FY 2010 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance 

April 23, 2009

Page 1 of 87 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 4

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 4

1. PROGRAM OFFICE............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................ 4

3. PROGRAM PRIORITIES....................................................................................................................................... 4

4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR THE NATIONAL CORE PROGRAM.............................................................. 5

5. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM FY 2009............................................................................................................ 6

SECTION II: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS .................................... 7

1. GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS FOR OECA’S GOAL 5 FUNCTIONS ................................. 7

2. GOAL 3 OECA PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................... 7

SECTION III: USE OF INTEGRATED STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM GOALS ..................... 9

1. TOOLS: COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE................................................................................................................... 9

2. TOOLS: COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES.................................................................................................................. 11

3. TOOLS: MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT, OVERSIGHT INSPECTIONS, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT........................ 12

4. SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS: DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING ......................................................................... 16

SECTION IV: NATIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITY AND CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACHIEVING 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED COMPLIANCE (OBJECTIVE 5.1)....... 18

1. REQUIREMENTS: ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION (SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1.1)...... 18

A. Clean Air Act National Priorities.............................................................................................................. 18

1. National Priority: Air Toxics - MACT ................................................................................................ 18

2. National Priority: NSR/PSD ............................................................................................................... 18

B. Clean Air Act Core Programs................................................................................................................... 19

1. NSPS/NESHAP/MACT PROGRAMS ................................................................................................... 19

2. Title V Operating Permits Program..................................................................................................... 22

3. Stratospheric Ozone Protection ........................................................................................................... 22

4. Section 112(r) Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and General Duty Clause)........................... 23

2. REQUIREMENTS: ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION (SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1.2) 26

A. Clean Water Act National Priorities......................................................................................................... 27

1. National Priority: Stormwater................................................................................................................... 27

2. National Priority: Combined Sewer Overflows......................................................................................... 27

3. National Priority: Sanitary Sewer Overflows............................................................................................ 28

4. National Priority: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations .................................................................. 29

B. Clean Water Act Core Programs .............................................................................................................. 29

1. NPDES Program ....................................................................................................................................... 30

2. Section 404 (Wetlands) ........................................................................................................................ 34

3. CWA Section 311 (Spills, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and Facility Response 

Plan (FRP) Programs) .................................................................................................................................. 34

C. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Core Program..................................................................................... 36

1. Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program ................................................................................. 37

2 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program ........................................................................................ 39

3. REQUIREMENTS: ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES POLLUTION 

(SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1.3) ....................................................................................................................................... 40

A. Mineral Processing and Financial Assurance Priorities.......................................................................... 40

1. National Priority: Financial Responsibility......................................................................................... 40

2. National Priority: Mineral Processing ................................................................................................ 40

B. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Core Program........................................................... 41

1. Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program ................................................................................................. 41

Page 2 of 87 
2. RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program ............................................................................. 46

3. Imminent and Substantial Endangerment.................................................................................................. 47

C. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Core Program.............................................................................. 48

1. Core TSCA ........................................................................................................................................... 48

2. PCBs......................................................................................................................................................... 49

3. TSCA Asbestos........................................................................................................................................... 50

4. Lead-Based Paint Program....................................................................................................................... 51

D. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Core Program........................................................ 52

4. REQUIREMENTS: CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT (SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1.4) .............................................................. 56

SECTION V: NATIONAL PROGRAM CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA 

PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5 .......................................................................................................................... 59

1. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM..................................................................................................................... 59

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation ................................................................... 59

B. International Compliance Assurance and Transboundary Movement Of Hazardous Waste.................... 60

2. FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM................................................................ 62

A. Federal Facility Integrated Strategies ...................................................................................................... 62

B. Federal Facilities Compliance and Enforcement...................................................................................... 67

2. Compliance Assistance.............................................................................................................................. 67

3. EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (EPCRA) CORE PROGRAMS ..................... 70

A. EPCRA 313 ............................................................................................................................................... 70

B. EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 .......................................................................................................... 71

4. INDIAN COUNTRY........................................................................................................................................... 71

A. Indian Country National Priority.............................................................................................................. 71

B. Indian Country Core Program.................................................................................................................. 72

5. MULTIMEDIA AND RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 74

6. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. 77

7. TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND TRAINING.............................................................................................................. 82

A. NETI......................................................................................................................................................... 82

B. NEIC ........................................................................................................................................................ 84

8. EPA/STATE RELATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 84

SECTION VI. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS......................................... 87

1. ANNUAL COMMITMENT SYSTEM.................................................................................................................... 87

2. FTE Resource Charts ............................................................................................................................... 87

Page 3 of 87 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

1. Program Office 

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

Guidance. 

2. Introduction/Context 

The NPM guidance for OECA sets forth national program priorities and activities for 

the enforcement and compliance regulatory programs for FY 2010. EPA=s national 

enforcement and compliance assurance program is multi-media in scope and breadth. 

3. Program Priorities 

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

environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. 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. After consulting with EPA programs and regions, states, and tribes, EPA decided to 

continue the priorities established in FY 2005-2007 for the FY 2008-2010 cycle. The 

following are the national enforcement and compliance assurance priorities: 

 Clean Air Act: Air Toxics 

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

 Indian Country Drinking Water Systems, Schools and Waste 

 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 

Since these National Priorities were established in FY2005, a Planning Council made 

up of OECA Office and Regional senior enforcement managers have provided guidance, 

suggestions, and approvals for the evolving priority strategies, goals, and measures. The 

Planning Council has been restructured to address a wider scope of issues that are of concern to 

senior regional enforcement managers and OECA Office Directors. As part of this restructure, 

a new National Priorities Governance Board now serves as the general oversight and decisionmaking body for the National Priorities. This Board determines when issues need to go to the 

broader group of Enforcement Directors or the OECA National Program Manager (NPM) for 

discussion and resolution. 

 The Governance Board initiated an annual review process for the national priorities in 

FY2009. The review encompassed the following: progress towards the goals identified in the 

Page 4 of 87 
strategies; issues encountered during implementation and how to address them; and updates to 

the strategies to reflect change identified during the review. The FY2009 priorities review also 

incorporated specific updates to the strategies required as the result of two Inspector General 

reports. These changes will be implemented in FY2010 by the Strategy Implementation Teams 

for each of the national priorities. 

4. Implementation Strategies for the National Core Program 

The national program maximizes compliance with ten distinct federal environmental 

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

implements a total of 28 separate program areas dealing with prevention and control of air 

pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. The statutory and 

regulatory requirements of these programs apply to a diverse universe of regulated entities. 

The majority of the work in the FY 2010 National Program Manager guidance is accomplished 

under the strategic goal “Compliance and Environmental Stewardship” in the FY 2009-2014 

EPA Strategic Plan (Goal 5). The Agency has developed EPA’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan 

Change Document which focuses on the areas that have changed from the previous Strategic 

Plan. (http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/pdfs/strategic_plan_change_document_9-30-08.pdf). 

The final Strategic Plan is due to Congress on September 30, 2009. 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance monitors regional and state 

activities in a set 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 manager 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 and activities associated with 

the core enforcement and compliance assurance program, as well as the national priorities, also 

support regional priorities. For example, annual commitments on inspections and assistance to 

concentrated animal feeding operations support regional agriculture priorities. The air toxics 

national priority and accompanying commitments support regional priorities for air toxics. 

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

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

regional priority for mining. Implementation of national priorities and associated annual 

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

regional priorities for wastewater, drinking water quality, nutrients, and sedimentation. 

 

Page 5 of 87 
5. Significant Changes from FY 2009 

Because of the change to the Strategic Plan structure for FY2010, this Guidance has 

been significantly modified from the FY2009 Guidance. Since 2003, OECA’s sub-objective 

structure under Goal 5 of the EPA Strategic Plan has been tool-based (assistance, incentives, 

monitoring and enforcement). With the development of the new Strategic Plan, this structure 

is moving to a “problem-based” structure (air; water; waste, toxics, and pesticides; and 

criminal enforcement sub-objectives). 

Reflecting the change in the Agency Strategic Plan, this NPM Guidance now discusses 

each National Priority and Core program under the appropriate sub-objective section. OECA 

also has numerous programs that contribute to the goals and targets of more than one subobjective. Those programs are located in a separate section. In addition, the general 

discussion of the tools that are used, including compliance assistance, incentives, and 

monitoring and enforcement, have been moved to Section III. 

 The Inspector General (IG) recently conducted an evaluation of the CAA 112(r) 

program titled, “EPA Can Improve Implementation of the Risk Management Program for 

Airborne Chemical Releases.” As a result of the evaluation, the IG recommends that EPA 

focus more compliance and enforcement efforts on facilities that pose a greater risk to human 

health and the environment. In response to this recommendation, OECA is proposing a 

modification to the 112(r) performance expectation. This modification would require Regions 

to devote 10% of their inspections to high-risk facilities. OECA is also modifying the criteria 

used to determine which facilities should be classified as high-risk. Finally, in an effort to 

create a more integrated program to address chemical accident prevention, OECA is also 

proposing to include applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements in high-risk facility 

inspections. 

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

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or our Annual Commitments please contact: 

Ginger Gotliffe 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Office of Compliance 

National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Email: Gotliffe.ginger@epa.gov

Page 6 of 87 
SECTION II: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS 

The OECA NPM Guidance is structured and developed to define program priorities, 

strategies, and performance measures in accordance with the Strategic Plan and the FY 2010 

Annual Plan and Budget. Most of OECA’s work is in response to the objectives of Goal 5 of 

the Strategic Plan and is covered by this Guidance. 

1. Guidance Development and Feedback Process for OECA’s Goal 5 functions 

The NPM guidance development process provides OECA the opportunity to define for 

FY2010 a clearer link between the annual operational measures, annual budget measures, and 

long-term, strategic measures. In addition, this process is an opportunity for the EPA 

Headquarters and Regions to engage with state and tribal partners and stakeholders in 

assessing results through more transparent and streamlined Agency processes. 

OECA has restructured the NPM Guidance and made appropriate modifications to the 

narrative of their programs or national priorities, commitment measures, and then highlighted 

significant changes from the Program in FY2009. EPA posted the FY 2010 NPM draft 

guidance (www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance) to allow regions, states, tribes, and others to 

review and comment on the draft. OECA responded to the comments and incorporated 

changes, as needed, in the final Guidance. A Response to Comments Summary was posted on 

the Internet showing the action taken in the final guidance as a result of comments. 

Because the Strategic Plan structure will not be finalized until later in the Fiscal Year, 

there may be later changes that will impact this Guidance. OECA will develop and issue 

addendums explaining any changes and implications for regions, states, and tribes as a result of 

a changed Strategic Plan. 

2. Goal 3 OECA programs 

The majority of OECA Programs fall under Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan: Compliance 

and Environmental Stewardship. However, planning for Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) enforcement and the 

RCRA Corrective Action program commitments are covered under Goal 3 of the Agency’s 

Strategic Plan: Land Preservation and Restoration (Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and 

Revitalize Contaminated Land) 

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. 

Page 7 of 87 
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 construction completion, remedy 

selection, two RCRA environmental indicators (EIs), which measure human exposure under 

control and migration of contaminated groundwater under control and RCRA Facility 

Assessments. Regions are encouraged to use enforcement authorities and tools where 

appropriate to address these commitments. In addition, the Superfund and RCRA Corrective 

Action program commitments for the financial assurance priority are also included in OECA's 

portion of the annual commitment system and accomplishments are reported manually. 

Page 8 of 87 
SECTION III: USE OF INTEGRATED STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE PROGRAM 

GOALS 

Ensuring compliance, whether in a priority area or core program, involves the use of all 

available tools, (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 functional areas. 

1. Tools: Compliance Assistance 

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: 

a. A strong regional compliance assistance core program infrastructure: 

 A full-time Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinator (CAC) to provide a focal 

point for leading, advocating for and coordinating compliance assistance efforts; the 

CAC is responsible for ensuring staff are fully trained on how to provide assistance, 

measure outcomes and build on existing assistance resources: 

 Communication networks to ensure appropriate development and sharing of 

compliance assistance tools and activities 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. 

b. 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 

Page 9 of 87 
February, 2007, Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an

 Integrated Strategic Approach 

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/measures/cameas

uring.pdf).

 Ensure appropriate use of compliance assistance in the implementation of 

integrated and performance-based strategies for both national and regional 

priorities. Include Regional and HQ compliance assistance staff in SIT meetings 

to ensure thorough consideration and as needed implementation of compliance 

assistance. 

c. 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. 

 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. OECA may not have 

an approved generic ICR in 2010 for conducting follow-up surveys. As soon as 

an ICR is obtained, guidance for how to measure results in FY 2010 will be 

issued. If an ICR is not obtained, see Continuing to Measure Results from 

Compliance Assistance Activities in FY2009 without a Generic ICR (signed by 

Lisa Lund December 19, 2008) 

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/caspd/cacoordinators/measurement/cont

inuingcaactivities.pdf and the attached Reference Guide for Measuring 

Compliance Assistance Outcomes in 2009 

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/caspd/cacoordinators/measurement/refe

renceguide.pdf. 

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. 

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

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

Page 10 of 87 
 Serve as a “retailer” for assistance tools by developing compliance assistance 

tools, conducting training, workshops, presentations, conducting on-site visits, 

and distributing outreach materials. 

Serve as a wholesaler of compliance assistance by sharing compliance assistance 

tools and opportunities within the regions with other assistance providers including 

states, tribes, trade associations, etc.: 

 Continue partnerships with industry, academics and environmental groups to 

support the sector-specific Compliance Assistance Centers; 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. 

2. Tools: Compliance Incentives

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 EPA’s Audit Policy, 

Small Business Compliance Policy and Small Community Policy, 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 to improve Audit Policy implementation. On August 1, 2008, 

EPA issued its “Interim Approach to Applying the Audit Policy to New Owners (“Interim 

Approach),” which describes Audit Policy incentives tailored for new owners that want to 

make a “clean start” at their recently acquired facilities by addressing environmental 

noncompliance that began prior to acquisition. The Interim Approach, which was effective 

upon publication of the Federal Register, is designed to motivate new owners to audit their 

facilities and to encourage self-disclosures of violations that will, once corrected, yield 

significant pollutant reductions and benefits to the environment. EPA is also piloting a webbased system to allow companies to electronically self-disclose violations under EPA’s Audit 

Policy. eDisclosure makes it easier and faster to self-report environmental violations. 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 

Page 11 of 87 
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. 

 Follow-up on, as appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the EPA Audit 

Policy and Small Business Policy. 

3. Tools: Monitoring and Enforcement, Oversight Inspections, Civil Enforcement

Compliance Monitoring:

All regional programs should conduct appropriate compliance monitoring activities, 

which include 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 is determined or an actual violation is identified. Review and 

oversight of authorized state, local and Tribal compliance assurance and enforcement programs 

continues throughout the year. As in the past, the National Enforcement Investigations Center 

(NEIC) will continue to support ongoing projects for commitments made in previous years, 

including case preparation and enforcement support. 

EPA strongly encourages efforts to provide field inspectors with technology that will 

improve their capacity to collect, share, and report information. Regional managers and staff 

should utilize the Field Activity Compliance Technology Strategy to guide their efforts to 

utilize hardware and software to collect compliance monitoring data by automating specific 

workflow processes for the specific programs. 

Page 12 of 87 
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.). 

 Implementing the 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 plans in conjunction with OECA and states that 

include targeting and information gathering techniques. 

 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 programs (authorized and non-authorized). 

 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 

Page 13 of 87 
 Reporting Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) outcomes of on-site 

inspections and evaluations 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

 Ensuring that the implementation of state, local and Tribal programs are in 

accordance with statutory requirements and EPA policy. 

 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, local and tribal 

programs. 

 Performing compliance screens for various headquarters and/or state/tribal programs 

such as Performance Track. 

 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: 

 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. 

Page 14 of 87 
 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 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 the oversight inspection is 

completed, 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 from the August 25, 1986, Barnes memo entitled, “Revised Policy 

Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements.” 

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. 

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 progress toward commitments made 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. 

Page 15 of 87 
It is expected that the regions, for each program, will conduct a number of these 

activities in any fiscal year. The specific combination of activities will depend upon the 

availability of intra- and 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. 

4. Support for Programs: Data Quality and Reporting 

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. 

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

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 

 Use of 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 also should be entered into ICIS. For CAA, RCRA, and 

CWA/NPDES inspections in states not migrated to ICIS-NPDES, the legacy systems (e.g., 

Page 16 of 87 
AFS, RCRAInfo, PCS) are the data bases 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. 

 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 have been 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. 

Page 17 of 87 
SECTION IV: NATIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITY AND CORE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED 

COMPLIANCE (Objective 5.1) 

1. Requirements: Address Environmental Problems from Air Pollution (Sub-objective 

5.1.1) 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) addresses problems 

from air pollution through two national priorities, the Air Toxics Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Priority and the New Source Review/Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (NSR/PSD) Priority. Air pollution problems are also addressed through the 

following Core Programs: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), MACT, NSR/PSD, Title V Operating 

Permits, Stratospheric Ozone Protection, Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans (RMPs), and 

the enforcement of State Implementation Plans and plans developed and approved under 

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

A. Clean Air Act National Priorities 

1. National Priority: Air Toxics - 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 MACT program is the overall 

goal of the priority. EPA chose the national problem areas in the MACT program for the FY 

2008-2010 planning cycle by looking for widespread noncompliance with specific standards, 

identifying a broad geographic scope, and deciding where a distinct federal role based on EPA 

and state experience is appropriate. The three national problem areas selected are leak 

detection and repair (LDAR), industrial flares, and surface coating. In order to reach the large 

number of facilities that are subject to MACT requirements, increased consideration will be 

given to disseminating compliance assistance materials on these key topics. 

2. National Priority: NSR/PSD 

NSR requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) ensure that the construction of new 

sources or the modification of existing air pollution sources do not jeopardize attainment of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in non-attainment areas. PSD 

requirements ensure that the influx of new air pollution sources do not degrade areas in 

compliance with the NAAQS. The NSR and PSD programs directly control emissions of 

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

contributing thousands of unaccounted tons of pollution each year, particularly of nitrogen 

oxide (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter 

(PM10). These emissions worsen problems in non-attainment areas and threaten to drive 

attainment areas into non-attainment. The NSR/PSD national priority sectors are acid, glass, 

cement and coal-fired utility facilities. Investigations conducted by EPA at coal-fired utilities, 

Page 18 of 87 
and glass, cement and acid manufacturers have revealed that many facilities have failed to 

obtain permits or install necessary controls for modifications subject to NSR or PSD. 

B. Clean Air Act Core Programs 

For the core CAA programs of NSPS, NESHAP, MACT, NSR/PSD, Title V Operating 

Permits, Stratospheric Ozone Protection, Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans (RMPs), and 

the enforcement of State Implementation Plans and plans developed and approved under CAA 

Section 111(d), 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 region-specific 

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 monitoring, 

applicability determinations, compliance assistance, incentives, enforcement, oversight), and 

focus on those activities that will yield the greatest environmental 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 FY 2012 to ensure consistency across state programs and 

continuous improvement in program performance. Regions should use the SRF process to 

assess implementation of national policies, obtain sufficient information on critical 

components of a compliance monitoring program, and ensure consistency with delegation 

agreements. This information will assist in determining program strengths and areas of 

potential vulnerability which may adversely affect program performance. For example, an 

integrated SRF/CMS review should include an evaluation of resources and impact on 

compliance monitoring, the availability of adequate inspector training and whether an 

appropriate mix of compliance monitoring techniques are being used. Regions should work 

with state and local agencies to address concerns raised during SRF reviews. 

1. NSPS/NESHAP/MACT PROGRAMS 

Compliance evaluations (Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) or Partial Compliance 

Evaluations (PCEs)) 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 implementing or 

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 MDRs in a timely manner consistent with Agency policies, Air Facility System 

(AFS) Business Rules Compendium and the AFS Information Collection Request (AFS ICR), 

“Source Compliance and State Action Reporting”. Once evaluations are completed, and a 

compliance determination made, all evaluations should be reported into the national database 

of record, AFS, within 60 days. The evaluations conducted by either the regions or delegated 

agencies and the resulting compliance determinations should not be held until the end of the 

fiscal year and input into the data system at one time. Regions should encourage those states 

and tribes with program approval, which includes a step in the evaluation process to ensure the 

evaluation is completed before reporting the information into AFS, to initiate this step shortly 

Page 19 of 87 
after the evaluation is completed. Such action will assist in reporting on a timely basis. States 

and tribes should not wait to complete and report the evaluation until the end of the fiscal year. 

For the core CAA program, 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. Activities reported as investigations should meet the definition of 

an investigation as provided in the CMS. Additional guidance concerning the definition of an 

investigation is provided in the following: “Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Guidance 

(Air Program) – Clarification and National Performance Measures Strategy (NPMS) Pilot” 

from Eric Schaeffer and Elaine Stanley to MOA Coordinators, Enforcement Coordinators, and 

RS&T Coordinators (October 26, 1998). See also, “Implementing the National Performance 

Measures Strategy – Second Phase (Attachment J)” from Steven A. Herman to Regional 

Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Enforcement Division 

Directors and Coordinators (December 23, 1999). Please note that investigations for the 

PSD/NSR and Air Toxics Priorities are reported separately. 

During the FY 2010 timeframe, continued emphasis should be placed on implementing 

the National Stack Testing Guidance. The guidance is a response to the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) which criticized the Agency for not issuing national guidance 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. All stack tests and the results should be reported in AFS. 

 Since issuing the Stack Testing Guidance on September 30, 2005, amendments were 

made to the General Provisions which allow source owners or operators to petition for an 

extension to the test deadlines as a result of a force majeure event. Such revisions were also 

extended to the Consolidated Federal Air Rule. Therefore, the guidance is scheduled to be 

updated in FY 2009 to take into account these revisions as well as other minor clarifications 

based on feedback the Agency has received since the 2005 issuance. 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 

FCEs at Title V majors, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by region 

and state; (2) the number of 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 major sources, and 20% of the universe for 80% synthetic minor sources 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. 

Page 20 of 87 
Commitment CAA 01: Number of FCEs to be conducted at Title V majors by the 

regions. 

Commitment CAA 01.s: Number of FCEs to be conducted at Title V majors by 

individual states. 

Commitment CAA 02: Number of FCEs to be conducted at 80% synthetic minors, 

and other sources (as appropriate) by regions. 

Commitment CAA 02.s: Number of FCEs to be conducted at 80% synthetic minors, 

and other sources (as appropriate) by individual states.

Commitment CAA 03: Number of PCEs to be conducted by the regions. This is a 

minimum data requirement. 

Commitment CAA 03.s: Number of PCEs to be conducted by individual states 

pursuant to CMS negotiations (could be the result of redirecting resources from FCEs 

to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

CMS provides flexibility to the state/local agencies and tribes to negotiate alternative 

frequencies with the regions. If a state/local agency or tribe chooses to utilize this existing 

flexibility, the regions should evaluate the alternative plan and prior to approving the 

alternative plan, provide the Office of Compliance information concerning how compliance 

monitoring air resources are going to be redirected and the rationale for doing so. In 

evaluating alternative frequency requests, the regions should take into consideration the impact 

of the current economic crisis on the resources available to the delegated agency to implement 

the program. 

Commitment CAA05: Number of investigations to be initiated in FY 2010 for the 

core CAA program. Investigation projections should be provided by the air program 

(e.g., MACT, NSPS). Note: investigations for PSD/NSR and Air Toxics Priorities are 

not part of this ACS commitment and are reported separately in different commitments. 

The regions should enter both initiated and completed investigations into AFS (these 

are minimum data requirements), and identify the targeted air program(s). 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 a written explanation if any of these activities will not be projected by the region for 

the year or if the region projects a reduced amount of activity in any one area (fewer FCEs, 

PCEs, or investigations). 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. 

Regions must ensure delegated agencies implement programs in accordance with CMS 

and monitor the level and quality of their effort. These activities are critical components of the 

core program. In support of the core program, it also is imperative that the compliance 

Page 21 of 87 
evaluations and results of those evaluations by the regions, delegated states/locals, and tribes 

be timely and accurately reported. 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. The following activities are to be achieved: 

 Regions should negotiate facility-specific CMS plans with 100% of delegated 

agencies, periodically, but at least annually, evaluate progress, and work with 

delegated agencies to revise the plans as necessary. Regions are to discuss with 

OECA alternative CMS plans proposed by delegated agencies prior to regional 

approval. 

 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. 

 Regions should report 100% of the compliance results of all FCEs and PCEs into 

AFS within 60 days, and if feasible, in the next regularly scheduled update of AFS 

after an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is made. 

 Regions should be working to ensure that 100% of the delegated agencies report the 

compliance results of all FCEs and negotiated PCEs into AFS within 60 days, after a 

compliance determination is made. Any deficiencies regarding timely reporting are 

to be identified in a State’s SRF review/report and such deficiencies are to be 

addressed with appropriate recommendations with identified time frames which will 

be tracked to resolution in the SRF Tracker System. 

2. Title V Operating Permits Program 

Performance Expectations 

Regions should continue to review Title V permits consistent with guidance issued by 

the Air Enforcement Division and should ensure that the state/local agencies and tribes are 

reviewing the permits consistent with the CMS. In addition, they are responsible for ensuring 

that all permit program MDRs are entered into AFS in a timely manner. Regions should also 

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. Regions should 

ensure that consent decree requirements, including schedules of compliance, where required, 

are incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non-Title V permits and Title V permits.

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. 

3. Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Consistent with CMS, all regional FCEs at Title V major sources and 80% synthetic 

minors should include an evaluation of compliance with regulations promulgated to protect the 

Page 22 of 87 
stratospheric ozone layer if such regulations apply. When chlorofluorocarbon (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 respective requirements. 

Performance Expectations 

Regions should include evaluations of CFCs and other ODS as part of routine 

FCEs/PCEs to the extent the regulations apply. The regions must provide an explanation if 

they will not conduct CFC or other ODS evaluations. OECA will collect information and 

discuss these activities with regional air compliance/ enforcement managers during national 

meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

4. 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 facility 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, and in response to a recent 

evaluation conducted by the Inspector General, headquarters has developed criteria for 

determining which facilities pose a greater risk to human health and the environment. Regions 

should consider the following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring and enforcement 

efforts. In some cases a Region may wish to rank these criteria in order to address its 

individual priorities and concerns: 

 Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 100,000 

people 

 Any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 25; and/or 

 Facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the 

previous five years. 

Performance Expectations 

 Regions should perform inspections at 5% of the total number of regulated facilities in 

the region during FY 2010. Section 68.220 audits conducted do not count towards the 5% 

inspection target. Ten percent of the inspections should be conducted at high-risk facilities as 

described above. Inspections at high-risk facilities should also include an evaluation of 

compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements. 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. 

Page 23 of 87 
Commitment CAA11: Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the 

region required to submit RMPs. Of these inspections, 10% must be conducted at high-risk 

facilities. These inspections at high-risk facilities must also include an evaluation of 

compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERLA requirements. 

Regional 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. The appropriate combination and sequencing of compliance assurance tools should 

always be considered when determining the best approach for addressing the environmental 

problems and returning the entities to compliance (e.g., assistance, incentives, monitoring, 

enforcement actions). 

For all cases newly listed in accordance with the Policy 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. 

Critical components of the core program include the regions: (1) ensuring that 

delegated state/local agencies and tribes implement a compliance monitoring program and 

thereafter take appropriate enforcement action consistent with Agency policy (i.e., CMS, 

HPV); (2) conducting compliance evaluations (FCEs/PCEs) and investigations as warranted; 

and (3) taking all necessary and appropriate enforcement action. In support of the core 

program, it also is imperative that enforcement actions by the regions, delegated states/locals, 

and tribes be timely and accurately reported. Therefore, the following activities are to be 

achieved: (1) OECA will continue to collect and analyze information on these activities from 

either AFS, ICIS, or through SRF reviews and (2) the regions should be prepared to discuss 

any concerns or questions arising from the collection and analysis of the data. 

 Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the region; 

 Settle or litigate cases issued in years prior to FY2010 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; 

 Implement HPV policy as required, including “frequent (at least monthly)” 

discussions with delegated agencies to ensure their implementation consistent with 

Page 24 of 87 
 Exercise authority in accordance with the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation 

Adjustment Rule and the Amendments to the CAA Civil Penalty Policy to 

implement the 2008 Penalty Inflation Rule. 

 Report 100% of MDRs accurately and in a timely manner in AFS consistent with 

Agency policy (i.e., CMS, HPV) and the AFS ICR and ensure that delegated 

agencies do the same. 

Data Quality and Reporting

 Data reporting 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 information on the reporting requirements for the CAA program, review the 

AFS ICR, the AFS Business Rules and the CMS/HPV policies. A complete list of the 

minimum data requirements is provided at the following location: http://www.epa.gov/ 

Compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf. If it is projected that a 

region or any delegated agency will not provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent 

with the AFS ICR and Agency policy, the region should provide a written explanation. 

 Once evaluations are completed and a compliance determination made, all evaluations 

should be reported into AFS within 60 days as soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next 

regularly scheduled update of AFS. The evaluations conducted by either the regions or 

delegated agencies and the resulting compliance determinations should not be held until the 

end of the fiscal year and input into the data system at one time. 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. Such action will assist in reporting on a timely 

basis. States and tribes should not wait to complete and report the evaluation until the end of 

the fiscal year.

 Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that agencies provide and 

maintain an accurate universe of sources subject to the CMS policy; develop facility-specific 

CMS plans; maintain records of compliance monitoring and enforcement activities; and report 

all MDRs in a timely manner consistent with Agency policies, the AFS Business Rules 

Compendium, and the AFS ICR. This is critical since the structure of the air program is 

different than other media programs in that the type and timing of compliance and enforcement 

data that must be reported into the national database are not specified by statute or regulations, 

but through Agency policy and the AFS ICR. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide 

complete, accurate, and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as MOUs, 

SEAs, PPAs, or Section 105 grant agreements. 

 The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period 

covered by this guidance. 

Page 25 of 87 
Commitment CAA 16: Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written 

agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the Agency 

Policies, and the AFS ICR; and provide copies of the relevant language to OC if they 

have not already provided the relevant text or it has changed. 

Commitment CAA 17: Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in 

AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the AFS ICR. If the region is responsible 

for entering data for a delegated agency or tribe, the region should identify the 

delegated agency or tribe. 

If the region will not be undertaking these activities, the region must provide a written 

explanation. 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 State Review Framework guidance for Round 2 which provides 

instructions on conducting an integrated SRF/CMS review. Consistent with the SRF CAA 

policies (i.e., CMS, HPV Policy, Stack Testing Guidance, Penalty Policy, AFS ICR), 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 reviews should assess trends; recognize successes as well as document areas for 

improvement; and provide recommendations for improvement. The SRF reviews should also 

include reviews of the SRF data metrics, file reviews, 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, review the 

CAA Policies and SRF Guidance (i.e., SRF Final Report Guidelines, CAA Data and File 

Review Metrics, CAA Data and File Review Plain Language Guides). SRF documentation is 

available at the following location: www.epa-otis.gov/otis/stateframework.html. 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 address 

regional priorities identified state-specific concerns. 

2. Requirements: Address Environmental Problems from Water Pollution (Sub-objective 

5.1.2) 

OECA addresses problems from water pollution through wet weather national 

priorities. Those priorities are combined sewer overflows (CSOs); sanitary sewer overflows 

(SSOs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and stormwater run off. Clean 

Water Act (CWA) environmental problems are also addressed through the following core 

programs; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, Pretreatment 

Program, Biosolids/ Sludge program; CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program, and CWA 

Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)) Program. In addition, the 

Safe Drinking Water (SDWA) programs of Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 

Page 26 of 87 
Program and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program also support OECA’s work to 

identify and eliminate water pollution problems. 

A. Clean Water Act National Priorities 

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 CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, 

and stormwater run off. EPA’s wet weather priority strategies focus compliance assistance, 

monitoring and enforcement on key environmental risks and noncompliance problems in each 

of these areas. 

1. National Priority: Stormwater 

Storm water discharges continue to be a national enforcement and compliance priority. 

Storm water runoff from urban areas, including discharges from municipal storm sewers, 

industrial facilities and construction sites can have significant adverse impacts on water 

quality. These water quality impacts can be defined by two key problems - storm water quality 

and storm water quantity. In the National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress for the 

2004 Reporting Cycle – A Profile states reported that about 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% 

of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles were not clean 

enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming. Less than 30% of U.S. waters were 

assessed by the states for this report. Leading causes of impairment included pathogens, 

mercury, nutrients, and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen which can occur from 

stormwater. Runoff from rain and melting snow is responsible for beach closings, swimming 

and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. As storm water flows through urbanized areas, 

or over construction or industrial sites, it can pick up a variety of pollutants that can harm the 

environment and public health, including bacteria, sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum 

products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids. Without on-site controls, this storm water 

generally flows untreated directly to the nearest waterway. The large number of municipal 

separate storm water sewer systems or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) 

(about 8,000), construction sites (over 240,000 new sites per year), and industrial sites (over 

100,000), and the diversity of these activities, make this a large and complex problem. 

Changes in land use associated with development and urban sprawl affect the volume and rate 

of storm water discharged to receiving streams. The volume and rate of storm water runoff 

will continue to grow as development replaces porous surfaces with impervious blacktop, 

rooftops, compacted soil, and concrete. In urban areas, it is not uncommon for impervious 

surfaces to account for 45% or more of the land cover. The increasing volumes and rates of 

storm water runoff can affect the equilibrium that exists in natural, undisturbed waters, 

resulting in such impacts as increased stream bank erosion, which in turn causes increased silt 

in waterways and habitat destruction. 

2. National Priority: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) 

CSOs, composed of both polluted 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. Typical 

Page 27 of 87 
pollutants found in CSOs include total suspended solids (TSS), metals, bacteria, viruses, 

nutrients, oxygen-demanding compounds and other pollutants washed from city streets and 

parking lots. 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. 

Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are designed to collect stormwater runoff, domestic 

sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe and transport it to a sewage treatment plant, 

where it is treated and then discharged to a water body. During periods of rainfall or 

snowmelt, however, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the 

capacity of the sewer system or treatment plant. When the capacity of the system or the 

treatment plant is exceeded, the excess wastewater overflows directly into nearby streams, 

rivers, or other water bodies, typically violating water quality standards. CSOs are primarily 

caused by wet weather events, when the combined volume of wastewater and stormwater 

entering the system exceeds the capacity of the CSS or treatment plant. Overflow frequency 

and volume varies from system to system and from outfall to outfall within a single CSS. 

Discharges from a CSS during dry weather, referred to as dry weather overflows, are 

prohibited under the NPDES program. Combined sewer systems can also back up into 

buildings, including private residences. Combined with other municipal sewage discharges, 

they contribute to 15 percent of impaired rivers and streams, 6 percent of impaired lakes, and 

33 percent of impaired bays and estuaries. 

3. National Priority: Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) 

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). 

Properly designed, operated, and maintained sanitary sewer systems are meant to collect 

and transport all of the sewage that flows into them to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) 

for treatment. However, releases of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers during 

overflows during wet weather events may be caused by poor sewer collection system 

management, and often pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. 

The public can be exposed to raw sewage from SSOs through street flooding, 

recreational contact such as swimming and fishing, drinking contaminated water and collection 

system back-ups into homes. It is important to note that the threat to public health and the 

environment posed by SSOs is not necessarily limited to large volume or extended-duration 

overflows. Some of the greatest threats from SSOs stem from viruses and pathogens which can 

present a public health threat even in small volume, intermittent overflows. SSOs are of special 

concern to public health because they expose citizens to bacteria, viruses, intestinal parasites, 

and other microorganisms that can cause serious illness such as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, 

cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. Sensitive populations - - children, the elderly and those with 

Page 28 of 87 
weakened immune systems - - can be at a higher risk of illness from exposure to sewage from 

SSOs. 

4. National Priority: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 

Discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous and bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens from 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 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. 

Agriculture, including CAFOs, continues to be a leading source of water quality 

impairment. Consolidation trends in the livestock industry have resulted in larger-sized 

operations that generate a large volume of animal manure. Larger size operations also result in 

less available land on which to spread the manure. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) estimates that operations that confine livestock and poultry animals generate about 

500 million tons of manure annually – three times the amount of EPA’s estimate of 150 million 

tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in the U.S. Pollutants commonly associated 

with manure include nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, solids, and 

pathogens. USDA data show that the amount of nutrients and the amount of excess nutrients, 

produced by confined animal operations rose about 20% from 1982 to 1997. Pollutants from 

animal waste can enter the environment from a number of pathways, including surface runoff 

and erosion, overflows from lagoons, spills and other dry-weather discharges, and leaching 

into soil and ground water. They can be released from a CAFO’s animal confinement area, 

treatment and storage lagoons, manure stockpiles, and from cropland where manure is often 

applied to the land as fertilizer. 

Adverse environmental and human health impacts associated with pollutants in animal 

manure include: eutrophication or nutrient over-enrichment of surface waters, fish kills, 

reductions in dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life, increase in suspended solids resulting 

in an increase in turbidity of surface waters and inhibition of the functioning of aquatic plants 

and animals, nitrate contamination of drinking water, and transmission of pathogens associated 

with food and waterborne diseases in humans. An EPA analysis (conducted in support of its 

2001 proposed CAFO rule) showed that between 1981 and 1999, 19 states reported 4 million 

fish killed from both runoff and spills at CAFOs. 

B. Clean Water Act Core 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 CAFOs, Stormwater, CSOs, SSOs) (CWA Section 402) 

 Pretreatment Program (CWA Section 307) 

 Biosolids/Sludge Program (CWA Section 405) 

 CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program 

Page 29 of 87 
 CWA Section 311 (Oil Pollution Act, which includes spills, Spill Prevention Control 

and Countermeasures (SPCC)) Program, and, Facility Response Plans (FRP)) 

Core CWA programs implemented by regions, including direct implementation in nonauthorized States and Indian country, and by the states should: 

 Follow guidance provided in existing national compliance and enforcement policy 

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

the 2007 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). 

 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. 

 Utilize assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement tools in the priority and 

core areas. 

 Focus attention on protection of priority water areas include watersheds, public 

drinking water intakes or designated 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. 

 In addition, EPA regions should focus assistance, incentives, monitoring, and 

enforcement actions in the national priority areas, while maintaining a viable 

presence in all CWA programs. 

1. NPDES Program 

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) commenced at the beginning of FY 2009 on October 1, 2008. During FY 2009, regions 

and states were to jointly develop and agree on a compliance monitoring plan for each state for 

core program and wet weather program inspections, ensuring a reasonable inspection presence 

in each program area. State Plans were to include the various universe numbers for each 

program area, and the coverage commitment for each universe. Regional contributions to 

coverage within the state should be noted. 

For FY 2010, Regions are again asked to provide OC a copy of each state-specific 

compliance monitoring plan. OC will provide comments to regions, as necessary, on needed 

use of CMS flexibility, enhancements, or modifications to the state-specific plans. At end-ofPage 30 of 87 
year 2010, the regions are to submit a report for each state by each inspection category and 

subcategory contained in Attachments 1 and 2 of the CMS that details a combined EPA and 

state total number of inspections and percent coverage for each area. For the CAFO priority, 

States and Regions should conduct inspections, take enforcement actions and conduct outreach 

activities to prompt those CAFOs that do not have a permit, but need to be covered by a 

permit, to apply for one.

For FY 2010, CMS planning and agreements should build on the progress achieved in 

FY 2009, and should address any recommendations provided by OC on the earlier statespecific CMS plans. Regions and states should briefly document trade-offs among program 

areas covered by the CMS that are made utilizing the flexibility contained in the policy. This 

documentation is particularly important for trade-offs that are made in response to state budget 

reductions that occur as a result of state economic conditions, especially with respect to what a 

state will be held accountable for. In anticipation of issuance of the FY 2011 national program 

guidance a year from now, Regions and states are alerted that OECA will be moving from the 

single NPDES compliance monitoring commitment focused on establishment of the statespecific CMS plans to development of a set of inspection related commitments that track the 

elements of the October 17, 2007 CMS policy memorandum. At this juncture, OECA 

anticipates that there will be approximately eight commitments for FY 2011 that deal both with 

traditional core program areas (e.g., inspections at majors, traditional minors, pretreatment, 

biosolids) and wet weather program areas (e.g., CSO, SSO, storm water, and CAFOs). 

Specific measures for these commitments will be developed with a target finalization date of 

January 15, 2010. 

Round 2 State Review Framework evaluations of Elements 4 and 5 that are conducted 

in FY 2010 should be based on the frequencies contained in the agreed upon state-specific 

CMS plans. In the absence of an agreed upon state plan, the inspection frequency goals 

contained in the national CMS policy should be used as the basis for the Element 4 and 5 

performance analysis. In such instances, the evaluation should include assessment of 

performance relative to the CMS goals for majors, traditional non-majors, approved 

pretreatment programs, CSOs (if applicable), SSOs, at least one subcomponent of the storm 

water program (either industrial, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), or 

construction), and at least one of the subcomponents of the CAFO program as described in the 

CMS. 

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

the CMS guidance is one that separately identifies core program inspection needs and wet 

weather program needs (Attachments 1 and 2 of the CMS Guidance) and then strikes an 

appropriate balance between the two by considering factors including: noncompliance trends, 

water quality considerations within individual states, previous coverage and state and EPA 

resources. 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)). These inspection planning expectations are intended to promote joint inspection 

planning and an opportunity to identify state-specific circumstances and encourage dialogue on 

the approaches the state expects to implement. 

Page 31 of 87 
EPA regional NPDES programs should work closely with each of their states to plan 

for their core program and wet weather priority inspections, and to ensure a reasonable 

inspection presence in each program area. 

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 reporting at end-of-year FY 2010, the regions will have to submit manual reporting. 

Manual reporting instructions for the regions will be specified in greater detail in the multiprogram fiscal year reporting guidance memorandum 

Commitment CWA07: By December 31, 2009, provide one specific Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each state in the region. The plan should provide 

universe information for the CMS categories; sub-categories covered by the CMS and 

combined EPA and state expected accomplishments for each category and subcategory. 

The plan should identify trade-offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibility 

designed into the CMS policy. At end of year provide for each state a numerical report 

on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and subcategory. 

Oversight Inspections 

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

integrity of each state or tribe with primacy compliance monitoring program. The definition of 

oversight inspections was defined on pp. 14-15 of this document. Oversight inspections are a 

principal means of evaluating both the quality of an inspection program and inspector training 

and 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. 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. 

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.” 

Page 32 of 87 
Commitment CWA03: Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to 

be conducted. The regions must provide detailed explanations if no oversight 

inspections are projected in this area. 

Regional Enforcement 

 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. 

OECA issued the Interim Significant Noncompliance Policy for CWA Violations 

Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources (i.e., Interim WW SNC 

Policy) to the regions on October 23, 2007 to begin regional implementation in FY2009. On 

October 15, 2008, OECA issued Regional Guidance for Tracking CWA NPDES InspectionRelated Violations and Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance. Regions are expected to 

report inspections conducted, violations identified (including single event violations or SEVs), 

and Wet Weather SNC determinations and resolutions in the national data system (i.e., PCS or 

ICIS-NPDES) as specified in the guidance. The Wet Weather SNC violation and 

determination information will be critical to follow-up discussions between OECA and the 

Regions to identify any implementation issues to determine if any refinements are needed to 

the Interim WW SNC Policy. 

Program Oversight 

 Regions should review state NPDES compliance monitoring programs pursuant to the 

SRF guidance. Consistent with the SRF, 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 reviews should assess trends; recognize 

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

improvement. SRF reviews are based on a review of SRF data metrics, 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. 

Page 33 of 87 
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.) 

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. 

2. 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 are authorized to run 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.) 

3. CWA Section 311 (Spills, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and 

Facility Response Plan (FRP) Programs) 

CWA Section 311 provides statutory authority for inspections, administrative orders, 

other program implementation and enforcement to address noncompliance with statutory spill 

and notification requirements, as well as spill prevention and facility response planning 

regulations, often referred to as the SPCC and FRP programs. 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. 

These resources are also often in different regional offices from the enforcement resources who 

conduct investigations, enforcement targeting, record reviews and case development. 

CWA Section 311 does not have a mechanism for states to implement the program. 

This is, therefore, primarily a federal effort. The regions must coordinate, as appropriate, with 

the Coast Guard and other federal agencies which have significant roles in addressing spills, 

and follow all related Memoranda of Agreement. 

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

regulated sources have developed, maintained and implemented the required Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plans and/or Facility Response Plans (FRP) and other 

requirements in compliance with EPA spill prevention and facility response planning 

regulations. Typically, regions should check compliance monitoring at facilities subject to 

Page 34 of 87 
spill prevention and facility response planning SPCC or FRP requirements to ensure that plans 

are adequate, meet the regulatory requirements, and are implemented as shown by a 

commitment to resources and training. 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). 

 Regions should review reporting practices to ensure that oil and hazardous substance 

spills are timely and accurately reported to the National Response Center (NRC) and should 

routinely review spill notification reports, inspection reports, and other available data to 

determine if routine noncompliance or the risk of spills from oil storage is being adequately 

addressed. 

4. Pretreatment Program 

Publicly Operated Treatment Works (POTWs) collect waste water from residential 

homes, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities and transport it via a series of pipes, 

known as a collection system, to the treatment plant. The POTW removes harmful organisms 

and other contaminants from the sewage so it can be discharged safely into the receiving 

stream. Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic sewage only. However, a 

significant number of POTWs receive waste water from industrial (non-domestic) users (IUs). 

The General Pretreatment Regulations establish responsibilities for Federal, State, local 

government, industry and the public to implement the Pretreatment Standards to control 

pollutants from the IUs. These pollutants may pass through or interfere with (POTWs) 

treatment processes, or they may contaminate sewage sludge. Pretreatment inspections and IU 

inspections are used to determine if POTWs are meeting regulatory requirements. 

5. Biosolids/ sludge program 

The Biosolids/ sludge program is designed to determine that POTWs are in compliance 

with the regulations for treating, storing, and disposal of biosolids/sludge. Biosolids/sludge 

inspections are the primary mechanism to determine whether facilities are in compliance with 

the sludge regulation requirements. The requirements apply to any facility engaged in a 

regulated sludge or disposal practice. The inspection evaluates the permittee’s compliance 

with sludge monitoring, record keeping and reporting, treatment operations, and sampling and 

laboratory quality assurance. These inspections may be conducted in conjunction with other 

compliance inspections at major and minor POTWs such as compliance evaluations (CEIs). 

Biosolids/sludge inspections may also be conducted to respond to citizen complaints. 

NOTE: Some of these regulatory programs may not be approved by EPA, and as a result they 

are not implemented at the state level. Examples include CWA Sections 311 and 404, and, in some 

states, the Pretreatment and Biosolid/Sludge Programs. 

Page 35 of 87 
C. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Core 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. If there are differences between 

this guidance and annual workplan guidance for OECA’s 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. 

 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 address or resolve with their 

states and tribes a specific number of systems between July 2009 and June 2010. The 

regions do not need to specify the names of PWSs that they plan to address. 

 The regions, states, and tribes need to all address actions in SDWIS by June 30, 2010, 

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, those 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 and end of year on the number of PWSs 

addressed from the fixed base list and the number of PWSs addressed. 

 OECA has worked 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. During the later part of FY 2009 EPA and the Association 

Page 36 of 87 
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. 

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. 

OECA encourages the regions to use and market 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. 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. OECA also 

encourages 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. 

Regions should measure outcomes of their assistance activities. 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. 

Page 37 of 87 
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. 

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 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 

V.2). 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. 

Regional Enforcement 

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, regions are strongly 

encouraged to consult with OCE 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. 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. 

 

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 on-site 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. 

Page 38 of 87 
 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. 

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 2010. Separate guidance on sanitary surveys is included in a 

December 9, 2005 memorandum from James Edward and Stephen 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 

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 enter into ICIS in FY2010. 

Program Oversight 

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 

2 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. 

Page 39 of 87 
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. 

3. Requirements: Address Environmental Problems from Waste, Toxics, and Pesticides 

Pollution (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

 OECA addresses environmental problems from waste, toxics, and pesticides through 

two national priorities and under three different statutes. The national priority work that 

support this requirement are Financial Responsibility and Mineral Processing. Core programs 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) include Hazardous Waste 

Subtitle C Program, the Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I program and Imminent and 

Substantial Endangerment. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program addresses 

core TSCA, PCBs, TSCA Asbestos and Lead-based paint program. The Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act program is concerned with pesticides. 

A. Mineral Processing and Financial Assurance Priorities 

1. 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 facility closure or clean up obligations. 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 “polluter pays” principle, an enforcement strategy for obtaining full compliance with 

financial responsibility requirements prevents improper handling of hazardous materials and 

the potential shifting of the cleanup 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. 

2. 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. 

Page 40 of 87 
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. 

B. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Core Program 

The RCRA program includes the Hazardous Waste Subtitle C and Underground Storage 

Tank Subtitle I programs. 

1. 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

 Inspections of treatment, storage and disposal facilities must occur at the specified 

frequency as required under: RCRA 3007 ( c) requires annual inspections of federal 

TSDs; RCRA 3007(d) requires annual inspections of state and local TSDs; and 

RCRA 3007(e) requires that other TSDs be inspected no less than every 2 years, 

and with at least the following requirements established as standards per RCRA 

3004(a): 

o maintaining records of and the manner in which all hazardous waste which 

is treated, stored, or disposed of; 

Page 41 of 87 
o satisfactory reporting and compliance of the manifest system; 

o treatment, storage, or disposal of all waste received by the facility in 

accordance with the law; 

o establishing contingency plans for effective action to minimize 

unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any 

hazardous waste; 

o training for personnel; and 

o financial responsibility. 

 Inspections of generators should verify compliance with at least the following 

requirements established as standards per RCRA 3002(a): 

o proper characterization of the hazardous waste; 

o provision of information on the general chemical composition of hazardous 

waste to persons transporting, treating, storing and disposing of such wastes; 

o record keeping on the management and disposition of waste; 

o proper labeling and identification of waste for storage, transport, and 

disposal; 

o use of proper containers, tanks and drip pads for the hazardous waste; 

o 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 

o submission of reports to the Administrator reporting the waste generated. 

 Inspections of transports should verify compliance with at least the following 

requirements established as standards per RCRA 3003(a): 

o record keeping; 

o properly labeled waste; 

o use of the manifest system; 

o proper management of hazardous waste during transportation; and 

o hazardous waste delivered to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that 

are permitted by law to take such waste. 

 Compliance assistance activities should focus on newly regulated persons, persons 

subject to new regulations, and persons owning small businesses with compliance problems. 

Monitoring and Regional Enforcement 

To ensure a level playing field and oversight of state compliance assurance and 

monitoring activities, regions should utilize the tools available, such as 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. 

 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: 

Page 42 of 87 
 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. 

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. 

Combined State and Federal Core Activities

i. Statutory mandated inspections 

 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 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; 

Page 43 of 87 
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. 

ii. EPA mandated inspections 

 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 2007 BRS (or the LQG universe 

in RCRAInfo, if data is acceptable). 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 

using ICDS 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; 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. 

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).1

Note: The regions are encouraged to perform these inspections in the following areas: 

national priority sectors, emerging sector areas, 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. 

 

1

 RECAP (2003), which has been replaced by the current ACS system, also provided a measure for LQG 

inspections that was the equivalent of a CEI. 

Page 44 of 87 
States may seek approval of alterative inspection plans 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. The Regions should note in the Budget Automated 

System (BAS) comment field, which states if any are choosing flexibility and which states if 

any are using something other than BRS for the universe. 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 in the alternative to the LQG inspections not 

planned above (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. 

Federal Core Only 

i. Statutory mandated inspections 

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. 

Regional Enforcement 

Regions should 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. 

Program Oversight 

For evaluating program performance, EPA will utilize the SRF as the primary tool to 

conduct consistent reviews of the monitoring, enforcement, and 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 

Page 45 of 87 
appropriate. In particular, as 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: 

o number of inspections, investigations, and citizen complaints; 

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

o number (and percent of universe) addressed and resolved in a timely and 

appropriate manner; and 

o EPA’s Watch List. 

2. 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.2

 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 non-compliant 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 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 required 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, by August 8, 2007. In addition, all USTs are required to be inspected every three years 

thereafter. For FY2010, 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. 

 

2

 Regions should focus financial responsibility compliance monitoring activities in states that do not have a state 

fund. 

Page 46 of 87 
Regions should refer to the federal facilities section for guidance on including federal 

facilities in core program activities where applicable. Also, 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). 

Regional Monitoring and Enforcement 

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. 

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. 

Program Oversight 

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). 

3. Imminent and Substantial Endangerment 

Though not a specific element of the RCRA core programs, regions should utilize 

RCRA section 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. 

Page 47 of 87 
C. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Core Program 

The Agency=s TSCA program consists of four major elements: Acore TSCA@; PCBs; 

TSCA Asbestos, which includes the Worker Protection Standards, the Model Accreditation 

Plan program and other requirements; the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 

(AHERA), and lead-based paint. Title III Radon activities will not be covered in this section. 

 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 

which complies with the EO 3500.1 training requirements; and accurately report data to the 

appropriate data systems in a timely manner. 

The TSCA Compliance Monitoring Grants are covered by the OMB requirement to for 

state grant performance measures. 

1. Core TSCA 

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. 

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 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. Minimallyinvested regions (all regions other than 2 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 and issue appropriate federal actions as appropriate; 

or determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

Page 48 of 87 
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). 

2. PCBs 

A core PCB program is vital to protecting human health and the environment by 

ensuring an inspection presence where PCBs continue to be used, stored, and shipped. In FY 

2010, the regions should focus their enforcement resources to confirm that approved 

closure/post-closure plans and cost estimates reflect the current waste management and 

contamination situation at PCB storage and disposal facilities. Regions should review 

financial assurance mechanisms in support of OECA’s national enforcement priority. 

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. 

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 

implement the field use of the tablet computer with software designed to prepare for and 

conduct inspections and generate inspection reports with supporting documentation and 

completed ICIS compliance monitoring data sheets. In FY 2010, PCB inspectors will be 

required to begin phasing in the use of the tablet computer and related software. 

Performance Expectations 

 Inspections should be conducted in each state to assure equitable protection. There is 

an effort underway to discuss with the Regions criteria that should be used to determine what 

constitutes a viable and protective inspection program that provides equitable protection across 

the ten Regions, states and tribal lands. A workgroup is being established to identify the 

criteria for a base PCB inspection program. In advance of the work of that group, in keeping 

with the goal to ensure equitable protection, during FY 2010, 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, regions must report the total number of PCB 

inspections at facilities other than those at commercial storage and disposal facilities. These 

inspections represent the core program. 

 When Regions are reporting their core commitments, by state, the Regions may 

consider the compliance monitoring effort being undertaken by a state that is inspecting on 

behalf of the Agency. In addition, for those states that receive the TSCA compliance 

monitoring grant, the region must conduct oversight inspection(s) as part of good grant 

management. 

Page 49 of 87 
 

Commitment PCB01: Report the total number of PCB inspections. In the Comment 

Section, breakout the total number of federal inspections by TSDF and Core, by state. 

 

 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. Regions 

are encouraged to work with OECA when developing compliance incentive programs based on 

regional needs and priorities. 

3. TSCA Asbestos 

 Compliance assistance will be an important focus of OECA activity for the TSCA 

AHERA federal program in FY 2010 with a secondary focus on traditional enforcement as 

appropriate. Where a Local Education Authority (LEA) needs assistance in managing its 

environmental compliance, there are a variety of compliance and enforcement tools available 

such as EPA’s HealthySeat program. This program/tool helps school districts evaluate and 

manage their environmental, safety and health issues. See 

http://www.epa.gov/schools/healthyseat/index.html for details. The regions are expected to 

ensure inspection coverage in each state by either EPA, Senior Environmental Employment 

Program (SEE), or state/tribal inspectors. In addition, if the regions receive a complaint 

containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a violation has 

occurred, the region is required by statute to investigate and respond (including taking 

enforcement action where appropriate) to the complaint within a reasonable period of time. 

 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. Regions that have states with TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants must complete oversight inspections as part of good grant 

management. Regions that award TSCA compliance monitoring grants to states/tribes are 

reminded to submit mid-year and end-of-year state grant evaluation reports to OC. 

Where applicable, the regions should encourage states/tribes to develop their own 

regulations and apply for a “waiver”. The regions must ensure that authorization agreements, 

which authorize employees of state and tribal governments to conduct inspections on EPA’s 

behalf, are in place with states/tribes that receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for 

TSCA Asbestos (non-waiver states only). 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, 

Page 50 of 87 
regions must review and provide feedback that addresses the quality of the inspection/reports 

and the action taken by the region. 

Performance Expectations 

 Inspections should be conducted in each state to assure equitable protection. There is 

an effort underway to discuss with the Regions criteria that should be used to determine what 

constitutes a viable and protective inspection program that provides equitable protection across 

the ten Regions, states and tribal lands. A workgroup is being established to identify the 

criteria for a base AHERA inspection program. In advance of the work of that group, in 

keeping with the goal to ensure equitable protection, during FY 2010 the regions are to ensure 

compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each state and in Indian country. At a 

minimum, 6 LEAs should be inspected in each state. The expectation is the LEA inspection 

will evaluate at least 3 schools within the LEA with the total number of schools inspected not 

to exceed ten (10) percent of the total schools within the LEA. The number of school buildings 

inspected should be sufficient to determine the overall compliance of the LEA. The 

compliance monitoring activity can be met by regional inspections or having the states inspect 

on behalf of the Regions. The type of schools to be inspected is to be determined by the 

Region in consultation with the state. 

When Regions are reporting their inspection commitments, by state, the Regions may 

consider the compliance monitoring effort being undertaken by a state that is inspecting on 

behalf of the Agency. 

Commitment ASB01: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. In the 

Comment Section, Regions will break out the number of federal inspections, by state. 

 If the region cannot perform the minimum 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 why the 

region cannot implement an adequate inspection program. 

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. 

4. Lead-Based Paint Program 

The national lead-based paint (LBP) program will focus on meeting the FY 2010 goals 

established in the President’s Task Force report by developing and implementing an integrated 

strategy which will include the full range of compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring and 

enforcement tools, working with HUD, states, and tribes, as appropriate. The regions are 

encouraged to develop an integrated strategy that includes methods to better target compliance 

activities, such as partnering with state/tribal and local health care providers to identify 

geographical lead poisoning “hot spots.” Targeting may include establishing the baseline 

Page 51 of 87 
universe of lead-poisoned children within a hot spot, with the goal of reducing the number of 

such children through compliance and enforcement. 

The recently-promulgated Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (R, R & P Rule) is a 

major new component of the lead program. In developing its program to enforce the R, R & P 

Rule, each region should move towards an integrated strategy, appropriate for the region, for 

enforcing all of the components of the lead-based paint program. In the past, OECA has asked 

the regions to focus primarily on Section 1018 Disclosure Rule violations with a secondary 

focus on violations in tribal areas and non-authorized states and for Section 402 Abatement, 

Training and Certification Rule and the Section 406(b) Pre-renovation Notification Rule. In 

FY 2010, regions should begin to commit at least 10% of existing enforcement resources to 

establish and demonstrate a credible R, R &P enforcement program to both gain compliance 

and encourage states to seek delegation. Enforcement of Sections 402 and 406 in nonauthorized states should be combined with appropriate oversight of authorized state/tribal 402 

and 406 programs. Headquarters broadened the language in the State and Tribal Assistance 

Grant (STAG) guidance so the regions can work with the authorized programs to fund a full 

range of compliance and enforcement activities and not just compliance monitoring activities. 

In addition to targeted efforts, regions should screen for appropriate follow-up to tips 

and complaints alleging potential Section 1018 and R, R & P violations, and Sections 402 and 

406 violations in tribal areas and non-authorized states. 

Performance Expectations 

In states without authorized Section 402 programs, regions should conduct targeted 

inspections of training providers and inspect work sites. This activity should be briefly 

described in the work plan submission as a rationale for any trade-offs with available 

compliance and enforcement resources. 

 Commitment LED01: Number of Section 1018/402/406 federal inspections. 

D. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Core Program 

 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 V.2) 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 informed about exposure to pesticides that are mixed, used, stored, or disposed of, and must 

be informed how to properly handle and apply pesticides. 

Page 52 of 87 
In FY 2010, Regions will continue to implement the recommendations of the Worker 

Protection Standard Program Review Report and the pesticide container/containment rules 

promulgated in 2006. The focus areas identified in FY 2009 will continue to be areas of focus 

in FY 2010. In addition, one new federal program focus areas has been identified for the 

pesticide compliance and enforcement program. The “Occupational and General Population 

Pesticide Use,” will focus on recent OPP regulatory actions on pesticide products with 

significant use impact. All regions should commit to participate in the imports focus area and 

in at least one additional focus area identified for FY 2010. Regions should utilize one or more 

of the implementation approaches outlined in the “2010 Regional Implementation Strategy.”

 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. – Core Program 

Activities. 

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

Core Program Activities.

 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 should also work with 

pesticide state lead agencies and tribal pesticide agencies to target and conduct inspections and 

investigations to support at least one of the following pesticide enforcement focus areas for 

FY2010 

Imports

Headquarters and regions will continue workgroup activities identified in the 2009 

Final Regional Implementation Strategy. Regions should conduct targeted inspections, placing 

special emphasis on non-registered and high risk products as well as counterfeit pesticides and 

pesticides involving unapproved sources. Regions should also work with pesticide state lead 

agencies and tribal pesticide agencies to target and conduct inspections and investigations to 

support at least one of the following pesticide focus areas for FY2010.

 Although it is anticipated that the Regions will be the primary source of inspections and 

enforcement for this focus area, States may become involved through negotiated grant 

inspection commitments and through Region-to-State referrals to monitor import compliance. 

States may also encounter violative imported products during the course of their other 

compliance monitoring inspections and such related activities can and should be incorporated 

into the scope of this focus area. States should be made aware of EPA’s strong interest in 

import compliance and be encouraged to cooperate and collaborate with EPA when situations 

warrant. State grants do provide compliance monitoring mechanisms that require States to 

Page 53 of 87 
conduct various types of inspections that can be used to support the purpose of this NPM 

effort, including producer establishment inspections and market place inspections, which could 

be utilized to accomplish aspects of this initiative. For FY2010, no special import related State 

activity is mandated unless normal Region-State grant negotiations would typically include 

import compliance activity. In these ways, this import NPM focus area provides a potentially 

meaningful focus for many routine grant activities. 

The following are the pesticide focus areas for FY 2010: 

Fumigant Application Initiative

The consequences of fumigant misuse are often serious and frequently result in death or 

hospitalization. If a pattern of misuse is identified, it is vital that EPA work with the states to 

establish a proactive monitoring program rather than simply documenting violations and the 

consequent health effects as a basis for an enforcement action. While the registrations of 

certain fumigants may be revised in a year or two to upgrade labeling and require greater care 

and more stringent precautions, regions should not delay enforcement of the current 

requirements. 

The fumigant/fumigation focus area encompasses product regulatory compliance and 

use/application for all areas of fumigation including structural (residential and commercial), 

transportation vehicles and containers, soil, agricultural commodities, and other products. 

Targeting should consider production factors (facility location, production volume, and 

product) as well as use/application factors (use patterns of concern and volume/frequency of 

use). In addition to compliance monitoring of the standard residential and agricultural 

fumigant products and applications, we encourage the regions and states to examine and 

monitor fumigant use in specialty applications (e.g., transportation vehicles, granaries, 

commodity warehouses, etc.) in order to ensure broad compliance monitoring coverage of 

fumigant use. Regions participating in this focus area should develop a regional strategy that 

identifies specific fumigant/fumigation aspect(s) to be focused on in their respective region and 

states (e.g., residential fumigation or greenhouse fumigation, fumigant production, etc.), 

addressing unique regional use patterns or product compliance issues. The strategy should 

include an implementation plan incorporating state participation and other regional 

implementation activities. 

Return/Collection Centers

Headquarters will continue to collaborate with the regions engaged in this effort to 

complete the investigations begun in FY 2009 to investigate and assess the scope of the 

problem and determine the need for future compliance monitoring and enforcement. Regions 

continuing this effort should focus on identifying return/collection centers and the retail stores 

that deal with those centers and then monitoring compliance with FIFRA regulatory 

requirements at those return/collection facilities. In addition to monitoring the processes 

involved in the transfer, handling, storage, repackaging, disposal, and redistribution of the 

pesticide products occurring at those return/collection facilities, regions should expand their 

investigative efforts to include other distribution warehouses. For this effort, regions should 

Page 54 of 87 
target larger agricultural or consumer product production facilities to collect information on 

their use of distribution warehouses; then conduct inspections where possible. Since many of 

the return/collection centers may also engage in repackaging of the pesticides being handled, 

there is interest in looking more closely at those repackaging activities. For FY2010, regions 

should also target inspections at facilities identified as 100% repackagers (repackaging of a 

registered product). 

 

The investigations will allow EPA to assess the practices and compliance at these types 

of facilities/operations. Information obtained regarding disposition of overstocked and 

damaged pesticide products by big-box stores and large distribution warehouses will provide a 

basis for determining whether a more focused compliance monitoring and enforcement 

strategy is warranted. 

Occupational and General Population Pesticide Use (Targeting Regulatory Cancelations and 

Label Restrictions)

By 2011, EPA’s Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) has committed to improve the 

health of those who work in or around pesticides by reaching a 50 percent targeted reduction in 

moderate to severe incidents for acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident 

rates such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, pyrethrins, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 

(2,4-D), and carbofuran. 

Production establishment inspections (PEIs) and marketplace inspections will help 

monitor recent OPP regulatory actions on certain pesticide products. The focus should be on 

pesticide products with significant use impact, as identified in the following list of products 

that were the subject of recent product use restrictions: azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, 

carbofuran, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), malathion, diazinon, and pyrethrins. 

Regions participating in this focus area should develop a regional strategy to identify specific 

pesticide products for their region, addressing unique regional use patterns and/or product 

compliance issues. Regions should encourage their states to conduct similar inspections in the 

marketplace to monitor label compliance and should consider monitoring use patterns 

impacted by the label changes by conducting use observation inspections involving these 

products. 

EPA and state pesticide control officials should 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. Regions are also 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. 

Page 55 of 87 
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 for state grant performance measures. 

4. Requirements: Criminal Enforcement (Sub-objective 5.1.4) 

Criminal investigations and prosecutions will be pursued against violations which 

involve “culpable conduct,” i.e., that is intentional or knowing or which meet the legal standard 

for criminal negligence, as well as violations which represent the most significant risks of harm 

to the public or the environment. During FY 2010, the criminal enforcement program will 

continue to emphasize cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence 

impact while balancing its overall case load with “core” cases across all pollution statutes. 

Criminal investigations may, in addition to suspected violations of the environmental statutes, 

may also involve associated violations of the U.S. Criminal Code (Title 18 USC). 

 

 The criminal enforcement program will emphasize six priority areas: 

 National Enforcement Priorities, 

 stationary source air cases, 

 high impact cases, and 

 repeat or chronic civil noncompliance. 

 import/export cases, and 

 Regional Enforcement Priorities 

While the results of criminal cases will vary based on specific characteristics of the 

cases investigated, as well as by the prosecutorial and sentencing decisions made by the 

Department of Justice and the federal courts, an emphasis on these priorities will yield greater 

environmental and public health benefits and deter illegal corporate and individual behavior. 

The criminal enforcement program will also work to maintain the historically high conviction 

rate for defendants charged with environmental crimes, which is a critical ingredient of 

deterrence. Between FY 2004 and FY 2008, the conviction rate for defendants in concluded 

charged cases was over 90 percent. 

The criminal enforcement program revised the majority of its GPRA performance 

measures in FY 2009. The four primary program measures, which will be fully implemented 

beginning in FY 2010, will be: 

Page 56 of 87 
 recidivism (current measure) 

 cases with an enforcement consequence (new measure) 

 cases with an individual defendant (new measure) 

 percentage of high impact cases (new measure) 

The new performance measures emphasize the criminal enforcement program’s law 

enforcement function and the deterrent impact of criminal prosecutions. For example, the new 

measure on the charging of individuals emphasizes the deterrent impact of the criminal 

enforcement program. While both corporations and individuals may be assessed a monetary 

fine, only individuals can be sentenced to incarceration – the most severe sanction in the U.S. 

law enforcement system and one which cannot be passed along to the American consumer as 

simply a “cost of doing business.” “High impact cases” will be designated through a 

methodology based on specific case characteristics such as death or serious injury, the nature 

or exposure of the release, and the nature of the violator (e.g., size, past enforcement history, 

etc.). Data for all of the measures will be collected through the program’s electronic docket, 

the Criminal Case Reporting System. 

During 2010, the criminal enforcement core program will continue on-going efforts to 

effectively coordinate criminal and civil enforcement in the regions. 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. To achieve this end, the 

Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) of the Criminal Investigation Division Area Offices will 

communicate and coordinate with the civil enforcement offices. 

 

Each region will establish and operate a civil/ criminal case screening and coordination 

process. The goal of the case screening process is to help ensure that a violation is addressed 

through the most appropriate enforcement tool – administrative, civil or criminal. 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 recentlycompleted 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) cases involving violations at multiple 

facilities; (4) cases/inspections involving large and sophisticated corporations whose violations 

have demonstrable environmental impact; (5) and cases involving facilities categorized as 

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

To further facilitate civil-criminal communications, EPA regions will also: 

 track compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders, taking all 

necessary actions to ensure continued compliance; including referring to for criminal 

enforcement review where appropriate; 

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

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

 submit 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 SAC so that decisions can be made as to whether violations 

Page 57 of 87 
 provide 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. 

Page 58 of 87 
SECTION V: NATIONAL PROGRAM CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL 

OECA PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5 

In addition to the national priorities and core programs that can be specifically assigned 

to one of the four Strategic sub-objectives of water, air, waste/toxic/pesticides, and criminal 

enforcement, OECA has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one subobjective. These programs are: Federal Activities, Federal Facilities Enforcement and 

Compliance, Multi-media and Rapid Response, Environmental Justice, Indian country, and 

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, OECA has 

overall program requirements for data quality and training. 

1. Federal Activities Program 

The Federal Activities core program for FY 2010 focuses on the following major areas: 

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation 

 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, and Executive Orders on 

wetlands and flood plains). 

Prepare environmental analyses (EISs or EAs) and make categorical exclusion 

determinations 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 analyses (EISs or EAs) and make categorical exclusion 

determinations for Special Appropriation grants (including the Colonias Wastewater 

Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) for wastewater, water 

supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment Infrastructure Fund 

Page 59 of 87 
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, and provide other 

reports as may be required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

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. 

B. International Compliance Assurance and Transboundary Movement Of Hazardous 

Waste 

 Improve environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 6 of 

the U.S./Mexico Border 2012 plan (Regions VI and IX). 

 Enhance enforcement, compliance, and capacity building efforts with Mexico and 

Canada relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for 

hazardous waste, CFCs, selected chemicals (e.g., PCBs, mercury), and other 

regulated substances (Border Regions). 

 Improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border and points of entry 

into the United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) (all regions). 

 Promote international environmental enforcement through participation in relevant 

organizations and networks, such as the Enforcement Working Group of the North 

American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and the International 

Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), and, in 

particular, its Seaport Environmental Security Network (regional participation as 

appropriate, based on subject matter). 

Page 60 of 87 
 Fulfill International agreements and the Agency=s RCRA obligations regarding 

notification of transboundary movement of hazardous waste (all regions). 

1. 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 CBP to improve 

performance of joint responsibilities along the border. 

 2. 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, 

export of Cathode Ray Tubes, and spent lead acid batteries 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 CBP or from U.S. receiving facilities, and based on annual export reports and 

exception reports; 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 regarding specific transactions. Regions must submit all other requests and 

inquiries for CBP to Virginia McPherson (Virginia.mcpherson@dhs.gov, 202-863-

6563) in CBP Headquarters, in the Interagency Requirements Branch, Office of 

International Trade. Regions must inform headquarters of these contacts. 

3. Participation with Chinese 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 law development and 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. Some of 

these commitments have been implemented in FY 2008 and FY 2009, and additional 

commitments are expected in FY 2010 (Regions 3, 5, and 9, and other regional 

participation as appropriate, based upon subject matter). 

Page 61 of 87 
4. Import Safety 

This initiative, mandated by Executive Order, involves projects that will require 

investments by OECA and other Headquarters Offices and Regional Offices. Some of 

these commitments have been implemented in FY 2008 and FY 2009, and additional 

commitments are expected in FY 2010. 

2. Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program 

As an integral process of EPA’s on-going efforts to improve environmental compliance 

at the approximately 10,000 regulated federal facilities nation-wide, the Federal Facilities 

Enforcement Office (FFEO) and the Regional Federal Facilities Program Managers and Staff 

developed a FY 2010 draft Program Agenda which summarizes focus areas for FY2010. This 

Federal Facilities core program section, which includes more details and background about FY 

2010 activities, is based upon the draft Program Agenda. 

 This Program Guidance identifies the nationally-coordinated activities under OECA’s 

purview. It is imperative to maintain an appropriate enforcement presence through a targeted 

inspection program, with swift and meaningful follow-up. 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. 

 

 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, geographically-based 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 FY 2010 goal of reducing air, water and waste pollution, and making improvements in 

environmental management practices. 

A. Federal Facility 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. 

 In recent years FFEO and the Regions implemented Integrated Strategies in the 

following areas: 

 Stormwater (begun in FY 2006 and continuing) 

 Federal Laboratories (FY 2007 to FY2009) 

 Federal Underground Storage Tanks (begun in FY 2007 and continuing) 

Page 62 of 87 
Past EPA work in these areas has included providing compliance assistance and 

conducting inspections. Beginning last year (FY 2009), the emphasis turned to taking timely 

and 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 National Priority areas including taking enforcement actions to 

address violations at BIA schools as part of the National Indian Country Priority. Summaries 

of the existing and proposed Integrated Strategies follow below. 

 

 1. CWA/NPDES Stormwater Integrated Strategy 

 

 Background: OECA’s National Stormwater Strategy contains a federal facilities 

component through FY 2010. The federal facility component of the strategy focuses on 

construction activities at federal facilities and integrates compliance assistance, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement to improve stormwater compliance. In addition to providing 

compliance tools, including model Stormwater 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 2010, the Regions are asked to focus on enforcement actions to 

address stormwater violations at federal facilities. Where appropriate, the regions are asked to 

continue to pursue enforcement actions against both contractors and federal agencies for 

stormwater 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 remains available for use against private contractors 

as well. The use of Supplemental Environmental Projects, (SEPs) – particularly those that 

prevent quantifiable amounts of pollution – is strongly encouraged. Regions are also urged to 

continue stormwater 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 stormwater compliance assistance action, 

inspection, and enforcement action. Regions should utilize the outcome measures and the 

stormwater benefits calculators and report, at a minimum, the number of stormwater cases 

settled, pounds of sediment reduced, EPA-assisted inspections, training courses offered, and 

compliance assistance activities conducted. 

 

 2. 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 

Page 63 of 87 
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 Regions and FFEO took a number of actions to 

improve UST management at federal facilities by providing compliance assistance to federal 

agencies; encouraging audits and self-disclosures; working to help regions and states meet the 

inspection requirements; and supporting and enhancing EPA’s enforcement efforts to address 

non-compliance. Specifically, in FY2007, 2008 and 2009, EPA performed over 400 UST 

inspections at federal facilities, reviewed state and federal reports on federal USTs to aid in the 

identification of compliance trends, delivered a number of workshops to help federal agencies 

comply with UST and above ground storage tank (AST) requirements, developed on-line 

training for federal agencies and developed an Environmental Management System (EMS) 

crosswalk for USTs. During FY 2007 and 2008, FFEO began working closely with the 

Regions to review enforcement follow-up for all FY06-07 inspections where deficiencies were 

identified. As a result EPA took more than forty enforcement actions in FY 2008. Also in FY 

2008, FFEO requested information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) on numerous USTs. FFEO, Regions and other offices continue to require FEMA to 

gather and submit information on its USTs 

 In FY 2010, FFEO plans to ensure that all FEMA tanks are identified, in compliance, 

or cleaned up, as needed, using enforcement tools. In FY 2010, 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 (expected to occur in 

FY2011). 

 New and Potential Integrated Strategies in FY 2010: In FY2009, FFEO and 

Regions investigated several new Integrated Strategy areas. Based on that collaborative work, 

FFEO is selecting one new Integrated Strategy area for FY 2010 and will continue a more 

focused assessment regarding the viability of another. After investigating the area in FY 2009, 

Federal Prisons will be a new Integrated Strategy in FY 2010. FFEO will work with the 

Regions to explore the feasibility of a new RCRA integrated strategy which may include a 

focus on surface impoundments and RCRA corrective action sites. Descriptions of the new 

and potential integrated strategy areas follow. 

 3. Federal Prisons Strategy 

 Background: The Bureau of Prisons (BoP) is a division of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. It is responsible for the care and custody of over 201,000 federal prison inmates across 

the United States. According to the BoP’s website, it owns and operates 114 prison facilities, 

with an additional 13 prison facilities operated by private security firms or state or local 

governments. The 114 BoP operated facilities have the following characteristics: 

 82 facilities have a CAA, CWA or RCRA- C permit. 

 11 other facilities have a SDWIS permit. 

 BoP operates approximately 104 USTs. 

Page 64 of 87 
 According to a 2008 GAO report, BoP has completed 30 prison construction projects 

over the past ten years and plans to continue new construction at a greater rate in the 

future. 

 Many BoP facilities, especially those with UNICOR operations, conduct manufacturing 

or industrial processes. 

 Past EPA inspections have revealed a number of violations. DOJ’s Office of Inspector 

General and Office of Special Counsel have investigated health and safety problems at BoP 

facilities, particularly UNICOR facilities. In recent years, Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6 have found 

violations. In 2007, Region 3 and BoP signed an Audit Policy agreement under which BoP is 

performing self-audits and undertaking corrective actions under the Region’s oversight. 

Region 4 and BoP are currently negotiating a similar agreement covering BoP facilities in 

Region 4. 

 

 Actions: The following activities are anticipated under the Federal Prisons Integrated 

Strategy in FY 2010. 

 FFEO, in close consultation with the Regions, will initiate negotiations with BoP on a 

nation-wide Audit Policy agreement covering all BoP facilities not otherwise covered by such 

an agreement or not the subject to an ongoing EPA enforcement action. 

 For facilities not covered by an Audit Policy Agreement, Regions are asked to (1) 

continue to conduct inspections of BoP facilities and (2) take timely and appropriate 

enforcement actions to address violations found by inspections and (3) continue to conduct 

inspections of BoP facilities. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including environmental 

management system (EMS) improvements and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) 

as part of enforcement action settlements 

 For facilities covered by Audit Policy agreements, Regions are urged to timely review 

self-disclosures made by BoP. Regions are also urged to enforce the provisions of those 

agreements if violated. 

 4. Potential RCRA Integrated Strategy 

 Background: More than 6,000 federal facilities are subject to non-UST RCRA 

requirements. In FY 2009, FFEO and the Regions focused on facilities that have never been 

inspected by EPA or a state and the facilities categorized as Small Quantity Generators 

(SQGs), Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs) or transporters. 

Experience in EPA’s Federal Laboratories Integrated Strategy supported a focus on RCRA 

compliance. Many of the federal labs were categorized at SQGs or CESQGs and the top ten 

violations at federal labs were RCRA violations. As part of the labs strategy, EPA developed 

live and computer based training for federal lab personnel, much of which is based on RCRA 

compliance issues. 

However, recent events and the priorities of other EPA office require us to re-assess a 

RCRA strategy to include other possible focus areas. First, the catastrophic failure of a surface 

Page 65 of 87 
water impoundment at the TVA-Kingston power plant – a federal facility in Harriman, 

Tennessee - precipitated a comprehensive EPA evaluation of all of its enforcement options 

regarding similar surface impoundments at facilities nationwide. After the Kingston plant 

incident, EPA announced a strategy to address these kinds of problems, including on-site 

inspections and assessments of the structural integrity of coal ash impoundments nationwide, 

and developing new regulations. EPA’s RCRA program is also looking into surface 

impoundments generally. 

Secondly, OSWER’s FY2010 national program manager’s guidance and EPA’s 

forthcoming 2009 - 2014 Strategic Plan will include specific goals for RCRA Corrective 

Action sites. EPA will commit to reaching specific percentages for three key measures at 

RCRA corrective action facilities by 2020— 

 Control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contaminants to healthbased levels for current land and/or groundwater use conditions, 

 Control the migration of contaminated groundwater, and 

 Complete construction of final remedies. 

EPA envisions meeting all three goals at 95% of corrective action sites by the end of FY2020. 

Actions: Surface Impoundments: Over the next few months FFEO will work with the 

Regions to investigate RCRA surface impoundments in general at federal facilities to 

determine the need for inspections or enforcement actions. 

RCRA Corrective Action Sites: There are more than 200 federal facilities in the 

corrective action universe, primarily military bases and Department of Energy facilities. These 

are facilities in all ten EPA Regions. A list of these facilities can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/facility/index.htm#2020. Enforcement 

can help to meet the three corrective action goals outlined above. Over the next few months 

FFEO will work with the Regions to investigate federal facility corrective action sites and 

explore how enforcement can move those sites toward the three goals. 

General: Based on the further investigations outlined above, FFEO will confer with 

the Regions to further refine a possible FY2010 RCRA Integrated Strategy. If an Integrated 

Strategy is adopted or further investigatory work is needed in FY2010, FFEO will issue a 

memorandum detailing the focus areas and actions envisioned to be taken by FFEO and the 

Regions in FY2010. 

In anticipation of that memorandum, FFEO expects that Regions will be asked to 

inspect some federal facilities to determine their compliance with RCRA. FFEO envisions that 

any inspections undertaken pursuant to the future memorandum will count toward a Region’s 

inspection commitment below, FED-FAC05. In accordance with existing EPA policy and 

procedures, Regions will be asked to take timely and appropriate enforcement actions to 

address violations and improve compliance at the facilities. Where appropriate, FFEO 

advocates including environmental management system (EMS) improvements and 

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) as part of enforcement action settlements. In 

Page 66 of 87 
addition, Regions and FFEO can highlight to federal facilities the many compliance assistance 

tools already developed to help facilities understand and comply with RCRA Subtitle C 

requirements including tools developed specifically for SQGs 

 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. 

5. Other Areas 

 In FY 2010, FFEO and the Regions will continue to pursue OECA’s Indian Country 

National Priority with emphasis on BIA Schools by providing comprehensive enforcement 

follow-up on previous BIA inspections. 

 FFEO will continue to review and research 1) the impacts of federal facilities on 

drinking water sources which may lead to a future integrated strategy and 2) potential activities 

including SEPs, to support climate change goals. 

B. Federal Facilities Compliance and Enforcement 

1. Enforcement 

FFEO strongly encourages the Regions to take enforcement actions to improve 

compliance at federal facilities. For FY 2010, federal facility resources should give first 

priority to taking appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant 

media-specific policies, for each federal facility inspected as a consequence of Federal Facility 

Integrated Strategies efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including environmental 

management system (EMS) improvements and SEPs as part of enforcement action settlements. 

FFEO also urges the Regions to take timely and appropriate enforcement actions to address 

violations of clean up responsibilities. 

 

 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. 

 

2. Compliance Assistance 

 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. 

Page 67 of 87 
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 2010 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. Further enhancements to FedCenter’s environmental reporting capabilities will 

be completed in FY 2010 to better assist federal agencies as they carry out their environmental 

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 2010, FFEO 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 2010. 

 

Commitment FED-FAC01: Each region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance 

activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

3. Compliance Incentives 

 

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 2010 Annual 

Commitments (March-April, 2010) midyear modification process. In responding to such a 

request, FFEO would consult with other OECA program managers on the implications of such 

a change. Regions should refer to the compliance incentives activities description in Section 

III – Use of Integrated Strategies to Achieve Program Goals. 

4. Compliance Monitoring 

 Through monitoring compliance, EPA seeks to ensure that federal facilities operate in 

compliance with environmental laws, especially in Integrated Strategy and exploratory areas. 

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 

Page 68 of 87 
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 Stormwater; Federal Underground Storage Tanks, Federal 

Prisons (and if selected in the future, RCRA focus areas). 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. 

 

 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 a national integrated strategy 

or other agreed upon areas to explore as potential future Integrated Strategies and wants to 

substitute it for an inspection commitment, FFEO will consider that substitution. FFEO also 

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. 

 

Data 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. 

Page 69 of 87 
FFEO continues to work with other OECA Offices and Regions to develop reports 

which FFEO and all Regions can use to more efficiently 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. The April 2008 guidance and 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 actions and their corresponding 

environmental benefits done by federal facilities at CERCLA sites. 

3. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Core 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. EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and within required time 

frames. Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, for smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. 

A. 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. 

Page 70 of 87 
B. 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. 

Regional Enforcement 

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 of an initiative or cluster filing count as part of the annual workplan commitment, not as 

an add-on. 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. 

4. Indian Country 

OECA supports the national program for improving the environment in Indian country 

through the Indian Country National Priority and by OECA’s Indian Country Core Programs. 

In both the priority and core areas, EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program 

works with federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) to improve compliance 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”). 

 A. Indian Country National Priority 

The Indian Country Priority’s primary goal is to work with tribes to significantly 

improve human health and the environment in Indian country in key areas by providing 

compliance assistance, conducting compliance monitoring, and taking appropriate enforcement 

activities. In FY 2010, OECA expects increased emphasis on appropriate enforcement follow 

up to previous assistance and monitoring efforts. 

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

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. Complete information on OECA’s National 

Indian County Priority is available at 

http://epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/tribal.html 

Page 71 of 87 
B. Indian Country Core Program 

EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program works with federallyrecognized 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 each area, EPA works closely and appropriately with tribes in carrying out 

compliance assistance, monitoring, and enforcement activities. In FY 2010, OECA and the 

regions intend to continue to maintain their presence in Indian country and other tribal areas in 

each media core program. In each area, EPA works closely and appropriately with tribes in 

carrying out compliance assistance, monitoring, and enforcement activities. 

OECA’s compliance assistance and capacity building efforts in Indian country 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 2010, 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 National Indian Country Priority EPM resources are available to 

fund research, demonstration, training, and investigations 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 2010. 

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. 

Geography and resources, however, may impact the ability of EPA inspectors to 

conduct inspections as outlined in the National Program Core Requirements. Regions should 

continue to consider authorizing tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. 

Regions should use the Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to 

Page 72 of 87 
States/Tribes and the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors 

Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf. OECA’s Indian Country Priority EPM resources are 

available to fund compliance monitoring activity, including the training of tribal inspectors. 

EPA looks to three internal policy documents when civil violations of federal 

environmental laws are identified in Indian country. These documents are: (I) "EPA Policy for 

the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations" (Ruckelshaus, 

November 8, 1984); (2) “Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy" (Herman, January 17, 2001); and (3) "Questions and Answers on the Tribal 

Enforcement Process" (Smith, April 17, 2007). These documents provide advice on how to 

address facilities in Indian country that are owned or operated by federally-recognized Indian 

tribes (tribes) and those in which a tribal government has a substantial interest ("tribal 

facilities"). Facilities in Indian country that are neither owned nor operated by tribal 

governments are treated the same as similar facilities located outside of Indian country. 

Because of the unique relationship between the United States and tribes, EPA’s primary goal in 

addressing noncompliance at "tribal facilities" is prompt return to compliance. EPA generally 

offers compliance assistance to “tribal facilities” when noncompliance is identified unless such 

assistance is not appropriate or fails to result in an expeditious return to compliance. 

The general policy of providing compliance assistance in the first instance to tribal 

facilities is not intended to and should not result in a lesser degree of human health and 

environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the United States. EPA’s goal 

inside and outside Indian country is to encourage governments, individuals, and businesses to 

meet their federal environmental obligations. As such, when compliance assistance is offered 

to tribal facilities and timely return to compliance does not occur, EPA should take the 

appropriate enforcement action to ensure compliance with the applicable federal environmental 

laws. Regions should also refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section 

III. 

EPA retains federal criminal enforcement responsibilities, as these are not delegable. 

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. 

1: Activities, Tools and Support Programs for Core Programs. 

The following are the core activities that OECA and the regions should undertake in FY2010. 

These activities are in addition to ensuring Indian country is covered in other National 

Priorities and core program areas of the NPM Guidance: 

 Report the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities to measure 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 

Page 73 of 87 
 Engage tribes, the Tribal Caucus, Regional Tribal Operations Committees, tribal 

environmental organizations, and intertribal consortia on compliance assurance and 

enforcement issues arising in Indian country. 

 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. 

 Conduct follow up enforcement. 

5. 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 cost-effective 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, 

OC, 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. 

Page 74 of 87 
The areas that warrant compliance assistance from OECA’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 facilities or entire companies might prove useful in planning future compliance 

assistance activities 

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. 

 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. 

 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. 

Regional Enforcement 

 Enforcement activities can be described as two different approaches: 

(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: 

Page 75 of 87 
o against single facilities, where EPA examines entire industrial processes at a facility 

as a whole; 

o against entire companies, where violations of different statutes occur at various 

facilities indicating ineffective corporate-wide management of environmental 

compliance; and 

o 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. 

Program Oversight 

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 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). 

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, to 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. 

Page 76 of 87 
6. Environmental Justice Program 

Executive Order 128983 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 low-income 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 Act4

. Further, OECA established environmental justice 

as a penalty consideration5 and as a factor in approving Supplemental Environmental Projects 

in settlements.6 Additionally, each implementation strategy developed for an OECA national 

priority should include an element on environmental justice to ensure that minority and/or lowincome groups and communities are not disproportionately placed at risk from environmental 

and/or human health threats. 

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 

 

3

 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations@

Executive Order, February 11, 1994 

4

 Memorandum, FR: Assistant Administrator, ACompliance and Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined 

Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows,@ Section IV, B.2. APriorities for SSO Enforcement Response@

(April 27, 2000) (directing OECA to target compliance assurance/enforcement activities in areas raising 

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/enforcement activities in areas raising environmental justice concerns). 

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/rcra/971020.pdf> 

5 See Memorandum from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (September 30, 1997). 

6

 See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 13-14 (May 1, 1998). 

Page 77 of 87 
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: 

 

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 5.7

For 2010, building on the progress made with the FY 2009-2010 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. During FY 2009, 

OECA began measuring the environmental and human health improvements for one to two of 

 

7 The eight national environmental justice priorities are listed below as “objectives” under the relevant EPA 

Strategic Plan goal. The ninth objective, “Cross Cutting Strategies,” is one of the national environmental justice 

priorities, and should be included as one of the areas of focus for the program and regional offices. 

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 

 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 and Restoration, of the EPA Strategic Plan.

Page 78 of 87 
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 2010 Annual Plan and Budget and 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. 

 In order to more fully implement this direction, EPA has aligned 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, initiated 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 continued to test its Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement 

Assessment Tool (EJSEAT). The goal of EJSEAT was to identify a tool which could provide 

OECA and the Regional enforcement programs with a functional way to identify potential 

environmental justice areas of concern (“potential EJACs”) at the Census-tract level. Pending 

the outcome of the testing, this tool or a revised tool may be identified for purposes of 

consistently reporting EJ-related activities. In addition, depending on the outcomes from the 

EJSEAT testing, OECA and the Regions may consider the use of EJSEAT to support the 

development of performance measures and reporting of progress for commitments identified in 

their FY 2009-2010 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. 

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. 

Page 79 of 87 
Regions should appropriately target compliance monitoring 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 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; 

Page 80 of 87 
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, 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.) 

Regional Enforcement 

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 

Page 81 of 87 
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 conduct an environmental justice review to identify whether the 

Agency is effectively identifying and addressing EJ concerns that arise or may arise with 

respect to that program, policy, or activity; and/or identify opportunities for the Agency to 

enhance its effectiveness in identifying and addressing EJ concerns that arise or may arise with 

respect to that program, policy, or activity. In FY09, OEJ will work with the Headquarter 

(HQ) Program Offices and Regions as they implement their EJ Reviews providing technical 

assistance, training support, and individual consultation to help in the design and 

implementation of the EJ Reviews. 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. 

7. Technical Support and Training 

A. NETI 

The National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) 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 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. 

NETI utilizes the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Senior Training Council, 

and instituted the Enforcement Training Network, a group 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 develops 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 non-legal 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. 

Page 82 of 87 
In 2010, 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 

 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). 

o National Training Plan (NTP): This plan, initiated in FY 2009, is designed to 

link training with strategic goals, national priorities and key elements of the 

core programs. Managers and staff are encouraged to use the data in the Plan 

when planning training investments as well as when preparing Individual 

Development Plans. Other possible uses include searching the National 

Training Plan to look for an event that covers a subject area where staff needs 

development -- contact the course leader, inquire about borrowing materials and 

then hold a similar training event in your office, or negotiate with the provider 

to bring the course to you. 

A call letter will be sent to regions and OECA offices in early FY 2010 

requesting that plans for delivering existing training and developing new 

training products for FY 2010 (based on resource commitments known or 

expected at the time of the submission) be entered into the National Training 

Plan database. 

NETI will consolidate plan submissions and develop recommendations on 

potential gaps, duplication or overlaps to be addressed. The National Training 

Plan will be distributed to all offices to facilitate sharing products and resources 

across offices. 

Throughout the year, the NTP database should be updated as additional training 

is planned. When creating or revising training products, please consider 

integrating overarching policies, such as environmental justice and coordination 

between the civil and criminal programs. Also please consider the updated 

inspector training requirements in EPA Order 3500.1. 

o Mid-Year and End-of-Year Statistics: Regions and OECA offices are 

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. Training data are compiled into an annual Training 

Accomplishments Report (available from 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/details.cfm), 

Page 83 of 87 
and are analyzed in order to inform needs assessments, strategic planning, and 

project development.

o End-of-Year Evaluation Forms: A new requirement, begun in FY 2009, is the 

use of a standard evaluation form for training events. By reporting and 

measuring outcomes of training, we will have information by which to evaluate 

the effectiveness of courses, and thereby motivate behavior changes and 

improve performance among trainers and trained personnel. The 

representatives on the Enforcement Training Network will have copies of the 

NETI Standard Evaluation Form which is to be used for all training events. 

B. 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.). 

8. 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. A first round of reviews of all states and territories were 

completed in 2007. In FY2008, OECA worked with its partners to evaluate the first full cycle 

of SRF implementation and revised the SRF guidance. Round 2 was initiated in September of 

2008. In FY2010, regions are expected to continue Round 2 by implementing their plan for the 

second round of reviews. Changes in schedules should be discussed with OECA. 

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

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 that 

Page 84 of 87 
have states submit proposals under Element 13 should consult with OECA on whether or not 

credit can be granted. 

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. 

Grants Management

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

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. 

State Grant Performance Measures

 EPA believes that consistent and quantifiable reporting of state results is critical toward 

achieving national goals and results. In concert with this belief, OMB’s FY 2007 Budget 

passback instructed EPA to “develop a standardized template for States to use in reporting 

results achieved under grant agreements with EPA”. In early FY 2008, a workgroup was 

created to identify lessons learned in EPA’s State Grant Template Measures (SGTM) approach 

and provided recommendations for FY 2009 and beyond. The workgroup found that the 

SGTM approach by itself is inadequate to fulfill the objectives of accurately characterizing, 

delineating, and communicating results under state grants relative to EPA’s mission. As a 

result, EPA and ECOS are seeking alternative approaches to discuss with OMB on how best to 

achieve accountability for state grant performance for FY 2011. 

For FY 2010, Regions and States will continue to report performance results against the 

set of State grant measures into Measures Central. Further guidance will be issued shortly 

from OGD/OCFO/OCIR detailing the alternatives for FY 2010 in ensuring that grant 

workplans contain the required elements. In the meantime, ORBIT reports will continue to be 

available to report results by state and by grant. 

Page 85 of 87 
The OECA grants covered by this requirement are: FIFRA Pesticide Enforcement 

Grants, and the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Grant. 

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 2010 planning cycle. 

 EPA’s Innovation Action Council (IAC) endorsed two priority innovations for “scaleup,” (i.e., full scale implementation) that OECA is integrating into the FY 2010 NPM 

Guidance as recommended by the IAC. These priority innovations are Environmental 

Management Systems (EMS) and the Environmental Results Program (ERP). Details on these 

innovations are available at the Agency’s Environmental Innovation ( 

http://www.epa.gov/innovation) and Innovative Environmental Permitting ( 

http://www.epa.gov/erp/) we pages. In addition, OECA has issued guidance promoting the use 

of EMSs in enforcement settlements as injunctive relief and Supplemental Environmental 

Projects (SEPs) and explaining when EMS implementation may be considered pursuant to the 

EPA Audit Policy and statute-specific civil penalty policies. Guidance on the Use of EMSs in 

Enforcement Settlements as Injunctive Relief or SEPs (June 12, 2003). 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/seps/emssettlementguidance.pdf 

Regions, states, and tribes are encouraged to use these innovative EMS and ERP approaches in 

achieving program goals. 

In past years, OECA has worked closely with the Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovations on the National Environmental Performance Track Program (Performance Track). 

This work has been guided by three memos: “Enforcement and Compliance Operating 

Principles for the National Performance Track Program,” January 19, 2001, “National 

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

Performance Track Program,” October 29, 2003. In FY 2009, Administrator Jackson decided 

to halt the Performance Track program and is expected to issue a memorandum on the 

decision. The Agency is also expected to issue a memorandum providing detailed information 

to Performance Track members, partners, and states on closeout activities impacting, among 

other things, MOAs(with states and Performance Track incentives such as the low priority for 

routine inspections incentive. Regions, states, and tribes should plan to implement the 

activities in the memoranda upon their issuance. 

As a result of nine years of Performance Track implementation, EPA learned a great 

deal about performance-based environmental partnership programs. The Agency plans to 

engage in a series of follow-up activities to evaluate Performance Track and develop 

recommendations for the Administrator on the future of performance-based environmental 

leadership programs. The Agency will also consider new ways to promote environmental 

stewardship and sustainability. Regions, states, and tribes are encouraged to contribute to these 

follow-up activities. 

Page 86 of 87 
Page 87 of 87 

SECTION VI. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 

1. 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. Current schedules call for regions to enter their draft targets into the annual 

commitment system by July 10, 2009. Headquarters and the regions will have approximately 2 

months (July 10 through September 25) 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 25, 2009. 

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 

25, 2009 will be elevated to OECA=s Acting Assistant Administrator for decision. 

2. 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 2010. It is 

imperative that regions complete these charts and submit these documents to Christopher 

Knopes and Lisa Raymer on September 30, 2009. 

 2009 Final – Enter the region’s final FTE allocation for FY2009 in the 2008 Final 

column. 

 2010 Proposed – Enter the region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2010 in the 2010 

Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the 

Agency receives the FY2010 enacted budget after October 1, 2009. Therefore this 

number is a “best guess” estimate. 
Explanation of Changes from FY 2009 to FY 2010 

Appendix A 

OECA 

Change from FY 2009 Guidance Document Reason for Change Affec

Reorganize sections IV and V Reflect architecture of draft 2009 – 2014 

Strategic Plan 

pp. 1

Strategies Federal Facilities Enforcement and 

Compliance Program’s Integrated Strategies 

Requesting comments on two new proposed integrated strategies 

pp. 6

Change to performance expectation regarding CAA section 112(r) 

Response to Inspector General review pp. 2

CWA07 measure on CMS plans for each state 

Obtain information on categories, subcategories, trade-offs. pp. 3

PCB01 measure on inspections at PCB commercial storage and disposal facilities. 

Change from percentage to number of facilities inspected. 

pp. 4

RCRA02 measure on number of LQG inspections by Regions. 

Require a minimum of LQG CEI inspections. 

p. 44 

RCRA02.s measure on state LQG inspections under state authority. 

Specify more details on inspections that count towards this measure. 

p. 44 

Annual 

Commitment 

Measures 

SRF-01 measure on State Review Framework reviews. 

Change from number of reviews completed to round 2 reviews conducted. 

Appe
Measures Appendix B 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OECA 

DRAFT FY2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX

G/O/S 

Measures 

Central 

Code 

Measure Text 

NonCommitment 

Indicator (Y/N) 

State G

Measure 

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 and report the results of these outcomes into ICIS. Report on exceptions to the 100% and provide brief explanations in the ACS. 

N N 

5.1.1 FEDFAC01 Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. N N 5.1.3 ASB01 Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. In the comment section, Regions will breakout the number of federal inspections by state. N N 5.1.3 CAA01 Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by the regions. N N 5.1.3 CAA01.s Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by individual states. N N 5.1.3 CAA02 Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by regions. N N 5.1.3 CAA02.s Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate), by individual states N N 5.1.3 CAA03 Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data requirement. N N 5.1.3 CAA03.s 

Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by individual states pursuant to CMS negotiations (could be the result of redirecting resources from FCEs to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

 N N 

5.1.3 CAA05 

Number of investigations to be initiated in FY2010 for the core CAA program. Investigation projections should be provided by air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS). Note: investigations for PSD/NSR and Air Toxics Priorities are not part of this ACS commitment and are reported separately in different commitments. 

N N 
G/O/S

Measures 

Central 

Code

Measure Text

NonCommitment 

Indicator (Y/N)

State G

Measure 

5.1.3 CAA11 

Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region required to submit RMPs. Of these inspections, 10% must be conducted at high-risk facilities. These inspections at high-risk facilities must also include an evaluation of compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERLA requirements 

 N N 

5.1.3 CAA16 

Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the Agency policies, and the AFS ICR; and provide copies of the relevant language if they have not already provided the relevant text or it has changed. 

 N N 

5.1.3 CAA17 

Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the AFS ICR. If the region is responsible for entering data for a delegated agency or tribal, the region should identify the delegated agency or tribe. 

 N N 

5.1.3 CWA03 

Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be conducted. The regions must provide detailed explanations if no oversight inspections are projected in this area. 

 N N 

5.1.3 CWA07 

By December 31, 2009, provide one specific Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each state in the region. The plan should provide universe information for the CMS categories: sub-categories covered by the CMS and combined EPA and state expected accomplishments for each category and subcategory. The plan should identify trade-offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibility designed into the CMS policy. At end-of-year provide for each state a numerical report on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and sub-category. 

N N 

5.1.3 EPCRA01 Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections. N N 5.1.3 EPCRA02 Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections N N 5.1.3 FEDFAC05 

Each Region must conduct ten inspections to support integrated strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Underground Storage Tanks, Federal Prisons (and if selected in the future, RCRA focus areas). 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.

 N N 

5.1.3 FIFRA-FED1 Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. N N 5.1.3 LED01 Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections N N 5.1.3 PCB01 Report the total number of PCB inspections. In the comment section, breakout the total number of federal inspections by TSF and core, by state. N N 
G/O/S

Measures 

Central 

Code

Measure Text

NonCommitment 

Indicator (Y/N)

State G

Measure 

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. 

 N N 

5.1.3 RCRA01.s Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the state during the year. N N 5.1.3 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). 

 N N 

5.1.3 RCRA02.s 

Project by state the number of state LQGs inspections 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. 

 N N 

5.1.3 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. 

 N N 

5.1.3 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. 

 N N 

5.1.3 SRF-01 The number of round 2 State Review Framework reviews to be conducted in Fiscal Year 2010. N N 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). N N 
State Grant Measures Appendix C 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OECA 

DRAFT FY2010 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES 

Type of 

Categorical 

Grant 

G/O/S Measures Central 

Code 

Measure Text 

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)