for drinking water use. The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to treat
sewage before it is discharged and to control contaminated stormwater discharges, but many
Page 26 of 82
-------
municipalities are not complying with these requirements. EPA's enforcement efforts in recent
years have resulted in agreements by many cities to remedy these problems, but the problem
remains in many other cities. This National Enforcement Initiative will focus on reducing
discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in FY2011-13, by obtaining cities'
commitments to implement timely, affordable solutions to these problems, including increased
use of green infrastructure and other innovative approaches.
Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters: Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are agricultural operations where animals live in a
confined environment. CAFOs can contain large numbers of animals, feed, manure, dead
animals and production operations on a small land area. The animals generate a large amount of
manure, which typically is held in lagoons or spread on nearby fields. If not properly controlled,
manure can overflow from lagoons or run off from the fields into nearby surface waters or seep
into ground water, carrying disease-causing pathogens, nutrients, or other contaminants into the
water. This contaminates both surface waters and ground waters that may be used as drinking
water sources and harms fish and other aquatic species in surface waters.
Several studies have found high concentrations of CAFOs in areas with low income and minority
populations. This is typical in many rural areas of the country where livestock facilities are
located. Children in these populations may be particularly susceptible to potential adverse health
effects through exposure to contaminated surface waters or drinking water from contaminated
ground water sources. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of these pollutants into
surface waters, and EPA's regulations require larger CAFOs to have permits (which impose
control requirements) if the waste produced by animals on the farm will run off into surface
waters. However, many CAFOs are not complying with these requirements. Therefore, EPA will
continue and strengthen its enforcement focus on these facilities. For FY2011-13, OECA will
focus primarily on existing large and medium CAFOs identified as discharging without a permit.
4. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities
OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the CWA in the following ways:
Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters: As part of aggressively going after pollution
that matters to communities, OECA's enforcement and compliance will be particularly
focused on protecting communities by getting raw sewage out of the water, cutting
pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted stormwater runoff.
Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas: OECA is improving protection of the
Chesapeake Bay as part of the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy
(see http://www.epa. gov/compliance/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html)
Strengthening Protections for Our Waters: OECA is improving protection of water
through the Clean Water Act Action Plan (see item 1. above and
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html).
Page 27 of 82
-------
5. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Communities across the country depend on clean water as a source of drinking water, a habitat to
support healthy ecosystems and as a resource for recreation and fishing. They expect protection
from exposure to water contaminated by raw sewage, animal waste and pollutants in urban storm
water run-off.
Direct exposure to raw sewage and associated high levels of disease-causing organisms can be a
particular problem for communities located in older urban areas where the aging municipal
wastewater infrastructure may be failing or unable to handle the demands of a growing urban
population. When pipes break, equipment fails or the system exceeds capacity, untreated
wastewater flows into waterways, homes and city streets, most significantly exposing the
community to pathogens. Urban water bodies can also be assaulted by large volumes of
uncontrolled polluted storm water from streets, parking lots, and commercial and industrial
businesses. Many of these older urban areas include minority and low income communities.
Exposure to animal waste from concentrated animal feeding operations may particularly affect
low income and minority populations in rural areas. Water bodies polluted by the waste can
cause human illness after swimming or wading and result in contaminated fish and shellfish.
This is a particular problem with respect to subsistence fishing, which is most frequent in
minority and low income populations.
OECA, together with the Office of Water and state water control agencies will work to identify
at-risk waters and use their appropriate regulatory tools, including setting strong water quality
standards, issuing protective NPDES permits and addressing serious violations through effective
enforcement to ensure water quality protection and restoration.
A. CWA NPDES Program
Regions in non-authorized States and Indian country, and authorized States and Tribes, should:
Target to identify the most serious sources of pollution and the most serious violations.
Use tools, such as available ambient monitoring data and GIS, to target the most
significant sources of pollutants on those water bodies and watersheds that are impaired.
Develop annual compliance monitoring plans that take advantage of the flexibility
available in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance
Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued October 17,
2007), along with additional approaches identified in the CWA Action Plan, to target
inspections aimed at identifying and addressing serious water quality problems where
NPDES compliance and enforcement tools will be effective in addressing the pollution
problem.
Use existing national compliance and enforcement policy and guidance, e.g., the 1989
National Enforcement Management System (EMS), the 2007 NPDES Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) and the 2007 Interim Significant Non-Compliance Policy for
Page 28 of 82
-------
CWA Violations Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources
(Interim WWSNC Policy), to identify and address serious violations impacting water
quality. The Interim WWSNC Policy is currently only being used by EPA Regions to
prioritize federal wet weather violations, though States are encouraged to consider its use.
OECA, working with OW, will also finalize new approaches to improve these efforts in
relation to the CWA Action Plan, and will provide additional guidance to EPA Regions
and States on implementation at that time.
Evaluate all violations to determine seriousness and determine an appropriate response.
Facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC), especially those causing facilities to be on
the Watch List should be acted on, along with sources with serious effluent limit
violations, unpermitted discharges, systemic reporting problems or violations at facilities
with potential to seriously impact to water quality.
Consider pilots or innovate approaches to deal with more routine, paperwork violations.
Initiate and complete civil enforcement actions, where appropriate to address serious
violations contributing to a community's water quality problems. This includes judicial
and administrative actions. Ensure compliance with consent decrees and administrative
orders.
Implement targeted "real time" (quick response) enforcement activities to address
violations impacting communities' waters, such as violations at concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs). OECA will provide additional training and guidance on
this approach in FY 10 and FY 11.
Utilize assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement tools to address serious
noncompliance problems causing water quality problems in targeted communities and
watersheds.
Implement the use of NetDMR or other e-DMR tools for the electronic transfer of
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) to ICIS-NPDES, supported by use of the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network), by all of their
NPDES permitted facilities. Administrator Jackson , in her July 7, 2009 memorandum,
"Achieving the Promise of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network,"
requested cross-Agency commitment to make the Network the preferred way EPA,
States, Tribes, and others share and exchange data while supporting an aggressive
timetable to phase out other data submission and exchange methods. EPA Regions need
to demonstrate leadership in implementing this strategic vision for the Agency.
In addition, Regions should:
Implement CWA specific geographic compliance and enforcement strategies, as
appropriate for their Region, including CWA Action Plan pilots, the Chesapeake Bay
Enforcement Strategy, and other region-specific geographic initiatives.
Page 29 of 82
-------
Routinely review all DMRs and non-compliance reports received for compliance with
permit requirements where the Region directly implements the program. (Note that
Regions may accomplish this review through a routine screen of the PCS or ICIS-NPDES
data and reviewing the DMRs themselves as necessary.)
Where the Region has direct implementation responsibilities, they should inspect and
audit pretreatment POTWs and Industrial Users (lUs) to evaluate the effectiveness of the
regulatory authorities pretreatment program, either in conjunction with other compliance
inspections at major and minor POTWs such as compliance evaluations (CEIs) or
separately.
Where the Region has direct implementation responsibilities, they should inspect
biosolids/sludge facilities to evaluate the permittee's compliance with sludge monitoring,
record keeping and reporting, treatment operations, and sampling and laboratory quality
assurance, either in conjunction with other compliance inspections at major and minor
POTWs such as compliance evaluations (CEIs) or separately.
Use all available data to benchmark and monitor state performance using data from
federal and state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and
other audit or evaluation reports. These include State Review Framework reviews, Office
of Water Permit Quality Reviews, regular EPA/State meetings to review performance,
state data not entered into national databases, and GAO and/or IG reviews of state
performance.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to
object to permits that are not protective of water quality and enforce to address serious
violations. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance
problems in States which had been identified through permitting and enforcement
reviews. Regions and States must work together to demonstrably improve state
performance. Guidance will be made available under the Clean Water Act Action Plan to
further clarify expectations.
Coordinate, as appropriate, with the Coast Guard and other federal agencies which have
significant roles in addressing spills, and follow all related Memoranda of Agreement
including the MOU for the Vessels General Permit.
Continue implementing the Federal Facility Integrated Strategy on Stormwater.
Show support and encourage their States that are currently using the NPDES Permit
Compliance System (PCS) to continue with their efforts to prepare to migrate to the
modernized data system, ICIS-NPDES. The batch data flow capability from States to
ICIS-NPDES through EPA's National Environmental Information Exchange Network is
currently under development and is scheduled to be implemented in three distinct
releases. The first release, scheduled for April 2011, will provide functionality for the
transmittal of Permit and Facility information. The second release, scheduled for January
2012, will provide functionality for the transmittal of Inspection information. The final
Page 30 of 82
-------
release, scheduled for March of 2013, will provide functionality for the transmittal of
remaining NPDES data families to include Enforcement Actions, Single Event
Violations, and Program Reports. Regions should be working with their States to
identify the appropriate release and schedule for data migration.
COMMITMENT CWA07: By December 31, 2010, provide a specific NPDES Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each State in the Region. The plan should provide universe
information for the CMS categories; sub-categories covered by the CMS and combined EPA and
State expected accomplishments for each category and subcategory. The plan should identify
trade-offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibility designed into the CMS policy to
target the most significant sources with potential to impact water quality. At end of year provide
for each State a numerical report on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and
subcategory.
Indicator Measure CWA 08 for NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). During
FY 2011, OC and the Regions will complete work initiated in FY 2010 on development of a
Compliance Monitoring Composite Index (CMCI) for the NPDES Compliance Monitoring
Strategy (CMS). Starting in FY 2012, the CMCI will be used as a single summative end of year
indicator of NPDES inspection program performance relative to program areas addressed in the
CMS.
B. CWA Section 404 - Discharge of Dredge and Fill material (Wetlands)
Regions should:
Coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Fish and Wildlife Service,
etc.) which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of
understanding and memoranda of agreement or other appropriate mechanisms.
Begin to use the new national tracking system if it is ready for implementation in FY
2011, or modify the existing data base, in consultation with HQ, to more completely and
transparently track EPA 404 enforcement actions, including referrals form the Corps of
Engineers and the identification of repeat and flagrant violators
Develop methods to effectively leverage other program resources to more systematically
identify potential serious Section 404 violations and take appropriate enforcement
response to address these violations. Share effective techniques with OECA for use in
developing the national wetlands enforcement strategy.
Implement existing Regional cross agency 404 enforcement training programs between
state and federal agencies and begin implementing new efforts identified by HQ to cross-
train inspectors and to train other federal and state agencies and stakeholders to identify
CWA 404 violations.
Page 31 of 82
-------
C. CWA Section 311 - Oil Pollution Act
Regions should:
Check compliance monitoring at facilities that have large quantities of oil and may have a
close proximity to population centers and/or critical infrastructures (such as drinking
water intakes) and are subject to spill prevention and facility response planning SPCC or
FRP requirements to ensure that plans are adequate, meet the regulatory requirements,
and are implemented as shown by a commitment to resources and training.
Routinely review spill notification reports, inspection reports, and other available data to
determine if routine noncompliance or the risk of spills from oil storage, including
pipelines, is being adequately addressed. Take appropriate action to address spills of oil
and hazardous substances that have occurred.
6. Reset Our Relationships with States
Every Region and State, working together, should conduct a CWA annual planning process that
brings the different components of the regional and state NPDES program (water quality
standards and assessment, permitting and enforcement) all to the table together, identifies and
discusses national, regional, and state priorities versus available resources at both the state and
federal levels, and results in collaborative annual work plans that use all available mechanisms to
get work done, such as federal and state work-sharing, innovative approaches to monitoring
facilities or addressing violations, etc.
Regions should:
Hold annual planning meetings with each State to develop collaborative annual work
plans.
Convene routine and regular (quarterly)6 meetings between the Region and State to discuss
progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement commitments, and how the State
has been performing overall in the NPDES program.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to
enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources to the
most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve
state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action when necessary to
communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal environmental
laws and ensure a level playing field between States. Where States are not taking
enforcement actions in response to serious violations, Regions are directed to take federal
action.
6 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 32 of 82
-------
Conduct a sufficient number of oversight NPDES inspections to ensure the integrity and
quality of each State or Tribe with primacy compliance monitoring programs. The
Regions have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections
needed to ensure proper state inspection conduct and documentation. Oversight
inspections are not "joint" inspections. Oversight inspections can be conducted by
accompanying state inspectors during inspections, or conducting a separate inspection at
the same facility at a later date to verify the same findings.
Implement the State Review Framework (SRF) for the NPDES program (see section
VI.G.), and associated corrective actions identified in the SRF reports.
Consider the following information when conducting state program oversight:
number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe), especially those related to
effluent exceedances or illegal discharges
number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner
number of Watch List facilities per region
results of SRF and permit quality reviews and progress in correcting identified issues.
Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA's
direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs.
COMMITMENT CWA 09: Regions should submit the collaborative EPA/State annual work
plans addressing NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities,
including work-sharing, to the Office of Compliance and the Office of Wastewater Management
by September 30, 2010 for FY 2011 activities.
7. Improve Transparency
Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the CWA should be
made public by the Regions and Headquarters, where possible, on a regular basis in a
manner easily understood and used by the public.
If data systems are not able to support reporting at end-of-year FY 2010, the Regions
should manually report using instructions specified in the multi-program fiscal year
reporting guidance memorandum.
Regions should use, and States should consider using:
the Interim Significant Noncompliance Policy for CWA Violations Associated
with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources (i.e., Interim WW
SNC Policy); and
the Regional Guidance for Tracking CWA NPDES Inspection-Related Violations
and Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance
Page 33 of 82
-------
for reporting inspections conducted, violations identified (including single event violations or
SEVs), and Wet Weather SNC determinations and resolutions in the national data system
(i.e., PCS or ICIS-NPDES) as specified in the guidance.
Regions should work with the States and Tribes to verify that their compliance and
enforcement data is input into national databases.
Regions should:
o Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases.
o Enter all federal civil judicial, non-CERCLA consent decrees into ICIS.
o Enter SRF NPDES program information into the SRF Tracker (see section
VI.G.).
o Distinguish State information from Indian country information.
o Encourage facilities and States to use NetDMR to report DMR information to
ICIS-NPDES.
Compliance monitoring activities conducted pursuant to the goals in CMS and the state-
specific plans should be reported into the appropriate national information system, either
PCS or ICIS-NPDES, in accordance with documents which establish data requirements
and reporting timeframes for those systems. States must ensure that all required
compliance and enforcement data is input or transmitted to the national databases. EPA
encourages States to expend their use of the national databases to include compliance and
enforcement data that pertains to the entire NPDES universe. Regions will work with the
States and Tribes to accomplish these goals.
Regions should review reporting practices to ensure that oil and hazardous substance
spills are timely and accurately reported to the National Response Center (NRC)
Regions should make information available to communities, including Native American
and Alaskan Natives, who lack access to the internet.
8. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's Clean Water Act programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index .html
B. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
OECA addresses drinking water pollution problems through the following SDWA programs:
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
EPA's focus on drinking water systems, including those in Indian country, is essential to
protecting communities from the acute and chronic effects of drinking water that fails to comply
with the SDWA. OECA worked with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Page 34 of 82
-------
(OGWDW), Regions, States, and Tribes with primacy to implement a new Enforcement
Targeting Tool (ETT) and Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). The ETT and ERP emphasize a
focus on high-priority systems, those with health-based violations or monitoring or reporting
violations that can mask acute health-based violations.
The ETT assigns numerical values to violations based on their severity, applies the values in a
formula, and generates a score for each violating public water system (PWS). The higher a PWS
(Public Water Supply) score, the more serious is its overall noncompliance. A PWS with a score
of 11 or higher is a high priority system for primacy agency or EPA enforcement response and
return to compliance. OECA's long term goal is to ensure that all systems with scores of 11 or
higher are returned to compliance or are put on a path to compliance (see the ERP for details)
within 6 months. Additionally this approach is designed to better help OGWDW meet its GPRA
measures.
The ETT and ERP apply equally to EPA direct implementation in States without primacy and
Indian country and implementation by States and Tribes with primacy.
/. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities
OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the SDWA in the following ways:
Safeguarding Public Health: As part of aggressively going after pollution that matters to
communities, OECA will be using all enforcement and compliance tools to assure clean
drinking water, which is so essential to community health, with continued attention to
clean drinking water in schools, to protect children's health, and on tribal lands
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
The ETT's scoring formula focuses enforcement resources on those systems with health-based
violations, those with major monitoring and reporting violations, and those that show a history of
violations across multiple rules. Its system-based methodology is intended to ensure consistency
and the integrity of the PWSS national enforcement program and to provide increased protection
for communities.
Regions, States and Tribes with primacy will use the prioritized list produced by the ETT
to identify the systems that will be addressed first, i.e., those with scores of 11 or greater,
as they work to reduce the number of systems with violations that are not addressed and
increase those that have returned to compliance. If all systems in a Region, State or Tribe
with primacy with scores of 11 or greater are addressed, those primacy entities are
expected to continue addressing the remaining systems in priority order and returning
them to compliance.
Compliance at systems in Indian county should be considered a high priority for Regions and
Tribes with primacy when developing strategies for targeting compliance assurance and
enforcement work to ensure both sustained compliance and, where there are violations, a timely
return to compliance. Regions should initiative return to compliance efforts at systems in Indian
Page 3 5 of 82
-------
country as soon as practicable after noncompliance is identified. This is essential as EPA
transitions from drinking water systems in Indian country from being a national initiative back
into the overall program.
COMMITMENT SDWA02-: Regions, as the primacy authority (and States and Tribes with
primacy, should commit to address a specific number of systems between July 2010 and June
2011 (this number should be based on the historical number of "new SNC systems" that were
generated during an average year when EPA utilized the former SNC approach). The Regions
should provide the numbers to be addressed broken down by State and Tribe with primacy, and
by EPA in non-primacy areas (e.g., Wyoming and Indian country), in the comment field. The
specific systems to be addressed will be identified using the prioritized list produced by the ETT,
to ensure that the highest-priority systems are addressed first. The new ERP requires that
systems with violations are addressed and returned to compliance.
At mid-year FY2011, EPA may implement a new commitment measure reflecting use of the
ETT.
3. Reset Our Relationships with States
Using the new ETT and ERP, Regions should work with States and Tribes with primacy in an
oversight capacity and through direct implementation in non-primacy States and Indian country
to ensure that priority PWSs are identified, addressed, and returned to compliance.
Convene routine and regular (quarterly)7 meetings between the Region and State to
discuss progress towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and
how the State has been performing overall in its implementation of the program.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to
ensure serious violations are addressed. Regions should focus oversight resources on the
most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve
state performance through these actions. Regions should also take action when necessary
to communicate what issues need attention to achieve the goals of federal environmental
laws and ensure a level playing field between States.
Regions should use strategic Performance Partnership Agreements/ Performance
Partnership Grants, other grant workplans, and monthly or quarterly meetings/calls to
review the results of using the ETT and ERP to establish expectations and to determine
respective levels of effort. Headquarters will provide quarterly data to update the ETT so
that the Regions, States and Tribes can determine which systems have a score of 11 or
more points. When high priority systems are addressed by a Region, State, or Tribe,
these count toward the Regional commitment number for the Fixed Base.
7 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 36 of 82
-------
For PWSs scoring 11 or more using the ETT, Regions should report to headquarters at
midyear and end of year on the number of systems addressed (i.e., on the path to
compliance) and returned to compliance.
EPA should consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance
plays in EPA's direct implementation program and oversight of tribal primacy programs.
As part of such consultation, Regions and Tribes should discuss plans to integrate the
new ETT and ERP with the "EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations" and the "Guidance on the Enforcement Principles
Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy" to effectively address high priority violations at
PWSs in Indian country.
4. Improve Transparency
OECA headquarters will report on progress in returning systems to compliance in its annual
national compliance report posted on the EPA website at
http ://cfpub. epa. gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/sdwa/
Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information.
Information should be made available to communities, including Native American and
Alaskan Natives, who lack access to the internet.
OECA will look at ways of making the PWS report more useable and understandable by
the public.
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's SDWA programs can be found at:
http ://www.epa. gov/compliance/monitoring/pro grams/sdwa/index .html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/sdwa/index.html
Page 37 of 82
-------
SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES
POLLUTION
A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
OECA addresses waste pollution problems through the following RCRA programs:
Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program
Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I program
Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Readers are urged to review the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy for detailed information
about goals and measures, policies which allow flexibility from OECA's expectations, program
oversight, and other aspects of the RCRA compliance monitoring program.
/. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
RCRA dictates minimum inspection frequencies for TSDFs: annually for TSDFs operated by
state/local governments, and biennially for non-governmental TSDFs. The first two
commitments apply to TSDFs owned or operated by non-governmental entities, and to TSDFs
owned but not operated by state/local/tribal governments. RCRA03 applies to TSDFs operated
by state/local/tribal governments. These inspections should be Compliance Evaluation
Inspections (CEIs).
COMMITMENT RCRA01: Project by State, and Indian country where appropriate, the
number of operating TSDFs, to be inspected by the Region during the year . Regions must
commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each State/Indian country unless OECA approves a
deviation from this requirement. Financial responsibility is a component of this inspection
requirement (see also RCRA04).
COMMITMENT RCRA03: Inspect each operating TSDF operated by States, Tribal
governments or local governments.
COMMITMENT RCRA04: Project by State and Indian country the number of financial
assurance mechanisms to be inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must commit to
review at least four (4) financial test and/or corporate guarantee submissions per year in each
State for compliance with the closure and post-closure regulations. Regions may instead choose
to review other types of financial assurance instruments for facilities that did not have a financial
assurance review during the FY 2008-FY 2010 national enforcement priority. The reviews
should be formal Financial Records Reviews, and take place within 90 days after the
submissions are received9.
8 Currently there is only one TSD in all of Indian country.
9 RCRA04 is based upon a general statutory requirement that financial responsibility compliance be included in
TSDF compliance monitoring although the statute does not specify the number of evaluations.
Page 3 8 of 82
-------
In FY2011, financial responsibility will transition from being an OECA National Priority to
being an important part of the RCRA core program.
Under the financial assurance national priority, EPA inspected over half of the TSDF
universe subject to financial assurance for closure/post-closure. EPA identified
financial tests/corporate guarantees as the most prevalent financial assurance
instruments. For closure/post-closure, the financial test/corporate guarantee made up
39% of financial instruments used and 55% of the value of those instruments. These
were also the instruments that presented the highest risk to EPA and States compared
to third party instruments. Unlike other financial responsibility mechanisms, the
financial test and corporate guarantee do not require facility owner/operators to set
aside funds to ensure proper closure/post-closure.
In returning financial responsibility to the core program, Regions should ensure
continued review of financial test/corporate guarantee submissions since they present
the greatest risk and are the most commonly-used instruments.
Regions are expected to focus on reviewing the universe of TSDFs not formally
evaluated during the national priority, and on conducting in-depth reviews of
financial test/corporate guarantee submissions.
Consistent with RCRA Section 3004(a), OECA has established an annual commitment for
financial responsibility to ensure adequate, continuing attention to this issue.
Regions are to coordinate with States to conduct these financial assurance reviews.
2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives
The relevant FY 2011 - 2013 national enforcement initiative for RCRA programs is:
Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations: Mining and mineral processing
facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector, based on
EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. Many of these facilities have impacted surrounding
communities and continue to pose high risk to human health and the environment. For example,
95 mining and mineral processing sites are on the Superfund National Priorities List and more
sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. EPA has spent over $2.4 billion
to address the human health and environmental threats to communities, such as exposure to
asbestos and lead poisoning in children, as a result of mining and mineral processing. In some
cases, EPA had to relocate families because of these threats, especially those to children in low
income communities. EPA has inspected 65 mining and mineral processing sites that pose
significant risk to communities and found many to be in serious non-compliance with hazardous
waste and other environmental laws. Contamination of groundwater and potable water has
occurred at many sites, sometimes requiring alternative drinking water supplies or removal of
lead-contaminated soil from residential yards. In other cases, toxic spills into waterways from
mining and mineral processing caused massive fish kills and impacted the livelihood of low
income communities. Some workers at mining and mineral processing facilities have been
Page 39 of 82
-------
exposed to spills and mismanagement of toxic and hazardous waste. EPA will continue its
enforcement initiative to bring these facilities into compliance with the law and protect the
environment and nearby communities.
3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities
OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for RCRA in the following ways:
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery: OECA maintains an overall
enforcement presence in RCRA that indirectly supports OSWER in their work.
Emergency Preparedness, Implementing the EPAct, Response and Homeland Security:
OECA maintains an overall enforcement presence in RCRA that indirectly supports
OSWER in their work.
4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
a. RCRA Subtitle C Program
Regions and States should inspect pollution problems that matter to their respective
communities, and develop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits.
Regions, States and Tribes with authorization10 are expected to follow the guidance in the
Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Program (RCRA CMS). To enable States to address environmental problems of concern to
communities, States may utilize flexibility in the RCRA CMS to deviate from their large
quantity generator (LQG) requirements.11 RCRA facilities may cause air, surface and
groundwater pollution. Because these facilities are frequently associated with industrial
operations, surrounding communities are often low income and minority.
Issues of emerging environmental concern to EPA and communities are listed here. These focus
areas should be considered a high priority for Regions and States when developing strategies for
targeting compliance assurance work. These should also specifically be discussed between
States and Regions when developing plans for respective activities in the Region. The areas of
concern are:
Surface Impoundments: OECA, with support from States, continues to focus on
problems associated with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in unlined surface
impoundments. There are thousands of industrial surface impoundments across the
country, many of which adversely impact communities through air, surface water, and/or
groundwater contamination, particularly in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum
refining sectors.
10 Currently no Tribes are authorized to implement the RCRA Subtitle C program
11 See OECA's Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (2007),
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
Page 40 of 82
-------
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities: These facilities conduct treatment of industrial
solid waste from third-parties. Through recent inspections, EPA has identified several
such facilities that were grossly mismanaging hazardous wastes, and treating and
discharging these wastes without permits.
Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities: EPA supports the environmentally beneficial
recycling of hazardous wastes and secondary materials. However, sham recycling and
recycling not done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant
adverse impacts to human health and the environment.
Electronic Waste Exports: Many electronic products constitute hazardous waste when
discarded. EPA encourages safe recycling or reuse of these materials in compliance with
RCRA; however, electronic waste is being increasingly illegally exported from the
United States to operations in developing countries not equipped to properly manage
these materials, resulting in substantial risks to human health and the environment in
foreign communities.
RCRA Corrective Action: EPA and authorized States should focus on facilities that have
made no meaningful progress in achieving remedial objectives, and on financially
marginal or bankrupt facilities, where use of enforcement tools are needed in order to
move the facility towards construction completion. EPA Regions should use the National
Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action when assessing EPA-lead facilities and
prioritizing corrective action enforcement actions.
The following performance expectations apply to Regions for FY2011. (Readers should consult
the RCRA CMS for additional information about, conditions applicable to, and approved
deviations from, these performance expectations.)
Regions are expected to continue to provide compliance assistance, conduct compliance
monitoring, and pursue enforcement to ensure that pollution problems that matter to
communities are aggressively addressed.
COMMITMENT RCRAOl.s: Project by State the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected
by the State during the year.
The RCRA CMS establishes minimum annual inspection expectations for LQGs: The
inspections for this commitment should be CEIs. Only one inspection per facility counts
towards this coverage measure.
COMMITMENT RCRA02: Project by State and Indian country, the number of LQGs,
including those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must
commit to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each State, and 20% in Indian country, unless OECA
approves a deviation from this requirement. In the Comment Section, provide the number of
federal facility LOG inspections.
Page 41 of 82
-------
COMMITMENT RCRAOl.s: Project by State the number of LQGs to be inspected by the
State during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG universe should be covered by combined
federal and State inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the RCRA CMS.12
COMMITMENT OSRE-04: For 100% of the financial test submissions received each fiscal
year for corrective action with cost estimates over $5 million, determine whether the submission
is in compliance. Where the submission is noncompliant, take appropriate enforcement action to
address noncompliance (e.g., notice of violation). If possible, return facility to compliance by
end of fiscal year.
To lessen the reporting burden on the Regions, OECA will continue the current ACS
commitment for RCRA correction action to review all financial test submissions as a
measure in FY 2011, but will increase the threshold for all submittals over $5 million.
The new RCRA corrective action financial responsibility measure includes the review of
financial test submissions received by the States within each Region. For those States
that are not authorized for corrective action, the Regions should be reviewing the
financial test submissions as part of EPA's role of implementing and enforcing the
corrective action program in unauthorized States. Regions that conduct financial
test/corporate guarantee reviews for the RCRA Subtitle C closure/post-closure regulatory
program may also review any corresponding corrective action submissions as part of the
completion of this program measure.
EPA reviewed 259 RCRA corrective actions financial responsibility instruments as part of
the financial assurance priority. OECA identified financial tests/corporate guarantees as
the most prevalent financial assurance instruments. For corrective action, the financial
test/corporate guarantee made up 49% of financial instruments used and 70% of the value
of those instruments.
COMMITMENT RCRA-05: In combination, Regions should commit to investigating a total of
10 high priority open dumps using OECA's targeting strategy, to be developed in FY 2010. This
commitment is intended for FY 2011 only, the transition year when the priority returns to the
core program.
Regions are expected to provide compliance assistance, conduct compliance monitoring,
and pursue enforcement to address waste management and illegal dumps in Indian
country and ensure effective transition of the Indian Country Priority Waste Focus area to
the base program. In particular, Regions are expected to continue using the OECA-
supplied list of high-priority open dumps to investigate and, as appropriate, use federal
enforcement to facilitate their clean up or closure, and deter the creation of new illegal
dump sites. OECA is coordinating these efforts with the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response to address illegal and open dumps in Indian country.
12 See OECA's Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (2007),
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
Page 42 of 82
-------
COMMITMENT RCRA-06: For non-BIA schools in Indian country, project the number of
compliance assistance visits designed to ensure the proper and compliant treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. This commitment is for FY 2011 only. (Note: Tied to, and reported
with, OSWER Measures MW9, TR1, and TR2).
Appropriate activities include at a minimum, ensuring that schools in Indian country with
known or reported environmental compliance problems are inspected in a timely manner.
b. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program
EPA is committed to ensure that underground storage tanks (USTs) are operated in a manner that
is protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and
enforcement activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and
the environmental.
A major focus of the RCRA UST program is to maintain an enforcement presence concerning
leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure, and financial responsibility violations.
Regions enforcement efforts should ensure that owner/operators of RCRA Subtitle I regulated
facilities properly prevent and detect releases and take appropriate corrective action when
releases occur.
The goal of the federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain and maintain
a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal compliance
assurance and enforcement will complement and provide oversight of state activities. EPA
should implement the UST program in Indian country in coordination with Tribes and tribal
consortium because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal UST programs.
States have primary responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action
against violators of the UST requirements. Regions are encouraged to determine whether there
are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. Federal involvement or support can
provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance from a national corporate-wide
perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple States and/or Regions, and
enhancing public awareness on a broader, more national forum.
Regions should work with States and Tribes to assure compliance with UST
requirements.
Regions should target UST inspections that will produce the greatest environmental and
human health benefits (e.g., leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, and
financial responsibility). Factors to consider in identifying facilities for inspection under
the UST program include:
Owners and operators of multiple UST facilities;
Owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country;
Owners and operators of large facilities with multiple USTs;
Owners and operators of facilities with UST that endanger sensitive ecosystems or
sources of drinking water; and
Page 43 of 82
-------
Federal facilities.
Regions are expected to take enforcement actions and assess penalties, as appropriate, to
ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.
5. Reset Our Relationships with States
RCRA compliance monitoring is a collaborative effort between OECA, Regions, and authorized
States. (EPA has direct implementation responsibility in Indian country.) Each of these entities
performs complementary but distinct roles. OECA provides national program leadership, and
oversight of Regional and state programs, aimed at increasing program effectiveness and
national consistency.
Regions help ensure that the most serious environmental problems caused by non-
compliance are being addressed. Regions should accomplish this primarily through
annual planning with States, state program oversight, strategic and targeted federal
inspections and enforcement in States, and through direct implementation in Indian
country. Regions provide capacity-building support to States on complex or multi-state
issues; and consult with States to identify compliance problems that may warrant areas of
national focus. Regions should meet and consult regularly13 (for example, quarterly) with
each authorized State to maintain communication on progress towards meeting annual
permitting and enforcement commitments, enhancing program performance and ensuring
fairness and a level playing field.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to
ensure serious violations are addressed. Regions should focus oversight resources to the
most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve
state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action where States are
not addressing serious violations to communicate necessary improvements to state
programs in order to achieve goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level
playing field between States.
Authorized States have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance,
ensuring adequate inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate
actions in response to non-compliance, and playing a vital role in alerting EPA to
regulatory implementation problems.
EPA consults with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in
EPA's direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs
RCRA corrective action is implemented by EPA and 43 authorized States and territories. Under
the National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action (NESCA) Regions should be working
13 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 44 of 82
-------
closely with States to coordinate and assist them in their targeting and enforcement activities for
RCRA corrective action. NESCA will provide support to Regions and States to address special
considerations that arise in the enforcement arena, such as the importance of enforceable
requirements in permits and orders, dealing with companies having financial difficulties,
considerations for the use of CERCLA, enforceability of institutional controls, and increasing the
transparency of enforcement efforts. As additional issues are encountered, OECA will
supplement this effort with additional analysis. OECA in conjunction with the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) is developing training on
RCRA corrective action enforcement. OECA will provide training to both Regions and States
on how to review financial test and corporate guarantee submissions for compliance.
6. Improve Transparency
At the end of the fiscal year or when otherwise available, OECA will make essential information,
such as the following, available to the public via OECA's web page, or by other means:
Results of the State Review Framework;
Results of the Annual Commitment reporting;
Results and highlights of compliance assistance efforts; and
Highlights of significant EPA and State enforcement actions.
Regions are expected to use their own comparable existing mechanisms to inform the
public. States are encouraged to do likewise.
Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information.
Information should be made available to communities, including Tribes, who lack access
to the internet.
7. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's RCRA programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/rcra/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/rcra.html
B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides OECA with authority to enforce reporting,
record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or
mixtures and the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including lead,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos.
OECA addresses toxics problems through the following TSCA programs:
TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs (note: the term New and Existing
Chemical Programs describes TSCA section 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13).
TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program
TSCA Legacy chemicals Program (PCBs and Asbestos Program which includes Worker
Protection Standards, the Model Accreditation Plan program and the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA))
Page 45 of 82
-------
/. Link with Top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics Priorities
OECA addresses the top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics priority for TSCA
programs in the following way:
Reducing Lead Poisoning by pre-education renovation: OECA addresses the OPPTS
priority by overall direction to Regions to enforce Section 406 in non-authorized States,
including screening for appropriate follow-up to tips and complaints alleging potential
Section 406 violations in tribal areas and non-authorized States.
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
TSCA's enforcement programs are significant to communities because they address chemicals
that can pose serious risks to human health. Lead-based paint is particularly dangerous to
children. Exposure may cause reduced intelligence, learning disabilities, behavior problems and
slowed physical development. Because lead-based paint is found in pre-1978 buildings, it is
more common in low income and minority communities. Asbestos in schools, if not properly
managed, can expose children, teachers and other school staff to harm that may not manifest for
years. PCBs bioaccumulate and thus cause a variety of adverse health effects. All of these
chemicals can also affect custodial workers, building renovators and similar workers. Asbestos
and PCBs are generally found in older buildings.
a. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs
The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program is exclusively a Federal program that provides
for review of the toxicity of chemicals prior to the manufacture and importation of new chemical
substances to prevent unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. Regions
implementing the New and Existing Chemical Program should:
Focus TSCA compliance activities on chemical manufacturing, distribution, processing,
use, or disposal in emerging technologies and/or use of new chemicals.
Through inspections, compliance assistance and appropriate enforcement actions, focus
on ensuring facility compliance with new chemicals requirements such as Pre-
manufacturing Notice (PMN); Significant New Use Rules (SNUR's); Low Volume
Exemptions (LVE's), and on chemicals of concern including:
o Nanotechnology - especially carbon nanotubes,
o Short chained and other chlorinated paraffins, and
o Other priority chemicals
Target existing chemical requirements for compliance with TSCA 8(e) violations.
Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. Regions
implementing this program are also expected to follow-up on all referrals received from
headquarters, States, Tribes, and the public.
Page 46 of 82
-------
In addition, Regions should:
Review and follow-up, as appropriate, disclosures submitted under the OECA Audit
Policy and Small Business Policy. Under TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs,
self disclosures received by all regions not implementing this program may be forwarded
to OECA for appropriate action.
Regions not implementing this program are to refer tips and complaints to the TSCA
New and Existing Chemicals Programs Enforcement Program for follow-up, and to
respond to questions from the regulated community.
Provide legal and technical enforcement case support, and either obtain additional
information through inspections, subpoena and federal actions as appropriate, or
determine that follow-up is not necessary. The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals
Programs Enforcement Program will assist Regions in targeting inspections.
COMMITMENT TSC01: Project the number of federal TSCA New and Existing Chemicals
Programs inspections, including those at federal facilities, for regions maintaining an investment
in core TSCA (sections 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13). In the Comment Section, provide the number of
federal facility inspections.
b. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program
Recent data show that tremendous progress has been made in the continuing effort to eliminate
childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has measured progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per
deciliter or higher. Data released in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
indicate that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning, defined as above, has declined from
approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006. The data show
that EPA was on track to meet ambitious federal government-wide goals to eliminate childhood
lead poisoning as a public health concern at those blood levels by 2010.
At the same time, new data are revealing adverse health effects to children at lower levels than
previously recognized.14 EPA, therefore, plans to begin measuring progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per
deciliter or higher. Thus, even though initial gains have been encouraging, EPA wishes to
achieve further reductions in the incidence of children with these lower, but still significantly
elevated, blood levels.
14 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 58823
Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children - how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16): 1515-
1516 http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf
Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual
function: an international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi7doFlO.1289/ehp.7688
Page 47 of 82
-------
EPA's Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the goal of alleviating the threat to human
health, particularly to young children, from environmental lead exposure in the following ways:
Establishes standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices
and maintains a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement
those standards;
Provides information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and
take actions about lead hazards in their homes;
Establishes lead-safe work practice standards for renovation, repair and painting
projects in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint;
Works to establish a national pool of renovation contractors trained and certified to
implement those standards.
For more information please visit http://www.epa.gov/lead.
Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are
expected to:
Target regulated activities located in areas of interest such as areas with known
Elevated Blood Levels or concentrations of at-risk dwellings, to reduce their number
through compliance monitoring and enforcement, regardless of the underlying source
of contamination (i.e., lead in paint, water pipes, folk medicines, etc).
Implement an integrated strategy for reduction of lead poisoning in children,
appropriate for the Region, State or Tribe, for enforcing all of the components of the
lead-based paint and other lead poison control programs.
Enforce Sections 1018, 402 and 406 in non-authorized States.
Screen for appropriate follow-up to tips and complaints alleging potential Sections
1018, 402 and 406 violations in tribal areas and non-authorized States.
In States without authorized Section 402 programs, regions should conduct
compliance monitoring activities at renovation businesses and abatement firms, and
audits of training providers. These activities should be briefly described in the work
plan submission as a rationale for any trade-offs with current compliance and
enforcement resources for the lead-based paint program.
Develop integrated strategies for areas of concern, determine the compliance status of
individual regulated entities; have primary responsibility for ensuring adequate
inspection coverage of the regulated universe; and alert EPA to regulatory
implementation issues in the field.
In addition, Regions should:
Page 48 of 82
-------
Develop integrated strategies that include methods to better target compliance
activities, such as partnering with state/tribal and local health care providers to
identify geographical lead poisoning hot spots.
Begin to commit at least 50% of current lead-based paint inspections to establish and
demonstrate a credible Renovation, Repair and Painting (R, R & P) compliance
monitoring and enforcement program.
Encourage States to seek delegation.
Appropriate oversight of authorized state/tribal Section 402 and 406 programs.
Because of variations in housing arrangements at federal facilities, particularly at
some military bases, regions should closely investigate the applicability of the lead
regulations to the particular facilities housing.
COMMITMENT LED01: Number of Section 1018/402/406 federal inspections (including
those conducted by Senior Environmental Employment Program personnel (SEEs), including
those at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility
inspections.
c. Legacy Chemicals Program (PCBs and Asbestos)
The Legacy Chemicals Program attempts to lessen chemical risk and exposure through
reductions in use and safe removal, disposal and containment of certain prevalent, high-risk
chemicals, known generally as legacy chemicals. Some of these chemicals were used widely in
commerce and introduced into the environment before their risks were known. The LCP
currently focuses on providing assistance to Federal agencies and others with responsibility for
ensuring proper use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and implementing statutory
requirements to address asbestos risks in schools.
TSCA PCBs
PCBs are a persistent toxin (PBT) that bioaccumulates in food chains and poses serious risks to
human health and the environment. Although PCB manufacture is banned, certain uses
(transformers/capacitors) are allowed under conditions which ensure that PCBs are managed
properly and not released into the environment. PCBs have also been identified in caulk used in
schools, raising concerns over potential exposure to school children, teachers, and other school
staff. PCBs (including export for disposal) are of international concern.
Authorized States and Tribes, and regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are
expected to:
Follow-up on tips and complaints based on potential risk, including spills. Response may
include referral to States that have TSCA PCB compliance monitoring grants.
Page 49 of 82
-------
Conduct inspections in each State and Indian country to assure equitable protection. For
States with TSCA PCB grants, coverage may be provided by the State rather than EPA.
Use targeting tools to identify the most important PCB sources of pollution problems and
the most serious violations, including use of screening tools/approaches, such as the
Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT), and other
information, such as community input, to support targeting of enforcement actions and to
enhance performance reporting.
Ensure that all PCB commercial storage and disposal facilities within the Region are
inspected at least once every three years. These inspections may be conducted in
conjunction with RCRA TSD inspections provided the inspector comprehensively
evaluates compliance with both programs. Regions committing to inspect less than 33%
of commercial storage and disposal facilities in a given year should provide a brief
description in the comment field of how they will ensure that all commercial PCB storage
and disposal facilities are inspected within a three year period. The description should
address inspection targeting factors including data on prior compliance history, and/or
environmental data.
Report the total number of PCB inspections at facilities other than those at commercial
storage and disposal facilities.
Focus their enforcement resources to confirm that approved closure/post-closure plans
and cost estimates reflect the current waste management and contamination situation at
PCB storage and disposal facilities.
Address PCBs found in caulk in schools by providing information to Local Education
Agencies/schools, responding to tips and complaints, and support to enforcement, as
appropriate.
Continue to implement use of PCB Tablets and PCB inspection software in inspections.
COMMITMENT PCB01: Report the total number of EPA PCB inspections, including those at
TSDFs that are PCB disposal facilities and at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, provide
the number of federal facility inspections. EPA data should be reported on a state-by-state basis.
For States where the state agency will provide inspection coverage under PCB grant, indicate in
the ACS Comment field the estimated number of inspections that the State will conduct. This
number should not be included as part of the regional ACS PCB inspection commitment number.
TSCA Asbestos
Asbestos may be present in schools and, if disturbed and released into the air, poses a potential
health risk to school children, teachers, custodial staff, and others in the school. There are no
immediate symptoms of exposure; health effects may manifest 15 or more years after exposure.
EPA requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to inspect for asbestos. When asbestos is found,
LEAs must provide notification to parents and teachers, develop and implement management
Page 50 of 82
-------
plans so that asbestos is not disturbed, or is properly removed, during renovations or other
activities (i.e., drilling to install electrical or communications lines).
Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are
expected to:
Investigate and respond (including taking enforcement action where appropriate) to any
tips/complaints containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a
violation has occurred, within a reasonable period of time. Response may include
referral to States that have TSCA asbestos compliance monitoring grants.
Inspections should be conducted in each State to assure equitable protection, and action
taken to ensure compliance. State inspections under the TSCA Asbestos/AHERA grant
can provide coverage for those States instead of the Region.
In addition, Regions are to:
Encouraged to coordinate, as appropriate, TSCA asbestos inspections at LEAs with
inspections being conducted under other TSCA programs (e.g., lead, PCB in caulk)
and/or Clean Air Act asbestos NESHAP inspections.
Ensure compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each State and in Indian
country.
To further the goal of equitable protection, OECA recommends that Regions conduct
inspections of LEAs in each State not receiving grants funds to conduct inspections.
Regions will need to provide justification for the number of inspections being projected.
Regional inspections are recommended to be targeted at LEAs with one or more of the
following characteristics: building stock of an age that is more likely to contain asbestos,
particularly those that are undergoing renovation or energy efficiency upgrades that may
disturb asbestos; at LEAs that have never been inspected; at LEAs that have not been
inspected within the past ten (10) years; at LEAs that have previously been found in
violation and/or been subject to enforcement action; and at private, religious, and charter
schools. Websites for TSCA Asbestos Information on LEAs:
o Department of Education - Public School LEAs: http://nces
.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010306/tables.asp
o US Charter Schools - Current number of Charter Schools, by State:
http ://www.uscharterschools .org/pub/uscs_docs/sp/index .htm
o Parochial School and Diocesan Locator:
http://www.ncea.org/news/SchoolDiocesanLocator.asp and
http://www.catholicusa.com/catholic_schools_online/catholic_schools.htm
Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and
credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize
Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA
Page 51 of 82
-------
(2004).
Report their inspections commitments, by State, and consider the compliance monitoring
effort being undertaken by a State that is inspecting on behalf of the Agency.
For inspections conducted with EPA credentials, review and provide feedback that
addresses the quality of the inspection/reports and the action taken by the Region.
COMMITMENT ASB01: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections, including
those at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, Regions should provide the number of
federal facility inspections. For States where the state agency will provide inspection coverage
under Asbestos grant, indicate in the ACS Comment field the estimated number of inspections
that the State will conduct. This number should not be included as part of the ACS Asbestos
inspection commitment number.
3. Reset Our Relationships with States
The Regions should work with States and Tribes to identify any obstacles to implementation of
the expectations above and work to resolve them. This includes convening routine and regular
(quarterly)15 meetings between the Region and State to discuss progress towards meeting annual
program and enforcement commitments, and how the State has been performing overall in its
implementation of the program. Where States are not meeting performance expectations,
Regions should take action to enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus
oversight resources to the most pressing performance problems in States and should work to
demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action
when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal
environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between States.
On a program specific basis:
a. PCBs
Work with states/tribes operating under TSCA compliance monitoring grants to address
these priorities as well as state/tribal priorities.
Submit mid-year and end-of-year evaluation reports to OC for each TSCA compliance
monitoring grant awarded to States and Tribes.
Continue the use of electronic technology in the field.
15 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 52 of 82
-------
Evaluate, through oversight inspection(s) or other means, the quality of inspections as
part of good grant management for those States that receive the TSCA PCB compliance
monitoring grants.
Ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of state and tribal
governments to conduct inspections on EPA's behalf, are in place with States and Tribes
that receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for PCBs, and that training
requirements are met.
Where inspections are conducted by States with EPA credentials, review state inspection
reports, provide feedback to States, and take action as appropriate. Regions should
provide reports to OECA in accordance with Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector
Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections
on Behalf of EPA (2004).
Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA's
direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs
b. TSCA Asbestos
Ensure inspection coverage in each State by EPA, Senior Environmental Employment
Program (SEE), or state/tribal inspectors.
Where States or Tribes utilize grant funds to conduct inspections on behalf of the
Regions, Regions must ensure that the States or Tribes are implementing an adequate
TSCA asbestos inspection program, provide a rationale where programs are not adequate,
and specify corrective measures.
Evaluate, through oversight inspections or other means, the quality of inspections as part
of good grant management for those States and Tribes receiving grant funds to conduct
TSCA asbestos inspections.
Encourage States and Tribes to develop their own regulations and apply for a "waiver"
where applicable.
Ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of state and tribal
governments to conduct inspections on EPA's behalf, are in place with states/tribes that
receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for TSCA Asbestos (non-waiver states
only).
Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA's
direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs
c. TSCA Lead-Based Paint Program (LBP)
Page 53 of 82
-------
To ensure national consistency, OECA's role is to provide oversight of Regional LRRP
programs.
Regions are expected to provide updates on actions and outcomes through at least
quarterly16 discussions with OECA (generally, through existing channels of
communication).
Regions should focus primarily on State/Tribal program oversight and capacity-building
to ensure States and Tribes are appropriately using tools to help ensure compliance, and
more importantly, integrating those tools to help effectively reduce elevated blood lead
levels (EBLLs) and LBP hazards particularly in identified "areas of concern"; ensure
inspection coverage in federal jurisdictions; support States/Tribes on complex or multi-
State/Tribal compliance issues; and consult with States/Tribes to identify issues that may
warrant areas of national focus in federal jurisdictions.
OECA will use a variety of mechanisms to ensure adequate oversight, including regular
meetings and consultations with States/Tribes, Annual Commitment System (ACS) grant
reviews, and oversight inspections.
4. Improve Transparency
The Regions should:
Work with the States and Tribes using EPA credentials to ensure that the data on
inspections they conduct on EPA's behalf is input into national databases. For waiver
States, ensure compliance and enforcement data provided in aggregate form as part of
midyear and end of year evaluation reports. (Not applicable to Lead program)
Enter all federal inspections (including ICDS) and enforcement cases into ICIS.
Publicize regional enforcement actions taken through press releases.
Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information.
Information should be made available to communities, including Tribes, who may lack
access to the internet.
5. Relevant Policies, and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's TSCA programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/index.html
16 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 54 of 82
-------
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/pro grams/tsca/asbestoes .html
Policies and guidance pertinent to OECA's FY 2011 priorities are the following:
September 30, 2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA
Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to
Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA.
August 5, 2005 memorandum for the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for
State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf.
C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers and formulators to provide accurate
information about pesticides and associated risks. Unregistered and ineffective antimicrobials,
as well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims, pose a potential
public health threat when the public makes inappropriate choices based on inaccurate or
misleading information. Products used in agricultural or structural pest control settings may pose
health risks to those working with or exposed to those chemicals.
A major focus of the FIFRA program is to provide assistance, training, and oversight to States
and Tribes carrying out FIFRA related compliance and enforcement activities under cooperative
enforcement agreements. The statute gives States primary compliance monitoring and
enforcement responsibility for the use of pesticides within their respective jurisdictions. Under
FIFRA, EPA directly implements primary use enforcement responsibility in Indian country.
However, through cooperative agreements, Tribes are allowed to enforce similar provisions
under their own code.
1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities
OECA addresses top Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) priorities for the FIFRA program in
the following ways:
Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety: FIFRA's Worker Protection Standards provide
critical protection to certain workers and handlers of pesticides in agricultural, nursery,
greenhouse, and forestry occupations. OECA addresses this priority area in both the
State Grant Guidance and by including aspects of this priority in both the
Fumigant/Fumigation and Worker Protection focus areas of the NPM Guidance.
Antimicrobial Hospital Disinfectants Efficacy/Misbranding: This area directly impacts
public health by ensuring the safe and effective use of disinfectants in hospitals. OECA
has been cooperating with OPP for several years in this effort and will continue that
support through recognition of the antimicrobial initiative as a specific expectation in the
core FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program.
Pesticides and Water Resource Protection: Protecting water bodies from pesticide
contamination helps assure the safety of those water resources. OPP has focused regulatory
efforts, including establishing restrictive use requirements, on key pesticides of concern. In
Page 55 of 82
-------
addition, a recent court ruling has determined that pesticides used in aquatic settings are not
exempt from regulation under the Office of Water's National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Activities are under way to develop a process to bring
pesticide use into compliance with the NPDES regulations.
Soil Fumigation: Due to a re-evaluation of the risks associated with the use of soil
fumigants, OPP has recently announced changes to product labeling and use directions
for the use of these highly toxic pesticides. In addition to compliance monitoring and
enforcement relating to the use of all fumigants, OECA is specifically addressing this
priority in the NPM Guidance through outreach/compliance assistance activities to
support implementation of the new label changes for soil fumigants. Soil fumigation is
included in both the Fumigant/Fumigation and Worker Protection focus areas. OECA's
State Grant Guidance also addresses soil fumigation through outreach, education, and
compliance activities.
Pesticide Container-Containment Regulation Implementation: Regulations covering
pesticide container and containment requirements are still being phased in and most
states/tribes are actively engaged in outreach and compliance assistance activities.
OECA addresses this priority in its State Grant Guidance but is not addressing it in the
NPM Guidance at this time.
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Agricultural farm workers, pesticide applicators, other lower paid workers, and these workers'
families are most likely to be at risk from failure to comply with FIFRA. For example, improper
labeling or directions on fumigants can result in misapplication and serious exposure to acutely
toxic pesticides, leading to hospitalization or death. Risks posed by fumigants and other
pesticides to workers and nearby communities can last for several days or weeks after an
application. Due to the proximity of housing to treated agricultural areas, farm worker families
have been found to have higher levels of exposure to pesticides than non-farm families.
The goal of the FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program is to assess the
behavior and performance of the regulated universe and to address products that violate FIFRA
that could adversely affect the quality of life in our communities.
EPA pesticides programs are expected to maintain a strong core FIFRA compliance monitoring
and enforcement program which ensures compliance with and effective enforcement of FIFRA
regulatory requirements. The core program should include compliance and enforcement
activities covering: pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requirements (FIFRA Good
Laboratory Practice Standards), efficacy of hospital disinfectant products, pesticide producing
establishment registration and annual production data reporting, import and export requirements,
and registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse effects. The core program also supports efforts
to protect human health and the environment, including water resources, through support and
oversight of state and tribal monitoring and enforcement of pesticide use/misuse.
Page 56 of 82
-------
In conducting this work, Regions are expected to place special emphasis on the key focus areas
identified below. (State and tribal programs may also be involved in supporting these activities,
as appropriate, by including relevant activities in the negotiated cooperative agreements.)
Focus Area A: Fumigants/Fumigation
Fumigants are a class of highly toxic pesticides that are efficacious in a gaseous stage, making
them very hazardous to handle and use. These products have a wide range of application use,
including treatment of residential structures, warehouses, transportation vehicles, grains and
other agricultural commodities, and soil. Improper or inadequate use directions and safety
precautions on the product labeling and improper use of these products often result in serious
exposure incidents potentially leading to death or hospitalization. Due to the potential risk
associated with fumigant use, it is critical that EPA and the States work collaboratively to
proactively monitor compliance with existing product labeling requirements as well as proper
use of fumigant products.
In FY2008, OPP released a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) that requires important
label changes incorporating significant new safety measures for soil fumigant pesticides to
increase protections for agricultural handlers, workers and bystanders (e.g., people who live,
work, or otherwise spend time near fields that are fumigated). The RED addresses the fumigant
pesticides chloropicrin, dazomet, metam-sodium/metam-potassium (including MITC), and
methyl bromide. Labeling changes required by the RED are expected to be in the market place
by 2010. Consistent with OPP's fumigant initiative, outreach and compliance monitoring will be
promoted to make users aware of future labeling changes for soil fumigants.
The fumigant focus area encompasses product regulatory compliance and use/application
compliance for all areas of fumigation including structural (residential and commercial),
transportation vehicles and containers, soil, agricultural commodities, and other products.
Targeting should consider production factors (facility location, production volume, and product)
as well as use/application factors (use patterns of concern and volume/frequency of use). For
FY2011, Regions are expected to implement one or more of the compliance monitoring
approaches identified below and to initiate appropriate enforcement actions.
States have primary responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action
against violators of pesticides use requirements (referred to as "primacy"). Regions are
encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts.
Federal involvement or support can provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance
from a national corporate-wide perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple
States and/or Regions, and enhancing public awareness on a broader, more national forum.
OECA will work with OPP to obtain FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) information across a broad class of
pesticide fumigants including structural, grain, and soil, among others. Section 6(a)(2)
information, together with information regarding fumigant incidents from the States, press and
other available sources, will help target fumigant uses where an enforcement monitoring
presence may significantly deter future violations.
Page 57 of 82
-------
Regions should work with their States to identify federal and state Producer
Establishment Inspection (PEI) inspection opportunities, with special emphasis
placed on the priority fumigants frequently involved in exposure incidents (i.e.,
sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, metam-
sodium, and chloropicrin). State PEI inspections can be applied toward meeting
negotiated PEI inspection commitments within existing cooperative agreements. PEI
inspections conducted by regional inspectors will continue to help build regional
expertise. Physical sampling and analysis is encouraged.
Regions should work with their States to identify opportunities for fumigation
use/misuse inspections in a variety of venues, with special emphasis on those use
patterns frequently associated with exposure incidents (i.e., residential buildings,
commercial grain elevators and granaries, on-farm granaries, seed warehouses, and
agricultural crop soils). Where appropriate, these State inspections maybe applied
toward negotiated cooperative agreement use/misuse inspection commitments.
When monitoring compliance in application settings subject to FIFRA's Worker
Protection Standards (WPS), such as on-farm use of grain or soil fumigants,
compliance with the WPS labeling requirements should also be monitored.
Consistent with the State Grant Guidance, States should conduct education, outreach
and compliance assistance activities for communicating the new labeling
requirements for soil fumigants. Although implementation of the soil fumigant RED
labeling requirements will focus on training and compliance assistance through mid-
2012, in instances of misuse or abuse, appropriate enforcement response should be
taken.
Enforcement actions should be pursued under both State and Federal authorities, as appropriate.
Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state investigations should be
considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when appropriate. Regions should work
with States to identify opportunities within existing cooperative agreements for federal
involvement or case support (particularly in cases involving human exposure, death, or other
serious non-compliance). Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to States and Regions
in support of enforcement actions. Headquarters will develop a plan to coordinate filing of
enforcement cases to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.
Focus Area B: Imports
EPA's enforcement program continues to address the illegal importation of noncompliant
pesticide products into the United States by bringing enforcement actions against importers and
others; providing compliance assistance to manufacturers, importers and brokers; and working
with other governments, agencies and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of unsafe
products entering our country.
Importation of pesticides and devices is governed by FIFRA Section 17(c). All imported
pesticides intended for use in the United States must be registered as required by Section 3 of
Page 58 of 82
-------
FIFRA before being permitted entry into the US. Pesticide devices that are imported, although
not required to be registered, must not bear any statement, design, or graphic representation that
is false or misleading in any particular. Pesticides and devices must be properly labeled in
accordance with FIFRA and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 156. When
importing pesticides or devices to the U.S., the importer must submit to the appropriate EPA
regional offices on EPA Form 3540-1 "Notice of Arrival (NOA) of Pesticides and Devices".
Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations prohibit
the importation of pesticides without a completed Notice of Arrival (NOA).
Illegal pesticide imports include a wide range of products, such as naphthalene mothballs and
related products (moth tablets, clothes hangers and urinal cakes), chlorine pool disinfectants,
insecticidal chalk, roach killers, mosquito coils and rat poisons. Illegal pesticide imports, which
can present significant human health and environmental risks, have been linked to poisonings of
children and pets resulting from use of these products.
EPA Regions will be the primary source of inspections and enforcement for this focus area,
States may become involved through Region-to-State referrals to monitor import compliance or
States may encounter imported products during the course of their other compliance monitoring
inspections. States should be made aware of EPA's strong interest in import compliance and be
encouraged to cooperate and collaborate with EPA when situations warrant.
Regions should work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to identify
pesticides and/or pesticidal devices in violation of FIFRA and prohibit illegal imports
from entering the U.S. channels of trade. Regions should conduct pesticide import
inspections based on identified targets at border crossings and other ports of entry,
conduct sweeps and take samples, when appropriate.
Regions may also monitor import compliance through inspections at the designated
destination point for the imported products. Such inspections would be conducted
after the imported pesticides have cleared US Customs and have entered into the
country.
While reviewing Notices of Arrival (NO As), Regions should also screen for potential
discrepancies concerning country of origin sources for active ingredients used to
produce registered pesticides. Where potential discrepancies are noted, follow-up
PEIs may be warranted to further investigate the matter.
Regions may also conduct educational campaigns in urban neighborhoods that are at
high risk for using illegal imports to facilitate reporting of tips/complaints from the
public about the sale/distribution of illegal pesticide imports.
Regions are expected to take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum
deterrence effect and compliance impact.
Focus Area C: Worker Protection
Page 59 of 82
-------
Agricultural farm workers and pesticide applicators face a disproportionately high risk of
exposure to pesticides (from mixing, loading and applying pesticides; hand labor tasks in
pesticide treated crops; and pesticide drift from neighboring fields). Studies show that farm
worker families have higher levels of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families (take-
home exposure transfer of pesticide residues and proximity of housing to treated areas). There
are 2 million farm workers in the US, over a million certified applicators, and 2-3 million
noncertified applicators applying pesticides under the supervision of certified applicators. It is
important to protect farm workers from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in
the workplace and viability as a community.
Under FIFRA, States with primacy enforce pesticide use, including the worker protection
standard. States with primacy also conduct compliance monitoring inspections. Regions are
encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts.
Where EPA implements FIFRA, including in Indian country, the Agency enforces requirements
governing pesticide use and conducts compliance monitoring inspections.
To optimize the risk reduction potential of compliance monitoring, Regions are expected to place
particular emphasis on farming activities that typically involve frequent use of highly toxic
pesticides, such as in fruit and vegetable production and on-farm grain and soil fumigation.
Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities should include product compliance and use
compliance inspections. Performance expectations for an active federal cooperative
compliance/enforcement role with WPS include:
Regions should work with their state partners to target federal and state PEI
inspections (focusing on high toxicity pesticides subject to WPS labeling
requirements and associated with high-risk applications/uses such as fruit and
vegetable production or on-farm grain and soil fumigation) to ensure label
compliance.
Monitor use compliance in application settings (e.g., on-farm grain or soil fumigation,
applications to fruit and/or vegetable crops) subject to WPS and monitor compliance
with the WPS labeling requirements. Focus should be on chemicals with high risk for
exposure.
Enforcement actions should be pursued under both State and Federal authorities, as
appropriate.
States should be encouraged to refer use and non-use cases to EPA, when appropriate.
Regions are expected to work with States to identify opportunities within existing
agreements for federal involvement or support (particularly cases involving exposure
or death).
Page 60 of 82
-------
Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during State
investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when
appropriate.
Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to States and Regions in support of
enforcement actions.
Commitment FIFRA-FED1: Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections, including those
at federal facilities. Each Region should conduct a minimum of 4 FIFRA inspections. In the
Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility inspections.
3. Reset Our Relationships with States
The Regions should work with States and Tribes to implement the expectations above, including:
Convene routine and regular (quarterly)17 meetings between the Region and State to
discuss progress towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and
how the State has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. Note:
meetings can be via conference calls but at least one meeting each year should be fact-to-
face.
Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to
enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources to the
most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve
state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action when necessary to
communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal environmental
laws and ensure a level playing field between States.
Negotiate, oversee the implementation of and review state and tribal performance under
the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements following existing policy and
guidance.
Seek state and tribal cooperation on implementation of focus areas under this NPMG.
When doing mid or end-of-year reviews, include review cases based on complaints by
farm-workers; review complaints and violations of OECA priorities such as fumigants
and high profile cases to evaluate whether the subsequent enforcement response was
appropriate.
When reviewing state or tribal producing-establishment inspection reports submitted to
EPA, ensure that inspections evaluate compliance with FIFRA export requirements.
17 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly
frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon
existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 61 of 82
-------
Provide States and Tribes targeting assistance, especially related to inspections of
producing establishments.
Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA's
direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs
4. Improve Transparency
Currently, OECA is exploring ways to modernize and update databases that contain information
on pesticide inspections and enforcement action by state and tribal grantees (FTTS/NCDB) that
will improve data quality, and provide more timely data entry and public access. Regions are
expected to continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data
and their own federal inspection and enforcement data.
Regions should:
Continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data and
federal inspection and enforcement data.
Distinguish State information from Indian country information.
Make information available to communities and Tribes, who may lack access to the
internet.
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's FIFRA programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/pro grams/fifra/index .html
http://wwwp.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/pro grams/fifra/wps .html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra/index.html
Policies and guidance pertinent to OECA's FY 2011 priorities are the following:
FY2011 -2013 Grant Guidance will be posted at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html (2008-2010 is up currently)
FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities: Final Interpretive Rule:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1983frnotice.pdf
Procedures Governing the Rescission of State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for
Pesticide Use Violations:
http://www.epa.gOv/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/l 981 frnotice.pdf
EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-
appendix4c.pdf
Factors To Consider When Establishing A Risk-Based Targeting Strategy For Worker
Protection Outreach And Compliance Monitoring Activities:
Page 62 of 82
-------
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-
appendix4d.pdf
Multilingual Labeling for Imports:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/multilanglab
el.pdf
Questions and answers on supplemental labeling, effective date, registration status for
labeling purposes, foreign purchaser acknowledgement statements, and confidentiality:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/supplabel.pd
f
Questions and answers on research and development pesticides and active ingredient
concentrations:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/ai.pdf
FIFRA Inspection Manual:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/ind
ex .html
WPS Inspection Manual:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/wps/ind
ex .html
Project Officer Manual: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/ag/manual.html
D. Specific Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Enforcement Program Performance Expectations
The majority of OECA Programs fall under Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan: Enforcing
Environmental Laws. Planning for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) enforcement and the RCRA Corrective Action program
commitments were covered under Goal 3 of the Agency's Strategic Plan through FY2010, and
will be moved to Goal 5 starting in FY 2011. The decision to integrate CERCAL enforcement
and RCRA Correction Action into Goal 5 occurred too late to move the national program
guidance for these activities from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
NPM guidance into the OECA NPM guidance by the time of publication. Therefore, Regions
must consider the OSWER NPM guidance for FY 2011 Region program direction for Superfund
enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action.
/. Link with Top OSWER Priorities
OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for CERCLA in the following ways:
Land Revitalization: Through its Brownfields program, EPA will continue to provide for
the assessment and cleanup of Brownfield sites, to leverage redevelopment opportunities,
and to help preserve green space, offering combined benefits to local communities.
OECA can facilitate reuse by clarifying liability at sites of federal interest (or for
communities particularly impacted by the economic downturn), when perceived liability
remains an obstacle and EPA involvement is critical. Brownfields are described in more
detail in the Goal 3 NPM Guidance published by OSWER.
Page 63 of 82
-------
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Enforcement assures that parties responsible for contamination step up to their cleanup
responsibility. As part of the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, OECA will take early and focused
enforcement efforts to compel cleanup. Those efforts include increasing enforcement earlier in
the pipeline at non-emergency removal action and RI/FS stages; expediting remedial action by
holding parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and scheduled cleanup commitments; and
rejuvenating the process for early identification of responsible parties to support increased site
assessment, NPL listings, and early enforcement activities
EPA's Superfund enforcement GPRA goals and performance expectations for FY 2011 are:
COMMITMENT OSRE-01: Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of
remedial action at 95% of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
COMMITMENT OSRE-02: Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for
sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to
DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off.
OSWER's National Program Managers Guidance for FY2011 establishes priorities for EPA's
Federal Facilities Response program: conducting cleanup and response work at contaminated
sites and rendering formerly contaminated sites Ready for Reuse. EPA has Federal Facility
Agreements in place at almost all Federal facility NPL sites regarding the cleanups conducted by
the facilities and EPA's oversight of those cleanups. Those agreements lay out procedures for
resolving disputes. Regions are expected to use the procedures of the agreements, or other
applicable enforcement authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in applicable
circumstances), when Federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or
with other legal requirements. Additionally, Regions and headquarters offices should work
together to get remaining NPL sites as well as new NPL sites under agreements or other legally-
enforceable agreements.
Environmental justice (E J) is a priority for OECA's waste programs, promoting healthy and
environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to integrate environmental
justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by:
Affirming its commitment to ensure that Regions and States use EJ criteria when
enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals.
Affirming its commitment to ensure that institutional controls are implemented at sites in
environmental justice areas of concern.
Conducting an environmental justice review of new policy and guidance documents
before they become final.
3. Working With States, Tribes and Local Communities
EPA will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative,
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei_action_plan_12-09.pdf designed to enhance headquarters
and regional program engagement with States, local communities and stakeholders to
Page 64 of 82
-------
meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and the
management of hazardous substances and waste. The initiative provides an opportunity for EPA
to refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on existing good practices, and
apply them consistently in EPA processes. Proactive, meaningful engagement with States, local
governments and communities will enable EPA to obtain better information about the
environmental problems and local situations - leading to more informed and effective policies
and decisions.
4. Improve Transparency
The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) is the main database for Superfund information. The public can request specific
reports by going to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/. In addition, Regions should continue to
provide site-specific fact sheets, which include enforcement information, on regional web pages.
Compliance data will distinguish State information from Indian country information. Information
should be made available to communities and Tribes, who lack access to the internet.
Page 65 of 82
-------
SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
/. Criminal Enforcement Priorities
The criminal enforcement program will emphasize these priority areas:
EPA Enforcement Goals
National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2011-13
Regional Enforcement Priorities
Repeat or chronic civil noncompliance
Import/export cases
During FY 2011, the criminal enforcement program will also continue to implement its "tiering"
approach to case selection and investigation. OCEFT collects data on a variety of case attributes
to describe the range, complexity, and quality of our national docket. Data for selected attributes
will be used to categorize cases into three tiers based on the severity of the crime associated with
the alleged violation (Tier one being the most significant).
The data elements used in the tier methodology are directly linked to the upward departures
identified under the Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines. These include information about
the human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death or serious injury), the nature of the
pollutant and the release, (e.g., toxic pollutant, continuing violation) and the characteristics of the
subject(s) (e.g., national corporations, repeat violators). The tier designation will be used
throughout the investigative process including case selection and direction of resources for case
support.
2. Link with Top Program Office Priorities
The criminal enforcement program works closely and in an integrated fashion with OECA's civil
enforcement program, and will work more closely with EPA's regulatory programs in order to
align environmental crimes investigations with program priorities. The criminal enforcement
program will support program priorities through enhanced criminal case screening, coordination
and communication.
3. Reset Our Relationships with Law Enforcement Partners That Support State
Environmental Crimes Investigations and Prosecutions
The criminal enforcement program will work cooperatively with the Regions and other law
enforcement organizations as appropriate to:
Ensure States have adequate capacity and authority to pursue environmental crimes.
Regions and States are expected to take enforcement actions, assess penalties, as
appropriate, and refer matters for criminal investigation to ensure optimum deterrence
effect and compliance impact
Page 66 of 82
-------
Emphasize and increase civil-criminal coordination and information sharing, including
consistent and regular case screening conducted by regional civil enforcement and the
criminal enforcement Special Agents-in-Charge (SACs), in which information is
exchanged about potential violations to ensure they are addressed through the most
appropriate enforcement tool - administrative, civil or criminal.
Adhere to OECA's parallel proceedings policy when both civil and criminal violations are
present in an individual case and ensure all civil and criminal staff are trained on parallel
proceedings.
4. Improve Transparency
The criminal enforcement program will:
Leverage criminal enforcement's field presence by publicizing the program with
innovative press and outreach techniques. In addition to publicizing prosecutions through
the media, criminal enforcement will continue several initiatives to enlist the public's
help in identifying environmental violations and violators and to provide more
information about criminal cases prosecuted, including enhancements to the Report a
Violation and Fugitives web sites.
Expand the public information about successfully prosecuted criminal cases posted on the
OCEFT website, including the geographic location of those cases.
Maintain the Summary of Criminal Prosecutions.
Page 67 of 82
-------
SECTION VII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA
PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5
In addition to the national initiatives and programs that can be specifically assigned to one of the
four Strategic sub-objectives of water, air, waste/toxic/pesticides, and criminal enforcement,
OECA has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one sub-objective. These
programs are: Federal Activities, Multi-media, Compliance Incentives, Indian country, and
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, OECA has
specific training and state oversight program requirements.
A. Specific Federal Activities Program Performance Expectations
Federal activity enforcement work focuses on two areas: fostering pollution prevention through
international cooperation and assisting federal agencies in making environmentally sound
decisions which includes early public involvement. This work implements two of OECA's FY
2011 goals. Through the international work, OECA addresses pollution that can affect the health
and welfare of people in the United States. Through its National Environmental Policy Act
oversight, OECA promotes sound federal environmental decisions and maximizes mitigation
through intense collaboration, ensures federal compliance of environmental statutes, and
promotes public engagement to enhance transparency of federal proposals.
Regions should work to assure international compliance and prevent illegal trans-boundary
movement of hazardous waste by:
Improve environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 6 of the
U.S./Mexico Border 2012 plan (Regions VI and IX).
Enhance enforcement, compliance, and capacity building efforts with Mexico and
Canada relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for
hazardous waste, CFCs, selected chemicals (e.g., PCBs, mercury), and other regulated
substances (Border Regions).
Improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border and points of entry into
the United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
(all Regions).
Promote international environmental enforcement through participation in relevant
organizations and networks, such as the Enforcement Working Group of the North
American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and the International
Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), and, in particular,
it's Seaport Environmental Security Network (regional participation as appropriate,
based on subject matter).
Fulfill International agreements and the Agency's RCRA obligations regarding
notification of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste (all Regions).
Page 68 of 82
-------
Review the permit and compliance status of U.S. receiving facilities in connection with
100% of the notifications for the import of hazardous waste they receive from HQ EPA
and, based on the review, recommend consent or objection to notifications within the
time periods allowed under applicable international agreements (all Regions).
Regions should implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by:
Fulfilling the Agency obligations under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and
related laws, directives, and Executive Orders.
Targeting high impact federal program areas (e.g., transportation, Appalachian
mountaintop mining, and energy projects) to promote cooperation and innovation,
and public involvement toward a more streamlined and transparent environmental
review process.
Promoting Environmental Justice considerations throughout the environmental
decision-making process.
Fostering cooperation and promote collaboration with other Federal agencies to
ensure compliance with applicable environmental statutes; promote better integration
of pollution prevention, ecological risk assessment and Environmental Justice
considerations into their programs; encourage public involvement early in the process
to maximize transparency; and provide technical assistance in developing projects
that prevent adverse environmental impacts to improve the Nation's air quality and
protect America's waters.
Carrying out EPA's NEPA/CAA section 309 review responsibilities to review and
comment on all major proposed federal actions to ensure identification, elimination,
or mitigation of significant adverse effects, and make the comments available to the
public.
Carrying out EPA's responsibilities to comply with NEPA and address other cross-
cutting issues@ (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act,
and Executive Orders on Environmental Justice, wetlands and flood plains).
Making categorical exclusion determinations or prepare environmental analyses (EISs
or EAs) for new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits, for states/tribes without authorized NPDES programs; off-shore oil and gas
sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA laboratories, and facilities; and
Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants.
Making categorical exclusion determinations or prepare environmental analyses (EISs
or EAs) for Special Appropriation grants (including the Colonias Wastewater
Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) for wastewater, water
supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment Infrastructure Fund
Page 69 of 82
-------
for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects; and
reviews conducted under the "voluntary NEPA policy".
Entering the results of their ' 309 EIS reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the
Lotus Notes EIS Tracking Database maintained by HQ OF A, and the SAAP system
maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, Regions should report to the
Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews and NEPA
compliance actions pursuant to the Office of Federal Activity's GPRA reporting
process, and provide other reports as may be required by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
B. Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Program
Performance Expectations
EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right-to-Know under EPCRA 313 and
release notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 and
312. EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemicals entering the
environment, and on the storage of chemicals at facilities. EPA, States, Tribes, local entities, and
communities rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA authorities to prepare local chemical
emergency response plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies.
EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and within required time frames. Although
there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, for
smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. Regions and States should inspect facilities that
may be contributing to pollution problems that matter to their respective communities, and
develop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits.
/. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities
OECA addresses the top Office of Environmental Information priority for the EPCRA programs
by increasing compliance of non-reporters.
2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are
expected to:
A. EPCRA 313:
Inspect or send enforcement information letters to enforcement targets developed by
OECA and OEI for FY 2011 to address the following categories of concern:
o Potential non-reporters (facilities that report in one year but fail to report the
following year).
o Potential data quality issues (facilities with significant changes in release
estimates from one year to the next).
o Facilities that submit a Form A after having previously submitted a Form R, and
concerns exist as to the accuracy of this change.
Page 70 of 82
-------
o The submission of forms with errors significant enough to prevent the input of
data into the Toxic Release Inventory.
Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. OEI may provide
additional targeting as part of an initiative focused on communities, chemicals or sectors
of concern.
Any inspections resulting from any of these targeting efforts will count towards the
Region's overall inspection commitments.
In addition, Regions should:
Review and follow-up on, as appropriate, disclosures submitted under the OECA Audit
Policy and Small Business Policy.
OECA will assist in targeting inspections, but the Region is expected to provide legal and
technical enforcement case support, and either obtain additional information through
federal investigation, show cause letter, subpoena and issue appropriate federal actions as
appropriate; or determine that follow-up is not necessary.
Conduct at least four on-site data quality inspections
Conduct at least twenty on-site non-reporter inspections.
COMMITMENT EPCRA 01: Project the number of EPCRA 313 data quality inspections.
COMMITMENT EPCRA 02: Project the number of EPCRA 313 non-reporter inspections.
B. EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103
Regions should:
Use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal resources on national and
regional priority areas.
As described in the CAA Section 112r guidance, inspections at CAA 112r high-risk
facility should include an evaluation of EPCRA sections 304, 311, and 31 and CERCLA
section 103.
Consider high-risk facility criteria specific to facilities that are not required to submit an
RMP, such as the presence of significant quantities of CERCLA hazardous or EPCRA
extremely hazardous chemicals, proximity to population centers, a history of significant
accidental releases, and any other information that indicates a facility may be high-risk.
Page 71 of 82
-------
Investigate and respond (including taking enforcement action where appropriate) to any
complaint containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a
violation has occurred, within a reasonable period of time.
3. Reset Our Relationships with States
The Regions should continue coordinating with States and Tribes.
4. Improve Transparency
The Regions should
Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases.
Enter all federal civil judicial consent decrees into ICIS.
5. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Additional information about OECA's EPCRA programs can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/epcra/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/pro grams/epcra.html
C. Specific Multimedia Program Performance Expectations
Environmental harm often occurs across air, water and land. The multimedia compliance and
enforcement program fosters a comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental
problems because many facilities and companies operate in violation of more than one
environmental statute. "Comprehensive" means compliance with the applicable provisions of all
environmental laws used to achieve broad-based environmental benefits. A multimedia strategy
to target and address compliance problems and environmental harm results in more effective
overall management of a facility's or a company's environmental liabilities and is generally more
cost-effective than bringing separate media-specific enforcement actions. Multimedia-focused
activities, including enforcement actions, reflect the goals of federal innovation and can lead to
novel enforcement and compliance incentive approaches to address complex and emerging
environmental problems.
OECA will work with Regions to develop a National Enforcement Initiative to assure
compliance in the energy extraction sector.
Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws: As the nation
expands its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we
develop "clean energy" sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction
activities, such as new techniques for oil and gas extraction and coal mining, pose a risk of
pollution of air, surface waters and ground waters if not properly controlled. For example, an
unprecedented acceleration of oil and gas leasing and development has led to a significant rise in
the level of air pollution throughout the intermountain West. Drilling activities have led to
concerns about ground water pollution and the safety of drinking water supplies in various parts
Page 72 of 82
-------
of the country. To address these emerging problems, EPA will develop an initiative to assure that
energy extraction activities are complying with federal requirements to prevent pollution of our
air, water and land. This initiative will be undertaken in particular areas of the country where
energy extraction activities are concentrated, and the focus and nature of our enforcement
activities will vary with the type of activity and pollution problem presented
D. Specific Indian Country Program Performance Expectations
EPA directly implements federal compliance monitoring and enforcement activity in Indian
country unless and until a Tribe obtains program approval. Only seven of over 300 eligible
federally-recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) are approved to implement the enforcement parts of
multiple environmental programs. EPA, therefore, maintains direct implementation
responsibilities for most statutes in the majority of Indian country. In developing this Guidance,
OECA is clarifying the commitments of the Regions who implement the programs where Tribes
do not currently have program approval, and the oversight activities for Regions to review and
oversee approved tribal programs. The responsibilities and commitments of the authorized Tribes
are also specified in each of the media discussions in Sections II, III, and IV.
/. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
In FY 2011, EPA's enforcement and compliance work in Indian country is included in each
program area within this NPM Guidance. Each area includes language and commitments that
clearly distinguish between EPA direct implementation, EPA oversight, and approved tribal
program implementation (e.g., language distinguishing who conducts the work within Indian
country (EPA or Tribe with an approved program).
EPA's work under the three Indian Country initiatives - Schools, Drinking Water and Waste -
over the past several years has led to increased understanding of environmental compliance and
improved compliance. OECA expects the Regions to continue activities listed in the media
sections of this Guidance to ensure the gains made in these priorities are reinforced with
continued compliance, monitoring and enforcement activities.
2. Maintain Our Relationships with Tribes
Consultation between Tribes and EPA is essential to effectively address and prioritize the serious
pollution problems facing Indian country. Consultation is particularly important as EPA
emphasizes the central role that enforcement and compliance play in our direct implementation
work in Indian country and oversight of approved tribal programs. Consultation is also crucial to
facilitate complementary federal and tribal enforcement and compliance programs.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to consult with Tribes on how to integrate existing and new
enforcement policies with Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, the "EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on
Indian Reservations" and the "Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984
Indian Policy." Integration will enable EPA to address, including through aggressive
enforcement where needed, noncompliance at tribal and non-tribal facilities in a timely manner.
Page 73 of 82
-------
In that way, EPA and Tribes can ensure that people living in Indian country have clean air, water
and land.
3. Improve Transparency
Regions and OECA should work with each EPA National Program Manager to provide tribes
and tribal members with Indian-country specific information on compliance assistance,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in a user-friendly format. To ensure equal
access to information, material should be available on-line (the Internet) and off-line (at schools,
libraries, community centers, etc.). In addition, Regions should continue to verify facility-
specific information and ensure that compliance and enforcement data and work in Indian
country are placed in the appropriate national databases and delineated as "Indian country" or
"tribal."
4. Relevant Policies and Guidances
Executive Order 13175 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eol3175.htm
EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations"
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/epaindian-mem.pdf
Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/84indianpolicy.pdf
F. Specific Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations
EPA's compliance and enforcement program involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and
installations spread across nearly 30% of the nation's territory, among which are some 10,000
currently regulated under the Agency's various statutes. As such, it is one of the EPA's largest
and most diverse sectors to oversee. Given limited resources, the primary focus in this sector has
been on monitoring and enforcement, given stewardship opportunities and reliable compliance
assistance offered by others, including at FedCenter, the sector's on-line environmental
stewardship and compliance assistance center sponsored by more than a dozen federal agencies.
Further, while these federal installations are sometimes subject to special provisions of
environmental law, EPA's general practice and policy is to hold them to the same standard of
compliance as private facilities. EPA's federal facilities enforcement and compliance programs
are at http://www.epa. gov/enforcement/federalfacilities/index .html
FFEO, in partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and expand FedCenter as the
central point for federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas emission response and
compliance with new Executive Order 13514 on federal sustainability.
See http://www.fedcenter.gov/
In an effort to effectively focus limited resources, FFEO and the Regional Federal Facilities
Managers annually negotiate Integrated Strategies as part of the National Federal Facilities
Program Agenda. These integrated strategies align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship
Page 74 of 82
-------
activities and help achieve environmental and health benefits by addressing those problems that
matter to communities. In recent years, FFEO and the Regions implemented Integrated
strategies in several areas, including stormwater (started in FY 2006), federal underground
storage tanks (FY 2007), federal prisons (FY 2009), RCRA non-TSDFs (FY 2009), and
vulnerable populations (under consideration in FY 2010). In FY 2011, Regions are expected to
continue to implement these Integrated Strategies.
/. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
Clean water action plan: Regions are expected to continue implementing the Integrated
Strategies on stormwater and underground storage tanks. To support Regions in Assuring clean
drinking water, especially on tribal lands, FFEO will research drinking water pollution and
potential SDWA enforcement particularly at formerly used defense sites (FUDS). Regions and
FFEO are expected to continue to implement an enforcement action against Bureau of Indian
Affairs for violations at schools on BIA and tribal lands. In addition, FFEO will complete new
inspection targeting capabilities for vulnerable communities.
Clean air: To reduce air pollution from largest sources and to support the Regions, FFEO will
complete new research on power plants operating on military bases.
Climate and clean energy: FFEO, in partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and
expand FedCenter as the central point for federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas
emission response and compliance with new Executive Order 13514 on federal sustainability.
See http://www.fedcenter.gov/
In order to protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals, Regions are expected to sustain
a vigorous inspection and enforcement program at federal facilities. Regions and FFEO are
expected to implement the Integrated Strategy on protecting vulnerable populations.
FFEO will continue research into non-compliance at surface impoundment sites, RCRA
corrective action sites and other RCRA non-TSDF facilities. FFEO will complete new research
on greater compliance/enforcement activity at formerly used defense sites (FUDS). In order to
reduce risks from mineral processing, Regions are expected to address contamination and
cleanup at federal abandoned mine sites. In an effort to reform chemical management
enforcement, Regions are expected to address issues with PCBs in ships and asbestos and
pesticides at military sites. FFEO will work to secure penalty authority against federal facilities
through TSCA reauthorization. In addition, FFEO and Regions are expected to continue
implementing the Integrated Strategy on federal prisons.
FFEO strongly encourages the Regions to take enforcement actions to improve compliance at
federal facilities. For FY 2011, federal facility resources should give first priority to taking
appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific policies,
for each federal facility inspected as a consequence of Federal Facility Integrated Strategies
efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including environmental management system
(EMS) improvements and SEPs as part of enforcement action settlements. FFEO also urges the
Page 75 of 82
-------
Regions to take timely and appropriate enforcement actions to address violations of clean up
responsibilities.
Enforcement Follow Up and Projections
At mid-year each Region must project the number of formal (1) federal facility enforcement case
initiations and (2) federal facility settlements for FY 2011. The projections should not include
Records of Decision at federal facility CERCLA sites. Projections can include issuance of
Notices of Determinations regarding self-disclosures by federal facilities. The projections should
be emailed by the Regional Enforcement Division Director to the Director of OECA's Federal
Facility Office at the end of the 2nd fiscal quarter. Since these projections are outside the ACS
system, they are not commitments by the Regions.
Please note the reference at Section V (D) on page 63 of this Guidance to OSWER's NPMG
which establishes priorities for EPA's Federal Facilities CERCLA Enforcement program. Clean
up at hazardous sites: Regions and FFEO are expected to work to ensure timely completion of
CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (FFA). Regions are expected to oversee compliance by
federal agencies under FFAs.
All federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally significant and require
consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these consultations timely and
effective.
Regions are encouraged to target federal facilities as part of National Enforcement Initiative
areas, as well as Regional priorities, national initiatives targeted at geographic areas, EJ areas
and federal facilities Integrated Strategies areas. Under Sections II, III, and IV of this Guidance,
each Region must report the number of federal facilities evaluations, investigations and
inspections included within commitments under the various Regional media program
commitments.
COMMITMENT FED-FAC05: Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities
inspections to support integrated strategy areas, which include stormwater; federal underground
storage tanks, federal prisons; RCRA surface impoundments, RCRA corrective action sites, non-
TSDFs and vulnerable populations. These inspections can be achieved through any combination
of single media or multimedia inspections with the following limitations: (1) a maximum of three
UST inspections can count toward this goal and (2) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it
shall count as two inspections toward this goal. These inspections may simultaneously satisfy
inspections commitments required in National Enforcement Initiative or other core program
areas.
2. Reset Our Relationships with States
Regions are expected to hold States accountable for responsible federal facility compliance
monitoring and enforcement activity.
Page 76 of 82
-------
3. Improve Transparency
Regions are expected to share environmental information appropriately with the public for
federal facility environmental violations, including through press releases for all enforcement
actions, and at federal facility cleanup sites. EPA will pursue legislative changes to ensure
federal agency environmental accountability under federal laws.
G. Specific Compliance Incentives Program Performance Expectations
In addition to providing compliance assistance and taking enforcement actions, EPA promotes
compliance through the use of the following incentive policies: (1) the policy on "Incentives for
Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations" (the Audit
Policy); (2) "Small Business Compliance Policy" (Small Business Policy); and (3) "Small Local
Governments Compliance Assistance Policy" (Small Local Governments Policy).These policies
reduce or waive penalties under certain conditions for facilities which voluntarily discover,
promptly disclose, and correct environmental problems. EPA encourages the use of these
policies, particularly when used as part of sector-specific compliance incentive programs that
result in actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution in the environment or improve facility
environmental management practices (EMPs).
In most quarters, EPA receives slightly more self-disclosures than are recorded as resolved.
Over time, this has led to an increasing inventory of unresolved disclosures. In recognition that
we need to address this inventory, the Audit Policy Coordination Team (ACT), comprised of
representatives from all ten Regions and Headquarters has developed a number of practice
modifications, which should reduce transaction costs, streamline and speed up the processing of
disclosures. In FY 2010, the Office of Civil Enforcement will be providing model documents to
the Regions and Headquarters offices to expedite the processing and resolution of voluntary
disclosures. In FY 2011, the Regions and Headquarters are expected to expeditiously process
voluntary disclosures in order to prevent the increase of the pipeline, as well as to reduce the
inventory.
/. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities
EPA's Audit Policy, Small Business Policy and Small Local Governments Policy provide
incentives for regulated entities to resolve environmental problems and come into compliance
with federal laws through self-assessment, disclosure, and correction of violations. EPA
promotes the use of the Audit Policy and focuses on corporate-wide auditing agreements to
implement the Policy, assess and maintain compliance, consolidate transactions, and maximize
penalty certainty. EPA is encouraging audits and disclosures that achieve significant
environmental outcomes, as well as ways to improve Audit Policy implementation.
Under various Compliance Incentive Programs (CIPs), individual entities or members of a sector
disclose and correct violations in exchange for reduced or waived penalties, while the risk of
enforcement increases for those not taking advantage of this opportunity. Regions are expected
to consider the use of CIPs directed at particular sectors and/or noncompliance problems,
particularly key program priorities, with emphasis on violations that impact areas with
Page 77 of 82
-------
environmental justice concerns, and violations that, once corrected, are likely to result in
measurable pollution reductions.
2. Reset Our Relationships with States
Regions are expected to promote EPA's compliance incentive policies
(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives), with the assistance of State,
tribal, and local agencies, to encourage the regulated community to voluntarily discover,
disclose, and correct violations before regulatory agencies identify entities for enforcement
investigation or response. Additionally, Regions are expected to consider and follow-up on, as
appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the EPA Audit Policy, Small Business Policy, and
Local Government Policy.
3. Improve Transparency
EPA will continue to enter data into ICIS regarding the receipt and resolution of self-disclosures
and, at the end of FY2011, EPA will continue to report on the number of self-disclosures
received and resolved together with the environmental outcomes resulting from disclosing
entities correcting their violations.
EPA also promotes the disclosure of environmental information in accordance with the SEC's
mandatory corporate disclosure requirements as a means of promoting improved environmental
performance. Increasing public access to corporate environmental information maintains a level
playing field for companies, and raises company awareness concerning environmental issues.
H. Specific Technical Support and Training Expectations
In 2011, Regions are asked to support the Enforcement Training Network in the following ways:
With assistance from the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI), develop the
capability to train inspectors in Region and States. Assist in the development and delivery
of the National Basic Inspector Training courses for regional inspectors as well as state
inspectors where appropriate.
Promote, advertise, and provide enforcement and compliance training to regional and
state enforcement personnel through courses, webinars, on line training and other
informational materials. Announce courses offered by the Region on NETI's website
[http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html], especially courses open to
other Regions or state attendance
Identify training needs for the legal, state and tribal training network
Work with NETI staff to ensure the accuracy and quality of data reporting for the training
activities below:
o National Training Plan (NTP): This plan links training with strategic goals,
national initiatives and key elements of the core programs. Regions and OECA
offices are expected to enter their training courses into the NTP. Throughout the
year, Regions and OECA offices should update the NTP database as additional
Page 78 of 82
-------
training is planned. When creating or revising training products, please consider
integrating overarching policies, such as environmental justice and coordination
between the civil and criminal programs. Also please consider the updated
inspector training requirements in EPA Order 3500.1.
o Mid-Year and End-of-Year Statistics: Regions and OECA offices are expected to
provide timely and accurate mid-year and end-of-year reports of compliance and
enforcement training activities through the national data reporting process.
o Training Year Evaluation Forms: Regions and OECA offices are expected to use
OECA's standard evaluation form for training events. By reporting and
measuring outcomes of training, we will have information by which to evaluate
the effectiveness of courses, and thereby motivate behavior changes and improve
performance among trainers and trained personnel.
I. Specific State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations
In FY 2011, Regions are asked to support the SRF in the following ways:
Conduct SRF reviews on state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs, and
ensure that commitments to implement significant recommendations for program
improvements are captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant
agreements between the Region and the State, with accountability for carrying out those
commitments. SRF review results should be viewed and discussed with the State in
coordination with regional and state program reviews (such as water quality standards
and permit reviews).
Regions should use all available data to benchmark and monitor the enforcement
performance of their States. Data sources include (but are not limited to) federal and
state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or
evaluation reports.
Enter both draft and final SRF reports, which include Preliminary Data Analyses, file
reviews, recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from Framework
reviews, including Element 13, into the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker database upon
completion of a SRF review.
Monitor the progress of States and Tribes in carrying out the recommendations of rounds
1 and 2 of the SRF, and record the progress quarterly in the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker
database.
Use results of reviews to inform annual planning and regular progress meetings with
States. Where progress resolving SRF recommendations is not being made, plans and
commitments should be strengthened and realigned and include appropriate corrective
actions.
COMMITMENT SRF01: The number of Round 2 State Review Framework reviews to be
conducted, consistent with SRF guidance in FY2011, by State. Where appropriate, program
Page 79 of 82
-------
improvements should be captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant
agreements between the Region and the State, with accountability for carrying out those
commitments.
SRF guidances, policies, and templates for reporting are found at http://www.epa-
otis. go v/srf/srf_tracking .html.
J. State Grant Results and Reporting
In FY 2011 EPA remains committed to strengthening our oversight and reporting of results from
state grants, not only linking state grant work plan commitments to EPA's strategic plan, but also
enhancing transparency and accountability. EPA and the States will continue working in FY
2011 to achieve this through two related efforts:
State Grant Workplans: The Agency's long-term goal is for EPA and the States to achieve
greater consistency in workplan formats.
The formats will be available for use beginning with the FY 2011 grants cycle. OGD will
develop performance metrics to ensure that 100% of workplans under the 14 categorical grant
programs use one of the approved formats by no later than the FY 2013 grants cycle. If a
particular State agency has difficulties under State law in adopting one of the established
formats, OGD will work with the affected Region and NPM to resolve the issue.
State Grant Performance Measures (formally known as State Grant Template Measures):
The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Template Measures in ACS will be retained
for FY 2011 reporting. As in FY 2010, the use of the template to capture results for these
measures is not required.
Page 80 of 82
-------
SECTION VIII. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Annual Commitment System
Following the release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, Regions should hold discussions with
States and Tribes to discuss the highest priority work across the Region ands States for the
upcoming year. This work should be an integration of national, regional and state priorities, and
consider permitting and enforcement activities that will lead to improvements in compliance and
in environmental conditions. The Regions and States should discuss how to work together to
ensure that the highest priority work gets done, including consideration of this NPM Guidance.
Regions and States should develop draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance
that relate to state and tribal activities. Regions should also assess their own resource levels in
relation to the priority work identified in the regional/state discussions and the state and tribal
contributions to that work, and the work outlined in the NPM Guidance.
OECA will hold a planning discussion with each Region at the senior management level during
the spring of 2010 to discuss the strategic allocation of the Region's resources, with the goal of
informing the negotiation of the ACS commitments for the Region for the coming year. OECA
understands that the demands of ensuring compliance with the myriad of environmental laws and
programs covered by this NPM Guidance may exceed a Region's resources, and wants to ensure
that available resources are put towards addressing the most important sources and most serious
violations that affect the environment and public health.
Current schedules call for Regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system
by July 9, 2010. By completing OECA and regional senior management discussions prior to this
time, the process for resolving any issues and finalizing annual regional targets should be
streamlined. During this same time, Regions should engage States and Tribes in negotiations to
complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including translating regional
targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All commitments
should be final by October 22, 2010.
B. FTE Resource Charts
The Regions should complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning
cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub-objective, and then cross-
walk to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts is significant
due to increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the Inspector General, and
Congress. Regions will receive FTE templates in August 2010. It is imperative that Regions
complete these charts and submit these documents to Christopher Knopes and Lisa Raymer on
September 30, 2010.
2010 Final - Enter the Region's final FTE allocation for FY2010 in the 2010 Final
column.
Page 81 of 82
-------
2011 Proposed - Enter the Region's proposed FTE allocation for FY2011 in the 2011
Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency
receives the FY2011 enacted budget after October 1, 2010. Therefore this number is a
"best guess" estimate.
Page 82 of 82
-------
FY 2011 Measures Attachment Template
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OECA
FY2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
Optional
Column
G/O/S
5.1.1
5.1.1
ACS
Code
CAA4
CAA 11
Measure Text
Number of compliance evaluations to be conducted at
majors, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as
appropriate) by the regions. [Note: Break out evaluation
projections by source classification and by compliance
monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and Investigations). In
the comment section, provide the number of federal
facility FCEs, PCEs and investigations. Projected
investigations under this commitment are those
investigations initiated by the regions for the air
enforcement program outside of the National
Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air
program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).
Regions are to conduct inspections at 5% of the total
number of facilities in the region required to submit
RMPs. Of these inspections, 25% must be conducted at
high-risk facilities. These inspections at high-risk
facilities also must include an evaluation of compliance
with Sections 304, 311, and 3 12 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA)
and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
requirements. If the region is responsible for entering
Non-
Commitment
Indicator
(Y/N)
N
N
Qtfltp
WIUIG
Performance
Measure (Y/N)
N
N
Planning
Target
N
1 >l
N
National
Target
(FY2011
Pres. Bud)
N
1 >l
N
For details on the Planning Target, see page 9.
-------
5.1.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
CAA6
CAA7
CWA07
data for a delegated agency or tribe, the region should
identify the delegated agency or tribe. [Note: Section
68.220 audits conducted do not count towards the 5%
inspection target.]
Ensure delegated agencies implement their compliance
and enforcement program in accordance with the CAA
CMS and have a negotiated facility -specific CMS plan
in place. Regions are to provide the number of FCEs at
majors and 80% synthetic minors to be conducted by
individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program
implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a
delegated agency negotiates with a region an alternative
CMS plan, this Commitment should reflect the
alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation projections
(e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source
classification]. Prior to approving an alternative plan,
regions should consult with the Office of Compliance
(OC) and provide OC with information on how the
state/local agency compliance monitoring air resources
will be redirected and the rationale for making the
change.
Regions and delegated agencies should enter 100% of
MDRs in AFS consistent with the Agency policies and
the AFS ICR. The reporting of such complete, accurate,
and timely data by delegated agencies should be
reflected in written, up-to-date agreements with the
regions. If the region is responsible for entering data for
a delegated agency or tribe, the region should identify
the delegated agency or tribe.
By December 31, 2010, provide a specific NPDES
Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-------
state in the region. The plan should provide universe
information for the CMS categories; sub-categories
covered by the CMS and combined EPA and state
expected accomplishments for each category and
subcategory. The plan should identify trade-offs made
among the categories utilizing the flexibility designed
into the CMS policy to target the most significant
sources with potential to impact water quality. At end of
year provide for each state a numerical report on EPA
and state inspection plan outputs, by category and
subcategory.
5.1.2
CWA08
Indicator Measure for NPDES Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS). During FY
2011, OC and the regions will complete work
initiated in FY 2010 on development of a
Compliance Monitoring Composite Index
(CMCI) for the NPDES Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS). Starting in FY
2012, the CMCI will be used as a single
summative end of year indicator of NPDES
inspection program performance relative to
program areas addressed in the CMS.
N
N
N
5.1.2
CWA09
Regions should submit the collaborative EPA/state
annual work plans addressing NPDES permitting,
compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities,
including work-sharing, to the Office of Compliance and
the Office of Wastewater Management by September 30,
2010 for FY 2011 activities.
N
N
N
N
5.1.2
SDWA02
Regions, as the primacy authority (and states and tribes
with primacy, should commit to address a specific
number of systems between July 2010 and June 2011
(this number should be based on the historical number of
"new SNC systems" that were generated during an
average year when EPA utilized the former SNC
approach). The Regions should provide the numbers to
be addressed broken down by state and tribe with
primacy, and by EPA in non-primacy areas (e.g.,
N
N
N
N
-------
Wyoming and Indian country), in the comment field.
The specific systems to be addressed will be identified
using the prioritized list produced by the ETT, to ensure
that the highest-priority systems are addressed first. The
new ERP requires that systems with violations are
addressed and returned to compliance.
5.1.3
RCRA01
Project by State, and Indian country where appropriate,
the number of operating TSDFs, to be inspected by the
Region during the year2. Regions must commit to
inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each State/Indian
country unless OECA approves a deviation from this
requirement. Financial responsibility is a component of
this inspection requirement (see also RCRA04).
N
N
N
N
5.1.3
RCRA03
Inspect each operating TSDF operated by States, Tribal
governments or local governments.
N
N
N
N
5.1.3
RCRA04
Project by State and Indian country the number of
financial assurance mechanisms to be inspected by the
Region during the year. Regions must commit to review
at least four (4) financial test and/or corporate guarantee
submissions per year in each state for compliance with
the closure and post-closure regulations. Regions may
instead choose to review other types of financial
assurance instruments for facilities that did not have a
financial assurance review during the FY 2008-FY 2010
national enforcement priority. The reviews should be
formal Financial Records Reviews, and take place within
90 days after the submissions are received3.
N
N
N
N
5.1.3
5.1.3
RCRA01.
Project by State the number of operating TSDFs to be
inspected by the state during the year.
N
N
N
RCRA02
Project by State and Indian country, the number of
LQGs, including those at federal facilities, to be
N
N
N
2 Currently there is only one TSD in all of Indian country.
3 RCRA04 is based upon a general statutory requirement that financial responsibility compliance be included in TSDF compliance monitoring although the
statute does not specify the number of evaluations.
-------
5.1.3
5.1.3
5.1.3
5.1.3
5.1.3
RCRA02.
$
OSRE-01
OSRE-02
OSRE-04
RCRA-05
in
CO
an
de
Se
in
Pr
th
un
St
un
Re
St£
sit
Ac
ca
gr
fil
of
Fc
fis
$5
CO
tal
no
rel
In
at
tai
CO
ye
inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must
commit to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each State,
and 20% in Indian country, unless OECA approves a
deviation from this requirement. In the Comment
Section, provide the number of federal facility LOG
inspections.
Project by State the number of LQGs to be inspected by
the State during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG
universe should be covered by combined federal and
State inspections unless an alternative plan is approved
under the RCRA CMS.4
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the
start of remedial action at 95% of non-federal Superfund
sites that have viable, liable parties.
Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations
cases for sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or
greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to DOJ,
filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-
For 100% of the financial test submissions received each
fiscal year for corrective action with cost estimates over
$5 million, determine whether the submission is in
compliance. Where the submission is noncompliant,
take appropriate enforcement action to address
noncompliance (e.g., notice of violation). If possible,
return facility to compliance by end of fiscal year.
In combination, Regions should commit to investigating
a total of 10 high priority open dumps using OECA's
targeting strategy, to be developed in FY 2010. This
commitment is intended for FY 2011 only, the transition
year when the priority returns to the core program.
N
N
N
N
' See OECA's Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (2007), http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
-------
5.1.3
5.1.3
5.1.3
5.1.3
RCRA-06
TSC01
PCB01
ASB01
5.1.3
LED01
For non-BIA schools in Indian country, project the
number of compliance assistance visits designed to
ensure the proper and compliant treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. This commitment is for FY
2011 only. (Note: Tied to, and reported with, OSWER
Measures MW9, TR1, and TR2).
Project the number of federal TSCA New and Existing
Chemicals Programs inspections, including those at
federal facilities, for regions maintaining an investment
in core TSCA (sections 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13). In the
Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility
inspections.
Report the total number of EPA PCB inspections,
including those at TSDFs that are PCB disposal facilities
and at federal facilities. In the Comment Section,
provide the number of federal facility inspections. EPA
data should be reported on a state-by-state basis. For
states where the state agency will provide inspection
coverage under PCB grant, indicate in the ACS
Comment field the estimated number of inspections that
the state will conduct. This number should not be
included as part of the regional ACS PCB inspection
commitment number.
Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos
inspections, including those at federal facilities. In the
Comment Section, Regions should provide the number
of federal facility inspections. For states where the state
agency will provide inspection coverage under Asbestos
grant, indicate in the ACS Comment field the estimated
number of inspections that the state will conduct. This
number should not be included as part of the ACS
Asbestos inspection commitment number.
Number of Section 1018/402/406 federal inspections
-------
5.1.3
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
FIFRA-
FED1
EPCRA
01
EPCRA
02
FED-
FAC05
SRF01
(including those conducted by Senior Environmental
Employment Program personnel (SEEs), including those
at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, provide
the number of federal facility inspections.
Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections, including
those at federal facilities. Each region should conduct a
minimum of 4 FIFRA inspections. In the Comment
Section, provide the number of federal facility
inspections.
Project the number of EPCRA 313 data quality
inspections.
Project the number of EPCRA 313 non-reporter
inspections.
Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities
inspections to support integrated strategy areas, which
include stormwater; federal underground storage tanks,
federal prisons; RCRA surface impoundments, RCRA
corrective action sites, non-TSDFs and vulnerable
populations. These inspections can be achieved through
any combination of single media or multimedia
inspections with the following limitations: (1) a
maximum of three UST inspections can count toward
this goal and (2) for any multimedia inspection
conducted, it shall count as two inspections toward this
goal. These inspections may simultaneously satisfy
inspections commitments required in National
Enforcement Initiative or other core program areas.
The number of Round 2 State Review Framework
reviews to be conducted, consistent with SRF guidance
in FY2011, by state. Where appropriate, program
improvements should be captured in appropriate
negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements
between the region and the state, with accountability for
carrying out those commitments.
-------
------- |