U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

EPA Needs to Demonstrate 

Whether It Has Achieved the 

Goals It Set Under the National 

Petroleum Refinery Initiative 

Report No. 14-P-0184 April 15, 2014 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is one of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General’s 

products associated with climate change. For details on our other reports on climate 

change, go to http://www.epa.gov/oig/climatechange. 

Report Contributors: Kathlene Butler Julie Hamann 

Allison Dutton Fredrick Light 

Dan Engelberg Danielle Tesch 

Abbreviations 

ACS Annual Commitment System 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FY Fiscal year 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

NEI National Enforcement Initiative 

NEIC National Enforcement Investigation Center 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NPRI National Petroleum Refinery Initiative 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

Cover photo: A petroleum refinery has multiple connection points that represent a 

potential source of emissions leaking into the environment. (EPA photo) 

Hotline Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations 

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact us To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

through one of the following methods: contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov email: OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov 

phone: 1-888-546-8740 phone: 1-202-566-2391 

fax: 1-202-566-2599 fax: 1-202-566-2599 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info 

write:	 EPA Inspector General Hotline write: EPA Inspector General 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T Mailcode 2410T 

Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 14-P-0184 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency April 15, 2014 

Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

The objective of this evaluation 

was to determine to what 

extent the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

enforcement actions led to 

sustained compliance under 

the National Petroleum 

Refinery Initiative (NPRI, or 

the initiative). The EPA 

selected the petroleum refinery 

sector as one of its National 

Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) 

in 1996. The EPA intended that 

its NPRI strategy’s 

companywide consent decrees, 

or legally binding agreements, 

would lead to improved 

compliance and reduced 

harmful air pollutants or 

emissions as companies 

changed environmental 

management practices and 

reduced their emissions. The 

EPA officially concluded the 

NPRI in 2007, when 80 percent 

of the refining facilities were 

under a consent decree. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA theme: 

 Addressing climate change 

and improving air quality. 

For further information, 

contact our public affairs office 

at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ 

20140415-14-P-0184.pdf 

EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved 

the Goals It Set Under the National Petroleum 

Refinery Initiative 

What We Found 

Under the NPRI, the EPA planned to increase By determining the 

outcomes of the NPRI, compliance and reduce emissions within the the EPA can strengthen petroleum refinery industry. However, the EPA the likelihood of did not determine whether the NPRI achieved the success for future compliance goal it set. In 2006, the EPA assessed initiatives and sustain 

whether companies under consent decree were the desired benefits.

making progress toward the established emissionreduction goal it set. However, since that time, the EPA has not analyzed the 

available facility data to determine whether the initiative achieved the established 

emissions-reduction goal. Work on the NPRI has declined since 2007, as the 

EPA has reduced resources dedicated to the initiative. The EPA did not place the 

same attention on monitoring initiative outcomes as it did on negotiating consent 

decrees. 

The EPA has replicated this enforcement model in other NEI sectors, such as the 

stormwater initiative. The EPA needs to know whether this enforcement 

approach produced the intended outcomes. By making this determination, the 

EPA can strengthen the likelihood of success for future initiatives, and achieve 

and sustain the desired reductions in risk to human health and the environment. 

 Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions 

We recommend that the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance develop and implement a plan to assess whether the 

NPRI led to sustained improvement in compliance and sustained reductions in 

pollution among refineries. We also recommend that the EPA report the results of 

its efforts to the public. 

The EPA agreed with our recommendations. The EPA responded that the 

agency planned to post company-reported emission data to the public website as 

consent decrees are completed. The EPA agreed to guide future NEIs to include 

periodic evaluation. We agreed with the EPA’s proposed corrective actions. 

Three recommendations are resolved with corrective actions underway and one 

recommendation is closed with corrective actions completed.

 Noteworthy Achievements 

The NPRI achieved broad industry coverage by addressing compliance problems 

on a companywide basis as opposed to a facility-by-facility approach. The 

companywide strategy used a proactive approach to solving compliance 

problems by focusing on technology-based solutions to prevent noncompliance. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

April 15, 2014 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved the Goals It Set Under the National 

Petroleum Refinery Initiative

 Report No. 14-P-0184 

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO: 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. 

Action Required 

All recommendations are agreed to and resolved. Therefore, no final response to this report is needed. 

If you wish to provide a final response to this report, it should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that 

complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Assistant Inspector 

General for Program Evaluation, Carolyn Copper, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; 

or the Director for Water Evaluations, Dan Engelberg, at (202) 566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved 14-P-0184 

the Goals It Set Under the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
 

Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Noteworthy Achievements ........................................................................... 5 

 Scope and Methodology .............................................................................. 7 

2 EPA Needs to Determine Whether the NPRI
 

Led to Sustained Compliance and Pollution Reduction................................. 9
 

EPA Has Not Measured Progress Toward Achieving 

the NPRI Compliance Goal, But Has Conducted 

Periodic Follow-Up Inspections............................................................ 9 

EPA Made a One-Time Assessment of Facilities Emissions 

 Data, But Has Not Assessed Progress Toward Meeting 

 the NPRI Emission Goal Since 2006 ................................................... 10 

EPA Has Not Established a Clear Process for Verifying 

Compliance for Consent Decree Termination ...................................... 11 

EPA Reduced Its Resource Commitment to the NPRI, 

Which Limited Its Monitoring Ability ..................................................... 12 

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 13 

Recommendations ...................................................................................... 14 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ..................................................... 14 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 16
 

Appendices 

A Timeline for the NPRI ......................................................................................... 17 

B Agency Comments on Draft Report ................................................................ 18 

C OIG Response to the Agency’s Revised Corrective Action Plan .................. 38 

D Distribution ........................................................................................................ 41 
 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

This is one of The objective of this evaluation was to determine the extent the EPA OIG’s 

to which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s products 

(EPA’s) enforcement actions under the National Petroleum associated with 

Refinery Initiative (NPRI, or the initiative) led to sustained climate change. 

compliance. 

Background 

Sustained compliance with environmental laws protects human health and the 

environment. The principal goal of the EPA’s enforcement activities is to bring 

about a level of compliance that achieves the human health and environmental 

benefits expected from environmental laws. The EPA’s 2013 budget directed 

about one-tenth of its annual budget to promoting compliance with environmental 

laws ($830 million in fiscal year 2013). 

The EPA strives to achieve sustained compliance in its programs by focusing on 

three types of enforcement activities: 

1.	 Compliance assistance—Activities designed to assist the regulated 

community with understanding and complying with regulations. 

2.	 Compliance monitoring—Activities designed to assess the compliance 

status of the regulated community through inspections and other activities. 

3.	 Enforcement actions—Legal actions taken by the EPA designed to bring 

polluters back into compliance with the law. 

The EPA believes these three components, together with enhanced coordination 

of EPA and state actions, will lead to sustained improvement in compliance with 

federal environmental laws. 

EPA Focuses National Resources on Important Compliance and 

Pollution Problems 

The EPA operates a national enforcement program consisting of two major 

components: its “core” program and its National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs).1 

The EPA’s core enforcement program forms the bulk of the enforcement activity 

1

 Prior to February 2010, the EPA referred to national enforcement initiatives as “National Enforcement Priorities.” 

14-P-0184 1 
 

 

for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the EPA’s 

10 regions. Core enforcement responsibilities include the EPA’s enforcement of 

major environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act, 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and other environmental statutes. 

Because the EPA’s enforcement responsibilities cover millions of regulated sites 

and many statutes, the OECA and the agency’s regions use the NEIs to focus on 

the most serious air, water, waste and chemical hazards. Through the NEIs, the 

OECA directs resources to nationally significant enforcement issues, like 

stormwater runoff, mineral processing, air toxics and petroleum refineries. The 

OECA forms national teams to direct work and monitor progress toward 

achieving the goals in individual industry sectors selected as initiatives. The EPA 

regions also expend about one-third of their enforcement resources to implement 

and monitor the progress of the initiatives (as evidenced by the full-time 

equivalent positions assigned to these areas). Once the goals for individual sectors 

are achieved, the EPA transitions the work back into the core enforcement 

program. 

Government Programs Should Be Monitored and Evaluated 

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 

2010 requires performance assessments of government programs so Congress can 

review agency performance. To guide agencies in assessing their performance, 

GPRA requires agencies to set goals, measure performance against those goals, 

and report publicly on their progress toward achieving those goals. 

The OECA includes compliance monitoring as one of its essential tools for 

achieving improved compliance. In addition, the EPA’s congressional budget 

justification for fiscal year (FY) 2013 stated that providing information about the 

NEIs to the public is a key challenge for the agency. In the budget justification, 

the EPA wrote that the agency needs to provide meaningful information to the 

public about the progress being made under the NEIs to address priority 

environmental risks and compliance problems. 

In 2007, the OECA developed a strategic approach2

 for achieving improved 

compliance and better protection of human health and the environment. The guide 

reflects GPRA requirements by instructing that initiatives include measures and 

evaluation strategies to determine how well the measures and strategies help to 

achieve the EPA’s goals. The OECA uses this approach when developing 

strategic plans for the individual national enforcement initiatives. 

2

 EPA 305-R-07-001, Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach, 

March 2007. This guide builds on a previously developed framework included as the guide’s attachment A, 

“Framework for a Problem-Based Approach to Integrated Strategies.” 

14-P-0184 2 
 

Refineries Present Widespread Compliance Challenges and 

Emit Harmful Pollutants 

Petroleum refineries account for significant releases of pollutants into the 

environment during the complicated industrial process that refines crude oil into 

petroleum products. Refineries emit 75 percent of their pollutants into the air. 

These pollutants contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, and 

bioaccumulation in mammals and fish eaten by humans. These pollutants also 

contribute to cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and cancer in humans. 

When the EPA was developing the initiative in 1996, the Toxics Release 

Inventory showed refineries released over 66 million pounds of toxic pollutants 

known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious human health effects. In the 

EPA’s most recent Toxics Release Inventory report from 2011 (released in 

January 2013), refineries reported releasing over 56 million pounds of toxic 

pollutants. Approximately 58 percent of these releases were to air through fugitive 

air emissions or through stack air emissions. On average, the population within 

3 miles of active petroleum refineries is approximately 40 percent minority, which 

is one of several considerations when determining environmental justice concerns. 

Between 1994 and 1995, the EPA conducted nationwide inspections of 

109 petroleum refineries. The inspection results identified widespread CAA 

compliance challenges, with violations in 70 percent of refineries. Through 

inspections and additional research, the EPA identified four major areas where 

refineries did not comply with the law: 

1.	 Emissions from major refining units that were incorrectly permitted as 

“minor” sources, were unpermitted, or did not have Best Available 

Control Technology installed (New Source Review/Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration requirements for fluidized catalytic cracking 

units, heaters and boilers). 

2.	 Fugitive emissions associated with leaks from refinery equipment, 

e.g., valves, pumps and connectors (New Source Performance Standards 

for leak detection and repair). 

3.	 Uncontrolled and unreported benzene waste (National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants). 

4.	 Use of flaring for routine purposes instead of on an emergency basis, and 

indications that some emissions during emergency events were in excess 

of applicable limits (New Source Performance Standards Subparts A & J). 

14-P-0184 3 
 

NPRI Was Established to Address Industrywide Compliance 

Problems and to Reduce Pollution 

The EPA developed plans and devoted resources to improve compliance across 

the refining sector in the four major areas identified by the agency. To achieve a 

sustainable change in compliance within the petroleum refinery industry, the EPA 

developed a strategy that would address the industry as a whole. In 1996, the EPA 

selected the petroleum refinery sector as one of the agency’s first national 

enforcement initiatives (at the time called National Enforcement Priorities). 

The EPA’s overall goal for the NPRI was to bring U.S. refineries into long-term 

sustained compliance with the CAA. The EPA believed the actions required by 

consent decrees would lead to improved compliance and reduced emissions. 

Because a single company may operate many individual refineries, the EPA 

negotiated with companies instead of facilities under the NPRI. This enabled the 

agency to cover all of a company’s facilities in one negotiation. The negotiations 

resulted in legally enforceable consent decrees, which established companywide 

and facility-specific compliance expectations and reporting requirements. For 

example, the companies agreed to change environmental management practices, 

reduce their emissions, and provide the EPA with regular certified progress 

reports for all company facilities. The certified progress reports provided the EPA 

with information about refinery performance, emissions and progress toward 

completing consent decree requirements. The consent decrees also included 

requirements that a company’s refineries must demonstrate they have paid all 

stipulated penalties and achieved compliance with the established emissions limits 

for 12 consecutive months. Once companies complete all consent decree 

requirements, they may request termination of the decree by the federal court. 

The EPA’s Petroleum Refining Performance-Based Strategy identified four goals 

and measures for the NPRI (see table 1). In 2007, after the EPA achieved its goal 

to cover 80 percent of the industry capacity with consent decrees (see Goal 1 

listed in table 1), the agency returned enforcement of the petroleum refinery 

sector back to the EPA’s core enforcement program. Appendix A shows a 

timeline of the petroleum refinery sector’s inclusion as an initiative. 

14-P-0184 4 
 

 

 

 

 Table 1: Goals, baseline data and milestones for the NPRI 

Goal No. Goal text Baseline data Goal 

1 80% of the domestic refining 

capacity addressed through 

settlement, by filed civil action 

against a refinery, or referred to 

the U.S. Department of Justice 

for filing. 

Total domestic capacity of 

the refinery sector (2004): 

142 refineries produced 

17.4 billion barrels per day. 

13.9 billion barrels per 

day. 

2 50% improvement in compliance 

over the 1995 baseline. 

Baseline noncompliance 

rate (FYs 1994–1995): of 

156 facilities inspected, 

109, or 70%, of the facilities 

were not in compliance. 

55 of the 109 facilities 

not in compliance 

brought back into 

compliance. 

3 20% reduction in emissions of 

SO2 and NOx from the 1995 

baseline. 

Emissions data (FY 1995): 

NOx (380,641 short 

tons/year); SO2 (648,155 

short tons/year). 

205,759 short tons of 

NOx and SO2 

combined per year. 

4 100% of consent decree 

deliverables to the EPA requiring 

a response, with 75% responded 

to by the agency within 90 days. 

Receipt date of all 

deliverables requiring a 

response. 

(Same as goal text). 

 Source: OIG summary of the OECA’s Petroleum Refining Performance-Based Strategy. 

NOx: Nitrogen oxides
 

SO2: Sulfur dioxide 

The NPRI helped the EPA coordinate enforcement resources nationwide. The 

EPA marshaled resources from the OECA, the EPA regions and the National 

Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC)3 to conduct research and to negotiate 

with companies. The EPA established expectations for regional participation, 

increased resource availability for the NPRI, and promoted the NPRI’s 

cooperative approach throughout the petroleum refinery sector. This approach 

enabled the EPA to use a regional expert where the person would be the most 

useful. For example, Region 5 air enforcement personnel traveled to Region 6 to 

aid in negotiations. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

The NPRI achieved broad industry coverage by addressing compliance problems 

on a companywide basis, as opposed to the traditional facility-by-facility 

approach. By the end of January 2011, the EPA established consent decrees 

covering 28 refining companies (105 refineries) that accounted for 90 percent of 

3

 The NEIC is the environmental forensic center for the EPA’s enforcement programs. The NEIC is accredited for 

field sampling, field measurements and monitoring, and laboratory measurement. The NEIC has a unique role in 

conducting complex criminal and civil enforcement investigations, and applied research and development to support 

science for enforcement. The demands of specific environmental enforcement cases require nonstandard 

methodologies. In response to these needs, the NEIC conducts and develops new methodologies and innovative 

investigative strategies. 

14-P-0184 5 
 

 

 

 

the national industrial capacity. Currently, only 30 operating refineries are not 

parties in an NPRI consent decree.4 

As an enforcement tool, the NPRI consent decrees furthered the objectives of the 

CAA by requiring the refinery industry to develop pollutant controls more 

stringent than the existing CAA requirements. In Chapter 2, we discuss the 

importance of monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of the consent decrees 

after they have been signed. By committing to install the technology controls 

required by the NPRI consent decrees, participating companies made ambitious 

commitments to reduce annual refinery emissions. For example, the EPA 

estimated that companies under consent decree would cumulatively reduce 

pollution by 93,000 tons of NOx and 256,000 tons of SO2 annually.5

 If achieved, 

this would represent a 24 percent reduction in NOx and a 39 percent reduction in 

SO2 emissions annually from levels in FY 1995. The estimated annual reduction 

in NOx is equivalent to the amount emitted by approximately 89 million cars 

driving about 13,500 miles per year on average.6 

The NPRI consent decrees employ a proactive approach to solving compliance 

problems by focusing on technology-based solutions to prevent noncompliance, 

reduce facility reporting burden, and enhance the EPA’s ability to manage 

compliance over this complex industry. The EPA’s enforcement efforts under this 

NEI drove improvements to existing control technologies and developments of 

new technologies in the petroleum refineries sector. For example: 

	 Consent decrees require companies to install continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS) on major emission sources. Once facilities 

install CEMS, they can monitor actual data internally and report the data 

to the EPA. The EPA can use the CEMS data to establish equipmentspecific and facility-specific emission limits. Facilities can also use CEMS 

data to ensure they are in compliance with the terms of the consent decree. 

	 The more recent consent decrees also require fence-line monitoring. 

These monitors provide near real-time reports of emission data on public 

websites, thereby potentially enhancing transparency. The agency further 

believes providing actual emission data to communities living close to 

refining facilities will serve as a deterrent to serious noncompliance. 

	 Since 2010, consent decrees have required companies to install low-leak 

valves when replacing existing valves at refineries. These valves virtually 

4

 The EPA posts the consent decrees on its website at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/petroleum-refinerynational-case-results. 5

 In the United States, the terms ton and short ton (used in the EPA’s goals for the NPRI) are interchangeable and are 

equivalent to 2,000 pounds. 

6

 This calculation uses the EPA’s 1999 Tier 2 tailpipe emissions standard of 0.07 grams of NOx pollutants emitted
 

per car, per mile driven.
 

14-P-0184 6 
 

 

 

 

 

eliminate pollutant leaks and reduce the need for the EPA to re-inspect the 

facility for compliance with leak-detection protocols. 

These technology-based compliance and monitoring tools enable facilities to 

provide easily accessible emissions data, and increase the human health protection 

for communities close to refining facilities. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform our work to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our evaluation objectives. We conducted our evaluation from 

January 2012 through September 2013 (this assignment was suspended between 

March 2012 and July 2012 to address other OIG priorities). 

We selected the NPRI because it was an early national enforcement initiative, and 

the EPA had moved the refinery program back to the core enforcement program. 

As such, evaluating this NPRI would allow us to evaluate results from one of the 

initiatives. OECA staff and managers agreed that evaluating the NPRI offered an 

opportunity to evaluate the outcomes of an initiative. 

To answer our objective, we reviewed documents, surveyed the EPA regions, 

conducted interviews, and analyzed evidence of compliance from the EPA’s 

enforcement data and results. Specifically, we reviewed background documents 

related to the EPA’s development and management of the NPRI. We requested 

information about refinery compliance with consent decrees from the EPA’s nine 

regions where refineries are located (Regions 2 through 10). We interviewed EPA 

enforcement officials in headquarters and eight of the nine EPA regions with 

refineries.7

 We also interviewed experts at the NEIC who conduct many of the 

inspections at refinery facilities. We did not speak with state officials for this 

review because states generally did not participate in consent decree follow-up 

inspections. 

Prior Audit Coverage 

EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0278, EPA Has Initiated Strategic Planning for 

Priority Enforcement Areas, but Key Elements Still Needed, 

September 25, 2008: The OIG reviewed the EPA’s strategies for the air toxics, 

combined sewer overflow and mineral processing industry initiatives within the 

NEI. The OIG reported that the OECA had instituted a strategic planning process 

for these industry initiatives. Each strategy contained an overall goal, a problem 

7 We did not interview enforcement officials in Region 7 because the consent decrees in this region were not signed 

before 2007. Region 7 consent decrees were signed in 2009 and 2012. 

14-P-0184 7 
 

 

statement, a description of the status of the priority area, and anticipated 

environmental benefits. The EPA also described the facilities the agency would 

address, the tools the EPA would use, and the OECA headquarters and regional 

responsibilities. However, each of the strategic plans lacked key elements to 

monitor progress and accomplishments. In some cases, the plans lacked detailed 

exit plans (i.e., plans to move the industry initiatives back to the core enforcement 

program). The OIG recommended that the OECA develop a policy requiring 

strategy documents for industry initiatives and have these documents include a 

full range of performance measures, exit plans and information about the role of 

states. The OECA reported that it addressed this recommendation by developing a 

template for performance-based strategies for future enforcement initiatives. The 

OECA certified that it completed the other recommendation in December 2009. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00021, EPA Needs to Improve Tracking of 

National Petroleum Refinery Compliance Program Progress and Impacts, 

June 22, 2004: The OIG reported that the OECA’s performance measurement 

and reporting approach for the NPRI did not provide useful and reliable 

information. The EPA needed this information to effectively implement, manage, 

evaluate and continuously improve program results. In addition, the OECA had 

not established and communicated clear goals, systematically monitored refinery 

program progress, reported actual outcomes, or tracked progress toward achieving 

consent decree goals. This report included 17 recommendations for improvement. 

Among them, the OIG recommended that the OECA improve refinery consent 

decree implementation and tracking, as well as ensure better measurement and 

reporting of refinery program outcomes. On March 19, 2009, the OECA certified 

that it had completed all corrective actions for the report. The OECA reported that 

it fulfilled six recommendations through its 2004 National Program Managers 

Guidance, which the OECA said included the goals developed as part of the 

Petroleum Refining Performance Based Strategy (table 1). 

14-P-0184 8 
 

Chapter 2

EPA Needs to Determine Whether the NPRI Led to 

Sustained Compliance and Pollution Reduction
 

Though evidence of improvements exists, the EPA has not demonstrated whether 

the NPRI resulted in sustained compliance or continued emission reductions in 

the petroleum-refining sector. Consent decrees represented the first step toward 

improving compliance and reducing harmful emissions in the refinery sector, and 

the EPA set compliance improvement and pollution reduction goals for the NPRI. 

However, the EPA has not measured progress toward achieving the compliance 

goal it set for the NPRI, and, since 2006, the EPA has not evaluated progress 

toward achieving the emissions goal. When the EPA returned the NPRI to the 

agency’s core enforcement program in 2007, the EPA reduced the amount of 

resources for the initiative, which hampered its ability to oversee consent decree 

implementation. The EPA needs to determine whether the NPRI achieved its 

desired goals of addressing challenging compliance and emissions problems. 

By making this determination, the EPA can strengthen the likelihood of success 

for future national enforcement initiatives, and achieve and sustain the desired 

reductions in risk to human health and the environment. 

EPA Has Not Measured Progress Toward Achieving the NPRI 

Compliance Goal, But Has Conducted Periodic Follow-Up Inspections 

The EPA began the NPRI in 1996 after identifying a sectorwide CAA 

noncompliance rate of 70 percent in 1995. The EPA set a compliance goal for the 

NPRI that companies subject to NPRI consent decrees would achieve a 50 percent 

improvement in compliance over the 1995 baseline. The 1995 baseline was based 

on inspections of 156 refineries from August 1994 through August 1995. 

Therefore, to determine whether sector compliance improved from the baseline as 

a result of the NPRI, the EPA would need to conduct a round of inspections 

similar to those conducted in 1994 and 1995. However, the EPA has not deployed 

the resources to develop and implement such a protocol. 

Instead, the EPA conducted periodic consent decree follow-up inspections. 

Although the follow-up inspections did not allow the agency to determine 

whether the NPRI led to sustained compliance improvements industrywide, they 

provided the EPA with important information about compliance with consent 

decree requirements at particular facilities. However, due to differences in the 

number of refineries in each region and in resource availability to conduct 

inspections, the EPA did not conduct follow-up inspections at facilities 

consistently. Because the EPA regions prioritized other activities over NPRI 

monitoring and evaluation, more than half of the facilities under consent decree 

had not received follow-up inspections. In fact, between 2003 and 2012, Region 6 

and the OECA conducted consent decree follow-up inspections at only 19 of the 

14-P-0184 9 
 

 

35 consent decree facilities in Region 6. This is notable because Region 6 

contains more refineries—and more refineries under consent decree—than any 

other region. 

Moreover, some of the nation’s largest refineries went without any consent decree 

follow-up inspection by the EPA. Although other types of federal or state 

inspections8

 may have occurred, data provided by the EPA’s regional 

enforcement personnel show that neither the OECA nor Region 6 conducted 

consent decree follow-up inspections at the following facilities: 

 Marathon Garyville, Louisiana, Refinery (490,000 barrels per day). 

Consent decree signed 2001. 

 ExxonMobil Beaumont, Texas, Refinery (344,500 barrels per day). 

Consent decree signed 2005. 

EPA officials said that although Region 6 has many more refineries, the region is 

still using its staff to negotiate consent decrees with new companies. Generally, 

EPA officials said that they prioritized consent decree follow-up inspections 

based on the length of time a refinery has been subject to a consent decree, 

whether the refinery has received other types of inspections, the results of any 

other inspections, and input from regions on where to inspect. They also 

conducted some random follow-up inspections. 

EPA Made a One-Time Assessment of Facility Emissions Data, 

But Has Not Assessed Progress Toward Meeting the NPRI Emission 

Goal Since 2006 

When signing consent decrees, the EPA estimated the emission reductions that 

would occur when companies completed all consent decree actions. On the EPA’s 

website, the EPA reported that companies that were parties to consent decrees 

would cumulatively reduce pollution by 205,759 short tons of NOx and SO2 

combined per year. So that the EPA could track emissions, the consent decrees 

required facilities to submit certified progress reports that included emission data. 

In 2011, the EPA published a progress report on the NPRI that included a 

one-time analysis of the emissions data self-reported by companies under consent 

decree as of 2006.9

 However, since that time, the EPA has not monitored the 

progress that companies have made toward achieving the emission goals set in the 

agency’s NPRI strategy. 

8

 For example, under individual state Compliance Monitoring Strategies, major sources like these facilities are 

required to be inspected on a periodic basis (between 2 to 5 years); such inspections include compliance with
 

consent decree requirements as reflected in CAA Title V permits, among other applicable permits. 9

 The OIG did not assess the accuracy of self-reports as part of this evaluation. 

14-P-0184 10 
 

 

 

The analysis of the 2006 emissions data showed that overall emissions from these 

companies declined by almost 50 percent.10 However, facility-specific analysis 

showed mixed results. Data from some facilities demonstrated that some would 

likely meet or exceed anticipated emission-reduction goals. Emissions reported by 

other facilities had increased since signing the consent decrees. 

The 2006 assessment also did not show the progress made by all facilities under 

the consent decree at the time. Many additional facilities signed consent decrees 

with the EPA after the 2006 analysis. OECA officials also said that the 2006 

analysis likely did not include some of the estimated emission reductions due to 

the lag between finalizing more recent decrees and the installation of controls that 

would achieve the emission reductions. For example, to reduce flaring emissions, 

the implementation schedule for the 2005 ConocoPhillips settlement required 

major equipment to be installed periodically through 2012 at some facilities, 

which is after the 2006 emissions analysis was completed. The EPA said this 

meant projected emissions reductions for the ConocoPhillips refinery may not 

occur until 2015. 

Enforcement officials said that resource constraints prevented them from 

repeating the effort to estimate progress toward achieving emissions reductions 

after the 2006 analysis. For example, due to a lack of funding, OECA officials 

indicated they could not continue tracking pollution reductions in a manner 

similar to their 2006 analysis based on emissions data. The OECA officials said 

they do not have the budget to support the $36,000 that it would cost to update the 

analysis of 2006 emission data. 

EPA Has Not Established a Clear Process for Verifying Compliance 

for Consent Decree Termination 

EPA has not established a clear process for verifying compliance in advance of 

consent decree termination. The court makes the final determination about 

consent decree termination, and consent decrees require companies to certify 

completion of all consent decree requirements under penalty of perjury or 

contempt. However, the EPA verifies whether the company has, in fact, 

completed all requirements. 

An OECA official was not confident that the regions could verify compliance 

with all consent decree requirements. OECA officials in charge of the NPRI 

believed the process was clear, while enforcement personnel in five of the seven 

regions we spoke with said they were not sure how the process would occur, or 

that they would like additional guidance from OECA on termination. 

10 In response to a 2004 OIG report recommendation, the OECA hired a contractor to verify predicted emission 

reductions using facility progress self-reports. The OECA presents the results of the contractor’s analysis in EPA 

Enforcement: National Petroleum Refinery Initiative, February 11, 2011, draft (subject to revision). As of the date of 

this report, this analysis was available at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/results-petroleum-refinery-nationalinitiative. 

14-P-0184 11 
 

 

EPA Reduced Its Resource Commitment to the NPRI, Which Limited 

Its Monitoring Ability 

The OECA and EPA regional enforcement officials identified reduced resources 

as a cause for not monitoring emission and compliance goals for the refinery 

initiative. The EPA reduced the resources devoted to the NPRI even though the 

work required to ensure the initiative resulted in the intended outcomes continued 

and expanded. When the EPA concluded the NPRI in 2007, no consent decrees 

had been terminated. In 2007, the EPA’s 20 companywide consent decrees 

covered 92 refineries. Moreover, after the NPRI ended, the EPA continued to 

negotiate and sign consent decrees with additional refineries, eventually reaching 

32 decrees covering 116 facilities by the end of 2012 (see appendix A). Each of 

the 32 consent decrees included hundreds of activities, reports and results to 

monitor and evaluate, and most decrees were designed to last for 10 or more 

years. 

Despite the continued and increasing oversight requirement, the OECA concluded 

the NPRI in 2007 and shifted resources to work on other priorities. Enforcement 

officials in the OECA and the regions told us the EPA focused fewer resources 

and attention on overseeing the NPRI than the agency did on achieving industry 

coverage. The OECA officials said that spending additional time on this sector 

would be less productive than devoting those resources to a new priority area. 

Regional personnel said that adequately monitoring implementation required a 

resource commitment at least as large as the resources used to negotiate the 

consent decrees. However, the regions shifted resources to work on other 

priorities. Region officials told us and OECA officials agreed that the absence of 

an Annual Commitment System (ACS)11 goal for the regions is an impediment to 

regions investing significant resources to oversee refinery compliance. The 

absence of an ACS goal concerning NPRI follow-up means that regions are more 

likely to focus on other work associated with ACS goals than on providing 

oversight of refineries. 

The low number of EPA staff with technical expertise in the refinery sector has 

also hampered oversight. Regulating the petroleum refinery process is complex 

and requires technical knowledge of not only the refinery process but also the 

complicated regulatory requirements under the CAA. The OECA does not have a 

succession plan in place for refinery staff (including inspectors) leaving the 

agency. Headquarters and region officials associated with the NPRI were 

concerned that the EPA might not attract and retain qualified experts for the 

EPA’s refinery program. In 2012, the OECA had one inspector responsible for 

ensuring the refineries comply with the New Source Review/Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration consent decree components. In addition, only a few 

11 The ACS is a performance module located within the EPA’s Budget Automation System used to track annual 

headquarters and regional performance commitment information and results. 

14-P-0184 12 
 

engineers are qualified to conduct leak detection and repair and benzene 

inspections. Regions also had very limited resources. For example, Region 9 had 

one staff person responsible for overseeing consent decree compliance for 

15 refineries and negotiating with companies not yet under a consent decree. 

Officials from the OECA indicated that they would like to evaluate the impact of 

the NPRI on compliance and emissions. However, they told us they cannot do this 

due to resource constraints. With the EPA’s current budgetary constraints, the 

agency must make difficult decisions regarding resource allocation to maximize 

the environmental and human health results achieved from its work. However, 

without devoting resources to determining the outcomes of its programs, the EPA 

cannot demonstrate whether the resources it commits have, in fact, led to the 

intended and predicted environmental and human health outcomes. 

Conclusion 

Since beginning the NPRI, the EPA has adopted a similar consent decree approach 

in other industry sectors selected as initiatives. For example, the EPA based its 

stormwater and mineral processing initiatives on establishing consent decrees with 

companies. Consent decrees in these sectors also target major compliance issues 

and establish improved environmental management practices. Establishing a 

demonstrated performance-based system within the NPRI would therefore provide 

a model for how to accomplish this in other sectors. 

To ensure it is operating an effective, results-based program, the EPA should be 

assessing the success and outcomes of the NPRI before the multi-year consent 

decrees have come to a close. Doing so enables the EPA and the regulated 

industry to demonstrate success where it has occurred, identify lessons learned, 

modify the approach to improve success rates, and enhance future enforcement 

initiatives as needed. 

The EPA’s progress in signing consent decrees with companies representing over 

90 percent of the national refinery capacity is an important achievement. The 

EPA’s 2006 evaluation of company-reported emission reduction results assessed 

whether many facilities were making improvements. To sustain environmental 

results and achievements and provide lessons for future enforcement initiatives, 

the EPA needs to provide resources to regularly monitor and evaluate the 

outcomes of the consent decrees. 

By not taking action to assess the outcomes of the NPRI, the EPA misses 

opportunities to design improved strategies that can be applied in other contexts, 

and the agency risks falling short in being able to demonstrate that the NPRI 

achieved its intended goals. 

14-P-0184 13 
 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance: 

1.	 Develop and implement a plan to determine whether consent decrees 

signed as part of the NPRI are leading to promised improvements in 

compliance and sustained reductions in pollution. The plan should 

establish procedures for verifying company completion of consent decree 

requirements for termination, including company assessments of facility 

pollution reductions and comparisons with estimated reductions. 

2.	 Incorporate requirements that ease the resource burden on the EPA to 

monitor refinery progress (e.g., CEMS and fence-line monitoring) into 

future consent decrees or amendments to existing consent decrees under 

the NPRI. 

3.	 Inform the public about the extent to which the NPRI resulted in sustained 

compliance improvement at facilities and reductions in emissions agreed 

to in consent decrees, as highlighted as a key challenge for OECA in the 

EPA’s congressional budget justification. 

4.	 Ensure that plans for future NEIs include an evaluation component that 

demonstrates the extent to which the NEI strategy achieves the goal(s) for 

the NEI identified by the EPA. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

We received comments on the draft report from the Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (appendix B). The agency largely agreed 

with our recommendations and, in many cases, said actions it has already 

underway achieve the purpose of the recommendations. In its response, the 

OECA proposed additional corrective actions and estimated completion dates. 

After subsequent communication with the OECA, we believe the proposed 

actions are responsive (appendix C); three recommendations are resolved with 

corrective actions underway and one recommendation is considered complete. 

In response to recommendation 1, the OECA will issue a memorandum to the 

regions reminding them of the requirements for termination and to work with the 

Office of Civil Enforcement for confirmation that all termination requirements 

have been met. The OECA said it is working with refiners seeking termination to 

develop graphs of actual annual emission reductions achieved under the consent 

decree at the time of termination. Additionally, the agency said it has long 

planned to pull together and disseminate consent decree-specific emission 

reduction data once a consent decree is terminated, thereby supplementing the 

2006 Progress Report (recommendation 3). 

14-P-0184 14 
 

 

 

The agency agreed with recommendation 2, saying it has begun implementing 

lessons learned from the NPRI to address the resource burden from consent 

decree implementation and oversight, including the January 2013 guidance issued 

to the EPA’s enforcement personnel. In its response, the OECA mentioned its 

“Next Generation Compliance” paradigm, which takes advantage of new 

information and monitoring technologies to enable the EPA, states and tribes to 

get better compliance results.12 OECA also said it has a workgroup currently 

exploring ways to use advanced monitoring, e-reporting, public transparency, 

third-party verification and other tools in enforcement settlements. The agency 

completed corrective actions and the recommendation is closed. 

Finally, the agency agreed that it is important to evaluate the success of its NEIs 

periodically (recommendation 4). The agency said that the level of information 

about sources, as well as meaningful information about pollution loading and the 

effectiveness of preventative measures, will vary by NEI sector. In the subsequent 

communication, the agency proposed minor revisions to the recommendation 

language (appendix C), which we accepted and incorporated into the final report. 

The agency’s response also included some technical comments, which were 

incorporated into the final report as appropriate. 

12 For more information on Next Generation Compliance, see OECA’s FY 2014 National Program Managers 

Guidance, at http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/national-program-manager-guidances. 

14-P-0184 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL 

MONETARY BENEFITS 

RECOMMENDATIONS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 14 Develop and implement a plan to determine 

whether consent decrees signed as part of the 

NPRI are leading to promised improvements in 

compliance and sustained reductions in 

pollution. The plan should establish procedures 

for verifying company completion of consent 

decree requirements for termination, including 

company assessments of facility pollution 

reductions and comparisons with estimated 

reductions. 

O Assistant Administrator 

for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

5/30/14 

2 14 Incorporate requirements that ease the resource 

burden on the EPA to monitor refinery progress 

(e.g., CEMS and fence-line monitoring) into 

future consent decrees or amendments to 

existing consent decrees under the NPRI. 

C Assistant Administrator 

for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

11/19/13 

3 14 Inform the public about the extent to which the 

NPRI resulted in sustained compliance 

improvement at facilities and reductions in 

emissions agreed to in consent decrees, as 

highlighted as a key challenge for OECA in the 

EPA’s congressional budget justification. 

O Assistant Administrator 

for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

5/30/14 

4 14 Ensure that plans for future NEIs include 

an evaluation component that 

demonstrates the extent to which the NEI 

strategy achieves the goal(s) for the NEI 

identified by the EPA.

 O Assistant Administrator 

for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

4/30/14 

O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
 

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
 

14-P-0184 16 

1 
 

 

Appendix A 

Timeline for the NPRI 

 Source: OIG analysis and summary. 

14-P-0184 17 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

Agency Comments on Draft Report 

November 19, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report: “Determining the 

Outcomes of the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative May Identify 

Opportunities to Strengthen Future National Enforcement Initiatives,” dated 

September 23, 2013, Report No. OPE- 2012-3065 

FROM: Cynthia Giles 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Program Evaluation 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, “Determining the Outcomes of the National 

Petroleum Refinery Initiative May Identify Opportunities to Strengthen Future National 

Enforcement Initiatives” (Draft Report). The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA)’s response starts with a summary, a response to the recommendations, followed by 

more detailed comments on the Draft Report. As you will see, we largely agree with the 

recommendations, and in many cases we think that the actions already underway achieve the 

purpose of the recommendations For those Draft Report recommendations with which OECA 

agrees, we propose corrective actions and estimated completion dates (below and in attached 

corrective action plan) or, as applicable, that OECA continue to undertake actions consistent 

with the recommendation. 

Summary 

As a threshold matter, we agree with the Draft Report’s discussion of the importance of assessing 

the effectiveness of the Agency’s National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs). As discussed in more 

detail below, we believe that the available data strongly supports that the National Petroleum 

Refinery (NPRI) has not only met but exceeded our goals for this work in reducing pollution that 

affects communities across the country. We are also mindful in our work to implement the 

current NEIs that we are operating in a time of constrained (and declining) budgets, and as a 

result we must seek ways to utilize the resources available to the enforcement program in the 

most efficient and effective way to monitor progress by those under consent decrees, and to 

design approaches that are cost effective. In this respect, while we do not have the funding and 

14-P-0184 18 
 

resources available to us to be able to undertake the additional evaluation of refinery emission 

reductions in the way suggested in the Draft Report, we believe that the approach we are using 

will be just as effective and achievable at less cost. 

Response to Recommendations 

The Draft Report’s recommendations are generally workable, and as described in more detail 

below OECA is already undertaking actions that are consistent with several of the 

recommendations. 

Recommendation #1: “Develop and implement a plan to determine whether consent decrees 

signed as part of the NPRI are leading to promised improvements in compliance and sustained 

reductions in pollution. The plan should establish procedures for verifying company completion 

of consent decree requirements for termination, including company assessments of facility 

pollution reductions and comparisons with estimated reductions.” 

OECA Response: The NPRI consent decrees already contain legally-binding provisions for 

termination, and these will be an effective vehicle for verifying that the requirements of the 

consent decree are met before the CD is terminated. These provisions include a certification of 

completion of CD requirements by a refiner seeking termination (under penalty of perjury or 

other sanction by the court), and confirmation that all required emission controls have been 

installed, payment of all civil and stipulated penalties by a refiner, completion of and compliance 

with all required injunctive relief required (including any Supplemental Environmental Projects), 

receipt of all final permits incorporating the emission limits and standards established under the 

CD, and operation in compliance with the emission limits established in the CD for at least one 

year preceding termination. Because we are monitoring compliance with the consent decrees, 

and will also be verifying compliance in connection with termination of the consent decrees, a 

separate plan to accomplish these objectives is not necessary. 

We agree that effective monitoring and termination are important, and OECA has already begun 

working with refiners preparing for termination in a manner similar to this recommendation. 

EPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice and (as applicable) state co-plaintiffs, 

follows the prescribed requirements for consent decree termination when evaluating whether a 

defendant has met its legal obligations under the consent decree, which includes installation of 

all required controls, receipt of final permits, operation in compliance with the consent decree, 

etc. (all as specified in the consent decree). As part of this process, EPA, DOJ and applicable 

state co-plaintiffs, at the time of termination, will confirm through consent-decree required 

certified completion reports and independent verification that all major obligations have been 

satisfied. 

While achieving the total emission reductions that were estimated at the time settlement is not a 

legally-required component of termination, as discussed further in the detailed comments, the 

data indicates that emission benefits of NPRI settlements will be greater than the initial 

estimates. In addition, EPA is working with refiners seeking termination to develop graphs of 

annual emission reductions actually achieved under the consent decree at the time of termination. 

14-P-0184 19 
 

However, if all legally required conditions are satisfied, EPA and DOJ cannot legally condition 

the United States’ consent to termination on such emissions reductions comparisons or data. 

Proposed Correction Action: Within 45 days, OECA will issue a memorandum to the regions to 

remind them of the requirements for termination as provided in refinery consent decrees, and in 

particular to work with OCE for confirmation that all necessary requirements for termination 

have been met. In addition, OECA will continue to work with refiners at the time of termination 

of their consent decree to develop graphs of annual emission reductions obtained under their 

consent decree at the time of termination. 

Recommendation #2: “Incorporate requirements that ease the resource burden on the EPA to 

monitor refinery progress (e.g., CEMS and fence-line monitoring) into future consent decrees or 

amendments to existing consent decrees under the NPRI.” 

OECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation and has already begun implementing 

lessons learned from the NPRI to address the resource burden from consent decree 

implementation and oversight. Lessons learned from oversight of both NPRI and non-NPRI 

consent decrees have been documented and disseminated in guidance issued to EPA enforcement 

personnel. See “Guidance on Streamlining Oversight in Civil Settlements” (OECA Jan. 10, 

2013), at http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oce/io/documents/finalstreamliningmemo11013.pdf. In 

addition, CEMS and self-reporting of compliance have always been routinely required for all 

major emission sources covered in NPRI consent decrees. Further, several recent settlements 

have included provisions for fence-line monitoring. Provisions such as fenceline monitoring do 

not necessarily reduce the burden on EPA of monitoring compliance with consent decrees, but 

they do help to inform the community and to create pressure for the facility to comply; this is an 

important part of our “Next Gen” approaches to drive better performance. In addition, OECA 

currently has a headquarters/regional workgroup exploring ways to employ advanced 

monitoring, e-reporting, public transparency, third-party verification and other tools in 

enforcement settlements. These tools could both enhance compliance with consent decrees and 

streamline EPA oversight of consent decrees. 

Because OECA is already implementing actions consistent with this recommendation for NPRI 

consent decrees and has issued guidance applicable to all consent decrees, no further corrective 

action is needed. 

Recommendation #3: “Inform the public about the extent to which the NPRI resulted in 

sustained compliance improvement at facilities and reductions in emissions agreed to in consent 

decrees, as highlighted as a key challenge for OECA in EPA’s congressional budget 

justification.” 

OECA Response: OECA agrees with this recommendation and, as noted in the response to 

Recommendation #1, OECA has long planned to pull together and disseminate consent decreespecific emission reduction data once all of an individual consent decree’s requirements have 

been completed. This would supplement the initial summary of emission reductions achieved by 

settling refiners through 2005, and posted to EPA’s website. See “EPA Enforcement: National 

14-P-0184 20 
 

Petroleum Refinery Initiative” at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/results-petroleum-refinerynational-initiative. 

Proposed Corrective Action: As provided in the proposed corrective action for Recommendation 

#1, OECA will continue to work with refiners at the time of termination of their consent decree 

to develop graphs of annual emission reductions obtained under a consent decree at the time of 

termination. 

Recommendation #4: “Ensure that plans for future industry initiatives of the NEI [National 

Enforcement Initiative] include a monitoring and evaluation component that demonstrates the 

extent to which the NEI strategy leads to improvement in compliance and human-health risks 

identified by the EPA.” 

OECA Response: OECA agrees that it is important to evaluate the success of our NEIs based on 

the goals set for the NEI from the outset, and, as noted below, we are already making substantial 

efforts in doing this. We agree that we need to both learn from our experiences in implementing 

the NEIs, and be transparent about what we have achieved through the NEIs. 

We are concerned, however, with this recommendation as written, and propose that it be 

modified. First, it would be better to clarify the recommendation to focus on assuring that, for 

future NEIs, OECA assesses whether our NEI effort has achieved the goal(s) stated in the NEI 

strategy. We note that the level of information we have about the sources covered by NEIs 

varies, so the extent to which we can set meaningful numeric goals will also vary by subject. 

Meaningful information about pollution loading or the effect of preventive measures outlined in 

an NEI will also vary. For clearly defined universes with reasonably good emissions 

information, like the Refinery initiative, more specific information is available. Many other NEIs 

will not have that level of detail, and obtaining it can be prohibitively expensive or even 

impossible. Our experience with the current round of NEIs has helped us to understand the 

challenges of measuring some of these outcomes, and this is a topic where we continue to learn. 

Second, the means for collecting the information upon which to evaluate NEI success will not 

always come through a government monitoring effort. For example, compliance data might be 

available through self-reported information, as with NPDES discharge monitoring reports, or 

may be obtained through consent decree-required reporting. (Note also that EPA must assure 

that we do not run afoul of the Paperwork Reduction Act when collecting information on the 

impact of our NEI efforts.) Inspections are not the only way to determine emissions or 

compliance, nor are they likely to be the most cost effective in many instances; in a time of 

increasingly limited inspection resources, we need to be sure that we use inspectors where they 

can make the most difference. 

Therefore, we suggest revising this recommendation to provide as follows: “Ensure that plans for 

future National Enforcement Initiatives include an evaluation component that demonstrates the 

extent to which the NEI strategy has achieved the goal(s) for the NEI identified by the EPA.” 

Proposed Corrective Action: By April 30, 2014, the OECA Office of Compliance will produce 

guidance that requires the strategies for future National Enforcement Initiatives to include an 

14-P-0184 21 
 

 

 

evaluation component for determining, where feasible, the extent to which the Initiative achieved 

the goals established in the strategy. 

Comments on the Report 

1. Summary Page

 The first paragraph of the Summary (under the “What We Found” heading) states as follows: 

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not have evidence to show that the 

agency’s National Petroleum Refinery Initiative has resulted in emission reductions or 

sustained compliance.” 

This is an incorrect statement. EPA does have information and evidence of emission reductions 

resulting from each refinery’s compliance with an NPRI consent decree, as detailed in periodic 

(quarterly or semi-annually) consent decree implementation progress reports. These periodic 

progress reports were made available as part of the OIG’s evaluation. 

As discussed in more detail below, it appears that the discussion in the Draft Report is referring 

to a 2006 “Results of the Petroleum Refinery National Initiative” report (the “2006 progress 

report”) that was prepared by OCE. As part of that progress report, the emission reduction data 

from individual progress reports were aggregated to produce year-by-year charts showing 

reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) for the settlements that 

had been reached at that time. Because this was an expensive and time-intensive effort that 

required significant contractor resources (which we appreciate is acknowledged later in the Draft 

Report), and because OCE’s extramural funding levels have declined by nearly half since 

FY2008, a comprehensive update to the 2006 progress report is not an affordable option. 

Therefore, instead of diverting these declining resources away from oversight of existing consent 

decrees and prosecution of new cases, OCE determined to aggregate this information and make it 

public in conjunction with the completion (termination) of an individual refiner’s consent decree 

to show the full extent of reductions achieved under the consent decree. Thus, it is not correct to 

state that EPA does not have this information under the NPRI consent decrees; instead, for cost 

reasons, we have deferred pulling this information together in a manner similar to the 2006 

progress report until the completion of a refiner’s obligations under its consent decree. 

In addition, data reported by the petroleum refining sector to EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI)1

 demonstrates a significant and steady decline in emissions in this sector since 

1999, as shown in the following chart (in tons per year)2

: 

1

 The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions of both criteria and hazardous air pollutants 

from all air emissions sources. The NEI is prepared every three years by the Office of Air and Radiation, and the 

data is made publicly available on EPA’s website. See generally http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. 

2

 The first NPRI settlements were reached in 2000 and 2001, so as compared to 1999 NEI data, the emissions 

reductions from these first settlements would begin to show up in the NEI data for 2002. The 1999, 2002 and 2005 

NEI data for emissions of SO2 and NOx shown in the chart is that reported to SIC code 2911 (petroleum refining); 

2008 and 2011 NEI data for the same pollutants is that for the “industrial processes-petroleum refining” sector. 

14-P-0184 22 
 

 

                             

                             

                               

                               

                               

                             

                             

                                 

                           

                     

 

 

 

Accordingly, the Agency has evidence indicating that sources in this sector that are required to 

implement NPRI consent decrees have been steadily and dramatically reducing their emissions 

over this period of time.3 

OIG Response: We agree that the EPA collected evidence of emissions reductions in its 2006 effort.

However, the agency has not continued to measure emission reductions resulting from the NPRI. To

evaluate the outcome of this multi‐decade project, the EPA needs to regularly evaluate the program in

the aggregate so that it can make modifications along the way to improve its environmental outcomes.

We also agree that the EPA collected evidence of compliance with the consent decrees. However, this

evidence has not demonstrated that facilities under consent decrees are, in fact, complying with the

elements for which the consent decrees were signed. We understand the EPA’s reticence to diverting

resources away from other refinery work to monitor the success of this effort, but maintain that to

follow Office of Management and Budget guidance on operating government programs the EPA needs

to demonstrate that the resources put into this program have resulted in environmental

improvements.

The first, second and third paragraphs of the Summary Page go on to state: 

3

 In addition, one of the NPRI goals was to obtain consent decree commitments that were estimated to reduce NOx 

and SO2 emissions by 20% over pre-NPRI levels. NEI data indicates that emissions in this sector have declined by 

approximately 75% since 1999, a far greater reduction outcome than OECA had set as a goal for the initiative. In 

this respect, while enforcement is not claimed as the only reason for this decline in emissions, NEI data does 

illustrate that emissions were in fact declining as expected as the NPRI consent decrees were implemented. It is also 

worth noting that nearly the entire sector is covered by NPRI consent decrees – 80% by FY05 and currently over 

90% – and no new federal regulations, such as new NSPS standards, were promulgated during this time period that 

would account for this level of reductions. 

14-P-0184 23 
 

                   

                                 

                               

                                 

                                   

                           

               

“One of the goals of the NPRI was to increase compliance by 50 percent over its baseline 

level. The EPA needs to determine whether the NPRI achieved the intended compliance 

and emission outcomes. . . . Without analyzing the available data, however, the EPA 

cannot determine whether the NPRI actually achieved established goals. . . . [T]o assess 

the success of this strategy, the EPA must determine whether the strategy achieved 

compliance, coverage, and emission-reduction goals, and reduced the environmental and 

human-health risks associated with noncompliance.” 

The NPRI was concluded as an initiative and returned to the “core” program upon meeting each 

of the four goals specified for completion as part of NPRI’s overall strategy. The Draft Report 

briefly summarizes two of these goals – the compliance improvement and emission reduction 

goals – in Chapter 1 (on page 5), but the summary somewhat mis-states the goals. Specifically, 

these two goals were set for the NPRI as follows: 

	 Compliance Improvement Goal: This goal was defined by the Strategy as a 50% 

improvement in compliance over the 1995 baseline (which showed that 109 of the 156 

facilities then in operation in the petroleum refining industry were in violation during the 

period from August 1994 through August 1995, or a 70% noncompliance rate in the 

industry). Thus, to improve compliance by 50%, the Strategy specified that 55 refineries 

needed to be under consent decrees that would address past noncompliance by the end of 

FY2005. Principally due to the successful achievement of settlements with 3 large 

refiners in 2005 (ConocoPhillips, Valero and ExxonMobil, covering 32 refineries), a total 

of 87 refineries – or 55.7% – were under consent decrees by the end of that fiscal year. 

Thus, the compliance goal as specified by the Strategy was not only achieved, but was 

exceeded. 

OIG Response: We agree that these consent decrees constitute an important accomplishment.

However, as a matter of evaluating the outcomes of the NPRI as an environmental program, having a

facility under consent decree does not necessarily mean that the facility is in compliance. The agency’s

interpretation is that a facility under consent decree is considered “in compliance.” We do not see the

consent decree as the end of the line. When the EPA has returned to do on‐site inspections, including

consent decree follow‐up inspections, it has found issues with consent decree requirements or new

compliance issues at the facilities under consent decree.

	 Emission Reduction Goal: This goal – a 20% reduction in NOx and SO2 combined – was 

defined as securing commitments in enforceable consent decrees for new controls and 

management practices that would be estimated to achieve a 20% reduction from 1995 

emission levels, or just over 200,000 tons per year of SO2 and NOx. By the end of FY05, 

settlements had secured commitments for an estimated reduction of 250,000 tons per 

year, once all controls were implemented. Thus, the reduction goal as specified in the 

Strategy was also not only achieved, but was exceeded by 50,000 tons per year. 

Therefore, the evidence supports the view that the NPRI did successfully achieve the goals 

established for this Strategy. 

14-P-0184 24 
 

                           

                                 

                               

                           

                                     

       

 

Based on the discussion elsewhere in the Draft Report, it appears that the Report is focusing on 

whether the expected emission reductions that were estimated at the time of settlement will be 

realized upon full implementation of the controls and requirements of each consent decree.4 As 

noted below in the discussion of the “Noteworthy Achievements” of the NPRI (on Page 5 of the 

Draft Report), the total emission reductions that are estimated at the time of settlement for all 

NPRI consent decrees is 349,00 tons (93,000 tons of NOx and 256,000 of SO2). NEI data for 

this sector indicates that reductions in line with these initial estimates are in fact being achieved, 

with a reduction of approximately 495,000 tons overall between 1999 and 2011 (more than 

165,000 tons of NOx and 332,000 tons of SO2). 

OIG Response: During the course of our evaluation, EPA staff informed us that National Emissions

Inventory data was not an accurate source for emissions data for the NPRI. These data are generally

based on estimates made by facilities using emission factors and do not account for differences in

production. As part of the consent decree requirements, facilities are required to regularly submit

emissions data to the EPA. We believe it makes sense to use the data submitted by refineries for the

purpose of calculating actual reductions.

EPA agrees that compliance with the terms of the NPRI consent decrees and the achievement of 

these reductions are important objectives, and accordingly the successful implementation of and 

compliance with consent decree-prescribed controls to reduce emissions is required prior to 

termination of a refiner’s consent decree. As noted above, providing a demonstration of the 

emissions benefits of refiner’s work to implement its obligations under its consent decree is one 

of the planned components of consent decree termination. 

2. Chapter One 

Page 1: The discussion under “Background” is an unduly narrow characterization of the work 

EPA does to increase compliance and reduce unlawful pollution. We suggest that this section be 

revised to read as follows: 

“Assuring compliance with environmental laws is an integral part of EPA’s Strategic 

Plan (available at http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget) to protect human health and the 

environment. The EPA’s 2013 budget directs about one-tenth of its annual budget to 

promoting compliance with environmental laws ($830 million in fiscal year 2013). 

EPA employs a broad range of tools and approaches to assure and increase regulatory 

compliance. EPA brings civil or criminal enforcement actions to address violations or 

require regulated entities to clean up pollution. The Agency monitors compliance to 

assure regulated entities obey applicable laws and regulations. It empowers communities 

and the public through transparency and accountability by disclosing compliance and 

performance information on regulated entities and government. It also empowers 

communities by providing analytical tools that better display critical information, and 

provide users with enhanced analytical and targeting capabilities. EPA helps builds our 

4

 In this respect, it should be understood that these reductions are estimates only, and not enforceable requirements 

for a specific tons-per-year reduction. 

14-P-0184 25 
 

 

  

   

state and tribal partners’ compliance and enforcement capacity and oversees their 

performance. EPA also helps businesses, federal facilities, local governments and tribes 

meet environmental regulatory requirements through compliance assistance. 

Robust enforcement is critically important for addressing violations and promoting 

deterrence. However, enforcement alone will not be enough to achieve compliance 

results that protect public health and the environment and ensure that businesses that 

comply with the law are not disadvantaged relative to companies that do not play by the 

rules. Therefore, EPA also is investing in a new paradigm called “Next Generation 

Compliance” to improve compliance and reduce pollution. Next Generation Compliance 

takes advantage of new information and monitoring technologies to enable EPA, states, 

and tribes to get better compliance results and tackle today’s compliance challenges. It 

includes: 

	 Designing more effective regulations and permits that are easier to implement and 

produce higher compliance and improved environmental outcomes. 

	 Using advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology so regulated entities, 

government, and the public can more easily see and respond to pollutant 

discharges, environmental conditions, and noncompliance. 

	 Requiring electronic reporting by regulated entities to generate more accurate, 

complete and timely information on pollution sources, pollution, and compliance. 

	 Making the information we have today more accessible, and making new 

information obtained from advanced emissions monitoring and electronic 

reporting publicly available to expand transparency and improve the performance 

of government and regulated entities. 

	 Developing and using innovative enforcement approaches to achieve more 

widespread compliance and to help to increase the effectiveness of our 

compliance work, such as making greater use of targeted deterrence approaches, 

and self- and third-party certification tools.5

” 

Page 3: The third paragraph under the heading “Refineries Present Widespread Compliance 

Challenges and Emit Harmful Pollutants” somewhat incorrectly summarizes the four “marquee 

issue” areas of focus under the NPRI. The Draft Report states: 

“Through inspections and additional research, the EPA identified four major areas where 

refineries did not comply with the law: 

1. Emissions from new or updated major refining units without a permit. 

2. Fugitive emissions from refinery leaks. 

3. Uncontrolled and unreported benzene waste. 

5 See “OECA’s FY2014 National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance” (June 23, 2013), at 10-11, available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/fy14oecanpmguidance.pdf .

14-P-0184 26 
 

 

4. Use of flaring for routine purposes instead of for only venting dangerous gases.” 

Both for clarity and accuracy, this should be revised to more accurately identify the marquee 

issue areas. Specifically: 

“Through inspections and research, EPA identified the four most significant sources of 

noncompliant emissions from refineries: 

1. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) 

requirements for FCCUs, heaters and boilers. 

2. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Leak Detection and Repair 

requirements Leaks from refinery equipment, such as valves, pumps, and 

connectors. 

3. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements for 

management of benzene wastes at refineries. 

4. Uncontrolled and routine flaring (NSPS Subparts A&J).” 

This revision, especially with respect to #1 and #4, is recommended because the largest sources 

of refinery emissions covered by NPRI consent decrees are not always “unpermitted” – instead, 

most were likely improperly permitted (e.g., incorrectly permitted as “minor” sources for 

NSR/PSD purposes, did not have controls that represented required Best Available Control 

Technology, etc.), in addition to being unpermitted. With respect to flaring, the issue addressed 

by the NPRI is not whether flares should be used “only [for] venting dangerous gases” – by 

definition and design, flares are only used for this purpose. Instead, the NPRI focused on 

whether flares were being used routinely instead of on an emergency basis, and when used 

whether flares were emitting at levels in excess of applicable limits. 

Page 5: The discussion under the heading “Noteworthy Achievements” should be revised for 

technical accuracy. Specifically, the second paragraph, third sentence states: 

“For example, companies cumulatively pledged to reduce pollution by 93,000 tons of 

NOx and 256,000 tons of SO2 annually” (emphasis added). 

As noted in the discussion of the “Summary Page” above, the NPRI consent decrees specify a 

variety of enforceable control equipment, new (lower) emission levels, and improved 

management practices covering the four marquee issues; however, the consent decrees do not 

specify certain levels of emission reductions as enforceable requirements.6 As discussed above, 

the cumulative emission reductions cited are estimates (not enforceable “pledges”) of the 

expected emissions benefits from these controls. 

Page 6: The listed bullet points could benefit from some technical corrections, as follows: 

First bullet: This bullet point states that “many” companies have agreed to install lowleaking valves as part of their enhanced LDAR program. In fact, this is a relatively 

recent development, first agreed to as part of the settlement with Murphy Oil (2010), and 

included in refinery settlements reached since that time. This technology did not 

6

 There is a limited exception for a specified reduction in NOx emissions, in tons per year, from refinery heaters and 

boilers. See, e.g., Chevron (2003), ¶33; Citgo (2004) ¶54; Sinclair (2008), ¶42; Murphy (2010), ¶31. 

14-P-0184 27 
 

 

previously exist, but is an example of the “technology-forcing” impact of the NPRI, in 

which EPA’s enforcement efforts have effectively driven improvements to existing 

control technologies and the development of new technologies in this industrial sector. 

(Other examples under the NPRI include the development of more effective pollutantreducing catalyst additives for use in FCCUs and, more recently, the use of cutting-edge 

infrared imaging technologies for flare “efficiency” controls, as in the Marathon and BP 

Whiting settlements in 2012 and the Shell Deer Park settlement in 2013.) 

Second bullet: This bullet point states that “most” consent decrees require installation of 

continuous emission monitors (CEMS). In fact, all consent decrees require installation of 

CEMS on major emission sources (e.g., FCCUs, large heaters, etc.). 

Third bullet: This bullet point states that “some” consent decrees include requirements 

for fenceline monitoring of emissions. Solely for purposes of clarification, this is a recent 

development (similar to the discussion of low-leaking valves, above) that was first agreed 

to in the Murphy Oil settlement in 2010, and included in several other settlements agreed 

to since that time. 

With respect to each of these technical corrections to the points on Page 6, it is important to 

underscore that OECA agrees with Draft Report’s conclusion that these kinds of provisions 

increase transparency (in the case of fencline monitoring) and enhance EPA’s ability to manage 

compliance in this complex industry by enabling EPA, facilities, and the public to more readily 

access emission data as well as provide protections for those living near these facilities. 

3. Chapter Two 

Pages 9-10: We do not think the evidence supports the statements on Page 9 that “EPA has not 

demonstrated whether the NPRI resulted in sustained compliance or emission reductions in the 

petroleum-refining sector,” or that “since 2006, the EPA has not evaluated progress toward 

achieving these outcomes through the consent decrees,” or similar statements elsewhere on pages 

9 and 10. Even though OECA does not have the funds to do a formal update of the 2006 

progress report, we do have the means to measure success by aggregating data demonstrating 

emission reductions obtained as the result of the completion of consent decree commitments: 

These can be handled on a refiner-specific basis as part of the consent decree-termination 

process. To date, one settlement (the 2003 Coastal Eagle Point settlement) has been terminated 

in its entirety,7

 and others are nearing termination in the next several years. OECA has 

determined that the use of its (declining) resources is better put toward ensuring that prior to 

termination all consent decree requirements are completed and the expected emission reduction 

benefits are realized, rather than putting those resources toward a general updating of the 2006 

7

 For business reasons, the Coastal refinery was shut down and dismantled in 2010. Accordingly, there are no 

further emissions from refinery operations at this facility. 

14-P-0184 28 
 

                                 

                           

                           

                     

 

progress report.8 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, EPA’s NEI data demonstrates the 

significant decrease in emissions in this sector during the term of the NPRI, and the record of 

enforcement of NPRI consent decree requirements likewise demonstrates that OECA’s oversight 

has been successfully achieving compliance and obtaining expected emission benefits. 

Throughout the report, including on Pages 9-10, the content and tone suggest that relying on selfreported data is a somehow questionable practice. Our experience is that self-reporting is a very 

important and powerful tool in the compliance arsenal. Increased use of well structured selfreporting strategies will be an important part of our strategy to increase compliance while we are 

reducing the size of our staff. It is not the case that inspections are the only, or even sometimes 

the best, way to accurately gauge compliance or the success of pollution reduction efforts, and to 

the extent that the Draft Report suggests otherwise we strongly recommend you reconsider. 

Technological innovation is making new approaches to compliance and pollution verification 

possible, and we hope that the OIG will be updating its reviews and recommendations, just as we 

are updating our practices, to reflect the power of these new approaches. It is important to 

recognize and seize opportunities presented by new technologies at any time, but especially so in 

a time of declining resources, and not adhere to prior practices when new approaches promise 

better and more efficient results. One example of the use of self-reporting in the context of this 

initiative is demonstrated by the September 2013 enforcement action involving the Total (2007) 

NPRI consent decree. In that action, the $8.75 million penalty obtained for consent decree 

noncompliance, plus additional injunctive relief, was based primarily on EPA’s review of 

required company reporting. See “Texas Refinery Will Pay $8.75 Million for Failing to Comply 

with Enforcement Settlement to Resolve Air Violations,” at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/c07d422e06400 

be685257bec005fa181!opendocument (press release); 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/1stamendtotal-cd.pdf (consent 

decree amendment requiring corrective action to address noncompliance); and 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-10/documents/total-stipulationandorder.pdf 

(order requiring payment of penalties). 

OIG Response: We did not evaluate the veracity of self‐reported data and have made that clear in the

final report. However, we found instances where the EPA inspectors found violations during follow‐up

inspections at refineries. We concluded that although self‐reports are an essential part of compliance

and enforcement, continuing, periodic EPA inspections play an important role as well.

The Draft Report also ignores the variety of inspections that EPA does, as well as important 

work done by the states. Within this sector, EPA has conducted some type of consent decree 

compliance inspections at refineries every year nationwide, in addition to inspections at 

refineries not yet under consent decree. Second, and as illustrated in more detail below, EPA 

relies on and works in conjunction with its state partners (many of whom are consent decree co8

 One of the four interlocking consent decrees covering the Shell family of refineries (Motiva, Shell Deer Park and 

Equilon) covers only the requirements applicable to refinery heaters and boilers. While several of the refineries 

subject to this consent decree have been sold to other refiners, Shell has completed its obligations under the Heaters 

and Boilers consent decree at the refineries it still owns, which has been terminated as it applies to Shell. Consistent 

with OECA’s plans for termination, when available EPA will post graphs showing emissions reductions obtained 

under this consent decree at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/motiva-enterprises-llc-refinery-settlement. 

14-P-0184 29 
 

 

plaintiffs) for inspections and oversight at refineries. The Agency relies on a number of tools 

and partners to confirm compliance with applicable requirements at refineries; an on-site 

inspection is just one of these tools, but is not the sole method of reliably ensuring compliance or 

obtaining compliance information from a regulated facility. In addition, EPA is building on such 

self-reporting as part of its “Next Generation Compliance” goal to achieve greater compliance 

and reduce pollution using advances in monitoring and information technologies, e-reporting and 

other measures. See, e.g., “Enforcement Goals: Next Generation Compliance” at 

http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-goals; see also “Next Generation Compliance” 

at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/icis/vmeeting/vmeeting6a-panel.pdf. In addition, 

the suggestion that EPA should deploy its inspection resources “to determine whether 

compliance changed under consent decrees” (regardless of risk) would have the unfortunate 

effect of diverting inspection resources away from higher-risk and higher-priority facilities. 

While EPA would agree that conducting routine compliance inspections at all covered refineries 

on a regular basis would be likely to yield a statistically significant analysis and evaluation of 

whether refiners’ compliance changed under consent decrees, this is not feasible in light of 

current and expected future resource constraints, and is also not the intent or purpose of 

compliance inspections. 

This section also states that “between 2003 and 2012, Region 6 and the OECA conducted 

inspections at only 19 of the 35 consent decree facilities in Region 6.” This tends to suggest that 

each refinery under consent decree should have been inspected by EPA during this time. 

However, this overlooks several important facts and methods used by EPA to assure compliance: 

1.	 Throughout the 2003 to 2012 time period, negotiations covering all these refineries were 

either underway or had recently been completed (i.e., the number of consent decreecovered refineries is not static during this period). In 2003, for example, only 14 

refineries were under an NPRI consent decree. In 2005, settlements were reached with 

refiners covering an additional 19 refineries. Another 5 refineries were covered under 

consent decrees reached between 2007 and 2012. On-site inspections by EPA were 

conducted at more than half of these refineries during this time period, which is 

consistent with a risk-based approach to inspections9

 and the use of other tools for 

determining consent decree compliance. 

2.	 EPA is not the sole inspection or enforcement authority, as states also play a significant 

role in addition to EPA. The Draft Report incorrectly cites Marathon’s Garyville LA and 

ExxonMobil’s Beaumont TX refineries as two that had not been inspected. Under the 

applicable state Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS), as major sources these facilities 

are required to be inspected on a periodic basis (between 2 to 5 years); such inspections 

include compliance with consent decree requirements as reflected in Title V permits, 

among other applicable permits. Consistent with these CMS requirements, and as 

9

 Because the installation of major controls under NPRI consent decrees are typically large, multi-year construction 

projects, a consent decree-compliance inspection conducted shortly after a settlement is reached, and before major 

implementation work has begun, would not be a wise use of inspection resources, and progress at these stages can be 

more efficiently tracked through review of required implementation reporting. Instead, and consistent with the riskbased approach to the use of inspection resources, on-site compliance inspections are more commonly employed to 

determine compliance with major consent decree milestones (which may be some years after settlement). 

14-P-0184 30 
 

                         

                       

                           

                             

                             

                           

 

 

 

documented in EPA’s “Enforcement & Compliance History Online” Database (ECHO), 

Texas has conducted several hundred Partial Compliance Evaluation (PCEs),10 Title V 

compliance reviews and on-site inspections at the Beaumont refinery, and EPA has 

conducted an additional 20 PCEs during this time (see http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgibin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=4824500018). Similarly, Louisiana has 

conducted nearly 90 PCEs, Title V compliance reviews and on-site inspections at the 

Garyville refinery, and EPA has conducted an additional 15 PCEs as well (see 

http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=2209500013). 

OIG Response: After reviewing information for these two refineries we still maintain that our

statement is correct. These refineries have not received a compliance‐based inspection from

the EPA. For example, according to the agency’s analysis of 2006 emission data, the

Beaumont Exxon refinery had milestones for hard limits for SO2 to be established toward the

end of 2005. Additionally, there was a milestone for “hardware limits effective” for NOx in

2009. We would expect a compliance‐based inspection by the EPA to check these milestones.

3.	 The regular course of dealing between EPA and refiners under consent decrees also 

results in actions to address noncompliance, without the need for formal inspections or 

the use of other enforcement tools. For example, disclosures by ExxonMobil of 

violations at its Beaumont refinery (and other refineries) resulted in the assessment of 

stipulated penalties and commitments for additional injunctive relief in 2008 (see 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/exxonmobil-stipulationagree1208.pdf and http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/3rdmodexxonmobil1208-cd.pdf). In addition, refiners anticipating a compliance issue have been 

encouraged by EPA work out a resolution with the Agency in advance, without the need 

for more formal processes (such as a Notice of Violation or other enforcement followup); 

the outcome of these prophylactic efforts to address the anticipated compliance problem 

also typically results in consent decree modifications that yield additional emission 

reductions (see, e.g., http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/second-amendment-consentdecree-sinclair-tulsa-refining-company-sinclair-wyoming). 

4.	 As noted above in the example of the Total consent decree, required consent decree selfreporting is also used to assure compliance. 

In other words, the Draft Report tends to focus on on-site compliance inspections as the principal 

or only means of reliably ensuring compliance; however, the DraftReport should recognize that 

such inspections are not the sole method of compliance oversight at consent decree-covered 

refineries, and that EPA uses a number of effective tools to perform this oversight function. 

Pages 10-11: The Draft Report’s discussion of EPA’s 2006 progress report states: 

“Company-specific analysis showed mixed results. Data from some companies 

demonstrated the companies would likely meet or exceed anticipated emission-reduction 

goals. Emission data from other companies had increased since signing the consent 

decrees.” 

10 See “Inspections and Evaluations,” at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/inspections. 

14-P-0184 31 
 

 

 

The basis for the draft report’s statement above is not clear. As a threshold matter, the consent 

decrees for which emissions reductions had been achieved at the time of the 2006 progress report 

were still in the early stages of implementation (because of the extent and complexity of consent 

decree requirements, most implementation schedules run for in excess of 10-12 years or more); 

several covered in the 2006 progress report were in only the first or second year of 

implementation (i.e., a significant amount of work still remained to be done in later years under 

these consent decrees). Even at this early stage of implementation under the 7 settlements that 

had been reached at that time, overall emissions from covered refineries were reduced by nearly 

50% from pre-settlement levels.11 In two instances, as noted in the Draft Report, some emissions 

had increased from pre-settlement levels (Coastal – FCCU NOx, and CHS – FCCU SO2), which 

is of limited relevance given that the dates for installation of equipment and controls to lower 

emissions from these units were still in the future at the time of the 2006 progress report. See 

Coastal consent decree ¶15 (FCCU NOx controls required by 2008 or 2010, depending on 

control technology selected); CHS consent decree ¶33 (FCCU SO2 controls required by the end 

of 2007 or 2009, depending on the control technology selected). Nevertheless, overall emissions 

from all refineries under settlement at that time were cumulatively lower than their presettlement levels. This data does not seem to support a “mixed results” conclusion – it shows 

immediate, if not yet complete, progress in achieving expected emission reductions. 

The achievement of nearly half of the estimated emission reductions from these early settlements 

by the initial stages of implementation also demonstrates the inaccuracy of the Draft Report’s 

statement at the top of Page 10 that “EPA’s press releases may have overstated the successes of 

the agency’s NPRI strategy.” To the contrary, it tends to suggest that EPA’s estimates were 

conservative and likely understated the emission benefits of these consent decrees. Although the 

Draft Report’s discussion of EPA’s emission reduction estimates is focused on settlements 

reached through 2005, data and information available since that time supports the conclusion that 

these estimates are conservative and likely understate total reductions, rather than to overstate 

them. As noted above, NEI data from the 1999 to 2011 time period shows a reduction in 

emissions from this sector that is exceeds EPA’s total emission reduction estimates for all NPRI 

settlements, including those reached at the end of or after the 1999-2011 timeframe12 (that is, 

once the emission reductions from these more recent settlements are accounted for, total 

emission reductions in this sector will be even greater than EPA’s initial estimates from the 

settlements). 

The following paragraph from the Draft Report also appears to acknowledge the likelihood that 

estimates at the time of settlement would tend to understate actual reductions: 

“However, the 2006 emissions analysis did not show the progress made by all facilities 

under the consent decree at the time. . . . The OECA officials also said that the 2006 

11 Emissions of SO2, NOx, PM and CO were approximately 360,000 tons per year in 1997; by 2005 these emissions 

were approximately 190,000 tons per year. See 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/refineryinitiative-powerpoint021111.pdf (slide 28). 

12 Settlements reached at the end of or after this period include Shell Chemical and Murphy (2010); Hovensa and 

Western (2011); Coffeyville (2012); and Big West and Countrymark (2013). 

14-P-0184 32 
 

 

 

 

  

analysis likely missed some emission reductions due to the lag between the finalization of 

the decree and the installation of controls at the refineries. For example, the 

implementation schedule for the 2005 ConocoPhillips settlement requires major 

equipment to reduce flaring emissions to be installed periodically through 2012 at some 

facilities.” 

Accordingly, we suggest that the Draft Report should be revised to reflect this discussion. In 

addition, a minor revision to the second full paragraph on Page 11 is needed for accuracy. As 

noted, the 2006 progress report did not include emissions reductions for every settlement that 

had been reached through 2005, as the Citgo, ConocoPhillips, Sunoco, Valero and ExxonMobil 

settlements had been reached late in the year. However, rather than “missing” emission 

reductions from those settlements, those consent decrees were too early in their implementation 

schedules to quantify or report emission reductions that had been achieved at that time (a 

suggested revision would be that “the 2006 analysis did not include some emission reductions 

due to the lag between the finalization of the most recent settlements at that time and the 

installation of controls at the refineries covered by those newer decrees.”). 

Page 11: The Draft Report includes the following statement in the second full paragraph: 

“An agency official stressed that achieving emission reductions was more important than 

achieving compliance with consent decree requirements. However, enforcement officials 

said that due to resource constraints, they discontinued this effort after the 2006 

contractor’s analysis.” 

There are two concerns with the quoted passage. 

	 The first sentence is not an accurate statement of OECA’s objective or intent with respect 

to refinery settlements. While achieving consent decree-required emission reductions is 

one of the objectives of the NPRI, the suggestion that this objective is “more important” 

than consent decree compliance does not follow, as the two are necessarily linked – 

compliance with emission reduction requirements in NPRI consent decrees is necessary 

to achieve the bargained-for emission benefits. We suggest this internally inconsistent 

statement is either a misunderstanding or an erroneous attribution.13 

	 The second sentence appears to suggest that “this effort” (to ensure the achievement of 

emission reductions) was “discontinued” after 2006 is not correct. EPA has continued to 

oversee and enforce existing consent decrees to ensure compliance with those 

requirements,14 as well as to continue to bring other refiners that had not settled as of 

13 In this respect, context is important. As noted earlier in the comments on Page 10, EPA has encouraged refiners 

anticipating a compliance problem with their consent decree to discuss such issues with EPA in advance. These 

joint efforts typically result in consent decree amendments addressing the prospective problem and obtaining 

additional emission reductions. See, e.g., 4th Amendment to the Motiva “Heaters and Boilers” consent decree 

(2005). 

14 Oversight and enforcement of NPRI consent decrees includes the following modifications to consent decree 

requirements that provide additional emission benefits, over and above those contained in the original settlement 

agreement: BP (3 amendments plus one new consent decree for the Whiting, Indiana refinery); ConocoPhillips (4 

14-P-0184 33 
 

 

2006 under NPRI consent decrees.15 What OECA decided not to continue after 2006 was 

to regularly update the 2006 progress report; this is unrelated to the continuing efforts to 

obtain additional emission reductions in this sector. The discontinued updating of the 

2006 progress report due to budgetary considerations is unrelated to the issue of efforts to 

oversee and enforce implementation of the NPRI consent decrees. 

Page 11: The second full paragraph concludes with the following statement regarding the 

decision to discontinue updating the 2006 progress report: 

“[W]e believe it [discontinuing the updating effort] does not provide interim information 

that would allow for mid-course corrections if facilities are not meeting requirements.” 

As noted above, the 2006 progress report and EPA’s continuing efforts to ensure compliance 

with NPRI consent decrees are unrelated. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the opposite – that 

the Agency is taking action to make such “mid-course corrections” on a consent decree-specific 

basis in appropriate circumstances for those refiners that are not meeting their enforceable 

obligations, as noted above. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, aggregated annual data 

on total emission reductions cannot be used to identify noncompliance with any specific consent 

decree requirement; only consent decree oversight activities can confirm compliance (see 

discussion above). 

Page 11: The last paragraph in this section states as follows: 

“By taking these steps [to update the 2006 progress report], the OECA could better 

determine the success of the NPRI, and modify the NPRI by determining what factors 

prevented facilities from realizing the projected emission reductions. Because the EPA 

has not used these data to track whether emission reductions were occurring, it is unclear 

whether the companies implementing consent decrees are making the progress 

promised.” 

OECA fully agrees that the 2006 progress report was a valuable effort to show the overall 

progress made up that time, which is why it was initially undertaken. If resources allowed, 

updating the report would also be interesting, although, as noted above, we already know from 

the NEI data for this sector that there have been significant reductions in emissions since 1999. 

However, for all the reasons described above, we think there is a way to verify compliance and 

to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the initiative in a much more cost effective manner 

through the already required consent decree termination process. 

Page 12: The Draft Report suggests that there is not a process for conducting terminations of the 

consent decrees. In fact, the consent decrees each contain a full section specifying the legal 

amendments); ExxonMobil (4 amendments); Flint Hills (Koch) (2 amendments); Marathon (2 amendments); Total 

(1 amendment); Sinclair (4 amendments); and Sunoco (3 amendments). 

15 New NPRI consent decrees agreed-to after 2006 include Total, Hunt, Valero/Premcor, Sinclair, Holly, Frontier, 

Wyoming Refining, Shell Chemical, Murphy Oil, Hovensa, Western, Hess, Coffeyville, Countrymark, and Big 

West. 

14-P-0184 34 
 

 

requirements for termination. A separate process is not necessary. The termination process as 

specified in NPRI consent decrees includes requirements for certifications of completion of all 

consent decree requirements by refiners (under penalty of perjury or contempt), payment of 

stipulated penalties, and a requirement for full compliance with the consent decree for the year 

prior to termination, among other requirements. In addition, EPA – and, where applicable, the 

state co-plaintiff(s) – independently verify a refiner’s compliance with these provisions. It is not 

clear whether the Draft Report is suggesting new or different requirements for termination, but of 

course the provisions of the consent decree govern, and new provisions cannot now be added. 

If what the OIG is saying is that some personnel were not familiar with the consent decree 

requirements for termination, this may reflect that some regions have not yet had a consent 

decree eligible for termination and so had not as yet refamiliarized themselves with those 

requirements. OECA is working directly with those regions affected by terminations as they 

come due. However, we agree that a reminder about consent decree termination provisions 

would be useful and we are intending to issue a memorandum to the regions refreshing their 

understanding of these provisions. 

Page 13: The third full paragraph expresses concerns regarding EPA’s ability to oversee NPRI 

consent decrees because the Agency is currently understaffed with sufficient technical expertise 

in this sector, concerns regarding the Agency’s ability to attract and retain qualified experts in 

this area, and concerns stemming from the very limited resources available in both Headquarters 

and in Regions. OECA agrees that declining staffing levels and extramural resources for the 

enforcement program is a serious constraint, both for enforcement in this sector as well as 

overall. We are doing the best we can with what we have available to us for oversight and 

enforcement of these consent decrees, and in response to declining resources we have shifted 

strategies to reduce the resource burden and to focus on key enforcement and oversight needs to 

assure compliance and reduction of emissions, which necessarily results in cutting back on work 

that consumes extramural resources but is not essential to achieving compliance or emissions 

reductions.16 

Page 14: The first paragraph under “Conclusion” states as follows: 

“The EPA should be assessing the success and outcomes of the NPRI. Doing so enables 

the EPA and the regulated industry to demonstrate success where it has occurred, identify 

lessons learned, modify this enforcement approach to improve success rates, and enhance 

future enforcement initiatives as needed. Noncompliance and pollution at refineries 

particularly affect communities located close to refineries. Noncompliance could lead to 

emergencies and upsets at facilities, which could endanger refinery workers and 

communities.” 

OECA entirely agrees but would add that we think we are doing this already. We agree that the 

work already done in this sector is very important for protecting communities from harmful 

16 Other efforts to reduce the NPRI resource burden include streamline (where possible) consent decree reporting 

requirements, mandated “review and approval” requirements, etc. See “Guidance on Streamlining Oversight in 

Civil Settlements” (OECA Jan. 10, 2013) 

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oce/io/documents/finalstreamliningmemo11013.pdf.

14-P-0184 35 
 

 

 

  

pollution, and as you know we are continuing to focus on this sector for other emissions, as 

evidenced by our recent cases addressing hazardous emissions from flaring. We have learned 

many things from our work in this sector that we are applying elsewhere. For example, the 

efficiencies realized from a “global” approach for addressing environmental compliance on a 

company-wide basis (where possible), as opposed to employing a unit-by-unit/facility-by-facility 

approach, has been extended into other efforts. On the other hand, the costly and timeconsuming “test and set” approach to establishing emission limits, which was employed 

extensively in early NPRI consent decrees, is now generally avoided in favor of setting “hard” or 

numeric limits in later consent decrees, and “test and set” is used only where absolutely 

necessary.17 As noted above, other lessons learned from the NPRI have been incorporated into 

guidance for all consent decrees.18 

Finally, OECA agrees that upset events and excess emissions can have an adverse impact on 

local communities – one of the reasons for the selection of the NPRI was the significant 

environmental justice impact and proximity of refineries to overburdened communities. 

However, for accuracy and completeness the Draft Report should recognize that “upsets” or 

emissions from the malfunction of emission sources may not be violations of applicable EPA 

regulations. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 60.102a(h). 

Contact Information 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact the OECA Audit 

Liaison, Gwendolyn Spriggs, at 202-564-2439. 

Attachment 

cc: Lawrence Starfield, OECA 

 Susan Shinkman, OECA/OCE 

Pam Mazakas, OECA/OCE 

John Fogarty, OECA/OCE 

Phillip Brooks, OECA/OCE 

Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE 

Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP 

17 Compare the 2001 BP consent decree at ¶¶14.A-14.F, pages 14-23 (extensive, multi-year provisions for 

establishing FCCU limits) with the 2013 Big West consent decree at ¶12, page 14 and ¶23, page 16 (immediately
 

effective limits with no lengthy process). 

18 See “Guidance on Streamlining Oversight in Civil Settlements” (OECA Jan. 10, 2013), 

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oce/io/documents/finalstreamliningmemo11013.pdf.
 

14-P-0184 36 
 

Corrective Action Plan 

Determining the Outcomes of the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative May Identify 

Opportunities to Strengthen Future National Enforcement Initiatives dated 

Report No. OPE-2012-3065, September 23, 2013 

Recommendation Corrective Action Target Date 

1. Develop and implement a plan to 

determine whether consent decrees 

signed as part of the NPRI are leading 

to promised improvements in 

compliance and sustained reductions in 

pollution. The plan should establish 

procedures for verifying company 

completion of consent decree 

requirements for termination, including 

company assessments of facility 

pollution reductions and comparisons 

with estimated reductions 

OECA will issue a memorandum to 

the regions to remind them of the 

requirements for termination as 

provided in refinery consent decrees, 

and in particular to work with OCE 

for confirmation that all necessary 

requirements for termination have 

been met. In addition, OECA will 

continue to work with refiners at the 

time of termination of their consent 

decree to develop graphs of annual 

emission reductions obtained under a 

consent decree at the time of 

termination. 

45 days from the date 

of a final report. 

2. Incorporate requirements that ease 

the resource burden on the EPA to 

monitor refinery progress (e.g., CEMS 

and fence- line monitoring) into future 

consent decrees or amendments to 

existing consent decrees under the 

NPRI. 

Consent decrees include requirements 

and guidance issued in January 2013 

to enforcement personnel for 

incorporating resource-burden 

requirements into consent decrees. 

OECA considers this 

corrective action 

complete. 

3. Inform the public about the extent to OECA will continue to work with 45 days from date of a 

which the NPRI resulted in sustained refiners at the time of termination of final report (included as 

compliance improvement at facilities their consent decree to develop graphs part of proposed 

and reductions in emissions agreed to of annual emission reductions corrective action for 

in consent decrees, as highlighted as a obtained under a consent decree at the Recommendation #1). 

key challenge for OECA in EPA’s time of termination. 

congressional budget justification. 

4. Ensure that plans for future industry 

initiatives of the NEI include a 

monitoring and evaluation component 

that demonstrates the extent to which 

the NEI strategy leads to improvement 

in compliance and human-health risks 

identified by the EPA.* 

OECA will produce guidance that 

requires the strategies for future 

National Enforcement Initiatives to 

include an evaluation component for 

determining, where feasible, the 

extent to which the Initiative achieved 

the goals established in the strategy. 

April 30, 2014 

* Text of this recommendation subject to change pending approval by the OIG of EPA’s 

proposed alternative text. 

14-P-0184 37 
 

     

   

     

     

   

      

       

   

   

         

       

   

   

   

       

   

   

   

     

   

     

   

   

       

     

         

   

       

     

         

     

     

   

     

         

     

         

     

       

       

     

         

   

     

       

   

         

     

     

  

   

     

         

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

   

       

       

     

         

   

     

Appendix C 

OIG Response to the Agency’s Revised 

Corrective Action Plan 

OIG recommendation

EPA response and

corrective action

Completion

date

OIG assessment of

EPA response and

corrective action

1. Develop and

implement a plan to

determine whether

consent decrees

signed as part of the

NPRI are leading to

promised

improvements in

compliance and

sustained reductions

in pollution. The plan

should establish

procedures for

verifying company

completion of consent

decree requirements

for termination,

including company

assessments of facility

pollution reductions

and comparisons with

estimated reductions.

“OECA will issue a

memorandum to the

regions to remind them of

the requirements for

termination as provided in

refinery consent decrees,

and in particular to work

with OCE for confirmation

that all necessary

requirements for

termination have been

met. In addition, OECA will

continue to work with

refiners at the time of

termination of their

consent decree to develop

graphs of annual emission

reductions obtained under

a consent decree at the

time of termination.”

45 days from

the date of a

final report.

We agree with the EPA’s

proposed actions. This

recommendation is resolved.

2. Incorporate

requirements that

ease the resource

burden on the EPA to

monitor refinery

progress (e.g., CEMS

and fence‐line

monitoring) into

future consent

decrees or

amendments to

existing consent

decrees under the

NPRI.

“Consent decrees include

requirements and

guidance issued in January

2013 to enforcement

personnel for

incorporating resource‐

burden requirements into

consent decrees.”

OECA considers

this corrective

action

complete.

After reviewing the January

2013 guidance issued to

enforcement personnel, we

agree this corrective action is

complete. This

recommendation is resolved.

14-P-0184 38 
 

     

   

     

     

   

       

       

     

     

   

   

   

       

     

       

       

   

   

       

   

   

       

         

       

       

       

   

       

         

       

   

       

     

       

       

         

   

   

         

     

     

     

       

   

     

     

         

   

       

   

   

   

   

         

     

     

OIG recommendation

EPA response and

corrective action

Completion

date

OIG assessment of

EPA response and

corrective action

3. Inform the public

about the extent to

which the NPRI

resulted in sustained

compliance

improvement at

facilities and

reductions in

emissions agreed to in

consent decrees, as

highlighted as a key

challenge for OECA in

the EPA’s

congressional budget

justification.

“As provided in the

proposed corrective

action for

Recommendation #1,

OECA will continue to

work with refiners at the

time of termination of

their consent decree to

develop graphs of annual

emission reductions

obtained under a consent

decree and OECA will post

this information on EPA’s

public website.”

NOTE: In a subsequent

communication, the EPA

clarified that it has long

planned to pull together

and post on the EPA’s

website consent decree‐

specific emission

reduction data once all of

an individual consent

decree’s requirements

have been completed.

This would supplement

the initial summary of

emission reductions

achieved by settling

refiners through 2005,

and posted to the EPA’s

website.

45 days from

date of a final

report

(included as

part of

proposed

corrective

action for

Recommen‐

dation #1).

We agree with the EPA’s

proposed actions. This

recommendation is resolved.

14-P-0184 39 
 

     

   

     

     

   

          

       

   

   

       

     

         

       

     

       

     

       

     

       

     

     

     

       

     

     

         

     

       

         

     

     

         

     

     

   

   

     

     

       

       

               

     

     

OIG recommendation

EPA response and

corrective action

Completion

date

OIG assessment of

EPA response and

corrective action

4. Ensure that plans for “OECA will produce April 30, 2014 We agree with the EPA’s

future NEIs include an guidance that requires the proposed actions. This

evaluation component strategies for future recommendation is resolved.

that demonstrates the National Enforcement

extent to which the Initiatives to include an

NEI strategy achieves evaluation component for

the goal(s) for the NEI determining, where

identified by the EPA. feasible, the extent to

which the Initiative

achieved the goals

established in the

strategy.”

NOTE: In a subsequent

communication, the EPA

clarified its corrective

action by saying it will

produce guidance that

requires the strategies for

future NEIs to include an

evaluation component for

periodically determining,

where feasible, the extent

to which the initiative is

achieving the goals

established in the

strategy. When

appropriate and

practicable, the strategies

will employ outcome

measures to examine the

success of the initiative.

14-P-0184 40 
 

Appendix D 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

14-P-0184 41