Revised June 2008 

1

FY 2009 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance 
Revised June 2008 

2

Executive Summary

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

I. Program Office 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance. 

II. Introduction/Context 

The National Program Manager (NPM) guidance for OECA sets forth national program 

priorities and activities for the enforcement and compliance regulatory programs for FY 2009. 

EPA=s national enforcement and compliance assurance program is multi-media in scope and 

breadth. 

III. Program Priorities 

OECA selects a limited number of national program priorities based upon significant 

environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. After consulting with the regions, states, and 

tribes, EPA decided to continue the priorities established in FY 2005-2007 for the FY 2008-2010 

cycle. At the end of FY 2007, EPA re-examined the existing priorities to look for opportunities to 

clarify goals and measures, more accurately identify priority universes, and, in some cases, to 

change the focus of a priority when necessary. Feedback endorsed the following set of national 

enforcement and compliance assurance priorities: 

 Clean Air Act: Air toxics 

 Clean Air Act: New Source Review & Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

 Compliance assurance and assistance in Indian country 

 Reduction of water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations, sewers, and 

stormwater under the Clean Water Act 

 Financial responsibility for hazardous and toxic waste 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Mineral Processing 

Efforts to integrate environmental justice into performance-based strategies are being 

strengthened in two key ways going into FY 2009: 1.) the six national priorities are beginning to 

review methods to accurately measure and quantify efforts, and 2.) the EJ Strategic Enforcement 

Assessment Tool (EJSEAT), which is being tested in FY 2008, may assist the Strategy 

Implementation Teams (SITs) in determining how each priority will address EJ. The EJ goals and 

activities associated with the priorities in the performance-based strategies should also be 

documented in headquarters and regional office EJ Action Plans. Additional information on FY 

2008 – FY 2010 national priorities is available in Section II. 

 
Revised June 2008 

3

IV. Implementation Strategies for the National Core Program 

The national program maximizes compliance with 10 distinct federal environmental 

statutes through compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement. OECA 

implements a total of 28 separate program areas under ten statutory programs dealing with 

prevention and control of air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and 

pesticides. The statutory and regulatory requirements of these programs apply to a diverse 

universe of regulated entities. The majority of the work in the FY 2009 National Program 

Manager guidance is accomplished under the strategic goal for compliance and environmental 

stewardship in the FY 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan 

(http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf). EJ considerations should also continue to 

be addressed through the enforcement and compliance core program activities. 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance monitors regional and state 

activities in a subset of annual commitments under core programs, at a minimum, at mid-year and 

at the end of a fiscal year based upon regional and state results entered in OECA databases, the 

Annual Commitment System, and data for national priorities. The performance expectations and 

activities outlined in this guidance are the starting point from which headquarters and the regional 

offices engage to discuss the management of program activities and the distribution of resources. 

These discussions result in regional commitments for a specific level of activity for the fiscal year. 

 These commitments constitute the agreed upon approach between the regions and the national 

program managers for achieving performance expectations in the core program and national 

priority focus areas for the fiscal year. 

 Many of the annual commitments in the measures appendix (Appendix A) and activities 

associated with the core enforcement and compliance assurance program support the Deputy 

Administrator’s regional priorities. For example annual commitments on inspections and 

assistance to concentrated animal feeding operations support Northeast and Great American West 

regional agriculture priorities. The air toxics national priority and accompanying commitment 

supports the regional Great South, Midwest, and U.S.-Mexico border priorities for air toxics. Core 

program implementation and results for TSCA lead enforcement support the Midwest regional 

priority for lead poisoning. The national priority for RCRA mineral processing supports the Great 

American West regional priority for mining. Implementation of national priorities and associated 

annual commitments on stormwater, combined sewer overflows, and sanitary sewer overflows 

support U.S.-Mexico Border, Islands, Northeast, Great South, and Midwest regional priorities for 

wastewater, drinking water quality, nutrients, and sedimentation. 

V. Significant Changes from FY 2008 

 New policies, priorities, and shifts in implementation strategy occurred since publication of 

the FY 2008 National Program Manager Guidance. Development of a new Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy for the Clean Water Act will require a shift in both regional and state 

implementation and measurement. New focus areas for the air toxics performance-based strategy 

include: lead detection and repair, industrial flares, and surface coatings. Three new Federal 
Revised June 2008 

4

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) initiatives will direct Agency compliance 

monitoring and enforcement toward protection of human health and the environment from 

fumigants, pesticide imports, and return collection centers pollutants. New data collection and 

reporting capabilities are being tested through the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement 

Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and Environmental Justice Action Plans. Emphasis on compliance 

monitoring at federal facilities will increase in FY 2009. Streamlined Clean Water Act annual 

commitments will reduce the number of core program reporting requirements for regions and 

states from five to two measures. Similarly, regions will no longer need to report multimedia 

federal facility inspections or Clean Air Act in depth evaluations under annual commitments this 

year. 

For general questions or comments on the National Program Guidance for the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or our Annual Commitments in the Annual Commitment 

System please contact: 

Elizabeth Walsh 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Office of Compliance 

National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Email: Walsh.Elizabeth@epa.gov
Revised June 2008 

5

SECTION II: ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE NATIONAL PRIORITIES 

OECA will continue the majority of our existing national priorities for the period of FY 

2008-2010. The performance-based strategy updates are available on OECA’s web site at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html. 

National Priority: Financial Responsibility

Financial responsibility protects public health and the environment by promoting the 

proper and safe handling of hazardous materials and protecting against a liable party defaulting on 

closure or clean up obligations. These benefits are lost unless there is compliance with the 

financial responsibility requirements and enforcement where there is a failure to maintain 

sufficient financial responsibility. Absent financial assurance, protection of human health and the 

environment would depend on available governmental financial resources. Consistent with EPA=s 

mandate to protect human health and the environment and ensure compliance with the law, as well 

as the Agency=s long standing Apolluter pays@ principle, an enforcement strategy for obtaining full 

compliance with financial responsibility requirements prevents improper handling of hazardous 

materials and the shifting of the costs from the responsible parties to state and federal taxpayers. 

 OECA is now entering the second phase of the financial assurance priority. OECA will 

continue to provide training and assist in conducting preliminary financial assessments (PFAs), but 

the larger emphasis will be getting facilities into compliance or on the path to compliance. This 

includes EPA identifying and developing financial assurance enforcement cases and working with 

our co-regulators in the States to bring financial assurance cases. In another area of emphasis, 

OECA will continue to work with UIC and RCRA Subtitle I (UST) to expand the training and 

PFAs to include specific financial assurance responsibilities under these authorities. 

National Priority: Wet Weather

 Discharges from wet weather events are the leading causes of water quality impairment as 

documented in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) reports and represent significant threats to 

public health and the environment. The discharges come from combined sewer overflows (CSOs); 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and stormwater 

run off. EPA’s wet weather priority strategies focus on key environmental risks and 

noncompliance problems in each of these areas. 

SSOs pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment – the raw sewage in 

SSOs contains a host of pollutants (bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, oil, pesticides, debris) 

and can cause serious water quality problems. There is also a high potential for human exposure 

to contamination from SSOs due to their location in communities and the frequency of occurrence 

(often SSOs occur in parks, city streets, and backyards, or backup into homes and commercial 

establishments). Like SSOs from separate sewer systems, CSOs, composed of both polluted 
Revised June 2008 

6

stormwater and untreated human and industrial waste from combined sewer and stormwater 

systems, are a significant cause of water quality impairment and often affect parks, beaches, 

backyards, city streets and playgrounds. CSOs can be a major cause of beach and shellfish bed 

closures and advisories, as well as fish kills, and can contribute to pathogens in quantities that 

exceed water quality standards. Discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal coliform bacteria 

from CAFOs to water bodies can occur through poor maintenance of waste lagoons, inadequate 

design, construction, operation, or storage and containment of animal waste, excessive and 

improper land application of manure, and excessive rainfall resulting in spills and leaks from 

manure management areas. Discharge of stormwater runoff can significantly impact water quality. 

Several studies reveal that stormwater runoff from urban areas includes a variety of pollutants, 

such as sediment, bacteria, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil, and grease. These 

pollutants harm the environment and public health. The discharge of stormwater runoff from 

construction activities (e.g., land development, road construction) can have significant impact on 

rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Construction alters natural landscapes as earth is compacted, 

excavated and displaced, and vegetation is removed. These activities increase runoff and erosion, 

thus increasing sediment transport to receiving waters. In addition to sediment, as stormwater 

flows over a construction site, it picks up other pollutants like debris, pesticides, petroleum 

products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts, and corrosive substances, which may also contribute to 

water quality problems. 

National Priority: Air Toxics - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

Since FY 2005, the focus of the Air Toxics Enforcement Priority has been on compliance 

monitoring and enforcement. Addressing significant noncompliance and achieving hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emission reductions across the Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) program is the overall goal of the priority. Regions had the opportunity to select at least 

two MACT categories per year on which to focus compliance monitoring and enforcement 

resources under the FY 2005-2007 air toxics strategy. In addition, leak detection and repair 

(LDAR) has been a national initiative. Regions conducted compliance evaluations at sources 

subject to over 40 different MACT standards pursuant to the FY 2005-2007 air toxics strategy. 

These compliance evaluations and subsequent enforcement actions resulted in over one million 

pounds of HAP emission reductions during the strategy period. The compliance monitoring and 

enforcement experience gained across the MACT program has been extremely valuable and 

contributed to our ability to narrow the focus of the strategy for the FY 2008-2010 planning cycle. 

 

EPA identified national problem areas in the MACT program for the FY 2008-2010 

planning cycle which demonstrate widespread noncompliance with standards, a broad geographic 

scope, and where a distinct federal role based on EPA and state experience is appropriate. The 

three national problem areas selected are LDAR, industrial flares, and surface coating. 

National Priority: New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD)

 New Source Review (NSR) requirements in the CAA ensure that the construction of new 
Revised June 2008 

7

sources or modification of existing air pollution sources does not jeopardize attainment of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in non-attainment areas. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements ensure that the influx of new air pollution sources do not 

degrade areas with relatively clean air. The NSR and PSD programs directly control emissions of 

criteria air pollutants, and the PSD program requires sources to address a number of toxic air 

pollutants. Non-compliance results in inadequate control of emissions, thereby contributing 

thousands of unaccounted tons of pollution each year, particularly of NOx, VOCs, SO2 and PM10. 

These emissions worsen problems in non-attainment areas and threaten to drive attainment areas 

into non-attainment. Investigations conducted by EPA at coal-fired utilities, refineries, and other 

industrial facilities, reveal that many facilities fail to obtain permits or install necessary controls 

for modifications subject to NSR or PSD. 

National Priority: Mineral Processing

 The mishandling of mineral processing wastes causes significant environmental damage 

and results in costly cleanups. These highly acidic wastes cause fish kills and elevate levels of 

arsenic and cadmium in residential wells. Evidence gathered in recent inspections indicates that 

mineral processing facilities are failing to obtain the necessary permits and adequately manage 

waste. 

Environmental impacts caused by the mineral processing and mining sectors are 

significant. The mineral processing sector generates more wastes that are corrosive or contain 

toxic metals than any other industrial sector. Over the past decade, many of the facilities that 

manage these wastes create groundwater, surface water, and soil contamination due either to 

noncompliance with state or federal environmental requirements or other legally permissible waste 

management practices. In addition, the Agency has many mineral processing and mining sites on 

the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) and, along with states, undertakes expensive cleanups 

using other authorities. Environmental damages are especially prevalent in mineral processing and 

mining operations and often include severe impacts on water supplies and wildlife. Damages tend 

to be more pronounced at large scale operations, however, some small facilities also cause 

significant environmental damage. Many facilities are in close proximity to populations, and the 

health risk to people living near these facilities is of significant concern to EPA. 

National Priority: Indian Country

 Ensuring environmental compliance at regulated facilities in Indian country and other tribal 

areas rests primarily with federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) and EPA. While tribes can 

maintain their own environmental protection programs and can seek program approval for certain 

federal environmental programs. In most cases, EPA directly implements federal environmental 

laws in Indian country. As such, the Indian country priority’s primary goal is to significantly 

improve human health and the environment in Indian country in key areas through EPA working 

with tribes on compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities. 

After discussions with tribes , face-to-face meetings with representatives of the Tribal 
Revised June 2008 

8

Caucus of EPA’s Tribal Operations Committee and Regional Tribal Operations Committees, and 

analysis of the range of compliance issues in Indian country, EPA is focusing on improving 

compliance at public drinking water systems, improving solid waste management compliance, 

investigating and reducing threats posed by illegal dumping in Indian country, and improving 

multimedia compliance at schools. 

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Core activities implement elements of environmental laws and maintain a credible presence to 

deter noncompliance. This section begins with a discussion of those aspects of national guidance 

which apply across all core program areas, and provides a discussion about individual program 

elements under various environmental statutes. 

The performance expectations and required regional commitments defined in this core 

guidance represent national program expectations and do not cover all of the enforcement and 

compliance assurance efforts conducted in the regional offices. Flexibility is a key component of 

the national enforcement and compliance assurance program planning process and there is the 

understanding that, while regions are expected to support national program core and priority 

activities, there are very real, credible reasons for a region=s nonparticipation. There are many 

factors that influence the level of a region=s participation. For example, geographic or sector 

initiatives, the presence/absence of a regulated sector in a region, regional resources, and high 

priority regional initiatives all directly impact the regions= contributions to national core and 

priority activities. 

Enforcement and compliance core activities should continue identifying and addressing 

environmental justice issues, as required by OECA Environmental Justice Policy. The EJ 

Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT), which is being tested in FY 2008, may assist 

the offices in determining how EJ issues can be addressed. The EJ goals and activities associated 

with the enforcement and compliance core activities should also be documented in headquarters 

and regional office EJ Action Plans. 

Guidance Applied to All Core Programs:

Ensuring compliance involves the use of all available tools including compliance 

assistance, compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil and criminal enforcement to 

address specific environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In using these tools in the 

national program, there are certain fundamental activities and requirements for all core program 

areas. 
Revised June 2008 

9

A. Guidance: Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1)

Compliance assistance includes activities, tools, or technical assistance that provide clear 

and consistent information for: 1) helping the regulated community, including regulated entities in 

Indian country, understand and meet obligations under environmental regulations; and 2) helping 

other compliance assistance providers aid the regulated community in complying with 

environmental regulations. Assistance may also help the regulated community find cost-effective 

ways to comply with regulations and go beyond compliance through the use of pollution 

prevention techniques, improved environmental management practices, and innovative 

technologies, thus improving environmental performance. 

The compliance assistance core program in the regions should include the following: 

1. A strong regional compliance assistance core program infrastructure: 

• A full-time regional compliance assistance coordinator to provide a focal point for 

planning and coordination of compliance assistance efforts; 

• Communication networks within the region, across regions, with headquarters, 

states, tribes, and external environmental assistance providers; 

• Mechanisms to coordinate and strategically build compliance assistance into 

national, regional, state, and tribal planning processes. 

2. Strategic planning for up front consideration and appropriate use of compliance assistance in 

addressing environmental problems: 

• Plan and coordinate compliance assistance across organizational and programmatic 

boundaries (e.g., media programs, enforcement, environmental justice, small 

business) and include states, tribes, and other stakeholders in this process; 

• Use integrated strategic approaches to target and address environmental problems, 

and consider all available tools, such as compliance assistance, compliance 

incentives (self-audits, opportunities for pollution prevention and Environmental 

Management Systems (EMS)), compliance monitoring, and enforcement (See 

February, 2007, Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an

 Integrated Strategic Approach (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/ 

 measures/index.html).

• Ensure appropriate use of compliance assistance in the implementation of integrated 

and performance-based strategies for both national and regional priorities. 

3. Tracking and measuring results of compliance assistance activities: 

• Report on planned and actual compliance assistance projects into the compliance 

assistance module of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). For 

completed CA projects, report all outputs and outcomes into ICIS. For on-site visits 

and revisits, the Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet (CACDS) should be 

used to record these outcomes and facilitate data entry into ICIS. 
Revised June 2008 

10

• Conduct appropriate measurement activities to collect outcome information for 

direct assistance activities to determine increased understanding, improved 

environmental management practices, and pollution reduction outcomes achieved as 

a result of the compliance assistance provided. Often collecting outcomes requires 

follow up communication. 

Commitment ASST01: Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all compliance 

assistance workshops/training, on-site visits and revisits which support the OECA 

national priorities and report the results of these outcomes into ICIS. Report on 

exceptions to the 100% and provide brief explanations in the ACS. 

4. Providing compliance assistance targeted to appropriate problems, sectors, and geographic 

 areas directly or through other providers (states, tribes, pollution prevention providers, etc.) 

• Develop compliance assistance tools, conduct training, workshops, presentations, 

on-site visits, and/or distribute outreach materials; 

• Share compliance assistance tools and opportunities within the regions and 

externally, e.g., with states, tribes, trade associations; 

• Serve as a wholesaler of compliance assistance to enable other providers to offer 

assistance, including, for example, providing training and tools to providers; 

• Continue partnerships with industry, academics and environmental groups to support 

the sector-specific Compliance Assistance Centers; initiate the development of a 

seventeenth Compliance Assistance Center to support the food-processing sector. 

• Explore collaborative opportunities between the Compliance Assistance Centers and 

EPA Program Offices to develop and promote compliance assistance resources. 

• Market and wholesale compliance assistance opportunities and tools, and share 

success stories. 

B. Guidance: Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2)

EPA promotes compliance through the use of incentive policies. These policies reduce or 

waive penalties under certain conditions for facilities which voluntarily discover, promptly 

disclose, and correct environmental problems. EPA encourages the use of such policies, which 

include the Audit Policies, various compliance incentive programs, compliance auditing protocols, 

and environmental management systems that result in actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate 

pollution in the environment or improve facility environmental management practices (EMPs). 

EPA=s Audit Policy, Small Business Policy and Small Community Policy provide 

incentives for the regulated community to resolve environmental problems and come into 

compliance with federal laws through self-assessment, disclosure, and correction of violations. 

EPA promotes the use of the Audit Policy and focuses on corporate-wide auditing agreements to 

implement the Policy, assess and maintain compliance, consolidate transactions, and maximize 

penalty certainty. EPA also is exploring ways to encourage audits and disclosures that achieve 

significant environmental outcomes, and to increase the focus on these disclosures, as well as ways 
Revised June 2008 

11

to improve Audit Policy implementation. EPA is considering offering certain incentives tailored 

to encourage use of the Audit Policy by “new owners” after merger & acquisition transactions. 

EPA believes actively encouraging such disclosures has the potential to yield significant 

environmental benefit, since new owners may be particularly well-situated and highly motivated to 

focus on, and invest in, making a clean start for their new facilities by addressing environmental 

noncompliance. EPA also is streamlining Audit Policy implementation by developing and piloting 

a web-based tool to speed the submission of complete disclosures of routine recordkeeping and 

reporting violations and to expedite processing and resolution of routine disclosures. Under 

various Compliance Incentive Programs (CIPs), individual entities or members of a sector disclose 

and correct violations in exchange for reduced or waived penalties, while the risk of enforcement 

increases for those not taking advantage of this opportunity. EPA also promotes the disclosure of 

environmental information in accordance with the SEC=s mandatory corporate disclosure 

requirements as a means of promoting improved environmental performance. Increasing public 

access to corporate environmental information maintains a level playing field for companies, and 

raises company awareness concerning environmental issues. 

Regions are expected to carry out at least the following activities associated with 

compliance incentives: 

• Participate in compliance incentive programs directed at particular sectors and/or 

noncompliance problems, with emphasis on violations that impact areas with 

environmental justice concerns, and violations that, once corrected, are likely to 

result in measurable pollution reductions. 

• Promote EPA=s compliance incentive policies (e.g., Small Business Policy, Small 

Local Governments Compliance Assistance Policy, Audit Policy 

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives), with the assistance 

of state, tribal, and local agencies, to encourage the regulated community to 

voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations before regulatory agencies 

identify entities for enforcement investigation or response. 

• Consider and follow-up on, as appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the EPA 

Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. 

C. Guidance: Monitoring and Enforcement (Sub-objective 5.1.3)

Compliance Monitoring:

All regional programs should conduct appropriate compliance monitoring activities, which 

include conducting compliance inspections and investigations, record reviews, targeting, 

oversight, and review of delegated compliance assurance and enforcement programs (reference to 

delegated includes authorized programs or programs where a state or tribe has primacy) and 

responding to citizen complaints. As in the past, NEIC will continue to support ongoing projects 

for commitments made in previous years, including case preparation and enforcement support. 
Revised June 2008 

12

The core compliance monitoring program includes a number of specific activities. 

Compliance monitoring comprises all regulatory agency activities to determine whether an 

individual facility or a group of facilities (geographical, by sector, or by corporate structure) are in 

compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as enforcement orders and settlement 

agreements. EPA documents and files compliance determinations using various methods (e.g., 

databases, inspection reports, etc.). Compliance monitoring activities occur before and until the 

point when either compliance or an actual violation is determined. Review and oversight of 

authorized compliance assurance and enforcement programs continues throughout the year. 

EPA will be increasing its efforts to provide field inspectors with technology that will 

improve their capacity to collect, share, and report information. In FY 2008, the Office of 

Compliance finalized the Field Activity Compliance Technology Strategy (Strategy). The 

Strategy includes: a series of steps to use when adapting hardware and software to compliance 

monitoring activities; how the process was used in several OECA pilot projects; survey results 

from other federal, state and foreign agencies that have considered or are using hardware and 

software in their compliance and enforcement programs; leveraging resources to bring the 

hardware and software to inspectors, and recommendations. It is highly recommended that EPA 

managers and staff read the Strategy and consider utilizing hardware and software to collect 

compliance monitoring data, The Strategy provides valuable information to guide them as they 

consider specific workflow processes for the program(s) they seek to automate. 

Examples of important compliance monitoring activities include: 

Inspector support

• training to fulfill the requirements of EPA Order 3500.1, and other applicable Orders 

(1440.1, 1440.2, etc.); 

• utilizing the Field Activity Compliance Technology Strategy when developing 

compliance monitoring tools such as inspection guides, checklists, or manuals; 

• promoting the recommendations detailed in the Office of Compliance (OC) guidance, 

Final National Policy, Role of the Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During 

Inspections, June 25, 2003; 

• issuing and tracking federal credentials to state and tribal compliance inspectors 

pursuant to the September 30, 2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing Federal 

EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to 

Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA and the August 5, 2005 memorandum Process for 

Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on 

EPA's Behalf to ensure inspectors are appropriately trained and credentialed. 

Monitoring planning and execution

• developing compliance monitoring strategies that include targeting and information 

gathering techniques; 
Revised June 2008 

13

• creating a viable field presence and deterrent by conducting compliance inspections, 

evaluations, surveillance, and civil investigations (including sampling as necessary), in 

all the environmental media (air, water, waste, toxics, wetlands, etc.) in both authorized 

and non-authorized programs; 

• responding to tips, complaints, and referrals from private citizens, other governmental 

entities, and non-governmental organizations; 

• identifying potential environmental crimes through the civil compliance monitoring 

program, and referring to Regional criminal investigation division (CID) area offices; 

Data collection, review, and reporting 

• performing compliance data collection, reporting, analysis, evaluation, and 

management; 

• reviewing and evaluating self-reported data and records, environmental permits, and 

other technical information relating to compliance with environmental laws and 

regulations; 

• maintaining compliance files and managing compliance records; 

• preparing reports and entering compliance findings and inspection results into national 

databases either by manual entry or by developing software that creates the reports 

electronically or submits the data electronically into national databases. 

• reporting GPRA outcomes of on-site inspections and evaluations by entering data into 

ICIS for the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) and proposed Expedited 

Settlement Orders, and by analyzing and evaluating the outcomes of compliance 

monitoring activities. 

Program coordination/review/oversight/support

• working with state, tribal, and local environmental regulatory agencies to monitor 

environmental compliance with environmental laws by private, state, federal, and tribal 

facilities 

• ensuring that the implementation of their programs are in accordance with statutory 

requirements and EPA policy (see also EPA State Relations for more detail); 

• identifying, tracking, and coordinating with state, tribal, and local environmental 

agencies those violators that are, or should be designated as, Significant Noncompliers, 

High Priority Violators, or Watch List facilities; 

• developing, negotiating, or overseeing state or tribal compliance and enforcement 

grants; 

• providing training, assistance, support, and oversight of state and tribal compliance 

inspectors; 

• performing compliance screens for various headquarters and/or state/tribal programs 

such as Performance Track; 

• Conducting federal oversight inspections/evaluations to corroborate state or tribal 

inspection findings. Oversight inspections/evaluations are a principal means of 

evaluating both the quality of an inspection program and inspector training (Revised 
Revised June 2008 

14

Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements, August 25, 1986); and 

• Conducting reviews under the State Review Framework (SRF). 

Oversight Inspections: 

A federal oversight inspection evaluates the quality of the state inspection/evaluation 

program and the state inspector training program by reviewing and evaluating the findings of state 

inspections and evaluations. Oversight inspections identify strengths and weaknesses of state 

programs and develop mutually agreed upon commitments by the states and EPA to correct 

problems. When regions conduct oversight inspections, they should follow these guidelines: 

• Generally only experienced EPA personnel should be used to conduct oversight 

inspections. 

• The overall goal of oversight is to improve the state (and regional) compliance and 

enforcement program. 

• Oversight should be tailored to fit state performance/capability, once it has been 

documented. 

• EPA should observe procedures the state inspector follows or does not follow (e.g., 

credentials, purpose of inspection, entry conference, interview, field observations, 

record reviews, CBI procedures, exit interview, etc.). 

• The EPA inspector should observe to determine whether the state inspector: 

1. Follows state inspection and monitoring procedures 

2. Detects potential violations, especially SNCs, and gathers evidence to support 

violations 

3. Has adequate training and guidance 

4. Has adequate safety equipment and field equipment 

5. Has informed the facility of the subject regulations 

• EPA should coach/inform the state inspector of potential concerns observed or 

discovered through questioning the state inspector after any initial action taken by the 

state inspector, and report findings and observations to regional managers by preparing a 

separate oversight inspection report for each oversight inspection so that any issues 

observed can be addressed in discussions with state managers and/or during the SRF 

review process. Regions can utilize the procedures described in more detail in the 

RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide, dated December, 1987 for conducting 

oversight inspections and for preparing inspection reports: 

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrastosinspgu-rpt.pdf.

• EPA oversight of state performance should be consistent with the following principles. 

 a. Both positive and negative findings should be identified. 

b. EPA should provide technical assistance and training when needed 

c. EPA action to correct problems should vary, depending on the nature and impact 

of the problem and if it reflects a single or multiple incidents 
Revised June 2008 

15

 d. The States should be given an opportunity to formally comment on EPA's 

 performance relating to commitments made by EPA to the state, e.g., provide 

 training, assist with sampling, provide equipment, etc. 

 e. Regions should provide all information to the states that is available on their 

 performance 

f. The Region should report to the state on the Region's performance on 

 commitments to that state. 

 g. EPA should give states sufficient opportunity to correct identified problems 

 h. EPA should use oversight inspections as a means of transferring successful 

 regional and state approaches from one state to another. 

 i. Where state performance fails to conduct quality inspections or evaluations, EPA 

may: (a) suggest changes in state procedures; (b) suggest changes in the state use of 

resources or training of staff; (c) provide technical assistance; and/or (d) increase 

the number of oversight inspections and/or require submittal of information on 

remedial activities. 

 The regions should also refer to the August 25, 1986 Memorandum Revised Policy 

Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements for more information regarding procedures 

for conducting oversight. 

It is expected that the regions, for each program, will conduct many of these activities in 

any fiscal year. The specific combination of activities will depend upon the availability of intraand extramural resources, and working agreements made between state and tribal governments. 

Compliance monitoring does NOT include: 1) preparation of Notice of Violations (NOVs), 

warning letters, and administrative or judicial complaints, and 2) development of evidence and 

other information where a violation has already been determined to have occurred. Instead, these 

activities fall under the civil and criminal enforcement programs. 

Civil and Criminal Enforcement:

EPA=s national enforcement and compliance assurance program utilizes several types of 

enforcement actions to correct and deter noncompliance. Civil enforcement authorities include 

administrative and judicial actions. In situations where violations are knowingly and willfully 

committed, EPA uses criminal enforcement actions. The criminal enforcement core program seeks 

to effectively integrate criminal enforcement with the regional enforcement programs. To achieve 

this purpose, each region will continue to coordinate and cooperate closely with the Special Agentin-Charge (SAC) of the region=s CID area offices. 

Information sharing and cooperation between EPA’s civil and criminal programs, 

consistent with all legal requirements, is critical to the success of the Agency's overall enforcement 

program. Each region must establish and operate a civil/ criminal case screening and coordination 

process. Civil and criminal enforcement personnel should not only conduct regularly-scheduled 

meetings, but should also meet on an ad hoc basis to receive debriefings related to significant and 
Revised June 2008 

16

recently-completed inspections. In particular, attention should be devoted to information sharing 

related to the following types of cases: (1) national enforcement priority cases/inspections; (2) 

regional enforcement priority cases/inspections; (3) multimedia inspections/cases; (4) cases 

involving violations at multiple facilities; (5) cases/inspections involving large and sophisticated 

corporations whose violations have demonstrable environmental impact; (6) and cases involving 

facilities categorized as SNC, HPV, or another category of repeat "bad actors." 

In using its civil and criminal enforcement authorities EPA regions are responsible for: 

• adhering to the applicable program enforcement response policies (ERPs), the timely 

and appropriate (T&A) guidance (where these exist), applicable penalty policies, the 

Final Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy, implementation of the Watch List 

project, and the SRF; 

• tracking compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders, and taking all 

necessary actions to ensure continued compliance; 

• entering all required data into the national databases, where applicable, and completing 

and entering the case conclusion data sheets (CCDS) for all concluded actions, including 

those in the CERCLA program, into ICIS; 

• continuing to resolve enforcement cases initiated prior to FY2009 and ensure 

investigation and issuance of appropriate action for any open tips/complaints/referrals 

received by EPA; 

• working with the Department of Justice and EPA Headquarters as appropriate to 

complete outstanding judicial and administrative actions; 

• continuing and completing appropriate case development activities including issuing 

information requests, conducting site visits, and developing appropriate remedies. 

• identifying leads appropriate for criminal investigations based upon the criteria in the 

January 12, 1994, Memorandum on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion; 

• submitting appropriate leads B including cases or aspects of cases that were initially 

developed for administrative or civil enforcement but later reveal potential criminal 

wrongdoing B to the regional screening committee where discussions and decisions will 

be made as to whether violations will be pursued administratively, civilly, or criminally; 

• providing technical support to CID investigations, provide regional personnel as 

witnesses when necessary, and maintain legal staff support to CID at levels sufficient to 

ensure the prompt prosecution of environmental crimes; and 

• ensuring that all environmental measurements or samples used to support EPA criminal 

investigations will be gathered, recorded, and analyzed in a manner that complies with 

the EPA quality assurance system, and that all evidence collected will be handled and 

kept secure in accordance with EPA policies for the custodial management of evidence. 

D. Guidance: Technical Support and Training 

NETI - The National Enforcement Training Institute is committed to the continuing 

assessment of emerging training needs, strengthening its role as a clearinghouse for training 

information within the enforcement and compliance assurance program, exploring cost effective 
Revised June 2008 

17

means of delivering both classroom and distance training, and working with regions and HQ 

offices to develop a strategic approach to enforcement and compliance assurance training. NETI 

also continues its role as developer, coordinator, publisher, and trainer for federal, state, local and 

tribal attorneys, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators and technical experts in all the various 

tools for environmental compliance and enforcement. 

In 2006, NETI established the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Training Council, 

and instituted a network of key players from the regions and OECA to effectively manage training 

and continuous learning in the program. Better exchange of information and reporting about 

training activities in the enforcement and compliance program promotes efficiencies, opportunities 

and reliability. This network also discusses and evaluates training needs and develop mechanisms 

to communicate about current and future training needs. All regions and OECA offices 

participate in the Network which has the following charge for legal and nonlegal training interests: 

 

• serve as a voice, advocate, and source of expertise on enforcement and compliance 

training for OECA; 

• have direct access to senior leadership on training matters; 

• coordinate and report requested training information from their office to OECA; 

• participate in regular training meetings/conference calls; and 

• assist in planning and holding enforcement and compliance training events. 

In 2009, regions are asked to support this network in the following ways: 

• Assist regional representatives in identifying training needs and carrying out other informal 

information surveys for the network and the parallel legal training network; 

• Share regional strategic plans for enforcement and compliance assurance training; 

• Announce courses offered by the region on NETI’s website 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html, especially courses open to other 

regions’ attendance; 

• Work with NETI staff to ensure the accuracy and quality of data reporting for training 

activities (see below). 

NEIC - The civil and criminal enforcement programs draw upon the scientific and technical 

expertise of NEIC in compliance monitoring and enforcement activities in both the national 

priority and core program areas. Assistant Administrator priorities , the Agency Strategic Plan, the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the national goals effort also guide NEIC 

project selection. Furthermore, NEIC will examine requests for assistance based upon the 

potential for producing measurable environmental results and the degree to which activities 

provide opportunity to use or enhance NEIC’s unique capabilities (e.g., multi-disciplined teams, 

in-depth process evaluations, complex analytical procedures, etc.). 

E. Guidance: Data Quality and Reporting
Revised June 2008 

18

 OECA continues to strive to improve the quality of enforcement and compliance data and 

assure this information is a useful tool to manage the program and to reliably report on 

accomplishments. This effort to improve and attain a high level of confidence in performance 

information focuses on two areas: data quality and reporting. Data quality, accuracy and 

completeness are also elements of the SRF, and through Framework reviews, regions should 

ensure that states enter all required data into the national systems of record in a timely way. 

Each OECA office and region should have an approved Quality Management Plan 

establishing the office’s procedures for ensuring the sound collection and use of enforcement and 

environmental data. In addition, the Data Quality Strategy of March 25, 2002 outlines an 

approach to systematically identify and address problems with the enforcement and compliance 

data. Part of this Strategy is to conduct projects (e.g., an enforcement action data audit) that will 

require regional, state, and tribal involvement. 

On May 6, 2003, OECA issued a memorandum addressing data integrity (AEnsuring 

Integrity of Reported Enforcement and Compliance Data@) and established stringent procedures for 

reporting federal data including: 

• quarterly data quality reviews of enforcement and compliance data, 

• timely entry of data (i.e., within two weeks after occurrence of the activity), 

• mid-year and end-of-year certification by Senior Managers of data completeness and 

accuracy, and 

• distribution of monthly ICIS manager reports, 

• In addition, other steps implemented to provide guidance to ensure data integrity include 

IPOD (ICIS Policy on Demand), a desktop accessible and searchable repository of 

information on data entry to ICIS 

OECA issues an annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan each fiscal year that 

provides core and national priority reporting requirements, GPRA measures, schedules/deadlines, 

contacts, etc. This memo is OECA’s comprehensive guide to the annual enforcement and 

compliance reporting requirements covering the various enforcement and compliance program 

tools (e.g., compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, compliance incentives, enforcement) in 

all media program areas (e.g., CAA, CWA, FIFRA, RCRA, TSCA, CERCLA). 

Regions must enter all federal enforcement cases in ICIS, the database of record, and also 

in the associated legacy system, if one exists. Applicable CCDS information on all concluded 

actions, ICDS information on inspections, and applicable CACDS data on compliance assistance 

activities should be entered into ICIS. For CAA, RCRA, and CWA/NPDES inspections in states 

not yet migrated to ICIS-NPDES, the legacy systems (e.g., AFS, PCS, RCRAInfo) are the data 

base of record for Federal inspections, violations, significant violators (SNCs)/high priority 

violators (HPVs); ICIS-NPDES is the database of record for federal inspections for all states that 

moved from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, however, many regions also enter inspections into ICIS. 

An October 11, 2005 memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator of OECA, 

entitled “Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections into ICIS” established ICIS as the 
Revised June 2008 

19

official database of record for all federal inspections and associated Inspection Conclusion Data 

Sheets (ICDS) information previously reported manually. This means that OECA will no longer 

accept manually reported inspections, and will pull federal inspection and ICDS results for the 

following programs from ICIS: RCRA Underground Storage Tanks, EPCRA 313, EPCRA non313, CWA Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC), CWA Wetlands, CWA NPDES 

(EPA and state inspections conducted in states migrated to ICIS-NPDES), CAA Mobile Sources, 

CAA Asbestos and Demolition, FIFRA, SDWA PWSS Inspections, SDWA UIC, CWA 

Pretreatment Industrial Users (IUs), and TSCA. 

Until a state or tribe with an EPA-approved program successfully transitions over to the 

use 

of the ICIS-NPDES system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS) will remain the database of 

record. Once a successful transition to ICIS-NPDES takes place, ICIS-NPDES will be the database 

of record. Minor data should be entered into PCS or ICIS-NPDES for regional, state, and tribal 

activities where activities at minor facilities (e.g., inspections) have been traded for those at major 

facilities. 

Since FY 2007, regions and headquarters offices will be expected to enter information into 

ICIS or a comparable data system regarding civil judicial, non-CERCLA consent decrees to 

demonstrate that EPA is effectively monitoring compliance with the terms of these decrees. This 

requirement applies only to consent decrees entered by a court after October 1, 2006. This action 

is in response to a 2001 Inspector General Report that encourages enhancement of efforts by the 

Agency to monitor compliance with enforcement instruments. 

Reporting of Training Data

Regions and OECA offices are encouraged to provide timely and accurate mid-year and 

end-of-year reports of compliance and enforcement training activities through the national data 

reporting process. In FY 2009, NETI will work with the regions to enhance the reliability, 

consistency, and efficiency of this reporting process. Training data are compiled into an annual 

Training Accomplishments Report (available from http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

reports/accomplishment/details.cfm), and are analyzed in order to inform needs assessments, 

strategic planning, and project development.

F. Guidance: EPA/State Relations 

OECA has worked closely with EPA regions, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), state 

media associations, and other state representatives to jointly develop a framework and process for 

conducting reviews of core enforcement in the CWA-NPDES, RCRA Subtitle C and the CAA 

Stationary Sources programs. The goals of the reviews are to promote consistent levels of activity 

in state and regional enforcement programs, consistent oversight of state and regional enforcement 

programs, and consistent levels of environmental protection across the country. In July of 2005, 

full implementation of SRF was initiated and reviews of all states and territories were completed in 

2007. In FY2008, OECA worked with its partners to conduct an evaluation of the first full cycle 
Revised June 2008 

20

of SRF implementation which was completed in March 2008. As a result of the evaluation, SRF 

guidance is being revised to be used to train regions and states on the process for Round 2. As the 

ACS commitment for FY08, regions are expected to initiate Round 2 by: developing a plan for the 

second round of reviews; sending an SRF review kickoff letter to one state (i.e., three programs, 

CAA Stationary Source program, CWA NPDES, and RCRA Subtitle C) which includes the data 

pull for each program; reconciling the data with the state by September 30, 2008. (If a state is not 

responsive by that date, the region should proceed in developing the Preliminary Data Analysis). 

OECA will host a hands-on training for regions in October during which HQ will assist the regions 

in completing the Preliminary Data Analysis. This will assure the consistent implementation and 

common understanding of this important step in the SRF process across all regions. 

The elements, criteria and protocols of the SRF are consistent with the 1986 ARevised 

Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements@ and the media-specific enforcement 

response policies, compliance monitoring strategies and penalty policies. These reviews constitute 

the primary mechanism by which regional oversight of state enforcement programs should be 

carried out in the three media programs. These reviews should be an integral part of the 

regional/state planning process. State/regional commitments to implement significant 

recommendations for program improvements should be captured and tracked in appropriate 

negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements between the region and the state, and 

those parties held accountable for carrying out those commitments. Regions with multiple year 

PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements that are already in place, should include a schedule in 

those agreements that incorporates the SRF process as part of program review activities. Regions 

that have states submit proposals under Element 13 should consult with OECA on whether or not 

credit can be granted. 

In FY 2008, regions will be asked to develop a plan for the second round of reviews that 

lays out their approach to completing all three programs in all their states during Round 2 taking 

into account state performance as indicated in the Round 1 reviews and other ongoing regional 

oversight activities. Regions will discuss the plan with their states and EPA HQ and, when 

finalized, meeting the schedule will constitute a regional ACS commitment for the SRF. 

Draft and final reports, which should include Preliminary Data Analysis and file reviews, 

recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from Framework reviews, including 

Element 13, should be entered by the region in the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker database upon 

completion of a review. The Tracker will continue to be tracked and managed by OECA on an 

ongoing basis. Round 2 will include an annual review of progress toward implementing 

recommendations from Round 1. For Round 1 recommendations where progress has been 

insufficient, regions will develop an implementation plan that identifies a schedule and milestones 

for completion. This plan will also be posted on the SRF Tracker and be included in future annual 

reviews of progress in implementing recommendations. Discussion of EPA’s relationship with 

federally-recognized Indian tribes is found in Section L entitled “Requirements: Indian Program.” 

Grants Management

OECA awards a number of assistance agreements to states, tribes, and non-profit 
Revised June 2008 

21

organizations to conduct a variety of activities, particularly in the areas of data management and 

performance measurement, many of which regions manage. Effective grants management is a 

high priority for OECA and the Agency. The primary Agency guidance for managing assistance 

agreements is EPA Order 5700.6, effective January 1, 2005. The Order streamlines post-award 

management of assistance agreements and helps ensure effective oversight of recipient 

performance and grant management. The order encompasses both the administrative and 

programmatic aspects of the Agency=s financial assistance programs. It requires EPA to develop 

and carry out a post-award monitoring plan, and conduct basic monitoring for every award. In 

January 2004, a new Grants Policy Issuance, GPI 04-02, Interim Policy on Environmental Results 

Under EPA Assistance Agreements, came out of the Office of Grants and Disbarment (OGD). 

This policy instructs EPA to describe the goal level link to the Agency=s Strategic Plan for each 

grant awarded after February 9, 2004. OGD developed a new EPA Order that requires EPA and 

grant recipients to discuss the environmental results of grants in grant work plans. This Order 

became effective on November 30, 2004. Regional offices need to consider these new and 

upcoming policies when preparing assistance agreements with states. 

Standardized Template for State Grant Agreements

 In order to improve program effectiveness and enhance accountability, OMB requires EPA 

to develop a standardized template for states to report and submit the results from state grant 

agreements. This request only covers continuing environmental grants, not project grants. To 

address the OMB requirement the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and the Office of Grants and Debarment 

convened a workgroup to develop such a template. Final guidance on state grant templates 

appears on the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/template.htm.

 The OECA grants covered by this requirement are: FIFRA Pesticide Enforcement Grants, 

and the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Grant. The TSCA Compliance Monitoring Grant is used to 

fund the TSCA Asbestos, TSC PCB and TSCA Lead compliance monitoring and enforcement 

programs (see Attachment B). The templates include performance measures for the respective 

grants, and demonstrate the linkage between activities funded by the grant and the Agency 

Strategic Plan. These templates must be included in all state grant agreements in FY 2009. It is 

expected that most of the data for the grant template measures will be reported into the Annual 

Commitment System. The grant templates use existing measures. States are expected to maintain 

all other data flows required by the programs in order to maintain good program management. 

Innovative Programs

Innovative programs continue to be important to the compliance and enforcement program. 

 Regions, states, and tribes are encouraged to consider implementation of innovative projects for 

the 2009 planning cycle. EPA=s Innovation Action Council (IAC) endorsed three priority 

innovations for Ascale-up,@ (i.e., full scale implementation) and recommended integration into 

OECA=s NPM Guidance. These priority innovations are: the National Performance Track 

Program, Environmental Management Systems (EMS), and the Environmental Results Program 

(ERP). Details on these innovations are available at http://www.epa.gov/innovation. Regions, 
Revised June 2008 

22

states, and tribes are encouraged to use these innovative approaches in the achievement of their 

program goals. OECA works closely with the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovations on 

one of the Agency-wide programs, the National Environmental Performance Track Program 

(Performance Track). When participating in Performance Track (PT), regions should be aware of 

three relevant guidance memos: AEnforcement and Compliance Operating Principles for the 

National Performance Track Program,@ January 19, 2001, ANational Environmental Performance 

Track Program,@ April 23, 2002, and “National Environmental Performance Track Program,” 

October 29, 2003. In support of PT, the regions, states, and tribes (in concert with headquarters 

offices and DOJ) are expected to conduct comprehensive compliance screens of all applicant 

facilities. The regional effort includes searches of Agency databases, follow-up on information 

found, program by program inquiries about new information not yet accessible in databases, and 

coordination with state and tribal partners to the fullest extent possible. The region will assess the 

findings against the PT entry criteria, and make recommendations as to the appropriateness of each 

facility=s participation. 

One of the incentives offered through PT is the Agency=s commitment to consider all 

participating facilities as Alow priority for routine inspections.@ Regions should incorporate these 

commitments in inspection targeting efforts, both in the context of regional targeting and planning 

agreements with OECA and to the extent possible in negotiating with state and tribal partners in 

their performance agreements and work plans. “Low priority for routine inspections” should not 

be interpreted to mean that regions should not inspect PT facilities. OECA advises that regions 

consider a one-year extension to traditional inspection coverage goals when dealing with 

Performance Track facilities. A list of the PT facilities in each region that are eligible for a lowinspection priority is available from the Regional PT Coordinator. 

 

G. Guidance: Planning for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Program Commitments 

Superfund enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action are covered under Goal 3 of the 

Agency’s Strategic Plan. It is important for regions to address Superfund and RCRA Corrective 

Action program commitments for Goal 3. EPA develops and conveys national program direction 

for Superfund activities through the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Planning (SCAP) 

process. RCRA Corrective Action is in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) NPM Guidance. 

The commitments for Superfund enforcement are to maximize Potentially Responsible 

Party (PRP) participation at Superfund sites by leveraging PRP resources and recovering costs. 

These commitments are included in OECA's portion of the annual commitment system. The 

regions report the data in CERCLIS and certify it through OECA's annual certification process. 

The commitments for RCRA Corrective Action address two RCRA environmental indicators 

(EIs), which measure human exposure under control and migration of contaminated groundwater 

under control. Regions are encouraged to use enforcement authorities and tools where appropriate 

to address EIs and final clean-up. In addition, the Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action 

program commitments for the financial assurance priority are included in OECA's portion of the 
Revised June 2008 

23

annual commitment system and accomplishments are reported manually. 

National Program Core Requirements:

 Ensuring compliance involves the use of all available tools including compliance 

assistance, compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil and criminal enforcement that 

are appropriate to address specific environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In using these 

tools in the national program, there are certain fundamental activities and requirements that need to 

be carried out for all core program areas.

A. Requirements: Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs

The Water Program encompasses five (5) separate programs under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). These programs are: 

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (includes wet 

weather programs) 

• Pretreatment Program 

• Biosolids/Sludge Program 

• CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program 

• CWA Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)) Program 

Each program has different characteristics (e.g., some programs have national data bases 

and some do not), and, as a result, the Acore program@ varies somewhat from program to program. 

Therefore, in order to provide clarity, shared core program elements are listed Section III: 

“Guidance Applicable to all Core Programs,” while this section includes descriptions of 

compliance and enforcement activities unique to each water program. Regions should refer to 

both sections for complete details on all core program elements. Regional NPDES programs are 

responsible for referencing the 1989 Enforcement Management System (EMS) guidance in PPAs 

and PPGs, and thereby ensuring that states and tribes with primacy implement satisfactory core 

program requirements. 

 

All CWA programs share the following core program requirements and should be 

implemented by regions, including direct implementation in Indian country, and states: 

• Follow guidance provided in existing national compliance and enforcement policy and 

guidance, e.g., the 1989 National Enforcement Management System (EMS); 

• Consider all available data in implementing the compliance and enforcement activities 

described below; 

• Maintain an effective inspection program in each of the five water program areas; 

• Focus assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement actions in the national 

priority areas described in Section II, while maintaining a viable presence in all water 

programs; 

• Priority water areas include watersheds, public drinking water intakes or designated 
Revised June 2008 

24

protection areas, waters that could impact shellfish beds, waters with threatened or 

endangered species, waters designated as primary contact recreation, and waters located 

in areas with environmental justice concerns; 

• Evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response, and take timely and 

appropriate actions against facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC), especially 

those causing facilities to be on the Watch List according to the EMS; 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1)

Compliance assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, when there are new rules, sector 

specific compliance problems, and sectors with a preponderance of small business. Regions 

should refer to the compliance assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program 

Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Compliance Monitoring 

NPDES Program

NPDES Program 

Implementation of the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued 

October 17, 2007) 

Performance Expectations

Development of State-specific strategies pursuant to the NPDES Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy [NOTE: The following discussion of the CMS planning process tracks the October 17, 

2007 CMS memorandum and attachments from Granta Y. Nakayama to the Regional 

Administrators, et al.] 

 Full implementation of the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued 

October 17, 2007) (hereafter referred to as the Compliance Monitoring Strategy or the CMS) is to 

commence at the beginning of FY 2009 on October 1, 2008. By the beginning of FY 2009, 

regions and states should have jointly developed and agreed on a compliance monitoring plan for 

each state for core program and wet weather program inspections, ensuring a reasonable inspection 
Revised June 2008 

25

presence in each program area. Regions should provide a copy of each state-specific compliance 

monitoring plan for FY 2009 to the Office of Compliance by October 31, 2008. At mid-year and 

end-of-year 2009, the regions will submit a report for each state by each inspection category and 

subcategory contained in Attachments 1 and 2 of the CMS, reporting for each subcategory a 

combined EPA and state total number of inspections and percent coverage. 

The suggested overall planning process to implement the program areas addressed in the 

CMS Attachments is one that separately identifies core program inspection needs and wet weather 

program needs and then strikes an appropriate balance between the two by considering factors 

including: noncompliance trends, water quality considerations within individual states, and state 

and EPA resources. The suggested process is not intended to disrupt or replace existing EPA and 

state planning processes that are working well. The purpose of the CMS is to better focus 

inspection resources overall; it is not intended to draw resources from other NPDES program 

areas. These inspection planning expectations are intended to promote joint planning where such 

processes do not exist or need to be strengthened. The planning process, guided by the goals 

articulated in Attachments 1 and 2, is also intended to provide an opportunity to identify statespecific circumstances and encourage dialogue on the approaches the state expects to implement. 

EPA regional NPDES programs should work closely with each of their states to plan for 

core program and wet weather priority inspections, and to ensure a reasonable inspection presence 

in each program area. Where a state chooses a different mix of inspection frequencies from those 

recommended here, it will be useful for regional EPA NPDES programs to identify and describe 

these different approaches. At the conclusion of the EPA and state inspection planning process, 

regions and states should prepare a brief document describing the rationale for any deviations and 

tradeoffs to which the region and states agreed. 

EPA and state inspection planning will rely on compliance data obtained from PCS and ICISNPDES, and on citizen tips and complaints. To support attainment of water quality goals, the inspection 

planning process should increasingly be influenced by information on nonattainment of water quality 

standards to which facilities may be contributing (pursuant to listings under CWA Sections 303(d) and 

305(b)). As discussed further in Attachment 1, Section 1.A.1 and Section 1.B.1., to support a more data 

driven planning process, OECA will develop two software tools to assist the regions and states in 

preliminary screening, identification of inspection targets, and inspection plan development based on data 

taken from PCS, ICIS-NPDES, and the AskWATERS database from the Office of Water. The first 

versions of these On-line Tracking and Information System (OTIS) based tools are expected to be 

available for testing by mid-2008. Refinements to the tools will be made over time as regions and states 

use them and identify additional needed analytical functions. 

Reporting and Measurement

 State and regional compliance monitoring activities conducted pursuant to the goals in 

CMS and the state-specific plans should be reported into the appropriate national information 

system, either PCS or ICIS-NPDES, in accordance with documents which establish data 

requirements and reporting timeframes for those systems. If data systems are not able to support 
Revised June 2008 

26

reporting at either mid-year or end-of-year FY 2009, the regions will be have to submit manual 

reporting. Manual reporting instructions for the regions will be specified in greater detail in the 

separate omnibus multi-program fiscal year reporting guidance memorandum issued in February, 

2009 by the Enforcement Targeting and Data Division. 

By October 31, 2008, pursuant to the October 17, 2007, Granta Nakayama Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy memorandum, provide one specific CMS plan for each state in the region. 

To track progress relative to the state specific CMS plans, at mid-year and EOY regions provide a 

manual summary report for each state that includes universe (if available) and activity numbers for 

each inspection category and subcategory. 

Regions should provide a copy of each state-specific compliance monitoring plan for FY 

2009 to CAMPD by October 31, 2008. Submission of the plan for each state will be sufficient to 

meet the ACS measure described below. Where there are issues with the plans, OECA will 

provide specific feedback to the affected region(s). The issues will either be addressed in the FY 

2009 plans or establish placeholders for changes to be incorporated into the FY 2010 plans. The 

regions will be responsible for providing feedback to their states. OECA’s preference is to rely on 

the regions to work directly with their states. 

For FY 2009, due to reporting issues related to the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement, mid-year 

and end-of-year reporting for each NPDES inspection category and subcategory (listed in the CMS 

Attachments 1 and 2) will be provided using a manual report for each state. The manual report for 

each state should include the universe (if available) and activity numbers for each inspection 

category and subcategory. Inspections conducted by the EPA regions should be accounted for in 

separate columns in the appropriate state reports and in the appropriate categories and 

subcategories. For the AA/OECA regional trip reports, OECA will present combined EPA and 

State inspection frequency/coverage data. 

Measurement relating to the CMS goals will start at the beginning of FY 2009. Reporting at 

the end of FY 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter will provide cumulative state-specific data for 

each goal over the relevant time frame (e.g., the percent of the NPDES major universe inspected 

for the FY 2009 – FY 2010 timeframe; the percent of the “traditional” NPDES minor universe 

inspected for the FY 2009 – FY 2013 timeframe, etc.). Here is an example of how this cumulative 

approach might work: over the relevant timeframe for the individual goal, the results at the end of 

FY 2009 for “traditional” NPDES minors could demonstrate that the state/EPA inspected greater 

than or less than 20% of the universe, and at the end of FY 2010 the data might show that the 

state/EPA inspected greater than or less than 40% of the universe. 

Commitment CWA07: By October 31, 2008, provide one specific Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (CMS) plan for each state in the region. At mid-year and end of year provide for 

each state a numerical report on combined EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by 

category and subcategory. 

Oversight Inspections
Revised June 2008 

27

Regions should conduct a sufficient number of oversight inspections to ensure the integrity of 

each state or tribe with primacy=s compliance monitoring program. The definition of oversight 

inspections is defined on pp. 14-15 of this document. Also, the August 1986 Revised Policy 

Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements and the FY 1987 Guidance for Oversight of 

NPDES Programs says: "Oversight inspections are a principal means of evaluating both the quality of 

an inspection program and inspector training." The documents also clarify that oversight inspections 

can be conducted in two ways: 1) by accompanying state inspectors during inspections, or 2) by 

conducting a separate inspection at the same facility at a later date to verify the same findings. The 

regions have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections needed to ensure 

proper state inspection conduct and documentation. The documents also clarify that oversight 

inspections are not "joint" inspections. Joint inspections are defined as inspections where both EPA 

and a state/tribe conduct compliance inspection activities at the facility/site, but also include training 

of the state/tribe by the EPA inspector. The purpose of the joint inspection is similar to a typical 

compliance inspection (determine whether the facility is in compliance with its federal, state, or tribal 

environmental requirements). Joint inspections can be either an EPA lead, State lead, or Tribal lead. 

Joint inspections are not considered "oversight" inspections, since oversight inspections have a 

different purpose, and training is not conducted during oversight inspections. Joint inspections can be 

done in three different ways: 1) EPA provides training, but the state/tribal inspector conducts the 

inspection with hands-on guidance from EPA, 2) EPA assists in conducting the inspection with the 

state/tribal inspector, e.g.,EPA conducts part of the inspection (e.g., sampling) and the state/tribe/local 

inspector conducts another part (e.g., records review, interviews), or 3) EPA conducts the entire 

inspection and the state/tribe/local inspector observes the EPA inspector to learn the procedures. 

Generally EPA oversight inspections should be conducted in coordination with SRF 

reviews. Oversight inspections provide valuable insight into the quality of the state inspection 

program, and would assist in the SRF file review process. The CMS indicates that “[a] minimum 

of five (5) EPA oversight inspections should be conducted in each state where an SRF review is 

scheduled to take place in the subsequent fiscal year. These inspections may also include joint 

state/EPA inspections where a state has the lead role in the inspection.” 

Commitment CWA03: Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be 

conducted. The regions must provide a detailed explanation if no oversight inspections are 

projected in this area. 

Section 404 (Wetlands)

Regions should have a process for identifying, targeting, inspecting, and otherwise 

responding to illegal activities. Since only two states and no tribes have been delegated parts of 

the Section 404 program, this is primarily a federal effort. The regions must also coordinate, as 

appropriate, with other federal agencies which have significant roles in wetlands protection 

through the use of memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement (e.g., U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Fish and Wildlife Service,

etc.) 
Revised June 2008 

28

CWA Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and Facility 

Response Plan (FRP) Program)

CWA Section 311 provides statutory authority for program implementation and 

enforcement. However, responsibility for program implementation (including most of the 

compliance monitoring and compliance assistance responsibilities) resides with the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Emergency Management at headquarters and, in a 

number of different regional divisions including: Emergency and Remedial Response; Superfund; 

Hazardous Waste Cleanup; Environmental Cleanup; Ecosystems Protection and Remediation; and 

Waste Management. 

 Compliance and enforcement efforts in CWA 311 should focus on ensuring that regulated 

sources maintain and implement the required Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

(SPCC) plans and/or Facility Response Plans (FRP). Typically, regions should check compliance 

monitoring at facilities subject to SPCC or FRP requirements to ensure that plans are adequate, 

meet the regulatory requirements, and are implemented as shown by a commitment to resources 

and training. In light of continuing concerns regarding chemical safety, regions should also ensure 

that some FRP facilities are targeted for compliance monitoring and compliance assistance 

considering that these facilities have large quantities of oil and may have a close proximity to 

population centers and/or critical infrastructures (such as drinking water intakes). 

 

Enforcement

NPDES Program

 The underlying tenet of the enforcement program is that each violation deserves some type 

of enforcement response. Guidance on the appropriate response to different types of violations is 

contained in the Enforcement Management System http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

policies/civil/cwa/emscwa-jensen-rpt.pdf. Regions are expected to evaluate all violations, 

determine an appropriate response per the EMS, and take that action. Regions should focus 

actions in the national priority areas while maintaining a presence in all water programs. 

In addition to initiating new enforcement actions, regions are expected to negotiate 

settlements and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders and to take all 

necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal enforcement actions. 

State, and where they exist, tribal SNC identification and enforcement responses are major 

components of the Watch List and the SRF. Regions should monitor state performance through 

these tools and the use of OTIS management reports. 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

Regions should refer to the Enforcement activities description in Section III. C - Core 
Revised June 2008 

29

Program Activities.

CWA Section 311 (SPCC & FRP) 

Regions should refer to the Enforcement activities description in Section III. C - Core 

Program Activities.

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

NPDES Program

 Regions should review state NPDES compliance monitoring programs pursuant to the 

guidance currently being developed as part of the integrated SRF/CMS review. Consistent with 

the SRF and the CMS, regions should assess the performance of compliance monitoring programs 

and enforcement activities against the negotiated and agreed upon work plans to ensure that 

commitments are met. SRF/CMS integrated reviews should assess trends; recognize successes as 

well as document areas for improvement; and provide recommendations for improvement. 

CMS/SRF integrated reviews should be based on a review of the SRF data metrics and file 

reviews, and activities such as conference calls, the Watch list, workplan reviews, oversight 

inspections, and in-person management and staff interviews. Results should be documented in the 

SRF report. For further guidance in this area, see the SRF Overview and Implementation Guide 

and the CMS (October 17, 2007 memorandum from Granta Y. Nakayama). Also, see the sections 

on EPA/State relations and core program activities. Although Regions are not required to conduct 

separate in-depth CMS evaluations, they may deem it necessary to conduct additional evaluation 

as appropriate to further investigate and/or address identified state-specific concerns. 

Regions should routinely review all DMR reports received for compliance with permit 

limits. (Note that regions may accomplish this review through a routine screen of the PCS or 

ICIS-NPDES data and reviewing the DMRs themselves as necessary.) This activity does not 

apply to the SPCC 311 and Section 404 Wetlands Programs. 

In reviewing regional performance, OECA will consider the following information that is 

currently based on data reported into PCS or ICIS-NPDES: 

• number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe); 

• number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner; 

• number of Watchlist facilities per region. 

• quality and timeliness of conducting SRF reviews and dealing with identified issues 

Pretreatment Program

The regions should review state programs for evaluating local control authority operation 

during the FY 2009 period of this Guidance. If regions discover problems, the regions should take 

appropriate action. 
Revised June 2008 

30

Wetlands

Since only two states and no tribes have delegated parts of the Section 404 program, this is 

primarily a federal effort. The regions must coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies 

which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of 

understanding and memoranda of agreement (e.g., U.S Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, Fish and 

Wildlife Service). 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC & FRP)

Regions should routinely review the program to determine if the risk of spills from oil 

storage is being adequately addressed by reviewing the Emergency Response Notification System 

database and, reviewing SPCC inspection reports and results of Expedited Settlement Agreements 

and other enforcement settlements to determine if routine non-compliance is being addressed. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

B. Requirements: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Program

This section provides guidance for regions as they develop core drinking water compliance 

assistance and enforcement commitments for annual workplans. Regions are to follow this 

guidance both with respect to their oversight of primacy states and tribes and with respect to their 

own actions in areas or particular rules where EPA directly implements the drinking water 

program, including most of Indian country. Where there are differences between this guidance and 

annual workplan guidance for the national Indian country priority, regions should follow the 

national Indian country priority guidance when addressing tribal water systems. 

The following clarifications are provided to ensure that Headquarters and the regions have 

a common understanding of the program implementation requirements when negotiating the 

commitments: 

• The Safe Drinking Water Information System Operational Database System (SDWIS/ODS) 

is the main database system used by EPA, states and tribes with primacy to track public 

drinking water systems. The modernization of SDWIS/ODS was completed in 2006. 

• Based upon discussions with the regions a “Fixed Base” SNC/Exception List will be 

generated from the frozen July SDWIS database. The list will include PWSs of all sizes 

and types. Using this list the regions will commit to a specific number of systems that the 

region along with their states and tribes with primacy will address or resolve between July 

2008 and June 2009. The regions do not need to specify the names of PWSs that they plan 

to address. 
Revised June 2008 

31

• The regions, states, and tribes need to all address actions in SDWIS by June 30, 2009, so 

the numbers achieved will be available for the October End-of-Year results 

• The expectation is that the regions will work primarily with the states and tribes with 

primacy to ensure that they are addressing SNC/Exceptions. The regions should not have 

to address all the SNC/Exceptions themselves. 

• Headquarters will provide quarterly data for new SNCs, about to become exceptions, and 

new exceptions until such a time as a standardized pull is developed for use in the 

modernized SDWIS/ODS data system. The regions can use the quarterly data to determine 

if recently identified SNCs are higher priorities than some SNCs listed on the Fixed Base 

List. When these high priority SNCs are addressed by a region or state, these count toward 

the regional commitment number for the Fixed Base List as a substitute for systems on the 

July Fixed Base list. 

• Regions will report to headquarters at midyear on the number of PWSs addressed from the 

fixed base list and the number of PWSs addressed. 

 

• OECA is working with the Regions to develop a new Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) 

that will define significant non-compliers by a system-based approach versus the current 

rule-based approach. It is expected that the new approach will run concurrently with the 

old approach during FY09 while issues are resolved 

The effort to address new SNCs before they become exceptions does not diminish the 

importance of addressing the backlog of systems in exception (all system sizes). As resources 

allow, the regions, states and tribes with primacy are encouraged to address the backlog of systems 

in exception. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

 Regions should target compliance assistance toward small drinking water systems (serving 

3,300 or fewer users). Using the data contained in SDWIS/ODS to identify patterns of 

noncompliance, regions can both target the small systems most likely to benefit from compliance 

assistance and assemble compliance assistance materials suited to their particular needs. Regions 

should coordinate with the drinking water program office and work with the states and tribes to 

increase small system operators= awareness of their monitoring and reporting requirements, and to 

build small systems= technical and financial capacity to perform required activities. Regions 

should focus compliance assistance resources on helping small systems and tribal systems comply 

with microbial and new rules. Compliance assistance efforts will include outreach and education 

programs to ensure that sources understand both the requirements and the assistance available to 

help them comply. While the optimal time for compliance assistance is before a system violates a 

standard, compliance assistance is useful when a system fails to comply. Where compliance 
Revised June 2008 

32

assistance is likely to return a small system to compliance, the regions should incorporate 

compliance assistance into their tools for addressing SNCs at small systems, and encourage their 

states and tribes to do likewise. 

We encourage the regions to use the Local Government Environmental Assistance 

Network (LGEAN) (http://www.lgean.org), and the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse 

(http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/) as sources of compliance assistance information and 

recommend marketing these resources to drinking water system operators as compliance assistance 

tools. Compliance assistance is also provided by an array of non-governmental organizations, 

including the National Rural Water Association (http://www.nrwa.org/) and the Rural Community 

Assistance Corporation (http://www.rcac.org/). In addition, the Indian Health Services offers 

assistance to drinking water systems in Indian country. We also encourage the regions to make 

available compliance information packages that can be distributed by sanitary survey inspectors. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in the ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits and outcomes using the CACDS. Please note that the core compliance 

assistance program sets out other general guidance and expectations the regions should follow 

when providing compliance assistance to public water systems. 

The Ameasures@ area of the compliance assistance homepage (http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/assistance/measures/index.html) provides guidance documents, tools, and success 

stories regions can use to assess the effectiveness of their compliance assistance efforts. Regions 

should also encourage states and tribes to measure compliance assistance performance and should 

facilitate states= and tribal efforts to report outcomes and outputs. 

Regions should report the percentage of small systems that have received compliance 

assistance. Regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the four specific compliance 

assistance performance measures identified in the Data Quality and Reporting section below. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Monitoring 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

The primary enforcement authority (i.e., a state or tribe with primacy, a tribe approved for 

treatment as a state, or EPA implementing the drinking water program in a state or in Indian 

country) is required to ensure an effective sanitary survey program. When appropriate, regions 
Revised June 2008 

33

should also incorporate a SDWA component in all multimedia inspections of federal facilities as 

outlined in the federal facilities core program section of this guidance (Section I). Significant 

deficiencies are to be corrected and regions are to ensure discovered regulatory violations are 

addressed in a manner consistent with timely and appropriate guidelines and with annual workplan 

commitments. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

Regions should ensure an effective field presence through routine inspections of all classes 

of wells. The actual number of inspections and the distribution by well class will depend on the 

region and whether or not all or part of the program has been delegated to the states or tribes. 
Revised June 2008 

34

Enforcement

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

Regions are to take timely and appropriate action to address all circumstances that present 

or have the potential to present, imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, 

regardless of whether the contaminant is an acute or chronic contaminant. To ensure national 

consistency and promote establishment of strong precedent, the region is strongly encouraged to 

consult with the Water Enforcement Division prior to issuance of an order to address any 

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health that may exist. 

Commitment SDWA02: Primacy states, tribes and EPA will address or resolve Public Water 

Systems listed on a ‘Fixed Base’ SNC/Exceptions list.* 

*It is recommended that high priority systems be substituted for lower priority systems on the 

fixed base list. The regions should provide a break out number by state and by tribe in the 

comment field. Later identified high priority systems can be substituted to meet the commitment 

to address/resolve systems. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING

Efforts to assess the quality of the data in the SDWIS/FED indicate that the data in the 

system are highly accurate, but many violations are not in the system. As a recent Inspector 

General Reporti

 notes, data verifications conducted on violation information for the period 

between 1999 and 2001 found that SDWIS/FED contained only 65% of all health-based violations 

and 23% of all monitoring and reporting violations that should have been reported. While the 

largest burden for improving the quality of data in SDWIS/FED falls on the states and tribes with 

primacy (and regions for most of Indian country and where states lack primacy), it is important 

that EPA also do its best to ensure data are reported accurately and completely. 

Compliance Assistance 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite assistance visits using the CACDS. The regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the 

following information into either SDWIS/ODS, ICIS, or on a CACDS, in accordance with this 

guidance. 

• Number of public water system SNCs that return to compliance as a result of an on-site 

compliance assistance visit and which were not the subject of a reported enforcement follow 

up activity. 
Revised June 2008 

35

• Number of small and tribal public water systems in violation that receive direct compliance 

assistance, subsequently return to compliance, and are not the subject of a reported 

enforcement follow up activity. 

• Number of public water systems that receive compliance assistance. 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

Regions, states, and tribes with primacy are expected to ensure that all required data is 

entered or uploaded into SDWIS/ODS, including federal facilities as applicable. Regions with 

direct implementation programs, including those with authority for implementing the drinking 

water program in Indian country, are expected to enter the data. If regions directly implement any 

of the new drinking water regulations, they must ensure that the required data is in SDWIS/ODS. 

Regions should review reports as appropriate to ensure changes to data are successfully accepted 

in SDWIS/ODS. All PWSS federal enforcement cases should be entered into both ICIS and 

SDWIS/ODS. Regions should report sanitary surveys into ICIS as compliance assistance 

activities. 

All federal inspections, including those that previously reported manually, must be entered 

into ICIS in FY 2009. Separate guidance on sanitary surveys is in a December 9, 2005 

memorandum from James Edward and Steve Heare directing the regions to report sanitary surveys 

into ICIS as compliance assistance activities. A follow-up July 30, 2007 memorandum from 

James Edward and Stephen Heare detailed the findings of an examination of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act compliance assistance (including sanitary surveys) information the Regions reported 

into ICIS for FY 2006. The memorandum also recommends simple procedural changes with 

respect to sanitary surveys, as they will allow the Regions to collect and report outcomes with little 

or no additional effort. OECA will develop an annual report on the outcomes of the reported 

sanitary surveys based upon the information that the Regions entered into ICIS in FY2009. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

To ensure adequate program oversight, regions should review data in the SDWIS/ODS and 

review other information on compliance available to the region. 

In evaluating regional performance, OECA will look at: 

• the number of SNCs identified in the fixed based SNC/Exception list 

• the number of SNCs addressed from fixed base SNC/Exception list 

• the number of SNCs addressed from quarterly data which were identified as higher 

priority 
Revised June 2008 

36

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

Regions should routinely review inspection reports, mechanical integrity test results, and 

other information available on the compliance status of injection wells. Regions should also 

review other available information which suggests the existence of Class V well or wells. Based 

on review of this information, appropriate inspections or enforcement actions should be targeted. 

C. Requirements: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Program 

EPA, states, and tribes have complementary roles in pesticide enforcement. EPA is 

responsible for investigating and enforcing pesticide registration and labeling; data quality 

requirements (FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards); the effectiveness of hospital 

disinfectant products; pesticide producing establishment registrations and the annual submission of 

production data; import and export requirements; and registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse 

effects. States and tribes, working with EPA under cooperative enforcement agreements, conduct 

most field inspections, including product issues, and may take enforcement actions or in some 

cases, refer the case to EPA. The statute gives primary use enforcement responsibility to the 

states. EPA directly implements primary use enforcement responsibility in Indian country. EPA is 

primarily responsible for the registration, production, labeling, and distribution of pesticides in 

commerce while the states and tribes, under effective cooperative agreements are primarily 

responsible for the use of pesticides within their respective jurisdiction. Regions are expected to 

follow up on all referrals received from headquarters, states, and tribes. 

A major focus of FIFRA is providing assistance, training, and oversight to states and tribes 

carrying out FIFRA related enforcement under cooperative enforcement agreements. This 

includes, as appropriate, authorizing state and tribal inspectors to conduct FIFRA inspections on 

behalf of EPA and providing training and grants oversight. All state/tribal inspectors who inspect 

on behalf of EPA must be trained and credentialed. Regional staff should review all state/tribal 

inspection reports, take appropriate enforcement actions based on those inspection case files, and 

provide feedback on the quality of the inspections/reports to the appropriate states or tribes. 

 In 2007 OECA and OPP jointly issued FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance for 

FY2008 – 2010. That Guidance reflects a desire to provide grantees maximum flexibility in 

operating strong core programs and still address a limited set of EPA priorities. This NPM 

Guidance is directed towards the EPA core FIFRA program at headquarters and the regions. 

Regions should refer to the Federal Facilities section (Section I) for guidance on including federal

facilities in core program activities, where applicable. 

EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers and formulators to provide accurate 

information about pesticides and associated risks. Unregistered and ineffective antimicrobials, as 

well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims, pose a potential 

public health threat when the public makes inappropriate choices based on inaccurate or 

misleading information. Products used in agricultural or structural pest control settings may pose 

health risks to those working with or exposed to the chemicals. In particular, users must be 
Revised June 2008 

37

informed about exposure to pesticides that are mixed, used, stored, or disposed of, and must be 

informed how to properly handle and apply pesticides. 

In FY 2009, Regions will continue to implement the recommendations of the Worker 

Protection Standard Program Review Report and will begin implementation of the pesticide 

container/containment rules promulgated in 2006. In addition, three new federal program focus 

areas have been identified for the pesticide compliance and enforcement program. These include a 

fumigant application initiative, a pesticides imports initiative, and an initiative addressing 

return/collection centers. Ensuring that the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures 

are fully integrated into the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements will continue to be a 

significant regional and headquarters focus. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1)

Although there is no target for compliance assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate 

tool, in particular, to inform farm owners and workers about exposure to pesticides and how to 

properly handle and apply pesticides when there are new rules, sector specific compliance 

problems, or sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. Regions should refer to the 

Compliance Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

 Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities.

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Regions should work with pesticide state lead agencies and tribal pesticide agencies to 

target and conduct inspections and investigations to support the pesticide focus areas identified in 

the 2008-2010 Joint OPP/OECA State/Tribal Cooperative Agreement Guidance. Regions should 

target inspection coverage in areas, including those areas of Indian country, where there is no 

coverage through EPA/State Cooperative Agreements. 

Regions are expected to track and prioritize tips and complaints, and follow-up, as needed. 

 Follow-up means that the region needs to evaluate the tip or complaint to determine the 

appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer the tip or complaint to a state or tribe as appropriate, and 

track it through resolution consistent with national guidance; or 2) obtain additional information 

through federal investigation or a show cause letter if necessary taking federal action as 

appropriate; or 3) determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

EPA and state pesticide control officials continue to identify and pursue persons who 

promote or distribute products in a manner that is believed to violate FIFRA and/or state pesticide 

laws. In addition, federal and state agencies are encouraged to identify and raise issues that have a 

national impact on the pesticide program. Listed below are issues/areas raised by EPA regional 
Revised June 2008 

38

offices that should have a special regional focus in FY2009. 

Fumigant Application Initiative

Millions of pounds of fumigants are used for a variety of applications such as agricultural 

and greenhouse, which are subject to worker protection standards, and structural 

applications. Some of the most widely used fumigants include methyl bromide, aluminum 

phosphide, 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone), chloropicrin, and pesticides that generate methyl 

isothiocyanate (MITC), such as metam-sodium. Since fumigants are both toxic and 

gaseous, their offsite movement can pose hazards. Fumigation activities have resulted in 

serious incidents of human pesticide exposure. For FY2009, fumigant application should 

receive special focus within the core federal FIFRA program. Ensuring regulatory 

compliance in the application of fumigants is an important focus for the FIFRA program. 

Acknowledging that State programs have primacy for use and misuse investigations and 

enforcement, regions are encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for 

federal cases to support state efforts. Federal involvement or support provides significant 

benefits by addressing noncompliance from a national corporate-wide perspective, 

facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple States and/or Regions, and enhancing 

public awareness on a broader, more national forum. Some fumigant misapplication 

scenarios that might benefit from federal support or involvement might include cases 

involving noncompliance by companies operating in multiple states, cases involving 

human exposure, or cases involving exposure or death of animals. As part of the yearly 

regional/state work plan process, Regions are encouraged to work with states to identify 

opportunities within existing agreements for federal support or involvement. OECA will 

provide support on a case by case basis as appropriate. 

Pesticide Imports

EPA’s enforcement program continues to address the illegal importation of noncompliant 

goods into the United States by bringing enforcement actions against importers and others; 

providing compliance assistance to manufacturers, importers and brokers; and working with other 

governments, agencies and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of unsafe products entering 

our country. Recognizing the need to ensure the safety of imports entering the United States, on 

July 18, 2007, the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety was created. Participating federal 

agencies, including EPA, were charged with reviewing our authorities and practices related to 

imports, and identifying opportunities for improvement. The Working Group developed an Action 

Plan that provides for short- and long-term recommendations to protect consumers by enhancing 

the safety of imports into the United States. This effort is consistent with EPA’s commitment. For 

FY2009, EPA Headquarters and Regions will focus efforts on detecting and stopping illegal 

imports. Special emphasis will be placed on non-registered, counterfeit, and high risk counterfeit 

products as well as pesticides involving unapproved registered sources. A national workgroup will 

be formed to: 1) establish national guidance on targeting imports of concern; 2) establish criteria 

for the identification and prioritization of import compliance monitoring (e.g., including irregular 

or incomplete Notices of Arrival, large shipments, high toxicity, new and unknown products, etc); 
Revised June 2008 

39

and 3) collaborate with Customs in developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for 

conducting import inspections 

Return/Collection Centers

EPA has become aware of an emerging industry that deals with the return, collection, and 

redistribution of pesticide products that are unsold, damaged, and for other purposes returned from 

various retail markets, including many big box stores and other large retail chain stores. In 

FY2009, Headquarters will collaborate with Regions, as appropriate, to investigate and assess the 

scope of the problem and determine the need for future compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

The FY2009 efforts will focus on identifying the return/collection centers and the retail stores that 

deal with those centers and to monitor compliance with FIFRA regulatory requirements. Emphasis 

will be placed on monitoring the processes involved in the transfer, handling, storage, repackaging, 

disposal, and redistribution of the pesticide products involved. 

Performance Expectations

Commitment FIFRA-FED1: Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

Each region should conduct state and tribal enforcement program oversight as part of the 

state/tribal cooperative agreement. This will include joint end-of-year reviews with the pesticides 

program, joint inspections to monitor quality of field work, and training opportunities to 

standardize the knowledge-base of state and tribal inspectors. 

The FIFRA Cooperative Enforcement Grants are covered by the new OMB requirement to 

include a standardized template for reporting results in state grant agreements. The templates are 

for use by the regions to report their state and tribal grant results. A copy of the FIFRA template is 

in Attachment B. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program 

narrative in Section I for additional core program requirements. 

D. Requirements: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) 

Programs 

EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right-to-Know under EPCRA 313 

and release notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 

and 312. EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemicals entering the 

environment, and on the storage of chemicals at facilities. EPA, states, tribes, local entities, and 

communities rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA authorities to prepare local chemical 

emergency response plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies. 
Revised June 2008 

40

EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and within required time frames. 
Revised June 2008 

41

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1)

Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, for smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. Regions should refer to the 

Compliance Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Monitoring

EPCRA 313

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. Targeting facilities that did not report and meet 

reporting criteria is a general area of emphasis. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are expected 

to conduct at least 4 on-site Data Quality inspections each fiscal year as part of their overall 

inspection commitment. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are expected to conduct at least 20 

inspections each fiscal year as part of their overall inspection commitment. 

 

Performance Expectations

Commitment EPCRA01: Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections. 

Commitment EPCRA02: Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections. 

EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. A general area of emphasis is to target facilities 

that meet reporting criteria but have not reported. In light of continuing concerns regarding 

chemical safety, regions should also consider the presence of significant quantities of chemicals of 

concern and proximity to population centers in focusing their targeting and inspections efforts. 

Enforcement

EPCRA 313; EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103

Regions may be asked to participate in enforcement case initiatives or cluster filings. 

These tools are used to further focus effort and resources. In all circumstances, cases filed as part 
Revised June 2008 

42

of an initiative or cluster filing count as part of the annual workplan commitment, not as an addon. OECA will remain sensitive to regional priorities when identifying initiatives or cluster 

filings. Regions will work with OECA to identify candidate issues, industries or sectors for 

enforcement case initiatives. OECA will use national meetings and conference calls as the means 

for selecting issues, industries, or sectors for federal enforcement initiatives. 

E. Requirements: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Program 

The Agency=s TSCA program consists of four major elements: Acore TSCA@; PCBs; TSCA 

Asbestos, which includes Worker Protection Standards, the Model Accreditation Plan program and 

other requirements; Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), and lead-based paint. 

Title III Radon activities will not be covered in this section 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1)

Compliance assistance is an important focus for the TSCA AHERA program in FY 2009. 

The EPA-supported Schools Compliance Assistance Center will be the primary vehicle for 

providing compliance assistance, with regions participating where resources permit. For leadbased paint, as part of the integrated strategy efforts, regions will continue to work with the 

regulated community to provide compliance assistance at appropriate opportunities, such as home 

shows, meetings, and discussions with landlord associations. Inspectors will provide compliance 

assistance materials at inspections which will cover all aspects of the lead paint program. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2)

Lead-based Paint: As part of the integrated strategy, the lead paint program will continue 

to focus its work with the regulated community to meet the 2010 goals. Efforts for achieving a 

lead-safe environmental include voluntary actions on the part of the regulated community, 

compliance assistance to the regulated community, or when necessary negotiated settlements and 

enforcement actions. 

PCBs: As part of the Agency=s Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics (PBTs) program, OECA 

will continue to work with regions to further decommission PCB-laden equipment. Federal 

compliance incentives programs will be initiated, as appropriate. Regions are encouraged to work 

with OECA when developing their own compliance incentive programs based on regional needs 

and priorities. 

Core TSCA: Regions should review and follow-up on, as appropriate, disclosures 

submitted under the OECA Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. Under Core TSCA, self 

disclosures received by minimally-invested regions may be forwarded to OECA for appropriate 

action. 
Revised June 2008 

43

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

Core TSCA

Regions must stay current and informed of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 

Substances (OPPTS) and OECA=s TSCA program priorities. Regions must track and prioritize 

tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. Regions 2, 4, and 5 are also expected to follow-up 

on all referrals received from headquarters, states, tribes, and the public. Follow-up includes 

evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the appropriate next step. Minimally-invested regions 

(all regions other than 2, 4, and 5) are to refer tips and complaints to the Core TSCA Enforcement 

Center for follow-up, and to respond to questions from the regulated community. Under special 

circumstances all regions may need to conduct limited inspections as resources allow, and to work 

with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection on the import/export program. 

For those regions (other than 2 and 5) who chose to continue to invest additional resources 

in Core TSCA compliance and enforcement, the Core TSCA Enforcement Center will assist in 

targeting inspections, but the region is expected to provide legal and technical enforcement case 

support, and either obtain additional information through federal investigation, show cause letter, 

subpoena if necessary and issue appropriate federal action as appropriate; or determine that followup is not necessary. 

Performance Expectations

Commitment TSC01: Project the number of Core federal TSCA inspections for regions 

maintaining an investment in core TSCA (sections 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13). 

PCBs

In FY 2009, the regions should use their enforcement resources to focus monitoring PCB 

storage and disposal facilities to confirm that approved closure/post-closure plans and cost 

estimates reflect the current waste management and contamination situation. Then regions should 

review financial assurance mechanisms in support of OECA’s national enforcement initiative on 

financial assurance. Enforcement follow-up to violations detected as a part of these inspections 

should promote, where possible, the retirement of PCB transformers through Supplemental 

Environmental Projects (SEPs). Tips and complaints should be followed-up based on potential risk 

posed by each violation and budget considerations. 

Regions should work with states/tribes operating under TSCA compliance monitoring 

grants to address these priorities as well as state/tribal priorities. Regions that award TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants to states and tribes need to submit mid-year and end-of-year reports 

to OC. In order to improve the efficiency of PCB inspections, OECA will continue to pilot the 

field use of the tablet computer to conduct inspections and write inspection reports. In FY 2008, 

OC will be providing hardware, software and training to regional PCB inspectors to use the 

completed PCB inspection software. In FY 2009, PCB inspectors will be required to use the 
Revised June 2008 

44

equipment to conduct PCB inspections and prepare their inspection reports. 

Performance Expectations

During FY 2009, regions should continue to inspect 33% of regional PCB commercial 

storage and disposal facilities. If the region will not inspect 33% of the commercial storage 

and disposal facilities, the region must explain its decision in the comments field. In 

addition, HQ requests that the regions report the total number of planned PCB inspections 

other than those at commercial storage and disposal facilities in the comment field of 

TSC03 in the Annual Commitment System. 

Commitment PCB01: Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility 

universe. 

TSCA 

Compliance assistance will be an important focus of OECA activity for the TSCA AHERA federal 

program in FY 2009 with a secondary focus on traditional enforcement as appropriate. For FY 

2009, the regions are expected to ensure inspection coverage in each state by either EPA, SEE, or 

state/tribal inspectors. In addition, the regions will continue to track and prioritize tips and 

complaints. If the regions receive a complaint containing allegations which provide a reasonable 

basis to believe that a violation has occurred, the TSCA statute, Subchapter II, Asbestos Hazard 

Emergency Response, Section 2647 – Enforcement, paragraph (d) Citizen complaints states: 

. . . .If the Administrator or Governor receives a complaint under this 

subsection containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis 

to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the 

Administrator or Governor shall investigate and respond (including 

taking enforcement action where appropriate) to the complaint 

within a reasonable period of time. 

 Regions are also expected to follow-up on all referrals Follow-up includes 

evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer 

the tip or complaint to a state/tribe as appropriate and track it through resolution; or 2) 

obtain additional information, e.g., through phone calls, and inspect, if appropriate. Special 

attention should be given to tips alleging asbestos contamination at schools. Inspections 

should address charter schools, public schools, private schools, and religious schools. 

Inspections may be conducted for the Model Accreditation Plan, Worker Protection 

Standards, and other Section 6 regulations. In addition, the regions have flexibility to 

determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections. Also, regions that award TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants to states/tribes are reminded to submit mid-year and end-ofyear state grant evaluation reports to OC. 

Where applicable, the regions should encourage states/tribes to apply for the Awaiver@

program. The regions must ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of 
Revised June 2008 

45

state and tribal governments to conduct inspections on EPA’s behalf are in place with states/tribes 

that receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for TSCA Asbestos (non-waiver states only). 

Regions must ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and 

credentialed according to the September 30, 2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing 

Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to 

Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA. Also, please see the August 5, 2005 memorandum for the 

Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on 

EPA's Behalf. In addition, regions must review inspection reports from states and tribes and 

provide feedback per the September 30, 2004 guidance. Feedback should address the quality of 

the inspection/reports and the action taken by the region. 

Performance Expectations

During the FY 2009 national guidance period, HQ is asking the regions to ensure 

compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each state and in Indian country. The 

compliance monitoring activity can be met by regional inspections or having states inspect on 

behalf of the regions. HQ will rely on the regions to determine the number and mix of compliance 

monitoring activities to be conducted in each state. 

Commitment ASB01: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. HQ 

requests the regions report the number of AHERA inspections to be conducted by states in 

support of compliance monitoring activities, by state, in the comment field of ASB01. 

If the region cannot perform some level of compliance monitoring coverage in each state or 

Indian country, whether it is the region or the state/tribe on behalf of the region, the region must 

provide an explanation based on facts and provide a rationale for: 

• How the compliance monitoring TSCA resources will be redirected (e.g., regional or 

state priority facilities); 

OECA will discuss with regional toxics managers at national meetings, scheduled 

conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions the commitments, midand end-of-year results, and inspection priorities. 

Lead-Based Paint Program

In 2000, the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to 

Children established the national goal to, by 2010, “eliminate lead paint hazards in housing where 

children under six live,” through federal grants and private funding to identify and eliminate lead 

paint hazards, outreach and public education, and “enforcement of lead safety laws and 

regulations.” In addition, the Agency has authority to address lead paint hazards in other 

regulated property, including child-occupied facilities. 

 
Revised June 2008 

46

During FY 2009, the national lead-based paint (LBP) compliance monitoring and 

enforcement program will implement an integrated strategy focused on the outcome of obtaining 

abatement (permanent elimination) of LBP hazards in housing and other regulated properties. 

LBP abatement may be obtained through a variety of vehicles, including compliance assistance or 

other “beyond compliance” activities, Supplemental Environmental Projects in administrative 

settlements; injunctive relief in judicial actions; and joint or parallel enforcement with other 

federal or state, tribal, and local agencies that have independent authority to compel abatement. 

Each Region’s integrated strategy should encompass both a coordinated intra-agency 

compliance assistance, incentive, compliance monitoring, enforcement, and state/tribal grant 

oversight activities; and interagency coordination with federal, state, tribal, and local authorities, 

as appropriate. The strategy should be based on targeting for lead poisoning “hot spots,” based on 

known or apparent LBP hazards, such as elevated blood-lead levels (EBLLs) in young children, 

outstanding LBP hazard abatement orders, and the age and condition of regulated properties. To 

facilitate targeting, the Region should strive to maximize interagency partnerships for informationsharing, referrals, and tips and complaints, such as with the Centers for Disease Control, 

State/Tribal/Local health and housing agencies, and other entities 

Performance Expectation

Supporting the Agency’s goal to eliminate LBP hazards, the Region should allocate its 

LBP compliance and enforcement resources to the respective program elements – Sections 1018, 

402 and 406(b) -- based upon the Region’s assessment of the most significant types of LBP hazards 

throughout the Region. 

Commitment LED01: Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

OECA and the regions should evaluate the overall effectiveness of the federal TSCA 

compliance and enforcement program to ensure the most efficient and effective utilization of 

resources possible. These analyses should address whether TSCA compliance and enforcement 

activities address program priorities; utilize effective targeting strategies; identify and take 

appropriate enforcement action on violations; prioritize and track tips and complaints; assess 

appropriate penalties; have written procedures/guidelines consistent with Agency policy to guide 

activities; have adequate QA/QC programs in place; offer adequate inspector training; inspectors 

comply with the EO 3500.1 training requirements; and accurately report data to the appropriate 

data systems in a timely manner. 

The TSCA Asbestos Grants and the TSCA Lead Grants are covered by the OMB 

requirement to include a standardized template for reporting results in state grant agreements. The 

templates are for use by the states to report their state grant results. A copy of the TSCA Asbestos 

Grants and the TSCA Lead Grants template are in Attachment B. 
Revised June 2008 

47

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

F. Requirements: Clean Air Program 

The regional Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source compliance and enforcement program 

focuses primarily on the following areas: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT), New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD), 

Title V Operating Permits, Stratospheric Ozone Protection, and Section 112(r) Risk Management 

Plans (RMPs). 

For the FY 2009 planning cycle, the MACT and NSR/PSD programs will continue as 

priorities, and the discussion of, and performance expectations for, those programs will be in the 

performance based strategies referenced in Section II - National Priority Activities. 

 For the remaining programs, the regions should continue to maintain a minimum level of 

activity consistent with the resources available for implementing the program and Agency policies, 

monitoring the level and quality of effort by the delegated agencies, and participating in regionspecific initiatives that may require greater EPA involvement. In designing these programs, the 

regions should take into consideration all aspects of the program (e.g., compliance evaluations, 

applicability determinations, assistance, incentives, enforcement), and focus on those activities that 

will yield the greatest benefit and are not duplicative of efforts by delegated agencies. Regions 

should conduct the SRF in each of their states and territories by the end of FY2012. Regions 

should integrate the SRF and CMS reviews to maximize efficiencies and avoid any duplication of 

effort. Regions should also ensure that states implement programs consistent with delegation 

agreements. Regions should use the SRF process to determine compliance with the CMS 

including whether: adequate inspector training is available and whether an appropriate mix of 

compliance monitoring techniques is being used. Regions should work with their states to 

quantify the impact of the compliance monitoring program on parameters such as compliance 

rates; specific and general deterrence; and moving beyond compliance. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub- Objective 5.1.1)

Compliance assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, when there are new rules, 

sector-specific compliance problems, and sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities.
Revised June 2008 

48

COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3)

NSPS/NESHAP/MACT PROGRAMS

Compliance evaluations (Full Compliance Evaluations or Partial Compliance Evaluations) 

should be conducted at Title V major sources and synthetic minor sources that emit or have the 

potential to emit emissions at or above 80% of the Title V major source threshold (80% synthetic 

minors) consistent with the CMS, and the biennial plans developed by the delegated agencies. 

Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that delegated agencies provide and maintain an accurate 

universe of sources subject to the policy; develop facility-specific CMS plans; maintain records of 

compliance monitoring activities; and report all Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) in a timely 

manner consistent with Agency policies, and the business rules and Information Collection 

Request (ICR) of AFS. Once an evaluation is completed, and a compliance determination is made, 

all evaluations should be reported into the national database of record, AFS, within 60 days per the 

2005 AFS ICR. The results of evaluations conducted by either the regions or delegated agencies 

should not be held until the end of the fiscal year and input into the data system all at once. 

Regions should encourage those states and tribes with program approval, which include a step in 

the evaluation process to ensure the evaluation is completed before reporting the information into 

AFS, to initiate this step shortly after the evaluation is completed. States and tribes should not 

wait to complete and report the evaluation until the end of the fiscal year. 

Separate from investigations associated with the PSD/NSR Priority and discussed in the 

section on National Priority Activities, regions should continue any on-going investigations, and 

initiate new ones as appropriate. These activities should be reported in AFS. This is a minimum 

data requirement in the AFS ICR. 

During the FY2009 time frame, special emphasis should be placed on implementing the 

National Stack Testing Guidance. The guidance is a response to a report by the OIG which 

criticized the Agency for not issuing national guidance on stack testing, or providing sufficient 

oversight of state and local stack testing programs. The OIG concluded that this lack of guidance 

and oversight had an adverse effect on the use of stack testing as a tool in determining compliance. 

 

In partial response to the concerns raised in the OIG report, the CMS addressed the issues 

of testing frequencies and the reporting of test results. Consistent with this policy, regions and 

delegated agencies should report all stack tests and the results in AFS. The Stack Testing 

Guidance addresses the remaining issues raised by the OIG, and thus focuses on those issues 

associated with the conduct of stack tests and the interpretation of the test results. For example, it 

addresses issues such as the time frames for conducting stack tests, the issuance of waivers, 

notification requirements, observation of tests, representative performance, and stoppage and 

postponement of tests. 

During the first year of implementation, this guidance served as interim guidance to 

provide OC and the regions with an opportunity to evaluate its usage and monitor any potential 

problems that may arise as individual states/locals or tribes applied the provisions. The guidance 
Revised June 2008 

49

became final on September 29, 2005, and reflects any necessary changes stemming from the oneyear evaluation. Regions should ensure that delegated agencies are familiar with the Stack Testing 

Guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. 

Performance Expectations:

 Consistent with the CMS, the regions should provide projections for: (1) the number of 

Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) at Title V majors, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources 

(as appropriate) by region and state; (2) the number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to 

be conducted by the regions (this is a minimum data requirement); and (3) the number of state 

PCEs to be conducted that were negotiated between the region and the state in the biennial plan 

(i.e., where states negotiate PCEs in lieu of conducting a certain number of FCEs at Title V majors 

or 80% synthetic minors). The state numbers should include delegated local agencies as 

appropriate. The default in CMS is 50% of the universe for majors, and 20% of the universe for 

80% synthetic minors per year. This default applies only to the state projections. However, this 

default may vary from state-to-state depending on negotiations between regions and states under 

the CMS. 

Commitment CAA 01: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted 

at Title V majors by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 01.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be 

conducted at Title V majors by state per year; 

Commitment CAA 02: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 02.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by state per year; 

Commitment CAA 03: Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be 

conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data requirement; 

Commitment CAA 03.s: Number of PCEs to be conducted by the states that were the 

result of the negotiation process for the year (could be the result of redirecting resources 

from FCEs to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

If the states/locals or tribes cannot meet the above commitments, the regions must provide 

a written explanation that should include the following: 

• Information on how the compliance monitoring air resources will be redirected (e.g., 

national priority facilities, state air priorities); 

• How majors and/or 80% synthetic minors will otherwise be monitored; and 

• Why it is not necessary to evaluate specific facilities or source categories subject to 

the recommended minimum frequencies. 

This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with 
Revised June 2008 

50

individual regions. 

 

Commitment CAA05: Regions should project the number of investigations to be 

initiated in FY2009. Investigation projections should be provided by air program (e.g., 

MACT, NSPS). 

The regions should enter both initiated and completed investigations into AFS, and identify 

the targeted air program(s). This is a minimum data requirement. OECA uses this information to 

evaluate the overall health of the stationary source compliance monitoring program by comparing 

the number of FCEs, PCEs, and investigations. The region must provide an explanation if no 

activity is projected in this area. This explanation will be discussed with regional air 

compliance/enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS, ICIS, or through SRF 

reviews. The regions should be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising from the 

collection and analysis of the data. 

• Regions should report 100% of the compliance results of all FCEs and PCEs into AFS 

within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, and if feasible, in the next regularly scheduled 

update of AFS after an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should ensure that 100% of the delegated agencies report the compliance results 

of all FCEs and negotiated PCEs into AFS within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, after a 

compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should negotiate facility-specific CMS plans with 100% of delegated agencies, 

periodically evaluate progress, and work with delegated agencies to revise the plans as 

necessary. 

• Regions should utilize and encourage delegated agencies to use stack tests as a means of 

determining compliance. Regions, delegated states/locals, and tribes should report 

100% of the stack tests and the results (pass/fail) in AFS when a compliance 

determination has been made. 

Title V Operating Permits Program

Regions should continue to review Title V permits, both new ones as well as renewals, to 

ensure that they have adequate monitoring provisions consistent with the statute, underlying 

regulations, agency policies and judicial decisions. Although regions are no longer required to 

review all Title V certifications, they are still responsible for reviewing a subset of certifications, 

and ensuring that states/tribes/locals review them pursuant to the CAA CMS. In addition, they are 

responsible for ensuring that all permit program MDRs are entered into AFS in a timely manner. 

Performance Expectations:
Revised June 2008 

51

Regions should review and comment as appropriate to the permitting authority on the 

compliance and enforcement provisions of a subset of the initial Title V permit applications 

received each year, as well as all renewals. Regions should ensure that Title V permits do not 

shield sources subject to a pending or current CAA enforcement action or investigation, and that 

draft Title V permits include appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirements at 

any affected units. Further, regions should ensure that draft Title V permits include compliance 

schedules addressing consent decree requirements. OECA will collect information and discuss 

these activities with regional air managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, 

and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

Regions, states and tribes with program approval should report results of 100% of 

certification reviews consistent with CMS and the MDRs identified for the program. 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Consistent with CMS, all regional FCE=s at major sources and 80% synthetic minors 

should include an evaluation of compliance with regulations promulgated to protect the 

stratospheric ozone layer if such regulations apply. When CFCs or other ozone depleting 

substances (ODS) are known or suspected to be present at a facility of concern, available regional 

resources also may be used to conduct PCEs at these facilities. The regions are reminded that this 

program is not delegable to states, tribal, or local governments. Nevertheless, some states, tribal, 

or local governments may have promulgated similar requirements, and thus should be evaluating 

compliance with their own requirements. 

Performance Expectations:

Regions should include evaluations of CFCs and other ODS as part of routine FCEs to the 

extent the regulations apply. This does not apply to states or tribes since this program is not 

delegable. The regions must provide an explanation if no CFC or other ODS evaluations will be 

conducted. OECA will collect information and discuss these activities with regional air 

compliance/ enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

SECTION 112(r) Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and General Duty Clause)

 Although section CAA section 112(r) is a Clean Air Act authority, responsibility for 

compliance and enforcement varies from region to region, and may not reside with the regional 

division responsible for the air compliance and enforcement program. Regions currently focus 

enforcement and compliance efforts on ensuring that facilities’ risk management programs are 

adequate and meet the regulatory requirements. Headquarters will continue to provide support in 

this area. In light of continuing concerns regarding public safety, regions should consider the 

following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring efforts: 

• Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 500,000 people 
Revised June 2008 

52

• Facilities holding any RMP-regulated substance on site in an amount more than 10,000 

times the RMP threshold quantity for the substance; 

• Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario endpoint distance equals or exceeds 

25 miles 

• Facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the previous 

five years 

• Other facilities where information possessed by the Regional office indicates that the 

facility may be high-risk 

Performance Expectation:

 Regions should conduct CAA 112 (r) RMP inspections and may include periodic 68.220 

audits as part of an overall program to determine compliance. Regions should perform inspections 

at 5% of the total number of regulated facilities in the region during FY 2009. Section 68.220 

audits conducted do not count towards the 5% inspection target. If the program is delegated to a 

state, tribe or local agency, the regions should work closely with the delegated agency to avoid 

duplication of effort. OECA will collect information and discuss these activities with regional 

managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations 

with individual regions. 

Commitment CAA11: Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region 

required to submit RMPs. 

ENFORCEMENT

Federal enforcement will be considered where delegated agencies fail to take appropriate 

action. In addition, regions should take appropriate federal enforcement actions in situations 

where federal involvement could be particularly helpful in bringing the matter to a successful and 

environmentally beneficial resolution (e.g., a company with violations in more than one state or 

Indian reservation, transboundary issues, recalcitrant violators, Indian country, etc.), or is essential 

to ensure fair and equal environmental protection mandated by law. 

For all cases newly listed in accordance with the APolicy on Timely and Appropriate 

Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (HPVs),@ regions should adhere to the 

requirements of the Policy, and ensure that all MDRs are reported in AFS in a timely manner. 

Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that they are familiar with the HPV Policy, 

and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. OECA will collect information and 

discuss these activities with regional air compliance/enforcement managers during SRF reviews, 

national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual 

regions. 

Performance Expectations:

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 
Revised June 2008 

53

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS or ICIS. The regions should 

be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising from the collection and analysis of the 

data. The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking any of these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional managers during national meetings, 

scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

• Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the region; 

• Settle or litigate cases issued in years prior to FY2009 and ensure investigation and 

issuance of appropriate action for any open tips, complaints, or referrals received by 

EPA; 

• Exercise 1997 clarified penalty authority against federal agencies for CAA violations 

in appropriate circumstances; 

• Report 100% of MDRs accurately and in a timely manner in AFS consistent with the 

HPV policy and ensure that delegated agencies do the same. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING

 Data is an integral part of the CAA compliance and enforcement program; therefore, it is 

essential that regions and delegated agencies enter complete and accurate information into the 

national database in a timely manner. Complete, accurate, and timely data is necessary for EPA, 

delegated agencies, and the public to evaluate programs and institute corrections. For a complete 

list of MDRs for the program, please consult the CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR for the 

program. A summary of the requirements is on the following website: http://www.epa.gov/ 

Compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf. The region must provide an 

explanation if no activity is projected in this area. 

As stated previously, once an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is 

made, all evaluations should be reported as soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next 

regularly scheduled update of AFS. The results of evaluations conducted by either the regions or 

delegated agencies should not be held until the end of the fiscal year and input into the data system 

all at once. Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that agencies are familiar with 

the data aspects of the CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR, and implement delegated programs 

consistent with these policies. This is critical since the structure of the air program is different 

than other media programs in that the type and timing of compliance data that must be reported 

into the national database are not specified by statute or regulations, but through Agency policy 

and an ICR for the program. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide complete, accurate, 

and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as SEAs, PPAs, or Section 105 grant 

agreements. 

Performance expectations:

The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period covered 

by this guidance. 
Revised June 2008 

54

Commitment CAA 16: Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written 

agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the CMS, HPV 

Policy, and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant 

language. 

Commitment CAA 17: Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS 

consistent with the Agency policies and the ICR. If for some reason a delegated agency 

does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is 

entered into AFS in a timely manner. If the region is responsible for entering 

state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 

The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual 

regions. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

 Regions should review state CAA stationary sources’ compliance and enforcement 

programs pursuant to the guidance currently being developed as part of an integrated SRF/CMS 

review. Consistent with the SRF and the CMS and HPV Policies, regions should assess the 

performance of compliance monitoring programs and enforcement activities against the negotiated 

and agreed upon work plans to ensure that commitments are met. The SRF/CMS reviews should 

assess trends; recognize successes as well as document areas for improvement; and provide 

recommendations for improvement. The SRF/CMS reviews should be based on a review of the 

SRF data metrics and file reviews, and activities such as conference calls, the Watch list, workplan 

reviews, oversight inspections, and in-person management and staff interviews. Results should be 

documented in the SRF report. For further guidance in this area, see the SRF Overview and 

Implementation Guide, and the CMS and the HPV Policies. Also, see the sections on EPA/State 

relations and core program activities. Although Regions are not required to conduct separate indepth CMS evaluations, they may deem it necessary to conduct additional evaluation as appropriate 

to further investigate and/or address identified state-specific concerns. 

Performance Expectations:

Consistent with the SRF process and schedule, regions should conduct integrated SRF/CMS 

reviews. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative 

in Section I for additional core program requirements. 
Revised June 2008 

55

G. Requirements: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program

EPA is committed to ensuring that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that is protective 

of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and enforcement activities will 

focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the environment. To help 

ensure this, regions and states should capture the outcomes. All identified non-compliance with 

RCRA Subtitle C should be addressed by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing 

enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain and 

maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal compliance 

assurance and enforcement activities include all of Indian country and complement the activities of 

tribal environmental programs under tribal laws. State activities are to be monitored through 

various mechanisms including the implementation of the SRF, the Watch List, and the annual 

commitment system grant reviews. Regions should refer to the federal facilities Section I of this 

guidance for information on how to include federal facilities in core program activities where 

applicable. 

Core Program Elements 

• In general all RCRA inspections identified in this guidance should be thorough 

inspections that cover the complete facility. For example, a facility that is a TSD, 

generator and transporter should have a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) that 

covers all of the requirements not just the TSD requirements to be counted as an 

inspection for purposes of meeting the commitments. 

• Inspections of treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as required under RCRA 

'3007(e), and state and local government operated treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities, as required under RCRA '3007(d), should verify compliance with the 

following requirements established as standards per RCRA '3004(a) : 

 

S maintaining records of all hazardous waste which is treated, stored, or disposed 

of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of; 

S satisfactory reporting and compliance of the manifest system; 

S treatment, storage, or disposal of all waste received by the facility in accordance 

with the law; 

S establishing contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated 

damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; 

S training for personnel; 

S financial responsibility. 
Revised June 2008 

56

• Inspections of generators should verify compliance with the following requirements 

established as standards per RCRA ' 3002(a): 

S proper characterization of the hazardous waste; 

S furnish information on the general chemical composition of hazardous waste to 

persons transporting, treating, storing and disposing of such wastes; 

S record keeping on the management and disposition of waste; 

S proper labeling and identification of waste for storage, transport, and disposal; 

S use of proper containers, tanks and drip pads for the hazardous waste; 

S use of the manifest system and all other means necessary to assure that 

hazardous waste is sent to the appropriate treatment, storage and disposal 

facility; and 

S submission of reports to the Administrator reporting the waste generated. 

• Inspections of transporters should verify compliance with the following requirements 

established as standards per RCRA ' 3003(a): 

 

S record keeping; 

S properly labeled waste; 

S use of the manifest system; 

S proper management of hazardous waste during transportation; 

S hazardous waste delivered to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are 

permitted by law to take such waste. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program

EPA is committed to ensuring that underground storage tanks (USTs) are operated in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and 

enforcement activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the 

environment. However, all identified non-compliance with RCRA Subtitle I should be addressed 

by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

Regions should maintain an enforcement presence concerning leak prevention, leak 

detection, corrective action, closure, and financial responsibility violations.ii Owners and operators 

that do not meet UST requirements are not only in violation of federal and state laws but also have 

USTs that present a threat of release (or have had a release requiring corrective action). These noncompliant USTs gain an economic advantage over competitors that are in compliance with 

environmental laws. These efforts will ensure that owner/operators of RCRA Subtitle I regulated 

facilities properly prevent and detect releases and take appropriate corrective action when releases 

occur. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain 

and maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal 

compliance assurance and enforcement activities will complement and provide oversight of state 
Revised June 2008 

57

activities, where and as appropriate. Federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities, 

however, cover all of Indian country because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal UST 

programs. Regions should, therefore, implement the UST program in Indian country in 

coordination with tribes and tribal consortium. 

NOTE: The UST Compliance Act of 2005 includes a number of new provisions regarding 

compliance monitoring and enforcement. The statute requires EPA and the state RCRA Subtitle I 

programs to conduct RCRA 9005(c)(1) inspections at 100% of the universe of underground storage 

tanks (USTs) that were not inspected from December 22, 1998 through August 8, 2005, and to 

complete these inspections by August 8, 2007. In addition, all USTs must be inspected every three 

years thereafter. For FY2009, regions should continue to focus on implementing the “Strategy for 

an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.” 

http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf. 

Regions should refer to the federal facilities section of this guidance (Section I) for guidance 

on including federal facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1)

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program

 Compliance assistance activities should focus on newly regulated persons, persons subject 

to new regulations, and persons owning small businesses with compliance problems. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program

Continued investments in outreach and assistance should be strategically focused (e.g., 

persons operating facilities in Indian country and persons owning small businesses with compliance 

problems). 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3)

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program

The RCRA hazardous waste core program includes the compliance monitoring activities set 

forth in Part I and II below. Both state and federal compliance monitoring activities will be 

required in implementing the activities in Part I (i.e., maintaining the annual level of inspections of 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities). To ensure a level playing field and oversight of state 

compliance assurance and monitoring activities, regions should utilize the tools available, such as 
Revised June 2008 

58

the SRF, OTIS management reports, and the Watch List to monitor state performance, and also 

maintain a federal presence in the hazardous waste core program, including full program 

implementation in Indian country, conducting the compliance monitoring activities set forth in

commitments RCRA01 and RCRA02 below. Part II sets forth the requirement of Federal only 

inspections. 

 In light of continuing concerns regarding threats to human health and the environment 

posed by improper management of hazardous waste, regions and states should focus their 

compliance monitoring efforts on the following: 

• never inspected LQG generators; 

• facilities that are the subject of citizen complaints; 

• non-notifier facilities believed to generate hazardous waste; 

• persons that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of significant quantities of 

hazardous wastes, in particular those in proximity to population centers or 

environmentally sensitive areas; and 

• repeat violators. 

In each fiscal year, the regions (in consultation with OECA) may conduct fewer or 

additional compliance monitoring activities if it is determined that such a deviation is warranted. 

All efforts should adhere to the guidelines below. 

Performance Expectations 

The states and regions should work together to determine the appropriate mix of federal and 

state compliance monitoring activities to meet hazardous waste core program activities. Regions 

should work with tribes to determine the appropriate range of compliance monitoring activities in 

Indian country. In making determinations, each region should examine the compliance status of 

facilities within the region. For facilities that are multiple types (e.g. a facility that is a TSD, 

generator, and/or transporter), a CEI is deemed to be complete only when all aspects of that facility 

have been completed. Additionally, if a facility is a TSD as well as a generator and/or transporter, 

it is counted as a TSD for universe coverage. 

Part I. Combined State and Federal Core Activities

A. Statutory mandated inspections - 

S Treatment, storage and disposal facilities: Inspect at least once every two years each 

operating treatment, storage, and disposal facility, as required under RCRA 

'3007(e), i.e., 50% of TSDF universe annually. This is a coverage commitment so 
Revised June 2008 

59

multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one inspection. For RCRA01 

and RCRA01.s, commitment levels are based on the RCRAInfo operating universe 

for TSDFs. Pursuant to RCRA Section 3007(e), TSDFs must be “thoroughly” 

inspected (i.e., a compliance evaluation inspection for operating TSDs). 

Commitment RCRA01: Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the 

region during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 2 TSDFs in each 

state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. 

Commitment RCRA01.s: Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the 

state during the year. 

Note: In addition to the CEIs expected for most of the TSDFs, groundwater monitoring evaluations 

(GMEs) should be conducted at any new or newly regulated land disposal facility, defined under 

'3004(k). Once it is determined that a groundwater monitoring system is adequately designed and 

installed, an operation and maintenance (OAM) inspection may become the appropriate ground 

water monitoring inspection. More frequent GMEs should be conducted in situations involving 

complex compliance or corrective action requirements; inadequate groundwater monitoring 

systems, significant changes to groundwater monitoring systems, and actual or suspected changes 

in local groundwater regimes. For TSDFs that are no longer in the operating universe but still have 

requirements to comply with, it is expected that the Regions/states will inspect (e.g., CEI, GME or 

OAM) those facilities every three years. 

B. EPA mandated inspections –

S Annually inspect at least 20% of the large quantity generator (LQG) universe, so that 

the entire universe is inspected in five years unless approval to deviate from this 

requirement is approved as described below. The LQG universe is the total number 

of generators that reported in 2005 BRS (or if data in RCRAInfo is acceptable, the 

full enforcement universe for LQGs). This is meant to be a coverage commitment so 

multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one inspection. The regions 

are required to capture the outcomes of inspections and any follow-up enforcement 

in ICIS and are strongly encouraged to require the states to report the outcomes of 

their inspections and any follow-up enforcement actions in addition to reporting the 

number of inspections. These outcomes include approximate quantities of waste 

which were confirmed to being handled in accordance with the appropriate 

regulations and quantities of waste which were not being handled properly at the 

time of inspection but are now being handled properly because of complying actions 

taken by the regulated facilities and updating the generator status of the regulated 

facilities as necessary. 
Revised June 2008 

60

Commitment RCRA02: Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the region 

during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 6 LQGs in each state unless 

approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement (generally a 

reduced commitment is allowed where the generator universe in the state is small). These 

LQG inspections should be compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs).iii

Note: The regions are encouraged to perform these inspections in the following areas: 

national priority sectors, to support state referrals, to address illegal recycling, entities with 

violations in more than one state, environmentally sensitive environments, Indian country, 

areas with environmental justice concerns, and particularly recalcitrant violators. 

Commitment RCRA02.s: Project by state the number of state LQGs to be inspected during 

the year under state authority. Inspections should be identified by inspecting agency. These 

inspections should be CEIs. Only one inspection per facility counts towards this coverage 

measure. At least 20% of the LQG should be covered by combined federal and state 

inspections unless approval is obtained to deviate from this requirement. 

 States may seek approval of pilot projects that allow for flexibility from the requirement in 

RCRA02.s to inspect 20% of the LQGs in order to improve the outcomes of their compliance 

assurance activities. To obtain flexibility, each state must present a plan to the Region which in 

consultation with Headquarters, will approve, ask for modifications or deny approval of the 

alternative plan. Complete guidance for developing an alternative plan is available: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/rcra/fy08rcraguidancelqgproject.pdf.

The alternative plan must include, as a minimum: 

• A description of the overall level of effort (inspections) and how it will decrease from the 

standard 20% LQG inspection approach; 

• The scope of the inspections to be conducted (e.g., the number of each type of generator to be 

inspected, industrial sectors to be focused on, etc.); 

• The expected outcomes from the alternative approach; and 

• A plan to measure the actual outcomes to show that the flexible approach is or is not achieving 

the desired outcomes. 

Part II. Federal Core Only 

A. Statutory mandated inspections - 

1. State or Local Government Operated Facilities 
Revised June 2008 

61

Commitment RCRA03: The regions are to annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal 

facility operated by states or local governments as required under SWDA '3007(d). Pursuant to 

RCRA Section 3007(d), TSDFs operated by a state or local government for which a permit is 

required must be thoroughly inspected (i.e., generally a compliance evaluation inspection). The 

same type of RCRAInfo evaluations will be counted for this measure as is counted for RCRA01. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program

Regions should work with states and tribes to assure compliance with UST requirements. 

EPA should continue to focus its federal inspection resources in areas that produce the greatest 

environmental and human health benefits. Generally, EPA should focus its inspection resources on 

leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure, and financial responsibility requirements. 

Recommended factors to consider in identifying facilities for inspection under the UST 

program include: 

$ owners and operators of multiple UST facilities; 

$ owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country; 

$ owners and operators of large facilities with multiple USTs; 

$ owners and operators of facilities with USTs that endanger sensitive ecosystems or 

sources of drinking water; and 

$ federal facilities. 

Enforcement 

RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program

Regions should refer to the Core Activities section of the Introduction to the Core Program 

for general information regarding these activities. Regions should also follow the January 2004 

RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (and subsequent revisions) which provides information 

regarding the classification of a violator=s non-compliance and in the taking of timely and 

appropriate enforcement actions. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program

Regions should take prompt and effective action on all UST violations discovered. Regions 

should utilize the appropriate enforcement tools, taking into account the seriousness of the 

violations, to address any detected non-compliance with the UST requirements. Regions should 

also refer to Agency policies regarding the appropriate enforcement response. 

Imminent and Substantial Endangerment

Though not a specific element of the RCRA core programs, regions should utilize RCRA 
Revised June 2008 

62

'7003 when appropriate for endangerment posed by solid waste, hazardous waste, and underground 

storage tanks. Regions should refer to the appropriate EPA policies and guidance regarding the use 

of this authority. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program

For evaluating program performance, EPA will utilize the SRF as the primary tool to 

conduct consistent reviews of the monitoring, enforcement, data quality, accurateness, and 

completeness in the RCRA Subtitle C program. EPA will utilize activities and results reported to 

RCRAInfo and ICIS to conduct regional and state reviews, so timely entry into the database is 

critical. EPA will review whether the regions and states meet the compliance monitoring 

commitments and whether the enforcement response, with regard to the type of enforcement tool 

utilized (e.g., administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV), the amount and type of 

penalties assessed, and the response time taken to address the identified non-compliance, is 

appropriate. In particular, as the EPA is looking to quickly address those violations that pose the 

greatest risk to human health and the environment, the Agency will also be looking at: 

$ number of inspections, investigations, and citizen complaints; 

$ number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe); 

$ number (and percent of universe) addressed and resolved in a timely and 

appropriate manner; and 

$ EPA=s Watch List. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program

In reviewing the program performance, EPA will consider the activities undertaken by the 

regions and states and the results reported into ICIS or by other means to EPA regarding those 

activities. EPA will be looking at the enforcement response with regard to the type of enforcement 

tool utilized (e.g., administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV, etc) and the response time 

to address the identified non-compliance. EPA will also be taking into consideration programs 

under Subtitle I to ensure compliance (e.g., significant operational compliance (SOC). 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

H. Requirements: Federal Activities Program

The Federal Activities core program for FY 2009 focuses on the following major areas: 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) IMPLEMENTATION (Subobjective 5.2.1) 
Revised June 2008 

63

• Fulfill the Agency obligations under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and 

related laws, directives, and Executive Orders (all regions). 

• Target high impact federal program areas (e.g., transportation and energy projects) to 

promote cooperation and innovation toward a more streamlined environmental review 

process (all regions). 

NEPA / CAA '309 Review: Carry out EPA=s responsibilities to review and comment on all 

major proposed federal actions to ensure identification, elimination, or mitigation of significant 

adverse effects. 

NEPA Compliance and ACross-cutters@: Carry out EPA=s responsibilities to comply with 

NEPA and Across-cutters@ (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Orders on wetlands, and flood plains). 

Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for new source National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, for states/tribes without authorized NPDES 

programs; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA laboratories, 

and facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. 

Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for Special Appropriation grants 

(including the Colonias Wastewater Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) 

for wastewater, water supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment 

Infrastructure Fund for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects; and 

reviews conducted under the "voluntary NEPA policy.@

NEPA CAA 309 Review and NEPA Compliance: Regions shall enter the results of their 

'309 EIS reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the Lotus Notes EIS Tracking Database 

maintained by HQ OFA, and the SAAP system maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, 

regions will report to the Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews 

and NEPA compliance actions pursuant to OFA=s GPRA reporting process. 

Performance Expectations 

• Performance Measure: 70 percent of the significant impacts identified by EPA during 

the NEPA review of all proposed major federal actions will be mitigated in order to 

preserve air and water quality, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and endangered 

species; to protect Environmental Justice communities; and to prevent degradation of 

valued environmental resources. 

• Performance Measure: 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement requirements (water treatment facility 

project and other grants, new source NPDES permits and EPA facilities) result in no 

significant environmental impact. 
Revised June 2008 

64

INTERNATIONAL COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE AND TRANSBOUNDARY 

MOVEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE (Sub-objectives 5.1.1, 5.1.3) 

• Improve environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 6 of the 

U.S./Mexico Border 2012 plan (Regions VI and IX). 

• Enhance enforcement, compliance, and capacity building efforts with Mexico and Canada 

relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for hazardous 

waste, CFCs, selected chemicals (e.g., PCBs, mercury), and other regulated substances 

(Border Regions). 

• Improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border and points of entry into the 

United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (all regions). 

• Fulfill International agreements and the Agency=s RCRA obligations regarding 

notification of transboundary movement of hazardous waste (all regions). 

International Enforcement Capacity Building: The majority of requested commitments 

fall to Regions VI and IX for U.S. Mexico border work in connection with the La Paz Agreement. 

Regions VI and IX will continue the implementation of U.S.-Mexico work plans for enforcement 

and compliance cooperation in the border region and work with the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection to improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border. 

Import/Export Program: All regions will review the permit and compliance status of U.S. 

receiving facilities in connection with 100% of the notifications for the import of hazardous waste 

they receive from HQ EPA and, based on the review, recommend consent or objection to 

notifications within the time periods allowed under applicable international agreements. 

Headquarters will process notifications for import and export of hazardous waste to ensure 

compliance with domestic regulations and international agreements; consent or object to import 

notifications and acknowledge consent/objection to export notifications; track the flow of 

hazardous waste both in and out of the United States based on manifests received from the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection; and conduct compliance monitoring and prepare memoranda of 

referral for appropriate enforcement action. Upon receipt of a referral, each region is responsible 

for determining whether or not to pursue an enforcement action against apparent violations of the 

law relating to transboundary movements of hazardous waste and must inform Headquarters of its 

decision and the ultimate outcome of each case. 

In order to ensure a coordinated approach between EPA and the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection, regions must also alert headquarters regarding interactions with the Bureau. 

Participation with Chinese Enforcement Agencies on Joint Projects: In accordance with 

agreements signed in December 2007, EPA will participate with agencies of the Chinese 

government regarding the development of joint projects on environmental enforcement, 

environmental impact assessment, emergency response, regional environmental management, and 

compliance with environmental requirements for traded products. These projects will involve 

investments by OECA and other Headquarters Offices and Regional Offices. These commitments 

are being proposed for implementation in FY 2008 and FY 2009. 
Revised June 2008 

65

Import Safety: This initiative, mandated by Executive Order, involves projects that will 

require investments by OECA and other Headquarters Offices and Regional Offices. These 

commitments are being proposed for implementation in FY 2008 and FY 2009. 

I. Requirements: Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program

Background

 As an integral process of EPA’s on-going efforts to improve environmental compliance at 

the approximately 10,000 regulated federal facilities nation-wide, FFEO and the Regional Federal 

Facilities Program Managers/Staff developed this updated Core Program Guidance for FY 2009. 

The FY 2009 activities outlined below advance the goals outlined in the attached National Federal 

Facilities 2009 Program Agenda. 

 This Program Guidance identifies the nationally-coordinated activities under OECA’s 

purview. This Guidance reflects that environmental stewardship and pollution prevention activities 

should largely be directed by others (including OPPTS) with more responsibility for these 

particular areas. Compliance assistance activities should be carefully targeted on a priority basis, 

and leveraged as much as possible, including through more partnerships with FedCenter and other 

arrangements. It is imperative to maintain an appropriate enforcement presence through a targeted 

inspection program, with swift and meaningful follow-up. 

 These activities serve as a baseline of priority activity from a national program perspective, 

in addition to which the regions may pursue their own regionally-identified priorities (including 

regional activity in support of the National Priorities, regional integrated strategies, geographicallybased inspection “sweeps,” etc.). As in the past, FFEO is willing to discuss changes necessitated 

by particular regional conditions. All federal facility activities will be measured using the relevant 

Conclusion Data Sheets and counted in achieving OECA’s overall goal of a (1) five percent 

increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieve (2) a five percent 

increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management 

practices. 

ENFORCEMENT 

 

 FFEO strongly encourages the regions to take enforcement actions to improve compliance 

at federal facilities. For FY 2009, federal facility resources should focus on taking appropriate and 

timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific policies, for each federal 

facility inspected as a consequence of FFEO’s Integrated Strategies efforts. Where appropriate, 

FFEO advocates including EMS improvements and Supplemental Environmental Projects as part of 

enforcement action settlements. 

 To date, much of the activities under the federal Storm Water, Laboratory and Underground 

Storage Tank integrated strategies have focused on compliance assistance and inspections. In FY 
Revised June 2008 

66

2009, the emphasis should turn to taking appropriate enforcement actions, pursuant to existing EPA 

enforcement response policies, to address violations. Enforcement actions – particularly in these 

integrated strategy areas – are essential to deterring future violations of environmental laws. 

 Regions are reminded that all federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally 

significant and require consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these 

consultations timely and effective. 

 

 Regions should continue reporting federal facility CERCLA Records of Decision (RODs) 

into ICIS, first begun in FY 2006. It is especially important to report the substantial environmental 

benefits that result from those RODs. Guidance on calculating those benefits is in “Final 

Methodology for Estimating Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Case Conclusion Data Sheet 

(CCDS) Environmental Benefits” dated December 12, 2003. Instructions for inputting benefit data 

into ICIS is in the ICIS Policy on Demand (IPOD) database. In 2008, OECA modified ICIS to 

allow reporting of ROD amendments, Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and removal 

actions and their corresponding environmental benefits done by federal facilities at CERCLA sites. 

INTEGRATED STRATEGIES 

 

 Integrated strategies that align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship activities toward 

maximum effect, help the Federal Facilities Program guide its actions toward greater environmental 

and health benefits. Integrated strategies include a balance of activities focused on (i) assisting 

facilities to achieve and maintain compliance, (ii) inspecting and monitoring compliance, and (iii) 

prosecuting enforcement actions to correct and deter non-compliance. 

 

 1. CWA/NPDES Storm Water Integrated Strategy 

 

 Background: OECA’s National Storm Water Strategy contains a federal facilities 

component through FY 2010. The federal facility component of the strategy focuses on 

construction activities and integrates compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement to improve storm water compliance. In addition to providing compliance tools, 

including model Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and resources on FedCenter to 

regulated federal agencies, EPA advocates increased inspections of federal facilities and their 

contractors to determine compliance with permitting requirements, Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), SWPPPs, monitoring, and record-keeping requirements.

 

 Actions: For FY 2009, the Regions are asked to focus on enforcement actions to address 

storm water violations at federal facilities. FY 2007 saw an increase in storm water federal facility 

inspections and enforcement actions. Where appropriate, the regions are asked to continue to 

pursue enforcement actions against both contractors and federal agencies for storm water violations. 

FFEO developed a suite of informal enforcement tools for use against federal agencies. These tools 

are posted at FedCenter (http://www.FedCenter.gov). The ordinary complement of enforcement 

tools remain available for use against private contractors as well. The use of SEPs – particularly 

those that prevent quantifiable amounts of pollution – is strongly encouraged. Regions are urged to 
Revised June 2008 

67

continue storm water inspections of federal facilities and to direct federal facilities and their 

contractors to existing compliance assistance resources, particularly at FedCenter

 Regions should ensure that the appropriate conclusion datasheets are filled out and entered 

in ICIS for each and every federal facility storm water compliance assistance action, inspection, and 

enforcement action. Please utilize the outcome measures and the stormwater benefits calculators 

and report, at a minimum, the number of storm water cases settled, pounds of sediment reduced, 

EPA-assisted inspections, training courses offered, and compliance assistance activities conducted. 

 

 2. Federal Laboratories Integrated Strategy 

 

Background: EPA found a pattern of hazardous waste management problems in 

laboratories, including widespread and serious problems during its enforcement initiative involving 

labs at universities and colleges. EPA discovered chemicals stored well past expiration dates, 

research laboratories with wastes in damaged containers, and laboratory staff pouring used 

chemicals into sinks and drains connected to public sewage systems. In several instances, serious 

mismanagement and storage of very dangerous waste chemicals and sometimes storage with 

incompatible chemicals occurred. The expected benefits of this initiative include: improved 

management of laboratory chemical substances and wastes to prevent injury to humans and a 

negative impact to the environment, and leveraging limited resources to improve laboratory 

compliance. In addition, this initiative provides an opportunity for the federal laboratories to more 

effectively manage resources by improving laboratory practices and environmental management. 

Actions: In FY 2009 Regions are urged to focus on conducting inspections and 

enforcement actions to address violations at federal laboratories. In FY 2007 and 2008, EPA 

developed and delivered a series of live compliance workshops on environmental compliance at 

laboratories. By 2009, EPA plans to offer computer-based laboratory training at FedCenter. We 

believe a combination of assistance, inspections, and enforcement related activities encourages 

federal laboratories to make environmental compliance a vital part of their environmental 

management systems. 

 

 3. Federal Underground Storage Tank Strategy 

 

Background: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established new statutory requirements 

specifically designed to improve the environmental management of federal facility underground 

storage tanks (USTs). In particular, the Energy Policy Act included reporting deadlines for federal 

agencies and states related to federal agency compliance with UST requirements; inspection 

deadlines for EPA and states to inspect federal facility USTs; and a waiver of sovereign immunity 

to bolster state enforcement authority. Because of this increased UST focus, EPA’s federal 

facilities program created an integrated strategy to improve management of federal facility USTs. 

 Actions: Over the past few years, the federal facilities program under the UST integrated 

strategy took a number of actions to improve UST management at federal facilities by providing 
Revised June 2008 

68

compliance assistance to federal agencies; encouraging audits and self-disclosures; working to help 

regions and states meet the inspection requirements; and striving to support and enhance EPA’s 

enforcement efforts to address non-compliance. Specifically, in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, the 

federal facilities program reviewed state and federal reports on federal USTs to aid in the 

identification of compliance trends; has put on a number of workshops to help federal agencies 

comply with UST and AST requirements; developed on-line training for federal agencies and 

developed an Environmental Management System (EMS) crosswalk for USTs has been developed. 

 During FY 2008, FFEO has also been working closely with the regions to review enforcement 

follow-up for all FY06-07 inspections where deficiencies were identified. In FY 2009, the federal 

facilities program will continue to work with regions and states to meet the three year inspection 

cycle requirements of the Energy Policy Act and to ensure appropriate enforcement follow-up. The 

federal facilities program will work to ensure that the program is sustainable and can be 

transitioned back to the core federal facilities enforcement program.

 4. Future Integrated Strategy Areas 

 

Background: In FY 2009, FFEO and the Regions will investigate other possible areas with 

the goal of identifying one or two new integrated strategy areas for FY 2010. Based on past 

experience, FFEO and Regions believe the following areas should be explored: 

 1. Compliance with RCRA requirements other than TSD requirements and UST 

 (which is already the focus of an existing Integrated Strategy), 

 2. Compliance at federal prisons, and 

 3. Compliance at campgrounds on federal lands. 

Actions: Regions should conduct inspections in these exploratory areas to better determine 

the level of compliance and gather information that would be helpful to developing future 

Integrated Strategies. Regions should also take appropriate enforcement actions, pursuant to 

existing enforcement response policies, to address identified violations. Additionally, FFEO will 

investigate the impacts federal facilities have on existing and potential drinking water sources. 

 NOTE: Where a region demonstrates that their federal facilities universe is not applicable 

for current or future Integrated Strategies, the regions are encouraged to work with FFEO through 

the Annual Commitment System to determine an appropriate substitute commitment. 

 ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

 

 FFEO strongly encourages the regions to take enforcement actions to improve compliance 

at federal facilities. For FY 2009, federal facility resources should focus on taking appropriate and 

timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific policies, for each federal 

facility inspected as a consequence of FFEO’s Integrated Strategies efforts. Where possible, FFEO 

advocates including EMS improvements and Supplemental Environmental Projects as part of 

enforcement action settlements. FFEO also urges the Regions to take timely and appropriate 

enforcement actions to address violations of clean up responsibilities. 
Revised June 2008 

69

 To date, much of the activities under the federal Storm Water, Laboratory and Underground 

Storage Tank Integrated Strategies have focused on compliance assistance and inspections. In FY 

2009, the emphasis should turn to taking appropriate enforcement actions, pursuant to existing EPA 

enforcement response policies, to address violations. Enforcement actions – particularly in these 

integrated strategy areas – are essential to deterring future violations of environmental laws. 

Regions are also urged to take enforcement actions in the exploratory integrated strategy areas and 

in National Priority areas including BIA schools. 

 Regions are reminded that all federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally 

significant and require concurrence and/or consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources 

to make these concurrences and consultations timely and effective. 

MONITORING (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

 Through monitoring compliance, EPA seeks to ensure that federal facilities operate in 

compliance with environmental laws, especially in Integrated Strategy and exploratory areas. 

 Performance Expectations

• Single media inspections 

 

 Each region shall perform ten inspections of federal facilities to support the integrated 

strategy areas, including the exploratory areas enumerated above. These inspections shall be 

conducted at different federal facilities to ensure that EPA maintains an adequate inspection 

presence at federal facilities. These inspections can be achieved through any combination of single 

media or multimedia inspections with the following limitations: 

• A maximum of three UST inspections can count toward this goal. 

• For any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as two inspections toward this goal. 

 For the purposes of this goal, a multimedia inspection consists of (1) a CAA, CWA, or 

RCRA program inspection plus at least one additional program under a different statute for the 

same facility, or (2) some combination of two or more CAA, CWA, or RCRA program inspections 

at the same facility. 

Commitment FED-FAC05: Each Region must conduct ten inspections to support integrated 

strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Laboratories; Federal Underground Storage 

Tanks, or integrated strategy exploratory areas (non-TSDF/non-UST RCRA;Federal prisons; 

campgrounds on Federal lands). These inspections can be achieved through any combination of 

single media or multimedia inspections with the following limitations: (1) a maximum of three 

UST inspections can count toward this goal and (2) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it 

shall count as two inspections toward this goal. 

 
Revised June 2008 

70

 FFEO strongly encourages interested Regions to conduct multimedia inspections in 

Integrated Strategy areas. FFEO will provide contract support for multimedia inspections in 

Integrated Strategy areas as resources allow. 

 To the extent that a Region has identified a Regional specific federal facility integrated 

strategy other than the national integrated strategy and exploratory areas and wants to substitute it 

for an inspection commitment, FFEO will consider that substitution . 

 FFEO encourages providing EMS related compliance assistance during all federal facility 

inspections. 

 

 The inspections identified here are those that are unique to the Federal Facilities Core 

Program and are in addition to those outlined in other OECA core program sections. These 

inspections may, however, simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in other OECA 

core program guidance (e.g., the requirement for inspection of 100% of all major NPDES 

facilities). 

 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

 Compliance assistance remains a vital tool in abetting improved environmental compliance 

at federal facilities. With continuing budgetary constraints, it is imperative that compliance 

assistance efforts be leveraged through others and targeted efforts to support priority areas, which 

include the federal facility integrated strategy areas (listed above). With respect to environmental 

management systems (EMSs), EPA supports continual improvements in federal EMSs, including 

Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) in integrated strategies where appropriate, including 

EMS improvements in enforcement action settlements and providing EMS-related compliance 

assistance during inspections at federal facilities. 

 FedCenter, the multi-agency independent federal facility environmental compliance 

assistance and stewardship center, is pivotal to future collaborative compliance assistance efforts. 

FedCenter serves as the catalyst for increased cooperative compliance assistance efforts both within 

EPA and other federal partners. In FY 2009 FedCenter will continue to provide federal agencies 

with the ability to electronically update their EMS progress into the OMB environmental scorecard 

process and provide on-line training in select integrated strategy areas. 

 Performance Expectations 

• Compliance Assistance Activities 

 Each region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities (such as a seminar, 

training, workshop, education/outreach activity, etc.) to support the integrated strategy areas. These 

compliance assistance activities can be developed for delivery through the region or through 

FedCenter. If regions do not initially use FedCenter to deliver the assistance, FFEO strongly urges 

the regions to provide assistance to FedCenter to reach additional facilities. In FY 2009, FFEO 
Revised June 2008 

71

plans to offer training related to integrated strategy areas electronically via FedCenter. 

 Regions are urged to detail their planned assistance activities in the ACS system to avoid 

duplication and encourage collaboration across regions. 

 This commitment may be readdressed at mid-year in the event EPA receives substantially 

fewer compliance assistance resources in FY 2009. 

 

Commitment FED-FAC01: Each region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance 

activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

 

 Regions should refer to the compliance incentives activities description in Section III - Core 

Program Activities. 

 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

 

 At mid-year, FFEO will communicate the available data on federal facility core program 

accomplishments to each respective region. To accomplish this review, FFEO will pull regional 

performance data (e.g., enforcement actions, multi-media and single media inspections, compliance 

assistance activities) from the available database of record to serve as a basis for discussion within 

the region. Some data (e.g., multi-media inspections) must be reported manually by the region in 

order for FFEO to acknowledge progress on certain commitments. At the end of the fiscal year, 

FFEO will compile an end-of-the year summary to help evaluate the federal facility program 

performance and document regional accomplishments (see specific reporting requirements of the 

FY 2009 Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan). 

 In the transition from ICIS 1.0 to ICIS 2.0, fields that identified federal facilities 

disappeared making it more difficult to track assistance, inspection and enforcement activity 

involving federal facilities. FFEO worked with other OECA Offices and Regions to resolve this 

problem and to develop reports which FFEO and all Regions can use to retrieve federal facility data 

from ICIS. ICIS changes were highlighted in OC’s FY 2008 mid-year reporting plan. FFEO 

issued guidance in April, 2008 to the Regions on properly identifying activities in ICIS that affect 

federal facilities. Step by step instructions are posted in the ICIS Policy on demand (IPOD) 

database. 

 Regions should continue reporting federal facility CERCLA Records of Decision (RODs) 

into ICIS, first begun in FY 2006. It is especially important to report the substantial environmental 

benefits that result from those RODs. Guidance on calculating those benefits is in “Final 

Methodology for Estimating Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Case Conclusion Data Sheet 

(CCDS) Environmental Benefits” dated December 12, 2003. Instructions for inputting benefit data 

into ICIS are in the ICIS Policy on Demand (IPOD) database. In 2008, OECA modified ICIS to 

allow reporting of ROD amendments, Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs) and removal 
Revised June 2008 

72

actions and their corresponding environmental benefits done by federal facilities at CERCLA sites. 

Use of Self-Audits at Federal Facilities under the ACS

EPA policy encourages regulated entities to conduct self-audits. If a region determines it is 

obtaining self-audit disclosures that are similar in scope and quality to an inspection, the region 

may request a reduction in their inspection commitments during the FY 2009 Annual Commitments 

(March-April, 2009) midyear modification process. In responding to such a request, FFEO would

consult with other OECA program managers on the implications of such a change. 

J. Requirements: Multimedia and Rapid Response Program 

Environmental harm often occurs across air, water and land. The multimedia compliance 

and enforcement programs foster a comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental 

problems because many facilities and companies operate in violation of more than one 

environmental statute. AComprehensive@ means compliance with the applicable provisions of all 

environmental laws used to achieve broad-based environmental benefits. A multimedia strategy to 

target and address compliance problems and environmental harm results in more effective overall 

management of a facility's or a company=s environmental liabilities and is generally more costeffective than bringing separate media-specific enforcement actions. Multimedia-focused activities, 

including enforcement actions, reflect the goals of federal innovation and underlie much of the 

Agency=s enforcement reorganization. The Office of Civil Enforcement’s (OCE) Special Litigation 

and Projects Division (SLPD) develops novel enforcement and compliance incentive approaches to 

address complex and emerging environmental problems. 

The Agency was, and continues to be, successful in developing cases and initiatives that 

bring significant environmental results in all media. While it remains critical to be able to develop 

large scale, nationwide actions, capability for more rapid enforcement response is necessary in 

order to have a truly effective program. The objective of the Rapid Response Program is to Awork 

backwards@ from finding an environmental problem to reacting with targeted and streamlined 

enforcement approaches. The SLPD will work with other Divisions and with the regions to identify 

cases where streamlined case development and a rapid response can produce significant 

environmental benefits. EPA anticipates that these actions will be in both administrative and 

judicial forums, and that EPA will partner with states and tribes in appropriate cases. 

In some instances, the SLPD will work with the regions to develop the Agency=s first 

enforcement response, with more traditional enforcement actions to follow. EPA may streamline 

cases, so that there are fewer counts against violators in order to obtain speedy resolution, reserving 

EPA’s right to bring additional actions or additional counts. 

Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1)

The areas that warrant compliance assistance from Headquarter’s perspective appear in 

specific program discussions. The primary focus of the federal multimedia program should be on 

compliance monitoring and enforcement. However, the results of a multimedia analysis of specific 
Revised June 2008 

73

facilities or entire companies might prove useful in planning future compliance assistance activities.

Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives= activities description in Section III. B - 

Core Program Activities. 

Performance Expectations

With regard to compliance incentives, regions will be expected to report on the number of 

voluntary disclosures received and resolved pursuant to incentive policies. To ensure that the 

Agency will achieve its goals, the regions are expected to perform activities that will increase the 

use of EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or 

eliminate pollution or improve facility environmental management practices. The regions also will 

be expected to work to reduce the processing time for resolving disclosures. 

Each region will lead a regional Compliance Incentive Program or participate in a national 

Compliance Incentive Program directed at a particular sector and/or noncompliance problem, with 

emphasis on violations that, once corrected, are likely to result in measurable pollution reductions. 

Compliance Monitoring

The multimedia program relies on the compliance monitoring efforts in existence for each 

media program. However, each region=s multimedia targeting strategy and operational plan should 

establish protocols for coordinating multimedia investigations and actions among the individual 

media programs. Headquarters will continue to assist the regions in promoting a process-based 

approach as well as a more targeted and efficient approach to multimedia inspections in general. 

The goal is to achieve the best environmental result while using resources efficiently. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources with approval from the OECA Planning 

Council. 

Performance Expectations

Regions will be expected to continue to develop and refine their multimedia targeting 

strategy and operational plan for initiation of multimedia enforcement activities. Elements of this 

plan should include projected multimedia inspections, case development training, and projected 

numbers of multimedia cases. Use of a multimedia checklist is not considered to be a multimedia 

inspection, but a tool for identification of potential multimedia targets. 

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 
Revised June 2008 

74

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national Abad 

actor@), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

Enforcement

(a) General Approach 

The multimedia or cross-statutory approach to case development can be employed in the 

context of three basic types of enforcement actions: 

$ against single facilities, where EPA examines entire industrial processes at a facility 

as a whole; 

$ against entire companies, where violations of different statutes occur at various 

facilities indicating ineffective corporate-wide management of environmental 

compliance; and 

$ geographically based enforcement efforts arising from a comprehensive multimedia 

analysis of the environmental problem(s) in a given area (enforcement activities 

resulting from this analysis may be single or cross-media). 

(b) Rapid Response Program

Each region should support the Rapid Response Program which will place emphasis on 

more targeted and quicker responses - in any geographic region. The enforcement model will be 

collaborative: the SLPD intends to work closely with and augment regional, state, tribal, and 

headquarters media teams. The focus will be on cooperation between SLPD, the regions, the media 

enforcement program and, where appropriate, the states and tribes working together to find and 

implement the most expeditious and effective response to a given situation. 

 

While the SLPD has substantial expertise in identifying sectors for enforcement actions, it is 

anticipated that most new matters will derive from those closest to the sources of the problem. 

SLPD will rely upon contacts within the regions, states, and tribes to identify potential areas for 

enforcement. In all instances, the goal will be the identification of potential harmful effects, and the 

coordinated, rapid resolution of problems. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources with approval from the OECA Planning 

Council. 

Performance Expectations

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 
Revised June 2008 

75

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national Abad 

actor@), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

State and tribal involvement in national multimedia and Rapid Response casework is 

strongly encouraged. Regions should assess the level of state-initiated compliance assistance and 

enforcement activity once case management teams form, where practicable, encourage state 

participation in the National actions. Generally, although there is no oversight of state multimedia 

program development, the regions may encourage the development of such programs as regions see 

fit, requesting Headquarters assistance and resources as appropriate. 

K. Requirements: Environmental Justice Program

Executive Order 12898iv directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other 

federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

 

 Consistent with that mandate, the environmental laws that EPA implements and enforces 

direct it to protect all people from significant environmental hazards and risks. The Agency is 

keenly aware that minority and/or low-income and other sensitive populations frequently confront 

special environmental burdens caused by a host of factors including, but not limited to, those 

relating to: health, environmental conditions, and compliance assurance activities. Helping to 

satisfy its environmental justice mission to protect all people, including minority and/or lowincome populations, EPA accounts for these and other issues under the environmental statutes that 

it implements and enforces. For example, OECA already explicitly established environmental 

justice as a targeting factor under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Actv

. Further, OECA established environmental justice as a penalty considerationvi and 

as a factor in approving Supplemental Environmental Projects in settlements.vii Additionally, eac

implementation strategy developed for an OECA national priority should include an element on 

environmental justice to ensure that minority and/or low-income groups and communities are not 

disproportionately placed at risk from environmental and/or human health threats. 

h 

Each Program and Regional Office is directed to develop Environmental Justice Action 

Plans. These documents are prospective planning tools that identify measurable commitments to 

address key environmental justice priorities. These strategic planning documents coordinate the 

environmental justice activities of the Agency and establish a basis for accountability and 

monitoring progress. In 2004, OECA issued its Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy which further 

underscores the importance of environmental justice in program implementation and encourage that 

environmental justice be integrated fully into OECA’s planning and budgeting processes. 

The EJ Executive Steering Committee directed that the Action Plans should: 
Revised June 2008 

76

 

1. Follow EPA’s current Strategic Plan architecture to enhance the alignment of the Agency’s 

environmental justice activities with its overall planning and budgeting processes; and 

2. Include, as objectives to be addressed through the Action Plans: (a) areas of focus for each 

of the Regional or Headquarters Offices (e.g., Regional or Headquarters Program Office 

priorities); and (b) as applicable, the eight (8) specific national environmental justice 

priorities, as later identified in the EPA Administrator’s memorandum of November 4, 

2005. These national environmental justice priorities were identified as critical issues of 

nation-wide concern and are also addressed in the Agency’s FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan 

of particular significance to OECA is ensuring compliance, which falls under Goal 5.viii

For 2009, building on the progress made with the FY 2007-2008 EJ Action Plans, the 

desired outcomes of the EJ Action Plans include (1) better integration and alignment with the 

Agency planning process and (2) more results-oriented activities with corresponding environmental 

and public health measures. As described above, the EJ Action Plan activities should be based on 

areas of focus for each of the Regional or Headquarters Offices (e.g., Regional or Headquarters 

Program Office priorities) as outlined by planning documents (e.g. the NPM Guidance); and as 

applicable, the eight (8) specific national environmental justice priorities. Activities in the EJ 

Action Plan should continue to have specific outputs and concrete, measurable environmental and 

human health improvements. For FY 2009, OECA will begin measuring the environmental and 

human health improvements for one to two of these activities. Finally, the activities in the EJ 

Action Plans should demonstrate, where possible, how EJ activities support Agency efforts to 

achieve annual and longer-term goals in EPA’s FY 2009 Annual Plan and Budget and 2006-2011 

Strategic Plan. 

 In order to more fully implement this direction, EPA is currently working to align the 

development of the EJ Action Plans with the development of the NPM Guidance. The development 

or identification of activities for the EJ Action Plans should occur concurrently with the 

development of the priorities and strategies of the NPM Guidance. 

 EPA has recognized the need to more effectively define, measure, and communicate how 

EPA’s programs and actions result in environmental and public health benefits to minority and/or 

income communities who frequently may be exposed disproportionately to environmental harms 

and risk. The EJ Executive Steering Committee has agreed that this is an important effort. As a 

result, OECA, with the support of OEJ, will initiate an effort to examine ways to capture and 

recognize the EJ benefits of EPA’s programs and actions, including the development of baselines 

from which to measure. 

 In 2008, OECA is testing its Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool 

(EJSEAT). The goal of EJSEAT is to provide OECA and the Regional enforcement programs with 

a working functional definition for identifying potential environmental justice areas of concern 

(“potential EJACs”) at the Census-tract level. Pending the outcome of the testing in FY 2008, this 

tool or a revised tool will help OECA programs to consistently define potential EJACs and facilities 
Revised June 2008 

77

with potential environmental justice concerns based on a set of health, environmental, compliance, 

and social demographics information. It will also greatly enhance OECA’s ability to consistently 

report its EJ-related activities. In addition, OECA expects the new tool to help to more fully 

integrate environmental justice into all of its priorities, programs, policies, and activities. 

 The 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan emphasizes achieving results in all areas including those 

with potential environmental justice concerns under each of the following sub-objectives under 

Goal 5-Complaince & Environmental Stewardship: Sub-objective 5.1.1 Compliance Assistance, 

Sub-objective 5.1.2 Compliance Incentives, Sub-objective 5.1.3 Monitoring and Enforcement. 

 Pending the outcome of the EJSEAT testing in FY 2008, OECA and the Regions should 

consider the use of it to develop performance measures to report in their EJ Action Plans. The goal 

is to establish a basis for measuring results achieved through compliance assistance, compliance 

incentives, and monitoring and enforcement in communities that may be exposed to 

disproportionate environmental harms and risks, including minority and/or low-income 

communities. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1)

Regions should appropriately target compliance assistance activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles, OECA’s EJ policy, the 

Regional EJ Action Plans, and the EJ component of the implementation performance-based 

strategies for the national priorities. Prior to planning and targeting compliance assistance 

activities, among other things, regions should consider the following: (1) does the activity impact 

compliance with statues that protect public health and the environment; (2) has the region sought 

and has there been sufficient public input regarding the compliance assistance activity; (3) should 

other levels of government, including tribal government, be involved with the activity or consulted; 

(4) is consultation with tribal governments appropriate, and if so, at what level; (5) how have 

health, environmental, social demographic, and compliance data sources been evaluated to 

determine priorities; (6) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted 

areas are being protected; and (7) have issues of Limited English Proficiency among minority 

populations and low-income populations or the regulated community been considered and 

addressed. Compliance assistance activities should be targeted to diminish risk relative to 

noncompliance problems and the conditions and health of the resident population. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2)

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III.B - 

Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Regions should appropriately target compliance monitoring activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles , OECA’s EJ policy, the 
Revised June 2008 

78

Regional EJ Action Plans, and the EJ component of the implementation performance-based 

strategies for the national priorities. Prior to planning and targeting inspections, among other 

things, regions should consider the following: (1) does the monitoring activity impact enforcement 

of statutes that protect public health and the environment; (2) has the region sought and has there 

been sufficient public input regarding compliance assurance activities; (3) should other levels of 

government, including tribal government, be involved with the activity or consulted; (4) how have 

health, environmental, and compliance assurance activity data sources been evaluated to determine 

priorities; (5) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted areas are 

being protected; and (6) have differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among 

minority populations and low-income populations been identified. Inspections should be targeted 

to diminish risk relative to noncompliance problems and the conditions and health of the resident 

population. 

Performance Expectations

 To ensure that the goals of environmental justice are accomplished, enforcement and 

compliance personnel should incorporate environmental justice concerns into ongoing 

enforcement/compliance activities. Moreover, enforcement/compliance activities addressing issues 

of environmental justice should be included in the region=s Environmental Justice Action Plans and 

identified in annual commitments as having measurable environmental justice components. The 

Strategy Implementation Teams (SITs) for the national priorities should include in their 

performance-based strategies activities with measurable results that show how they are 

incorporating an environmental justice component in their strategies. To address environmental 

justice concerns, regions should ensure that: 

1) The public has access to compliance and enforcement documents and data, particularly in 

high risk communities, through multimedia data integration projects, other studies, and 

communication/outreach activities; 

2) Public input is solicited and considered, as appropriate, in the identification of facilities 

or areas of concern (i.e., through periodic listening sessions, hotlines, outreach efforts, etc...) 

and during other appropriate phases of the compliance assurance and decision-making 

processes; 

3) Consultation with tribal governments is conducted consistent with Executive Order 

13175: "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (November 2000) 

and the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations (November 1984) 

4) EPA=s policies, programs and activities, including public meetings, address the concerns 

of the potentially affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income 

areas and tribal communities; 

5) Noncompliance is deterred and environmental and human health improvements are 

achieved by: (a) maintaining a strong, timely and active enforcement presence across all 

areas, including those with minority and/or low-income populations, and (b) targeting 

compliance activities in areas with high levels of noncompliance; 

6) Enforcement and other compliance assurance actions are prioritized using environmental, 
Revised June 2008 

79

compliance, and health data so as to minimize risk to human health and the environment and 

to maximize compliance, consistent with the goals of smart enforcement; 

7) When possible, enforcement actions result in environmental or human health 

improvements, through pollution reductions and/or physical or management process 

changes; 

8) When practical, participate in collaborative problem solving with other federal, state, 

tribal, and/or local agencies to address environmental justice concerns; participate in the 

environmental justice training efforts; and continue to participate in national, state, tribal, or 

local dialogue around the issue of environmental justice (i.e., NEJAC, listening sessions, 

etc...); 

9) Consider issues such as cumulative risk, health disparities, and appropriate demographic 

issues in the context of gravity based penalties, case development, referrals to the 

Department of Justice, and Supplemental Environmental Projects; and 

10) Environmental justice-related activities should be reported to the appropriate tracking 

mechanisms and corresponding databases (e.g., Environmental justice Progress reports, 

Case Conclusion Data Sheets, etc.) 

Enforcement Actions

If an inspection identifies violations consult the EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Policy, the Guidance for Community Involvement in SEPs, and other enforcement memoranda 

(addressing penalty determinations) regarding the appropriate consideration of environmental 

justice issues. Issues pertaining to environmental justice, identified in cases of potential civil or 

criminal violation, should be documented and transmitted to the Department of Justice for use in 

case development, establishment of penalties, and remedy selection. 

Program Leadership and Evaluation

Training and Technical Assistance: regional Environmental Justice Coordinators, the Office 

of Administration and Policy (OAP)_and the Office of Environmental Justice can be valuable 

sources of information to assist in integrating environmental justice issues into any regional 

enforcement program. 

OECA is committed to regularly assessing the effectiveness of our programs. Regular 

program evaluation is the best way to assure continuous program improvement and desired program 

performance. On September 18, 2006, EPA’s Office of Inspector General issued a final evaluation 

report entitled EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies, 

and Activities. The report observes that, “No Agency-wide guidance exists on environmental 

justice program or policy review.” EPA has come to realize that a more systematic, broader-scale 

approach is needed to identifying and addressing disproportionate impacts to human health and the 

environment. Over the coming year, OECA and the regional offices will participate in an Agencywide effort led by OEJ to respond to this need and develop the tools needed to address, align, 

assess, review, and report progress on achieving the Agency’s national environmental justice 

priorities. 
Revised June 2008 

80

The purpose of the EJ Reviews is to assess to what extent the Agency’s programs, policies, 

and activities are identifying and addressing EJ concerns. The EJ Reviews will help EPA to better 

integrate EJ considerations into the Agency’s decision-making processes and will provide more 

accurate benchmarks and measures to gauge EPA’s progress in identifying and addressing EJ 

issues. Through an Agency-wide EJ Reviews Workgroup, EPA developed protocols that provide 

guidance on conducting an EJ review. As part of the evaluation of the EJ Program, each Program 

Office and Region will identify activities in their FY 2009 EJ Action Plans for EJ reviews and 

establish a schedule for this first round of those reviews 

L. Requirements: Indian Program

EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program works with federally-recognized 

Indian tribes (tribes) to promote compliance through the use of appropriate compliance and 

enforcement tools in Indian country and other tribal areas and in areas outside of Indian country 

where tribes and tribal members have recognized rights and interests protected by treaty, statute, 

judicial decisions or other authorities, including Alaska (hereinafter referred to as “Indian country 

and other tribal areas”). Whether implemented directly by EPA or an approved tribe, selecting the 

appropriate tools - compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement - provide 

important gains in environmental and human health protection. In FY 2009, OECA and the regions 

intend to continue to maintain their presence in Indian country and other tribal areas. 

In spring 2004, OECA issued Protecting Public Health and the Environment Through 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in Indian Country: A Strategy for Results (Strategy). The 

Strategy develops a common understanding among EPA and tribal environmental managers and 

staff about how and why EPA works with tribes to maximize compliance and reduce threats to 

public health and the environment in Indian country and other tribal areas. This work takes place 

where EPA directly implements federal environmental law and where tribes either implement EPAapproved programs or implement programs under inherent tribal authority. The Strategy includes 

information on the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations, The EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations (known as the 1984 Indian Policy) and the Guidance on the Enforcement Principles 

Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (Tribal Enforcement Guidance), as well as the federal 

government’s trust and consultation responsibilities to tribes, and its government-to-government 

relationship with such tribes. In 2007, OECA issued the Questions and Answers on the Tribal 

Enforcement Process to improve understanding of the Tribal Enforcement Guidance.

As indicated above, the goal of OECA’s FY 2009 Indian country priority is to significantly 

improve human health and the environment in Indian country and other tribal areas through EPA 

and tribal compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activity. In FY 2007, 

the completion of work to identify the universe of federally-regulated facilities in Indian country 

increased EPA’s ability to target compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement 

resources. Similarly, the emphasis on increasing the number of EPA-authorized inspectors and 

EPA inspections at tribal schools should lead to an increased number of inspection reports 
Revised June 2008 

81

submitted to EPA and the subsequent number of compliance determinations. OECA’s Indian 

country priority EPM resources, distributed by the Compliance Assistance and Sectors Programs 

Division (CASPD) are available to support this work. 

Tracking and measuring of all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement activities in Indian country is an essential component of OECA’s tribal program. 

OECA and the regions should use the tribal flag/identifier found in ICIS, CACDS, CCDS, and 

other applicable data tracking systems. Reporting on the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is 

particularly crucial to measuring the progress and impact of EPA’s tribal enforcement and 

compliance assurance program.

Following are the core activities that OECA and the regions should undertake in FY 2009. 

These activities are in addition to the ACS measures for the Indian country priority and other NPM 

sections. 
Revised June 2008 

82

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1)

OECA’s compliance assistance and capacity building efforts in Indian country and other 

tribal areas provide regulated facilities with the information and support necessary to maintain 

compliance. To support EPA’s tribal compliance assistance efforts, OECA, regions, and tribes 

have access to the Tribal Compliance Assistance Center (http://epa.gov/tribalcompliance) and the 

Profile of Tribal Government Operations. OECA and the regions should continue to use existing 

compliance assistance tools and tailor new compliance assistance tools for use by tribes and 

facilities in Indian country and other tribal areas. During FY 2009, OECA’s National Enforcement 

Training Institute (NETI) will continue to implement its Tribal Training Strategy and reach out to 

tribal environmental professionals and serve as an on-line registration and course clearinghouse for 

all compliance assurance and enforcement training offered by OECA and the regions. OECA’s 

Indian country priority EPM resources are available to fund compliance assistance activities in 

Indian country and other tribal areas. Funding “circuit riders” who provide on-site compliance and 

technical assistance is extremely effective to tribes and tribal consortia is a very effective 

mechanism for promoting compliance in Indian country and other tribal areas. Regions must 

measure and report into ICIS the outcomes of 100% of tribal workshops, training, and on-site (re) 

visits conducted in FY 2009. 

Consistent with the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, OECA and the regions typically use 

compliance assistance as the initial means of resolving non-compliance at tribally-owned or 

managed facilities. Shortly after identifying noncompliance at a tribal facility, a short written 

compliance plan should be used to communicate the steps necessary to return the facility to 

compliance and provide a timeline for initiating an enforcement action if compliance is not 

achieved. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III.B - 

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

EPA conducts almost all compliance monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental 

programs and laws in Indian country because only a few tribes are currently authorized to operate a 

federal environmental program. As such, regions implement the compliance monitoring and 

enforcement National Program Core Requirements in Indian country. In the very limited cases 

where tribes have EPA-approved enforcement programs, regions oversee tribal enforcement 

compliance monitoring and enforcement in the same manner as they do with states as outlined in 

the National Program Core Requirements. However, EPA will retain federal criminal enforcement 

responsibilities, as these are not delegable. 

Geography and resources may impact the ability of EPA inspectors to conduct inspections 

as outlined in the National Program Core Requirements. Regions should continue to consider 
Revised June 2008 

83

authorizing tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. Regions should use the 

Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to States/Tribes and the Process for 

Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf. 

EPA works closely with tribes in carrying out compliance monitoring activities by consulting with 

tribes on inspection priorities and schedules and sharing information where appropriate. OECA’s 

Indian country priority EPM resources are available to fund compliance monitoring activity, 

including the training of tribal inspectors. 

The Tribal Enforcement Guidance lays out an effective process for EPA to take civil 

enforcement action in Indian country and other tribal areas. Unless the exigencies of the situation 

suggest a different approach is necessary, regions should work with the tribe to implement a short, 

written compliance plan designed to promptly return noncompliant tribal facilities to compliance. 

Regions should take formal civil enforcement actions if the tribal facility fails to return to 

compliance as outlined in the compliance plan. As outlined in the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, 

regions obtain the concurrence of OECA’s Assistance Administrator prior to taking formal civil 

enforcement actions at tribal facilities. Noncompliant, non-tribal facilities in Indian country and 

other tribal areas are treated the same as facilities located outside of Indian country and other tribal 

areas. 

With respect to allegations of criminal violations of federal environmental laws in Indian 

country and other tribal areas, EPA offices and tribes will provide the EPA Criminal Investigation 

Division with investigative leads. Such leads will be investigated within the framework of the 

Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training's (OCEFT) Policy on Investigative 

Discretion. In FY 2008, OCEFT is sponsoring a Tribal Environmental Crimes Training Program 

to develop and refine their ability to investigate environmental crimes that may occur in Indian 

country. 

Performance Expectations

OECA and the regions will report on the Indian country priority ACS measures and the 

following: 

• Reporting on the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is particularly crucial to measuring the 

progress and impact of EPA’s tribal enforcement and compliance assurance program As such, use 

the tribal flag/identifier in ICIS, CACDS, CCDS or other applicable data system to track and 

measure all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in Indian 

country and other tribal areas. See the relevant tracking and measurement discussion in compliance 

assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement section of the NPM Guidance. 

• Regional enforcement and compliance managers should engage media and Indian program 

managers and staff in discussing how best to allocate the OECA Indian country priority resources 

and in making of specific funding decisions. In addition, regions should, as appropriate, engage 

tribes – particularly the Regional Tribal Operations Committees – in a dialogue on the types of 

projects for which these resources are available, how to distribute information about the available 
Revised June 2008 

84

funds, and sharing project results. 

• Review all inspection reports submitted by EPA inspectors and EPA-authorized tribal inspectors 

and determine whether an enforcement response is appropriate, and if so, what type. 

SECTION IV. FY2009 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

M. Annual Commitment System 

Following release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, regions should continue discussions 

with states and tribes to determine draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance. 

Attachment A is a listing of draft FY 2009 OECA annual commitments. Current schedules call for 

regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 9, 2008. NPMs can 

then review draft regional targets to ensure that all regional targets together Aroll up@ to result 

cumulatively in appropriate annual national targets. Headquarters and the regions will have 

approximately 2 months (July 9 through September 21) to resolve any issues and finalize annual 

regional targets. During this same time, regions will engage states and tribes in negotiations to 

complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including translating regional 

targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All commitments should 

be final by September 21, 2008. 

The lead time before annual targets and commitments are final provides regions, states, and 

tribes maximum flexibility in determining commitments. Ultimately, headquarters and regions 

share responsibility for identifying and resolving conflicts over program priorities that present 

implications for the annual regional commitments. Issues not resolved by September 21, 2008 will 

be elevated to OECA=s Acting Assistant Administrator for decision. 

N. Support and Training Requests

NEIC

The regions should continue to send their annual requests for specific civil inspection, 

investigative, and technical support to NEIC=s Civil Program Coordinator. NEIC will evaluate the 

requests in order to develop the final list and schedule of support activities. To initiate discussions 

necessary to plan and schedule appropriate enforcement support for FY 2009, NEIC would like to 

receive requests from the regions by August 1, 2008. It is important that NEIC receive all regional 

submissions by August 1, 2008 to allow for an examination of all projects in line with resources. 

These requests should be as specific as possible, and include information to help NEIC determine 

whether they can provide the requested support. As completely as possible, this information should 

include: 

• facility/project name and location; 

• desired enforcement support (type of investigation, technical assistance, information 

request, etc.); 
Revised June 2008 

85

• desired timeframe (if critical); 

• desired outcome of project (enforcement, measurable environmental impact, corrective 

action, settlement, compliance, etc.); 

-- Regional/Headquarters priority(ies)/initiative(s) involved; 

• a brief description of the selection rationale, including how and why the region selected this 

particular facility/project for NEIC support; and 

• a contact name and phone number for additional information. 

During the review of the requests, NEIC will have discussions with the various regional 

contacts regarding aspects of each request. The combination of information sent with the original 

request and that obtained during these discussions enables NEIC to determine whether the 

requested support can be provided. The final decisions and commitments will be included in the 

negotiated workplans. 

If you have any questions regarding this process please contact Gene Lubieniecki, (303) 236-6112, 

or Christopher Knopes (202) 564-2337. Please send NEIC support requests to both Gene and Nick. 

Gene Lubieniecki, Civil Program Coordinator Christopher Knopes, Director 

US EPA – NEIC US EPA - OECA 

Denver Federal Center National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff 

Building 53, PO Box 25227 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A 

Denver, CO 80225 Washington, DC 20460 

 

O. FTE Resource Charts

 

 The regions will complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning 

cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub-objective, and then cross-walk 

to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts is significant due to 

increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the Inspector General, and 

Congress. Regions will receive FTE templates in August 2008. It is imperative that regions 

complete these charts and submit these documents to Christopher Knopes and Deanna MoultrieJackson on September 30, 2008. 

2008 Final – Enter the region’s final FTE allocation for FY2008 in the 2008 Final column. 

2009 Proposed – Enter the region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2009 in the 2009 Proposed 

column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency receives the 

FY2009 enacted budget after October 1, 2008. Therefore this number is a “best guess” estimate. 
Attachment A: Measures Appendix 

86

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

DRAFT FY 2009 Measures Appendix 

REGIONAL O

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N) 

State 

Grant 

Template 

Measure 

(Y/N) 

Nat. 

Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 

5.1.1 988 

Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance. 

5.1.1 ASST01 

Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all compliance assistance workshops, training, onsite visits, and revisits which support the OECA national priorities. 

5.1.1 FEDFAC01 

Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

5.1.3 183 

Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs) (PART) 

5.1.3 ASB01 Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. 5.1.3 CAA01 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by region per year. 

5.1.3 CAA01.s 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by state per year. 

5.1.3 CAA02 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at "80% synthetic minors" and other sources, as appropriate, by region per year. 
Attachment A: Measures Appendix 

87

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N) 

State 

Grant 

Template 

Measure 

(Y/N) 

Nat. 

Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 

5.1.3 CAA02.s 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) at "80% synthetic minors," and other sources (as appropriate), by state per year . 

5.1.3 CAA03 

Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the regions. 

5.1.3 CAA03.s 

Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the states that were the result of the negotiation process for the year (could be the result of redirecting resources from FCEs to PCEs). 

5.1.3 CAA05 

Regions should project the number of investigations to be initiated in FY 2009. 

5.1.3 CAA11 

Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region required to submit RMPs. 

5.1.3 CAA16 

Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the CMS, HPV policy, and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant language. 

5.1.3 CAA17 

Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS consistent with the agency policies and the ICR. If for some reason a delegated agency does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is entered into AFS in a timely manner. If the region is responsible for entering state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 
Attachment A: Measures Appendix 

88

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N) 

State 

Grant 

Template 

Measure 

(Y/N) 

Nat. 

Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 

5.1.3 CWA03 

Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be conducted. The regions must provide a detailed explanation if no oversight inspections are projected in this area. 

5.1.3 CWA07 

By October 31, 2008, provide one specific Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each state in the region.  At mid-year and end-of-year provide for each state a numerical report on combined EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and subcategory. 

5.1.3 EPCRA01 

Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections; provide an explanation if below the target level. 

5.1.3 EPCRA02 

Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections; provide an explanation if below the target level. 

5.1.3 FEDFAC05 

Each Region must conduct ten inspections to support integrated strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Laboratories; Federal Underground Storage Tanks, or integrated strategy exploratory areas (non-TSDF/non-UST RCRA;Federal prisons; campgrounds on Federal lands). These inspections can be achieved through any combination of single media or multimedia inspections with the following limitations: (1) a maximum of three UST inspections can count toward this goal and (2) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as two inspections toward this goal.

5.1.3 FIFRA-FED1 Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. 
Attachment A: Measures Appendix 

89

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N) 

State 

Grant 

Template 

Measure 

(Y/N) 

Nat. 

Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 

5.1.3 HQ-CC 

Number of concluded Civil cases with at least 1 million lbs of pollutants reduced, $5 million of injunctive relief, or $1 million civil penalty. Number of concluded of Superfund cases with cost recovery or PRP clean up commitment of at least $5 million, or VCMA of 1 million cubic yards. 

5.1.3 HQ-CR Number of civil referrals to the Department of Justice. 5.1.3 HQ-LBS 

Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements and concluded enforcement actions. (PART) 

5.1.3 HQ-VOL Volume of contaminated media addressed. 5.1.3 LED01 

Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. In the regional comment field provide an explanation if no activity projected in this area or if Section 402 inspections in unauthorized states is the rationale for trade-offs with the Disclosure Rule or Section 406 inspections. 

5.1.3 PCB01 Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility universe. 5.1.3 RCRA01 

Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the region during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 2 TSDFs in each state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. 

5.1.3 RCRA01.s 

Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the state during the year. 

5.1.3 RCRA02 

Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the region during the year. 
Attachment A: Measures Appendix 

90

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N) 

State 

Grant 

Template 

Measure 

(Y/N) 

Nat. 

Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 

5.1.3 RCRA02.s 

Project by state the number of state LQGs inspections to be inspected during the year under state authority. 

5.1.3 RCRA03 

Annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local governments as required under SWDA 3007(d). 

5.1.3 SDWA02 

Primacy states, tribes and EPA will address or resolve Public Water Systems listed on a ‘Fixed Base’ SNC/Exceptions list. 

5.1.3 SRF-01 

The number of State Review Framework reviews to be completed in Fiscal Year 2007. 

5.1.3 TSC01 

Project the number of core federal TSCA inspections for Regions maintaining an investment in core TSCA (sections 4,5,8,12 and 13). 
Attachment B: State Grant Template Measures Appendix 

91

State Grant Measures Appendix 

REGIONAL OFFICE 

G/O/S ACS Code Measure Text Nat. Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 

5.1.3 LEAD-G01 Number of 402/406 inspections by state. 5.1.3 LEAD-G02 Number of enforcement actions taken by state. 5.1.3 PST-G01 Percent of violators committing subsequent violations. 5.1.3 PST-G02 Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of inspection/enforcement. 5.1.3 PST-G03 Number of enforcement actions taken (federal & state) per millions dollars of cost (federal & state). 5.1.3 TSC-G01 Total number of PCB inspections conducted by state. (PCB TDFs need to be inspected once every 3 years) 5.1.3 TSC-G02.a Number of asbestos inspections conducted by state with EPA credentials. 5.1.3 TSC-G02.b Number of asbestos inspections conducted by state under own authority (waiver states). 5.1.3 TSC-G03.a 

The number of PCB inspections conducted with EPA credentials that resulted in federal enforcement action (including civil penalties and Notices of non-compliance) 

5.1.3 TSC-G03.b 

 The number of asbestos inspections conducted with EPA credentials that resulted in federal enforcement action (including civil penalties and Notices of non-compliance) 
Attachment C: State Burden Reduction Information 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementareduction opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the 

in order to make final implementation decisions. 

92

Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) Original Reporting Requirement State Recommendation Change Adopted (FYIntegrated Compliance Information SystemPermit Compliance System (ICIS-PCS) Annual noncompliance report for non-major discharges: eliminate 30+ year-old 

requirements as data is now entered into PCS. 

EPA calculates non-cothat use Discharge Mo(DMRs). States that do perform some manual 

ICIS-PCS Inputting NPDES data via ICIS-RIDE too 

resource-intensive; adopt an alternative summary data approach—more cost effective; ICIS-required data changes are too costly; need resources from EPA to implement. 

New electronic reportideveloped which will to ICIS-NPDES directfacilities. When complsystem for any interestable to discontinue ma(at majors and non-masign up for the serviceproposal allows states RIDE requirements to electronic reporting thAvailable now. 

NPDES reports EPA regional office should run Enforcement 

and Compliance Assistance Priorities (RECAP) Report for NPDES majors from federal database instead of having state do it. 

Report eliminated (R6

Quarterly Watch List reports Eliminate for CAA, CWA and RCRA—not 

useful and time-consuming to compile; or reduce from quarterly to semi-annual 

States are not required information. Watch Libased on information trequired to report into 

RCRA, Enforcement and Compliance History (a) Improve EPA’s handling of data for RCRA (a) ECHO decreases th
Attachment C: State Burden Reduction Information 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementareduction opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the 

in order to make final implementation decisions. 

93

Original Reporting Requirement State Recommendation Change Adopted (FYOnline (ECHO) and Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) database reporting 

and ECHO databases so states are not criticized for incorrect information in databases. (b) Populate RCRAInfo database with hazardous waste compliance, corrective action and permitting information; improve user interface; reduce number of corrective action codes. (c) Modify submission of public water system violations, enforcement, etc. to OTIS database as data entry is time-consuming and taxing. 

process for corrections makes this information through user-friendly icapabilities. The top oreport has a "Report Eto the error correction notifications are routed contacts so they are awand can make correctiodatabases. (b) Existing concern. Close EPA/stprior to updates that onyears. States usually hthe update to their systRCRAInfo updates. (csend public water systeregion has 15 days to rstates/regions receive 3data, so there is a total the entry, review, and water system data. 

Chronic non-compliance report (water) Eliminate the required report format and allow 

state to provide information during annual or quarterly program reviews. 

Report is not required 

Submit all enforcement-related information to Region 7 

Duplicative of information already in databases. 

As part of CAA 105 grcopies of enforcement been reduced (R7). 

Database reporting Reduce level of detail when reporting on 

county/location code in Air Facility System 

EPA plans to modernizthe integration and exp
Attachment C: State Burden Reduction Information 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementareduction opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the 

in order to make final implementation decisions. 

94

Original Reporting Requirement State Recommendation Change Adopted (FY

(AFS); reduce level of detail when reporting on minor sources; monthly and annual reporting of air pollution monitoring data to AFS burdensome; AFS is cumbersome and difficult to use; modify and improve system; AQS/AFS/Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) system antiquated. 

Compliance InformatioDatabase modernizatiocomments. To be impl

Asbestos data report Eliminate (inadequately funded by EPA). EPA agreed to reduce 

to semi-annual starting 

Double violation semi-annual report (required by 40 CFR 123.45) 

Eliminate Report is required by r

information is in ICIS-discontinued. R7 will aof data into ICIS constrequired by the regulatgenerate report and subeliminate requirement of the report. 
Attachment D: Explanation of Changes from FY 2008-2009 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementation opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the process of be

final implementation decisions. 

95

Explanation of Changes from FY 2008 to FY 2009 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

 Change from FY 2008 Guidance Document Reason for Change Eff

Air Toxics performance based strategy New focus areas in response to internal 

process 

Sec

Priorities Indian country performance based strategy -New information resource on the 

enforcement process available in response to internal process 

Sec

Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) 

New tool in response to internal process Sec

Environmental Justice Action Plans New addition to guidance in response to 

internal process 

Sec

Defining Oversight Inspections Additional clarification requested in 

response to comments 

Sec52 

State Review Framework New information on evaluations and 

second round of reviews in response to internal process and comments 

Sec

Program 

Implementatio

n 

Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CWA NPDES CMS) 

-New policy in response to internal process -Clarification on new requirements in response to comments 

Sec
Attachment D: Explanation of Changes from FY 2008-2009 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementation opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the process of be

final implementation decisions. 

96

Change from FY 2008 Guidance Document Reason for Change Eff

Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement Response Policy 

New policy under development in response to internal process 

Sec

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) initiatives 

-New initiatives in response to internal process -Clarification on new initiatives in response to comments 

Sec

Clean Air Act Risk Management Plans (Section 112(r)) 

New targeting information in response to internal process & comments 

Sec

Program 

Implementatio

n 

Federal facilities core program implementation 

New implementation strategy information in 

response to internal process & comments 

Sec

Removed annual commitment for Clean Air Act in depth evaluations (CAA19) 

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process 

Ap

Removed annual commitment for CWA NPDES federal inspections at major facilities (CWA01) 

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process 

Ap

Removed annual commitment for CWA NPDES state inspections at major facilities (CWA01.s)

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process 

Ap

Removed annual commitment for federal pretreatment inspections at publicly owned treatment works (CWA05) 

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process

Ap

Annual 

Commitment 

Measures 

Removed annual commitment for state pretreatment inspections at publicly owned treatments works (CWA05.s) 

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process

Ap
Attachment D: Explanation of Changes from FY 2008-2009 

Last updated: 11/28/07 Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementation opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the process of be

final implementation decisions. 

97

Change from FY 2008 Guidance Document Reason for Change Eff

Added new annual commitment for mid-year and end-of-year state specific plans for the CWA NPDES CMS (CWA07) 

New requirement for submission of state specific plans in response to internal process

Sec

Annual 

Commitment 

Measures Removed Federal facilities multimedia 

inspections annual commitment (FEDFAC03) 

No longer required as an annual commitment in response to internal process 

Ap

Contacts Christopher Knopes; Deanna MoultrieJackson New FTE Resource Chart contacts in response to internal process Sec
Last updated: 11/28/07 

Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementation opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the process of be

final implementation decisions. 

98

i EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings; Report No. 2004-P-0008; March 5, 2004. ii Regions should focus financial responsibility compliance monitoring activities in states that do not have a state fund. iii RECAP (2003), which has been replaced by the current ACS system, also provided a measure for lQG inspections that was the equivaleniv “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations@ Executive Order, February 11v Memorandum, FR: Assistant Administrator, ACompliance and Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary 

IV, B.2. APriorities for SSO Enforcement Response@ (April 27, 2000) (directing OECA to target compliance assurance/enforcement activiti

environmental justice concerns). <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/strat312.pdf>; 

Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA, ' II, Bullet 1 (October 1997) (directing OECA to target compliance assurance/enforcemen

environmental justice concerns). <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/rcra/971020.pdf> 

vi See Memorandum from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (September 30, 1997vii See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 13-14 (May 1, 1998). viii The eight national environmental justice priorities are listed below as “objectives” under the relevant EPA Strategic Plan goal. The nint

Strategies,” is one of the national environmental justice priorities, and should be included as one of the areas of focus for the program and r

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

Objective 1: Reduction in number of asthma attacks Objective 2: Reduce exposure to air toxics 

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 

Objective 1: Safe fish/shellfish Objective 2: Clean and safe drinking water 
Last updated: 11/28/07 

Note: This table reflects states’ recommendations that EPA has adopted partially or in full. To ensure national consistency, implementation opportunities across the regions is encouraged to the greatest extent possible. The balance of the recommendations are in the process of be

final implementation decisions. 

99

 Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

Objective 1: Reducing elevated blood lead levels Objective 2: Collaborative problem-solving to address environmental justice issues 

 Objective 3: Revitalization of brownfields and contaminated sites  Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 

Objective: Ensuring compliance 

Goal: Cross Cutting Strategies  Objective: Internal Capacity-Building (e.g., training, internal program management) 

In addition, each region and, to the extent applicable, program office should also address issues arising under Goal 3, Land Preservation an

Strategic Plan.